
[Sponsors] 
May 8, 2018, 19:07 
skip using local solution in mass source

#1 
Member
phd
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 11 
Hi, there:
I have known from CFXSolver Modeling Guide Ch1.3.2.3. Mass (Continuity) Sources https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Ans....html#i1299353 that the mass source will induce corresponding secondary source terms in all other equations; and if the continuity source is positive, the secondary source terms will use the specified values; and if the continuity source is negative, the specified values will be ignored by the solver, and local solution variables will be used. Most importantly in multicomponent flow we may force the solver to use the specified temperature even if the mass source is negative in 'MCF/Energy Sink Option'. May I know is there any way(such as expert parameters) that we can use to force the solver to skip the usage of the 'local solution' also in the single component flow? I just want to use the specified values in my single component simulation. Or alternatively, is there any method we can use to skip the implementation of the 'secondary source term', just like the one did in Fluent, and purely introduce the mass source? Thank you very much! 

May 9, 2018, 06:32 

#2 
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,327
Rep Power: 138 
You have to define properties to the other variables when you create mass. It is not physical to not define it.
But rather than giving it a fixed value I suspect you might be thinking of something like the added mass has the other variables define as having the same value as currently exists in that location. If this is what you want to do I suspect if you simply define the temperature as "T" and U velocity as "u" etc then it should use the local value for the added mass. Is this what you want?
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. 

May 9, 2018, 08:54 

#3 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,665
Rep Power: 29 
Would you mind explaining what you are trying to achieve?
When the flow is leaving the domain, i.e. a sink mass source, I do not understand how can we "physically valid" force the outgoing value. Lets say the requested output is 0.5 mass fraction, but nearby mass fractions is 0.000001. How will the mathematical model come up with such amount? Imagine trying to extract more mass that is available. Usually these approaches are a sign of illconditioned mathematical model 

May 11, 2018, 12:25 

#4  
Member
phd
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 11 
Quote:
Thanks for your reply! I actually want to do the opposite: I hope the solver to use my specified value even when mass source is negative. Do you know how to do that? I know with the MCF/energy sink option we can use the specified value for the temperature. But I have no idea on how to do that for the velocity... 

May 11, 2018, 22:53 

#5 
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,327
Rep Power: 138 
Defining the value for mass which is disappearing is usually not physical. So can you explain why are you trying to do it?
And why would you want to do it  the mass then disappears out the mass source, and the variables you defined along with it.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. 

May 12, 2018, 18:44 

#6  
Member
phd
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 11 
Quote:
And the reason for me to get the mass source without bringing any secondary source is because now I have a residual in continuity equation caused purely by numerical errors, I want to introduce an additional source to compensate this residual. In this case the mass source seems to have no physical meanings and therefore I suppose it should not bring any further source in the other equations. Do you think the mass source will bring an additional source even when the usage is purely for numerical reasons? Thanks! 

May 12, 2018, 18:47 

#7 
Member
phd
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 76
Rep Power: 11 
Hi, Ghorrocks, in my case I have a residual in continuity equation caused purely by numerical errors, I want to introduce an additional source to compensate this residual. In this case the mass source seems to have no physical meanings and therefore I suppose it should not bring any further source in the other equations. Do you think the mass source will bring an additional source even when the usage is purely for numerical reasons? Thanks!


May 13, 2018, 06:50 

#8 
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,327
Rep Power: 138 
You cannot compensate a residual error by introducing a source term. They are totally different things. So what you are proposing will not work.
Your problem is poor convergence, not anything to do with the secondary sources linked to a mass source term. This looks like a classic XY problem: http://xyproblem.info/ Can you explain the convergence problem you are having and what you are trying to model? I am sure you will find the issue has nothing to do with the secondary source terms for mass sources at all.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. 

May 14, 2018, 08:33 

#9 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,665
Rep Power: 29 
Tinkering with the continuity equation is dangerous since the "residual's residual" you are observing is either lack of convergence (as Glenn point out) or an inconsistency in the implementation.
You are better off looking at the location of the maximum continuity residual in CFDPost, and see what it may cause the lack of convergence: recirculation zone, poor mesh quality, etc. Fix the possible issue, and rerun. Tinkering with the continuity equation may produce a different pressure profile, and it cascades down from there. I would not do that. 

Tags 
mass source term 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
pimpleDyMFoam computation randomly stops  babapeti  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  5  January 24, 2018 05:28 
[foamextend.org] problem when installing foamextend1.6  Thomas pan  OpenFOAM Installation  7  September 9, 2015 21:53 
[swak4Foam] swak4foam building problem  GGerber  OpenFOAM Community Contributions  54  April 24, 2015 16:02 
IcoFoam parallel woes  msrinath80  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  9  July 22, 2007 02:58 
Could anybody help me see this error and give help  liugx212  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  3  January 4, 2006 18:07 