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

Correct value for kinematic viscosity

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   August 24, 2006, 08:51
Default Hello, Im trying to simulat
Posts: n/a

Im trying to simulate an incompressible, turbulent flow (Re bulk=56000) in a channel and validate it with experimental data.

Im using simpleFoam for this with the turbulentmodell LaunderGibson. The problem is that my simulation behaves more laminar then the experiment does. I guess this is because of my seting of the kinematic viscosity parameter is to high. I have calculated it from experimental data for bulk values of velocity and Reynolds number and the hydraulic diameter.

-Now Im wondering if it might be wrong to base the kinematic viscosity on the bulk velocity?

-An other thing thats bothering me is that i get very different results from different gradings towards the channel wall. How do I know how big the grading needs to be? Now it is set to be 0.01.
  Reply With Quote

Old   August 25, 2006, 11:40
Default Hej Erik, Since the turbule
Ola Widlund
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 87
Rep Power: 17
olwi is on a distinguished road
Hej Erik,

Since the turbulence model uses wall functions, you should usually AVOID resolving the boundary layers too much... The criteria for an appropriate reslution near the wall is to check the value of yplus (y+), which is the non-dimensional wall distance of the first computational node. (Look in a good textbook on turbulent flows, e.g. that of Stephen Pope.) I think there is a postprocessing utility with openfoam that will compute yplus for you. Then plot it on wall surfaces. Yplus in the range 30-80 is probably a good target for you.

Is see nothing wrong with the way you set your nu. As for the definition of Re, you should of course define it in the same way as the guys who made the experiment! That's the only thing that counts...

If I were you I would start off with the simple K-epsilon model. For a simple channel flow an RST model is probably overkill. K-epsilon is tuned well to channel flows in particular. Often it's more important to have well-converged solutions and good grids, than to fiddle around with different turbulence models. If you insist on using the RST model, and you have problems with convergence, it could be a good idea to restart from a converged K-espilon solution. How you do that in OpenFOAM is beyond med at this point...

Good luck!

olwi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 26, 2006, 05:28
Default Thank you very much. Its a
Posts: n/a
Thank you very much.

Its a big help using checkYPlus as a guideline. unfortunatly I got one of my best results from a LaunderGibson turb. model with grading 0.01. But im trying to find an alternative now using a better mesh.

  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
turbulent kinematic viscosity ritu FLUENT 0 May 8, 2006 10:37
Porosity and Kinematic Diffusivity Luis CFX 0 February 6, 2006 21:21
kinematic viscosity at diff temperatures,pressures Mecobio Main CFD Forum 0 November 7, 2005 12:55
[kinematic, dynamic BC in HRIC ?] name Main CFD Forum 0 October 17, 2001 23:06
cfx 5.4 kinematic diffusivity Daniel Gubler CFX 0 July 20, 2000 03:47

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33.