
[Sponsors] 
January 28, 2009, 11:23 
Hi Sébastien,
Thanks for te

#21 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 15 
Hi Sébastien,
Thanks for testing the two variants. For general use we will keep the version with fv3 but if there is interest we could add a switch to allow users to run the standard form or we could derive the version with fv3 from the standard form so that either would be runtime selectable. Do you have an interest in any of the other SA variants? H 

January 28, 2009, 12:39 
Thanks a lot Henry for the inf

#22 
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 10 
Thanks a lot Henry for the info,
This means that I can switch wall functions on / off only changing the boundary type ? Thanks again, Best regards, Paulo Rocha 

January 28, 2009, 14:10 
With SpalartAllmaras yes wall

#23 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 15 
With SpalartAllmaras yes wallfunctions are selected as boundary conditions on nut. The other lowRe models do not use wallfunctions, optionally or otherwise.
H 

January 28, 2009, 16:05 
Thank you very much Henry.

#24 
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 10 
Thank you very much Henry.
Paulo Rocha. 

January 28, 2009, 16:09 
Thank you very much Henry.

#25 
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 10 
Thank you very much Henry.
Paulo Rocha. 

January 28, 2009, 23:00 
Here is a comparison of 3 case

#26 
Senior Member

Here is a comparison of 3 cases for a flat plate at Re = 1e6 with sublayer resolution.
Case 1: fv3 != 1, fv2=1.0  chi/(1.0 + chi*fv1), incorrect, but current distro. Case 2: fv3 = 1, fv2=1.0  chi/(1.0 + chi*fv1), baseline SA Case 3: fv3 != 1, fv2=1.0/pow3(scalar(1) + chi/Cv2_), NASA LaRC fv3 formulation I would vote for baseline SA as standard implementation in OF. If you read http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/spalart.html, you will see that the fv3 model is not recommended. 

January 29, 2009, 04:03 
Hi Henry,
I should say that

#28 
New Member
Sébastien Bocquet
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Henry,
I should say that I am working in industry and for the moment we are testing openFOAM on various flows. So we haven't yet studied in details which SA we would like to have, but talking briefly with some collegues, the SA with Edwards correction and rotation/curvature correction seem interesting. Seb 

January 29, 2009, 04:07 
Hi Henry,
I should say that

#29 
New Member
Sébastien Bocquet
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Henry,
I should say that I am working in industry and for the moment we are testing openFOAM on various flows. So we haven't yet studied in details which SA we would like to have, but talking briefly with some collegues, the SA with Edwards correction and rotation/curvature correction seem interesting. Seb 

January 29, 2009, 04:20 
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the com

#30 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 15 
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the comparison, it confirms what we suspected that with the correct fv2 the fv3 term behaves satisfactorally. > I would vote for baseline SA as standard implementation in OF. If you read > http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/spalart.html, you will see that the fv3 model is not recommended. Not recommended but necessary for stability for complex flows as I have explained in this thread. What I would like to know is what is the "recommended" variant which solved the problem of negative generation? Hi Sébastien, I also think that the Edwards variant is interesting. It seems more natural to me that the turbulence production should be based on shear rather than rotation. Perhaps we should give this one a go. H 

February 11, 2010, 12:30 

#31  
New Member
wei wu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 10 
Hello, Mr Weller
I'm using the SpalartAllmaras model with roughness wall functions to calculate the wall roughness problem. Do you know what roughness wall functions are they using and what is the source paper? Thanks Wei Quote:


February 16, 2010, 17:47 

#32  
New Member
Charles Mockett
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
Thanks for this interesting and important discussion. I brushed with this issue recently, when implementing the original SA formulation in our inhouse solver: I found the same stability problem in very specific regions of the flow in a "slightly complex" test case. I contacted the model authors and they recommended some additional limiters to prevent Stilde from reaching zero or going negative, which fixes this problem. The limiter we implemented is: chi >= 1E03 sTilde >= 1E05*U_ref/L_ref (we have a userdefined reference length and velocity, however it is simply important to make sure sTilde doesn't reach zero). After that discussion, the LaRC web page you have cited was updated with a oneline note at the end of the original SA model description. I wouldn't recommend the SAEdwards model, as contrary to the authors' intention, it doesn't give the same results as the original model (rather, significantly reduced skin friction). My hope is that by implementing the original SA with these limiters, you will be able to keep the model to a single, allpurpose variant that corresponds to the "industry standard". Best regards, Charlie. 

