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

Venturi injector verification test

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   February 26, 2006, 20:12
Default Hello I'm just to trying a
  #1
New Member
 
Roberto Biollo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 9
roberto is on a distinguished road
Hello

I'm just to trying a verification case, I tried to study a venturi injector for water. This is an existing part, I know the main feature from testing ( inlet pressure, outlet pressure, flow, suction flow).
I generated the mesh with gambit.
I used the turbFoam application finding reasonable velocity fields, but very low pressure fields, (1000 times or more smaller than expected) I
Running the same simulation with Fluent, with the same mesh, boundary condition and viscosity, I found very similar velocity fields but the pressure fields were much more high, matching test values.
some more information:
For openfoam setup I started from turbFoam/cavity case
I never input water density in openfoam (have to be done? how?)
I used gambitToFoam to convert the mesh

anyone have some idea?

Thanks
Roberto
roberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 04:50
Default I know, that was not what you'
  #2
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,920
Rep Power: 41
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
I know, that was not what you're asking: if you're generating your mesh with gambit it's better to use fluentMeshToFoam to convert the mesh.

The other thing: turbFoam is an incompressible solver. In OF they don't specify a density for those, it's all done with the viscosity (dynamic vs kinematic)
__________________
Note: I don't use "Friend"-feature on this forum out of principle. Ah. And by the way: I'm not on Facebook either. So don't be offended if I don't accept your invitation/friend request
gschaider is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 05:07
Default Hi Bernhard, Any particular
  #3
Senior Member
 
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,781
Rep Power: 22
hjasak will become famous soon enough
Hi Bernhard,

Any particular reason for preferring the Fluent converter - if there are bugs I should know about, please let me know and I'll have a look. Both converters should be doing their job equally well.

Hrv
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak
Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk
hjasak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 05:55
Default Hi roberto, check turbFoam
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Mattijs Janssens
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,416
Rep Power: 17
mattijs is on a distinguished road
Hi roberto,

check turbFoam for whether it solves for p or p/rho (since incompressible). The source code is in $FOAM_SOLVERS/incompressible/turbFoam. Or check the dimensions on 0/p.
mattijs is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 06:04
Default Of course your right (no bugs)
  #5
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,920
Rep Power: 41
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
Of course your right (no bugs). My reasons for recommending the fluent-converter were:

- The fluent-converter preserves boundary-information (wall, symmetry etc) where possible

- Don't know what the gambit-converter does with "internal"-boundaries (the fluent-Converter at least writes faceSets/cellSets) and one can work with that (for instance http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Howto_importing _fluent_mesh_with_internal_walls)

- if he's comparing with Fluent he can use the same .msh-file he propably imported into Fluent (I think the gambit-converter reads the Neutral-Files). I would prefer that because there are less oportunities to mess things up with just one "version" of the grid lying around (but I tend to mistrust myself -for -good reasons- so this might not apply to others)
__________________
Note: I don't use "Friend"-feature on this forum out of principle. Ah. And by the way: I'm not on Facebook either. So don't be offended if I don't accept your invitation/friend request
gschaider is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 12:17
Default Hello and thanks to everybody!
  #6
New Member
 
Roberto Biollo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 9
roberto is on a distinguished road
Hello and thanks to everybody!

Mattijs,
I checked p dimension, it's [ 0 2 -2 0 0 0 0]
Now I understand the problem, it isn't a pressure!
How can I obtain the pressure?
thanks again
roberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 12:36
Default Roberto: If you multiply it wi
  #7
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,920
Rep Power: 41
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
Roberto: If you multiply it with a density it becomes a pressure
__________________
Note: I don't use "Friend"-feature on this forum out of principle. Ah. And by the way: I'm not on Facebook either. So don't be offended if I don't accept your invitation/friend request
gschaider is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 13:04
Default Hi Bernhard Great! Now the
  #8
New Member
 
Roberto Biollo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 9
roberto is on a distinguished road
Hi Bernhard

Great!
Now the pressure results have lot of sense!
(and you can understand my emarrassment for not finding density input...)
Is there a way to convert p field in a pressure field in order to have parafoam rappresentations with pressure?
roberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 13:23
Default @embarassment: there's no need
  #9
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,920
Rep Power: 41
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
@embarassment: there's no need. At least you were looking at the numbers (not just the colors).

For the pressure there are two ways:

- the easy way: in paraFoam use the calculator filter to multiply the p-field with a constant (the density would be the best choice ;-) ) and vizualize that

- rewrite the solver to write out an additional field pReal (or similar) that is p*density
__________________
Note: I don't use "Friend"-feature on this forum out of principle. Ah. And by the way: I'm not on Facebook either. So don't be offended if I don't accept your invitation/friend request
gschaider is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 14:11
Default Thank you very much for everit
  #10
New Member
 
Roberto Biollo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 9
roberto is on a distinguished road
Thank you very much for everithing!
For almost all commercial programs this usefull and quick answers are a dream.

Embarassment was generated by the consciousness that density enter in problem equations, even with uncompressable fluid, so I didn't found phisical sense to results.
Now I know what p means for openfoam and all is very clear and full of sense.
I'm used to solve my mechanical problems by pen and paper, so I don't care too much about colors, anyway results presentation is alwais important.

If someone is interested, after simulation,sampling and testing I will share the results for validation purposes.
roberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 27, 2006, 14:22
Default Roberto: one nice place to put
  #11
Assistant Moderator
 
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,920
Rep Power: 41
gschaider will become famous soon enoughgschaider will become famous soon enough
Roberto: one nice place to put your validation case would be:

http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Main_ContribExa mples
__________________
Note: I don't use "Friend"-feature on this forum out of principle. Ah. And by the way: I'm not on Facebook either. So don't be offended if I don't accept your invitation/friend request
gschaider 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
Simulation of Water Flow through a Venturi Meter Hassan A FLUENT 2 April 7, 2010 06:00
Venturi tube results make no sense Paul FLUENT 1 June 17, 2008 14:09
Venturi Mixer Formula & Equations Gen Woo Main CFD Forum 2 December 11, 2006 19:32
Cavitation in venturi pranav FLUENT 4 May 15, 2006 01:19
biogas venturi mixer transient analysis pedro Main CFD Forum 0 January 23, 2006 20:45


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:35.