0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

290 visualizzazioni17 pagineDiv(((Rho*NuEff)*Dev2(T(Grad(U)))))

Mar 06, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

Div(((Rho*NuEff)*Dev2(T(Grad(U)))))

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

290 visualizzazioni17 pagineDiv(((Rho*NuEff)*Dev2(T(Grad(U)))))

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

[Sponsors]

Home

News

Forums

Wiki

Links

Jobs

Books

Events

Tools

Feeds

About

Search

Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Welcome, bahakumaty.

Calculating divDevReff You last visited: January 11, 2019 at 10:45

Private Messages: Unread 0, Total 0.

USER PANEL BLOGS FAQ COMMUNITY NEW POSTS UPDATED THREADS SEARCH QUICK LINKS LOG OUT

79 Likes

PAGE 1 OF 4 1 2 3 > Last »

LINKBACK THREAD TOOLS SEARCH THIS THREAD RATE THREAD DISPLAY MODES

jposunz Hi All,

New Member

I'm using simpleFoam and turbFoam with k-epsilon and will be trying different turbulence models in the future.

John O\'Sullivan

Join Date: Mar 2009

Before that though, I'm trying to understand the implementation exactly.

Location: Auckland, New

Zealand I've searched a lot and I don't understand why the calculation for turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

Posts: 7

Rep Power: 11

divDevReff(U) =

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

instead of:

divDevReff(U) =

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T())

I've read several papers including Hrvoje's "A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using

object-oriented techniques" and still haven't found an answer.

John

Like

1 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

jposunz Anyone? Or should I have been able to find this in the literature somewhere already?

New Member

July 16, 2009, 16:59 #3

Like

John O\'Sullivan

louisgag

Join Date: Mar 2009 Hi John,

Location: Auckland, New

Senior Member

Zealand

did you find the answer to that? If so I'd be curious to know what it is. Thanks!

Posts: 7

Rep Power: 11

-Louis

Like

Louis Gagnon

Join Date: Mar 2009

Location: Milano, Italy

Posts: 264

Rep Power: 12

jet Hi,

New Member

have you already found an answer to your question? I tried to understand this equation, too. But I failed!

Join Date: Nov 2009

Posts: 12

Rep Power: 11 Like

Senior Member

dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Join Date: Mar 2009

Location: Milano, Italy

Posts: 264 -Louis

Rep Power: 12

Like

4xF fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T())) and fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T()) are the same. The reason is that

New Member the missing term is the diagonal of the tensor fvc::grad(U)().T() which is the trace of fvc::grad(U)().T() which is

div(phi). For an incompressible fluid, this value is strictly zero by virtue of mass conservation.

Frank Albina

Join Date: Mar 2009

Location: Switzerland Like

Posts: 14

Rep Power: 11 Tushar@cfd, sharonyue, shang and 2 others like this.

2 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

mchurchf John,

Member

I don't know if anyone has answered your question yet, but I've come across the same thing, and I have

Matthew J. Churchfield

Join Date: Nov 2009

questions about the incompressible implementation of divDevReff also. As you said, in the incompressible

Location: Boulder, Colorado, models, turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

USA

Posts: 49 - fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

Rep Power: 13

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Shouldn't dev2 be used instead of dev? In the compressible models, that is the case as

turbulence->divDevRhoReff is:

- fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)

- fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

d/dx_j {nu_eff*(du_i/dx_j+du_j/dx_i)} - 2/3*d/dx_i {nu_eff(du_k/dx_k)}

laplacian(nu_eff*U)

+ div{nu_eff*transpose[grad(U)]}

- div{2/3*nu_eff*I*trace[transpose(grad(U))]}

laplacian(nu_eff*U) + div{nu_eff*dev2(transpose[grad(U)])}

Notice that dev2 is here instead of dev, which agrees with the compressible coding. However, in the

incompressible coding, dev is used, which seem incorrect.

Now, the du_k/dx_k = trace[transpose(grad(U))] should be equal to zero in incompressible flow due to the

continuity equation, so it seems that it should not matter if dev or dev2 is used. However, in the PISO

algorithm, velocity may be predicted from a field that does not satisfy continuity due to initial conditions or

insufficient pressure correction, so it seems like it would be wise to keep du_k/dx_k.

