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

AMR with RANS

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By lmy_csi

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   October 13, 2023, 10:53
Default AMR with RANS
  #1
New Member
 
Abdalrazik EssamAldin
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 3
AEAli is on a distinguished road
Hello All,

I have a conceptual question that I would like to discuss with you. The definition of the sub-grid scale (SGS) is the difference between the actual field and the resolved field. Then, how can we use the SGS criterion in applying AMR for RANS simulations where there is not a resolved part of the turbulence energy? Isn't it more logical, or physically and mathematically acceptable, to use the Value-Based AMR with RANS?
AEAli is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2023, 10:48
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Bolun Xu
Join Date: Aug 2023
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
bolun_converge is on a distinguished road
By my understanding, SGS actually quantifies how under-resolved a certain part of the flow field is, and that's where you want to have finer mesh, to make the difference between resolved field (numerical result) and actual physical field (ground truth) as small as possible. In this regard, although RANS is modeling the turbulent energy, SGS is still valid to quantify such difference, thus it can still be regarded as the criterion to determine where we should add more meshes.
bolun_converge is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2023, 16:30
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Mingyi Liang
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 3
lmy_csi is on a distinguished road
Hi AEAli,



Thanks for your question. Yes, you are right that RANS does not resolve the turbulence field, but models it. However, unless your are using DNS, turbulence field is always modeled.



Here, CONVERGE gives SGS options only for velocity/temperature/pressure/species/void, which is coupled with turbulence, by using the turbulent viscosity calculated by the RANS model. The second spatial derivative difference between these resolved variables (velocity/temperature/pressure/species/void) and the actual field are then used for AMR. So, SGS is acceptable even when we are using RANS.



For your second question, the difference between SGS and value-based AMR is not decided by which turbulence model is used. They should be used based on the user's specific need. For instance, for a VOF simulation, if you know the interface void fraction between two phases is ~0.6, then you can specify the value-based void AMR to be 0.5-0.7. For flame propagation, if you know the flame temperature is around ~2000K, then you can use value-based temperature AMR. For other situations where the flow is highly mixed, unsteady, and unpredictable, you may wanna use SGS AMR.



Please let me know if you have any other questions.


Thanks,
--Mingyi

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mingyi Liang


Research Engineer, Application Team
Convergent Science
AEAli likes this.
lmy_csi is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fluctuation component of velocity (Urms) calculation from RANS simulation results atul1018 Main CFD Forum 5 February 4, 2021 10:09
particle-laden backward facing step (BFS) using DPMFoam: LES vs RANS atul1018 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 January 4, 2021 06:20
RANS Grid Sensitivity Divergence on LES Grid MikeBravo Main CFD Forum 33 September 15, 2020 23:53
Using RANS in transient simulations driu CFX 5 October 14, 2015 07:50
Request for truth on VLES/Unsteady RANS Nick Georgiadis Main CFD Forum 16 September 1, 1999 16:43


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:59.