CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > SU2

SU2 coverage issue. Config file or mesh?

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   December 4, 2019, 09:07
Default SU2 coverage issue. Config file or mesh?
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 6
zloty001 is on a distinguished road

I am beginner in opensource CFD and it is my first - non tutorial - SU2 simulation and here is short description of my case issue.

I have some trouble with coverage compressible simulation over airfoil (M=0.85). I ran my calculation and residuals are not "going down" so I stopped SU2 after 1000 iterations. To compare in Fluent it took me about 300 iterations to converge solution. Moreover comparing to Fluent solutions, the SU2 solution has a hudge difference (Cd in Fluent: 0.0643, Cd in SU2: 0.13). I don't know why the difference is so huge and how to make my results more accurate.

My config file is based on turbulent NACA 0012 tutorial although I made some changes, but in my opinion it shouldn't be a problem. Nevertheless, I attach my config, maybe I am missing something. I would appreciate if someone could see into it. I used Multigrid as it should make calculation converge faster and I used linear solver as well.

My second though "why can't it converge' was that it is due to mesh. I made structured mesh in ICEM and in my opinion it is fine. I would be grateful if someone could look into it. Moreover, I am thinking whether triangle mesh would be better to calculate for SU2?

Below I attach only residuals plot.
Here you can see config file, mesh and results (SU2 and Fluent to compare).

Maybe one more sentence, why I am using SU2. This is because I am doing CRM wing optimization project on my University. I am going to optimize 6 section of CRM wing and compare "2D wing optimization" (through airfoils optimization) to the whole 3D wing optimization.

Thanks in advance for your help !
Attached Images
File Type: png Residuals-plotly.png (34.7 KB, 24 views)
zloty001 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 4, 2019, 10:13
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 6
zloty001 is on a distinguished road
In addition to post above, I am attaching some mesh screenshots.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screen.jpg (101.9 KB, 20 views)
File Type: jpg screen2.jpg (197.0 KB, 21 views)
File Type: jpg meshquality.jpg (57.7 KB, 23 views)
zloty001 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 5, 2019, 04:09
Super Moderator
Tim Albring
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 195
Rep Power: 9
talbring is on a distinguished road
Hi zloty001,

I had a look at your case. I modified some config options and it converges now better ( See the attached picture.

However, this seems to be a tough case due to shocks on the upper and lower surface. Plus there seems to be a shock-induced separation on the lower surface.

Still, I cannot tell you why the values for C_D are different from Fluent (I get 0.105 now).

Attached Images
File Type: png res.png (59.7 KB, 28 views)
Developer Director @ SU2 Foundation

Get involved:
talbring is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 8, 2019, 12:51
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Poland
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 6
zloty001 is on a distinguished road
Hi Tim,

thank you for your help. I see that main change in config was this line:
and adding adaptive CFL number up to 100.

Non-dimensionalization of the Navier-Stokes Equation helped in converge and to be honest I've missed this parameter and I assume that I wouldn't pay attention to it, so once again thank you, I am glad you helped me. Problem with converge is solved .

However, I looked deeper into the differences between Fluent and SU2. I thought it could be helpful to run some validation case, so I used NACA0012 validation case. It gave an interesting results which I attach below.
In both cases in Fluent and SU2 I used the same BC and method: Re=9.0e6, M=0.82, alpha= -0.14, RANS, SA.
You can see, that SU2 provides more reliable results of pressure distribution than Fluent.

So returning to my case and the differences in calculation, I believe Cd calculated by SU2 is more reliable than Fluent. The difference in Cd between SU2 and Fluent is quite significant - around 30%.

Validation data:

Attached Images
File Type: png Pressure_Coefficent-Validation.png (52.2 KB, 17 views)
File Type: jpg PressuerDistibution1_NACA0012_Re9e6_M0.82.jpg (132.0 KB, 14 views)
zloty001 is offline   Reply With Quote


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
OpenFoam "Permission denied" and "command not found" problems. OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 11 January 2, 2018 06:47
Trouble compiling utilities using source-built OpenFOAM Artur OpenFOAM Programming & Development 14 October 29, 2013 10:59
ParaView Compilation jakaranda OpenFOAM Installation 3 October 27, 2008 11:46
DxFoam reader update hjasak OpenFOAM Post-Processing 69 April 24, 2008 01:24
[blockMesh] Axisymmetrical mesh Rasmus Gjesing (Gjesing) OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 10 April 2, 2007 14:00

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10.