|
[Sponsors] |
November 1, 2008, 19:18 |
CFD guy
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I have solved the isotropic turbulence decay in 3D but the decay does not look like the one that I saw in 2D.
Can some one explain? Thanks in advance |
|
November 7, 2008, 07:54 |
Re: CFD guy
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
It may be because Turbulence is inherently a 3D phenomena. Hence 3D simulation would be more realistic as compared to 2D one.
|A| |
|
November 7, 2008, 09:44 |
Re: CFD guy
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
You need to read up on this - try, for example,
"The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence" by G.K. Batchelor or "Turbulence: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers" by P.A. Davidson. Basically the energy and enstrophy cascades are different in 2D and 3D. The main reason why 2D and 3D flows are different is, and is actually why it's fair to say that there is no such thing as 2D turbulence in the strictest sense, the absence of the vortex stretching term in the 2D vorticity equation. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFD Wiki - We Need More Help! | Jonas Larsson | Main CFD Forum | 0 | September 26, 2005 08:11 |
Where do we go from here? CFD in 2001 | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 36 | January 24, 2001 21:10 |
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001 | Chris R. Kleijn | Main CFD Forum | 0 | August 21, 2000 04:49 |
Since Last June | John C. Chien | Main CFD Forum | 3 | July 12, 1999 09:38 |
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package. | Tareq Al-shaalan | Main CFD Forum | 10 | June 12, 1999 23:27 |