
[Sponsors] 
August 28, 2013, 09:00 
Eddy Viscosity Suppressed in Front of Cylinder

#1 
Senior Member
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,620
Rep Power: 25 
Dear all,
I am having a bit of a struggle with the komega type turbulence models these days, and I was wondering, whether someone had already seen this and found a solution. The conditions I am looking at are a cylinder of 0.3 m in diameter with a incoming flow velocity of 0.31 m/s. The k and omega are set such that nut = 0.000227. The mesh is attached as a picture. The problem is found on the upstream side of the cylinder, where the eddy viscosity is suppressed by the stress limiters in the komega type definitions, which basically means that in the Ogrid region the eddy viscosity more or less vanishes. It is clear from the picture kDividedByOmega that it is the stress limiter, which causes it, since the computation of the eddy viscosity without any limiters is constant all the way to the upstream side of the cylinder. I have tried changing the coefficients in the limiting, which does give a more smooth and uniform distribution of the eddy viscosity on the upstream side of the cylinder, but this drastically changes the force characteristics for the cylinder, so it is a erroneous approach. I have also tried to play around with schemes, mesh resolution, initial conditions, piso/pimple, underrelaxation and Courant numbers above and below 1. All of these combinations produce the same results and all are stable. By the way, everything are conducted in v. 1.6ext, though I have compared the turbulence model with 2.0.1 and there are no differences, besides an adaption to standard coding style in 2.0.1. Any notes, thoughts and solutions are greatly appreciated. Kind regards Niels
__________________
Please note that I do not use the Friendfeature, so do not be offended, if I do not accept a request. 

August 29, 2013, 10:21 

#2 
Member

Hi Niels,
as regards the mut limiter in komega SST there are lots of variants as discussed here: Compressible kOmegaSST In particular in my experience there is a factor sqrt(2) missing in OF version compared to the implementation in Ansys CFX (should be updated on SST developmente, shouldn't it?) but there are other expression found here and there in Menter's papers. In my own implementation of compressible kOmega I ended up with 3 different selctable limiters (sqrt2, S2, curl) one of which is based on curl so should in your case be less invasive in limiting eddy viscosity. Code:
if(!(limiterType == "curl")) { if(limiterType == "sqrt2") //like CFX { mut_ = a1*rho_*k_/max(a1*omega_,Foam::sqrt(2.0)*mag(symm(fvc::grad(U_))*F2)); } else { volScalarField S2 = magSqr(symm(fvc::grad(U_))); mut_ = a1*rho_*k_/max(a1*omega_,sqrt(S2)*F2); } } else { mut_ = a1*rho_*k_/max(a1*omega_,mag(fvc::curl(U_))*F2); } Cosimo
__________________
Cosimo Bianchini Energy Engineering Department "S. Stecco" University of Florence Via di S.Marta, 3 50139 Florence  ITALY Tel: +39 055 4796575 Fax: +39 055 4796342 Mob: +39 320 9460153 email: cosimo.bianchini@htc.de.unifi.it URL: www.htc.de.unifi.it 

August 29, 2013, 11:41 

#3 
Senior Member
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,620
Rep Power: 25 
Hi Cosimo,
Thanks for your input, I will take a deeper look into the definition of the stress limiters. I can see that I forgot a single point, namely, if the eddy viscosity does decrease like that in front of the cylinder, then it would not make sense to use the eddy viscosity from the turbulence model directly in an advectiondiffusion model. For instance, one would except larger diffusion of heat fluxes into the flow from a hot cylinder, when there is a finite eddy viscosity in the incoming flow. Though, since the eddy viscosity practically goes to zero, then the simulated cooling would be underestimated, if the eddy viscosity from the model is directly applied. Should the eddy viscosity for a passive scalar PDE then be constructed by hand? Kind regards Niels
__________________
Please note that I do not use the Friendfeature, so do not be offended, if I do not accept a request. 

August 29, 2013, 12:01 

#4 
Member

I quite do not understand your concerns. Near the wall (where you actually have the heat transmission between solid and fluid) turbulence always goes to zero, as well as convection, and thermal energy is exchanged by diffusion only (muEff= mu).
Eddy viscosity in the outer region is instead responsible for heat transmission between fluid and fluid which may largely affect temperature distribution also on the wall and so the definition of your heat transfer coefficient (i.e. adiabatic wall temperature). Please explain better what you are thinking about, Cosimo
__________________
Cosimo Bianchini Energy Engineering Department "S. Stecco" University of Florence Via di S.Marta, 3 50139 Florence  ITALY Tel: +39 055 4796575 Fax: +39 055 4796342 Mob: +39 320 9460153 email: cosimo.bianchini@htc.de.unifi.it URL: www.htc.de.unifi.it 

August 29, 2013, 13:30 

#5 
Senior Member
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,620
Rep Power: 25 
Hmm, I see. I will try to formulate a better example.
Though, basically, an advectiondiffusion equation will feel a large impact on the sudden change in the eddy viscosity, and I do not think that it is physical that the diffusivity of any scalar disappears in front of the cylinder as I have shown in the snapshots. Therefore, the diffusivity for the scalar must be computed directly from e.g. k and omega without the use of stress limiter or simply another stress limiter. Kind regards, Niels
__________________
Please note that I do not use the Friendfeature, so do not be offended, if I do not accept a request. 

August 30, 2013, 04:53 

#6  
Member

Quote:
Quote:
In the specific case of SST model that limiter is introduced to respect Bradshaw's hypothesis which tends to fail whenever the ratio between Production and Dissipation terms largely exceeds the value of 1. In order to understand if your nut is actually "vanishing" you should evaluate the viscosity ratio (nut/nu) rather than the pure value and I do not think it is an error per se to go towards low values in the nearwall region. See for example in the attached snapshot the profiles of viscosity ratio on the leading edge of an airfoil (very high Re flow but there is some similarity with your case). Hope this helps, Cosimo
__________________
Cosimo Bianchini Energy Engineering Department "S. Stecco" University of Florence Via di S.Marta, 3 50139 Florence  ITALY Tel: +39 055 4796575 Fax: +39 055 4796342 Mob: +39 320 9460153 email: cosimo.bianchini@htc.de.unifi.it URL: www.htc.de.unifi.it 

September 1, 2013, 06:14 

#7 
Senior Member
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,620
Rep Power: 25 
Good morning,
Thank you for the theoretical pointers and the discussion on the spatial variation of the eddy viscosity in front of an air foil. It has given me additional confidence that what I see is part of the turbulence closure model and not some stupid mistake from my part. Kind regards Niels
__________________
Please note that I do not use the Friendfeature, so do not be offended, if I do not accept a request. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ratio of eddy viscosity to molecular viscosity : Laminar or turbulent flow?  RicochetJ  CFX  7  September 9, 2013 07:45 
Problem with divergence  TDK  FLUENT  10  September 8, 2012 01:11 
Constant Eddy Viscosity  faisal_durr  Main CFD Forum  0  February 15, 2012 06:53 
Link between eddy viscosity and subgridscale turbulent viscosity in LES  Marvin  Main CFD Forum  6  December 4, 2009 12:08 
Question about eddy viscosity ratio limit  Piti  CFX  2  January 17, 2008 17:49 