# multiphase flow ，mass and volume fraction imbalance

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

 July 12, 2012, 06:05 multiphase flow ，mass and volume fraction imbalance #1 New Member   万然 Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15 Rep Power: 4 Hi,everyone！ I'm puzzled a problem for a long time. Could anyone help me? I try to calculate a multiphase flow model containing oil and air. There are two inlet, air and oil separately, one outlet,and a high speed rotar. The BCs are as follow: 1.oil inlet with a mass flow rate 2.air leak to the cavtiy , so quantity is unknown, i set the boundary as opening with direction and press. 3.outlet is opening with direction and press. 4.the rotar runs at high speed(12000_14000rev/min) the multiphase flow pattern changes with different work conditions. I choose steady model to calculate when the work condition is constant . So,I change multiphase model with different work conditions. when the flow pattern is homogeneous, i choose homogeneous model and set the timescale is antomatic and timescale factor is 2. The outfile shows mass and volume fraction imbalance are about 98%. Then i set timescale factor as 100 for mass and volume fraction equations , mass and volume fraction imbalance are down to 1% Then i set the work conditions differently and choose imhomogeneous and free surface model ,The outfile shows mass and volume fraction imbalance are still about 98%. And i changes the timescale seems useless. +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | P-Vol | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Boundary : AIRIN 4.6508E-03 Boundary : OILIN 2.6500E-02 Boundary : OUT -5.7588E-03 ----------- Domain Imbalance : 2.5392E-02 Domain Imbalance, in %: 95.8191 % +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mass-oil | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Boundary : AIRIN 1.4396E-15 Boundary : OILIN 2.6500E-02 Boundary : OUT -9.4913E-04 ----------- Domain Imbalance : 2.5551E-02 Domain Imbalance, in %: 96.4184 % The mesh is produced by ICEM, the Jacobian is 0.55 above and angle is 27 above . So i think there is no problems with mesh. Last edited by sope111; July 12, 2012 at 22:55.

 July 12, 2012, 08:15 #2 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,665 Rep Power: 84 Sounds like an FAQ: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

July 12, 2012, 08:33
#3
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks Sounds like an FAQ: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

Hi ，ghorrocks.
I'v confused by this problems for a months,and have tried many times.
But the imbalance can achieve the target only for homogeneous.
Could you give me some advice ?
Thanks a lot.

 July 12, 2012, 16:19 #4 Senior Member   OJ Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 475 Rep Power: 11 I would recommend first, if you are not already doing it, to monitor the imbalances along with the residuals when the run is in progress. It has been my experience that with multiphase, you have to be a real gentleman. I had similar problems, when I used physical timescale though I used a fraction of residence time (Going for higher values resulted in divergence). Then I switched to Auto timescale with factor of (factor=1) with conservative option. Yet, my imbalances kept oscillating. I tried factor of 0.1 and 0.01 and surprisingly, the balances started reducing to much bearable extent. Also, to get a usable results (not perfect), you can also enforce the steady state by using first order discretization scheme, as it will diffuse the turbulent effects to some extent.

July 12, 2012, 22:49
#5
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oj.bulmer I would recommend first, if you are not already doing it, to monitor the imbalances along with the residuals when the run is in progress. It has been my experience that with multiphase, you have to be a real gentleman. I had similar problems, when I used physical timescale though I used a fraction of residence time (Going for higher values resulted in divergence). Then I switched to Auto timescale with factor of (factor=1) with conservative option. Yet, my imbalances kept oscillating. I tried factor of 0.1 and 0.01 and surprisingly, the balances started reducing to much bearable extent. Also, to get a usable results (not perfect), you can also enforce the steady state by using first order discretization scheme, as it will diffuse the turbulent effects to some extent.

Thanks for your reply . This problem bored me for one month .

First ,i've try to moniter the imbalances along with the residuals ,but the mass and volume imbalances are always oscillate around 90%.

I even calculate it using transient . At first , the imbalance is up to 1, but it reach to 1% after some timesteps. But transient simulation must employ a steady result as initial valve. However ,I didn't get a convergence value,
so i used this unconvergence value.

Now ,I wonder whether the transient results are usable( unconvergence value as initial value,but the imbalance and residual seems right)?

