# The difference between steady state and transient

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

 February 11, 2015, 12:07 #2 Senior Member   Bruno Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Brazil Posts: 236 Rep Power: 12 Due to the false-transient scheme used by CFX, technically yes, if you use a very small timestep for both the transient (with a first order approach for the time derivative) and the steady state simulation, you should arrive at the same result after the same number of timesteps are run in each. But this also means you're not bypassing the transient solution at all; you're just solving it by other means. Also, this completely defeats the purpose of running a steady-state simulation, which is to fastly arrive at a time independent solution.

 February 11, 2015, 18:28 #3 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,959 Rep Power: 85 The steady state solver does not include some of the transient terms (I forget which, you will have to look up the doco to find that out). Also the steady state solver can advance different equations with different pseudo-timesteps. This is to make the simulation converge faster, but it does mean the result is not time accurate. But these neglected terms are not important for all simulations, and the advancing of different equations at different speeds can be stopped by specifying a physical time step. Then a steady state simulation will be pretty close to a transient simulation.

 February 12, 2015, 08:54 #4 Senior Member   Bruno Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Brazil Posts: 236 Rep Power: 12 If you use the First Order scheme for the transient equations, there should be no extra terms compared to the steady state equations. It is just for both. The only thing missing on the SS solution will be the transient non-linearities corrections () between timesteps, but then again a small enough timestep (one that uses only 1 iteration per transient timestep) should solve this. Cheers

 February 12, 2015, 10:02 #5 Senior Member     Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 291 Rep Power: 6 Thanks for that - it's quite insightful. So if I understand correctly you're saying you can make a good comparison between stopping a steady state simulation mid way and a transient simulation using first order numerics for the transient scheme?

 February 12, 2015, 13:19 #6 Senior Member   Bruno Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Brazil Posts: 236 Rep Power: 12 A steady state simulation with a very small physical timestep, one that would require only one iteration for the transient solver, yes. But again, that basically means running a transient simulation anyway, so there is no gain in here. Quite the other way, actually: a transient simulation with adaptative timestepping would probably be able to arrive much faster at the desired physical time value. May I ask why do you want to do this?

 February 17, 2015, 13:31 #7 Senior Member     Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 291 Rep Power: 6 Hi, Thanks for your input. I'm undertaking a project which involves heating a tank of water and modelling the evaporation process from water to vapour. It's an Eulerian-Eulerian simulation, with the interface modelled using the CFX Mixture Model. I am interested in the results when around 5% of the water in the tank is evaporated. So far I am running these simulations in transient mode, with a stop control telling the solver to stop the simulation when 5% of the water has evaporated (I implement this by monitoring the absolute pressure at the bottom of the tank and using a conditional if statement [i.e. if abs pressure at the bottom of the tank is less than the abs pressure @ 95% water then stop the sim]). I wanted to see if I can bypass the long transient runs by implementing a steady state analysis, and stopping the simulation at when 5% has evaporated. Sorry I should have explained this much earlier.

 February 17, 2015, 16:51 #8 Senior Member   Edmund Singer P.E. Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 500 Rep Power: 11 I would say no. How can you justify the SS solution partway? The SS solution will want to equilabrate towards a set amount of water evaporation (100% if the tank is open and heat is always on, some other percentage if the tank is closed, etc..). How it gets there is totally not time accurate if you utilize the SS as it should be used (no need to capture the transients). Like brunoc said, trying to get a time accurate solution from a SS run, is probably not efficient.

 February 17, 2015, 18:11 #9 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,959 Rep Power: 85 This simulation sounds like one where significantly different time scales are relevant. I guess the fluid and/or heating time scale is of the order of seconds, but it takes hours or days to evaporate the tank? If that is the case then running it as a full transient will be slow and not very efficient. Am I correct in saying you have a fast fluid/thermal time scale and a slow evaporation time scale?

February 18, 2015, 05:56
#10
Senior Member

Mr CFD
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Britain
Posts: 291
Rep Power: 6
Quote:
 Originally Posted by singer1812 I would say no. How can you justify the SS solution partway? The SS solution will want to equilabrate towards a set amount of water evaporation (100% if the tank is open and heat is always on, some other percentage if the tank is closed, etc..). How it gets there is totally not time accurate if you utilize the SS as it should be used (no need to capture the transients).
This was my understanding after reading various CFD books and the theory guide. My understanding is that the steady state solver tries to find a steady state solution (in my case the steady state solution is an empty tank where all water is evaporated). As I understand it, the solver doesn't adopt a time marching approach due to the lack of transient terms.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks This simulation sounds like one where significantly different time scales are relevant. I guess the fluid and/or heating time scale is of the order of seconds, but it takes hours or days to evaporate the tank? If that is the case then running it as a full transient will be slow and not very efficient. Am I correct in saying you have a fast fluid/thermal time scale and a slow evaporation time scale?
You are completely correct Glenn. There is a large difference in time scales that are involved. I'm trying to find ways to cheat and get around this. Hence why I questioned the steady state approach in my first post

 February 18, 2015, 06:41 #11 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,959 Rep Power: 85 If there is a big separation in time scales then you should try to uncouple them if this is possible. This is not cheating, this is being smart If the rate of change of the fluid level is slow then you can do a steady state simulation of the fluid flow and thermal stuff with a fixed fluid level. From this model you can predict the condition at the surface and therefore the evaporation rate. Repeat this at a few fluid surface heights and you have the trend of evaporation rate versus fluid height. Then it is a simple matter of working out the fluid height versus time as a ODE. This is an example of decoupling the different time scales, and using CFD to get the fast time scales and a simple ODE to get the slower fluid height time scale. And the simulation is a simple series of steady state simulations (real steady state simulations, not weird phoney ones) rather than a single extremely long transient simulation. You will also find getting accurate results for the long time scale effect is difficult as the convergence criteria are based around the short time scale. Adding imbalances to the convergence criteria will help, but even the small imbalance you are left with will add up over a long time scale to a significant error. If you separate the time scales like I recommend you avoid this problem.

 February 18, 2015, 13:25 #12 Senior Member     Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 291 Rep Power: 6 Hi, that's pretty clever! All of the evaporation occurs at the free surface at the top of the tank. So your method of reducing the level a little bit each time and doing a steady state simulation could work. The rate of evaporation from the free surface is characterised simply as So if I can determine the free surface heat flux for each level then I could derive some sort of relationship (ODE) for the free surface heat flux with water level. Since I know the enthalpy of vaporisation (see steam tables) then I can work out the rates of evaporation. Is that the kind of direction you were hinting at?

 February 18, 2015, 18:40 #13 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 10,959 Rep Power: 85 Yes, you got it.

 February 19, 2015, 11:51 #14 Senior Member     Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 291 Rep Power: 6 Thanks for the tip. I'll update the thread later to let you know how I get on.

 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 adnanakhtar FLUENT 5 January 19, 2015 14:26 cuteapathy CFX 14 March 20, 2012 07:45 rval CFX 3 November 19, 2008 01:52 Adam CFX 1 April 12, 2007 11:34 Lisa Main CFD Forum 11 July 5, 2000 14:37

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:14.