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

__ wall function for low yPlus __

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 31, 2010, 04:05
Question __ wall function for low yPlus __
  #1
Senior Member
 
maysmech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 347
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 8
maysmech is on a distinguished road
Dear Foamers,
Happy new year.

Please tell me which wall function i should use to define wall B.C when my y+ is:

Patch 4 named wall y+ : min: 0.0516154 max: 2.20514 average: 0.344511

now, i use nutWallFunction for nut
kqRWallFunction for k
epsilonWallFunction for epsilon

but i think they dont give true answers.

Thanks in advance,
maysmech is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2011, 12:00
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Steven van Haren
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 149
Rep Power: 6
stevenvanharen is on a distinguished road
mmmm....I would use no wall functions, your yplus values are too low to be in the log layer:

http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Wall_functions
stevenvanharen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2011, 14:35
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 9
FelixL is on a distinguished road
Hello, maysam,


I suppose you are using one of the k-epsilon based turbulence models? I can only guess but if you're not already using the Low-Reynolds corrected versions of the k-epsilon model you'll obtain poor results when integrating these turbulence models down to the viscous sublayer (which is clearly the case looking at your y+-values). See D.C. Wilcox's book "Turbulence Modeling for CFD" as a reference.

If your actually using the Low-Reynolds models then you shouldn't use wall functions, like Steven said in the post above. These models are supposed to work with more stringent boundary conditions (see http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Low-Re_k-epsilon_models as a reference).


Greetings,
Felix
FelixL is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2011, 15:05
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
maysmech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 347
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 8
maysmech is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FelixL View Post
Hello, maysam,


I suppose you are using one of the k-epsilon based turbulence models? I can only guess but if you're not already using the Low-Reynolds corrected versions of the k-epsilon model you'll obtain poor results when integrating these turbulence models down to the viscous sublayer (which is clearly the case looking at your y+-values). See D.C. Wilcox's book "Turbulence Modeling for CFD" as a reference.

If your actually using the Low-Reynolds models then you shouldn't use wall functions, like Steven said in the post above. These models are supposed to work with more stringent boundary conditions (see http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Low-Re_k-epsilon_models as a reference).


Greetings,
Felix
Thanks for your answers.
the case (hydrocyclone) is not a low Re problem and i want run it with k-e, LRR and LES.
i think its low y+ is result of is small mesh at near wall.
now, what is your suggestion about Wall boundary field settings for k, epsilon and nut?

Best,
Maysam
maysmech is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2011, 15:13
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
maysmech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 347
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 8
maysmech is on a distinguished road
you mean i should set zseroGradient B.C for K, epsilon and nut for wall ?

wall
{
type zeroGradient;
}

Is it a suitable B.C?
maysmech is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2011, 15:52
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 9
FelixL is on a distinguished road
Hello, Maysam,


I guess the term "Low-Reynolds model" is a bit misleading. These models are actually suitable for any Reynolds number (as long as the flow is turbulent, of course). These Low-Reynolds k-epsilon-models are standard k-epsilon models with additional viscous damping functions to improve the models' results for near-wall regions. They're called "Low-Reynolds", because these models require an near wall y+ of the order of 1 (as in your case) and this is usually too costly for engineering applications with high reynolds numbers.

But if you insist in using the standard (High-Re) k-epsilon model for your case without using log-wallfunctions (i.e. y+>30), these would be suitable BCs, according to my knowledge:

nut: fixedValue 0; OR nutWallFunction; (this WF is continuous!)
k and epsilon: fixedValue 1e-10; (has to be nonzero to avoid division by zero errors!)

Let me repeat: The results will probably be inaccurate, especially the wall shear stress and heat transfer values. And this is not a BC problem, this is a problem of the k-epsilon model itself. Please refer to Wilcox' book regarding that issue.


Greetings,
Felix.
FelixL is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2011, 02:49
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
maysmech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 347
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 8
maysmech is on a distinguished road
Thanks,

What is your suggestion for high y+.

I changed my mesh to a coarse one and run it with k-e. y+ is near 70.
maysmech is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2011, 06:14
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by maysmech View Post
Thanks,

What is your suggestion for high y+.

I changed my mesh to a coarse one and run it with k-e. y+ is near 70.
This value of y+ at the near wall cells is suitable for the standard wall functions (kqR, epsilon and nutWallFunction), as the first nodes near the wall are supposed to be inside the log-layer. For what concerns the initial near-wall values of k, epsilon and nut, you can have a look at the pitzDaily RAS tutorial inside the Programmer's Guide and see how to set them properly (but, however, keep in mind that for practical appications with the standard k-epsilon model these initial values can be considered quite arbitrary)

Regards

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2011, 08:52
Default turbulent flat plate
  #9
New Member
 
CFD user
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 7
subhkirti is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I am trying to simulate the turbulent flat plate flow. I am using a yPlusRAS utility which gives me the following

Patch 3 named plate y+ : min: 63.4497 max: 90.5452 average: 73.1344

I am using kqRWallFunction for k, omegaWallFunction for omega, and nutWallFuction for nut. However, I am not getting the expected results, eg. the k value is not zero at the plate. I am not sure whether I am correctly putting up the BC. Can you post me your BC file, so that i can cross check if i am setting up the case correctly?


Quote:
Originally Posted by maysmech View Post
Dear Foamers,
Happy new year.

Please tell me which wall function i should use to define wall B.C when my y+ is:

Patch 4 named wall y+ : min: 0.0516154 max: 2.20514 average: 0.344511

now, i use nutWallFunction for nut
kqRWallFunction for k
epsilonWallFunction for epsilon

but i think they dont give true answers.

