
[Sponsors] 
Newbie: why use stream function instead of solving for x and y flow components? 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
January 2, 2012, 07:54 
Newbie: why use stream function instead of solving for x and y flow components?

#1 
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 8 
Hello all:
I'm a chemist. I'm a bit of a newbie to fluid dynamics, so I apologize in advance for any silly questions. I'd appreciate some advice related to an article I'm reading. This article was written in the 1980s. It is about flow to the top of a container. The author has solved the vorticity equation to get a stream function. The point is to get trajectories of fluid parcels. I'm curious about why anyone would use this method. Why not just solve for the x and y components of flow? Would there be any advantage to using the vorticity method? Or would this author have used that method because of computational limitations back in the 1980s? The reason I'm asking is that I would like to make a simple flow model to describe transport of chemical components to the top of a container. I'm wondering whether I should use the vorticity equation and stream function method described in this article or something else. Any suggestions/advice would be very much appreciated! Thanks. 

January 2, 2012, 13:07 

#2 
Senior Member

My knowledge about the streamfunctionvorticity (SV) method is at textbookbasic programming level but i think it's fair to say:
 The main advantage of the SV method is in 2D computations, where only 2 equations need to be solved (psi and omega) versus the 3 required by a classical approach (u, v and p).  The continuity equation is satisfied by construction due to the use of the streamfunction (however, there is probably more under the hood)  There are probably also people using it for 3D computations. I guess, because of the continuity equation advantage For what concerns the trajectories, if the flow is steady and 2D they coincide with the streamlines so they are easily obtained as contours of the streamfunction 

January 2, 2012, 15:17 

#3 
Member
private
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 74
Rep Power: 9 
I don't have the experience to answer with much certitude. But here's what I think:
Using velocities, you'd be solving for u, v, w, and p (three components of velocity plus fluid pressure). Using vorticity (omega), you'll still have three components (ox, oy, oz ???). You'll need to access the velocities (or the three components of stream function, sx, sy, sz) as you go; that's either more storage or extra calculations. So the vorticity transport may actually cost in overhead, especially for a fullblown 3d simulation. [For 2d, the vorticity is of course only 1d]. For twodimensional flows, psiomega uses less memory than uvp variables, 2 2d arrays vs 3 2d arrays. For a 3dimensional case (usually not possible in 1980), psiomega requires 6 3d arrays while uvwp requires 4 3d arrays. Your speculation about computing power in the 80's is as I recall it. Memory capacity and calculation speed were both very low. [Just for fun I replicated a 1980 CFD calculation by Los Alamos (LA8355). It was 2dimensional, a mesh of 20 x 8 cells, incompressible flow.] In 2004, I replicated the calculation on my PC using the same code (updated to Fortran 77). The compute time and answers were essentially identical!)]. Finally, you'll likely be able to find a 2d uv code to handle your problem without buying it  or writing it yourself. Perhaps 100 students will read your post and be able to offer their own codes (or their professor's teaching codes) with documentation and examples. This web site also has a list of free codes. I think that psiomega codes are not so readily available these days. So, my recommendation is to use the primitive variable approach. You'll be able to add your chemical transport (and other interesting physics) without a lot of drama. Good luck to you! 

January 3, 2012, 09:22 

#4 
Senior Member
Andrew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 195
Rep Power: 9 
you don't have to worry about the pressure is the main reason. After solving for the velocities you can come back and get the pressure if you need it.


January 3, 2012, 10:31 

#5 
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 8 
Hi everyone:
Thanks a lot for all your help!! Really appreciate it. Well, it sounds like there wouldn't be any DISADVANTAGE to using the primitive variables method instead of the vorticitystreamfunctions method. It doesn't sound like there's any information I'd miss if I used primitive variables (this worried me). Also, I agree with otd that it might be best to use the primitive variables method because I'm not confident I understand what is going on under the hood of the vorticity method (e.g., the exact assumptions that are incorporated). My chemistry is quite complexit would lead to density and viscosity and pressure variations. So there could be simplifying assumptions for using the vorticitystreamfunction method that might get me into trouble. mettler, do you mean that when using the streamfunction method, we don't solve for P, but we can get it once we have the velocity? Again, thanks a lot for your patience. It is nice to be able to get some knowledgeable opinions before diving right in and perhaps starting off on the wrong foot! 

January 3, 2012, 10:55 

#6 
Senior Member
Andrew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 195
Rep Power: 9 
yes, when transforming the equations into the stream function  vorticity equations the pressure term drops out.
I highly recommend going thru the math to get to the stream functionvorticity equations. It is not very difficult, but it is rather time consuming. It is just a lot of substitution. But, it will help out in the long run. 

Tags 
streamfunction, streamfunction, streamline, vorticity 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
alphaEqn.H in twoPhaseEulerFoam  cheng1988sjtu  OpenFOAM Bugs  14  September 18, 2011 13:46 
Upgraded from Karmic Koala 9.10 to Lucid Lynx10.04.3  bookie56  OpenFOAM Installation  8  August 13, 2011 04:03 
Orifice Plate with a fully developed flow  Problems with convergence  jonmec  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  3  July 28, 2011 05:24 
Compressible Nozzle Flow  sebastian  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  13  October 21, 2010 05:25 
ForcesCoeffs  ronaldo  OpenFOAM  4  September 14, 2009 07:11 