Hi Foamers, 

Based on the given instructions underneath, I have been able to come up with this design. Could you help confirm if the attached image to this topic looks promising or requires some modifications? Thanks 😊 

“Introduction

Finishing a small meshing task is the first possibility multi-block mesh using the blockMesh utility or Salome,

e. The task, creation of a small

Geometry

wall

outlet

cut

inlet

Z

Parameters d=50.8 mm

I=508 mm a=12.7 mm

= a/2

Description

The geometry represents half of the 2" pipe inner volume. It is composed of four building blocks. The first block (No. 1) represents the core of the pipe. The other blocks (No. 2, 3, and 4) fill the outside pipe volume.

The mesh blocks must be split by more than one cell in every direction. You can select how many cells you want to use. Apply the mesh grading, if possible.

The outside volume surfaces are called inlet, outlet, wall, and cut. Select an appropriate patch type for each surface.

The blockMesh utility writes out a log. Ensure no errors are reported.

Hint: The local coordinate system in each block should be aligned with the global coordinate system!”

I ma trying to create a thin boundary layer, to achieve a yplus <1 and I need the first cell to be positioned at 10^-5 from the wall of my 3D airfoil. I created the mesh using blockmesh and now I want to use snappyhexmesh only the add layer function.However when I do this snappyhexmesh does not generate the boundary layer. Thank you

Nicolas

I’m familiar with the experimental methods to determine the damping ratio of a material, but I’m wondering if there’s an alternative way to calculate it using mechanical properties alone.

For example, stiffness (K) can be derived using the formula K= (A*E)/L, where A is the area, E is the modulus of elasticity, and L is the length. I’m curious if there’s a similar approach for damping ratio? Assume we don't know the Damping Co-efficient or factor.

And,if you don't have the resources to conduct experiments to determine damping, are there any sources like MatWeb where we can find the damping ratios for materials?

I would like to report an issues with SnappyHexMesh when running with OpenFoam v2306. I'm currently try to run SnappyHexMesh with high mesh number structure in HPC cloud environment. Unfortunately, the process of "snappyhexmesh -overwrite" stuck and hanging at refinement phase with message "Found point (-0.001 0.0015 0.0015) in cell 40402 on processor 0". I did run this on serial processing method with VM specification 44vCPU and 315GiB of memory. I already try to run over parallels processing but it's same. Below are sequences of steps I did run and produce the message. Mesh number are define by "blockMeshDict". From my observation, this happens when I'm running with higher mesh number but if I'm lowering the number the process works fine. 

Running steps:

foamCleanPolyMesh

blockMesh

topoSet

createPatch -overwrite

surfaceFeatureExtract

# Run snappyHexMesh before decomposition

snappyHexMesh -overwrite << this steps produce the hanging process.

Hey everyone,

I’m working on a harmonic analysis simulation and have a question about splitting the frequency range.

Let’s say the frequency range I’m analyzing is from 10 Hz to 100 Hz. Instead of running the harmonic simulation for the entire range in one go, is it feasible to split the range into smaller intervals, for example:

• One simulation for 10-50 Hz, and

• Another for 50-100 Hz?

I’m trying to understand if this approach would still provide accurate results or if there are any drawbacks, particularly at the boundaries where the ranges are split. Has anyone used this method in their analysis, and if so, were there any issues with accuracy or continuity?

From my understanding, harmonic analysis calculates the steady-state response at a specific frequency. For example, consider the system at 10 Hz, assuming no damping. We know the equation is:

M(x′′)+k(x)=Fsin⁡(ωt)M(x'') + k(x) = F \sin(\omega t)M(x′′)+k(x)=Fsin(ωt)

Since 10 Hz is the starting frequency, the initial displacement at all nodes would be zero, x(t)=0x(t) = 0x(t)=0. By solving this, we get the response for this frequency.

Now, when the solver moves to 11 Hz, will it assume the initial displacement is zero again, or will it consider the solution from the previous frequency?

I’d appreciate any insights or suggestions regarding the feasibility of splitting the frequency range and how solvers handle initial conditions between different frequencies.

This is more like an open question than a fully formed topic with both question and answer.

I am running an incompressible laminar flow simulation with the pimpleFoam solver. It has two openings on one side (n1 and n2) and one on the other (n3). I have set up the pressure boundary conditions so that the flow is driven primarily by the pressure applied at n3. The flow should be changing direction halfway. Realistically, the total volume passing through an opening should be the same for the two flow direction. Yet, when I sum over the patch flow rates (postProcessing function) of the two flow directions and compare them, they are different. What could be the potential reason(s) for this phenomenon?

