
[Sponsors] 
November 27, 2016, 06:30 
Problem with Wall Distance Calculation

#1 
New Member
Denis Sotomayor
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SaintPetersburg, Russia
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 9 
Well, I wanted to ask some questions related to a problem I am having in ANSYS:
I have been trying to perform the simulation of a Flow around a 2D Circular Cylinder (classical to get the vonKarman street) at 500 000 Reynolds, URANS, SST kw model. I did this simulation in CFX (3D with one cell in z) and FLUENT (2D), with same mesh parameters (y+<1), same timestep and with the highestorder schemes for both softwares (Both QUICK even with Turbulence, Second Order Backward Euler, etc). The results: Cd (Drag coeff) that varies 20% between softwares, and an amplitude of Cf (Lift Coeff) that almost varies 3 times (!!!). I tried a lot of things, changing schemes, mesh size, etc. but the difference on results still persists. I have thought maybe the SST formulations on both softwares might be somehow different, or maybe the cell/node centered method of both softwares might be affecting, but what was interesting was the next thing I just found in CFX: The variable Wall Distance, that should represent the distance of a point to the nearest wall is not the right one (geometrically speaking). The first image displays that to the limit of my domain I have a distance of 25 m from the wall, while my domain has a Radius of 15 m (Cylinder of 0.5 m Radius). Second image shows that even near to my wall, the Relationship between the Wall Distance Vs Y (Starting from the cylinder's wall) is not even Linear. I have read the documentation (3rd image) and I dont understand the objective of this kind of "Wall Distance" calculation. Having an incorrect "Wall Distance" actually can be the answer to my problem in CFX, since it can strongly affect the Turbulence Model near the wall in the calculation in the Blending Function, getting different Pressures and Wall Shear Stresses, which might result in having this different results with FLUENT. From here, my questions are the next: 1) How should my Pseudo2D simulation in CFX be so the Wall Distance would be calculated properly? What could be the problem? 2) Why does CFX uses such a strange (for me) algorithm to calculate the Wall Distance and not just use the Geometrical Distance? 3) Is there a way to Override the calculation of this variable and, instead, force the Wall Distance = Geometrical Distance through the Command Editor? PD: My Domain has Two SubDomains for meshing purposes, connected by an Interface GGI. 

November 27, 2016, 18:42 

#2  
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,231
Rep Power: 135 
You say you have tried different meshes, but I would also do different time step sizes and convergence criteria.
Your wall distance issue may be explained by simply not having fully converged the wall distance equation. Have you tried a tighter convergence criteria? Also, the wall distance parameter only has a significant effect in the vicinity of the wall. You are looking a long way from the wall. Have you looked at how accurate it is in the vicinity of the wall? Quote:
Quote:


December 1, 2016, 19:43 

#3  
New Member
Denis Sotomayor
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SaintPetersburg, Russia
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have started to perform several calculations at different Reynolds (1e2, 1e3, 1e4, 1.4e5 until now) with the same parameters for both CFX and Fluent. For low Re, Laminar cases are equal even without achieving meshtime convergence (but obviously still little bit different from a decent simulation, but that is not my objective). For cases of 1e3 and 1e4, SST gives me a difference of less than 20% between CFX and FLUENT on Cd, Cl and Cm, but at 1.4e5, the difference in Cl increases a lot (1.1 VS 0.3!!). I am looking forward to solve this doubt about the reason why this difference appears in a numerical aspect (even if results are unphysical since 3D starts to make its way in reality). Still, I need more results at higher Re (1e6, 1e7), so I am still working on this. By the way, thanks very much for the reply. 

December 2, 2016, 04:23 

#4  
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
Rep Power: 16 
Quote:


December 2, 2016, 06:48 

#5  
New Member
Denis Sotomayor
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SaintPetersburg, Russia
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
The amplitudes reach steady values at almost 60 seconds of simulation, thats like after 12 sheedings. In some simulations I tried 100 seconds, but not further change on amplitudes. I calculate them the same way. I verified it a lot of times. 

December 2, 2016, 09:34 

#6 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,609
Rep Power: 29 
I am not certain what may be the source of the differences; however, if you want to compare both solutions, it would help to run them as close as possible. I assume you are using the identical meshes (barring the 1element thick difference)
From your initial message, you are using Fluent with QUICK+SOBE, but no information about CFX so I assume HighResolution+SOBE as well, correct? Advection scheme differences only go away under mesh refinement which may be expensive. An alternative is to run both codes using First Order/Upwind using the current mesh and though the results may not be accurate, you will eliminate another source for the differences. My 2 cents, 

Tags 
cfx, wall distance, wallscale 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
decomposePar problem: Cell 0contains face labels out of range  vaina74  OpenFOAM PreProcessing  37  July 20, 2020 06:38 
problem with cyclicAMI and wall distance  Maff  OpenFOAM Bugs  5  August 14, 2014 15:41 
Wrong wall distance with cyclic boundaries  sebastian  OpenFOAM Bugs  4  October 31, 2012 11:24 
Minimum Allowable Wall Distance  rks171  Main CFD Forum  7  June 16, 2012 16:39 
UDF for wall slipping  HFLUENT  Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming  0  April 27, 2011 13:03 