interface smearing. InterFoam, OpenFOAM 2.3.0 and higher

vagnerserge · September 28, 2015, 11:04

Hello,

I have a problem with interFoam 3.1.0 and higher. I want to simulate behavior of drop under simple shear flow. So I did a domain with periodic boundary conditions, top wall and bottom wall moves in opposite direction.
If I'm using interFoam from OpenFoam 2.2.1 or 2.2.2 I have a very good results as you can see (fig 1). But if I'm using OpenFoan 2.3.0 and higher I have smearing of interface (fig 2) which is obviously not supposed to be.
Maybe someone already had this problem or I don't understand something?
fig 1 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.2.1)
drop221.jpg

fig 2 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.3.0 and higher)
drop331.jpg

Thanks in advance
Serge

akidess · October 2, 2015, 09:51

If you used exactly the same input, I'd file a regression bug report with OpenCFD.

ngj · October 2, 2015, 15:37

Hallo Vagner,

Could you please clarify a little bit. The title states OpenFoam 3.1 or higher, but it seems that you are only using the OpenCFD-release of OpenFoam (currently up to 2.4).

If you are really only using the OpenCFD-release, then the main difference is that OF2.2.x uses the old, explicit version of MULES, while the advection of alpha is solved implicitly with a matrix solver in OF2.3. Consequently, it could be your choice of schemes, approach for the iterations in the linear system of equations, etc. that gives rise to the smearing.

Kind regards,

Niels

mehdiataei · April 27, 2017, 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by vagnerserge

Hello,

I have a problem with interFoam 3.1.0 and higher. I want to simulate behavior of drop under simple shear flow. So I did a domain with periodic boundary conditions, top wall and bottom wall moves in opposite direction.
If I'm using interFoam from OpenFoam 2.2.1 or 2.2.2 I have a very good results as you can see (fig 1). But if I'm using OpenFoan 2.3.0 and higher I have smearing of interface (fig 2) which is obviously not supposed to be.
Maybe someone already had this problem or I don't understand something?
fig 1 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.2.1)
Attachment 42377

fig 2 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.3.0 and higher)
Attachment 42378

Thanks in advance
Serge

Hi Vagner,

I am also working on a similar problem (a bubble in a shear flow). My particular focus is bubble deformation in Foam Injection Molding.
I have used Fluent up to now but I am switching to OpenFoam due to various constraints. I was wondering if you have any suggestions about implementing this problem in OpenFoam. Specifically, the type of solver, schemes, meshing and boundary conditions that gives the best result.

Also, as I am new to OpenFoam, it would be wonderful if you could share a sample case with me.

Thank you very much!

kk415 · February 4, 2019, 07:56

Hello All,

Now I am curious to know the other side of the coin, if solving alpha equation explicitly with MULES reduces the smearing then why the higher versions of OF solves alpha equation by matrix and correct it by MULES. what advantage is OF 3.0 and higher over OF 2.2 ?

September 28, 2015, 11:04	interface smearing. InterFoam, OpenFOAM 2.3.0 and higher	#1
vagnerserge New Member Vagner Serge Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1 Rep Power: 0	Hello, I have a problem with interFoam 3.1.0 and higher. I want to simulate behavior of drop under simple shear flow. So I did a domain with periodic boundary conditions, top wall and bottom wall moves in opposite direction. If I'm using interFoam from OpenFoam 2.2.1 or 2.2.2 I have a very good results as you can see (fig 1). But if I'm using OpenFoan 2.3.0 and higher I have smearing of interface (fig 2) which is obviously not supposed to be. Maybe someone already had this problem or I don't understand something? fig 1 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.2.1) drop221.jpg fig 2 (interFoam OpenFoam-2.3.0 and higher) drop331.jpg Thanks in advance Serge Last edited by wyldckat; October 2, 2015 at 17:16. Reason: changed title from 3.1.0 to 2.3.0

October 2, 2015, 09:51		#2
akidess Senior Member Anton Kidess Join Date: May 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 1,377 Rep Power: 29	If you used exactly the same input, I'd file a regression bug report with OpenCFD. __________________ On twitter @akidTwit Spend as much time formulating your questions as you expect people to spend on their answer.

October 2, 2015, 15:37		#3
ngj Senior Member Niels Gjoel Jacobsen Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,900 Rep Power: 37	Hallo Vagner, Could you please clarify a little bit. The title states OpenFoam 3.1 or higher, but it seems that you are only using the OpenCFD-release of OpenFoam (currently up to 2.4). If you are really only using the OpenCFD-release, then the main difference is that OF2.2.x uses the old, explicit version of MULES, while the advection of alpha is solved implicitly with a matrix solver in OF2.3. Consequently, it could be your choice of schemes, approach for the iterations in the linear system of equations, etc. that gives rise to the smearing. Kind regards, Niels Tobi, hua1015 and ashish.vinayak like this. __________________ Please note that I do not use the Friend-feature, so do not be offended, if I do not accept a request.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[OpenFOAM.org] Installation of OpenFOAM 2.3.0 on SSH RHEL 6.2 Santiago	jyang1	OpenFOAM Installation	6	August 26, 2015 18:47
[Other] Mesh refinement and smooth interface shape	Prosper	OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion	2	May 5, 2015 15:21
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13	msrinath80	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	18	March 3, 2015 05:36
OpenFOAM v.2.x Courant Number 4 time higher then in previous versions	makaveli_lcf	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	8	February 18, 2012 21:28
Issues with OpenFoam	sanjibdsharma	OpenFOAM	0	August 14, 2009 08:41

February 4, 2019, 07:56		#5
kk415 Senior Member krishna kant Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 133 Rep Power: 10	Hello All, Now I am curious to know the other side of the coin, if solving alpha equation explicitly with MULES reduces the smearing then why the higher versions of OF solves alpha equation by matrix and correct it by MULES. what advantage is OF 3.0 and higher over OF 2.2 ?