CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > Siemens > STAR-CCM+

No 3Dimensionality in Flow Past a Cylinder Using RANS in STAR-CCM+

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By robo

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   December 9, 2015, 16:34
Default No 3Dimensionality in Flow Past a Cylinder Using RANS in STAR-CCM+
  #1
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I am trying to simulate flow past a circular cylinder for Re = 4,000 . For now, I am using RANS models in Star-CCM+. I have noticed that any k-epsilon based models in Star-CCM+ (i.e. SKE, RKE, RSM) do not have any 3 dimensionality. Meaning, there is no amplitude modulations in forces when the phenomenon is model in a 3D configuration and the result of 3D and 2D simulations are almost identical.

In general, the results of k-epsilon models( drag, lift, and Strouhal number) are closer to the experiment compared to k-omega, although the model shows no 3D effects and the values of velocities and vorticity do not change in depth.

On the other hand, using 3D simulations with k-omega results in lower values of drag and lift and amplitude modulation is observed in results.

I do not think it is due to mesh refinement as I have tested different mesh settings and sizes. CFL number is kept less than 1.0 through out the simulation and y+ values are also less than unity.

Anyone has any idea why this happens? Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,
A E
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 09:45
Default
  #2
Member
 
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 10
robo is on a distinguished road
Are the sidewalls of the domain symmetry or no-slip? If they're symmetry, then what you're simulating is an infinite cylinder, which should be the same as the 2D result. If no-slip, then that should introduce some spanwise variance, and if you're not seeing it, then I would check things like the y+ on the sidewall. A 2-eq model is also going to be isotropic, which I believe will work to suppress spanwise variation. You could try using an RSM model to see if the anisotropy helps. I'm also unclear if you're looking at steady state or transient. If transient, then LES might be the better formulation for the problem. In all cases, the Re is a little low; I'm not sure what the critical Re should be for this problem off the top of my head but I doubt you'd be far past transition if you've even hit it, and I hesitate to make turbulence model recommendations for flow around transition, as that is really not my area.
robo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 17:39
Default
  #3
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
For this range of Re, vortex shedding should be 3D and quantities vary along the cylinder length. I also check the RSM model and as it is based on k-epsilon, the 3D and 2D models' response are the same.
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 18:02
Default
  #4
Member
 
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 10
robo is on a distinguished road
I'm not sure what you checked, but RSM models are not based on k-epsilon. Some of them do have an epsilon equation, although it is usually formulated differently. If you're studying vortex shedding, then you're running transient, in which case I would recommend LES as it is better formulated for unsteady problems. Although again, at that low Reynold's number, I am not sure you'd even see much turbulence in the flow as I think you'd be close to transition.
lcarasik likes this.
robo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 18:19
Default
  #5
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, I think the RMS model in Star-CCM+ has the epsilon equation. And as I said there is no difference between 2D and 3D simulations when I use RSM (like k-e and unlike k-w)

I will eventually use DES for my simulations but I just like to know why k-epsilon does behave like this and k-w does not.
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 18:39
Default
  #6
Member
 
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 10
robo is on a distinguished road
I can't say for certain, but again, I feel like the low Reynold's number is gonna be a problem. None of those turbulence models are formulated for Reynold's numbers that low, and I am not sure how they'd behave. 4000 may not even be turbulent for that flow. What happens when you run with no turbulence model?
robo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 10, 2015, 18:42
Default
  #7
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
For this range the boundary layer is laminar and wake is turbulent. I ran a 2D simulation with no turbulence and the result was not good at all, way higher than k-e and k-w results.
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 29, 2015, 11:31
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Reza
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Appleton, WI
Posts: 116
Rep Power: 14
triple_r is on a distinguished road
A while back I remember trying this. I was using another package back then, and I was using a structured mesh, so my grid was symmetric with respect to the centerline and also uniform along the cylinder, so I had trouble getting the vortex street. What I had to do was to use an asymmetric inlet velocity for the first few iterations, to disturb the symmetry for the first few time steps, and that did it. Something like:

($Time < 1) ? ($inletVel + $somefactor * ($$Position[0] + $$Position[1])) : $inletVel

should do it. This means, for the first second, the inlet velocity is not symmetric and is a bit disturbed (you can control the amplitude with the value of $somefactor).

Just remember, you need to run the simulation for a bit longer to make sure the results are not because of the imposed disruption but because of the inherent unsteadiness.
triple_r is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 29, 2015, 12:32
Default
  #9
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your comments. I think it is only because of the type of turbulence model I am using. k-e needs a lot of modifications for near the wall region and low Re number and at the end of the day it is an isotropic model, so there should be no 3D ness in it. But, so is k-w; k-w also needs modifications for low Re # and it is isotropic.
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2017, 09:03
Default
  #10
New Member
 
abubakar izhar
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7
abubakarizhar is on a distinguished road
As you have said that symmetry condition introduces two dimensionality the SHOULD We use periodic conditions on side Walls or can i use just Wall bc. What will be the effect of periodic size Walls, wouldnt it will be introduces two dimensionality effect in 3D Simulation.
abubakarizhar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2017, 19:59
Default
  #11
New Member
 
A E
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 7
@E18 is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your reply. It appeared that the reason lies behind using damping functions for k-e models. All models w/o damping functions seem to produce 3D ness + No turbulence model case

These damping functions seem to literally damp out any 3D structures in the wake.

A E
@E18 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
k-epsilon, k-omega, rans modelling, star-ccm+, vortex shedding

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
Flow past a cylinder, Reynolds No: 100, Tracking strouhal Number. Karan FLUENT 11 November 14, 2016 04:49
Flow past a cylinder. Help needed Lurapa Main CFD Forum 1 August 18, 2013 11:25
CFD help: flow past cylinder harsha00711 Main CFD Forum 1 December 24, 2010 21:19
Flow past 2 smooth circular cylinder slip FLUENT 0 July 8, 2010 18:45
meshing for flow past a cylinder karthik FLUENT 1 July 15, 2005 06:17


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02.