Is your inflow conditions uniform ? If not then large elements at inflow could introduce errors.
If you compute vorticity as curl of velocity pointwise, then the vorticity would be discontinuous at element boundaries, since you are using only C0 elements for the velocity. If you are averaging the computed vorticity or obtaining vorticity by an L2 projection, then they would be continuous. Maybe your other codes are doing something like this ? Best praveen > On 13-Jan-2020, at 9:12 AM, David Eaton <[email protected]> wrote: > > (1) This stabilized formulation is tested and running in code without any > issue. However, it seems that the velocity fileld near the inlet, the left of > figure "entire_domain", has large disturbances. > (2) In figure "zoom_in_1", there is no irregularity of the streamline. > Furthermore, the calculated lift and drag matches with the literature. It > seems that the irregularity of flow field near the inlet is caused by very > large elements. However, this issue is not observed in another code. > (3) The most weird issue to me is in figure "zoom_in_2". The contour of > velocity, vorticity seems to be discontinuous to their neighboring elements. > I believe I am using continuous Galerkin element and standard Gauss > quadrature rule (4 Gauss integration points for 2D simulation). This issue > does not appear in other codes using the same formation. Could anyone suggest > a reason for this? > -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dealii/E1E13F63-7365-4328-9673-4073CDEED6CC%40gmail.com.
