Timeline for Directly calculating the cyclic steady state of a time-periodic conjugate heat transfer problem
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2022 at 8:30 | comment | added | Alex Trounev |
It does not matter since $\rho$ is a constant, and we use homogeneous bc as DirichletCondition[p[x, y] == 0, x == L (1 + Sign[Sin[om*i*t0]])/2 && 0 < y < d].
|
|
| Dec 28, 2022 at 6:54 | comment | added | Avrana |
In the dimensional form of the momentum equation, should not there be (1/rho) D[p[x, y], x] instead of just D[p[x, y], x] ?
|
|
| Dec 25, 2022 at 8:47 | comment | added | Avrana | I have posted it here | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 13:18 | comment | added | Alex Trounev | @Avrana You can post the problem on this forum for discussion. | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 6:08 | comment | added | Avrana | Where should I publish it? On the wolfram blog? You are more than welcome to use this problem, if you wish. | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 5:42 | comment | added | Alex Trounev | @Avrana It could be better to publish this example for discussion. Maybe it is nonlinear FEM problem. | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 5:34 | comment | added | Avrana |
Everything is working fine. However, when I tried setting MaxCellMeasure -> 10^-8, (while doing a grid-independence study) the results started becoming unphysical. I refined the time-step too, which did not help. I just wanted to ask, is there a correlation between grid size and step-size that I should know ?
|
|
| Dec 21, 2022 at 5:25 | vote | accept | Avrana | ||
| Dec 17, 2022 at 14:19 | comment | added | Alex Trounev | In this topic there are links to the proceedings mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/217201/… | |
| Dec 17, 2022 at 6:46 | comment | added | Avrana | Apologies for the late reply. I have been travelling. I am still testing the method for some cases and it seems to be working. Meanwhile, can you kindly point to some references you mentioned in the first line of your answer here, where this method is described more in detail. | |
| Dec 16, 2022 at 5:18 | comment | added | Avrana | I have been using the new method suggested by you. It does seem logical to find the css this way. However, I ran some comparative tests among the old and new approaches, the results of which I have added as a new section to the original question. As you will be seeing, there is some considerable difference among the results. This leads to the confusion as to which should be adopted as the correct. Although it does seem, that the direct method is more accurate as it is capable of using a very small time-step and very fine mesh size. | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 15:57 | comment | added | Alex Trounev | Yes, it is right. | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 10:45 | comment | added | Avrana | If I understand correctly, you have calculated the flow field for one second, i.e., two time periods. Then, you have utilized the flow field for one time-period to solve for a steady-state solution of the energy equation ? | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 7:56 | history | answered | Alex Trounev | CC BY-SA 4.0 |