CFD Online URL
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

Steady and Unsteady nature

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By oj.bulmer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 19, 2013, 20:25
Default Steady and Unsteady nature
  #1
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Hello,
I am very beginner in CFD, sorry that I ask this question.
I am wondering how to compare a problem in steady and unsteady.
Because I think any problem that is steady can be solved unsteady as well.
However, I am running a case, but heat transfer coefficient in steady state is much much larger than that of unsteady. The problems were runned for some hours and when I see the transient solutions, it seems they reached to a steady state.
So, if the transient solution reached to steady state, why the results of steady and unsteady heat transfer coefficients are not the same?

Again, sorry if my question was childish but I really need your experts.
Natali
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 19, 2013, 20:46
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Agustín Villa
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 3
agustinvo is on a distinguished road
Hi Natali;

I'm not an expert, but the difference between unsteady and steady is that you are not studying the flow at the same time: steady, the flow becomes "fix"; meanwhile unsteady, the flow changes along the time, until it arrives the time unsteady flow approachs the steady conditions.

For this reason, unsteady and steady heat transfer coefficients are not the same: you're not studying the same flow conditions.

I hope you understood my explanation.
agustinvo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 19, 2013, 21:16
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your answer,
But, after some times, the unsteady flow should be steady. Am I right?
So, why at that time the characteristics are not the same? like heat transfer coefficient?
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2013, 02:17
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
OJ
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: United Kindom
Posts: 475
Rep Power: 10
oj.bulmer will become famous soon enough
Not all the flows are steady "after some time". eg formation of vortices behind the bluff body. These vortices will keep changing their positions and hence this flow can never be steady.

Even unsteady flow can be categorized into, periodic and chaotic. Periodic flows have a pattern of repetition after certain period and thus has a certain dominant frequency. In chaotic flow, there is no single dominant frequency but there are set of frequencies. Then you need to use statistical techniques like FFT to figure out the relatively dominant frequencies from the flow characteristics.

OJ
agustinvo likes this.
oj.bulmer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2013, 11:03
Default
  #5
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,900
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
I agree with comments of OJ.

Quote:
I am wondering how to compare a problem in steady and unsteady.
Compare time average flow parameters from unsteady simulation with steady flow solution and you will notice the difference (if there is any) .

Quote:
However, I am running a case, but heat transfer coefficient in steady state is much much larger than that of unsteady.
How did you observe this? did you compare the instantaneous value with steady case? If so you may be get large difference at some instant.

Quote:
So, if the transient solution reached to steady state, why the results of steady and unsteady heat transfer coefficients are not the same?
This may be the convergence problem with your steady or unsteady problem. All other settings are same? did you make the grid independence study?

Last edited by Far; April 20, 2013 at 11:44.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2013, 18:15
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
I agree with comments of OJ.



Compare time average flow parameters from unsteady simulation with steady flow solution and you will notice the difference (if there is any) .



How did you observe this? did you compare the instantaneous value with steady case? If so you may be get large difference at some instant.


This may be the convergence problem with your steady or unsteady problem. All other settings are same? did you make the grid independence study?
Thanks for your answer,
Yes, all the conditions are the same. I did grid study as well. So, there is no place to consider difference between the results. I saw that the flow characteristics remain unchanged for a long time in a transient solution. Then I decided to call the flow steady. So, I expected to see the same results from the transient simulation at this time and the steady sate simulation. But, the results are much different.
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 00:38
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 11
blackmask will become famous soon enough
Maybe your steady case has not converged yet. Have you tried to switch from unsteady to steady simulation with the case&data you obtained from long-time transient simulation?
blackmask is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 01:23
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmask View Post
Maybe your steady case has not converged yet. Have you tried to switch from unsteady to steady simulation with the case&data you obtained from long-time transient simulation?
I didn't try that but for sure the steady state solution is converged. I checked that by observing several flow characteristics, as well as checking the changes in mass flow rates, friction coeff, heat transfer coeff, etc.
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 03:21
Default
  #9
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,900
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
can you show the convergence plots of both cases? Did you check the solution at lower time step ?
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 12:33
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
can you show the convergence plots of both cases? Did you check the solution at lower time step ?
The time-step I am using is 1e-6 s. In fact, I always use lower time-step to be safe.
Regarding the convergency, I just check the changes in flow parameters and since for a long time no changes happen for their values, I decided that the flow became steady. Is that enough to check the convergency? Or do I have to check anything else?

Thanks for all your times and care,
Natali
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 12:41
Default
  #11
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,900
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
What if you use 0.1 s time step and it should not make any difference as case is steady state!
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 12:47
Default
  #12
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
What if you use 0.1 s time step and it should not make any difference as case is steady state!
Sorry,
I am confused. I don't get what exactly you say.
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 12:51
Default
  #13
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,900
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
I am saying if your case is steady state then it should give same results with steady, unsteady with 0.1 s time step, unsteady with 0.005 s time step and 1e-06 s time step. With 1e-06 time step you may need longer time to reach steady state while with larger time step you may get convergence in less time.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 12:56
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
I am saying if your case is steady state then it should give same results with steady, unsteady with 0.1 s time step, unsteady with 0.005 s time step and 1e-06 s time step. With 1e-06 time step you may need longer time to reach steady state while with larger time step you may get convergence in less time.
oh. That is exactly a confusing stuff that I am struggling with that. I had tried to run the case with 1e-6 s and 1e-2 s, before. However, it seems many phenomena are ignored when time-step is large. That seems reasonable. That's why I tried to use small time-step. In fact, based on Courant number and some other factors, I think working with small time step is more safe, especially in combustion problems.
I really appreciate you correct me wherever I am wrong.
Thanks,
Natali_Beginner is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 13:40
Default
  #15
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,900
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
Quote:
I am wondering how to compare a problem in steady and unsteady.
Compare some time averaged parameters with steady state solution.

Quote:
However, it seems many phenomena are ignored when time-step is large
This may be the reason that your steady and unsteady results are different
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2013, 13:43
Default
  #16
New Member
 
Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
Natali_Beginner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far View Post
Compare some time averaged parameters with steady state solution.



This may be the reason that your steady and unsteady results are different
Yes, actually in my problem there are different time-scales and that's why I have to use very small time-step.
Natali_Beginner 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
conversion steady to unsteady Clementhuon CD-adapco 7 January 26, 2012 05:33
Unsteady DPM with steady solver elobb FLUENT 2 May 24, 2011 14:01
Steady needs unsteady. nico Main CFD Forum 0 September 21, 2007 05:50
Turbulent: Steady or Unsteady: confusion prem FLUENT 0 March 30, 2006 10:40
steady or unsteady? (in dpm) winnie FLUENT 1 April 28, 2003 12:30


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:13.