# the question about validate code

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

 October 9, 2003, 07:24 the question about validate code #1 Bin Li Guest   Posts: n/a i run the code of compressible N-S equations, and compare the results with incompressible ones because of low Mach number, about 0.2. is it right? Re=3900 ,cylinder.

 October 9, 2003, 10:27 Re: the question about validate code #2 P. Birken Guest   Posts: n/a I have never done such comparisons, but you should go lower with your Mach number. What "they" say is that low Mach starts at 0.1. You have to be careful though, when the Mach number becomes too small, most compressible codes produce false result, especially false pressure distributions.

 October 9, 2003, 12:05 Re: the question about validate code #3 ag Guest   Posts: n/a Actually flow can be considered essentially incompressible up to a Mach number of ~0.3. You can show this very simply (and get a bound on your error) by doing a Taylor series expansion of the density ratio as a function of Mach number. You should be fine.

 October 9, 2003, 17:22 Re: the question about validate code #4 Jarmo Monttinen Guest   Posts: n/a M=0.1 is generally used for incompressible flows, see for example Morgan, P. E. and M. R. Visbal. 2001. Simulation of Unsteady Three-dimensional Separation on a Pitching Wing. AIAA Paper 2001-2709 It works well, is below the M=0.3 limit, but still high enough to avoid numerical errors. M=0.01 is probably to low though. Question is: What type of comparison are you trying to make at Re = 3900? -- Jarmo

 October 9, 2003, 22:42 Re: the question about validate code #5 Bin Li Guest   Posts: n/a I will compare the velocity counter and Pressure, but density field is very different because of fluction! i want to validat my code by computing the cylinder flow.

 October 10, 2003, 16:37 Re: the question about validate code #6 Jarmo Monttinen Guest   Posts: n/a If you run it at M=0.1 the fluctuation should be much smaller, if it still persists, you may have some other problems (is your farfield "far enough", are you comparing with experiments or computations, and so on) You may also want to compute some Re ~ 100 as it is easier to validate.

 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 pm3d Main CFD Forum 1 August 12, 2011 03:05 MechE OpenFOAM 28 May 16, 2011 11:02 waqar Main CFD Forum 19 August 18, 2000 16:31 Heinz Wilkening Main CFD Forum 38 March 5, 1999 12:44 Lans Main CFD Forum 13 October 27, 1998 11:20

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:44.