|
[Sponsors] |
What do you all do to stabilize reactingFoam (or in general)? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
December 6, 2016, 11:48 |
What do you all do to stabilize reactingFoam (or in general)?
|
#1 |
Member
Anonymouse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 11 |
I've been working on this problem for the past several weeks. I have a simulation modeling the combustion of oxygen, paraffin and aluminum with several intermediary species. It's built atop a stable rhoSonicFoam run, dealing with it without combustion before switching over to reactingFoam.
It runs for a fair while, but almost inevitably, eventually "something happens" that leads to a blowup. In general, it appears to usually be along the lines of turbulence somewhere causing a localized patch of heating, which increases the reaction rate, increasing heating faster, etc such that temperatures skyrocket or go negative and things blow up. Yet it also happens (faster, actually!) if I set the turbulence model to laminar and/or the combustion turbulence to laminar. I can generally prevent these blowups by dropping the timestep way down. But then it runs at a crawl. It's like 99.999999% of all calculations are fine, but that last 0.000001% blows things up, and to prevent that I have to tremendously slow things down for the 99.999999%. It would be lovely if chemistry could limit the timestep the same way as the courant number does... but I see nothing in either the docs nor the code to allow that. * I make use of a temperature limit in fvOptions, but it doesn't seem to do anything useful. * All of my fvSchemes are first-order that can be, most commonly Gauss linearUpwind grad(U). * I use no relaxation parameter in fvSolution because they don't seem to help much, only delaying the inevitable * My experimentation is mixed as to whether varying tolerances in fvSolution helps any or make things worse. And if they're high enough then strangeness crops up in the run, so for now I'm just keeping them low. What do you do in such a situation to try to prevent these blowups? I've even considered a cheap hack, running reactingFoam via a looping external script that automatically lowers the timestep (then raises it after a period) if things blow up. But often when I restart reactingFoam the existing cell contents change for some bizarre reason - for example, all of the fuel might disappear and have to be repopulated, which of course screws up the burn, introduces more turbulence and just makes the problem worse. |
|
December 6, 2016, 17:56 |
ODE solver choice
|
#2 |
Member
Arvind Jay
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 15 |
What ODE solver are you using? Your reactions could be stiff.
|
|
December 6, 2016, 19:07 |
|
#3 |
Member
Anonymouse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 11 |
||
December 7, 2016, 10:43 |
|
#4 | |
Member
Arvind Jay
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 15 |
Quote:
odeCoeffs { solver seulex; absTol 1e-12; relTol 1e-1; } |
||
December 7, 2016, 17:49 |
|
#5 | |
Member
Anonymouse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 11 |
I got an error that doesn't show up when I google it:
Quote:
|
||
December 8, 2016, 11:12 |
|
#6 | |
Member
Arvind Jay
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 15 |
Quote:
Could you:
As an exercise, you could try running chemFoam for various mole fractions to identify the bottleneck and pick the best performing ODE solver. |
||
December 8, 2016, 16:49 |
|
#7 | |
Member
Anonymouse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 11 |
Quote:
I tried all of the ODEs in the list. The only ones that don't immediately crash are Euler and EulerSI. They eventually crash, like using EulerImplicit.. I am using reduced mechanisms, at least for part of the reactions. Some of the reaction rates need to be determined empirically (my objective in this project involves determining them, but before that I need to set up the combustion model). Those reactions are the partial oxidation of the paraffin ("C30H62^0.25 + 15O2^1.5 = 30CO + 62H") - using A 3e15, beta 0, and Ta 15000.0 to start - and a variety of aluminum reactions. The exponents are from a paper, but A and Ta are initial guesses. The aluminum is modeled as Al10000 burning to Al20000O30000, aka a high molecular weight so that neither the metal nor the oxide contribute relevantly to the gas pressure (emulating the combustion of particles to other particles, without having to actually model them). The aluminum reactions are all based on variants of "0.0002Al10000 + 1.5O2^0.2 = 0.0001Al20000O30000" (using A 0.3, beta 0.2, Ta 4000 for now), with the various alternatives for the O2 having different values for A. beta=0.2 and the relative burn rates between different aluminum reactions are from a paper, but the A=0.3 and Ta=4000 for the baseline case are initial guesses. All other reactions are either from papers ("2AlOH + O^0.2 = 0.0001Al20000O30000 + 2H" A 5.0e11 beta 0 Ta 50000) or from OpenFOAM tutorial files, involving the various reactions between O2, O, N2, CO, H2O, O, CO2, OH, H, and H2. The total number of reactions is 18: reaction "C30H62^0.25 + 15O2^1.5 = 30CO + 62H" reaction "CO + O = CO2"; reaction "CO + OH = CO2 + H"; reaction "CO + O2 = CO2 + O"; reaction "O + H2 = H + OH"; reaction "OH + H2 = H + H2O"; reaction "H2 = H + H"; reaction "O + OH = O2 + H"; reaction "OH + OH = O + H2O"; reaction "H + OH = H2O"; reaction "H + O = OH"; reaction "O + O = O2"; reaction "0.0001Al10000 + H2O^0.2 = AlOH + 2H"; reaction "0.0001Al10000 + OH^0.2 = AlOH"; reaction "0.0002Al10000 + 1.5O2^0.2 = 0.0001Al20000O30000"; reaction "0.0002Al10000 + 3CO2^0.2 = 0.0001Al20000O30000 + 3CO"; reaction "0.0002Al10000 + 3O^0.2 = 0.0001Al20000O30000"; reaction "2AlOH + O = 0.0001Al20000O30000 + 2H"; Last edited by KarenRei; December 9, 2016 at 08:53. |
||
December 11, 2016, 15:34 |
|
#8 |
Member
Anonymouse
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 98
Rep Power: 11 |
No further thoughts on this?
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to switch off combustion and reaction in reactingFoam | shenzhou1987 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 16 | October 26, 2017 16:31 |
error with reactingFoam | BakedAlmonds | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | June 22, 2016 03:21 |
calculate flame speed using reactingFoam | IColin | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | February 4, 2014 16:14 |
reactingFoam wedge handling wrong U | dhondupant | OpenFOAM Bugs | 1 | December 9, 2010 08:34 |
reactingFoam - turbulent reacting flow | hamburgFoam | OpenFOAM | 0 | December 7, 2009 13:57 |