Edgar J. Kaiser
Certified Consultant
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 months ago
25.06.2024, 09:44 GMT-4
Peter,
just for your information, the current version 6.2 has it readily available with a time explicit solver. I have been doing some extensive work with it, with good success. I would not want to go through the exercise to cook it by myself in an old version.
Cheers
Edgar
-------------------
Edgar J. Kaiser
emPhys Physical Technology
www.emphys.com
Peter,
just for your information, the current version 6.2 has it readily available with a time explicit solver. I have been doing some extensive work with it, with good success. I would not want to go through the exercise to cook it by myself in an old version.
Cheers
Edgar
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 months ago
25.06.2024, 09:50 GMT-4
Peter,
just for your information, the current version 6.2 has it readily available with a time explicit solver. I have been doing some extensive work with it, with good success. I would not want to go through the exercise to cook it by myself in an old version.
Cheers
Edgar
Dear Edgar,
Thank you for your reply. I have seen the available multiphysics for acoustic streaming but unfortunately I do not have access to the latest version.
I have been attempting to recreate results from literature on the subject that used the 4.2 version but their explanations of the details are vague.
I understand this is not ideal but it is currently my only option.
Best regards,
Peter
>Peter,
>
>just for your information, the current version 6.2 has it readily available with a time explicit solver. I have been doing some extensive work with it, with good success. I would not want to go through the exercise to cook it by myself in an old version.
>
>Cheers
>Edgar
Dear Edgar,
Thank you for your reply. I have seen the available multiphysics for acoustic streaming but unfortunately I do not have access to the latest version.
I have been attempting to recreate results from literature on the subject that used the 4.2 version but their explanations of the details are vague.
I understand this is not ideal but it is currently my only option.
Best regards,
Peter
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
9 months ago
05.07.2024, 09:20 GMT-4
Updated:
9 months ago
09.07.2024, 07:29 GMT-4
Just as a follow up, I tried to follow this paper which seems to state that I need to add a body force and a weak contribution to the creeping flow interface in terms of the first-order field variables solved for in the acoustics physics interface.
I don't have any experience with equation-based modelling but if anyone could assist me in how I can add these contributions to the fluid flow interface it would be a great help.
The authors say they added a weak contribution which I think is implemented as
which corresponds to the RHS of this equation. But I am not sure how to implement the RHS of this equation as a volume force.
Just as a follow up, I tried to follow [this paper](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/lc/c2lc40612h) which seems to state that I need to add a body force and a weak contribution to the creeping flow interface in terms of the first-order field variables solved for in the acoustics physics interface.
I don't have any experience with equation-based modelling but if anyone could assist me in how I can add these contributions to the fluid flow interface it would be a great help.
The authors say they added a [weak contribution](https://ibb.co/pvg8NRX) which I think is implemented as
\begin{verbatim}
-0.5*(d(real(ta.rho*conj(u)),x)+d(real(ta.rho*conj(v)),y))*test(p2)
\end{verbatim}
which corresponds to the RHS of [this equation](https://ibb.co/G737PTf). But I am not sure how to implement the RHS of [this equation](https://ibb.co/Gn0qtWc) as a volume force.