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

Extreme drop in drag after 70 iterations

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

Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By ghorrocks
  • 1 Post By ghorrocks

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   February 9, 2018, 10:31
Default Extreme drop in drag after 70 iterations
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 8
krihamm is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I am running a transient simulating of drag over a body at supersonic speeds. I have added a monitor point to monitor the progress of drag throughout each iteration. The drag seems to settle around 0.7, which is what is expected. However, after a few more iterations, the drag drops to below -1000. Anyone have any idea where this error could come from?

Thanks!
krihamm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2018, 10:49
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Gert-Jan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,823
Rep Power: 27
Gert-Jan will become famous soon enough
Did you create monitoring points around your object, where you monitor p,v,T,Mach etc? From that you might get an idea what is really happening during your calculation.

Also, you could create a backup file at iteration 70 (drag 0.7) and at iteration 80 (drag -1000) and compare the results in Post.
Gert-Jan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 9, 2018, 18:24
Default
  #3
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,690
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
This is almost certainly the solver starting to diverge. Pretty soon I would expect the simulation will totally diverge and crash with a floating point error. See the FAQ: https://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansy...do_about_it.3F
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2018, 04:46
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 8
krihamm is on a distinguished road
Thank you both for your answers! I will do some modifications and try again.

I was also wondering about the size of the fluid domain. Is there any guideline concerning the ratio between the size of the object and the surrounding fluid domain? I haven't been able to find any definite answer.
krihamm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2018, 06:09
Default
  #5
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,690
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
The proximity depends on the flow regime so it is hard to give guidelines. But as your object is supersonic that means it is likely to have a very long wake and shockwaves. This means the downstream boundary will need to be a long way downstream and the side boundaries quite a way back too. For subsonic models the downstream boundary 20 times the object size down stream and the side boundaries 5 times the object size away is a starting point, but it is quite likely that will be too close for your case.

The best way to determine it is to do a sensitivity study. Generate a mesh with the downstream boundary 20, 40 and 80 times long and see what the difference between the results is. This will allow you to choose a length to give the accuracy you require.
krihamm likes this.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2018, 06:27
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 8
krihamm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
The proximity depends on the flow regime so it is hard to give guidelines. But as your object is supersonic that means it is likely to have a very long wake and shockwaves. This means the downstream boundary will need to be a long way downstream and the side boundaries quite a way back too. For subsonic models the downstream boundary 20 times the object size down stream and the side boundaries 5 times the object size away is a starting point, but it is quite likely that will be too close for your case.

The best way to determine it is to do a sensitivity study. Generate a mesh with the downstream boundary 20, 40 and 80 times long and see what the difference between the results is. This will allow you to choose a length to give the accuracy you require.
How about if you slice the object and domain along a symmetry plane and set the side boundary condition as symmetry in order to save computational time? Would you expect that to generate different results than including the whole geometry and fluid domain?
krihamm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 10, 2018, 17:53
Default
  #7
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,690
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
Again, that is problem dependant. If the flow is symmetrical this is a good idea any you should do it. If the flow is asymmetric then you should not do it. Note that symmetric geometries can generate asymmetric flows, such as the Von Karman vortex street (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A..._vortex_street)
krihamm likes this.
__________________
Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Free surface issues with interDyMFoam for hydroturbine oumnion OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 October 6, 2017 14:05
Wrong fluctuation of pressure in transient simulation caitao OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 March 5, 2015 21:33
Unstabil Simulation with chtMultiRegionFoam mbay101 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 13 December 28, 2013 13:12
Micro Scale Pore, icoFoam gooya_kabir OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 November 2, 2013 13:58
Differences between serial and parallel runs carsten OpenFOAM Bugs 11 September 12, 2008 11:16


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:03.