Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Thank you very much for your clear and detailed question. Without running your code I can take a few guesses. Despite our efforts, we often find that 'reusing' an algorithm inside a for-loop can lead to unexpected results. Basically, not all the old values get overwritten. This is clearly something that we should focus on fixing, but in the meantime I suggest you try creating new algorithm objects inside the loop. You can remove the old ones from the Project to avoid memory leaks (hopefully?). Try this and see if it helps. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello everyone,
I’d like to start by saying thanks to the OpenPNM team for developing and maintaining such a helpful tool.
I am currently working on a simulation of methane reforming using OpenPNM. Below, I have attached the case setup and the flowchart of my solution procedure. I am using a segregated solver approach for this problem.

The issue I encountered is that the mole fraction field of hydrogen obtained from the simulation appears to be lower than expected compared to carbon monoxide. According to many references, the hydrogen mole fraction at the outlet is usually about three times higher than that of carbon dioxide, but in my results the hydrogen concentration seems significantly lower.
I would greatly appreciate any insights or suggestions regarding possible causes of this discrepancy or directions I might explore to resolve it. I would also be happy to provide more details or share files if that would help with troubleshooting.

Thank you very much for your time and support!
Best regards,
nirxg
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions