|
[Sponsors] |
THe chtMultiregionSimpleFoam problems with velocity in the square domain |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
June 1, 2017, 03:10 |
THe chtMultiregionSimpleFoam problems with velocity in the square domain
|
#1 |
New Member
Ivan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 14 |
Hello,
I would like to ask you about an OpenFOAM tutorial which was download from the Chalmers and which is concerned for conjugate heat transfer. There are some problems with the velocity magnitude distribution in the fluid domain. The case is divided into a square solid and fluid domain. In the fluid domain is at the inlet set velocity 1m/s for cooling of the solid domain. But after a the end of the iterations, the resulted velocity magnitude a few times exceeded the fluid velocity magnitude... It can be seen in the pictures in the appendix. " Maybe it looks like some type of the wave. " I don't know what is wrong. I and another will be grateful for any comments. The 2D task is fully automated and solution will not take more than ~5 min. web:http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kurser/OS_CFD/ Name of the tutorial: Conjugate heat transfer in OpenFOAM Slides, Report, Files The tutorial is in the appendix with the pictures of pressure and velocity. For simulation, the OpenFOAM - http://bluecfd.github.io/Core/Downloads/ was used. blueCFD Core 2016-1, OpenFOAM 4 ... version by https://cfd.direct/ Regards, Ivan Last edited by cfdhelp; June 1, 2017 at 04:36. Reason: I want tu put more inforation about OpenFOAM version. |
|
June 3, 2017, 08:48 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 353
Rep Power: 21 |
If these are the original files from the chalmers report, it looks like a bad comparison to me. It looks like he uses 0.1 m/s as the inlet velocity in one calculation and 1 m/s in the other. Also the starting values are different. Then there is the issue that the thermophysical properties, solvers and schemes are slightly different, the relaxation factors for temperature shouldn't be 0.7 as the temperature will take forever to converge, etc... This is comparing apples to oranges. I am actually to lazy to calculate all the values like density, kappa etc to see if these are identical between the versions.
I have used both solvers in the past, coupled fe40 and of40 and in my comparisons the temperature distribution was identical. In the files you attached (which is also wrong in the chalmers report) it is the pressure boundary condition. You should set the pressure (p_rgh / dynamic pressure) to fixedValue at the outlet and not at the inlet (fixedMean). Last edited by Bloerb; June 4, 2017 at 06:04. |
|
June 4, 2017, 15:57 |
|
#3 |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 |
Hi all,
finally this is exactly the same problem than we have in the 2DPlan tutorial on the wikipage (https://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/G..._-_planeWall2D). Bruno and I were already trying to resolve the problem. Here, in that case it is the same that the pressure BC makes trouble. I investigated a bit but I think, we need some special BC treatment here. In previous FOAM versions we did not use the »p_rgh« pressure and therefore setting up the pressure field was easy. However, I made a test now and changed the pressure BC to the right hand side. The results seems physically but I don't know if it is correct.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann |
|
June 7, 2017, 06:50 |
Problem probably solved
|
#4 |
New Member
Ivan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi all,
thank you for your answers. The problem was "solved" by the recommendations. The contours looks better but I am not sure the 100%. I will try to put the corrected case in the appendix as soon as possible. Regards, Ivan |
|
June 7, 2017, 06:56 |
|
#5 |
Super Moderator
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bad Wörishofen
Posts: 2,711
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52 |
Hi,
you can do so. I also changed the tutorial case I mentioned in the openfoamwiki (planeWall2D). The fixedMean BC seems okay and the results that we get are similar to the one we had previously. However, a validation would be great. In addition it is now very important to unset the gravity in that cases, otherwise you start to get instabilities. To get the results much faster than in the tutorial, there are some options of tweaking. The tweaked case will be published on my website soon. I am happy that my suggestions helped. Good luck.
__________________
Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann |
|
June 7, 2017, 11:18 |
GAMG solver
|
#6 |
New Member
Ivan
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 14 |
Hello all,
I would like to ask in some continuity way if the GAMG for pressure works properly ? Regards, Ivan |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[ICEM] Problems with coedge curves and surfaces | tommymoose | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 6 | December 1, 2020 12:12 |
twoPhaseEulerFoam, mass loss and velocity profile problems | mwaqas | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | November 14, 2014 18:44 |
problem initializing the domain using velocity inlet | Arvind_CFD | FLUENT | 0 | October 24, 2014 13:49 |
injection problem | Mark New | FLUENT | 0 | August 4, 2013 02:30 |
Variables Definition in CFX Solver 5.6 | R P | CFX | 2 | October 26, 2004 03:13 |