CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Fluctuating Pressure with porousSimpleFoam

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 1, 2013, 04:42
Default Fluctuating Pressure with porousSimpleFoam
  #1
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Hello,
I'm running a channel-case with a smaller cross-section in between. The little box in the middle is filled with a porous zone. Furthermore there are also other geometric details, which shouldn't influence the results.

The problem is, that the pressure values which I'm recording right in front of the porous zone are fluctuating considerable, aroung +/- 50 Pa. The values behind the zone are pretty continuous.

Any Ideas?

My fvSchemes:
Code:
ddtSchemes
{
    default         steadyState;
}

gradSchemes
{
    default         Gauss linear;
}

divSchemes
{
    default         none;
    div(phi,U)      Gauss GammaV 0.5;
    div(phi,k)      Gauss Gamma 0.5;
    div(phi,omega)  Gauss Gamma 0.5;
    div((nuEff*dev(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
}

laplacianSchemes
{
    default         Gauss linear limited 0.333;
}

interpolationSchemes
{
    default         linear;
}

snGradSchemes
{
    default         corrected;
}

fluxRequired
{
    default         no;
    p;
}
fvSolution:
Code:
solvers
{
    p
    {
        solver           GAMG;
        tolerance        1e-9;
        relTol           0.1;
        smoother         GaussSeidel;
        nPreSweeps       0;
        nPostSweeps      2;
        cacheAgglomeration on;
        agglomerator     faceAreaPair;
        nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10;
        mergeLevels      1;
    }

    U
    {
        solver           smoothSolver;
        smoother         GaussSeidel;
        tolerance        1e-11;
        relTol           0.1;
        nSweeps          1;
    }

    k
    {
        solver           smoothSolver;
        smoother         GaussSeidel;
        tolerance        1e-11;
        relTol           0.1;
        nSweeps          1;
    }

    omega
    {
        solver           smoothSolver;
        smoother         GaussSeidel;
        tolerance        1e-11;
        relTol           0.1;
        nSweeps          1;
    }
}

SIMPLE
{
    nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 4;
}

potentialFlow
{
    nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 10;
}

relaxationFactors
{
    fields
    {
        p               0.3;
    }
    equations
    {
        U               0.6;
        k               0.3;
        omega           0.3;
    }
}

cache
{
    grad(U);
}
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 04:52
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
Hi MB,

A simple test you can perform to see whether the fluctuations are caused by numerical instabilities (wiggles), is to set all 'Gauss gamma 0.5' to 'Gauss upwind'. From accuracy point of view, this is certainly not interesting. But if the wiggles disappear you know it is related to the discretization and not the case setup (BC, initial conditions, ...). If this solves the problem, replace the upwind scheme by a 2nd order one other than the gamma 0.5.

Cheers,

L
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 05:14
Default
  #3
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieven View Post
Hi MB,

A simple test you can perform to see whether the fluctuations are caused by numerical instabilities (wiggles), is to set all 'Gauss gamma 0.5' to 'Gauss upwind'. From accuracy point of view, this is certainly not interesting. But if the wiggles disappear you know it is related to the discretization and not the case setup (BC, initial conditions, ...). If this solves the problem, replace the upwind scheme by a 2nd order one other than the gamma 0.5.

Cheers,

L
Hi Lieven,
thanks four your reply. I already did a simulation with 'Gamma upwind' for k and omega, but the fluctuations are the same. So I have to check my BC, initial conditions etc.? I don't think that I made a mistake there...

Regards,
MB
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 05:38
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
Hi MB,

Do it also for div(phi,U). Since the velocity field is directly coupled with the pressure, I even expect this to have a much bigger effect than k and omega.

Cheers,

L
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 13:52
Default
  #5
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieven View Post
Hi MB,

Do it also for div(phi,U). Since the velocity field is directly coupled with the pressure, I even expect this to have a much bigger effect than k and omega.

Cheers,

L
Just got the results. A little bit better, but still fluctuating a lot. Another suggestions?

Regards,
MB
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 13:55
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
Did you do set all three to upwind at the same time?

What about the quality of the mesh? Hexahedral? Non-orthogonality? Coarse/fine?
Somewhere conflicting boundary conditions? All steady BC?

Cheers,

L
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 2, 2013, 08:21
Default
  #7
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieven View Post
Did you do set all three to upwind at the same time?

What about the quality of the mesh? Hexahedral? Non-orthogonality? Coarse/fine?
Somewhere conflicting boundary conditions? All steady BC?

Cheers,

L
All three are upwind. Regarding the mesh, mostly hexahedral, and a few prisms. Non-orthogonality check is OK, but 3 highly skew faces. Could this be a reason?

Regards,
MB
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 2, 2013, 08:39
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
This is not so trivial to say but if the fluctuations and/or the prisms or skew faces are near each other this might indeed be the cause...
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 2, 2013, 08:45
Default
  #9
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieven View Post
This is not so trivial to say but if the fluctuations and/or the prisms or skew faces are near each other this might indeed be the cause...
Right now I'm creating a new mesh. Thanks for your help so far, I'll let you know how it's working...
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 7, 2013, 18:38
Default
  #10
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by matzbanni View Post
Right now I'm creating a new mesh. Thanks for your help so far, I'll let you know how it's working...
Checked a few other meshes, still fluctuating even with upwind. A bit confusing because of the nice values after the porousZone...?!

Regards
MB
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2013, 01:51
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
Mmm, do you include the porous zone explicitly or implicitly in the momentum equation?
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2013, 05:14
Default
  #12
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieven View Post
Mmm, do you include the porous zone explicitly or implicitly in the momentum equation?
So far I always included it explicit, but I read that the implicit solver is a bit more robust, let's see...
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 8, 2013, 05:49
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
Lieven
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 295
Rep Power: 13
Lieven will become famous soon enough
Ok, I'm kind of running out of ideas. Anyone else maybe?
Lieven is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 9, 2013, 03:38
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
HECKMANN Frédéric
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 8
fredo490 is on a distinguished road
From my experience on rhoPimpleFoam, you can try to set the pressure relaxation factor to 0.5 and also change the laplacian to 0.5.

I often face "oscillations" on the pressure field that disappear when I rise the relaxation factor. Maybe you can try it.
fredo490 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 9, 2013, 10:40
Default
  #15
New Member
 
MB
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
matzbanni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredo490 View Post
From my experience on rhoPimpleFoam, you can try to set the pressure relaxation factor to 0.5 and also change the laplacian to 0.5.

I often face "oscillations" on the pressure field that disappear when I rise the relaxation factor. Maybe you can try it.
Okay, I'll give it a try. What do you mean by change the laplacian to 0.5?
matzbanni is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 9, 2013, 10:45
Default
  #16
Senior Member
 
HECKMANN Frédéric
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 8
fredo490 is on a distinguished road
laplacianSchemes { default Gauss linear limited 0.5; }
fredo490 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 2, 2013, 13:45
Default
  #17
Member
 
Nickolas P
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greece
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 6
NickolasPl is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone,

I' m experiencing exactly the same problem. When I plot the pressure inside the porous region everything looks fine but A LOT of wiggling happens in the non-porous region. I experimented myself with both implicit and explicit posousSimpleFoam solver but without any luck. I also tried different schemes in the fvSchemes dictionary but the wiggling still exists. I do not have any turbulence models on (laminar flow) and I simply cannot understand why this wiggling takes place. The mesh was generated via Gmsh with prismatic cells filling the computational domain which very dense cell arrangements in some regions. Can anybody shed some light regarding this issue? From the BC's point of view I don't think I 've made any mistake. The flow behaviour generally looks..."realistic" short of, and as expected. But the pressure produces oscillations.

Thanks in advance,

Nickolas
NickolasPl 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
Fluctuating Pressure Fields (LES-pisoFoam) fluentfreak OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 23 July 13, 2014 11:07
Pulsatile pressure inlet with pressure outlet a.lynchy FLUENT 3 March 23, 2012 14:45
Fluent natural ventilation pressure boundary condition pierresandre FLUENT 24 November 8, 2011 15:32
UDF to define or adjust pressure??? engahmed FLUENT 0 July 6, 2010 17:19
Neumann pressure BC and velocity field Antech Main CFD Forum 0 April 25, 2006 02:15


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:06.