
[Sponsors] 
rhoSimpleFoam vs rhoPimpleFoam, steady state vs transient solver 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
June 16, 2022, 06:23 
rhoSimpleFoam vs rhoPimpleFoam, steady state vs transient solver

#1 
New Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 7 
Hi lovely CFD people,
I have a question about steady state solver and transient solver (rhoSimpleFoam vs. rhoPimpleFaom). My case is a train running in a tunnel, with a velocity of 40 m/s. I run the case both with rhoSimpleFoam and rhoPimpleFoam. Of course, I would prefer rhoSimpleFoam if it converges (residuals under 1e7 or 8). My questions are: a.What could be the reasons, why the rhoSimpleFoam does not converge? b.Can I make the rhoSimpleFoam converge by manipulating fvSchemes or FvSolutions? Some more information: My checkMesh shows that the Mesh is 100% ok. The tunnel and the ground are slip. And the train is no slip. Velocity bc at inlet and pressure bc at outlet. U: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: 2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; arch "LSB;label=32;scalar=64"; class volVectorField; location "0"; object U; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [0 1 1 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform (40 0 0); boundaryField { "tub.*" { type slip; //value uniform (0 0 0); } pod { type fixedValue; value uniform (0 0 0); } noSlipGroundPod { type slip; //value uniform (0 0 0); } up { type zeroGradient; } sides { type zeroGradient; } front { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } back { type zeroGradient; } "proc.*" { type processor; } } // ************************************************************************* // Code:
FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object p; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [1 1 2 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 1e5; boundaryField { #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" "tub.*" { type zeroGradient; } pod { type zeroGradient; } noSlipGroundPod { type zeroGradient; } up { type zeroGradient; } sides { type zeroGradient; } front { type zeroGradient; } back { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } "proc.*" { type processor; } } // ************************************************************************* // Code:
/** C++ **\ \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object k; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // // k = 3/2*(I*U)^2 // Re = 4.75e5, U = 70, I = 0.01 dimensions [0 2 2 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 0.24; boundaryField { "tub.*" { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } pod { type kqRWallFunction; value uniform 0; } noSlipGroundPod { type kqRWallFunction; value uniform 0; } up { type zeroGradient; } sides { type zeroGradient; } front { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } back { type zeroGradient; } "proc.*" { type processor; } #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" } // ************************************************************************* // omega: Code:
/** C++ **\ \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object omega; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [0 0 1 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 2.4e03; boundaryField { "tub.*" { type omegaWallFunction; value $internalField; } pod { type omegaWallFunction; value $internalField; } noSlipGroundPod { type omegaWallFunction; value $internalField; } up { type zeroGradient; } sides { type zeroGradient; } front { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } back { type zeroGradient; } "proc.*" { type processor; } #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" } // ************************************************************************* // T: Code:
/** C++ **\ \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object T; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [0 0 0 1 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 298; boundaryField { "tub.*" { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } pod { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } noSlipGroundPod { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } up { type zeroGradient; } sides { type zeroGradient; } front { type fixedValue; value $internalField; } back { type zeroGradient; } "proc.*" { type processor; } #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" } // ************************************************************************* // alphat: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object alphat; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [1 1 1 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 0; boundaryField { pod { type compressible::alphatWallFunction;// calculated; value uniform 0; } "tub.*" { type compressible::alphatWallFunction;// calculated; value uniform 0; } noSlipGroundPod { type compressible::alphatWallFunction;// calculated; value uniform 0; } up { type calculated; value uniform 0; } sides { type calculated; value uniform 0; } front { type calculated; value uniform 0; } back { type calculated; value uniform 0; } "proc.*" { type processor; } #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" } // ************************************************************************* // nut: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class volScalarField; object nut; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // dimensions [0 2 1 0 0 0 0]; internalField uniform 0; boundaryField { "tub.*" { type nutUSpaldingWallFunction; value uniform 0; } pod { type nutUSpaldingWallFunction; value uniform 0; } noSlipGroundPod { type nutUSpaldingWallFunction; value uniform 0; } up { type calculated; value uniform 0; } sides { type calculated; value uniform 0; } front { type calculated; value uniform 0; } back { type calculated; value uniform 0; } "proc.*" { type processor; } #includeEtc "caseDicts/setConstraintTypes" } // ************************************************************************* // Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSchemes; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; limited cellLimited Gauss linear 1; grad(U) $limited; grad(k) $limited; grad(omega) $limited; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss linearUpwind limited; energy Gauss linearUpwind limited; div(phi,e) $energy; div(phi,K) $energy; div(phi,Ekp) $energy; turbulence Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) $turbulence; div(phi,omega) $turbulence; div(phiv,p) Gauss upwind; div((phiinterpolate(rho)),p) Gauss upwind; div(((rho*nuEff)*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } wallDist { method meshWave; } // ************************************************************************* // SIMPLEfvSolution: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSolution; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // solvers { p { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; tolerance 1e7; relTol 0.01; } pFinal { $p; relTol 0; } "(rhoUkomegae)" { solver PBiCGStab; preconditioner DILU; tolerance 1e7; relTol 1e3; } "(rhoUkomegae)Final" { $U; relTol 0; } cellDisplacement { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; tolerance 1e7; relTol 0.01; } } SIMPLE { residualControl { p 1e8; U 1e8; "(komegaenut)" 1e8; } nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; pMinFactor 0.05; pMaxFactor 5; } PIMPLE { nCorrectors 2; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; nOuterCorrectors 1; pMinFactor 0.1; pMaxFactor 2; } relaxationFactors { fields { p 0.25; rho 0.01; //0.01 } equations { U 0.7; "(komega)" 0.7; e 0.01; } } // ************************************************************************* // PIMPLEfvSchemes: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSchemes; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // ddtSchemes { default CrankNicolson 0.9; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; limited cellLimited Gauss linear 1; grad(U) $limited; grad(k) $limited; grad(omega) $limited; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss linearUpwind limited; energy Gauss linearUpwind limited; div(phi,e) $energy; div(phi,K) $energy; div(phi,Ekp) $energy; turbulence Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) $turbulence; div(phi,omega) $turbulence; div(phiv,p) Gauss upwind; div((phiinterpolate(rho)),p) Gauss upwind; div(((rho*nuEff)*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } wallDist { method meshWave; } // ************************************************************************* // PIMPLEfvSolution: Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSolution; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // solvers { p { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; tolerance 1e8; relTol 0.1; } pFinal { $p; relTol 0.1; } "(rhoUkomegae)" { solver PBiCGStab; preconditioner DILU; tolerance 1e8; relTol 1e3; } "(rhoUkomegae)Final" { $U; relTol 1e3; } } SIMPLE { residualControl { p 1e8; U 1e8; "(komegae)" 1e8; } nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 0; pMinFactor 0.01; pMaxFactor 5; } PIMPLE { nCorrectors 2; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; nOuterCorrectors 10; pMinFactor 0.01; pMaxFactor 5; } relaxationFactors { fields { p 0.3; rho 0.01; //0.01 } equations { U 0.7; "(komega)" 0.7; e 0.7; } } // ************************************************************************* // 

