TAGGED: dpm, eulerianwallfilm, fluent, spray


February 16, 2022 at 9:26 pm

February 17, 2022 at 1:23 pmRobAnsys EmployeeCheck the injection, if you've got over 9 million parcels after two DPM updates I think something's gone wrong. Did you change any of the parcel settings?

February 17, 2022 at 1:43 pmazhaoSubscriberHi, Rob,
Thank you for the reply. The parcel release method is "Standard" as default. I will change the number of streams injected by the nozzle to a smaller number and then have a try.
An

February 17, 2022 at 1:59 pmRobAnsys EmployeeAh, I'd missed that. 500 is a little excessive. Try 25 and see how you go. With DPM if you have a very high parcel count in a cell the source terms can become too high, that then causes the problems you're seeing. Read the DPM theory for some background on this.

February 17, 2022 at 4:16 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob I followed your suggestion by changing the particle stream number to 25 and running the case again, it went a little bit farther than before but blew off after 31 iterations, the following is the error message, I can find several parts that are suspicious:
the part marked by !!!!! looks very strange but I assume it is only an issue related to parallel computation but not convergence?
The number of parcels is heavily reduced but still quite a lot, maybe I shall decrease the particle stream further?
The direct cause seems to be the excessive CFL number, but I am not sure what does this CFL number mean. I think the coupled solution algorithm itself is implicit, so maybe the problem is because the first order explicit way selected by Eulerian wall film model? I will change it and have a try......
The two turbulence closure equations seem to be another problem as the last two columns have very big residuals. and the warning "turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 719163 cells", no idea if I should do something to improve this or it will disappear after the convergence problem is solved.
Thanks for checking this long thread.

Advancing DPM injections...
Reversed flow on 11521 faces (62.6% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 10117 faces (56.1% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 7590 faces (99.7% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 680 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 5 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
Film time = 1.300018e03 with timestep = 3.1e09, (max_cfl: 1.805477e01)
Eulerian wall film model is enabled:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of the DPM Domain has been requested, but it is incompatible with the above
settings, and therefore the DPM Domain will not be used.
To avoid this message, disable the 'Use DPM Domain' option.
You may want to use the 'Hybrid Optimization' in the partitioning options instead.
That is, enable it, run some DPM iterations, repartition, and use the new partitions.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 475615, escaped = 20, incomplete = 471972, shed = 473897
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 328, splashed = 64, stripped = 74, rebound = 38
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 477099, escaped = 105, incomplete = 472289, shed = 1479
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 759, splashed = 312, stripped = 36, rebound = 43
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 477701, escaped = 59, incomplete = 472274, shed = 1267
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 418, splashed = 96, stripped = 36, rebound = 28
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 478676, escaped = 50, incomplete = 471996, shed = 1223
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 647, splashed = 180, stripped = 36, rebound = 40
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 479681, escaped = 68, incomplete = 472161, shed = 1376
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 654, splashed = 256, stripped = 36, rebound = 26
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 480179, escaped = 54, incomplete = 472022, shed = 955
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 630, splashed = 176, stripped = 36, rebound = 29
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 481179, escaped = 39, incomplete = 472086, shed = 1331
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 595, splashed = 284, stripped = 36, rebound = 23
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 482245, escaped = 36, incomplete = 472225, shed = 1192
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 887, splashed = 412, stripped = 36, rebound = 69
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 483065, escaped = 38, incomplete = 472233, shed = 1435
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 646, splashed = 180, stripped = 36, rebound = 44
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 1e07
number tracked = 484070, escaped = 37, incomplete = 472416, shed = 1363
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 756, splashed = 256, stripped = 36, rebound = 32
Warning:3.2923% of the total discrete phase mass was not tracked for the expected residence time:
7.53e05 s less on a massweighted average (which is 12.5713% of their total age or 7.5307% of the last time step).
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 223317 cells
303.8262e041.4659e031.1315e033.5500e033.9687e038.1724e015.7855e01 168:57:16 19970
Reversed flow on 10765 faces (55.8% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 7856 faces (48.8% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 5505 faces (69.9% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Negative k in 1044 cells after linear solve.
temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 59751 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 74 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
Film time = 1.300021e03 with timestep = 3.1e09, (max_cfl: 3.909367e01)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 655349 cells
311.0179e021.7508e152.3064e153.7564e153.8050e132.1808e+021.0341e+00 143:24:54 19969
Reversed flow on 10938 faces (56.5% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 8033 faces (48.1% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 6093 faces (78.6% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Divergence detected in AMG solver: pressure coupledStabilizing k to enhance linear solver robustness.
Negative k in 202201 cells after linear solve.
All neighbors negative on 11 cells.
temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 333900 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 532 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
Film time = 1.300023e03 with timestep = 1.5e09, (max_cfl: 1.108611e+00)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 719163 cells
Divergence detected in AMG solver: pressure coupled

February 17, 2022 at 4:30 pmRobAnsys EmployeeGiven the number of incomplete particles drop the particle time step by an order of magnitude. Also turn off splashing. See how that goes. Basically, to diagnose problems we turn stuff off until it works and then slowly turn things back on until they don't. From there it's usually fairly easy to work out what the root cause of the problem is.

February 17, 2022 at 5:42 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob,
Thanks for the great suggestions.
I decreased the particle time step from 0.0001s to 0.00002s. And the splashing is turned off. Also, the DPM domain is unticked. The error message now seems simpler than before, but the solution still blows off after 25 iterations as shown in the following:
It looks like the problem is in solving for the Eulerian wall film models by checking the huge residual of it. And the problem of turbulence quantities remains. The problem of a huge DPM parcel number is eliminated, I suppose it means most parcels are generated by splashing...

