You are on page 1of 51

Lecture 5:

Case Studies
15.0 Release

Turbulence Modeling Using ANSYS Fluent


1

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Motivation
How do I choose which turbulence model and near-wall
modeling approach to use for a given application?
Understanding of how turbulence modeling issues affect turbulence
model selection and performance
Observation and comparison of behavior of turbulence models for flows
in similar applications
Results from a variety of flows will be presented

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

The Main Objectives


Understand factors affecting turbulence model selection
Compare performance of turbulence models
Which models are likely to be accurate in a particular flow
How factors besides the turbulence model may affect accuracy

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Factors Affecting Turbulence Model Selection


Flow
Physics

Computational
Resources
Turbulence Model
&
Near-Wall Treatment

Accuracy
Required

Computational
Grid
Turnaround
Time
Constraints

Many factors must be considered. To make the best choice requires an


understanding of the available options
This lecture focuses primarily on flow physics and accuracy
4

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Turbulent Flow Feature Space


Large-scale unsteady
structure

Transitional flows &


re-laminarization

Separated &
recirculating flows

Rotating & swirling


flows

Streamwise vortices

Impinging flows

Rapidly strained flows


Thick BL, mildly
separated flows

Shocks and shockinduced boundary-layer


Crossflow/Secondary
separation
flows
Free shear flows (BL, mixing
Thin B.L. flows
layer, wakes, jets

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Turbulence Modeling Challenges

Pressing needs for high-fidelity CFD predictions


Tight margin for design improvement
Direct simulation still beyond the reach for industrial applications

Difficult to know which model to use or recommend


Industrial flows are complex and multi-featured
Incurs a considerable cost on both developers and users
There are many other factors affecting CFD predictions
Choice of solution domain, boundary conditions, numerical error, etc.
Quality of mesh and mesh resolution
User error
6

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Modeling Challenges
Yet turbulence modeling is a pacing item for the fidelity of
CFD predictions

Higher expectation for the fidelity predictions as CFD technology


matures
Widely varying requirements on accuracy

No breakthrough in turbulence modeling for industrial flows

Numerous models spawned over last two decades


Theres no single, dominantly superior, universally reliable
engineering turbulence model yet
7

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Other factors: 2D Back-step (Standard k-e )


Accuracy of turbulent flow
predictions is also affected
by boundary conditions,
grid resolution, near wall
modeling etc.

Heat transfer predictions


along the bottom

Measured by Vogel and


Eaton (1980)

SKE with standard wall


functions employed
8

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Other factors: 2D Back-step (Standard k-e )


Run

X-Velocity
B.C.

Thermal
B.C.

Turbulence B.C.

Profile

Uniform

Profile

Uniform

Uniform

Intensity & Hydraulic


Diameter

Profile

Uniform

k = 1, e = 1

Prior to R14.5, values of 1 (in


SI units) were the default b.c.
for the k-e model.
The new defaults (intensity =
5%, turbulent viscosity ratio =
10) are better, but would
likely still give results closer
to the green curve.

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Other factors: 2D Back-step (Standard k-e )


Structured

Tri w b/l

Quad Pave

10

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

Tri

ANSYS Confidential

Other factors: 2D Back-step (SKE)


Triangular

30% Growth

40% Growth

11

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Other factors: 2D Back-step (RKE)


y+ values must be appropriate for selected near wall treatment

Red line range of y+ appropriate for wall functions


Green Line range of y+ not suitable for wall functions
12

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Spalart-Allmaras Model (SA)

Fundamentals

transport equation for modified turbulent viscosity,~t

Advantages

robust, very economical


natural description of near wall turbulence (optional)
accurate for 2D wall bounded flow with mild separation

Drawbacks

in the absence of strain merely convects boundary values


weak for complex 3D flow

Recommended usage

less complex / quasi-2D (external) flows, e.g. airfoils, missiles, slender


bodies

13

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Transonic flow over 2D Bump


Case description
Transonic flow accelerates over a
bump and decelerates to
subsonic speed in trailing edge
shock (ONERA 1980)
Shock induced boundary layer
separation takes place at
Rec=1.4 x 107 and Mashock=1.37
Results depend on boundary
layer development and trailing
edge separation
SA, SKE, RNG and RKE used on
2D quad mesh with good nearwall resolution ( y+ =1 )

