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

Calculating divDevReff

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

Like Tree17Likes
  • 1 Post By 4xF
  • 2 Post By mchurchf
  • 5 Post By christju
  • 2 Post By poplar
  • 7 Post By Tobi

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 11, 2008, 22:57
Default Hi All, I'm using simpleFoa
  #1
New Member
 
John O\'Sullivan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8
jposunz is on a distinguished road
Hi All,

I'm using simpleFoam and turbFoam with k-epsilon and will be trying different turbulence models in the future. Before that though, I'm trying to understand the implementation exactly.

I've searched a lot and I don't understand why the calculation for turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

divDevReff(U) =
- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

instead of:

divDevReff(U) =
- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T())

ie. why do we take the deviatoric?

I've read several papers including Hrvoje's "A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques" and still haven't found an answer.

Is there another paper that explains the implementation?

Thanks very much
John
jposunz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 14, 2008, 18:48
Default Anyone? Or should I have been
  #2
New Member
 
John O\'Sullivan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8
jposunz is on a distinguished road
Anyone? Or should I have been able to find this in the literature somewhere already?
jposunz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2009, 16:59
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
louisgag's Avatar
 
Louis Gagnon
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Québec, QC, Canada
Posts: 208
Rep Power: 9
louisgag is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to louisgag
Hi John,

did you find the answer to that? If so I'd be curious to know what it is. Thanks!

-Louis
louisgag is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2009, 14:09
Default
  #4
jet
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 7
jet is on a distinguished road
Hi,

have you already found an answer to your question? I tried to understand this equation, too. But I failed!
jet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 30, 2009, 23:04
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
louisgag's Avatar
 
Louis Gagnon
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Québec, QC, Canada
Posts: 208
Rep Power: 9
louisgag is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to louisgag
I think it has to do with the fact that

dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

is, at convergence, the same as

(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

for some fluids

-Louis
louisgag is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 2, 2009, 12:39
Default
  #6
4xF
New Member
 
Frank Albina
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 8
4xF is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to 4xF
fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T())) and fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T()) are the same. The reason is that the missing term is the diagonal of the tensor fvc::grad(U)().T() which is the trace of fvc::grad(U)().T() which is div(phi). For an incompressible fluid, this value is strictly zero by virtue of mass conservation.
sharonyue likes this.
4xF is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 22, 2009, 17:45
Default
  #7
Member
 
Matthew J. Churchfield
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 49
Rep Power: 8
mchurchf is on a distinguished road
John,

I don't know if anyone has answered your question yet, but I've come across the same thing, and I have questions about the incompressible implementation of divDevReff also. As you said, in the incompressible models, turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Shouldn't dev2 be used instead of dev? In the compressible models, that is the case as turbulence->divDevRhoReff is:

- fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)
- fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

In src\OpenFOAM\primitives\Tensor\TensorI.H, dev and dev2 are defined as dev(A) = A-1/3*I*trace(A) and dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

The stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

which is the same as:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*(du_i/dx_j+du_j/dx_i)} - 2/3*d/dx_i {nu_eff(du_k/dx_k)}

which is in vector notation:
laplacian(nu_eff*U)
+ div{nu_eff*transpose[grad(U)]}
- div{2/3*nu_eff*I*trace[transpose(grad(U))]}

and reduces to:
laplacian(nu_eff*U) + div{nu_eff*dev2(transpose[grad(U)])}

Notice that dev2 is here instead of dev, which agrees with the compressible coding. However, in the incompressible coding, dev is used, which seem incorrect.

Now, the du_k/dx_k = trace[transpose(grad(U))] should be equal to zero in incompressible flow due to the continuity equation, so it seems that it should not matter if dev or dev2 is used. However, in the PISO algorithm, velocity may be predicted from a field that does not satisfy continuity due to initial conditions or insufficient pressure correction, so it seems like it would be wise to keep du_k/dx_k.

