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

Pimple vs RhoCentral

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

Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By JBeilke
  • 1 Post By JBeilke
  • 1 Post By TommyM

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   February 15, 2020, 07:19
Default Pimple vs RhoCentral
  #1
Member
 
Tommaso M.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 6
TommyM is on a distinguished road
Hi All,
I am studying the flow inside a supersonic nozzle by using rhoPimpleFoam and rhoCentralFoam.
As far as I know, rhoCentralFoam is the correct solver to be used in supersonic flow simulations, but I found out that both solvers give the same solution (N.B. this happens only if there are no shock waves!).
RhoCentralFoam requires an extremely huge computational cost w.r.t. rhoPimpleFoam, so I am wondering if rhoPimpleFoam would be a better choice.
In other words: is rhoCentral the best choice for simulations of supersonic flows or of supersonic flows with strong shocks?
Thanks in advance.


Tommy
TommyM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 15, 2020, 17:52
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 5
EleGiova is on a distinguished road
Hi Tommaso!
I think that as for now you have answered your own question.
But I would like to answer anyway, I am still a student of CFD and I think this could be a nice exercise for me, discuss about CFD with others in order to understand it better.


I think that it depends on what you want to study and with which approximation..
I am now using rhoCentralFoam to run simulations with hypersonic flows and the difference is enormous wrt rhoPimpleFoam.. In this case the standoff distance is completely mispredicted and this leads to a higher Temperature = you get wrong the design of the ablative shield of a re entry vehicle, for example.
Maybe in transonic cases or slightly supersonic this error is not so huge, but if you have a shockwave how can you capture the shock if you don't have a shock capturing method (like KNP you have in rhoCentral)..
EleGiova is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2020, 06:33
Default
  #3
Member
 
Tommaso M.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 6
TommyM is on a distinguished road
Hi EleGiova,
thanks for your reply.

I do not know your geometry and case but I think that rhoCentralFoam is always able to produce accurate solution for supersonic flows. On the other hand, rhoPimpleFoam is able to reach the same accuracy only in some cases, while it leads to wrong results in other cases.
However, the computational time required by rhoPimpleFoam is extremely smaller than rhoCentralFoam (in my case, 5 hours vs. 5 days), thus when the use of rhoPimpleFoam is allowed and provides good results, I think that it is the best choice.

In my experience, I studied a supersonic nozzle which reaches Ma = 2.5, it is not hypersonic but neither slightly compressible. I found out that rhoPimpleFoam gave me the same accuracy of rhoCentralFoam with a lower cost.
In the case of shock waves, as you suggested, this reasoning fails.
TommyM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2020, 17:03
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Joern Beilke
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dresden
Posts: 425
Rep Power: 18
JBeilke is on a distinguished road
You might look at pimpleCentralFoam or rhoPimpleCentralFoam .

https://github.com/unicfdlab/hybridCentralSolvers
TommyM likes this.
JBeilke is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2020, 03:59
Default
  #5
Member
 
Tommaso M.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 6
TommyM is on a distinguished road
Thanks Joern,
I heard about these hybrid solvers but I did not use them since they were not present in the official release of OpenFOAM. Anyway, I am interested to know more about them since they should be the trade-off between a pressure- and density-based solver.
TommyM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2020, 13:56
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Domenico Lahaye
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 542
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 15
dlahaye is on a distinguished road
Dear TommyM,

Your observations on the difference between rhoPimpleFoam and rhoCentralFoam are very valuable for me to read!

I am wondering whether you could expand your comments.

1/ Does the difference in computed results between rhoPimpleFoam and rhoCentralFoam increase with Mach number (as I imagine it does)?;

2/ Does the number of iterations of rhoPimpleFoam to reach same convergence levels increase with the Mach number (as I imagine it does)?;

3/ How is the convergence of rhoPimpleFoam affected by the choice of the thermodynamics (rhoThermo vs. psiThermo in constant/thermoPhysicalProperties). I imagine psiThermo to be able to handle larger Mach better (i.e. more similar to rhoCentralFoam).

Thanks for the additional input.

Domenico.
dlahaye is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 21, 2020, 13:22
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Joern Beilke
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dresden
Posts: 425
Rep Power: 18
JBeilke is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyM View Post
Thanks Joern,
I heard about these hybrid solvers but I did not use them since they were not present in the official release of OpenFOAM. Anyway, I am interested to know more about them ...

I used them a lot for transonic flow in airbag-gasgenerators and for the simulation of transonic effects in the cylinder of race car engines. They are very accurate and also very stable, as long as the courant number is around 0.5


For pure subsonic flow the courant number might be larger.
TommyM likes this.
JBeilke is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 22, 2020, 07:26
Default
  #8
Member
 
Tommaso M.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 6
TommyM is on a distinguished road
Hi Domenico,

In my opinion:

1) I never tested hypersonic flows. I tried with Mach from 0.9 to 2.5 and the difference does not increase with the Mach number. I think it regards the flow structure (shock waves, ...) and not simply the Mach, but keep these words with caution because it is only my opinion. It would be interesting to simulate a hypersonic flow without shocks comparing the two solvers.

