mvConvection in reactingFoam

smehdi609 · January 24, 2009, 20:28

Hi everyone,
What's the point of defining mvConvection object? why not simply using fvm:div(phi, Yi) and fvm:div(phi, h)?
Thanks,
Mahdi

sahm · September 15, 2010, 15:28

Hello mehdi
Did you get any response to this question?

germinal · December 1, 2010, 11:45

ohje......

Nobody has an answer.......

??

linch · February 11, 2011, 10:59

I'm also interested at...

Farshad_Noravesh · August 26, 2011, 19:39

Hi,
I am still waiting to see the answer.

Thanks,
Farshad

su_junwei · August 27, 2011, 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by smehdi609

Hi everyone,
What's the point of defining mvConvection object? why not simply usingand fvm:div(phi, h)?
Thanks,
Mahdi

It seems that the reason should be
All the div(phi, Yi) and div(phi, h) have a similar discretization form, except for the tracked variable. With mvConvection object, you can use a single surface interpolator (multivariateSurfaceInterpolationScheme) for all the div(phi, Yi) which will save a lot of efforts for setting the discretization scheme. Such a treatment can also speed up calculation relative to the form of fvm:div(phi, Yi).

Hope this helps.

Regards, Junwei

Mehdi3031 · April 11, 2017, 13:38

Isn't this the answer?
I know it is 2017 now!

mvConvection->fvmDiv vs fvm::div

zhangyan · April 16, 2019, 11:22

I know it is 2019 now!
But I got different results with this mvConvection.
In my solver, two additional variable is transported.
When I use separate scheme for these two variable ( fvm::div(phi, field) ), I found that the results is different with mvConvection ( mvConvection->fvmDiv(phi, field) ).
So, is there any other difference between mvConvection->fvmDiv and fvm::div?

January 24, 2009, 20:28	Hi everyone, What's the point	#1
smehdi609 Member M. Mahdi Salehi Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 50 Rep Power: 17	Hi everyone, What's the point of defining mvConvection object? why not simply using fvm:div(phi, Yi) and fvm:div(phi, h)? Thanks, Mahdi

September 15, 2010, 15:28		#2
sahm Senior Member Seyyed Ali H.M. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Utah Posts: 107 Rep Power: 17	Hello mehdi Did you get any response to this question? __________________ SAHM

August 26, 2011, 19:39	mvconvection	#5
Farshad_Noravesh Member Farshad Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 76 Rep Power: 16	Hi, I am still waiting to see the answer. Thanks, Farshad

April 16, 2019, 11:22		#8
zhangyan Senior Member Yan Zhang Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 120 Rep Power: 12	I know it is 2019 now! But I got different results with this mvConvection. In my solver, two additional variable is transported. When I use separate scheme for these two variable ( fvm::div(phi, field) ), I found that the results is different with mvConvection ( mvConvection->fvmDiv(phi, field) ). So, is there any other difference between mvConvection->fvmDiv and fvm::div? charryzzz and Rachel0096 like this. __________________ https://openfoam.top

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ReactingFoam	vassilis	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	75	September 11, 2013 16:22
DieselFoam and ReactingFoam	matteo_rosa_sentinella	OpenFOAM Pre-Processing	4	September 28, 2009 11:35
ReactingFoam solver	muthukaalai	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	1	June 16, 2008 14:36
ReactingFoam without reactions	lasb	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	5	June 10, 2008 09:50
ReactingFoam error	prashant24983	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	3	October 4, 2007 05:54

December 1, 2010, 11:45		#3
germinal New Member Björn Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Zürich Posts: 18 Rep Power: 16	ohje...... Nobody has an answer....... ??

February 11, 2011, 10:59		#4
linch Senior Member Illya Shevchuk Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Darmstadt, Germany Posts: 176 Rep Power: 17	I'm also interested at...

April 11, 2017, 13:38		#7
Mehdi3031 Member Mehdi Aminyavari Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: Milan Posts: 35 Rep Power: 10	Isn't this the answer? I know it is 2017 now! mvConvection->fvmDiv vs fvm::div