
[Sponsors] 
May 23, 2017, 13:18 
URANS 2D Square Cylinder Problems

#1 
New Member
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9 
Dear Community,
I found a strange behavior on some URANS bluff body aerodynamics simulations that I am carrying out. I am studying the square section geometry in 2D. The Reynolds number based on the crosssection is 75600. The Cartesian geometry is created with blockMesh (OF3.0). The use of such mesh generator prevent from the mesh skewness and nonorto problems. The domain is very wide, so I got no problems of reflection or blockage. The mesh resolution is very accurate (from 60k to 250k cells), because the aim is the use of SA model and kwSST model WITHOUT wall functions (lowRe). With my mesh I reach a y+ max (locally, at the edges) between 4 and 2 depending on the mesh accuracy. n_w/D ranges between 6e4 for the coarsest mesh and 3.5e4 for the finest one. The stretching factor is at least 1.3. I use OF 2.3.1 to solve the equations. To interpolate the discretized RANS equation terms I use secondorder schemes such as: linearUpwind for div(phi,U) term linearUpwind for the turbulence model transport term(s) linear for the diffusive term I solve the equations with the PIMPLE pressurevelocity algorithm. The iterations advances in time with the backward secondorder scheme. The time step varies according to the maxCo imposed at any iteration. I carried out a lot of simulations, but I would like to ask your opinion. It seems that the numerical solution of the problem could converge to two distant solutions: one in good agreement with the experimental results (CD=2.1, St=0.125, CL'=1.5), one far away from it (CD=22.4, St=0.090.1(!!!), CL'=1.31.8). In particular I noticed:  With the SA model: with coarse mesh and large time step the solution converges to the expected. Increasing the mesh resolution or reducing the time step (down to maxCo=1) the model seems to miss some additional numerical viscosity and converges to a solution (with Strouhal = 0.09) far away from the experimental one expected.  With the kwSST model: I found more problems than with the SA. Also for coarser grids or larger time step the solution converges to the same values above mentioned far away from the expected one. It is a long time I am trying to vary all the possible parameters: mesh generator, numerical schemes, OF version, etc. I am struggling with the interpretation of these results. I would like to ask your opinion, especially from OF expert. I apologize for disturbing you, but I am not so good reading the code and maybe there is something there that I am missing. Sincerely, Andrea 

May 23, 2017, 14:04 

#2 
Senior Member
CFD
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 243
Rep Power: 16 
Hi,
What values did you use for k and omega when you used komegaSST? I guess generally the problem similar to that if you replace the square by a cylinder in terms of physics. Best, 

May 24, 2017, 01:09 

#3 
Senior Member
Uwe Pilz
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 744
Rep Power: 15 
With the coarse mesh you have the wall function working. If you finer the mesh an lower the tim step the wall function works to a much lesser degree: That is the difference I see.
Nevertheless, the close to DNS simulation should get reasonable results too. But I think that is the direction you should look for what is different.
__________________
Uwe Pilz  Die der Hauptbewegung überlagerte Schwankungsbewegung ist in ihren Einzelheiten so hoffnungslos kompliziert, daß ihre theoretische Berechnung aussichtslos erscheint. (Hermann Schlichting, 1950) 

May 24, 2017, 09:46 

#4 
New Member
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9 
Dear tareqkh,
if you mean the k and omega values at the surface, I employed the values suggested in Menter's paper for omega, while I set k very small (1e20). Please, can you explain better your statement "generally the problem similar to that if you replace the square by a cylinder in terms of physics"? Thank you 

May 24, 2017, 09:49 

#5 
New Member
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9 
Dear piu58,
as I wrote in the main message I do not use wall function. I mean, I do not set any wall function in the dict files. Are there some WF in the code working irrespectively to my numerical set up? You wrote "the close to DNS simulation should get reasonable results too", but how can I perform DNS in a twodimensional domain? Thank you 

May 24, 2017, 21:01 

#6  
Senior Member
CFD
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 243
Rep Power: 16 
Quote:
Well, you should expect von karman vortex according to your Reynolds number. Please have a look at the following link http://www.mediafire.com/file/wyf8w1...dyCylinder.pdf. I created this document a long time ago for the laminar flow over a cylinder. You might find it helpful at the same time you might find some typo here and there etc. I still have the case files as well. By the way, what is your wall distance? How fvSchemes looks like in your case? Regards, 

Tags 
aerodynamics, bluff body wake, square, urans 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Flow over square Cylinder  alireza_b  FLUENT  8  February 5, 2014 04:16 
[snappyHexMesh] snappyHexMesh  2D Cylinder Problems  Logan Page  OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion  4  May 27, 2013 12:07 
[snappyHexMesh] 2D Cylinder mesh problems with Snappy  ivan_cozza  OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion  37  June 4, 2012 15:49 
LES of a square cylinder  gfilip  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  1  June 24, 2010 12:33 
Cylinder head port problems  Jon Reynolds  FLUENT  0  March 23, 2006 08:38 