
[Sponsors] 
March 10, 2021, 11:00 
Different results using Swak and CodedMixed

#1 
New Member
Giovanni Luddeni
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 5 
Hi,
I'm developing a set of BC for a plasma simulation (2 fluids model with driftdiffusion). Implementing the set using Swak I get the expected solution (validated with COMSOL). Implementing the same set using a codedMixed BC I get different values for density of particles and temperature (~30% difference). An exmple in the picture attached. The BCs displaying this anomaly are electron charge density (rho_e) and energy density (n_eps): the other BCs are behaving in the right way. This is not completely surprising, since the electron dynamic is much faster than ions and neutral particles. This means though that the coded BC is correct, in general. As an additional information, in this kind of simulation the gradient of rho_e at the boundary is very high, I think this might be the source of the problem. I tried different level of mesh refinement and timestep, the swak BCs always give the right results, always different from the codedMixed BC. The mesh is 2D, axisymmetric; the BC is applied to the external patches. The swak version of rho_e BC: Code:
patch1 { type groovyBC; gradientExpression "0"; valueExpression "0"; fractionExpression "fraction"; variables ( "M_ion=6.683e26;" "q=1.60218e19;" "alpha=De&normal()&normal();" "beta=(mue&E&normal())+sqrt(q*Te/M_ion);" "fraction=beta/(beta+alpha/mag(delta()));" ); value uniform 1.00011e01; } Code:
rhoeRR { code #{ // VARS INITIALIZATION const dictionary& physicalProperties = db().lookupObject<IOdictionary>("physicalProperties"); scalar& q = dimensionedScalar(physicalProperties.lookup("q")).value(); scalar& M_ion = dimensionedScalar(physicalProperties.lookup("M_ion")).value(); // FIELDS LOOKUP const volTensorField& De = db().lookupObject<volTensorField>("De"); const volScalarField& Te = db().lookupObject<volScalarField>("Te"); const volTensorField& mue = db().lookupObject<volTensorField>("mue"); const volVectorField& E = db().lookupObject<volVectorField>("E"); const vectorField norman = patch().nf(); int c; scalar beta, alpha; scalarField fracField = scalarField(patch().size()); const labelUList& celle = patch().faceCells(); forAll(celle, f) { c = celle[f]; alpha = De[c]&norman[f]&norman[f]; beta = ((mue[c]&E[c])&norman[f])+sqrt(q*Te[c]/M_ion); fracField[f] = beta/(beta+alpha*patch().deltaCoeffs()[f]); } refGrad() = Zero; refValue() = Zero; valueFraction() = (fracField); #}; } Code:
wall { type codedMixed; name rhoeRR ; refValue uniform 1.00011e01; refGradient uniform 0; valueFraction uniform 0; } I found an old thread where it was shown a situation in which swak approximates the BC imposing zeroGradient and changing the boundary cell; i tried to do this in my coded BC to see if that could be the case, and it's not, the results were horrible. If I implement the BC using a Neumann formulation, taking the value of the field explicitly from the previous time step, swak gives the same result, while my codedBC seems to differ, which is another unexpected behaviour. I understand that it's a very specific case, so any suggestion about ways in which swak behaves differently than a coded BC would be extremely helpful. 

March 12, 2021, 06:19 

#2 
New Member
Gianluca
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 
Since the dynamic of the electrons is so much faster, did you try to see some algebraic models able to increase the stability?


March 12, 2021, 06:22 

#3 
New Member
Giovanni Luddeni
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 5 
Thank you for the reply!
I'm actually working on that idea, but it remains the fact that the same BC implemented in the 2 ways should lead to the same result. Let's say that I want to understand this difference from swak first, without changing the BC. Maybe the way I'm implementing the coded is wrong, I want to be aware of this. 

Tags 
codedboundarycondition, codedmixed, swak4faom 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

