# non-reflecting boundary condition

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

 November 3, 2007, 05:26 non-reflecting boundary condition #1 shuo Guest   Posts: n/a What are the conditions for this type of boundary in terms of rho, u, v and P? Can I just extrapolate the variables from witihin the domain assuming a subsonic outlet? Shuo

 November 3, 2007, 12:55 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #2 Harish Guest   Posts: n/a It depends on the problem that you are looking at . For fluid flow problems it would be sufficient for most cases . But if you are interested in noise computation then you need special NRBC.

 November 3, 2007, 18:41 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #3 shuo Guest   Posts: n/a I am modelling a supersonic impinging jet. when I extrapolated all variables from the interior for the far field the wall jet along the plate was massive- much larger than the jet issued from the nozzle!!. The domain was 4D(x) * 2D (y).

 November 4, 2007, 13:02 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #4 jinwon park Guest   Posts: n/a How are you doing? I am also suffering from NRBC. To suppress unphysical reflection from edges, I have searched a good way to impose NRBC or infinite condition. In doing so, I found a good reference on NRBC. See, section 15.4 in the book, 'computational fluid dynamics volume 2, fourth edition' written by Klaus A. Hoffmann and Steve T. Chiang. They well explained on NRBC and compared each others. Based on their conclusion, the sponge layer(or absorbing layer) provides the cleanest solution with no reflected waves observed. I just completed the one-dimensional code with the sponge layer. I am trying it to extend to multi-dimensions. If you concern this way, see that reference. It was good to me.

 November 4, 2007, 13:49 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #5 Harish Guest   Posts: n/a Another way of absorbing the outgoing waves is using grid stretching and filtering close to the domain boundaries. This computational cost of this method is lesser than the sponge layer approach.

 November 4, 2007, 14:58 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #6 jinwon park Guest   Posts: n/a Can I ask you about the way you mentioned above? I am feeling that the sponge layer approach is computationally expensive.

 November 4, 2007, 21:15 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #7 Harish Guest   Posts: n/a The simple idea of the method is as follows. (i) Grid stretching transfers the energy to high frequency content (ii) numerical filtering removes the high frequency component This method is referred also as energy transfer and annihilation.You apply the grid stretching and filtering in the buffer zone.Because of the grid stretching the expense reduces.Point to note is that the method is ad-hoc and requires some testing. Reference : A General Buffer Zone-type Non-Reflecting Boundary Condition for Computational Aeroacoustics - N. Edgar and M. Visbal AIAA-2003-3300 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, May 12-14, 2003

 November 5, 2007, 14:21 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #8 jinwon park Guest   Posts: n/a Can I ask you again about your recommendation? Throughout my resource, I could not find that paper. If you have that paper in pdf format, could you send it for me? I am really hoping to reduce computational cost required in the sponge layer approach. It was tough to run.

 November 5, 2007, 16:07 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #9 Harish Guest   Posts: n/a What is your e-mail address ? . I used this method when I was studying the computation of aeroacoustic noise due to vortex shedding from a cylinder. I started with the sponge layer and it was too expensive compared to the size of my domain and hence I moved to this method. I used a grid stretching of the form dx=1.2 dx in the buffer zone and used a 10th order filter of visbal and gaitonde(2001) with the coefficient of the filter set to 0.3. As far as the number of points I used 25-40% of the number used with the sponge layer case.

 November 5, 2007, 17:15 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #10 jinwon park Guest   Posts: n/a My email address is jwpark1@gmail.com. I really appreciate your kind advice. But I am wondering that it is also applicable to the Euler equation. As you mentioned, you used that method for aeroacoustic problems. Anyway, if you do not mind, I would like to ask you the paper through email. Thanks in advance.

 November 6, 2007, 12:49 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #11 Harish Guest   Posts: n/a I applied it for both Navier-Stokes and Euler equations . In aeroacoustics for the noise part Linearized Euler equation is often used.

 November 6, 2007, 12:50 Re: non-reflecting boundary condition #12 jinwon park Guest   Posts: n/a As I requested, can you send the paper to me? My email address is jwpark1@gmail.com

 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 Saturn CFX 34 October 16, 2014 05:27 Thomas P. Abraham Main CFD Forum 20 July 7, 2013 05:05 murali CFX 5 August 3, 2012 08:56 gameoverli OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 1 May 21, 2009 08:28 adarsh Main CFD Forum 1 May 30, 2002 10:27

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:05.