|
[Sponsors] |
April 11, 2009, 08:03 |
Vof in CFX ?
|
#1 |
New Member
Asghar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi All
is there any VOF module for sharp interface modeling in CFX ? if yes, witch method it use (PLIC or SLIC ....) "my mean is not only two phase model but exactly VOF and sharp interface modeling" |
|
April 13, 2009, 21:26 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,703
Rep Power: 143 |
Hi,
CFX has a compressive differencing scheme for free surface simulations, but despite the rantings in the CFX advertising material it is far behind the free surface schemes in Fluent and other codes. You have to expect the interface to be smeared over several cells in CFX at best. CFX does not have SLIC or PLIC. Glenn Horrocks |
|
April 14, 2009, 08:34 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi,
Depending on what the flow is doing, you're looking at a free surface 'thickness' of usually 1.5-2 mesh diagonals with CFX. So the only interface sharpening option available is refining the mesh... latslosh. |
|
April 14, 2009, 20:43 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,703
Rep Power: 143 |
Hi,
A free surface of 1.5-2 mesh diagonals in my experience is only possible for a tightly converged simulation with fine time steps. If you loosen the convergence or use bigger timesteps to accelerate the simulation you will blur the surface more. Note surface tension makes free surface modelling significantly more complicated. Glenn Horrocks |
|
April 15, 2009, 07:12 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Asghar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 17 |
Tanks,
I saw some results of CFX that it can not save the sharp interface (for example in Slug flow modeling). In some manuals of CFX presented that CFX has VOF module, but I think it is not correct, VOF basically must save the sharp interface by spacially methods such as Youngs method. |
|
April 15, 2009, 18:38 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,703
Rep Power: 143 |
Hi,
You should not generalise Ashgar. There is nothing "wrong" with the free surface modelling in CFX, it is just that it does not capture the interface as sharply as some other approaches. Whether this is a problem or not depends on the application. CFX has been successfully used on many free surface applications so you definitely would not say it is "wrong". Glenn Horrocks |
|
April 16, 2009, 01:55 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Asghar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 17 |
That is ok !
My mean was that the free surface model of CFX is not VOF and it make some mass diffusion that it may damage physically on results for some application, for example in wave modeling we don't have any mass diffusion between air and water, when CFX make a tin or tick layer of fluid with density of 500 between air with density of 1 and water with density of 1000 it is harmful for momentum eq. But when we have phisicaly some mixed condition in free surface it is so usfull. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pros and Cons for CFX, CFdesign, COMSOL | Val | Main CFD Forum | 3 | June 10, 2011 02:20 |
Open boundary condition for VOF in CFX | Zhihua Xie | CFX | 2 | June 4, 2007 10:48 |
PhD using CFX | Rui | CFX | 9 | May 28, 2007 05:59 |
CFX 4.4 installation problem | Pandu Sattvika | CFX | 1 | December 1, 2001 04:07 |
Moving mesh or VOF? | Giovanni | Main CFD Forum | 16 | September 24, 2001 08:25 |