I am wondering if dev2 is an addition to OpenFOAM 1.6 and the incompressible divDevReff (and divDevBeff

for LES) didn't get updated to reflect the change. Can someone with the correct knowledge please help?

Thank you,

Matt

Quote:

Hi All,

I'm using simpleFoam and turbFoam with k-epsilon and will be trying different turbulence models in

the future. Before that though, I'm trying to understand the implementation exactly.

I've searched a lot and I don't understand why the calculation for turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

3 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

divDevReff(U) =

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

instead of:

divDevReff(U) =

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*fvc::grad(U)().T())

I've read several papers including Hrvoje's "A tensorial approach to computational continuum

mechanics using object-oriented techniques" and still haven't found an answer.

John

Like

christju Hello,

New Member In fact, I've come across the same thing and I found the same conclusion than you Matthew...

The reynolds stress tensor is defined as :

Julien Christophe

-rho u'_i u'_j = 2 mu_t S_ij - 2/3 rho k delta_ij

Join Date: Nov 2009

Posts: 4

Rep Power: 11 where k = (u'_i u'_i) /2 is the kinetic energy, and S_ij is the deviatoric part of the mean strain rate :

S_ij = 1/2 (du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i) - 1/3 d_uk/dx_k delta_ij

As you said Matthew, the stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:

d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

And in fact, from my point of view, a 2 is missing in the implementation of turbulence->divDevReff(U) of the

incompressible model....

My other question is :

Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account?

Is it through a modified pressure defined as P = p/rho+2/3k and solved in the pressure equation?

And then, what is writen in the output files? this modified pressure?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Julien

Like

4 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

poplar Hi,mchurchf.

New Member

The complete form of div(StressTensor)is:

pop

Join Date: Feb 2010

div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)())) + div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Posts: 12 So -1/3*I*trace(A) is lncluded in both dev(grad(U)) and dev(grad(U).T()),

Rep Power: 11

in fact,

laplacian(nuEff(), U) = div(muEff()*grad(U)) =div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U))) + 1/3*I*trace(A)

as a result, one 1/3*I*trace(A) is addded in laplacian(nuEff(), U), so a minus one must be subtracted in the

later term.

then,dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

du_k/dx_k in incompressible fluids may be removed. If one retains it for correction, 1/3 or 2/3 is only a scale

factor.

Quote:

John,

I don't know if anyone has answered your question yet, but I've come across the same thing, and I

have questions about the incompressible implementation of divDevReff also. As you said, in the

incompressible models, turbulence->divDevReff(U) is:

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

Shouldn't dev2 be used instead of dev? In the compressible models, that is the case as

turbulence->divDevRhoReff is:

- fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)

- fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

A-1/3*I*trace(A) and dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

d/dx_j {nu_eff*(du_i/dx_j+du_j/dx_i)} - 2/3*d/dx_i {nu_eff(du_k/dx_k)}

laplacian(nu_eff*U)

+ div{nu_eff*transpose[grad(U)]}

- div{2/3*nu_eff*I*trace[transpose(grad(U))]}

laplacian(nu_eff*U) + div{nu_eff*dev2(transpose[grad(U)])}

Notice that dev2 is here instead of dev, which agrees with the compressible coding. However, in the

incompressible coding, dev is used, which seem incorrect.

Now, the du_k/dx_k = trace[transpose(grad(U))] should be equal to zero in incompressible flow due

to the continuity equation, so it seems that it should not matter if dev or dev2 is used. However, in

the PISO algorithm, velocity may be predicted from a field that does not satisfy continuity due to

initial conditions or insufficient pressure correction, so it seems like it would be wise to keep

du_k/dx_k.

I am wondering if dev2 is an addition to OpenFOAM 1.6 and the incompressible divDevReff (and

divDevBeff for LES) didn't get updated to reflect the change. Can someone with the correct

knowledge please help?

Thank you,

5 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Matt

Like

T.D. Hi guys

Senior Member i need to add (implement) and use a new nuEff2(), how to do that?

where to add the new nuEff() ?

