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

Urban scenario - tetra vs hex problem

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 30, 2009, 13:05
Default Urban scenario - tetra vs hex problem
  #1
New Member
 
Pablo Grazziotin
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 7
pablocg is on a distinguished road
Hello all!

I've been trying to run some cases of airflow around buildings using simpleFoam.

Simulations seem to converge fine when using a hexahedral mesh. However, if I try the same case but with a tetrahedral mesh, I get fast increasing time step continuity and bounding epsilon errors.

Any suggestions?

Right now I'm trying increasing numbers of Non Orthogonal Correctors, but without much success. My checkMesh results showed

Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 65.5343 average: 19.5644
Non-orthogonality check OK.

Should I be using such correctors for this? And how many? Is there some simple way of determining the number of correctors based on the mesh non-orthogonality? Or is my problem something else entirely?

Thanks,

-Pablo
pablocg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 30, 2009, 13:20
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
ZHOU Bin
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nanjing/Shanghai/Torino, Nanjing/Shanghai/Piemente, China/Italy
Posts: 164
Rep Power: 7
zhoubinwx is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to zhoubinwx Send a message via MSN to zhoubinwx Send a message via Skype™ to zhoubinwx
Hi Pablo,

I have some experience with coarse mesh on uniform flow around a cylinder. Here I use very coarse mesh(because I want to use the converged results as initial condition for my fine-mesh test case). After the residual for p and U is of order 10^(-6), I see increasing time step continuity and bounding epsilon errors afterwards. But when I use fine mesh I have no such phenomena.

Therefore, may I suggest to use fine mesh? Of course there maybe other reasons. Other friends could give you good suggestions

Bin
zhoubinwx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 30, 2009, 14:01
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
sega's Avatar
 
Sebastian Gatzka
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 729
Rep Power: 10
sega is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablocg View Post
Is there some simple way of determining the number of correctors based on the mesh non-orthogonality?
Let me highlight this question. Although I have no answer to this question it can be of highly practical interest for all of us using tetrahedral mesh!
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!"
sega is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2009, 09:41
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Pablo Grazziotin
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 7
pablocg is on a distinguished road
Still haven't managed to get this to run properly with tetrahedral.
I did refine the mesh around the building (testing with just 1 at the moment), but my time step continuity error goes to E+30 within 3-4 steps.
Any other ideas?
Thanks.
pablocg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 2, 2009, 03:46
Default
  #5
Member
 
matej forman
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
Posts: 90
Rep Power: 7
matejfor is on a distinguished road
Hi,
Just to make sure, do you have some prism layer in your tet mesh?
What BC you have for epsilon and k at inlet? Are they realistic? and initial condition? You may try mapFields from the hex mesh to tet and see if it is able to continue from a good solution field with tetmesh. How does your fvSchemes look like?

matej
matejfor is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 6, 2009, 10:39
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Pablo Grazziotin
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 7
pablocg is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by matejfor View Post
Hi,
Just to make sure, do you have some prism layer in your tet mesh?
I'm not sure, think not... Am using GAMBIT size functions and Tet/Hybrid elements. To be honest, I hadn't heard of such issue before...

Quote:
Originally Posted by matejfor View Post
What BC you have for epsilon and k at inlet? Are they realistic? and initial condition?
These are fine. U, k and epsilon are based on the following equations:

Uinlet == ufric*log((z+z0)/(Ka*z0)) * vector(1,0,0);
kinlet == ufric2/::sqrt(0.09);
epsiloninlet == ufric2*ufric/(Ka * (z+z0));

Quote:
Originally Posted by matejfor View Post
You may try mapFields from the hex mesh to tet and see if it is able to continue from a good solution field with tetmesh.
No, havent tried this yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matejfor View Post
How does your fvSchemes look like?

matej
I'm using pretty much the simplest schemes for now, until I can get it to run properly so I can try to refine it:

ddtSchemes
{
default steadyState;
}

gradSchemes
{
default Gauss linear;
grad(p) Gauss linear;
grad(U) Gauss linear;
}

divSchemes
{
default none;
div(phi,U) Gauss upwind;
div(phi,k) Gauss upwind;
div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind;
div(phi,R) Gauss upwind;
div(R) Gauss linear;
div(phi,nuTilda) Gauss upwind;
div((nuEff*dev(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear;
}

laplacianSchemes
{
default none;
laplacian(nuEff,U) Gauss linear corrected;
laplacian((1|A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected;
laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected;
laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected;
laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected;
laplacian(DnuTildaEff,nuTilda) Gauss linear corrected;
}

interpolationSchemes
{
default linear;
interpolate(U) linear;
}

snGradSchemes
{
default corrected;
}

fluxRequired
{
default no;
p;
}


Any help/ideas/suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks,
-Pablo
pablocg is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 9, 2009, 03:14
Default
  #7
Member
 
matej forman
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
Posts: 90
Rep Power: 7
matejfor is on a distinguished road
Hi,
by prism layer I mean a layer of typically prism-shaped elements in the boundary region for the BL better description. But your problem is not a quality of the solution but the existence of it.

What you may try is some limiting off the convection terms, something like:
div(phi,U) Gauss UpwindV cellLimited leastSquares 1.0;
or maybe 0.5.

My problem with divergence of epsilon and continuity is typically wrong BC setting, mainly of k and epsilon at inlet. I recall someone here recently suggesting setting epsilon for the initial condition 10 times higher then that of the inlet.

good luck
matej
matejfor 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
Adiabatic and Rotating wall (Convection problem) ParodDav CFX 5 April 29, 2007 19:13
ICEM CFD 5.1 problem with tetra count Baskaran CFX 2 March 13, 2006 12:59
ICEM meshing problem Forrest CFX 4 May 25, 2005 18:37
extremely simple problem... can you solve it properly? Mikhail Main CFD Forum 40 September 9, 1999 09:11
Is this problem well posed? Thomas P. Abraham Main CFD Forum 5 September 8, 1999 14:52


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:13.