CFD Online Discussion Forums

CFD Online Discussion Forums (
-   OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD (
-   -   Standing Wave: different solutions for different Courant and/or different Mesh (

nuovodna May 6, 2010 10:40

Standing Wave: different solutions for different Courant and/or different Mesh
I'm trying to solve a standingWave but i have multiple different results with changing mesh params and Courant number.
Test cases:
BC : four walls
Dimension: 1x1x0.1 (2d)
1/nu = 1060
Mesh divisions along orthogonal flow direction : 100
Courant number: 0.5 / 0.1 / 0.05 / 0.01

Kinetic energy plots are different. On Courant numbers the 0.1 and 0.05 offer comparable solutions. Numerical schemes (ddtScheme, divScheme, gradScheme) are essentially non influential. Any idea/suggestion ??

kumar May 7, 2010 03:51

what solver are you using. I had a similar expereince while using interFoam. The solution is very much mesh dependent and also very much dependent on CFL number.

Suresh kumar

nuovodna May 7, 2010 05:18

Yes, i m using interFoam 1.6.x . In my opinion, the difference of solutions seems to be related with viscous term. Have you any idea??

kumar May 7, 2010 05:27

actually i am also studying a problem which involves waves but it is not a standing wave. I am studying liquid sheets. I was wondering if the problem is due to the surface tension term.

Also since my simulation is unsteady, i use second order schemes for time. In my experience the solution also varies a lot if you use different schemes. Just try doing that.

nuovodna May 7, 2010 06:58

hi kumar thanks for your reply.

1-I tried three ddtScheme (Euler, backward and CrankNicholson) but they offer the same solution. I understand that backward and Crank Nicholson are the only 2nd order temporal schemes available.

2-Surface tension is not responsible in this case because i set it to 0.

3- I try as written in
a very simple viscous flow and results were not good.
I'm thinking about the term

- fvm::laplacian(muEff, U)
- (fvc::grad(U) & fvc::grad(muEff))
// - fvc::div(muEff*(fvc::interpolate(dev(fvc::grad(U)) ) & mesh.Sf()))

in Ueqn.H.

I try the second formulation (commented in the file) and results changes a lot.
Maybe someone has find an alternate formulation (perhaps 2nd order) or find numerical schemes better to solve viscous problems without turbulence model.

kumar May 7, 2010 07:40

Just one comment
how can the results of the Euler and Cranknicholson be the same if Euler is first order and Cranknicholson is second order.
In my case when i compare the results of the Euler case with the Cranknicholson case i see that the waves at the interface are damped in the first order scheme results and as a result of which the breakup of the sheet is much delayed.

Suresh kumar

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28.