fmuni / boilingFoam-PUBLIC

OpenFOAM-based solvers, libraries, and test cases for simulating boiling flows.
GNU General Public License v3.0
15 stars 7 forks source link

"compressible::turbulentTemperatureCoupledBaffleMixed" boundary condition not included in the solver #3

Open gunjansauti opened 8 months ago

gunjansauti commented 8 months ago

I have tried running the case "flowBoilingCHT_AR1_water_q100k" with OpenFoam v2306. However, I am not able to run the code, with an error "Unknown patchField type compressible::turbulentTemperatureCoupledBaffleMixed for patch type mappedWall." I

fmuni commented 8 months ago

As mentioned in the README.md, boilingFoam works with OpenFOAM-v2106. We haven't tested it for other versions and we are not currently planning to.

fmuni commented 8 months ago

Actually, you raised a good point.

I would recommend using OpenFOAM-v2006 for boilingFoam. All versions of the ESI OpenFOAM after that rank at the top of my list of most bugged software I ever had the displeasure of working with. I change the README.md accordingly.

gunjansauti commented 8 months ago

Oh sorry, I forgot that I put up a question here. The /src/thermoTools/ directory was not sourced in the icoBoilingFoam solver. After sourcing it, the solver works fine. Although I have another query. The code is able to run for Stefan case (1D), and the flow boiling case (3D). But when I try to run it for a 2D case I built (with only 1 mesh element in Z-direction), the mass source term remains (mDot) zero all the time, however, mDot0 is nonzero. Laplacian smoothing somehow creates this problem. Did you face any similar problem?

fmuni commented 8 months ago

Yes, if you want to compile and run with OpenFOAM-2312 you must add -lthermoTools in Make/options and change mesh.data:: into mesh.data() in icoBoilingFoam.

The Laplacian smoothing should not reduce mDot to zero in 2D, I have never seen that happening. The empty boundary conditions on the dummy direction preclude any diffusive flux. Check that your diffusion coefficient makes sense for your mesh.

gunjansauti commented 8 months ago

That's a good point! Thanks, I am definitely messing up the diffusion coefficient.