Join Date: Sep 2010

Location: France

Posts: 226 i tried but it's hard, since it was only one original "nu" defined in all the transportModels and viscosityModels,

Rep Power: 11 and is hard to change in all the files.

help please

Like

Senior Member

Like

Join Date: Jul 2011

Posts: 117 Last edited by haze_1986; October 27, 2012 at 07:35.

Rep Power: 9

haze_1986 Quote:

Senior Member

Originally Posted by poplar

Join Date: Jul 2011 Hi,mchurchf.

Posts: 117

Rep Power: 9

The complete form of div(StressTensor)is:

div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)())) + div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

So -1/3*I*trace(A) is lncluded in both dev(grad(U)) and dev(grad(U).T()),

in fact,

laplacian(nuEff(), U) = div(muEff()*grad(U)) =div(muEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U))) + 1/3*I*trace(A)

as a result, one 1/3*I*trace(A) is addded in laplacian(nuEff(), U), so a minus one must be subtracted

in the later term.

then,dev2(A) = A-2/3*I*trace(A).

du_k/dx_k in incompressible fluids may be removed. If one retains it for correction, 1/3 or 2/3 is only

a scale factor.

Hi, that sounds correct, but I do not understand why for the compressible case divDevRhoReff(U), dev2 is

6 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

used instead?

http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...sonicfoam.html

Like

MatzeS Hello,

New Member

although it's some time ago and several replies were posted, I still don't understand, if the implementation is

Matthias Stammen

Join Date: Oct 2010

correct...

Posts: 8

Rep Power: 10 Don't we have to use dev2() instead of dev() for the incompressible solvers (at least until convergence is

reached)?

Or did I just miss the correct reply?

Regards,

Matthias

Like

galap Quote:

Member

Originally Posted by christju

Fabian E. Hello,

Join Date: Nov 2009 In fact, I've come across the same thing and I found the same conclusion than you Matthew...

Posts: 37

Rep Power: 11 The reynolds stress tensor is defined as :

-rho u'_i u'_j = 2 mu_t S_ij - 2/3 rho k delta_ij

where k = (u'_i u'_i) /2 is the kinetic energy, and S_ij is the deviatoric part of the mean strain rate :

S_ij = 1/2 (du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i) - 1/3 d_uk/dx_k delta_ij

As you said Matthew, the stress term in the incompressible momentum equation is as follows:

d/dx_j {nu_eff*[(du_i/dx_j + du_j/dx_i)-2/3*du_k/dx_k delta_ij]},

of the incompressible model....

My other question is :

Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account?

Is it through a modified pressure defined as P = p/rho+2/3k and solved in the pressure equation?

And then, what is writen in the output files? this modified pressure?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Julien

Exactly reprint of my doubts. The issue in the incompressible is not the problem for me - since I am dealing

with compressible flows. There the implementation seems to be correct. But what I don't see:

Where the term "- 2/3 rho k delta_ij" of the Reynold stress is taken into account? Has anyone find the answer?

Like

7 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Tobi Hi all,

Super Moderator

as I read before, there are still some people who are confused about the equations and the behavior of the

implemented code. Therefore, I want to make the derivations and want to show you that the implementation is correct

for both cases. We consider compressible and incompressible fluids. Further more I only take into account laminar

flow and explain the way to get to divDevRhoReff and divDevReff.

Note: A complete derivation can be found in my public book with more hints and comparison with the c++

Tobias Holzmann code.

Join Date: Oct 2010

Location: Augsburg

Posts: 2,186 Momentum equation

Blog Entries: 6

Rep Power: 37

Lets start with the obvious momentum equation:

Due to the fact that everyone are more or less familiar with the equations, I do not mention the variables meaning. For

the further proceeding I do not consider body forces. If we have newtonian fluid the stress tensor can be expressed

as:

Combining both, and neglect all other body forces, we end up with:

Now it can be shown that the first term is the gradient of the pressure:

The second term at the RHS is often symboled with and stand for the viscose part of the stress tensor (normally

without the divergence symbol):

This guy is calculated by calling the function divDevRhoReff(U) or divDevReff(U). Now I will show that the

implemented functions are correct.

