1 / 26

Comparison of Interface Capturing Methods using OpenFOAM 4 th OpenFOAM Workshop 4 June 2009

Comparison of Interface Capturing Methods using OpenFOAM 4 th OpenFOAM Workshop 4 June 2009 Montreal, Canada Sean M. McIntyre, Michael P. Kinzel, Jules W. Lindau Applied Research Laboratory, Penn State University.

rodd
Download Presentation

Comparison of Interface Capturing Methods using OpenFOAM 4 th OpenFOAM Workshop 4 June 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparison of Interface Capturing Methods using OpenFOAM 4thOpenFOAM Workshop 4 June 2009 Montreal, Canada Sean M. McIntyre, Michael P. Kinzel, Jules W. Lindau Applied Research Laboratory, Penn State University This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research, contract #N00014-07-1-0134, with Dr. Kam Ng as contract monitor.

  2. Outline • Background • Motivation • Interface Capturing • Numerical Approach • Volume of Fluid • Level Set Methods • Test Cases • Summary

  3. Background: Motivation • Supercavitating vehicle simulation • Drag reduction • Performance predictions • Vehicle dynamics • Ventilation gas required • Methods of cavity formation • Ventilation • Air ventilated • Vaporous • Water boils

  4. Background: Interface Capturing • Interface tracking • Conforming mesh • Issues • Breaking waves • Sub-grid mixing • Interface capturing • Scalar variable • Identify species: volume fraction, mass fraction, concentration, signed distance functions • Improvements • Breaking interfaces • Sub-grid mixing

  5. Outline • Background • Motivation • Interface Capturing • Numerical Approach • Volume of Fluid • Level Set Methods • Test Cases • Summary

  6. Numerical Approach: Volume of Fluid • OpenFOAM uses MULES-VOF • Phase fraction: • Limited/conservative solution to: • Advantages • Conserves species mass • Single scalar equation • Allows sub-grid mixing • Disadvantages • Interface smearing (for sharp interface problems) • Homogeneous mixing

  7. Numerical Approach: interFoam with Level-Set Time Step • Simple extension from VOF • g-equation level-set transport (Olsson & Kreiss 2005, Olsson et al. 2007) • Φ-analytically equivalent for incompressible flows(Kinzel, 2008 & Kinzel et al. 2009) • Various reinitialization schemes explored • Volume fraction field: g-based (Olsson et al. 2007, Kinzel 2008) • Signed Distance Function: f-based (Sussman et al. 1994, Kinzel 2008) Species Mass Conservation & Level-set transport equation: g Eqn. Momentum Predictor: UEqn Pressure Poisson Eqn.: pEqn Momentum Corrector Reinitilization Procedure

  8. Numerical Approach: Advantages/Disadvantages VOF-based level-set methods • Advantages • Easy extension from VOF code • Conservative variable basis • Extensions to other flows (Kinzel 2008, Kinzel et al. 2009) • Cavitation/Boiling • Compressible-multiphase flows • Mass-conservation issues obvious • Alleviation (Olsson & Kreiss 2005, Olsson et al. 2007) • Arbitrary number of species • Straightforward boundary conditions • Disadvantages • Numerical accuracy: Only relevant at the interface

  9. Numerical Approach: Reinitilization Approaches • Signed-Distance Function (Sussman et al. 1994) • Using variable transformations (Kinzel 2008) • Mass conserving (Olsson et al. 2007) • Only need to reinitialize the gamma field Reinitilization LS-1: (Sussman et al. 1994) Transform g→f: Reinitialize f: Transform f →g: • Notes: • Approximating Heaviside as: • e is 0.5 interface thickness • Consistency with original • H is given when k ~ 0.379 Reinitilization LS-2: (Olsson et al. 2007)

  10. Numerical Approach: Reinitilization Approaches • Signed-Distance Function • Without variable transformations (Kinzel 2008) • Realizable Scaled (Kinzel 2008, Kinzel et al. 2009) • Algebraic sharpening. No solution to PDE! Reinitilization LS-3: (Kinzel 2008) where: • Notes: • Approximating Heaviside as: • e is 0.5 interface thickness • Consistency with original • H is given when k ~ 0.379 • Notes: • Neglecting smeared mass • e2 is amount neglected Reinitilization LS-4: (Kinzel 2008)

