# Problems with increasing velocity with the time

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

April 8, 2011, 04:58
Problems with increasing velocity with the time
#1
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Rep Power: 8
Hi,

I think I have two problems with divergence.
One of them is that the solver crashed after a few time steps, but I don't want to discuss this one here. :-)

The other problem ist, that the solver solves the case, but the results are not very good.
I'm solving with chtMultiRegionSimpleFoam an switched turbulence on. Now I want to see how velocity is solved.

By setting the endTime to 100 there is a maximum velocity of about 30m/s.
By setting the endTime to 500 there is a maximum velocity of about 200m/s.

I have two inlets and two outlets. Inlet is set up with fixed value of u and outlet as zeroGradient.

Maybe someone knows how to solve this problem.

Best Regards,
tH3f0rC3
Attached Files
 settings.zip (19.2 KB, 12 views)

April 9, 2011, 07:12
#3
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Rep Power: 8
Hi freemankofi,

with very good I mean, that the velocity doesn't converge.
Quote:
 By setting the endTime to 100 there is a maximum velocity of about 30m/s. By setting the endTime to 500 there is a maximum velocity of about 200m/s.
There can't be a velocity value greater than max. 40 m/s I would guess.

There are two inlets (Dueseneintritt and Brennerinlet) and two outlets (Inlet_Outles and
Abgasoutlet).
All the others are just walls.

I can't allow that a flow crosses the boundary because there are walls where no flow is allowed to cross. Or didn't I get you right?
So which BC you would propose to use for the walls?

I want to solve my case steady state as the first step. Later I will try the transient version. But the aim is to get to know the velocity field in the steady state case.

For a better understanding of my case I have send you two pictures.
In picture 1 and 3 you can see the case. I have added the important names to the geometry.
In Brennerinlet hot air flows into the room. On Abgasoutlet the same flow flows out the room. On InletOutlet there is in reality a ventilator which sucks in the air and blows out the air through the Dueseneintritt-elements.
The Halterungsgestell will be heaten up by the hot air.

In reality there is another geometry hold by the Halterungsgestell taht will be heaten up. I have now recognized that it would be better to add in a simple version of that geometry, because now the flow from the little pipes above and below the Halterungsgestell will "collide".

I hope you can now understand my case better.

Best Regards,

tH3f0rC3

April 10, 2011, 14:38
#4
Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 42
Rep Power: 9
tH3f0rC3,

I think you might have a 'fundamental' issue.

If your timeline is not a crucial factor, specifically for non-commercial project, I suggest that you approach this problem in more than 1 phase. For phase 1, remove the bottom part (hulterund....) and model only the top part. This will allow you to build much confidence in the setup and all other pertinents that come with it. The subsequent phases you model the complete geometry.

I wouldn't put BC at "Abgas..." unless you truly know the exact outlet conditions which isn't the case. Therefore, consider adding about 1-2D pipe length to it. D is the hole diameter. In this case, this outlet BC effect wouldn't affect your results and might give more stable solution.

What's the BC at the right part of the middle section (one with nipples)?

Is "Duesenoulet" means "outlet" BC with ZG? I wouldn't go for that. From the picture you sent, it looks that, technically, those nipples are NOT "outlet". Outlet means section of flow domain where the fluid exit. They're just either "distributors" or "suckers" depending on the pressure difference between the inside of the middle box and its bottom. is that correct? Therefore, I'll consider using either "pressure" or "inletOutlet" BCs. In other CFD package you wouldn't need to specify BC for them so far as you defined them as "fluid volumes".

Try to solve the flow much longer, say 500-1000 (or max residual < 10-3) depending on the mesh size.

Lastly, please double check all your flow conditions including density, viscosity, etc to make sure they're all correct. Try to understand the main problem you're trying to solve and ask all the necessary questions, such: is the correct physics being implemented in the code? is it the same in the 'real life'? Since CFD hasn't reached a stage of using it as a 'blackbox', the user understanding of the problem at hand is VERY crucial of getting the correct solution.

