CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Bugs

Possible bug in UEqn for raslescavitatingFoam

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 11, 2008, 06:05
Default Yes in principle you are corre
  #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
Yes in principle you are correct, "dev2" should be used instead of "dev". However numerically there are problems because while the implementation of divU is consistent with fvc::grad(U) and hence a consistent "dev" can be formulated, if "dev2" is used, part of the 2/3 I divU is being used to make the grad(U) buried in the fvm::laplacian(muEfff, U) deviatoric. This is not numerically consistent. While there are no problems with this for most variable density flows, cavitation is a special case as it introduces extreme dilatation in the flow. Try the alternatives and see what happens.

Another option is to implement the stress directly as

div( muEfff * ( gradU + transpose( gradU ) - 2/3 I divU ) )

and then add the stabilising term

- fvm::laplacian(muEfff, U) + fvc::laplacian(muEfff, U)

but while this is more consistent we have seen numerical problems with it in the past.

H
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 11, 2008, 13:42
Default on reflection I don't think th
  #2
Member
 
Richard Kenny
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 9
richpaj is on a distinguished road
on reflection I don't think the above helps. I'll test some of the alternatives you mentioned before

Regards,

RGK
richpaj is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 11, 2008, 14:41
Default ...it is effectively the same
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
...it is effectively the same as using "dev2". The consistency issue arises because "laplacian" uses a compact molecule and "grad(div" has to use an extended molecule. The only numerically consistent approach is to use the extended molecule for all three terms but then you loose the advantage of the compact molecule for "laplacian".

H
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2008, 00:13
Default for the flow under considerati
  #4
Member
 
Richard Kenny
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 9
richpaj is on a distinguished road
for the flow under consideration, there does indeed appear to be some difference implementing "dev2" instead of "dev", most notably though the collapse of the pressure.

I've reverted to using "dev" for the duration but will attempt one of your alternative formulations if numerical difficulties persist.

Many thanks,

RGK
richpaj is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GammaEqn and UEqn in interFoam adekian OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 April 11, 2007 02:03


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25.