UA-33602782-1

About Us Industry Focus Technical Benets Business Benets Tips & Tricks Contact Us

Turbulence Part 3 - Selection of wall functions and Y+ to best capture the Turbulent Boundary Layer

Home Tips & Tricks Turbulence Part 3 - Selection of wall functions and Y+ to best capture the Turbulent Boundary Layer

Posted By LEAP CFD Team on Apr 12, 2013 | 24 comments

In recent posts in our series of Turbulence Modelling posts, we have covered boundary layer theory and touched on some useful meshing and

post-processing guidelinesto check you are appropriately resolving the boundary layer prole. Today we will consider three critical questions that are

often asked by CFD engineers when developing or rening a CFD simulation:

- Am I using the correct turbulence model for the type of results I am looking for?

- Do I have an appropriate Y+ value and a sucient number of ination layers?

- Am I using the right wall function for my problem?

This topic is so important because we know that in turbulent ows thevelocity uctuations withinthe turbulent boundary layer can be a signicant

percentage of the mean ow velocity, so it iscritical that we capture these eects with accuracy. A Reynolds averaging approach using turbulence models

will provides us with an estimate of the increased levels of stress within the boundary layer, termed the Reynolds stresses.In order to appreciate the use of

wall functions and theinuence of walls onthe turbulent oweld, we should rst gain familiarity with the composite regions of the turbulent boundary

layer:

Composite regions of the turbulent boundary layer

In the laminar sub-layer region (Y+ < 5) inertial forces are less domineering and the owexhibits laminar characteristics, which is whythis is known as the

low-Re region. Low-Re turbulent models (e.g. the SST model) aim to resolve this areaand therefore require an appropriate mesh resolution to do this with

accuracy. This is most critical for ows with a changing pressure gradient where we expect to see separation, as observed below.

Predicting separation in a diuser-type geometry

In the law of the wall region, inertial forces strongly dominate over viscous forces and we have a high presence of turbulent stresses (this is known as the

high-Re composite region).If using a low-Re model, the whole turbulent boundary layer will be resolved including the log-law region. However, it possible

to use semi-empirical expressions known as wall functions to bridge the viscosity-aected region between the wall and the fully-turbulent region.

Contours of the eddy viscosity ratio on a low-Re grid

illustrating high turbulent viscosity in the log-law region as
opposed to the laminar sub-layer
The main benet ofthis wall function approach lies in the signicant reduction in mesh resolution and thus reduction in simulation time. However, the

shortcoming lies in numerical results deteriorating under subsequent renement of the grid in wall normal direction (thus reducing the Y+ valueinto the

buer layer zone). Continued reduction of Y+ to below 15can gradually result in unbounded errors in wall shear stress and wall heat transfer (due to the

damping functions inherent within the wall function approach).

Bearing all of the above in mind, and keeping our eye on nding the right balance between accuracy, stability and speed, we can tackle a wide variety of

CFD problems using the following guidelines:

What results am I interested in and am I using the right turbulence model?

If our aim is to accurately predict the boundary layer velocity or thermal prole, or if the developing boundary layer will tend to separate (due to a

changing pressure gradient and not because of sharp edges or discontinuities in the geometry), then we recommend the use of a low-Re model. Low-Re

models are also required for accurate pressure-drop or drag calculations. We highly recommend the use of the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model, but all

-based models or -based models with enhanced wall treatment may be used. For high speed external aerodynamic ows, the one-equation Spalart-

Allmaras model (with Y+ < 2)may also be considered to reduce the computational time. Alternatively, for ows where wall-bounded eects are not a

priority, or if separation is expected to occur only due to sharp changes in the geometry, an -based wall function approach is more than sucient. In

ANSYS CFD, all -based models and the SST model are capable of resorting to a wall function formulation (automatic wall treatment) in the presence of

coarse mesh resolutions near the wall without any further user input. Wall function models are also useful for calibrating our CFD models, due to the

decreased simulation time.

Flow pattern with separation and reattachment on a rotor

blade

What is my Y+ value and do I have a sucient number of prism layers?

When using low-Re models or any models with enhanced wall treatment, the average Y+ value should be on the order of ~1 to ensure we are capturing the

laminar sub-layer. When using wall function models, the Y+ value should ideally be above 15 to avoid erroneous modelling in the buer layer and the

laminar sub-layer. High quality numerical results for the boundary layer will only be obtained if the overall resolution of the boundary layer is sucient.

This requirement in some cases is more important than achieving certain Y+ values. The minimum number of cells to cover a boundary layer accurately is

around 10, but values of 20 are desirable. The total thickness of the prisms should be implemented such that around 15 or more nodes are actually

covering the boundary layer. Our next post in this series on the turbulent boundary layer will cover a very useful and practical technique to post-process

the resolution of the boundary layer, and oer insight into modications required to improve accuracy.