If you can send me the image of the computational mesh, that would be great. Make sure that your mesh are also good for specific turbulence model using. A typical k-e wall function might only be good for qualitative results since your domain involves curvature effect and probable flow recirculation.

See attached my 2D sketch of the problem. The question marks are those you might consider and my suggetsion of the split is those lable "A" and "B".

Regards,
Freeman
Attached Files
 tH3f0rC3.pdf (44.7 KB, 23 views)

April 11, 2011, 02:15
#5
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Rep Power: 8
InletOutlet is in this case an outlet. There is a flow going outside the volume. Because I have another case which "starts" exactly there the name InletOutlet is a little bit strange.
It is just the same with "Duesenoutlet". Here a flow comes into the volume. It is just the same flow going ou the volume on InletOutlet.
And than there is one inlet (Brennerinlet) and one outlet (Abgasoutlet) left. On the Brennerinlet hot air comes into the volume and on Abgasoulet the air can leave the volume.

I have sent you pictures to make the case more clear.

Quote:
 I wouldn't put BC at "Abgas..." unless you truly know the exact outlet conditions which isn't the case.
I know the BC's on every Inlet and Outlet very well. But I decided not to specifie every BC on Inlet and Outlet, because I thought the solver wouldn't like that.

I didn't get you at the following point:
Quote:
 Therefore, consider adding about 1-2D pipe length to it. D is the hole diameter. In this case, this outlet BC effect wouldn't affect your results and might give more stable solution.
How can I ensure the following?
Quote:
 Make sure that your mesh are also good for specific turbulence model using.
Best Regards,
tH3f0rC3

April 12, 2011, 02:12
#7
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Rep Power: 8
Hi,

I'm afraid I didn't get you at this point:
Quote:
 If you have directed your flows out of the domain (v_out positive) then a negative value will means flow admitted to conserved mass locally
So you mean that it is no problem to fix every inlet and outlet with the value of velocity I do know? I do know the velocity at every inlet and outlet. But I thought that it is not good to give every inlet and outlet a fixed value.

Through the small cylinders the flow which left the volume at InletOutlet will enter the volume here again.
I'm simulating the flow from InletOutlet to the small cylinders in a seperat case. From this case I know the different values of velocity at every outlet of the small cylinders.
And yes, the job of the small cylinders is to distribute/spread the air onto the geometry that shall be heaten up (which lies above the lower small cylinders and under the upper small cylinders).

Best Regards,
tH3f0rC3

 April 12, 2011, 18:58 #8 Member   Freeman Adane Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 42 Rep Power: 9 Assumed there's a node, np which has neighbours nb and nw as example in 1D flow with nb at the boundary, say outlet. nw-------np------nb nw and np are not known with nb supposes to be known because it's at the boundary. If it's known, great! But usually, it's NOT! So, for using ZG, nb = np which means that there's ONLY 2 unknowns instead of 3. Using "InletOulet" or "OuletInlet" or "Pressure", it uses mass conservation: m_w+m_b=0 => m_b=-m_w. Knowing the mass, velocity can always be calculated using density and area/volume. Since nb is outlet, it can be taken as negative or positive depending on the sign conversion used (see OpenFOAM manual for it). If it's positive, and the calculated nb was negative, then flow will be admitted to the domain (inflows), and vice versa. So, if you have the exit velocity values, then specify them but check the Openfoam conversion, I am not sure with that but I think positive might be okay. Did you actually measured them or you estimated it from flow rate or mass? Cross check that mass is balanced for your entire domain: mass/flow rate through ALL inlets = mass/flowrates through ALL outlets of the domain. Since a fixed Value gives NO room for the solver to adjust and resulting in instability. Try, if it fails and then give my first suggestion a shot. Send me message anytime if you need additional clarification.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Ardalan Main CFD Forum 6 April 17, 2010 23:40 Andy Chen FLUENT 2 June 30, 2009 12:48 dm2747 FLUENT 0 April 17, 2009 01:29 lr103476 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 30 November 19, 2007 15:09 R P CFX 2 October 26, 2004 02:13

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23.