2D vs 3D simulation

trieuminh07 · July 18, 2011, 09:29

Can anyone tell me what is different between 2D and 3D simulation? (about math, not complexity)

truffaldino · July 20, 2011, 16:41

For large reynolds numbers, there is no turbulence due to absence of vortex tube stretching in 2D (i.e. there is no turbulence in 3D sence there, but an inverse cascade). The 2D equation for vorticity is just dw/dt=0, that is why 3D simulation is needed (in absence of turbulence moelling, which is often doubtful) to get more or less meaningful results in CFD.

vxv · July 22, 2011, 17:49

2D simulation is just an idealization of 3D simulation. Consider a flow over a delta wing. Usually, the delta wing taper towards wing tip. If one makes several 2D cuts along spanwise direction, the flow field for each of these cuts will look different. Now, consider a rectangular wing that does not taper towards the tips and has same cross-section all along the span. If the spanwise length is "long enough", and one makes similar 2D cuts along spanwise direction again, the flow field for each of the cuts (not very near the wing tip) will look the same. Ideally, such a flow can be simulated as a 2D flow, because the flow field is independent of one of the directions (in this case spanwise direction).

VincentD · July 24, 2011, 05:33

You should imagine the third dimension of your 2D simulation as infinite. All the properties are constant over this third dimension (dudz = 0, d2udz2=0 dpdz=0 enz..).

July 18, 2011, 09:29	2D vs 3D simulation	#1
trieuminh07 New Member a Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 15	Can anyone tell me what is different between 2D and 3D simulation? (about math, not complexity)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why my simulation not agree with the wind tunnel experiment	zhaowei	CFX	4	July 11, 2015 03:36
Solar Radiation in OpenFOAM	plainstyle	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	15	July 8, 2014 04:43
Simulation of a complex wing in solidworks flow simulation	niels1900	FloEFD, FloWorks & FloTHERM	6	April 20, 2011 10:44
Continuous vs interrupted simulation	sega	OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD	4	November 3, 2008 14:29
strange simulation error	Ralf Schmidt	FLUENT	2	May 4, 2007 13:02

July 20, 2011, 16:41		#2
truffaldino Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 249 Blog Entries: 5 Rep Power: 17	For large reynolds numbers, there is no turbulence due to absence of vortex tube stretching in 2D (i.e. there is no turbulence in 3D sence there, but an inverse cascade). The 2D equation for vorticity is just dw/dt=0, that is why 3D simulation is needed (in absence of turbulence moelling, which is often doubtful) to get more or less meaningful results in CFD.

July 22, 2011, 17:49		#3
vxv New Member vxv Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 14	2D simulation is just an idealization of 3D simulation. Consider a flow over a delta wing. Usually, the delta wing taper towards wing tip. If one makes several 2D cuts along spanwise direction, the flow field for each of these cuts will look different. Now, consider a rectangular wing that does not taper towards the tips and has same cross-section all along the span. If the spanwise length is "long enough", and one makes similar 2D cuts along spanwise direction again, the flow field for each of the cuts (not very near the wing tip) will look the same. Ideally, such a flow can be simulated as a 2D flow, because the flow field is independent of one of the directions (in this case spanwise direction).

July 24, 2011, 05:33		#4
VincentD New Member Vincent Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 14	You should imagine the third dimension of your 2D simulation as infinite. All the properties are constant over this third dimension (dudz = 0, d2udz2=0 dpdz=0 enz..).