Boundary layer velocity prole modeled with standard k-e for

three dierent mesh densities using Enhanced Wall Treatment

Am I using the right wall function?

In ANSYS CFD, all turbulence models are y-plus independent. However selecting the most appropriate wall function is dependent on level of renement of

our wall adjacent mesh, or the relative scales in our ow. Use of the standard wall function (-based models) implies that our boundary layer mesh lies

entirely within the log-law region of the boundary layer. For industrial applications, thisin factmight be dicult to achieve due to varying geometrical and

velocity scales associated with our model and therefore grids inherently designed with arbitrary renement. We highly recommend the use of the scalable

wall function, which oers an elegant solution to this ambiguity often encountered. This wall function virtually displaces the mesh to a Y+ ~ 11.225

(transition to the log-law composite layer) irrespective of the level of renement, thereby avoiding the erroneous modelling of the laminar sub-layer and

buer region. It is also important to note that for grids designed with a Y+ > 11.225, the scalable wall function will provide identical results to the standard

wall function. Enhanced wall treatment may further be selected for -based models on rened low-Re grids, and is also formulated such that it can perform

well for meshes of intermediate resolution. However the use of enhanced (or non-equilibrium) wall treatment for low-Re modelling of the turbulent

boundary layer is generally not recommended and more condence in our solution can be obtained by selecting a suitable -based formulation, such as

the SST model.

Share this post

Author: LEAP CFD Team

24 Comments
Andrzej Kwiczala
APRIL 16, 2013

I have read your article and there is one think that I do not understand.

"Scalable wall function - This wall function virtually displaces the mesh to a Y+ ~ 11.225 (transition to the log-law composite layer)

irrespective of the level of renement, thereby avoiding the erroneous modelling of the laminar sub-layer and buer region."

Does this mean that using Scalable wall function the mesh will be rebuilt in the way to consist both phenomena: laminar and transition
ow?

Post a Reply

LEAP Support Team

APRIL 22, 2013

If your model has varying geometrical or velocity scales, then consequently your grid and near-wall renement will have

varying levels of resolution. To maintain consistency in our modelling approach the scalable wall function will virtually

displace the near-wall mesh to a y+ value of 11.225, which is the transition to the log-law region. This is necessary since

epsilon-based models are not ideal for modelling the laminar sub-layer and the scalable approach internally adjusts the

mesh to ensure this region is not resolved. The scalable approach is the default option in ANSYS CFX and is an available

option in ANSYS Fluent. The scalable wall function will not capture laminar or transitioning ow, as it is purely a turbulent

wall function approach. To model aerodynamic ows with laminar-to-turbulent transition, we encourage the use of the

SST transition model. This low-Re model requires ne resolution in the near-wall region due to the complexity of

transitioning ow.

Sadjad
JULY 18, 2013

Hi experts,

You stated that with Scalable Wall Function method, it virtually displaces the mesh to a Y+ ~ 11.225. And on top up the page there is

gure showing buer layer yplus between 5 to 30.

So it seems somehow wrong to place rst layer in buer layer!

Can you explain more?

Thank you in advance.

Post a Reply

LEAP Support Team

JULY 30, 2013

The scalable wall function will displace the mesh to a Y+ ~ 11.225 since this is noted as the numerical transition point

from when a boundary layer operates in the laminar sub-layer to the turbulent log-law. It is simply a virtual scale of rst

cell height so that the solver internally operates as if we are in the log-law region and not within the laminar sub-layer.

beiyang
SEPTEMBER 26, 2013

how does ansys calculte in the near wall region ?is it like this :at the rst cell,use emprical correlation,and from the second cell solving k-e

equation ?If it is like this ,why we need sucient boundary layer?

thank you for your reply..

Post a Reply

Raj
OCTOBER 13, 2013

hiiii...

My geometry is wing of airfoil cross section inside a rectangular box domain. I am using Standard k-e model. what should be my y+? Does

k-e model is good or i should move to another model.

Post a Reply

salman
DECEMBER 9, 2013

Hi,

I am modeling a shell and tube heat exchanger and i am having problem with pressure drop on shell side. My analytical calculations give

pressure drop of 470 Pa while uent gives 2300 Pa. Average Y+ value on tube walls is 20. Turbulence model is K-e with standard wall

functions. Kindly help me in this issue.

Thanks.

Post a Reply

LEAP Support Team

JANUARY 3, 2014

It is dicult for us to comment on this, since we do not have an understanding of the geometry or your choice of

boundary conditions. Nor can we assume that your analytic calculations are in fact valid for the problem setup. The

discrepancy in the result is likely not to be solely due to mesh resolution, rather it is likely to do primarily with the choice

of boundary conditions. Our advice would be to attempt one of the tutorials from the help guide which address heat

transfer to gain an understanding of a representative problem setup.

