English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Simulations for both multiphase flows and supersonic single phased flows are   well known, however the combination is a less investigated area of research,   as the two basic approaches of CFD, the pressure and the density based   approach, each describe one of the phases in a better way than the other one.   In this paper, we systematically investigate the solver quality of the open   source CFD code OpenFOAM in handling transonic flow phenomena that typically   occur inside the breaking chamber of high voltage circuit breakers, during   contact separation. The solver quality is then compared with that of chosen   commercial CFD tools. The main advantage of OpenFOAM is that, contrary to   most of the commercial simulation tools, it is license fee free and allows   access to the source code. This means that complicated multi physics   phenomena inside the arcing chamber can be directly modeled into the code by   users, which opens an opportunity to remove limitations of commercial CFD   tools. Particularly, the shock capturing capability of OpenFOAM will be   evaluated for the transonic internal flow which typically occurs in high   voltage circuit breakers. Overall, Open-FOAM shows acceptable shock capturing   capabilities in the performed verification and validation studies, with the   solver quality comparable to some of the tested commercial CFD tools. There   is still room for further solver quality improvements in OpenFOAM by   implementing better shock capturing schemes such as a density-based   flux-difference-splitting scheme or by writing better physical modeling of   the shock/boundary layer interaction into the open architecture of OpenFOAM

Evaluate shock capturing capability with the numerical methods in OpenFOAM