[mnobrega]

Comments and questions are welcomed on the article Scheufler & Roenby, TwoPhaseFlow: A framework for developing two phase flow solvers in OpenFOAM, November 2023, OpenFOAM Journal, https://doi.org/10.51560/ofj.v3.80

[kerim]

Dear All,
https://doi.org/10.51560/ofj.v3.80
This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System.

[mnobrega]

Dear Kerim,
As mentioned in the initial message this paper is still in production. It will be published in the next few days.

[mnobrega]

Dear Kerim,

The paper was just published in the journal.


Good readings.

[kerim]

Thanks a lot!

[Graciella]

Hello, thanks for this wonderful solver framework.

[roenby]

A minor typo in the paper:

We refer a couple of places in the paper to the scheme pointCellLeastSquares. This should be pointCellsLeastSquares.

Cheers,
Johan

[aprakash]

Greetings dear authors

I am trying to leverage your compressible 2-phase solver for my research. I have a very naive question regarding equation 1. In the derivation of equation 1, it is my understanding that at some point we take \rho_k = \rho_k (p), i.e., express phase density as a function of pressure which in turn introduces the \psi_k -- phase compressibility terms. My question is that later on in equation 3, we also express rho_k that is phase density as a function of p and T. Why is T dependence not taken into account to derive the equation for \alpha i.e. equation 1 ?

* Is it because you assume pressure dominated compressibility or a weak T dependence of rho ?
* Is it because you want to simplify the transport equation for \alpha ?
* Or is it because you wish to disentangle thermal effects and treat them in the energy conservation equation ?

Is it fine to neglect T dependence of \rho in equation 1 for thermally driven phase changes ?

Maybe what is happening is that the \alpha (\partial . U) term in the RHS of equation (1) brings in the thermal influence because this term is also there in the energy conservation eqaution (6). I would deeply appreciate if you could clear my confusion.