8 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Compressible

In compressible flow we have the full viscose stress tensor. Now I demonstrate that this term is exactly the

divDevRhoReff(U) function. Lets start to modify the equation (again step by step). But first I want to introduce the

necessary math operation. denotes an arbitary vector:

using this formula and sorting the equation, we get the following:

Thats it. If we call turbulence->divDevRhoReff() we will exactly get this equation. Using a substituion for the gradient

of the transponed velocity field, the name of the function dev2 gets clearer:

Now we see, that the second term include the deviatoric part of the matrix (gradU). In compressible we call the dev2

due to the fact that the factor 2 is in the trace. To proove the equation, we can check out the code in the compressible

tubulence file (laminar.C): http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp...ce.html#l00219

Code:

221 return

222 (

223 - fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)

224 - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))

225 );

226 }

Code:

fvm::laplacian(muEff, U)

is equal to

Code:

224 - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))

9 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

At least dev2 calculates exactly the deviatoric part. The code is here: http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp

/a08631_source.html

Code:

303 //- Return the deviatoric part of a symmetric tensor 304 template<class Cmpt>

305 inline SymmTensor<Cmpt> dev2(const SymmTensor<Cmpt>& st)

306 {

307 return st - SphericalTensor<Cmpt>::twoThirdsI*tr(st);

308 }

Incompressible

For incompressible fluids (devide by ) we again start with the viscous stress tensor :

Hence, the density is constant the first term (underlined) at the RHS is zero due to the mass conservation equation:

So there is no deviatoric part till now. But in FOAM we calculate the viscouse part of the stress tensor using

divDevReff. Now we add the hydrostatic part multiply by the viscosity and substract it again:

it follows:

The last term is zero due to mass conservation and can be removed:

We end up with:

Again we have the laplacian term and again the deviatoric part (here calcated with oneThird, so the correct definition

of dev).

10 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Code:

{

return

(

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(T(fvc::grad(U))))

);

}

The code for the deviatoric part (dev()) is equal to dev2. The only difference is the factor 2/3 which is introduced by

the divergence term as shown before.

Additionally I hope it makes stuff clearer and help anybody to get a better understanding how things work.

Kind regards

Like

__________________

Keep foaming,

Tobias Holzmann

Last edited by Tobi; April 27, 2017 at 04:37. Reason: mu = nu in incompressible; Sign mistake and renamed phi to a because phi = scalar

normally

ssherman Tobi,

New Member

Thanks for the clear and concise explanation. However, in the incompressible case, there are a few places where

Join Date: Feb 2015

mass conservation can be invoked to set terms to zero, but are not. Why do we set the terms that we do to zero?

Posts: 2

Rep Power: 0

I ask because nonNewtonianIcoFoam does not compute the viscous terms through divDevReff. Instead it goes

through a couple more steps (that appear valid to me) to get to an alternate expression:

Code:

In the thread below, I show that the two forms yield noticeably different results for a model problem on a highly non-

Newtonian fluid.

http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...tml#post555712

Thanks,

Steve

Like

11 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Tobi Hi,

Super Moderator

why we set some term (that could be set to zero) not to zero is the way I derivated the equations (:

If we will go straight forward there is no need to do this. See below.

Like

__________________

Keep foaming,

Tobias Holzmann

Join Date: Oct 2010 Tobias Holzmann

Location: Augsburg

Posts: 2,186 Last edited by Tobi; August 6, 2015 at 04:05. Reason: Reject the formulation...

Blog Entries: 6

Rep Power: 37

Tobi Hi all,

Super Moderator

the derivation is correct but not straight forward from the beginning. If I have time I will make a PDF where

everything is straight forward. Then you can see why once we have 1/3 and the other time 2/3 and its not due

to the fact that we extend a equation (like I did in the incompressible case). Of course, like I showed it is

possible to derivate the 2/3 and 1/3 like I did but as I mentioned it is not straight forward.

Like

Tobias Holzmann

Join Date: Oct 2010 __________________

Location: Augsburg Keep foaming,

Posts: 2,186 Tobias Holzmann

Blog Entries: 6

Rep Power: 37

Member

Like

Fabian E.

