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

Monitor point convergence

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 20, 2012, 03:21
Default Monitor point convergence
  #1
New Member
 
Costin Ruja
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 7
costinruja is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to costinruja
Good morning,

I am simulating flow in heated pipe.I have a monitor point inside the pipe wall (solid) and one in the fluid.

How can I set convergence criteria for these to values, let's say 0.1 deg. C between two iterations ?
costinruja is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   November 20, 2012, 10:13
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 486
Rep Power: 9
evcelica is on a distinguished road
That would not be a very good way to judge convergence. Your temperature solution will oscilate in the beginning, and you could easily meet this convergence criteria at the crest or trough of an oscillation, even though you are far from a real solution. Monitor imbalances instead, or use the conventional convergence criteria.
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 20, 2012, 17:30
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Bruno
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brazil
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 12
brunoc is on a distinguished road
I'm yet to check version 14.5 (just released) but up until version 14.0 this feature wasn't included in CFX.

You could do that with UserFortran, though.

Cheers
brunoc is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 20, 2012, 22:50
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 486
Rep Power: 9
evcelica is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunoc View Post
I'm yet to check version 14.5 (just released) but up until version 14.0 this feature wasn't included in CFX.

You could do that with UserFortran, though.

Cheers
Why would you want to do this, its just a bad idea all around, unless you like garbage.
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 21, 2012, 02:45
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Costin Ruja
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 7
costinruja is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to costinruja
I am already checking the fluid point temperature graph and it seems preety smooth, it's just growing fast in the first 20-25 iterations and then the slope is decreasing, but doesn't quite reaches a flat top.So i think i could impose a convergence criteria to this.Evcelica, the simulation is steady state, not transient so the value doesn't bounce up and down.I think i can cheat this by imposing min 500 iterations for the solver and see how the curbe flattens.

Anyway, i'm still hoping this can be done the elegant way.

Thanks,
Costin
costinruja is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   November 21, 2012, 06:20
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
I agree with Erik. This sounds like a bad idea to me.

Put a convergence criteria on the imbalances. This is physically relevant and is meaningful.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 21, 2012, 07:48
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Bruno
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brazil
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 12
brunoc is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by evcelica View Post
Why would you want to do this, its just a bad idea all around, unless you like garbage.
Nice.

Ok, off to the long post.

Well, in lots of industrial cases when you're at early design stages you want to do lots of simulations just to get a general idea of how different variables behave. Needless to say, if you have a parametric model you can't fine tune it to a specific condition. Forget about academics, where everything has to be perfect; we're talking about industry here, where this type of thing happens all the time.

Now, normally on steady state simulations your domain will reach a steady state condition, which will cause residual levels to go down and eventually reach your tolerance, stopping the simulation. But since your model is not fine tuned, there are some cases where residual levels stop decreasing. That can be due to lots of reasons but the most common two are some type of transient behavior (vortex shedding being the most common here if you're using a small dt) and bad mesh quality on some regions.

If you're monitoring some values important to you - torque, power, delta P, mixture temperature, you name it - you will see that it will probably eventually reach a steady state solution, even if residual levels are oscillating a little over your tolerance (and yes, global imbalances will likely also be under tolerances). That means that what is keeping your results from converging is probably within a contained region. If you check the residuals in your domain, it's very likely that most of it will be under your tolerance, but since those small regions haven't reached tolerance level that keeps convergence from happening.

If the regions of high residual levels are not impacting your results, there is no reason why you should run your case for an additional 10k iterations. In fact, monitoring something important to you is just best practice; you should always monitor macroscopic values to see how your simulations is evolving.

To see if your monitored values reached steady state you have to watch how its value progresses through a number of iterations (that is why you would need UserFortran) and, if possible, also monitor if the residual levels are bouncing. If both of these conditions are true, stop the simulation and proceed to the next design point. But if you're leaving your computer running through the weekend (or even though the night) you can't do that manually. So an automatic procedure comes in handy.

About monitoring imbalance, as far as I know CFX will only monitor global imbalances, not control volume imbalances. So by monitoring imbalances only, if you bump into one of those conditions from above, your simulation might stop even though you still haven't reached steady state condition though you're entire domain.
brunoc is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 21, 2012, 18:15
Default
  #8
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,809
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
The imbalances looks at the global balance of mass, momentum, heat etc.

The residuals in effect look at the accuracy of the solution of the equations at the control volume level.

I was not suggesting judging convergence on imbalances alone. Residuals are the best judge of convergence in most cases, so I was proposing judging convergence on both residuals and imbalances. Sorry if that was not clear.

BTW: I have worked in CFD in industy for 12 years now and am well aware of the need to just get it done. But this needs to be balanced with the risk of getting the wrong result. So in my experience your best chance of getting a result in a reasonable time with an acceptably low risk of beign wrong is to understand the underlying physics and set convergence parameters linked to those physics, so convergence is declared when key errors are reduced to adequate levels.

As Erik said earlier on, judging convergence on a parameter being close enough to is value last iteration means convergence will be declared when the parameter is really miles away but going over a trough.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 21, 2012, 19:49
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Bruno
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brazil
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 12
brunoc is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
As Erik said earlier on, judging convergence on a parameter being close enough to is value last iteration means convergence will be declared when the parameter is really miles away but going over a trough.
I agree, comparing values from current and last iterations alone is not only bad, it's wrong. That's is why I said you need to look at the parameters history, ie, it's values over a number of iterations and them check for stability, like its standard deviation. That's also why I said you need UserFortran for this: CFX won't let you read values from more than two iterations back. Comparing variables against their values at the previous iteration can be done directly after some tricks.

Again, I've seen lots of occasions where both imbalances and residuals (set at their standard values) are met but the problem hasn't yet reached steady state condition. But for those cases where residuals won't get below your tolerance, I think combining imbalances and monitor point convergence is the best option.
brunoc 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
Convergence Centurion2011 FLUENT 24 May 9, 2015 08:02
Force can not converge colopolo CFX 13 October 4, 2011 22:03
Convergence of CFX field in FSI analysis nasdak CFX 2 June 29, 2009 01:17
Defect correction and convergence ganesh Main CFD Forum 4 June 30, 2006 14:20
Convergence problems Chetan FLUENT 3 April 15, 2004 19:13


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:24.