CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Programming & Development

one question about turbulence + Ueqn ?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 25, 2011, 10:57
Default HsEqn ReactingFoam Hypothesis?
lfgmarc's Avatar
Luis Felipe Gutierrez Marcantoni
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cordoba-Argentina
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 8
lfgmarc is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to lfgmarc
Sponsored Links
Hi, I'm a little confuse with the assumptions under HsEqn implemented in reactingFoam, the energy equation in terms of the sensible enthalpy, can be written as:

\dfrac{D}{Dt}\left(\bar{\rho}\widetilde{h_{s}}\right)=\overline{\dfrac{DP}{Dt}}+\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}\left(\overline{\lambda\dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x_{i}}}-\rho u_{i}^{''}h_{s}^{''}\right)+\overline{\tau_{ij}\dfrac{\partial u_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}\left(\overline{\rho{\displaystyle \sum V_{k,i}Y_{k}h_{s,k}}}\right)+\overline{\dot{W}_{T}}

My confusion is with two terms:

1. the term associated with the species diffusion:

\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}\left(\overline{\rho{\displaystyle \sum V_{k,i}Y_{k}h_{s,k}}}\right)

2, the term associated with the energy dissipation by viscous effects:

\overline{\tau_{ij}\dfrac{\partial u_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}

The implementation of this equation in reactingFoam is:

    fvm::ddt(rho, hs)
      + mvConvection->fvmDiv(phi, hs)
      - fvm::laplacian(turbulence->alphaEff(), hs)
//      - fvm::laplacian(turbulence->muEff(), hs)  // unit lewis no.
      + chemistrySh
In this implementation I see that is neglected the viscous dissipation, but I don't understand very well why? i think that may be under the hypothesis of an Brinkman number<<1?

On the other hand it is clear that the species diffusion term was neglected, but reviewed bibliography I see that this term ussually is neglected if :

a) if mixture contains only one specie

b) if all species have the same sensible enthalpy.

c) sometimes is set to zero because it is usually negligible compared with


The first assumption in this case is not suitable, I'm confused with the second one, it is applicable in this case or simply is considered the third hypothesis?

if someone could shed some light on this I'll be very grateful

Thanks in advance

Felipe G

Last edited by lfgmarc; October 27, 2011 at 10:50.
lfgmarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbulence dampening due to magnetic field in LES and RAS eelcovv OpenFOAM 0 June 8, 2010 11:35
Natural convection - Inlet boundary condition max91 CFX 1 July 29, 2008 20:28
RSM shortcoming in onset of Turbulence Hatef Main CFD Forum 0 October 23, 2007 08:12
turbulence model and sol init_best practice sam Main CFD Forum 0 October 18, 2006 01:10
Question...Turbulence Intensity & Viscosity ratio Jay FLUENT 1 October 6, 2005 04:41

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33.