|
[Sponsors] |
OpenFOAM vs code-saturn vs FreeCFD vs ... |
View Poll Results: Which open source code for eternal aerodynamics? | |||
OpenFOAM | 45 | 72.58% | |
Code-saturn | 8 | 12.90% | |
Free CFD | 6 | 9.68% | |
Other | 3 | 4.84% | |
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 13, 2009, 15:38 |
OpenFOAM vs code-saturn vs FreeCFD vs ...
|
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 16 |
Which open source Navier Stokes solver do you suggest for external aerodynamic calculation (airplanes (subsonic, transonic and supersonic), cars (maybe also internal cooling flows))?
In case other is selected, can you post the name of the code and some useful link? Thank you, Xwang Ps for the preprocessing I think I'll use Salome. |
|
October 13, 2009, 22:25 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
|
Openfoam does not seem to have good support for compressible flows, especially with strong shocks. Thats what I have gleaned from browsing through it but I would like to hear from others. I have no experience with code-saturne.
I would have recommended freecfd but their 3-d implementation is not complete; they are trying out a new limiter scheme which does not seem to have been finished for 3-d. But if this situation has changed and the turbulence models are also working, then freecfd would be very good. |
|
October 17, 2009, 09:48 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Emre
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 16 |
Praveen is right. Limiter implementation in Free CFD currently has some problems for 3D. I took a break from developing Free CFD to finish my dissertation. I will soon continue. I actually changed the limiter implementation and fixed the issue already. It is rather trivial. I am now testing and adding a few more features for the next release of Free CFD. Tune in to www.freecfd.com for an announcement.
Turbulence models, on the other hand, are working well. I suggest you just try the example cases that comes with the code to judge if it is right for you. After all, I am sure the other codes would work for you just as well. It is a matter of personal taste in the end. |
|
July 28, 2011, 15:07 |
|
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 16 |
What is your opinions after two years?
The majority of polls votes are for openFoam, but the comment are all for freeCFD. Thank you, Xwang |
|
July 28, 2011, 16:32 |
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
My understanding is that since OpenFOAM is not a coupled method it can not handle steady state supersonic flow, i.e. the solution does not converge. This would also mean that OpenFOAM can not handle supersonic pockets. There was an effort, AeroFOAM, to create a coupled solver for such flow, but I gather it is not supported by anyone. In the 2010 OpenFOAM workshop there was a paper on SIMPLE vs. Coupled, http://web.student.chalmers.se/group...SlidesOFW5.pdf
|
|
July 28, 2011, 22:11 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
|
This is possible with rhoCentralFoam, which is the only truly compressible solver available in openfoam.
|
|
July 28, 2011, 23:24 |
|
#7 | |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
Quote:
I see you've done some work with NACA 0012. Were you able to converge the results to machine zero? Also, what conditions did you run it with (mach, alpha, reynolds number, turbulence model, and outer boundary conditions) and what were the CL and CD results. If you give me that information I'll run my solver on it and see how it compares. |
||
July 29, 2011, 00:41 |
|
#8 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
After digging up information on rhoCentralFoam I'm uncertain it does turbulence modeling. Does rhoCentralFoam include turbulence modeling?
|
|
July 29, 2011, 08:17 |
|
#9 |
Super Moderator
|
rhoCentralFoam does only global time stepping. So getting convergence for steady state problems will need too many iterations. I have not looked at how well it converges, since it does not seem to calculate residuals. I am trying to implement local time stepping and run it in parallel.
It does not seem to have turbulence models. It should not be difficult to add it though. |
|
July 29, 2011, 11:14 |
|
#10 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
I can't remember the details, (I tried different solvers, bcs, etc.), but for rhoCentralFoam I believe I created a code to compare the solutions at two adjacent (n and n+1) time steps to get residuals. The runs were inviscid and the grid was coarse. Anyway, unless I can find my runs, or recreate them, I should not say much.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OpenFOAM - Validation of Results | Ahmed | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 10 | May 13, 2018 18:28 |
Small 3-D code | Zdravko Stojanovic | Main CFD Forum | 2 | July 19, 2010 10:11 |
Self implemented code is not running in parallel | michi | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | November 6, 2008 05:09 |
Musig code in OpenFoam | in_flu_ence | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | February 25, 2007 16:47 |
OpenFOAM Version 1.3 Released | OpenFOAM discussion board administrator | OpenFOAM Announcements from ESI-OpenCFD | 0 | March 29, 2006 18:06 |