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

New implemented EASM (NASA EASMko2003)

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

Like Tree5Likes
  • 4 Post By pjohannes183
  • 1 Post By lakeat

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 5, 2012, 19:48
Default New implemented EASM (NASA EASMko2003)
  #1
New Member
 
Johannes P
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
pjohannes183 is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone

I have implemented an incompressible version of the explicit algebraic Reynolds Stress model EASMko2003 which has been developed by C. Rumsey and T. Gatski at NASA.
Validation is currently in progress. The results are not very good yet. Especially the convergence is not good in some cases. In the attachments you find some examples of validation results for the turbulent flat plate (exp. by Wieghardt, reference http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/val...rb/fpturb.html) and the backward-facing step (which you find here http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Ma...bulentBackstep)

You can try the model yourself and play around with it. I'd be happy if you shared some of your experiences here. Please check the code before you use it - it may still have errors that I oversaw. Quite well-tested components are the solving algorithm for the cube root; rather uncertain parts are divDevReff(), devReff() and the equation for Rturb_.

Current problems are
  • great sensitivity to boundary conditions
  • sharp gradients in the flow field which may occur due to sharp gradients in the parameter C_mu_star which appears in the expression for the eddy viscosity. This parameter is found by solving a cubic equation which may degenerate and exposes some problematic behavior under certain circumstances.

Have fun,
Johannes
Attached Images
File Type: jpg profileU_TS_K0.002O0.005.jpg (30.3 KB, 54 views)
File Type: jpg profilek_TS_K0.002O0.005.jpg (32.7 KB, 46 views)
File Type: jpg Cf_TFP_K23.6O40.0.jpg (26.1 KB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg u+y+_TFP_K23.6O40.0.jpg (33.8 KB, 41 views)
Attached Files
File Type: zip EASMko2003.zip (5.7 KB, 16 views)
pjohannes183 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 3, 2012, 08:34
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Johannes P
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
pjohannes183 is on a distinguished road
Dear Foamers,

I recently completed the work on the model. There was a wrong sign in a rather critical position (in divDevReff()) and the wall boundary conditions for the turbulent backstep were somewhat tricky to choose. Bottom line: there are new validation results that look much better than the old ones, especially for the backstep case. Those weird sharp edges in the velocity profile have disappeared. Below you find the current results and the new code. However, please perform a proper validation yourself before using the model.

Johannes
Attached Images
File Type: jpg profileU.jpg (29.5 KB, 49 views)
Attached Files
File Type: zip EASMko2003.zip (5.6 KB, 34 views)
lakeat, wyldckat, olivierG and 1 others like this.
pjohannes183 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 28, 2013, 17:33
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
1) There might be a sign error in cmustar; 2) Convergence seems to be slower than the SST model.
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2013, 11:20
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Johannes P
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
pjohannes183 is on a distinguished road
Dear Daniel,

thanks for testing the model. Could you please elaborate on your first point as to where the wrong sign might be? I have indeed checked the sign for C_mu_star many times, however it is possible that there is still something wrong. In the NASA sources, there is a pitfall. I found two sources with different signs, however the different signs canceled out by changing the sign of the RST at the same time.

I also observed that the convergence is normally slower than the SST model. However I came across a case where it beat standard kOmega on a coarse mesh and even led to better results. The test case was a backward-facing step.

Regards
Johannes
pjohannes183 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2013, 12:50
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
Hi Johannes,

Quote:
In the NASA sources, there is a pitfall
Really? Did you mean here,
Code:
            CmuStar_[index] =
                (
                    (gamma1Star_ * a1_)
                  / (
                        Foam::sqr(gamma1Star_)
                      - 2.0 * WSqr_[index] * tauSqr_[index] * Foam::sqr(a2_)
                    )
                ).value();
Where you put
Code:
            CmuStar_[index] =
                (
                    (gamma1Star_ * a1_)
                  / (
                        Foam::sqr(gamma1Star_)
                      + 2.0 * WSqr_[index] * tauSqr_[index] * Foam::sqr(a2_)
                    )
                ).value();


I just did a channel flow simulation, so far so good. As soon as I came to another verification case, it blows up quickly. I am still looking into it.
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog

Last edited by lakeat; March 4, 2013 at 14:39.
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2013, 14:27
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
And also, have you ever yourself tested the channel case, I found that different from the SST model, it seems either your code or the EASM model gives an early defect layer in High Re. Can you verify this? Thanks a lot.

http://flic.kr/p/dZzZxD
pjohannes183 likes this.
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 31, 2013, 16:25
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Johannes P
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
pjohannes183 is on a distinguished road
Hi Daniel,

sorry that I let you wait so long but I've been quite busy recently.

No I have not tested the channel case. I only ran the turbulent flat plate and the backward-facing step. The original plan was to do a 3D validation of a pipe bend as well but we didn't have enough time to do so.

Concerning your question about the wrong sign I must admit that I cannot readily justify why I put it this way. I remember spending a lot of time with these few lines of code, comparing them against other solution methods. I also changed signs back and forth between different part of the code (like minus here, cancels with the minus there). Since the sign appears in a product of squares, this is probably not the source of difference here.
Therefore it might well be that you discovered a real error. With which sign did you run the channel validation case? Did you notice any differences?

The line of code you recited is to solve the cubic equation at the point when it it comes close to degenerating into a linear equation. Therefore the most important requirement is that the solution be continuous along that point. The resulting value of C_mu_star should be somewhere close to 0.18 if I recall it correctly. If the continuity is violated it might be a source of divergence.

Thanks for testing
Johannes
pjohannes183 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
earsm, easm, easmko2003, reynolds stress model

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
implement explicit algebraic stress model EASM Thomas Baumann OpenFOAM 4 January 23, 2012 12:41
multiphase solvers alpha sweep not implemented romant OpenFOAM 9 January 5, 2012 11:28
Segmentation fault in running alternateSteadyReactingFoam,why? NewKid OpenFOAM 18 January 20, 2011 17:55
NASA rotor 67 2D Parametric Model t_shirt Main CFD Forum 1 May 16, 2010 15:29
NASA Format Stone CFX 2 February 7, 2006 11:17


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:51.