|
[Sponsors] |
May 6, 2021, 04:51 |
|
#21 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
Quote:
|
||
May 6, 2021, 08:01 |
|
#22 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
I used upwind scheme. Maybe that is a reason of under prediction of T. Kerim |
||
May 6, 2021, 10:35 |
|
#23 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
||
May 7, 2021, 01:07 |
|
#24 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
||
May 7, 2021, 06:00 |
|
#25 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._square_cavity |
||
May 7, 2021, 06:02 |
|
#26 |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
The vertical velocity profile was attached.
|
|
May 8, 2021, 02:20 |
|
#27 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
My observations are: 1) your mesh coarser and it can be a reason for the wrong profile. Use stretching normal to the surface (I would prefer on the left and right walls as temperature gradients are expected to be steeper at these surfaces). 2) your solution is not statistically converged and ultimately giving wrong results. 3) Instead of 2D, you can test 3D (a more appropriate way to handle turbulent flow). The results you are trying to retrieve are for a cavity with dimensions .75x.75x1.5. So try 3D. Good Luck! |
|
May 16, 2021, 19:09 |
|
#28 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
|
|
May 17, 2021, 22:50 |
|
#29 |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Thank you FYI. Would you like to give more info about it?
I struggling with two equations models but have small success with LLR and SGG ones. |
|
May 17, 2021, 23:27 |
|
#30 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
I formulated 3D-LES model and used 90x80x180 number of cells. I think, a little more dense mesh will give me more closer results. Your boundary conditions are correct. I think you should increase the number of cells.
|
|
May 18, 2021, 02:34 |
|
#31 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
At first, I thought about LES modelling. However, as a first step, the RANS model turned out to be easier for me. As a first approximation, the simulation was for 2D. Increasing the number of nodes up to 500 in each direction RANS does not give an acceptable result. Both models for large Reynolds numbers and models for low numbers were used. The numerical results in both cases are approximately equally underpredicted. PS. I came to this problem because of buoyantCavity tutorial: Please see: OpenFOAM 7 buoyantCavity tutorial-ERCOFTAC test case 79 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115% }a:link { so-language: zxx } |
||
May 18, 2021, 09:09 |
|
#32 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
Quote:
|
||
May 19, 2021, 07:11 |
|
#33 |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
||
May 19, 2021, 18:53 |
|
#34 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
You were right about 3D. I used graded mesh in the OX and OY directions, and uniform mesh in the OZ direction. And got better kOmegaSST results. May be I should take more finer 3D mesh. Going ahead, I faced with the next error during LES modelling: --> FOAM FATAL ERROR: [U[0 1 -2 0 0 0 0] ] == [-grad(p)[1 -2 -2 0 0 0 0] ] I never used LES but I know the problem is concerned with dimensions. Could you help me to resolve this issue? |
||
May 19, 2021, 21:10 |
|
#35 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
Quote:
Your dimensions for pressure are wrong. I think it should be: dimensions [0 2 -2 0 0 0 0]. I think you need to correct it in 0 folder. Regarding mesh, it is not possible to upload here due to its size. I can share over email. Let me how can I share! |
||
May 20, 2021, 00:47 |
|
#36 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
Where I have made mistakes? My email. is: abdikerimkurbanaliev@gmail.com |
||
May 20, 2021, 00:50 |
|
#37 | |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
Quote:
|
||
May 24, 2021, 17:07 |
|
#38 |
Senior Member
abdikerim kurbanaliev
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kyrgyzstan, Osh
Posts: 121
Rep Power: 16 |
I solved this issue.
|
|
May 24, 2021, 17:17 |
|
#39 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9 |
||
May 31, 2021, 07:28 |
|
#40 | |
Senior Member
Guilherme
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 232
Rep Power: 10 |
Quote:
Can u share this corrections? Best. |
||
Tags |
buoyantboussinesqsimple, natural convection |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Natural convection regime in a small cavity | AntonioDesah | FLUENT | 7 | May 5, 2020 07:48 |
Natural convection regime in a small cavity | AntonioDesah | Main CFD Forum | 1 | April 29, 2020 13:45 |
SU2-7.0.1 on ubuntu 18.04 | hyunko | SU2 Installation | 7 | March 16, 2020 04:37 |
UDF for body force for rotating cavity with natural convection | s.jaiswal | FLUENT | 0 | February 18, 2014 02:01 |
Natural Convection Problem | Eduardo | FLUENT | 0 | October 21, 2006 14:04 |