|
[Sponsors] |
Convegence problems while increasing the mesh resolution |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
May 13, 2009, 09:42 |
Convegence problems while increasing the mesh resolution
|
#1 |
New Member
Marcin Hinz
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monheim am Rhein, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 17 |
Hello everyone!
I am a new member and a new OpenFoam user. My first exersise is to simulate an example quite simmilar to the AngledDuct (rhoPimpleFoam) from the tutorials with some small changes: - it has to be a steady-state simulation (i've repleaced the PIMPLE with the SIMPLE algorithm) - the boudary conditions are: total pressure (12 bar) in inlet, temperature ( 400 K ) also in inlet and a static pressure (11 bar) in outlet The tutorial mesh seams to converge, however while importing meshes from gambit wit higher resolution i have some problems with convergence (250000 elements converges , 800000 elements dosen't) I'm even not quite sure, if my boundary conditions for k and epsilon are ok (they were also transfered from the tutorial) Mayby someone of You have any sugestions? Best regards! |
|
May 13, 2009, 11:50 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Sebastian Gatzka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 729
Rep Power: 20 |
What does your mesh look like?
Can you post an image?
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!" |
|
May 14, 2009, 03:54 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Marcin Hinz
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monheim am Rhein, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi Sebastian,
thank You for Your quck anwser. Here are the images of both meshes: Mesh with 250000 elements: Netz_forum.jpg Netz2_forum.jpg Mesh with 800000 elements: Netz_fein2_forum.jpg Netz_fein_forum.jpg This is how it converge with the smaller mesh calculated wit k-epsilon turbulence model. residuals_forum.jpg I tried also to calculate it with k-omega model, but it dosen't seems to work even with the smaller mesh. I would be pleased, if You could help me. Best regards! |
|
May 14, 2009, 03:58 |
|
#4 |
New Member
Marcin Hinz
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monheim am Rhein, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 17 |
The quality is not good enough, but i hope it will help You!
|
|
May 14, 2009, 04:32 |
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Sebastian Gatzka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 729
Rep Power: 20 |
Dear Marcin.
I'm just brainstorming, but a possible cause for the problem may be in the connecting region of the two straight pipes. As I have experienced OpenFOAM has sometimes problems dealing with such 'skewed' elements. Do you have a closer image of the region? Are you using corrected flux schemes? Maybe you can post your fvSchemes dictionary?
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!" |
|
May 14, 2009, 06:20 |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
|
Hi,
What is your y+? You'll need it to be > 30 for k-epsilon turbulence model. Regards, Jose Santos |
|
May 14, 2009, 09:51 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Marcin Hinz
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monheim am Rhein, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi!
Here is a closer image of the region, or did You mind some other? connecting_region.jpg My fvSchemes file looks like that: ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; grad(p) Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss upwind; div(phid,p) Gauss upwind; div(phiU,p) Gauss linear; div(phi,h) Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) Gauss upwind; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind; div(phi,R) Gauss upwind; div(phi,omega) Gauss upwind; div((rho*R)) Gauss linear; div(R) Gauss linear; div(U) Gauss linear; div((muEff*dev2(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(muEff,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(mut,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DomegaEff,omega) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian((rho|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(alphaEff,h) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p; } What would be the cause, that the SST k-omega model dosen't coverg? Also with the finer mesh. Mayby the BC are bad adjusted? Dear Santos, my y+ is < 30 in the smaller mesh, so this could be the reason for it. I have started the same simulation with CFX, but it takes a lot of time to get an achivement of this simulation. Isn't it so, that in the case with small mesh the SST model schould converg? Thanks a lot for Your anwsers! Regards, Marcin. |
|
May 14, 2009, 10:23 |
|
#8 |
Member
Thomas Wolfanger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South West Germany
Posts: 62
Rep Power: 17 |
Hi Marcin,
it may be the case that unsteadiness in the flow which does not affect the solution for the coarse mesh will prevent the solution from converging when using a finer mesh. You can check whether this is the case by simply doing a transient run and check convergence there. Best, -Thomas |
|
May 14, 2009, 14:17 |
|
#9 | |
Senior Member
Sebastian Gatzka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 729
Rep Power: 20 |
Quote:
Why should this be a problem on a finer grid, as the fluctuations are present even on the coarse mesh? By the way, how can a turbulent flow be calculated in steady state? Is the result one snapshot of the flow? There is not averaging involved?
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!" |
||
May 14, 2009, 14:26 |
|
#10 | |
Senior Member
Sebastian Gatzka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 729
Rep Power: 20 |
Quote:
I'm rather new to turbulent simulations, but aren't second order schemes preferred? Or does this only apply to LES?
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!" |
||
May 14, 2009, 14:39 |
|
#11 |
Senior Member
|
I would try to:
1 - Coarsen the mesh until obtaining y+>30 and use standard k-epsilon model; 2 - Refine the mesh until obtaining y+<1 and use any low-Re model; 3 - Repeat 1 and 2 in transient mode. Sebastian: The upwind scheme has the opposite effect, it normally damps instabilities that may build up on your flow. 2nd order schemes are in general less dissipative, and more prone to give you convergence problems. Regards, Jose Santos |
|
May 15, 2009, 08:35 |
|
#12 | |
Member
Thomas Wolfanger
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South West Germany
Posts: 62
Rep Power: 17 |
Quote:
Best, -Thomas |
||
May 20, 2009, 03:05 |
|
#13 |
New Member
Marcin Hinz
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Monheim am Rhein, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 17 |
Thank You for all the posts!
Best Regards, Marcin. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
STL File - Mesh Surface Problems | Harmeet | FLUENT | 8 | May 13, 2010 22:59 |
basic of mesh refinement | arya | CFX | 4 | June 19, 2007 13:21 |
Improving mesh resolution | Vidya Raja | FLUENT | 1 | October 13, 2005 14:52 |
How to control Minximum mesh space? | hung | FLUENT | 7 | April 18, 2005 10:38 |
unstructured vs. structured grids | Frank Muldoon | Main CFD Forum | 1 | January 5, 1999 11:09 |