
[Sponsors] 
gammaReTheta turbulence model for predicting transitional flows 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
February 28, 2011, 04:57 

#21 
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naples
Posts: 50
Rep Power: 9 
felix sorry, but I have not explained very well.
the turbulence model that I use is just the komega SST model. greetings. 

February 28, 2011, 11:25 

#22 
Member
Alex
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 9 
Hi Felix,
I have a question about the correlation for ReThetac. You state that the CFX_v1.1 version is implemented according the AIAA paper of Langtry and Menter. In the source code I see that the correlation of Langtry and Menter is commented and you use a "corrected" correlation. Is this part of your own research, or is this new "corrected" correlation documented somewhere? Furthermore, you have seem to miss something in the F1 blending function. The definition in the paper and thesis of Langtry is: F1=max(F1_orig,F3). The max is not in your implementation. If I revert to the correlation of Langtry and Menter and include the max in the blending function, the results improve. At 0deg AOA: Cd = 0.00579 instead of 0.0061 (experiments: 0.0055) The simulations for higher AOA's are still running, but seem to improve even more. The lift of the original implementation is overpredicted a lot. Alex. 

February 28, 2011, 12:20 

#23 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
Hello, Alex,
wow, yes you're right. I totally forgot to add the max function when returning F1. I owe you a beer, I would've never discovered this after doublechecking the code multiple times. This makes things more interesting, I think I will rerun my old test cases with this correction. I am a bit surprised the compiler doesn't complain about returning comma separated values to a volScalarField, though. Yeah, the "corrected" correlation is based upon my personal research. I discovered that both OpenFOAM and FLUENT lead to too early transition onset locations (see attachement 2 in this post) using the original correlation of LANGTRY and MENTER, so I recalibrated the coefficients. In said attachement you can see the original correlation (FLUENT curve) and the improved correlation (OpenFOAM curve). LANGTRY states that the correlations may have to be corrected for each solver so I assumed this correction was neccessary for OpenFOAM. But the missing max(...) function in F1 of course changes everything. I will simulate the test cases again when I find the time and present the differences in the results. Thanks again for finding this flaw. Greetings, Felix. 

February 28, 2011, 12:33 

#24 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
Changelog:
Code:
20110228 :  added missing max() in the return statement of the F1 blending function  reverted ReThetac() to use original correlation of LANGTRY and MENTER 

February 28, 2011, 14:54 

#25  
Member
Alex
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
I noticed that something was wrong when I saw the results for higher angles of attack, they were completely wrong. I think also your results will now improve a lot. Alex. 

March 1, 2011, 04:24 

#26 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
Hello, everybody,
so I just did some of the flat plate simulations with the corrected version of the turbulence model I posted yesterday. Cf distributions along the plates for two different cases (T3A  moderate freestream turbulence intensity (FSTI), T3B  high FSTI) and as you can see the now correct F1 blending function only affects the skin friction at the transitional and turbulent regime. In T3A the skin friction is reduced which might explain the improvement of Cd values for Alex' airfoil cases. Still, using LANGTRY and MENTER's correlation for ReThetac the transition onset location is way too early. So either there are still some errors somewhere or the correlation needs calibration. In T3B the transition onset seems to be predicted quite well, the skin friction is much too high, though. This is a flaw of the model itself caused by the high turbulent viscosity (approx 100 times nu) in the freestream diffusing into the boundary layer. Still, the results in the paper of LANGTRY and MENTER look much better  and I don't know why. Greetings, Felix. 

March 1, 2011, 04:26 

#27 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
It's not even that early anymore but still I forgot the attachements. So here they are.


March 1, 2011, 04:37 

#28 
Member
Alex
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 9 
Hmm, perhaps calibrating the correlation will improve things. But indeed the difference, especialy for case T3A is quite big.
For the airfoil case, I would like to do some xfoil simulations to compare the transition location. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to spend on this the coming weeks. 

March 1, 2011, 04:51 

#29 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
I am running some simulations right now on a thick airfoil, as soon as I will have them I will show the results in here, this should be in 1 day or 2 maximum.


March 10, 2011, 03:32 

#30 
Senior Member


March 10, 2011, 04:30 

#31 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
Hello!
Sorry for not answering. The results I have got until now for an AoA of 8 degrees are underpredicted 8% compared to the reference I am comparing to. Be aware that I am running a thick flatback airfoil, thus it is not an "easy" airfoil to simulate. I have thought 2 things to have a look at: 1) Please have a look at the 2nd last message in the following thread: http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/ope...tml#post298728 2) Use the correlation factos from another autor (i.e. Sørensen> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/we.325/pdf) I have no more ideas right now. I would really like to get some suggestions of these 2 things I have posted or from other aspects you consider. Thanks for your attention and interest. Regards, José 

March 10, 2011, 05:01 

#32 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
Hello, José,
what physical quantity differs from literature by 8%? I assume it is the drag coefficient? If so, I think this is a pretty good start, especially for that angle of attack. Regarding your two thoughts: 1) I'm not quite sure I understand correctly what you mean. Do you want to obtain the wall value OpenFOAM uses when applying the omegaWallFunction? It should be visible within paraView. What exactly do you want to do? 2) Yeah, of course different correlations can improve  or worsen  the results of a simulation with an empirical model. I can't access the paper but if you send me the equations/coefficients I'll be happy to implement that correlation. Greetings, Felix. 

