# Wall treatment : Wall function vs Fine mesh

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 January 26, 2010, 13:37 Wall treatment : Wall function vs Fine mesh #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 111 Rep Power: 16 Hello everybody I'm currently trying to get a simple case working before attacking something more complicated. I'm using the simpleFoam solver since my flow is turbulent and incompressible. The problem consists in evaluating the pressure drop between the inlet and the outlet of a canal. I set up the boundary conditions like this : - for p : I fix the inlet and outlet to p_inlet = X and p_outlet = 0 and see if the mass flow matches the one I have to have in my actual canal. - for u : just fix it to zero @walls Now, for the turbulent parameters k,nuT, epsilon, ... I test two cases : One with wallfunction and one with zerogradient @walls and no wallfunction. Normally, my mesh is fine enough to capture the details of the flow, I checked with the utilities "yPlusRAS" from openFoam, see the results in the pictures. But I have quite huge differences between the simulation with the wallfunctions and without the wallfuctions and I don't understand why so much differences arise between the two ... Do you have an idea where I could be wrong? The results for P, U and yPlus : - For the fine mesh, without wallfunction P : http://yfrog.com/j9champpp U : http://yfrog.com/j9champup - for the same mesh, with wallfunction P : http://yfrog.com/j9champpfp U : http://yfrog.com/07champup yPlus : http://yfrog.com/0ryplusp

January 26, 2010, 15:50
#2
Senior Member

BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gearb0x Now, for the turbulent parameters k,nuT, epsilon, ... I test two cases : One with wallfunction and one with zerogradient @walls and no wallfunction. Normally, my mesh is fine enough to capture the details of the flow, I checked with the utilities "yPlusRAS" from openFoam, see the results in the pictures.
This is not really right. You either have a high Re-Mesh (y+ > 30 everywhere). In that case apply wallfunctions + an appropriate turbulence model. Otherwise you need a low-Re Mesh (y+ < 1). In that case you need a LOW-RE turbulence model. It is wrong setup to simply run with a high Re Model!
Additionally, you can not compare results from a low-Re mesh run without wall functions (which you seem to have) with the same mesh run wioth wall functions. It is wrong to run a low-Re-Mesh with wall functions!
Another topic is which wall function to use in 1.6 for low-Re models. It should be calculated for nuT afaik.
Hope this makes it clear.

Regards BastiL

 January 26, 2010, 15:59 #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 111 Rep Power: 16 Firstly, a big thanks for your very clear and helpfull answer! I will now look for the LaunderSharmaKE turbulence model but I can't find a tutorial case wich uses this model. There is just one thing I don't understand : Comparing a low-Re mesh without wall function with High-Re mesh with wall function should be ok... no ? Results should be slightrly different but not totally, am I wrong? Purpose of wall function is to save computational time and to approximate the reality wich is represented here by the low-Re situation, no? Thanks again for the help!

January 26, 2010, 16:04
#4
Senior Member

BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 530
Rep Power: 20
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gearb0x There is just one thing I don't understand : Comparing a low-Re mesh without wall function with High-Re mesh with wall function should be ok... no ? Results should be slightrly different but not totally, am I wrong
That is right. However, this means you have to create two meshes and not run both on one mesh.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gearb0x Purpose of wall function is to save computational time and to approximate the reality wich is represented here by the low-Re situation, no?
In general, yes. However, low-Re remains a model and is also not "reality" but has fewer modeling assumptions.

 January 26, 2010, 16:09 #5 Senior Member   Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 111 Rep Power: 16 ok! I got it! Thanks for the fast answer! It helps a lot

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Search this Thread: Advanced Search 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 Off Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post [snappyHexMesh] SnappyHexMesh for internal Flow vishwa OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 24 June 27, 2016 08:54 Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20 [blockMesh] BlockMesh FOAM warning gaottino OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 7 July 19, 2010 14:11 Andrea CFX 2 October 11, 2004 05:12 VEEBS CFX 1 October 9, 2001 23:19

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:57.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Privacy Statement - Top