Advancing DPM injections ....
Reversed flow on 956 faces (8.5% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 6391 faces (24.0% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 6832 faces (86.7% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 0.000000e+00; u: 0.000000e+00; v: 0.000000e+00; t: 0.000000e+00
Film time = 2.000000e03 with timestep = 1.0e04, (max_cfl: 0.000000e+00)
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 275
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 300
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 325
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 350
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 375
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 400
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 13
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 412
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 24
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 413
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 26
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 412
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 27
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 410
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 27
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 187343 cells
244.6249e047.3816e021.2243e026.3270e021.2860e+065.6663e011.0639e+005:11:14 19976
Reversed flow on 3235 faces (33.1% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 8237 faces (57.1% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 5250 faces (67.6% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 513405 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 436656 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 1.976365e+12; u: 1.926994e+13; v: 8.212897e+12; t: 1.544663e+87
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 1.492813e+12; u: 6.872916e+12; v: 5.264992e+12; t: 5.808624e+87
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.102153e+12; u: 1.924995e+13; v: 8.212897e+12; t: 6.931355e+87
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.103431e+12; u: 6.872916e+12; v: 5.264992e+12; t: 5.808624e+87
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 1.924995e+13; v: 8.212897e+12; t: 6.931355e+87
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 6.872916e+12; v: 5.264992e+12; t: 5.808624e+87
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 1.924995e+13; v: 8.212897e+12; t: 6.931355e+87
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 6.872916e+12; v: 5.264992e+12; t: 5.808624e+87
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 1.924995e+13; v: 8.212897e+12; t: 6.931355e+87
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.103234e+12; u: 6.872916e+12; v: 5.264992e+12; t: 5.808624e+87
Film time = 2.193750e03 with timestep = 6.3e06, (max_cfl: 9.051277e+05)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 257258 cells
254.9143e+008.5547e039.2232e042.5725e036.8090e+594.7955e+071.5337e+005:09:00 19975
Reversed flow on 10219 faces (47.4% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 11966 faces (73.9% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 5496 faces (71.4% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing temperature to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing temperature using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperaturesubiteration: 1 residual  h: 1.318278e+19; u: 6.973356e+17; v: 2.637542e+17; t: 6.959193e+88
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 1.320348e+19; u: 2.046648e+20; v: 2.037741e+20; t: 1.007706e+95
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 6.973356e+17; v: 2.621847e+17; t: 1.212422e+101
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 2.046648e+20; v: 2.037741e+20; t: 1.206597e+107
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 6.973356e+17; v: 2.621847e+17; t: 9.390307e+112
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 2.046648e+20; v: 2.037741e+20; t: 4.265750e+111
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 6.973356e+17; v: 2.621847e+17; t: 1.152971e+109
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 2.046648e+20; v: 2.037741e+20; t: 9.192200e+117
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 6.973356e+17; v: 2.621847e+17; t: 5.623902e+123
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.320801e+19; u: 2.046648e+20; v: 2.037741e+20; t: 2.564501e+131
Film time = 2.196875e03 with timestep = 3.1e06, (max_cfl: 4.516040e+12)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 932236 cells
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature

February 18, 2022 at 1:47 pmRobAnsys EmployeeThat's the EWF failing. It is quite sensitive to time step, and if the droplets are warm/hot it's even more so. Ideally the film needs to have a Courant Number around 0.05 as a starting point.

February 21, 2022 at 9:31 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob,
I decreased the Maximum Courant number from 0.2 to 0.05 but the results did not change, still blow off after 25 iterations and the (max_cfl: 4.516055e+12) is almost the same as the previous result.
And the droplets are actually set to 291 K, which is the same as the initial temperature of the Eulerian wall film.
Is there any other method to improve it? I will try a nonzero initial liquid film but not sure if it will help....

February 22, 2022 at 4:38 pmRobAnsys EmployeeTurn off the EWF and see what happens. What is the mesh like on the wall with the film on it?

February 22, 2022 at 5:21 pm

February 22, 2022 at 5:39 pmRobAnsys EmployeeWhat happens to the film at the edge? LWF uses boundary "particles" so has a different numerical scheme. I do know that EWF really won't like the jump in cell size.

February 22, 2022 at 5:49 pmazhaoSubscriberThere is no special treatment about the film at the edge. The surrounding boundaries near this bluecircled region are set as pressure outlet. Does it mean the film flows to this part would automatically disappear? That is the reason the solution diverges?

February 22, 2022 at 9:12 pm

February 23, 2022 at 5:04 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI had to ask a grown up  my brain's had it.
The film will disappear at the edge of the wall and should be reported as mass leaving the domain. If you plot the film thickness after some time but before the model fails how does it look?

February 23, 2022 at 9:30 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob Thank you so much for your patience with this problem. :)
Please see the following contours for the film thickness distribution (The initial liquid film thickness in the blue circled region is 1 micrometer). It looks very unphysical...
And I did not find any direct report of mass leaving the domain in the ANSYS Fluent console, shall I turn on some verbose option to monitor how much mass is leaving the domain?

February 24, 2022 at 8:14 am

February 24, 2022 at 9:45 amRobAnsys EmployeeThat looks like you've hit the 5mm limiter (default max thickness) and also it looks very mesh dependent. If you look at the droplet size near the surface, how big are they?

February 24, 2022 at 10:11 amazhaoSubscriber

February 24, 2022 at 3:21 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI'd be looking to use Workbench or Fluent Meshing for this, ICEM CFD is overkill.
Looking at the droplets, we have relatively few 0.133mm droplets hitting the surface. If you look at the cell size in that region, or rather the surface facet size how thick will the film be? You also seem to have very few droplets near the surface given the 9.5M in the system!

