# Overestimated temperature values

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

 March 16, 2010, 04:20 Overestimated temperature values #1 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 Hello foamers! I came up with a following problem: during simulation of pouring hot melt into the casting mold I got a temperature values bigger than pouring temperature! My BCs are only fixedValue at the inlet and at the walls of mold (where temperature is lower than at the inlet), and zeroGradient at nozzel boundaries, flat fixed top "freesurface" and at the outlet. Here are the snapshot, where red color indicates overheated cells. From top comes nozzel, flat top interface is with zeroGradient BC, vertical mold is with constant temperature BC: Mold_external.jpg Oveheat1.jpg So you can see from second picture, that difference in temperature is ~30 K over pouring value, which is not appropriated. The problem arises also from other surfaces with zeroGradient BC. For example from outer wall of submerged part of the nozzle: nozzelwall.jpg Where can this problem come from? I don't have any sources of heat, and energy equation contains only energy dissipation parts: DT/Dt = div(alpha_eff grad(T)) My idea was that error comes from gradient schemes due to non-ortogonality of the mesh. I use following fvSchemes: Code: ```/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\ | ========= | | | \\ / F ield | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox | | \\ / O peration | Version: 1.6 | | \\ / A nd | Web: www.OpenFOAM.org | | \\/ M anipulation | | \*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; location "system"; object fvSchemes; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // ddtSchemes { default Euler; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss upwind; div(phi,T) Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) Gauss upwind; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind; div(phi,R) Gauss upwind; div(R) Gauss linear; div((nuEff*dev(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(nuEff,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian((1|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(kappaEff,T) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p ; } // ************************************************************************* //``` Waiting for your suggestions! It is strange, the OF produces error in such simple case. __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

 March 17, 2010, 03:21 #2 Senior Member   Alberto Passalacqua Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ames, Iowa, United States Posts: 1,894 Rep Power: 26 I'd give a try with limiters on the gradients and laplacian. The mesh is not orthogonal, but it is not skewed either from the detail you showed. Please let us know what you find. Best, __________________ Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image. OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods Last edited by alberto; March 17, 2010 at 03:21. Reason: remove quote to save space

 March 18, 2010, 04:55 #3 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 Alberto, I have followed your advice. First please check if I understood you correctly. So, I modified fvSchemes Code: ```gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; grad(T) limited Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { ....... // !! laplacian(kappaEff,T) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(kappaEff,T) Gauss linear limited 0.5; ....... } snGradSchemes { // !! default corrected; default limited 0.5; }``` And I still get production of high temperature values, see animation I attached. Over1.gif It represents same geometry with box slice cutted out to see what is going on You can see still overheated cell indicated, T error ~10 K. Waiting for your comments and following advices! __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

 April 1, 2010, 10:11 #4 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 I have found that not a diffusion, but convectional part produces wrong values. So I splitted energy equation following way: dT1/dt + div(phi, T1) = 0 (1) dT2/dt = div(alpha_eff * grad(T2)) (2) Below are the results only transport equation (1) at the left picture, and equations (2), which accounts only for diffusion at the right picture respectively. "dT" value means temperature overestimation value (above pouring temperature). Flow is present in both cases, it's direction is shown with arrows in the picture on the right. Convection and diffusion splited.jpg All schemes which I used for such test are without limiting. So what are your suggestions in that case? There is nothing about limiting divergence nonorthogonality corrections in either User or Programming Guides. Here I use for equation (1) following divergence scheme: Code: ` div(phi,T1) Gauss linearUpwind Gauss linear;` __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

April 1, 2010, 10:56
#5
Senior Member

Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
Quote:
 Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf All schemes which I used for such test are without limiting. So what are your suggestions in that case? There is nothing about limiting divergence nonorthogonality corrections in either User or Programming Guides. Here I use for equation (1) following divergence scheme: Code: ` div(phi,T1) Gauss linearUpwind Gauss linear;`
Hello,

in the first fvSchemes you posted, you were using upwind interpolation, which is limited by definition, since you simply use the upwind cell center value on the face.

