CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (
-   Main CFD Forum (
-   -   Immersed boundary method (IBM) vs Dynamic meshing (

tomyangbath March 24, 2009 07:23

Immersed boundary method (IBM) vs Dynamic meshing
IBM can be used to simulate the moving rigid body without remeshing, my question is compare with dynamic meshing which one is better, more accurate? Anyone have any idea about this?

harishg March 24, 2009 11:16

IBM also required remeshing when applied to moving rigid body cases. The one big advantage with the IBM method is the ability to employ a simple finite difference/ volume scheme on a cartesian mesh.

quarkz March 25, 2009 05:34

I think it depends on your application. I have tried both for my moving airfoil and found that if you can use structured grid with dynamics meshing, it's much faster than IBM. IBM is more versatile but it is much slower and requires much more higher resolution for the same Re.

liujmljm March 25, 2009 13:27

What do you think about IBM to deal with inviscid or viscous compressible flow. Is IBM promissing for the treatment aeroelastics?

liujmljm April 3, 2009 03:48

Deforming-mesh approaches can be conservative over a timestep, making them attractive for small deformations. However, for gross boundary motions associated with large time steps the quality of the difference stencil can degrade severely due to this distortion.
The immersed boundary (IB) method simplifies the grid generation process for the simulation of flows with complex and/or moving solid boundaries, by avoiding the need for a body-fitted mesh.

liujmljm April 17, 2009 03:02

no people give some conclusions about Immersed boundary method

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:16.