# Under-relaxation for steady state simulation in CFX

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

 March 24, 2011, 10:20 Under-relaxation for steady state simulation in CFX #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Zurich Posts: 176 Rep Power: 8 In Solver control, one can change the Timescale factor when Timescale control is set to 'Auto Timescale' option. For many of my steady state simulations, I observe that the simulation shows lack of convergence (residuals stabilizing above convergence criteria) with the default value of Timescale factor (which is 1). However, when I reduce this factor, simulation converges. In some cases I had to reduce this factor to 0.1 to get convergence. Although CFX manual describes that one can specify physical timescale instead of auto timescale to get convergence, simply reducing the timescale factor for Auto timescale option seems more straightforward and better. Is it okay to do so? Also, does reducing this timescale factor to say 0.1 mean choosing an under-relaxation of 0.1?

 March 24, 2011, 16:20 #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 532 Rep Power: 14 If you make the timestep small enough then it's similar to using a very small relaxation factor. Basically you are freezing the solution, so the residuals might converge but it doesn't mean the solution is any good. I'd recommend you figure out why it didn't converge in the first place.

 March 25, 2011, 05:28 #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Zurich Posts: 176 Rep Power: 8 @stumpy Yes you are very right that there there may be some other issues and I am trying to find out those. Especially because the CFX manual says that the timescale chosen by the solver is on the conservative side. But isn't under-relaxation a valid way to slow down and hence help convergence for non-linear equations? If the solution does converge with under-relaxation, would it not mean that the residuals (difference between partial differential equation and its discretized counterpart) have reduced to below the convergence criteria? I am not able to understand why the solution may be incorrect. It would be of great help if you could explain it in more detail. Thanks !

 March 27, 2011, 18:12 #4 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 13,808 Rep Power: 107 I do not understand your post. As stumpy says, CFX uses the time step size instead of under relaxation as the main method to stabilise the equations. So yes, under-relaxation is a "valid way to .. help convergence", but CFX uses time step size. A converged solution is a converged solution, regardless of how you got there. No idea what you mean about "the solution may be incorrect".

April 1, 2011, 05:47
#5
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Zurich
Posts: 176
Rep Power: 8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks So yes, under-relaxation is a "valid way to .. help convergence", but CFX uses time step size. A converged solution is a converged solution, regardless of how you got there. No idea what you mean about "the solution may be incorrect".
Glenn,

Ok, so reducing the timescale multiplication factor reduces the time step taken by CFX solver . I said 'solution may be incorrect' as stumpy replied that reducing the timescale factor may not be the right approach. But you commented that converged solution is a converged solution whatever may be the approach. So should I understand that that its ok to reduce the timescale factor by as much as one order of magnitude to get convergence? or even more?
CFX support had once cautioned me against reducing the timescale factor so much and said that I should check if something else is not right in my simulation setup. I am not sure why they cautioned so.

 May 1, 2014, 00:30 query #6 New Member   Manpreet Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 14 Rep Power: 5 Hello Guys, I need a help. Could anyone tell me physical significance of time scale factor / physical timescale. In my project. whenever I use physical timescale 1E-5 or 6 then I get smooth curve for mass ,momentum etc equations and if I use 1E-4.then its large variation in curve. Wt does it mean?? I did not get it. Through tutorials I got one formula that is for advection dominated flow; Timescale = delta t = L /U = length scale/ velocity scale I did not get its meaning exactly. Thanks Manpreet Singh manpreet_singh_er@yahoo.co.in

 May 1, 2014, 09:09 #7 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 13,808 Rep Power: 107 The time scale in a steady state simulation determines how fast you are advancing the solution. A very small time scale means very slow advancement and slow convergence. A large time scale means fast advancement and faster convergence - as long as you are not too fast because then it goes unstable and diverges.

May 1, 2014, 12:44
#8
Member

Kevin Hoopes
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ghorrocks The time scale in a steady state simulation determines how fast you are advancing the solution. A very small time scale means very slow advancement and slow convergence. A large time scale means fast advancement and faster convergence - as long as you are not too fast because then it goes unstable and diverges.
This is exactly right. I would also suggest not judging convergence based on residuals alone. Create monitor points in CFX-Pre for things that interest you, drag, pressure drop, velocity and then monitor their evolution as you run the simulation. Ideally you should choose monitors based on the goal of the simulation as this is the data you will extract when its complete anyway. Using monitor points like this will tell you a lot about whether you are reaching steady state.

 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 taedeneo CFX 3 September 11, 2009 07:29 IvanCFD CFX 1 August 16, 2009 08:28 rogbrito CFX 0 June 22, 2009 12:12 NVSD BABU CFX 3 February 25, 2009 01:58 Miguel Baritto CFX 4 August 31, 2006 12:02

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00.