February 25, 2022 at 2:34 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob I agree with you that Tmesh is already enough for such simple geometry.
Please see the following summary of the injected spray particles, after decreasing the particle streams from 500 to 25, the total number of parcels or particles have been drastically decreased to 383 and 2497.5, respectively.
(*) Summary for Injection:
(*)injection0
(*)
Total number of parcels: 383
Total number of particles: 2.497500e+03
Total mass: 3.064000e07(kg)
Overall RR Spread Parameter: 3.704653e+00
Maximum Error in RR fit: 7.290067e02
Overall RR diameter(D_RR): 8.322037e05(m)
Maximum RMS distance from injector: 1.029918e02(m)
Maximum particle diameter: 1.326034e04(m)
Minimum particle diameter: 3.668175e05(m)
Overall mean diameter(D_10): 5.492609e05(m)
Overall mean surface area(D_20): 5.817943e05(m)
Overall mean volume(D_30): 6.168634e05(m)
Overall surface diameter(D_21): 6.162547e05(m)
Overall volume diameter(D_31): 6.537237e05(m)
Overall Sauter diameter(D_32): 6.934709e05(m)
Overall De Brouckere diameter (D_43): 7.720868e05(m)
Regarding the facet size where the 0.133mm droplets hit the surface, as the length of the long side for one cell is 0.667 mm, it is around 0.15 mm^2. Hence if a droplet parcel with 2497.5 / 383 = 6.5 particles and 0.0133 mm diameter hit it, then the resulting liquid film thickness should be 1/6*pi*(0.0133)^3*6.5/0.15 = 5.34e5 mm, it is rather small. I have no idea why some area reaches the 0.5 mm threshold after just two DPM injections....

February 25, 2022 at 4:24 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI'm not either, but it does look like a very mesh related problem. We've run similar cases for isothermal VOF<>EWF testing and not seen this issue. The film really doesn't like big jumps in facet size, but shouldn't go as wrong as you're seeing. There must be something else going that's not obvious from your posts.
Turn off spreading & surface tension, let's see what that gives.

February 25, 2022 at 4:50 pmazhaoSubscriberI agree with you that there is something suspicious other than the mesh.
After turning off the spreading & surface tension, the maximum Courant number decreases, but the solution still blows off after 23 iterations.
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 466580 cells
22 3.9660e04 1.5672e03 2.6568e03 1.5392e03 8.3966e+48 1.5275e+12 1.0119e+00 14:09:42 9978
Reversed flow on 7308 faces (14.3% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 9701 faces (42.0% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 7218 faces (94.3% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing temperature to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing temperature using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature subiteration: 1 residual  h: 4.128122e+12; u: 1.673299e+12; v: 1.005001e+12; t: 6.797438e+86
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 4.880305e+12; u: 1.013807e+13; v: 5.614040e+12; t: 3.893496e+89
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.673299e+12; v: 1.015001e+12; t: 5.396805e+92
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.013807e+13; v: 5.614040e+12; t: 3.366202e+94
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.673299e+12; v: 1.015001e+12; t: 1.982033e+99
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.013807e+13; v: 5.614040e+12; t: 6.886049e+104
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.673299e+12; v: 1.015001e+12; t: 3.721742e+109
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.013807e+13; v: 5.614040e+12; t: 1.167922e+115
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.673299e+12; v: 1.015001e+12; t: 1.904285e+121
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.700494e+13; u: 1.013807e+13; v: 5.614040e+12; t: 2.468745e+129
Film time = 8.631055e03 with timestep = 1.4e04, (max_cfl: 3.325411e+08)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 140044 cells
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature

February 25, 2022 at 4:54 pmazhaoSubscriberHere is the case file in case it is needed.

February 28, 2022 at 4:55 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI'm not permitted to download or open files/attachments. https://forum.ansys.com/discussion/23093/whyansysemployeesdontdownloadattachments
Is that the turbulence model failing first? What are the initial conditions set as?

February 28, 2022 at 5:06 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob,
I understand the company policy restriction.
Yes, the turbulence model is failing, but I think it is not before the failing of the EWF model, as can be seen in the following message, the EWF Courant number is already on the magnitude of 1e8, while the residuals for the k and w equations are still fine and there is no error message related to the turbulent viscosity. Everything blows off after the second injection of particles between iteration 19 and 20.
The continuous phase initialization was done by the Hybrid Initialization function of the Fluent.
The EWF is initialized from 1e6 m thickness.

