[wlt_1985]

I run my model with serial solver and parallel solver respectively. I found that the results especially the velocity does have large difference in power of magnitude. For example, serial solver 2m/s but parallel solver 20k m/s. What is wrong with the parallel solver? In addition, turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ration does appear in parallel solver but none in serial solver. Pls help.

Thanks a lot

[zhenglun.wei]

I also found some difference between the serial and parallel version, but not that severe. Hope you'll find the solution asap.

[wlt_1985]

Originally Posted by zhenglun.wei

I also found some difference between the serial and parallel version, but not that severe. Hope you'll find the solution asap.

Thansk for care.

[cfd_newbie]

Originally Posted by wlt_1985

I run my model with serial solver and parallel solver respectively. I found that the results especially the velocity does have large difference in power of magnitude. For example, serial solver 2m/s but parallel solver 20k m/s. What is wrong with the parallel solver? In addition, turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ration does appear in parallel solver but none in serial solver. Pls help.

Thanks a lot

Hi Raymond,
Are you sure you have inputed the exact same initial and boundary conditions in both the cases ? If the results are still different then you should report the problem to Fluent. They have a dedicated set of people who look into this issue and they might give you a patch to fix this problem.
Raashid

[wlt_1985]

Originally Posted by cfd_newbie

Hi Raymond,
Are you sure you have inputed the exact same initial and boundary conditions in both the cases ? If the results are still different then you should report the problem to Fluent. They have a dedicated set of people who look into this issue and they might give you a patch to fix this problem.
Raashid

Dear Raashid,

I have found the causes of the problem. There were no much differences in FINAL RESULTS for both cases. Since the calculation for parallel solver was much faster than the serial solver, hence the WRONG RESULTS due to the model setting have been shown earlier than the serial soler. These errors were due to the TURBULENT VISCOSITY RATIO LIMITATION during iteration. Initially, the limit of turbulent viscosity ratio is set to 1e+05 and there was no such warning of limitation after the initiation has been activated. However, after hundred iterations, this warning of limitation has been shown and the velocity has suddenly been increased after that particualr moment. I have gone through few posts in this forum. These errors were due to poor mesh and they could be solved by having grid adaption. I tried to have grid adaption. However, the residuals of continuity was keeping increasing and going to diverge. I have no idea on solving my problem. Can please help me for my problem? Thanks for help.

Regards
Raymond

[cfd_newbie]

Originally Posted by wlt_1985

Dear Raashid,

I have found the causes of the problem. There were no much differences in FINAL RESULTS for both cases. Since the calculation for parallel solver was much faster than the serial solver, hence the WRONG RESULTS due to the model setting have been shown earlier than the serial soler. These errors were due to the TURBULENT VISCOSITY RATIO LIMITATION during iteration. Initially, the limit of turbulent viscosity ratio is set to 1e+05 and there was no such warning of limitation after the initiation has been activated. However, after hundred iterations, this warning of limitation has been shown and the velocity has suddenly been increased after that particualr moment. I have gone through few posts in this forum. These errors were due to poor mesh and they could be solved by having grid adaption. I tried to have grid adaption. However, the residuals of continuity was keeping increasing and going to diverge. I have no idea on solving my problem. Can please help me for my problem? Thanks for help.

Regards
Raymond

Hi Raymond,
The gird adaptation technique may or may not work depending on problem to problem. According to my experience (more experienced Fluent users can correct me), mesh adaptation can work well for heat transfer kind of problems but for external aerodynamics problems you should have a good grid to start your problem from the beginning.
Raashid

[litterfree]

the unit for the two cases are same?

[wlt_1985]

Originally Posted by cfd_newbie

Hi Raymond,
The gird adaptation technique may or may not work depending on problem to problem. According to my experience (more experienced Fluent users can correct me), mesh adaptation can work well for heat transfer kind of problems but for external aerodynamics problems you should have a good grid to start your problem from the beginning.
Raashid

Dear Raashid,

Thanks a lot. I am trying to do it with better grid from the beginning.

Best regards

[wlt_1985]

Originally Posted by litterfree

the unit for the two cases are same?

Dear Litterfree,

Yes. Both cases are same units.

Best regards

[meangreen]

Make sure your choice of partitions is not affecting your solutions.

[yochule]

dear raymond, i hope you are still in the forum.
i'm havin some problems with local parallel and dynamic gradient adaption. my problem it's that when i set up the gradient adaption scheme, the parallel computing stop working and the next iterations became in serial... so the solutions take so much time. can you tell me if you did found the same issue?
i'm runing in gnu/linux ubuntu amd64, whith the command: ./fluent 2ddp -t4 -pnet
you can check my post here: http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/flu...-adaption.html

hope you can help me.
thanks a lot (and excuse me to get into your post)

[gouravjee]

hi,
i have been simulating a solidification melting problem in a cylinder using fluent udf for different fin configurations (meridional plane)such as for 30,45,60 degrees.
But getting the same results(Temperature range) for melting in all the configurations of fins
can suggest some way to rectify this problem?