Mars Shen
DECEMBER 23, 2013

Dear Leap Group:

I saw we explained "Low-Re models are also required for accurate pressure-drop or drag calculations. We highly recommend the use of

the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model, but all -based models or -based models with enhanced wall treatment may be used." in part
"What results am I interested in and am I using the right turbulence model?",

But we said "However the use of enhanced (or non-equilibrium) wall treatment for low-Re modelling of the turbulent boundary layer is

generally not recommended and more condence in our solution can be obtained by selecting a suitable -based formulation, such as the

SST model."

I wonder if these two speaking are contradictory for Enhanced Wall Treatment used in Low-Re? So how we to understand Enhanced Wall

Treatment for solving boundary layer?

Post a Reply

LEAP Support Team

JANUARY 3, 2014

It is necessary to understand the limitations and range of applicability of the eddy-viscosity turbulence models. No single

model can be applied to all problems of interest - however the omega-based models and in particular the SST model are

often preferred, particularly because of their favourable wall treatment. They are relatively more robust near the wall, and

the y-plus insensitive treatment is facilitated through the automatic wall treatment. They are also relatively easier to

combine with additional physics, such as transition. There is still ongoing development for epsilon-based models, in

particular the y-plus insensitive treatment through the enhanced wall treatment and for many problems the use of

realizable k-epsilon with enhanced wall treatment, for instance, will provide a valid result. In this post we aimed to provide

our recommendation for a baseline model to capture boundary layer ows for a wide range of applications, and due to its

robustness, we have opted for the SST model.

ali
FEBRUARY 26, 2014

hi,

we use a wall function for boundary layer so why do we need to have some nodes in this region?

my English is not good enough.

thanks

Post a Reply

LEAP Support Team

MARCH 7, 2014

We respectfully suggest that you re-read this post and other related posts on wall functions/full resolving the boundary

layer on our Blog.

Mohsen
JULY 28, 2014

Hello,

In transient simulation of a ow, the Y+ is not a constant value and alters during time. Which Y+ should I consider to evaluate the cell size

near the wall?

Thanks for your help.

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

OCTOBER 9, 2014

Hi Mohsen,

The y+ value is not constant because now your friction velocity distribution on your wall is changing over time. Rather

than taking the y+ distribution at a specic timestep, you should be taking the transient average of the y+ over the

simulation time

Regards,

LEAP CFD Support

China-hit
AUGUST 5, 2014

Hi experts,

If I want to use non-equilibrium wall function, what's the range that is suitable to the non-equilibrium wall function ? whether is it suitable

as long as the value of Y+ is larger than 11.25 ? I want to simulate the process of wedge of water-entry,could you please give me some

advice on choosing the wall function ? what I most concern is the splashing during the the process of wedge of water-entry.

Thank you so much.Best wishes for you and I am longing for you reply.

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

OCTOBER 9, 2014

Hi,

The non-equilibrium wall function is useful for log-law resolution, and is dierent from the standard wall function is that it

can partly take into account the eects of pressure gradient. However its scope of applicability begins to fall apart when

you take into account severe pressure gradients leading to boundary layer separations, and strong body forces which

your case will be subject to. In this case, it is preferred to use the enhanced wall treatment approach with y-plus values

~1.

Regards,

LEAP CFD Support

Mike
NOVEMBER 3, 2014

Dear LEAP experts,

Thanks a lot for your posts!

As I'm normally involved with internal ows simulation, by your suggestion I chose to switch from ke to kw-SST, as sometimes I can see

some ow detaching and I'm interested in heat transfer too.

But I still have some confusion about some terms normally used when speaking about turbulence (maybe synonymous), and for the

physics.

Referring to Estimating rst cell Height for y+:

When I have to solve the viscous sub-layer in order to have an y+ of 1, why should I still use an approximation like a wall function? I mean,

if I have a y+ of 1, it means that surely I'm really close to the wall with my calculation point, so why should I use a wall function to model

the behaviour of the ow? If I would be able to add more layers near the wall, are NS equations well discretised as well at the wall anyway,

and so I could switch o wall functions?

Thanks a lot

Mike

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

JANUARY 22, 2016

Wall functions are used when the ination layers do not suciently resolve the boundary layer. If you resolve the viscous

sublayer, wall functions can still be used for the turbulent layer, depending on the y+ value. One of the benets of the k-w

SST model is that it will automatically use the low-Re formulation in the viscous sublayer and will use the wall function if

the cell height is in the log-law layer.

rajeshwar
APRIL 16, 2015

Hello experts

I am designing a CD nozzle for a turbine. I meshed it in ICEM CFD.I took k-epsilon model with standard wall functions. I need to nd the

pressure and temperature at the walls of CD nozzle. Which wall function should I choose to get correct pressure value at the walls and get

the correct velocity value at the exit?

