|
[Sponsors] |
May 20, 2014, 13:15 |
Confused about wall boundary condition
|
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi
In Fluent, can anyone explain the effects of following combinations? a) stationary wall+nonzero shear stress b) stationary wall+zero shear stress c) moving wall +nonzero shear stress d) moving wall + zero shear stress Thanks in advance |
|
May 22, 2014, 04:31 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,965
Rep Power: 26 |
Maybe you should explain what confuses you, otherwise you will probably not get an answer you can use...
|
|
May 22, 2014, 04:51 |
|
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 14 |
Quote:
Hi As far as I know, free slip condition is based on zero shear stress and stationary wall. So the velocity at wall is subjected to the velocity of cell next to the wall How about in case of moving wall and zero shear stress? I guess the velocity of moving wall will determine the velocity of cell next to the wall Is it right? |
||
May 22, 2014, 09:14 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
François Grégoire
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi Ke,
Have you read the User's Guide 15.0 Section 6.3.14.Wall Boundary Conditions? It will answer your questions. |
|
May 22, 2014, 09:26 |
|
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 14 |
Quote:
This is the information copied from user guide The no-slip condition is the default, and it indicates that the fluid sticks to the wall and moves with the same velocity as the wall, if it is moving. The specified shear and Marangoni stress boundary conditions are useful in modeling situations in which the shear stress (rather than the motion of the fluid) is known. Examples of such situations are applied shear stress, slip wall (zero shear stress), and free surface conditions (zero shear stress or shear stress dependent on surface tension gradient). I can understand moving wall or stationary wall with no slip condition However, in the rest of information about specified shear stress, the motion of wall is not clearly explained |
||
May 22, 2014, 09:38 |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
François Grégoire
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Rep Power: 17 |
Imho, I think there is nothing to be 'explained'. If you have a non-slip moving wall, just click 'Moving Wall' and define its speed. If you have a slip non-moving or moving wall, specify shear with 0 values. If you have a moving wall with some specified shear, you have to know what values to enter for specified shear (if you don't know, time to go read some papers), Fluent can't predict boundary conditions for you.
|
|
May 22, 2014, 09:47 |
|
#7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
Rep Power: 14 |
Quote:
How about the case of moving wall with zero shear stress, has it the same effect as moving wall with no slip condition? Also, I'm not sure what gonna happen if moving wall plus a specified shear stress In case of stationary wall with zero shear stress, is the velocity of fluid uniform along the wall? In case of stationary wall with specified shear stress, is the fluid profile gonna be parabolic like stationary wall with no slip condition? Sorry for my lots of words, I just want to clarify them |
||
May 22, 2014, 12:01 |
|
#8 |
Senior Member
François Grégoire
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Rep Power: 17 |
The best way to answer all your questions is to build a simple 2D flow model, try every options and analyze the results. I would go with a fine mesh that can capture the boundary layer (10-20 cells).
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Applying Rotational Boundary Condition on Surface with Radial Wall | tango711 | CFX | 16 | October 9, 2018 07:01 |
Domain Imbalance | HMR | CFX | 5 | October 10, 2016 05:57 |
isothermal wall boundary condition | Neil | Main CFD Forum | 3 | November 9, 2015 02:34 |
no-slip wall boundary condition | Atit Koonsrisuk | CFX | 3 | July 10, 2014 17:10 |
Dirichlet boundary condition for additional variable on the wall | ftab | CFX | 13 | January 27, 2013 12:24 |