CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

bad heat transfer results with low y+

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 29, 2020, 11:56
Default bad heat transfer results with low y+
New Member
james freak
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 6
me45 is on a distinguished road
I am interested in obtaining wall heat flux of a rocket engine (so 2D axisymetric).
  • I am using k omega SST turbulence model
  • solver is rhoPimpleFoam (modified to account for viscous heating).
  • My divergence schemes are :
         default         none;
        div(phi,U)      Gauss upwind;
        div(phid,p)     Gauss limitedLinear 1;
        div(phi,K)      Gauss limitedLinear 1;
        div(phiv,p)     Gauss limitedLinear 1;
        div(((rho*nuEff)*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
        div(phi,h)      Gauss limitedLinear 1;
        div(phi,k)      bounded Gauss upwind;
        div(phi,omega)  bounded Gauss upwind;                                                                                   div((nuEff*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
    // For viscosity heating
        div(U)          Gauss linear;
        div(((((rho*nut)+thermo:mu)*(grad(U)+grad(U).T()))&U)) Gauss linear;
        div((((0.666667*((rho*nut)+thermo:mu))*div(U))*U))  Gauss linear;

  • I have seen on several post that for heat transfer problems, a low Re formulation is better, so I initiallly used that.

  • My mesh is ok except for high aspect ratio (but this is inevitable when resolving the whole boundary layer and should not be a problem according to many CFD users). My cells gets a growth factor around 1.15 in the BL and have a constant size far from it.
  • Wall conditions are:
    k:  kLowReWallFunction;
    omega: omegaWallFunction;
    nut:    nutLowReWallFunction;
            Cmu             0.09;
            kappa           0.41;
            E               9.8;
            value           uniform 0;
    alphat: compressible::alphatWallFunction;
               Prt             0.85;
               value           uniform 0;

I have run a first simulation, the maximum y+ value is 7 (the first 2 pictures represents y+ and wall heat flux qw). Results does not seem bad: same shape of qw but overestimated by 15% of results obatin with an over software.
Then I refined the mesh to get my maximum y+ closer to 1. Now trouble starts: the time step loss 3 order of magnitude (to respect the maximum Co=0.5) so computational time becomes really high. Besides my residuals falls to 1e-7 (instead of 1e-5) and results get mad: y+ and qw distribution becomes really bad. I have upload the residuals, y+ and qw for this case.
There is clearly something going wrong as I get a courant Number of 0.5 in a small part of the nozzle close to the wall whereas my mean Co is two order of magnitude lower (the part where Co=0.5 change when I change refine more or less the mesh).
My mesh is ok except for high aspect ratio (but this isinevitable when resolving the whole boundary layer and should not be a problem according to many CFD users). My cells gets a growth factor around 1.15 in the BL and have a constant size far from it.

I also have run a High Re simulation (changing the wall boundary condition),
k:  kqRWallFunction;

omega: omegaWallFunction;
nut:    nutUSpaldingWallFunction;
alphat:  compressible::alphatJayatillekeWallFunction;
the first simulation is done with y+ totally in buffer region but gives almost same results than the Low Re simulation (the one that gives acceptable results). As y+ was in buffer region region I increased it to be >30 as CFD guys recommend to avoid buffer layer because results would be bad, but then my results are bad, esoecially in the high velocity region of my mesh.
I have done many simulation to investigate that but can't answer these question:
  1. Why when refining to get a lower y+ values my simulation show this bad behaviour? What can I investigate?
  2. CFD guys recommend to avoid buffer layer because results gets bad, but this was not the case for my example. Does k omega SST enables to get good results even if we are in buffer region as it use blended function? Can I trust these results ?
  3. I get bad results when y+>30, is it because of that that usually people advise not to use High Re (wall function) for heat transfer study or can it comes from something else ?
  4. I also have in some simuation a high frequency variation of omega residuals (between 1e-5 and 1e-6), I can't find what cause that. Can it have an impact on results?
  5. about the alphat wall condition, we have the choice between compressible::alphatJayatillekeWallFunction; and compressible::alphatWallFunction. According to alphatWallFunction vs alphatJayatillekeWallFunction , the Jayatilleke is better for high and low Re so what is the alphatWallFunction good for ?
Ask me If you need more information.
I would really appreciate if someone can respond to at least one of my question.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg C_y+.jpg (42.8 KB, 15 views)
File Type: jpg C_qw.jpg (45.3 KB, 15 views)
File Type: png C_residuals_ref.PNG (34.1 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg C_y+_ref.jpg (47.8 KB, 14 views)
File Type: jpg C_qw_ref.jpg (46.6 KB, 14 views)
me45 is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Error - Solar absorber - Solar Thermal Radiation MichaelK CFX 12 September 1, 2016 05:15
Radiation interface hinca CFX 15 January 26, 2014 17:11
Question about heat transfer simulation Anna Tian Main CFD Forum 0 January 25, 2013 18:53
Heat Transfer mechanisms tafaugl CFX 1 November 7, 2012 18:46
transient heat transfer - radiation model - implausible results thomasduerr OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 July 13, 2009 10:03

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:47.