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

JANUARY 22, 2016

To obtain accurate pressures and velocities, the recommended turbulence model would be the k-w SST. You will also need

to fully resolve the boundary layer, keeping in mind that if Pr>1 for your problem, the thermal sublayer will be much

thinner than the momentum sublayer. You boundary layer mesh will need to be adjusted accordingly so that both the

thermal and momentum sublayers are captured appropriately.

Mehdi
APRIL 28, 2015

Hi

I've tried to simulate a classical problem of ow and heat transfer in a circular tube with constant heat ux, radius of 10mm and 60mm

length. I've used the periodic boundary condition, K-epsilon model with standard wall function and the Reynolds number is between

10000 to 40000. When I use the ner mesh, the friction factor and Nusselt increase drastically and diverge from the analytical results.

This problem is more serious for low Reynolds (10000

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

JANUARY 22, 2016

The k-w SST model is likely a better choice for your problem as k-w models are known to outperform k-e models with

respect to boundary layer ows. The fact that mesh renement causes even further deviation from the analytical results

supports this as the closer to the wall you rene, the more pronounced the deciencies in the k-e model become. The SST

model, combined with the other recommendations from this blog series should improve your simulation.

ali ettehadi
JUNE 21, 2015

I have two question related to Y plus.

1- I am trying to have y+<5 while using K-epsilon method (enhanced wall) in a 5 m pipe. My y+ results give a value of less than 5 but the

earlier values are about 8 and then it downs to less than 3 severely. Is this ok or not? Y plus value must be less than 5 throughout the

geometry wall?

2- My goal is to nd pressure drop throughout a pipe. The amount of pressure drop changes with quality of mesh even for the Y plus value

less than 5. For example for the y+=3 I have dp=3600 Pa and for y+=0.5 I have dp=3400 Pa. which one is true?

Thank you for your attention to my request

Post a Reply

LEAP CFD Team

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
 Hi Ali,

1) For enhanced wall functions, the average y+ value needs to be around 1 in order to ensure the laminar sublayer is

captured.

2) It is important to verify any model through a mesh independence study. Please see

http://www.computationaluiddynamics.com.au/convergence-and-mesh-independent-study/ for further details

Submit a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

I'm not a robot

reCAPTCHA
Privacy - Terms

Submit Comment

Search for:

Search

Subscribe to Blog via Email

email address

Subscribe

Leading Engineering Application Providers

Australia: 1300 88 22 40
New Zealand: 09 9777 444

Visit LEAP Website for more information on

CFD, FEA, CAD, CAM and related software

products, plus our training and webinar

schedule.

Follow

Recent Popular Random

Breakage
in Rocky -
Modelling
Examples
Breakage
Modelling in Rocky
- Examples
Nov 2, 2016

Going with the

Flow
Jun 30, 2016

Tips on modelling
non-Newtonian
uid viscosity
Jun 2, 2016

Tags

2012 CSIRO CFD Conference acoustics

aerodynamics aerospace and
defence America's Cup ANSYS

ANSYS CFD ANSYS

Meshing Australian International Airshow
Awarded Design CFD CFD
meshing methods CFD
modelling of
turbulent ows CFD
simulation accuracy
combustion common misconceptions
design
consumer products Convergence
and testing design
 optimisation Electromagnetics
eulerian modelling expert
training Face Sizing uid-structure
interaction formula 1 CFD Formula
SAE granular ow HPC Ination
Layer Meshing
innovation lagrangian particle
tracking Mesh Control settings mesh
minerals and process
independence
industries multiphase ow
Multiphysics simulation Navier Stokes
prediction of
aerodynamic ows
Shear-Stress Transport (SST)
turbulence model sports
engineering transition
modelling turbulence
modelling unsteady
ow models wall functions

Subscribe to Blog via Email Recent Posts Contact Us

Breakage Modelling in Rocky - Examples

email address

Subscribe Going with the Flow

Tips on modelling non-Newtonian uid

LEAP Australia Pty Ltd
viscosity

Leading Engineering Application Providers

How to Shrink Wrap a biomedical STL le
ENQUIRIES:
in Fluent Meshing
Australia: 1300 88 22 40

ANSYS simulation workow for pump New Zealand: 09 9777 444

systems a fascinating webinar

Visit LEAP Website for more information on

CFD, FEA, CAD, CAM and related products,

plus our engineering software training and

webinar schedule.

2014 All rights reserved

UA-33602782-1