Abstract
Abstract The goal of this paper is to test solids4Foam, the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) toolbox developed for foam-extend (a branch of OpenFOAM), and assess its flexibility in handling more complex flows. For this purpose, we consider the interaction of an incompressible fluid described by a Leray model with a hyperelastic structure modeled as a Saint Venant-Kirchho material. We focus on a strongly coupled, partitioned fluid-structure interaction (FSI) solver in a finite volume environment, combined with an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian approach to deal with the motion of the fluid domain. For the implementation of the Leray model, which features a nonlinear differential low-pass filter, we adopt a three-step algorithm called Evolve-Filter-Relax. We validate our approach against numerical data available in the literature for the 3D cross flow past a cantilever beam at Reynolds number 100 and 400.
Highlights
Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) [1,2,3,4] involving incompressible fluid flows and flexible structures is found in a wide range of applications in both industrial and biomedical engineering
The goal of this paper is two-fold: i) to test solids4Foam [22], the advanced solid mechanics and fluid-structure interaction (FSI) toolbox developed for foam-extend, a branch of OpenFOAM ® [23]; and (ii) assess its flexibility in handling more complex flows
We chose the C++ finite volume library solids4Foam [22], the advanced solid mechanics and FSI toolbox developed for foam-extend, a branch of OpenFOAM ® [23]
Summary
Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) [1,2,3,4] involving incompressible fluid flows and flexible structures is found in a wide range of applications in both industrial and biomedical engineering. One way to categorize algorithms for FSI problems is to divide them into partitioned methods (e.g., [5,6,7,8]) and monolithic methods (e.g., [9,10,11]). Partitioned methods can be further divided into strongly coupled schemes (e.g., [12,13,14]), which enforce the discrete counterpart of both coupling conditions (kinematic and dynamic) up to a tolerance of choice, and weakly or loosely coupled (e.g., [15,16,17]), for which the coupling conditions are not “exactly” satisfied at each time-step. Monolithic methods are strongly coupled by design Both families of methods have benefits and drawbacks, and the “best” choice mainly depends on the FSI problem under consideration. The reader is referred to, e.g., [2,18,19,20,21]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: Communications in Applied and Industrial Mathematics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
