# rotatingWallVelocity normal to wall

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

 June 21, 2012, 06:00 rotatingWallVelocity normal to wall #1 Member   Robert Castilla Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 79 Rep Power: 8 Hi, I am working in a simulation with dynamic mesh. But, previously, I wanted to make the stationary simulation. A wall is rotating, and I wonder if I could use the rotatingWallVelocity. I tried with pimpleFoam, and the results are not correct (very high velocities in some cells, near to the rotating wall). Even with potential Foam, it gives velocity zero (no wall velocity?) around the domain, except on the wall. I checked the rotatingWallVelocity BC source and I found that: // Remove the component of Up normal to the wall // just in case it is not exactly circular const vectorField n(patch().nf()); vectorField::operator=(Up - n*(n & Up)); Does it mean that only the tangencial wall velocity is considered for the fluid motion? Why? Anyway, I will try to remove this constraint, and I see what happens... but I would like to know the reason of that. Thanks Robert

June 21, 2012, 15:21
#2
Senior Member

Kyle Mooney
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amherst, MA USA - San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 268
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rcastilla Hi, I am working in a simulation with dynamic mesh. But, previously, I wanted to make the stationary simulation. A wall is rotating, and I wonder if I could use the rotatingWallVelocity. I tried with pimpleFoam, and the results are not correct (very high velocities in some cells, near to the rotating wall). Even with potential Foam, it gives velocity zero (no wall velocity?) around the domain, except on the wall. I checked the rotatingWallVelocity BC source and I found that: // Remove the component of Up normal to the wall // just in case it is not exactly circular const vectorField n(patch().nf()); vectorField:perator=(Up - n*(n & Up)); Does it mean that only the tangencial wall velocity is considered for the fluid motion? Why? Anyway, I will try to remove this constraint, and I see what happens... but I would like to know the reason of that. Thanks Robert
I believe that this boundary condition is made for circular boundaries and to act as if it were a no slip no penetration rotating wall, as you described. Because it is a 'wall' no penetration is implied, hence the removal of the face normal component of the velocity. This is a relatively straight forward velocity boundary condition. I doubt that your issues with running it in conjunction with pimpleFoam are related to a bug or something to that nature.

 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 Daniel Tanner Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming 4 February 18, 2015 15:35 Yr0gErG FLUENT 3 June 12, 2013 02:12 Daniel Tanner FLUENT 5 May 3, 2009 00:01 kk Main CFD Forum 0 July 2, 2006 23:13 ap FLUENT 0 July 26, 2004 08:32

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:06.