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

In what case will GGI bring the accurate results for unmatched nodes?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 24, 2012, 07:09
Question In what case will GGI bring the accurate results for unmatched nodes?
  #1
lnk
Senior Member
 
lnk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 5
lnk is on a distinguished road
Hi, everyone.

Thanks for your time to look at this question. I'm thinking about using GGI for the unmatched nodes interface between fluid-fluid domain for my case. May I ask in what case will GGI bring accurate results? ( I searched for this at the tutorial but didn't find any answer. )

Best regards and many thanks again,
lnk
lnk is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 24, 2012, 20:33
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,758
Rep Power: 77
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Yes, GGIs are quite accurate. It is very unusual for a GGI to introduce enough error into a simulation to be a problem.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 25, 2012, 03:19
Default
  #3
lnk
Senior Member
 
lnk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 5
lnk is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
Yes, GGIs are quite accurate. It is very unusual for a GGI to introduce enough error into a simulation to be a problem.
But you can look at the comments at this link about GGI. There should be some cases that GGI bring low accuracy results. May I ask how to know GGI works well or not?

To ask a question about O-grid generation
lnk is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 25, 2012, 03:26
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,758
Rep Power: 77
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
You should compare this to a known accurate or analytical answer. If it has some distortion adjacent to the interface but is accurate away from it then that is fine for most users. Also I think you will find the distortion is amplified by the way the contours are drawn in CFD-Post.

So "low accuracy" is dependant on what you are looking for accuracy in. If you need it to get the correct pressure drop across something you will almost certainly find it OK. If you need smooth temperature contours in a CHT body then it might not be so appropriate.

But sweeping comments like "GGIs are low accuracy" are not helpful. But there are cases when they will cause problems.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 25, 2012, 05:32
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,035
Rep Power: 17
flotus1 will become famous soon enough
I posted this comment in the context of a tedious hexa-mesh generation in a difficult geometry.
I just thought it would be a pity to spend several days creating a block-stuctured mesh and then using an interface to sew together non-matching parts of the mesh.
flotus1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 25, 2012, 13:14
Default
  #6
lnk
Senior Member
 
lnk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 5
lnk is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
You should compare this to a known accurate or analytical answer. If it has some distortion adjacent to the interface but is accurate away from it then that is fine for most users. Also I think you will find the distortion is amplified by the way the contours are drawn in CFD-Post.

So "low accuracy" is dependant on what you are looking for accuracy in. If you need it to get the correct pressure drop across something you will almost certainly find it OK. If you need smooth temperature contours in a CHT body then it might not be so appropriate.

But sweeping comments like "GGIs are low accuracy" are not helpful. But there are cases when they will cause problems.

So if I'm only looking for pressure drop, I can always use GGI without considering the inaccuracy it might bring. Right?
lnk is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 25, 2012, 19:42
Default
  #7
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,758
Rep Power: 77
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
So if I'm only looking for pressure drop, I can always use GGI without considering the inaccuracy it might bring. Right?
No, checking the GGI interface for accuracy in your specific case is always a good idea. If you do not trust it then you should check it.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 2, 2012, 11:06
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 4
bratzinger is on a distinguished road
Hi

  • got a similar problems in a GGI-Interface in one of my last simulations and there were also unsteady contour lines for e.g. (total-)pressure at a different location
-> can i assume that if these unsteady contour lines only appear at one "very ugly to mesh geo-part" and the unsteadyness isn't that sever, the error in my solution isn't that significant?

  • somewhere else in this forum i read about the difference in using massFlowAve()@... and areaAve()@... . what i also noticed is there is a noticeable difference between e.g. massFlowAve()@REGION:... and massFlowAve()@Plane... (<- created plane in cfx-post=exactly the same area as REGION:...)
->anyone knows where this comes from?

my advice is to always use different ways to analyze your results. also create monitor points through different expressions and check if they change over time(steady state sim) ...
(sometimes i get gigantic pressuredrop fluctuations over my fluid-domain when i evaluate with massFlowAve()@REGION:... - even if the end result via massFlowAve()@Plane is very plausible)
bratzinger is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 2, 2012, 21:28
Default
  #9
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,758
Rep Power: 77
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
It is always best to test things you are suspicious of for accuracy in your case. So I would compare a GGI simulation versus one without the GGI and see if the accuracy is acceptable. If generating the non-GGI mesh is impossible (that is why you put the GGI in there in the first place ) then dream up a simple little test case which uses the same physics and fundamental flow, but is simple enough to run with and without the GGI. If the GGI is acceptable in the simple test case then it will be OK for the real 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
Performance of GGI case in parallel hannes OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 26 August 3, 2011 04:07
Test Case results for Semi-Cylinder shankar1221989 Main CFD Forum 0 June 24, 2009 07:35
Is Playstation 3 cluster suitable for CFD work hsieh OpenFOAM 8 March 12, 2008 06:58
Modeling the flow in a fully axisymmetric case %e2%80%93 results with no peripheral symmetry evgenia OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 February 14, 2008 11:23
Free surface boudary conditions with SOLA-VOF Fan Main CFD Forum 10 September 9, 2006 13:24


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:22.