shockTube simulation different solvers

feijooos · November 18, 2009, 20:30

Hi All,

I am working on simulating a shockTube in OF. I noticed that there are several shockTube tutorials available. I ran some of these, but I am confused what solver to pick. Do sonicFoam and rhoCentralFoam etc. give the same results?

Besides that, I noticed that the shocktube velocity in sonicFoam becomes sub-sonic. Isn't sonicFoam only for sonic flow?

In general, I am wondering what solver to use for this kind of problem?
I want to simulate the driver section with 2000 kPa and the driven section under atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa). Temperature on both sides will be 300 K.

Thanks for you help!

KrisT · November 19, 2009, 04:33

I tried the shock tube tutorials in OpenFOAM before rhoCentralFoam. They give the wrong results (shock speed and states are wrong). You should use rhoCentralFoam (or maybe the new AeroFOAM - http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...-aerofoam.html).

If you wish you could test the solution against an analytical one, check the code in this link http://num.math.uni-goettingen.de/kn...ro_ss2006.html

feijooos · November 19, 2009, 10:49

thanks for the help, comparing against an analytical solution is a great idea!

Thanks,

Eelco

feijooos · November 19, 2009, 11:14

btw, do you have any idea why sonicFoam gives the wrong solution? This gets me thinking why the tutorial is given in the first place....

KrisT · November 19, 2009, 15:09

No, but maybe scheme is not conservative?

feijooos · November 19, 2009, 15:22

hmm I was more thinking in the line of this: sonicFoam is only for sonic flow and a shocktube will always have sub-sonic flow.

jploz · November 20, 2009, 04:10

Hi,

have a look at the following Master thesis by B. Wuethrich: 'Simulation and validation of compressible flow in nozzle geometries and validation of OpenFOAM for this application'. This work deals with shock tube problems and the solvers in OF (stat.ethz.ch/rw/alumni/thesis/Wuethrich_Benjamin_Masterarbeit.pdf). Nice work.

Good luck.
Jean-Peer

feijooos · November 20, 2009, 10:44

Very nice documentation on this project indeed. This will be very helpful.

Thanks,

Eelco

feijooos · November 20, 2009, 17:20

Jean-Peer, I read through the document and verified several OF solver. They seem to line up very well against the analytical solution, especially rhoCentralFoam and rhopSonicFoam. Others are not so good, such as sonicFoam, which makes sense.

This was very helpful. Thanks

November 18, 2009, 20:30	shockTube simulation different solvers	#1
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	Hi All, I am working on simulating a shockTube in OF. I noticed that there are several shockTube tutorials available. I ran some of these, but I am confused what solver to pick. Do sonicFoam and rhoCentralFoam etc. give the same results? Besides that, I noticed that the shocktube velocity in sonicFoam becomes sub-sonic. Isn't sonicFoam only for sonic flow? In general, I am wondering what solver to use for this kind of problem? I want to simulate the driver section with 2000 kPa and the driven section under atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa). Temperature on both sides will be 300 K. Thanks for you help!

November 19, 2009, 04:33	rhoCentralFoam	#2
KrisT Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 32 Rep Power: 16	I tried the shock tube tutorials in OpenFOAM before rhoCentralFoam. They give the wrong results (shock speed and states are wrong). You should use rhoCentralFoam (or maybe the new AeroFOAM - http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...-aerofoam.html). If you wish you could test the solution against an analytical one, check the code in this link http://num.math.uni-goettingen.de/kn...ro_ss2006.html

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Replacing mesh while running a simulation	akultane	CFX	1	November 15, 2009 13:46
FSI TWO-WAY SIMULATION	Smagmon	CFX	1	March 6, 2009 13:24
Continuous vs interrupted simulation	sega	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	4	November 3, 2008 14:29
Fire simulation using FDS from NIST	Jens	Main CFD Forum	1	January 22, 2004 01:53
3-D Contaminant Dispersal Simulation	Apple L S Chan	Main CFD Forum	1	December 23, 1998 10:06

November 19, 2009, 10:49		#3
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	thanks for the help, comparing against an analytical solution is a great idea! Thanks, Eelco

November 19, 2009, 11:14		#4
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	btw, do you have any idea why sonicFoam gives the wrong solution? This gets me thinking why the tutorial is given in the first place....

November 19, 2009, 15:09		#5
KrisT Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 32 Rep Power: 16	No, but maybe scheme is not conservative?

November 19, 2009, 15:22		#6
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	hmm I was more thinking in the line of this: sonicFoam is only for sonic flow and a shocktube will always have sub-sonic flow.

November 20, 2009, 04:10		#7
jploz Member Jean-Peer Lorenz Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Rostock, Germany Posts: 33 Rep Power: 17	Hi, have a look at the following Master thesis by B. Wuethrich: 'Simulation and validation of compressible flow in nozzle geometries and validation of OpenFOAM for this application'. This work deals with shock tube problems and the solvers in OF (stat.ethz.ch/rw/alumni/thesis/Wuethrich_Benjamin_Masterarbeit.pdf). Nice work. Good luck. Jean-Peer

November 20, 2009, 10:44		#8
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	Very nice documentation on this project indeed. This will be very helpful. Thanks, Eelco

November 20, 2009, 17:20		#9
feijooos Member Eelco Gehring Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 70 Rep Power: 17	Jean-Peer, I read through the document and verified several OF solver. They seem to line up very well against the analytical solution, especially rhoCentralFoam and rhopSonicFoam. Others are not so good, such as sonicFoam, which makes sense. This was very helpful. Thanks