
[Sponsors] 
January 10, 2007, 16:17 
Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi,
I've just read in CFX help files that the solver Yplus is not the same for Scalable WallFunctions and Automatic Wall Treatment. There would be a factor 1/4 between them. Can anyone help on this ? I'm not sure to fully understand what is the Solver Yplus about and why there is that factor. Also, I recently modeled a standard backwardfacing step and found differences between the KE model (with Scalable wall functions) and the SST model (with Auto. Wall Treatment) even though the latter was used on a grid with Y+ around 40. I was expecting to get the same results. Could the 1/4 factor be part of the explaination ? Thanks Felix 

January 10, 2007, 22:50 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

As I understand SST model must be companied with a Y+ around 1...
Andres. 

January 11, 2007, 10:53 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Andres,
I know that SST model must be used with Y+ < 2 to take full advantage of the KOmega treatment near the wall. However, this is "standard" Y+ . What is the Solver Y+ influence on the solution? Regards, Felix 

January 11, 2007, 23:29 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

The variable Solver Yplus is used internally by the ANSYS CFXSolver. It uses different definitions for the wall distance of the first wall point. This variable is available for backwards consistency, but is of little use to the user.
The Yplus you will define while generating the mesh is the standard Yplus and not the solver Yplus... So for SST you need a Yplus <2 

January 12, 2007, 10:58 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hello all,
Andres and Luke, thank you very much for your answers but my curiosity isn't fully satisfied yet. Let me reformulate my questions: 1) Why is there a difference in the definition of the Solver Y+ between Scalable WallFunctions and Automatic Wall Treatment ? 2) Is that difference responsible for the discrepancies between calculations run with the KE and the SST models when the "standard" Y+ values imply that the SST model doesn't switch to KOmega (no near wall resolution) ? 3) Am I right thinking that the SST model should in theory give the exact same approximate solution as the KE model if the first mesh point is at Y+=40 ? Thanks, Felix 

January 12, 2007, 11:47 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Felix,
To answer your questions: 1) Why is there a difference in the definition of the Solver Y+ between Scalable WallFunctions and Automatic Wall Treatment ? Solver Yplus is really an internal value and not of much use to the user. Just ignore it. 2) Is that difference responsible for the discrepancies between calculations run with the KE and the SST models when the "standard" Y+ values imply that the SST model doesn't switch to KOmega (no near wall resolution)? No, there are other differences between the SST and ke models which will affect your results, even if you don't resolve the boundary layer. SST doesn't actually switch between ke and komega, it is always a komega like formulation (i.e. solving for eddy frequency, omega), but the terms are expanded differently than in the standard formulation. By removing a particular term in the equation, one can recover a form that is similar to ke, but not exactly the same. This term is multiplied by a blend factor based on wall distance among other things (0 <= F <= 1). There are some other details as well, but you would be best to get a paper on SST or review the doc to understand this. 3) Am I right thinking that the SST model should in theory give the exact same approximate solution as the KE model if the first mesh point is at Y+=40? No. Although SST will behave similarly to ke in the free stream, it is not exactly the same. Also, even though you have a large Y+, the SST treatment of the boundary layer is still slightly different. Personally, I would worry less about them being the same and concern myself more with which gives the right answer. In most cases this is SST, but results vary. Regards, Robin 

January 12, 2007, 13:11 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Robin,
Thank you for this highly valuable answer. I had misunderstood the papers of Menter (1994 & 2003 I guess) on the SST model and thought that the formulation of this model was equivalent to the KE in the free stream. Thanks for the precisions. Now as you said the SST is usually more accurate than the KE (although this doesn't seem obvious) but the problem of large aspect ratio cells at separation/reattachment points due to fine boundary layer resolution perpendicular of the wall is still an issue that needs to be considered. Best regards, Felix 

