Development of a Finite Volume Particle Method for 3-D fluid flow simulations

2016 ◽  
Vol 298 ◽  
pp. 80-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Jahanbakhsh ◽  
C. Vessaz ◽  
A. Maertens ◽  
F. Avellan
2018 ◽  
Vol 230 ◽  
pp. 59-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxing Liu ◽  
Ryusei Ogawa ◽  
Masatsugu Kato ◽  
Koji Morita ◽  
Shuai Zhang

1990 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Guerillot ◽  
J. L. Rudkiewicz ◽  
C. Ravenne ◽  
G. Renard ◽  
A. Galli

Author(s):  
Francisco Augusto Aparecido Gomes ◽  
Paulo Rogério Novak ◽  
Aureo Quintas Garcia ◽  
Mildred Ballin Hecke ◽  
Fernando José da Silva

2016 ◽  
Vol 846 ◽  
pp. 18-22
Author(s):  
Rohit Bhattacharya ◽  
Abouzar Moshfegh ◽  
Ahmad Jabbarzadeh

The flow over bluff bodies is separated compared to the flow over streamlined bodies. The investigation of the fluid flow over a cylinder with a streamwise slit has received little attention in the past, however there is some experimental evidence that show for turbulent regime it reduces the drag coefficient. This work helps in understanding the fluid flow over such cylinders in the laminar regime. As the width of the slit increases the drag coefficient keeps on reducing resulting in a narrower wake as compared to what is expected for flow over a cylinder. In this work we have used two different approaches in modelling a 2D flow for Re=10 to compare the results for CFD using finite volume method (ANSYS FLUENTTM) and Lattice Boltzmann methods. In all cases cylinders of circular cross section have been considered while slit width changing from 10% to 40% of the cylinder diameter. . It will be shown that drag coefficient decreases as the slit ratio increases. The effect of slit size on drag reduction is studied and discussed in detail in the paper. We have also made comparison of the results obtained from Lattice Boltzmann and finite volume methods.


2013 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoya Hirata ◽  
Muriani Zulaida Yeni ◽  
Koichi Yeni

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-47
Author(s):  
Robinson Peric ◽  
Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud

This article reviews different types of forcing zones (sponge layers, damping zones, relaxation zones, etc.) as used in finite volume-based flow simulations to reduce undesired wave reflections at domain boundaries, with special focus on the case of strongly reflecting bodies subjected to long-crested incidence waves. Limitations and possible sources of errors are discussed. A novel forcing-zone arrangement is presented and validated via three-dimensional (3D) flow simulations. Furthermore, a recently published theory for predicting the forcing-zone behavior was investigated with regard to its relevance for practical 3D hydrodynamics problems. It was found that the theory can be used to optimally tune the case-dependent parameters of the forcing zones before running the simulations. 1. Introduction Wave reflections at the boundaries of the computational domain can cause significant errors in flow simulations, and must therefore be reduced. In contrast to boundary element codes, where much progress in this respect has been made decades ago (see e.g., Clement 1996; Grilli &Horillo 1997), for finite volume-based flow solvers, there are many unresolved questions, especially:How to reliably reduce reflections and disturbances from the domain boundaries?How to predict the amount of undesired wave reflection before running the simulation? This work aims to provide further insight to these questions for flow simulations based on Navier-Stokes-type equations (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes, Euler equations, Large Eddy Simulations, etc.), when using forcing zones to reduce undesired reflections. The term "forcing zones" is used here to describe approaches that gradually force the solution in the vicinity of the boundary towards some reference solution, as described in Section 2; some examples are absorbing layers, sponge layers, damping zones, relaxation zones, or the Euler overlay method (Mayer et al. 1998; Park et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2006; Choi &Yoon 2009; Jacobsen et al. 2012; Kimet al. 2012; Schmitt & Elsaesser 2015; Perić & Abdel-Maksoud 2016a; Vukčević et al. 2016).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document