
[Sponsors] 
January 25, 2016, 04:50 

#21 
Senior Member

delta p = (L/D)/(0.5*rho*v*v)


June 24, 2016, 05:41 

#22 
New Member
Kanchan Gurung
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 10 
why can't we use multiphase model when we are considering density based solver ? we can enable wet steam or off the mutiphase model while density based solver is enabled?


June 24, 2016, 08:24 
open type shock tube simulation in fluent

#23 
New Member
Kanchan Gurung
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 10 
can anyone mail me the journal or article regarding results obtained by simulating open type shock tube in fluent?
I have no idea what type of contours comes as a result of the simulation of open type shock tube? mail: kanchugurung94@gmail.com 

February 26, 2018, 08:40 
density based or pressure based?

#24 
New Member
Mohammed Saad Kamel
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Hungary
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 
I am looking to simulate supercritical water inside the vertical tube so which is more acceptable density based solver or pressure based solver?


March 2, 2019, 18:23 

#25 
New Member
Mathew Liebowitz
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 9 

April 3, 2019, 10:19 

#26 
New Member
Hitesh
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 12 

August 18, 2020, 09:54 

#27  
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 
Quote:
HI everybody, an old thread but I have my doubts about the quoted statements for density based solvers in OpenFOAM. Here, we solve the momentumpressure coupling in both, density and pressure based solvers and transport the energy through the field. Knowing the pressure and enthalpy (temperature) at each cell, we can recalculate the density field which is then applied. The statement above is somehow misleading for me as it is written that we use the density to get the pressure. I am not sure how other software tools are handling this situation but in FOAM it should be clearly visible to everybody that we do the following:
Hints, feedback, critics are always welcomed.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

August 18, 2020, 10:34 

#28  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
Rho central foam in my understanding solves for density and obtains pressure from it. The blast foam library based on / using it also does the same. 

August 18, 2020, 11:08 

#29 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 
Okay, «rhoCentralFoam» is a special solver and here the pressure is obtained by:
Code:
p = rho/psi Well, I see, I might be wrong here. This would make sense in addition too as Fluent does not solve for the pressure (at least I cannot see any residuals for the pressure field).
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

August 18, 2020, 11:49 

#30  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
By special solver you mean they are density based solver. They are different class of solver. They usually get the flux by ROE, AUSM or other such schemes.  Originally Posted by johnfriend Historically speaking, the pressurebased approach was developed for lowspeed incompressible flows, while the densitybased approach was mainly used for highspeed compressible flows. However, recently both methods have been extended and reformulated to solve and operate for a wide range of flow conditions beyond their traditional or original intent." "In both methods the velocity field is obtained from the momentum equations. In the densitybased approach, the continuity equation is used to obtain the density field while the pressure field is determined from the equation of state." "On the other hand, in the pressurebased approach, the pressure field is extracted by solving a pressure or pressure correction equation which is obtained by manipulating continuity and momentum equations." The pressurebased solver traditionally has been used for incompressible and mildly compressible flows. The densitybased approach, on the other hand, was originally designed for highspeed compressible flows. Both approaches are now applicable to a broad range of flows (from incompressible to highly compressible), but the origins of the densitybased formulation may give it an accuracy (i.e. shock resolution) advantage over the pressurebased solver for highspeed compressible flows." 

August 18, 2020, 11:52 

#31 
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
BTW in wildkatze you can chose ROE fluxes and thus it can sort of behave similar to density based solver as far as flux dissipation goes. (instead of Rhie and Chow).


August 18, 2020, 11:52 

#32 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 
Special is related to the fact that it is another implementation than solvers such as
as here, it is demonstrated how to implement a centraldifferencing discretisation. The other solvers do have each single term in a «semantic» form rather than direct code. However, maybe I got things wrong in the «rhoCentralFoam»
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

August 18, 2020, 12:03 

#33  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
I think the issue is that most people use the solvers you have mentioned as they can deal with large number of cases. The density based solvers are used in high speed compressible flows that is much smaller area.
None the less openfoam indeed has the density based algorithm. It may not be a popular one but it has. Quote:


August 18, 2020, 12:38 

#34 
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 
So actually, if I got everything correct.
are pressurebased solvers as we solve a Poisson equation. Honestly, I thought the pressurebased are incompressible (divided by density) and density do include the density as variable. Then it does make sense to use a pressurebased solver and using an EOS. Otherwise, it would not make sense.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann 

August 18, 2020, 18:32 

#35  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
Yes.
Pressure based solvers are mainly solving pressure poisson equation as you noted. Quote:


August 19, 2020, 04:13 

#36 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,871
Rep Power: 73 
I am not sure that for solving the equations within the divergencefree constraint it makes really sense to denote either pressure or densitybased approaches.


August 19, 2020, 06:19 

#37 
Senior Member

Last time I checked, density based solvers in OF (e.g., rhoCentralFoam) were pretty much explicit, naive, painfully slow implementations, not really representative of modern implementations.
Most modern, all Mach, implementations typically use pressure as independent variable and determine density from the EOS 

August 19, 2020, 06:47 

#38  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
Nonetheless they are of different class of algorithm. I believe that the places they will be used the explicit nature makes sense and in fact could be advantage over the "most modern" algorithms. Typically where they are used the delta t is very small , for example in combustion the delta is like 1E9 to 1E6 types. Here using implicit algorithm might be unnecessarily costly. While in smaller time steps the pressure based algorithm that use Rhie and Chow type of flux dissipation even decouple. so density based solvers have their place. Even as we speak this topic I am seriously evaluating the implementation of explicit solver into Wildkatze (for the reasons i mentioned above). 

August 19, 2020, 06:56 

#39 
Senior Member

Sure but, for anything steady they are just a pain in the ...
Honestly, also looking at the implementation, they have been put there just like the BlackScholes and solid solvers, just because they could. So, let me take the chance to highlight that an actual solver that works is a totally different business (and I'm sure you know, but not all the OF users do, because most people in academia don't as well) 

August 19, 2020, 07:04 

#40  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,285
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
They most of the time pain in unsteady too. During my time at CD Adapco I learned that most people avoid the coupled solver, which is basically what we call density based solver (written to solve pressure as you said). It can be very slow to converge and in transient cases it is costlier than good SIMPLE method. This is why added only the flux option into the Wildkatze because then the cost is similar to Rhie chow based method while the decoupling issue is somewhat taken cared of. 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Using Density Gradient C_R_G(c,t), Pressure Based Solver  Anirudh_Deodhar  Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming  1  October 25, 2013 06:43 
Pressure gradient in UDF for density based solver  matzb  FLUENT  0  February 22, 2010 07:34 
regarding density and pressure based solver  Reddy  CFX  3  October 11, 2007 04:08 
regarding density and pressure based solver  Reddy  FLUENT  0  August 18, 2007 12:11 
Pressure based and Density based Solver  Xobile  Siemens  1  November 30, 2004 22:13 