CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Pressure transmissive bc

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

Like Tree1Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 13, 2008, 09:47
Default Hello I would like to know
  #1
Member
 
srinath
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Champaign, USA
Posts: 90
Rep Power: 7
srinath is on a distinguished road
Hello

I would like to know what the above bc sets?
If i look in the directory for time 0, i find for example in p

outlet
{
type waveTransmissive;
field p;
phi phi;
rho rho;
psi psi;
gamma 1.4;
fieldInf 18855.8;
lInf 3;
value uniform 18855.8;
}
What are lInf, fieldInf, psi.

When is this bc applicable?
srinath is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 16, 2008, 14:17
Default See: http://www.openfoamwiki.
  #2
Member
 
David P. Schmidt
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
Rep Power: 7
schmidt_d is on a distinguished road
See:
http://www.openfoamwiki.net/index.php/HowTo_Using_the_WaveTransmissive_Boundary_ condition
schmidt_d is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 23, 2009, 03:06
Default Hi If I am right, the waveT
  #3
New Member
 
Su Xiaohui
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 7
sxhdhi is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to sxhdhi
Hi

If I am right, the waveTransmissive BC mentioned above is only for compressible flow.

There is one new bc called convective BC published in forum. But I am not sure we can simply obtained convection velocity needed and seems to setup the value fixed during calculation is not correct.

Anyone has better idea?

Regards

XH
sxhdhi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 14, 2010, 08:04
Question
  #4
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hello David,

I am actually optimizing the waveTransmissive BC by adding a plane wave filter. This filtering works quite fine, but as i am trying to extend the same BC for excitation i really need to understand the equation the waveTransmissive BC is based on...

So far I arrived at some equation that looks somehow like:

dp/dt=(1/dt-Linf*DeltaCoeffs) p(t=n+1) + K/dt pInf

Am I right so far??

Is there any location I can see the NOTES the code refers to??

Regards Tobias
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 8, 2011, 12:58
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I would be interested as well... Did u find anything related to this equation in waveTransmissive?

Regards,

Bertrand
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 03:50
Wink
  #6
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hi Bertrand,

I figured it out. Do you have the Paper Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows
T. J. Poinsot* and S. K. Lelef†
Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94305, USA

Received 23 February 1990;
Revised 12 April 1991.
Available online 24 September 2004.
of Poinsot & Lele

It is simply inserting the two LODI formulations (Eqs. 25+34) by eliminating L1. You receive a differential equation in p. L5 is replaced by K/Linf(p-pinf).
Then you have to reformulate it as a mixed BC.

Hope this helps

Tobias
sahm likes this.
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 07:16
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Hello Tobias,

Thank you for the answer.

I have the paper now, and tried to figure out the way you were suggesting.

So, I would arrive at something like

dp/dt + (u1-c) dp/dx1 = K/Linf (p-pinf)

My questions are :

1. In the text, K is a constant : K=sig(1-M^2)c/L, with sig a constant which gives "perfectly non-reflecting" when set to zero, meaning the mixedBoundary should be implemented such as dp/dt + (u1-c) dp/dx1 = 0 ?

2. I bet u1 and x1 are related to the flow speed in one direction. Does that mean that this non-reflective Boundary Condition would be unidirectional or is there a possibility to impose this as the normalGradient mixed Boundary Condition?

3. What is the exact meaning of Linf? The length, counted from the border to specify when the "far field" condition is reached?

I hope I don't bother too much with my many questions ...

Thanks!


Bertrand
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 07:51
Default
  #8
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hi Bertrand,

I'll try to answer your questions shortly...

1. setting sigma to zero theoretically causes non-reflectivity, but the relaxation to a wanted mean pressure won't take place, this leads to a drift of the mean values. I think Baum et. al computed an optimum sigma...

2. This BC only acts in normal direction

3. Yes, but some sources say you should use the domain length for optimum results. In my opinion you should try to chose a length that correlates with your first instable eigenfrequency.

If you need more info, just ask...
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 08:03
Default
  #9
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your insight!

I'll have a look for sigma and try different possibilities for Linf.

How did you implement this Boundary Condition? Because Mixed Boundary Condition is supposed to be steady-state and doesn't allow for time derivative in its expression, if I am not wrong.

I tried to look at it via GroovyBC, but again, the same problem : it looks like there is no other possibility than gradient expression, but no time derivative expression, or...?

The only time derivative expression I could find is actually in convectiveOutlet.

Do you have another Boundary Condition?

Regards,

Bertrand
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 10:04
Default
  #10
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hi Bertrand,

yes this BC is only for more or less steady state applications. It should also work for smooth time variant systems (a colleague of mine uses it for shock wave simulations).

Yes I do have a better BC, which filters f&g waves, but unfortunately I can't give it to you before we published it. Maybe you should tell me what you want to simulate.

Regards
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2011, 15:22
Default
  #11
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Thank you for the reply,

Yes I understand about the still non published paper.

