[Spacebox]

Hello everyone,

Due to the Cartesian-cut cell meshing strategy in CONVERGE, grid orientation difference can be seen for each nozzle on the injector. To solve this issue, in some case, rotating computational domain will not be helpful. Therefore, In think that inlaid mesh implementation would be needed to reduce nozzle-to-nozzle variation error caused by grid orientation. In that sense, I am wondering how to implement surface inlaid mesh on the nozzle or sac region.

I checked cylinder and euclidean shape in converge studio but there is not showing any surface strategy.

Thanks for your help

[ksrivast]

Hello Omer,

To create a surface/boundary-layered mesh along your nozzle and sac boundaries, you have the following options :
1. Use the "Extrusion" Inlaid mesh tool in STUDIO. You would need to ensure the triangulation on the boundaries would be suitable to create a good extruded surface mesh from it. For more details on this, please refer to our Inlaid Mesh advanced training slides or our CONVERGE STUDIO manual.
2. You can directly import an ASCII Plot3D grid file in STUDIO, generated from an external mesh tool, to use as an inlaid mesh within CONVERGE. More details in our STUDIO manual.
3. If you have a mesh generated from an external tool in any other format (ex, CGNS), please get in touch with support@convergecfd.com and we might have some scripts to assist you with converting your mesh into a STUDIO readable surface file.

With respect to the grid orientation issues you're facing in your simulations, you might want to also consider further refining your default CONVERGE Cartesian mesh (either by fixed embedding or AMR) which can significantly reduce such grid effects.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

[Spacebox]

Originally Posted by ksrivast

Hello Omer,

To create a surface/boundary-layered mesh along your nozzle and sac boundaries, you have the following options :
1. Use the "Extrusion" Inlaid mesh tool in STUDIO. You would need to ensure the triangulation on the boundaries would be suitable to create a good extruded surface mesh from it. For more details on this, please refer to our Inlaid Mesh advanced training slides or our CONVERGE STUDIO manual.
2. You can directly import an ASCII Plot3D grid file in STUDIO, generated from an external mesh tool, to use as an inlaid mesh within CONVERGE. More details in our STUDIO manual.
3. If you have a mesh generated from an external tool in any other format (ex, CGNS), please get in touch with support@convergecfd.com and we might have some scripts to assist you with converting your mesh into a STUDIO readable surface file.

With respect to the grid orientation issues you're facing in your simulations, you might want to also consider further refining your default CONVERGE Cartesian mesh (either by fixed embedding or AMR) which can significantly reduce such grid effects.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Hello Kislaya,

Thanks for valuable response,

Regarding the refining default mesh, I have used the enough mesh size such as 10um for nozzle, 20um for sac region that has been already implemented in the previous study done in Argonne National Lab using CONVERGE. In this case, even though mass flow rate is almost identical for each hole, TKE distribution is quite different and provide different flow characteristics due to grid orientation. When I refined the mesh using 5um, the result also similarly appears. But it was supposed to be somehow identical for each nozzle.

What I experienced with extrusion section in converge studio is only for boundary layer, not creating extra surface on the nozzle with different type of mesh. If I am wrong, pls let me know how to use extrusion for new surface creation.

Therefore, it looks like among the suggested 3 options, only way is to use the other application to get surface mesh and load it to make homogeneous mesh for each hole. Is there any free meshing application which easily exports plot3d format?

Thanks for your help

[ksrivast]

Hello Omer,

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your question. By surface mesh, do you mean the triangulation/quadrangulation on the nozzle boundaries to extrude a good boundary layered mesh from? You are right, that the extrusion tool in STUDIO is for creating boundary layer type inlaid meshes. But there is a precursor step typically involved before you use the extrusion tool. You are required to re-create the surface triangulation on the boundaries so as to have a good "surface mesh" to extrude from. This can be done in "Geometry > Create > Triangle > Refine Triangles > Quadrangulate surface". Or you can also generate a suitable triangulated surface as an STL file from certain CAD packages.

If however, you require a volume mesh for the entire nozzle/sac volume, then it would be easier to create it externally.

Sincerely,

[Spacebox]

Hello Kislaya,

Thanks for your responses. Really appreciated.

Due to the mentioned several options and parameters for inlaid mesh strategy, I confused and wanted to clear my problem one more time.

