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

FSI/MFX: resutls after using fluid mass flux to achieve convergence

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 21, 2012, 05:42
Default FSI/MFX: resutls after using fluid mass flux to achieve convergence
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7
gogohusky is on a distinguished road
Dear all:

I'm working on a valveless pump FSI. The geometry is quite simple, with a circular vibrating membrane (500 micron thick and 30 mm in diameter)and a channel (400 micron wide) with two nozzle-difusser as regulators.
Orginally the model didn't run because of folded mesh, even after modification of sizes of mesh and time steps; the problem was overcome with adding fluid mass flux of zero and adjusting the mass flux pressure coeffecient (followed the suggestion from stumpy with ANSYS knowledge base 2022119).

Although the simulation finished the run, I have a question about the results.
The membrane vibrates in sinusodial waves, and I expect both the membrane deflection (in the out-of-plane direction) and the flow rate at the channel openings show as sinusoidal responses.
The membrane deflection seems to behave nicely; however, the flow rate seems to be all over the place, with no steady flow rate; please see the attached picture.
(the vibrating frequency is 50 Hz, and 15 clear sine waves can be seen in 0.3 sec from the membrane deflection)
I also noticed the flow rate changed significantly with different mass flux pressure coefficients.

What is the cause of the unsteady fluid response, and what can I adjust to have a more reasonable response from the fluid side?
And how do I pick the right coefficient to achieve the result?
Thank you very much for sharing your experince!

Sincerly,

Ryan
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0.3sec.jpg (87.2 KB, 24 views)

Last edited by gogohusky; May 21, 2012 at 06:06.
gogohusky is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2012, 06:40
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,402
Rep Power: 97
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
It might just need to run longer for the start-up transients to damp out.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2012, 10:20
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7
gogohusky is on a distinguished road
Thank you for the suggestion! ghorrocks.

Does it mean the fluid part usually require more time to achieve a steady solution? (because the structure part seems to reach steady-state after about 0.05 sec)

Noticed your comment on setting the reference pressure (how to set reference pressure in tran. analysis). Is it possible that the fluid part of solution can achieve a steady solution with changing other parameters? (I have Opening boundary type on both channel openings and use 0 Pa as reference pressure)

Would you also comment on the cause of the fluctuation and considerations on picking the right parameters?

Thank you for your advice!

Sincerely,

Ryan
gogohusky is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2012, 18:34
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,402
Rep Power: 97
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
No, I simply looked at your chart and saw that the fundamental frequency was behaving itself, but some lower frequencies obviously have not yet and that usually means the thing has not established equilibrium yet and just needs to run longer.

If the system is coupled then if any part of the system is not in equilibrium then the system is not in equilibrium.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 23, 2012, 06:08
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7
gogohusky is on a distinguished road
Thank you for the clarification! Glenn.
So my impression is that the response could be in the right direction because of the corresponding actuating/resulted frequencies. I'll try a longer run to see if the lower-frequency fluctuation becomes steady.

Kind regards,
Ryan
gogohusky 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
Error message: Insufficient Catalogue Size Paresh Jain CFX 31 June 7, 2016 21:31
TESTING OF TRUE CONVERGENCE THROUGH FLUX REPORT AKI FLUENT 0 January 18, 2009 06:25
mass flux correction at outflow boundaries Subhra Datta Main CFD Forum 2 November 24, 2003 14:11
Terrible Mistake In Fluid Dynamics History Abhi Main CFD Forum 12 July 8, 2002 09:11
total mass flux correction for compressible fluid? Francesco Di Maio Main CFD Forum 0 August 21, 2000 04:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:57.