|August 14, 2009, 08:41||
Issues with OpenFoam
Sanjib Das Sharma
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22Rep Power: 8
I am new to OpenFoam, however have been using FLUENT for a long time. To start a new project in OpenFoam, I thought it might be good to compare a benchmark case between OpenFoam and FLUENT. So, I took turbulent flow over a BACKWARD FACING STEP. Following are my conclusions:
1) Substantial difference in the velocity, turbulent-kinetic-energy and turbulent-dissipation fields.
2) The reattachment length is shorter in OPENFOAM prediction; While there are two circulation zones, top and bottom of the jet, predicted by OPENFOAM, there is only one predicted by FLUENT, the bottom one.
3) While I can use higher order discretization schemes in FLUENT, in OpenFoam I can use only "upwind" which is a first-order, bounded scheme. When I used 2nd order schemes, the results showed instability and no convergence was achieved. Does this mean we have to use only "upwind" and cannot use the higher order schemes ?
4) I also wanted to test the linear solvers by replacing default PCG/PBiCG with GAMG. However, this did not work and the simulation stopped abruptly. Does this mean we can use only PCG/PBiCG ?
These are critical to my project and would help immensely to understand how OpenFoam works.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13||msrinath80||OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD||18||March 3, 2015 06:36|
|ParaView-3.7.0(cvs) + OpenFOAM Reader issues||philippose||OpenFOAM Paraview & paraFoam||15||February 15, 2010 05:49|
|Modified OpenFOAM Forum Structure and New Mailing-List||pete||Site News & Announcements||0||June 29, 2009 05:56|
|OpenFOAM 15 and CentOS 52 installation issues||remrich||OpenFOAM Bugs||9||March 20, 2009 02:48|
|OpenFOAM Debian packaging current status problems and TODOs||oseen||OpenFOAM Installation||9||August 26, 2007 13:50|