|
[Sponsors] |
Difference between explicitPorositySource and interRegionExplicitPorositySource |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
March 6, 2019, 10:27 |
Difference between explicitPorositySource and interRegionExplicitPorositySource
|
#1 |
Member
Emeline Noel
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 31
Rep Power: 12 |
Dear all,
I have a flow in a pipe with a part that is considered as a porous. I use fvOption with explicitPorositySource with DarcyForchheimer coefficient. The porous cell zone is extract from topoSet. I also have a solid mesh that represent this porous as I have conjugate heat transfer. So, I was thinking that I could define the porous zone for the fvOption for the fluid thanks to the solid region and use interRegionExplicitPorositySource. However, doing that, the forcing depend on the size of the solid mesh and so the pressure loss depend on the solid mesh. This is not the case with the porous zone define by topoSet on the fluid region. I was thinking that interRegionExplicitPorosity source works as explicitPorositySource but with zone extract from the region (here solid) overlapping the region fluid. So at the end I was the same porous region define, the same coefficient but the result depend on the solid mesh in the interRegionExplicitPorositySource method. However, I checked the DarcyForchheimer model, and same computation are done, expect that the Volume cell taken is the Volume of the solid cell. I don't understand all in interRegionPorositySource code but I believe to understand that the forcing compute on the solid mesh is then convert in source for the fluid region. Perhaps, I completely misunderstood this interRegionExplicitPorositySource. In attachment, there is the case with two mesh size for the solid. fvOption is interRegion, but there are commented lines for the explicit source with cellZone. To do the mesh for air, as I need extrusion and extrudeMesh region seems to not works, I do the following : for air: 1/ cp system/air/blockMesh system 2/ blockMesh 3/ stitchMesh -overwrite iY iY2 4/ extrudeMesh 5/ cp -r constant/polyMesh constant/air/ 6/ remove iY and IY2 patch from boundary file in polyMesh 7/ topoSet -region air for solid : 1/ cp system/solid/blockMesh system 2/ blockMesh 3/ extrudeMesh 5/ cp -r constant/polyMesh constant/solid/ The picture show the pressure drop with the two method for the two Mesh of solid. I also do a test with change of the air mesh for explicitPorositySource, and the change of the fluid Mesh don't impact the result for explicitPorositySource. Emeline |
|
January 15, 2022, 06:14 |
Did you find your answer ?
|
#2 |
New Member
shubham mishra
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 |
Please reply
|
|
March 22, 2022, 06:29 |
|
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 4 |
Dear Emeline,
did you find the issue out ? Dear Foamers, I have a similar problem using a porosity zone specified with DarcyForchheimer coefficients. My first case uses the interRegionExplicitPorositySource fvOption with some specific DarcyFor. coeffs and a specific h coefficient for the heat transfer to a porous media where water is circulating. My second case duplicates the first one excepts that the DarcyFor. coeffs are not used from the interRegionExplicitPorositySource but are used from an explicitPorositySource specification. What I can see is: . the explicitPorositySource fvOption manages to calculate a drag force but the interRegionExplicitPorositySource one doesn't, despite an identical cellzone specification. . the explicitPorositySource fvOption gives a pressure drop three times smaller than the interRegionExplicitPorositySource one. What could be the explanation for these differences ? Many thanks here below the fvOptions: Code:
airToporous { type constantHeatTransfer; interpolationMethod cellVolumeWeight; nbrRegion porous; // neighbour region name master false; nbrModel porousToair; fields (h); semiImplicit no; } porosityBlockage { type interRegionExplicitPorositySource; interRegionExplicitPorositySourceCoeffs { interpolationMethod cellVolumeWeight; nbrRegion porous; // neighbour region name type DarcyForchheimer; d ($dx1 $dy1 $dz1); // case 1 f ($fx1 $fy1 $fz1); // case 1 selectionMode cellZone; cellZone porosity1; // d (0 0 0); // case 2 // f (0 0 0); // case 2 coordinateSystem { origin (0 0 0); e1 (1 0 0); e2 (0 1 0);} } } porosity1 { type explicitPorositySource; explicitPorositySourceCoeffs { selectionMode cellZone; cellZone porosity1; type DarcyForchheimer; // d ($dx1 $dy1 $dz1); // case 2 // f ($fx1 $fy1 $fz1); // case 2 d (0 0 0); case 1 f (0 0 0); case 1 coordinateSystem { origin (0 0 0); e1 (1 0 0); e2 (0 1 0);} } } |
|
March 22, 2022, 06:57 |
Sorry don't work on it anymore
|
#4 |
Member
Emeline Noel
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paris
Posts: 31
Rep Power: 12 |
I am sorry, I don't work on it anymore.
I thnik explicitPorositySource is more reliable. |
|
March 22, 2022, 15:05 |
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 353
Rep Power: 20 |
interRegionExplicitPorositySource is used to add porosity between different mesh regions. I.e you have a water and air region on separate meshes and these meshes overlap. Like in a heat exchanger, where there is a bunch of tiny pipes crossing each other, but you can't resolve those because it is way to expensive to resolve each pipe. hence you model them via a porosity. Is that what you are trying to solve?
Hence the difference is that the first one uses the velocity from the master region for porosity and is used for a single region porosity, while the second one is likely using the velocity of the slave region to account for their path crossing. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simulating a flapping airfoil by Fluent which the phase difference equals to 90 | ronak | ANSYS | 1 | March 26, 2020 14:24 |
high-order difference in OpenFOAM | rxgrch | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 6 | August 28, 2017 15:11 |
[snappyHexMesh] snappyHexMesh and cyclic boundaries | Ruli | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 2 | December 9, 2013 07:51 |
Periodic Boundary Condition for upwind difference | yohey44 | Main CFD Forum | 0 | October 27, 2010 14:10 |
Fininte difference and Finite element Technique | Mahendra Singh Mehra | FLUENT | 3 | December 23, 2005 00:49 |