Split the load of the Buoyancy Source term

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

 October 16, 2015, 15:41 Split the load of the Buoyancy Source term #1 New Member   Marcel Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 8 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.

 October 16, 2015, 16:03 #2 Senior Member   Filippo Maria Denaro Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,041 Rep Power: 64 high Ra number flows becomes transitional, the fact you don't get a steady solution is coherent to the physics of the problem.

October 16, 2015, 16:21
#3
New Member

Marcel
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by FMDenaro 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.

October 16, 2015, 16:54
#4
Senior Member

Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,041
Rep Power: 64
Quote:
 Originally Posted by klaasnievaak 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

 October 17, 2015, 19:27 #5 New Member   Marcel Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 8 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?

October 18, 2015, 03:21
#6
Senior Member

Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,041
Rep Power: 64
Quote:
 Originally Posted by klaasnievaak 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...

 October 18, 2015, 10:51 #7 New Member   Marcel Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 8 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.