CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Theoretical background of MRF library

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 27, 2009, 16:16
Default Hello, I've derived the mom
Oliver Borm
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 10
deepblue17 is on a distinguished road

I've derived the momentum equation for the relative frame of reference formulated with the absolute velocity here. The result

is coincident with the literature but not with the formulation in the fluent manual. The second term on the left hand side is different, whereas the rest is equal. It can be shown that the tensor 2. rank from the dyadic product of (vec{c} \otimes vec{w}) is not symmetric, if you write it down component-by-component in cartesian coordinates, you will see that (vec{c} \otimes vec{w} \neq vec{w} \otimes vec{c}). So there seems to be a bug in the fluent manual.

That's why I think, the formulation of the UEqn in the MRFSimpleFoam solver is also not valid. There is fvm::div(phi, U), in this case phi denotes to w_i (relative velocity) for each spatial direction. Am I right?
deepblue17 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 13, 2009, 11:59
Oliver Borm
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 10
deepblue17 is on a distinguished road
There are two different derivations of Navier-Stokes equations for so called "Multiple Reference Frames" (MRF) or "Multiple Frames of Reference" (MFR):
  • The first notation is equation 6 form here, which is also implemented in the MRF library:
    \dfrac{\partial^\prime \left( \varrho \vec{w}\right)}{\partial t} + \nabla \bullet \left( \varrho \vec{w} \otimes \vec{c}\right) + \dfrac{d^\prime \left( \varrho \vec{\omega}\right)}{d t} \times \vec{r^\prime}+ \vec{\omega} \times \left( \varrho \vec{c} \right)
= -\nabla p + \nabla \bullet \tau + \varrho \vec{k}
  • The second notation is equation 21 form here:
    \dfrac{\partial^\prime \left( \varrho \vec{c}\right)}{\partial t} + \nabla \bullet \left( \varrho \vec{c} \otimes \vec{w}\right) + \vec{\omega} \times \left( \varrho \vec{c} \right)
= -\nabla p + \nabla \bullet \tau + \varrho \vec{k}
Both momentum equations are sharing the same idea, they are solving for the absolute velocity in the relative frame of reference. The main difference are mainly the first two terms on the left hand side.

If anybody wants to use the actual implementation of the MRF library within a transient solver (that includes all compressible transsonic solvers), one has to be certain, that the local time derivation is calculated with the relative velocity (\vec{w}) and not with the absolute velocity (\vec{c}) ! As this could be a little bit tricky, I would prefer either the second notation of the MRF or using the formulation with the relative velocity in the relative frame of reference, as this is done in the SRF library, with an appropriate rotor-stator interface.
deepblue17 is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Theoretical analysis and modelling of gas-solids Langa Ntetye Main CFD Forum 0 December 13, 2007 07:10
a simple theoretical doubt Rahul FLUENT 1 May 10, 2007 17:28
theoretical equations wilson CFX 3 March 4, 2005 09:46
Discussion forums on Theoretical FD? Nomad Main CFD Forum 4 March 16, 2004 13:58
Fluent Online Theoretical Reference Danial FLUENT 2 September 23, 2001 15:29

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:15.