
[Sponsors] 
October 11, 2006, 12:02 
Hello,
Could someone give m

#1 
Senior Member
Philippose Rajan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 545
Rep Power: 18 
Hello,
Could someone give me more information regarding the implication of the "Time Step Continuity Error" output which is displayed while solving a steady state problem using simpleFoam ? What exactly does it mean, and what kind of values can be tolerated? And also, what factors does it depend on ? Thank you Philippose 

October 12, 2006, 06:59 
Hi Philippose,
I'll try to

#2 
Member
Pierre Le Fur
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Philippose,
I'll try to help, the code goes: volScalarField contErr = fvc::div(phi); scalar sumLocalContErr = runTime.deltaT().value()* mag(contErr)().weightedAverage(mesh.V()).value(); Info<< "time step continuity errors : sum local = " << sumLocalContErr since typically runTime.deltaT().value() = 1 for simpleFoam calculations (i.e. iteration counter), div(phi) is your face flux (interpolated velocity field) divergence and ideally is zero (if continuity is something you're looking for). The magnitude of div(phi) volume averaged over each cell should hence also tend to zero. If you want you can normalise it further to give you an idea of magnitude (maybe by dividing by average inlet face flux). Hope this helps Pierre 

October 12, 2006, 16:49 
Hello Pierre,
Thanks a lot

#3 
Senior Member
Philippose Rajan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 545
Rep Power: 18 
Hello Pierre,
Thanks a lot for the information!! I had not looked into the code to try and figure out the meaning of the term. I assumed it was a standard term used in CFD solvers, which one was expected to know. Thank you for the explanation :) Have a nice day! Philippose 

January 21, 2009, 08:46 
Hi Foamers!
I'm new in OF a

#4 
New Member
mayol
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Foamers!
I'm new in OF and I'm having problems in running a small mesh (around 400.000 tetra cells, 20 MB) with simpleFoam. Time step continuity error rises too much, and it happens suddently. It takes so long to simulate just 20 seconds (about 1 hour). Anyone can help me having a look at this? I've tried changing tolerances, solver types, ... Thanks in advance! Time = 9 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 0.458639, Final residual = 0.0233617, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.379868, Final residual = 0.0171841, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.658214, Final residual = 0.0397693, No Iterations 1 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.727959, Final residual = 9.87705e07, No Iterations 45 time step continuity errors : sum local = 135.971, global = 1.13269e06, cumulative = 1.30202e06 DILUPBiCG: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 4.32485e15, No Iterations 1 bounding epsilon, min: 4.46707e+08 max: 2.69515e+25 average: 6.1936e+19 DILUPBiCG: Solving for k, Initial residual = 0.999987, Final residual = 8.72274e06, No Iterations 1 ExecutionTime = 1349.42 s ClockTime = 2229 s Time = 10 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 0.0742623, Final residual = 8.17034e09, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.0742549, Final residual = 5.84205e09, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.0742894, Final residual = 5.0114e09, No Iterations 1 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.511445, Final residual = 9.97221e07, No Iterations 487 time step continuity errors : sum local = 102.865, global = 2.62581, cumulative = 2.62581 DILUPBiCG: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 0.522913, Final residual = 1.72356e17, No Iterations 1 bounding epsilon, min: 3.41487e+17 max: 8.29693e+24 average: 1.98496e+19 DILUPBiCG: Solving for k, Initial residual = 0.887151, Final residual = 0.0281178, No Iterations 1 bounding k, min: 2.08013e+12 max: 5.53603e+18 average: 4.26882e+13 ExecutionTime = 1491.63 s ClockTime = 2487 s Time = 11 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 0.999971, Final residual = 0.0517584, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.99998, Final residual = 0.0517602, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.999913, Final residual = 0.0517559, No Iterations 1 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.859263, Final residual = 3.05651e08, No Iterations 1 time step continuity errors : sum local = 5.63857e+13, global = 0.469436, cumulative = 3.09525 DILUPBiCG: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 8.3548e18, No Iterations 1 bounding epsilon, min: 1.881e+17 max: 1.25296e+50 average: 2.87937e+44 DILUPBiCG: Solving for k, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 4.56399e08, No Iterations 1 bounding k, min: 4.21771e+12 max: 2.1231e+34 average: 9.18412e+28 ExecutionTime = 1511.3 s ClockTime = 2559 s Time = 12 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 0.0744755, Final residual = 1.84446e11, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 0.0744755, Final residual = 1.90422e11, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 0.0744755, Final residual = 1.69176e11, No Iterations 1 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 0.481839, Final residual = 438.302, No Iterations 1001 time step continuity errors : sum local = 7.48027e+23, global = 6.2141e+20, cumulative = 6.2141e+20 DILUPBiCG: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 0.163347, Final residual = 9.82397e16, No Iterations 1 bounding epsilon, min: 2.10117e+37 max: 4.04364e+51 average: 4.20323e+47 DILUPBiCG: Solving for k, Initial residual = 6.9407e13, Final residual = 6.9407e13, No Iterations 0 ExecutionTime = 1761.29 s ClockTime = 2919 s Time = 13 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.000907592, No Iterations 2 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.000907587, No Iterations 2 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.000907558, No Iterations 2 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 5.12291e10, No Iterations 1 time step continuity errors : sum local = 3.26533e+37, global = 3.23767e+21, cumulative = 2.61627e+21 DILUPBiCG: Solving for epsilon, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 2.1039e20, No Iterations 1 bounding epsilon, min: 1.985e+21 max: 1.16326e+89 average: 2.67323e+83 DILUPBiCG: Solving for k, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.000185863, No Iterations 1 bounding k, min: 2.99871e16 max: 2.54158e+68 average: 5.8407e+62 ExecutionTime = 1780.3 s ClockTime = 3165 s 