If you use linearUpwind, you can additionally limit the gradient as shown here ( Problem in fvschemes divSchemes cannot use Gauss linearUpwind ), using

Code:
` div(phi,T1)      Gauss linearUpwind cellLimited  Gauss linear 1;`
Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

 April 1, 2010, 11:03 #6 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 Alberto! Thank you very much for such immediate response! I will try your suggestions and report here the results. __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

 April 1, 2010, 12:25 #7 Senior Member   Alberto Passalacqua Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ames, Iowa, United States Posts: 1,894 Rep Power: 26 Just one additional thought: did you try to re-mesh the part? What mesher did you use to generate the grid that gives you problems? Best, __________________ Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image. OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

April 1, 2010, 12:44
#8
Senior Member

Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
It was a Gambit, so actually mesh is the third part product, I should not change it...
Quote:
 div(phi,T1) Gauss linearUpwind cellLimited Gauss linear 1;
and it produces more errors(((

Alberto, what is your opinion regarding reasons, which can cause such problems with a simple scalar transport equation?

Just for additional information, here is output of checkMesh:

Code:
```Mesh stats
points:           378191
faces:            1625937
internal faces:   1540645
cells:            642651
boundary patches: 10
point zones:      0
face zones:       0
cell zones:       0

Overall number of cells of each type:
hexahedra:     227870
prisms:        138900
wedges:        0
pyramids:      1338
tet wedges:    0
tetrahedra:    274543
polyhedra:     0

Checking topology...
Boundary definition OK.
Point usage OK.
Upper triangular ordering OK.
Face vertices OK.
Number of regions: 1 (OK).

Checking patch topology for multiply connected surfaces ...
Patch               Faces    Points   Surface topology
SEN_Outer           5072     2916     ok (non-closed singly connected)
Port_Wall           10588    5414     ok (non-closed singly connected)
SEN_Wall            16692    12887    ok (non-closed singly connected)
WW_c                22256    22896    ok (non-closed singly connected)
WW_b                13272    11878    ok (non-closed singly connected)
WW_a                7734     6059     ok (non-closed singly connected)
NarrowWall          2782     3024     ok (non-closed singly connected)
TopWall             2974     2570     ok (non-closed singly connected)
Outlet              3442     2762     ok (non-closed singly connected)
Inlet               480      519      ok (non-closed singly connected)

Checking geometry...
Overall domain bounding box (-0.686 -1.05 -0.0816556) (0.686 0.803 0.0820117)
Mesh (non-empty, non-wedge) directions (1 1 1)
Mesh (non-empty) directions (1 1 1)
Boundary openness (-1.55627e-17 2.36049e-16 1.53059e-17) OK.
Max cell openness = 3.32553e-16 OK.
Max aspect ratio = 15.485 OK.
Minumum face area = 1e-06. Maximum face area = 0.000136551.  Face area magnitudes OK.
Min volume = 8.95047e-10. Max volume = 8.44667e-07.  Total volume = 0.0974925.  Cell volumes OK.
Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 65.4515 average: 13.9421
Non-orthogonality check OK.
Face pyramids OK.
Max skewness = 0.959158 OK.

Mesh OK.

End```
and here's checkMesh -allGeometry -allTopology
Code:
```Mesh stats
points:           378191
faces:            1625937
internal faces:   1540645
cells:            642651
boundary patches: 10
point zones:      0
face zones:       0
cell zones:       0

Overall number of cells of each type:
hexahedra:     227870
prisms:        138900
wedges:        0
pyramids:      1338
tet wedges:    0
tetrahedra:    274543
polyhedra:     0

Checking topology...
Boundary definition OK.
Point usage OK.
Upper triangular ordering OK.
Topological cell zip-up check OK.
Face vertices OK.
Face-face connectivity OK.
<<Writing 3 cells with with single non-boundary face to set twoInternalFacesCells
Number of regions: 1 (OK).

