CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

doubt in B.C

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 14, 2008, 11:26
Default doubt in B.C
  #1
student
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sir, I have one doubt the boundary conditin given at the walls eg bottom wall u[i][j]=-u[i][j+1] and top wall u[i][j]=-u[i][j-1] please what is the name of this boundary condition and when it should use ?
  Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2008, 13:51
Default Re: doubt in B.C
  #2
mettler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
if it is a wall and the no-slip BC is used, there is no velocity.

I have used the u[i][J] = u[i][J-1], where J = max(j) as an exit boundary condition for the flow assuming fully developed flow
  Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2008, 19:03
Default Re: doubt in B.C
  #3
Paolo Lampitella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This seems to be a case with a staggered structured grid; in this case the wall parallel component of velocity has the first and the last component (j=1 and j=ny+2) which are outside of the domain and are used exclusively to enforce the no slip condition; in your case the bottom wall is exactly between the j(=1) and j+1 nodes, the top wall is between the j(=ny+2) and j-1 nodes (with ny i mean the number of grid points which are actually inside your domain).

This is because in a staggered grid the velocities are not defined in the centers of the volumes but on different faces of the volumes so, actually, you can't say that on a wall the velocity is zero and you need some arbitrary points outside your domain to enforce this.

This is of big concern also for the outflow condition, even if in a more subtle way. In this case, obviously, is the v velocity component which is affected.
  Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2008, 23:53
Default Re: doubt in B.C
  #4
student
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dear Paolo Thank you for your nice explanation. Yes it is staggered grid. I didnt understand how u[i][j]= - u[i][+1] ensures noslip boundary condition.

  Reply With Quote

Old   November 15, 2008, 05:44
Default Re: doubt in B.C
  #5
Paolo Lampitella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Actually this is the simplest way you can do it (but i don't know if there are more sophisticated ones...i guess yes).

In your case the bottom wall is located at j+1/2 so you want to set the value of the velocity at j such that:

1/2 * [ U(j) + U(j+1) ] = Uwall

that is a simple linear interpolation between the nodes j and j+1. With Uwall = 0 your case is recovered.
  Reply With Quote

Old   November 23, 2008, 02:40
Default Re: doubt in B.C
  #6
student
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thank you so much for a clear reply. I understood.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confusion between 'non-slip' and 'slip' B.C jinwon park Main CFD Forum 7 March 6, 2008 04:56
how to set such B.C. in Fluent? Sherri FLUENT 1 January 12, 2006 12:32
Urgent! Help on UDF to set B.C. of 3rd type Ray Hong FLUENT 0 December 28, 2005 19:35
How to set B.C. of the 2nd or 3rd type in UDS? Ray Hong FLUENT 0 December 28, 2005 06:03
Non-Reflecting B.C. in NSC2KE Zou Chu Main CFD Forum 2 May 27, 1999 21:26


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:27.