# 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Problem

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

 October 18, 2005, 06:51 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Problem #1 Kraemer Guest   Posts: n/a Hi everyone, i am trying to solve a 2D Airfoil with SST. When starting the solver everything looks fine. Good convergence behaviour for the first 200 iterations (Auto Timescale) then the residuals start to fluctuate periodically and no final solution is accomplished. (MAX Res 1e-05) Does anyone know this behaviour? What about the 3rd dimension in a 2D situation working with Icem CFD? The chord of the airfoil is about 1.5 m. I have set the 3rd dimension where nothing should happen (symetric BC's) to 0.01 m. There are some aspect ratio above 5000 because of that, is that a problem? Determinants, angles are fine. Need your help. Thanks in advance. Kraemer

 October 18, 2005, 18:24 Re: 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Proble #2 Glenn Horrocks Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, Is the airfoil stalling or creating a wake? There might be transient structures in the wake causing convergence problems for steady state. Glenn Horrocks

 October 19, 2005, 03:42 Re: 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Proble #3 Kraemer Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Glenn, it could be stalling, when it is so what we be the next step to get a good solution. I need drag and lift values. Thanks for your hint. Kraemer

 October 19, 2005, 05:02 Re: 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Proble #4 andrew Guest   Posts: n/a Don't you actually see wheather it stalls or not? I simulated 2D airfoil with SST option enabled and found no separation. Strange.

 October 19, 2005, 18:52 Re: 2D SST Simulation Airfoil - Convergence Proble #5 Glenn Horrocks Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, When you stall the airfoil or have large separations off some bluff body you generate transient 3D flows. If you want accurate lift and drag numbers in this region you will need to do a 3D simulation, and possibly use a more advanced turbulence model, eg LES. Glenn Horrocks

 April 10, 2011, 15:29 #6 New Member   Irfan Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 16 Rep Power: 7 Hi everyone, I have to determine boundary layer characteristics for 2D airfoil. For this I have to do grid refinement study. I created three C-mesh with 100000, 400000 and 1 million elements. I have to first obtain laminar steady state solution for these meshes and see if there is any variation in the solution. The first two meshes (with 100000 and 400000 elements) converge but the mesh with 1 million elements does not converge. I am using very low Reynolds number (30000). The residuals decrease to 1e-5 and then starts creeping up. Anyone knows the possible reasons behind this? Thanks in advance Irfan

 April 10, 2011, 22:20 #7 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 12,638 Rep Power: 98

 April 14, 2011, 05:49 #8 New Member   Irfan Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 16 Rep Power: 7 Hi Glenn, Thank you for your reply. As my steady state simulation was not converging for the fine mesh (mesh 3, 1 million elements, but it did converge for mesh 1 and mesh2 with 100,000 and 400,000 elements respectively) I tried to run the simulation transient (also recommended in the link which you mentioned). Although the simulation seems to converge as the residuals were decreased to about 1e-8 but I got totally different results. The transient simulations show no separation on the airfoil in mesh 3, while the stead state simulations for the mesh 1 and mesh 2 were showing separation at about 70% chord. Now I don't understand which results should be trusted. Any idea/clue why there is so much difference b/w steady and transient results? (the courant number for the transient simulation was less then 1) With kind regards, Irfan

 April 15, 2011, 06:41 #9 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 12,638 Rep Power: 98 It sounds like you have only run one time step of a transient solution. You need to run a transient solution for enough time steps that you have captured the flow. This will probably be thousands of time steps.

 April 15, 2011, 08:53 #10 New Member   Irfan Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 16 Rep Power: 7 Thanks again Glenn, You guessed right ! I was running transient simulation for few hundred timesteps because the residuals became stable. Now I will run simulation for more timesteps. One question regarding meshing: I am using unstructured hexa mesh for airfoil simulations, and do you think it is ok to use unstructured or should I use structured mesh? Is there any effect of mesh type on convergence and the accuracy of solution? With kind regards, Irfan

 April 16, 2011, 07:22 #11 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 12,638 Rep Power: 98 The quality of the mesh is more important than the element type. But if you have a choice hexas are the preferred element (providing it is not by reducing mesh quality).

 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 andrenonaka CFX 14 December 7, 2015 01:42 shanon ANSYS 0 September 21, 2010 09:00 u k jha CFX 1 September 7, 2010 18:41 msarkar OpenFOAM 32 June 16, 2010 06:27 NURAY KAYAKOL Main CFD Forum 1 February 24, 1999 14:43

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:40.