January 21, 2009, 09:12 
Hello Mayol and all,
As sim

#5 
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 10 
Hello Mayol and all,
As simpleFoam will look for the steady state solution, I usually apply a big epsilon starting value in the domain (about 100 times the value of a boundary) and wait for the solver to "change" it. You'll see that the values go down quickly, and the solution almost always gets stabilized. Give a feedback if it worked for you. Any comments are appreciated. Regards, Paulo Rocha. 

January 21, 2009, 10:06 
Hello Paulo ;
I have the sam

#6 
New Member
Naish
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hello Paulo ;
I have the same problem and just trying your hint, do you mean the epsilon not the relaxationsfactor of epsilon right ?? I read in other threads to keep the relax small. Do you mean with 100 times the boundary value inlet velocity ?? To mayol It takes such a long time because of the itterations of P go and change the solver from PBiCK to GAMG 

January 21, 2009, 12:55 
Hello Naish and all,
Answer

#7 
Member
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 10 
Hello Naish and all,
Answers: 1  Yes, it is the starting value of epsilon in the domain (the value contained in the 'epsilon' file in the '0' folder). About the relaxation factor I use 0.3 (also for k), and don't have problems. You can try a smaller if you need; 2  Yes, 100 times the value of epsilon at the inlet (beware,not for 'k'). Regards, Paulo Rocha. 

January 21, 2009, 20:36 
Hey guys!!
I've tried chang

#8 
New Member
mayol
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hey guys!!
I've tried changing epsilon value (I have velocity inlet 5m/s, so I consider epsilon = 500), reducing relaxation factors to 0.3 (U,p,k,E,...), and also changing the solver for avoiding to much iterations on pressure (PBICK to GAMG). It doesn't work. And it doesn't allow me to change the solver for pressure, I have the following report: Starting time loop Time = 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.0118552, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.0130391, No Iterations 1 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 1, Final residual = 0.0149314, No Iterations 1 > FOAM FATAL IO ERROR : expected 'true' or 'false', found yes file: /home/roger/OpenFOAM/roger1.4.1/run/tutorials/simpleFoam//Senzilla/system/fvSol ution::p::scaleCorrection at line 41. From function operator>>(Istream&, bool&) in file primitives/bool/boolIO.C at line 72. Any idea?? Thanks for your support!! 

