CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/)
-   Main CFD Forum (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/)
-   -   Vortex Method Inlet BC for LES (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/235037-vortex-method-inlet-bc-les.html)

nima_nz March 29, 2021 12:46

Vortex Method Inlet BC for LES
 
Hi everyone

Does anyone know how to calculate the number of Vortices in Vortex Method Velocity Inlet bc in LES simulation?

I read somewhere that it should be (Number of Facets at inlet)/4 which is too much (more than 1000) in my case.

I’d appreciate any help

shalabhks March 29, 2021 13:40

Number of faces/4 makes sense because smallest eddy that can be resolved in 2D mesh needs 4 cells.

nima_nz March 29, 2021 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by shalabhks (Post 800150)
Number of faces/4 makes sense because smallest eddy that can be resolved in 2D mesh needs 4 cells.

Oh! That’s right; so it means it is better to produce the smallest possible vortexes right?

aero_head March 29, 2021 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by nima_nz (Post 800164)
Oh! That’s right; so it means it is better to produce the smallest possible vortexes right?

That is correct, you must account for the smallest possible vortices.

nima_nz March 29, 2021 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aero_head (Post 800166)
That is correct, you must account for the smallest possible vortices.

Thanks a million for your help

sbaffini March 30, 2021 04:59

There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, any paper discussing this with the proper theoretical rigor, or probably discussing this at all.

In general, reasoning on the grid resolution alone is not rock solid, for the simple reason that such vortex methods have also a prescribed size \sigma, which can be assigned independently from the grid resolution. Also, the vortex positions are random, so you can't actually control anything at the local level as the Nfaces/4 rule might seem to suggest.

One approach I have seen is to use something like:

N = \frac{A_{INLET}}{\pi \sigma^2}

where you basically assume that, on average, the inlet face is covered by vortices.

You should instead adapt \sigma to the grid resolution. But, again, this requires more than simply reasoning on a pure number. Different schemes will require different resolutions, but sometimes a magic number exists that makes things work even if they shouldn't.

So, in conclusion, N is not directly linked to the resolution. Indeed, some have found reasonable solutions with a fixed number O(100).

nima_nz March 31, 2021 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbaffini (Post 800202)
There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, any paper discussing this with the proper theoretical rigor, or probably discussing this at all.

In general, reasoning on the grid resolution alone is not rock solid, for the simple reason that such vortex methods have also a prescribed size \sigma, which can be assigned independently from the grid resolution. Also, the vortex positions are random, so you can't actually control anything at the local level as the Nfaces/4 rule might seem to suggest.

One approach I have seen is to use something like:

N = \frac{A_{INLET}}{\pi \sigma^2}

where you basically assume that, on average, the inlet face is covered by vortices.

You should instead adapt \sigma to the grid resolution. But, again, this requires more than simply reasoning on a pure number. Different schemes will require different resolutions, but sometimes a magic number exists that makes things work even if they shouldn't.

So, in conclusion, N is not directly linked to the resolution. Indeed, some have found reasonable solutions with a fixed number O(100).

Thank you so much for your comprehensive reply


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:15.