
[Sponsors] 
January 24, 2014, 11:17 

#21 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Thank you very much, I found the Lund transformation in JCP paper. Besides, in the source file (decayingTurbulenceFvPatchVectorField.C), what is the difference between R_ and RField_? Thank you.


February 3, 2014, 19:21 

#22 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Dear Matthias,
Can I ask you another question about the inflowGenerator? In the source file decayingTurbulenceFvPatchVectorField.C, there are following several lines: Code:
List<scalar> L = ListListOps::combine<List<scalar> >(l, accessOp<List<scalar> >()); List<vector> CF = ListListOps::combine<List<vector> >(cf, accessOp<List<vector> >()); List<vector> RF = ListListOps::combine<List<vector> >(rf, accessOp<List<vector> >()); Code:
Pstream::gatherList(l); Pstream::gatherList(cf); Pstream::gatherList(rf); Code:
OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM2.1.1/src/OpenFOAM/containers/Lists/ListListOps For my previous appreciation, the "gatherList", similar to MPI_gather, should collect the data from all the processors and then store the data in the root. About the how to store in the root (the order or numbering), it should be automatic or at least can be set by the programmer. So the question is: what is the usage for the combine operations here? Thank you so much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Not sure the red sentence is correct or not, because in the same source files Code:
Pstream::scatterList(v); List<decayingVorton> V = ListListOps::combine<List<decayingVorton> >(v, accessOp<List<decayingVorton> >()); Any comments? 

February 20, 2014, 16:03 

#23 
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 4 
Hello there,
in the LEMOS InflowGenerator, if the integral length scale is less than the nominal cell size, then is this method still valid? Should I always specify the integral length scale large than the mesh size? Thank you all if any comments can be provided! 

February 22, 2014, 12:32 

#24 
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 4 
Code:
vector velocityAt(const vector& v) const { vector dv = v  location_; scalar nrm2 = magSqr(dv); vector t = dv ^ omega_; return (1/length_)*exp((M_PI/2)*nrm2/(length_*length_))*t; } 

March 12, 2014, 03:10 

#25 
Member
Hannes Kröger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rostock, Germany
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 10 
The derivation of the velocity distribution is explained in the following article by Kornev et al. (2007):
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2738607 It is obtained, if the spectrum for decaying turbulence is demanded from the generated fluctuations. Regards, Hannes 

March 12, 2014, 03:23 

#26 
Member
Hannes Kröger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rostock, Germany
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 10 
and regarding the selection of the length scale:
If the length scale becomes less than the cell size, the grid can no longer resolve the inner structure of the turbulence as well as that of the generated vortons. It is questionable, if you are still doing LES in such a case. But in addition to that, you will probably get the same results with the inflow generator as with simple white noise (the vanilla "turbulentInlet" BC in OpenFOAM) but for a higher computational cost. Regards, Hannes 

March 27, 2014, 22:47 

#27 
New Member
Getnet
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: LSU
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 6 
Dear Mathias,
Thanks for the contribution with the LEMOS. I successfully compiled all of them without problems and run the turbulence libraries for Large Eddy Simulation. I am interested to extend for scalar transport and I see that both the LDMMS and dynamicMixedModel have extensions with "f.name()". Can you please provide me an idea how to call "divFeff" and "Feff" in my solvers? Thank you 

April 10, 2014, 07:30 

#28 
New Member
Ivana
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 6 
Hi,
In the LEMOS InflowGenerator does it matter how inlet is oriented? Or what should be axial velocity? Is that hard coded? Thank you Regards Last edited by IvanaS; April 24, 2014 at 10:59. 

July 7, 2014, 10:47 

#29 
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 4 
Hi,
In LEMOS, would it be possible to generate the homogeneous and isotropic turbulence by inputting proper values of Reynolds shear stresses? Sincerely, Tung. 

July 8, 2014, 04:34 

#30 
Member
Hannes Kröger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rostock, Germany
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 10 
Dear Tung,
yes it is possible. Just prescribe an appropriate uniform distribution of the Reynolds Stresses and the length scales. The generated length scales are isotropic anyway. Regards, Hannes 

July 8, 2014, 12:23 

#31 
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 4 
Dear Hannes,
Thank you very much for your response. I have been followed your paper of 'Synthesis of homogeneous anisotropic turbulent fields with prescribed secondorder statistics by the random spots method'. Please correct me if I am wrong. From this paper, I think that by prescribing a autocorrelation function like the one I found in the your published code, the turbulent field will be homogeneous. The isotropic property is then controlled by the Reynolds stresses. Also, could you tell me a bit more about the isotropic turbulent length scale please? Thank you very much your time and support. Sincerely, Tung Nguyen. 

