|
[Sponsors] |
rotatingWallVelocity vs. SRF vs. MRF vs. AMI/GGI |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
September 10, 2012, 19:14 |
rotatingWallVelocity vs. SRF vs. MRF vs. AMI/GGI
|
#1 |
New Member
SV
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 16 |
This is a fundamental question that I need to think it through. I'm trying to model the flow inside the attached geometry. The mill (in white) rotates at a constant speed inside the casing (in red). The casing is a simple cylinder, and the whole system is filled with a single-phase liquid. Also, there is not protrusion on the outer surface of the rotating mill/shaft.
Can I simply model this using rotatingWallVelocity and say, simpleFoam? Would it automatically take care of the coriolis and centrifugal forces? (Notice that I will be modeling this in 3D). Also, considering the holes on the mill surface, would these methods work, or do I need a more advanced dynamic mesh method? Any thought/suggestion is highly appreciated. |
|
September 11, 2012, 13:12 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Kent Wardle
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 219
Rep Power: 21 |
Presumably the casing is stationary? Since you have only one moving domain and there are no baffles on your stationary cylinder (as near as I can tell from the image), there is no need for AMI/GGI. As you suggested, I think rotatingWallVelocity might barf because you have the holes in the rotating part--it is worth a try, but I think it wants to put just a tangential velocity on the surface which is not valid for the interior of your holes. SRF or MRF should have no problem at all. If there is not already a solver available, it is not too tricky to add in MRF capability to simpleFoam or whatever you will be using.
-KW |
|
September 12, 2012, 12:58 |
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Attesz
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich
Posts: 368
Rep Power: 17 |
I think rotatigWall will give bad results. I would use MRFSimpleFoam, but I would cut the domain into several domains very close to the plates. This would be the most accurate solution - if it is a steady phenomena, of course.
|
|
September 12, 2012, 14:19 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Kent Wardle
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 219
Rep Power: 21 |
If there are no baffles on the stationary part, then whether it is one rotating domain or multiple as Attesz has suggested should give the same results.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[ICEM] ICEM MRF Interface - Penetrating Elements | survADe | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 9 | February 4, 2015 02:26 |
Possible turbulence modelling bug in SRF solvers | otm | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | May 29, 2012 04:03 |
Should an empty MRF zone really induce this much cross-flow? | sylvester | OpenFOAM | 5 | November 18, 2010 03:48 |
MRF help please | Atul T. Shinde | FLUENT | 1 | December 19, 2002 01:20 |
Moving Mesh and MRF | Romain | FLUENT | 1 | May 16, 2002 03:45 |