CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

twoPhaseEulerFoam validation OpenFOAM 4.1

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By jiejie

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   February 15, 2018, 00:01
Default twoPhaseEulerFoam validation OpenFOAM 4.1
  #1
Senior Member
 
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 133
Rep Power: 13
jiejie is on a distinguished road
Dear foamers

I am currently trying to validate the twoPhaseEulerFoam solver using the case from Becker et al. (1994) Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors Part II Comparison of detailed experiments and flow simulations. In brief, the flat bubble column is 0.5 m wide (x), 2 m high (y) and 0.08 m deep (z) with liquid filled up to 1.5 m in the vertical direction. A gas sparger positioned 0.15 m from the left wall is used to introduce an airflow of 1.6 L/min. The circular sparger with a diameter of 40 mm is modelled as a square inlet of 40 mm x 40 mm for the convenience. The equivalent inlet air velocity is calculated as 0.0167 m/s with a gas volume fraction of 1.

I found some validation results done using ANSYS CFX by Chakraborty et al. (2009) CFD simulation on influence of superficial gas velocity, column size, sparger arrangement and taper angle on hydrodynamics of the column flotation cell. In this paper, the grid used is 50 x 150 x 20 in the x, y and z directions,r respectively. I used same grid resolution for the calculation using twoPhaseEulerFoam with air/water interface at y = 1.5 m, but the computed oscillation period is approximately 51 s (see Fig A. Time series data for vertical liquid velocity) compared to the reported oscillation period of 41 s (See Fig. 7 in Becker et al. and Fig. 3 in Chakraborty et al.). I also refined the grid to 125 x 250 x 20, which resulted an oscillation period of 44 s (see Fig B.). However, I found the time series data for the vertical liquid velocity calculated using OpenFOAM are quite different from the data in Becker et al. (1994) and Chakraborty et al. (2009). The maximum peaks in the OpenFOAM results are much sharper.

I modified the tutorial bubble column RAS case with the following changes:

1. alpha.air: using setFields to initialise water phase up to y = 1.5 m and alpha.air is uniform 1 at the Inlet.

2. p: fixed value; uniform 1e5; at Outlet and zeroGradient at Inlet and Walls

3. p_rgh: prghPressure; value uniform 1e5 at Outlet and zeroGradient at Inl;et and Walls

4. T.air and T.water: fixedValue; uniform 300 at Inlet and Outlet, zeroGradient at Walls

5. U.air: fixedValue; uniform (0 0.01667 0) at Inlet, fixedValue; unifrom (0 0.000667 0) at Outlet and noSlip at Walls

I used mixturekEpsilon RAS model with drag, lift and virtual mass forces. I found the oscillation period can be over-predicted by upto 15 s if the lift force is ignored.

I am wondering if anyone tried to validate the twoPhaseEulerFoam and had similar problem. I would also like to further validate the case using the solver with LES.

Kind regards,
Jie
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Fig. A Oscillation period.jpg (52.1 KB, 48 views)
File Type: jpg Fig. B Oscillation period.jpg (52.2 KB, 32 views)
File Type: jpg Becker 1994 Fig 7.jpg (52.3 KB, 39 views)
File Type: jpg Chakraborty 2009 Fig 3.jpg (18.0 KB, 28 views)
meshman likes this.
jiejie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 15, 2018, 01:32
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Jie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 133
Rep Power: 13
jiejie is on a distinguished road
I think this tread should be moved to "OpenFOAM Verification & Validation".

Thanks
jiejie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2019, 04:03
Default Could you share with your case file?
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 11
meshman is on a distinguished road
duplicated message
meshman is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2019, 04:05
Default Could you share with your case file ?
  #4
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 11
meshman is on a distinguished road
duplicated message
meshman is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2019, 04:06
Smile Could you share with your case file ?
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 11
meshman is on a distinguished road
I tried to do this validation case using the OpenFOAM, however, it does not work (the error occurred at the time step ~ 28s).
If you share your case file, it will be very helpful to my research progress.
Thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiejie View Post
Dear foamers

I am currently trying to validate the twoPhaseEulerFoam solver using the case from Becker et al. (1994) Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors Part II Comparison of detailed experiments and flow simulations. In brief, the flat bubble column is 0.5 m wide (x), 2 m high (y) and 0.08 m deep (z) with liquid filled up to 1.5 m in the vertical direction. A gas sparger positioned 0.15 m from the left wall is used to introduce an airflow of 1.6 L/min. The circular sparger with a diameter of 40 mm is modelled as a square inlet of 40 mm x 40 mm for the convenience. The equivalent inlet air velocity is calculated as 0.0167 m/s with a gas volume fraction of 1.

I found some validation results done using ANSYS CFX by Chakraborty et al. (2009) CFD simulation on influence of superficial gas velocity, column size, sparger arrangement and taper angle on hydrodynamics of the column flotation cell. In this paper, the grid used is 50 x 150 x 20 in the x, y and z directions,r respectively. I used same grid resolution for the calculation using twoPhaseEulerFoam with air/water interface at y = 1.5 m, but the computed oscillation period is approximately 51 s (see Fig A. Time series data for vertical liquid velocity) compared to the reported oscillation period of 41 s (See Fig. 7 in Becker et al. and Fig. 3 in Chakraborty et al.). I also refined the grid to 125 x 250 x 20, which resulted an oscillation period of 44 s (see Fig B.). However, I found the time series data for the vertical liquid velocity calculated using OpenFOAM are quite different from the data in Becker et al. (1994) and Chakraborty et al. (2009). The maximum peaks in the OpenFOAM results are much sharper.

I modified the tutorial bubble column RAS case with the following changes:

1. alpha.air: using setFields to initialise water phase up to y = 1.5 m and alpha.air is uniform 1 at the Inlet.

2. p: fixed value; uniform 1e5; at Outlet and zeroGradient at Inlet and Walls

3. p_rgh: prghPressure; value uniform 1e5 at Outlet and zeroGradient at Inl;et and Walls

4. T.air and T.water: fixedValue; uniform 300 at Inlet and Outlet, zeroGradient at Walls

5. U.air: fixedValue; uniform (0 0.01667 0) at Inlet, fixedValue; unifrom (0 0.000667 0) at Outlet and noSlip at Walls

I used mixturekEpsilon RAS model with drag, lift and virtual mass forces. I found the oscillation period can be over-predicted by upto 15 s if the lift force is ignored.

I am wondering if anyone tried to validate the twoPhaseEulerFoam and had similar problem. I would also like to further validate the case using the solver with LES.

Kind regards,
Jie
meshman is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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 4.1: interDyMFoam LES Simulation for hydro turbine in river pi__sec OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 13 July 19, 2017 05:08
[Docker] Running OpenFoam 4.1 from script without user intervention fnellmeldin OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 June 7, 2017 19:04
OpenFOAM Training Jan-Jul 2017, Virtual, London, Houston, Berlin CFDFoundation OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 0 January 4, 2017 07:15
OpenFOAM v3.0.1 Training, London, Houston, Berlin, Jan-Mar 2016 cfd.direct OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 0 January 5, 2016 04:18
OpenFOAM Training, London, Chicago, Munich, Sep-Oct 2015 cfd.direct OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 2 August 31, 2015 14:36


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06.