
[Sponsors] 
August 26, 2013, 08:01 
interFoam: Solve gives better results than MULES

#1 
Member
Hrushi
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 5 
Hi everyone,
I have been toying with interFoam lately. I have observed that solve method gives better results than MULES::explicitSolve. When I switched off the U and p equations and added a source term to alpha evolution equation, I got better analytical results using solve than with MULES. Has anyone seen effect like this before? Thanks, Hrushi 

August 26, 2013, 11:12 

#2 
Senior Member
Bernhard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Delft
Posts: 790
Rep Power: 14 
You are not solving for U and p, and are comparing with analytical results, so I am assuming your case is steady state? Would you be able to apply your solver on, e.g., the dam break case?


August 28, 2013, 02:29 

#3 
Member
Hrushi
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 5 
Hi Bernhard,
Sorry for a delayed reply. I am out of town and little access to my results. I will try to get some pictures before eve and put them online. I am solving for a transient problem and not steady state one. Its a modified alpha equation with source term. I first tried it on damBreak case, but water column did not break. In fact, I got some unphysical results in the dam itself. My UEqn also does not seem to be working. Since then, I am trying to debug by trying various options. One of them was to remove U and p equations and see how the alpha equation is solved. I am trying different solutions for solve on randomly initialized alpha field. But to my surprise, mules gave a very uniformly distributed alpha while solve method gave me a distinction between different phases, which is the typical solution with extra source term. Not sure why my UEqn fails and nor do I have any idea why alpha equation should give me unphysical answer for same source term. Thanks, Hrushi 

August 28, 2013, 12:37 

#4 
Member
Hrushi
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 5 
Hi Bernhard,
Following is my solve output. I could not get the MULES output but I can describe that MULES gives much diffuse interface than solve. Does it give you an idea? Thanks Hrushi 

September 10, 2013, 11:23 

#5 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 430
Rep Power: 16 
Hi, probably solve give you less diffusive solutions, but in some cases mass conservation could not be guaranteed, MULES is more robust in this sense.
Regards.
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

September 10, 2013, 12:39 

#6 
Member
Hrushi
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 5 
Hi Santiago,
Thanks for your reply. I have read part of your thesis where you have explained MULES solver. But I found that if we decrease the time step by one order of magnitude, we get better results and at the same time, it has as good conservation as MULES. Any idea why? Regards, Hrushi 

September 10, 2013, 12:57 

#7 
Senior Member
Santiago Marquez Damian
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Santa Fe, Santa Fe, Argentina
Posts: 430
Rep Power: 16 
Hi, MULES as other FCT methods make a blending between a first order flux and and a high order flux which is in somewhat fixed. Using TVD methods with solver allows you to use different limiters to obtain a solution as sharp as you want (within the possible range of solution given by the limiters).
The FCT version coded in MULES is iterative, which is a difference with the original Zalesak method, going up in iterations recovers the original method, with less iterations it is less diffusive, but at the same time more unstable I guess, you could try to change the number of iterations in the MULESLimiter method (they are hardcoded). Regards
__________________
Santiago MÁRQUEZ DAMIÁN, Ph.D. Research Scientist Research Center for Computational Methods (CIMEC)  CONICET/UNL Tel: 543424511594 Int. 7032 Colectora Ruta Nac. 168 / Paraje El Pozo (3000) Santa Fe  Argentina. http://www.cimec.org.ar 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Problem of simulating of small droplet with radius of 2mm  liguifan  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  5  June 3, 2014 02:53 
Strange Results at Tank Outlet with InterFoam  mgdenno  OpenFOAM  17  August 18, 2013 21:18 
interFoam vs. simpleFoam channel flow comparison  DanM  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  11  January 5, 2013 07:21 
InterFoam MULES solver  jaswi  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  4  November 21, 2012 09:56 
Strange results from interFoam solution converges but sum of all forces not equal to zero  nicasch  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  0  April 15, 2008 02:01 