CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > General Forums > Main CFD Forum

[Airfoil] Bad results for LES in comparison to RANS

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

Like Tree19Likes

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   September 28, 2020, 16:02
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,728
Rep Power: 71
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
If z-direction is the spanwise resolution, the cell size depends on the flow conditions. If the flow is homogeneous then the cell size dz+ can be O(20-30). But if the flow is confined in spanwise direction then you have to consider if it necessary the full boundary layer resolution and a non-homogeneous grid size.
Moreza7 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 29, 2020, 09:54
Senior Member
Joern Beilke
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dresden
Posts: 495
Rep Power: 19
JBeilke is on a distinguished road
Is there anybody willing to share a good mesh, which has been used for such an LES calculation?
JBeilke is offline   Reply With Quote


airfoil, les, rans, spalart allmaras model

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bad heat transfer results with low y+ me45 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 April 29, 2020 12:56
Post Results Comparison RustyCohle Main CFD Forum 0 April 6, 2020 05:46
Comparison of 2D simulation results with 3D Mohit Gupta Main CFD Forum 0 September 29, 2008 14:04
Bad results when compared with Wind Tunnel Luiz CFX 7 October 27, 2006 10:35
RANS results for LES Li Yang Main CFD Forum 5 June 17, 2002 06:34

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:38.