I am wondering if dev2 is an addition to OpenFOAM 1.6 and the incompressible divDevReff (and divDevBeff for LES) didn't get updated to reflect the change. Can someone with the correct knowledge please help?

Thank you,

Matt






Quote:
Originally Posted by jposunz View Post
Hi All,

I'm using simpleFoam and turbFoam with k-epsilon and will be trying different turbulence models in the future. Before that though, I'm trying to understand the implementation exactly.

I've searched a lot and I don't understand why the calculation for turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

divDevReff(U) =
- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

instead of:

divDevReff(U) =
- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T())

ie. why do we take the deviatoric?

I've read several papers including Hrvoje's "A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques" and still haven't found an answer.

Is there another paper that explains the implementation?

Thanks very much
John
Tobi and mgg like this.
mchurchf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 2, 2010, 12:04
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Julien Christophe
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
christju is on a distinguished road
Hello,
In fact, I've come across the same thing and I found the same conclusion than you Matthew...
The reynolds stress tensor is defined as :
-rho u'_i u'_j = 2 mu_t S_ij - 2/3 rho k delta_ij

where k = (u'_i u'_i) /2 is the kinetic energy, and S_ij is the deviatoric part of the mean strain rate :
S_ij = 1/2 (du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i) - 1/3 d_uk/dx_k delta_ij

As you said Matthew, the stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

And in fact, from my point of view, a 2 is missing in the implementation of turbulence->divDevReff(U) of the incompressible model....

My other question is :
Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account?
Is it through a modified pressure defined as P = p/rho+2/3k and solved in the pressure equation?
And then, what is writen in the output files? this modified pressure?

If you have any idea....
Thank you in advance for your help,
Julien
christju is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 25, 2010, 00:51
Default
  #9
New Member
 
pop
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 7
poplar is on a distinguished road
Hi,mchurchf.

The complete form of div(StressTensor)is:
div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)())) + div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))
So -1/3*I*trace(A) is lncluded in both dev(grad(U)) and dev(grad(U).T()),

in fact,
laplacian(nuEff(), U) = div(muEff()*grad(U)) =div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U))) + 1/3*I*trace(A)

as a result, one 1/3*I*trace(A) is addded in laplacian(nuEff(), U), so a minus one must be subtracted in the later term.

then,dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

du_k/dx_k in incompressible fluids may be removed. If one retains it for correction, 1/3 or 2/3 is only a scale factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mchurchf View Post
John,

I don't know if anyone has answered your question yet, but I've come across the same thing, and I have questions about the incompressible implementation of divDevReff also. As you said, in the incompressible models, turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Shouldn't dev2 be used instead of dev? In the compressible models, that is the case as turbulence->divDevRhoReff is:

- fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)
- fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

In src\OpenFOAM\primitives\Tensor\TensorI.H, dev and dev2 are defined as dev(A) = A-1/3*I*trace(A) and dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

The stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

which is the same as:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*(du_i/dx_j+du_j/dx_i)} - 2/3*d/dx_i {nu_eff(du_k/dx_k)}

which is in vector notation:
laplacian(nu_eff*U)
+ div{nu_eff*transpose[grad(U)]}
- div{2/3*nu_eff*I*trace[transpose(grad(U))]}

and reduces to:
laplacian(nu_eff*U) + div{nu_eff*dev2(transpose[grad(U)])}

Notice that dev2 is here instead of dev, which agrees with the compressible coding. However, in the incompressible coding, dev is used, which seem incorrect.

Now, the du_k/dx_k = trace[transpose(grad(U))] should be equal to zero in incompressible flow due to the continuity equation, so it seems that it should not matter if dev or dev2 is used. However, in the PISO algorithm, velocity may be predicted from a field that does not satisfy continuity due to initial conditions or insufficient pressure correction, so it seems like it would be wise to keep du_k/dx_k.