14

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

shock

Ptotal
95KPa
kPagage
total==95
gage

dd

ee/c=0.04
/ c = 0.04

c
Leading Edge

Trailing Edge

shock

shock induced
flow separation

trailing edge

Transonic flow over 2D Bump


Mach number along the lower wall of the channel

Despite its simplicity, SA captures the position of the shock very well
whereas Standard k-e fails

15

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Standard k-e Model (SKE)

Fundamentals

2-equation Eddy Viscosity Model ( m t = f ( k,e ) )


Advantages
well tested, robust, economical
reasonable accuracy for a wide range of flows
Drawbacks
overly diffusive for many situations
needs additional description for near wall turbulence
inaccurate for transitional flow regime
Recommended usage
doing qualitative comparisons and screenings
exploring basic flow pattern
converging initial case before switching to other models
16

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Internal Airflow (SKE, RNG, RKE, SST)


Case description
Flow enters a rectangular domain along the

17

upper left edge with uin= 4.55 m/s and


leaves along the opposite corner (ECBCS
Annex 20 air flow in buildings test case,
1993)
Profiles of mean velocity are calculated and
compared to experiment at x = 3 m and x =
6m
Results depend on spreading of inlet jet,
near-wall turbulence and interaction of
recirculation zones
SKE, RNG, RKE and SST model used on 2D
76K cell quad mesh with B.L. resolution
(y+=1)

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

inlet

ANSYS Confidential

outlet
x=3m

x=6m

measuring
planes

Internal Airflow (SKE, RNG, RKE, SST)


x-velocity 3m from inlet
x-velocity 6m from inlet
Velocity profile in a distance of 6m

0.9

0,9

0.8

0,8

dimensionless height y/H

dimensionless height y/H

Velocity profile in a distance of 3m

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3

0.2

0,2

0.1

0,1

0
-0.5

0
-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

-0,5

-0,3

dimensionless velocity u/u0

SST-grid3

SKE-grid3

RNG-grid3

-0,1

0,1

0,3

RKE-grid3

SST-grid3

Measurement

SKE-grid3

RNG-grid3

SKE results are consistent with the predictions of other k-e models
18

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

0,5

0,7

dimensionless velocity u/u0

ANSYS Confidential

RKE-grid3

Measurment

0,9

RNG k-e Model (RNG)


Fundamentals
derived by scale-elimination applied to N-S equations
modified source terms in e equation
analytical formula for turbulent Prandtl numbers Prt = f(m /(m +m t ))
Differential-Viscosity option for low turbulent Reynolds numbers
option to modify turbulent viscosity to account for swirl
Advantages
less diffusive than Standard k-e Model for complex shear flow
well suited for flows with low turbulence regions
Drawbacks
tends to uncover small scale unsteadiness
sometimes difficult to converge
Recommended usage
locally transitional flow, e.g. natural convection in buildings
19

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Realizable k-e Model (RKE)


Fundamentals
derived by enforcing Realizability of k-e, e.g. ui2 0
modified source terms in e equation, new formula for m t
Advantages
overall good performance and accuracy
strong for (internal) flows with interacting shear layers
robust
Drawbacks
difficult to converge on rare occasion
Recommended usage
default choice for most applications
20

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Blunt Flat Plate


Turbulent flow past a blunt flat plate was simulated
using four different turbulence models.
8,700 cell quad mesh, graded near leading edge and reattachment

location.
Non-equilibrium boundary layer treatment
xR

U0

ReD 50,000
D

Reattachment point

Recirculation zone

N. Djilali and I. S. Gartshore (1991), Turbulent Flow Around a Bluff Rectangular Plate,
Part I: Experimental Investigation, JFE, Vol. 113, pp. 5159.
21

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Blunt Flat Plate: TKE Predictions


Contours of Turbulent Kinetic Energy (m2/s2)
0.70
0.63
0.56

Standard k

RNG k

Realizable k

Reynolds Stress

0.49
0.42

0.35
0.28
0.21
0.14

0.07
0.00
22

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Blunt Flat Plate: Flow Separation


Predicted separation bubble:

Standard k (SKE)

Skin
Friction
Coefficient
Cf 1000

Realizable k (RKE)
SKE severely underpredicts the size of
the separation bubble, while RKE
predicts the size exactly.

