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

Internal 2D steady simulation results depend on turbulence models strongly.

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 2, 2022, 04:31
Default Internal 2D steady simulation results depend on turbulence models strongly.
  #1
New Member
 
Březňák
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Prag
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 4
breznak is on a distinguished road
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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ask_in_public.jpg (33.7 KB, 33 views)

Last edited by breznak; May 2, 2022 at 07:21. Reason: geometry
breznak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 2, 2022, 12:36
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,061
Rep Power: 64
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
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.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 4, 2022, 17:24
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 117
Rep Power: 13
CFDfan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by breznak View Post
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
As far as I know, k-epsilon uses wall functions and requires much higher values of Y+ . Your Y+ is 1-2, so K-eps results cannot be trusted. Don't know about the Y+ required by the RMS. K-omega requires Y+<1.
CFDfan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 9, 2022, 07:42
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Březňák
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Prag
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 4
breznak is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
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.
Thank you so much for your answer, but unfortunately I cannot upload detailed geometry in public.
breznak is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Table bounds warnings at: END OF TIME STEP CFXer CFX 4 July 16, 2020 23:44
Only two turbulence options available in CFX Pre Jack001 CFX 5 March 30, 2016 02:47
Backup results in steady simulation Li CFX 0 July 9, 2007 05:39
Why Turbulence models are not universal. Senthil Main CFD Forum 4 July 5, 2000 04:34
Turbulence Intensity Vs CFD Simulation Apple L S Chan Main CFD Forum 3 December 15, 1998 17:28


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:58.