CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > CFX

Residuals increase suddenly- Transient heat transfer simulation-CHT

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   November 14, 2017, 05:12
Default Residuals increase suddenly- Transient heat transfer simulation-CHT
  #1
Member
 
VB
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
Vishnu_bharathi is on a distinguished road
I am doing transient heat transfer simulation, where I have Fluid domain(high temp fluid is given at inlet) and solid domain(as insulation). Fluid pass through porous domain which has insulation(solid domain) over it. The fluid tries to increase the temperature of porous domain which is insulated.

I have attached residual monitor and imbalance that I observed. The residual shoots up over 350 Iterations approximately. Initially I had used outlet bdary condition but since I received 'A wall has been placed at the outlet and try using opening boundary condition', I changed the outlet to opening and additionally I moved the outlet distance by a factor of 3 compared with previous simulation run. Regarding the mesh quality - It is very good since I am using simple geometry with Multizone option. I did not receive any other warnings or messages while solver completed its run. I have attached images of the velocity vectors near outlet region. I use SST model, Total energy option(fluid is compressible). What I observed from the velocity vector contour is, when the temperature (from ambient) starts increasing near outlet the iteration number is about 350 and the residuals starts to osciallte or shoot up as seen from the image.

What might be the problem here? If anyother information is missing here I would like to add to have better understanding.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg imblances.JPG (2.6 KB, 118 views)
File Type: jpg residual graph.JPG (131.3 KB, 62 views)
File Type: jpg velocity vector at end of simulation.JPG (100.3 KB, 36 views)
File Type: jpg velocity vector at 300 Iteration.JPG (92.1 KB, 26 views)
File Type: jpg velocity vector at 400 iteration.JPG (88.1 KB, 24 views)
Vishnu_bharathi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 14, 2017, 16:55
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,324
Rep Power: 138
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
The flow at the outlet appears to be flapping about. This is likely to be the cause of the "A wall has been placed..." and the poor convergence.

Is this flapping real? You can get flows like this, so it is possible it is real. But your outlet boundary is certainly too close to the action, it will need to be further downstream. That would be the first thing I would try.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 15, 2017, 10:28
Default
  #3
Member
 
VB
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
Vishnu_bharathi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
The flow at the outlet appears to be flapping about. This is likely to be the cause of the "A wall has been placed..." and the poor convergence.

Is this flapping real? You can get flows like this, so it is possible it is real. But your outlet boundary is certainly too close to the action, it will need to be further downstream. That would be the first thing I would try.
Thank you for the response

1. About the flapping, I do not know. I am really interested in the temperature distribution in the porous region(with its circumference insulated by solid domain) caused by the hot fluid passing through. So, I have started a simulation by moving the oulet by a factor 3.5 from the previous run.

Apart from extending the outlet far away, I am using 'opening' condition with 0 Pa relative pressure, with constant ambient temperature as 25C at outlet boundary because of the % of wall has been placed message. For my case, I see the pressure just after the porous domain is very low(less than the ambient) and being set 'opening condition' at outlet, I observe inflows to certain extent.(outside its ambient so obviously this inflow make sense). How shall I view this?Extending the outlet further away from porous end, Will it have an effect on the message "A wall has been placed"?

2. I am using Interruption criteria to stop my simulation(to perform Charging and discharging cycles):

i) for this, in my previous run I used 'massFlowavg(Temperature)@outlet' to interrupt charging cycle simulation and also defined the monitor point using the same expression as above. When I observed the monitor points in the solver run, I see it osciallates like saw tooth. Why is that? Is it because of the backflow and irregular fluid flow near or at the monitor surface(ie., outlet)?

3. I made blocks of the porous domain in Design modeller using share topology. I did this in order to create monitor surfaces at regular interval from start of porous domain. I used expression 'massFlowavg(T)@porous start face,intermidate face 1, intermediate face2, intermediate face3,....,porous end face' to monitor average temperature. While monitoring I observed temperature at porous start face and at end face was correct as expected but temperatures at inter.face1,inter.face2,....inter.facen to be varying exponentally from positive to negative. What is wrong here? (porous start face , porous end face are the ones where porous medium has interface with fluid domain and other intermedia faces are created within porous domain for monitor surfaces)

Ultimately, I want to create an Interrupt condition where avg temp. will be used at specified distance from the domain start face.

P.S: Ref attached pic for question 2 & 3
Attached Images
File Type: jpg question 2 _ illustration.jpg (99.1 KB, 24 views)
File Type: jpg question 3 _ illustration.jpg (66.2 KB, 12 views)

Last edited by Vishnu_bharathi; November 15, 2017 at 12:06. Reason: input added to statement 1.
Vishnu_bharathi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 15, 2017, 17:23
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,324
Rep Power: 138
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
I would stop work on the charging and discharging cycles for now. You appear to have some fundamental problems with the simulation and I would sort them out before adding the additional complexity of a duty cycle.

The flapping is fundamental. You need to work out whether this is real (and then you need to model it properly) or false (and then you need to change the numerics to stop it).

Also the massive temperature results show something is wrong there too.

Some suggestions:
* Extent the outlet boundary further, much further.
* You appear to be having similar flapping on the inlet as well, so try extending the inlet as well.
* Does experimental results suggest this flapping is real?
* Are you sure your boundary conditions are appropriate?
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 15, 2017, 17:44
Default massFlowAvg(T) at intermediate surfaces in a domain
  #5
Member
 
VB
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
Vishnu_bharathi is on a distinguished road
Hi Ghorrocks,

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into it and see how it spans out.

Do you have any suggestion for why "massFlowAvg(T)@plane" does not work when used to find avg temperature at intermediate surfaces created from DM. It works for when I use "massFlowAvg" expression at interface surfaces but not in between faces in a domain.(eg., it gives +/- e+17 values for Temperature)
(Please check No. 3 above)
Vishnu_bharathi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 15, 2017, 17:47
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,324
Rep Power: 138
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
No, I cannot explain the out of control temperature. Check the results file to see whether the temperature really is those sort of values in that region.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 19, 2017, 07:20
Default
  #7
Member
 
VB
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
Vishnu_bharathi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
The flow at the outlet appears to be flapping about. This is likely to be the cause of the "A wall has been placed..." and the poor convergence.

Is this flapping real? You can get flows like this, so it is possible it is real. But your outlet boundary is certainly too close to the action, it will need to be further downstream. That would be the first thing I would try.
I tried with extending the outlet further downstream. by approx 8 times the initial length. But unfortunately it did not change anything.I tried few more other basic things which I say it new thread.
Vishnu_bharathi is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
cfx 16.2, cht problem, heat transfer, residuals every iteration, transient 3d

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problem with total heat transfer rate aswathy_raghu FLUENT 9 April 21, 2022 10:36
No heat transfer in transient simulation (Fluent) Leo5217 FLUENT 0 July 30, 2016 09:46
Question about heat transfer coefficient setting for CFX Anna Tian CFX 1 June 16, 2013 06:28
Water subcooled boiling Attesz CFX 7 January 5, 2013 03:32
How can I increase Heat Transfer at Domain Interf? B.Simon CFX 3 October 28, 2008 18:53


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:15.