CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Convergence

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 4, 2007, 05:25
Default Hello all, I'm currently st
  #1
tutlhino
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello all,

I'm currently studying the convergence of the simpleFoam pitzFaily tutorial.

After recognizing that OF doesn't stop when reaching steady state I used pyFoam to do this.
But when I now want to compute until a certain residual it takes ages, compared to the simulation in cfx!? Has someone else recognised this convergence "probleme"?

It seems like Openfoam is very fast when you want to compute transient simulations, but the convergence of the residuals is very slow!? Or how can this be improved? I took the pitzDaily example and used the GAMG solver with GAMG/DILU preconditioners and experienced that behavior. But also with the standard setting of solver (PBiCG,..) the convergence wasn't much better.


Florian
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 07:21
Default When comparing OpenFOAM with F
  #2
Senior Member
 
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 698
Rep Power: 12
msrinath80 is on a distinguished road
When comparing OpenFOAM with Fluent/CFX et al. please remember to make sure the tolerances are the same. To my knowledge, these industry-oriented codes use much higher tolerances for velocity/pressure (or continuity) which yields convergence much faster. Other factors to keep in mind are the discretization schemes used and the grid/mesh type (use the same grid when comparing).
msrinath80 is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 07:31
Default Hi Srinath, Could you give
  #3
Senior Member
 
Frank Bos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 338
Rep Power: 9
lr103476 is on a distinguished road
Hi Srinath,

Could you give some hints on how to set the residual tolerances in Fluent, i.e. normalised or scaled and what should be the normalisation factors and convergence criteria for a fair comparison. To be honest, I don't know since Fluent is also not clear in their manuals.

Regards, Frank
__________________
Frank Bos
lr103476 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 09:31
Default I think we need to focus on So
  #4
Senior Member
 
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 698
Rep Power: 12
msrinath80 is on a distinguished road
I think we need to focus on Solve -> Monitors -> Residual panel. Decreasing continuity tolerance to 1e-06 and X,Y and Z velocities to 1e-05 with 'scaled residuals' (default) might bring the case closer to OpenFOAM settings. Also note that Fluent only provides upwind schemes (1st and 2nd order), QUICK etc. It is important to emulate the same settings in OpenFOAM. Beyond this even I am at a loss for words. Perhaps someone who is more fluent with FLUENT can comment?
msrinath80 is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 09:39
Default On second thoughts, I think yo
  #5
Senior Member
 
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 698
Rep Power: 12
msrinath80 is on a distinguished road
On second thoughts, I think you're right. Fluent's definition of 'scaled residual' is quite confusing.
msrinath80 is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 09:42
Default Maybe unchecking the 'Scale' C
  #6
Senior Member
 
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 698
Rep Power: 12
msrinath80 is on a distinguished road
Maybe unchecking the 'Scale' CheckBox in Solve -> Monitors -> Residual dialog box and using the above values will mimic OpenFOAM settings with respect to tolerances?
msrinath80 is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 10:07
Default The residual comparison OpenFO
  #7
Member
 
Rolando Maier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 8
rolando is on a distinguished road
The residual comparison OpenFOAM - CFX is not quite fair:
In CFX you can choose maxRes and rootMeanSquareRes.
In OpenFoam a weighted sum of absolute residuals is calculated.
So you canīt compare the same things.
I donīt know how the residuals are computed in Fluent.

Rolando
rolando is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 11:26
Default Thanks a lot for your contribu
  #8
tutlhino
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks a lot for your contribution! As a startpoint I've taken the same mesh for openfoam and cfx, and used the same residuals for the comparison. But it was a real good hint that the residuals are computed different, and I've got to find a solution therefore. But I think in my case a big problem appeared due to the change from PBiCG to GAMG. According to the residual plots GAMG is totally instable compared to PBiCG, which is probably due to my settings. As the pressure and u_y is unstable I'll start with the relaxation factors to fight that problem and try other settings in the SIMPLE-Algorithm (nCorrSteps). Or do you think those high frequent instabilities in the residual (with GAMG) are due to something else

My GAMG-setting for the simpleFoam pitzDaily:

tolerance 1e-06;
relTol 0.1;

smoother GaussSeidel;
cacheAgglomeration true;
nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10;
agglomerator faceAreaPair

mergeLevels "1/2";

Cheers
Florian
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 13:44
Default The following settings probabl
  #9
Senior Member
 
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 698
Rep Power: 12
msrinath80 is on a distinguished road
The following settings probably need to be changed. But I'd wait for a second opinion.

mergeLevels "1/2";
nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10;

Also is there a special reason for using relTol 0.1;?
msrinath80 is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   July 4, 2007, 14:29
Default No there's no special reason f
  #10
tutlhino
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
No there's no special reason for relTol 0.1, and I'll check the influence on the stability.

With mergeLevels "1/2" I wanted to say 1 or 2 and not one half, so this setting should be fine. And I chose nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10, after some simple time measurements for a certain number of timesteps. But after considerung the convergence and stability I really should think about it again....

Cheers
Florian
  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
URF and convergence in natural convergence Marie-Anne Main CFD Forum 11 September 11, 2009 10:07
convergence vijay FLUENT 6 February 1, 2006 04:04
convergence vijay Main CFD Forum 1 January 30, 2006 14:13
too bad convergence Davoche Main CFD Forum 2 November 20, 2005 06:08
About convergence LQ CFX 3 June 2, 2005 23:43


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:39.