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

compressibleInterFoam incl. viscous dissipation heating

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 20, 2014, 17:04
Default compressibleInterFoam incl. viscous dissipation heating
  #1
Member
 
Victor-S. Eberhart
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 33
Rep Power: 5
vigges is on a distinguished road
Hello Foamers!

I am working on a modification of compressibleInterFoam, more specifically, I am trying to implement the term for viscous dissipation into TEqn.H in order to take viscous dissipation heating of highly viscous fluids (i.e. oil) into account. I managed to extend the source code of the TEqn.H file according to this thread: calculating the viscous stress tensor tau for viscous dissipation heating
Code:
    volScalarField muEff(turbulence->muEff());
    volTensorField gradU = fvc::grad(U);
    volTensorField tau = muEff * (gradU + gradU.T());

    fvScalarMatrix TEqn
    (
        fvm::ddt(rho, T)
      + fvm::div(rhoPhi, T)
      - fvm::laplacian(twoPhaseProperties.alphaEff(turbulence->mut()), T)
      + (
            fvc::div(fvc::absolute(phi, U), p)
          - ( tau && gradU )    // viscous dissipation heating of fluid
          + fvc::ddt(rho, K) + fvc::div(rhoPhi, K)
        )
       *(
           alpha1/twoPhaseProperties.thermo1().Cv()
         + alpha2/twoPhaseProperties.thermo2().Cv()
        )
    );
My test case is a simple impingement oil jet (T_jet = 302.6 K) on an adiabatic Wall (zeroGradient).

The results so far:
T_aw = 305.4 K | standard compressibleInterFoam
T_aw = 328.7 K | modified compressibleInterFoam

Somehow, it seems to be working, however, it's strange that T_aw of the standard solver is almost 3 K higher than T_jet.
Theoretically, it should be the same, right? The wall and outlet patches all have zeroGradient BCs.

Another thing which makes me second-guessing my above mentioned implementation of the viscous terms, is a CFX simulation of the same problem.
With viscous dissipation heating, it yields a adiabatic wall temperature of T_aw = 305.9 K which is significantly lower than the result of the modified solver.

My question is quite simple: Did I miss something during the implementation of the viscous term?

I tend to think that my definition of muEff is not completely right.
AFAIK, it's muEff = mu + mut, which should hold since I'm using the kOmegaSST model.
But I think, I made a mistake regarding the multiphase character of the case.

If anyone has experience with this, your help will be greatly appreciated
vigges is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2014, 12:07
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Olivier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France, grenoble
Posts: 238
Rep Power: 9
olivierG is on a distinguished road
hello,

Did you get any good result ? Because i need to do the same.

Did you take a look at this: Big problem predicting adiabatic wall temperature (wing, mach 0.33, rhoSimplecFoam)

By the way, you use muEff from turbulence->muEff(), but this is multiphase:
this should be something like mixture.muEff instead ?

regards,
olivier
olivierG is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2014, 12:42
Default
  #3
Member
 
Victor-S. Eberhart
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 33
Rep Power: 5
vigges is on a distinguished road
Salut Olivier,

I'm not able to access my final version of the modified solver or my data, however, the results were pretty good compared to the CFX solution I used as reference. Maybe, with a bit of fine tuning, they would be extremely good

Let get back to you as soon as I can access my stuff again (I am moving at the moment )

Regards,
Victor
vigges is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 20, 2014, 05:35
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Olivier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France, grenoble
Posts: 238
Rep Power: 9
olivierG is on a distinguished road
Hello Victor,

Did you find your final version of your modified solver ?

regards,
olivier
olivierG is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 20, 2014, 05:56
Default
  #5
Member
 
Victor-S. Eberhart
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 33
Rep Power: 5
vigges is on a distinguished road
Hello Olivier,

sorry for the delay, setting up everything took a bit longer than expected

In fact, I used the code from my first post and did a re-run of the exact case. The only thing I did was implementing a ramp for my mass flow rate.

The modified solver now yields a T_aw = 306.7K, compared to T_aw = 305.9K from the CFX run. For the time being, it's sufficiently exact, but your point regarding the muEff is completely valid. I'm gonna check up on that, when I find the time

Best regards,
Victor
vigges 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
How to compute the viscous dissipation term yhy20081016 Main CFD Forum 2 December 17, 2013 23:26
calculating the viscous stress tensor tau for viscous dissipation heating dgadensg OpenFOAM Programming & Development 3 April 21, 2010 03:16
viscous dissipation modelling mahjoob FLUENT 0 January 31, 2007 19:52
temperature rise due to viscous dissipation Marek Main CFD Forum 6 December 30, 2004 17:24
VISCOUS heat dissipation Joseph CFX 0 October 1, 2004 08:52


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36.