
[Sponsors] 
July 9, 2010, 09:52 

#41 
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,911
Rep Power: 28 
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD  A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM  An opensource implementation of quadraturebased moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. Last edited by alberto; July 9, 2010 at 09:53. Reason: Corrected link 

July 9, 2010, 20:44 

#42  
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
I am doing the incompressible LES, the reference link you gave above is the choric Smagorinsky Model for compressible flows. However, I found this http://foam.sourceforge.net/doc/Doxy...agorinsky.html Can you explain a little bit more about the effect of ce? or can I just use the following without define "ce 1.05;"? dynSmagorinskyCoeffs { filter simple; } because I found that ce is defined insrc » turbulenceModels » compressible » LES » GenEddyVisc 00048 LESModel 00049 ( 00050 word("GenEddyVisc"), rho, U, phi, thermoPhysicalModel 00051 ), 00052 00053 ce_ 00054 ( 00055 dimensioned<scalar>::lookupOrAddToDict 00056 ( 00057 "ce", 00058 coeffDict_, 00059 1.048 00060 ) 00061 ), Thanks Jie Last edited by jiejie; July 9, 2010 at 22:48. 

July 19, 2010, 09:03 

#43 
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9 
Very interesting topic. When I use the oneEqEddy Model I get rather high nuSGS (O(10e6)) and so too much dissipation. When using the dynamic Smagorinsky Model I get much higher nuSGS (O(10e8)). The results look better, but sometimes the coefficient become negative (when there is no much turbulence). This results in some instabilities and oscillations. So should I clip the negative nuSGS or is the effect of backscattering useful? Or should I change the parameters a priori and not use a dynamic model to get higher nuSGS with the oneEqEddy Model but no negative values?
Thanks a lot! edit: I have a lowRe case (about 200010000). What LES turbulence model should I use? I read that the dynamic Smag. can handle lowRe cases quite well, but as you mentioned OpenFOAM does not use the original implementation. With the RANS approach I get quite poor results. Last edited by Zymon; July 19, 2010 at 09:33. 

July 19, 2010, 11:04 

#44  
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,911
Rep Power: 28 
Quote:
With a student I implemented the dynamic Smagorinsky with local averages to compute the coefficient, checking that the total viscosity stays positive and finite. We did not notice particular numerical problems with this implementation. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD  A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM  An opensource implementation of quadraturebased moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. 

July 20, 2010, 04:15 

#45 
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9 
Thanks Alberto. I did the clipping as you said.
I am now facing some convergence problems with the dynsmag modell. I know my boundary conditions aren't optimal. I just have the amount of pressure at the inlet and outlet from experiments. So I have a fixed Value for the pressure both at the inlet and outlet. For the velocity I chose pressureInletOutletVelocity. For the convective term I have the linear upwind differencing with cell limitation. The CDS produces too much oscillation. The problem occurs at the inlet, where the grid is rather coarse. I don't use boundary layers, because the Mesher (NETGEN) then generates meshs with very high aspect ratios and nonorthogonality and OpenFOAM can't handle these, of course. Is this the problem? I think dynsmag is very sensitive to the mesh quality. With the oneEqEddy I am not facing any troubles, it can handle the unsteadiness much better, but there is a lot of dissipation. At the critical parts the nuSgs is quite high, what "smears out the divergence". My prof said I shouldn't change my settings but stick to a stable method. Btw. I have a flow through an orifice problem. The pictures attached are just a very simple test model, the real model is much more complex. The first picture shows the result of the oneEqEddy, the second picture the result of the dynsmag. I can send you some more pictures and my settings, if you want to help me. But I don't want to publish them here. 

July 20, 2010, 08:04 

#46 
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,911
Rep Power: 28 
Could you post a picture of the mesh? Is it a tet mesh or a hex mesh?
The system you are showing can be meshed with blockMesh fairly easily, obtaining a fully hex mesh. I'm not sure about the more complicated case you are talking about. On a side note, for LES, linearUpwind is way too dissipative. There is not much to do if not using a central scheme if you want accurate results. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD  A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM  An opensource implementation of quadraturebased moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. 

