You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Putting a small mass flux Qm of the order of microgram/m2/s ( rcodcl (ifac, isca(iscal), 3) = -Qm in cs_user_boundary_conditions.f90 ) leads to zero mass fraction values, when larger values of Qm give finite values. I tried different turbulence models (k-eps, k-omega-sst) with different wall functions (2 scales + scalable with/without log laws). My y+ are quite small (<1).
Following one advice from Y.Fournier, I rewrote the routine as a volumic source term close to the emiting surface, but the problem persists.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This might be due to truncation error/numerical sensitivity aspects. If you have a small and simple test case, I could try to test this "in depth" to try to understand the behavior and provide a fix or workaround.
as a workaround, if the mass flux is very small relative to the "main" mass flux through a cell's faces, the mass fraction addition could be ignored, and a scalar concentration could be injected directly as a Neumann condition.
Putting a small mass flux Qm of the order of microgram/m2/s ( rcodcl (ifac, isca(iscal), 3) = -Qm in cs_user_boundary_conditions.f90 ) leads to zero mass fraction values, when larger values of Qm give finite values. I tried different turbulence models (k-eps, k-omega-sst) with different wall functions (2 scales + scalable with/without log laws). My y+ are quite small (<1).
Following one advice from Y.Fournier, I rewrote the routine as a volumic source term close to the emiting surface, but the problem persists.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: