# Correct value for kinematic viscosity

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 August 24, 2006, 08:51 Hello, Im trying to simulat #1 newbee Guest   Posts: n/a Hello, Im trying to simulate an incompressible, turbulent flow (Re bulk=56000) in a channel and validate it with experimental data. Im using simpleFoam for this with the turbulentmodell LaunderGibson. The problem is that my simulation behaves more laminar then the experiment does. I guess this is because of my seting of the kinematic viscosity parameter is to high. I have calculated it from experimental data for bulk values of velocity and Reynolds number and the hydraulic diameter. -Now Im wondering if it might be wrong to base the kinematic viscosity on the bulk velocity? -An other thing thats bothering me is that i get very different results from different gradings towards the channel wall. How do I know how big the grading needs to be? Now it is set to be 0.01.

 August 25, 2006, 11:40 Hej Erik, Since the turbule #2 Member   Ola Widlund Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 87 Rep Power: 8 Hej Erik, Since the turbulence model uses wall functions, you should usually AVOID resolving the boundary layers too much... The criteria for an appropriate reslution near the wall is to check the value of yplus (y+), which is the non-dimensional wall distance of the first computational node. (Look in a good textbook on turbulent flows, e.g. that of Stephen Pope.) I think there is a postprocessing utility with openfoam that will compute yplus for you. Then plot it on wall surfaces. Yplus in the range 30-80 is probably a good target for you. Is see nothing wrong with the way you set your nu. As for the definition of Re, you should of course define it in the same way as the guys who made the experiment! That's the only thing that counts... If I were you I would start off with the simple K-epsilon model. For a simple channel flow an RST model is probably overkill. K-epsilon is tuned well to channel flows in particular. Often it's more important to have well-converged solutions and good grids, than to fiddle around with different turbulence models. If you insist on using the RST model, and you have problems with convergence, it could be a good idea to restart from a converged K-espilon solution. How you do that in OpenFOAM is beyond med at this point... Good luck! /Ola

 August 26, 2006, 05:28 Thank you very much. Its a #3 newbee Guest   Posts: n/a Thank you very much. Its a big help using checkYPlus as a guideline. unfortunatly I got one of my best results from a LaunderGibson turb. model with grading 0.01. But im trying to find an alternative now using a better mesh. /Erik

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ritu FLUENT 0 May 8, 2006 10:37 Luis CFX 0 February 6, 2006 22:21 Mecobio Main CFD Forum 0 November 7, 2005 13:55 name Main CFD Forum 0 October 17, 2001 23:06 Daniel Gubler CFX 0 July 20, 2000 03:47

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:04.