June 17, 2022, 13:26 

#2 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
One of the difficulties I have observed is that the OpenFOAM solver schemes are very "clean" compared to commercial codes like StarCCM+ of Fluent, and this means that if you have a fine mesh, then there is very little numerical diffusion to stabilise the simulations. This means that flows over bluff bodies will start to show flow unsteadiness & shed turbulent structures into the wake.
I am not sure if this is relevant for your scenario, since we don't have a picture of your geometry, but have a think  is the solver just picking up inherent flow instability? If so, then you won't get full convergence with a steady solver ... unless you coarsen the mesh, which is not ideal! In these circumstances, you may have to run as a transient and field average over a number of shedding cycles. Also, looking at your relaxation factors, I see you have tightened rho and e down to almost zero ... I know one of the tutorials has 0.01 for rho, but I find it difficult to believe that this is a good way to run the solver, i.e. basically to not update the rho or e equations ... Good luck! 

June 18, 2022, 05:43 

#3  
Senior Member
Josh Williams
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Scotland
Posts: 112
Rep Power: 5 
Quote:
I agree with Tobermory. It seems like a strange concept to use a solver for rho but not really update rho (otherwise, why not just use simpleFoam?). 

June 18, 2022, 06:35 

#4 
Senior Member

@tobermory: what criterium have you employed to access how "clean" OpenFoam is? Are you aware of any documentation that shows this "cleanness"?
@joshwilliams: the confusion might be that rho is updated (using equation of state) despite zero iterations for the rhosolve (recorded in the logfile). Thx. 

June 18, 2022, 07:00 

#5 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
Domenico  the numerical cleanliness of OF depends on the schemes (divScheme, etc.) that you choose, of course, but in OF you can at least choose to run with very little artificial stability by using a good quality orthogonal mesh with little or no stretching, second order schemes etc. In the commercial codes even the second order convection schemes are typically blended 2nd/upwind schemes, to ensure stability ... which ofc is often more important in an industrial CFD situation, where a slightly less precise solution is better than no solution.
Indeed, after moving from StarCCM+ to OF, I was shocked at how often my simulations would blow up  it was a real trial at the start! 

