# Multiple Rotating Reference Frame useful?

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

 November 7, 2012, 15:01 Multiple Rotating Reference Frame useful? #1 Member   Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 35 Rep Power: 6 Hi, I would like to submit a question to the Fluent users about the Multiple Rotating Reference Frame (MRF). After reading carefully the Fluent User’s Guide, I still have this question. For a steady-state analysis, what is the difference between the MRF approach and simply setting wall velocities (moving wall) without any rotating reference frame? Does MRF only help for convergence in that case? Finally, with the MRF approach, should the boundaries of the rotating reference frame be placed far enough from the rotating elements? Thank you for your help. Jérémie

 November 7, 2012, 16:00 #2 Member     Pedram Mojtabavi Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Iran Posts: 66 Rep Power: 6 Hi, As You know There are 3 approaches for simulating the flow in such problems : MRF, Mixing plane(MP) and Sliding mesh (SM). Both MRF and SM methods assume the flow steady and are used when the stationary and rotating frame interaction is weak or when it is needed just an proximate solution. The SM model assumes the flow unsteady and is used when the interaction is important (such as compressor and turbine simulation). Briefly, if your problem deals with such devices, The SM model is the best and gives you an accurate solution. I've been using the SM model and you need to place the inlet and outlet boundaries far enough to avoid the potential effects. The upper and lower boundaries could be assumed as periodic linked meshes. Best regards.

 November 7, 2012, 17:20 #3 Member   Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 35 Rep Power: 6 Thanks Pedram I am working on a vertical axis wind turbine. As a first approximation, I’d like to perform steady-state simulations. And I really wonder what would be the difference between a solution obtained in a rotating reference frame (MRF approach), and a solution obtained in a stationary reference frame (with a moving wall condition for the wind turbine blades). Is it easier to get a converged solution using the MRF approach? Regarding the boundary, I meant the boundary between the rotating reference frame and the stationary reference frame (in the MRF approach). Should the boundary be placed far enough from the wind turbine blades? Thanks again Regards, Jérémie

 November 7, 2012, 17:33 #4 Member     Pedram Mojtabavi Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Iran Posts: 66 Rep Power: 6 Yes it's easier and better to consider the MRF method since it's been recommended. If you mean the interface between your rotary and stationary frames,(for example boundary between rotor and stator cascades); No it is not needed to place the boundary far from the blades. It could be at any distances regarding to the test stages or other setups. Regards.

November 8, 2012, 03:53
#5
Senior Member

Daniele
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 912
Rep Power: 15
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jeremie84 Hi, I would like to submit a question to the Fluent users about the Multiple Rotating Reference Frame (MRF). After reading carefully the Fluent User’s Guide, I still have this question. For a steady-state analysis, what is the difference between the MRF approach and simply setting wall velocities (moving wall) without any rotating reference frame? Does MRF only help for convergence in that case? Finally, with the MRF approach, should the boundaries of the rotating reference frame be placed far enough from the rotating elements? Thank you for your help. Jérémie
Hi, you can use moving wall (rotation) only when your rotating object is a surface of revolution; also this surface must be centered around the rotation axis; for example you can use moving wall when you have a cylinder (surface of revolution), centered in 0,0,0, positive in Z direction, rotating around z axis; you cannot use moving wall for example for a rushton turbine, as it is not a surface of revolution, even if it is centered in 0,0,0.

Daniele

 November 8, 2012, 10:07 #6 Member   Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 35 Rep Power: 6 Thank you very much for your answers. @Daniele: after reading your comment, I read this on the Fluent user's guide: "Note that the modeling of tangential rotational motion will be correct only if the wall bounds a surface of revolution about the prescribed axis of rotation (e.g., a circle or cylinder)." Thanks again for your help. Regards, Jérémie

November 8, 2012, 10:32
#7
Super Moderator

Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,915
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghost82 Hi, you can use moving wall (rotation) only when your rotating object is a surface of revolution; also this surface must be centered around the rotation axis; for example you can use moving wall when you have a cylinder (surface of revolution), centered in 0,0,0, positive in Z direction, rotating around z axis; you cannot use moving wall for example for a rushton turbine, as it is not a surface of revolution, even if it is centered in 0,0,0. Daniele

You can use the offset option in fluent if axis are not passing through centre of the domain.

 Tags rotating reference frame

 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 fu-ki-pa OpenFOAM 10 May 1, 2014 16:26 Attesz OpenFOAM Installation 45 January 13, 2012 13:38 skabilan OpenFOAM Installation 3 July 28, 2009 00:35 allenzhao OpenFOAM Installation 127 January 30, 2009 20:08 Bruno Main CFD Forum 1 January 30, 2007 01:34

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43.