Back
 OJFD  Vol.6 No.4 , December 2016
CVBEM and FVM Computational Model Comparison for Solving Ideal Fluid Flow in a 90-Degree Bend
Abstract: While finite volume methodologies (FVM) have predominated in fluid flow computations, many flow problems, including groundwater models, would benefit from the use of boundary methods, such as the Complex Variable Boundary Element Method (CVBEM). However, to date, there has been no reporting of a comparison of computational results between the FVM and the CVBEM in the assessment of flow field characteristics. In this work, the CVBEM is used to develop a flow field vector outcome of ideal fluid flow in a 90-degree bend which is then compared to the computational results from a finite volume model of the same situation. The focus of the modelling comparison in the current work is flow field trajectory vectors of the fluid flow, with respect to vector magnitude and direction. Such a comparison is necessary to validate the development of flow field vectors from the CVBEM and is of interest to many engineering flow problems, specifically groundwater modelling. Comparison of the CVBEM and FVM flow field trajectory vectors for the target problem of ideal flow in a 90-degree bend shows good agreement between the considered methodologies.
Cite this paper: Bloor, C. , Hromadka II, T. , Wilkins, B. and McInvale, H. (2016) CVBEM and FVM Computational Model Comparison for Solving Ideal Fluid Flow in a 90-Degree Bend. Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 6, 430-437. doi: 10.4236/ojfd.2016.64031.
References

[1]   Thornburg, H.J. (2012) Overview of the PETTT Workshop on Mesh Quality/Resolution, Practice, Current Research, and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, 9-12 January 2012, 0606. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-606

[2]   Rasmussen, T.C. and Yu, G.Q. (1997) Complex Variable Boundary Integral Modelling of Groundwater Flow and Transport. Proceedings of the 1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference, Athens, 20-22 March 1997, 379-382.

[3]   Johnson, A.N., Hromadka II, T.V., Carroll, M., Hughes, M., Jones, L., Pappas, N., Thomasy, C., Horton, S., Whitley, R. and Johnson, M. (2014) A Computational Approach to Determining CVBEM Approximate Boundaries. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 41, 83-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2013.12.011

[4]   Kendall, T.P., Hromadka II, T.V. and Phillips, D.D. (2012) An Algorithm for Optimizing CVBEM and BEM Nodal Point Locations. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 36, 979-984.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2011.11.008

[5]   Brebbia, C.A. (1978) The Boundary Element Method for Engineers. Wiley, London.

[6]   Brebbia, C.A. and Wrobel, L.C. (1979) Boundary Element Method for Fluid Flow. Advances in Water Resources, 2, 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(79)90015-0

[7]   Hromadka II, T.V. and Chintu, L. (1987) The Complex Variable Boundary Element Method in Engineering Analysis. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4660-2

[8]   Hromadka II, T.V. and Whitley, R. J. (2014) Foundations of the Complex Variable Boundary Element Method. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05954-9

[9]   Lopes, A.M.G. (2010) A Versatile Software Tool for the Numerical Simulation of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Simple Geometries. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 18, 14-27.

[10]   Lopes, A.M.G. (2016) A 2D Software System for Expedite Analysis of CFD Problems in Complex Geometries. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24, 27-38.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21668

 
 
Top