# potential flow vs. Euler flow

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

 July 11, 2006, 07:34 Re: potential flow vs. Euler flow #21 Tom Guest   Posts: n/a What Andrin is getting at is that in 2D vortex lines must be either open, closed loops or end on a boundary (essentially the Poincare-Bendixon theorem for planar odes). In 3D you have the possibility that a vortex line can infinitely wrap around itself as well; e.g. the vortex lines could be quasi-periodic or even chaotic - the vortex line equations are a system of odes in 3D and so behaviour like that of the Lorenz attractor cannot be ruled out.

 July 11, 2006, 07:48 Re: potential flow vs. Euler flow #22 Gerrit Guest   Posts: n/a Thanks! (Again)

 July 11, 2006, 18:49 Re: potential flow vs. Euler flow #23 Adrin Gharakhani Guest   Posts: n/a >> think that's the Helmholz theorem, saying that a vortex should always be a closed curve Tom already stated almost precisely what I meant and had in mind. I will only add here vortex lines in viscous flows, which, again, don't necessarily form closed loops. The particular Helmoltz Theorem is just an expression of the solenoidality of the vorticity field (kinematics, nothing more). To this end, it is true that all closed loops will satisfy this condition, but a solenoidal field does not have to be in the form of a closed loop, as Tom has nicely pointed out. (it's a matter of necessary vs. sufficient condition) adrin

 July 21, 2006, 07:40 Re: potential flow vs. Euler flow #24 mar Guest   Posts: n/a Only a comment: I don't agree with the one who said that the circulation is inserted in the aerodynamic field by the "numerical dissipation". The explanation in fact is in the boundary condition you are applying at the edge. In numerics it's a common practice to have a the trailing edge two points which are topologically disconnected but that have the same coordinates (geometrically coincident). To solve the problem of the uniqueness of the solution at the trailing edge what it's actually done is to calculate the aerodynamic field at one of this point (starting from the interior points) and to assign this field at both points. In this way the Kutta condition is "naturally" imposed; you have not to calculate in an explicit way the circulation as must be done in potential flows... I hope I've been clearer this time

 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 Ilias FLUENT 0 January 12, 2009 11:16 pxyz Main CFD Forum 37 July 7, 2006 08:42 Atit CFX 0 May 3, 2006 10:05 Francisco Saldarriaga Main CFD Forum 1 August 2, 1999 23:18 Adrin Gharakhani Main CFD Forum 9 March 12, 1999 12:32

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:49.