Pressure far field boundary conditions not respected?!
 

Hello everyone,

I'm working on the expansion of a thermical jet of a motor. To do this I've created a mesh in 2d of the profile of this motor (see the scheme about boundary attached)). But I have an odd issue. The parameters choosen of the pressure far field boundary conditions are not respected. Here an example: I put axial component=1 et radial component=0 but after many iterations when I plot velocity vectors on theses pressure far field boundary I get vectors which haven't the same components that I fixed in parameters panel.

I've tried to modify the mesh on boundary conditions (more or less coarsed), and I tried to expand the limits of my numerical domain but I still have the same problem. I really don't understand the origin of this problem. Does anyone here have faced this kind of problem with Fluent?

(I work in axisymmetric with Spalart Almaras.)

My best regards

Quentin

hi
are you using the cartesian or radial components?
I have had such a problem and I realized thad fluent does not identify the radial and axial directions as we see!
I have fixed the problem using cartesian components of the flow.
So I guess that would be helpful to set the direction in cartesian coordinates.

doki is correct.
i get some tricks for this problem. the pressure-far-field bound is pretty, just seems... if your mesh is narrow or unreasonbale, reversed flow and oddy boundary data will crazy you.
you can build the mesh wisely and widely enough (even in the supersonic aircraft problem, the width of tunnel is just 30 times than the wings.). then, you can set the bound as wall.

doki: I would like to use cartesian coordinates too but because I work in axis symmetry, I've not the choice, I have to work with axial and radial coordinates when I define the direction of velocity on far field pressure boundary conditions. It seems I can't work with cartesian coordinates. Or am I wrong?

davedong: I'm not sure to understand: I should "stretch" my mesh, that's what you mean? Or the contrary?

hi,
i'm sorry for your misunderstanding. english is not my native language.
i mean maybe you can stretch your computing domain. if it is big enough, the boundary set is not determinative.