CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > Siemens > STAR-CCM+

Gravity Casting: Pressure Outlet vs. Stagnation Inlet

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   May 28, 2014, 16:05
Default Gravity Casting: Pressure Outlet vs. Stagnation Inlet
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 12
joeballer is on a distinguished road
Hello CFD Community!

I just started a co-op where I am continuing work done by another student.
We're modeling a simple gravity casting simulation and comparing the simulated cooling curve to those measured on an actual casting of identical geometry to our model. This is in hopes that eventually we will be able to predict grain growth for any model before we cast it.

The inlet of the sprue is modeled as a pressure inlet. The vents are modeled as stagnation inlets as opposed to pressure outlets. This was done in an attempt to restrict the flow (say in the event of a splash) when the melt reaches the top of the mould, but given our geometry and the fact that as this is a gravity casting, I cannot imagine the melt splashing at all.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the stagnation inlet is causing some issues with the solver and, therefore, is throwing off the accuracy of our simulation. Everywhere I have read, it is suggested that mass flow inlets should be paired with pressure outlets; this especially makes sense when you consider that the mould is filled with air before the melt is poured, thus we do actually have a fluid moving through the pressure outlet during the simulation.

I am curious as to you're take on this. Any advice is welcome .


joeballer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 28, 2014, 17:17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,232
Rep Power: 24
me3840 is on a distinguished road
I would use the pressure outlet since you shouldn't use the compressible condition for an incompressible fluid
me3840 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 29, 2014, 09:28
New Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 12
joeballer is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the quick reply, me3840.

Julian, CD-Adapco's casting expert, recently suggested I introduce a slight compressibility on the melt EOS to enhance convergence and robustness.

Would it then be appropriate to model the outlets as stagnation inlets?
Or is it still a best practice to stick with a pressure outlet for the solver's sake?
joeballer is offline   Reply With Quote


boundary conditions, casting, pressure conditions, stagnation pressure

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pressure Driven Supersonic Flow in Converging-Diverging Nozzle cdm OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 7 August 28, 2019 01:37
2D Hypersonic Inlet in FLUENT - Convergence Issues Fraisdegout FLUENT 6 December 15, 2016 02:07
Pressure Inlet Boundary Condition Issue zoeburton1987 FLUENT 0 May 15, 2012 09:20
steam flow in a pipe driven by a pressure gradient between inlet and outlet SalvoCalvo COMSOL 0 March 11, 2010 06:52
Drop in pressure between inlet and outlet tommie OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 September 12, 2008 04:37

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00.