CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 29, 2007, 08:53
Default why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?
  #1
michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have read manual, and it says that k epsilon does not give better results for seperated flow. It underpredicts attchement point. Can anybody pls tell me that what may reason. i.w. which terms are preventing k epsilon to predict these thing? Thanks all.
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2007, 11:59
Default Re: why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?
  #2
ZubenUbi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For the backward facing step, there is mainly two reasons : 1) anysotropie is not predicted (otherwise we are talking about RANS model) 2) the spatial position of the dissipation distribution is wrongly predict in the shear layer, since production of dissipation is comming from the shear stress and not from the Kolmogorov cascade. So, the turbulent viscosity is not correctly predict, and the velocity in the recirculation region is not well describe.

That's just my opinion after few years working on multiscales turbulence model.

  Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2007, 15:31
Default Re: why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?
  #3
jojo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"production of dissipation is comming from the shear stress and not from the Kolmogorov cascade"

It is old for me now but I remember that the k-e model was calibrated on shear layer experiments (or jets). Am I becoming bedridden?
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 29, 2007, 18:08
Default Re: why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?
  #4
ZubenUbi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, you are wright, the value of c_eps1 could be calibrated to give the correct value of uv/2k in the Boussinesq approximation, in the case of homogeneous shear stress. But in this case the velocity profil is forced, not resolved.

Maybe my formulation were a little bit confusing. Talking about backward facing step, the production terms of k and Epsilon take their maximum on the path line just behind the step, in the region were the stress is maximum, and mostly at the same position. Which is not confirmed by LES results.

Using a multiple scales model, you can change this behavior and get a result with a better approxiation of the recirculation region - but you won't have solve the anysotropie pronblem.

A more easy way than multiscale model, is to introduce a sort of turbulence's history variable. I had work on variation of such a model, developped by Lumley in the early 90's, something like a k-Epsilon-S model.

  Reply With Quote

Old   January 30, 2007, 06:40
Default Re: why k epsilon gives undepridicted results?
  #5
Andrew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The very simple answer is that RANS-based models cannot capture the large-scale structures that exist in separated shear flows. The reattachment length is governed by the evolution of these quasi-two-dimensional coherent structures, and the lack of these structures in k-e model solutions leads to very poor results.

See the Flow over a Backward-Facing Step (Spanwise Vorticity) animations on http://www.stanford.edu/group/ctr/gallery.html for a very clear visualisation of what I'm talking about.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Orifice Plate with a fully developed flow - Problems with convergence jonmec OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 July 28, 2011 05:24
K Epsilon convergance issue Ollie OpenFOAM 2 April 18, 2011 08:28
why k epsilon gives underpridctred results? michael CFX 1 January 29, 2007 10:06
benchmark results stefan CD-adapco 3 September 10, 2001 09:48
how to print the results from CFX-4.2 cfd_99 Main CFD Forum 5 June 21, 1999 09:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16.