September 17, 2014, 11:25 

#32  
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
There is a one page .pdf in the LEMOS extensions download, but it doesn't seem to provide any more information on how to setup the inflow generator correctly. Thank you! 

September 30, 2014, 11:07 

#33 
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 7 
Just bumping this back up  not sure how many people use the LEMOS Inflow Generator, or if anyone knows where I could find the mentioned test case/tutorial for its use? Thanks!


October 4, 2014, 09:04 

#34  
Super Moderator
Bruno Santos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 9,531
Blog Entries: 36
Rep Power: 97 
Quote:


October 6, 2014, 11:19 

#35  
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 7 
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for the message. Sorry if the message seemed unclear, I was referring to the post I had made just above the "bumping" post in the last message. I have the Inflow Generator downloaded and installed, I'm just looking for some help/clarification on properly setting it up and configuring the boundary condition. When I look in the repository for LEMOS, I only see tutorials for "PODSolver" and "movingBlockRBF", nothing for the Inflow Generator. I was referring to the message above from Matthias where he mentions putting together a tutorial or test case for the Inflow Generator: Quote:


November 20, 2014, 05:41 

#36 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Dear Hannes,
When I use this boundary condition to run my simulation, I tried to use paraview to plot the data. However, for the file U, I always go the error messege from paraview as follows: ============= ERROR: In /home/utkarsh/Dashboards/MyTests/NightlyMaster/ParaViewSuperbuildRelease/paraview/src/paraview/VTK/IO/Geometry/vtkOpenFOAMReader.cxx, line 6478 vtkOpenFOAMReaderPrivate (0xa3a0d0): Error reading line 9161360 of /media/usb2T/ColdFlow_LES/LES_VortonInlet/0.16/U: Expected a number, found ( ============= So I cannot see the velocity fields. I check the U file and actually the line 9161360 corresponds to the the following: ================== ind 2; 100 ( 0.00125 (....) (....) (....) 0.00375 ) ================== I am not sure if you have the same problem when you visualize the data using paraview. Thank you. 

November 20, 2014, 07:19 

#37  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
I found that this problem is there because we output the list of vortons in the file of velocity U. When I comment the following lines in the decayingTurbulenceFvPatchVectorField.C:
============= // if (Pstream::master()) // os.writeKeyword("vortons")<<vortons_<<token::END_S TATEMENT<<nl; ============= I found I can open the file U using paraview now. However, it seems that the vorton number is reset to the initial values. So that means the time averaging operation is stopped after I did that and each time I resume the simulations, the vorton is fresh. Any good solutions to maintain the time averaging/accummulation effect and at the same time open the U file using paraview? Thank you. Quote:


November 22, 2014, 06:42 

#38  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Hello,
In my case, the turbulent inlet is concentric ring with inner radius 25 mm and out radius 30 mm. The air inlet is just between the inner and outer radii. I set the LField uniform to be 0.00175m. The bulk velocity going through the inlet about 20 m/s. The RField is very close to the fields from a pipe flow. Then in my simulation, the number of vorton is about 5000. Is this vorton number reasonable for a good LES? Thank you very much. Another problem is: When I use this boundary condition, I will always have numerical stability problem, i.e. the simulation will sometimes blow up at the inlet due to the fluctuations. Do you have similar experience? Quote:
Last edited by openfoammaofnepo; November 22, 2014 at 14:45. 

November 25, 2014, 17:25 

#39 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Dear Hannes,
I am interested in knowing about the vorton number which can be used for the LES inlet boundary conditions. I found if I use a uniform LField, changing the LField will lead to the large variation of the length scale. So now a question arises: For a jet exit (from a fully developed pipe flow) with diameter 3.6 mm, axial bulk velocity with 60 m/s. If I used LField=0.0009 m, the vorton number will be around 270. Then I use d LField=0.00045 m, the vorton number will be 720 or so. How will the vorton number affect the results? Of course I can do two tests in the LES, but for my simulation this is a little expensive. So could you please give some comments about this issue? Thank you. 

November 28, 2014, 07:37 

#40 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 288
Rep Power: 6 
Dear All,
I found a problem about the quantity "ind_" when I resume the simulation but with different processor number. For example, in the first simulation, if the decayingTurbulenceInflowGenerator boundary only treated in processor0, then when I use reconstructPar to get the complete data set, the quantity "ind_" should be correct, i.e. real iteration step so far. However, if this boundary condition is not processor0, then the reconstructed data set will only have ind_ =2, what the real ind_ is. This is always fine if I resume the second simulation with the same processors. However, if we would like to use the reconstructed data to start another simulation, then the quantity "ind_" will be set to "2", which means the time averaging effects will be erased and the vorton accummulation will start from scratch. But I do not know how to fix this. Anybody has some suggestions?? Thank you. 

Tags 
inflow conditions, lemos 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