July 20, 2010, 10:49 

#47 
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9 
The geometry, which is shown in the above pictures, was meshed with blockMesh. So I have a fully hex mesh here. With this geometry I don't have any convergence problems at all. The complex geometry is a segmentation from images of the heart. So I don't have this block structure any more and therefore a tet mesh. The second picture below shows the result when using a central scheme with the oneEqEddy model. The convergence zone in the right chamber should be a perfect hemisphere, what is not true in this case by contrast to the linearupwind scheme.
Is it better to use a mesh with a prismatic boundary layer and high aspect ratios and nonorthogonality cells (at the boundary) or a nice fully tet mesh? I now understand that because of the globally averaged coefficients dynSmag is only formally applicable to homogeneous turbulence e.g. in a box with cyclic boundaries (as henry mentioned somewhere here in the forum). So it is not very useful for my case. What about the locDynOneEqEddy (with cuberoot)? It makes use of local coefficients and is thus more applicable to not fully developed turbulent flows. First results are quite promising. As far as I can see, it does not produce negative nuSgs, but values of 0 in laminar regions. I think the problem why the dynSmag diverges when using my complex model, is because I have just a small amount of turbulent flow and hence the coefficient is not caculated usefully. What do you think? I would like to change the dynsmag to a local approach, but I guess I don't have enough time till the end of my thesis. Is the description in the locDynOneEqEddy.H file correct? It reads: nuSgs = cD*delta^2*D, but in the locDynOneEqEddy.C file it is nuSgs_ = ck(D,KK)*sqrt(k_)*delta();. Does anybody know if there is any paper this SGS is based on? The third picture shows the result of the locdynone. model with cds. Very poor outcome as with the oneeqeddy model. The fourth picture shows the result of the locdynone. model using the linear upwind scheme. I think this result is quite good, the method seems to be stable and in my opinion not too dissipative. I'll run my complex model with this setting tonight. Sorry for asking so many questions, but I don't have anybody else to ask for. Thanks a lot! 

July 20, 2010, 10:58 

#48 
New Member
Jiang Lijun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 10 
Hi, Zymon
It seems that upwind scheme is not proper in LES if you want to get accuracy result, maybe filteredLinear scheme is better :) Best, Lijun 

July 20, 2010, 14:47 

#49 
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9 
Ok, I understand why upwind schemes are not a good idea for LES. What about usind a TVD Scheme like limitedlinear which is less dissipative but more stable then cds? I have found several papers that show good results using LES with limited linear differencing, for example:
http://bbaa6.mecc.polimi.it/uploads/...02_STAMPA1.pdf 

July 20, 2010, 17:52 

#50 
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,911
Rep Power: 28 
There are many studies in the literature on this topic, which has been discussed already. I suggest you do a little research to find out the details.
Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD  A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM  An opensource implementation of quadraturebased moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. 

July 21, 2010, 00:05 

#51 
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Reference is found.
Last edited by jiejie; July 22, 2010 at 08:22. 

July 21, 2010, 02:04 

#52  
Senior Member

Quote:
Actually, you are right , the dynSmagorinsky model in OF is not the original one, the model in OF use time average instead of ensamble average. But I think it is not applicatable to use ensamble average or time average both, as the later is only meanful for steady turbulence. the use of the ensamble average is only to make the model stable (you can find in Lillys`paper of Zhang Z S`s book. I have applied a modified model ,you can find it in Cfluid ( http://www.cfluid.com/bbs/viewthread...extra=page%3D1) , the model equation could be found in help document of ANSYS CFX wayne 

July 21, 2010, 02:23 

#53  
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
Hi wayne, can you be more specific about the Lilly's paper or the name of Zhang Z S`s book? or do you have the reference for the model used in OpenFOAM? 

