Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Email: pdavis24@uncc.edu
Email: arinehim@uncc.edu
3
Email: muddin@uncc.edu s
2
ABSTRACT
Using experimental data from a study of flow over a
wall-mounted square cylinder (h=4d) as a baseline,
three Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes turbulence
models are used in a commercial CFD code StarCCM+ to compare the relative accuracy of the tested
models. In virtually every standard of comparison
applied in this study, the Realizable with a twolayer treatment proved to be far superior to both the
V2F (All + hybrid wall treatment) and the
models.
To observe mesh dependence for each of the models,
all three were run on three different polyhedral mesh
cases. Resulting first prism-layer heights of y+12,
y+5, and y+1 allowed comparison of results with
the mesh resolved to the buffer layer, the buffer
layer/viscous sublayer transformation, and into the
viscous sublayer, respectively. In all cases, the
Realizable proved superior.
The mesh study also suggests that applying the twolayer treatment to Realizable allows it to
operate well into the viscous sublayer, an area in
which models are traditionally expected to
suffer degradation in accuracy. The scheme,
however, does not show improvements with
increased mesh quality. In contradiction to the
expected results, mesh independence is reached by
y+5 for in this study.
1. INTRODUCTION
dimensions ( / =4) sitting within a steady, wellprofiled air flow of Reynolds number Re=12,000.1
Time and phase-averaged flow data sets as well as
velocity profiles for a three-dimensional grid are
made available by the organizers of the 2012 CFDSC
Challenge.2
2. COMPUTATIONAL EQUIPMENT
All CFD simulations were performed using the
commercial CFD code Star-CCM+ version 6.04 by
CD-Adapco. All simulations were performed on the
UNC-Charlotte cluster with 32 cores. Additional postprocessing was performed using EnSight by CEI.
3.
Coarse
~16x106
4mm
12
0.185mm
4mm
12
0.185mm
0.25mm
Medium
~26x106
9mm
12
0.0186mm
9mm
12
0.0186mm
0.125mm
Fine
~29x106
9mm
20
0.0186mm
9mm
20
0.0186mm
0.125mm
a)
a)
b)
b)
c)
c)
d)
d)
a)
Saddle Region
a)
b)
b)
c)
Saddle Region
c)
d)
d)
a)
a)
b)
c)
b)
d)
c)
d)
a)
a)
b)
b)
c)
c)
d)
d)
10
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
-5
-10
Velocity (m/s)
15
Velocity (m/s)
15
0
0
50
100
150
200
-5
Position (mm)
Coarse Mesh X Velocity
Medium Mesh X Velocity
Fine Mesh X Velocity
Coarse Mesh Z Velocity
Medium Mesh Z Velocity
Fine Mesh Z Velocity
As previously discussed, it could be expected that k would improve with an increasing resolution in
the boundary layer. With the medium mesh (y+5)
resolving to the edge of the viscous sublayer and the
fine mesh (y+1) resolving well into the viscous
sublayer, it was expected that some improvement in
accuracy would be yielded by the fine mesh. Salim
and Cheah also predicted such behavior.6 However,
Fig. 9 shows that, at least for velocity profiles, this
was not the case. As can be seen, there is no
significant difference between the medium and fine
mesh cases in velocity profiles at the selected
regions, suggesting that the scheme used in
this study reached mesh independence by y+5.
This unexpected result was also seen by Salim and
Cheah. In their study, their fine mesh (y+2) did
improve the accuracy of skin friction predictions, but
-10
Position (mm)
Coarse Mesh X Velocity
Medium Mesh X Velocity
Fine Mesh X Velocity
Coarse Mesh Z Velocity
Medium Mesh Z Velocity
Fine Mesh Z Velocity
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Star CCM+ Help Manual. What is the V2F LowReynolds Number K-Epsilon Model. CDAdapco Group. www.cd-adapco
[10] A.E. Perry and M. S. Chong. A Description of
Eddying Motions and Flow Patterns Using
Critical-Point Concepts. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.,
19:125-155, 1987