And you don't expect a vortex street?
|
hello
its still simulating and this si the type of output am receiving at terminall. Quote:
|
hi
yeah i am expecting a vortex but at the end of the buildings.. and also it shoudl be symmetric.. i mean it should be something which is acceptable according to the flow pattern of wind.. for example i am posting a pic where it was with pisofFoam.. this si the sort of result am expecting..( it has not yet conveged in pisofoam.) in the simpleFoam picture.. its not logical.. way after the shape we observe a high velocity region .. this has no logic. |
Quote:
Advice.. |
This is what hakoon already wrote in this thread:
Maybe your flow is not able to converge to a steady state because it is too unstable. Flows over bluff-bodies can sometimes converge with RANS models (steady-state), but that solution doesn't make any sense at all. The vortex street forces the unsteadyness - averaging of this flow is physically nonsense. So it can be, that you really need pisoFoam. But then, you don't have any steady-state solution. |
Quote:
(1) PISO: use divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) Gauss upwind; ...... } (2) SIMPLE: use divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) bounded Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) bounded Gauss upwind; ...... } Re-Run and check your case. |
hi
You mean run bth piso and simple in simpleFoam? |
Quote:
(1) The key-word: PISO (unsteady-state) refers to the pisoFoam (2) And, the key-word SIMPLE (steady-state) refers to the simpleFoam. In my earlier posting. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
i have copied and paste your answer!! hence i obtain thsi error..!
i though u wanted me to try with only that condition! |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:31. |