Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THE WALL SLIP BOUNDARY CONDITION

University of Minho Author* LUIS JORGE LIMA FERRÁS

School of Engineering
Centre of Biological Engineering Supervisors: João Miguel Amorim N. C. Nóbrega, Fernando Tavares de Pinho
* luis.ferras@dep.uminho.pt

Control volume general equation (implicit vs explicit) Case Study - 4:1 contraction flow
Introduction
Imposing the implicit formulation, the equation became less 20H

The phenomenon of wall slip has been investigated for several years Xr Normalisation Adopted
diagonally dominant. Length
by the scientific community, being most of the published work related Length =
H2

to experimental measurements performed with the objective to Velocity

Yr
Velocity =
U2
 η∆x ∆Vρ  
evaluate the effect of slip in the velocity distribution, pressure drop or

H1=4H
0

un − u p A +A + A + +  P
uP = .......  50H
Slip Intensity
  E W
∆t 
S

the onset of flow instabilities. un = −kη 
∆y
1 4 4 4 44 2 4 4 4 4 43 f

 U ws
∆y f

H2=H

y

In the present work the implicit and explicit implementations of the ⇒

Central Coefficient for no-slip
 U1 x U2 U2

wall slip boundary condition, in a computational rheology code, are  kη / ∆y f    1 η ∆Vρ 

0 
⇔ un = 
 kη / ∆y + 1 p  = ...... .
.u A +A + A + ∆ x+  P
uP
analyzed and compared in terms of performance. The explicit  f    E W
( kη / ∆y + 1 ) ∆y
S

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43 ∆t  f f
 Newtonian

implementation showed that large relaxation factors must be used in Central Coefficient for sl ip 
the iterative procedure in order to achieve convergence. With the ⇒ A P(slip) ≤ A P(no-slip)
U ws U ws
U ws = 0.63
implicit implementation, there is no need to use any kind of relaxation = 0.00 = 1.00
Wall slip implementation U2 U2 U2
and the calculations where stable even for high non-linear slip
models. Explicit Implicit

Slip vs No Slip
With slip boundary conditions the tangent (to the wall) velocity vector

is not null. no slip slip < 1 Convergence
∆y f

> 1 divergence Non-Newtonian
h
r ∆y f
u No

U ws U ws U ws
No = 0.00 = 0.033 = 1.00
U2 U2 U2
0 0
un − up
un = − kη
1

Wall Slip models ∆y f

Four slip models implemented in the finite volume code. Relaxation Yes

 u 0
− u 0

u1n = ( 1 − α ) − kη  + α un
n p 0
[1] Navier Linear Slip Law - Navier C. L. M. H., Mem. Acad. R. Sci. Inst. Fr, 6 389-
 ∆y f
ut = [ − signτ( ) ] kτ [1]
t
440, 1827.  

ut =  − signτ( )
[2] Navier Nonlinear Slip Law - Schowalter W. R., The Behavior of Complex
n

 t [2] Fluids at Solid Boundaries, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 29 25-36, 1988.
 kη / ∆y f 
u = [ − signτ( ) ] k sinh( k2 τ t − τc )
t
[3] [3] Hatzikiriakos Slip Law - Hatzikiriakos S., A Slip Model for Linear Polymers (1) un =  
 kη / ∆y + 1 
.up
1 Based on Adhesive Failure, Intern. Polymer Processing. 8, 135-142, 1993.
 f 
u t = [ − signτ( ) ] k1 ln ( 1 k 2τ+ ) t [4] [4] Asymptotic Slip Law - Polyflow Reference Manual (implementation of
boundary conditions) Implicit and explicit comparison (Couette flow) Vortex dimension VS Slip velocity - Newtonian(left) – Non-Newtonian(right)
1.8 3.5

1.6
Xr
1.4 3
Yr
1.2
Xr
2.5
1
Yr
10000 0.8
2
0.6

Slip Slip Relaxation 0.4

rm
us = −k τ t
1.5

D N

rm
nV
d
e
tx ao

D N
lis

nV
d
e
tx a
liso
8000 0.2
Level Coefficie Factor - 0 1

tangent stress vector nt Explicit 0 0.2 0.4

Uws/U2
0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4

Uws/U2
0.6 0.8 1

slip coefficient 6000 Implicit S7 1,0E-07 0

slip velocity
Explicit S6 1,0E-06 0,9
4000 S5 1,0E-05 0,99
H S4 1,0E-04 0,999
in
sfItam
N
ro
e
b
u

x 2000 S3 1,0E-03 0,9999 Conclusions:

S2 1,0E-02 0,999991 (1)Explicit and Implicit implementation of the wall slip boundary conditions were presented and
0
S1 1,0E-01 divergence
compared;
S0 1,0E+00 divergence
S7 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 S0 (2)The implicit approach gave better results that the explicit one;
Slip Level (3)In a case study of a 4:1 contraction flow it was possible to achieve the full slip condition with the
implicit approach;
(4)For the Newtonian fluid the vortex dimension decreases with the increase of slip velocity;
(5)For PPT fluids the vortex dimensions are almost unaffected by the level of slip imposed,
however its shape was influenced.

Engenharia para a Qualidade de Vida: MOBILIDADE E ENERGIA – Semana da Escola de Engenharia -11 a 16 de Outubro de 2010
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
FCT- Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
through the PhD grant SFRH/BD/37586/2007
FEDER via FCT, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia,
under the POCI 2010 and Pluriannual programs