Thanks in advance,
__________________
Thanks,
subhkirti is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2011, 13:41
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by subhkirti View Post
Hi,

I am trying to simulate the turbulent flat plate flow. I am using a yPlusRAS utility which gives me the following

Patch 3 named plate y+ : min: 63.4497 max: 90.5452 average: 73.1344

I am using kqRWallFunction for k, omegaWallFunction for omega, and nutWallFuction for nut. However, I am not getting the expected results, eg. the k value is not zero at the plate. I am not sure whether I am correctly putting up the BC. Can you post me your BC file, so that i can cross check if i am setting up the case correctly?
Your y+ is good for the kind of wall functions you are using. Don't be surprised about the wrong k value at the wall: the wall functions in question are designed to give the correct value of the turbulent quantities at the first node away from the wall, not at the wall itself (for instance, the wall function for k simply applies a zeroGradient boundary condition, which means that the value at the wall should be equal to the value at the firs near-wall node thus, in general, not equal to zero)

Hope this helps

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 14, 2011, 08:11
Default low y+ values
  #11
New Member
 
CFD user
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 7
subhkirti is on a distinguished road
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. I compared my results to the different posts in the forum, and they are coming out quite close. The problem that now I am having is that when i decrease the y+ by increasing the cell grading, my solution does not converge. In my case, as y+ approaches 30, the residuals blow up. Is there something I'm missing in my solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
Your y+ is good for the kind of wall functions you are using. Don't be surprised about the wrong k value at the wall: the wall functions in question are designed to give the correct value of the turbulent quantities at the first node away from the wall, not at the wall itself (for instance, the wall function for k simply applies a zeroGradient boundary condition, which means that the value at the wall should be equal to the value at the firs near-wall node thus, in general, not equal to zero)

Hope this helps

V.
__________________
Thanks,
subhkirti is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 14, 2011, 09:06
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by subhkirti View Post
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. I compared my results to the different posts in the forum, and they are coming out quite close. The problem that now I am having is that when i decrease the y+ by increasing the cell grading, my solution does not converge. In my case, as y+ approaches 30, the residuals blow up. Is there something I'm missing in my solution.
About the near-wall modeling, as your y+ goes below 30 you are entering into the buffer layer, so I would expect less accurate results (the standard wall functions do not take into account for the buffer region), but not significant numerical troubles...I need some more details about your numerical setup (BC's, fvSchemes and fvSolution dictionaries, etc.)

Regards

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 14, 2011, 09:33
Default low y+ values
  #13
New Member
 
CFD user
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 7
subhkirti is on a distinguished road
Hello V,

Thanks yet again. I am attaching the three files for your review (blockMesh, system files, and BC). These are the files for the case where I get the non-converged solutions. yPlus utility gives me the avg. value of y+ as 43.62 and the min y+ as 30.643.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrastev View Post
About the near-wall modeling, as your y+ goes below 30 you are entering into the buffer layer, so I would expect less accurate results (the standard wall functions do not take into account for the buffer region), but not significant numerical troubles...I need some more details about your numerical setup (BC's, fvSchemes and fvSolution dictionaries, etc.)

Regards

V.
Attached Files
File Type: gz blockMeshDict.tar.gz (865 Bytes, 4 views)
File Type: gz fvScheme.tar.gz (1.0 KB, 4 views)
File Type: gz BC.tar.gz (882 Bytes, 7 views)
__________________
Thanks,
subhkirti is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 14, 2011, 11:00
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 10
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by subhkirti View Post
Hello V,

Thanks yet again. I am attaching the three files for your review (blockMesh, system files, and BC). These are the files for the case where I get the non-converged solutions. yPlus utility gives me the avg. value of y+ as 43.62 and the min y+ as 30.643.
1) Set the tolerances in the fvSolution from 1e-05/1e-06 to 1e-11
2) Assign an initial value for k and omega at the plate (as you have done with nut, but this time using the same values of the internal field initialization)
3) Underrelax omega and put the underrelaxation factors for k and omega to 0.5 (instead of 0.7)

I'm quite sure that the main problems are in point 1 and 3. Hope this helps

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 18, 2011, 10:18
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
romant's Avatar
 
Roman Thiele
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 359
Rep Power: 11
romant is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FelixL View Post
Hello, Maysam,


I guess the term "Low-Reynolds model" is a bit misleading. These models are actually suitable for any Reynolds number (as long as the flow is turbulent, of course). These Low-Reynolds k-epsilon-models are standard k-epsilon models with additional viscous damping functions to improve the models' results for near-wall regions. They're called "Low-Reynolds", because these models require an near wall y+ of the order of 1 (as in your case) and this is usually too costly for engineering applications with high reynolds numbers.

But if you insist in using the standard (High-Re) k-epsilon model for your case without using log-wallfunctions (i.e. y+>30), these would be suitable BCs, according to my knowledge:

nut: fixedValue 0; OR nutWallFunction; (this WF is continuous!)
k and epsilon: fixedValue 1e-10; (has to be nonzero to avoid division by zero errors!)

Let me repeat: The results will probably be inaccurate, especially the wall shear stress and heat transfer values. And this is not a BC problem, this is a problem of the k-epsilon model itself. Please refer to Wilcox' book regarding that issue.


Greetings,
Felix.
So in order to use a low-Re k-epsilon model, one could use those boundary conditions, if I understand this right?
__________________
~roman
romant 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
LES wall function ayoros OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 6 September 4, 2014 15:44
Version 15 on Mac OS X gschaider OpenFOAM Installation 120 December 2, 2009 11:23
Need some wall function approaches! yka8150 Main CFD Forum 0 September 21, 2009 23:08
Influece of wall velocity in the main flow marvin CFX 0 March 22, 2008 03:05
What wall function for y+ below 30? Ralf Schmidt FLUENT 1 November 2, 2006 03:50


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55.