FLUENT BUG ?!

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

 March 16, 2002, 14:51 FLUENT BUG ?! #1 S. Ferraris Guest   Posts: n/a Hi ! I have same proble with a calculation with post-processing data. In a 2D model report->suface integral->Area of the total model gives me very bad area (m2) two orders of difference. !!! Thank you in advance Sergio Ferraris

 March 17, 2002, 03:22 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #2 venomous Guest   Posts: n/a did you scale the grid after you read it into the solver?

 March 18, 2002, 08:29 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #3 S. Ferraris Guest   Posts: n/a No. I made the grid in meters and read the same grid , and there was a big difference between the result of the code (~120 m2)and the real area of the 2d model (.5 m2).. I really dont know what is the problem. But i am trying to find out. Thank you a lot. Sergio Ferraris

 March 18, 2002, 08:35 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #4 pp Guest   Posts: n/a Did you check Report-Reference_Values...-Length for second dimension?

 March 18, 2002, 09:05 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #5 S. Ferraris Guest   Posts: n/a Reference value is OK (depth = 1 m) I was looking more in details and i found that in a 2d model: In Report - > surface integrals , the values of lengths are OK (inlet-oulet,etc) , but the values of areas are wrong , for example default-interior. This value is correct in Report-> Volumen integral. I cant get surfaces values in report->surface integral when is a 2D model.? Thank you Sergio. Sergio.

 March 18, 2002, 12:21 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #6 Sundar Guest   Posts: n/a hey, Just after you export the mesh, make sure your volumes and areas in the case are what you think. If not there is a scale issue or you have created them wrongly. After you run a few iterations, again check flux reprts to make sure the inlet velocity or mass inlet are what you think they should be. So I guess this check will help you to understand where the error is. Sundar

 March 19, 2002, 08:57 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #7 Yvonne Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Sergio! Did you try the same calculation with another Fluent version, too? If you get different results in different versions, call Fluent. If not, probably you did something wrong. I would do the 'version-check'. Others had similar problems and there was indeed a Fluent bug. Good luck, Yvonne

 March 19, 2002, 13:48 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! #8 S. Ferraris Guest   Posts: n/a No , i didnt try with other , version because i hacent got it. Indeed is a very easy to prove this bug. Import a 2D mesh (eg 1x1 m) and go report->surface integral->Area ...and yo will not get 1m2.. Thank you . Sergio

 March 19, 2002, 21:24 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! not bug #9 David Shkval Guest   Posts: n/a hey S. Ferraris, I've solved the problem, it's not a bug. Let me explain in detail. In fluent, to deal with a 2D case, u should use "Report>Volume Integrals>Volume" to report its area. Though it'll report in m^3, u may set depth=1m to make this value numerically consistent with its area. If u click on "Report>Surface Integrals>Area", u'll get it's grid's area in Z-axis. For example, while read in a 1m*1m rectangle mesh(51*51 nodes, say), after set "Report>Reference Value>Depth=1m", u can check volume report and get 1m^3. But while u check surface report, it'll report 98m^2(if interior selected) or 4m^2( boundary selected) or 102m^2 (all area selected). why 102? (x_nodes51+y_nodes51)*depth1. Think now u got it. cya and enjoy!

 March 20, 2002, 16:45 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! not bug #10 S. Ferraris Guest   Posts: n/a Thank you. very much !! So Can I trust the values that Integral Supercies , (eg mass flow rate , etc ) gives me ? I . am not sure. Thank you again. Sergio Ferraris

 March 20, 2002, 20:23 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! not bug #11 David Shkval Guest   Posts: n/a Yup, Ferraris mass flow rate, heat flux, etc. are also correct, the keypoint is to use them properly. Enjoy!

 March 27, 2002, 05:46 Re: FLUENT BUG ?! not bug #12 rslgp Guest   Posts: n/a hi, you have nicely solved it, can you solve my problem? as per the mannual the turbulent intensity =u'/U_avg but if ask it plot turbulent intensity you will get only u'( k-e MODEL,STD WALL FUNt.SEGRGATED). It indicate that fluent people are not consitant with their ideas. IF you use fluent for simulating wall jets, you wont get many of details correctly.I have tried with all models and all bulit in near wall models(like std wall fun., non equlibrium model, two-layer model with different values of K-E model constants, grids spacing near wall, grid adoption using Y* and y+) this indicate that fluent fails to predict many such phenomena correctly.(i have not used fluent-6 yet)

 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 ivanbuz FLUENT 15 September 23, 2017 19:12 s.mishra FLUENT 1 April 5, 2016 06:47 opehterinar81 FLUENT 0 August 19, 2011 11:55 syadgar FLUENT 1 September 8, 2009 16:41 lzgwhy FLUENT 0 August 26, 2009 06:41

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58.