|
[Sponsors] |
November 14, 2008, 12:26 |
doubt in B.C
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Sir, I have one doubt the boundary conditin given at the walls eg bottom wall u[i][j]=-u[i][j+1] and top wall u[i][j]=-u[i][j-1] please what is the name of this boundary condition and when it should use ?
|
|
November 14, 2008, 14:51 |
Re: doubt in B.C
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
if it is a wall and the no-slip BC is used, there is no velocity.
I have used the u[i][J] = u[i][J-1], where J = max(j) as an exit boundary condition for the flow assuming fully developed flow |
|
November 14, 2008, 20:03 |
Re: doubt in B.C
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
This seems to be a case with a staggered structured grid; in this case the wall parallel component of velocity has the first and the last component (j=1 and j=ny+2) which are outside of the domain and are used exclusively to enforce the no slip condition; in your case the bottom wall is exactly between the j(=1) and j+1 nodes, the top wall is between the j(=ny+2) and j-1 nodes (with ny i mean the number of grid points which are actually inside your domain).
This is because in a staggered grid the velocities are not defined in the centers of the volumes but on different faces of the volumes so, actually, you can't say that on a wall the velocity is zero and you need some arbitrary points outside your domain to enforce this. This is of big concern also for the outflow condition, even if in a more subtle way. In this case, obviously, is the v velocity component which is affected. |
|
November 15, 2008, 00:53 |
Re: doubt in B.C
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Dear Paolo Thank you for your nice explanation. Yes it is staggered grid. I didnt understand how u[i][j]= - u[i][+1] ensures noslip boundary condition.
|
|
November 15, 2008, 06:44 |
Re: doubt in B.C
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Actually this is the simplest way you can do it (but i don't know if there are more sophisticated ones...i guess yes).
In your case the bottom wall is located at j+1/2 so you want to set the value of the velocity at j such that: 1/2 * [ U(j) + U(j+1) ] = Uwall that is a simple linear interpolation between the nodes j and j+1. With Uwall = 0 your case is recovered. |
|
November 23, 2008, 03:40 |
Re: doubt in B.C
|
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Thank you so much for a clear reply. I understood.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confusion between 'non-slip' and 'slip' B.C | jinwon park | Main CFD Forum | 7 | March 6, 2008 05:56 |
how to set such B.C. in Fluent? | Sherri | FLUENT | 1 | January 12, 2006 13:32 |
Urgent! Help on UDF to set B.C. of 3rd type | Ray Hong | FLUENT | 0 | December 28, 2005 20:35 |
How to set B.C. of the 2nd or 3rd type in UDS? | Ray Hong | FLUENT | 0 | December 28, 2005 07:03 |
Non-Reflecting B.C. in NSC2KE | Zou Chu | Main CFD Forum | 2 | May 27, 1999 22:26 |