 July 13, 2012, 08:44 #6 Senior Member   OJ Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 475 Rep Power: 11 If I am right, in the event where Steady State solution is not at all possible, it may be beneficial to use first order upwind (for stability owing to numerical diffusion) to get some sensible solution with SS and initialize a transient solution with it using High resolution. Though, more resourceful CFD guys here may have better suggestions. In transient solution, if you make sure that the convergence is obtained for every time step by choosing appropriate timestep (using adaptive timestepping/ timestep sensetivity); the time averaged results can be fairly representative of physics you wish to see.

July 13, 2012, 23:12
#7
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oj.bulmer If I am right, in the event where Steady State solution is not at all possible, it may be beneficial to use first order upwind (for stability owing to numerical diffusion) to get some sensible solution with SS and initialize a transient solution with it using High resolution. Though, more resourceful CFD guys here may have better suggestions. In transient solution, if you make sure that the convergence is obtained for every time step by choosing appropriate timestep (using adaptive timestepping/ timestep sensetivity); the time averaged results can be fairly representative of physics you wish to see.

Hi，oj.bulmer.

But i still don't know whether the result is usable with
the unconvergence result as initial value.
I'm not sure whther the unconvergence result is credible.

And another question , as i mentioned above ,the rotar speed is 12000 rev/min ,
so the timestep must be set to 10E-4(1/w). But the initial value is unconvergence, so i must set much time（i set the value as 16s） to get a usable value . However ,the amount of computation is heavy.

Besides, i don't concern about the transient process, so i still want to get a steady value as soon as possible.
I reduce the timescale factor to 0.1 and 0.01 with automatic timescale,
but the imbalance stay in the same level(90%) 。

So , what can i do for steady simulation??

Thanks.

 July 14, 2012, 05:29 #8 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,665 Rep Power: 84 If all you care about is the final steady state solution (or final pseudo-steady if transient and it is flapping about) then a non-converged initial condition will not matter. As long as it is close enough that the solver converges OK in the transient run, that is the main issue. There is an extensive discussion on setting time steps int he CFX documentation. For tricky steady state simulations you want to start with a small time step to get it going, but once it is starting to converge OK then you increase the time step size. You can increase it massively if it is converging well).

July 14, 2012, 06:00
#9
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks If all you care about is the final steady state solution (or final pseudo-steady if transient and it is flapping about) then a non-converged initial condition will not matter. As long as it is close enough that the solver converges OK in the transient run, that is the main issue. There is an extensive discussion on setting time steps int he CFX documentation. For tricky steady state simulations you want to start with a small time step to get it going, but once it is starting to converge OK then you increase the time step size. You can increase it massively if it is converging well).

Dear ghorrocks,

Another question, multiphase model are homogeneous and imhomogeneous, i want to know what's the relationship between vof in many textbooks and FLUENT?

 July 14, 2012, 06:05 #10 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,665 Rep Power: 84 CFX has a lot more multiphase options than homogeneous and inhomogeneous. That merely refers to whether different phases share a variable field or not. I do not understand your question to VOF and textbooks and Fluent.

July 14, 2012, 10:36
#11
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 4
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks CFX has a lot more multiphase options than homogeneous and inhomogeneous. That merely refers to whether different phases share a variable field or not. I do not understand your question to VOF and textbooks and Fluent.
Hi,ghorrocks

There are two main multiphase phase model:homogeneous and inhomogeneous(free surface,mixture,particle).

But Vof appears in many papers and textbooks to track the interface of different phase.

I don't know the way to track the interface in cfx, by solve the volume fraction equtions??

Thanks

 July 15, 2012, 08:20 #12 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,665 Rep Power: 84 There are a few methods to track free surfaces and VOF is one of them. CFX does not actually implement VOF as it is usually defined, CFX uses a volume fraction equation with an advection scheme designed to keep the interface sharp.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Ganesh FLUENT 13 January 22, 2014 05:11 saii CFX 2 September 18, 2009 08:07 paean OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 November 14, 2008 22:14 SSL FLUENT 2 January 26, 2008 12:55 Rasmus Gjesing (Gjesing) OpenFOAM Native Meshers: blockMesh 10 April 2, 2007 14:00

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45.