|
[Sponsors] |
March 16, 2021, 13:36 |
channel395DFSEM different results
|
#1 |
New Member
Chiara
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 5 |
Hi,
I'm running the tutorial case channel395DFSEM but what I get is different from the solution reported in: https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...nnel-flow.html In particular the velocity profile is more or less the same while the Reynolds stress tensor is way much different and also the friction coefficient has nothing to do with the one reported in the Guide. I'm using OpenFOAM+ 20.06. Is this a common problem or am I doing something wrong? Thank you |
|
May 10, 2021, 14:23 |
|
#2 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 6 |
Hi Chiara,
I'm having the same problem, have you had any progress? Thanks Markella |
|
May 10, 2021, 14:35 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Chiara
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 5 |
Hi Agavi!
Yes, try to set 3 cells per eddy in U: inlet { type turbulentDFSEMInlet; delta 2; nCellPerEddy 3; mapMethod nearestCell; value $internalField; } Chiara |
|
May 10, 2021, 17:06 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Herpes Free Engineer
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: The Home Under The Ground with the Lost Boys
Posts: 931
Rep Power: 13 |
Hi,
It is a common problem arising from various issues due to the original paper (e.g. the normalisation factor C1 is not dimensionless, or the average length scale term contains a typo - the operator min in Eq. 14 of the paper is actually a max operator etc.). These ambiguities seemed to force the implementation of the method - "interpretative". Honestly, despite my reviews, I haven't seen any other academic work which could be able to reproduce the results illustrated in the original paper. Yet I have seen various works explicitly stating that the results of the paper could not be reproduced by either using OpenFOAM or CodeSaturne. (No offence to the authors of the work; I am more than happy to be proven incorrect in my obserfvations.) Therefore, the heuristic solution has been using the nCellPerEddy object, which does not exist in the original paper. The nCellPerEddy is set between 3 to 5. The issues related to the turbulentDFSEMInlet boundary condition hopefully will be resolved. Hope these help for now.
__________________
The OpenFOAM community is the biggest contributor to OpenFOAM: User guide/Wiki-1/Wiki-2/Code guide/Code Wiki/Journal Nilsson/Guerrero/Holzinger/Holzmann/Nagy/Santos/Nozaki/Jasak/Primer Governance Bugs/Features: OpenFOAM (ESI-OpenCFD-Trademark) Bugs/Features: FOAM-Extend (Wikki-FSB) Bugs: OpenFOAM.org How to create a MWE New: Forkable OpenFOAM mirror |
|
May 13, 2021, 07:14 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 6 |
It looks like it worked ! thank you both
|
|
September 22, 2022, 08:14 |
|
#6 |
New Member
Serapio
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 |
Hi,
I'm trying to solve a similar problem, just changing de dimensions of the domain from meters to centimeters. For that, I set: 1.-scale 0.01 in blockMeshDict, 2.-adjust the timestep in control dict. 3.-scale x0.01 the file points @ constant/boundaryData/inlet/ 4.-modify delta to 0.02 at 0/U -> turbulentDFSEMInlet However the result is a perfectly laminar flow. Thank you in advance for your help!! HeleShawMan |
|
Tags |
cfd, channel395, channel395dfsem, openfoam, synthetic condition |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OpenFOAM - Validation of Results | Ahmed | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 10 | May 13, 2018 19:28 |
lid driven cavity varying results | yasmil | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | October 6, 2016 22:42 |
interFoam simulation yields inconsistent results for alpha1 surface | Ralinus | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 8 | January 13, 2014 09:54 |
CFD results not close to experimental results | cider | STAR-CCM+ | 0 | July 8, 2013 08:53 |
Different Results from Fluent 5.5 and Fluent 6.0 | Rajeev Kumar Singh | FLUENT | 6 | December 19, 2010 12:33 |