Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Do we need separate two-phase solver? #9

Open
robertsawko opened this issue Jan 31, 2016 · 1 comment
Open

Do we need separate two-phase solver? #9

robertsawko opened this issue Jan 31, 2016 · 1 comment
Labels
help wanted question

Comments

@robertsawko
Copy link
Owner

I am growing more and more confident that we do need a separate two phase solver which works with PBEDiameter. Currently we are combining twoPhaseEulerFoam with PBE library to deliver new models, but this has several drawbacks which I will keep listing here:

  • redundant solution of phase continuity equation,
  • inconsistent properties, especially surface tension (surface tension is used in interfacial calculations, but in breakup/coalescence models).
@robertsawko robertsawko changed the title Do we need separate two-phase solver foam? Do we need separate two-phase solver? Jan 31, 2016
@robertsawko
Copy link
Owner Author

Perhaps this is not necessary. The redundancy can be removed by not solving one fewer equation in PBE.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted question
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@robertsawko