Menu

Discussion Forum

New Discussion
Filtrer

Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.

ALE- Incompressible Navier stoks

Posted 22 janv. 2010, 01:09 UTC−5 11 Replies

Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hi ,

I have created a moving boundary model. I get some results when the pressure gradient is low. As soon as I increase the pressure gradient or velocity, although it is still laminar, solver diverges. Anybody is working on the same modules? I can share more data on the problem then cause I did not to send a long message now.

Regards,
11 Replies Last Post 28 janv. 2010, 03:49 UTC−5
Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 23 janv. 2010, 07:23 UTC−5
It would help if you describe your model in some lines.
It would help if you describe your model in some lines.
Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 23 janv. 2010, 19:00 UTC−5

It would help if you describe your model in some lines.


Hi Daniel

Thank you very much for your message. The model is attached below:

www.4shared.com/file/203837477/2bf3f9b7/test.html

As you can see, I have added some support line to prevent the mesh to get inverted. As I increase the pressure gradient the solver diverges. I am not sure about the solving method and time steps that I have chosen but I have tried different mesh models and different support lines. Non of them helped me so much. The desired pressure gradient is 900 ...

Please have a look at the file and kindly let me know your suggestions,

Regards,
Hani
[QUOTE] It would help if you describe your model in some lines. [/QUOTE] Hi Daniel Thank you very much for your message. The model is attached below: http://www.4shared.com/file/203837477/2bf3f9b7/test.html As you can see, I have added some support line to prevent the mesh to get inverted. As I increase the pressure gradient the solver diverges. I am not sure about the solving method and time steps that I have chosen but I have tried different mesh models and different support lines. Non of them helped me so much. The desired pressure gradient is 900 ... Please have a look at the file and kindly let me know your suggestions, Regards, Hani
Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 26 janv. 2010, 13:59 UTC−5
Hi Hani,

I cannot access your file. Maybe you try another file sharing?

The file link that you requested is not valid.

Danial
Hi Hani, I cannot access your file. Maybe you try another file sharing? [quote]The file link that you requested is not valid.[/quote] Danial
Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 26 janv. 2010, 16:04 UTC−5
Sorry,

I attached the file.

Regards,
Hani
Sorry, I attached the file. Regards, Hani

Attachments:

Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 26 janv. 2010, 17:43 UTC−5

Sorry,

I attached the file.

Regards,
Hani


Try using Heaviside functions on your pressure to ramp it up to the final value. In your inlet pressure I used P*flc2hs(t-0.1,.1), and I got the following result (attached screenshot).



[QUOTE] Sorry, I attached the file. Regards, Hani [/QUOTE] Try using Heaviside functions on your pressure to ramp it up to the final value. In your inlet pressure I used P*flc2hs(t-0.1,.1), and I got the following result (attached screenshot).
Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 26 janv. 2010, 18:21 UTC−5
Thank you very much. In fact I have tried that as well. I made a ramp from time zero to 2, that the pressure reaches 300 and from t=2 to t=3 pressure is constant p=300. Again the cycle is not completed and it crashes at time 2.67. The file is attached.

What about the model that you tested, as far as I see, it has crashed at t=0.52. Am I right?

The other possibility is to make the channel longer after the moving parts in order to reduce the effect of outlet on the fluid. But again in that case, I could not get any result....
Thank you very much. In fact I have tried that as well. I made a ramp from time zero to 2, that the pressure reaches 300 and from t=2 to t=3 pressure is constant p=300. Again the cycle is not completed and it crashes at time 2.67. The file is attached. What about the model that you tested, as far as I see, it has crashed at t=0.52. Am I right? The other possibility is to make the channel longer after the moving parts in order to reduce the effect of outlet on the fluid. But again in that case, I could not get any result....

Attachments:

Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 janv. 2010, 05:28 UTC−5
No it didn't crash; I just stopped it, as I was running it my laptop.

I will try again today and report back
No it didn't crash; I just stopped it, as I was running it my laptop. I will try again today and report back
Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 janv. 2010, 11:33 UTC−5
I will appreciate that.
I will appreciate that.
Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 janv. 2010, 11:43 UTC−5
Hi Hani,

I tried some more simulations, and I can say so far that mesh around the neck is a very important part. So I refined the mesh in that area and I could simulate a bit further. How about you draw the mesh quality and improve the parts that goes low.
Hi Hani, I tried some more simulations, and I can say so far that mesh around the neck is a very important part. So I refined the mesh in that area and I could simulate a bit further. How about you draw the mesh quality and improve the parts that goes low.
Hani Bakhshaei
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 janv. 2010, 22:39 UTC−5
Yes. That would be a good idea. I will do that. What about the solver. In fact I ma not a finite element man, I do not know how to decide between different solvers and which one is more suitable for this problem. Do you have any idea? UFMPACK, SPOOLES, PARDISO?...

Thanks
Yes. That would be a good idea. I will do that. What about the solver. In fact I ma not a finite element man, I do not know how to decide between different solvers and which one is more suitable for this problem. Do you have any idea? UFMPACK, SPOOLES, PARDISO?... Thanks
Danial Tz
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 28 janv. 2010, 03:49 UTC−5
I usually use Pardiso, maybe sometimes UMFPACK. I set the Gen-a solver with 0.5 for frequencies and type of scaling to manual (or none). But it really depends on your problem and needs a feeling for it.
I usually use Pardiso, maybe sometimes UMFPACK. I set the Gen-a solver with 0.5 for frequencies and type of scaling to manual (or none). But it really depends on your problem and needs a feeling for it.

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Suggested Content