CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

CFX overwhelming Fluent in mass convergence of boundary layer separation case

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   March 23, 2015, 19:58
Question CFX overwhelming Fluent in mass convergence of boundary layer separation case
  #1
Member
 
Pierre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8
Pierre1 is on a distinguished road
I use both Fluent and CFX to optimize airfoils. I tried both of them. A lot features of Fluent make me like it very much. But one drawback of Fluent totally denies the selection of Fluent for my case.

Fluent doesn't converge as well as CFX for flow with boundary separation, especially the mass flow continuity convergence. Mass flow continuity convergence is essential for airfoil CFD (I guess thatís the most important convergence criteria for most of the other cases as well). If we look at the CFX simulations convergence histories, their mass convergence is always better than their momentum convergence, which is just opposite to the same case run by Fluent. If there's boundary layer separation, Fluent will have much much larger difficulty than CFX at mass convergence. I guess that's the drawback of partially explicit algorithm of Fluent compared with CFX's fully implicit algorithm.

Any comment on this though? Does anyone have similar experience?
Pierre1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 24, 2015, 22:10
Question
  #2
Member
 
Pierre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8
Pierre1 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre1 View Post
I use both Fluent and CFX to optimize airfoils. I tried both of them. A lot features of Fluent make me like it very much. But one drawback of Fluent totally denies the selection of Fluent for my case.

Fluent doesn't converge as well as CFX for flow with boundary separation, especially the mass flow continuity convergence. Mass flow continuity convergence is essential for airfoil CFD (I guess thatís the most important convergence criteria for most of the other cases as well). If we look at the CFX simulations convergence histories, their mass convergence is always better than their momentum convergence, which is just opposite to the same case run by Fluent. If there's boundary layer separation, Fluent will have much much larger difficulty than CFX at mass convergence. I guess that's the drawback of partially explicit algorithm of Fluent compared with CFX's fully implicit algorithm.

Any comment on this though? Does anyone have similar experience?
Any comment or experience?
Pierre1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 25, 2015, 15:33
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 51
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
First, can you define mass continuity convergence? And are residuals involved in this definition?
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2015, 09:19
Red face
  #4
Member
 
Pierre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8
Pierre1 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
First, can you define mass continuity convergence? And are residuals involved in this definition?
Just look at Fluent Theory Guide 1.2.1. ‘The Mass Conservation Equation’.

The first convergence criteria in Fluent is typically the ‘continuity’. The continuity equation is the mass conservation equation.

Residual is defined in Fluent User Guide 28.15.1.
Pierre1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2015, 09:28
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 51
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Yes there are mass conservation equations and residuals but convergence criteria are another story.

I am asking how you are defining convergence, which is not a Fluent definition. Reduction of residuals cannot be used as a definition of convergence (only relative convergence) and this is especially true for the continuity residual. Convergence should be defined in terms of actual solution values. To demonstrate:

If you initialize the flow with the perfect solution, your continuity residual will be stuck at 1. You may observe that continuity is not decreasing and conclude that your solution won't convergence even though the solution is already exact. The reason for this is because of the way the continuity residual is defined, the local residual is normalized by the worst residual encountered in the first five iterations.

If the worst residual is very bad in those first five iterations, then you are dividing by a very big number and your continuity tends to be smaller. On the other hand, if the worst residual is very good, then your continuity residual tends to be near unity. Depending on the solver settings, you can get wildly different results for the first 5 iterations. Using the numerical value for the continuity residual puts the superior numerical solver at a disadvantage in the comparison.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2015, 20:39
Red face
  #6
Member
 
Pierre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8
Pierre1 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
Yes there are mass conservation equations and residuals but convergence criteria are another story.

I am asking how you are defining convergence, which is not a Fluent definition. Reduction of residuals cannot be used as a definition of convergence (only relative convergence) and this is especially true for the continuity residual. Convergence should be defined in terms of actual solution values. To demonstrate:

If you initialize the flow with the perfect solution, your continuity residual will be stuck at 1. You may observe that continuity is not decreasing and conclude that your solution won't convergence even though the solution is already exact. The reason for this is because of the way the continuity residual is defined, the local residual is normalized by the worst residual encountered in the first five iterations.

If the worst residual is very bad in those first five iterations, then you are dividing by a very big number and your continuity tends to be smaller. On the other hand, if the worst residual is very good, then your continuity residual tends to be near unity. Depending on the solver settings, you can get wildly different results for the first 5 iterations. Using the numerical value for the continuity residual puts the superior numerical solver at a disadvantage in the comparison.
Yes. Both Fluent and CFX are defaulted to give the relative residual as you describe above. But I wonít think Fluent can give initial condition much better than CFX as both of them suggest the residuals value shown in them shall reach better than 10^-4 and they calculate or read the initial condition in almost the same way.

So thereís no clue to tell that Fluentís 10^-4 residual converges better than CFXís 10^-4.
Pierre1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2015, 20:54
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 51
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
I gave the example merely to point out that continuity residuals is a terrible way to define convergence. You also have to consider the differences in the solver, not just the initial conditions. There are a fair number of options under the hood that are not the same for CFX and Fluent (especially in the AMG setup). Some of the default settings for Fluent are fairly aggressive compared to the defaults in CFX or Star-CCM (especially the AMG schemes and parameters) whereas others are fairly conservative. These differences can appear in after a large number of iterations.

If you want to compare convergence, residuals is not the way to do it. Compare actual solution values, i.e. do some benchmarking.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2015, 21:43
Red face
  #8
Member
 
Pierre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Rep Power: 8
Pierre1 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
I gave the example merely to point out that continuity residuals is a terrible way to define convergence. You also have to consider the differences in the solver, not just the initial conditions. There are a fair number of options under the hood that are not the same for CFX and Fluent (especially in the AMG setup). Some of the default settings for Fluent are fairly aggressive compared to the defaults in CFX or Star-CCM (especially the AMG schemes and parameters) whereas others are fairly conservative. These differences can appear in after a large number of iterations.

If you want to compare convergence, residuals is not the way to do it. Compare actual solution values, i.e. do some benchmarking.
Okay, I understand. You donít think this drawback is caused by the difference between fully implicit algorithm and explicit algorithm. You think thatís because the default parameters in Fluent are too aggressive and I shall not use the default parameters to solve the BL separation case.

I will try to reduce those algorithm parameters in Fluent to make a try.

Regarding the convergence, not only Fluent has continuity residual fluctuates at relatively high value, but also the output parameters, lift and drag, fluctuate as well. So I think the convergence shall be really not as good as in CFX.
Pierre1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Setting rotating frame of referece. RPFigueiredo CFX 3 October 28, 2014 04:59
Convergence problem of CFX when comparing with FLUENT with same mesh guxin7005 CFX 8 May 22, 2014 15:13
Water subcooled boiling Attesz CFX 7 January 5, 2013 03:32
Force can not converge colopolo CFX 13 October 4, 2011 22:03
errors Fahad Main CFD Forum 0 March 23, 2004 13:20


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:05.