reactingtwophaseeulerfoam?
-
@东岳 If I understand well, equation (24) was changed by the sum of two mass conservation equation. However I must add that term in the mass conservation equation. So the position I implemented the laplacian term is right? The mass conservation equation shown in picture is our own equation.
-
@东岳 Thanks, if the sum of that two term is zero, so there cannot exist any problem during the simulation. why I use the sign "plus", it crashed while 'minus' run well? And if I changed the phase2.turbulence.nut() to be nu() a constant, "plus" has no problem?
-
@东岳 Frankly, I use the minus sign and I got the results however they doesn't agree well with the results from PHOENICS. The velocity profile seems shift in some degree. So I would like to try "plus" this term. I am not sure the place I added is right or not. When I change one to be plus and the other to be minus, it runs well and the results seems better.
-
@东岳 I am using IPSA model (lauder and spalding). In all of equation used, the alpha term has been introduced inside.
http://www.cham.co.uk/phoenics/d_polis/d_lecs/ipsa/ipsa.htm#11 -
@东岳 Sorry. I am still confused that how the equation(24) mentioned in your page could be solved in OpenFoam. In the source code:
solve ( pEqnComp1() + pEqnComp2() + pEqnIncomp, mesh.solver(p_rgh.select(pimple.finalInnerIter())) );
why
pEqnComp1() + pEqnComp2() + pEqnIncomp
ranther than- pEqnComp1() - pEqnComp2() + pEqnIncomp
. Because in your equation(24), pEqnComp1() + pEqnComp2() in the right side while pEqnIncomp in the left side.
15/23