|November 3, 2010, 09:10||
rhopisofoam+scalartransportfoam VS reactingfoam without chemistry
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 122Rep Power: 8
I am trying to find fuel fraction distribution in a combustion chamber. I could think of two ways to do this:
1) Do rhoPisoFoam simu,ation and get the converged U field and use this to solve the fuel fraction scalar with scalarTransportFoam.
2) Do reactingFoam simulation with chemistry off.
Now, can anyone tell me whether both of the approaches will give me the same results or not??? Because 1st approach takes much less computational time, so if both the things give same result then 1st would be the obvious choice. But i am confused..Please help
Imagination is more important than knowledge..
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|ScalarTransportFoam for RTD calculations||santoo_cfd||OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD||34||May 22, 2014 10:20|
|solving chemistry at fewer time-steps||N. A.||OpenFOAM||0||October 13, 2010 02:55|
|CH4 gas-phase reaction and stiff chemistry solver||sonosun||FLUENT||0||April 15, 2010 21:01|
|reactingFoam - turbulent reacting flow||hamburgFoam||OpenFOAM||0||December 7, 2009 13:57|
|Relation between CFD and computational chemistry||Marc Segovia||Main CFD Forum||3||May 26, 1999 05:13|