Checking patch topology for multiply connected surfaces ...
Patch               Faces    Points   Surface topology                   Bounding box
SEN_Outer           5072     2916     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.157456 -0.22 -0.0476851) (0.157458 4.17144e-15 0.0476866)
Port_Wall           10588    5414     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.153715 -0.22 -0.021562) (0.153715 1.06581e-17 0.021562)
SEN_Wall            16692    12887    ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.0846087 -1.24345e-17 -0.0599263) (0.0846087 0.803 0.0599263)
WW_c                22256    22896    ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.686 -1.05 -0.0380647) (0.686 4.09273e-15 0.0378848)
WW_b                13272    11878    ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.3 -1.05 -0.0766829) (0.3 8.1554e-15 0.0763984)
WW_a                7734     6059     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.1 -1.05 -0.0816556) (0.1 8.8413e-15 0.0820117)
NarrowWall          2782     3024     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.686 -1.05 -0.027) (0.686 1.36424e-15 0.027)
TopWall             2974     2570     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.686 -1.3667e-14 -0.0816556) (0.686 8.8413e-15 0.0820117)
Outlet              3442     2762     ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.686 -1.05 -0.027) (0.686 -1.05 0.027)
Inlet               480      519      ok (non-closed singly connected)   (-0.0599263 0.803 -0.0599263) (0.0599263 0.803 0.0599263)

Checking geometry...
Overall domain bounding box (-0.686 -1.05 -0.0816556) (0.686 0.803 0.0820117)
Mesh (non-empty, non-wedge) directions (1 1 1)
Mesh (non-empty) directions (1 1 1)
Boundary openness (-1.55627e-17 2.36049e-16 1.53059e-17) OK.
Max cell openness = 3.32553e-16 OK.
Max aspect ratio = 15.485 OK.
Minumum face area = 1e-06. Maximum face area = 0.000136551.  Face area magnitudes OK.
Min volume = 8.95047e-10. Max volume = 8.44667e-07.  Total volume = 0.0974925.  Cell volumes OK.
Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 65.4515 average: 13.9421
Non-orthogonality check OK.
Face pyramids OK.
Max skewness = 0.959158 OK.
Min/max edge length = 0.001 0.01938 OK.
All angles in faces OK.
Face flatness (1 = flat, 0 = butterfly) : average = 0.999998  min = 0.996924
All face flatness OK.
Cell determinant (wellposedness) : minimum: 0 average: 2.69124
***Cells with small determinant found, number of cells: 3
<<Writing 3 under-determined cells to set underdeterminedCells

Failed 1 mesh checks.

End```
__________________
Best regards,

Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV

Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of
Solidification and Melting"

Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes
Department of Metallurgy
University of Leoben

Franz-Josef-Str. 18
A - 8700 Leoben
Österreich / Austria
Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125
http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

April 1, 2010, 13:17
#9
Senior Member

Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
Quote:
 Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf It was a Gambit, so actually mesh is the third part product, I should not change it... Btw, I have already tried and it produces more errors((( Alberto, what is your opinion regarding reasons, which can cause such problems with a simple scalar transport equation?
Well, just to have a better understanding I would change the mesh, adding boundary layers of hexahedral cells in the problematic zone, so to have a more regular grid there.

Best,
Alberto
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

 April 3, 2010, 13:40 #10 Senior Member   Alberto Passalacqua Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ames, Iowa, United States Posts: 1,894 Rep Power: 26 FYI, similar problems on meshes with tets were described her: potentialFoam and Tets Best, __________________ Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image. OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

 April 27, 2010, 11:38 #11 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 Alberto, thank you for reference! I will comment there to join our effort. __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

 May 1, 2010, 04:48 #12 Senior Member   Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 213 Rep Power: 10 A have a following question: Is there any reason why we solve energy equation in buoyantBoussinesqPisoFoam after momentum predictor and not after pressure and mass flux correction? Have a nice weekend! Best, Alexander __________________ Best regards, Dr. Alexander VAKHRUSHEV Christian Doppler Laboratory for "Advanced Process Simulation of Solidification and Melting" Simulation and Modelling of Metallurgical Processes Department of Metallurgy University of Leoben Franz-Josef-Str. 18 A - 8700 Leoben Österreich / Austria Tel.: +43 3842 - 402 - 3125 http://smmp.unileoben.ac.at

May 1, 2010, 21:31
#13
Senior Member

Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
Quote:
 Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf Is there any reason why we solve energy equation in buoyantBoussinesqPisoFoam after momentum predictor and not after pressure and mass flux correction?
I would say it is done to obtain updated thermo data, as a function of h, before solving for the pressure equation.

Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods

 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 Mihail CFX 7 September 7, 2014 06:27 viv05 OpenFOAM 0 February 27, 2010 12:20 jason_t FLUENT 0 August 19, 2009 11:32 JB FLUENT 2 November 1, 2008 13:04 Mcgregor FLUENT 0 May 5, 2003 08:19

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18.