We're working on porting NOx models from TASCflow, but some of the reaction rates are coming out different in CFX.
I'm reading TASCflow data into CFX (including composition and temperature variance data) so it's not a matter of having a different starting point. - JCOOPER
|
The differences between Tascflow and CFX stem from how the Temperature variance equation and Thermal NO reaction rates are handled. 1. There is a difference in the production coefficients for the T variance equation. 2. the NO reaction rate in Tascflow was adjusted to compensate for the high T variance, so the rate coefficients may differ (I would compare T variance values, make sure these are equal and then adjust rate) 2. There may be a difference in the turbulent Schmidt number between the 2 codes. The default TASCflow value is different from 0.9, which is used for CFX A prm file and ccl file that should make the 2 codes perform similarly on a small testcase are attached. Adjustments have been made on both sides to get the same performance, so the CFX setup in the attached .ccl may differ from the one you need to duplicate the TAScflow setup that you have been running with. |
||
|