Reversed flow on 5795 faces (23.4% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 3709 faces (15.3% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 5465 faces (74.3% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 1.454633e02; u: 1.401688e03; v: 1.794648e03; t: 3.881760e+00
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 1.537926e02; u: 1.266208e03; v: 1.160494e03; t: 4.136686e+00
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.563476e02; u: 1.296829e03; v: 1.170926e03; t: 4.096284e+00
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.565359e02; u: 1.300766e03; v: 1.172663e03; t: 4.092070e+00
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.565477e02; u: 1.301097e03; v: 1.173167e03; t: 4.091915e+00
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.565487e02; u: 1.301123e03; v: 1.173209e03; t: 4.091897e+00
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.565488e02; u: 1.301126e03; v: 1.173213e03; t: 4.091894e+00
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.565489e02; u: 1.301126e03; v: 1.173213e03; t: 4.091894e+00
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.565489e02; u: 1.301127e03; v: 1.173214e03; t: 4.091894e+00
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.565489e02; u: 1.301127e03; v: 1.173214e03; t: 4.091894e+00
Film time = 6.495312e03 with timestep = 1.1e03, (max_cfl: 4.900231e02)
19 2.5855e04 1.4305e03 1.6009e03 1.3261e03 2.6537e05 2.1268e02 1.4624e02 13:24:25 9981
Advancing DPM injections ....
Reversed flow on 4737 faces (17.1% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 4625 faces (15.4% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 5648 faces (71.5% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 2.442087e02; u: 4.539772e03; v: 5.469951e03; t: 6.283665e+00
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 2.078571e02; u: 3.482383e03; v: 4.080320e03; t: 6.284156e+00
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 2.285721e02; u: 3.798136e03; v: 4.474999e03; t: 5.941563e+00
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 2.315077e02; u: 3.857611e03; v: 4.563861e03; t: 5.885062e+00
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.318995e02; u: 3.866508e03; v: 4.578689e03; t: 5.879676e+00
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 2.319425e02; u: 3.867617e03; v: 4.580682e03; t: 5.878798e+00
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 2.319489e02; u: 3.867763e03; v: 4.580935e03; t: 5.878713e+00
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 2.319498e02; u: 3.867781e03; v: 4.580963e03; t: 5.878696e+00
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 2.319499e02; u: 3.867783e03; v: 4.580966e03; t: 5.878694e+00
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 2.319500e02; u: 3.867783e03; v: 4.580966e03; t: 5.878693e+00
Film time = 7.634375e03 with timestep = 1.1e03, (max_cfl: 5.551702e02)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 275
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 300
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 325
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 350
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 375
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 400
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 13
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 412
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 24
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 413
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 27
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 411
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 25
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 411
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 28
20 2.8301e04 1.4456e03 1.7631e03 1.3289e03 2.6017e05 1.9681e02 1.7461e02 12:56:32 9980
Reversed flow on 3216 faces (11.6% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 6374 faces (23.0% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 6535 faces (81.9% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 4.827287e+04; u: 1.065710e+07; v: 5.123238e+06; t: 1.889212e+09
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 7.221070e+07; u: 9.999922e+09; v: 9.998893e+09; t: 9.292597e+14
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 9.636267e+10; u: 1.998950e+10; v: 1.001359e+10; t: 7.571465e+20
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.335207e+11; u: 1.031386e+10; v: 1.003249e+10; t: 4.226672e+27
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.276113e+11; u: 2.000001e+10; v: 2.000014e+10; t: 3.586293e+34
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 2.842495e+11; u: 2.000037e+10; v: 2.000015e+10; t: 5.801935e+40
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 2.850022e+11; u: 2.001262e+10; v: 2.000004e+10; t: 2.434394e+47
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 4.669491e+11; u: 2.000816e+10; v: 2.001098e+10; t: 1.023309e+54
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 3.958626e+11; u: 2.000426e+10; v: 2.000820e+10; t: 4.295725e+60
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 3.462602e+11; u: 2.000963e+10; v: 2.000459e+10; t: 2.195055e+60
Film time = 8.203906e03 with timestep = 5.7e04, (max_cfl: 3.514216e+08)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
21 3.0254e04 1.5662e03 2.8951e03 1.5209e03 3.4102e05 2.4878e02 3.8683e02 13:07:29 9979
Reversed flow on 7236 faces (13.3% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 8690 faces (33.9% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 6990 faces (89.4% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Negative k in 2 cells after linear solve.
temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 344187 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 605874 cells on zone 10 in domain 1
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.266015e+12; u: 2.001124e+10; v: 2.001292e+10; t: 2.373027e+63
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 3.188269e+12; u: 2.002072e+10; v: 2.000640e+10; t: 1.989278e+63
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 3.290642e+12; u: 2.000174e+10; v: 2.000627e+10; t: 2.285805e+62
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 3.282556e+12; u: 2.000760e+10; v: 2.000925e+10; t: 3.836486e+60
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.636357e+12; u: 2.000537e+10; v: 2.001137e+10; t: 6.722036e+65
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.672078e+12; u: 2.002215e+10; v: 2.001482e+10; t: 1.216383e+71
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 3.322391e+12; u: 2.000885e+10; v: 2.001572e+10; t: 1.144955e+71
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 3.315233e+12; u: 2.000193e+10; v: 2.000204e+10; t: 1.983045e+72
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 3.315119e+12; u: 2.000641e+10; v: 2.001215e+10; t: 1.700176e+72
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 3.286556e+12; u: 2.002153e+10; v: 2.000446e+10; t: 1.959171e+71
Film time = 8.488672e03 with timestep = 2.8e04, (max_cfl: 8.151928e+09)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 529711 cells
22 3.9665e04 1.5730e03 2.6496e03 1.5462e03 1.4345e+40 7.7525e+12 1.0242e+00 15:29:16 9978

March 1, 2022 at 12:06 pmRobAnsys EmployeeCan you try in 2022R1 as the EWF had some extra stability functions added in.

March 1, 2022 at 5:04 pm

March 2, 2022 at 2:05 pmRobAnsys EmployeeTurn off energy. I'm not permitted to get the model so it's a bit harder to diagnose.

March 3, 2022 at 9:35 amazhaoSubscriberHi Rob After turning off the energy equation in the EWF model, everything went well except a huge residual rise at the beginning as shown in the following figures.
119 4.8185e04 3.1840e03 3.9198e03 3.0896e03 7.1001e06 5.0463e03 1.7154e02 26:34:53 9881
Advancing DPM injections ....
Reversed flow on 3040 faces (48.1% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 10405 faces (88.1% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 7273 faces (98.1% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 1.050327e+04; u: 5.754825e+04; v: 2.915104e+04
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 6.504198e+01; u: 3.419180e+03; v: 2.812191e+03
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 6.306149e+00; u: 3.647290e+02; v: 1.177123e+02
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 5.503609e01; u: 2.380574e+01; v: 8.346133e+00
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 3.450068e02; u: 7.064277e01; v: 2.178804e01
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.283698e03; u: 3.649173e02; v: 5.285062e02
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 6.184168e05; u: 8.121571e03; v: 6.495069e03
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.006310e05; u: 8.526671e04; v: 4.520582e04
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.267574e06; u: 6.637187e05; v: 1.855256e05
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.114968e07; u: 3.628433e06; v: 4.135351e06
Film time = 7.761697e03 with timestep = 7.0e08, (max_cfl: 4.647466e02)
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 408
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 25
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 408
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 27
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 406
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 25
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 406
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 25
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 406
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 24
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 407
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 24
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 408
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 23
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 410
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 26
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 409
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 25
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 409
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 26
120 4.8607e04 3.3282e03 4.0813e03 3.1492e03 6.8589e06 4.8522e03 1.7238e02 26:12:11 9880

March 3, 2022 at 11:48 amRobAnsys EmployeeGood. What does the film look like now?

