CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

Flow behind a 3D cube

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 4, 2012, 02:53
Default Flow behind a 3D cube
  #1
siw
Senior Member
 
Stuart
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posts: 469
Rep Power: 14
siw will become famous soon enough
Hi,

I'm repeating the simulations of flow behind a 3D cube from the paper:

Sedighi, K. & Farhadi, M. (2006), Three-Dimensional Study of Vortical Structure Around a Cubic Bluff Body in a Channel,
Facta universitatis - series: Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16
http://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx...01001S&lang=en

This paper is a LES study so to start I'm running a steady RANS-SST simulation which I'll use for initializing an unsteady RANS-SST run. Then I'll move onto a SAS-SST run and maybe a LES run - if my hardware will do it.

I've made the geometry and multiblock mesh in ICEM to the same criteria as in the paper (it's gives all the geom and mesh details). The geom is shown in the figure although the paper does not give a valve of H I have used 1 m. The Reynolds number based on H is 40,000. Also the inlet velocity profile is the 1/7 power law. The paper also states all the domain boundary condition types used.

So I've made all this but get an error in CFX and it stops after 3 iterations - I've attached the out file (as a txt file).

My first thought is that the downstream boundary needs to be moved further away. However, if this is the case why would CFX not be robust enough to be able to repeat this simulation if it can be done by these other authors? Secondly, it says the maximum Mach number gets incorrectly high (even though inlet velocity = 0.6 m/s) but due to the CFX failure I cannot see in CFD-Post where in the domian this occured.

But wanting to keep the geom the same I have set the outlet face to an opening but I get a CFX falure as well (see the out file)

Any thoughts? Thanks
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture.JPG (61.6 KB, 15 views)
Attached Files
File Type: txt Steady RANS-SST_001.txt (30.8 KB, 8 views)
File Type: txt Steady RANS-SST_001 - Opening.txt (30.0 KB, 3 views)
siw is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 4, 2012, 06:45
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,067
Rep Power: 94
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
You have the physical time step set as a CEL expression. This is a bad idea. For new simulations you always need to adjust it bigger and smaller according to how the simulation is responding. And given that you are diverging rapidly you clearly need a much smaller time step. Once it is starting to converge then you can increase the time step (using edit run in progress is good for this so you don't have to stop and restart).
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 5, 2012, 06:47
Default
  #3
siw
Senior Member
 
Stuart
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Portsmouth, England
Posts: 469
Rep Power: 14
siw will become famous soon enough
Thanks Glenn,

I've deleted the CEL for the physical timescale. Now I have tried the Auto Timescale > Conservative and Auto Timescale > Aggressive so that CFX can choose what it needs.

Also, I have changed the outlet to an entrainment opening when I ran CFX for 2 iterations (it crashes on the 3rd) all the flow on the outlet face was flowing into the fluid domain (as seen in CFD-Post). To make things a bit simpler still I have also set the top geom boundary from a wall to an entrainment opening.

But I still get CFX crashing on the 3rd iteration with those crazy high Mach numbers - which I have also seen in CFD-Post. Whilst in CFD-Post I plotted the velocity vectors at the inlet face just to check that they where as set in CFX-Pre and all was correct there. Yet, the rest of the flowfield is unphysical.

Last edited by siw; May 5, 2012 at 06:48. Reason: Typo
siw is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 5, 2012, 07:06
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,067
Rep Power: 94
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
I don't generally use entrainment openings. Just the default is usually OK, and seems to be more stable for me.

You need to change it to physical time scale, but make it a lot smaller time step than it is currently using. Alternately give it a better initial condition from a coarse mesh or first order upwinding simulation.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mass flow inlet and pressure outlet with target mass flow rate Zigainer FLUENT 10 January 5, 2013 22:51
transient, impregnating flow problem fgommer FLUENT 0 February 29, 2012 17:10
Flow meter Design CD adapco Group Marketing CD-adapco 3 June 21, 2011 08:33
mass flow in is not equal to mass flow out saii CFX 2 September 18, 2009 08:07
transform navier-stokes eq. to euler-eq. pxyz Main CFD Forum 37 July 7, 2006 08:42


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:07.