CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/)
-   OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-solving/)
-   -   p file in buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam? (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-solving/123703-p-file-buoyantsimpleradiationfoam.html)

Antimony September 19, 2013 04:15

p file in buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam?
 
Hi All,

I was trying to run a case on OF 2.1.x using buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. However, I got an error message saying:
"cannot find file
file: <path>/p at line 0"

Note that the file "p_rgh" is there in the same directory.

Why does buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam need "p" in the first place? Doesn't the buoyant solver only require "p_rgh"? Could someone please explain?

Thanks very much!

cfdonline2mohsen September 19, 2013 06:38

Dear Antimony
There are 2 tutorials for buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam in OpenFOAM: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam

Set your boundary conditions according to them.

Have a look at the buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam solver's source:
buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam

Antimony September 19, 2013 07:36

Dear Kia,

Thanks for your reply!

I did take a look at the source code of buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. And that is probably where I got confused when the mass flow calculators and the adjustPhi functions (for which I had to dig into the pEqn.H and then adjustPhi.H and adjustPhi.C) seem to make use of "p" but not "p_rgh".

And here is probably what confused me even more - in the fvSchemes and fvSolution for this problem (including the OpenFOAM tutorial cases that you had mentioned), there is only a reference to "p_rgh". Even when solving, we seem to be using only p_rgh. We also know the relationship between p and p_rgh.

So if that is the case, what is the necessity to have a separate "p" file? Is it because this solver has built on top of the existing simpleFoam solver and so the "p" file is a must?

In case I have assumed or stated something incorrectly, please do let me know.

Regards,

Antimony

hanness September 20, 2013 08:14

Dear Antimony,

I think (and that is just my interpretation) that p should always be calculated since p_rgh is no measurable physical quantity. When you want to start to compare your results with experimental data you need to have p instead of p_rgh.

Hannes

Antimony September 20, 2013 09:37

Hi Hanness,

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you to an extent. But like I said in my previous post, I am curious to know, mainly from the computational standpoint, why p is required when p_rgh is the one that is used.

Regards,

Antimony


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:55.