View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002966 | OpenFOAM | Bug | public | 2018-06-01 09:09 | 2018-06-13 10:52 |
| Reporter | tniemi | Assigned To | will | ||
| Priority | low | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | dev | ||||
| Fixed in Version | dev | ||||
| Summary | 0002966: Reacting parcels, using "none" as devolatilization model prevents surface reactions | ||||
| Description | If "none" is selected as devolatilization model, surface reactions can't happen because canCombust-flag will be false. NoDevolatilization-model will set the flag as true, but that code won't be reached, because the model reports itself as inactive and the check "if (!cloud.devolatilisation().active())" in ReactingMultiphaseParcel.C line 521 catches this. Proposed fix: set the canCombust-flag true before returning from the active check (if canCombust != -1). Alternatively, remove the active=false functionality from the NoDevolatilization-model allowing the code to proceed to the calculate-step which sets the flag. However, this will cause a slight overhead due to the unnecessary computations in the calcDevolatilisation-function. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
Sorry for the delay. This is not a bit of code that I am terribly familiar with, and some of the logic is a bit circular. It seems to me that if the devolatilization model ever sets canCombust to -1 then that disables the devolatilization model, so the flag stays that way permenantly... Is this the change you want? --- a/src/lagrangian/intermediate/parcels/Templates/ReactingMultiphaseParcel/ReactingMultiphaseParcel.C +++ b/src/lagrangian/intermediate/parcels/Templates/ReactingMultiphaseParcel/ReactingMultiphaseParcel.C @@ -520,6 +520,10 @@ void Foam::ReactingMultiphaseParcel<ParcelType>::calcDevolatilisation // Check that model is active if (!cloud.devolatilisation().active()) { + if (canCombust != -1) + { + canCombust = 1; + } return; } |
|
|
Yes, that would be what I'm suggesting. Sorry for not posting the patch myself. Currently the canCombust behaves just like that, if it is ever set to -1, no devolatilization or surface reactions can happen after that. I have not personally used this functionality, but there is at least SuppressionCollision-model which can do this. Otherwise canCombust just tells when devolatilization has proceed far enough to allow surface reactions and setting it to 1 here allows surface reactions without any devolatilization model. |
|
|
Resolved in dev by commit 1fb11834 |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-06-01 09:09 | tniemi | New Issue | |
| 2018-06-12 17:12 | will | Note Added: 0009743 | |
| 2018-06-13 07:11 | tniemi | Note Added: 0009744 | |
| 2018-06-13 10:52 | will | Assigned To | => will |
| 2018-06-13 10:52 | will | Status | new => resolved |
| 2018-06-13 10:52 | will | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2018-06-13 10:52 | will | Fixed in Version | => dev |
| 2018-06-13 10:52 | will | Note Added: 0009745 |
