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

Choosing Exact boundary Conditions

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By simrego

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   December 6, 2018, 00:23
Default Choosing Exact boundary Conditions
  #1
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Hi Foamers,

I am trying to reproduce a simple result by buoyantBoussinesqSimpleFoam solver (OpenFoam 3.1.1 version). I have already set the simulation but not sure whether the set up is 100% correct or not. The description of the problem is attached here. This is basically a laminar case. I took geometry according to this paper. I think the difficulty is in choosing boundary conditions. I have chosen my boundary conditions according to the attached problem is as follows,

Quote:
Velocity:
Hot wall – fixedValue, uniform (0 0 0)
Top and Bottom wall - fixedValue, uniform (0 0 0)
Open boundary – zeroGradient
Default faces-empty

Temperature:
Hot wall – fixedValue, uniform 333
Top and Bottom wall - zeroGradient
Open boundary – inletOutlet, Inletvalue - uniform 289, value- 289
Default faces-empty

P_rgh:
Hot wall – fixedFluxPressure, rho-rhok, uniform 0
Top and Bottom wall- fixedFluxPressure, rho-rhok, uniform 0
Open boundary – fixedValue, uniform 0
Default faces-empty

P:
Hot wall – Calculated (0)
Top and Bottom wall - Calculated (0)
Open boundary – Calculated (0)
Default faces-empty
I have got some result but it is not similar to that related problem.

Can anyone tell what is the mistake that I choose in my boundary conditions based on the OpenFOAM solvers?
Attached Images
File Type: png Screenshot_2018-12-06_16-00-10.png (59.1 KB, 36 views)
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 6, 2018, 18:14
Default
  #2
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Any suggestion please?
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 7, 2018, 07:19
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
anonymous
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 416
Rep Power: 14
simrego is on a distinguished road
Hi!


Can you share the paper and/or your case?
Your BCs seems to be fine, but maybe they did some fancy stuff in the paper.

Your constants in the boussinesq approximation are correct?
Your mesh is good enough? (I think you made a pure hex mesh with blockMesh so i think it's okay)
The mesh resolution is fine enough at the wall?
Your g is correct?
You reached convergence?


Sorry for these basic questions but sometimes a typo ruins everything.
simrego is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 9, 2018, 18:53
Default
  #4
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by simrego View Post
Hi!


Can you share the paper and/or your case?
Your BCs seems to be fine, but maybe they did some fancy stuff in the paper.

Your constants in the boussinesq approximation are correct?
Your mesh is good enough? (I think you made a pure hex mesh with blockMesh so i think it's okay)
The mesh resolution is fine enough at the wall?
Your g is correct?
You reached convergence?


Sorry for these basic questions but sometimes a typo ruins everything.
Hi Simrego,

Sorry for my late reply as I was away from my desk for the weekend. However, Thank you for your valuable response. Here I attached my case file. Now I am trying by buoyantBoussinesqPimpleFoam that is quite similar to buoyantBoussinesqSimpleFoam. Because of the size, I could not attach the paper here. But I am giving you the Google drive link. Just copy and paste it.

And let know please what is the mistake that I am doing each time. Thank you in advance. Looking for your response.
Attached Files
File Type: gz Casefiles.tar.gz (2.6 KB, 3 views)
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 11, 2018, 00:43
Default
  #5
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Hi Simrego,

Did you check that yet?
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 17, 2018, 23:26
Default Boundary Conditions
  #6
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mondal131211 View Post
Hi Simrego,

Sorry for my late reply as I was away from my desk for the weekend. However, Thank you for your valuable response. Here I attached my case file. Now I am trying by buoyantBoussinesqPimpleFoam that is quite similar to buoyantBoussinesqSimpleFoam. Because of the size, I could not attach the paper here. But I am giving you the Google drive link. Just copy and paste it.


And let know please what is the mistake that I am doing each time. Thank you in advance. Looking for your response.

Can anyone correct me whether my boundary condition set up is ok or not according to the attached paper in this thread? OpenFoam 3.0.1. Any comment can be useful for me. Thanks in advance.
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 18, 2018, 03:52
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
anonymous
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 416
Rep Power: 14
simrego is on a distinguished road
Hi!


I checked it and your BCs are seems to be valid, and i tried to reconstruct the case, but I was unable to find the proper outlet conditions (always got some noisy phenomena at the top of the outlet). I think they did something tricky at the outlet.
What about your results? It is totally different?
Mondal131211 likes this.
simrego is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 18, 2018, 04:17
Default
  #8
Member
 
Mondal131211's Avatar
 
Mondal
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Canberra ACT
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 7
Mondal131211 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by simrego View Post
Hi!


I checked it and your BCs are seems to be valid, and i tried to reconstruct the case, but I was unable to find the proper outlet conditions (always got some noisy phenomena at the top of the outlet). I think they did something tricky at the outlet.
What about your results? It is totally different?
Hi Simrego,

You are right. I am also finding some noise at the outlet. My results not much different from their result but it should be same. The flow configuration looks similar but when I go for streamline it looks different. I am not in my office. I will send you a picture of streamline when I am at my office. Anyways, Thank you very much for your response.

Cheers,
Razon
Mondal131211 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
sliding mesh problem in CFX Saima CFX 46 September 11, 2021 07:38
Error - Solar absorber - Solar Thermal Radiation MichaelK CFX 12 September 1, 2016 05:15
Basic Nozzle-Expander Design karmavatar CFX 20 March 20, 2016 08:44
GETVAR Error in Multiband Monte Carlo Radiation Simulation with Directional Source silvan CFX 3 June 16, 2014 09:49
Question about heat transfer coefficient setting for CFX Anna Tian CFX 1 June 16, 2013 06:28


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27.