# Mass transfer: negative concentrations

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 January 12, 2012, 03:48 Mass transfer: negative concentrations #1 New Member   Andreas P Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 26 Rep Power: 6 Hi all! I simulate mass transfer problems by solving advection-diffusion (and possibly reaction) equation with a finite element method. Numerical instabilities and insufficient mesh resolution sometimes lead to non-physical negative concentration values. I heard somewhere that these problems can be elegantly circumvented by reformulating the transport equations in terms of log(c) -- instead of solving for c directly. - Does anyone here have experience with such log(c)-problems? - I'd be happy if anyone could point me to a publication on this topic! - How will a zero concentration be expressed in terms of log? c=0 ==> log(c)=-inf ...? Thanks for your help! Andreas

 January 12, 2012, 18:28 #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 251 Rep Power: 7 Hi Andreas, I'm not aware about this logC transformation, but for me it won't prevail you from negative concentration. Anyway to my mind your problem is due to an inapropriate numerical scheme for convection term of your transport equation. If your flow is convection dominated (small diffusion coefficient or hyperbolic equation) and if you use centred scheme (CD) or higher order scheme like Quick for example it may lead to such spurious overshoots and undershoots. use low order scheme, upwind, second order upwind or TVD schemes.

 January 26, 2012, 11:03 #3 New Member   Andreas P Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 26 Rep Power: 6 Yes, my problems are highly convection dominant. For the simulations I use a first order Galerkin method which is stabilized by an SUPG-like least squares technique. In general this works fine, except a few overshoots in the vicinity of steep gradients that are almost impossible to eliminate completely. I can live with them as long as the concentrations remain positive (because negative concentrations may totally screw up reaction mechanisms). As for the numerical scheme, I know there might be better solutions, but I am not planning to revise my code. I have tried to derive the log-equations by myself, and I am actually quite sure that it might work this way for pure transport equations. However, reactive terms sometimes pose difficulties. Moreover, there really seems to be no way of expressing concentrations identical to zero. An alternative could be a quadratic transformation. This has been done here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...45782511001484 (just in case anyone else is interested)

 January 26, 2012, 11:10 #4 New Member   Andreas P Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 26 Rep Power: 6 Yet another thought: Suppose I stay with the original formulation of the equations (i.e. in terms of c, not logc). How about simply cutting off all negative values after each iteration? Would this bring any problems in mass conservation? Probably so... But how bad can might this be compared to having non-physical negative values? Any ideas/suggestions?

 January 26, 2012, 11:30 #5 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 251 Rep Power: 7 Hi Andreas, use a TVD scheme like for example MUSCLE, SMART , or Roe with superbee flux limiter and all your problems of undershoot and overshhot will be settled. just try

 May 10, 2014, 08:23 first order reaction mechanism in fluent #6 New Member   reza Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 3 hi whats the meaning of first order reaction mechanism in fluent?i dont know what this?

 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 thipps ANSYS 1 August 29, 2013 11:05 sheintz STAR-CD 2 May 14, 2011 08:20 Michael FLUENT 2 February 13, 2011 02:49 CFDtoy Main CFD Forum 0 July 3, 2008 16:14 Jay FLUENT 1 March 15, 2005 01:29

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:09.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top