CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Main CFD Forum

Confused

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   August 6, 2004, 04:24
Default Confused
  #1
F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello,

A couple of questions that I cannot find answers to in several text-books.

1. What is the physical meaning of the term (u/r) that appears in cylindrical coordinates, continuity eqn.?

2. What use are cylindrical coordinates if my problem is axisymmetric, using only r and z directions? (the cartesian coordinates does not show the extra term so I'm a bit confused here.)

3. If question 2 has anything to do with the control volume approach used in FVM, then does it matter if I would use FDM instead?

I have not attended any fluid mechanic courses so please be gentle with your answers if this is all too simple. =)

/F
  Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2004, 09:03
Default Re: Confused
  #2
Daniel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
They are just some personal ideas and may be wrong:

Your N-S equations are differential forms of conservation laws, thus, when you use FDM in cylindrical c., also in the case of axisymmetry, you solve the equation in a plane (meridian plane), but this plane has to be considerd a limit to zero of finite 3d region; so your meridian plane becomes equivalent to a cartesian plane if you add some "terms" whose meanigs can be derived by the general conservation laws. If you use FVM, you directly discretize the conservation law, so you don't need the additional term, (BE CAREFULL, THE BEST THING IS TO SOLVE IN FVM IN THE MERIDIAN PLANE ONLY, IN THIS CASE YOU NEEDS THE ADDITIONAL TERMS)

FOr example: u/r+du/dr=1/r*d(ur)/dr (1) the right hand side is the flux of u through an elementary region , let' s say:

R1<r<R2

TETA1<teta<TETA2 You can easlily check by using the Gauss theorem. However, in (1) teta doesn't appear, but the additional term u/r accounts for its "existence". in conclusion, my sugestion is to not confuse cartesian 2d planes with meridian planes of cylindrical c. system.

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2004, 09:12
Default Re: Confused
  #3
Daniel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I continue the previous answer, I was saying u/r +du/dr=1/rd(ur)/dr (1) The right hand side of (1) is the flux of u through an elementary region, say R1 < R < R2 Teta1<Teta<Teta2 (you can check by Gauss theorem) In (1) the variable teta doens't appear, however, the additional term u/r "accounts" for its existence. In conclution, a cartesian 2d plane and a meridian cylindric plane, ARE NOT the same thing, bacause they are the limit to zero of two different entities.

However, your question is not so easy! Bye

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 8, 2004, 03:53
Default Re: Confused
  #4
Rami
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Q1. What is the physical meaning of the term (u/r) that appears in cylindrical coordinates, continuity eqn.?

A1: Assumming u is the circumferential velocity (i.e., in theta direction), u/r is the circumferential strain-rate.

Q2. What use are cylindrical coordinates if my problem is axisymmetric, using only r and z directions? (the cartesian coordinates does not show the extra term so I'm a bit confused here.)

A2: If you solve an axisymmetric problem in Cartesian coordinates, you still need to consider 3 velocity components and to solve 3 momentum equations. It is true the equations are a bit simpler in this case. On the other hand, in cylindrical coordinates, you need to consider only 2 velocity components and 2 momentum eqautions if the circumferential velocity is 0 and the geometry is axisymmetric, but some extra terms appear in the equations in this system.

Q3. If question 2 has anything to do with the control volume approach used in FVM, then does it matter if I would use FDM instead?

A3: You may use either FDM or FVM, regardless of the coordinate system you choose. These are different numerical methods. FDM discretize the conservation equations by direct application of Taylor series ("strong formulation"), while the FVM uses the integral control volume conservasion ("weak formulation"). Each has its pros and cons, but the general trend favours FVM for CFD.

I hope this helps.

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 8, 2004, 21:32
Default Re: Confused
  #5
F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thank you for your answers. I'd like to answer some of them and re-ask some of my questions as well.

Q1. U is the radial velocity.

Q2. Here I think you hit the core of my confusion. I don't see why cartesian coordinates means 3 directions if the problem is 2 dimensional. If a control volume approach is used then there is a volume to be considered (although thin), but if I use FDM, then I should be able to express the governing eqns. in only 2 directions, right? If you dispose of the azimuthal velocity and only consider radial and axial then isn't this true? (a cylinder watched from the side, i.e. rectangle)

Regards
  Reply With Quote

Old   August 9, 2004, 03:16
Default Re: Confused
  #6
Rami
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Q1. U is the radial velocity.

A1. The u/r term in the continuity eq. is merely part of the radial mass flux 1/r*d/dr(r*rho*u) . I am not sure if it has a physical meaning by itself.

Q2. Here I think you hit the core of my confusion. I don't see why cartesian coordinates means 3 directions if the problem is 2 dimensional. If a control volume approach is used then there is a volume to be considered (although thin), but if I use FDM, then I should be able to express the governing eqns. in only 2 directions, right? If you dispose of the azimuthal velocity and only consider radial and axial then isn't this true? (a cylinder watched from the side, i.e. rectangle)

A2. When you deal with axisymmetric geometry and flow, the symmetric part you should consider is a wedge-like sector, not a rectangular box. Although it may be thin, the non-parallel faces lead to significant terms, and also the symmetry BC are prescibed on them rather than on faces normal to one of the Cartesian coordinates. Please refer to any continuum mechanics (solid or fluid) textbook.

I hope this clarifies your confusion.

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 9, 2004, 06:32
Default Re: Confused
  #7
F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks again Rami.

Q1. Ok =)

Q2. To sum up; axisymmetry does not reduce a problem to 2d even if it looks that way, if you consider an azimuthal wedge of zero.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confused with solvers / Radiaton model mixanologos OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 October 25, 2011 07:58
Confused about how these variables are used gchnhn Main CFD Forum 0 October 3, 2011 04:44
Questions about tutorial from User Guide :confused: inginer OpenFOAM 4 May 25, 2010 16:10
confused on messages after solver has terminated mactech001 CFX 1 April 21, 2010 17:58
Confused littlelz Main CFD Forum 8 October 23, 2003 13:43


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:12.