|
[Sponsors] |
August 30, 2006, 06:46 |
Hello,
I ran my case with b
|
#1 |
Member
Dihao Tang
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 78
Rep Power: 17 |
Hello,
I ran my case with both OpenFoam (sonicTurbFoam) and CFX5 and compared results by generating graphs of temperature, pressure, mass and mass flow rate as well as some contour screenshots (see attached images). In principle, the axisymmetric-2D-system is a simple volume with an inlet. For OpenFoam a 5° sector was used with wedges. I found that temperature and pressure of OpenFoam are lower than the corresponding results of CFX-5. Additionally, in OpenFoam the overall mass in the closed volume is lower than the integral value of the inlet mass flow rate. Thus, it looks as if mass is lost during the calculation. Note, the massflow input (and also the total temperature) at inlet is nearly the same as in CFX5. The mesh was the same, of course. I have checked a lot of things: turbulence model, boundary conditions, thermal properties, etc, but haven't found the reason why in OpenForm the mass balance (and consequently the energy balance) is not fulfilled. The schemes I used are: ================================================== ============================ ddtSchemes { default CrankNicholson 0.5; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss limitedLinearV 1; div(phi,k) Gauss upwind; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind; div(phi,R) Gauss upwind; div(R) Gauss linear; div(phid,p) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div(phiU,p) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div(phi,h) Gauss limitedLinear 1; div((muEff*dev2(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(muEff,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian((rho*1|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(alphaEff,h) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p; } ================================================== ============================ I've also used Euler time discretisation, but nothing changed. So far, I didn't change the spatial discretisation, it's still the default setting from prism. The solution settings are: ================================================== ============================ solvers { p BICCG 1e-12 0; rho ICCG 1e-12 0; U BICCG 1e-12 0; h BICCG 1e-12 0; k BICCG 1e-12 0; epsilon BICCG 1e-12 0; R BICCG 1e-12 0; } PISO { momentumPredictor yes; nCorrectors 2; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 0; pRefCell 0; pRefValue 0; } ================================================== ============================ Thus, does anybody have an idea where the problem could be? The unconserevd energy and mass balance make me uncomfortable ;-( |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to check Heat Balance in heat transfer like mass balance for flow | mahendra | OpenFOAM Post-Processing | 15 | February 8, 2012 10:19 |
[blockMesh] CheckMesh error using a tutorial from OpenFOAM 114 with openFOAM 13 | martapajon | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 7 | January 21, 2008 12:52 |
OpenFOAM users in Munich OpenFOAM benutzer in M%c3%bcnchen | jaswi | OpenFOAM | 0 | August 3, 2007 13:11 |
A new Howto on the OpenFOAM Wiki Compiling OpenFOAM under Unix | mbeaudoin | OpenFOAM Installation | 2 | April 28, 2006 08:54 |
Mass Balance in CFX5.7 | KKA | CFX | 5 | March 9, 2005 21:54 |