Abstract
Performance of the two commonly used numerical procedures, one based on artificial compressibility method and the other pressure projection method, are compared. These formulations are selected primarily because they are designed for three-dimensional applications. The computational procedures are compared by obtaining steady state solutions of a wake vortex and unsteady solutions of a curved duct flow. For steady computations, artificial compressibility was very efficient in terms of computing time and robustness. For an unsteady flow which requires small physical time step, pressure projection method was found to be computationally more efficient than an artificial compressibility method. This comparison is intended to give some basis for selecting a method or a flow solution code for large three-dimensional applications where computing resources become a critical issue.
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call