|
[Sponsors] |
November 16, 2009, 12:54 |
|
#21 |
New Member
Mahwish
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 17 |
here is an important paper about SST
http://cfd.mace.manchester.ac.uk/flo...-SST-paper.pdf |
|
December 8, 2009, 11:55 |
|
#22 |
New Member
Björn Westendorf
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 17 |
Dear Henry,
which one of the implemented wall functions do you exactly mean with an adaptive/continuous wall-function? I need to resolve a low-Re flow, using your implemented SST-Model, as accurate as possible. Thanks, Björn |
|
December 8, 2009, 12:07 |
|
#23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
I am referring to nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction for incompressible flow and mutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction for compressible flow. Even though these were created for use with the Spalart-Allmaras model they are not dependent on this particular model in any way being generic implementations of the Spalding continuous wall-function using U rather than k as the controlling variable and can be used with other turbulence models.
We tested the kOmegaSST model with the nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction wall-function and obtained good results, as good as others have obtained with adaptive/continuous wall-functions. H |
|
December 10, 2009, 10:10 |
|
#24 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Which kind of wall treatment do you use for omega? I've implemented the Menter's omega wall b.c. (Menter, AIAA Journal Vol 32 No 8, 1994), and I used it with kWall = 0 and nutWall = nutWallFunction (maybe nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction is better) on a low Re mesh of an airfoil, with good results on attached flows, but still not ok results in separated zones... |
||
December 10, 2009, 10:39 |
|
#25 |
Senior Member
Anonymous
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 17 |
Ivan,
Out of curiosity, how are you evaluating results? Using lift-drag data (lift-curve slope, zero-lift angles, stall angles) or against flowfield data (surface pressue, boundary layer rakes, etc)? How do they compare against using omegaWallFunction for omega at the wall? What's your yplus? |
|
December 10, 2009, 10:43 |
|
#26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
We used omegaWallFunction for omega.
H |
|
December 10, 2009, 10:50 |
|
#27 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Now, thanks to Henry's hint, I'm trying Menter's omega b.c. and the Spalart Allmaras wall function for nut, next some results! |
||
December 11, 2009, 18:35 |
|
#28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
We have just pushed an enhancement to the omegaWallFunction which now includes both the laminar and log-law components blended as Menter et. al. specify:
Description Provides a wall function boundary condition/constraint on omega Computed value is: omega = sqrt(omega_vis^2 + omega_log^2) where omega_vis = omega in viscous region omega_log = omega in logarithmic region Model described by Eq.(15) of: @verbatim Menter, F., Esch, T. "Elements of Industrial Heat Transfer Prediction" 16th Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM), Nov. 2001 @endverbatim H |
|
December 12, 2009, 05:30 |
|
#29 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
This could be really a big jump for near wall modelling in OpenFOAM! Do you have pushed in the 1.6.x version? And, do you suggest to use it in conjunction with the nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction in order to model y+ ranges O(1)? Thank you Henry! |
||
December 12, 2009, 07:37 |
|
#30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
> Do you have pushed in the 1.6.x version?
Yes, Andy pushed it into OpenFOAM-1.6.x yesterday. > And, do you suggest to use it in conjunction with the nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction in order to model y+ ranges O(1)? Yes it is probably the best way if you cannot afford the resolution required to run a low-Re model. In the next release we will rename nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction to nutUSpaldingWallFunction to make it clear that it is a general purpose continuous wall-function using U as the defining variable. H |
|
December 14, 2009, 03:21 |
|
#31 |
Senior Member
Fabian Braennstroem
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 19 |
Hi Henry,
good work! What is your experience with the missing averaging for cells with more than one boundary? Probably, this could produce some trouble!? Fabian |
|
December 14, 2009, 04:32 |
|
#32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
It's not normally a big issue because such cells are usually in corners in which case simple boundary-layer modeling is not strictly applicable and the flow may be complex or stagnant and often unimportant. Nevertheless we have put this on our TODO list so at least the behavior will be the same as the previous implementation of wall-functions.
H |
|
January 28, 2010, 18:17 |
|
#33 | |
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20 |
Quote:
thanks for the great work and this clarification. This was not really clear to me how 1.6.x handles turbulence modeling. Youre right renaming nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction to nutUSpaldingWallFunction will make it clearer. Final question about low-Re models (e.g. LaunderSharmaKE). Tutorials use "calculated" for both k and epsilon at walls, but some in the forum used "calculated". What is the correct one? Regards BastiL |
||
January 28, 2010, 18:24 |
|
#34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
Which tutorials use "calculated" for the wall BC of k and epsilon? This would neither be correct nor would the code run.
H |
|
January 29, 2010, 08:23 |
|
#35 | |
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20 |
Quote:
For the "nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction"-wall function I learned this can be uses with kOmegaSST quite sucessful. Is it also intended to use it with other of the Hi-Re-Models like Standard K-epsilon or realisable? Thanks. BastiL |
||
January 29, 2010, 08:38 |
|
#36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 22 |
Actually the "nutSpalartAllmarasWallFunction"-wall function is generic and obtains the details of the boundary layer from the velocity field rather than k and hence can be used with any of the high-Re turbulence models.
H |
|
January 29, 2010, 11:08 |
|
#37 | |
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20 |
Quote:
Regards. |
||
February 10, 2010, 11:04 |
|
#38 |
New Member
anonymous
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 17 |
Dear Henry and RANS-experts,
first of all, thank you for the improved near wall treatement (NWT) of kOmegaSST. I really appreciate it. However, to have a reliable NWT, 2 questions may arise: 1) Production term:
Andi Ps.: As english is not my mother tongue, some statements may sound a bit rude. If this is so, don't take it amiss. It was never my intention. |
|
February 10, 2010, 11:13 |
Sorry
|
#39 |
New Member
anonymous
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 17 |
Sorry wrong thread
|
|
March 17, 2010, 18:54 |
|
#40 |
Member
Stefan
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kiel, Germany
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 16 |
Hello FOAMers,
i take my chance to ask some questions about NWT in case of setting boundary conditions on walls. When using wall functions (kOmegaSST in my simulation) i looked in the associated code kqRWallFunctionFvPatchField.H(C), nutWallFunctionFvPatchScalarField.C(H), omegaWallFunctionFvPatchScalarField.C(H) hoping to see what is expected. The Header description of kqRWallFunction sais: "Simply acts as a zero gradient condition". But when i set the k file like Code:
wall { type kqRWallFunction; } In my knowledge (i.e. from low-Re Turbulence Modeling) k on walls is 0, because U=0, omega should be high, nut is nearly 0. Are these values expected also in high-Re models when trying to keep y+ within log-law region. Maybe someone can give advice on NWT boundary conditions in case of high-Re turbulence model. Thanks in advance! ~stefan |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nearwall treatment for the kOmegaSST turbulence model | johnb | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | January 22, 2009 03:52 |
ChtMultiRegionFoam kOmegaSST solidDisplacementFoam | marico | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | January 16, 2009 03:51 |
How can run MRFSimpleFoam with KOmegaSST turbulence model | waynezw0618 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | April 21, 2008 05:40 |
Question on new implemented komegaSST model in OF 14 | peterh | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 7 | February 7, 2008 03:09 |
compressible | John | Main CFD Forum | 1 | April 6, 2003 13:35 |