IncNavierStokesSolver
******************* This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. ******************* Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin.
HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer. On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl<mailto:sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl> wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." <k210@list.ru<mailto:k210@list.ru>> napisał(a): This email from k210@list.ru<mailto:k210@list.ru> originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list<https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx> to disable email stamping for this address. Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin. _______________________________________________ Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk<mailto:Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk<mailto:s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk> South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/
Stanisław and Spencer, it is impossible to use the selective frequency damping because my flows may have purely exponential leading eigenmodes. I have checked the SteadyLinearisedNS examples and improve my xml file. The workflow now is: (1) I calculate a stable velocity field U_0 by non-stationary solver at Re_0 and set this field as AdvectionVelocity. (2) I set Re_1 > Re_0 and calculate a velocity field U_1 by SteadyLinearisedNS solver. (3) Is it possible to find the physically reasonable amplitude for U_1? Thanks. Best regards, Alex.
Вторник, 5 мая 2020, 4:48 +07:00 от "Sherwin, Spencer J" <s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk>: HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer.
On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." < k210@list.ru > napisał(a):
This email from k210@list.ru originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list to disable email stamping for this address. Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin.
Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/
Hi, I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? Now I have the linearly-stable solution U_0 at Re_0<Re_1. It have been calculated by the non-stationary solver. I suppose that U=U_0+U_1 at Re_1 and solve the linearised NS equation. It is correct if norm(U_0)>>norm(U_1). I have solved the linear equation. Streamlines look good, but the linear equation does not allow to find the U_1 amplitude. I will try to put U=U_0+U_1*A as the initial condition for the non-stationary solver and change the amplitude A for an adequate solution. Best regards, Alex.
Среда, 6 мая 2020, 1:44 +07:00 от sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl: Hi, I might be misunderstanding what it is you need, sorry for that, but have you tried to use the non stationary solver, gradually increasing Re from Re_0 up to Re_1, such that you maintain your solution, evan as it becomes unstable? For not so large differences in Re this might work. Also, what do you need U_1 for? Do you want to superimpose U_1 onto U_0 to get an approximation of what the solution for Re_1 should be? I am not sure you can do this in a general case, and if you do, I think that choosing the right amplitude might be very tricky. Cheers! Stanisław Gepner 5 maj 2020 18:30 "A.P." < k210@list.ru > napisał(a):
Stanisław and Spencer, it is impossible to use the selective frequency damping because my flows may have purely exponential leading eigenmodes. I have checked the SteadyLinearisedNS examples and improve my xml file. The workflow now is: (1) I calculate a stable velocity field U_0 by non-stationary solver at Re_0 and set this field as AdvectionVelocity. (2) I set Re_1 > Re_0 and calculate a velocity field U_1 by SteadyLinearisedNS solver. (3) Is it possible to find the physically reasonable amplitude for U_1? Thanks. Best regards, Alex.
Вторник, 5 мая 2020, 4:48 +07:00 от "Sherwin, Spencer J" < s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk >: HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer.
On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." < k210@list.ru > napisał(a):
This email from k210@list.ru originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list to disable email stamping for this address. Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin.
Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/
Hi Alex, I am definitely missing something out, sorry.
I need to calculate the *unstable* solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? If the unsteady solution is what you seek, than why not use the non-stationary solver to begin with? Set $Re=Re_1$ and If your solution is indeed unsteady you should get just that.
In case you do not get it you can always disturb the initial condition with (almost) an arbitrary (but small) perturbation. On the other hand, if what you want is to observe how the mode $U_1$, that you got from the LinearisedNS solver behaves in the nonlinear setting, and your initial condition is $U=U_0+U_1*A$ than I would personally experiment with different amplitudes. In my case I was aiming at having the energy of the superimposed mode $\approx10^{-8} - 10^{-15}$ times smaller than the energy of the base flow. Hope it helps, Cheers! Stan W dniu 5/6/20 o 5:05 AM, A.P. pisze:
Hi, I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? Now I have the linearly-stable solution U_0 at Re_0<Re_1. It have been calculated by the non-stationary solver. I suppose that U=U_0+U_1 at Re_1 and solve the linearised NS equation. It is correct if norm(U_0)>>norm(U_1). I have solved the linear equation. Streamlines look good, but the linear equation does not allow to find the U_1 amplitude. I will try to put U=U_0+U_1*A as the initial condition for the non-stationary solver and change the amplitude A for an adequate solution. Best regards, Alex.