  11. Numerical Approach: Reinitilization Approaches • Numerical solution to reinitilization • Pseudo time reinitialization • 4 Stage Runge-Kutta method • OpenFOAMfvc constructs used – adopts parallel capability • Stable solution highly dependent on fvScheme • Periodic reinitialization • Initialized every 1/flstimesteps • Improves stability and mass conservation • Relaxing reinitilization (Kinzel et al. 2009) • Notes: • m*: after gEqn • m+1/2: after reinitialization

  12. Outline • Background • Motivation • Interface Capturing • Numerical Approach • Volume of Fluid • Level Set Methods • Test Cases • Summary

  13. Test Cases: Dam Break • Mass conservation • Wave propagation • Sub-grid mixing Black: Sussman (SDF Level-Set) Gray: Sussman w/ VOF (LS-1) Pink: Olssen (LS-2) Yellow: Transformed (LS-3) Green: Realizable (LS-4) Background: VOF

  14. Test Cases: Dam Break

  15. Test Cases: Dam Break • Initial Wave • Captured with all methods • Subsequent events • Level-set -> mass loss • Scheme/parameter dependent • VOF ->Mass conserved

  16. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil • Mass conservation • Effect of level set parameters • Mixed conditions • Sharp interface • Sub-grid mixing • Parameters: • 1 x 3 meter domain • 50 x 150 cells • Water drop radius = 0.25 m • ρwater= 1000 kg/m3 • μwater = 0.001 kg/(m-s) • ρoil= 850 kg/m3 • μoil = 0.0272 kg/(m-s) • g = 9.81 m/s2 • Surface tension = 0 Black: Sussman (SDF Level-Set) Gray: Sussman w/ VOF (LS-1) Pink: Olssen (LS-2) Yellow: Transformed (LS-3) Green: Realizable (LS-4) Background: VOF

  17. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil LS-2 LS-4 LS-1 LS-3

  18. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil • SDF Sharpening w/ VOF transport (LS-1) • ε has effect when fls=1 and fr=1 • Damping and periodic reinitialization help

  19. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil • Mass-Conserving (LS-2) • ε increases conservation • Damping and periodic reinitialization lowered conservation

  20. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil • Transformed SDF Sharpening w/ VOF transport (LS-3) • ε has effect when fls=1 • Damping and periodic reinitialization help

  21. Test Cases: 2-D Water Drop in Oil • Realizable-Scaled (LS-4) • Higher ε clips more, conserves less • Damping and periodic reinitialization help

  22. Test Cases: Submerged Hydrofoil • Free surface flows • Sharp interface • Level-Set sharpening • Signed DistanceBoundary Conditions

  23. Outline • Background • Motivation • Interface Capturing • Numerical Approach • Volume of Fluid • Level Set Methods • Test Cases • Summary

  24. Summary • Compared Interface Capturing Methods • Using simple test cases • Volume of Fluid Vs. Level Set Methods • Test Cases • Dam Break: • Level-set methods: nice initial wave, mass conservation issues. Olssen method best of level set schemes. • VOF: Performs well • Water drop in Oil: • Level-set methods: good until breakup, mass conservation issues. Olssen method best of level set schemes. • VOF: Performs well • Duncan submerged hydrofoil: • Level-set methods: Good results. BC difficulties. Olssen method best of level set schemes. • VOF Performs well, more diffuse and less experimental agreement than Olssen

  25. Summary • Conclusions • Clearly problem dependent • VOF all around best approach • Olssen conserves mass well, best of level-set methods. • Realizable scaling is cheaper, and performs similar to SDF methods • Future • Level-set parameter space • Performance on unstructured meshes • Reinitialization: performance/mass conservation

  26. References • Sussman, M., Smereka, P., and Osher, S. 1994. A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow. J. Comput. Phys. 114, 1 (Sep. 1994), 146-159. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1155 • Olsson, E., Kreiss, G., and Zahedi, S. 2007. A conservative level set method for two phase flow II. J. Comput. Phys. 225, 1 (Jul. 2007), 785-807. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.12.027 • Olsson, E. and Kreiss, G. 2005. A conservative level set method for two phase flow. J. Comput. Phys. 210, 1 (Nov. 2005), 225-246. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.04.007 • Kinzel, M. P. Computational Techniques and Analysis of Cavitating-Fluid Flows. Dissertation in Aerospace Engineering, University Park, PA, USA : The Pennsylvania State University, May 2008. • Kinzel, M. P. Lindau, J.W., and Kunz, R.F.,”A Level-Set Approach for Compressible, Multiphase Fluid Flows with Mass Transfer,” AIAA CFD Conference, San Antonio TC, USA, June 2009.

More Related