|
[Sponsors] |
April 11, 2019, 06:53 |
cyclicAMI boundary conditions
|
#1 |
Member
Adam
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 8 |
I'm using OpenFOAM 5 with blueCFD to simulate the temperature response of a material initially at 300K subjected to left and right sides at 310 K when t>0s. I would like the geometry to translate infinitely in the vertical direction, so I am using cyclicAMI boundary conditions. This is an initial case that I would like to eventually extend towards more complicated ones.
I think that there is a problem with the way I've used cyclicAMI boundary conditions. In using probes to follow the temperature at the top and bottom of the simulation domain, I'm seeing differences that I didn't expect as I thought the surfaces were linked. This is my geometry, if need be my full casefile and mesh are on DropBox. In the changeDictionaryDict file, I've described the relationship between the top and bottom patches. Code:
matrixTop { type cyclicAMI; neighbourPatch matrixBottom; transform translational; separationVector (0 -0.0002 0); matchTolerance 0.0001; } matrixBottom { type cyclicAMI; neighbourPatch matrixTop; transform translational; separationVector (0 0.0002 0); matchTolerance 0.0001; } Here is a plot of the temperature difference between the probe located at a given y-position and the probe at the bottom (y = 0). I'm not surprised that there is some difference between the probes in the interior, but I expected the top and bottom probes to match much more closely. At the centre (x = 100 µm) they are very close, but at X = 50 µm, there is a considerable difference between the top and bottom of the domain, up to 0.3 K. Have I messed up my treatment of the cyclicAMI? Or am I missing something here? Thanks in advance! Adam |
|
July 1, 2019, 04:39 |
|
#2 |
New Member
shach
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7 |
Hi
Have you found a solution to your problem? Is the cyclicAMI interface ok with heat transfer or it needs special setting? Thanks! |
|
July 1, 2019, 06:29 |
|
#3 |
Member
Adam
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 8 |
||
July 1, 2019, 07:44 |
|
#4 |
New Member
shach
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7 |
Ok....Then at last are you still using cyclicAMI and how do you treate it?
|
|
July 2, 2019, 13:53 |
|
#5 | |
Member
Yousef
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 40
Rep Power: 11 |
Quote:
You may need to directly probe the boundary values using boundaryCloud (see OpenFOAM-5.x/etc/caseDicts/postProcessing/probes/). Otherwise, I believe it uses the cell center data in someway to return the value. Hope this helps, Regards |
||
July 3, 2019, 01:54 |
|
#6 | |
Member
Adam
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 36
Rep Power: 8 |
Quote:
In the end, the actual probe values at those points isn't very important to me and I've realized that using cyclicAMI vs zeroGradient BCs doesn't impact my final simulation results (temperature profile at the center of the slab). |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sliding mesh problem in CFX | Saima | CFX | 46 | September 11, 2021 08:38 |
CGNS Boundary conditions using SU2 | denzell | SU2 | 3 | July 9, 2018 06:58 |
Basic Nozzle-Expander Design | karmavatar | CFX | 20 | March 20, 2016 09:44 |
Low torque values on Screw Turbine | Shaun Waters | CFX | 34 | July 23, 2015 09:16 |
Question about heat transfer coefficient setting for CFX | Anna Tian | CFX | 1 | June 16, 2013 07:28 |