June 18, 2022, 17:29 

#6  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,273
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
the idea that if the solver is unstable than it must be more accurate compared to stable solver is completely not true. It is more so not true when you compare OF against StarCCM. CCM does not add sort of artifical dissipation to make it stable and not only that its descretization is actually more accurate. I personally have never found a case where starccm and of are compared and starccm came out to be less accurate. Mostly if you benchmark you will find that starccm does better than OF. I even have a study where most scheme of OF for convection terms were compared in a validation case and starccm was also one of the solver. Guess what there was hardly any scheme that was as good as starccm and around 40 scheme were compared. Give me email i will send you the results. 

June 19, 2022, 15:10 

#7 
Senior Member

@tobermory: thank you for sharing your thought on the matter. Much appreciated.
@arjun: thank you as well. Is the concern you share related to the fact the starccm is able to take advantage of polyhedral meshes in a way that OF is not? 

June 20, 2022, 02:05 

#8  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,273
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
I used to be developer for starccm and I am probably only one to benchmark its flow model against manufactured solution and study it. Later when i am writing Wildkatze solver, I am always benchmarking and validating solvers (last 7 years). Having seen the code myself i know for sure that there is no artifical dissipation added the stability is due to much more accurate schemes used. We have done lots of benchmarks sometimes we compare OF too just to know how it does. For example for this case https://fvus.github.io/wildkatze/ver...itverification Tobi (who posts frequently on openfoam forums here too) was kind enough to test many convection schemes. The results do show that openfoam is more dissipative actually (this case actually is the test of it). Even last two weeks we are testing a test problem and it turned out OF is most dissipative and starccm is least to the point that it ends up generating lots of noise in solution due to it. Starccm tries to maintain the signal while OF pretty much diffuses it. 

June 20, 2022, 03:53 

#9 
Senior Member

Dear Arjun,
Thank you so much for your very valuable input. I am very happy to see more details of the arguments raised so as gain a better understanding. Are you able to share more details on the benchmarks and the results obtained with both solvers? Thank you. Domenico. 

June 20, 2022, 04:30 

#10 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
Dear Arjun  thanks for your input, and make no mistake  I am a BIG fan of starccm+ ... and have used starccm+ and StarCD before that since the early 90s. My earlier comments about stability were not intended as a discussion of the accuracy of starccm+ over any other code, but I stand by the observation that it (and other leading commercial CFD codes) is much more stable than OF  that must surely come from more robust & forgiving numerical schemes, and perhaps also more forgiving boundary condition coding? Perhaps you can enlighten us, with your experience at CDAdapco.
Thanks also for the link to Tobi's test case. Regarding validation cases, my view is that you need to be VERY careful about mesh effects  the mesh in the test case, 2 cells across a duct, is clearly not sufficient to resolve anything physical, and so my suggestion is that it is difficult to learn anything real from this test case. I remember a 3D validation case I did against wind tunnel data where brilliant agreement was found from a coarse mesh solution, but the agreement got worse the more I refined the mesh .. until I got to the "real" meshindependent solution ... that's the one I should have been using at the start to judge the numerical schemes. Anyway  thank you for the discussion. 

June 20, 2022, 04:44 

#11  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,273
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
It was long time ago so give me a day or two to find out his files. It can be useful for people who use openfoam. 

June 20, 2022, 04:49 

#12  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,273
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
1. The benchmark solution was generated from extremely fine mesh. So it was very physical. This is actually one of the validation cases of Ansys Fluent. 2. In case you did not notice third order solver with those 2 cells width able to reproduce solution generated by very very fine mesh. 3. All solvers used the same mesh. Starccm and Wildkatze did very good but you see if they were as diffusive as you believe they would have done worse. 4. As I said we have done multiple tests. I share you image from last test. OpenFOAM is most diffusive here and Starccm the least. Wildkatze has balanced solution with least amount of noise thanks to new specialised solver in it. 

June 20, 2022, 04:59 

#13 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
This is the bit that puzzles me  why would anyone run a CFD simulation with just two cells across the domain? That fails the basics of Best Practice. I am not really interested in what that solution gives, since as I said before it contains no real physics. Much more interesting is the grid independent solution ... you should only be comparing grid independent solutions when examining the effects of solver parameters.


June 20, 2022, 16:55 

#14  
New Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 7 
Thanks for your reply.
A little more information about my case. The geometry is actually like a nozzle, wider at the inlet and outlet, very tight in the middle. And the maximum velocity will lead to the chocking effect. i have tried different cases with different velocities at the inlet. I successfully made all simulations converge (residuals less then 1e6)with rhoSimplefoam, as long as the max. velocity didn't reach 1 Ma. But for the cases, which should have a higher max. local velocity than 1 Ma (choked), it still did not work. So my new question is: maybe a steady state solver like rhoSimpleFoam is not capable of a transonic or supersonic compressible case? Which means i really have to switch to rhoPimpleFoam for example? Quote:


June 20, 2022, 17:06 

#15 
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
Oliver  it is possible to use rhoSimpleFoam for transonic/sonic cases  see the attached results from a nozzle flow at a pressure ratio of 6.8, run with rhoSimpleFoam. I always prefer to use a steady solver where I can, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, it can sometimes be difficult to get a stable solution.
Incidentally, have you turned on the transonic switch in fvSolution/SIMPLE? I also run with the consistent flag set to yes. 

