p file in buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam?

Antimony · September 19, 2013, 04:15

Hi All,

I was trying to run a case on OF 2.1.x using buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. However, I got an error message saying:
"cannot find file
file: <path>/p at line 0"

Note that the file "p_rgh" is there in the same directory.

Why does buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam need "p" in the first place? Doesn't the buoyant solver only require "p_rgh"? Could someone please explain?

Thanks very much!

cfdonline2mohsen · September 19, 2013, 06:38

Dear Antimony
There are 2 tutorials for buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam in OpenFOAM: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam

Set your boundary conditions according to them.

Have a look at the buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam solver's source:
buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam

Antimony · September 19, 2013, 07:36

Dear Kia,

Thanks for your reply!

I did take a look at the source code of buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. And that is probably where I got confused when the mass flow calculators and the adjustPhi functions (for which I had to dig into the pEqn.H and then adjustPhi.H and adjustPhi.C) seem to make use of "p" but not "p_rgh".

And here is probably what confused me even more - in the fvSchemes and fvSolution for this problem (including the OpenFOAM tutorial cases that you had mentioned), there is only a reference to "p_rgh". Even when solving, we seem to be using only p_rgh. We also know the relationship between p and p_rgh.

So if that is the case, what is the necessity to have a separate "p" file? Is it because this solver has built on top of the existing simpleFoam solver and so the "p" file is a must?

In case I have assumed or stated something incorrectly, please do let me know.

Regards,

Antimony

hanness · September 20, 2013, 08:14

Dear Antimony,

I think (and that is just my interpretation) that p should always be calculated since p_rgh is no measurable physical quantity. When you want to start to compare your results with experimental data you need to have p instead of p_rgh.

Hannes

Antimony · September 20, 2013, 09:37

Hi Hanness,

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you to an extent. But like I said in my previous post, I am curious to know, mainly from the computational standpoint, why p is required when p_rgh is the one that is used.

Regards,

Antimony

September 19, 2013, 04:15	p file in buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam?	#1
Antimony Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 407 Rep Power: 15	Hi All, I was trying to run a case on OF 2.1.x using buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. However, I got an error message saying: "cannot find file file: <path>/p at line 0" Note that the file "p_rgh" is there in the same directory. Why does buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam need "p" in the first place? Doesn't the buoyant solver only require "p_rgh"? Could someone please explain? Thanks very much!

September 19, 2013, 06:38		#2
cfdonline2mohsen Senior Member Mohsen KiaMansouri Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: CFD Lab Posts: 118 Rep Power: 16	Dear Antimony There are 2 tutorials for buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam in OpenFOAM: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam Set your boundary conditions according to them. Have a look at the buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam solver's source: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam __________________ “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[Other] mesh airfoil NACA0012	anand_30	OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion	13	March 7, 2022 17:22
[OpenFOAM] Annoying issue of automatic "Rescale to Data Range " with paraFoam/paraview 3.12	keepfit	ParaView	60	September 18, 2013 03:23
"parabolicVelocity" in OpenFoam 2.1.0 ?	sawyer86	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	21	February 7, 2012 11:44
[blockMesh] BlockMesh FOAM warning	gaottino	OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion	7	July 19, 2010 14:11
ParaView Compilation	jakaranda	OpenFOAM Installation	3	October 27, 2008 11:46

September 19, 2013, 07:36		#3
Antimony Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 407 Rep Power: 15	Dear Kia, Thanks for your reply! I did take a look at the source code of buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. And that is probably where I got confused when the mass flow calculators and the adjustPhi functions (for which I had to dig into the pEqn.H and then adjustPhi.H and adjustPhi.C) seem to make use of "p" but not "p_rgh". And here is probably what confused me even more - in the fvSchemes and fvSolution for this problem (including the OpenFOAM tutorial cases that you had mentioned), there is only a reference to "p_rgh". Even when solving, we seem to be using only p_rgh. We also know the relationship between p and p_rgh. So if that is the case, what is the necessity to have a separate "p" file? Is it because this solver has built on top of the existing simpleFoam solver and so the "p" file is a must? In case I have assumed or stated something incorrectly, please do let me know. Regards, Antimony

September 20, 2013, 08:14		#4
hanness Member hannes Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 47 Rep Power: 13	Dear Antimony, I think (and that is just my interpretation) that p should always be calculated since p_rgh is no measurable physical quantity. When you want to start to compare your results with experimental data you need to have p instead of p_rgh. Hannes

September 20, 2013, 09:37		#5
Antimony Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 407 Rep Power: 15	Hi Hanness, Thanks for your reply. I agree with you to an extent. But like I said in my previous post, I am curious to know, mainly from the computational standpoint, why p is required when p_rgh is the one that is used. Regards, Antimony