|
[Sponsors] |
Simulation of cavitation flow:problem of heat transfer |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 4, 2012, 02:46 |
Simulation of cavitation flow:problem of heat transfer
|
#1 |
New Member
Lee
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 14 |
While I solve the cavitation flow of LNG with k-omiga turbulence model, the RMS of H-Energy in the result kept being 1.0e+01 after only five steps(the curve of heat transfer is obviously wrong),and the rate of convergence were both zero.The details were as follows:
OUTER LOOP ITERATION = 5 CPU SECONDS = 2.227E+03 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Equation | Rate | RMS Res | Max Res | Linear Solution | +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | U-Mom-Bulk | 0.97 | 1.4E-04 | 1.3E-02 | 1.2E-01 ok| | V-Mom-Bulk | 0.96 | 1.3E-04 | 1.9E-02 | 1.1E-01 ok| | W-Mom-Bulk | 0.97 | 1.9E-04 | 2.7E-02 | 1.5E-01 ok| | P-Vol | 0.87 | 1.2E-05 | 7.4E-04 | 5.2 9.1E-02 OK| +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | Mass-LNG | 0.93 | 2.5E-04 | 6.8E-02 | 6.1 2.2E-02 OK| +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | H-Energy-LNG |99.99 | NaN | 0.0E+00 | 0.0E+00 OK | | H-Energy-lngs |99.99 | NaN | 0.0E+00 | 5.9 0.0E+00 OK | +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | K-TurbKE-Bulk | 0.96 | 2.8E-04 | 4.4E-02 | 6.0 3.1E-02 OK| | O-TurbFreq-Bulk | 0.95 | 1.2E-04 | 4.1E-02 | 7.7 1.9E-02 OK| +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------ OUTER LOOP ITERATION = 6 CPU SECONDS = 2.735E+03 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Equation | Rate | RMS Res | Max Res | Linear Solution | +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | U-Mom-Bulk | 1.22 | 1.7E-04 | 1.4E-02 | 2.8E-01 ok| | V-Mom-Bulk | 1.24 | 1.7E-04 | 2.1E-02 | 2.8E-01 ok| | W-Mom-Bulk | 0.97 | 1.9E-04 | 2.4E-02 | 1.1E+00 ok| | P-Vol | 8.43 | 1.0E-04 | 3.8E-03 | 5.2 9.6E-02 OK| +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ****** Notice ****** | | A wall has been placed at portion(s) of an OUTLET | | boundary condition (at 0.3% of the faces, 0.6% of the area) | | to prevent fluid from flowing into the domain. | | The boundary condition name is: Blade Outlet. | | The fluid name is: LNG. | | If this situation persists, consider switching | | to an Opening type boundary condition instead. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mass-LNG | 8.05 | 2.0E-03 | 2.6E-01 | 6.1 5.1E-03 OK| +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | H-Energy-LNG | 0.00 | NaN | 0.0E+00 | 0.0E+00 OK | | H-Energy-lngs | 0.00 | NaN | 0.0E+00 | 5.9 0.0E+00 OK | +----------------------+------+---------+---------+------------------+ | K-TurbKE-Bulk | 1.15 | 3.3E-04 | 4.5E-02 | 6.0 4.6E-02 OK| | O-TurbFreq-Bulk | 2.35 | 2.8E-04 | 7.3E-02 | 7.7 2.9E-02 OK| |
|
October 4, 2012, 08:42 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,871
Rep Power: 144 |
This looks like a complex model with cavitation, heat transfer and multiple phases. Have you started with a simple model and introduced the physics one bit at a time?
|
|
October 5, 2012, 01:45 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Lee
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 14 |
In fact,I have solved many cases about cavitation at different conditions. Sometimes the result I got looks very well.But for the case with different geometrics (nozzle angle),it won't work.Maybe if I change the reference state of the materials I used,it will work and I can get a result that looks reasonable .But this strategy doesn't fit any case .Do youknow the reason ? Will the reference point affect so much ? How could I avoid this wrong results with what proper settings?
|
|
October 5, 2012, 07:17 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,871
Rep Power: 144 |
Do you think explaining what you are modelling might help? And while you are at it maybe what is different about this one compared to the ones which worked well? I think that might help
|
|
October 5, 2012, 09:44 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Lee
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 14 |
I have compared the result with those worked well .The unique difference is that I set the simulation with different reference point .If with a actual reference point , ref-enthalpy and ref-entropy ,only some cases could work well .If with automatic ref-point ,there will be more cases that will work will .If with none, the effect will get better . However there are still some cases that can't work will. That is the problem I want to know.In different cases ,everything is same except that the geometric has different nozzle angle. Thank you for your help!
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heat transfer coefficient - what is waht | Stan | FLUENT | 28 | December 29, 2021 17:29 |
Heat Transfer boundary conditions for engine coolant flow simulation | rajuks | Main CFD Forum | 0 | February 15, 2010 10:04 |
Heat transfer in an unsteady-state simulation | Raed141 | FLUENT | 11 | August 7, 2009 18:17 |
Cavitation with heat transfer | Rocketman | FLUENT | 0 | May 15, 2009 23:22 |
Which Heat transfer coeffcient to use? | tengra | FLUENT | 1 | May 1, 2009 14:49 |