- **Main CFD Forum**
(*https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/*)

- - **CFL limits for separated flow
**
(*https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/5012-cfl-limits-separated-flow.html*)

CFL limits for separated flow
Hi!
I'm working on a finite difference method for aerospace applications. This is a 2-D (actually 3-D, but think 2-D for this problem), explicit, centred-difference method, that solves the compressible RANS plus eddy viscosity turbulence models (SA, SST). I use a 5-stage, 2-nd order Runge-Kutta for time stepping, plus implicit residual smoothing and multigrid. The limiting CFL number for this RK is 2*SQRT(2), but the residual smoothing allows for CFL = 4 for some of my aplications. The flows I'm interested in have Mach numbers of M=0.9 to 3.0 and Reynolds number of about 9 million to 30 million. The rocket geometry I work at is something like this monster: _________ / \junction_____ --> air speed ( _____________|< \_________/ (obviously not so rough) =D The problem I'm facing is that, for some conditions, the flow separates in the junction of the payload fairing and the lower-diameter cylinder, and this separation forms a little bubble there. My code, however, blows at it. I would like to know which possible reasons could be generating it? Some options: 1. High CFL number? It is currently CFL = 4. Is it to high for a Runge-Kutta scheme with separated flow? 2. The multigrid? Does it handle well separated flows? 3. Should I throw it all away and go to the beach? ;) Thanks in advance, Biga |

Re: CFL limits for separated flow
Hi,
I have got the impression that the central difference scheme can only be used for a Mach number up to 1.1 or 1.2. Above that it fails. Li |

Re: CFL limits for separated flow
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think so! I have very good results for Mach=4, it depends on the quality of your artificial dissipation scheme. |

Re: CFL limits for separated flow
It is very interesting to know that central difference scheme can perform well at Mach=4. How is the shock position has been predicted in your calculation ? Does the artificial viscosity need to be specially specified for such a high Mach number ? I thought that only upwind schemes such as Roe's scheme can capture the shock position precisely for strong shock problem.
I would suggest you to use a smaller CFL number to start with. To my knowledge, even for an implicit scheme, a solver may not work with a large CFL number for a specific flow. Regards Li |

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:40. |