I am wondering if dev2 is an addition to OpenFOAM 1.6 and the incompressible divDevReff (and divDevBeff for LES) didn't get updated to reflect the change. Can someone with the correct knowledge please help?

Thank you,

Matt
Tobi and sina.s like this.

Last edited by poplar; August 25, 2010 at 18:38.
poplar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 13, 2010, 12:54
Default new nuEff()
  #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: France
Posts: 193
Rep Power: 6
T.D. is on a distinguished road
Hi guys
i need to add (implement) and use a new nuEff2(), how to do that?
where to add the new nuEff() ?

i tried but it's hard, since it was only one original "nu" defined in all the transportModels and viscosityModels, and is hard to change in all the files.

help please
T.D. is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 26, 2012, 09:14
Default
  #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 92
Rep Power: 6
haze_1986 is on a distinguished road
I am curious about this too

Last edited by haze_1986; October 27, 2012 at 07:35.
haze_1986 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 25, 2013, 05:27
Default
  #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 92
Rep Power: 6
haze_1986 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by poplar View Post
Hi,mchurchf.

The complete form of div(StressTensor)is:
div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)())) + div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))
So -1/3*I*trace(A) is lncluded in both dev(grad(U)) and dev(grad(U).T()),

in fact,
laplacian(nuEff(), U) = div(muEff()*grad(U)) =div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U))) + 1/3*I*trace(A)

as a result, one 1/3*I*trace(A) is addded in laplacian(nuEff(), U), so a minus one must be subtracted in the later term.

then,dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

du_k/dx_k in incompressible fluids may be removed. If one retains it for correction, 1/3 or 2/3 is only a scale factor.
Hi, that sounds correct, but I do not understand why for the compressible case divDevRhoReff(U), dev2 is used instead?
A question about UEqn sonicFoam
haze_1986 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 31, 2014, 08:22
Default
  #13
New Member
 
Matthias Stammen
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 6
MatzeS is on a distinguished road
Hello,

although it's some time ago and several replies were posted, I still don't understand, if the implementation is correct...

Don't we have to use dev2() instead of dev() for the incompressible solvers (at least until convergence is reached)?
Or did I just miss the correct reply?

Regards,
Matthias
MatzeS is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 6, 2014, 04:31
Default
  #14
Member
 
Fabian E.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 7
galap is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by christju View Post
Hello,
In fact, I've come across the same thing and I found the same conclusion than you Matthew...
The reynolds stress tensor is defined as :
-rho u'_i u'_j = 2 mu_t S_ij - 2/3 rho k delta_ij

where k = (u'_i u'_i) /2 is the kinetic energy, and S_ij is the deviatoric part of the mean strain rate :
S_ij = 1/2 (du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i) - 1/3 d_uk/dx_k delta_ij

As you said Matthew, the stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:
d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

And in fact, from my point of view, a 2 is missing in the implementation of turbulence->divDevReff(U) of the incompressible model....

My other question is :
Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account?
Is it through a modified pressure defined as P = p/rho+2/3k and solved in the pressure equation?
And then, what is writen in the output files? this modified pressure?

If you have any idea....
Thank you in advance for your help,
Julien
Exactly reprint of my doubts. The issue in the incompressible is not the problem for me - since I am dealing with compressible flows. There the implementation seems to be correct. But what I don't see:

Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account? Has anyone find the answer?
galap is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 15, 2015, 15:07
Default divDevRhoReff and divDevReff
  #15
Senior Member
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Leoben (Austria)
Posts: 1,100
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 19
Tobi will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Hi all,

as I read before, there are still some people who are confused about the equations and the behavior of the implemented code. Therefore, I want to make the derivations and want to show you that the implementation is correct for both cases. We consider compressible and incompressible fluids. Further more I only take into account laminar flow and explain the way to get to divDevRhoReff and divDevReff.

