|
[Sponsors] |
why pisoFoam take such a long time to converge? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 18, 2013, 04:49 |
|
#21 |
New Member
Danesh S
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 13 |
I understand what you mean Haakon. Of course the Taylor Couette Flow (in my case) will have a steady state solution at some point, e.g. turbulent taylor vortices. I am pretty sure, that it should work with pisoFoam. My time step is actually large. It is 0,05, which should be ok, looking at the courant number (alway < 0,45).
|
|
October 18, 2013, 05:12 |
|
#22 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
DaSh, pisoFoam just does a single iteration each time step (solving momentum and turbulence equation just once). In every unsteady simulation the solution (U, p, k, ...) changes to the next time step so residuals are increased. The piso step will again reduce them and so on.
Now comes a part about how I understand it, so don't take it too serious: After some reduction of the initial error during the first iterations, there will be an equilibrium of your flow - increasing the residual each time step - and the piso solver - reducing the residual each time step. If the time step is too large, the introduced error will be large an thus pisoFoam might be not able to handle this: the simulation will diverge or give completely garbage results. If the time step is small, the introduced error will be small. Then three things can happen: 1) Piso will hit exactly the amount of error and the residual keeps constant from time step to time step. 2) Piso is better. The residual will fall until 1). This will happen, as every iterative procedure gets worse for falling residuals. 3) Piso is worse. The redisuals will go up until 1). Piso gets better - same reason as in 2). Result: If you want your residuals to be lower - you need to decrease your time step.
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 05:31 |
|
#23 |
New Member
Danesh S
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 13 |
Thank you for your reply. I understand what you mean and it seems logical. So the point where I am wrong is, that a falling residual does not indicate "where my simulation is". So the flow can change with time going by, although my residual did stop dropping. Because as I get it, it really just gives indication of the error of the current result. So, if I want to reduce the error, I lower the time step. But for my simulation to advance in matters of transition, it will not help?!
|
|
October 18, 2013, 05:36 |
|
#24 | |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
Quote:
I don't understand what you mean by your very last sentence (not quoted here).
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
||
October 18, 2013, 05:47 |
|
#25 |
New Member
Danesh S
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 13 |
What I mean: As I simulate a transient flow, I should see several stages of flow over the time being. So, a lowering residual is not an indicator for the flow changing its course or appearance.
And thus, my residual, as it is stable/constant, does not indicate, that my flow will not change any further. I just have to wait longer. |
|
October 18, 2013, 05:53 |
|
#26 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
Ok, but your flow is transient - so it will never stop changing right?
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 06:00 |
|
#27 |
New Member
Danesh S
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 13 |
As I get it, a Taylor Couette Flow should have a steady state solution in turbulent Taylor Voritces. Of course there will be fluctuations in it but it will not change its form again. For the Reynolds number I applied, there should no further instability after turbulent Vortex Flow (e.g. like higher classes of chaos).
Or am I getting something wrong in matters of definition? |
|
October 18, 2013, 07:04 |
|
#28 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
But if you do LES these fluctuations are resolved and thus keep the residuals to a certain level. I guess, if you do the same thing with any RANS model residuals will keep falling once the large vorticies are there (as some kind of pseudo-transient PISO).
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 07:14 |
|
#29 |
New Member
Danesh S
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 13 |
Yes, I guess you are right. What matters most for my simulation, is, that although my residual seems to be almost constant, as there are no voritces, it doesn't mean, that they won't come in the future of the simulation.
|
|
October 18, 2013, 09:46 |
|
#30 | ||
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
helloo
I am sorry for late reply.. But finally My solution with simpleFoam converge.. I used a fv schemes and fv solution as below.. and attached is my converged results.. As we can all see its not good at all!... I nEED HELP BADLY Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by izna; October 22, 2013 at 11:46. |
|||
October 18, 2013, 10:08 |
|
#31 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
The log output is still missing.
You really can not expect this to converge. You set everything to linear, gradients have no limiters and so on. You need to get a stable, robust setting and then you can try to make it numerically more accurat. But don't start with this second order low diffusion stuff.
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 10:36 |
|
#32 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
look can you please post for me a fv scheme and fv solution fiting for this? ANd i assure you it converged..
|
|
October 18, 2013, 10:40 |
|
#33 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
log output you mean the graph of iterations?
|
|
October 18, 2013, 10:41 |
|
#34 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
No, I mean the terminal or log file output that is created during the calculation.
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 10:44 |
|
#35 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
but i do not have it with me.. once convegence was acheived.. i check in paraview an then close it all..
can you please give em a good Fv scheme and fv solution? |
|
October 18, 2013, 10:46 |
|
#36 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
This doesn't make any sense. I can just guess what might be the reason without the output.
Do you use simple now or still piso?
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 10:48 |
|
#37 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
i use simpleFOam...
|
|
October 18, 2013, 10:51 |
|
#38 | |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
Quote:
|
||
October 18, 2013, 10:56 |
|
#39 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
Well, I would try:
Code:
ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default faceLimited edgeCellsLeastSquares 1; // or faceLimited Gauss linear 1.0; } divSchemes { default Gauss upwind phi; } //keep the rest from your file Code:
p { solver GAMG; tolerance 1e-6; relTol 0.01; maxIter 100; smoother DICGaussSeidel; //simple: nPreSweeps 0; nPostSweeps 1; nFinestSweeps 2; cacheAgglomeration true; nCellsInCoarsestLevel 50; agglomerator faceAreaPair; mergeLevels 1; };
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 10:58 |
|
#40 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
hi
i am simulating a 2D case and observing the flow pattern of wind around some rectangular shapes... |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moving mesh | Niklas Wikstrom (Wikstrom) | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 122 | June 15, 2014 07:20 |
Unstabil Simulation with chtMultiRegionFoam | mbay101 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 13 | December 28, 2013 14:12 |
same geometry,structured and unstructured mesh,different behaviour. | sharonyue | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 13 | January 2, 2013 23:40 |
PisoFoam case terminating | Solo Sails | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | November 29, 2011 08:04 |
calculation diverge after continue to run | zhajingjing | OpenFOAM | 0 | April 28, 2010 05:35 |