maybe I'm not right, but in La
maybe I'm not right, but in LaunderSharma compressible model Epsilon equation, we have that :
... + fvm::SuSp((C3 - 2.0/3.0*C1)*rho_*divU, epsilon_) and in the default turbulenceProperties file we have: C3 = -0.33 I think that we have to change the default value of C3 as: C3 = 0.33 or we have to change the formulation of Epsilon eq. as: ... + fvm::SuSp((- C3 - 2.0/3.0*C1)*rho_*divU, epsilon_) or ... - fvm::SuSp(( C3 + 2.0/3.0*C1)*rho_*divU, epsilon_) because the term C3*rho_*divU has to be positive in RHS of Epsilon equation. I'm right ?!? Luca |
Please post a bug report (in O
Please post a bug report (in OpenFOAM-bugs) if you think it is incorrect.
|
Nope - this is to do with the
Nope - this is to do with the C3 term in engines simulations, where it turns out that a "small positive constant" C3 actually needs to be negative to get the right behaviour. Find an old-ish engines modelling Thesis from Imperial College and you will find the details.
Hrv |
so why we have different formu
so why we have different formulation in epsilon Eqn. between LaunderSharmaKE and kEpsilon turbulence model, (except f2() term)
kEpsilon C1*G*epsilon_/k_ - fvm::SuSp(((2.0/3.0)*C1 + C3)*rho_*divU, epsilon_) - fvm::Sp(C2*rho_*epsilon_/k_, epsilon_) LaunderSharmaKE C1*G*epsilon_/k_ + fvm::SuSp((C3 - 2.0/3.0*C1)*rho_*divU, epsilon_) - fvm::Sp(C2*f2()*rho_*epsilon_/k_, epsilon_) Luca |
In that case: hmm. What does
In that case: hmm. What does the original paper say?
Hrv |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:11. |