[Weiqiang Liu]

hi all,

I am using fluent to calculate propane combustion in a micro-channel. I set the under relaxation factor of energy to 0.8 and iteration can be started normally. after a huge number of iterations, the results seems to be converged. however, when I increase the under relaxation factor of energy, variables in monitor position started to vary again. when I further increase the energy under relaxation factor, divergence happened immediately.

I am wondering how the under relaxation factor would effect convergence or results.

Best regards

weiqiang

[vinerm]

Are you running a transient simulation or steady-state? In any case, 0.8 is a rather small URF for energy since energy time-scales are large. In other words, energy URF needs to be high, usually higher than 0.9 because energy takes longer to diffuse. With low URF values, all the errors are not reduced, particularly low-frequency errors. As you increase the URF, these errors change and the solution updates to a new value. Work with URF between 0.92 and 0.96. Else, you will have to play with Multigrid controls but do not touch those if you do not know what those mean.

[Weiqiang Liu]

Originally Posted by vinerm

Are you running a transient simulation or steady-state? In any case, 0.8 is a rather small URF for energy since energy time-scales are large. In other words, energy URF needs to be high, usually higher than 0.9 because energy takes longer to diffuse. With low URF values, all the errors are not reduced, particularly low-frequency errors. As you increase the URF, these errors change and the solution updates to a new value. Work with URF between 0.92 and 0.96. Else, you will have to play with Multigrid controls but do not touch those if you do not know what those mean.

hi vinerm,

thanks very much for your reply! I am running a steady state simulation. actually, I am trying to reproduce results in a published paper. I spend almost 2 million iterations to get seemingly converged results. the general trend of my results are very similar to results in the literature. However, the temperature magnitude of mine is 300k lower.

I don't know why. I tried to increase URF of energy. Then temperature would increase very slowly. when I increase URF to 0.99, flame, namely high temperature region disappears immediately. when URF is set to 1, divergence happened.

Best regards

Weiqiang

[vinerm]

300 K is a rather large discrepancy and cannot be due to URF. Either this is related to units, but I hope you have already checked those or related to physical setup. Fluent always works in SI and reports data in K; papers usually report data in C.

[Weiqiang Liu]

Originally Posted by vinerm

300 K is a rather large discrepancy and cannot be due to URF. Either this is related to units, but I hope you have already checked those or related to physical setup. Fluent always works in SI and reports data in K; papers usually report data in C.

IMG_0529.jpgIMG_0525.jpg
Hi vinerm,

You can check my results and the screen shot of literature results. It shows the centerline and wall temperature profiles. The general trends are very similar. However, Maximum temperature in my case is 1760k and maximum temperature in literature is 2050k.

I tried to check the input fuel mass or heat dissipation condition. However, these conditions are very simple which can not be different with those in literature.

I am wondering is something wrong for my UDF to define gas phase and surface reaction rate.

Best regards

Weiqiang

[vinerm]

UDF may or may not have a bug. Look for the material properties because those define the heat of reaction.

[Weiqiang Liu]

Originally Posted by vinerm

UDF may or may not have a bug. Look for the material properties because those define the heat of reaction.

I used CHEMKIN format thermal and transport data just like the author did. Thanks for your suggestions. I will check further.

Best