Experimentally observed
reattachment point is at
x / D = 4.7

Distance Along
Plate, x / D

RKE results are often better than standard k-e when accurate predictions needed
23

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Standard k-w Model (SKO)


Fundamentals
uses specific dissipation rate w instead of e
Advantages
natural description of near wall turbulence (optional)
to some extent can handle boundary layer transition
less diffusive than Standard k-e Model
Drawbacks
sensitive to inlet and far-field boundary values
sometimes under diffusive for complex shear and strain
sometimes difficult to converge
Recommended usage
wall bounded (external) flow, e.g. airfoils, compressors, turbines without

24

massive interaction of shear layers


prediction of wall heat transfer

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

SST k-w Model (SST)


Fundamentals
uses blending of e and w equations for specific dissipation
Advantages
overcomes sensitivity to inlet and far-field boundary values
natural description of near wall turbulence (optional)
to some extent can handle boundary layer transition
less diffusive than Standard k-e Model
Drawbacks
sometimes under diffusive for complex shear and strain
sometimes difficult to converge
Recommended usage
wall bounded (external) flow, e.g. airfoils, compressors, turbines without

25

massive interaction of shear layers


prediction of wall heat transfer

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

NACA 4412 Airfoil


Case description
Rec = Uref * C/ = 1.5106
13.87 angle of attack
Quadrilateral mesh with
y+ ~= 1
Good test case for the
capability of RANS models
to predict the separation
zone near the trailing
edge

26

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

NACA 4412 Airfoil Results


Distance from wall

0.1
SST
Wilcox 2006
Spalart-Allmaras
2
v -f
Experiment

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

u/U ref

Good prediction of separation and velocity


profiles in separated zone with SST model
27

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

V2F k-e Model (V2F)


Fundamentals
4-equation model solving for wall normal fluctuations v 2 and relaxation
functions f in addition to k and e

Advantages
natural description of near wall turbulence
promising results for 3D low-Re boundary-layer flows
Drawbacks
high quality high resolution meshing required
needs more CPU time and memory than 2-equation models
sometimes difficult to converge
Recommended usage
in detail analysis of the near-wall behaviour and heat transfer
28

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Impinging Jet Heat transfer


Case description
Cooling jet (T0 ) impinges on a hot
wall (Twall )
HTC calculated along the wall for
nozzle distances H/D = 2 & H/D =
6
Results depend on near-wall
turbulence in stagnation zone and
boundary layers
SKO and V2F model used on 2D
axisymmetric 10K cell quad mesh
with B.L. resolution (y+ = 1)
29

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

Twall
Free jet
Stagnation
zone

Wall Jet

ANSYS Confidential

Boundary
Layer

Impinging Jet Heat transfer (SKO, V2F)


Nu*

Wall Nusselt number distribution


H/D = 2

Nu*

Wall Nusselt number distribution


H/D = 6

V2F
V2F

k-

k-

reasonable accuracy with SKO and V2F


30

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Transition Models
Fundamentals

Three models that allow for prediction of laminar to turbulent transition


Transition SST (Menter and Langtry, 2004)

Correlation based model using transport equations and local formulation


Uses SST k and w equations plus two additional transport equations (intermittency and Req )

Intermittency Transition (ANSYS, R15.0)

A further development based on the Transition SST model


Uses SST k and w equations plus one additional transport equation (intermittency)
Only model with provisions for crossflow instability
k-kl-w (Walters and Cokljat, 2007)
Based on laminar kinetic energy concept
Uses k and w equations plus one additional transport equation (laminar kinetic energy)
Advantages

The only RANS models that can predict transition

Drawbacks

High mesh resolution requirements near walls (y+ = 1)

Recommended usage
31

Boundary layer transition only

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

VPI Turbine Heat Transfer (SST-T, Walters)


Case Description

32

Hybrid Mesh: 24386 cells


Re = 23,000, Uin = 5.85m/s, Tin=20 C, Chord=59.4cm
Air: constant cp and r
Three inlet turbulence intensities: 0.6%, 10% and 19.5%

