question for CFD developer's

tgrt18 · July 5, 2011, 08:38

Hello all,

why in such CFD code, they treat turbulence equation in different way that the Navier Stokes equations. for example the number of internal iterations for the Navier Stokes equations within a cycle is more bigger then the corresponding turbulent equations.
the CFD codes which have multigrid iterate Navier Stokes equations through the whole levels but they treat turbulence equation just in the finest level

best regards.

Martin Hegedus · July 6, 2011, 02:41

I don't really have a good answer, other than to say experience has shown that this approach is acceptable. Of course this decoupled approach is also easier to implement. However, I suspect that if a more coupled approach was taken the solution would converge faster. At least coupling it for an implicit solver. However, that is a challenging task.

July 5, 2011, 08:38	question for CFD developer's	#1
tgrt18 New Member BACHIR Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 16	Hello all, why in such CFD code, they treat turbulence equation in different way that the Navier Stokes equations. for example the number of internal iterations for the Navier Stokes equations within a cycle is more bigger then the corresponding turbulent equations. the CFD codes which have multigrid iterate Navier Stokes equations through the whole levels but they treat turbulence equation just in the finest level best regards. Last edited by tgrt18; July 5, 2011 at 17:14.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unanswered question	niklas	OpenFOAM	2	July 31, 2013 16:03
Installing OpenFOAM-1.6.x on OpenSUSE 11.2, A question to the developers	Ahmed	OpenFOAM Installation	0	December 5, 2009 05:03
Question to OF Developers	Ahmed	OpenFOAM	6	June 2, 2009 04:29
CHANNEL FLOW: a question and a request	Carlos	Main CFD Forum	4	August 23, 2002 05:55
question	K.L.Huang	Siemens	1	March 29, 2000 04:57

July 6, 2011, 02:41		#2
Martin Hegedus Senior Member Martin Hegedus Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 500 Rep Power: 19	I don't really have a good answer, other than to say experience has shown that this approach is acceptable. Of course this decoupled approach is also easier to implement. However, I suspect that if a more coupled approach was taken the solution would converge faster. At least coupling it for an implicit solver. However, that is a challenging task.