March 3, 2022 at 12:19 pmazhaoSubscriberIt looks much more reasonable than before as shown in the following figure but still not right. It shows an unphysical pattern in the circumferential direction while it should be statistically uniform. And it accumulates to a high value instead of spreading radially. (This might be due to the spread term in the momentum equation of EWF model being turned off or the simulation time is not long enough?)

March 3, 2022 at 2:13 pmRobAnsys EmployeeRun for longer. It may be the spray hasn't been hitting the surface long enough to form a proper film. I don't like the streaking, but it's hard to say if that's due to lack of solved time or something else.
You're right to expect a more uniform ring, but that's also a function of mesh and droplet count.

March 4, 2022 at 7:36 amazhaoSubscriberUnfortunately it still diverged after 1250 iterations due to the same too large Maximum CFL number in the EWF model...
Also, an error window reports floating point exception.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 843571 cells
12509.8709e+043.2876e012.0323e018.0409e015.1685e061.0080e+147.2821e01 81:51:45 18750
Reversed flow on 13370 faces (92.6% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 9653 faces (75.7% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 3668 faces (53.8% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Divergence detected in AMG solver: pressure coupled subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.091311e+33; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 3.091311e+33; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
Film time = 7.807621e03 with timestep = 7.6e11, (max_cfl: 1.894628e+15)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 840131 cells
Error at host: floating point exception
Error: floating point exception
Error Object: #f

March 4, 2022 at 9:00 amazhaoSubscriberUnfortunately it still diverged after 1250 iterations due to the same too large Maximum CFL number in the EWF model...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Advancing DPM injections ....
Reversed flow on 4239 faces (46.7% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 6042 faces (48.4% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 3073 faces (42.4% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.456029e+16; u: 2.676280e+21; v: 2.748499e+20
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 1.741486e+19; v: 7.348845e+17
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 2.676280e+21; v: 2.748499e+20
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 1.741486e+19; v: 7.348845e+17
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 2.676280e+21; v: 2.748499e+20
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 1.741486e+19; v: 7.348845e+17
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 2.676280e+21; v: 2.748499e+20
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 1.741486e+19; v: 7.348845e+17
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 2.676280e+21; v: 2.748499e+20
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 6.626032e+15; u: 1.741486e+19; v: 7.348845e+17
Film time = 7.807621e03 with timestep = 1.5e10, (max_cfl: 1.941754e+03)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 2e08
number tracked = 1217, incomplete = 1207, shed = 810
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 10
Warning: injection: injection0: zero particle mass, cannot conserve injection mass flow rate
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 0
number tracked = 776, escaped = 70, incomplete = 696
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 10, rebound = 2
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 80% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 60% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 40% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 20% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 0% for them.
Warning: injection: injection0: zero particle mass, cannot conserve injection mass flow rate
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 0
number tracked = 740, escaped = 42, incomplete = 672, shed = 44
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 26
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 80% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 60% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 40% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 20% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 25 locations, 25 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 0% for them.
Warning: injection: injection0: zero particle mass, cannot conserve injection mass flow rate
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 0
number tracked = 651, escaped = 10, incomplete = 639, shed = 12
Eulerian wall film particles:
absorbed = 2
Warning:100.0000% of the total discrete phase mass was not tracked for the expected residence time:
0.0002 s less on a massweighted average (which is 74.4535% of their total age or 100.0000% of the last time step).
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 843571 cells
12509.8709e+043.2876e012.0323e018.0409e015.1685e061.0080e+147.2821e01 81:51:45 18750
Reversed flow on 13370 faces (92.6% area) of pressureoutlet 12.
Reversed flow on 9653 faces (75.7% area) of pressureoutlet 13.
Reversed flow on 3668 faces (53.8% area) of pressureoutlet 14.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Divergence detected in AMG solver: pressure coupled subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.091311e+33; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 3.091311e+33; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 2.805212e+33; v: 1.333100e+32
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 2.871481e+27; u: 1.633315e+32; v: 2.900875e+31
Film time = 7.807621e03 with timestep = 7.6e11, (max_cfl: 1.894628e+15)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 840131 cells
Error at host: floating point exception
Error: floating point exception
Error Object: #f

March 4, 2022 at 11:27 amRobAnsys EmployeeThe incompletes suggest something has failed in the flow solver too. We know the mesh isn't ideal given the jump in cell size. We also know it's a symmetrical domain. Chop the domain down to a quarter & remesh with a more uniform size. Use tets if necessary, but avoid the jump in size. This will allow you to either refine the mesh (same cell count but smaller volume) or speed up the simulation (sameish resolution as it's a smaller domain). The injection will report several lost parcels but that can be ignored as they're just being released in the 3/4 that's not there.
And use either Workbench (Ansys) Meshing or Fluent Meshing. Or tets in ICEM CFD, avoid the Ogrid as that's possibly what is causing the problem as the cell size jumps moving away from the central block.

March 7, 2022 at 9:46 amazhaoSubscriberHi Rob The above figure shows the fluid zone which is cut into a quarter and the corresponding uniformsized tetrahedral meshes. As you said Fluent reported some missing mass of injected particles. The amount of missing mass changes for every injection. May I assume the statistical average of the injected mass would be 25%?

