
[Sponsors] 
Domain size influence in unbounded domains model 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
May 4, 2018, 06:34 
Domain size influence in unbounded domains model

#1 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
Hello everybody,
I am trying to perform a sensibility anaylsis about different ways to model boundaries for unbounded flows, and I am getting some results I cannot explain. I whish I could get some help on that. The situation I am studying is a compressible, Euler's inviscid flow around a NACA 0012 airfoil. I created two different meshes with two differet extensions:
I also apply two different sets of boundary conditions:
What I finally ran is four simulations, all possible combinations of domain sizes and sets of boundary conditions, and the discussion now is focused on the Drag and Lift coefficients I got from them:
However, I find that in the results of the two small domain simulations are very similar, and there is a big difference in therms of drag coefficieet between the big and small domains. Please, see attached the screenshoots of pressure field (note that in Euler´s inviscid flow all the drag is created by statuc pressure differences) in some of these cases: 2 CHORD MESH  ALL NONREFLECTIVE BC>Cd=0.0174 20 CHORD MESH  ALL NONREFLECTIVE BD>Cd=0.0075 Searching for drag coefficient of NACA0012 profile at an attack angle off 5º, Cd(5º) must be around 0.007... So, what is clear is that the domain size id perturbing my results. In the attached pictures you can see that the high pressure area in the trailing edge is smaller in small domain case... And of couse, it is created by my "artificial" boundary. But, among other ones, my question is: How can I explain that even applying nonreflective boundary conditions in a smal domain I got such sifferent results? Could anybody suggest any reference about domain size in unbounded flow models? Thank you so much in advance! C.Reoyo 

May 4, 2018, 06:39 

#2 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,857
Rep Power: 73 
But such comparison of the domain of different size is performed by retaining the same grid resolution? You need to have exactly the same grid around the profile to make the comparison meaningful


May 4, 2018, 06:58 

#3 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
Hello FMDenarom
Yes, the mesh around the airfoil is exactly the same in both cases. I created the big mesh by extending the small one without modifying it, so that I could perform the analysis without the mesh factor influence. Regards! 

May 4, 2018, 06:58 

#4 
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,427
Rep Power: 49 
And lets not forget that you should reduce the iterative error as far as possible when making such comparisons. I tend to run this kind of simulation until the residuals level out at the maximum possible numerical accuracy.
In fact, controlling all other sources of errors in a simulation is key when trying to isolate the influence of one particular error source. 

May 4, 2018, 07:02 

#5 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
Hello flotus1,
Yes, I ran the simulation for a really high number of iterations... The reported values for Cd kept constant in half of the number of iterations i let the simulation run. But, again, thank you for your advice. I will keep it! Regards 

May 4, 2018, 07:05 

#6 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,857
Rep Power: 73 
Well, nonreflective BC.s are always approximated by the characteristic theory for onedimensional flows. Spurious effects due to several factors are still present. Do you see the same discrepancy also for other quantities other than Cd?


May 4, 2018, 07:59 

#7 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
I computed three different results: Cd, Cl and Cp.
According Cd, the differences I already explained. According Cp along the lenght of the airfoil and Cp is tricky.... Cl is almost the same value in both meshes, but the evolution of Cp is slightly different. The pressure gradient that the airfoil is creating both above and below it is higher in the 20 chord size mesh (therefore, higher values for Cp are plotted). Despite of that, at the time to compute Cl, the higher gradients above and below the profile compensate themselves, getting, finally, a simular value of Cl. [I hope that it will be explained clear enough. Summarizing, pressure gradients are higher in the bigger mesh]. Thank you so much for your support, FMDenaro. I really appreciate it! Regards 

May 4, 2018, 08:23 

#8 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,857
Rep Power: 73 
I suppose you are working in subsonic regime so that both inflow and outflow have mixed set of conditions. What are you prescribing?


May 4, 2018, 09:17 

#9 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
Yes, the flow is subsonic everywhere.
I am working with Fluent, and it has the BC called "Pressure farfield". By making the product between the speed and normal vector at each boundary cell face, the software automatically knows if it is an outlet or outlet face, so does it wheter if it is either subsonic or supersonic. Then, the software knows which Riemann invariants must fix from the inner domain and which ones from the outer domain [All the far flow variables are intered. It just decides how to use them] __________________________________________________ ____________ Just in order to give more information, in the attached picture you can see how the values at the boundary [Pf, Ufn, af] are obtained in each case (subsonic inlet and subsonic outlet). [Pc, Ucn, ac] are the flow variables at the center of the boundary cell C, in a collocated mesh sheme; and [Pinf, Uinfn, ainf] are the farfield flow variables. __________________________________________________ ___________ But going deeper in this issue, I realised two aspects:
So, at first sight, the answer to my question could be: "Yes, the nonreflective boundary condition is affecting to your flow because you did not fulfill the developer advice". But just in case somebody knows/is interested in that.... Why the nonreflective boundary conditions affect the flow if the domain boundary is not big enough (or at least the way that Fluent calculates it). Thank you so much again FMDenaro! Regards 

May 4, 2018, 09:25 

#10 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,857
Rep Power: 73 
The answer requires to know exactly which and how the nonreflective BC.s are implemented in Fluent. Riemann invariants exist only in specific hypothesis and other settings are possible.
I suggest to post in the Fluent forum where persons that are experts in this software can help 

May 4, 2018, 09:30 

#11 
New Member
Carlos Reoyo Rebollar
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 8 
Ok, I will post it there. Now I am very intrigued about it.
But, again, thank you so much for all your support! regards 

Tags 
inviscid flow, nonreflecting bc, unbounded 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Radiation in semitransparent media with surfacetosurface model?  mpeppels  CFX  11  August 22, 2019 08:30 
Error  Solar absorber  Solar Thermal Radiation  MichaelK  CFX  12  September 1, 2016 06:15 
Monte Carlo Simulation: HEnergy is not convergating & high Incident Radiation  volleyHC  CFX  5  April 3, 2016 06:41 
Error finding variable "THERMX"  sunilpatil  CFX  8  April 26, 2013 08:00 
critical error during installation of openfoam  Fabio88  OpenFOAM Installation  21  June 2, 2010 04:01 