
[Sponsors] 
Why kepislon model perform a bad result at corner 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
March 22, 2006, 08:39 
Why kepislon model perform a bad result at corner

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

i used the CFX to simulate a compartment fire with kepislon model, the fire located at corner.
why the kepislon model perform a worse result when the fire at corner than teh fire at center. thx 

March 22, 2006, 16:59 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I would guess that when the fire is close to a wall the nearwall treatment in the tubulence model behaves badly.
When you have fire close to the wall you'll probably have significant bouancy effects etc. in the near wall region and heattransfer to the wall might also be important for how this works in the nearwall region. This is a very challenging task for any turbulence model. This is one possible explanation to your observation. Without having seen anything from your simulations it is diffucult to say something certain. Just my $0.02. 

March 22, 2006, 21:35 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

k epsilon is known not to perform very well for flows with high streamline curvature. use the SST model or RNG k epsilon model instead.


March 23, 2006, 03:37 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Adding more equations doesn't always give better solution. You might have to check the grid error around the corner before you jump into conclusion that turbulence model is the main error source.
If simple model predicts flow very badly, I'll have doubt that more complicated model will give more accurate solution. 

March 23, 2006, 09:55 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

thank you for Ladies and gentlemen
i have check the grid , there are no problem in the domain and corner. Recently, i found that when i set the static temperature to be 298K. the result was very good, but if i use other static temperaature even 297k or 300k , the result was very strength. why have this strange result. anybody can give me some suggestion. thx 

March 23, 2006, 10:40 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Switching turbulence models does not necessarily mean adding more equations. ke and SST are both two equation models, only they are formulated differently. I would follow the SST recomendation, which would allow more refinement near the wall and better capture the physics.
ke is anything but simple near the boundary, but the way. Robin 

March 23, 2006, 20:22 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Robin,
Someone might later suggest the use of RSM if SST doesn't work out better. THEORETICALLY, RSM SHOULD predict flow even better because it has more equations to describe the physics. What do we need to take advantage of SST model? Yplus<2? I can afford such a fine mesh on airfoil or cyclinder. However, for a room or a tunnel with much bigger scale, you're going to get thousands more nodes everytime you add a layer of elements close to the wall. Besides, if you stretched the elements too much, solver might perform poorly. I would imagine that this problem might go to transient in some stage. That's even worse if you need such a fine mesh. What's the time do you expect to wait for a solution and how many cpus do you need to reduce the computing time? I just can't convince myself to use SST model in this case and would be very happy if you can tell me how to do that effeciently. 

March 27, 2006, 11:48 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#8 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi TB,
You don't NEED to have Y+<2 for SST. The model allows for this flexibility, but will use a wall function just as ke does if the Y+ is larger. If you need to model something close to a wall, then you need the appropriate mesh resolution and the SST model allows for this. Anyway, my main point was that SST does not solve additional equations, only two. There are also advantages to SST away from the wall. Regards, Robin 

March 31, 2006, 06:44 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#9 
Guest
Posts: n/a

do u have idea wat does sst offers ????????????????????? it might be intersting that it does have any thing new............................................... .. surprized............... it is just a mixture of KEpsilon away from wall and Komega for wall. it is essentailly a low reynolds number flow means u need Y+ of order 1. It has function f as switiching. 0 = kEpsilon and 1 = Komega.
now comes to your question..... by solving ur flow by sst in interior is same as solving by KEpsilon and along wall it would advantage of komega understood ???????? 

April 2, 2006, 08:44 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#10 
Guest
Posts: n/a

What I understand is that RANS or URANS simulates poorly strong unsteady flows. I suggest u define a region at the corner and then use LES for this region (u can perform Smagorinsky or MixedScale model in CFX by user Fortran subroutine USRVIS)


April 2, 2006, 15:45 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#11 
Guest
Posts: n/a

for that purpose use DES deattached eddy simulation. it is mixture of LES and RANS. i.e near wall LES and away from wall RANs


April 3, 2006, 02:19 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#12 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Dear Sam, Yes it is a kind of DES. But I mean we use LES only for the corner region not for the whole wall region of the computational domain


April 3, 2006, 10:02 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#13 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Sam,
Ease up on the coffee a little and you might regain some control of your keyboard. SST is not simply a mix of komega and kepsilon and it is NOT a low Reynolds number formulation. SST is a komega model, meaning that it solves the k and omega equations only. The terms of the equations have been expanded such that by eliminating one of these terms, it resembles the epsilon equation. What makes SST different from a straight komega model is the gradual elimination of this term as you move away from the wall and how it accounts for the transport of shear stress. While what they solve for are similar, the numerics are quite different between SST and ke. This is an important detail, as it means that additional physics can be accounted for much more easily. A prime example is how boundary layers are handled; while it is very difficult to make ke behave well enough to integrate to the wall (this is what a socalled low Reynolds number ke wall function does), it can be done very easily with komega. Again, this is not to say that you MUST integrate to the wall with SST, a common misconception. SST also includes limiters that are difficult to make numerically stable in ke, this is what makes the difference in the free stream. If you really want to know more, take the turbulence course given by Dr. Menter at the users conference. Regards, Robin 

April 8, 2006, 07:46 
Re: Why kepislon model perform a bad result at co

#14 
Guest
Posts: n/a

thanks for your disucssion i have gained alot. can u tell little more abt sst . i will be thanksful


Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
LES and combustion model  Margherita Cadorin  CFX  0  October 29, 2008 05:24 
Model of pump nonoptimal regimes get bad results  Georg  CFX  3  May 21, 2008 00:53 
FSI on a Rotating Structural Model  drgolf  CFX  9  August 30, 2007 12:08 
KatoLaunder model  sam  Main CFD Forum  13  September 21, 2006 10:15 
Problems of Duns Codes!  Martin J  Main CFD Forum  8  August 14, 2003 23:19 