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

Coding the Launder-Sharma Model

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   July 3, 2009, 17:11
Default Coding the Launder-Sharma Model
  #1
Member
 
Doug Hunsaker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Logan, UT
Posts: 63
Rep Power: 17
doug is on a distinguished road
We've coded the Launder-Sharma Lo-Reynolds number k-e model. However, the solution converges to negative values for k and epsilon. If we limit them so that k and epsilon are simply set to a very small positive number whenever they come out to be negative, the solution eventually converges to k=e=0 which is the laminar solution. However, if we don't limit k and epsilon, they eventually go negative and the solution diverges.

Has anyone experienced something like this? How did you get the model to converge to a viable turbulent solution?

Thanks.

Doug
doug is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2009, 18:15
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 189
Rep Power: 17
harishg is on a distinguished road
There are a number of possibilties.
1. What convection scheme are you using? Unbounded schemes cause the result to diverge
2. How are you implementing the BC for the different boundaries? Can also cause divergence
3. Is it compressible or incompressible?
4. Staggered or collocated grid?
harishg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2009, 21:08
Default
  #3
Member
 
Doug Hunsaker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Logan, UT
Posts: 63
Rep Power: 17
doug is on a distinguished road
The case is for fully-developed channel flow for a channel with width, L.

1. We are coding it for 1-D fully-developed flow, so there are no convection terms. Only source terms and diffusion terms.
2. For boundary conditions we are using: U(0) = 0, k(0) = 0, e_tilda(0) = 0, U'(L/2) = 0, k'(L/2) = 0, e'(L/2) = 0. We are using second-order methods for estimating the second derivative of k on the wall.
3. The case is incompressible.
4. The grid is a collocated grid. Again, it is only 1-D, and we are storing the values at the cell faces. So, this can be seen as a finite-difference method rather than a finite volume method.

Any ideas what may be causing it to diverge?
doug is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2009, 21:16
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 189
Rep Power: 17
harishg is on a distinguished road
From your BC it seems that you are using a low Re modification of the launder sharma model. Since it is incompressible, you may want to check for mass conservation. Another issue might be with the time marching if you are using explicit schemes/ diagonal dominance of implicit schmes.
harishg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2009, 15:48
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Ahmed
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 251
Rep Power: 18
Ahmed is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug View Post
We've coded the Launder-Sharma Lo-Reynolds number k-e model. However, the solution converges to negative values for k and epsilon. If we limit them so that k and epsilon are simply set to a very small positive number whenever they come out to be negative, the solution eventually converges to k=e=0 which is the laminar solution. However, if we don't limit k and epsilon, they eventually go negative and the solution diverges.

Has anyone experienced something like this? How did you get the model to converge to a viable turbulent solution?

Thanks.

Doug
1- You are not the first to report negative values for the dissipation, just google for (negative dissipation fluid mechanics), there are thousands of entries.
2- It depends on how and what equation you are using to calculate the dissipation
if you are using the basic definition
dissipation = nu * (rate of deformation tensor)^2
it is clear you can not get negative values even if the rate of deformation tensor is negative, but it is squared (s ij)^2
so I gather you are not using the basic definition.
What equation are you using, write it down and see how negative values could be produced
My guess is that there is coding problem. You could down load ISSAC (was written principally to test all turbulence models in Fortran) and check your code
Good luck
Ahmed is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2009, 16:57
Default
  #6
Member
 
Doug Hunsaker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Logan, UT
Posts: 63
Rep Power: 17
doug is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your input. We've finally arrived at a converged solution. We found that the solution was very sensitive to the initial guess. If the initial guess doesn't have some of the basic properties of the solution, then it won't find the solution.
doug is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2009, 19:27
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
N/A
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 189
Rep Power: 17
harishg is on a distinguished road
The results should not be so sensitive to the initial conditions. Try to look at some new implementations of the k epsilon model.
harishg 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
LES and combustion model Margherita Cadorin CFX 0 October 29, 2008 06:24
Launder Shima turbulent model giovanni OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 July 25, 2007 09:59
model han Main CFD Forum 0 September 27, 2005 09:35
HELP URGENT: model turbulent LAUNDER SHARMA dory FLUENT 3 August 5, 2000 20:18
Advanced Turbulence Modeling in Fluent, Realizable k-epsilon Model Jonas Larsson FLUENT 5 March 13, 2000 04:27


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:34.