|
[Sponsors] |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello everybody,
I would to simulate a (steady) laminar flame using a detailed kinetic scheme, but it seems to me that there is not a standard solver available for this case. I had a look to the simpleFoam and icoFoam solvers but I don't know if it is possible (and easy) to adapt them to take into account non-uniform gas density. Is there anybody who already solved this kind of problem? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you, Danilo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
New Member
taka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
Hi,
I think 'reactingFoam' is suitable for your case. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi,
probably this is the best choice, but I have to modify the solver because I need a laminar code; in particular I don't need any model to close the reaction rates. I will try to eliminate the equations for epsilon and kappa, using at the same time the reaction rates without the PASR correction. Does it make sense? Thank you |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi everybody,
I need to calculate the reaction rates for every species included in the kinetic scheme (I'm using the reactingFoam solver) but I didnt understand the 'solve' function in the 'chemistryModel' object. Is this function used for solving an ODE system? Why? In my case I need just the local reaction rates as predicted by the Arrhenius law (the flame is laminar); which function I have to use to obtain this kind of information? Thank you, Danilo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laminar non-premixed flame | Paul | CFX | 5 | January 18, 2007 23:28 |
premixed laminar flame | JCRC | FLUENT | 2 | July 25, 2006 05:33 |
Looking for Laminar Flame Codes | John | Main CFD Forum | 0 | September 17, 2005 19:13 |
laminar premixed flame | Paul Lee | CFX | 1 | September 14, 2005 06:37 |
Laminar Flame Speed | Mahbub | Siemens | 0 | February 23, 2004 12:34 |