CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Differences in interPhaseChangeFoam between OpenFOAM 2.3 and OpenFOAM 4.1

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 26, 2017, 16:09
Default Differences in interPhaseChangeFoam between OpenFOAM 2.3 and OpenFOAM 4.1
New Member
Stefano Gaggero
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 13
Mashiro5 is on a distinguished road
Dear All,

I'm experiencing significative differences in using interPhaseChangeFoam in OpenFOAM 4.1 with respect to results I had with the same solver in OpenFOAM 2.3.1

My test case is the well known NACA66 hydrofoil by Shen and Dimotakis (Shen YT and Dimotakis PE. The influence of surface cavitation on hydrodynamic force. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ATTC, St. Johns, NL, Canada, 811 August 1989, pp.4453.).

I already simulated this hydrofoil using OpenFOAM 2.3 with quite satisfactory results, well in agreement with measurements. Attention was focused on averaged cavity length and hydrofoil performance with the presence of the cavity bubble rather than on re-entrant jets, bubble shedding at bubble closure and so on: 2D calculations with wall functions and the realizable k-epsilon turbulence model.

When I moved to OpenFOAM 4.1, I re-ran some old calculations to check if everything behaves similarly.
Unfortunately this is not the case. As you can see from the figures below, using OF 4.1 leads to significantly longer cavity bubbles (longer than OF 2.3 and in turn, to the experiments).
Calculations have been carried with exactly the same setup: same mesh, same numerical schemes (except for the new conventions in fvSchemes of OF 4), same numerics (exactly the same fvSolution file). Calculations were initialized with the same non-cavitating calculations in order to provide a realistic estimation of the pressure around the hydrofoil and avoid/limit the initial transient.

Do you have any explanation circa these differences?
Many thanks,
Attached Images
File Type: png OF_230.png (18.5 KB, 20 views)
File Type: png OF_410.png (20.5 KB, 20 views)
Mashiro5 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 26, 2017, 21:02
Senior Member
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Yangzhou,China
Posts: 302
Rep Power: 13
huangxianbei is on a distinguished road
Maybe you should check the source code of the cavitation model. I'm still using Of-2.3.0 as it's boring to adapt my program to the new version.
huangxianbei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 29, 2017, 04:13
New Member
Stefano Gaggero
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 13
Mashiro5 is on a distinguished road
Of course, but I was looking for someone here in the forum who already had this problem. I do not think to have enough experience to deeply explore all the classes involved in an OpenFOAM solver except for a rough line-by-line comparison... :-)
Mashiro5 is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OpenFOAM 4.0 Released CFDFoundation OpenFOAM Announcements from OpenFOAM Foundation 2 October 6, 2017 05:40
Differences between CFX and OpenFOAM regarding convergence and robustness! magjohan OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 4 February 26, 2015 10:26
Differences between OF2.2 and OF 2.3 in sprayFoam spraycloudproperties FWST OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 February 13, 2015 06:53
New OpenFOAM Forum Structure jola OpenFOAM 2 October 19, 2011 06:55
Cross-compiling OpenFOAM 1.7.0 on Linux for Windows 32 and 64bits with Mingw-w64 wyldckat OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 3 September 8, 2010 06:25

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47.