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

Time Step with mesh deformation

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 1, 2011, 13:20
Default Time Step with mesh deformation
  #1
New Member
 
Richard Barrett
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 6
rbarrett is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I was just wondering if anyone has any advice on the size of a time step to use with a deforming model.

I am attempting to simulate the compression of a piston within a cylinder, which has an initial acceleration phase, a CV phase and a deceleration phase. The total compression time is 16.6 ms, the acceleration is 2079 m/s^2, deceleration is 23493 m/s^2 and the CV is 12 m/s. What I am seeing is that the simulation fails when I reach the short deceleration phase. If I reduce the value of this deceleration by an order of magnitude, the simulation runs to completion perfectly, with a timestep of 16.6ms/32.

Is there any guidelines available on what size of a time step I should be using with this type of simulation and is there a specific way to deal with this high of a deceleration term?

Thanks in advance
rbarrett is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 2, 2011, 06:55
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,807
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
The fluid time scales are usually far smaller than the motion timescales, so whatever time step you need to resolve the motion, you are bound to need something far smaller for the fluids to be modelled accurately.

But obviously with such massive decelerations you need an appropriate time step to capture it, and the fluid mechanics associated with it are likely to require an even smaller timestep.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2011, 07:43
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Richard Barrett
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 6
rbarrett is on a distinguished road
Thanks a million for your reply. What I am seeing with a very small timestep is that the mesh folds on itself; does this mean that my mesh must be much more dense to accommodate this much reduced timestep?

Also, in terms of a numerical value for the timestep, is there any guideline as to what size of a timestep I should be using, or is it a matter of reducing it until it works for this particular simulation? Could I use a function that has a larger value of timestep for the acceleration, CV and post compression stages and refine it for the deceleration phase in a bid to reduce computational time?

Thanks in advance for any help.
rbarrett is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2011, 07:56
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,807
Rep Power: 85
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
The folding should have nothing to do with the timestep size. The fact you say it runs at a coarser time step is weird. But I would fix the root cause of the problem rather than trying different time step sizes. There are a few things you can do, varying mesh stiffness, remeshing, different mesh types etc.

Can you post an image of what your geometry looks like near where you have the problem?
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2011, 04:18
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Richard Barrett
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 6
rbarrett is on a distinguished road
Please find attached below an image of the mesh just prior to the mesh folding. As the mesh is quite dense, I have only included a portion of the mesh. As you can see from the image, the mesh seems to be ok at this stage.
63.jpg
rbarrett is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2011, 09:17
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 513
Rep Power: 12
stumpy is on a distinguished road
Double precision?
stumpy is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 6, 2011, 10:08
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Richard Barrett
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 6
rbarrett is on a distinguished road
Thanks a million for all your help. I had already double precision selected. I think that I have solved the problem as it was related to a poor mesh and is no longer occurring.
rbarrett is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2011, 08:30
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Jean-François Morissette
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 6
jfmorissette is on a distinguished road
Stumpy, do you think that with mesh deformation and FSI, double precision is a must?
jfmorissette is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2011, 09:44
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 513
Rep Power: 12
stumpy is on a distinguished road
I would use DP for all mesh deformation and FSI cases.
stumpy 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
How to write k and epsilon before the abnormal end xiuying OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 August 27, 2013 15:33
snappyHexMesh won't work - zeros everywhere! sc298 OpenFOAM Native Meshers: snappyHexMesh and Others 2 March 27, 2011 21:11
Full pipe 3D using icoFoam cyberbrain OpenFOAM 4 March 16, 2011 10:20
DPM UDF particle position using the macro P_POS(p)[i] dm2747 FLUENT 0 April 17, 2009 01:29
Computational time sunnysun OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 5 March 16, 2009 04:32


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08.