January 22, 2009, 12:57 
Hey Naish!
I have a problem

#9 
New Member
mayol
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hey Naish!
I have a problem trying to change PBICK to GAMG, because on "caceAgglomeration" I can only choose between yes/no instead of true/false, that's why it appears the error shown above. I run checkMesh and it looks like everything is fine, maybe you can have a look and tell me what you think: Create polyMesh for time = constant Time = constant Mesh stats points: 86486 edges: 546809 faces: 895472 internal faces: 845132 cells: 435151 boundary patches: 6 point zones: 0 face zones: 0 cell zones: 1 Number of cells of each type: hexahedra: 0 prisms: 0 wedges: 0 pyramids: 0 tet wedges: 0 tetrahedra: 435151 polyhedra: 0 Checking topology... Boundary definition OK. Point usage OK. Upper triangular ordering OK. Topological cell zipup check OK. Face vertices OK. Faceface connectivity OK. Number of regions: 1 (OK). Checking patch topology for multiply connected surfaces ... Patch Faces Points Surface CONJUNT 16156 8297 multiply connected surface (shared edge) TRIMSRF 7074 3834 ok (not multiply connected) IN2_SUP 20 24 ok (not multiply connected) IN4_SUP 27 31 ok (not multiply connected) OUT_SUP 55 44 ok (not multiply connected) HABITACLE_SUP 27008 14038 ok (not multiply connected) <<Writing 8 conflicting points to set nonManifoldPoints Checking geometry... Domain bounding box: (8016.26 0 11534.5) (11376.3 1533 12814.5) Boundary openness (1.52724e16 5.65707e17 4.50097e16) OK. Max cell openness = 1.63021e16 OK. Max aspect ratio = 49.6919 OK. Minumum face area = 7.26316. Maximum face area = 2520.11. Face area magnitudes OK. Min volume = 1.67593. Max volume = 39882.8. Total volume = 3.8029e+09. Cell volumes OK. Mesh nonorthogonality Max: 84.7936 average: 14.6168 *Number of severely nonorthogonal faces: 278. Nonorthogonality check OK. <<Writing 278 nonorthogonal faces to set nonOrthoFaces Face pyramids OK. Max skewness = 2.42082 OK. Min/max edge length = 2.83426 88.9473 OK. All angles in faces OK. All face flatness OK. Mesh OK. Thanks again!! 

January 22, 2009, 16:26 
Hi Mayol,
I actually had th

#10 
Senior Member

Hi Mayol,
I actually had these kind of problems as well and it seems like you may have made the same mistake I did. When I look at the dimensions of your domain bounding box, it says it is about 3000m long (xdirection) and same order of magnitude in the other dirctions. I guess that should be meters instead. If you imported the mesh from a fluent mesh, you should import it again, but scaled (fluentMeshToFoam scale 0.001). This will bring down your Re by a factor of 1000, which will get better y+ values and physically more stable equations. Than your calculations should also be more stable. I am not sure about the nonorthogonality warning, but you could consult other topics for advise on that aspect. Good luck! 

January 22, 2009, 17:08 
Hi Tom
As I mentioned I have

#11 
New Member
Naish
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Tom
As I mentioned I have the same problem, and your hit with the large domain sounds good. But what to do if the domanin has to be very large 100  200 meters ? I have about 10 mio cells a smaler version with 4 mio cells worked fine. Thanks Naish 

January 23, 2009, 04:40 
Hi Mayol,
As Tom has pointe

#12 
Senior Member
matej forman
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
Posts: 117
Rep Power: 10 
Hi Mayol,
As Tom has pointed out, what I typically do, is to forget to downscale the mesh. It usually helps. Another thing, which might help you, looking at your mesh report and iteration progress is some limiting in discretisation schemes. Not sure what schemes you're using, but what helps me is cellLimiters for convective terms: div(phi,U) Gauss linearUpwindV cellLimited leastSquares 1.0; (this is laminar flow, so you might want to change linearUpwind with some other scheme.) hope this helps... 

