|
[Sponsors] |
Transonic and compressible case with chtMultiRegion-Solver |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
January 3, 2022, 09:10 |
Transonic and compressible case with chtMultiRegion-Solver
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 |
Hello all,
I would like to analyze the cooling of a plunger in a steady-state simulation. The plunger is cooled by air. The air enters the system at 4.5 bar (absolute pressure) and leaves at atmospheric pressure. On the outside of the plunger, a heat flow is specified that increases linearly from the top to the bottom of the plunger. The attached picture shows a quarter of the geometry. The air flows into the system from the right, leaves the cooling tube via the small cooling holes. Then flows along between the cooling tube and the plunger and leaves the system again via the larger holes. The mesh was created with Salome and checkMesh shows that this is OK. I would like to compare my results with similar simulations done with Ansys. In both cases tetrahedral meshes are/were used. My problem is that the solution does not converge, but terminates prematurely due to negative temperatures. I have uploaded my case at the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pkq7ketpc...QbAeYKJAa?dl=0 Reducing the relaxation factors does lead to a slight improvement in the convergence behavior, but the simulation terminates here as well. What else could I test out to get the simulation to work? Thanks a lot for your help in advance. With kind regards erebos23 |
|
January 4, 2022, 16:34 |
|
#2 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0 |
I have checked my boundary conditions once with a compressible fluid, here the calculation also runs quite normally. However, when I switch to a compressible fluid, the simulation stops after a certain time at a pressure difference of 0.15 bar due to negative temperatures.
Do I probably have a mistake in the definition of the boundary conditions? I use the following boundary conditions for the fluid: Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; location "0/fluid"; object p; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [ 1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 ]; internalField uniform 95000; boundaryField { inlet { type calculated; value $internalField; } outlet { type calculated; value $internalField; } sym_fluid { type symmetry; } fluid_to_solid { type calculated; value $internalField; } } Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; location "0/fluid"; object p_rgh; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [ 1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 ]; internalField uniform 100000; boundaryField { inlet { type prghTotalPressure; p0 uniform 110000; value uniform 110000; } outlet { type prghPressure; p uniform 95000; value uniform 95000; } sym_fluid { type symmetry; } fluid_to_solid { type zeroGradient; } } Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volVectorField; location "0/fluid"; object U; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [ 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 ]; internalField uniform (0 0 0); boundaryField { inlet { type pressureInletVelocity; value $internalField; } outlet { type pressureInletOutletVelocity; value $internalField; } sym_fluid { type symmetry; } fluid_to_solid { type noSlip; } } Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSchemes; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) bounded Gauss upwind; energy bounded Gauss upwind; div(phi,K) $energy; div(phi,h) $energy; turbulence bounded Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) $turbulence; div(phi,epsilon) $turbulence; div(phi,R) $turbulence; div(R) Gauss linear; div(Ji,Ii_h) Gauss linearUpwind grad(U); div(((rho*nuEff)*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default Gauss linear uncorrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default uncorrected; } Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSolution; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // solvers { rho { solver PCG; preconditioner DIC; tolerance 1e-6; relTol 0; } p_rgh { solver GAMG; tolerance 1e-6; relTol 0.01; smoother GaussSeidel; } "(U|h|k|epsilon|G|Ii)" { solver PBiCGStab; preconditioner DILU; tolerance 1e-6; relTol 0.1; } } SIMPLE { momentumPredictor yes; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; rhoMin 0.2; rhoMax 10; } relaxationFactors { fields { rho 0.1; p_rgh 0.1; } equations { U 0.1; h 0.1; "(k|epsilon|omega)" 0.1; } } Thanks for your help in advance. Best regards. erebos23 |
|
April 30, 2024, 01:27 |
Maybe the problem is with the mesh
|
#3 |
New Member
subhkaran singh
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 6 |
I suffered from the same problem, with negative temperatures, while using rhoCentralFoam for supersonic flows. The answer was either a too-coarse or a too fine mesh. Find an optimized mesh resolution and try again.
|
|
Tags |
chtmultiregionsimpefoam, compressible air, transonic flow |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compressible nozzle flow - no problem for fluent but impossible with openFOAM? | flar.t | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 10 | March 30, 2022 02:21 |
Issues on the simulation of high-speed compressible flow within turbomachinery | dowlee | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 11 | August 6, 2021 07:40 |
Periodic Compressible (subsonic, transonic) channel flow case setup | backscatter | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | August 27, 2018 18:39 |
Compressible Nozzle Flow | sebastian | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 14 | September 21, 2016 11:47 |
Compressible transonic airfoil RAE2822 simulation | Stefano | Siemens | 9 | June 21, 2006 11:47 |