|
[Sponsors] |
November 25, 2011, 07:31 |
icoFoam VS pisoFoam-Laminar
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
Hi every body,
I have a simple question: I run two simulations (flow over a circular cylinder Re = 150 : laminar unsteady case). The first one using icoFoam, and the second one using pisoFoam with turbulence turned off (laminar). The two setups are exactly identical. Results : with icoFoam I got a correct Strouhal number (Sr = 0.156) by plotting the Cl, wheras pisoFoam gives a quite lower value (Sr = 0.0527) !! I am a bit puzzling since I expected that: (pisoFoam + laminar) = icoFoam. Any help please ?? Mehdi |
|
November 28, 2011, 04:59 |
|
#2 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
None??
none has experienced this issue? |
|
December 12, 2011, 06:46 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
______
| o /|\ /\ _______________ |
|
December 13, 2011, 04:44 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Anton Kidess
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,377
Rep Power: 30 |
Compare the outputs of " turbulence->divDevReff(U)" and "- fvm::laplacian(nu, U)", and try to find out why they are not equal?
__________________
*On twitter @akidTwit *Spend as much time formulating your questions as you expect people to spend on their answer. |
|
December 13, 2011, 05:17 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
Thank you very much for your answer
Where and how can I compare these outputs ? Sorry for my ignorance M. |
|
December 13, 2011, 06:11 |
|
#6 |
Member
Juho Peltola
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 17 |
Make sure the turbulence model is set to "laminar". Turning turbulence "off" just means that the turbulence model is not corrected during the solution. Depending on your initial k and epsilon fields, they can still affect the effective viscosity and thus the simulation results.
|
|
December 13, 2011, 10:17 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
I set in turbulenceProperties dictionary :
simulationType laminar; In addition, I have only p and U files in 0/ directory. M |
|
January 4, 2012, 19:04 |
|
#8 |
New Member
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 15 |
Mehdi
Have you already solved your issue? Basically, I also have a similar problem. I run a case (flow over a square cylinder with Re=22000) by both pisoFoam and pimpleFoam. The Strouhal number in pimpleFoam matches the experimental data (0.132), but the one in pisoFoam (approximately 0.05) does not. It's really like what you got. Both of the two simulations use RANS K-OmegaSST turbulent model. The only differences for setup were 'application' in system/controlDict (the former use pisoFoam, the latter use pimpleFoam) and the algorithms in system/fvSolution (the former use PISO, the latter use PIMPLE). Xuan |
|
January 5, 2012, 04:37 |
|
#9 | |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
Quote:
Your problem seems like mine indeed ! Unfortunately, I have not solved it. For the time being, I concluded that pisoFoam is adapted to turbulent unsteady cases and icoFoam to laminar unsteady ones... but I still worried about this strange behavior.. Any hints would be welcome. Regards. M. |
||
January 5, 2012, 11:44 |
|
#10 |
New Member
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 15 |
Thank you for your reply.
Your conclusion is correct. But based on my results, pisoFoam does not work in unsteady turbulent case also. Best, Xuan |
|
January 5, 2012, 12:19 |
|
#11 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
_____
| o /|\ /\ _______________No idea |
|
January 9, 2012, 17:34 |
|
#12 |
New Member
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 15 |
Hi, Mehdi,
I have already figured out the reason why I got a wrong Strouhal number in this unsteady case. Actually, I used relaxationFactors in fvSoltuion dictionary because I just copied what I had in my steady case. But generally, relaxation factors are particularly used for steady case to improve the stability of computing. After I removed those things, I got good solutions and correct Strouhal number as well. Hopefully, it will be helpful to you. Xuan |
|
January 10, 2012, 04:33 |
|
#13 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
Thank you Xuan for sharing your ideas
I checked my fvSolution files for icoFoam and pisoFoam simulations and in both cases I found relaxation factors. For you, I have to remove them for both simulations since they are unsteady cases ? (I will check both cases without these relaxation factors and I will tell you if this solves my problem ..) An other question : I have run both simulations (icoFoam and pisoFoam) with relaxation factors and icoFoam gives good Strouhal number wheras pisoFoam has failed. If relaxation factors are the only cause of false results, can we conclude that icoFoam does not use them where pisoFoam does ? Thank you again for your remark, I will dig on that in the next weeks .. regards M. |
|
January 10, 2012, 04:48 |
|
#14 |
Senior Member
Niels Gjoel Jacobsen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,903
Rep Power: 37 |
Hi Mehdi
The reason that you see different results when using icoFoam/pisoFoam with the same relaxation parameter is very simple: The relaxation parameters does not have any effect what so ever in icoFoam, as the line: Code:
UEqn.relax(); Kind regards, Niels |
|
January 10, 2012, 06:03 |
|
#15 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paris
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 15 |
Thank you, Niel, for this brilliant remark !
Indeed, this can explain the difference in results. I feel more relaxed now V |
|
January 10, 2012, 11:45 |
|
#16 |
New Member
Xuan Ge
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ames, IA, US
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 15 |
Thanks, Niel, for your explanation, too.
Best, Xuan |
|
May 17, 2013, 13:34 |
|
#17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 135
Rep Power: 13 |
this is a great thread!!
I've also been trapped by the same problem for half a month, now it is solved!! I'm using pimpleFoam and relaxation is allowed in this. as long as we are doing unsteady cases, should we never use relaxation for future simulations? |
|
May 21, 2022, 01:55 |
|
#18 |
Member
Uttam
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 6 |
It’s easy to understand. The purpose of using relaxation factors is to increase the diagonal dominance of the A matrix in the Ax=b system of equations that is solved. If you set up the system, you will see that the coefficients ap of A matrix are divided by alpha (the relaxation factor). So for a smaller relaxation factor, the coefficient increases a lot and improves diagonal dominance. Check out linear algebra to see why diagonal dominance is good.
For a transient case, you have the coefficients from the time discretisation that are ALWAYS added to the diagonal terms. This improves the diagonal dominance and makes addition of relaxation factors redundant. So in short, don’t use relaxation factors if you are doing a transient simulation. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFX Treatment of Laminar and Turbulent Flows | Jade M | CFX | 18 | September 15, 2022 08:08 |
pimpleFoam vs simpleFoam vs pisoFoam vs icoFoam? | phsieh2005 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 45 | March 22, 2021 10:14 |
SimpleFoam as Newtonian laminar flow solver | titio | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | March 8, 2013 05:44 |
pisoFoam compiling error with OF 1.7.1 on MAC OSX | Greg Givogue | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 3 | March 4, 2011 18:18 |
Kubuntu uses dash breaks All scripts in tutorials | platopus | OpenFOAM Bugs | 8 | April 15, 2008 08:52 |