CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > Siemens > STAR-CCM+

Surface Roughness Application in Star CCM+?

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 15, 2017, 12:10
Question Surface Roughness Application in Star CCM+?
New Member
Shaun Brock
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 8
Brock17 is on a distinguished road
Hi, i'm currently simulating flow over a seamed cricket ball in Star CCM+ as part of a University project. One section of my investigation involves modelling surface roughness and the effect it should have on aerodynamic side-force generation by the ball. I've therefore configured the ball to be pointing directly forward (so that the prominence of the stitched seam doesn't result in any flow asymmetry and induce a side-force) with one side of the ball left smooth and the opposite side assigned a surface roughness of 0.3mm (ball diameter = 0.072m) within the Star CCM+ model (as opposed to modelling roughness explicitly).

I ran the simulation as described above at two speeds (24m/s and 42m/s) which theoretically should produce differing results (the low(er) speed should result in a sideforce toward the rougher surface whereas the high(er) speed should result in a force toward the smoother surface). Unfortunately, my results oppose this theory and predict the opposite. Also, when evaluating the skin friction coefficient along the ball's surface, the roughness appears to have made no difference toward the skin friction (whereas in a previous section of my investigation - looking at an angled seam rather than surface roughness - a similar amplitude of force yielded a significantly noticeable contrast). My supervisor advised me to be cautious using the surface roughness application within star ccm+ as, in his words, it alters the log-law region of the boundary layer. I'm struggling to suggest why this would provide me with seemingly inaccurate results; does the lack of influence on the viscous portion of the boundary layer result in unaffected skin friction? Why might this calculate a force opposed to that predicted by theory (specifically theory pertaining to viscous properties and the influence of a perturbation on the boundary layer separation)? I apologise if my description is unclear / incomplete but i'm struggling to get my head around the specifics of how the star ccm+ surface roughness application functions and how that affects my investigation.

PS: Using a low y+ grid and a RANS solver (SST + Gamma ReTheta transition).
Brock17 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 18, 2017, 19:47
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,232
Rep Power: 23
me3840 is on a distinguished road
I'm not really understanding what's going on here.

You've been told by your supervisor to investigate surface roughness to which he advises you to not use the surface roughness model?

I think you need to review literature on what it means to have surface roughness. If the surface is rough, why are you resolving down to the viscous sublayer? It doesn't make any sense to do so.
me3840 is offline   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
Is Playstation 3 cluster suitable for CFD work hsieh OpenFOAM 9 August 16, 2015 14:53
Cluster ID's not contiguous in compute-nodes domain. ??? Shogan FLUENT 1 May 28, 2014 15:03
surface roughness sieginc. Siemens 1 November 2, 2012 09:42
[Commercial meshers] Trimmed cell and embedded refinement mesh conversion issues michele OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 2 July 15, 2005 04:15
CFX4.3 -build analysis form Chie Min CFX 5 July 12, 2001 23:19

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47.