CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Overestimated temperature values

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 16, 2010, 04:20
Default Overestimated temperature values
  #1
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 17, 2010, 03:21
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 18, 2010, 04:55
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 10:11
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 10:56
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf View Post
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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 11:03
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 12:25
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 12:44
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
It was a Gambit, so actually mesh is the third part product, I should not change it...
Btw, I have already tried
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2010, 13:17
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf View Post
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.

Was this mesh working OK in FLUENT if you tried it?

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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 3, 2010, 13:40
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 27, 2010, 11:38
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2010, 04:48
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Dr. Alexander Vakhrushev
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 10
makaveli_lcf is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to makaveli_lcf
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
makaveli_lcf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2010, 21:31
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,894
Rep Power: 26
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf View Post
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
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calculation of the Governing Equations Mihail CFX 7 September 7, 2014 06:27
DieselFoam Droplet Temperature Issues - OF 1.6 viv05 OpenFOAM 0 February 27, 2010 12:20
max node values exceed max element values in contour plot jason_t FLUENT 0 August 19, 2009 11:32
strange node values @ solid/fluid interface - help JB FLUENT 2 November 1, 2008 13:04
nodal temperature values Mcgregor FLUENT 0 May 5, 2003 08:19


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