CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Wall treatment : Wall function vs Fine mesh

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

Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By bastil

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 26, 2010, 14:37
Default Wall treatment : Wall function vs Fine mesh
  #1
Member
 
Jérémy Bulle
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 93
Rep Power: 7
Gearb0x is on a distinguished road
Hello everybody

I'm currently trying to get a simple case working before attacking something more complicated. I'm using the simpleFoam solver since my flow is turbulent and incompressible.

The problem consists in evaluating the pressure drop between the inlet and the outlet of a canal.
I set up the boundary conditions like this :
- for p : I fix the inlet and outlet to p_inlet = X and p_outlet = 0 and see if the mass flow matches the one I have to have in my actual canal.
- for u : just fix it to zero @walls

Now, for the turbulent parameters k,nuT, epsilon, ... I test two cases : One with wallfunction and one with zerogradient @walls and no wallfunction. Normally, my mesh is fine enough to capture the details of the flow, I checked with the utilities "yPlusRAS" from openFoam, see the results in the pictures.

But I have quite huge differences between the simulation with the wallfunctions and without the wallfuctions and I don't understand why so much differences arise between the two ...

Do you have an idea where I could be wrong?

The results for P, U and yPlus :
- For the fine mesh, without wallfunction
P : http://yfrog.com/j9champpp
U : http://yfrog.com/j9champup

- for the same mesh, with wallfunction
P : http://yfrog.com/j9champpfp
U : http://yfrog.com/07champup
yPlus : http://yfrog.com/0ryplusp
Gearb0x is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 26, 2010, 16:50
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 471
Rep Power: 11
bastil is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearb0x View Post
Now, for the turbulent parameters k,nuT, epsilon, ... I test two cases : One with wallfunction and one with zerogradient @walls and no wallfunction. Normally, my mesh is fine enough to capture the details of the flow, I checked with the utilities "yPlusRAS" from openFoam, see the results in the pictures.
This is not really right. You either have a high Re-Mesh (y+ > 30 everywhere). In that case apply wallfunctions + an appropriate turbulence model. Otherwise you need a low-Re Mesh (y+ < 1). In that case you need a LOW-RE turbulence model. It is wrong setup to simply run with a high Re Model!
Additionally, you can not compare results from a low-Re mesh run without wall functions (which you seem to have) with the same mesh run wioth wall functions. It is wrong to run a low-Re-Mesh with wall functions!
Another topic is which wall function to use in 1.6 for low-Re models. It should be calculated for nuT afaik.
Hope this makes it clear.

Regards BastiL
calim_cfd and vbnhfylbh like this.
bastil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 26, 2010, 16:59
Default
  #3
Member
 
Jérémy Bulle
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 93
Rep Power: 7
Gearb0x is on a distinguished road
Firstly, a big thanks for your very clear and helpfull answer! I will now look for the LaunderSharmaKE turbulence model but I can't find a tutorial case wich uses this model.

There is just one thing I don't understand :
Comparing a low-Re mesh without wall function with High-Re mesh with wall function should be ok... no ?
Results should be slightrly different but not totally, am I wrong?

Purpose of wall function is to save computational time and to approximate the reality wich is represented here by the low-Re situation, no?

Thanks again for the help!
Gearb0x is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 26, 2010, 17:04
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 471
Rep Power: 11
bastil is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearb0x View Post
There is just one thing I don't understand :
Comparing a low-Re mesh without wall function with High-Re mesh with wall function should be ok... no ?
Results should be slightrly different but not totally, am I wrong
That is right. However, this means you have to create two meshes and not run both on one mesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearb0x View Post
Purpose of wall function is to save computational time and to approximate the reality wich is represented here by the low-Re situation, no?
In general, yes. However, low-Re remains a model and is also not "reality" but has fewer modeling assumptions.
bastil is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 26, 2010, 17:09
Default
  #5
Member
 
Jérémy Bulle
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 93
Rep Power: 7
Gearb0x is on a distinguished road
ok! I got it!

Thanks for the fast answer! It helps a lot
Gearb0x is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SnappyHexMesh for internal Flow vishwa OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others 23 August 6, 2014 03:50
Moving mesh Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20
BlockMesh FOAM warning gaottino OpenFOAM Native Meshers: blockMesh 7 July 19, 2010 14:11
Multicomponent fluid Andrea CFX 2 October 11, 2004 05:12
Wall function treatment VEEBS CFX 1 October 9, 2001 23:19


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47.