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Fully-turbulent Flow

Transition
s/C

s/C
33

Laminar

Blade
Pressure
Side

Stagnation

h , W/( m2K )

Fully-turbulent Flow

Transition

Laminar

Blade
Pressure
Side

Stagnation

h , W/( m2K )

VPI Turbine Heat Transfer (Transition SST, k-kl-w)

Note: Experiment
authors indicated
that the
instrumentation
for the heat flux
measurements
was inducing
early transition in
the heat transfer
data

Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)


Fundamentals

transport of Reynolds 6 stresses Rij and e for RANS

Advantages

physically more sound than Eddy Viscosity concept, e.g. weak secondary flow along
sharp edges is resolved

Drawbacks

even more modeling assumptions required


needs additional description for near wall turbulence
small gain in accuracy for the majority of applications
needs more CPU time and memory than 2-equation models
sometimes difficult to converge

Recommended usage

complex flow dominated by curvature, swirl and rotation


34

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Secondary Flow in a Triangular Duct


Case description
Turbulent flow passes an infinite pipe
with triangular cross section; in each
corner a pair of secondary flow vortices
pointing to the outside is formed
Secondary flow pattern produced by
anisotropy of Reynolds stresses
Results depend on the exact prediction y
of the 6 different Reynolds stresses
RSM and SST model used on 3D 15K cell
quad mesh (3 layer slice) with B.L.
resolution ( y+= 1 )
35

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Periodic element
.
m = 0.0138 kg/s
W = 2.6 m/s
Re = 10000

corner

s = 0.1m
x
z

Secondary Flow in a Triangular Duct


RSM Secondary Flow

SST Secondary Flow

Wsecondary /Wmain< 3%

Wsecondary /Wmain< 0.0001%


wsecondary (m/s)

wsecondary (m/s)

only RSM is able to resolve the secondary flow pattern in sharp corners
36

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Flow in a Cyclone Separator


Case description

0.1 m

Flow with high levels of swirl


Swirl velocity* is calculated and compared

with the measured value at a specific axial


position
( Wmax = 1.8 x Uin )
Results depend on accurate modeling of
Reynolds stresses equilibrium (rigid body
vs. potential flow)
SKE, RNG, RKE and RSM used on 40k cell
3D Hex mesh with wall functions

* Swirl Velocity = Tangential Velocity


Component
37

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

0.12 m

Uin = 20 m/s
0.97 m

0.2 m

Flow in a Cyclone Separator


Swirl velocity at 0.41 m below the vortex finder

despite swirl option, RNG accuracy worse than RKE and SST; only RSM
delivers potential flow vortex
38

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Tip Vortex of a Wing

tunnel wall

Case description

Finite wing of 4ft x 3ft with rounded tip is


mounted in a wind tunnel; a tip vortex
separates and is convected downstream
(Chow et al., 1997)
The tip vortex tracked for
a = 10o and Rec = 4.6 x 106
Results depend on B.L. vortex separation
and swirling shear layer interaction
RSM, SA, RKE, SST used on 3D 2,3M cell Hex
mesh with B.L. resolution
( y+ = 1 )
39

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

wing

Tip Vortex of a Wing


Development of pressure coefficient Cp along the core of the tip vortex

RSM does the best job to conserve vortex and swirl


40

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Large Eddy Simulation (LES)


Fundamentals

depending on time and space discretization, directly resolves large scale turbulent
eddies
eddy viscosity models to account for subgrid turbulence

Advantages

accurately resolves large scale turbulent structures


Drawbacks

needs additional description for near wall turbulence


very sensitive to grid resolution and boundary values
alway unsteady; needs lots of CPU time and memory
Recommended usage

detailed analysis of unsteady turbulent flow, e.g. turbulent structures behind bluff
bodies, aeroacoustics
41

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Heat Transfer & Wake of Bluff Body


Cold flow heats up and separates along a
cylinder
Temperature and mixing of air in the
wake of a heated cylinder are calculated
at a critical Reynolds number of ReD=
40,000
Results depend on wall heat transfer,
flow separation and vortex structure
downstream of the cylinder
LES and SST model used on 3D 3million
cell hex mesh with B.L. resolution ( y+= 1 )

