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

buoyancy production term in turbulence model

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 24, 2011, 14:29
Default buoyancy production term in turbulence model
  #1
Senior Member
 
Fabian Braennstroem
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 10
braennstroem is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I know, that for natural convection problems additional buoyancy production terms are used/needed in the turbulence equations

http://my.fit.edu/itresources/manual...ug/node482.htm

Related to this I have a few questions:
1) What is your experience with this additional production term?
2) How important is this for other turbulence models like the v2-f or k-omega-SST model?
3) Is there a difference for compressible/ideal gas and incompressible boussinesq solvers for using this additional production term (I expect not)?
4) What is your experience of using boussinesq approximation for higher temperature differences? For a difference of up to 100K I saw quite identical results evaluated by Darioush Gohari Barhaghi / Chalmers.

It would be nice, if you have some ideas and could recommend any papers related to these questions!
Best Regards!
Fabian

Btw. it seems, that the only available turbulence model for openfoam is the implementation of http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Co...EpsilonViollet
braennstroem is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2011, 07:27
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Eugene de Villiers
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Rep Power: 12
eugene is on a distinguished road
Hi Fabian,

Here is a presentation from Launder et al that goes into some detail about the issues related to buoyancy and turbulence:
http://www.powershow.com/view/5c86-Z...t_presentation

By all accounts it is not just the turbulence model which needs modification, but also the wall functions if you are running a high Re mesh. I suggest you read the related papers as well.

Certainly, our experience with the Fluent source term approach has not shown any noticeable benefits for natural convection dominated problems typical of HVAC applications. I imagine the influence will be more pronounced at larger dT though.

It is quite difficult to give a clear-cut range of applicability for the Boussinesq approximation as its behaviour is entirely case dependent. If you look at the derivation of the Boussinesq approximation, it is not necessarily the gravity term that causes the largest deviations due to the assumption of constant pressure. The secondary effects of non-constant density can be quite pronounced, especially in its effect on the heat capacity via Cp. In general, the smaller the pressure range is, the larger the accurate temperature range will be. Larger amounts of forced convection will also reduce the relative impact of the Boussinesq approximation.
eugene is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2011, 07:29
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Eugene de Villiers
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Rep Power: 12
eugene is on a distinguished road
I forgot to add this: a great article detailing the derivation of the Boussinesq approximation with some discussion of its range of applicability:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...IF&classic=YES
eugene is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2011, 14:39
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Fabian Braennstroem
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 10
braennstroem is on a distinguished road
Hello Eugene,

thanks for your reply and for the interesting links! Yes, you are correct with the wall treatment for higher yplus values. Related to the production term, I remember, that there were some study of Kriegel with Fluent for displacement ventilation playing around with the productions term for the dissipition equ. using a k-epsilon variant... unfortunately I do not know, if it changed a lot.

Thanks again!
Fabian
braennstroem is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 25, 2011, 11:22
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Aram Amouzandeh
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 8
mabinty is on a distinguished road
Hi,

a while ago I implemented a buoyancy augmentation for the standard k-eps model in OF based on the Generalized Gradient Diffusion Hypothesis. Comparison with experimental results of a vertical round turbulent plume showed improved results, similar to the study of Maele and Merci: Application of two buoyancy-modified k-eps turbulence models to different types of buoyant plumes, Fire Safety Journal, 2006, 41, 122-138.

Aram
mabinty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 13, 2012, 06:43
Post
  #6
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: France
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
ToulBraz is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I've downloaded Viollet's k-e model from :
http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Co...EpsilonViollet

I made some mods in order to make it useable with OpenFOAM 2.0. I think I succeeded as it seems to work (but I'm quite new to OF so,....).
However, I lately understood that the implementation is only for incompressible flows, so I can't use it with buoyantSimpleFoam (only with boussinesqBuoyantSimpleFoam).

Does anyone have some hints on how I should proceed to make it work for compressible flows ?

Thanks in advance
ToulBraz 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
Use of k-epsilon and k-omega Models Jade M Main CFD Forum 12 June 2, 2015 13:16
"Full" buoyancy model in CFX Jade M Main CFD Forum 2 March 18, 2010 13:08
Fan heater model: what turbulence source to use? andy20 Main CFD Forum 0 March 2, 2008 13:46
non-physical production of k, k-w turbulence model David Garrido Main CFD Forum 9 September 17, 1999 15:47
Turbulence in Turbomachinery Erich F. Main CFD Forum 15 June 22, 1999 23:37


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12.