
[Sponsors] 
March 9, 2011, 16:11 

#21 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
Oh, I forgot to mention, the eddy viscosity at the trailing edge for Re 500,000 is about 160 times larger than the laminar viscosity.


March 9, 2011, 17:26 

#22 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
Ooops, looking at my low viscous CX values for Re 500,000 I realize that I used the wrong grid, i.e. the y+=1 for Re 70,000. I was also wondering why my Re 500,000 lift result was so far from 2pi.
So here are the results for the correct grid!! Geez. Full turbulent SA, unlimited (Re 500000): # Pressure # Forces: CX = 8.148592e02 CY = 0.000000e+00 CZ = 7.283792e01 # Moments: Cl = 0.000000e+00 Cm = 1.769565e01 Cn = 0.000000e+00 # Viscous # Forces: CX = 1.091467e02 CY = 0.000000e+00 CZ = 1.058283e03 # Moments: Cl = 0.000000e+00 Cm = 4.110901e05 Cn = 0.000000e+00 # Total # Forces: CX = 7.057125e02 CY = 0.000000e+00 CZ = 7.294375e01 # Moments: Cl = 0.000000e+00 Cm = 1.769976e01 Cn = 0.000000e+00 CD = 1.88508e2, CL=0.73260, CM (1/4 chord)=0.005362 (had to calculate these values by hand so there is the chance I messed up) The eddy viscosity above the trailing edge is about 75 times the sea level dynamic laminar viscosity. Well, that's better. OK, a recap, RANS SA results for NACA 0009 at alpha 7.0 degrees and sea level Re,Cl,Cd,Cm,Notes 50,000 0.67112 2.82293e2 0.01192 (Limited to 10 times laminar viscosity) 50,000 0.69778 2.88194e2 0.007793 500,000 0.73260 1.88508e2 0.005362 The loss of lift and drag increase has been captured. How well, I'm not sure. 

March 9, 2011, 17:33 

#23 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
Oh, just remembered, two equation turbulence models may need less than y+=1, maybe y+=0.2. Not sure why but it has something to do with the algorithm and not physics.


March 9, 2011, 17:40 

#24  
Senior Member

Quote:
For SA I got cd around 2.7E2 and Cl around .75, but for kw standard Cd is about 7E2, which is completely unacceptable. I was directed to interesting articles that consider almost exactly the same case as here (for sd7003, which is from the same family as sd7037 I am dealing with here: wind tunnel measurement data for sd7003 are in the first article below): they saying that it is extremely difficult to get decent results for drag by using turbulence models without sophisticated transitional algorithm even for conventional airfoils, not to mention other types of airfoils I wanted to analyze afterwards. 1) Computational and experimental investigations of lowReynoldsnumber flows past an aerofoil, W. Yuan and M. Khalid, THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL, JANUARY 2007 http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3109.pdf 2) http://persson.berkeley.edu/pub/uranga09iles.pdf Truffaldino 

March 9, 2011, 19:34 

#25 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
Cool. So it seems, when I look at your first paper, that our SA results are in the ball park of the experiment. Granted we don't have a bubble. Unfortunately, to even hope to get a bubble, the number of grid points will need to be upped drastically. And this does not lend itself to 3D. If your grid is fine enough, even a RANS solver may pick up on the bubble and reattachment. The key is that the recirculation of bubble itself creates eddy viscosity and that eddy viscosity then dampens out the flow downstream, thus causing reattachment. It is the same process which occurs in the wake of a blunt body or for airfoils at higher angles attack and higher Reynolds numbers, just on a finer scale. But you need a lot of grid points along the chord and a lot of CPU horse power.
As for the kw standard CD value being so large, not sure what the story is with that. One thing to check is how well the kw standard viscous CX values compare to SA values. If they do not compare well, you probably need to up the number of points in the normal direction and have a y+ value significantly less than 1, i.e. maybe 0.2. Good Luck! 

