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

Pressure constant B.C. in fractional step method

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

Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 10, 2012, 03:31
Unhappy Pressure constant B.C. in fractional step method
  #1
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
Hi everyOne
As we know pressure in fractional step method is not real pressure and it's pressure-like variable as we see in every reference. and beside this for this pressure every where B.C. is dp/dn=0 .

with this point how we can use pressure constant B.C. in this method? It's like the other method for example SIMPLE-like methods? dp/dn=0 doesn't make any problem?

thanks for your attention
amin144 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 06:52
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by amin144 View Post
Hi everyOne
As we know pressure in fractional step method is not real pressure and it's pressure-like variable as we see in every reference. and beside this for this pressure every where B.C. is dp/dn=0 .

with this point how we can use pressure constant B.C. in this method? It's like the other method for example SIMPLE-like methods? dp/dn=0 doesn't make any problem?

thanks for your attention
for example in the pressure-free method (Moin & Kim) a constant pressure outlet gives you (one-dimension x, second order discretization)

( (dp/dx)i+1/2 - (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx (1)

with the general condition provided by the Hodge decomposition

(dp/dx)i+1/2 = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (un+1)i+1/2 )

Generally, you physically know and prescribe the velocity un+1 at the boundaries and rewrite the pressure equation as:

( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx


Now, you have to use Eq.(1) and (2) in the same congruent way but prescribing the constant pressure (that is you have to prescribe something in the LHS of Eq.(2)). Be carefull in the (un+1)
amin144 likes this.

Last edited by FMDenaro; April 10, 2012 at 15:34.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 11:08
Default
  #3
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
for example in the pressure-free method (Moin & Kim) a constant pressure outlet gives you (one-dimension x, second order discretization)

( (dp/dx)i+1/2 - (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx (1)

with the general condition provided by the Hodge decomposition

(dp/dx)i+1/2 = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (un+1)i+1/2 )

Generally, you physically know and prescribe the velocity un+1 at the boundaries and rewrite the pressure equation as:

( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx


Now, you have to use Eq.(1) and (2) in the same congruent way but prescribing the constant pressure (that is you have to prescribe something in the LHS of Eq.(2)). Be carefull in the (un+1)
Hi again dear Filippo
thanks very much
You are very professional in this method


understanding your explanations and equations is hard for me
Can you explain me easy like Pierc CFD book and in the form of this book?
you are professional and your explanations is professional too

Last edited by amin144; April 10, 2012 at 16:29.
amin144 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 11:18
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by amin144 View Post
Hi again dear Filippo
thanks very much
You are very professional in this method


understanding your explanations and equations is hard for me
Can you explain me easy like Pierc CFD book and in the form of this book?
you are professional and your explanations is professional too

what is the issue you have not understood?
amin144 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 13:47
Default
  #5
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
Thanks again very very much dear Filippo

If I be right your text mean that we know P(i+1) (from pressure constant boundary) and (u*)i+1/2 so we derive p(i) from eq(1) and after we can derive u(n+1) from eq(2) ?
If I'm wrong I'll appreciate you if you explain me what should I do step by step.


I have another question
why you vanished (dp/dx)i-1/2 in eq(3) if this is for outlet?
In outlet we have (dp/dx)i+1/2=0 . am I right?
amin144 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 15:34
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by amin144 View Post
Thanks again very very much dear Filippo

If I be right your text mean that we know P(i+1) (from pressure constant boundary) and (u*)i+1/2 so we derive p(i) from eq(1) and after we can derive u(n+1) from eq(2) ?
If I'm wrong I'll appreciate you if you explain me what should I do step by step.


I have another question
why you vanished (dp/dx)i-1/2 in eq(3) if this is for outlet?
In outlet we have (dp/dx)i+1/2=0 . am I right?

Sorry, I was wrong in copying and pasting the LHS of (3), it writes

( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx

... the Eq.(2) prescribes a relation between the normal component of the pressure gradient, the normal component u* and the normal component un+1. The mathematical problem requires only 1 boundary condition to be well posed, therefore generally one prescribe the physical velocity on the boundary. If you know un+1, then you just substitute the (2) into (1) and get (3), this way you does not prescribe dp/dx=0 on the boundary.
In your case you want to prescribe (p)i+1 with a Dirichlet boundary condition, therefore you can not prescribe the physical velocity. You must use some extrapolation from the interior
amin144 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 16:57
Default
  #7
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
1)
If we put eq(2) in eq(3) we will have:
( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 -2* (u*)i-1/2 )/dx
it's a little different from eq(3)

2)
why we see in refrences says that dp/dn=0 on boundaries?

3)
so if I will have a interpolation to derive u(n+1) on velocity, where the pressure diffrence between inlet and outlet effect to drive the fluid? only in solving poisson equation for pressure and using value of pressure on boundaries for pressure ? and this work is sufficient to apply boundary condition?
amin144 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 17:21
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by amin144 View Post
1)
If we put eq(2) in eq(3) we will have:
( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 -2* (u*)i-1/2 )/dx
it's a little different from eq(3)

2)
why we see in refrences says that dp/dn=0 on boundaries?

3)
so if I will have a interpolation to derive u(n+1) on velocity, where the pressure diffrence between inlet and outlet effect to drive the fluid? only in solving poisson equation for pressure and using value of pressure on boundaries for pressure ? and this work is sufficient to apply boundary condition?


1) put (dp/dx)i+1/2 = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (un+1)i+1/2 ) into the LHS of

( (dp/dx)i+1/2 - (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (u*)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx (1)

and will get

( (dp/dx)i-1/2 )/dx = (1/dt) ( (un+1)i+1/2 - (u*)i-1/2 )/dx

2) dp/dn = 0 is sometimes referenced but it is not really exact... however, the Neumann homogeneous condition applied on Eq.(2) will drive to u* = un+1 and the equivalence with Eq.(3) exists. For this reason you read in literature this condition. But when you compute the normal pressure gradient on the boundary with dp/dn=0, or dp/dn = (1/dt) (u* -un+1), the solutions are different

3) need to considere the extrapolation also in the momentum quantity. You must verify at the end of the steps that Div Vn+1 = 0 also on the cell at outlet
amin144 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 17:43
Default
  #9
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
1) you are right like always. I guess I,m being crazy slowly

2) so this B.C. (dp/dn=0) make unexact results? what should do?

3) satisfying Div(Vn+1)=0 need only more itteration or any other yhing?
amin144 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 17:47
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
dp/dn = 0 is an approximation congruent to a boundary layer approximation ... but can lead to some problems, that is largely discussed in literature.

the divergence-free constraint is satisfied at machine accuracy in the Exact Projecton Method and at the level of the local truncation error in the Approximate Projection Method. Generally, EPM is for second order accurate discretization on staggered grids, APM is on non-staggered.
amin144 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2012, 17:58
Default
  #11
Member
 
Amin Shariat KHah
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shiraz
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 6
amin144 is on a distinguished road
Thanks your perfect answers
amin144 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
Comparing between the Fractional step method and the SIMPLE method ghlee Main CFD Forum 1 April 10, 2012 16:59
lid-driven cavity in matlab using BiCGStab Don456 Main CFD Forum 1 January 19, 2012 16:00
fractional step method Fuka Main CFD Forum 1 March 23, 2006 18:01
pressure Poisson equation in fractinoal step metho Rui Main CFD Forum 6 October 15, 2000 04:57
Hydrostatic pressure in 2-phase flow modeling (long) DS & HB Main CFD Forum 0 January 8, 2000 16:00


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:43.