|
[Sponsors] |
icoFoam and pisoFoam have different results in laminar analysis |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
March 8, 2023, 15:51 |
icoFoam and pisoFoam have different results in laminar analysis
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 3 |
Dear All,
I tried to run 2D laminar cavity example (but 1m X 1m) with same specifications with icoFoam and pisoFoam(turbulence is off in turbulenceProperties file) solvers, but the results are different. It seems that they both use PISO algorithm with same settings but the result of icoFoam is much more accurate than pisoFoam for this case. Are they similar when the turbulence option is off? If you have any idea to answer this question, please leave a comment. Best wishes, |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
icoFoam, pisoFoam, pimpleFoam unsuccessful transient solution of laminar flow channel | Andrew Gow | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | December 24, 2022 12:13 |
pimpleFoam vs simpleFoam vs pisoFoam vs icoFoam? | phsieh2005 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 45 | March 22, 2021 10:14 |
Solver problem of pisoFoam or icoFoam | Raymond_90328 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | October 1, 2020 06:58 |
uRANS - laminar simulation using pisoFoam | cyln | OpenFOAM | 1 | July 15, 2017 19:28 |
what is the role of solve(UEqn == -fvc::grad(p));" in icoFoam pisoFoam and ... | mechy | OpenFOAM | 10 | January 17, 2012 13:05 |