The main question is how I can evenly distribute the mesh in each nozzle to avoid hole-to-hole variation error. To make the question more understandable, I showed mesh distribution of 5-hole injector in the sac region. As you can see, the hole aligned with the x-axis has straight mesh distribution, others have inclined one. Therefore, flow characteristics were generated differently in each hole. But this is not correct. In that sense, I was told that inlaid mesh would be an option to solve this problem. In here, which method of inlaid mesh needs to be used to solve this issue? Using Extrusion after creating good surface for each nozzle through Geometry > Create > Triangle > Refine Triangles > Quadrangulate surface method would be helpful? I am not sure about that because it only affects boundary layer not a default mesh orientation. In that sense, I would like to know what I need to do precisely. Addressing the correct direction is important.

If there is no possible solution in converge studio, then I need to focus on how to import mesh externally rather than spending more energy on inlaid mesh.

Thanks for your support.

Best regards

[ksrivast]

Hello Omer,

I gather you require a volume mesh, within the entire nozzle volumes, with all cells aligned with their respective nozzle directions. Currently, there is no straight forward approach to create volume meshes which are bounded by complex surfaces through STUDIO. It would be easier to create it externally.

You can also compromise, and still go with the boundary-layer extrusion mesh approach, and have the total distance large so that the boundary aligned cells fill up most of the nozzle volume. You will still have our normal cartesian mesh in the center of the nozzle volume.

If you'd like assistance with creating inlaid meshes in STUDIO, please reach out to us at support@convergecfd.com. Please use your official email for all correspondence with Convergent Science. Please mention your request, attach your surface file/case setup and add the cfd-online thread, as reference.

Sincerely,

[Spacebox]

Hello again Kislaya,

Thanks for the advice and support regarding inlaid mesh.

Applying large boundary layer distance actually work fine to reduce to hole-to-hole error and obtain identical flow structure for each hole. With this strategy, however, 3-hole nozzle and 5-hole nozzle has a similar flow characteristic.
As well known that this result is not realistic. In particular, turbulence inside the hole must be somehow different due to different sac flow structure. In other words, I can not see the hole-number effect on the flow characteristics. Is this lack of CFD for internal flow simulation or missing sth in the set up? it would be great if you help me out in this issue.

Thanks in advance
Best Regards

[ksrivast]

Hello Omer,

We would first recommend you to perform a grid independence study to ensure you have enough refinement to capture an accurate solution, if you haven't done this already. Your results can improve by improving your near-wall solution. Make sure the near wall treatment for your simulation is suitable for the y+ values you are seeing. If your y+ values are higher than the recommended range, refine your wall grid spacing. If your y+ values are too low, you can employ scalable or enhanced wall functions which work better with low y+ values. We also have different turbulence models you can investigate.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

[Spacebox]

Hello Kislaya,

Thanks for prompt reply.

Actually mesh refinement has already been validated using the previous case before creating the BL on each hole. In that case, I used 10um as min mesh size without BL. This strategy was also used in many studies in literature. But after adding BL thickness on nozzle I further decreased min. mesh size down to 5um to create more smooth transition from center mesh to BL mesh. I generated the BL initial distance from 1um to 5um using 15 layer. With this conditions, results shows the similar trend of validated case in terms of velocity and mass flow rate. However, in terms of turbulence, huge difference is seen. This comparison was done using rotated 4-Hole nozzle with 10um and 4-Hole Nozzle with BL. Also, results shows that even without BL case, y+ was max. around 100, after adding BL y+ became max. around 7. For both case, y+ is within recommended range.

Turbulence is govern by the hole inlet flow structures which are generated in the sac volume. What I realized that 3-Hole and 5-Hole injector case somehow inlet flow structure is all identical in the peak needle lift. If flow enters the hole in same manner, generated TKE would be identical. This is the problem.

I hope I clearly explained the current issues.

In the mean time, I will also investigate SST model and see whether it would capture the difference in turbulence or not.

Thanks for your help in advance.

Best regards,
Omer

[yli]

Hi, Omer,

Please see these two slides from our inlaid mesh advanced training course, hope it can help. If you need more explanation, feel free either ask here, or register for our advanced training course, or contact support@convergecfd.com to let some one assist you.

Originally Posted by Spacebox

Hello Kislaya,

Thanks for your responses. Really appreciated.

Due to the mentioned several options and parameters for inlaid mesh strategy, I confused and wanted to clear my problem one more time.

The main question is how I can evenly distribute the mesh in each nozzle to avoid hole-to-hole variation error. To make the question more understandable, I showed mesh distribution of 5-hole injector in the sac region. As you can see, the hole aligned with the x-axis has straight mesh distribution, others have inclined one. Therefore, flow characteristics were generated differently in each hole. But this is not correct. In that sense, I was told that inlaid mesh would be an option to solve this problem. In here, which method of inlaid mesh needs to be used to solve this issue? Using Extrusion after creating good surface for each nozzle through Geometry > Create > Triangle > Refine Triangles > Quadrangulate surface method would be helpful? I am not sure about that because it only affects boundary layer not a default mesh orientation. In that sense, I would like to know what I need to do precisely. Addressing the correct direction is important.

