|
[Sponsors] |
December 4, 2006, 09:53 |
Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi. I did my first official 6.3 Fluent calculation today. I started out with the old segregated solver on my case and after som 100 iterations i switched to the promising coupled solver, but the result was not as good as expected.
<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:66%; text-align:right">From fluent6.3</td></tr></table> |
|
December 5, 2006, 00:06 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
What is your question.
Convergence was flat before switching to the coupled solver and after |
|
December 5, 2006, 06:31 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Try using the FMG initializer (TUI command: s i fmg y) and skip using the segregated solver, go straight to the coupled one.
Good luck, Jason |
|
December 5, 2006, 11:33 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Careful - the coupled solver does not do well with flow separation.
|
|
December 7, 2006, 09:32 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
There's limitations to all of the solvers. The pressure based coupled solver still doesn't do as well at supersonic flows as the density based coupled solver, and either of the pressure based solvers do better in the low Mach number regimes compared to the density based solver. The density based coupled solver would choke on separated flows in any flow regime. I haven't gotten an opportunity to try the pressure based coupled solver with separated flows. I thought the main problem with separated flows for the old coupled solver was the small density gradients. Was the calculation of separated flows improved with the pressure based coupled solver, or is it inherent in all coupled solvers?
Thanks, Jason |
|
December 7, 2006, 19:50 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I tried pressure based coupled solver (CFX) for seperated flows and I must say I am not happy. (CFX users might be happy with it though).
|
|
December 11, 2006, 09:41 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Thanks for the input! Jason
|
|
December 11, 2006, 18:29 |
Re: Fluent 6.3 first run
|
#8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I have a feeling that anysys might abandon CFX (or it might be lost in oblivian), the reason for thinking so is. We have seen pressure based coupled solver in Fluent. Than CFX has transition models for turbulence. Fluent has introduced transition model in 6.3 as beta function. So slowly we are seeing shifting of features from CFX. In the end ANSYS might not have any reason to develop CFX any further if Fluent can do the job. Good thing now is Fluent provides a lot of choices in terms of solvers.
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What different SST turbulent model between Fluent 12.1 and Fluent 6.3 | opehterinar81 | FLUENT | 0 | August 24, 2011 07:34 |
What the differences flow equation of Fluent 6.3 and Fluent 12.1 | opehterinar81 | FLUENT | 0 | August 19, 2011 12:55 |
Problem in running fluent 6.3 (64 bit) on ubuntu 8.1 (64 bit) | Mir5 | FLUENT | 3 | April 29, 2009 11:32 |
please help me run fluent | zurk | FLOW-3D | 0 | April 3, 2009 10:17 |
Help: run FLUENT bechmark | SC | FLUENT | 1 | July 11, 2003 05:56 |