steadyCompressibleFoam in foam-extend-3.1
 

Hello,
A Very Good Evening to everyone :-)!

Could someone please give me some more information about the new compressible solver present in foam-extend-3.1 called "steadyCompressibleFoam"? Purely from the name, and a quick cursory glance of the source-code I can see that it is a steady-state solver for compressible turbulent flow.

However, I have been trying almost the whole day to simulate a simple orifice with a 35mm inlet and outlet diameter and a 2mm orifice diameter with a gaseous medium without success.

Funnily, the flow develops in the wrong direction (from outlet towards inlet) even though the boundary conditions clearly define the flow in the other direction....

I got the simulation essentially running using "rhoSimpleFoam", but it would be great to know why "steadyCompressibleFoam" is behaving the way it is... Or whether it was developed for some very specific purpose...

Any pointers, explanations, ideas would be very helpful.

Thanks and have a great evening!

Philippose

Hello again,
Just a quick update....

I tried a similar case this evening at home on my installation of foam-extend-3.1, and the solver "steadyCompressibleFoam" worked as expected.

The fvSchemes, fvSolution and boundary conditions are quite different from what I had earlier....

Shall duplicate the settings which worked on to the other simulation and post the results tomorrow.

One potentially significant difference though is, that my installation at home is the "master" branch of foam-extend-3.1 .... Whereas the other installation is compiled from the "nextRelease" branch.

Anyway... More on this tomorrow :-)

Philippose

A very Good Morning :-)
Yet another quick update before I need to run for work....

I tried the settings I got working at home also on the other simulation, and everything worked fine. I think it had to do with the fact that I had to use "waveTransmissive" on the U, p and T fields, and not on one of the fields (either U or p) as I had tried earlier.

Could someone confirm this if possible?

So essentially, the problem I was facing seems to have been a "beginner error" from my side :-)

Shall post back in case I find something else....

Have a great day ahead!

Philippose