# strange solver behavior---Treatment of Rough Wall

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 December 11, 2007, 17:18 strange solver behavior---Treatment of Rough Wall #1 Yi Guest   Posts: n/a Sponsored Links It is well established that if the roughness height is much higher than the first node off the wall, the solver will blow up or at least gives a warning message. However, the thickness of the first element in my mesh is 0.01m and I imposed a roughness height 0.14m, which is 14 times the size of the first element. The solver runs smoothly and the result looks reasonable. But I AM NOT HAPPY!!! BECAUSE IT IS NOT WHAT I EXPECT. Something must be wrong. Somebody help me, please! Why I still can get a solution by defining such a large roughness height??????
 Sponsored Links

 December 11, 2007, 17:21 Re: strange solver behavior---Treatment of Rough W #2 Glenn Horrocks Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, I see no reason why making the roughness height greater than the first node should make the solver fail. It means the results will be inaccurate as the mathematical model used to model the effects of roughness is not valid but the solver should still converge to a solution. Regards, Glenn Horrocks

 December 12, 2007, 18:00 Re: strange solver behavior---Treatment of Rough W #3 hannah Guest   Posts: n/a I always set my wall roughness height to 0.003ft, and first layer height of inflation to 0.001 inch, the solver never failed anyway. But How inaccuracy of the result would be? And is there any rule for this set up? Thanks

 December 13, 2007, 17:12 Re: strange solver behavior---Treatment of Rough W #4 Glenn Horrocks Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, How inaccurate? I have no idea. Do a benchmark study of flow in a pipe or flat plate with known roughness where you have good quality data to compare to (this should be easily available in the literature) and find out. Glenn Horrocks

 April 8, 2010, 16:15 #5 Member   prout Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 32 Rep Power: 10 Does anyone know more about the behavior of CFX when the roughness is superior to the size of the first element, and when the SST model is used?

 April 9, 2010, 13:24 #6 Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 532 Rep Power: 14 The behaviour is as described above. Convergence is fine, but the results are not accurate because the model is not valid in this situation.

 April 14, 2010, 18:31 #7 Member   prout Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 32 Rep Power: 10 I was looking for details, but I read the help files in between... I do not understand why the model should not valid, given the rugosity treatment used by CFX. The rugosity effect is only a shift of the boundary layer velocity. Basically, the "under the roughness" nodes are extremely slowed down. And as the rugosity height used by CFX is the sand-grain equivalent rugosity, which is even higher, there's a good chance nodes will be under it. See the help which explains quite well... Anyway, if someone has results showing the model is inaccurate, I'd be interested

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post swahono OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 12 October 4, 2013 11:49 Yr0gErG FLUENT 3 June 12, 2013 02:12 nellio75 CFX 4 November 19, 2009 06:23 lourens OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 0 July 27, 2007 05:31 André Burdet Main CFD Forum 6 December 8, 2000 22:45

 Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top