# pressure wall boundary condition in CFX

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

October 8, 2012, 12:22
pressure wall boundary condition in CFX
#1
Member

Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 6
Hi,
I have a question concerning the pressure at wall boundaries in CFX. I am studying the flow around an obstacle (e.g. a sphere). When I plot the pressure along the streamline ending in the stagnation point, I observe the following behaviour: The pressure and it's gradient increase constantly while moving closer to the wall, but if you look closely you can see that the pressure gradient decreases again in the last cells before the wall boundary. See the red curve in the attached picture. The black curve is what I would expect from my physical understanding.

My questions are:

1) Is this behaviour caused by a dp/dn = 0 pressure boundary condition at solid walls in cfx?

2) As far as I know, segregated solvers that solve a Poisson equation for pressure-velovity coupling definately need a boundary condition for the pressure. I am not sure how this is in a coupled solver like CFX. Can anybody shed some light on this for me?

3) If dp/dn= 0 is applied: How can expect my simulation results to reflect reality when I use a physically wrong boundary condition? I made a test case to study the drag on a sphere. The drag coefficient pretty accurately agrees with the literatury values. I would like to know why.

Any help is appreciated!
Attached Images
 Unbenannt.jpg (30.1 KB, 38 views)

 October 8, 2012, 18:32 #2 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,832 Rep Power: 85 Nice question, well spotted. 1) I am not sure exactly where this comes from but it probably comes from the zero normal gradient condition. Also I am not sure your black curve is correct - I would check what the correct curve is and not just assume. 2) I do not think it is in the documentation but I am pretty sure CFX also uses the zero normal pressure condition at wall boundaries. It is not unique to segregated solvers, it is a pretty common assumption in most CFD codes. 3) The error gets smaller as mesh resolution is increased. So if your mesh is fine enough to be accurate then you know you have reduced the error from this effect to a manageable amount. Also: Note the zero normal gradient is an assumoption which only applies at moderate to high Re numbers. At low Re this assumption is not correct and can lead to errors in low Re flow. I do some work in MEMS structures with very low Re and have found some problems with the zero normal gradient assumption leading to systematic error. But fo the vast majority of flows with moderate to high Re the zero normal gradient assumption is quite accurate.

October 9, 2012, 03:22
#3
Member

Max
Join Date: May 2011
Location: old europe
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 6
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks Nice question, well spotted. Also: Note the zero normal gradient is an assumoption which only applies at moderate to high Re numbers. At low Re this assumption is not correct and can lead to errors in low Re flow.
Thanks for your answer. This explains why in my test case, the deviation in drag coefficient from literature values increases with decreasing Re number.

So far, I got down to Reynolds numbers of approx. Re = 1e-3. And I remember a bouncy behaviour of my monitor points (which are the forces and torques on a solid body) in the low Re cases. I may have to go even lower in future.

Any suggestions for a solver to use, that allows a different condition at walls?

Last edited by murx; October 9, 2012 at 06:09.

 October 9, 2012, 06:21 #4 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,832 Rep Power: 85 At Re=1e-3 I would expect to see that you might also see convergence difficulties. As inertia plays such a small role it can be neglected, so a Stokes solver is more appropriate. Unfortunately I do not know of any CFD codes which allow a proper low Re treatment of pressure, and I do not know of any Stokes solvers either. I know OpenFoam, FreeFEM, matlab and similar packages can be configured to Stokes flow but you will have to set it up.

 October 9, 2012, 06:50 #5 Member   Max Join Date: May 2011 Location: old europe Posts: 71 Rep Power: 6 In my test case, the drag coefficient on a sphere at Re=1e-3 differed only about 2.5% from the literature value. The difference between different literature sources is in the same order of magnitude. So I am pretty ok with that. The convergence was also no problem for the test case. I will try lower Re cases and see how that works out. I am interested in the inertial lift force on a sphere in poiseuille flow. Solving the Stokes equation yields zero lift, so I am restricted to real CFD solvers I guess. So maybe the way to go is to simply increase the wall-normal mesh resolution so much that even for very low Re, the wrong pressure BC does not affect my results.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Attesz CFX 7 January 5, 2013 04:32 Vijay FLUENT 0 April 6, 2012 13:35 Pankaj CFX 9 November 23, 2009 05:05 Jean-François Corbett Main CFD Forum 3 January 10, 2006 09:49 DS & HB Main CFD Forum 0 January 8, 2000 16:00

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40.