# Aspect ratio

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

 December 22, 1999, 05:14 Aspect ratio #1 Gabriel Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, I'm still Gabriel. I would like to know if anyone can tell me something about the aspect ratio (of a cell) to be used in a finite volume simulation. Is there any particular rule? How the solution change? Thank you.

 December 22, 1999, 12:44 Re: Aspect ratio #2 Patrick Godon Guest   Posts: n/a There are many reasons for a particular aspect ratio. A physical reason is: the structure of the flow. If you know that the structure of the flow will not be homogeneous then you might want to consider a given aspect ratio. For example if you have a boundary layer, with a strong shear in it, then in the direction normal to this boundary you want to have a higher resolution (and smaller grid spacing) to resolve the boundary layer. While in the dimension parallel to the boundary you can have a larger grid spacing. If you know that you have waves in the flow, then you want to make sure to resolve them in each direction with a least a few grid point in each dimension (say at least 6 points per wave length). Since the waves might be propagating in each dimesion with a different speed (because of the angle of propagation), then in each dimension (direction) you need to have the appropriate number of grid points. These are physical reasons, there are other reasons which might be due to the specific numerical schmeme you are using and so on. Any other suggestion? Patrick

 December 22, 1999, 15:05 Re: Aspect ratio #3 Gabriel Guest   Posts: n/a Another question. Is there any empirical or theoretical rule to calculate the best aspect ratio, for example in a pipe, with the longitudinal direction much longer than the others two,in which a longitudinal flow created by internal jet-fans takes place? Thank you very much, Gabriel

 December 22, 1999, 15:53 Re: Aspect ratio #4 Patrick Godon Guest   Posts: n/a I don't know of any rule or theoretical law in general. Again, one needs to know things such as are the boundary effects important? is the flow laminar or turbulent? is the turbulence homogeneous? are there streamwise vortices in the flow? and so on.. In short it would be wise to have some basic experiments that tell you qualitatively about the processes in the flow, and the simulations are to evaluate these processes quantitatively. For example if the flow is laminar and a boundary layer develops at the (inner) surface of the pipe. Then I would guess that the cells can be elongated in the direction of the flowing fluid in the pipe, their width decreasing in the boundary layer (making them even more elongated). Or, if the flow is fully turbulent, I would guess that you need the same resolution in all dimension (cubic cells), with an increasing number of points in the boundary layer if it is of small size only (making the cells elongated next to the boundary only). etc.. PG

 December 22, 1999, 16:06 Re: Aspect ratio #5 Alton J. Reich, P.E. Guest   Posts: n/a In a finite element analysis (structural, for example) the rule of thumb is to try to have an aspect ratio of as close to 1:1 as possible. Generally FEA codes will not have problems with aspect ratios of 5 or 10:1. CFD is a completely different beast. Because of the nature of the simulation, it is not unusual to have aspect ratios of more than 1000:1. It is hard to define a rule of thumb for acceptable aspect ratio that doesn't require the analysist to have some "feel" for the solution. The most concise advice I can give would be to echo Patrick's advice that the grid has to be fine enough to capture the gradients in the physical flow. In most cases, such as flow in a pipe, there is one direction that will have larger flow gradients than the others, in this case the radial direction. The grid in that direction will require refinement (or clustering) in the high gradient regions near the wall. The required grid spacing at the wall is going to depend on the turbulence model that is being used and the resolution desired. Required y+ values of 5 are not uncommon. In the streamwise direction, the grid should contain enough resolution to capture changes in geometry. If the grid is in a 90 degree pipe elbow, you might use 30 nodes in the streamwise direction (one node every 3 degrees). That grid would be fine enough to capture the curvature of the geometry, and the flow gradients that causes. You'll probably find that your own experiences will provide the best guidance for determining if a mesh is sufficient.

 December 28, 1999, 12:49 Re: Aspect ratio #7 Alton J. Reich, P.E. Guest   Posts: n/a Faraz, I know of one mesh generation tool that might be considered "automatic" that does generate stretched cell meshes, and seems to work well. It is VIScart from CFD Research Corp. It works on imported surface gemoetry from a CAD package. You (the user) define a number of parameters that govern what the mesh will look like including the desired perpendicular spacing at the wall and in the "free stream". The code then applies a fairly standard looking mesh in the boundary layer near the walls and then used a cartesian mesh in the rest of the domain. It's fairly fast, and I think of it as mostly automatic. If it could read my mind and save the typing, then it would REALLY be amazing.

 January 4, 2000, 02:11 Re: Aspect ratio #8 Faraz Guest   Posts: n/a I had a look at it. Some cells in the transition from layers to the cartesian region look rather bad. Secondly the volume ratio of adjacent cells is, as far as I can tell, easily as high as 8:1! I wonder how it is going to affect the solution accuracy. But thanks for correcting me.

 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 maddalena OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 69 July 21, 2011 07:42 sangrampp ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 0 November 17, 2010 07:57 hammam CFX 3 August 6, 2007 10:41 Flavio CFX 2 November 24, 2006 13:01 mahesh Main CFD Forum 2 October 10, 2005 09:12

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:24.