Internal 2D steady simulation results depend on turbulence models strongly.
1 Attachment(s)
Hello,
Internal 2D steady simulation results depend on turbulence models strongly. You can see the geometry in the attachment. Let's think the flow direction is in plus. Flow is incompressible. y+ on the wall is between 1 and 2. The used solver is FLUENT and the residual targets are default values. 1. For case of RMS: >> the velocity x-component in plus is dominant near the wall in Zone 1. >> I can detect relatively huge detachment(Correct English word for Ablösung?) in Zone 2. 2. k-omega-SST: >> the velocity x-component in plus on the wall is smaller than the case of RMS in zone 1. >> Detachment in Zone 2 also smaller than in the case of RMS. 3. k-epsilon: >> the velocity x-component in plus on the wall can be found only in the half length of zone 1. >> Detachment in Zone 2 is barely to detected. For each three models, I also tested different meshes (coarse, moderate, dense), but the results seem like that turbulence models have more effect on the different flow results. In the case of k-omega-SST with more dense mesh, the results show bigger detachment in zone 2 than results with k-omega-SST and coarser mesh. Which turbulence model will be best in this problem? With kind regards Breznak |
Could you show the comparison of the results (for example the 1d velocity profiles) for all cases only for the finest mesh (number of final nodes in x and y?)?
If you are working without wall-modelled BCs you should use some more nodes at y+<1. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14. |