|
[Sponsors] |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 16 ![]() |
Hi All,
I was trying to run a case on OF 2.1.x using buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. However, I got an error message saying: "cannot find file file: <path>/p at line 0" Note that the file "p_rgh" is there in the same directory. Why does buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam need "p" in the first place? Doesn't the buoyant solver only require "p_rgh"? Could someone please explain? Thanks very much! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Mohsen KiaMansouri
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CFD Lab
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 16 ![]() |
Dear Antimony
There are 2 tutorials for buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam in OpenFOAM: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam Set your boundary conditions according to them. Have a look at the buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam solver's source: buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam
__________________
“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.” ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 16 ![]() |
Dear Kia,
Thanks for your reply! I did take a look at the source code of buoyantSimpleRadiationFoam. And that is probably where I got confused when the mass flow calculators and the adjustPhi functions (for which I had to dig into the pEqn.H and then adjustPhi.H and adjustPhi.C) seem to make use of "p" but not "p_rgh". And here is probably what confused me even more - in the fvSchemes and fvSolution for this problem (including the OpenFOAM tutorial cases that you had mentioned), there is only a reference to "p_rgh". Even when solving, we seem to be using only p_rgh. We also know the relationship between p and p_rgh. So if that is the case, what is the necessity to have a separate "p" file? Is it because this solver has built on top of the existing simpleFoam solver and so the "p" file is a must? In case I have assumed or stated something incorrectly, please do let me know. Regards, Antimony |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
hannes
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 13 ![]() |
Dear Antimony,
I think (and that is just my interpretation) that p should always be calculated since p_rgh is no measurable physical quantity. When you want to start to compare your results with experimental data you need to have p instead of p_rgh. Hannes |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 407
Rep Power: 16 ![]() |
Hi Hanness,
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you to an extent. But like I said in my previous post, I am curious to know, mainly from the computational standpoint, why p is required when p_rgh is the one that is used. Regards, Antimony |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
pressure, radiationfoam |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Other] mesh airfoil NACA0012 | anand_30 | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 13 | March 7, 2022 18:22 |
[OpenFOAM] Annoying issue of automatic "Rescale to Data Range " with paraFoam/paraview 3.12 | keepfit | ParaView | 60 | September 18, 2013 04:23 |
"parabolicVelocity" in OpenFoam 2.1.0 ? | sawyer86 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 21 | February 7, 2012 12:44 |
[blockMesh] BlockMesh FOAM warning | gaottino | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 7 | July 19, 2010 15:11 |
ParaView Compilation | jakaranda | OpenFOAM Installation | 3 | October 27, 2008 12:46 |