Following is the pressure boundary condition I set up:

/*--------------------------------*- C++ -*----------------------------------*\
  =========                 |
  \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox
   \\    /   O peration     | Website:  https://openfoam.org
    \\  /    A nd           | Version:  10
     \\/     M anipulation  |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

FoamFile
{
    version     2.0;
    format      ascii;
    class       volScalarField;
    object      p;
}
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //

dimensions      [0 2 -2 0 0 0 0];

internalField   uniform 0;

boundaryField
{
    n1
	{
		type            totalPressure;
		p0              uniform 0;  // Reference total pressure (e.g., atmospheric pressure in Pascals)
		U               U;               // Velocity field name
		phi             phi;             // Flux field name
		rho             none;            // Density, use 'none' for incompressible flow
		psi             none;            // Compressibility, use 'none' for incompressible flow
		gamma           1;               // For incompressible flow, use 1
	}

	n2
	{
		type            totalPressure;
		p0              uniform 0;  // Reference total pressure
		U               U;
		phi             phi;
		rho             none;
		psi             none;
		gamma           1;
	}


    n3
    {
		type		uniformTotalPressure;
	p0
	{
		type		sine;
		frequency	0.3333333333333333;
		amplitude	-50.0;
		level		0;
	}


    }
    walls
    {
        type            zeroGradient;
    }

    defaultFaces
    {
        type            empty;
    }

}

// ************************************************************************* //



1. Public CFD processor benchmark! 💻🚀

   
   

   
   CFDSUPPORT has initiated a benchmark that tests and compares the speed of various processors, providing crucial insights for engineering simulations. 

📊🖥️ Not just that, we're inviting academicians, professionals, and enthusiasts like YOU to contribute! Yes, ALL participants are welcome! 🙌
Your contribution will help us better understand the performance of different CPUs and their role in streamlining engineering simulations. This is a unique opportunity to be a part of a global research initiative, right from the comfort of your home or office. 🌍🏢
For a comprehensive understanding, do check out our full case study 📄 (download option available) at https://www.cfdsupport.com/motorbike-cpu-processor-benchmark.html
Help us create a more informed academic and professional community. Let's benchmark for a better tomorrow! 💪🌐
#OpenFOAM #CFDBenchmark #CPUSpeedTest #EngineeringSimulations #GlobalResearchInitiative 📚🌍🔬🖥️🚀

Hello, I am very new to CFD and simulations, I am trying to simulate the power output of a kaplan hydro turbine. I have made the geometry, but when I try to mesh it, after 15 minutes it fails. Is there any function in TCAE that I can use to check the mesh, I think it might not be water tight, but I don't know where. Also, the setup check passes without errors.

If you need any more information, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

Hello,

I tried to run the benchmark cases NACA0012 and now I am at TCAE module. I have noticed that the running time of TCAE is long and I want to accelerate it but I haven't found places to set the number of processors. Is  that means the module cannot be computed in parallel? By the way, no my CPU utilization is low but memory is full. 

Thanks for help.

Hello, I tried to run the benchmarks case DJI9450 that I downloaded from CFD SUPPORT. But the  CFD calculation failed after 100 hours running and it showns that "Application redDyMsolver failed" . And there was nothing in the error log. I haven't change anything except the number of processor. Would it be OK if I run it again?

Thanks for your help.

Hi there

I don't know if tihs would help but I was wondering if anyone can help me to apply a "opening" condition in OpenFoam, in the picture you can see almost a square, and what I have in my problem is that from a little part of the left side I have an inlet and a part of the top part I have an outlet. Also I know that my outlet takes twice the flow that goes in from the inlet, and in the right side its like a room, we have more space, so what I wanted to do is to stablish an opening boundary to make my system have air outside of that, I'm currently using a pressure of 0 and the velocity I don't know what to set, I have set "zeroGradient' "opening" "fixedGradient" "calculatedValue" and nothing work, my simulation always diverges.

I hope someone could help me, 

thanks in advance

Hello everyone,


I have questions about the calculation of circumferential angles circA by TCAE.


I have understood that, if a surface is oriented in the radial direction, circA on this surface will be the angle between the tangent and the velocity in the radial/tangential plane. According to graphical representation of the manual, circA shoud be positiv when the projection of the velocity in the radial/tangential plane points out (of the cylinder in the picture), and negativ when it points in.


Let's imagine that we are on a surface radially oriented where some back flow occurs and that the absolute velocity has a circA > 90° when there is no back-flow. In most of the cells of the surface, circA points out of the cylinder (90° < circA < 180°), but when back-flow occurs, circA points in the cylinder (-180° < circA < -90°). Thus, there are positiv and negativ values of circA at the same time, isn't it ? Therefore, because the circA are either > 90° or < -90°, in the in the interfaces-final.csv file in simulationRun1/TCFD/stationary/postProcessing/surfaceName/0/ folder, it seems to me that surface averaged value of circA is distorted.

I had this reflection because I find particularly high values of circA on some surfaces of my simulations.

Could someone confirm my interpretation ? Or explain me why it isn't true ?

Besides, does someone know how to visualize circA angles on Paraview after a calculation ?


Thanks in advance !


Zacharie

Hi,

I installed OF4Win-20.09v2-win64.exe on my Windows PC. I am interested in using swak4Foam to set specific boundary conditions in my case. Do I need to compile it or what would be the necessary steps?

Thank you.