|
[Sponsors] |
January 11, 2009, 03:37 |
CFX for low subsonic regime
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Is CFX good for low subsonic regime or more precisely for mix of low subsonic, transonic and supersonic flow regimes. because i am getting the difficultly in simulating the large plenum volume (where flow is nearly static) and to outlet where flow is at mach no of 0.4-0.9.
Any suggetions will be highly appreciated. Regards SA |
|
January 11, 2009, 15:40 |
Re: CFX for low subsonic regime
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
CFX can solve subsonic, transonic, or supersonic flows. I think your issue is that you have such a wide range of timescales in this problem - it would make sense that you are having difficulties in getting convergence in CFX. You will probably need to play around with some settings in order to get a converged solution.
You may need to start the run with a local timescale factor, then switch it over to a physical timescale. If you have transonic/supersonic flow, it might make sense to run the case with boundary conditions such that the flow is subsonic. Then once that case is converged, gradually increase the bc's to get the desired operating conditions. |
|
January 12, 2009, 08:36 |
Re: CFX for low subsonic regime
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Thanks johnny for your quick response.
what is local time scale factor and how it affects the solution. actually i am simulating the super sonic wind tunnel with inlet large tank (where flow is almost stationary) but in test section flow is super sonic. any suggestions? best regards |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Check Mass Flow Rate in 2D Analysis - CFX | nasir | FLUENT | 0 | October 9, 2011 03:52 |
Flow regime | dvolkind | Main CFD Forum | 8 | August 16, 2011 14:11 |
in CFX, how to define a inlet condition of feedback control flow rate ? | suihenry | CFX | 12 | May 14, 2009 18:59 |
demo free flow blunt body in cfx ansys 11 | jan | CFX | 1 | July 31, 2007 20:44 |
fluid flow fundas | ram | Main CFD Forum | 5 | June 17, 2000 22:31 |