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

Burner simulation

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 18, 2003, 05:59
Default Burner simulation
  #1
Mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi,

I'm trying to simulate a non-premixed burner. I have run the simulation cold until a convergence of 10e-05. I then run the reacting flow. The simulation runs well for a while, approximately 100 iterations and then starts to oscilate badly. I have set a small under-relaxation factors for the reactives and the density, 0.9. Is this too large?

Any ideas on how to fix this?

Cheers,

Mark.
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 18, 2003, 09:53
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #2
Erwin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Not knowing anything about your reaction model etc, I would suggest to use values of 0.5 initially for the reacting components and 0.8 for energy. Later you can slowly increase the values to 0.8 or 0.9 for reaction components and 0.95 or so for energy. I have not noticed a strong influence of the density URF. Make sure your temperature field is initialized at 1000 K or so to get it all going.
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 18, 2003, 10:12
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #3
Mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks Erwin,

I will do that. I initialised my simulation with temp=1300k and ch4=0.2 to get ignition.

Does this sound ok to you?

Mark
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 21, 2003, 03:34
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #4
Erwin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't use URF values that are too low, the solution will take 100 years to converge. Use at least 0.5 but don't go too quickly to 0.9.
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 21, 2003, 05:09
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #5
Mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks Erwin,

Just to confirm, the URF's just ease the change from the old value, say Vn, and the new value Vn+1. Is this correct?

If so, changing the URF's in mid-calculation makes the calculation faster but could also cause the solution to diverge if the change is too sevre?

It's basically just a tool to get convergence with the side effect of longer computation time - am I right?

Mark.
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 21, 2003, 09:01
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #6
Erwin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, yup, and sure!
  Reply With Quote

Old   March 21, 2003, 09:25
Default Re: Burner simulation
  #7
Mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks!!!
  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
Combustion Simulation in Multiple Slot Burner dharanishb FLUENT 1 March 2, 2014 13:30
Burner Simulation kmk FLUENT 0 January 26, 2011 12:07
GUI crash and simulation engine still running RPJones FLOW-3D 2 November 9, 2010 08:18
velocity profile export from a simulation onto another sudhirlv STAR-CCM+ 1 September 12, 2010 18:57
Burner simulation Mark FLUENT 2 January 24, 2003 05:33


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04.