|
[Sponsors] |
March 22, 2021, 12:49 |
negative temperature with twoPhaseEulerFoam
|
#1 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Hi,
I'm trying to simulate a mix of gas and dust against a disc using twoPhaseEulerFoam. After some iterations, the solver stops without any error message, but we can see some negative temperature for the air: Courant Number mean: 0.122993 max: 0.401974 Max Ur Courant Number = 0.0456224 Time = 0.195 PIMPLE: iteration 1 MULES: Solving for alpha.particles MULES: Solving for alpha.particles smoothSolver: Solving for alpha.particles, Initial residual = 1.22398e-08, Final residual = 2.15733e-15, No Iterations 1 alpha.particles volume fraction = 0.199907 Min(alpha.particles) = 0.00159117 Max(alpha.particles) = 0.992272 Constructing momentum equations smoothSolver: Solving for e.particles, Initial residual = 0.0643472, Final residual = 2.2115e-12, No Iterations 3 smoothSolver: Solving for e.air, Initial residual = 0.252945, Final residual = 2.55661e-13, No Iterations 5 min T.particles 119.995 min T.air -18672.9 GAMG: Solving for p_rgh, Initial residual = 0.999183, Final residual = 3.63007e-18, No Iterations 1 GAMG: Solving for p_rgh, Initial residual = 1.40899e-18, Final residual = 1.40899e-18, No Iterations 0 PIMPLE: iteration 2 MULES: Solving for alpha.particles MULES: Solving for alpha.particles smoothSolver: Solving for alpha.particles, Initial residual = 1.07889e-08, Final residual = 2.02332e-15, No Iterations 1 alpha.particles volume fraction = 0.199984 Min(alpha.particles) = 0.00158145 Max(alpha.particles) = 0.996012 Constructing momentum equations. I tried to change the pressure tolerance, to change deltaT,etc.. I always have this behaviour. How can I fix it ? Imposing a limit to the temperature doens't work. I joined the files case. |
|
March 23, 2021, 05:33 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
There might be several reasons. You can start with first order schemes instead of vanLeer. Why do you use vanLeer btw? Do you have strong gradients? You should also check your pressure BCs, because I dont think "calculated" for all boundaries is physically correct.
Also you can implement the limitTemperature function in your solver. There are some instructions how to do that in this forum. |
|
March 23, 2021, 06:40 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Thanks, I am, indeed not really sure about the BCs.
Limiting the temperature doens't work. I should have strong gradient indeed. It is supposed to have some shocks |
|
March 23, 2021, 06:46 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
Did you implement the limitTemperature functionality? Because it is not implemented in the standard version of the solver.
If you have shocks than using a limiter makes perfect sense. |
|
March 23, 2021, 09:31 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
I was using this in fvOptions:
Code:
limitTemperature { type limitTemperature; active true; limitTemperatureCoeffs { selectionMode all; phase air; min 10; max 200; } } |
|
March 24, 2021, 05:25 |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
10 K for air is really really low. The only gas I know that stays in its gaseos form is helium for 10 K. So air should be either liquid or solod depending on the pressure. You should definitly check your BCs.
|
|
March 24, 2021, 06:44 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
imposing 10 or 120 for the minimum gives me same behaviour actually. It is indeed not air for the gas, I just kept the name "air"
|
|
March 24, 2021, 06:47 |
|
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
Did you implement the limitTemperature utility? As I said, its not implemented in the standard openfoam version. You can add whatever your want in fvOptions, if its not implemented, you wont see any impact.
|
|
March 24, 2021, 07:07 |
|
#9 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
oh ok. I thought that waht I put in fvOptions was ok. So, no, I didn't
|
|
March 24, 2021, 07:12 |
|
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
||
March 24, 2021, 08:13 |
|
#11 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Ok thank you, I'll do it.
But I don't understand this solution. The solver crashes, by imposing a boundary, it won't anymore but I don't understand how it can give me good results |
|
March 24, 2021, 08:27 |
|
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
I still think that your BCs are wrong. "Calculated" for all your boundaries doenst make sense for me. That way your pressure can rise or drecrese to infity or negative values. I have really good experiences with the totalPressure boundary condition. I dont know your case, but you should definitly check your BCs!
|
|
March 24, 2021, 10:30 |
|
#13 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Yes, I changed them to zeroGradient for the outlet and the walls and fixed it for the inlet, the behaviour remains the same
When I look at the temperature, I have some instabilities on the walls. I guess the crash emerges from there. I don't what's wrong for the pressure or the temperature for the walls' BC (zeroGradient for both). Can it come from somewhere else ? |
|
March 24, 2021, 10:39 |
|
#14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
zeroGradient for pressure and temperature at the walls is correct for adiabatic walls. I dont think thats the issue. If there are troubles at the walls, it could come from several reasons, e. g. bad mesh quality, or too big or too small cells (logarithmic law). What are your y+ values at the wall?
I usually use for the inlet totalPressure, totalTemperature and pressureInletOutletVelocity for U. For the outlet waveTransmissive for u and p and zeroGradient for T. I dont know how your mesh and how your geometry looks like. If you post some images of your u-fields and your mesh, I might be able to help you better. |
|
March 24, 2021, 11:27 |
|
#15 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Thanks, I'm going to have a look on how work tho one you gave me.
here are some pics. This is the only part of the domain where I have someting. Otherwise the variables kept their initial values. These were taken with the BCs I used. |
|
March 24, 2021, 11:34 |
|
#16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 215
Rep Power: 7 |
The mesh looks ok acutally. I dont know what kind of application that is, but velocities of 4000 m/s are really difficult to reach. Do you expect such high velocities?
And check if the BCs I suggested are applicable for your application. |
|
March 24, 2021, 11:36 |
|
#17 |
New Member
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5 |
Actually I need, in further simulation, go until 9km/s
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
whats the cause of error? | immortality | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 13 | March 24, 2021 08:15 |
[blockMesh] Errors during blockMesh meshing | Madeleine P. Vincent | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 51 | May 30, 2016 11:51 |
[blockMesh] non-orthogonal faces and incorrect orientation? | nennbs | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 7 | April 17, 2013 06:42 |
is internalField(U) equivalent to zeroGradient? | immortality | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 7 | March 29, 2013 02:27 |
[blockMesh] error message with modeling a cube with a hold at the center | hsingtzu | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 2 | March 14, 2012 10:56 |