|
[Sponsors] |
Differences in interPhaseChangeFoam between OpenFOAM 2.3 and OpenFOAM 4.1 |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
May 26, 2017, 16:09 |
Differences in interPhaseChangeFoam between OpenFOAM 2.3 and OpenFOAM 4.1
|
#1 |
New Member
Stefano Gaggero
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 13 |
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, 8–11 August 1989, pp.44–53.). 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, Stefano |
|
May 26, 2017, 21:02 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Yangzhou,China
Posts: 302
Rep Power: 14 |
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.
|
|
May 29, 2017, 04:13 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Stefano Gaggero
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 13 |
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... :-)
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |