Advertisement

OpenFOAM® pp 455-464 | Cite as

solidificationMeltingSource: A Built-in fvOption in OpenFOAM® for Simulating Isothermal Solidification

  • Mahdi Torabi RadEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I introduce, document, and verify solidificationMeltingSource: a built-in fvOption in OpenFOAM® for simulating isothermal solidification. The main challenge in simulating isothermal solidification is the incorporation of movements of the solidification front. To overcome this challenge, solidificationMeltingSource adds source terms to the momentum and energy equations. First, I rigorously derive the equations for these source terms and outline their implementation in the source code. Then, I verify solidificationMeltingSource by simulating a well-known numerical benchmark for isothermal solidification. Finally, I end the chapter by suggesting possible future extensions for solidificationMeltingSource.

Keywords

Phase change fvOption Isothermal solidification solidificationMeltingSource 

References

  1. 1.
    http://openfoam.org/release/2-2-0/fv-options/, OpenFOAM®, 2016. Accessed 15 Oct 2016
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Dantzig J A, Rappaz M (2009) Solidification. CRC Press, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Voller VR, Prakash C (1987) A fixed grid numerical modeling methodology for convection-diffusion mushy region phase-change problems. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 30:1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torabi Rad M, Kotas P, Beckermann C (2013) Rayleigh Number Criterion for Formation of A-Segregates in Steel Castings and Ingots. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 44:4266–4281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voller VR, Cross M, Markatos NC (1987) An enthalpy method for convection/diffusion phase change. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 24:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torabi Rad M, Beckermann C (2016) Validation of a Model for the Columnar to Equiaxed Transition with Melt Convection. In: Nastac L et al. (eds) CFD Modeling and Simulation in Materials Processing 2016, TMS, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, pp. 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohaghegh F, Udaykumar H (2016) Comparison of sharp and smoothed interface methods for simulation of particulate flows I: Fluid structure interaction for moderate Reynolds numbers. Computers and Fluids, 140, 39–58MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohaghegh F, Udaykumar H (2016) Comparison of sharp and smoothed interface methods for simulation of particulate flows II: Fluid structure interaction for moderate Reynolds numbers. Computers and Fluids, 143, 103–119Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohaghegh F, Mousel J, Udaykumar H (2014) Comparison of sharp interface and smoothed profile methods for laminar flow analysis over stationary and moving boundaries. Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) FEDSM, 1A  https://doi.org/10.1115/fedsm2014-21171

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seamans CenterIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations