# Transonic Far field - any advice

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 June 16, 2008, 21:34 Transonic Far field - any advice #1 Iain Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Guys, I'm trying to incorporate non-reflecting far-field boundary conditions into my problem. I have very limited experience in this matter. I was hoping someone could shed some light on the issue? I'm solving the low frequency transonic small disturbance equation and need to use non-reflecting bc's at the top and bottom boundaries of my computational domain. I have a reference that introduces some simple conditions; the far-field conditions at the top and bottom of the domain are stated as phi_y +/- sqrt(B)*phi_x =0 phi is the disturbance potential, subscripts denote differentiation and B is a constant. My problem is that I'm not sure where I should use the + or - sign at the top or bottom boundary. If anyone has some insight into this problem I'd greatly appreciate some advice. The reference I'm using is very clear on most of the details but seems to miss this key point of which sign to use at top & bottom boundaries. many thanks, Iain

 June 17, 2008, 11:14 Solution #2 Iain Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Guys, I found a second reference that clears this matter up. For those who are interested - the top BC should be phi_y + sqrt(B)*phi_x =0 and the bottom BC is phi_y - sqrt(B)*phi_x =0. Figured I'd let you guys know in case anyone has similar problems in future. Iain

 June 17, 2008, 16:43 Re: Solution #3 Praveen. C Guest   Posts: n/a But why ?

 June 17, 2008, 18:45 Re: Solution #4 Iain Guest   Posts: n/a For the transonic small disturbance equation (low frequency) an oscillating airfoil generates disturbances that reach the far-field boundary. Non-reflecting conditions stop some portion of these disturbances from being reflected back into the interior of the computational domain where they can degrade the quality of the result. Much of the literature features "perfecly reflecting" conditions - these send all the waves back into the domain. The equations were originally derived by Engquist for the general case and specifically for the low frequency case by Kwak. Sorry I don't have the actual reference details with me at the moment. The details of the derivations are in the refs.

 June 18, 2008, 15:42 Re: Solution #5 Praveen. C Guest   Posts: n/a That still does not explain your boundary conditions choice. If you read some book on gas dynamics, you will find that the small disturbance equation has two characteristics, each with constant slope. One of them goes out of the computational domain at top and the other one goes out from the bottom. Thats how the +/- sign in your boundary conditions is determined.

 June 18, 2008, 18:32 Re: Solution #6 Iain Guest   Posts: n/a I'm dealing with transonic, low frequency, small disturbance flow. The characteristics in this case are parabolic. The derivation of the boundary conditions, in terms of characteristics, is given in Kwak's paper. The parabolic characteristics are also derived also in Cook & Cole's "Transonic Aerodynamics"; at the end of chapter 3. The straight line characteristics would surely be useful for steady flows but the flow I'm dealing with is unsteady.

 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 alessio.nz OpenFOAM 6 December 23, 2015 15:27 Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 122 June 15, 2014 06:20 eelcovv OpenFOAM 0 June 8, 2010 11:35 taranov OpenFOAM Bugs 2 April 20, 2010 04:51 matteo_gautero OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 February 28, 2008 07:51

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:27.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top