|
[Sponsors] |
Pressure drop across porous media using CFX and Fluent |
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
New Member
Amitav tikadar
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9 ![]() |
Hi, I am simulating laminar water flow through a straight rectangular porous channel. Two side walls are symmetric and the top and bottom are no-slip walls. I know the isotropic porosity and permeability and I am using Forchheimer-Brinkman extended Darcy model (please see the attached figure). I have calculated the isotropic loss coefficient using the attached equation for the superficial velocity formulation. I did the same simulation in Fluent using the same parameters. Surprisingly, in the case of CFX, I am getting much lower pressure compared to the Fluent results. For example, at vel. 0.4 m/s, I got DelP=1023Pa from Fluent whereas CFX gave only 835Pa.
For actual conjugate heat transfer, I need to use CFX. That's why I am trying to calibrate my CFX model. Can someone please tell me why CFX is giving a much lower pressure difference than Fluent? Is there anything wrong with velocity formulation or coefficient calculation? TIA Last edited by ATIKADAR; October 1, 2021 at 19:07. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,850
Rep Power: 33 ![]() |
Are you using the porous domain, or fluid domain + subdomain loss source ?
If using porous media, are you using a superficial velocity formulation loss, or true velocity formulation?
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
New Member
Amitav tikadar
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9 ![]() |
Hi. Thanks for your reply. I am using the porous domain. I have checked both superficial and true velocity using the same loss coefficients. I found true velocity formulation gives high DelP than superficial velocity formulation. For true velocity formulation for porous domain, should I need to make any changes in loss coefficient calculation than my previous calculation (see the attached image in the first post)?
Thanks. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,850
Rep Power: 33 ![]() |
The loss coefficients are not unique. Say I have the expression
Drag = C * V which V? That is the where both formulation differentiate. You must have a very clear understanding which V is used in a given formulation, and V is expected to be used from the documentation. V_superficial = V_true * Porosity if I recall correctly. From there, you can figure out which one you should use. One thing to keep in mind, both solutions (superficial and true) must give the exact same results for your case if the input is consistent. The choice is to make it easier to set up, not to change the results.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
cfx, cfx & fluent, darcy-brinkmann, darcy-forchheimer, porous flow |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFX vs. FLUENT | turbo | CFX | 4 | April 13, 2021 08:08 |
Different result in CFX and fluent for mass trans.? is segregated better? | ftab | CFX | 7 | September 27, 2012 07:57 |
porous media : cfx or fluent??? | diana.d | Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming | 0 | June 2, 2012 02:55 |
Different flow patterns in CFX and Fluent | avi@lpsc | FLUENT | 4 | April 8, 2012 06:12 |
Fluent Vs CFX, density and pressure | Omer | CFX | 9 | June 28, 2007 04:13 |