2019
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-019-0848-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

1D-3D coupling algorithm for unsteady gas flow analysis in pipe systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…were verified. The result of analyzing the gas flow by dividing it into 1D or 3D zones based on the central point of the pipe showed an error of less than 2.20%, and was able to be calculated 11.46 times faster than the 3D approach [18].…”
Section: Numerical Analysis 21 Modelingmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…were verified. The result of analyzing the gas flow by dividing it into 1D or 3D zones based on the central point of the pipe showed an error of less than 2.20%, and was able to be calculated 11.46 times faster than the 3D approach [18].…”
Section: Numerical Analysis 21 Modelingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The time step size for numerical analysis was also different in the 1D and 3D zones because the mesh size was different. In order to use the 1D-3D approach, it was necessary to synchronize the time steps, and because the synchronization of the time steps uses linear interpolation, more than two 3D calculations must be performed in a 1D time step to obtain stable results [18].…”
Section: Time Stepmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This approach is complex, requires signif-icant computational resources and long simulation times. In some cases, it is even necessary to reduce the dimensionality of the problem from 3D to 1D in some elements in order to reduce labor intensity and obtain an acceptable overall calculation time [18]. As a result, multidimensional CFD models are good for the final stages of a project, especially for determining the stress-strain state of parts [19] but are poorly suited for modeling engine cycles with a periodic workflow [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the computational consumption of the CFD approach is usually expensive, especially for the extensive hydraulic system. As a compromise, the 1D-3D coupling method is suggested to save computational resources, where the complex vibration region is handled by the CFD method, and it is suggested to utilize the MOC method to manage other parts of the system with long conveyance conduits [25][26][27][28]. However, unreasonable numerical attenuation is observed in the CFD part when the HFPF occurs in the system, which is mainly caused by the limitation of the CFD method when dealing with the large density gradient.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%