Momentum equation

Lets start with the obvious momentum equation:

\frac{\partial \rho \textbf{U}}{\partial t} + \nabla \bullet (\rho  \textbf{U} \textbf{U}) = \nabla \bullet \boldsymbol \sigma + \textbf{f}

Due to the fact that everyone are more or less familiar with the equations, I do not mention the variables meaning. For the further proceeding I do not consider body forces. If we have newtonian fluid the stress tensor \boldsymbol \sigma can be expressed as:

\boldsymbol \sigma = - \left(p + \frac{2}{3} \mu \nabla \bullet \textbf{U}\right) \textbf{I} + \mu \left[ \nabla \textbf{U} + (\nabla \textbf{U})^T\right]

Some modifications and we end up with:

\boldsymbol \sigma = - p\textbf{I} - \frac{2}{3} \mu \nabla \bullet  \textbf{U} \textbf{I} + \mu \nabla \textbf{U} + \mu  (\nabla  \textbf{U})^T

Combining both, and neglect all other body forces, we end up with:

\frac{\partial \rho \textbf{U}}{\partial t} + \nabla \bullet (\rho   \textbf{U} \textbf{U}) = \nabla \bullet \left[ - p\textbf{I} - \frac{2}{3} \mu \nabla \bullet  \textbf{U} \textbf{I} + \mu \nabla \textbf{U} + \mu  (\nabla  \textbf{U})^T\right]

Lets focus only only to the RHS (step by step):

\nabla \bullet  (- p\textbf{I}) + \nabla \bullet \left[-\frac{2}{3} \mu \nabla \bullet   \textbf{U} \textbf{I} + \mu \nabla \textbf{U} + \mu  (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T\right]

Now it can be shown that the first term is the gradient of the pressure:

\nabla \bullet  (- p\textbf{I}) = -\nabla p

The analytic proof:

\nabla \bullet  (- p\textbf{I}) = \nabla \bullet \left[ -p 
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 &0 \\ 
0 & 1 &0 \\ 
 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
 =
\nabla \bullet
\begin{pmatrix}
-p & 0 &0 \\ 
0 & -p &0 \\ 
 0 & 0 & -p
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
 (-\frac{\partial p}{\partial x}) + 0 + 0\\ 
0 + (-\frac{\partial p}{\partial y}) + 0\\
0 + 0 + (- \frac{\partial p}{\partial x})
\end{pmatrix} =

=
\begin{pmatrix}
 (-\frac{\partial p}{\partial x})\\ 
(-\frac{\partial p}{\partial y})\\
(-\frac{\partial p}{\partial x})
\end{pmatrix}
=- \nabla p

The second term at the RHS is often symboled with \boldsymbol \tau and stand for the viscose part of the stress tensor (normally without the divergence symbol):

\nabla \bullet \boldsymbol \tau = \nabla \bullet \left[-\frac{2}{3} \mu \nabla \bullet   \textbf{U}  \textbf{I} + \mu \nabla \textbf{U} + \mu  (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T\right]

This guy is calculated by calling the function divDevRhoReff(U) or divDevReff(U). Now I will show that the implemented functions are correct.


Compressible

In compressible flow we have the full viscose stress tensor. Now I demonstrate that this term is exactly the divDevRhoReff(U) function. Lets start to modify the equation (again step by step). But first I want to introduce the necessary math operation. \textbf{a} denotes an arbitary vector:

\nabla \bullet
\textbf{a} = \mathrm{tr}(\nabla\textbf{a}) = \mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{a})^T

using this formula and sorting the equation, we get the following:

\nabla \bullet \left[\mu \nabla \textbf{U} + \mu  \left((\nabla   \textbf{U})^T -\frac{2}{3} \mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T   \textbf{I} \right)\right]

\nabla \bullet (\mu \nabla \textbf{U}) 
+ \nabla \bullet 
\left( \mu  \left[(\nabla   \textbf{U})^T - \frac{2}{3}  \mathrm{tr}(\nabla  \textbf{U})^T   \textbf{I} \right]\right)

