|
[Sponsors] |
Is Mean Free Path useful in determining mesh resolution? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
January 30, 2013, 18:46 |
Is Mean Free Path useful in determining mesh resolution?
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 13 |
I've been trying to simulate an opening at a constant 20 psi that fills a closed space that is roughly 5''x3.33''x.214''.
I'm simulating this for 10 ms, at a timestep of 1e-5s. But my solution diverges. I think this might be due to a poor spatial resolution in my mesh. I read about something called the "mean free path", the average distance between collisions. Does this have any effect on what mesh resolution I need? If so, I am simulating a blast wave, and according to wikipedia: "Shock waves are not conventional sound waves; a shock wave takes the form of a very sharp change in the gas properties on the order of a few mean free paths (roughly micro-meters at atmospheric conditions) in thickness. ". Would my element size need to be on this 1e-6 order of magnitude to accurately simulate my model? I am using SST for turbulence, Total Energy for thermal. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[snappyHexMesh] Mesh around ship with appropriate free surface refinement | Hannes_Kiel | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 46 | October 4, 2019 07:28 |
3D Hybrid Mesh Errors | DarrenC | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 11 | August 5, 2013 06:42 |
[ICEM] Problem making structured mesh on a surface | froztbear | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 4 | November 10, 2011 08:52 |
[ICEM] Free mesh control | Rhyno466 | ANSYS Meshing & Geometry | 6 | September 25, 2011 18:42 |
Icemcfd 11: Loss of mesh from surface mesh option? | Joe | CFX | 2 | March 26, 2007 18:10 |