
[Sponsors] 
August 9, 2005, 12:39 
How can we solve problems in dimensionless mode?

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Sponsored Links


Sponsored Links 
August 9, 2005, 13:36 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Why not try scaling. you may define a scale of 1:20 or whatever and then simulate. i think this is the way it is done for civil engineering applications invoving big buildings. But how will you scale your primitive variables?
Swarup 

August 10, 2005, 05:04 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I tried that, but when you scale your model you just change geometry but what about velocities?mass rates?Reynolds?and so on. when you decrease scale infact you decrease size of inlets and therefore Reynolds number changes and thus definition of your problem changes completely(at least I think so).If i am wrong please tell me.Thanks


August 10, 2005, 05:57 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I agree with your views. It is still possible though I think when you identify proper dimensionless groups at inlets. you should try to maintain same values of dimensionless groups as in the bigger/real life model. ultimately, scaleup involves the same thing so a scaledown also will work the same way. you will have to worry mainly for velocities.
Regards, Swarup. 

August 10, 2005, 06:35 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Thanks for your attention and your reply Mohsen


August 10, 2005, 07:17 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Of course you can solve the problem in a dimenssionless form. Then the adimensional groups will appear: Re, Nu, Gr, Fr, Pr, Pe, etc ...
The problem is that if you want to solve exactly the same problem, then the equations to be resolved will be the same and then the same mesh, memory, etc requirements will be need. Other thing is that you can solve a problem with (for example) Re 2 order of magnitud less. Then probably you can reduce your mesh in this quantity. But then the problem solved will not be the same. When you go back and scale the problem to reality (put in the result the units using the adimensional groups used), then the solution will not apply. 

August 10, 2005, 12:44 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I did not mean to change the dimensionless numbers but rather maintain them same between the actual geometry and the scaled one. this way, you will use NRe of say 10000 in big and small models. now, change in dimensions from big to small model will have to be compensated using a different value of inlet velocity for the same fluid such that same NRe is maintained between the two scales. That's all. This is how scaleup is achieved.
Swarup. 

August 10, 2005, 15:12 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#8 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Sorry, but I still can not see how to make it. If you want to make an experiment with scale models (in reality) you can try to keep all dimensionless groups constant, and to make a reduced model so you can conduct properly the experiments.
In the numeric world I can not see the advantages because the fluid scales that has to be resolved are the same with respect the geometry, so if you have the same numbers (Re, Fr, Pr, ...) the scales will be the same and if you need to resolve a 1/1000 scale with respect the main dimension of your geometry, then you will need to mesh with this resolution. The adimensional groups gives the scales of the problem and not the real dimension. Well probably I missed something and thats why I can not see the solution proposed. 

August 12, 2005, 17:44 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#9 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi take a look at my problem:a real model with air velocity of 125 m/s,therefoer a subsonic problem but if you reduce scale to 0.1 then you must multiply velocity in a factor of 10 and the problem is converted to a supersonic flow, ooops... my world collapsed.what do I must do ?


August 13, 2005, 03:37 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#10 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Mohsen,
although maintaining same nondimensional groups may work, it turns out that internal equations should also be in nondimensional form. I do not know whether this can be achieved simply in Fluent. another way out seems to be use of a coarse mesh or use of a different type of mesh on actual scale that you have, that will result in a smaller number of cells. still another way out seems to be decomposition of your domain in suitable subdomains. solution of problem in one subdomain should be fed to another and continued. both these alternatives will allow you to use actual scale of your geometry without resorting to reduced scale. a different meshing strategy seems to be more promising and easy to start with. the subdomain route may need more work i guess and will be involved if you have to and fro connexions among the subdomains. Try out other combinations if possible and best of luck. Swarup. 

August 18, 2005, 22:26 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#11 
Guest
Posts: n/a

call me if you remember me cell 310 7076847


August 19, 2005, 04:35 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#12 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Swarup meybe this way can help me,I mean decomposition to some subdomains.But at the last moments my master changed the problem to a microcombustor.He said that full scale model with this mesh will be good in a optomize FORTRAN code but not in fluent,so he prefered to concentrate on my research phenomenon(HiTAC) on microcombustors.Thanks from you and other friend(Diego Peinado)for all of your consults.


August 22, 2005, 19:39 
Re: How can we solve problems in dimensionless mod

#13 
Guest
Posts: n/a

With simple problems involving just a few, clearly identifiable dimensionless numbers (e.g. Reynolds number, Rayleigh number, Prandtl number), one can often scale up or down the physical dimension of the problem at hand, if necessary. In that case, you have to set the boundary conditions, physical propperties, etc., so that the relevant dimensionless numbers are kept same. For instance, turbulent heat transfer problem over a backwardfacing step can be solved with the inlet velocity of 1 and the stepheight of unit length (1.0). In that case, you need to adjust the physical propperties such as the molecular viscosity, the specific heat, and the thermal conductivity so that you recover the desired Reynolds number and the Prandtl number. And the results are looked at in terms of nondimensional quantities (e.g., Xr/H, Nusselt number).
However, very often, when the physics becomes complex as in the majority of real world problems, it is very difficult or even practically impossible to identify and the relevant nondimensional numbers and match them simultaneously. That's why almost all of multiphysics, generalpurpose CFD packages eschew nondimensional form of the governing equations and boundary conditions. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Grid Check Fails in Parallel Processing Mode  askance  Main CFD Forum  0  October 20, 2010 10:11 
Problems in representing convected derivatives in OpenFoam  titio  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  1  February 16, 2009 16:01 
Can Fidap solve dynamic mesh problems?  Sandy  FLUENT  0  September 29, 2003 00:45 
How to solve another continuum and momentum eqn?  west_wing  FLUENT  0  August 25, 2003 10:00 
extremely simple problem... can you solve it properly?  Mikhail  Main CFD Forum  40  September 9, 1999 09:11 
Sponsored Links 