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

ReD=40000
U0

P = 600W

Case description

42

3.11 D

Courtesy CEA/EDF
3.31 D

5000 < Re < 200000:


Laminar BL prior to separation ( = 80),
wide turbulent wake

Heat Transfer & Wake of Bluff Body


Temperature at x = 0.5m
SST

LES

Temperature at x = 1.5m

Experiment

SST

LES

Experiment
2750

2750
2500

-800 -500 -321

43

2250

2250

2000

2000

1750

1750

1500

1500 Hauteur (mm

1250

1250

1000

1000

750

750

500

500

250
321 500 800

Turbulent mixing in wake region is well captured with LES


LES results closer to experiment than RANS-SST
CPU cost with SST is of order of days
CPU cost with LES is of order of weeks
2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

2500

G=1m50

ANSYS Confidential

-800

-500

-321
0
321
Largeur (mm)

500

250
800

Automobile Rain Gutter Acoustics (LES)


Case description

Flow stagnation takes place and unsteady


separation at a rain gutter causes noise
Unsteady flow is calculated for U0= 22.35m/s,
Dt = 3x10-5s (~5000Hz) and sound pressure
levels (SPL) are evaluated using Ffowcs
Williams-Hawkings acoustic analogy
Results depend on separating small scale
structures, their interaction with main flow
and related pressure fluctuations
LES with Smagorinsky subgrid model used on
3D 5Million-cell Hex mesh with B.L. resolution
( y+=1 )
44

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

U0

Rain Gutter

Iso-surface of vorticity

Automobile Rain Gutter Acoustics (LES)


SPL derived by FWH

Cp at rain gutter

Mean flow properties and SPL from unsteady noise sources reasonably well
captured by LES
45

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)


Fundamentals

depending on time and space discretization, LES resolves large scale turbulent eddies
RANS modeling for near wall regions
Advantages

accurately resolves large scale turbulent structures in fine grid regions


reduces computational effort because in the boundary layer coarser grid spacing can
be used in directions parallel to walls (still need fine resolution normal to wall)

Drawbacks

needs additional description for near wall turbulence


very sensitive to grid resolution and boundary values
alway unsteady; needs lots of CPU time and memory
Recommended usage

detailed analysis of unsteady turbulent flow, e.g. turbulent structures behind bluff
bodies, aeroacoustics
46

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Lift and Drag for Airfoil (DES)


Case description

Flow over airfoil at a critical angle of

47

attack with transitional B.L. and


trailing edge separation (Mellen et
al., 2002)
Lift and drag calculated for = 13.3o
and Rec=2,1 x 106
Results depend on B.L. transition,
separation and wake flow
DES with SST used on 3D 370K cell
mesh with near-wall resolution of
y+= 5
LES would require >10M cell mesh

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Lift and Drag for Airfoil (DES)


Mean Velocity at Suction Side

48

Lift and drag coefficients


Experiment

DES

Cl

1.515-1.574

1.569

Cd

0.021-0.031

0.0313

DES results in very good agreement with experiment


2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Simplified Truck Drag Prediction (DES)


Case description

B.L. separates on backside of a bluff body


(Sovani et al., 2005)
Drag coefficient calculated for ReL = 2 x
106 and zero yaw
Results depend on B.L. separation and
character of wake flow
DES with SA used on 12M cell Hex mesh

49

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Simplified Truck Drag Prediction (DES)


Time-dependent and time-averaged drag coefficient

Cd

wind tunnel result well captured with DES


50

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Experiment

DES

0.250

0.253

Summary
ANSYS Fluent provides a broad range of RANS, LES and hybrid RANSLES turbulence models.

The case studies presented here intend to provide an overview of the


strengths of the individual models to help show which models are
best suited for a given application.
The results of turbulent flow simulations can be affected by factors
other than the choice of turbulence model

Grid, boundary conditions, near-wall modeling approach,


Additional factors such as the required solution turnaround time and
available computations resources also need to be considered when
choosing the turbulence model
51

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

April 23, 2014

ANSYS Confidential