|
[Sponsors] |
why pisoFoam take such a long time to converge? |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 18, 2013, 09:59 |
|
#41 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
And you don't expect a vortex street?
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 18, 2013, 13:00 |
|
#42 | |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
hello
its still simulating and this si the type of output am receiving at terminall. Quote:
|
||
October 18, 2013, 13:14 |
|
#43 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
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. Last edited by izna; October 22, 2013 at 10:45. |
|
October 20, 2013, 14:26 |
|
#44 | |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
Quote:
Advice.. |
||
October 21, 2013, 02:46 |
|
#45 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
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.
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
October 24, 2013, 06:49 |
|
#46 | |
Senior Member
|
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. |
||
October 24, 2013, 13:43 |
|
#47 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
hi
You mean run bth piso and simple in simpleFoam? |
|
October 25, 2013, 00:04 |
|
#48 |
Senior Member
|
||
October 25, 2013, 00:16 |
|
#49 | |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
Quote:
Last edited by izna; October 25, 2013 at 03:14. |
||
October 25, 2013, 00:50 |
|
#50 |
Senior Member
|
||
October 25, 2013, 02:07 |
|
#51 |
Senior Member
izna O'connor
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 143
Rep Power: 13 |
i have copied and paste your answer!! hence i obtain thsi error..!
i though u wanted me to try with only that condition! |
|
October 25, 2013, 02:28 |
|
#52 |
Senior Member
|
Oh! I forgot to see the term "nuEff", for this case you go with bounded Gauss linear. Rest all divSchemes as bounded Gauss upwind. Try running with it and check your answer.
|
|
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 06:20 |
Unstabil Simulation with chtMultiRegionFoam | mbay101 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 13 | December 28, 2013 13:12 |
same geometry,structured and unstructured mesh,different behaviour. | sharonyue | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 13 | January 2, 2013 22:40 |
PisoFoam case terminating | Solo Sails | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | November 29, 2011 07:04 |
calculation diverge after continue to run | zhajingjing | OpenFOAM | 0 | April 28, 2010 04:35 |