# Poisson Solver or suitable scheme

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

 August 3, 2006, 16:49 Poisson Solver or suitable scheme #1 Tingting Guest   Posts: n/a Sponsored Links Hi, I'm programing a 2D(it would be 3D later) incompressible viscous internal flow code recently(Re~1000-3000). I use franctional-step method(by Kim and Moin 1985) and adaptive grid. However, I have trouble with soving Poisson equation. Because I'll deal with complicate geometry later, therefore fast Fourier sovler doestn't work in my case. Anyone can suggest me which numerical scheme I can use to solve the Poisson equation or where I can find the existing code online??!! Another small question is the boundary of pressure. By the paper, it said that we don't need ad hoct boundary for pressure by adaptive grid. However, when I solve the Poisson equation of phi, I do need the boundary condition, rihgt? What should I do with that? It's a long question. Thanks for your patience and attention.

 August 4, 2006, 06:47 Re: Poisson Solver or suitable scheme #2 Dominic Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, Ultimately the discretized Possion Equation leads you to a system of equations Ax=B. You can then use standard open source solvers like PETSc or LAPACK. You just need to input the coefficient Matrix A and B in a specific order. Im not sure of the adaptive case but you can have a look at it. Pressure b.c in physical sense is not required. However you need a b.c for phi since it forms the poisson eqn. It comes like this : If the intermediate solution is 'us', then, we know, it is decomposed as: us = u_n+1_ + dt*grad(phi). Taking the normal component, gives rise to: n.us = n.u_n+1_ + dt* n.grad(phi). mostly, it is assumed that at the boundary, 'us' assumes the value of u_n+1_ . So the above eqn bcomes : n.grad(phi)=0. And it so happens that in this case by virtue of the 1st order time discretization, phi has to be equal to 'p' so that the splitting is exact. When its a second order crank nicholson discretisation, using phi=p will give a wrong splitting. This sort of b.c for pressure is argued in literature as the formation of numerical boundary layers, since this boundary condition is numerical and not physical. There are higher order methods in which phi = p + f(del.us).. and in this case you never say that you are having a b.c for pressure, but phi instead. cheers, Dominic

 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 Luiz CFX 4 March 6, 2011 21:02 nikwin OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 April 17, 2009 16:59 bearcat CFX 6 April 28, 2008 14:08 oevermann OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 April 12, 2006 06:05 Zhihang Zhang Main CFD Forum 1 January 21, 2004 20:47