Thats it. If we call turbulence->divDevRhoReff() we will exactly get this equation. Using a substituion for the gradient of the transponed velocity field, the name of the function dev2 gets clearer:

(\nabla   \textbf{U})^T = \textbf{A}

\nabla \bullet (\mu \nabla \textbf{U}) 
+ \nabla \bullet 
\left( \mu  \left[(\textbf{A} - \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\textbf{A})   \textbf{I} \right]\right)

The deviatoric part of a matrix is defined as:

\mathrm{dev}(\textbf{A}) = \textbf{A} - \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr} (\textbf{A})\textbf{I}

Now we see, that the second term include the deviatoric part of the matrix (gradU). In compressible we call the dev2 due to the fact that the factor 2 is in the trace. To proove the equation, we can check out the code in the compressible tubulence file (laminar.C): http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp...ce.html#l00219

Code:
  219 tmp<fvVectorMatrix> laminar::divDevRhoReff(volVectorField& U) const   220 {
   221     return
   222     (
   223       - fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)
   224       - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))
   225     );
   226 }


\nabla \bullet (\mu \nabla \textbf{U})

is equal to (muEff = mu for laminar):
Code:
fvm::laplacian(muEff, U)
\nabla \bullet 
\left( \mu  \left[(\nabla   \textbf{U})^T - \frac{2}{3}  \mathrm{tr}(\nabla  \textbf{U})^T   \textbf{I} \right]\right)

is equal to
Code:
   224       - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))
At least dev2 calculates exactly the deviatoric part. The code is here: http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp/a08631_source.html

Code:
  303 //- Return the deviatoric part of a symmetric tensor   304 template<class Cmpt>
   305 inline SymmTensor<Cmpt> dev2(const SymmTensor<Cmpt>& st)
   306 {
   307     return st - SphericalTensor<Cmpt>::twoThirdsI*tr(st);
   308 }
This is equal to:

\textbf{A} - \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{tr} (\textbf{A})\textbf{I} = \left[(\nabla   \textbf{U})^T - \frac{2}{3}  \mathrm{tr}(\nabla  \textbf{U})^T   \textbf{I} \right]

Check or no check , I think, its obvious.


Incompressible
For incompressible fluids (devide by \rho) we again start with the viscous stress tensor \boldsymbol \tau:

\nabla \bullet \boldsymbol \tau = \nabla \bullet \left[-\frac{2}{3} \nu  \underline{\nabla \bullet   \textbf{U}}  \textbf{I} + \nu \nabla \textbf{U} + \nu   (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T\right]

Hence, the density is constant the first term (underlined) at the RHS is zero due to the mass conservation equation:

\nabla\bullet \textbf{U} = 0

\nabla \bullet \boldsymbol \tau = \nabla \bullet \left[\nu \nabla \textbf{U} + \nu   (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T\right]

After a huge amount of mathematics we get

\nabla \bullet (\nu \nabla \textbf{U}) + \nabla \bullet (\nu   (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T)

So there is no deviatoric part till now. But in FOAM we calculate the viscouse part of the stress tensor using divDevReff. Now we add the hydrostatic part multiply by the viscosity and substract it again:

\nabla \bullet (\nu \nabla \textbf{U}) + \nabla \bullet \left(\nu   (\nabla   \textbf{U})^T + \nu\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I} -  \nu\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I}\right)

it follows:

\nabla \bullet (\nu \nabla \textbf{U}) + \nabla \bullet \left(\nu \left[  (\nabla    \textbf{U})^T + \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I}\right] -   \nu\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I}\right)

The last term is zero due to mass conservation and can be removed:

-   \nu\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I} =  -   \nu\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})\textbf{I} =  -   \nu \nabla \bullet \textbf{U}

We end up with:

\nabla \bullet (\nu \nabla \textbf{U}) + \nabla \bullet \left(\nu \left[  (\nabla    \textbf{U})^T + \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(\nabla \textbf{U})^T\textbf{I}\right]\right)

If we substitute the transponed gradient U matrix with A:

\nabla \bullet (\nu \nabla \textbf{U}) + \nabla \bullet \left(\nu \left[ A + \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}(A)\textbf{I}\right]\right)

Again we have the laplacian term and again the deviatoric part (here calcated with oneThird, so the correct definition of dev).

