CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

Boundary priority

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 6, 2010, 14:28
Default Boundary priority
  #1
New Member
 
FM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 7
Felipe Matos is on a distinguished road
Hi

I'm simulating a simple heat transfer problem: a flat square plate with prescibred Temperature in two oposite faces and adiabatic at the others faces. My doubt is: wich one of these boundaries (Prescribed temperature or Adiabatic) is being used at the interfaces nodes (the nodes that belong to two different boundaries faces)? How can I see it? Can I define a stronger boundary so that I know wich one I'm using?

Thanks
Felipe Matos is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2010, 21:20
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,651
Rep Power: 84
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Can I define a stronger boundary so that I know wich one I'm using?
I do not know what you mean.

For the control volume which includes both the adiabatic boundary and the fixed temeprature boundary, the adiabatic boundary will apply to that face and the prescribed temperature will apply to that face.

The wall boundaries are not evaluated at the nodes to avoid the precise issue you discuss. Instead the wall boundaries are evaluated at the element faces and therefore the state of all boundaries is clear.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2010, 17:42
Default
  #3
New Member
 
FM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 7
Felipe Matos is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
The wall boundaries are not evaluated at the nodes to avoid the precise issue you discuss. Instead the wall boundaries are evaluated at the element faces and therefore the state of all boundaries is clear.
I'm with a problem that (I think) the boundaries are evalueted at the nodes. The problem is:
- Incompressible, laminar (Re = 100) flow into a pipe
- Prescribed constant velocity at the inlet face (v = 5 cm/s)
- Prescribed pressure at the outlet face (P = 1 atm)
- No slip wall

The first node, at the interface of the inlet and the wall boundary, has the inlet velocity ( v = 5 cm/s ), but the next node in the direction of the flow (a node over the wall) has velocity near zero ( v ~ 10^-14 cm/s): both hybrid values. This is a situation where the inlet boundary is stonger than the wall boundary.

The high velocity at the inlet (compared to the wall velocities) os causing a peak of pressure at the wall near the inlet, i.e., a strong pressure drop at wall in the beginning of the pipe.

Isn't this a case where the boundary is store at the node and not the element faces?

ps.: There are some images that can help understand. They're at the attachments.

Thanks
Attached Images
File Type: png malha_1.png (97.0 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg malha_2.jpg (46.1 KB, 6 views)
File Type: png malha_3.png (89.4 KB, 5 views)
File Type: png malha_4.png (27.4 KB, 6 views)
File Type: png Chart004.png (16.9 KB, 8 views)
Felipe Matos is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2010, 18:36
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,651
Rep Power: 84
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Again you are incorrect. Read the section on discretisation and solution theory - variables are stored at the nodes and control volumes are built around the nodes. The fluxes for the control volumes are evaluated at the control volume faces (at the integration points), and a boundary can form a control volume face. This means that boundaries are evaluated at the control volume faces, not the nodes. This means there is no strange behaviour at the intersection of two boundary conditions like you suggest.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2010, 19:10
Default
  #5
New Member
 
FM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 7
Felipe Matos is on a distinguished road
What could be the pressure peak problem at the entrance?
Felipe Matos is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2010, 08:41
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,651
Rep Power: 84
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Isn't that caused by the assumption of constant velocity over the inlet boundary? It would be eliminated by applying an inlet boundary with something closer to a boundary layer profile.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Implementation of boundary conditions for FVM Tom Main CFD Forum 7 August 26, 2014 05:58
CFX doesn't continue calculation... mactech001 CFX 6 November 15, 2009 22:25
mass flow in is not equal to mass flow out saii CFX 2 September 18, 2009 08:07
Boundary conditions? Tom Main CFD Forum 0 November 5, 2002 02:54
Boundary Conditions Jan Ramboer Main CFD Forum 11 August 16, 1999 08:59


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:56.