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

Problem solving pressure-correction equation

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 15, 2009, 06:54
Default Problem solving pressure-correction equation
  #1
New Member
 
Jan Blechta
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
alex_de_large is on a distinguished road
Hi everybody,
I'm trying to simulate an incompressible unsteady flow. I assume inlet BC (given velocities), wall, symetry plane and outlet (Neumann condition for velocities). So I use zero normal derivative condition for pressure correction on whole boundary, but I'm not sure that this is right. The pressure-correction equation is to be solved by Gauss-Seidel or SOR solver. Solver behaves quite a curious way. It does not converge neither diverge. More accurately residuum = A fi - q is falling for a while and then it stops on a value (too high). It seems problem is in a source term but I can't resolve it. It's needed for a poisson equation with Neumann condition source term to be zero in average. I tried to fix it by correcting computed mass fluxes on outlet to giver the same total mass flux as on inlet in accordance with sugestion in Ferziger, Peric. This treatment ensures that sum of source terms is about 1.e-13. I'm not sure whether it isn't too much and doesn't cause the bad convergence. Or could be the cause of the problem large gradient of the source term near outlet boundary caused by this correction?
What do you think?

Thank you for your suggestions
alex_de_large is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 15, 2009, 10:42
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
ztdep's Avatar
 
p ding
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 308
Rep Power: 10
ztdep is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to ztdep Send a message via Skype™ to ztdep
yes you are right. pressure correction equation with a insulation bc
ztdep is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 16, 2009, 05:05
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9
franck is on a distinguished road
Hi Alex,

I would suggest that you enforce Dirichlet conditions on some parts (at least one point) of your whole boundary set. Then, the problem is well-posed and you are not bound by the compatibility integral constraint.

If the convergence does improve (and goes down to machine-accuracy), then it is probably this integral condition which is not fullfilled. In this case, make sure that your discrete scheme is fully conservative... that might help.

If it does not improve, then the problem is somewhere else.

Hope this helps...
franck is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2009, 12:54
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Jan Blechta
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
alex_de_large is on a distinguished road
Franck, thank you! Introducing dirichlet bc in only single point really improved accuracy to machine precision. What did you mean by conservation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franck View Post
... make sure that your discrete scheme is fully conservative...
alex_de_large is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 20, 2009, 03:44
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9
franck is on a distinguished road
Hi Alex.

It seems that the integral compatibility constraint is not fulfilled then...

What I mean by conservative: since the laplacian operator is formally the divergence of a gradient, you can express it as flux differences (of the gradient component normal to the cell faces) between the cell faces of your mesh cells. Conservative means that the flux leaving one cell should be identical (in your discrete scheme) to the flux entering the neighbouring one. If your equation reads like this:
div(grad(fi))=q
adding this over all cells of the entire mesh will result in:
sum of q over all cells = sum of normal flux over all boundary faces
which is the integral constraints which should be fulfilled. If the scheme is not conservative, then you cannot be sure that this constraints holds...

As you wrote before, you should as well ensure that your Neumann boundary conditions are set so that the constraint is fulfilled. You can do that by correcting them as you mentionned in your previous post.

Does it make sense?
franck is offline   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
Nature of Pressure Correction Equation Abhijit Tilak Main CFD Forum 10 April 10, 2016 17:03
Negative value of k causing simulation to stop velan OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 October 17, 2008 05:36
Pressure Correction Equation morteza OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 September 4, 2007 06:16
Neumann pressure BC and velocity field Antech Main CFD Forum 0 April 25, 2006 02:15
Preconditioning for Pressure Correction Equation cfd101 Main CFD Forum 1 February 23, 2006 15:34


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:51.