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

How to use dynSmagorinsky model correctly ?

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

Like Tree40Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 28, 2010, 19:53
Default
  #61
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiejie View Post
Hi alberto

Thanks for your reply.

Again, does this forbid the back scattering and does not allow the energy transfer from the small scale to the large scale?

or is it possible just to remove the averaging part of the code in the dynSmagorinsky model and how bad is it in terms of stability?
I guess this returning question is a problem with the nomenclature.

The effective viscosity is nuEff = nu + nuSGS, being nu the molecular viscosity. As a consequence, clipping the effective viscosity nuEff to zero does not prevent backscattering, or all the effort of the dynamic procedure would lose at least part of its importance.

It is not possible to "directly remove the averaging", you need to implement some procedure to ensure that you do not divide by zero when computing the dynamic coefficients. There are different ways of achieving this reported in the literature. We used a very simple one, which consists in performing a local average over the neighbours. In terms of stability, it seems to work fine, and results are in agreement with what reported by other Authors.

Best,
kiddmax and palmerlee like this.
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

Last edited by alberto; July 28, 2010 at 19:55. Reason: Typo
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 28, 2010, 20:16
Default
  #62
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
Hi to all,
this topic is full of interesting issues for LES practioneers and researchers.

I am working on the quality and realibility of LES implemented in OF along with some collegues.
We decided to test the compressible version of the code in low-Mach conditions, performing the classic plane channel turbulent flow at Re_tau=590.
The dynamic procedure for the SGS modelling is supplied.

Testing the code in such condition was not so easy because of the requirement of adding the proper forcing term in momentum and energy equations.

At present, results obtained on a 64x100x64 cartesian grid are not satisfactory both in the zero-order statistics (the streamwise averaged profile) and in the energy spectra. This latter shows for the three velocity components along the streamwise wavenumber a very strange peak in the inertial range, transfer of energy is therefore not monotone. This is not a numerical pile-up since the peak is about 10 wavenumbers before the Nyquist wavenumber, the energy is well dissipated at the cut-off wavenumber.
The SGS model does not change the presence of the peak (no-model solution showed the same behaviour)
No other peaks appear in the energy spectra along the spanwise wavenumber.

I am quite sure that the reason is due to some acoustic interference caused by the low-Mach condition. The PISO solver should be able to manage such critical case...

Does anyone had similar experience?

Thanks
Filippo
Hi Filippo,

I think I saw part of those results, since they were in the paper Andrea sent me.
Did you try to run one case with the incompressible version of the model to see if the same behaviour is present?

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2010, 00:31
Default
  #63
Senior Member
 
wayne.zhang
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai, Shanghai, P.R.China
Posts: 307
Rep Power: 9
waynezw0618 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to waynezw0618 Send a message via Skype™ to waynezw0618
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiejie View Post
Hi waynezw0618

I have read Lilly's paper, I probably found the reference of OpenFOAM dynSamgorinsky from "A comparative study of subgrid scale models in homogeneous isotropic turbulence" by Fureby C. 1996.
It can only used for
homogeneous isotropic turbulence
waynezw0618 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2010, 03:42
Default
  #64
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Hi Filippo,

I think I saw part of those results, since they were in the paper Andrea sent me.
Did you try to run one case with the incompressible version of the model to see if the same behaviour is present?

Best,
Hi Alberto,
yes it is possible you have seen them since Andrea was asking for getting opinions from people involved in OF. At present I am coordinator of the group LESinItaly, collecting activities from the Politecnico of Milano, Torino, Unvisersity of Pisa/Udine and Napoli. We have a project for testing several CFD/LES codes on the turbulent channel flow.

With Andrea just decided a couple of days ago to repeat the same simulation with the incompressible version of the code and see what happens in the spectra. We have now to run and wait for the solution to get an energy equilibrium state and sample the fields for the statistics.
Some time is therefore required....


However, the compressible code gave no peaks in the energy spectra at Re_tau=180. But the lenght of the longitudinal domain is wider, maybe permits to dissipate acoustic waves, also because the dissipation is greater....

Do you have some experience of spurious solutions with the compressible version of PISO in low-Mach flows??

Thanks
Filippo
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2010, 03:45
Default
  #65
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynezw0618 View Post
It can only used for
homogeneous isotropic turbulence

Hi, perhaps if the filter lenght is ensured to lie in the inertial region for all scales, it is common to suppose that SGS scales have a quite universal (and homogeneous) behaviour ....
Often the HIT is at basis of several SGS models used for non-homogenous flows...
But this is one of the controversial issues in LES ...
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   August 4, 2010, 06:06
Default Clip!
  #66
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 8
mmahdinia is on a distinguished road
Hi,

Does anyone has a journal paper for "clipping" of effective viscosity such that (nuSGS+nu)>0 in dynamic LES mehod?

