
[Sponsors] 
May 6, 2012, 07:55 
Fluent Pressure outlet b.c.

#1 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Hi all,
i am doing a simulation for flow expansion within an exhaust nozzle, using Fluent 6.3. i used pressure inlet b.c and pressure outlet b.c. (with target mass flow). I am doing simulation for a compressible subsonic flow. For the nozzle exit, i used 101325Pa for the static gage pressure for pressure outlet, but the simulation always give me a static pressure that is either higher or lower than this value! Can anyone kindly give me some advice on what happened and what should i do if i want to make the exit pressure fixed at 1 atm? thank you all! 

May 6, 2012, 08:53 

#2 
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Rep Power: 8 
I also had problems with pressure outlet and traget mass flow rate (see mass flow inlet and pressure outlet with target mass flow rate)
and here is how fluent does it: https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Flu...ug/node244.htm So if you waqnt to fix the pressure deactivate the "target mass flow rate" To get the right mass flow rate you have to change your inlet pressure (if your outlet pressure is fixed) 

May 6, 2012, 09:17 
Reply

#3 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Hi Zigainer,
So does it mean that i cannot get the desired outlet pressure, and the desired mass flow both at the same time? Will the mesh affect the simulation results as well? i have tried previously running without target mass flow, with meshes of different grid density. All give me different outlet pressure. My simulation this time gives me an outlet mach number of 0.3, but the flow is not expanded to atmospheric pressure, which i think is not theoretically possible. Any advice? 

May 6, 2012, 14:08 

#4  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,886
Rep Power: 26 
Quote:
Quote:
You can have a mach number of 0.3 at many different pressures depending on the density/temperature. It is theoretically possible & allowed. 

May 6, 2012, 21:10 

#5 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Hi all,
i tried both methods already i.e. mass flow inlet with pressure oulet and pressure inlet with pressure outlet (no target mass flow). The first failed to converge due to divergence (floating point number exceeded). the second converged with weird results. below shows the convergence results for the 2nd simulation run. If anyone knows what is the problem, mind sharing with me? thanks! 

May 6, 2012, 21:35 

#6  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,886
Rep Power: 26 
Are you using the pressure or density based solver? Spatial discretization?
Try better initialization or reducing underrelaxation factors? If possible, you can try solving it using the pressure based solver first and then switching to the density based solver once you have a somewhat converged solution using the pressure based solver. How are you judging that the flow is converged with weird results? If so, what are the results? All you showed is a residual plot. Quote:
The pressure inlet & pressure outlet combination is by far the most robust of boundary conditions. You should have no trouble getting this one to converge (with accurate results, not weird ones) unless you messed up terribly somewhere else. 

May 6, 2012, 21:47 
Reply

#7 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Hi LuckyTran,
I am using densitybased solver. The results are weird basically because they don't give me any actual results. Taking my exhaust nozzle for example, the simulation does not give me the velocity distribution of flow within the nozzle. I will upload the results once i have my simulation files with me. Fluent also reports fragmentation error/violation whenever i try to get the flow analysis (e.g. surface integral, contour etc) Will solving using pressure based solver help a lot? 

May 6, 2012, 21:50 

#8 
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,886
Rep Power: 26 
The segregated pressure based solver is much more stable than the coupled density based solver. It will not be as accurate for compressible flows as the density based solver but you can temporarily use it to get a better initialization before switching to the density based solver.


May 7, 2012, 09:28 

#9 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Hi Luckytran,
i have attached a screen shot of the velocity magnitude from my simulation results. I am dealing with a flow that ranges from Mach 0.25 to Mach 0.35. The operating pressure that i set is 0, and the exit gage pressure i set is 101325Pa. I previously used density based solver, with energy equation turned on. The material set is ideal gas (since i do not know exactly what the density of the flow is). I will try your suggestion to adjust the underrelaxation rule and see how the simulation goes. Thanks! 

May 7, 2012, 12:19 

#10 
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,886
Rep Power: 26 

May 7, 2012, 18:55 

#11 
New Member
Choon Yee
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7 
Nope. The simulations dont't seem be complete running as seen in the mass flow diagram previously.
I tried reducing under relaxation but doesn't help. I couldn't change to pressure based solver directly because the simulations cannot even start running. I guess it might be because the flow is a compressible flow? I tried changin the material, but realized I do not know its density and ideal gas calculation might be the best option for me. I tried changing the inlet b.c to mass flow inlet but the simulations cannot be completed as well. The same case happened, like what you see in the residual picture. I suspect it could be the problem with my nozzle design. What do you think? 

May 7, 2012, 19:16 

#12  
Senior Member
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,886
Rep Power: 26 
Quote:
How can a simulation not start? If all the boundary conditions are present, an the solution is initialize, and the solver setup, if it still does not work then your computer must not have been paid its monthly rent. How do you not know the density? You have no clue? You should have some guess of what it is. Help the solver any way you can. Although the ideal gas calculation would be better eventually for the compressible flow option, you should have again some idea of what the flow looks like to even setup the initial conditions. It is very easy for a simulation to diverge with the improper initial conditions (such as initializing with the wrong pressure/temperature/density/velocity). Most importantly, figure out what is diverging in the simulation. Check actual engineering values and not just residuals or simple reports. Your nozzle design is up to you. 

January 17, 2015, 17:56 
Fluent natural ventilation pressure boundary condition

#13 
New Member
ahmed halabe
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 
Hello All,
I have a problem with a pressure outlet. My problem is a natural convection in wall Trombe , My question is: It is possible to set BC type: pressure outlet at the entrance? Thank in advance 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
operation pressure and pressure outlet BC  Lilly  FLUENT  4  May 8, 2013 09:57 
VOF Outlet boundary condition in cfd  ace  JM  Main CFD Forum  0  December 15, 2006 09:07 
Which B.C. i should apply for this problem?urgent  raivish  FLUENT  0  January 6, 2006 09:48 
Gas pressure question  Dan Moskal  Main CFD Forum  0  October 24, 2002 22:02 
Hydrostatic pressure in 2phase flow modeling (long)  DS & HB  Main CFD Forum  0  January 8, 2000 16:00 