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

Replace the rho(T,P) with rho(h,P) method.

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   June 5, 2022, 11:50
Default Replace the rho(T,P) with rho(h,P) method.
  #1
New Member
 
Zhiyuan Liu
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: China
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7
Saeef is on a distinguished road
By default, RGP file of CFX uses temperature and pressure as the EoS basic variables to calculate enthalpy and entropy. However, the calculation result of the energy equation is indeed enthalpy. This is unfavorable to the accuracy and robustness of the calculation. Is there any possibility of replacing the rho(T,P) with rho(h,P) method.
I found that Fluent could replace the temperature-based energy equation with an enthalpy-based formulation. Moreover, density, viscosity, diffusion coefficient etc.. could be expressed as functions of pressure and specific enthalpy.
Saeef is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 6, 2022, 09:36
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,775
Rep Power: 31
Opaque will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeef View Post
By default, RGP file of CFX uses temperature and pressure as the EoS basic variables to calculate enthalpy and entropy. However, the calculation result of the energy equation is indeed enthalpy. This is unfavorable to the accuracy and robustness of the calculation.
May I ask what is the source of such conclusions? Is there a paper or reference which I can read about this?

In the general CFD literature, the most common solution variable for the compressible (ideal and real gas) form of the energy equation is Total Enthalpy. It is not Temperature, nor Static Enthalpy.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.
Opaque is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 6, 2022, 21:44
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Zhiyuan Liu
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: China
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7
Saeef is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
May I ask what is the source of such conclusions? Is there a paper or reference which I can read about this?

In the general CFD literature, the most common solution variable for the compressible (ideal and real gas) form of the energy equation is Total Enthalpy. It is not Temperature, nor Static Enthalpy.
reference:Evaporation in supersonic CO2 ejectors: analysis of theoretical and numerical models

Based on the mass/momentum/energy equations, CFX can obtain local velocity/pressure/enthalpy (h_tot-V^2/2).

However, CFX needs to first calculate h (T, P) and s (T, P) according to EoS rho (T, P) + Cp (T, P), and then obtain T= (h, P), rho (h, P) and s (h, P).

This means that CFX needs to perform a reverse lookup on the physical property table, which may lead to deviations in physical properties. Especially when the physical properties are sensitive to temperature and pressure.
Saeef is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 7, 2022, 09:55
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,775
Rep Power: 31
Opaque will become famous soon enough
I see what you are referring to; however, there is confusion on where the errors are coming from.

Let us assume the thermodynamic state is analytical and non-linear, i.e. no table lookup. That means we can compute the sequence you describe

- calculate h (T, P) and s (T, P)
- according to EoS rho (T, P) and Cp (T, P),
- and then obtain T= (h, P)

exactly. Corrrect? A root-finder must be used since the equations are likely non-linear (say Newton method).

The above proves there is no need for an alternative formulation. The source of error is not in the formulation but in the quality of how obtain the remaining thermodynamic quantities.

When CFX uses property tables, there is an inherent assumption that some error is introduced, and that error comes in from the creation of those tables. If you want to reduce the error, you generate better tables. The formulation is correct already.

If you change the formulation, you still have to do a reverse lookup, either analytical or via numerical interpolation. You will be moving the "concern" to another variable, but fixing nothing.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.
Opaque is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2022, 18:28
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 1,161
Rep Power: 23
evcelica is on a distinguished road
Any general advice on "Generating better tables"?

More data points? But can you make them too large where truncation with too fine of points becomes a problem?
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
rgp

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
Inaccurate gradient results from continuous Adjoint method Yminjo SU2 1 January 11, 2014 23:08
multiphaseEulerFoam: method mag(...) withing method solveAlphase() maybee OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 December 21, 2013 11:13
Help about the preconditioner in gmres method Dan Gao Main CFD Forum 3 July 5, 2008 02:18
About flowfield-dependent variation(FDV) method? Jinwon Main CFD Forum 1 December 4, 2007 22:13
tidal flow simulation using finite volume method Jason Qiu Main CFD Forum 0 October 20, 2002 03:34


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:41.