# Problem with Turbulent Heat Flux Temperature boundary condition

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

 March 7, 2014, 10:32 Problem with Turbulent Heat Flux Temperature boundary condition #1 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Sponsored Links Dear All, I have a problem with the compressible::turbulentHeatFluxTemperature boundary condition. I am performing an heat transfer computation with some heat source surfaces. On these surfaces I want to impose fixed heat fluxes (in the range 500-30000 W/m2). The problem I encounter is that, starting from the first iteration, the temperature diverges approaching unphysical values on the corresponding surfaces. I tried to bound the temperature (bounding value 2000 K). Unfortunately this does not help the temperature to approach realistic values and furthermore, using the wallHeatFlux utility I checked that the "real" heat fluxes acting on these surfaces are different from the imposed ones. Have you got any idea about the reason why this problem happens?? Thank you. Manuel

 March 8, 2014, 17:01 #2 Senior Member   Joachim Herb Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 422 Rep Power: 12 What turbulent model are you using? What are the y+ values at the heated wall? Corresponding on the wall functions for kappa (or alpha) it is based on viscosity (mu_turbulent/Pr_turbulent). And for some wall functions of mu_turbulent, it might not be calculated if y+ is too small. So mu_turbulent might be only mu_laminar, so the heat transfer becomes much too low => temperature too high

 March 10, 2014, 05:27 #3 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Dear jherb, I am using the kEpsilon turbulence model, with wall functions only for k and epsilon (no wall functions for mut and alphat, they are simply calculated on the walls). I am using the wall functions even if the mesh is coarse at walls and yPlus is outside the log-law region. I can't avoid to have large yPlus values since my mesh is already very large and making it finer is not feaseable for me. Should I use another treatment for turbulent quantities at walls? I tried to bypass the wall functions using directly fixed boundary conditions for k and epsilon (k, epsilon = 0 at walls). Anyway the solver automatically assigns the wall functions and does not consider my fixed value boundary conditions. Have you any suggestions?? Thank you, Manuel

 March 10, 2014, 10:01 #4 Senior Member     Roman Thiele Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 368 Rep Power: 14 Hej, you need to set wall functions for alphat and mut as well. For mut you probably want to set mutkWallFunction and for alphat you can either use alphatWallFunction, which is very basic or alphatJayatillekeWallFunction, which is a more advanced wall function which gives good values over a large range of Reynolds and Prandtl numbers. __________________ ~roman

 March 10, 2014, 10:12 #5 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Dear romant, Ok. I am going to try in accordance with your suggestions. Anyway, don't you think that applying wall functions outside their region of validity (I mean log-law layer) could be improper and/or lead to erroneous results? Thank you, Manuel

 March 10, 2014, 10:18 #6 Senior Member     Roman Thiele Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 368 Rep Power: 14 Yes, outside the region it will lead to erroneous results. However, the validity region is quite large 30

 March 10, 2014, 10:41 #7 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Dear romant, Ok. I'll try with these 2 wall functions and I'll let you know back. Thank you, Manuel

 March 12, 2014, 07:11 #8 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Dear romant, I tried to switch the turbulence model from k-epsilon to realizableKE. The latter one automatically assigns the wall functions for mut and alphat. Unfortunately this has not brought up any improvement. What do you suggest to do?? Manuel

 March 12, 2014, 10:06 #9 Senior Member     Roman Thiele Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 368 Rep Power: 14 Try to set up a smaller case, similar in physics to the one you have and see if you can get it to work. Also, you need to have your y+ in the range of the wall functions, this is then the coarsest you can go at the wall, otherwise your results will most likely be incorrect. At the moment I would stay with just k-epsilon. Which wall function do you use for mut, k, epsilon, alphat? Which boundary conditions do you have for p_rgh, U and T? __________________ ~roman

March 12, 2014, 11:31
#10
Senior Member

Joachim Herb
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 422
Rep Power: 12
You still have to specify the wall functions for mut and alphat in the corresponding files (mut and alphat in the 0 directory).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Manuel CFD Dear romant, I tried to switch the turbulence model from k-epsilon to realizableKE. The latter one automatically assigns the wall functions for mut and alphat. Unfortunately this has not brought up any improvement. What do you suggest to do?? Manuel

 March 17, 2014, 05:47 #11 New Member   Manuel Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Darmstadt Posts: 25 Rep Power: 6 Dear All, I thank you for your suggestions. I remeshed the domain in order to guarantee a yPlus being in the validity range. In this way results quality improved significantly. The maximum temperature value is decreased drastically but it still remains unphysical. I would try to switch the turbulence model form realizableKE to k-w SST. Do you think that this change could produce better results? Do you have other suggestions? Thank you, Manuel

 March 17, 2016, 16:12 #12 Senior Member   Yuehan Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 112 Rep Power: 6 I am faced with the same problem here.

 Tags boundary condition, buoyant flows, heat flux, heat transfer, temperature bc

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post cpkewat CFX 15 January 31, 2014 07:29 Mavier CFX 5 April 29, 2013 00:00 CGramlich SU2 3 April 22, 2013 08:25 suitup OpenFOAM Bugs 15 October 14, 2010 22:18 Gary Holland CFX 10 March 13, 2009 04:30