|
[Sponsors] |
November 23, 2005, 06:06 |
Hi,
Could anyone please hav
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi,
Could anyone please have a look at this case and tell me if it's normal for the timestep to be so small - and perhaps it's getting smaller yet (1E-7 sec)? I think there's something wrong here, perhaps boundary/initial conditions? nCorrectors is 3 - the geometry consists of hex elements. checkMesh doesn't complain about any "severe errors" - a little output (although I don't know what exactly it means): Checking geometry... Boundary openness in x-direction = -1.75251e-18 Boundary openness in y-direction = 5.40229e-17 Boundary openness in z-direction = 4.90284e-17 Boundary closed (OK). Max cell openness = 8.47039e-22 Max aspect ratio = 1.00033. All cells OK. Minumum face area = 2.12057e-06. Maximum face area = 2.35618e-06. Face area magnitudes OK. Min volume = 3.19848e-09. Max volume = 3.51656e-09. Total volume = 0.000134475. Cell volumes OK. Mesh non-orthogonality Max: 0.106083 average: 0.00296587 Non-orthogonality check OK. Face pyramids OK. Max skewness = 0.181423 percent. Face skewness OK. Minumum edge length = 0.00141371. Maximum edge length = 0.00157079. All angles in faces are convex or less than 10 degrees concave. hexbody_rund_meshed.tgz I also had this problem with the timestep when I tried to do a calculation with tet-elements, so I'm pretty disappointed if this won't work when I've switched to hex-elements, if you understand :-) |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Specifying timestep | carlos | CFX | 4 | June 11, 2007 09:50 |
Timestep | Omer | CFX | 5 | December 11, 2006 11:19 |
Timestep | Joe | CFX | 4 | August 23, 2006 06:51 |
Timestep | mefpz | CFX | 6 | March 5, 2004 03:34 |
timestep | Eugenio Mayol | CFX | 2 | February 8, 2001 01:39 |