4
$\begingroup$

The Problem

Suppose I wish to solve the following PDE

$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{u} = \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u_z}{\partial z} = 0$$

on the 2D domain ($0 \le x \le L$ and $0 \le z \le H$) with impermeable boundary conditions. This can be expressed as

$$ \vec{u} \cdot \hat{n} = 0$$

where $\hat{n}$ is a unit vector pointing outward on the boundary (i.e. there is no flow in or out of the domain).

Suppose further that the flow field $\vec{u}(x,z)$ is a function of other variables and source terms which together prevent the naïve $\vec{u}=0$ solution.

The Approach

I have set up a vertex-centered, finite-difference grid as shown in Figure (a) below:

comparison of vertex-centered and cell-centered grids

(Note that Figure (b) shows a cell-centered grid, which may be related to my confusion....)

At all grid points (including side boundaries and corners), I solve $\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{u} = 0$. At the min-X ($x=0$) and max-X ($x=L$) boundaries, I simultaneously enforce $u_x=0$ by substitution and ghost points. In the same way, I enforce $u_z=0$ at the min-Z ($z=0$) and max-Z ($z=H$) boundaries. At the corners, I enforce both boundary conditions at once.

My Results

The following figure shows part of the flow field I calculated for this PDE. The arrows have been normalized to show direction and the color indicates the magnitude. As mentioned before, I use a vertex-centered grid, so the cell-centered plot is perhaps misleading.

plot of my vector field

All boundary conditions have been enforced, even at the corners.

My Question

I'm second-guessing myself!

Does the impermeable boundary condition I insist on mean that the corner point really should have zero flow?

In a finite-volume (or cell-centered) approach, the corner would enforce "inflow" from below to equal "outflow" to the left. In that case, the flow at the corner would not be zero. I recognize that my vertex-centered approach is different, but should there be any flow at the corner?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The presence of a "stagnation point" where $\mathbb{u} = 0$ is entirely possible in the solution of such problems.

For example, on the domain $\{(x,y): x \geqslant0, y \geqslant0 \} $ the velocity field $\mathbb{u} =(u(x,y),v(x,y)) = (x,-y)$ solves the Euler equations for inviscid flow and satisfies $\nabla \cdot \mathbb{u} = 0.$ The condition $\mathbb{u} \cdot \mathbb{n}$ is satisfied on the boundary $\{ (x,y): x = 0\} \cup \{(x,y): y =0 \}, $ regardless of how $\mathbb{n}$ is defined at the corner. At the corner we have $u(0,0) = v(0,0) = 0$ -- approached smoothly by $u(x,y)$ and $v(x,y)$ as $(x,y) \to (0,0)$ from any direction. This would present no problem in solving the governing PDE numerically with finite differences.

In solving Navier-Stokes along with the incompressibility condition $\nabla \cdot \mathbb{u} = 0,$ a stronger boundary condition $\mathbb{u} = 0$ is enforced at solid walls. The sharp corner introduces a singularity leading to complex behavior in the velocity field near the corner -- and which can never be satisfactorily resolved numerically with a coarse mesh. For example, see here.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.