|
[Sponsors] |
MRFSimpleFoam + AMI in 2.1.0 vs GGI in 1.5-dev |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
June 26, 2012, 10:44 |
MRFSimpleFoam + AMI in 2.1.0 vs GGI in 1.5-dev
|
#1 |
New Member
Marcel Günter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 14 |
hello everyone,
I recently managed to run the ERCOFTAC Centrifugal Pump validation test case in a recent version of OpenFoam 1.5-dev with the help of this forum (thanks again!) now I want to run this exact same case in OpenFoam 2.1.0 with AMI interfaces instead of GGI. the turbulence model (k-epsilon) and all the boundary conditions are exactly the same as in the 1.5-dev case except for the pressure-outlet. in 1.5-dev the pressure outlet is set as "fixedmeanvalue", unfortunately this bc doesn't exist any more in 2.1.0, so i defined it as "fixedvalue". the case converges, though not as good as in 1.5-dev. the results for U make sense but still differ from those i got in 1.5-dev. what puzzles me the most are the results for p. the pressure gradient is just inverted! see for yourselves, i uploaded the pictures. does anyone have an idea how this could happen or what i could do to get better results? best regards, Marcel |
|
June 27, 2012, 09:24 |
|
#2 |
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi,
Are the two cases rotating in the same direction? Best Regards, Paulo Rocha |
|
June 27, 2012, 09:37 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Marcel Günter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 14 |
yes, they are. i just checked it again, to be safe.
|
|
June 29, 2012, 05:52 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 240
Rep Power: 17 |
could you please post your initial U and p / p_rgh file and fvSolution, fvSchemes? I probably can't help put I'd like to take a look.
|
|
June 29, 2012, 05:54 |
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 240
Rep Power: 17 |
...because I think your geometry is qite challanging for your turbulence model. Did you try with LES in combination with DMM subgrid scale model developed by the LTT Rostock and a SimpleGridFilter to allow backscatter? This would account better for the Influence of your geometry on the turbulence.
|
|
July 2, 2012, 04:33 |
|
#6 |
Member
wided
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 16 |
Hi marcelgt87,
I also wanted to do the same comparison you did using the ERCOFTAC validation case. This is because I also did not obtain the same P for a very simple case that I tried to compare using both approaches which you used ... It would be nice if you give some details about your schemes and solutions dictionaries. Regards |
|
July 2, 2012, 05:12 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Marcel Günter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 14 |
sorry, that it took so long. here are my files for OF 2.1.0.
U: Code:
internalField uniform (0 0 0); boundaryField { INLET { type surfaceNormalFixedValue; refValue uniform -11.4; } OUTLET { type zeroGradient; } BLADE_ROT { type fixedValue; value uniform (0 0 0); } BLADE_STAT { type fixedValue; value uniform (0 0 0); } HUB_SHROUD { type empty; } AMI_INT { type cyclicAMI; value $internalField; } AMI_EXT { type cyclicAMI; value $internalField; } } Code:
internalField uniform 0; boundaryField { INLET { type zeroGradient; } OUTLET { type fixedValue; value uniform 0; } BLADE_ROT { type zeroGradient; } BLADE_STAT { type zeroGradient; } HUB_SHROUD { type empty; } AMI_INT { type cyclicAMI; value $internalField; } AMI_EXT { type cyclicAMI; value $internalField; } } Code:
solvers { p { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; cacheAgglomeration true; nCellsInCoarsestLevel 20; agglomerator faceAreaPair; mergeLevels 1; tolerance 1e-08; relTol 0.05; } pFinal { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; cacheAgglomeration true; nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10; agglomerator faceAreaPair; mergeLevels 1; tolerance 1e-06; relTol 0; } "(U|k|epsilon)" { solver smoothSolver; smoother GaussSeidel; tolerance 1e-07; relTol 0.1; } "(U|k|epsilon)Final" { solver PBiCG; preconditioner DILU; tolerance 1e-05; relTol 0; } } PIMPLE { nOuterCorrectors 4; nCorrectors 1; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 0; pRefCell 0; pRefValue 0; } SIMPLE { nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 0; } relaxationFactors { fields { p 0.3; } equations { U 0.7; k 0.9; "epsilon.*" 0.9; } } cache { grad(U); } Code:
ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; grad(p) Gauss linear; grad(U) Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss limitedLinearV 1; div(phi,k) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div(phi,R) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div(R) Gauss linear; div(phi,nuTilda) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div((nuEff*dev(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(nuEff,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian((1|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DnuTildaEff,nuTilda) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; interpolate(U) linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p ; } @wiedangel: did you succeed? did you get any results with that comparison? could you give me some more details about what exactly you did? thank you! marcel |
|
July 2, 2012, 09:32 |
|
#8 |
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 240
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi Marcel, I would use OUTLET { type zeroGradient; } for p since I had some funny coordinate-dependent effects using fixedValue 0 at my outlets.
|
|
July 2, 2012, 10:06 |
|
#9 |
New Member
Marcel Günter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 14 |
i just tried to do what you said. i set the outlet to zerogradient. as a result openfoam tells me to provide a reference value for p. when i do that (refvalue 0 and refcell 0) the calculation doesn't converge and eventually crashes. i also tried setting the outlet as zerogradient and the inlet as fixedvalue 0, with the same result.
is there anything i overlooked? regards, marcel |
|
July 2, 2012, 11:22 |
|
#10 |
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 240
Rep Power: 17 |
what does it look like when you use a high refvalue?
|
|
July 2, 2012, 11:39 |
|
#11 |
New Member
Marcel Günter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 14 |
quite the same
|
|
December 2, 2013, 19:40 |
|
#12 |
Member
Ye Zhang
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Delft,Netherland
Posts: 92
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi Marcel,
Could you please send me a copy of testcase of ERCOFTAC Centrifugal Pump? I did not download it successfully. Thank you so much! My email address: dlutyezhang@gmail.com or you can use this mail to share it by Dropbox. Again thanks Best regards, Ye |
|
July 15, 2014, 11:57 |
|
#13 |
Member
Lisandro Maders
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 13 |
Hey guys, did you sort the pressure problem? If so, what was the problem and how do you manage to fix that?
Appreciate a lot your answer! Lisandro |
|
Tags |
ami, ggi, kepsilon, mrfsimplefoam |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Create a GeometricField of a given type on given patch? | philippose | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 4 | August 12, 2013 13:41 |
GGI implementation in MRFSimpleFoam | amgode | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 8 | August 5, 2011 07:03 |
about MRFSimpleFoam and ggi | wllmk1 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | February 5, 2011 05:52 |
OpenFOAM 1.5 dev | LVDH | OpenFOAM | 98 | May 5, 2010 18:01 |
[OpenFOAM] Paraview/Parafoam in OpenFoam 1.5 dev | titio | ParaView | 0 | December 9, 2009 13:13 |