|
[Sponsors] |
July 4, 2007, 05:25 |
Hello all,
I'm currently st
|
#1 |
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 |
|
July 4, 2007, 07:21 |
When comparing OpenFOAM with F
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
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).
|
|
July 4, 2007, 07:31 |
Hi Srinath,
Could you give
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Frank Bos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 340
Rep Power: 18 |
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 |
|
July 4, 2007, 09:31 |
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: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
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?
|
|
July 4, 2007, 09:39 |
On second thoughts, I think yo
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
On second thoughts, I think you're right. Fluent's definition of 'scaled residual' is quite confusing.
|
|
July 4, 2007, 09:42 |
Maybe unchecking the 'Scale' C
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
Maybe unchecking the 'Scale' CheckBox in Solve -> Monitors -> Residual dialog box and using the above values will mimic OpenFOAM settings with respect to tolerances?
|
|
July 4, 2007, 10:07 |
The residual comparison OpenFO
|
#7 |
Member
Rolando Maier
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 89
Rep Power: 17 |
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 |
|
July 4, 2007, 11:26 |
Thanks a lot for your contribu
|
#8 |
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 |
|
July 4, 2007, 13:44 |
The following settings probabl
|
#9 |
Senior Member
Srinath Madhavan (a.k.a pUl|)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 703
Rep Power: 21 |
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;? |
|
July 4, 2007, 14:29 |
No there's no special reason f
|
#10 |
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 |
|
|
|
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 03:04 |
convergence | vijay | Main CFD Forum | 1 | January 30, 2006 13:13 |
too bad convergence | Davoche | Main CFD Forum | 2 | November 20, 2005 05:08 |
About convergence | LQ | CFX | 3 | June 2, 2005 23:43 |