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

Cyclic boundary matching - help needed

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 15, 2011, 08:03
Default Cyclic boundary matching - help needed
  #1
New Member
 
Robert
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 6
Robert_B is on a distinguished road
I am trying to simulate steady flow through an axisymmetric pulse combustor. I have constructed a mesh, constituting a 90 degree slice of the axisymmetric geometry. At the two faces where I have "sliced" through my combustor, I have defined cyclic boundary conditions. I am struggling to match these two cyclic boundary regions to each other.

My mesh is tetrahedral, with no extrusion layers on the two sliced faces (except at their edges where they meet adjacent non-sliced faces).

I am using arbitrary matching, as the boundary cells on each of the two faces do not explicitly match. One face has 65526 boundaries, the other has 64227 boundaries. The match type is regular.

I specify an offset of 90 degrees (under a cylindrical co-ordinate system) between the two regions to be matched. My tolerance is the default value of 0.01.

I start the matching process, and once finished StarCD tells me that "9027 MATCHES HAVE BEEN CREATED". I confirm that 9027 matches have been created by checking in Lists>Cyclic Sets.

When I try to validate my model (Analysis preparation > Model validation), I encounter problems. When I validate my boundaries, I am told "BOUNDARY CHECK PASSED SUCCESSFULLY".

But when I validate my cyclic sets I get a lot of error messages - almost one message for each cyclic set. (There are some cyclic sets that do not generate any error). A typical message reads "**ERROR - BOUNDARIES 309696 AND 373966 OF CYCLIC SET 9027 DO NOT OVERLAP".

I have tried raising the matching tolerance to 0.1 and then to 1.0, but this seems to have almost no effect. Almost the same number of matches are created (9043 with tolerance = 1.0), and I still get the error messages when I try to validate.


Can anyone offer any help with this? I have never used any CFD software before StarCD, and I have been using StarCD for about a month, so I am a novice to CFD.

Thanks
Rob
Robert_B is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 15, 2011, 12:44
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Pauli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 181
Rep Power: 8
Pauli is on a distinguished road
Sounds like you are doing it correctly.

Here is what I'd do next:
1) Visually verify the boundary faces are complaining about. For example, plot boundary 309696 and 373966. Are they close to one another?
2) Verify you do not have duplicate boundary patches within the two regions. I'd just delete & recreate the two regions.
3) Send it to support.
Pauli is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 23, 2011, 13:39
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Robert
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 6
Robert_B is on a distinguished road
Thanks Pauli. Unfortunately I had already tried steps 1 and 2, without success.

1) Yes, they are close to each other - in fact they should lie on top of one another when you project the first cyclic face onto the second one.

2) I've redone the regions several times. I have now also reconstructed my mesh (my supervisor told me that my original one was too coarse), and I am having the same matching problem with the new mesh.

I haven't sent it to support. Instead, as it is a 90deg slice of an axisymmetric problem, I have replaced the cyclic boundaries with symmetry planes. This seems to work fine thus far.

Cheers
Rob
Robert_B is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2011, 15:35
Default
  #4
New Member
 
qunfeng zhang
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 7
bjtuzhang is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_B View Post
Thanks Pauli. Unfortunately I had already tried steps 1 and 2, without success.

1) Yes, they are close to each other - in fact they should lie on top of one another when you project the first cyclic face onto the second one.

2) I've redone the regions several times. I have now also reconstructed my mesh (my supervisor told me that my original one was too coarse), and I am having the same matching problem with the new mesh.

I haven't sent it to support. Instead, as it is a 90deg slice of an axisymmetric problem, I have replaced the cyclic boundaries with symmetry planes. This seems to work fine thus far.

Cheers
Rob
The cyclic boundaries is different with the symmetry plane. It will influence your results.
You would like to generate the mesh by ICEMCFD and then match the cyclic boundaries with integral. The tolerance is relative to the unit you have chosen. The larger tolerance is better for the uint(mm) and the smaller tolerance is better for the unit(m).
bjtuzhang is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 15, 2011, 07:11
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Robert
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 6
Robert_B is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjtuzhang View Post
The cyclic boundaries is different with the symmetry plane. It will influence your results.
You would like to generate the mesh by ICEMCFD and then match the cyclic boundaries with integral. The tolerance is relative to the unit you have chosen. The larger tolerance is better for the uint(mm) and the smaller tolerance is better for the unit(m).
How exactly is using cyclic boundaries any different to using symmetry planes in this case. I am modelling a 90deg slice of an axisymmeteric system with no swirl. Surely I should get the same results using symmetry planes or cyclic boudaries on my sliced faces?
Robert_B is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 15, 2011, 08:03
Default
  #6
Member
 
Robert
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 8
RobertB is on a distinguished road
I would say that simple theory would say you were right and if you took your final symm plane solution and swapped boundaries then you might retain the same solution.

During startup it is very easy to generate a swirl component when the flow solution is getting going. Typically there is nothing to dissipate this swirl and it can become self reinforcing.

As a practical consideration it almost always works better if you minimize the domain to its most basic level, such as making what could theoretically be cyclics be symm planes.
RobertB is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
boundary, cyclic, matching

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
Implementation of boundary conditions for FVM Tom Main CFD Forum 7 August 26, 2014 05:58
RPM in Wind Turbine Pankaj CFX 9 November 23, 2009 05:05
Adaptive Mesh Refinement and Cyclic Boundary Conditions adona058 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 6 October 23, 2009 09:17
Trimmed cell and embedded refinement mesh conversion issues michele OpenFOAM Other Meshers: ICEM, Star, Ansys, Pointwise, GridPro, Ansa, ... 2 July 15, 2005 04:15
About Pressure Field with Cyclic Boundary Conditio Jiaying Xu CD-adapco 2 October 4, 2001 09:11


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56.