Passive Scalar Function Object - Setting of alphaD and alphaDt

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 January 21, 2019, 06:00 Passive Scalar Function Object - Setting of alphaD and alphaDt #1 Member   Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 Hi, everyone. I have a problem about the passive scalar function object in OpenFOAM. I just did a simulation on a contact tank with OpenFOAM (v1712), using RANS kOmegaSST turbulent model to simulate the setup described in the paper "An Efficient Contact Tank Design for Potable Water Treatment", which can be downloaded in the following link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...-dGNtZusWSxxU7 First, I used pimpleFOAM (without passive scalar function object) to achieve a steady state. Then, to compute the RTD plot, I added the built-in passive scalar function object in controlDict to simulate the transient passive scalar transport. My simulated flow field results (in the first simulation) agree well with the experiment results and the LES results in the paper. In my second simulation, I used the default settings of alphaD and alphaDt (default to be 1), the simulation results also fairly match with the LES results. Up to now, it sounds not bad. But, the problem arises once I played with the settings of alphaD and alphaDt. To my understanding, alphaD is the reciprocal of Schmidt No. and alphaDt is the reciprocal Turbulent Schmidt No. I tried the following cases: Case 1 - alphaD = 0.001 (Sc = 1,000) and alphaDt = 1.4286 (Sct = 0.7). The results changed a lot and got significant difference from the LES results. Case 2 - alphaD = 1.4286 and alphaDt = 0.001. The result is not bad, it fairly agree with the LES results. Case 3 - alphaD = alphaDt = 1.4286. The results is very close to the original cases (alphaD = alphaDt = default value 1). The settings of alphaD and alphaDt in Case 1 is my target settings with reasonable physical meanings, but the results are bad. For the original case and case 3, the results are good but it appears not physically correct for Sc = Sct in water. Any expert can provide me some hints? fumiya likes this.

 January 22, 2019, 04:53 #2 Senior Member   Tom Fahner Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Breda, Netherlands Posts: 525 Rep Power: 18 Hi, I think you should use alphaD = 1 and alphaDt = 1/0.7 as the way I see it, Sc(t) = 1/alpha(t). This is because we use kinematic viscosity nu instead of dynamic viscosity mu. So I would say alphaD = 1, alphaDt = 1.4286 should give the results you want. Regards, Tom fumiya likes this.

 January 22, 2019, 07:54 #3 Member   Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 Thank you so much for your reply. I can understand that alphaDt = 1 / Sct so that alphaDt = 1 / 0.7 for Sct = 0.7 as a typical value. But for the solute in water, Sc is in the order of 1,000 (this is the value suggested in the paper I mentioned in my previous post). That's what I don't understand why alphaD is not set to 1/1000 = 0.001. Although I agree that Sc = 1 and and Sct = 1 / 0.7 would give a better results close to LES results, I don't have a good explanation on using alpha = 1. May I have an explanation from you about that?

 January 22, 2019, 08:39 #4 Senior Member   Tom Fahner Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Breda, Netherlands Posts: 525 Rep Power: 18 Ah yes, I reread your post and I see you already mentioned this. I guess I did not have enough coffee yet. I just got confused as I assumed you used the density of water in the derivation, once again showing the assumptions are dangerous. I am sorry for the confusion. Unfortunately I have no time to delve into the paper. I just briefly scanned it and I would agree with your settings. So in that sense I do not really know where the error comes from. It is maybe useful to show your results? I can think of the following: - There may be some issues with the implementation, but at least you showed different results with different settings, so it seems at least to have an effect to the solution, just not the expected effect. - There may be something about the effect of the turbulence model? - As molecular diffusion would be very limited, you may get discretisation issues as your diffusion gets much smaller and therefore you may need to use more upwinding to keep your solution stable? This would happen most prominently in areas with low turbulent viscosity and also depend on your mesh quality. Hope this helps. Regards, Tom

 January 25, 2019, 00:36 #5 Member   Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 Thanks a lot, tomf. I got the points finally after many many trials. The correct setting should be alphaD = 1/1000 and alphaDt = 1/0.7.

 August 3, 2019, 07:00 #6 New Member   Paul S Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 3 Hi foamF Did you follow a specific tutorial to carry this out? I'm trying to compute the RTD plot for a contact tank too. I'm trying to find more information on plotting the RTD curve once the scaler has been added. I'm not sure how to manipulate the data in paraview Last edited by Stanley91; August 4, 2019 at 11:24.

 August 5, 2019, 13:02 #7 Member   Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 I don't have any relevant specific tutorial. To plot RTD curve in Paraview, it can be done by integrating the (mass flow weighted) scalar of across a selected cross section.

 August 8, 2019, 14:39 #8 New Member   Paul S Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 3 So I select cells on the outlet, data analysis -> Integrate variables, data analysis -> plot selection over time

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Search this Thread: Advanced Search Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:05.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Privacy Statement - Top