
[Sponsors] 
February 20, 2012, 02:27 
Kkltransition model y+

#1 
Senior Member

Hi,
I am doing a simulation for 16m Wind Turbine blade. I am using Fluent. I am using kkltransition model but I dont know the exact limit of y+ for this model. If it recommends 1 then I cannot get it because I would have to make the mesh finer. (The small cell size near the wall will make the far field cell 5 meters long). What if I use the kepsilon model? As I think it is much relaxing in terms of y+ by using wall functions. and allows the limit to be greater than or equals to 30. Regards, 

February 21, 2012, 01:29 

#2 
Senior Member

Any comments guys?


February 21, 2012, 03:33 

#3 
New Member
sreenivas
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 9 
HI
If you think the boundary layer effects are not important or separating flow features are irrelevant to you you can use kepsilon model but remember the torque you get on the blades without resolving these near wall phenomenons will always be with the correction. Komega SST model is capable of resolving these near wall phenomenons effectively than ke but that should comes with a rider...Computationally expensive Regards srinivas 

February 21, 2012, 09:29 

#4 
Senior Member

Thanks Sreenivas,
In kw SST I dont get any options like use of wall f/n or enhanced wall treatment. In kkltransition the same is the case. I believe that use of wall f/n like in ke reduces the wall y+ effort and you can use a much coarser mesh. 

February 25, 2012, 12:04 

#5 
New Member
sreenivas
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 9 
HI
Yes you will not get that option because if you are using kw SST,means computationally you will have to resolve your boundary layer ie> you have to keep ur Y+<5.In the viscous sub layer you will have to put at least 30 to 40 layers. You are true that when ur using wall function approach you have the liberty to use coarser mesh.Solver will take care of the region below the first grid point. Regards srinivas 

February 25, 2012, 12:55 

#6  
Super Moderator

Quote:
What is the Reynolds number of your turbine? Quote:


February 26, 2012, 05:33 

#7 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 431
Rep Power: 13 
SST kw is best model recommended for these kind of problems as long as the flow is fully turbulent but i have a confusion regarding the wall y+ of SST kw in Fluent 13. In fluent 6.3 it was written that SST kw uses Enhanced wall treatment as default but it can switch over to wall functions approach when wall y+ are in between 30300 but no such thing is written in the user manual of Fluent 13 about SST kw, so i am confused. As par my little knowledge Ansys has made some modifications in the turbulence models, so I want to ask that can we also use SST kw with wall y+ in b/w 30300 for getting good results?? any body who is sure about this please comment.
Shamoon what is your Re.No?? is it high enough to assume the flow as fully turbulent along the length of the blade?? 

February 26, 2012, 07:08 

#8  
Super Moderator

Quote:
To apply boundary condition for turbulence model and mean flow equations we need the boundary conditions at wall (you don't calculate or specify it manually, it is done by solver for you) that is very important. Here comes into action the so called near wall treatment and wall functions. Now it depends upon user that he forces the solver the near wall velocity profile (near wall treatment) or just want to specify the velocity profile by some empirical formula and want to keep the computational cost low (wall function comes into play here). Both approaches have problems: 1. Both are not valid in yplus 530 range. 2. As separation occurs, yplus drops to zero and wall function ceases to be valid and you get wrong results 3. For near wall treatment you need yplus 2 for SST and for Kepsilon type models you need yplus 0.2 4. For near wall treatment you need at least 40 layers in boundary layer to properly resolve it. To address this issues, two new models have been developed 1. salable wall function: For kepsilon type models. It keeps minimum yplus 11.06 (intersection of viscous sub layer and log layer) by some limiter. 2. Automatic or all yplus or hybrid wall functions: They are designed to address the strict limits for boundary layer meshing: a) They need 1015 points in boundary layer b) Yplus may be from 10100 and they insensitive to this. Although this is true to zero pressure gradient flat plat flows but for complex geometries and flows (stagnation, separation and adverse pressure gradient) it may not be valid for yplus greater than 10. It has been thoroughly concluded on SA and SST model for complex flows (I can send you papers). In summary if you want to use the SST model in Fluent 13 or 14 1. They have implemented the hybrid wall function by default. 2. Switch automatically to near wall treatment to wall function according to yplus. For example they may be using wall function for wall plus greater than 30 but will switch to near wall treatment when separation occurs and yplus goes to zero. 3. According to research best yplus should be kept below 10 with 1015 points in boundary layer. 

February 26, 2012, 21:33 

#9 
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 7 
Hi, I'm quite new to FLUENT. Regarding to the previous posts, May i know where can i identify the y+ value in FLUENT 6.3? Thank you.


February 27, 2012, 11:47 

#11 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 431
Rep Power: 13 
Far thanks for such a great help, it will really help me in clarifying my concepts. One more question, what is the meaning of wall y+ becoming zero and can we capture separation with wall y+ greater than 100 or we have to have wall y+=1 to capture separation?


February 29, 2012, 11:56 

#13 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 431
Rep Power: 13 
Thanks a lot. One more question, what is the effect of turbulence parameters on solution, i mean if we are interested in finding coefficient of lift and drag then do the values of turbulence parameters effect the lift and drag coefficients? what are best guess to specify these parameters?


June 17, 2016, 14:38 
New model

#14 
New Member
Alberto
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 6 
After 8 years, there is a new version (or new model) of the kklomega model.
There are a few problems with the kklomega model in the farfield. One of them is the growth of Laminar Kinetic energy when separation occurs. Lopez and Walters have a paper (have not been published yet) correcting this issue: Maurin Lopez. D. K. Walters. “A recommended correction to the kklomega transition sensitive eddyviscosity model”. Journal of Fluid Engineering. This correction has to be made to the 2008 kklomega model from now on. Now, Lopez and Walters also developed a new transitional model (komegav2) as an alternative to the kklomega one. This new model has more capabilities (it is more reliable) than the kklomega model, especially in the farfield computations. Fortunately the paper for this new model is already publish. Maurin Lopez. D. K. Walters. “Prediction of transitional and fully turbulent free shear flows using an alternative to the laminar kinetic energy approach”. Journal of Turbulence, Vol 17, Iss. 3, 2016. If you see the papers, you will immediately see how the kklomega model is not good for free shear flows, and how the new model corrects all those issues. From now on, kklomega users have to start using the new komegav2 model. Hope this helps 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Transition kappa omega turbulence model  mannobot  FLUENT  0  June 9, 2010 04:11 
transition onset  SST:Gamma Theta Model  Prad  CFX  4  February 21, 2007 10:32 
where to set CFX Transition Model?  steven  CFX  6  January 17, 2007 12:19 
model transition  nico  FLUENT  0  February 8, 2004 10:04 
komega model and unsteady transition  Jens Thurso  Main CFD Forum  1  May 4, 1999 09:50 