Sincerely,
Maani
mmahdinia is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 4, 2010, 07:56
Default
  #67
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmahdinia View Post
Hi,

Does anyone has a journal paper for "clipping" of effective viscosity such that (nuSGS+nu)>0 in dynamic LES mehod?

Sincerely,
Maani
Hi, yes, you can see my paper on TCFD where we discussed about the clipping criteria.

F.M. Denaro, G. De Stefano, A new development of the dynamic procedure in large-eddy simulation based on a Finite Volume integral approach. Application to stratified turbulence. Theor. Comp. Fluid Dyn., online DOI10.1007/s00162-010-0202-x, 2010
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   August 4, 2010, 11:47
Default QUICK shceme
  #68
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 8
mmahdinia is on a distinguished road
Thanks Filippo

Please excuse me. But also I wanted to know if anyone has used QUICK scheme in LES despite it is too dissipative.

According to Mittal and Moin (1997) the QUICK is too dissipative for reactive flows and generated noise flows and there central schemes should be used. But for ordinary flows it is nearly sufficient.

I would appreciate very much it if anyone could tell me about any resent journal articles in which QUICK (or B-QUICK) is used.

Sincerely,
Maani

Last edited by mmahdinia; August 4, 2010 at 12:06.
mmahdinia is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 4, 2010, 12:02
Default
  #69
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmahdinia View Post
Thanks

Please excuse me. But also I wanted to know if anyone has used QUICK scheme in LES despite it is too dissipative.

According to Mittal and Moin (1997) the QUICK is too dissipative for reactive flows and generated noise flows and there central schemes should be used. But for ordinary flows it is nearly sufficient.

I would appreciate very much it if anyone could tell me about any resent journal articles in which QUICK (or B-QUICK) is used.

Sincerely,
Maani

There are many argumentations about using upwind schemes, I also published a paper on JCP regarding their using ...
However:
1) QUICK is not suitable at all for unsteady flows, it was developed for steady flows, therefore is not only a problem of using it in LES. The unsteady version was developed by Leonard, called QUICKEST, and it is quite different having a time-intagration built-in inside.
2) More in general, upwind schemes are well-suited for DNS since their artificial dissipation lie in the part of the spectrum where the molecular dissipation is acted on. But in LES, the action of the numerical dissipation acts on the resolved scales, prevalently in the highest part of the resolved spectrum, therefore even if you provide an "ideal" perfect SGS model it would not work properly since of the artificial smoothing of the resolved components.
3) However, some high order (more than third order) upwind schemes implemented in the FV framework, along with some suitable recovering of the smoothed components (deconvolution) can be used. Mittal and Moin showed unsatisfactory results by using FD upwind. You can find on my paper on JCP the discussion about the differences

Regards
Filippo
solefire and maysmech like this.
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   August 4, 2010, 15:42
Default
  #70
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
Do you have some experience of spurious solutions with the compressible version of PISO in low-Mach flows??
Not really. I used it for some application in a complex geometry and did not notice anything strange.

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2010, 12:21
Default Coeffs/averaging planes
  #71
New Member
 
Matt James
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Marinette,WI, USA
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 7
mdjames is on a distinguished road
With all this talk of openFOAM's unfaithful implementation of dynSmag, it seems a good place to ask what the code is using the supplied coefficient for

i.e. in CASE/constant/LESProperties :

dynSmagorinskyCoeffs
{
filter simple;
ce 1.048;
}

is ce used to define the second filtering size (~ in Germano 1991) or what? I've looked through dynSmagorinsky.C for the answer but can't seem to find "ce" even used anywhere.

Also, I suspect it's not a trivial endeavor to change the code to average over horizontal planes rather than the entire domain?
mdjames is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2010, 19:55
Default
  #72
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdjames View Post
is ce used to define the second filtering size (~ in Germano 1991) or what? I've looked through dynSmagorinsky.C for the answer but can't seem to find "ce" even used anywhere.
Ce is not Cs. Ce is used to compute the dissipation rate.

Quote:
Also, I suspect it's not a trivial endeavor to change the code to average over horizontal planes rather than the entire domain?
In a general geometry it is not appropriate to average along planes either. You can average locally however.

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 7, 2010, 15:01
Default
  #73
New Member
 
Matt James
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Marinette,WI, USA
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 7
mdjames is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post

Ce is not Cs. Ce is used to compute the dissipation rate.
RIght, Cs is determined by the algorithm. I was unsure of what you meant by dissipation rate, but it appears as though we're talking about the same thing in different ways. I wondered if Ce is just the ratio of the coarse filter to the grid-sized filter. (Ce=delta_tilde/delta_bar). After some more reading it appears that this is indeed what Ce adjusts.

