Carlos Pimentel's blog

Yes, it is! This can be easily demonstrated by visualizing the velocity field directly in Fluent instead of the Results module, where no kind of boundary layer (BL) appears: Video: A visualization bug in the Results module for an inviscid simulation (version: 2024 R2). However, this bug is only present for simulations performed directly by the native inviscid model. Note that not only the lower limit for visualization is affected, but also the maximum (by almost 2 m/s), as if they were two different simulations. At this point, I will not go deeper into this subject, as trying to find the error in the error is nonsense. Even for an AoA case (3 degrees; not converged solution) such a BL evolution remains (see Fig. 4), while in Fluent it does not. I will probably contact someone who can help me understand what is happening with such results...who cares, nobody performs inviscid simulations nowadays! Fig. 4 Velocity contours for the AoA=3 deg. case; a modeled BL is also present. As I jus

In my opinion, one of the worst ways to justify a physical hypothesis is to perform simulations, especially when they are subject to modeling and approximation rather than the direct solution of equations, which could also be limited by simplifications and assumptions. However, this time I will make use of a commercial tool that is accepted with enough credibility in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to justify that vorticity can be generated between the interaction of a solid body and an inviscid medium , following the line of previous articles in this blog. To accomplish this task, I have tried to reduce all the steps involved to a minimum, keeping only the essential ones (e.g. I avoided using a viscous model, put the viscosity to zero, and manually set a free-slip wall)*. A two-dimensional simulation in one of the most popular CFD software (based on the finite volume method; FVM), consisting of an inviscid flow past a NACA 0006 airfoil at zero degrees of angle of attac