
[Sponsors] 
February 11, 2015, 10:53 
The difference between steady state and transient

#1 
Senior Member
Mr CFD
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Britain
Posts: 291
Rep Power: 6 
I know this is a rookie question to ask: a simple answer is that transient is time dependent and steady state is not.
But delving deeper into this question... Suppose you had a simple pipe flow problem. Let's say you perform a transient run, and stop the simulation after 4 simulation seconds, where the centreline velocity is 2 m/s. If you then performed a steady state simulation, with a small enough physical time step, and implemented a stop control such that the simulation should stop when the centreline velocity is 2 m/s, would the steady state results be the same as the transient ones? I.e. can you completely bypass the transient solution from 0s to 4s by performing a steady state simulation and applying a stop control when the centreline velocity is 2 m/s? When we analyse the conservation equations, in steady state the time dependent partial derivatives disappear and we no longer have a time marching problem  I can't see how the two can compare unless you compare a steady state solution achieved by running a transient simulation long enough, and a steady state solution achieved by running a steady state simulation. 

February 11, 2015, 12:07 

#2 
Senior Member
Bruno
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brazil
Posts: 236
Rep Power: 12 
Due to the falsetransient 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 steadystate 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 pseudotimesteps. 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 nonlinearities 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 EulerianEulerian 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:
Quote:


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  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Steady state solution as an initial condition for a transient problem  adnanakhtar  FLUENT  5  January 19, 2015 14:26 
error message  cuteapathy  CFX  14  March 20, 2012 07:45 
Mass Diffusion: Transient and Steady State BC  rval  CFX  3  November 19, 2008 01:52 
Transient vs Steady State  Adam  CFX  1  April 12, 2007 11:34 
About the difference between steady and unsteady problems  Lisa  Main CFD Forum  11  July 5, 2000 14:37 