
[Sponsors] 
Scalar temperature transport in porous media unbounded at sharp transitions 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
March 31, 2015, 18:59 
Scalar temperature transport in porous media unbounded at sharp transitions

#1 
Member
james wilson
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 10 
All,
I am testing div() schemes for the transport of temperature. I am testing the solvers ability to maintain the resolution of a sharp interface (temperature front) advected by a divergence free velocity field in 1D. Upwind differencing breeds stability but introduces inconsistent diffusion terms due to the discretization; this drives my search for a more accurate scheme and also one that is robust. I have tested variations of scalar transport equations without using interface compression such as mules in the VOF implementation in interFoam and have witnessed success using: div(phi,scalar) Gauss SuperBee. So now I consider my new case while systematically testing each term of the energy equation in a modified two phase solver porousInterFoam. My current test is the convection term since it results in more difficulties than any other. Assumptions: 1. 1D in x 2. Single phase (all phase 1) 3. convection dominant (k1=k2=1e5[W/m/K]) 4. constant inlet velocity So here is the code: Code:
cp = cp1*alpha1 + cp2*(1alpha1); k = k1*alpha1 +k2*(1alpha1); rho = rho1*alpha1 +rho2*(1alpha1); kEff = porosity*(alpha1*k1 + (1alpha1)*k2) + (1porosity)*kPorous; rhoCpEff = porosity*(alpha1*rho1*cp1 + (1alpha1)*rho2*cp2) + (1porosity)*rhoPorous*cpPorous; rhoCpEff.oldTime() = porosity*(alpha1.oldTime()*rho1*cp1 + (1alpha1.oldTime())*rho2*cp2) + (1porosity)*rhoPorous*cpPorous; surfaceScalarField alphaPhi = (rhoPhiphi*rho2)/(rho1rho2+rhoEps); surfaceScalarField rhoCpPhi = alphaPhi*(rho1*cp1rho2*cp2)+phi*rho2*cp2; fvScalarMatrix TEqn ( fvm::ddt(rhoCpEff,T) // Transient term Mean + fvm::div(rhoCpPhi,T) // Convective term fluid  fvm::laplacian(kEff, T) // Diffusion term Mean //  fvm::Sp(sensibleCorrectSource,T) //  fvm::Sp(hfgSource,T) //Split heat of vaporization to improve Diag.Dom. == //  hfgSource*Tsat //Split heat of vaporization to improve Diag.Dom. ); Here is the fun part (all of the below utilize "div(corresponding argument) Gauss SuperBee" in system/fvSchemes): fvm::div(rhoCpPhi,T) > results in oscillations upstream of the sharp interface fvm::rhoCp*div(phi,T) > results in a bounded interface with expected numerical diffusion (this is perfectly acceptable but nonconservative) rhoCp is a constant! div(rhoCpPhi,T) Gauss SuperBee vs div(phi,T) Gauss SuperBee differs only by a constant! Does this really matter in the SuperBee discretization scheme (or any other for that matter)? I tested this also: PHI = 2*phi; rhoCp*fvm::div(PHI,T) > using "div(PHI,T) Gauss SuperBee" results in oscillations upstream of the sharp interface rhoCp*fvm::div(PHI,T) > using "div(phi,T) Gauss SuperBee" results in oscillations upstream of the sharp interface This simply confirms that the discretization of the div() operator broke because of the constant 2. Then I tested an inlet velocity twice that of the previous cases and left phi unmodified but made a dummy variable PHI just to test passing the variable to another: PHI = phi; // seems silly, i know rhoCp*fvm::div(PHI,T) > using "div(PHI,T) Gauss SuperBee" results in oscillations upstream of the sharp interface rhoCp*fvm::div(PHI,T) > using "div(phi,T) Gauss SuperBee" results in a bounded interface with expected numerical diffusion!!!!! The system/fvschemes is very sensitive it appears, and in the previous case, sensitive to case! When manually modifying phi, i.e. PHI = 2*phi, this yields qualitatively accurate results but with oscillations upstream of the interface. When doing the equivalent (doubling the velocity) through the inlet BC, the results are smooth as is expected since the modification was very formal. My purpose in exploring this problem is I would like to use a porosity modified velocity, e.g. v = porosity*V where v is the darcian velocity and V is the interstitial pore velocity as this is the velocity that would advect a tracer particle through porous media or alternatively, an interface! It seems like any modifications to phi, other than modifying the velocity properly through the BC's or something silly like PHI=phi, results in a broken system/fvschemes entry for div(something,T) Gauss SuperBee. The figures attached are: Initial condition, Conservative divergence term (div(rhoCpPhi,T)) (oscillation), and nonconservative term (rhoCp*div(phi,T)) (smooth). 

Tags 
divergence schemes, heat transfer, interface, porous media, scalar transport 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Porous media boundary conditions  aggie  FLUENT  3  June 17, 2012 10:51 
compressible flow through porous media  Chirag2302  FLUENT  0  March 3, 2012 00:13 
Modelling sound propagation through layered porous media  nkinar  Main CFD Forum  0  July 4, 2010 15:45 
Testing the integrity of POROUS media and por jump  Azman  FLUENT  0  July 31, 2006 12:11 
temperature distribution in porous media  Alexey  Siemens  1  June 23, 2003 02:11 