January 23, 2009, 07:42 
Hi
now my case is running, a

#13 
New Member
Naish
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hi
now my case is running, a I think that I have understand what was going wrong. Please correct me if a I m wrong instead of downscaling I also can increase the viscosity, with the same effect (Re decreases). After a couple of timesteps when the model is more stable I can increase Re by changing viscosity. Naish 

January 23, 2009, 15:10 
Hi!!
Tom, now it works quit

#14 
New Member
mayol
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hi!!
Tom, now it works quite better. I had a problem with the scale, thanks. Matej, I can show you my fvSchemes file, maybe you can suggest me some changes (although I haven't found "cellLimited" inside of any of the several options). Thanks guys, every step I make gets me closer to a reliable solution ddtSchemes { default steadyState; } gradSchemes { default Gauss linear; grad(p) Gauss linear; grad(U) Gauss linear; } divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss upwind; div(phi,k) Gauss upwind; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss upwind; div(phi,R) Gauss upwind; div(R) Gauss linear; div(phi,nuTilda) Gauss upwind; div((nuEff*dev(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear; } laplacianSchemes { default none; laplacian(nuEff,U) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian((1A(U)),p) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DkEff,k) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DepsilonEff,epsilon) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DREff,R) Gauss linear corrected; laplacian(DnuTildaEff,nuTilda) Gauss linear corrected; } interpolationSchemes { default linear; interpolate(U) linear; } snGradSchemes { default corrected; } fluxRequired { default no; p; } 

January 26, 2009, 06:34 
Hi mayol
Hope your case is ru

#15 
New Member
Naish
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hi mayol
Hope your case is running well, I plaied the whole weekend with different combination of parameters but not really successful in some cases it rises slower but it is sill diverging. Have you alredy tried to run potentialFoam first? With it you can create a startingfield, it makes the beginning of the calculation much more stable. Please let me know if you found a solution, I am sill searching 

January 30, 2009, 04:44 
Hey Naish & cia.
I have tri

#16 
New Member
mayol
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 10 
Hey Naish & cia.
I have tried several things but doesn't converge. Do you think it could work changing the values of "nNonOrthogonalCorrectors" , "pRefCell" , "pRefValue" ? And modifying relaxationFactors (and which values)? Thanks again. 

January 30, 2009, 05:39 
Mayol,
looking at your mesh o

#17 
Senior Member
matej forman
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
Posts: 117
Rep Power: 10 
Mayol,
looking at your mesh orthogonality, it does not look very pretty, so it is a good idea to have number of nonorthogonal correctors around 24 I guess. Pressure reference in isothermal, incompressible case does not have a meaning. Relaxation factors should be fine in default, I think the problem is elsewhere. What do you prescribe for pressure at the boundaries? I think, you should check the epsilon once again. What is your inlet size to have this big epsilon? I always use for the first hit this little script:  #!/bin/sh echo ' ===========================================' echo ' give me Uref, Turbulent Intensity and L' echo ' I will give you TKE and epsilon for inlet' echo ' ===========================================' ### Uref=$1 ti=$2 L=$3 tke=$(echo "scale=4;1.5 *($Uref * $ti)^2"bc l ) epsilon=$(echo "scale=4;0.09^(3/4)*$tke^(3/2)/$L"bc l) echo 'tke =' $tke echo 'eps =' $epsilon  Does your gemoetry size match the inlet values? For the schemes, I would suggest you to try this version: divSchemes { default none; div(phi,U) Gauss QUICKV cellLimited leastSquares 1.0; div(phi,k) Gauss QUICK cellLimited leastSquares 1.0; div(phi,epsilon) Gauss QUICK cellLimited leastSquares 1.0; div(phi,R) Gauss linear; div(R) Gauss linear; div(phi,nuTilda) Gauss QUICK cellLimited leastSquares 1.0; div((nuEff*dev(grad(U).T()))) Gauss linear; } Of course you do should try upwind, not a quick for a start and maybe even then go for some TVD scheme like VanLeer, but it is not that important in this moment. hope this helps good luck matej 

