
[Sponsors] 
June 5, 2019, 02:03 
p_rgh advantage over p?

#1 
New Member
SAIKRISHNA N
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 9 
Hi Foamers,
I am studying numerics of FVM and CFD recently from various references in the context of its implementation in OpenFOAM. I would like to understand the advantage of using p_rgh field for pEqn over 'p' field. At, https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...ormprgh.html it was mentioned to have numerical advantages. Can you please let me know what are those advantages? Thank you 

June 5, 2019, 11:51 

#2 
Senior Member
Michael Alletto
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Bremen
Posts: 474
Rep Power: 10 
the advantage is the gradient of p_rgh and rhok can be discretized in the same way. For the case of a resting fluid the pressure gradient and the bouncy force should be in equilibrium. In the implantation in OF this is true as well in the cell centers as on the faces.
If the bouncy force is treated as source term this is not the case. If you look in the book "the finite volume method in computational fluid dynamics" of Moukalled, Mangani and Darwish you'll find some more detail. Best Michael 

June 5, 2019, 16:10 

#3 
Senior Member
Santiago Lopez Castano
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 317
Rep Power: 12 
Such advantage is just conventional. You could perfectly work with the dynamic pressure and the buoyancy term for the fluctuations over a statistical mean. That is, hydrostatic pressure of the background fluid balances exactly the MEAN defect buoyancy force. Therefore, you can just resolve for the fluctuations of density around said mean, using the dynamic pressure (understood as the thermodyn pressure minus the hydrostatic one).
In short: there is no such thing as a numerical 'advantage' in using one or other formulation. It's just more "confortable" when working with thermodynamic quantities. 

June 6, 2019, 02:03 

#4  
Senior Member
Michael Alletto
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Bremen
Posts: 474
Rep Power: 10 
Quote:
Michael 

June 6, 2019, 03:13 

#5  
Senior Member
Santiago Lopez Castano
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 317
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
Examples of a working code? There used to be a boussinesqPisoFoam in v 1.5 that didnt consider p_rgh. 

June 6, 2019, 04:29 
A perfectly Valid Buossinesq solver

#6 
Senior Member
Santiago Lopez Castano
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 317
Rep Power: 12 
Code:
//... fvVectorMatrix UEqn ( fvm::ddt(U) + fvm::div(phi, U) + turbulence>divDevReff() == f + (1.5*rho0.5*rho.oldTime())*g ); //... fvScalarMatrix rhoEqn ( fvm::ddt(rho) + fvm::div(phi, rho) + fvm::laplacian(Dk,rho) ); rhoEqn.relax(); rhoEqn.solve(); //... Last edited by Santiago; June 6, 2019 at 04:30. Reason: beauty 

June 6, 2019, 16:50 

#7 
Senior Member
Michael Alletto
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Bremen
Posts: 474
Rep Power: 10 
HM. But in this version the old time step value of rho is used. Probably to stabelise the solution since in this way very high changes in time are damped. With the actual Version this is not required. So I guess it is numerically more stable


June 6, 2019, 17:08 

#8  
Senior Member
Santiago Lopez Castano
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 317
Rep Power: 12 
Quote:
BoussinesqPimpleFoam treats the buoyant term explicitely. Via the fvm::reconstruct the buoyancy term is calculated at the cells faces and set explicitely in the momentum equation. So, au contraire, my version is a bit more "stable" when using implicit time discretizations... 

Tags 
cfd, fvm, peqn, p_rgh 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Main advantage of using Runge Kutta of higher order?  jakubstary  Main CFD Forum  14  August 20, 2019 16:15 
does OpenFoam take advantage of 64bit OS?  mihaipruna  OpenFOAM Installation  2  March 21, 2012 16:10 
What is advantage of SIMPLE algorithm?  GeonHong  Main CFD Forum  1  May 18, 2010 07:46 
[GAMBIT] grid topology advantage  agungwp  ANSYS Meshing & Geometry  3  August 28, 2009 09:44 
What happened to Advantage CFD?  gocarts  Main CFD Forum  0  February 6, 2007 13:01 