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

Questions about 2D LES, and turbulent viscosity seems orders of magnitude too small.

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

Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By LuckyTran

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   January 14, 2021, 09:21
Default Questions about 2D LES, and turbulent viscosity seems orders of magnitude too small.
  #1
New Member
 
Rory McDonald
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 2
rorymcd98 is on a distinguished road
I've spent a really long time trying to figure out why my turbulent viscosity is orders of magnitude too small. I was going to write a post about all the things I've tried but I think most of it is irrelevant. I'm using the Smagorisnky-Lilly model for 2D LES (it's for an assignment, I have to use these).

My questions:

1) For 2D LES (in fluent), should I make the domain one cell thick? I think Fluent is having issues calculating length scales. I think it assumes all cells have 1 meter of thickness in the z direction.

2) I'm unfamiliar with 3D LES, when I give my domain thickness, will I have to define a boundary condition on the 'top' and 'bottom' face? Which should I use?

3) As a criteria for LES I'm comparing the resolved to the total (resolved + modelled) kinetic energy. My equation for modelled tke is (Mu_sgs/rho*L_sgs)^2 where Mu_sgs is the turbulent viscosity, and L_sgs is the subgrid length scale. I don't have a good source for my modelled tke, does anyone know where this equation originates from?

4) My criteria failed, it said that 99.999% of my flow's TKE was resolved. I suspect the issue is that Mu_sgs is way too small as my viscosity ratio ranged from about 20-200 in most of the flow. I used a custom function to calculate Mu_sgs from the Wikipedia article on turbulence modelling. This gave me good results, the tke was now about 70% resolved which is what I was expecting. But I'm 95% sure this equation is wrong, I think it should be 1/100th of what it actually is as there is no C_s constant included. Opinions?
rorymcd98 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 14, 2021, 19:59
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 4,054
Rep Power: 49
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
1) Unless it has changed recently, 2D Fluent takes 2D meshes and there is no need to talk about depth.
2) Yes, you always need boundary conditions. It depends on what you are solving... But a popular BC is the periodic BC. But the domain needs to be large enough in the 3rd direction such that the two-point correlations decays to zero so that there is no contamination of the periodic BC onto the statistics.
3) That equation is the subgrid model itself, i.e. the Smagorinsky-Lilly subgrid scale model.
4) Check to make sure your flow makes sense. If there's no turbulence and your flow is laminar, then it would make sense that everything is resolved.
FMDenaro and aero_head like this.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 15, 2021, 05:39
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,619
Rep Power: 60
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorymcd98 View Post
I've spent a really long time trying to figure out why my turbulent viscosity is orders of magnitude too small. I was going to write a post about all the things I've tried but I think most of it is irrelevant. I'm using the Smagorisnky-Lilly model for 2D LES (it's for an assignment, I have to use these).

My questions:

1) For 2D LES (in fluent), should I make the domain one cell thick? I think Fluent is having issues calculating length scales. I think it assumes all cells have 1 meter of thickness in the z direction.

2) I'm unfamiliar with 3D LES, when I give my domain thickness, will I have to define a boundary condition on the 'top' and 'bottom' face? Which should I use?

3) As a criteria for LES I'm comparing the resolved to the total (resolved + modelled) kinetic energy. My equation for modelled tke is (Mu_sgs/rho*L_sgs)^2 where Mu_sgs is the turbulent viscosity, and L_sgs is the subgrid length scale. I don't have a good source for my modelled tke, does anyone know where this equation originates from?

4) My criteria failed, it said that 99.999% of my flow's TKE was resolved. I suspect the issue is that Mu_sgs is way too small as my viscosity ratio ranged from about 20-200 in most of the flow. I used a custom function to calculate Mu_sgs from the Wikipedia article on turbulence modelling. This gave me good results, the tke was now about 70% resolved which is what I was expecting. But I'm 95% sure this equation is wrong, I think it should be 1/100th of what it actually is as there is no C_s constant included. Opinions?





I am not sure but doen't Fluent set LES only for 3D cases?
And what is your flow problem?
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
fluent, turbulence modeling, viscosity

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
Time averaged turbulent viscosity for LES banane5 FLUENT 2 August 23, 2019 07:01
Estimating Turbulent Viscosity Ratio from velocity data macchesney Main CFD Forum 3 September 25, 2017 08:48
Link between eddy viscosity and subgrid-scale turbulent viscosity in LES Marvin Main CFD Forum 6 December 4, 2009 12:08
subgrid turbulent viscosity for UDF in LES David TAIEB FLUENT 0 April 2, 2007 09:27
Some Questions about LES. Bin Li Main CFD Forum 2 February 20, 2004 10:58


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00.