Immersed boundary method (IBM) vs Dynamic meshing

tomyangbath · March 24, 2009, 06:23

IBM can be used to simulate the moving rigid body without remeshing, my question is compare with dynamic meshing which one is better, more accurate? Anyone have any idea about this?

harishg · March 24, 2009, 10:16

IBM also required remeshing when applied to moving rigid body cases. The one big advantage with the IBM method is the ability to employ a simple finite difference/ volume scheme on a cartesian mesh.

quarkz · March 25, 2009, 04:34

I think it depends on your application. I have tried both for my moving airfoil and found that if you can use structured grid with dynamics meshing, it's much faster than IBM. IBM is more versatile but it is much slower and requires much more higher resolution for the same Re.

liujmljm · March 25, 2009, 12:27

What do you think about IBM to deal with inviscid or viscous compressible flow. Is IBM promissing for the treatment aeroelastics?

liujmljm · April 3, 2009, 03:48

Deforming-mesh approaches can be conservative over a timestep, making them attractive for small deformations. However, for gross boundary motions associated with large time steps the quality of the difference stencil can degrade severely due to this distortion.
The immersed boundary (IB) method simplifies the grid generation process for the simulation of flows with complex and/or moving solid boundaries, by avoiding the need for a body-fitted mesh.

liujmljm · April 17, 2009, 03:02

no people give some conclusions about Immersed boundary method

March 24, 2009, 06:23	Immersed boundary method (IBM) vs Dynamic meshing	#1
tomyangbath New Member ruiyang Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 17	IBM can be used to simulate the moving rigid body without remeshing, my question is compare with dynamic meshing which one is better, more accurate? Anyone have any idea about this?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Immersed boundary method	sfar	Main CFD Forum	31	June 21, 2017 03:52
Stability Condition for Immersed Boundary Method	Dave Rudolf	Main CFD Forum	0	February 5, 2007 23:36
Immersed boundary method with momentum forcing	Fuka	Main CFD Forum	1	February 6, 2006 03:46
New topic on same subject - Flow around race car	Tudor Miron	CFX	15	April 2, 2004 06:18
Please help with flow around car modelling!	Tudor Miron	CFX	17	March 19, 2004 19:23

March 24, 2009, 10:16		#2
harishg Senior Member N/A Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 17	IBM also required remeshing when applied to moving rigid body cases. The one big advantage with the IBM method is the ability to employ a simple finite difference/ volume scheme on a cartesian mesh.

March 25, 2009, 04:34		#3
quarkz Senior Member TWB Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 400 Rep Power: 19	I think it depends on your application. I have tried both for my moving airfoil and found that if you can use structured grid with dynamics meshing, it's much faster than IBM. IBM is more versatile but it is much slower and requires much more higher resolution for the same Re.

March 25, 2009, 12:27		#4
liujmljm Member Jianming Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: China Posts: 71 Rep Power: 17	What do you think about IBM to deal with inviscid or viscous compressible flow. Is IBM promissing for the treatment aeroelastics?

April 3, 2009, 03:48		#5
liujmljm Member Jianming Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: China Posts: 71 Rep Power: 17	Deforming-mesh approaches can be conservative over a timestep, making them attractive for small deformations. However, for gross boundary motions associated with large time steps the quality of the difference stencil can degrade severely due to this distortion. The immersed boundary (IB) method simplifies the grid generation process for the simulation of flows with complex and/or moving solid boundaries, by avoiding the need for a body-fitted mesh.

April 17, 2009, 03:02		#6
liujmljm Member Jianming Liu Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: China Posts: 71 Rep Power: 17	no people give some conclusions about Immersed boundary method