Evaluation of oscillation-free fluid-porous interface treatments for segregated finite volume flow solvers

The volume-averaged approach to simulate flow in porous media is often used because of its practicality and computational efficiency. Derivation of the volume-averaged porous flow equations introduces additional porous resistance terms to the momentum equation. These porous resistance terms create body force discontinuities at fluid-porous interfaces, which may lead to spurious oscillations if not accounted for properly. A variety of techniques has been proposed to treat this problem, but only recently two approaches were developed by Nordlund et al. [Improved PISO algorithms for modeling density varying flow in conjugate fluid-porous domains. Journal of Computational Physics 2016;306:199–215. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999115007755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.11.035; . Modified Rhie–Chow/PISO algorithm for collocated variable finite porous media flow solvers. No. 40 in ECI Symposium Series; 5th International Conference on Porous Media and Their Applications in Science, Engineering and Industry; 2014], concentrating on the combination of collocated grids and segregated solvers, which are commonly used for industrial applications. In this paper, we compared these two methods for the treatment of fluid-porous interfaces: (i) the Re-Distributed Resistivity (RDR) and (ii) the Face Consistent Pressure (FCP) methods, for a wide range of process conditions and porous media parameters, covering most practical porous media flow applications. The numerical robustness and accuracy of both methods were evaluated by applying a systematic quantitative comparison procedure. Both the RDR and the FCP approaches proved to be suitable for treating discontinuities in the porous resistance terms, yielding smooth solutions around the interface and good convergence with grid refinement. The RDR method was found to be the most robust method, particularly at very low Darcy numbers and on unstructured grids, distinguishing it from the FCP approach.

[1]  M. Velarde,et al.  Momentum transport at a fluid–porous interface , 2003 .

[2]  A. Straatman,et al.  Numerical Results for the Effective Flow and Thermal Properties of Idealized Graphite Foam , 2012 .

[3]  G. Lauriat,et al.  Forced convection cooling enhancement by use of porous materials , 1998 .

[4]  P. Wesseling.  Principles of Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2000 .

[5]  Bernard J. Geurts,et al.  Improved PISO algorithms for modeling density varying flow in conjugate fluid-porous domains , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[6]  Antonio C. M. Sousa,et al.  SIMULATION OF COUPLED FLOWS IN ADJACENT POROUS AND OPEN DOMAINS USING ACONTROL-VOLUME FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD , 2004 .

[7]  Hrvoje Jasak,et al.  Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with applications to fluid flows , 1996 .

[8]  Peng Yu,et al.  A numerical method for flows in porous and homogenous fluid domains coupled at the interface by stress jump , 2006 .

[9]  Peng Yu,et al.  A numerical method for forced convection in porous and homogeneous fluid domains coupled at interface by stress jump , 2008 .

[10]  Jure Mencinger,et al.  On the finite volume discretization of discontinuous body force field on collocated grid: Application to VOF method , 2007, J. Comput. Phys..

[11]  R. Kessler,et al.  Comparison of finite-volume numerical methods with staggered and colocated grids , 1988 .

[12]  A. Straatman,et al.  A Finite-Volume Model for Fluid Flow and Nonequilibrium Heat Transfer in Conjugate Fluid-Porous Domains Using General Unstructured Grids , 2011 .

[13]  R. F. Warming,et al.  Upwind Second-Order Difference Schemes and Applications in Aerodynamic Flows , 1976 .

[14]  I. E. Barton,et al.  Comparison of SIMPLE‐ and PISO‐type algorithms for transient flows , 1998 .

[15]  Francisco J. Serón,et al.  A comparison of segregated and coupled methods for the solution of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations , 1996 .

[16]  C. Rhie,et al.  Numerical Study of the Turbulent Flow Past an Airfoil with Trailing Edge Separation , 1983 .

[17]  J. A. Clarkson,et al.  On definitions of bounded variation for functions of two variables , 1933 .

[18]  G. Lauriat,et al.  Analysis of fluid flow and heat transfer in a channel with intermittent heated porous blocks , 1998 .

[19]  Sang-Wook Kim,et al.  Comparison of the SMAC, PISO and iterative time-advancing schemes for unsteady flows , 1992 .

[20]  Brian E. Thompson,et al.  A Nonequilibrium Finite-Volume Model for Conjugate Fluid/Porous/Solid Domains , 2006 .

[21]  Kambiz Vafai,et al.  Analysis of flow and heat transfer at the interface region of a porous medium , 1987 .

[22]  Anthony G. Straatman,et al.  A computational method for geometric optimization of enhanced heat transfer devices based upon entropy generation minimization , 2013 .

[23]  A. Gosman,et al.  Solution of the implicitly discretised reacting flow equations by operator-splitting , 1986 .

[24]  S. Whitaker.  The method of volume averaging , 1998 .

[25]  C. L. Tien,et al.  Boundary and inertia effects on flow and heat transfer in porous media , 1981 .

[26]  Implementation of the Stress Jump Condition in a Control-Volume Finite-Element Method for the Simulation of Laminar Coupled Flows in Adjacent Open and Porous Domains , 2008 .