|
[Sponsors] |
Solution differences between pisoFoam and pimpleFoam |
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Hüseyin Can Önel
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 7 ![]() |
I'm solving the laminar flow around a custom-shaped cylinder at low Reynolds numbers (around 100) using pisoFoam and pimpleFoam. I am familiar with the algorithmic differences between these two solvers, but still surprised that they yield slightly different results of shedding frequency and flow field. The main differences in case setup are:
pisoFoam:
pimpleFoam:
Everything else is identical (I'm not going to write all of them down, but they are generally accepted values). Results are: .............. Strouhal ..... Drag coeff. piso ....... 0.1746 ......... 1.7123 pimple ... 0.1831 ......... 1.7812 Anybody else delved into the source of this difference? Results are close to each other and to other studies. But, in which result should we be more confident (feels like pimple for me)? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 11:13 |
pisoFoam and pimpleFoam are unstable in foam-extend 4.0/4.1 (misunderstanding ?) | Kombinator | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | January 14, 2021 04:10 |
pimpleFoam - pisoFoam residuals | RodriguezFatz | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | September 25, 2014 08:37 |
pisoFoam, pimpleFoam - Fluent user's questions | RodriguezFatz | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | September 4, 2013 04:26 |
Differences simpleFoam vs. pimpleFoam / RASModel.H vs turbulenceModel.H | uli | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 7 | January 26, 2013 15:01 |