# What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible flo

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

 May 10, 2001, 07:56 What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible flo #1 Jing Guest   Posts: n/a Hellow, Basically, SIMPLE is a pressure-correction method for imcompressible flow. But in some commerical CFD software, SIMPLE is also used to analyze the compressible flowfield. It is very common for me to deal with the transonic and supersonic compressible flowfields. I don't konw if SIMPLE will cause some problem for predicting the comressible flowfield and if it will omit some detailed flowfield phenomenon (for example, shock and boundary layer). Thanks! Jing Jing

 May 10, 2001, 13:44 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #2 John C. Chien Guest   Posts: n/a (1). The best way to do is to try it out, I mean run some cases using commercial codes with transonic or supersonic conditions. (2). As an example, Fluent/UNS is pressure-based incompressible formulation, while Fluent/Rampant is density-based compressible formulation. (3). So, it is well-recognized that there is limit to the pressure-based formulation when used for transonic, supersonic flows. (4). But there are always tricks one can invent, so you will have to address it on the individual bases(codes). In general, it is a good idea (actually it is a rule), to use density-based formulation for transonic and supersonic applications. (It is part of the history in cfd development)

 May 11, 2001, 02:39 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #3 Jing Guest   Posts: n/a Thanks for your opinion. Could you tell me what is the limit of pressure -based foumulaltion when used for transonic and supersonic flow and what are the tricks one can use for pressure-based formulation used for transion and supersonic flow? Thanks! Jing

 May 11, 2001, 09:34 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #4 Joe Guest   Posts: n/a In principle, there is no limit to pressure-based method. Several all-speed pressure-based methods are discribed in the past few years. Go to a library, you can find a lot of info. in AIAA J. or in Wei Shyy's book.

 May 14, 2001, 12:29 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #5 Michael Malin Guest   Posts: n/a The extension of SIMPLE to such flows was done a very long time ago, i.e. in the 70s. I recall papers by Issa, Spalding, and later by McGuirk, Raithby, Parameswaran and others. The shock capturing can be poor sometimes, and a remedy for this was proposed by McGuirk and Page, AIAA J,28, 1990.

 May 14, 2001, 20:22 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #6 Joe Perry Guest   Posts: n/a You are right. A lot of PISO-extend algorithms have also appeared after McGuirk and Page's paper. Actually, the shock-capturing capability has more to do with the discretization of the convection term, rather than the pressure-velocity coupling.

 May 15, 2001, 04:18 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #7 Michael Malin Guest   Posts: n/a Yes, I agree that the discretisation scheme for convection is a significant factor for shock capture as most SIMPLE-based codes use Hybrid or pure upwind as the default. A non-linear higher-order scheme produces a much sharper shock.

 May 16, 2001, 11:46 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #8 Jing Guest   Posts: n/a Although a non-linear higher-order scheme produces and fine grid are important for schock, I think the basic problem is still the SIMPLE method. I have tried a commerical code with 3 order discritization to calculte a supersonic flowfield in a nozzle, but it still can not get the detailed shock as another dommestic software which is especially for compressible flowfield.And also the boundary layer.

 May 16, 2001, 12:13 Re: What's the influence of SIMPLE to compressible #9 Michael Malin Guest   Posts: n/a Extensions to SIMPLE for such flows have already been discussed. Commercial codes may differ in their precise treatment, and so I suggest that you ask the vendors for details of how they have extended SIMPLE. Incidently, I have known shocks to be predicted incorrectly because of inconsistencies in the discretisation of the momentum convection and continuity convection terms. This qualifies as a formulation error rather than a software bug, which is another possibility.

 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 Maarten de Jong Main CFD Forum 7 April 30, 2012 02:23 fakor Main CFD Forum 1 August 30, 2010 11:21 universez Main CFD Forum 0 February 8, 2010 11:38 peck110 Main CFD Forum 3 February 5, 2008 10:34 Mihai ARGHIR Main CFD Forum 0 April 7, 2000 04:58

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:21.