5 ms·
You'll be able to understand the equations I guess. The hard part is the numerical analysis: how do you prove your computations will: 1/ reach a solution (badly
by wiz21c 3y ago
You'll be able to understand the equations I guess. The hard part is the numerical analysis: how do you prove your computations will: 1/ reach a solution (badly managed computations will diverge and never reach any solution) 2/ reach a solution that is close to reality ?
For me that's the hard part (which I still don't get).
You could start with Saint Venant equations, although they look complicated they're actually within reach. But you'll have to understand the physics behind first (conservation of mass, of quantity of movement, etc.)
- kqr 3y agoUnderstand the equations, yes. However, I'm sufficiently out of practise that it takes me a lot of effort to. So I guess you could say I'm not fluent to be able to grasp the meaning of these things as fast as I think I would need to in order to properly understand them.
- cherryteastain 3y agoRegarding your two questions, some terms you could look up are: Courant number, von Neumann stability analysis, Kolmogorov length and time scales With respect to 2, the standard industry practice is a mesh convergence study and comparing your solver's output to experimental data. Sadly, especially with Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes, there is no guarantee you'll get a physically correct solution.
- wiz21c 3y agoYeah, I know but still had no time to dive into the theory enough to get a correct intuition of how it works on why there's no guarantee for a physically correct solution... Fortunately, my colleagues are the professors in my university who teach these, so I'll find an answer :-)