- **Main CFD Forum**
(*http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/*)

- - **Incompressible Navier-Stokes in Stream Function - Vorticity Formulation**
(*http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/107024-incompressible-navier-stokes-stream-function-vorticity-formulation.html*)

Incompressible Navier-Stokes in Stream Function - Vorticity Formulation3 Attachment(s)
Hello,
I am trying to solve the incompressible, steady state Navier-Stokes in stream function - vorticity formulation, for a given domain (attached pictures). for the boundary conditions of the vorticity I use Thompson's condition (1930). I am solving it using an iterative method I developed from the differential equations. I use central finite differences schemes (attached as well). I solve the vorticity equation - than the stream function equation - than calculate velocities - check convergence - if not, do it again. I use successive under relaxation for the vorticity for without it the program diverges after a few iterations. My problem is that as I increase the Reynolds number my solution becomes extremely unstable and it diverges. let say for Re=100 I need only a relaxation factor of 0.5 for the vorticityand the program converges - I get physical results and all is well. But for Re=700 It doesn't converge even for 0.01... I tried formulating my equation with upwind-schemes but it seemed to only worsen my stability. Does anyone had this experience with this problem? how do I overcome it? It seems my problem comes from the convection terms in the equation (the ones Re multiplies) I am attaching my code that is written in matlab to who ever want to take a look. use main.m to start it. change Re number if you need. relax1 - relaxation factor for the vorticity relax2 - -||- stream function relax3 - -|| - velocities it is set now on Re=100. and the mesh is pretty coarse but still gets nice results. sorry for not writing titles on the figures.. u can check the code to see what's in them. Thanks, Daniel |

Hi Daniel,
in fact .... why do you use FDM? im using another meshless method. maybe FVM will be better than FDM in your case. |

The reason is that we didn't cover FVM in our course. Only FDM :)
but thanks though. If I'm here I'll update that I solved the problem using very strong relaxation (0.05). It's a banging your head against the wall solution but it worked and I was out of time so it had to do. Thanks, Daniel |

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:26. |