March 3, 2009, 13:18 
Hello!
I am starting to imp

#18 
New Member
Ana Eduarda Sa Silva
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Hello!
I am starting to implement a simple case in OpenFoam just to compare accuracy and stability with CFX. I imported a mesh from Gambit using fluentMeshToFoam. The mesh seems good after running checkMesh: Overall domain bounding box (1.22461e18 0.02 0.0198552) (0.2 0.02 0.0198552) Mesh (nonempty) directions (1 1 1) Mesh (nonempty, nonwedge) dimensions 3 Boundary openness (2.30502e20 1.33809e18 7.99073e19) OK. Max cell openness = 2.68493e16 OK. Max aspect ratio = 11.3925 OK. Minumum face area = 2.2802e06. Maximum face area = 2.92195e05. Face area magnitudes OK. Min volume = 1.10766e08. Max volume = 1.21731e07. Total volume = 0.000248888. Cell volumes OK. Mesh nonorthogonality Max: 13.8762 average: 3.72945 Nonorthogonality check OK. Face pyramids OK. Max skewness = 0.381761 OK. I am trying to run a laminar, steady and incompressible case in a straight tube which I was expecting to be easily feasible. I am using simpleFoam as solver and I cannot get the solution to converge. I checked all boundary conditions and tried different relaxation factors but nothing diferent happens. It seems to me that the residuals for U and p are going down quickly but for some reason the cumulative continuity errors are not. Time = 252 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 4.23184e07, Final residual = 4.23184e07, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 5.03488e05, Final residual = 5.03488e05, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 1.3677e05, Final residual = 1.3677e05, No Iterations 0 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 8.46934e05, Final residual = 8.46934e05, No Iterations 0 time step continuity errors : sum local = 0.000289333, global = 8.75706e05, cumulative = 0.00393069 ExecutionTime = 5.61 s ClockTime = 5 s What do you think I am doing wrong? Thanks for your time. Eduarda 

March 3, 2009, 13:22 
Eduarda,
I dont see a reaso

#19 
Senior Member
BastiL
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 488
Rep Power: 13 
Eduarda,
I dont see a reason why this should not be converged? Regards 

March 3, 2009, 13:35 
Hello BastiL,
I am still le

#20 
New Member
Ana Eduarda Sa Silva
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 10 
Hello BastiL,
I am still learning OpenFoam so I don't exactly understand why this is happening. It is not running any iterations for U and p but the run doesn't converge. I am sending the outcome of two different times. Pressure is not varying and the time step continuity errors are not going down for some reason. Any ideas? Time = 1025 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 1.66682e14, Final residual = 1.66682e14, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 3.82132e14, Final residual = 3.82132e14, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 3.94543e14, Final residual = 3.94543e14, No Iterations 0 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 9.72482e05, Final residual = 9.72482e05, No Iterations 0 time step continuity errors : sum local = 0.000332199, global = 2.07969e06, cumulative = 0.00607836 ExecutionTime = 20.03 s ClockTime = 20 s Time = 3211 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Ux, Initial residual = 8.23629e17, Final residual = 8.23629e17, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uy, Initial residual = 1.74586e16, Final residual = 1.74586e16, No Iterations 0 DILUPBiCG: Solving for Uz, Initial residual = 2.00532e16, Final residual = 2.00532e16, No Iterations 0 DICPCG: Solving for p, Initial residual = 9.72482e05, Final residual = 9.72482e05, No Iterations 0 time step continuity errors : sum local = 0.000332199, global = 2.07969e06, cumulative = 0.00153215 ExecutionTime = 60.56 s ClockTime = 61 s 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Time step continuity  anja  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  29  April 10, 2017 02:18 
Time step size and max iterations per time step  pUl  FLUENT  31  August 21, 2015 04:46 
SELECTING TIME STEP SIZE, NUMBER OF TIME STEP  NITUL KALITA  FLUENT  2  November 22, 2012 09:28 
Speedup with GAMG for simplefoam forward Step  tutlhino  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  9  June 24, 2007 21:44 
Relation of computational time step with real time  Salman  Main CFD Forum  2  August 3, 2005 14:13 