February 17, 2010, 05:55 

#33 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 15 
I am not a big fan of clipping; I would prefer an approach where the formulation of the terms naturally obey the physical constraints. Do you have results that show that the original formulation with the clipping is better than the "Ashford" correction we currently use and distribute with OpenFOAM?
H 

February 17, 2010, 12:37 

#34 
New Member
Charles Mockett
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 9 
Dear Henry,
I understand and share your concern  these things are certainly "not nice". However, in this case I was happy with the modification, for the following reasons:
Now to your question: Do you have results that show that the original formulation with the clipping is better than the "Ashford" correction we currently use and distribute with OpenFOAM? I'm not familiar with the "Ashford" correction and didn't manage to find the PhD thesis easily, but assume this refers to the f_v3 modification. The f_v3 was by the way proposed by Spalart as an attempt to fix the problem of negative sTilde without clipping. I don't have results to show that the original+clipping is better than f_v3, since I haven't tried f_v3. All I have are citations that discourage the use of f_v3, for example Spalart writes in "Trends in Turbulence Treatments" (AIAA 20002306): "...the f_v3 function, which we have recommended privately to some users. The f_v3 formula has an odd effect on transition at low Reynolds numbers, which we never fully understood. It was devised to prevent negative values of sTilde. We now recommend, instead, taking for sTilde the larger of the original f_v1 definition and 0.3 x S." So, in summary, I just have "hearsay" and no concrete results of my own to say that one is better than the other. However, reputable and authoritative sources discourage the use of the unpublished f_v3. I would therefore personally be happier to see the original model with clipping as the standard OpenFOAM implementation. However, due to the source code acces it would of course be no problem for me to implement my preferred version should you decide to go for f_v3! I hope this information is useful. Best regards, Charlie. 

November 6, 2010, 18:47 

#35 
Member
Kim Yusik
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 39
Rep Power: 9 
Hi, I am following up LES version of Spalartallmaras and have some questions.
Why fv3 is (which is from V1.7) ? 00067 tmp<volScalarField> SpalartAllmaras::fv3() const 00068 { 00069 volScalarField chi = nuTilda_/nu(); 00070 volScalarField chiByCv2 = (1/Cv2_)*chi; 00071 00072 return 00073 (scalar(1) + chi*fv1()) 00074 *(1/Cv2_) 00075 *(3*(scalar(1) + chiByCv2) + sqr(chiByCv2)) 00076 /pow3(scalar(1) + chiByCv2); 00077 } rather than fv3 = (1 + chi*fv1)*(1fv2)/chi; which is from SAfv3 (http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/spalart.html ) If this is because 'negative source' term which Henry mentioned on this thread, is there any reference for the current version? Thanks Yusik Last edited by impecca; November 6, 2010 at 18:50. Reason: typo 

December 1, 2010, 14:59 

#36 
Senior Member
David Boger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Penn State Applied Research Laboratory
Posts: 146
Rep Power: 10 
This appears to be an issue again in 1.6ext. In particular, 1.6ext has fv2 = 1.0  chi/(1.0 + chi*fv1), but also has fv3 != 0, which is the "Case 1" combination in Eric's earlier post that produces incorrect results.
It looks like the fv2 term was changed recently to move away from the "SAfv3" model, but in that case, fv3 needs to be removed from the calculation of Stilda as well.
__________________
David A. Boger 

February 1, 2011, 12:26 

#37 
Senior Member
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 368
Rep Power: 12 
In OF1.6 the SA implementation is the so called SAfv3 one, with fv2 consistent with the presence of fv3...This means that using this kind of implementation my calculations should be stable, but after reading all the replies in this tread still I don't understand if they should be also reliable...ok for the stability of the SAfv3 model in complex cases, but what about the accuracy? However, I have also another question about the SA model usage: I've had a look into the source code for the nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction and the nutSpalartAllmarasStandardWallFunction....Well, the latter is consistent with the nutWallFunction used in other RANS turbulence models, but the former seems to me quite obscure: can someone give me a brief explanation of what exactly it does? And, finally, does the SA model require to set nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction for lowRe calculations? If it so, is this wall function suitable also for coarser grids or should it be replaced by nutSpalartAllmarasStandardWallFunction in such cases?
Thank you in advance for any opinion and/or suggestion V. 

February 1, 2011, 13:02 

#38 
Senior Member
David Boger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Penn State Applied Research Laboratory
Posts: 146
Rep Power: 10 
I can't answer all of your questions, but I can tell you that nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction is finding the friction velocity by solving Spalding's law of the wall, which is a nonlinear equation for the lawofthewall that is valid from the wall out through the logarithmic region. The only place I could quickly find it written is in Eq 59 of this link.
__________________
David A. Boger 

February 1, 2011, 13:21 

#39  
Senior Member
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 368
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
Best Regards V. 

May 30, 2012, 14:25 

#40  
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
Is this term perhaps referenced to Ashford's thesis? I can't access it so I would be grateful if anyone can confirm whether it came from his thesis, or if not where it came from (or whether it is a bug). EDIT: From looking at open access papers that do cite his thesis, I see that the fv3 term is the same as the NASA description but different to what's in the OF source code, so I suspect it doesn't come from Ashford. Last edited by 0.1 watts; May 30, 2012 at 14:54. Reason: found some new info 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
SimpleFoam case with SpalartAllmaras turbulence model implemented  nedved  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  2  November 30, 2014 23:43 
SpalartAllmaras question  egp  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  45  October 28, 2010 03:30 
SpalartAllmaras DES question  ivan_cozza  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  0  December 15, 2008 07:34 
YPlus for SpalartAllmaras  ddigrask  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  1  December 12, 2008 15:29 
Pow in lib64tlslibmso6 SigFpe when running coodles with SpalartAllmaras  lillberg  OpenFOAM Bugs  4  December 7, 2007 09:17 