CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM

Is the adaptive mesh refinement suitable for interface tracking process?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By clapointe
  • 1 Post By zhaohb11_cfd

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 12, 2020, 05:31
Default Is the adaptive mesh refinement suitable for interface tracking process?
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 2
zhaohb11_cfd is on a distinguished road
Hello, Foamers,

recently, i use the interFoam to simulate the droplet impacting walls. First I use the axial simulation, which is 2d. Then I did a 3d simulation with adaptive mesh
refinement. the two results are different. It seems that AMR's results lag behind the 2d simulations. for reference, please see the attached.

I guess it is due to accumulated error the refinement casued. Thus, I was wondering If AMR is suitable for tracking interface in multiphase simulation? or is there method to improve this situation?

any hint is welcomed.
Attached Images
File Type: png the comparison.png (26.1 KB, 16 views)
zhaohb11_cfd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2020, 08:32
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Augsburg
Posts: 2,383
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 41
Tobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Hi,
__________________
Keep foaming,
Tobias Holzmann
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2020, 09:21
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 2
zhaohb11_cfd is on a distinguished road
Yes, I think the physics is tha same. the droplet impact on flat wall at moderate velocity. It should be axial sysmetric. So I guess that the axial sysmetric simulation shoud be the same as the 3d simulation. but the result is different. I don't know why.
zhaohb11_cfd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2020, 13:34
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 393
Rep Power: 9
clapointe is on a distinguished road
A common misconception, maybe, using AMR is that it will work flawlessly out of the box. Often a bit of tuning -- of AMR parameter choices, numerical settings, etc -- is required. The problem at hand though seems to be a difference between 2d and 3d simulations. I think it is unwise to assume that a (axisymmetric) 2d simulation will automatically reproduce 3d results without showing this to be true; it is likely that the 2d case could be tuned to match the 3d one but, again, a match the first try seems to me unlikely.

So, thinking "out loud", I would think about it like this :

A 3d, static (high resolution), as the "truth" case.
A 3d, dynamic simulation with AMR to match 3d, static case (and show it matches static case)
A 2d, static/dynamic (axisymmetric) simulation to match 3d (static or amr).

In my experience it has been hard to convince people of the validity of AMR results, so such rigor may not be necessary.

As far as interface capturing goes, I have had great success in the past using isoAdvector (https://github.com/isoAdvector/isoAdvector) and also some moderate success with a coupled level-set VOF (CLSVOF) method (e.g. http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kur...ankarMenon.pdf).

Caelan
Tobi and HPE like this.
clapointe is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 13, 2020, 04:39
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 2
zhaohb11_cfd is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by clapointe View Post
A common misconception, maybe, using AMR is that it will work flawlessly out of the box. Often a bit of tuning -- of AMR parameter choices, numerical settings, etc -- is required. The problem at hand though seems to be a difference between 2d and 3d simulations. I think it is unwise to assume that a (axisymmetric) 2d simulation will automatically reproduce 3d results without showing this to be true; it is likely that the 2d case could be tuned to match the 3d one but, again, a match the first try seems to me unlikely.

So, thinking "out loud", I would think about it like this :

A 3d, static (high resolution), as the "truth" case.
A 3d, dynamic simulation with AMR to match 3d, static case (and show it matches static case)
A 2d, static/dynamic (axisymmetric) simulation to match 3d (static or amr).

In my experience it has been hard to convince people of the validity of AMR results, so such rigor may not be necessary.

As far as interface capturing goes, I have had great success in the past using isoAdvector (https://github.com/isoAdvector/isoAdvector) and also some moderate success with a coupled level-set VOF (CLSVOF) method (e.g. http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kur...ankarMenon.pdf).

Caelan
Thank, in fact i found a paepr 'Investigation of effects of receding contact angle and energy conversion on numerical prediction of receding of the droplet impact onto hydrophilic and superhydrophilic surfaces'
In this paper, the author encountered the same situation ans he gave out an explanatoin that the difference between 2d and 3d simulation is due to parasitic current, which is caused by vof method itself.
Thank you for the suggestion. I will try the isoadvector and coupledlevelset method.
Tobi likes this.
zhaohb11_cfd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 13, 2020, 12:43
Default
  #6
Member
 
Rodrigo
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 72
Rep Power: 12
guin is on a distinguished road
From my understanding, surface tension acts generally weaker in 2D than in 3D. This is related to the physical principles of the process itself. Either implementing surface tension based on local curvatures or in tangential cohesion, you will end up having a certain pulling force magnitude that arises from the superposition of curvatures on the three planes XY, XZ and YZ, respectively. Think about the natural evolution of torus of water... and now, what do you expect to obtain when simulating the 2D cross section, which is initially two separate circles ?
guin is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[snappyHexMesh] SnappyHexMesh running killed! Mark JIN OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 3 March 12, 2020 17:50
Velocity artifacts when using adaptive mesh refinement stuntmanmike OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 August 27, 2019 06:42
decomposePar problem: Cell 0contains face labels out of range vaina74 OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 32 February 7, 2018 08:26
[snappyHexMesh] SnappyHexMesh for internal Flow vishwa OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 24 June 27, 2016 08:54
[snappyHexMesh] external flow with snappyHexMesh chelvistero OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 11 January 15, 2010 19:43


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42.