code_saturne User's Forum

Hello Chai,

Thank you for the exhaustive explanation. Moreover in case of internal coupling, is it possible to define the boundaries which are coupled using a user function ? In my case, the fluid is indeed connected to the solid through 2 internal boundaries and the heat flux occurs only for one ...

Hi Chai,

Thank you for your explanation. Well by checking or not the checkbox, I observed two different behaviour within the solid and I wanted to be sure that the activation of the checkbox replaces the thermal boundary conditions defined within the fluid domain at the interface with the solid ...

Hello Chai,

Thank your for your feedback. I think that I noticed in that forum that it was not possible, hence the question. Then, I guess that the setup has fully to be defined from user files, since the activation of a thermal model from the GUI combined to the activation of the CDO option in the ...

Hello Yvan,

It works indeed better using the MUMPS solver and with much better convergence of the velocity field.

Thanks !

Kind regards.

Hello,

Does the CDO solidification model being compatible with the conjugate heat transfer within the V9.0 ?

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards.

Hello,

I tried to perform a fluid-thermal coupling with the V9.0 by referring to the dedicated poge https://www.code-saturne.org/documentation/9.0/doxygen/src/advanced_conjugate_heat_transfer.html . The snapshot related to the conjugate heat transfer does not seem to be up-to-date and the ...

Hello,

I tried to run the Volker & Prakash's benchmark using the cdo-based solidification modelling introduced in https://www.code-saturne.org/documentation/9.0/doxygen/src/cs_ug_cdo_solidification.html with settings based on the article accessible here https://hal.science/hal-04028238. However, it ...