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

Split the load of the Buoyancy Source term

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   October 16, 2015, 16:41
Default Split the load of the Buoyancy Source term
  #1
New Member
 
Marcel
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 7
klaasnievaak is on a distinguished road
I am testing currently a 2d incompressible code with natural convection in a square cavity. To include the natural convection part I implemented the Boussinesq approach, indicating the addition of the source in the NS-y.
As of right now I am using the SIMPLE algorithm for pressure-velocity coupling and the code seems to be working fine, for lower Rayleigh numbers.

On higher Rayleigh numbers however (Ra>1e5) the convergence is tediously slow, or not converging at all. I have some ideas to handle this, but they don't include any charming solutions, and I don't want to indefinitely under-relaxate my variables.

I was thinking now, maybe it is possible to linearize the source term in such a way that I divide the load of the source term in my NS-y, by solving it partly explicitly and implicitly, depending on linearization of the source term.

As of right now, I handle Picard's method (S = Sc + SpTp), where Sc determines completely my natural convection and thus Sp=0 and thus solving the natural convection completely explicitly. Now I would like to find out if it is possible to reduce the load on Sc by incorporating a part of the load in Sp to come up with the same solution and by that solving partly implicitly.

The idea behind is that I would like to obtain a more diagonal dominant system matrix, as the source term right now is pulling it out of balance. It should contribute to more stability, although it would probably not contribute to a faster convergence.

Anyone knows if this even is possible? Or has any experience with it? I would really like to find out. Any literature on this would be welcome too.
klaasnievaak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 16, 2015, 17:03
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,617
Rep Power: 60
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
high Ra number flows becomes transitional, the fact you don't get a steady solution is coherent to the physics of the problem.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 16, 2015, 17:21
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Marcel
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 7
klaasnievaak is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
high Ra number flows becomes transitional, the fact you don't get a steady solution is coherent to the physics of the problem.
although I understand that its not that black and white but the transition zone is usually close to Ra~1e9 and I run simulations up to a Rayleigh of 1e8, still in the 'laminar' regime.
klaasnievaak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 16, 2015, 17:54
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,617
Rep Power: 60
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaasnievaak View Post
although I understand that its not that black and white but the transition zone is usually close to Ra~1e9 and I run simulations up to a Rayleigh of 1e8, still in the 'laminar' regime.

yes, authors still consider laminar the flow at Ra=10^8, but also if the flow is laminar, the breakdown of the single flow structure happens at Ra=10^6 and if you run an unsteady simulation you will clearly see the onset of minor structures. Reaching an equilibrium state at such configuration need a very long time and small oscillations still are present in the small structures. A very refined grid is required to allow dissipation to act.

Therefore, running a steady equation system and getting no convergence to steady solution, can be at high Ra number a physical indicator
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2015, 20:27
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Marcel
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 7
klaasnievaak is on a distinguished road
ok granted that it would be a physical problem, would I be able to 'cheat' by using a first order spatial interpolation scheme, like the first order upwind, to find a steady-state solution covered with artificial numerical diffusion and then use a higher order interpolation scheme to calculate a more reasonable solution?

and out of curiosity, still the question remains of splitting the load in the source term? Anyone knows if this is possible? And/or has some literature on it?
klaasnievaak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2015, 04:21
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,617
Rep Power: 60
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by klaasnievaak View Post
ok granted that it would be a physical problem, would I be able to 'cheat' by using a first order spatial interpolation scheme, like the first order upwind, to find a steady-state solution covered with artificial numerical diffusion and then use a higher order interpolation scheme to calculate a more reasonable solution?

and out of curiosity, still the question remains of splitting the load in the source term? Anyone knows if this is possible? And/or has some literature on it?

well, if you use the trick of a strong dissipative scheme like first-order scheme your steady solution will be simply not accurate and you cannot recover the accuracy by a successive interpolation...

furthermore, the Bousinnesq model is already based on a linear expansion...
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2015, 11:51
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Marcel
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 7
klaasnievaak is on a distinguished road
ok thanks sir!

and my code is indeed converging for a finer grid, but yeah, i need a lot of patience to finally be able to post-process

Also, I am aware the source term is linearized... excuse me, perhaps I am slow in understanding but does that really answer the question? I simly want to try to incorporate a part of the buoyancy load directly into the discretized equations and by that reducing the impact of the explicit source term. I will probably try to incorporate it one of these days to see if it is possible, but I just wanted to read a little bit before starting doing it.
klaasnievaak is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
boussinesq approximation, cavity flow, code testing, picard's method, source term

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
[swak4Foam] difficulties installing swak4foam newbie29 OpenFOAM Community Contributions 111 November 19, 2020 12:14
centOS 5.6 : paraFoam not working yossi OpenFOAM Installation 2 October 9, 2013 02:41
friction forces icoFoam ofslcm OpenFOAM 3 April 7, 2012 11:57
pisoFoam compiling error with OF 1.7.1 on MAC OSX Greg Givogue OpenFOAM Programming & Development 3 March 4, 2011 18:18
DxFoam reader update hjasak OpenFOAM Post-Processing 69 April 24, 2008 02:24


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07.