I have a 2D model of a pipe with an obstruction in it. I am simulating air flow in this structure and would like to see turbulent flow. The pipe width is 5cm, and the average flow speed varies from 0.2 to 10m/s. The Lowest Reynolds number is 684, the highest 34000.
My expectations:
Re < 2500: laminar flow before and after the obstruction
2500 < Re < 4000: laminar flow before, turbulent after the obstruction
Re > 4000: turbulent flow before and after the obstruction.
However: the flow profile just seems to scale with the incident flow speed.
I know the simulation volume is too small to achieve a fully developed flow profile, but my observations are the same for a longer tube. Moreover, in the obstruction the flow speed should certainly be turbulent.
The simulation is steady state, so I a assume that the averaged values of a turbulent flow will be calculated, but then I would still expect that the boundary layer would get thinner for higher Re numbers.
I attached a number of velocity profiles (absolute value). The relevant parts of the SIF file are below
Summarising: Why don't I see any sign of turbulence?
Martijn
SIF file:
Body 1
Target Bodies(1) = 1
Name = "Body 1"
Equation = 1
Material = 1
End
Solver 1
Equation = NavierStokes
Procedure = "FlowSolve" "FlowSolver"
Variable = Flow Solution[Velocity:2 Pressure:1]
Exec Solver = Always
Stabilize = True
Bubbles = False
Lumped Mass Matrix = False
Optimize Bandwidth = True
Steady State Convergence Tolerance = 1.0e5
Nonlinear System Convergence Tolerance = 1.0e8
Nonlinear System Max Iterations = 25
Nonlinear System Newton After Iterations = 25
Nonlinear System Newton After Tolerance = 1.0e5
Nonlinear System Relaxation Factor = 1
Linear System Solver = Iterative
Linear System Iterative Method = BiCGStab
Linear System Max Iterations = 500
Linear System Convergence Tolerance = 1.0e8
Linear System Preconditioning = ILU0
Linear System ILUT Tolerance = 1.0e3
Linear System Abort Not Converged = False
Linear System Residual Output = 1
Linear System Precondition Recompute = 1
End
Equation 1
Name = "Equation 1"
NS Convect = False
Active Solvers(1) = 1
End
Material 1
Name = "Air (room temperature)"
Viscosity = 1.983e5
Heat Conductivity = 0.0257
Heat Capacity = 1005.0
Density = 1.205
Compressibility Model = Incompressible
Viscosity = 1.983e5
Sound speed = 343.0
Heat expansion Coefficient = 3.43e3
End
Boundary Condition 1
Target Boundaries(1) = 17
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 2
Target Boundaries(1) = 1
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 3
Target Boundaries(1) = 21
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 4
Target Boundaries(1) = 5
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 5
Target Boundaries(1) = 25
Name = "speed in"
Velocity 1 = 5
End
Boundary Condition 6
Target Boundaries(1) = 26
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 7
Target Boundaries(1) = 9
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Boundary Condition 8
Target Boundaries(1) = 30
Name = "pressure out"
External Pressure = 0
End
Boundary Condition 9
Target Boundaries(1) = 13
Name = "noslip"
Noslip wall BC = True
End
Modelling turbulent flow
Modelling turbulent flow
 Attachments

 5.0 m/s
 velocity50.png (129.82 KiB) Viewed 3785 times

 1.0 m/s
 velocity10.png (129.97 KiB) Viewed 3785 times

 0.2 m/s
 velocity02.png (128.63 KiB) Viewed 3785 times
Re: Modelling turbulent flow
Martijn,
I am astonished that you get convergence at all, especially with the higher Renumbers.
perhaps you could take 2 measures:
1) switch in a turbulence model (kepsilon, for instance)
2) try to resolve (I do not know how fine your mesh is now) finer around the cylinders
And finally, some effects (like von Karman vortices) I guess are rather of transient nature  so perhaps a transient run would also be something you might consider worth trying.
Best wishes,
Thomas
I am astonished that you get convergence at all, especially with the higher Renumbers.
perhaps you could take 2 measures:
1) switch in a turbulence model (kepsilon, for instance)
2) try to resolve (I do not know how fine your mesh is now) finer around the cylinders
And finally, some effects (like von Karman vortices) I guess are rather of transient nature  so perhaps a transient run would also be something you might consider worth trying.
Best wishes,
Thomas

 Site Admin
 Posts: 3889
 Joined: 22 Aug 2009, 11:57
 Antispam: Yes
 Location: Espoo, Finland
 Contact:
Re: Modelling turbulent flow
Hi Martijn,
There is no automatic turbulence model that would come into the play. As Thomas suggests one way to see some effects of turbulence would be to solve all the timescales (if the mesh is dense enough) and take a timeaverage of it. See, for example the tutorial on Vortex shedding. Averaged data could be obtained with the FilterTimeSeries solver (see Models Manual). Even the normal stabilization can be understood as some sort of LES model, but if you're really into this, you could try the a novel vms (Variational Multiscale) method for stabilization and use 2nd order elements. LES needs a denser meshes compared to RANS models but I presume that with these rather low Re numbers you could probably still use the LES style of approach. The method of preference will also depend on the nature of your study.
Peter
There is no automatic turbulence model that would come into the play. As Thomas suggests one way to see some effects of turbulence would be to solve all the timescales (if the mesh is dense enough) and take a timeaverage of it. See, for example the tutorial on Vortex shedding. Averaged data could be obtained with the FilterTimeSeries solver (see Models Manual). Even the normal stabilization can be understood as some sort of LES model, but if you're really into this, you could try the a novel vms (Variational Multiscale) method for stabilization and use 2nd order elements. LES needs a denser meshes compared to RANS models but I presume that with these rather low Re numbers you could probably still use the LES style of approach. The method of preference will also depend on the nature of your study.
Peter