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

 April 19, 2013, 20:46 #2 Senior Member   Agustín Villa Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Fuenlabrada Posts: 307 Rep Power: 13 Hi Natali; I'm not an expert, but the difference between unsteady and steady is that you are not studying the flow at the same time: steady, the flow becomes "fix"; meanwhile unsteady, the flow changes along the time, until it arrives the time unsteady flow approachs the steady conditions. For this reason, unsteady and steady heat transfer coefficients are not the same: you're not studying the same flow conditions. I hope you understood my explanation.

 April 19, 2013, 21:16 #3 New Member   Natali Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 21 Rep Power: 11 Thanks for your answer, But, after some times, the unsteady flow should be steady. Am I right? So, why at that time the characteristics are not the same? like heat transfer coefficient?

 April 20, 2013, 02:17 #4 Senior Member   OJ Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 473 Rep Power: 18 Not all the flows are steady "after some time". eg formation of vortices behind the bluff body. These vortices will keep changing their positions and hence this flow can never be steady. Even unsteady flow can be categorized into, periodic and chaotic. Periodic flows have a pattern of repetition after certain period and thus has a certain dominant frequency. In chaotic flow, there is no single dominant frequency but there are set of frequencies. Then you need to use statistical techniques like FFT to figure out the relatively dominant frequencies from the flow characteristics. OJ agustinvo likes this.

April 20, 2013, 11:03
#5
Super Moderator

Sijal
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,552
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52
I agree with comments of OJ.

Quote:
 I am wondering how to compare a problem in steady and unsteady.
Compare time average flow parameters from unsteady simulation with steady flow solution and you will notice the difference (if there is any) .

Quote:
 However, I am running a case, but heat transfer coefficient in steady state is much much larger than that of unsteady.
How did you observe this? did you compare the instantaneous value with steady case? If so you may be get large difference at some instant.

Quote:
 So, if the transient solution reached to steady state, why the results of steady and unsteady heat transfer coefficients are not the same?
This may be the convergence problem with your steady or unsteady problem. All other settings are same? did you make the grid independence study?

Last edited by Far; April 20, 2013 at 11:44.

April 20, 2013, 18:15
#6
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far I agree with comments of OJ. Compare time average flow parameters from unsteady simulation with steady flow solution and you will notice the difference (if there is any) . How did you observe this? did you compare the instantaneous value with steady case? If so you may be get large difference at some instant. This may be the convergence problem with your steady or unsteady problem. All other settings are same? did you make the grid independence study?
Yes, all the conditions are the same. I did grid study as well. So, there is no place to consider difference between the results. I saw that the flow characteristics remain unchanged for a long time in a transient solution. Then I decided to call the flow steady. So, I expected to see the same results from the transient simulation at this time and the steady sate simulation. But, the results are much different.

 April 21, 2013, 00:38 #7 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 421 Blog Entries: 1 Rep Power: 20 Maybe your steady case has not converged yet. Have you tried to switch from unsteady to steady simulation with the case&data you obtained from long-time transient simulation?

April 21, 2013, 01:23
#8
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by blackmask Maybe your steady case has not converged yet. Have you tried to switch from unsteady to steady simulation with the case&data you obtained from long-time transient simulation?
I didn't try that but for sure the steady state solution is converged. I checked that by observing several flow characteristics, as well as checking the changes in mass flow rates, friction coeff, heat transfer coeff, etc.

 April 21, 2013, 03:21 #9 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,552 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 52 can you show the convergence plots of both cases? Did you check the solution at lower time step ?

April 21, 2013, 12:33
#10
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far can you show the convergence plots of both cases? Did you check the solution at lower time step ?
The time-step I am using is 1e-6 s. In fact, I always use lower time-step to be safe.
Regarding the convergency, I just check the changes in flow parameters and since for a long time no changes happen for their values, I decided that the flow became steady. Is that enough to check the convergency? Or do I have to check anything else?

Thanks for all your times and care,
Natali

 April 21, 2013, 12:41 #11 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,552 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 52 What if you use 0.1 s time step and it should not make any difference as case is steady state!

April 21, 2013, 12:47
#12
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far What if you use 0.1 s time step and it should not make any difference as case is steady state!
Sorry,
I am confused. I don't get what exactly you say.

 April 21, 2013, 12:51 #13 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,552 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 52 I am saying if your case is steady state then it should give same results with steady, unsteady with 0.1 s time step, unsteady with 0.005 s time step and 1e-06 s time step. With 1e-06 time step you may need longer time to reach steady state while with larger time step you may get convergence in less time.

April 21, 2013, 12:56
#14
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far I am saying if your case is steady state then it should give same results with steady, unsteady with 0.1 s time step, unsteady with 0.005 s time step and 1e-06 s time step. With 1e-06 time step you may need longer time to reach steady state while with larger time step you may get convergence in less time.
oh. That is exactly a confusing stuff that I am struggling with that. I had tried to run the case with 1e-6 s and 1e-2 s, before. However, it seems many phenomena are ignored when time-step is large. That seems reasonable. That's why I tried to use small time-step. In fact, based on Courant number and some other factors, I think working with small time step is more safe, especially in combustion problems.
I really appreciate you correct me wherever I am wrong.
Thanks,

April 21, 2013, 13:40
#15
Super Moderator

Sijal
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,552
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 52
Quote:
 I am wondering how to compare a problem in steady and unsteady.
Compare some time averaged parameters with steady state solution.

Quote:
 However, it seems many phenomena are ignored when time-step is large

April 21, 2013, 13:43
#16
New Member

Natali
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far Compare some time averaged parameters with steady state solution. This may be the reason that your steady and unsteady results are different
Yes, actually in my problem there are different time-scales and that's why I have to use very small time-step.