|
[Sponsors] |
May 19, 2007, 14:16 |
MacCormack algorithm
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm very new to CFD and I'm trying to write my own compressible viscous flow solver. I applied the MacCormack algorithm to the Navier-Stokes equations, but I'm not sure how to proceed from a programming standpoint. For each point (i,j) I have the discretized equations for mass, momentum, energy, and an equation of state. How do I solve the equations since they are coupled? Any help I could get would be great. Thanks.
|
|
May 19, 2007, 22:05 |
Re: MacCormack algorithm
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications by John David Anderson
|
|
May 19, 2007, 22:16 |
Re: MacCormack algorithm
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
The differences between the sequences which mass, velocity and energy is solved are not large.
In my case, I used to compute the density as rho_n+1=rho_n+Frho(rho,u)_n where Frho stands for the mass flux the momentum m=rho*u as m_n+1=m_n+Fm(rho,u,p)_n the energy E=rho*e e_n+1=e_n+Fe(rho,u,p,e)_n in the in-house DGM code. But you can use the different way as First, the density is found by Frho_n Second, the momentum is computed by Fm(rho_n+1,u_n,p_n) Third, the energy is compute by Fe(rho_n+1,u_n+1,p_n,e_n) However, there are no big difference of results whether one use either n+1 or n These are just my experiences, not standard. Good luck |
|
May 20, 2007, 18:06 |
Re: MacCormack algorithm
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Perfect! Thanks so much.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SIMPLE algorithm in 3D cylindrical coordinates | zouchu | Main CFD Forum | 1 | January 20, 2014 18:02 |
About Poisson equation's B.C. in SMAC algorithm | snakejoe | Main CFD Forum | 0 | April 7, 2009 06:58 |
About Phase Coupled SIMPLE (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm | Yan Kai | Main CFD Forum | 0 | April 18, 2007 04:48 |
About Phase Coupled SIMPLE (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm | Yan Kai | FLUENT | 0 | April 14, 2007 00:17 |
mach-uniform algorithm for LES/DNS | ilyas | Main CFD Forum | 0 | February 22, 2007 11:53 |