|
[Sponsors] | |||||
Standing Wave: different solutions for different Courant and/or different Mesh |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Emanuele
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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 : 100 200 400 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 ?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Suresh kumar Kannan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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.
bye Suresh kumar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Emanuele
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 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??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Suresh kumar Kannan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Emanuele
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
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 http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...viscosity.html 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Suresh kumar Kannan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Posts: 129
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
Hello
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. regards Suresh kumar |
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2d irregular grid | Remy | Main CFD Forum | 1 | December 22, 2008 05:49 |
| basic of mesh refinement | arya | CFX | 4 | June 19, 2007 13:21 |
| Icemcfd 11: Loss of mesh from surface mesh option? | Joe | CFX | 2 | March 26, 2007 19:10 |
| pls help fluctuating residuals due to courant no | sagar | CFX | 3 | March 28, 2006 02:10 |
| unstructured vs. structured grids | Frank Muldoon | Main CFD Forum | 1 | January 5, 1999 11:09 |