June 20, 2022, 17:24 

#16  
New Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 7 
My pressure ratio should also be round 6.
This is my new fvSolution file with transonic and consistent turning on. But the simulation crashed at the second iteration with residuals of p ending up at 1e47 Code:
/** C++ **\  =========    \\ / F ield  OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox   \\ / O peration  Version: v2106   \\ / A nd  Website: www.openfoam.com   \\/ M anipulation   \**/ FoamFile { version 2.0; format ascii; class dictionary; object fvSolution; } // * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // solvers { p { solver GAMG; smoother GaussSeidel; tolerance 1e10; relTol 0.1; } "(rhoUkomegae)" { solver PBiCGStab; preconditioner DILU; tolerance 1e10; relTol 1e3; } } SIMPLE { residualControl { p 1e10; U 1e10; "(komegaenut)" 1e10; } transonic true; consistent true; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; pMinFactor 0.05; pMaxFactor 6; } PIMPLE { nCorrectors 2; nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1; nOuterCorrectors 1; pMinFactor 0.05; pMaxFactor 6; } relaxationFactors { fields { p 0.2; rho 0.1; pEqn 0.3; } equations { U 0.7; "(komega)" 0.7; e 0.7; } } // ************************************************************************* // Code:
DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 0.02137706153, Final residual = 2.082396725e05, No Iterations 2 DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.1155308207, Final residual = 0.0001081439417, No Iterations 2 DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.1310687182, Final residual = 0.0001163895147, No Iterations 2 DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for e, Initial residual = 0.2772536778, Final residual = 0.0001556240328, No Iterations 3 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.2028451406, Final residual = 3.920168245e+47, No Iterations 1000 GAMG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.0337139218, Final residual = 1.233059617e+48, No Iterations 1000 time step continuity errors : sum local = 1.154070612e+101, global = 6.316817843e+100, cumulative = 6.316817843e+100 pressureControl: p max 1.383434598e+104 DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for omega, Initial residual = 0.004262390935, Final residual = 1.678025594e06, No Iterations 3 DILUPBiCGStab: Solving for k, Initial residual = 0.03920934066, Final residual = 2.115743412e05, No Iterations 3 ExecutionTime = 29.61 s ClockTime = 30 s Quote:


June 21, 2022, 00:48 

#17  
Senior Member
Arjun
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nurenberg, Germany
Posts: 1,273
Rep Power: 34 
Quote:
To demonstrate that high order solver is more accurate. That was point of that validation no. Quote:
Quote:
BTW the last picture was not some very coarse simulation. That mesh has enough cells and you can see that OpenFOAM was far more diffusive than other two solvers and Starccm was least diffusive. Goes completely against the idea that OpenFOAM is not using any artifical diffusivity while Starccm is using it. Another myth that people keep repeating here. 

June 21, 2022, 04:40 

#18  
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
Quote:
Code:
upStream { type uniformTotalPressure; p0 table ( ( 0 $p0) ( 1000 150000) ( 2000 300000) ( 3000 $pInlet) (999999 $pInlet) ); } Code:
fields { p 0.3; rho 0.2; } equations { velocity 0.5; pressure 0.9; energy 0.5; turbulence 0.7; U $velocity; p $pressure; "(kepsilonomega)" $turbulence; "(he)" $energy; } Code:
limitT { type limitTemperature; active yes; selectionMode all; min 50; max 750; } 

June 21, 2022, 04:46 

#19  
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 666
Rep Power: 14 
Quote:
We are not going to agree on this, so perhaps let us just focus on Oliver's original question, my friend. All the best. 

June 21, 2022, 06:49 

#20  
New Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 7 
Thanks you so much! I am trying these methods from you.
Where is exactly your upStream patch in the geometry? Quote:


Tags 
rhopimplefoam, rhosimplefoam, steady state, transient 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
From steady state to transient simulation  Mechand  FLUENT  0  December 24, 2020 12:17 
Will the results of steady state solver and transient solver be same?  carye  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  9  December 28, 2019 05:21 
Effect of initial condition for steady state vs Transient  prasa  ANSYS  0  August 22, 2018 04:45 
accelarate simulation using steady state solver  tjliang  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  0  October 7, 2016 14:42 
Constant velocity of the material  Sas  CFX  15  July 13, 2010 08:56 