March 10, 2011, 18:01 

#26 
Senior Member
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 11 
Does the latest version of Fluent not include the gammaRe_theta (intermittency and momentum thickness Reynolds number) transition model?


March 11, 2011, 02:50 

#27  
Senior Member

Quote:
I know that γReθ ttransition model is purely based on local variables, will it give reliable results at Re=10^410^5? Is it suited for geometries other than conventional airfoils, say an airfoil with a step on a suction side? As far as I understood from the the first reference given in the post 24 localbased predictions will not work for such reynolds numbers. Last edited by truffaldino; March 11, 2011 at 03:49. 

March 11, 2011, 13:24 

#28 
New Member
Rambod Mojgani
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 9 
I have the same problem as yours, I want to know that your problem get solved?
the gamma R theta seems to be good enough for the problem, but it is not in fluent 6.3.26 I use. Does anybody know that if Ansys 12 has this model or not? http://hiliftpw.larc.nasa.gov/Worksh...20110864.pdf 

March 11, 2011, 18:34 

#29 
Senior Member
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 11 
Truffal 
I have used the kw (SST) γReθ transition model with excellent results on the NACA 0012 airfoil at 5E4 <= Re <= 2.5E5. I have recently modeled the SD7003, as well, though I haven't checked the results. I have seen validation studies with the model on flat plates, turbine blades, and airfoils. The airfoils were pretty complex in shape. Here are some studies: Malan, P., Suluksna, K., and Juntasaro, K., Calibrating the γ‐Reθ Transition Model for Commercial CFD, AIAA paper 2009‐1142 (2009). Sørensen, N.N., Airfoil Computations using the γ‐Reθ Model, Technical University of Denmark, Report Number Risø‐R‐1693 (2009). http://130.226.56.153/rispubl/reports/ris‐r‐1693.pdf Alam, M., and Suzen, Y.B., Numerical Investigation of Transitional Flows over a NACA0012 Airfoil, SAE Paper 2008‐01‐2250, (2008). (Be on the lookout soon for a paper from Counsil and Boulama using the SST γReθ model!) Your Yuan and Khalid paper did not discuss the SST γReθ. In their paper, they used fully turbulent models coupled with the e^N method with moderate success. Rambod  The kw SST transitional model is the SST γReθ model. 

March 11, 2011, 19:22 

#30  
Senior Member

Quote:
I tried komega transitional steady and then unsteady and I have strongly oscillating residuals and messy flow in both cases. I understand that it is due to instabilityof the bubble. What is the way to get accurate results? Will be grateful for useful info 

March 11, 2011, 19:47 

#31 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
What angles of attack did you run and did you get a bubble at the lower Re number?


March 13, 2011, 04:05 

#32  
Senior Member

Quote:
The published papers you gave (I do not have access to one by Alam) seem to discuss flows at re of several millions (perhaps your coming paper will present results on smaller re). Do you know other references that discuss gammaretheta at re=10^410^5? Will be grateful for informattion Truffaldino 

March 13, 2011, 16:17 

#33  
New Member
Rambod Mojgani
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
I have encountered several names similar to the named model, do U know (preferably by introducing reference ) which one is most suited for external flows of Rey=10e5 to 10e6 , and what y+ should be reached for answer: Fluent in Ansys 12 : kOmega (2 eqn) => Standard/SST (lowRe Corrections) transition kklomega (3 eqn) Transition SST (4 eqn) in Fluent 6.3.26 kOmega (2 eqn) => Standard/SST (Transitional Flow) 

March 13, 2011, 19:42 

#34 
Senior Member
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 11 
Truffal 
It was unsteady, but I'm afraid I can't give you the grid, timestep, parameter, etc. details because we're publishing the paper! The residuals do oscillate rather strongly, but should be oscillating at an appropriately low residual order. Monitoring another parameter of interest, like lift, is a good idea. And yes, our paper is the only one we know of using the model at lower Re for airfoils. Martin  We ran from approximately 0 to 8 degrees. A bubble was seen at the nonzero angles of attack. Laminar separation without reattachment was seen at zero degrees. Rambod  Not familiar with Fluent. Only CFX. SST GammaTheta model is the one I used. 