Well, I don't use OF in any of the "classical" CFD purposes, but to investigate about the frequencies spectrum of a sound produced by the vocal tract (now approximated by a variable cross-section tube), so I use rhoPisoFoam, and definitely need some kind of non-reflective Boundary Condition at the far field, if that makes sense...


Bertrand
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 03:37
Default
  #12
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hi Bertrand,

this BC should work fine. But I don't see your time variant system (speaking of mean values). Maybe you should try some grid expansion. This should also dampen a lot. The low frequencies then should be dampened by the BC....

Regards
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 03:56
Default
  #13
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Well,

Actually the acoustical results inside the tube are pretty fine (compared to experimental data) but outside the tube is another story. I need to have frequencies from 20 Hz until approx 6000 Hz, and therefore, the numerical schemes are too dispersive and dissipative outside my resonating cavity : damping subtle acoustic waves I'd like to study. Hence, I would need a non-reflective BC, of the type given in the paper from Stanford, mixing a normal gradient and a time derivative at the boundary of my domain.

Regards
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 05:02
Default
  #14
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
But still, your simulation is not time variant in the sense of means...

Or am I missing something?
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 05:11
Default
  #15
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Well,

my mistake : I forgot to mention I am using a pulsating parabolic inlet, so time-depending (cf. infra) ...

inlet
{
type groovyBC;
variables "A=25;f=50;xp=pos().x;yp=pos().y;X=max(xp);Y=max(y p);";
valueExpression "( (sin(2*pi*f*time())>0) && (sqr(xp/X)+sqr(2*yp/(Y*sin(2*pi*f*time()))))<=1) ? vector(0, 0, ( A*(1-(sqr(xp/X)+sqr(2*yp/(Y*sin(2*pi*f*time()))))) )) : vector(0, 0, 0)";
}
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 05:23
Default
  #16
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Still, not in terms of means....
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2011, 05:57
Default
  #17
New Member
 
Bertrand Delvaux
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Bertrand is on a distinguished road
Well I could give it a try but I am not interested in mean values.
Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 20, 2011, 17:20
Default
  #18
New Member
 
Patty
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6
ptbs is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody View Post
Hi Bertrand,
3. Yes, but some sources say you should use the domain length for optimum results. In my opinion you should try to chose a length that correlates with your first instable eigenfrequency.
Hi Woody

I am looking for Wave Transmissive BC parameters to suppress instabilities under rhoPorousSimpleFoam. I have 2 questions:

1) considering your remark and according to your experience, do I have to understand that we have to try reduce Linf until oscillation occurs and than just increase it a bit to eliminate reflective waves or is there more subtle rule to apply to minimize the impact of Far Field position on modifying the actual value of P at the outlet?

2) Is it normal (as generally described in tutorials or reported examples) to apply in the dictionary the same pressure for outlet and Far Field position? What is the meaning?

Best regards
ptbs is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 21, 2011, 03:08
Default
  #19
Member
 
Tobias Holzinger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 46
Rep Power: 7
woody is on a distinguished road
Hi Patty,

my experience might seem to be greater than it really is, but I'll try to report it to you. For the sake of sense I start answering your second question first:
Quote:
2) Is it normal (as generally described in tutorials or reported examples) to apply in the dictionary the same pressure for outlet and Far Field position? What is the meaning?
As the far field value is rather a stabilization point for the oscillatory parts than a far field value the mean flow should adapt to this value. Therefore the far field value should not differ from the steady state value for standard problems.
Quote:
1) considering your remark and according to your experience, do I have to understand that we have to try reduce Linf until oscillation occurs and than just increase it a bit to eliminate reflective waves or is there more subtle rule to apply to minimize the impact of Far Field position on modifying the actual value of P at the outlet?
The first idea is quite sensible, the second one drops out due to 2). If you are not so interested in keeping the mean value, you might further reduce the Linf in terms of orders of magnitudes. Additionally you should think about buffer zones (increasing cells), artificial viscosity to reduce your reflection.

Hope this helps
__________________
Tobias Holzinger

Chair of Thermodynamics, TU München
woody is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 21, 2011, 17:53
Default
  #20
New Member
 
Patty
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 6
ptbs is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody View Post
Additionally you should think about buffer zones (increasing cells), artificial viscosity to reduce your reflection.
Hi Woody
Thanks for your explanation. Just one more precision: to have "buffer zones", I suppose you mean increasing the NUMBER of cells close to the outlet? It it so?

Best regards
ptbs 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
Pressure driven laminar flow simpleFoam pressure higher at the outlet than inlet gabriel OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 16 September 30, 2009 19:20
Transmissive Outflow Boundary Condition J Main CFD Forum 0 January 18, 2006 12:59
Forcing pressure outlet according to pressure prob Cedric FLUENT 0 July 29, 2005 12:49
Transmissive outflow. Fluids Main CFD Forum 1 July 21, 2004 06:07
pressure driven flow by pressure correction method justentered Main CFD Forum 0 December 30, 2003 00:52


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:59.