Среда, 6 мая 2020, 1:44 +07:00 от sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl: Hi, I might be misunderstanding what it is you need, sorry for that, but have you tried to use the non stationary solver, gradually increasing Re from Re_0 up to Re_1, such that you maintain your solution, evan as it becomes unstable? For not so large differences in Re this might work. Also, what do you need U_1 for? Do you want to superimpose U_1 onto U_0 to get an approximation of what the solution for Re_1 should be? I am not sure you can do this in a general case, and if you do, I think that choosing the right amplitude might be very tricky. Cheers! Stanisław Gepner 5 maj 2020 18:30 "A.P." <k210@list.ru </compose?To=k210@list.ru>> napisał(a):
Stanisław and Spencer, it is impossible to use the selective frequency damping because my flows may have purely exponential leading eigenmodes. I have checked the SteadyLinearisedNS examples and improve my xml file. The workflow now is: (1) I calculate a stable velocity field U_0 by non-stationary solver at Re_0 and set this field as AdvectionVelocity. (2) I set Re_1 > Re_0 and calculate a velocity field U_1 by SteadyLinearisedNS solver. (3) Is it possible to find the physically reasonable amplitude for U_1? Thanks. Best regards, Alex.
Вторник, 5 мая 2020, 4:48 +07:00 от "Sherwin, Spencer J" <s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk </compose?To=s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk>>: HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer.
On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl <http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl> wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." <k210@list.ru <http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ak210@list.ru>> napisał(a):
This email from k210@list.ru <http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ak210@list.ru> originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list <https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx> to disable email stamping for this address.
Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin.
_______________________________________________ Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk <http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aNektar%2dusers@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users
Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk <http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3as.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk> South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/
Hi Stan, thank you for the answer. I am seeking exactly the unstable state solution like U=1-y*y in the Pouiseuille flow. I have a case which unstable pure exponentially and the SFD is not applicable. In general it is required something like Newton iterations (not implemented in IncNavierStokesSolver). Alex.
Вторник, 12 мая 2020, 18:39 +07:00 от Stanisław Gepner <sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl>: Hi Alex, I am definitely missing something out, sorry.
I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? If the unsteady solution is what you seek, than why not use the non-stationary solver to begin with? Set and If your solution is indeed unsteady you should get just that. In case you do not get it you can always disturb the initial condition with (almost) an arbitrary (but small) perturbation. On the other hand, if what you want is to observe how the mode , that you got from the LinearisedNS solver behaves in the nonlinear setting, and your initial condition is than I would personally experiment with different amplitudes. In my case I was aiming at having the energy of the superimposed mode times smaller than the energy of the base flow. Hope it helps, Cheers! Stan W dniu 5/6/20 o 5:05 AM, A.P. pisze: Hi, I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? Now I have the linearly-stable solution U_0 at Re_0<Re_1. It have been calculated by the non-stationary solver. I suppose that U=U_0+U_1 at Re_1 and solve the linearised NS equation. It is correct if norm(U_0)>>norm(U_1). I have solved the linear equation. Streamlines look good, but the linear equation does not allow to find the U_1 amplitude. I will try to put U=U_0+U_1*A as the initial condition for the non-stationary solver and change the amplitude A for an adequate solution. Best regards, Alex.
Среда, 6 мая 2020, 1:44 +07:00 от sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl : Hi, I might be misunderstanding what it is you need, sorry for that, but have you tried to use the non stationary solver, gradually increasing Re from Re_0 up to Re_1, such that you maintain your solution, evan as it becomes unstable? For not so large differences in Re this might work. Also, what do you need U_1 for? Do you want to superimpose U_1 onto U_0 to get an approximation of what the solution for Re_1 should be? I am not sure you can do this in a general case, and if you do, I think that choosing the right amplitude might be very tricky. Cheers! Stanisław Gepner 5 maj 2020 18:30 "A.P." < k210@list.ru > napisał(a):
Stanisław and Spencer, it is impossible to use the selective frequency damping because my flows may have purely exponential leading eigenmodes. I have checked the SteadyLinearisedNS examples and improve my xml file. The workflow now is: (1) I calculate a stable velocity field U_0 by non-stationary solver at Re_0 and set this field as AdvectionVelocity. (2) I set Re_1 > Re_0 and calculate a velocity field U_1 by SteadyLinearisedNS solver. (3) Is it possible to find the physically reasonable amplitude for U_1? Thanks. Best regards, Alex.
Вторник, 5 мая 2020, 4:48 +07:00 от "Sherwin, Spencer J" < s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk >: HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer.