Injection injection0: Out of 7 locations, 4 lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 80% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 7 locations, 2 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 60% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 7 locations, 1 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 40% for them.
Injection injection0: Out of 7 locations, 1 still lost outside the domain in axial staggering; reducing staggering factor to 20% for them.
Warning: Injection injection0: LOST 18 out of 25 injection locations, probably outside the domain. This will inject 68% LESS MASS.
Pressureswirl atomizer injector:
Pressure 320000 less than downstream pressure 4.16935e+71, or
Invalid downstream density 1.225
Skipping injection
number tracked = 0
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 1488 cells
3130 4.7840e+21 1.8051e+23 6.8509e+12 2.0474e+22 3.1447e06 1.1489e+00 7.1855e+41 17:35:15 16870
Reversed flow on 999 faces (56.9% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 598 faces (35.8% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 1235 faces (47.1% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Stabilizing pressure coupled to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing pressure coupled using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Experiencing convergence difficulties  temporarily relaxing and trying again...
Divergence detected in AMG solver: pressure coupled Stabilizing k to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing k using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: k Stabilizing omega to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing omega using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: omega Stabilizing temperature to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing temperature using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.529965e+86; u: 1.592715e+94; v: 1.630529e+94
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 5.865961e+85; u: 3.570367e+91; v: 1.260537e+93
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 1.592715e+94; v: 1.630529e+94
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 3.570367e+91; v: 1.260537e+93
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 1.592715e+94; v: 1.630529e+94
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 3.570367e+91; v: 1.260537e+93
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 1.592715e+94; v: 1.630529e+94
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 3.570367e+91; v: 1.260537e+93
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 1.592715e+94; v: 1.630529e+94
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 6.186259e+85; u: 3.570367e+91; v: 1.260537e+93
Film time = 5.329656e03 with timestep = 1.3e12, (max_cfl: 5.582687e+71)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2

March 7, 2022 at 3:39 pmRobAnsys EmployeeOK, I'd hoped this would help. Next is to fix the droplet size and try again. Use a hollow cone and 100 streams (it's divisible by 4).
As an aside, if your post doesn't show up please only try again once. I think the filters saw the multipost and put them all in the spam box.

March 9, 2022 at 12:51 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob I increased the particle steam to 100 and changed the nozzle type to hollow cone with its parameters as follows. It is noted that the spray velocity is calculated by setting discharge coefficient to 0.7.
Now the missed spray mass is exactly 75%, is it because the Stagger positions option is turned off?
Unfortunately, the solution blows off again after 6000+ iterations......

turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 73551 cells
itercontinuityxvelocityyvelocityzvelocityenergykomegatime/iter
64471.3401e+306.8450e+151.1586e015.5702e+153.6026e024.1768e+303.0208e+19 52:28:32 13553
Reversed flow on 647 faces (36.5% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 393 faces (23.6% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Negative k in 14775 cells after linear solve.
All neighbors negative on 592 cells.
Stabilizing omega to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing omega using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: omega temperature limited to 1.000000e+00 in 18 cells on zone 3 in domain 1
temperature limited to 5.000000e+03 in 713 cells on zone 3 in domain 1
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 6.417020e+107; u: 7.316087e+113; v: 4.855059e+113
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 6.417023e+107; u: 9.033871e+124; v: 9.642971e+124
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 7.316087e+113; v: 4.855059e+113
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 9.033871e+124; v: 9.642971e+124
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 7.316087e+113; v: 4.855059e+113
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 9.033871e+124; v: 9.642971e+124
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 7.316087e+113; v: 4.855059e+113
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 9.033871e+124; v: 9.642971e+124
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 7.316087e+113; v: 4.855059e+113
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 2.791816e+116; u: 9.033871e+124; v: 9.642971e+124
Film time = 2.748134e02 with timestep = 1.0e12, (max_cfl: 4.534227e+103)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2

Then yesterday I tried if changing the turbulence model (from the default Komega SST to realizable kepsilon) would eliminate the error message of "turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05......". Finally, the divergence problem disappears! It is still calculating after 10000+ iterations and the residuals seem all fine. But I am not sure it is because of the turbulence model or because the discretization accuracy has been changed from secondorder upwind (default for Komega) to firstorder upwind ((default for Kepsilon).

March 9, 2022 at 3:06 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI usually expect kw and ke to behave in much the same way: the w bit is near the wall and both use much the same maths in the free stream. High order for turbulence isn't something I tend to use, so it's possible that the setting makes the solver too stiff. Difficult to diagnose without the files, and we're not permitted to do this via the Community. Good to hear it's working.