March 10, 2011, 07:00 

#33 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
Dear Felix,
Sorry for not giving information enough. The difference of 8% I told you is for both the lift and drag coefficients, so I think this difference should be lower for the lift coefficient. However, I will plot the full polar and paste it in this thread if you want. 1) I am not using wall functions for omega (i.e. I am not setting any omegaWallFunction value in the BCs files), neither for any other variable. This was just a misunderstanding of Gerard (from the other thread I pasted in here before). What I was saying is that I run the same computation with ANSYS CFX and it gave me a different value for all the values of omega at the wall, while in OpenFOAM what I do is that I fix it to a value (based on the equation of w_wall of the following link > http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/sst.html). Thus, if I could set it to a "calculated" value somehow maybe I would get better results. Another thing that I am thinking is that maybe ANSYS CFX gives as values at the wall, values from the 1st cell.... 2) I cannot attach the paper of Niels Sørensen because of its size, so tell me your email address and I will send it to you by email (if you don´t want to do so in here, just send me an email to the address I have sent to you in a private message). I was thinking on implementing it my self but since I am not experienced with C++ it can take a while to implement it. But if you do it and upload it I will test it on this airfoils and tell you the results, of course. What do you think about everything I have told you? Thank you again for all your help. Regards, José 

March 10, 2011, 10:09 

#34 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
Hello, José,
sure, go ahead and post the polar. It would be interesting, too, to compare the polar with results obtained with the kOmega SST model, if you have that data available. So you use fixedValue for omega at the wall using the equation proposed by Menter? This is correct, yes, but only if your first cell spacing over the airfoil surface is constant! I recommend the usage of omegaWallFunction  this BC automatically calculates the correct value and you don't have to bother with manual calculations. OmegaWallFunction is valid for the whole y+ regime. You can find some more infos about near wall values of omega here: http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/ope...tml#post295498 I don't know about CFX, maybe the software uses different omega values. Maybe you can find information about that in the manual? Greetings, Felix. 

March 10, 2011, 13:51 

#35 
Senior Member
Felix L.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 11 
I added the correlation of Sorensen (2009). If you want to use it, please uncomment it in the source code.
Changelog: Code:
20110310 :  added ReThetac() and Flength() correlations of SORENSEN (2009) Greetings, Felix. 

March 10, 2011, 23:50 

#36 
Senior Member
Guilherme da Silva
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sao Paulo  Brazil
Posts: 104
Rep Power: 9 
FelixL,
Have you seen the reference of Tue in a older post? http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/ope...tml#post233057 He mentioned a paper that has some corrections to LangtryMenter model. It may be another option for you. By the way, just a final question, do you know how to fix the transition onset and end points in OpenFOAM? I am simulating a rough cylinder case and there is no correlation or prediction model for that. However, I can still use the intermittency concept (\gamma). In a simple algebraic transition model, gamma is multiplied by the turbulent viscosity. Where gamma is zero, the flow is laminar. Where it goes to unity, the flows becomes turbulent. There are several models of intermittency function such as Narasimha, Reynolds/Kays/Kline or AbuGhannam & Shaw. This is not a problem. However, I got stuck in calculating the distance or Reynolds along a surface. Is this possible in OpenFoam? Regards, Guilherme da Silva 

April 21, 2011, 16:20 
gammaReTheta model skin friction and yplus problem

#37 
Senior Member

hi Felix,
i am testing your gammaReTheta model in O.F. 1.7.1 with T3A test case and i am not able to get the skin friction magnitude/vector neither the yplus. I always get zero values for every time step. I wonder their is something wrong, may be you can help me. Looking forward to your reply. regards, taxalian. 

April 30, 2011, 04:26 

#38 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
Dear all,
I am doing a master thesis using OpenFOAM to compute the flow around thick flatback airfoils. I have run some simulations in steady state until now. Some time ago I promised I would upload my results obtained using the transition model Felix L. implemented in OpenFOAM. This is what I am going to do in the next messages. You are very welcome to ask questions to me if necessary. Regards, José 

April 30, 2011, 04:28 

#39 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
Results for a NACA0012 with a blunt trailing edge (4% of the chord is cut off). The reason why I do this is to have a mesh topology closer to the one I am using later on the thesis (which is about thickflatback airfoils).
Comparison for the cases with and without transition for the boundary layer with OpenFOAM. TWS=data from the book "Theory of Wing Sections" geom_NACA0012blunt.png FREE_FULL_OF.png FREE_FULL_OF_CD.png 

April 30, 2011, 04:30 

#40 
Member
José
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 9 
Comparison for the cases run with OpenFOAM and ANSYS CFX. Exactly the same mesh and BCs.
FREE_OF_CFX_CL.png FREE_OF_CFX_CD.png 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Low Reynolds kepsilon model  YJZ  ANSYS  1  August 20, 2010 13:57 
Centrifugal Pump and Turbulence Model  Michiel  CFX  12  January 25, 2010 04:20 
RSM & Transitional Flows!!!  Erika  FLUENT  0  March 31, 2006 10:56 
Turbulence model  Herry  Phoenics  1  May 29, 2003 13:19 
turbulent separated flows  Yin  NUMECA  9  February 19, 2003 12:50 