Hi maddalena,
Now my problem is converged but I am looking to improve the results, mainly the separation point location for the cylinder flow. You were right. Part of the problem was the boundary conditions and part the mesh. I already converged and validated CFD++ results agains the experimental data for Cp and Nu of a rough cylinder. However, I am struggling to find an accurate configuration for OpenFoam. Could you post your final fvSchemes and fvSolution? I may help me My final results for rhoSimpleFoam will be posted on-line as a wiki when I finished it. Regards, Guilherme |
Hi,
Quote:
mad |
Hi maddalena,
Could you tell me if your last successful configuration was the one described ?http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...tml#post212960 What solver and preconditioner did you choose in fvSolution for each variable? I tried to put Gauss upwind in div((muEff*dev2(grad(U).T()))) but OF1.7 gave a EOF error on that line. If I chosse Gauss linear, it runs OK. What did you use there? Thanks, aerothermal |
Quote:
would yo please explain more about the trick that make your simulation converged? this sentence "Using the trick of an epsilon two order of magnitude lower within the domain let the simulation converge. " thank you very much. |
Quote:
Thank you very much, for sharing good information for us. whould you please tell me what was your solver for p and U for this set up, that you get good results? thank you again. Regards. |
Quote:
as i read in this frum, you admit the vessilen's mesh with "Max skewness = 1.98187" my question is: in gambit or fluent skeness 0.9 is really high but in openFoam skewness 2, or even more is OK, what is the difference between their definition? what is the upper limite for skewness? Thank you very much:) |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:06. |