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

nNonOrthogonalCorrectors

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

Like Tree16Likes
  • 7 Post By hjasak
  • 9 Post By hjasak

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 16, 2009, 17:02
Default nNonOrthogonalCorrectors
  #1
Member
 
Primoz Ternik
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maribor, Slovenia
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
ternik is on a distinguished road
Hi,

when simulating flow past cylinder one will (most likely) end up with the non-orthogonal mesh. How many "NonOrthogonalCorrectors" should be used? In OF-User Guide it is written that 20 "NonOrthogonalCorrectors" should be used for the most non-orthogonal meshes... Non-orthogonality of my mesh (after running checkMesh) is:
  • Max: 44.7371
  • Average: 16.8382
Thanks for your advice,
Primoz.
ternik is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2009, 06:35
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Giovanni Ricci
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 7
gricci is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to gricci
Maybe someone more expert will correct me, but i believe there is no fixed rule...
up now i've often set the number of nonOrthogonalCorrectors comparing the velocity profiles on a potential flow. Most of the time, I've noticed that 2 correctors are sufficient.
hope it helps
gricci is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2009, 07:03
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
I can confirm gricci's experience.
I have played around with the number of non-orthogonal corrector loops and found that 2 are sufficient.
If I used more than 2 corrector loops the computational time was severely increased without improving the solution.
__________________
Schrödingers wife: "What did you do to the cat? It's half dead!"
sega is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2009, 09:44
Default
  #4
Member
 
Primoz Ternik
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maribor, Slovenia
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
ternik is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sega View Post
I can confirm gricci's experience.
I have played around with the number of non-orthogonal corrector loops and found that 2 are sufficient.
If I used more than 2 corrector loops the computational time was severely increased without improving the solution.

Hi Sega (& Gricci),

thank you for your reply. I will give it try with with 2 (o.k. maybe 3) non-orthogonal corrector loops and... Non-orthogonal corrector loop(s) corrects the solution of pressure filed and velocity filed as well?

With greetings from Slovenia,
Primoz.
ternik is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 17, 2009, 16:30
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,880
Rep Power: 25
alberto will become famous soon enoughalberto will become famous soon enough
I agree with 2 or 3. If you need more, it might be the case of reconsidering the mesh
__________________
Alberto

GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as live DVD/USB, hard drive image and virtual image.
GeekoCFD 32bit - The 32bit edition of GeekoCFD.
GeekoCFD text mode - A smaller version of GeekoCFD, text-mode only, with only OpenFOAM. Available in a variety of virtual formats.
alberto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2009, 04:35
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,734
Rep Power: 20
hjasak will become famous soon enough
On this mesh you do not need non-orthogonal correctors at all. There's usually nothing to worry about until the max non-orthogonality angle is approx 70 deg.

Hrv
lakeat, happydogy, Amir and 4 others like this.
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak
Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk
hjasak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2009, 07:36
Default
  #7
Member
 
Primoz Ternik
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maribor, Slovenia
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
ternik is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjasak View Post
On this mesh you do not need non-orthogonal correctors at all. There's usually nothing to worry about until the max non-orthogonality angle is approx 70 deg.

Hrv
Thanks for this - but using non-orthogonal correctors (for example 2 or 3) will result in "more accurate" results or...

Regards,
Primoz.
ternik is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2009, 07:41
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,734
Rep Power: 20
hjasak will become famous soon enough
Not really "more accurate". If you are running steady, you are doing iterations that will correct non-orthogonality (among other things), and in transient, you are running multiple PISO/SIMPLE correctors which will do the same thing.

Non-orthogonal correctorsare here to save you if your code is blowing up because the mesh is so non-orthogonal that the first solution is driving the velocity to be stupid. If your velocity is OK, you just keep doing "normal" correctors, without special need for non-orthogonal ones.

I use them on bad meshes (some people call them "industrial") when the solver is giving me trouble. Usually, 1 is enough, and I never used more than 3.

Hope this helps,

Hrvoje
lakeat, happydogy, fisch and 6 others like this.
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak
Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk
hjasak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 18, 2009, 07:58
Default
  #9
Member
 
Primoz Ternik
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maribor, Slovenia
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
ternik is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjasak View Post
Not really "more accurate". If you are running steady, you are doing iterations that will correct non-orthogonality (among other things), and in transient, you are running multiple PISO/SIMPLE correctors which will do the same thing.

Non-orthogonal correctorsare here to save you if your code is blowing up because the mesh is so non-orthogonal that the first solution is driving the velocity to be stupid. If your velocity is OK, you just keep doing "normal" correctors, without special need for non-orthogonal ones.

I use them on bad meshes (some people call them "industrial") when the solver is giving me trouble. Usually, 1 is enough, and I never used more than 3.

Hope this helps,

Hrvoje
Yep, this helps. Thanks again for really helpful information on this subject.

Currently, my mesh is "academic"

With best wishes,
Primoz.
ternik 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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37.