CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Main CFD Forum

Inviscid transonic flow over circular bump

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Martin Hegedus

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 17, 2015, 05:24
Default Inviscid transonic flow over circular bump
  #1
Senior Member
 
Ashwani
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 154
Rep Power: 13
AshwaniAssam is on a distinguished road
Dear all,

I was simulating the inviscid flow over circular bump (10% height) for M=0.675 (transonic regime). The problem I am facing is that I am not getting a proper match for the mach number plot along the lower bump wall at downstream. The plot is attached below. I have used subsonic outflow boundary condition (Whitfield'84 et al). I am using total pressure boundary condition at inflow. The walls have slip condition. it is a density-based solver, with roe scheme. The spatial accuracy is 2nd order, with minmod and Venkatkrishnan limiter. Can anyone please help. Did somebody also got such difference?

Also, I want to ask as far as I have seen most transonic bump cases has been reported using pressure-based solver. Is that one reason for such difference.

I am also attaching the Mach contours.

Thanks for going through this post.

M675.jpg

machcnt.jpg
AshwaniAssam is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 18, 2015, 00:32
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
I suspect it's the numerical dissipation which is adding additional entropy. I would suggest running at a lower Mach number such that at shock does not exist. That will remove the entropy generated by the shock. Then try adding more grid points. I suspect the "wake" will disappear to some extent. However, to some degree it will always be there. To remove it you might need to go to a higher order less dissipative method.
Martin Hegedus is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 19, 2015, 08:52
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Ashwani
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 154
Rep Power: 13
AshwaniAssam is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your reply. I would run the lower mach number and report for the same. We are understanding that since we are using AUSM i.e. an upwind scheme we are getting such dissipation downstream. I have ran the similar cases with MacCormack Scheme (Central scheme), there I got a better match at the downstream. Is it the something same with pressure based solver, because of which dissipation is less their?
AshwaniAssam is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 19, 2015, 12:02
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
I'm not familiar with pressure based schemes, but how one iterates towards steady state should not effect the amount of dissipation at steady state. If the pressure based scheme uses a different discretization method, then yes the amount dissipation could be different.
AshwaniAssam likes this.
Martin Hegedus is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Particle deposition on circular cylinder in turbulent flow Julian K. CFX 1 October 3, 2011 18:51
Transonic flow over a bump A.D.E Main CFD Forum 4 July 8, 2011 08:25
Total pressures; Transonic flow Louwrens CFX 9 April 19, 2003 19:01
Inviscid flow calculator, Entropy rise?!! MJK Main CFD Forum 3 April 9, 2003 04:36
Inviscid flow Atit Koonsrisuk CFX 12 January 2, 2003 13:40


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50.