July 21, 2010, 07:45 

#54  
Senior Member

Quote:
Lilly D K.1992,A propossed modifcation of the Germano subgrid scale closure method.Physics FLuids,A 4: 633 By the I don`t have the reference of the model in OpenFOAM, and I don`t believed there is some about that， becasuse，It is useless 

July 21, 2010, 08:00 

#55  
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
I have read Lilly's paper, I probably found the reference of OpenFOAM dynSamgorinsky from "A comparative study of subgrid scale models in homogeneous isotropic turbulence" by Fureby C. 1996. Last edited by jiejie; July 22, 2010 at 08:22. 

July 23, 2010, 03:09 

#56  
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
Have you found anything regarding to the spatial averaging of the cD and cI? Thanks Last edited by jiejie; July 23, 2010 at 03:50. 

July 23, 2010, 10:03 

#57 
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,911
Rep Power: 28 
The original Germano model was averaged along the homogeneous direction in a channel, since such a direction exists.
The model implemented in OpenFOAM obtains a single value of coefficients using spatial averaging, which makes the dynamic procedure quite useless. \The dynamic procedure is supposed to allow backscatter to be accounted for, and to make the wall damping functions not necessary, since the model can have zero coefficient. If you use a singlevalued coefficient, these features are completely lost. What you can do to avoid numerical instabilities is to keep the coefficients local, but averaging on neighbors, and then clip the effective viscosity so that it is not negative. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD  A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM  An opensource implementation of quadraturebased moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. 

July 23, 2010, 10:17 

#58 
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9 
What about the locDynOneEqEddy? It makes use of a local coefficient. In my model it works quite well, better than the dynamic Smagorinsky. Do you know wether it is implemented properly?


July 25, 2010, 22:40 

#59  
Senior Member
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Rep Power: 9 
Quote:
Thanks for your reply. Again, does this forbid the back scattering and does not allow the energy transfer from the small scale to the large scale? or is it possible just to remove the averaging part of the code in the dynSmagorinsky model and how bad is it in terms of stability? 

July 28, 2010, 18:15 

#60 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,681
Rep Power: 41 
Hi to all,
this topic is full of interesting issues for LES practioneers and researchers. I am working on the quality and realibility of LES implemented in OF along with some collegues. We decided to test the compressible version of the code in lowMach conditions, performing the classic plane channel turbulent flow at Re_tau=590. The dynamic procedure for the SGS modelling is supplied. Testing the code in such condition was not so easy because of the requirement of adding the proper forcing term in momentum and energy equations. At present, results obtained on a 64x100x64 cartesian grid are not satisfactory both in the zeroorder statistics (the streamwise averaged profile) and in the energy spectra. This latter shows for the three velocity components along the streamwise wavenumber a very strange peak in the inertial range, transfer of energy is therefore not monotone. This is not a numerical pileup since the peak is about 10 wavenumbers before the Nyquist wavenumber, the energy is well dissipated at the cutoff wavenumber. The SGS model does not change the presence of the peak (nomodel solution showed the same behaviour) No other peaks appear in the energy spectra along the spanwise wavenumber. I am quite sure that the reason is due to some acoustic interference caused by the lowMach condition. The PISO solver should be able to manage such critical case... Does anyone had similar experience? Thanks Filippo 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
help for different between les model (subgridscale model)  liuyuxuan  FLUENT  1  October 2, 2009 15:25 
LES and combustion model  Margherita Cadorin  CFX  0  October 29, 2008 06:24 
regarding eddy break up model  dj  CFX  0  September 30, 2003 02:05 
Why Turbulence models are not universal.  Senthil  Main CFD Forum  4  July 5, 2000 04:34 
Advanced Turbulence Modeling in Fluent, Realizable kepsilon Model  Jonas Larsson  FLUENT  5  March 13, 2000 04:27 