January 12, 2007, 14:07 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#8 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Felix,
The large aspect ratio should not be a problem with ke, since it rarely captures separation All kidding aside, a common misconception about SST is that it is more unstable. This is not actually true. SST is much more elegant and it's implementation is more stable numerically than ke, making it more tolerant to bad grid, etc. However, since SST will capture separation, the solution is often more unstable due to the free shear layers that evolve, which is a problem of the physics, not the model. Regards, Robin 

January 14, 2007, 19:47 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#9 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Felix,
kepsilon model will usually overpredict eddy viscosity (actally it is a combination of overpredicting k and underpredicting epsilon that occurs...but since all the momentum equations see is eddy viscosity...they don't care about why) this tends to stabalize a flow code. This is much the same issue of numerical viscosity introduced by first orderupwind schemes stabalizing a code. This is why standard keps seems more stable in most cases. There is a close relation with the overprediction of eddy viscosity with smooth solutions for velocity....which again makes the momentum equations easier to solve...smooth is always easier than sharp in CFD! This is also why a kepsilon model will not predict or underpredict separation! That being said both keps and SST are 2 equation models which means they are just that....engineering models! hope this helps....... ;) Regards, Bak_Flow 

January 15, 2007, 08:37 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#10 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Robin & Bak_Flow,
Those precisions are very interesting and tend to confirm what I had already observed. The KE and SST used with a coarse grid at the wall tend to lead to solution convergence. The SST model used properly doesn't. I will run a transient simulation soon and I will keep you updated on whether the SST model converges or not in my case. In a different geometry I studied in the past months the transient simulation wouldn't converge, though. Not even within a timestep. That is whay I was blaming large Aspect Ratio elements. Hope it will work this time ! Regards, Felix 

January 15, 2007, 13:16 
Re: Solver Yplus and Wall Treatment

#11 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Felix,
Convergence does not have the same meaning with a transient simulation. While it is important to sufficiently converge within the coefficient loops of a timestep, the outer loop convergence that you seek in a Steady State simulation has no relevance in a transient. When you run steady state, the goal is just that: to acheive a steady state. At steady state the solution no longer changes from one iteration to the next, thus the transient term goes to zero along with the outer loop residuals. They never actaully go to zero; because of roundoff and numerical errors, but it is possible to determine an acceptable residual level for a given application. Note that saying the solution isn't changing is not the same as saying the convergence isn't changing (in the latter case the solution could be changing significantly and the residuals are not reducing any further). In a transient simulation you need to converge within the timestep to accurately capture the transient behavior, but this typically requires a looser convergence level than in a steady state simulation. The solution itself could vary significantly from one timestep to the next. You also have to be careful about using the standard RANS models, such as ke and SST, in transient simulations. They tend to overpredict the Eddy Viscosity because they are intended to incorporate the effects of transient mixing due to turbulent eddies into their Eddy Viscosity prediction, wheras the transient solution will also capture these eddies and their transport effects, resulting in a double accounting of the turbulence. As a result, the higher Eddy Viscosity will tend to damp out the development of smaller eddies, thus predicting only the large scale fluctuations. If you are modelling a large scale system level transient (i.e. large timescale changes in operating conditions) this may be OK, since you won't capture the eddies anyhow. But for smaller timescale transients where you capture fluctuations in shear layers, etc. these effects will be important. A possible solution is to use transient turbulence models such as LES or DES. The unfortunate consequence is that this breaks continuity with your steady state efforts as the turbulence model is completely different. CFX is developing a more practical solution, known as Scale Adaptive Simulation (SAS), which is consistent with the RANS approach, but you'll have to wait for version 11 to give it a go. Best regards, Robin 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Water subcooled boiling  Attesz  CFX  7  January 5, 2013 03:32 
large y+ with enhanced wall treatment  keryfluid  FLUENT  4  May 7, 2012 05:19 
yplus (wall shear) sawlike shape  potac  ANSYS  2  April 14, 2011 09:19 
Wall treatment : Wall function vs Fine mesh  Gearb0x  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  4  January 26, 2010 16:09 
yplus value of the wall  kesonchen  FLUENT  0  September 11, 2002 12:19 