CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

How to understand differences between simpleFoam and icoFoam results for airfoil

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   December 24, 2023, 22:14
Default How to understand differences between simpleFoam and icoFoam results for airfoil
  #1
New Member
 
Jay Wang
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 2
Jay_CFD is on a distinguished road
Hi, everyone:
I'm an OpenFoam learner; I'm learning how to use OpenFoam to simulate the airfoil test case.

The first solver I adopted is the icoFoam (I learned it from the flow around cylinder example). But the flow becomes quite steady after several iterations (first attachment). Then I found some documents online (https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...irfoil-2d.html), it suggests to use simpleFoam for this test case. I try to adapt my mesh data to the simpleFoam and get results shown in the second attachment. There are some vortexes, which might be the phenomenon as expected. I am wondering why the results look quite steady for the icoFoam results.

I noticed there are some documents about different solvers(https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...andard-solvers), but i'm still not quite understand about these details, are they supposed to solve the same Navier-Stokes equation, why the results are so different?

Here are my OpenFoam configurations for
airfoil icoFoam test case (https://github.com/wangzhezhe/5MCST/...irfoil_icoFoam) and
airfoil simpleFoam test case (https://github.com/wangzhezhe/5MCST/...oil_simplefoam)
Thanks a lot for the help!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg icofoam_example.jpg (32.1 KB, 22 views)
File Type: jpg simplefoam_example.jpg (33.3 KB, 20 views)
Jay_CFD is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 25, 2023, 03:37
Default
  #2
Member
 
Anurag
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 78
Rep Power: 3
anubasu is on a distinguished road
check whether you are running a steady state simulation (Without any time-step or deltaT) in any of these solvers. It seems you are running a steady state simulation in one of these cases.
anubasu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 25, 2023, 20:58
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Jay Wang
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 2
Jay_CFD is on a distinguished road
Previously, I use icoFoam to run the flow around cylinder case(https://github.com/wangzhezhe/5MCST/...cular_cylinder), the results looks ok (there are some interesting phenomenons) But I'm not sure why it does not work well for the airfoil case (quite steady and no vortex).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2023-12-25 at 7.55.43 PM.jpg (27.6 KB, 9 views)
Jay_CFD is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 29, 2023, 12:19
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 745
Rep Power: 14
Tobermory will become famous soon enough
What turbulence model are you running? Presumably a RANS model, in which case the icoFoam solution (steady) is the correct one, and the simpleFoam solution is junk. Try adjusting your solver settings to get a stable simpleFoam solution.

Note that icoFoam is a transient solver, using the PISO algorithm, and so is stabilised by taking a small enough time step, i.e. suitable Co number. simpleFoam uses the SIMPLE algorithm, and so requires underrelaxation to stabilise.

Ultimately, the two approaches will give the same solution, if run properly.
Tobermory is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 29, 2023, 23:19
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Jay Wang
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 2
Jay_CFD is on a distinguished road
After some exploration, I found that rotate the airfoil to a certain degree can get some interesting phenomenons. In the first animation(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bCI...ew?usp=sharing), the left side one is the airfoil with 15 degree, the right side one is 30 degree, they use same icoFoam parameters. For the second animation(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uOK...ew?usp=sharing), it is the results using simpleFoam with 15 degree. I'm still a little bit curious why there are so different and how to judge if simulation parameters make sense from these output. (why the results are junk numbers). Could you provide some guidance about how to adjust these parameters and what are expected output results. Thanks a lot for the help!
Jay_CFD is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2023, 07:18
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 745
Rep Power: 14
Tobermory will become famous soon enough
I think that the best thing I can do here is give you some advice - CFD is just a tool ... and like any tool it needs knowledge and skill to wield effectively. You cannot expect to pick up a tool and generate quality results without knowledge or experience.

So for you, my friend, based on your earlier posts, can I suggest that you do a lot of reading of the basics of CFD & Fluid Mechanics, or take some relevant courses? Then, you will be in a good position to start using the tool.

All the best, and Happy New Year!
Tobermory is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
airfoil, icofoam, simplefoam


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
divergence problem with icoFoam or simpleFoam salicTo OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 July 28, 2023 11:01
icoFoam diverges when simpleFoam converges leizhao512 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 September 11, 2015 16:02
icoFoam after simpleFoam to check for unsteadiness? casesam OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 October 12, 2014 13:52
error while solving motorBike with simpleFoam or icoFoam anjansir OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 December 12, 2011 14:51
Different results with icoFoam and simpleFoam..why??? nileshjrane OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 11 September 13, 2010 16:08


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40.