Comparison of Different Wall Boundary Treatments for Preconditioning Method Coupled with Building-cube Method
Comparison of Different Wall Boundary Treatments for Preconditioning Method Coupled with Building-cube Method
复制标题
预处理法与建立方法相结合的不同墙体边界处理比较
DOI：
10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.019
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Nakahashi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Qi;T. Furusawa;S. Yamamoto;K. Nakahashi
将作者提出的预处理方法与积木块法（Building-Cube Method，简称BFP）相结合。壁面边界的处理是Building-Cube法作为一种笛卡尔网格方法的关键问题。本文采用低雷诺数绕圆柱流动的经典算例，试验了三种不同的边界处理方法：直接数据传输法、阶梯法和浸入边界法。此外，两组不同的网格点的数值模拟进行评估的敏感性的三个方案的网格密度。给出了分离涡长度、压力系数分布和壁面摩擦系数分布的数值计算结果，并与已有的实验和数值计算结果进行了比较。结果表明，浸没边界法无论是在边界方向还是在压力/速度估计上都是三种格式中的最佳选择。此外，浸入边界法对网格密度的敏感性也被证明比其他两种方法更低，因为浸入边界法在网格点较少的情况下精度损失要小得多。
Preconditioning method developed by the authors was coupled with Building-Cube Method (BCM). Wall boundary treatment is a critical issue for Building-Cube Method as a Cartesian mesh method. In the paper, the classical case, flow past a cycle cylinder at low Reynolds number is used, with three different boundary treatments tested: direct data transfer, staircase treatment and immersed boundary method (IBM). Also, two sets of numerical simulations with different number of grid points are conducted to assess the sensitivity of the three schemes to grid density. The numerical results of separation vortex length, pressure coefficient distribution and wall skin friction coefficient distribution are derived and compared with those existing experimental and numerical data sets. Comparison shows that immersed boundary method is a best choice of the three schemes, in both boundary orientation and pressure/velocity estimation. Moreover, immersed boundary method is also proved to be less sensitive to grid density than the other two, since the accuracy loss of immersed boundary method case with less grid points is much less.