Unsteady flows are characterized as flows in which the properties of the fluid are time dependent. It gets reflected in the governing equations as the time derivative of the properties are absent.For Studying Finite-volume method for unsteady flow there is some governing equations[1] >
The conservation equation for the transport of a scalar in unsteady flow has the general form as [2]
\partial\rho\phi | |
\partialt |
+\operatorname{div}\left(\rho\phi\upsilon\right)=\operatorname{div}\left(\Gamma\operatorname{grad}\phi\right)+S\phi
\rho
\phi
\Gamma
S
\operatorname{div}\left(\rho\phi\upsilon\right)
\phi
\operatorname{div}\left(\Gamma\operatorname{grad}\phi\right)
\phi
S\phi
\phi
\partial\rho\phi | |
\partialt |
\phi
The first term of the equation reflects the unsteadiness of the flow and is absent in case of steady flows. The finite volume integration of the governing equation is carried out over a control volume and also over a finite time step ∆t.
\int\limitscv
t+\Deltat | ||
\int | \left( | |
t |
\partial\rho\phi | |
\partialt |
dt\right)dV+
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\int\limitsA\left(n.{\rho\phiu}dA\right)dt=
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\int\limitsA\left(n ⋅ \left(\Gamma\operatorname{grad}\phi\right)dA\right)dt
t+\Deltat | |
+\int | |
t |
\int\limitscvS\phidVdt
The control volume integration of the steady part of the equation is similar to the steady state governing equation's integration. We need to focus on the integration of the unsteady component of the equation. To get a feel of the integration technique, we refer to the one-dimensional unsteady heat conduction equation.[3]
\rhoc
\partialT | |
\partialt |
=
\partial | |
\partialx |
k\partialT | |
\partialx |
+S
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\int\limitscv\rhoc
\partialT | |
\partialt |
dVdt=
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\int\limitscv
\partial | |
\partialx |
k\partialT | |
\partialx |
dVdt+
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\int\limitscvSdVdt
w | |
\int | |
e |
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\left(\rhoc
\partialT | |
\partialt |
dt\right)dV=
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\left[\left(kA
\partialT | |
\partialx |
\right)e-\left(kA
\partialT | |
\partialx |
\right)w\right]dt+
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\barS\DeltaVdt
Now, holding the assumption of the temperature at the node being prevalent in the entire control volume, the left side of the equation can be written as [4]
\int\limitscv
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\left(\rhoc
\partialT | |
\partialt |
dt\right)dV=\rhoc\left(TP-
O\right) | |
{T | |
P} |
\DeltaV
By using a first order backward differencing scheme, we can write the right hand side of the equation as
\rhoc\left(TP-
0\right) | |
{T | |
P} |
\DeltaV=
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\left[\left(KeA
TE-TP | |
\deltaxPE |
\right)-\left(KwA
TP-TW | |
\deltaxWP |
\right)\right]dt+
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
\barS\DeltaVdt
Now to evaluate the right hand side of the equation we use a weighting parameter
\theta
TP
IT=
t+\Deltat | |
\int | |
t |
TPdt=\left[\thetaTP+\left(1-\theta\right)
0 | |
{T | |
P} |
\right]\Deltat
Now, the exact form of the final discretised equation depends on the value of
\Theta
\Theta
\Theta
TP
\Theta
\rhoc
\left(TP-{TP | |
0\right)}{\Delta |
t}\Deltax=\theta[\left(Ke
TE-TP | |
\deltaxPE |
\right)-\left(Kw
TP-TW | |
\deltaxWP |
\right)]+(1-\theta)[\left(Ke
TE-TP | |
\deltaxPE |
\right)-\left(Kw
TP-TW | |
\deltaxWP |
\right)]+\barS\Deltax
1. Explicit Scheme in the explicit scheme the source term is linearised as
b=Su+{SP}{T
0 | |
P} |
\theta=0
aPTP=aw
0 | |
{T | |
w} |
+ae
0 | |
{T | |
e} |
+\left[
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
-\left(aw+ae-SP\right)\right]
0 | |
{T | |
P} |
+Su
where
aP=
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
\deltaxPE=\deltaxWP=\Deltax
\rhoc
\Deltax | |
\Deltat |
>
2K | |
\Deltax |
This inequality sets a stringent condition on the maximum time step that can be used and represents a serious limitation on the scheme. It becomes very expensive to improve the spatial accuracy because the maximum possible time step needs to be reduced as the square of
\Deltax
2. Crank-Nicolson scheme : the Crank-Nicolson method results from setting
\theta=
1 | |
2 |
aPTP=aE\left[
TE+{TE | |
0} |
{2}\right]+aW\left[
TW+{TW | |
0} |
{2}\right]+\left[
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
-
aE | |
2 |
-
aW | |
2 |
\right]
0 | |
{T | |
P} |
+b
Where
aP=
aW+aE | |
2 |
+
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
-
SP | |
2 |
Since more than one unknown value of T at the new time level is present in equation the method is implicit and simultaneous equations for all node points need to be solved at each time step. Although schemes with
1 | |
2 |
<\theta<1
0 | |
{T | |
P} |
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
=\left[
aE+aW | |
2 |
\right]
which leads to
\Deltat<\rhoc
\Deltax2 | |
K |
the Crank-Nicolson is based on central differencing and hence is second order accurate in time. The overall accuracy of a computation depends also on the spatial differencing practice, so the Crank-Nicolson scheme is normally used in conjunction with spatial central differencing
3. Fully implicit Scheme when the value of Ѳ is set to 1 we get the fully implicit scheme. The discretised equation is:[7]
aPTP=aWTW+aETE+
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
0 | |
{T | |
P} |
+Su
aP=
0 | |
{a | |
P} |
+aW+aE-SP
Both sides of the equation contain temperatures at the new time step, and a system of algebraic equations must be solved at each time level. The time marching procedure starts with a given initial field of temperatures
T0
\Deltat
T
T0