CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > CFX

Split Iso-Volume in CFX-Post

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 18, 2013, 08:36
Default Split Iso-Volume in CFX-Post
  #1
Member
 
Peter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 39
Rep Power: 14
PeMo is on a distinguished road
Hey guys,

I need your help at a Post processing issue. I am doing two phase cavitation simulations and visualize the cavitation volume as an Iso Volume (Vapour Volume Fraction = 0.5).
Additional I would like to calculate the Cavitation volume (Expression: volume()@IsoCav) to get a better comparison.
Here is the question: To calculate the volume values in different regions I have to split my computational domain, unfortunately you can only create an Iso Volume out of a domain not a region or volume.
I guess there are two options:
1. define Iso Volume in a specific region and calculate the cavitation volume
2. use the expression above and limit it to the required region

Any hints how to do this?
Thanks in advance
PeMo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 18, 2013, 19:41
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,665
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
Cavitation is not an effect with a defined free surface, so I do not think taking a VF=0.5 isosurface is a good way of defining the cavitation region. Specifically, if a large region has VF=0.3 then it clearly has cavitation but your volume would be zero.

So rather than working out the volume of an isosurface I would simply integrate the vapour volume fraction over the area. This will include all levels of volume fraction, and is much simpler to implement.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 18, 2013, 20:42
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 131
Rep Power: 19
mjgraf is on a distinguished road
good suggestion glenn
wouldn't the calculation be the volumeInt of Vapor volume Fraction for the Domain/Volume?

suggestion for visualization of a cavitating volume?



Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
Cavitation is not an effect with a defined free surface, so I do not think taking a VF=0.5 isosurface is a good way of defining the cavitation region. Specifically, if a large region has VF=0.3 then it clearly has cavitation but your volume would be zero.

So rather than working out the volume of an isosurface I would simply integrate the vapour volume fraction over the area. This will include all levels of volume fraction, and is much simpler to implement.
mjgraf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 19, 2013, 07:11
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,665
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
Yes, VolumeInt of vapour VF is correct.

It can be visualised many ways - an isosurface of VF=(some value, not necessarily 0.5), cross section planes colour by volume fraction or many others.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 22, 2013, 03:41
Default
  #5
Member
 
Peter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 39
Rep Power: 14
PeMo is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your comment Glenn,
I am still not sure if it is correct to take into account all the cavitation volumina if you just compare different operating points. But you are right the integrated volume fraction is much easier to handle, I will give it at try.
PeMo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 22, 2013, 09:53
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,665
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
As I said in my first post, cavitation does not tend to end up with sharply defined free surfaces. There tends to be drops of liquid in the vapour cavity and vapour bubbles in the liquid region and a transition between the two. This is why I said drawing a line at VF=0.5 is not very helpful, because it does not separate the vapour from the liquid, as it does in a free surface modelling thing. So the VF integral is more physically relevant than the VF=0.5 contour in most cases.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Other] mesh airfoil NACA0012 anand_30 OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 13 March 7, 2022 18:22
Problem of simulating of small droplet with radius of 2mm liguifan OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 5 June 3, 2014 03:53
[blockMesh] non-orthogonal faces and incorrect orientation? nennbs OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 7 April 17, 2013 06:42
[blockMesh] error message with modeling a cube with a hold at the center hsingtzu OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 2 March 14, 2012 10:56
Proper output of angle of attack in CFX post Kevin CFX 3 October 18, 2006 13:18


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28.