If there is no possible solution in converge studio, then I need to focus on how to import mesh externally rather than spending more energy on inlaid mesh.

Thanks for your support.

Best regards

[Spacebox]

Dear Yanheng Li,

Thanks for sharing the material. I have already had this inlaid mesh advance course file. I somehow managed inlaid mesh issue.

Now, I am expecting to receive a response related to my last post regarding turbulence in the nozzle flow. I even sent email support@convergecfd.com for this issue.
I hope you could give me some direction.

Thanks again for your kind support.
Best Regards
Omer

[yli]

Hi, Omer,
Are you using RANS?Which model? What is your away-from-the wall grid resolution looks like? And what is the last layer of inlaid mesh(adjacent to the Cartesian grid) 's resolution looks like?

Originally Posted by Spacebox

Dear Yanheng Li,

Thanks for sharing the material. I have already had this inlaid mesh advance course file. I somehow managed inlaid mesh issue.

Now, I am expecting to receive a response related to my last post regarding turbulence in the nozzle flow. I even sent email support@convergecfd.com for this issue.
I hope you could give me some direction.

Thanks again for your kind support.
Best Regards
Omer

[Spacebox]

Hello Yanheng Li,

Thanks for your response.

Yes, it is a RANS simulation using RNG k-epsilon model.
Regarding the BL resolution I have attached an image. I hope it would help for you.

As I explained previously, I used this thick boundary layer to reduce the hole-to-hole error by creating more homogenous mesh distribution for each hole based on the suggestion given another research engineer here. I did also mentioned here that 5um Cartesian mesh size was used in the center to make a smooth transition between inlaid mesh and cartesian mesh.

From my point of view, this is not a BL issue. Before using inlaid mesh strategy, I used only Cartesian-mesh for simulation. In this case, 10um mesh size in nozzle and sac was used. In cartesian mesh case, if you aligned one hole in same-axis for 3-hole and 5-hole injector, you can achieve identical mesh distribution in this hole and easy to compare the results. The results shows that even though some difference is seen in velocity between two injector at the nozzle exit, turbulence (TKE) is quite identical. Same trend was seen using BL strategy as well. Therefore, turbulence difference is not seen in the injectors, especially hole center. Basically, this is the issue.

Look forward to hearing from you soon

Best Regards
Omer

Originally Posted by yli

Hi, Omer,
Are you using RANS?Which model? What is your away-from-the wall grid resolution looks like? And what is the last layer of inlaid mesh(adjacent to the Cartesian grid) 's resolution looks like?

[psrikanth]

Hi Omer,

I would try using a different turbulence model or near wall treatment to see if it has any effect on the turbulence TKE for this case. If you still have this issue, please email us again at support@convergecfd.com with your case setup and someone can take a look at it. Please use your official email for all correspondence with Convergent Science. Also please do add this cfd-online thread as reference.

Praveen

[Spacebox]

Hi Praveen,

Thanks for your reply.

I have already tried other turbulence models (SST, Realizable k-epsilon and even zeta-f model) using different wall treatment model (auto, scalable, enhanced). Unfortunately the issue was still not solved. The simulation is not capturing the difference between 3-Hole and 5-Hole injector at the hole exit in terms of turbulence distribution. Therefore I have sent an email again to support@convergecfd.com with case set-up. Pls have a look and I hope it would be some way to handle it.

Waiting your response shortly
Best Regards
Omer

[rvigneshwar]

Originally Posted by Spacebox

Hi Praveen,

Thanks for your reply.

I have already tried other turbulence models (SST, Realizable k-epsilon and even zeta-f model) using different wall treatment model (auto, scalable, enhanced). Unfortunately the issue was still not solved. The simulation is not capturing the difference between 3-Hole and 5-Hole injector at the hole exit in terms of turbulence distribution. Therefore I have sent an email again to support@convergecfd.com with case set-up. Pls have a look and I hope it would be some way to handle it.

Waiting your response shortly
Best Regards
Omer

Hi Omer, I did receive the case setup, I will take it look into the case.

[rvigneshwar]

Originally Posted by rvigneshwar

Hi Omer, I did receive the case setup, I will take it to look into the case.

Omer, the case set-up shared does not contain the surface.dat file, without which I cannot work on the case. Can you share the complete setup.