Quote:

In a general geometry it is not appropriate to average along planes either. You can average locally however.
I agree and should have been more specific. It is appropriate, however, to average along planes parallel to a wall; no?

Thanks very much for your speedy and helpful response, as usual.
mdjames is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 22, 2010, 14:36
Default
  #74
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Hi,
just coming back to this topic in order to acquire further insight on the dynamic procedure implemented in the compressible version of OF.
In this case, the computed eddy viscosity is local, not averaged on the whole volume, that's right?
It is allowed to have some negative value (corresponding to an energy back-scatter) or the value has a clipping?
Many thanks

Filippo
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   December 22, 2010, 16:18
Default
  #75
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Hi Filippo (and happy holiday!),

there is no dynamic Smagorinsky model for compressible flow implemented in OpenFOAM currently, just the standard Smagorinsky for compressible flows. There is the dynOneEqEddy model, however, which averages the coefficients on the whole domain.

Notice that nuSgs is local also in the dynSmagorinsky implementation in OpenFOAM, since it depends on the local value of the magnitude of the filtered deformation rate tensor. What is not local, but averaged, is the coefficient Cs, which should be local instead.

Best,
solefire likes this.
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 22, 2010, 17:03
Default
  #76
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,603
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by alberto View Post
Hi Filippo (and happy holiday!),

there is no dynamic Smagorinsky model for compressible flow implemented in OpenFOAM currently, just the standard Smagorinsky for compressible flows. There is the dynOneEqEddy model, however, which averages the coefficients on the whole domain.

Notice that nuSgs is local also in the dynSmagorinsky implementation in OpenFOAM, since it depends on the local value of the magnitude of the filtered deformation rate tensor. What is not local, but averaged, is the coefficient Cs, which should be local instead.

Best,
Hi Alberto,

thanks for your reply,

I wish you a Merry Christmas

Filippo
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2011, 08:11
Default
  #77
Senior Member
 
Thomas Jung
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 100
Rep Power: 8
tehache is on a distinguished road
talking about dynamic smagorinsky reminded me of this this thread:


Improved implementation of dynamic Smagorinsky
tehache is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 15, 2011, 20:21
Default
  #78
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 6
grandgo is on a distinguished road
hello!

im working on the tutorial pitzDaily (incompressible/pisoFoam) in LES mode with the dynSmagorinsky model and i have a question:

if i'm right, i only need the p, U and k files for this case. according to dynSmagorinsky.C . but with deleting the nusgs file in folder 0 i get the error message which tells me, that nusgs file is missing.

why??

best regards
grandgo
grandgo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 16, 2011, 05:32
Default
  #79
Senior Member
 
Fabian Schlegel
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dresden, Germany
Posts: 182
Rep Power: 8
fs82 is on a distinguished road
This is easy to answer. Please have a look to dynSmagorinsky.C:
Code:
void dynSmagorinsky::updateSubGridScaleFields(const volSymmTensorField& D)
{
    nuSgs_ = cD(D)*sqr(delta())*sqrt(magSqr(D));
    nuSgs_.correctBoundaryConditions();
}
The information about the boundary condition is needed in nuSgs_.correctBoundaryConditions(); and thus the field nuSgs is needed at start. Also you could use the boundary conditions for nuSgs to specify a wall function for a specific boundary. Thats he reason why he is complaining about the missing nuSgs file.
fs82 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 21, 2011, 08:39
Default
  #80
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 6
grandgo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fs82 View Post
This is easy to answer. Please have a look to dynSmagorinsky.C:
Code:
void dynSmagorinsky::updateSubGridScaleFields(const volSymmTensorField& D)
{
    nuSgs_ = cD(D)*sqr(delta())*sqrt(magSqr(D));
    nuSgs_.correctBoundaryConditions();
}
The information about the boundary condition is needed in nuSgs_.correctBoundaryConditions(); and thus the field nuSgs is needed at start. Also you could use the boundary conditions for nuSgs to specify a wall function for a specific boundary. Thats he reason why he is complaining about the missing nuSgs file.
thanks fabian!
grandgo 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
help for different between les model (subgrid-scale model) liuyuxuan FLUENT 1 October 2, 2009 15:25
LES and combustion model Margherita Cadorin CFX 0 October 29, 2008 06:24
regarding eddy break up model dj CFX 0 September 30, 2003 02:05
Why Turbulence models are not universal. Senthil Main CFD Forum 4 July 5, 2000 04:34
Advanced Turbulence Modeling in Fluent, Realizable k-epsilon Model Jonas Larsson FLUENT 5 March 13, 2000 04:27


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:25.