2) Yes. If the velocity increases you have to decrease the Courant number or, alternatively for rhoPimpleFoam, to increase the corrector loops.

3) I am sorry but I don't know.

I hope these comments are correct and can be useful for you.


Tommy
dlahaye likes this.
TommyM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 23, 2020, 12:27
Default turbulence model in rCF and rPF
  #9
New Member
 
Febriyan Prayoga
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Seoul
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 8
febriyan91 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyM View Post
Hi Domenico,

In my opinion:

1) I never tested hypersonic flows. I tried with Mach from 0.9 to 2.5 and the difference does not increase with the Mach number. I think it regards the flow structure (shock waves, ...) and not simply the Mach, but keep these words with caution because it is only my opinion. It would be interesting to simulate a hypersonic flow without shocks comparing the two solvers.

2) Yes. If the velocity increases you have to decrease the Courant number or, alternatively for rhoPimpleFoam, to increase the corrector loops.

3) I am sorry but I don't know.

I hope these comments are correct and can be useful for you.


Tommy

Hi Tommy, Did you use turbulent model or only laminar for both rhoCentralFoam and rhoPimpleFoam ?
febriyan91 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 23, 2020, 12:35
Default
  #10
Member
 
Tommaso M.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 6
TommyM is on a distinguished road
Hi Febriyan,
I used turbulent models (k-omega SST) for both.
TommyM is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2020, 13:22
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Domenico Lahaye
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 542
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 15
dlahaye is on a distinguished road
Dear TommyM,

Thanks again for your valuable input.

I will continue to look into the differences between rhoThermo and psiThermo and share my findings on this forum.

Kind wishes, Domenico.
dlahaye is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 31, 2020, 04:37
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 203
Rep Power: 6
shock77 is on a distinguished road
Hi,


If you want high quality solutions, I would always use a density based solver. For compressible flow, it makes more sense to use a density based solver in general.


Pressure based solvers are guessing and correcting the pressure, instead of calculating it directly. Density based solvers however calculate rho from mass conservation, u from the momentum equation and T from the energy equation. P is then calculated from the ideal gas law, peng robinson or whatever. Since in compressible flow information is also transported by the propagation of waves, it makes more sense to me.




Kind regards,
shock77
shock77 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 31, 2020, 10:00
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
Domenico Lahaye
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 542
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 15
dlahaye is on a distinguished road
Yes and no (and more of the latter).

I do agree that in case of unbounded computational resources, density-based is preferred.

In the application that I target however, the Mach number is bounded by 1.5. I am trying to understand the trade-offs in computational efficiency of pressure-based vs. density based. That is, I am trying to understand modeling errors and gains in computational efficiency (in any) in replacing density-based by pressure-based.

D.
dlahaye is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 2, 2020, 11:01
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Pham Duy Tung (Thomas)
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Nagoya, Japan
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
pduytung is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyM View Post
Hi Febriyan,
I used turbulent models (k-omega SST) for both.
Hi TommyM,
When you use turbulent models (k-omega SST) for both, can you generate turbulence with rhoCentralFoam.
In my case, it is same with link below.
rhoCentralFoam cannot generate turbulence while rhoPimpleFoam can do it.
However, the result of rhoCentralFoam is more stable so I would like to simulate turbulence with rhoCentralFoam.
Do you need to modify any particular things?

Best regards,
Pham

Question about rhoCentralFoam and rhoPimpleFoam?
__________________
Pham
pduytung is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 12, 2022, 16:45
Default sstkomega with rhocentarlfoam
  #15
New Member
 
Ali Baratian
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kuhsangi, Mashhad, Iran
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 11
baratian is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyM View Post
Hi Febriyan,
I used turbulent models (k-omega SST) for both.
hi Tommy
i use sstkomega with rhocentralfoam but turbulent results are very different from the same with fluent!
could you tell me why that is?
baratian is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
rhocentralfoam, rhopimplefoam, supersonic

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
How to use PIMPLE properly? floquation OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 25 December 2, 2021 10:40
PIMPLE the value of the final under-relaxation factor Zbynek OpenFOAM 7 January 20, 2020 11:38
Change foamLog for Pimple iteration and new variables Magistrane OpenFOAM Post-Processing 1 April 26, 2019 05:26
error while running modified pimple solver R_21 OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 May 28, 2015 07:59
A question on the PIMPLE algorithm GerhardHolzinger OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 4 February 13, 2015 07:49


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:09.