|
[Sponsors] |
porousSimpleFoam: A fundamental inconsistency to formula in Fluent |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
May 18, 2018, 07:13 |
porousSimpleFoam: A fundamental inconsistency to formula in Fluent
|
#1 |
Member
|
Hi, Foamers
The formulation in solver porousSimpleFoam is based on the articles: Porous Media in OpenFOAM - Chalmers http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kur...ukurReport.pdf in the article, the invicid Navier-Stokes Eqn is written down as I think the velocity here refers to the superficial velocity. However, according to the formulation in Fluent and other ref: [1]http://www.afs.enea.it/project/neptu...ug/node233.htm [2]Novel porous media formulation for multiphase flow conservation equations, by Sha and Chao 2007 the Navier-Stokes Eqn should be and here the velocity is physical velocity. The formula are derived according to time/volume averaging. And if we substitute the above Eqn with , we have how to explain the inconsistency of the coefficient in pressure term between Eqns [1] and [2]?
__________________
Kai Last edited by kaifu; May 18, 2018 at 07:15. Reason: something wrong with solver's name |
|
May 18, 2018, 10:32 |
|
#2 |
Member
|
One of the possibilities may come from the temporal/spatial inertial term. Both of them may be negligible, compared to the pressure and viscous resistance in the pore. But still sounds something is wrong..
__________________
Kai |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFX vs. FLUENT | turbo | CFX | 4 | April 13, 2021 08:08 |
heat transfer with RANS wall function, over a flat plate (validation with fluent) | bruce | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 6 | January 20, 2017 06:22 |
batch mode fluent - beginner | CompIng | FLUENT | 1 | November 30, 2015 11:48 |
Fluent 12.0 is worst then Fluent 6.2 | herntan | FLUENT | 5 | December 14, 2009 02:57 |
Fluent formula for Nusselt number | Alan | FLUENT | 1 | May 29, 2001 12:50 |