# Why sometimes momentum predictor step is not performed

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

 July 1, 2005, 23:50 In some of the solvers, such a #1 Senior Member   Xiaofeng Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 118 Rep Power: 8 In some of the solvers, such as interFoam, the momentum equation is not solved (i.e., no solve(UEqn == fvc::...)). Some solver (such as rhoTurbFoam) has a switch to choose whether this step is performed or not. The original paper of PISO algorithm has this as a essential step. 1. Why the difference? 2. If the gravity is included as in interFoam and I want to do the momentum predictor step, should I include this gravity effect in the UEqn? Like: solve(UEqn == -fvc::grad(p) - fvc::grad(rho)*gh)? __________________ Xiaofeng Liu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Penn State University 223B Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802 Web: http://water.engr.psu.edu/liu/

 July 2, 2005, 08:01 1) Doing a momentum predictor #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 1) Doing a momentum predictor is not an essential step for the convergence of the PISO corrector loop although it is sometimed benefitial but not always. For example in very low-Re flows the momentum predictor step can be severely detrimental to the convergence. For interFoam I found that the momentum predictor step did not improve the convergence behaviour and is a bit complicated to include so I removed it for simplicity. I have reinstated it for the 1.2 release just so people can find out for themselves if it is helpful or not. 2) No that formulation of the momentum equation sources is not consistent with the pressure-equation and momentum corrector. sharonyue likes this.

 July 2, 2005, 14:45 Is solve(UEqn == -fvc::grad(pd #3 Senior Member   Xiaofeng Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 118 Rep Power: 8 Is solve(UEqn == -fvc::grad(pd) - fvc::grad(rho)*gh)? Here gh = g & mesh.C(). I forgot to change the total pressure to dynamic pressure. __________________ Xiaofeng Liu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Penn State University 223B Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802 Web: http://water.engr.psu.edu/liu/

 July 2, 2005, 18:27 That is still inconsistent wit #4 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 That is still inconsistent with the pressure-equation and momentum corrector, take a look at pEqn.H.

 July 2, 2005, 18:30 I ran the dam-break case with #5 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 I ran the dam-break case with and without a momentum predictor and found that with the predictor the pressure solution is slightly faster but it does not offset the cost of the momentum solution and overall it ran ~5% slower.

 July 2, 2005, 19:03 Ok, I derived the equation wit #6 Senior Member   Xiaofeng Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 118 Rep Power: 8 Ok, I derived the equation with pd again and find it seems to be solve(UEqn == -fvc::grad(pd)). The gravity is totally absorbed into the pressure term and density difference only take effect in the pEqn. __________________ Xiaofeng Liu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Penn State University 223B Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802 Web: http://water.engr.psu.edu/liu/

 July 2, 2005, 19:59 That is not correct. #7 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 That is not correct.

 July 2, 2005, 20:08 Well, what is correct one? #8 Senior Member   Xiaofeng Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 118 Rep Power: 8 Well, what is correct one? __________________ Xiaofeng Liu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Penn State University 223B Sackett Building University Park, PA 16802 Web: http://water.engr.psu.edu/liu/

 July 2, 2005, 20:15 I have implemented it in the 1 #9 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 I have implemented it in the 1.2 version of interFoam which will be released soon but due to other improvements it is not compatible with 1.1 so there is no point me posting it here. I could write you a momentum predictor for the 1.1 version of interFoam but because it does not improve the performance of the code in any way I don't think it's a good use of my time. However, if this is very importantto you, enough for you to purchase a support contract I would do this work as part of that contract.

 July 2, 2005, 23:02 I think it that "- fvc::grad(r #10 li Guest   Posts: n/a I think it that "- fvc::grad(rho)*gh" should move into UEqn.

 July 3, 2005, 06:56 I disagree. #11 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 854 Rep Power: 13 I disagree.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post giogio FLUENT 1 March 10, 2008 15:03 Luk Main CFD Forum 0 October 19, 2007 10:09 zou_mo OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 February 20, 2006 23:35 homan FLUENT 0 October 26, 2005 03:27 jenn Main CFD Forum 0 February 21, 2005 16:43

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25.