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

icoFoam VS pisoFoam-Laminar

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By ngj

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 25, 2011, 07:31
Default icoFoam VS pisoFoam-Laminar
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
Hi every body,

I have a simple question: I run two simulations (flow over a circular cylinder Re = 150 : laminar unsteady case). The first one using icoFoam, and the second one using pisoFoam with turbulence turned off (laminar). The two setups are exactly identical.

Results : with icoFoam I got a correct Strouhal number (Sr = 0.156) by plotting the Cl, wheras pisoFoam gives a quite lower value (Sr = 0.0527) !!

I am a bit puzzling since I expected that: (pisoFoam + laminar) = icoFoam.

Any help please ??

Mehdi
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 28, 2011, 04:59
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
None??

none has experienced this issue?

M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 12, 2011, 06:46
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
______
|
o
/|\
/\
_______________
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 13, 2011, 04:44
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
akidess's Avatar
 
Anton Kidess
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posts: 919
Rep Power: 17
akidess will become famous soon enough
Compare the outputs of " turbulence->divDevReff(U)" and "- fvm::laplacian(nu, U)", and try to find out why they are not equal?
__________________
*On twitter @akidTwit
*Spend as much time formulating your questions as you expect people to spend on their answer.
*Help define the OpenFOAM stackexchange Q&A site: http://area51.stackexchange.com/prop...oam-technology
akidess is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 13, 2011, 05:17
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
Thank you very much for your answer

Where and how can I compare these outputs ?

Sorry for my ignorance

M.
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 13, 2011, 06:11
Default
  #6
Member
 
Juho Peltola
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 80
Rep Power: 8
juho is on a distinguished road
Make sure the turbulence model is set to "laminar". Turning turbulence "off" just means that the turbulence model is not corrected during the solution. Depending on your initial k and epsilon fields, they can still affect the effective viscosity and thus the simulation results.
juho is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 13, 2011, 10:17
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
I set in turbulenceProperties dictionary :

simulationType laminar;



In addition, I have only p and U files in 0/ directory.

M
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 4, 2012, 19:04
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
xuan8908 is on a distinguished road
Mehdi

Have you already solved your issue?

Basically, I also have a similar problem. I run a case (flow over a square cylinder with Re=22000) by both pisoFoam and pimpleFoam. The Strouhal number in pimpleFoam matches the experimental data (0.132), but the one in pisoFoam (approximately 0.05) does not. It's really like what you got.

Both of the two simulations use RANS K-OmegaSST turbulent model. The only differences for setup were 'application' in system/controlDict (the former use pisoFoam, the latter use pimpleFoam) and the algorithms in system/fvSolution (the former use PISO, the latter use PIMPLE).

Xuan
xuan8908 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2012, 04:37
Default
  #9
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by xuan8908 View Post
Mehdi

Have you already solved your issue?

Basically, I also have a similar problem. I run a case (flow over a square cylinder with Re=22000) by both pisoFoam and pimpleFoam. The Strouhal number in pimpleFoam matches the experimental data (0.132), but the one in pisoFoam (approximately 0.05) does not. It's really like what you got.

Both of the two simulations use RANS K-OmegaSST turbulent model. The only differences for setup were 'application' in system/controlDict (the former use pisoFoam, the latter use pimpleFoam) and the algorithms in system/fvSolution (the former use PISO, the latter use PIMPLE).

Xuan
Dear Xuan,

Your problem seems like mine indeed ! Unfortunately, I have not solved it.
For the time being, I concluded that pisoFoam is adapted to turbulent unsteady cases and icoFoam to laminar unsteady ones... but I still worried about this strange behavior..

Any hints would be welcome.

Regards.
M.
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2012, 11:44
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
xuan8908 is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your reply.

Your conclusion is correct. But based on my results, pisoFoam does not work in unsteady turbulent case also.

Best,

Xuan
xuan8908 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 5, 2012, 12:19
Default
  #11
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
_____
|
o
/|\
/\
_______________No idea
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 9, 2012, 17:34
Default
  #12
New Member
 
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
xuan8908 is on a distinguished road
Hi, Mehdi,

I have already figured out the reason why I got a wrong Strouhal number in this unsteady case. Actually, I used relaxationFactors in fvSoltuion dictionary because I just copied what I had in my steady case. But generally, relaxation factors are particularly used for steady case to improve the stability of computing. After I removed those things, I got good solutions and correct Strouhal number as well.

Hopefully, it will be helpful to you.

Xuan
xuan8908 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2012, 04:33
Default
  #13
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
Thank you Xuan for sharing your ideas

I checked my fvSolution files for icoFoam and pisoFoam simulations and in both cases I found relaxation factors. For you, I have to remove them for both simulations since they are unsteady cases ? (I will check both cases without these relaxation factors and I will tell you if this solves my problem ..)

An other question : I have run both simulations (icoFoam and pisoFoam) with relaxation factors and icoFoam gives good Strouhal number wheras pisoFoam has failed. If relaxation factors are the only cause of false results, can we conclude that icoFoam does not use them where pisoFoam does ?

Thank you again for your remark, I will dig on that in the next weeks ..

regards
M.
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2012, 04:48
Default
  #14
ngj
Senior Member
 
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,605
Rep Power: 25
ngj will become famous soon enoughngj will become famous soon enough
Hi Mehdi

The reason that you see different results when using icoFoam/pisoFoam with the same relaxation parameter is very simple: The relaxation parameters does not have any effect what so ever in icoFoam, as the line:

Code:
UEqn.relax();
is not present in the code, whereas, you can find it is pisoFoam.

Kind regards,

Niels
hua1015 likes this.
ngj is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2012, 06:03
Default
  #15
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 5
M3hdi is on a distinguished road
Thank you, Niel, for this brilliant remark !

Indeed, this can explain the difference in results.

I feel more relaxed now

V
M3hdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2012, 11:45
Default
  #16
New Member
 
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
xuan8908 is on a distinguished road
Thanks, Niel, for your explanation, too.

Best,
Xuan
xuan8908 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 17, 2013, 12:34
Default
  #17
Member
 
Kai Zhang
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: yokohama, Japan
Posts: 83
Rep Power: 4
kkpal is on a distinguished road
this is a great thread!!
I've also been trapped by the same problem for half a month, now it is solved!!

I'm using pimpleFoam and relaxation is allowed in this. as long as we are doing unsteady cases, should we never use relaxation for future simulations?
kkpal 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
pimpleFoam vs simpleFoam vs pisoFoam vs icoFoam? phsieh2005 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 29 June 13, 2014 09:20
SimpleFoam as Newtonian laminar flow solver titio OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 March 8, 2013 05:44
CFX Treatment of Laminar and Turbulent Flows Jade M CFX 6 January 26, 2013 11:11
pisoFoam compiling error with OF 1.7.1 on MAC OSX Greg Givogue OpenFOAM Programming & Development 3 March 4, 2011 18:18
Kubuntu uses dash breaks All scripts in tutorials platopus OpenFOAM Bugs 8 April 15, 2008 07:52


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:24.