March 11, 2022 at 12:14 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob Thank you for your patience in this long discussion. Now I will try to put other factors back and see if it still works.
Besides, I did try to run the case with komega model and first order upwind spatial discretization scheme, the solution still blows off after 6000+ iterations, while the realizalbe kepsilon model works fine. This is so strange to me.....
Injecting 25 particle parcels with mass 5e09
number tracked = 269, escaped = 58, incomplete = 50, shed = 25
Warning:100.0000% of the total discrete phase mass was not tracked for the expected residence time:
3.02e05 s less on a massweighted average (which is 11.1146% of their total age or 15.0930% of the last time step).
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 97185 cells
6010 1.2332e02 1.1923e+00 4.5793e01 8.5680e01 2.1687e06 8.1384e01 1.2615e+00 19:33:26 13990
Reversed flow on 1353 faces (77.8% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 604 faces (36.0% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 1644 faces (61.5% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 3.844885e+04; u: 1.066348e+09; v: 1.945965e+08
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 1.514765e+03; u: 3.161290e+08; v: 3.636856e+07
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.552265e+02; u: 3.208125e+07; v: 2.969201e+06
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.577075e+01; u: 3.288545e+06; v: 2.975264e+05
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 1.603691e+00; u: 3.345456e+05; v: 3.009608e+04
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 1.630612e01; u: 3.402588e+04; v: 3.056388e+03
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.657999e02; u: 3.459926e+03; v: 3.106720e+02
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.685844e03; u: 3.518090e+02; v: 3.158639e+01
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.714158e04; u: 3.577189e+01; v: 3.211620e+00
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.742946e05; u: 3.637270e+00; v: 3.265548e01
Film time = 2.755759e02 with timestep = 3.6e10, (max_cfl: 1.258643e01)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 139663 cells
6011 1.2623e+00 3.7001e02 3.1007e02 4.2146e02 4.1384e07 1.3674e+05 1.1393e+00 18:45:12 13989
Reversed flow on 1277 faces (73.0% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 737 faces (44.6% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 2000 faces (74.4% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
Negative k in 177 cells after linear solve.
All neighbors negative on 2 cells.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 5.741291e+09; u: 4.921588e+08; v: 6.672962e+07
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 1.281817e+02; u: 7.600074e+07; v: 6.669881e+06
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 1.480683e+01; u: 2.432676e+06; v: 8.216693e+03
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 6.582004e01; u: 7.004886e+04; v: 1.384374e+03
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.224449e02; u: 1.955233e+03; v: 5.987396e+01
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 6.755315e04; u: 5.391183e+01; v: 1.957430e+00
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 1.950298e05; u: 1.476821e+00; v: 5.854702e02
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 5.483125e07; u: 4.030657e02; v: 1.675844e03
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 1.519220e08; u: 1.100063e03; v: 4.649162e05
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 4.147296e10; u: 3.194809e05; v: 2.145767e06
Film time = 2.755759e02 with timestep = 1.8e10, (max_cfl: 1.203342e01)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 162856 cells
6012 1.1067e+00 1.3190e+03 7.2258e01 9.5467e+02 5.6622e06 6.9358e01 3.6442e+00 18:53:14 13988
Reversed flow on 1723 faces (98.2% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 1017 faces (60.5% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 2666 faces (99.2% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 1.382905e+09; u: 1.042138e+12; v: 3.138733e+12
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 3.853988e+06; u: 5.112315e+12; v: 2.192171e+12
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 9.521054e+06; u: 2.905077e+13; v: 2.138299e+12
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 1.007068e+13; v: 4.947367e+12
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 2.905077e+13; v: 2.202171e+12
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 1.007068e+13; v: 4.947367e+12
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 2.905077e+13; v: 2.202171e+12
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 1.007068e+13; v: 4.947367e+12
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 2.905077e+13; v: 2.202171e+12
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 9.608164e+06; u: 1.007068e+13; v: 4.947367e+12
Film time = 2.755759e02 with timestep = 9.1e11, (max_cfl: 2.711508e+00)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 182368 cells
6013 1.3607e+03 1.0403e+00 1.7850e01 8.8734e01 1.1785e06 3.7896e+08 2.2363e+00 18:13:01 13987
Reversed flow on 682 faces (38.6% area) of pressureoutlet 5.
Reversed flow on 945 faces (56.7% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 1260 faces (46.2% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
subiteration: 1 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 2.797341e+19; v: 2.944314e+19
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.545303e+27; v: 2.201262e+27
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.964509e+22; v: 2.700608e+22
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.545303e+27; v: 2.201262e+27
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.964509e+22; v: 2.700608e+22
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.545303e+27; v: 2.201262e+27
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.964509e+22; v: 2.700608e+22
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.545303e+27; v: 2.201262e+27
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.964509e+22; v: 2.700608e+22
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 5.083086e+20; u: 3.545303e+27; v: 2.201262e+27
Film time = 2.755759e02 with timestep = 4.5e11, (max_cfl: 3.720834e+09)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2

March 11, 2022 at 4:49 pmRobAnsys EmployeeWhich suggests the kw model is picking up something odd on the wall. If you run both with no DPM or film how do the results differ?

March 11, 2022 at 7:20 pm

March 12, 2022 at 9:18 pm

March 14, 2022 at 1:50 pmRobAnsys EmployeeI think the result is correct, but that the streams are clustered so the spray isn't even. Set 3 injections, D10, D50 & D90 (or D25, D50 & D75  we're after a sample) with suitable mass flow rates. The solver is failing for a reason, so it's now a case of learning why. When plotting the film thickness do so with node values off as that'll highlight any mesh related problems.

March 14, 2022 at 2:26 pmazhaoSubscriberMay I ask what do you mean by D10, D50, D90, does the number after D denote the particle stream numbers?

March 14, 2022 at 4:06 pmRobAnsys EmployeeDiameter  10%, 50% and 90% as you've got a size distribution.

March 14, 2022 at 4:24 pm

March 14, 2022 at 4:27 pmRobAnsys EmployeeNot the parcels, leave that as default. In the injection point properties set up three injections and use the diameters rather than the atomiser model. You'll need to use a cone.

March 17, 2022 at 11:01 amazhaoSubscriberHi, Rob I did the settings for with hollow cone models just as you said, with 3 injectors injecting droplets whose sizes are 90%, 50% 10% of the nozzle diameter. The mass flow rate is just divided by 3 for each injector. It is quite strange that the solution diverges again after 6000+ iterations. The EWF temperature blows off while the wall thickness is still fine. This is quite strange so I started again from the converged case with the new settings.. But the solution diverges again. As you said there must be an unfound reason causing this...
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature subiteration: 1 residual  h: 2.414831e+07; u: 2.124927e+10; v: 5.058492e+10; t: 5.676491e+76
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 5.733142e+04; u: 6.915366e+08; v: 2.500983e+08; t: 7.915565e+36
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 7.467264e+02; u: 1.474016e+08; v: 4.440876e+07; t: 1.866327e+38
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 1.704392e+02; u: 1.753650e+07; v: 5.015200e+06; t: 4.400412e+39
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 2.187857e+01; u: 2.030204e+05; v: 3.245214e+05; t: 1.037526e+41
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 7.022633e01; u: 4.577671e+05; v: 1.530065e+05; t: 2.446272e+42
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 4.712636e01; u: 1.229956e+05; v: 3.827056e+04; t: 5.767805e+43
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 1.392537e01; u: 1.815837e+04; v: 5.342540e+03; t: 1.359929e+45
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 2.192493e02; u: 1.070329e+03; v: 3.925675e+02; t: 3.206432e+46
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 1.561311e03; u: 2.539414e+02; v: 9.019746e+01; t: 7.560103e+47
Film time = 5.376527e02 with timestep = 4.2e10, (max_cfl: 1.193756e01)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 52 cells
Error at host: floating point exception
Error: floating point exception
Error Object: #f
Message: The previous active graphics window 3 contains a 2D plot, which is incompatible with injections display.
Injections are displayed in a new graphics window 52.