On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." < k210@list.ru > napisał(a): >This email from k210@list.ru originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list to disable email stamping for this address. > >Hello, > >I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. > >Is the option > ><I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> > >can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? > >Alex Proskurin. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/
Hi Alex, Sorry I have not been able to keep up with the email chain. A while ago we did have a go (whilst doing the SFD approach) at setting up a newton iteration but we did not get to the end of the projects. So there is some implementation but it is not fully debugged since i think we needed some continuation technique to make it robust. More recently we have been developing an implicit compressible solver which at its heart has a Newton iteration at each step. However this is still under development and so I cannot suggest it would be staight-forward to use just yet, especially since we are generally focussing on higher Mach numbers. So I think there are ingredients of what you want in the frame work but not the end product currently. Cheers, Spencer Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk<mailto:s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk> South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/ On 13 May 2020, at 16:13, A.P. <k210@list.ru<mailto:k210@list.ru>> wrote: Hi Stan, thank you for the answer. I am seeking exactly the unstable state solution like U=1-y*y in the Pouiseuille flow. I have a case which unstable pure exponentially and the SFD is not applicable. In general it is required something like Newton iterations (not implemented in IncNavierStokesSolver). Alex. Вторник, 12 мая 2020, 18:39 +07:00 от Stanisław Gepner <sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl<mailto:sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl>>: Hi Alex, I am definitely missing something out, sorry. I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? If the unsteady solution is what you seek, than why not use the non-stationary solver to begin with? Set <cligphgfgkgkpeoi.png> and If your solution is indeed unsteady you should get just that. In case you do not get it you can always disturb the initial condition with (almost) an arbitrary (but small) perturbation. On the other hand, if what you want is to observe how the mode <ebhjemkbagnolfje.png>, that you got from the LinearisedNS solver behaves in the nonlinear setting, and your initial condition is <bnldakibelapnpcc.png> than I would personally experiment with different amplitudes. In my case I was aiming at having the energy of the superimposed mode <bieajldemhhcgaan.png> times smaller than the energy of the base flow. Hope it helps, Cheers! Stan W dniu 5/6/20 o 5:05 AM, A.P. pisze: Hi, I need to calculate the unstable solution U at Re_1. Does the way exist using SteadyLinearisedNS? Now I have the linearly-stable solution U_0 at Re_0<Re_1. It have been calculated by the non-stationary solver. I suppose that U=U_0+U_1 at Re_1 and solve the linearised NS equation. It is correct if norm(U_0)>>norm(U_1). I have solved the linear equation. Streamlines look good, but the linear equation does not allow to find the U_1 amplitude. I will try to put U=U_0+U_1*A as the initial condition for the non-stationary solver and change the amplitude A for an adequate solution. Best regards, Alex. Среда, 6 мая 2020, 1:44 +07:00 от sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl<x-msg://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl>: Hi, I might be misunderstanding what it is you need, sorry for that, but have you tried to use the non stationary solver, gradually increasing Re from Re_0 up to Re_1, such that you maintain your solution, evan as it becomes unstable? For not so large differences in Re this might work. Also, what do you need U_1 for? Do you want to superimpose U_1 onto U_0 to get an approximation of what the solution for Re_1 should be? I am not sure you can do this in a general case, and if you do, I think that choosing the right amplitude might be very tricky. Cheers! Stanisław Gepner 5 maj 2020 18:30 "A.P." <k210@list.ru<mailto:k210@list.ru>> napisał(a): Stanisław and Spencer, it is impossible to use the selective frequency damping because my flows may have purely exponential leading eigenmodes. I have checked the SteadyLinearisedNS examples and improve my xml file. The workflow now is: (1) I calculate a stable velocity field U_0 by non-stationary solver at Re_0 and set this field as AdvectionVelocity. (2) I set Re_1 > Re_0 and calculate a velocity field U_1 by SteadyLinearisedNS solver. (3) Is it possible to find the physically reasonable amplitude for U_1? Thanks. Best regards, Alex. Вторник, 5 мая 2020, 4:48 +07:00 от "Sherwin, Spencer J" <s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk<mailto:s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk>>: HI Both, There should be examples of using the SteadyLinearisedNS in the directory solvers/IncNavierStokesSolver/Tests where it has been used for Re >>1 in stability analysis runs. Indeed I think there is a case at Re=7500. So possibly there is a SolverType setting that is wrong as Stan suggests. Cheers, Spencer. On 4 May 2020, at 20:29, sgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl<http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asgepner@meil.pw.edu.pl> wrote: Hi, There is a steady state solver you might try. It was a while since I have attempted to use it, but I think you need to set the driver to SteadyState, and not change the Eqtype. Have a look at the manual sections 11.1.4 and 11.5. My personal experience was, that it was easier for me to run the non stationary, standard solver towards a stationary solution, rather than to use the steady state one, even in the case of potentially unstable flows. Hope this helps, cheers! Stanisław Gepner 4 maj 2020 09:28 "A.P." <k210@list.ru<http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ak210@list.ru>> napisał(a): This email from k210@list.ru<http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ak210@list.ru> originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list<https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx> to disable email stamping for this address. Hello, I need to calculate a steady flow which may be unstable. Is the option <I PROPERTY="EQTYPE" VALUE="SteadyLinearisedNS"/> can be used only for Re<<1 or it is possble to make an appropriate AdvectionVelocity section for large Re? Alex Proskurin. _______________________________________________ Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk<http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aNektar%2dusers@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users Spencer Sherwin FREng, FRAeS Head of Aerodynamics Section, Director of Research Computing Service, Professor of Computational Fluid Mechanics, Department of Aeronautics, s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk<http://e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3as.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk> South Kensington Campus, Phone: +44 (0)20 7594 5052 Imperial College London, Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 1974 London, SW7 2AZ, UK http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/s.sherwin/ _______________________________________________ Nektar-users mailing list Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk<mailto:Nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nektar-users
participants (4)
-
A.P.
-
sgepner＠meil.pw.edu.pl
-
Sherwin, Spencer J
-
Stanisław Gepner