|
[Sponsors] |
September 22, 2013, 18:34 |
Numerical Scheme for a CFD problem
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 13 |
Hi, I am quite new to the CFD field and I am eager to learn.
In particular, I am trying to write down a code from scratch in order to solve a CFD problem, but I am not sure which numerical scheme is better for my purposes (I don't want to use a ready-to-use CFD package). In particular, my problem has the following features: 1) Spherical symmetry 2) Time dependent 3) Supersonic regime 4) No viscosity 5) Optically thick medium 6) No chemical reactions and no magnetic fields At the moment I don't need a super-accurate numerical scheme, just something to start with which is sufficiently precise. Thank you very much for any help. Marco |
|
September 23, 2013, 05:02 |
|
#2 | |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,863
Rep Power: 73 |
Quote:
Hello, if I am write, you need to solve a 1D problem (t,r)? Therefore, standar solvers for Euler equations are suitable for you (see the book of LeVeque or the older book of Hirsch). You can start by developing a simple first-order scheme, that is forward time integration plus first-order upwinded flux reconstruction. That is simple to code but is quite diffusive therefore I suggest to use a very refined grid. What do you mean for "Optically thick medium"? |
||
September 23, 2013, 12:16 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 13 |
Yes, I need to solve a 1-D problem (r,t).
By optically thick I mean that the medium (gas) absorbs and re-emits radiation in an extensive manner. So maybe I could use a simple Godunov's solver ? Thank you Marco |
|
September 23, 2013, 13:12 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,863
Rep Power: 73 |
||
September 24, 2013, 13:35 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 13 |
Thank you very much for your reply.
I have implemented a basic Godunov solver and I am testing it with the Sod shock tube test. I just want to ask an additional information. I am attaching the plot of the velocity as a function of the position (the initial discontinuity is a x=0.3). As you see, the graph is quite good, but there is a strange increase in velocity around the shock front position. I do suppose that this is a numerical issue due to the elementary method I used. Maybe more advanced methods could represent the shock front in a much better way. Do you think that this is the case? If so, this method is good for me because for my application i do not expect to encounter strong discontinuities. Thank you very much for all the cooperation! Marco |
|
September 24, 2013, 14:07 |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,863
Rep Power: 73 |
you should have an expansion wave region... what about density and pressure?
Check this report http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/10964/10964D.pdf |
|
September 24, 2013, 14:15 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 13 |
Attached you can find density and pressure.
Marco |
|
September 24, 2013, 14:45 |
|
#8 |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,863
Rep Power: 73 |
||
September 25, 2013, 03:54 |
|
#9 |
New Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 13 |
Ok thank you very much for your help.
I solved the problem with the Godunov upwind scheme and also coded successfully a HLLC version of the HD integrator, it is fantastic!! Grazie! Marco |
|
Tags |
numerical methods, numerical scheme, numerical simulation, physical model |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Future CFD Research | Jas | Main CFD Forum | 10 | March 30, 2013 13:26 |
What a CFD scheme means? | Accelerator | Main CFD Forum | 0 | March 28, 2012 05:02 |
CFD problem setup for flow through porous media | Paresh Jain | CFX | 5 | June 30, 2003 04:50 |
ASME CFD Symposium - Call for Papers | Chris Kleijn | Main CFD Forum | 0 | September 25, 2001 11:17 |
PC vs. Workstation | Tim Franke | Main CFD Forum | 5 | September 29, 1999 16:01 |