Contra rotating rotor
 

Sir, i would like to do analysis of contra rotating rotors in Turbo mode... out of two options (Stage and Frozen rotor ) which option i use and why?
while opting option of stage i found difficulty in convergence like for so many iterations(400) it will not converge to 10E-5.
same case for frozen rotor also... reason behind it?

The difference between stage and frozen rotor is described in the documentation. Have a look here for tips on convergence issues: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

Probably you have to use stage, because if there are big changes in the flow structure on the interfaces, this is the recommended interface type. Rotating frames are always hard to converge, mostly if you use pressure boundary conditions. Probably it is not related to the mesh. If you post more details (geometry, boundary conditions, convergence history, out file), we can help you more. Post mesh pic from the interface also.

i herewith sending you convergence plot

I will say it again - this FAQ covers the general issues here: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

If you post more specific details we might be able to narrow it down a bit.

i herewith attached out file for your consideration

Why are you using the alternate rotation model?

I note you have adiabatic walls all round. Obviously you will need to update that when the flow is working.

But other than that it seems like a classic case, as discussed in this FAQ: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys...gence_criteria

This is the third time I have quoted this FAQ on this thread, I hope you eventually read it.

Have you checked if you use periodic, you have to divide the outlet mass flow?
Use 1 bar reference pressure, and 0 to relative and so on.
Instead of alternate model put the rotor domains into rotating frame of reference, and take care of the rotation direction.
What is R1 to R1 internal interface??
Between the rotors use stage.
Set time scale to aggressive to converge faster. I it doesn't diverge, ramp up the factor (in the solver, during the run) to 5, 10 or maybe higher.
Are you sure that 1.2million elements will be enough to capture a difficult physics like this? (it can be, but it depends on your problem)