March 14, 2011, 08:58 

#35  
Senior Member

Quote:
I found another reference that has comparison different models with gamma re theta and sstfor transitional flows among them (see figure 4 there) http://stc.fs.cvut.cz/pdf/DurisMiroslav313777.pdf gammaretheta which is a 4eqn model, performs better, but unfortunately it is not in fluent 6.3. Although there is a sst transitional model in Fluent 6.3, it is basically 2eqn sst model with one coefficient algebraically depending on flow variables and is of a little use in our case. Last edited by truffaldino; March 14, 2011 at 13:56. 

March 14, 2011, 14:06 

#36 
Senior Member
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 11 
In the link Truffal provided, they compare the classic (standard) SST model with the SST transition model (i.e., gammaRe_theta). The SST transition model is the same thing as the gammaRe_theta model. It has 4 equations  the 2 for the classic SST (k and w), plus the intermittency factor (gamma) and momentum thickness Reynolds number (Re_theta).


March 14, 2011, 15:04 

#37 
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
Rep Power: 12 
What is one looking for when choosing a good turbulence model for low Reynolds number flow?
For example, I've attached a SA (fully turbulent) run for Mach 0.10, alpha=7, and Re=5000 over a NACA0009 airfoil. My off wall spacing is 4.0E6 (my airfoil chord is 1.0). The spacing is small and is based on having a y+=1 at 1/4 chord for a Re number of 5.0e6. The result is steady and has been converged to machine zero. If I was looking to improve this, what would give me the most bang for the buck? Screen shots 1) Cp and grid 2) U velocity 3) U velocity limited to negative values. Shows reversed flow, thus a bubble exists. 4) Eddy viscosity as a ratio to laminar viscosity 5) Eddy viscosity limited to 0.01. The blue areas shows the regions which are basically unaffected by eddy viscosity. 

March 14, 2011, 16:02 

#38  
Senior Member
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 11 
Quote:
Certain turbulence models can predict some aspects of the flow. The SST model can predict some flows under adverse pressure gradients with possible small laminar separation bubbles, though most fully turbulent models are too dissipative to sustain the LSB. The SA model has shown some success as you have noted below. The SST gammaRe_theta model has builtin correlations for better transition prediction, namely equations based on the intermittency (the fraction of the likelihood of turbulence, 0  laminar, 1  fully turbulent) and momentum thickness Reynolds number. This model also has a builtin correlation for separationinduced transition, which is highly useful and unique. The 2 extra transport equations will cause the solution to take longer to converge. Further, the solution must be unsteady. I've had success using the models for Reynolds numbers as low as 50000, but Re = 5000 may require something more physicsbased, like the e^N, LES, or DNS methods. 

March 14, 2011, 16:37 

#39 
Senior Member

I am still confused: At figure 4 of that reference they list kw sst, kw sst trans., gammaretheta. So it sems that they distinguish between kw sst trans and gammaretheta. At that figure kw SST is close to kw SST trans, which is drastically different from gammaretheta. It seems what they call kw sst trans. is not SST transitional, but SST with komega options "Transitional Flows" from Fluent 6.3.


March 14, 2011, 17:05 

#40  
Senior Member

Quote:
Have you tried to run laminar? Is it really turbulent at RE=5000 and alpha=7? At such a low speed the transition can be delayed up to the trailing edge. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Use of kepsilon and komega Models  Jade M  Main CFD Forum  28  November 5, 2017 23:40 
low reynolds number models in Fluent  doug  Main CFD Forum  6  August 4, 2012 14:39 
Adding source terms to turbulent models  makaveli_lcf  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  0  June 8, 2009 09:34 
Turbulent Heat Transfer Transport Equation  Flo.duck  Main CFD Forum  0  May 6, 2009 03:37 
Multicomponent fluid  Andrea  CFX  2  October 11, 2004 05:12 