Join Date: Nov 2009

Posts: 37

Tobi likes this.

Rep Power: 11

October 23,

#20

2015, 08:35

syavash Quote:

Senior

Member Originally Posted by Tobi

Hi all,

Ehsan

Asgari

Join Date: as I read before, there are still some people who are confused about the equations and the behavior of the

Apr 2010 implemented code. Therefore, I want to make the derivations and want to show you that the implementation is correct

Posts: 366

12 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Rep Power:

11 for both cases. We consider compressible and incompressible fluids. Further more I only take into account laminar

flow and explain the way to get to divDevRhoReff and divDevReff.

Momentum equation

Due to the fact that everyone are more or less familiar with the equations, I do not mention the variables meaning. For

the further proceeding I do not consider body forces. If we have newtonian fluid the stress tensor can be expressed

as:

Combining both, and neglect all other body forces, we end up with:

Now it can be shown that the first term is the gradient of the pressure:

The second term at the RHS is often symboled with and stand for the viscose part of the stress tensor (normally

without the divergence symbol):

This guy is calculated by calling the function divDevRhoReff(U) or divDevReff(U). Now I will show that the

implemented functions are correct.

Compressible

In compressible flow we have the full viscose stress tensor. Now I demonstrate that this term is exactly the

divDevRhoReff(U) function. Lets start to modify the equation (again step by step). But first I want to introduce the

necessary math operation. denotes an arbitary vector:

13 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

using this formula and sorting the equation, we get the following:

Thats it. If we call turbulence->divDevRhoReff() we will exactly get this equation. Using a substituion for the gradient

of the transponed velocity field, the name of the function dev2 gets clearer:

Now we see, that the second term include the deviatoric part of the matrix (gradU). In compressible we call the dev2

due to the fact that the factor 2 is in the trace. To proove the equation, we can check out the code in the compressible

tubulence file (laminar.C): http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp...ce.html#l00219

Code:

221 return

222 (

223 - fvm::laplacian(muEff(), U)

224 - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))

225 );

226 }

Code:

fvm::laplacian(muEff, U)

is equal to

Code:

224 - fvc::div(muEff()*dev2(T(fvc::grad(U))))

At least dev2 calculates exactly the deviatoric part. The code is here: http://foam.sourceforge.net/docs/cpp

/a08631_source.html

Code:

303 //- Return the deviatoric part of a symmetric tensor 304 template<class Cmpt>

305 inline SymmTensor<Cmpt> dev2(const SymmTensor<Cmpt>& st)

306 {

14 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

308 }

Incompressible

For incompressible fluids (devide by ) we again start with the viscous stress tensor :

Hence, the density is constant the first term (underlined) at the RHS is zero due to the mass conservation equation:

So there is no deviatoric part till now. But in FOAM we calculate the viscouse part of the stress tensor using

divDevReff. Now we add the hydrostatic part multiply by the viscosity and substract it again:

it follows:

The last term is zero due to mass conservation and can be removed:

We end up with:

Again we have the laplacian term and again the deviatoric part (here calcated with oneThird, so the correct definition

of dev).

Code:

{

return

15 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

(

- fvm::laplacian(nuEff(), U)

- fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(T(fvc::grad(U))))

);

}

The code for the deviatoric part (dev()) is equal to dev2. The only difference is the factor 2/3 which is introduced by

the divergence term as shown before.

Additionally I hope it makes stuff clearer and help anybody to get a better understanding how things work.

Kind regards

Dear Tobias,

I suppose that a deviatoric tensor should be trace-free, while you have added the trace to the original tensor in the following

part:

Thanks,

Syavash

Like

None

Quick Reply

16 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM

Calculating divDevReﬀ -- CFD Online Discussion ... https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam-sol...

Quick Reply

Message:

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

Options

Posting Rules

You may post replies

You may post attachments

You may edit your posts

BB code is On

Smilies are On

[IMG] code is On

HTML code is Off

Trackbacks are On

Pingbacks are On

Refbacks are On Forum Jump

Forum Rules OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD Go

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post

© CFD Online

17 of 17 2/8/19, 9:00 AM