March 17, 2022 at 11:36 amRobAnsys EmployeeThe only clue is that the film thickness is growing. How thick is the first cell? Ie the film is getting on for 1mm, how does this compare to the mesh? Note, the film can be 1m thick in a 1mm deep domain so it's not a solver check, it's more likely flow related.

March 17, 2022 at 1:37 pmazhaoSubscriberHi, Rob As shown in the following figure, most of the first cells are near 0.1mm, which is much smaller than the liquid film thickness, which is around 0.004 mm in the spray impact wall region. (Though the solution diverges, the liquid film thickness distribution seems more reasonable than before) And from the static pressure contour, we could see it diverged quite a lot. And the wall temperature is not even real number, changes to NAN. anymore. I guess that is the reason the floating number occurs.
By the way, I checked the theory guide on EWF, but I did not understand how ANSYS Fluent handles the turbulence boundary condition when the EWF model is turned on. In this case, the EWF thickness is larger than the first cell. So how the wall function is actually applied. Is it still applied on this first cell near the wall or it is actually applied on the first cell that is located outside the EWF?

March 17, 2022 at 4:06 pmRobAnsys EmployeeEWF uses a virtual cell, so the wall functions etc are still calculated on the near wall cell regardless of how thick the film is. Can you replot the thickness with node values off?

March 17, 2022 at 4:14 pm

March 17, 2022 at 4:30 pmRobAnsys EmployeeOK, refine the mesh: having all of the film in one cell isn't going to assist solver stability.

March 17, 2022 at 4:33 pmazhaoSubscriberI see. So EWF and Lagrangian wall film model are both modeling virtual on wall liquid films. So, if the liquid wall film thickness is actually larger than a threshold, like in the above case, several millimeters, even bigger than the boundary layer thickness, then it seems to me using the realizable kepsilon model with standard wall function is less accurate than using the komega model with wall treatment in obtaining the near wall air velocity field. Am I correct on this?

March 17, 2022 at 4:50 pmRobAnsys EmployeeYou're conflating accuracy with validity. Depending on the y+ the kw will be better, if y+ is high then ke isn't going to be any worse. However, both models assume the film is "thin" as that's what the model is intended for. If the film is "thick" you need the VOF model.

March 28, 2022 at 4:26 pmazhaoSubscriberHi Rob Thank you for the explanation. About the threshold value to determine if the film is "thin" or "thick", shall I compare it to the near wall grid size? If the EWF thickness is larger than the first cell, than it is deemed to be too thick and should be switched to the VOF model? I found that 2022R1 version has introduced the DPM VOF wall film transforming and coupling function.
And I have tried refining the mesh to do the simulation, now the total size is 3 million tetrahedral cells. The computation now takes quite a long time, namely, several days... The following figure is the liquid film thickness result at the 1000 iteration step. It becomes circumferentially more ununiform. Unfortunately, the splashing solution diverged at around 1200+ iterations and the nosplashing solution diverged at around 3000+ iterations due to the following errors.

turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 912707 cells
12881.8061e+072.3892e032.6434e032.1075e032.5719e+475.6911e019.9946e01 41:19:44 49754
Reversed flow on 2654 faces (23.7% area) of pressureinlet 5.
Reversed flow on 6601 faces (61.4% area) of pressureoutlet 6.
Reversed flow on 13017 faces (79.1% area) of pressureoutlet 8.
Stabilizing temperature to enhance linear solver robustness.
Stabilizing temperature using GMRES to enhance linear solver robustness.
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperaturesubiteration: 1 residual  h: 6.496940e+09; u: 5.613071e+12; v: 5.380132e+12; t: 1.304682e+96
subiteration: 2 residual  h: 6.727023e+09; u: 4.310764e+16; v: 2.120615e+16; t: 6.735130e+102
subiteration: 3 residual  h: 6.726912e+09; u: 3.095855e+12; v: 2.967379e+12; t: 3.476727e+109
subiteration: 4 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 4.310764e+16; v: 2.120615e+16; t: 1.794653e+116
subiteration: 5 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 3.097524e+12; v: 2.968979e+12; t: 9.263599e+122
subiteration: 6 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 4.310764e+16; v: 2.120615e+16; t: 4.781583e+129
subiteration: 7 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 3.097524e+12; v: 2.968979e+12; t: 2.468078e+136
subiteration: 8 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 4.310764e+16; v: 2.120615e+16; t: 1.273922e+143
subiteration: 9 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 3.097524e+12; v: 2.968979e+12; t: 6.575442e+149
subiteration: 10 residual  h: 6.726914e+09; u: 4.310764e+16; v: 2.120615e+16; t: 3.393952e+156
Film time = 4.109502e03 with timestep = 3.0e11, (max_cfl: 5.777522e+00)
Maximum CFL reached. Reduce time step by factor of 2
turbulent viscosity limited to viscosity ratio of 1.000000e+05 in 790015 cells
Divergence detected in AMG solver: temperature
Error at host: floating point exception
===============Message from the Cortex Process================================
Compute processes interrupted. Processing can be resumed.
==============================================================================

 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Boost Ansys Fluent Simulations with AWS
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps engineers design products in which the flow of fluid components is a significant challenge. These different use cases often require large complex models to solve on a traditional workstation. Click here to join this event to learn how to leverage Ansys Fluids on the cloud, thanks to Ansys Gateway powered by AWS.
Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Ansys Blog
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
 Floating point exception in Fluent
 What are the differences between CFX and Fluent?
 Heat transfer coefficient
 Difference between Kepsilon and Komega Turbulence Model
 Getting graph and tabular data from result in workbench mechanical
 The solver failed with a nonzero exit code of : 2
 Suppress Fluent to open with GUI while performing in journal file
 Mesh Interfaces in ANSYS FLUENT
 Time Step Size and Courant Number
 error: Received signal SIGSEGV

7584

4430

2949

1422

1322
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.