Eulerian vs Lagrangian Method for Low Computational Resources: A Comparison of 2D Dam Break Case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2023.5539Keywords:
Eulerian method, Lagrangian, Low computational resources, 2D dam break, OpenFOAM, Finite volume particle methodAbstract
It is well known that computational fluid dynamics has been challenging for low-computational-resourced students and researchers. In this study, we performed a 2D dam break simulation by Eulerian approach-finite volume method of OpenFOAM and Lagrangian approach-finite volume particle method (FVP) in a low-specification personal computer. We compared those approaches’ results qualitatively and quantitatively against experimental data and measured their simulation time for 6 different grid sizes. We compared the visualization results and their pressure and velocity using ParaView and VisIt. At the same time, a quantitative comparison was made by determining the waterfront position each time using the Tracker video analyzer. It was found that OpenFOAM resulted in better visualization results, lower error by 28 - 68 %, and more reasonable pressure and velocity profiles. It can also simulate smaller grid sizes and 10 to 200 times faster than FVP, but it can’t produce the air-liquid interface’s sharpness as good as FVP. Thus, to simulate cases where interfaces are not important, Eulerian-based OpenFOAM is best suited to perform in a low-specification computer.
HIGHLIGHTS
- One of the main challenge in CFD is that it needs a huge computational resources to get optimum results. For students or researchers with limited computational resources, which approaches can they used?
- Two approaches in CFD: Eulerian and Lagrangian methods-represented by OpenFOAM and Finite Volume Particle Method (FVP)-were performed in a personal laptop to simulate 2D dam break problem and their results are compared with the experimental data
- Qualitative and quantitative comparison shows that OpenFOAM is well suited for low computational resources users. However, FVP method has an advantage in terms of capturing the interface of the two phases involved in simulation. Thus, for phase-change phenomena where interface is important, it is strongly recommended to use FVP-though one might need a more sophisticated resources than a personal laptop
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
Downloads
References
B Blocken. Computational Fluid dynamics for urban physics: Importance, scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable simulations. Build. Environ. 2015; 91, 219-245.
S Peng, Q Chen and E Liu. The role of computational fluid dynamics tools on investigation of pathogen transmission: Prevention and control. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 746, 142090.
B Xia and DW Sun. Applications of computational fluid dynamics (cfd) in the food industry: A review. Comput. Electron. Agr. 2002; 34, 5-24.
E Wicklein, DJ Batstone, J Ducoste, J Laurent, A Griborio, J Wicks, S Saunders, R Samstag, O Potier and I Nopens. Good modelling practice in applying computational fluid dynamics for WWTP modelling. Water Sci. Tech. 2016; 73, 969-82.
M Wang, Y Wang, W Tian, S Qiu and GH Su. Recent progress of CFD applications in PWR thermal hydraulics study and future directions. Ann. Nucl. Energ. 2021; 150, 107836.
A Bahatmaka, DJ Kim and Y Zhang. Verification of CFD method for meshing analysis on the propeller performance with OpenFOAM. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Computing, Electronics & Communications Engineering, Southend. 2018, p. 302-6.
DJ Benson. Computational methods in lagrangian and eulerian hydrocodes. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 1992; 99, 235-394.
P Kopyt and W Gwarek. A comparison of commercial CFD software capable of coupling to external electromagnetic software for modeling of microwave heating process. In: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar Computer Modeling & Microwave Power Engineering, Texas. 2004, p. 33-9.
OpenFOAM, Available at: https://openfoam.org, accessed July 2022.
HK Versteeg and W Malalasekera. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics. Longman, London, 1995.
JJ Monaghan. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Rep. Progr. Phys. 2005; 68, 1703.
S Koshizuka and Y Oka. Moving-particle semi-implicit method for fragmentation of incompressible fluid. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 2017; 123, 421-34.
S Hibi, K Yabushita and T Tsutsui. Study on incompressible fluid analysis by three-dimensional particle method with finite volume techniques. EPJ Web Conferences 2022; 269, 01020.
X Liu, R Ogawa, M Kato, K Morita and S Zhang. Accuracy and stability enhancements in the incompressible finite-volume-particle method for multiphase flow simulations. Comput. Phys. Comm. 2018; 230, 59-69.
T Zhang, K Funakoshi, X Liu, W Liu, K Morita and K Kamiyama. Numerical simulation of heat transfer behavior in EAGLE ID1 in-pile test using finite volume particle method. Ann. Nucl. Energ. 2021; 150, 107856.
Q Zhang, J Zhang and Z Sun. Optimal convergence rate of the explicit Euler method for convection-diffusion equations. Appl. Math. Lett. 2022; 131, 108048.
M Babanezhad, AT Nakhjiri, M Rezakazemi and S Shirazian. Developing intelligent algorithm as a machine learning overview over the big data generated by euler-euler method to simulate bubble column reactor hydrodynamics. ACS Omega 2020; 5, 20558-66.
L Bertolotti, R Jefferson-Loveday, S Ambrose and E Korsukova. A comparison of VOF and Euler-Euler approaches in CFD modelling of two-phase flows with a sharp interface. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2020: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, London. 2020.
EJ Ching, SR Brill, M Barnhardt and M Ihme. A two-way coupled Euler-Lagrange method for simulating multiphase flows with discontinuous Galerkin schemes on arbitrary curved elements. J. Comput. Phys. 2020; 405, 109096.
A Legay, J Chessa and T Belytschko. An eulerian-lagrangian method for fluid-structure interaction based on level sets. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 2006; 195, 2070-87.
CW Hirt, AA Amsden and JL Cook. An arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian computing method for all flow speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 1974; 14, 227-53.
M Rakhsha, CE Kees and D Negrut. Lagrangian vs. Eulerian: An analysis of two solution methods for free-surface flows and fluid solid interaction problems. Fluids 2021; 6, 460.
PE Rodríguez-Ocampo, M Ring, JV Hernández-Fontes, JC Alcérreca-Huerta, E Mendoza and R Silva. CFD simulations of multiphase flows: Interaction of miscible liquids with different temperatures. Water 2020; 12, 2581.
E Sánchez-Cordero, M Gómez and E Bladé. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of a dam-break using OpenFOAM. Proc. Inst. Syst. Program. RAS 2017; 29, 311-20.
R Eymard, T Gallouët and RE Herbin. Finite volume methods. HAL open science, Lyon, France, 2019, p. 1-236.
X Su, J Zhang, MY Zhao and H Zhang. Numerical and Experimental Investigations on the Hydrodynamic Performance of a Tidal Current Turbine. IOP Conf. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017; 280, 012001.
L Guo, Y Kawano, S Zhang, T Suzuki, K Morita and K Fukuda. Numerical simulation of rheological behavior in melting metal using finite volume particle method. J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 2010; 47, 1011-22.
RS Mahmudah, M Kumabe, T Suzuki, L Guo and K Morita. 3D simulation of solid-melt mixture flow with melt solidification using a finite volume particle method. J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 2011; 48, 1300-12.
ParaView, Available at: https://www.paraview.org/, accessed July 2022.
VisIt, Available at: https://wci.llnl.gov/simulation/computer-codes/visit, accessed July 2022.
C Hu and M Sueyoshi. Numerical simulation and experiment on dam break problem. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2010; 9, 109-14.
Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool for Physics Education, Available at: https://physlets.org/tracker, accessed Jun 2022.
BE Larsen, DR Fuhrman and J Roenby. Performance of interFoam on the simulation of progressive waves. Coast. Eng. J. 2019; 61, 380-400.
CD Lewis. Industrial and business forecasting methods. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1982.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Walailak University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
