- **OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD**
(*http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-solving/*)

- - **OpenFoam validation**
(*http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-solving/66147-openfoam-validation.html*)

OpenFoam validationHi,
I am validating OpenFOAM on a static 2-D cylinder at Re=200. The radius of the cylinder is 0.5m. The velocity of incoming flow is 1m/s. Mu equals to 0.005. The full grid is shown here: grid I used the following schemes: ddtSchemes { default CrankNicholson 0.5; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; grad(p) Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(nu,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(1|A(U),p) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; interpolate(HbyA) linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p; } The standard ICCG and BICCG solvers are used untill convergence to resectively 1e-6 and 1e-5 is obtained. The time step was chosen to be 0.01. Also the standard boundary conditions are applied: inlet: U fixed and zeroGradient for p outlet: p fixed and zeroGradient for U upper/lower boundary: zeroGradient for p and for U forceCoeffs { type forceCoeffs; functionObjectLibs ("libforces.so"); patches (circle); //change to your patch name rhoInf 1; CofR (0 0 0); liftDir (0 1 0); dragDir (1 0 0); pitchAxis (0 0 0); magUInf 1; lRef 1; Aref 1.0; } BrazaM (1985 N um )' result: time average of cd=1. 31; amplitude of cl=0. 65; st=0. 194. my result: time average of Cd is about 1.9, larger than 1.31; the amplitude of Cl is about 1.0 , more than 0.65; but the st number equals to 0.196 close to the result. Is someone having any ideas on what's wrong with it? Do I use the proper schemes? Are the bounday conditions correct? Thanks, Ranas |

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42. |