# Wrong Solution for sensibleEnthalpy

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

 October 19, 2022, 09:13 Wrong Solution for sensibleEnthalpy #1 New Member   Join Date: Oct 2022 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 3 Hello, I'm using OpenFoamv7. While trying rhoCentralFoam at the shock Tube, I realised that the Solution is different from the analytic Solution. I tracked the misstake to the thermophysicalproperties. When using sensibleEntahlpy for the energy the Soultion seems to be wrong, while using sensibleInternalEnergy results in the correct Solution. Now I'm searching for the reason, because I will have to use sensibleEnthalpy for a individual Solver (the reason I'm using OpenFoam v7). Anyone has an answer to my Problem?

 October 19, 2022, 09:49 #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 353 Rep Power: 20 The difference should likely result from your definition of cv / cp. Aside from that, they should be equal. There are numerical advantages, but the formal definition is identical, so if one has a significantly higher residual that should give it away. If one of them did not converge. Hence check cv/cp and the residuals.

 October 20, 2022, 11:49 #3 New Member   Join Date: Oct 2022 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 3 I double checked the values for cp and cv and everything seems to be ok....

 October 20, 2022, 13:44 #4 Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 353 Rep Power: 20 Are they the same or different? You might want to use the same value for both

 October 21, 2022, 04:57 #5 New Member   Join Date: Oct 2022 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 3 They are different. Why should using the same value for both result in a correct Solution? They are different by definiton?

 October 21, 2022, 06:51 #6 Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 353 Rep Power: 20 That is the question I am asking....make sure you use the correct values here for the medium, pressure etc you are solving for! With incompressible flow you should have cp=cv...if your medium does not behave like an ideal gas you might want to make sure to double check your thermodynamics. They are only different if some of the energy used to heat up the fluid goes towards thermal expansion...this might not be the case numerically and hence the difference.

 December 3, 2022, 06:31 #7 New Member   Join Date: Oct 2022 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 3 Sorry for the late Reply... I tried it with cp=cv and I got the right Solution. But I still don't get why. I use a compressible Solver (rhoCentralFoam) with air, so cv and cp can't be the same. Why is the Solution still correct?

 December 5, 2022, 04:32 #8 Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 353 Rep Power: 20 Full Energy equation formulated with internal energy: Full Energy equation formulated with Enthalpy: You can transform both formulations into each other. In other words they are identical. If you ignore the different variable names h or e, you can see that the only difference is the pressure work term div(pv). That describes the work needed to change the volume. Let's assume this to be zero. I.e an incompressible fluid. You'd get different solutions if you had a difference between cp and cv in that case. One would need to consider h=cp T and e = cv T and still you wouldn't have the same solution. So it does not matter if you are using a compressible solver. If there is no compression because your flow is to slow you'll get a wrong solution. The reason being that your equation of state assumption is not valid. You assume that there is compression when there is likely none.

 December 12, 2022, 10:54 #9 New Member   Join Date: Oct 2022 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 3 I'm looking at a shock tube with a 20 bar and a 1 bar side so there should be a compression involved...

 Tags openfoam7, sensibleenthalpy, thermophysicalproperties

 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 OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Ulixes FLUENT 0 May 1, 2017 14:08 Wingman ANSYS 2 November 28, 2016 17:01 gueynard a. Main CFD Forum 19 June 27, 2014 21:22 bipulsaha FLUENT 1 July 6, 2011 07:51 Abhijit Tilak Main CFD Forum 6 February 5, 1999 01:16

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28.