And this is exactly what we get here:

Code:
  tmp<fvVectorMatrix> laminar::divDevReff(volVectorField& U) const
{
    return
    (
      - fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)
      - fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(T(fvc::grad(U))))
    );
}
The code for the deviatoric part (dev()) is equal to dev2. The only difference is the factor 2/3 which is introduced by the divergence term as shown before.

I hope everything is clear now and that there are no mistakes.
Additionally I hope it makes stuff clearer and help anybody to get a better understanding how things work.

Kind regards


Thanks to Alexander Vakhrushev for all support!
__________________
Best regards,
Tobias Holzmann

Some interesting OpenFOAM tutorials and videos on www.Holzmann-cfd.de

Last edited by Tobi; August 3, 2015 at 07:05. Reason: mu = nu in incompressible; Sign mistake and renamed phi to a because phi = scalar normally
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2015, 09:10
Default
  #16
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
ssherman is on a distinguished road
Tobi,

Thanks for the clear and concise explanation. However, in the incompressible case, there are a few places where mass conservation can be invoked to set terms to zero, but are not. Why do we set the terms that we do to zero?

I ask because nonNewtonianIcoFoam does not compute the viscous terms through divDevReff. Instead it goes through a couple more steps (that appear valid to me) to get to an alternate expression:
Code:
- fvm::laplacian(fluid.nu(), U) - (fvc::grad(U) & fvc::grad(fluid.nu())
Is nonNewtonianIcoFoam 'wrong'? What is the motivation for the different terms?

In the thread below, I show that the two forms yield noticeably different results for a model problem on a highly non-Newtonian fluid.
Discretization of viscosity terms for non-newtonian flow:

Thanks,
Steve
ssherman is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 24, 2015, 02:17
Default
  #17
Senior Member
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Leoben (Austria)
Posts: 1,100
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 19
Tobi will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Hi,

why we set some term (that could be set to zero) not to zero is the way I derivated the equations (:
If we will go straight forward there is no need to do this. See below.
__________________
Best regards,
Tobias Holzmann

Some interesting OpenFOAM tutorials and videos on www.Holzmann-cfd.de

Last edited by Tobi; August 6, 2015 at 04:05. Reason: Reject the formulation...
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2015, 03:23
Default
  #18
Senior Member
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Leoben (Austria)
Posts: 1,100
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 19
Tobi will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Hi all,

the derivation is correct but not straight forward from the beginning. If I have time I will make a PDF where everything is straight forward. Then you can see why once we have 1/3 and the other time 2/3 and its not due to the fact that we extend a equation (like I did in the incompressible case). Of course, like I showed it is possible to derivate the 2/3 and 1/3 like I did but as I mentioned it is not straight forward.
__________________
Best regards,
Tobias Holzmann

Some interesting OpenFOAM tutorials and videos on www.Holzmann-cfd.de
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2015, 03:48
Default
  #19
Member
 
Fabian E.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 7
galap is on a distinguished road
I would highly appreciate it! Thank you - good work
galap 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
Calculating Vorticity David CFX 18 June 15, 2011 08:21
Calculating Drag Ajay Rao FLUENT 8 February 15, 2010 10:15
what is Fluent calculating? tomek FLUENT 1 July 24, 2006 17:52
errors in calculating ustcer FLUENT 1 April 4, 2004 13:08
Calculating Coefficients shabah CFX 2 June 18, 2001 23:59


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35.