|
[Sponsors] |
The proper way of modeling interface when mesh motion is present |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
June 23, 2018, 15:19 |
|
#21 |
Member
katty parker
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8 |
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for your prompt attention and help. I need some time to implement your suggestions into the simulation. I will inform you about the result. About the tiny subdomain; may be “thin” was a better term rather than “tiny”. Sorry for not clarifying enough. Attached is a brief description of the problem. According to this image, in reality when the outlet pressure gets higher than the inlet one (t=t0), the valve (the two moving walls) blocks the flow path and prevents backward flow in the duct. However we are not interested in flow distortion around the valve, and hence as is shown in the attached figure, we only used a subdomain to obstruct the flow path at t=t0. The difference between the pressure values at two sides of this thin subdomain is very high. In my experience, the faster we increase in the value of general source term coefficient, the bigger pressure pulse we will see in our results. About the pipe deformation; this error is occurs even if the walls are modeled flexible. Regarding the convergence criteria; I was not able to bring the values of residuals below 0.0003 after that the valve is fully closed. Is it acceptable? Best Last edited by katty17; June 23, 2018 at 17:29. |
|
June 24, 2018, 05:40 |
|
#22 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,870
Rep Power: 144 |
Is the opening action of the valve important? It is easier to assume the valve opens instantly, because you can then just start with an initial condition with a pressure difference and the flow progresses from there. You don't need to model any action to do this at all.
In my PhD thesis I used modelling shock wave flow very similar to this as a benchmark case for CFX4. This may be useful for you: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/20133
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. |
|
June 24, 2018, 06:40 |
|
#23 |
Member
katty parker
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8 |
If I got it correctly, you mean it is better to start the simulation from t=t0 till t=T+t0. This way we can provide the simulation with better initial conditions.
Seems to be a good solution because the opening action of the valve is not important for me at all. Many thanks for sharing you PhD thesis. I downloaded it and need to read it. It should be replete with very useful information not only for this simulation but also for other cases. Best |
|
June 24, 2018, 08:21 |
|
#24 |
Super Moderator
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,870
Rep Power: 144 |
Have a look how I modelled the shock tube in my thesis. Simple, nothing moves (except the gas, of course) and you should have no problems getting it to converge. My thesis also shows you how you should validate the model with checking convergence criteria, time step size, mesh size and other factors.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. |
|
Tags |
cfx, interface, mesh motion, specific displacement |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Radiation in semi-transparent media with surface-to-surface model? | mpeppels | CFX | 11 | August 22, 2019 08:30 |
My radial inflow turbine | Abo Anas | CFX | 27 | May 11, 2018 02:44 |
Error - Solar absorber - Solar Thermal Radiation | MichaelK | CFX | 12 | September 1, 2016 06:15 |
Moving interface patch using mesh subsets | lr103476 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 0 | January 10, 2008 17:14 |
Icemcfd 11: Loss of mesh from surface mesh option? | Joe | CFX | 2 | March 26, 2007 19:10 |