# Grid Independent Study

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

 July 28, 2011, 04:56 Grid Independent Study #1 New Member   kiran Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3 Rep Power: 8 Sponsored Links Hello, My name is Kiran Kumar,Meda, I am doing my Masters at Duisburg -Essen univeristy. Currently I am working on my Thesis which is related to CFD. I am doing a Grid independent study, I tried to generate three different meshes using Different absolute minimum surface size, form which I would like to select one for my furthure analysis (Validation with Test results). I am using Ideal Gas , Segregated flow solver, realizable K-Epsilpon model with Two-layer all y+ treatment. Here is the info about the CFD simulation results, Min sur size Number of cells Temp o/l (°c ) 0,6 5262106 79,29 0,4 8345705 84,32 0,3 10565895 83,45 The test resule is 81,6 (°c).I would like to continue with the mesh having 0,4 mm as the min surface size. Now, I had a discussion with my friend, who says ' as the mesh size decreses the resistance to flow decrease, which results in less friction ,less turbulence intensity. So the temperature at the oulet for mesh (0.3) should be higher than mesh (0.4)'. Is this argument correct ? he also says as we go on reducing the min surface size, the resitance to flow decreases which results in high temperature at the outlet. Thanking you Best Regards, Kiran Kumar,Meda

August 1, 2011, 02:17
#2
Senior Member

Vieri Abolaffio
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Always on the move.
Posts: 308
Rep Power: 10
Quote:
 Originally Posted by msv_kk Hello, My name is Kiran ....
an increase in 10% (cell count between 0.3 and 0.4) is not considered sufficient to analyse the grid dependency of a simulation. while the sacred books recommend a 2x for every step, it is not always possible and an increment of 50% is usually tolerated.

i don't really understand your friend point. about winch velocity and resistance is he talking about? ideally there shoudent' be any differences in the flow.

 August 7, 2011, 15:54 #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 637 Rep Power: 14 Additionally to sail's post, I suggest to modify the base size instead of the min surface size. The min surface size affects the mesh only on faces with strong curvature or with close proximity to other faces. All other faces will be meshed with the target surface size, so it might not be meaningful to reduce only the min surface size. And it's nearly impossible to give any statement whether it makes sense with higher / lower / whatever temperatures when modifying any mesh sizes. I don't even know if the gas should cool down in the domain or should heat up. So it's impossible to give any statement! biswajit likes this.

 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 xyq102296 ANSYS 15 April 29, 2017 21:44 Khan FLUENT 10 July 2, 2015 22:40 John222 Main CFD Forum 1 January 26, 2011 20:05 Art Stretton Phoenics 5 April 2, 2002 05:59 Hesham M. Aly FLUENT 2 October 5, 2000 08:24