|
[Sponsors] |
Outlet pressure boundary condition upside down? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 19, 2017, 22:57 |
Outlet pressure boundary condition upside down?
|
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 8 |
I have set a static pressure outlet for my simulation in the form of the following function:
1.474[atm]*exp(-g/R*(17/12*0.029)[kg m K^-1 mol^-1]*ln(12[m^-1]*y+4589))-0.98[atm]) where Y is the vertical position. As you can see in the picture attached, it is a decreasing function so the relative pressure at higher hights is lower (as it should be). The thing is when i run the simulation and then see a pressure countour on that boundary on post processing, the function inverts itself, in other words, the relative pressure is lower at LOWER hights. I tried multiplyng the whole function by -1 to see what happens and it gave me function behaviour, but with higher pressures overall. Anyone know why this happens and/or how can i fix it? |
|
October 20, 2017, 05:45 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,728
Rep Power: 143 |
In buoyancy simulations CFX uses a modified pressure which has the static head component removed. That means you applied pressure boundary conditions will need to take into account the static head as well.
If you look at the absolute pressure you will see the absolute pressure as usually defined. But for buoyancy simulations, p+p(ref) will not equal the absolute pressure. And in case you are wondering, the buoyancy reference location and density are used to calculate the static head component, so you will need to take into account density*gravity*height from these reference conditions. |
|
October 20, 2017, 12:05 |
|
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 8 |
Thanks for the explanation!
So in other words, as well as the absolute pressure distribution makes sense you are good to go? |
|
October 21, 2017, 06:02 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,728
Rep Power: 143 |
Hopefully now both the absolute pressure and the pressure fields make sense now. I would not proceed until all variables are correctly set.
|
|
October 22, 2017, 23:30 |
|
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 8 |
I couldnt fix it. I set relative pressure = 0 Pa on the outlet and my inlet is 0 velocity and a temperature profile (the other boundaries are walls).
I set the buoyant reference density to air density evaluated at an average temperature in my domain, and the reference location in the origin. Despite all that, the relative pressure in my domain still is higher at higher hights, which makes no sense. How can i fix this? |
|
October 23, 2017, 05:37 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,728
Rep Power: 143 |
The problem will be in the details of how you have accounted for the static head, what you are modelling and your material properties. But you are going to have to look into it and work it out, we cannot help you unless you post more details (your CCL and your geometry).
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues on the simulation of high-speed compressible flow within turbomachinery | dowlee | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 11 | August 6, 2021 06:40 |
CFD analaysis of Pelton turbine | amodpanthee | CFX | 31 | April 19, 2018 18:02 |
Static pressure boundary condition at outlet | jennz | CFX | 4 | February 11, 2014 03:29 |
Radiation interface | hinca | CFX | 15 | January 26, 2014 17:11 |
RPM in Wind Turbine | Pankaj | CFX | 9 | November 23, 2009 04:05 |