November 15, 2023 at 9:15 pmLucjan NastalekSubscriber
Here's my stumbling block:
I'm trying to set up non-conformal mesh interfaces in my simulation. I want the interfaces to be mapped (and coupled).
However, whenever I create them, they appear also as matched - which I specifically do not want.
Whatever I do, edit, recreate - they always end up the same, with the "matching" forced on me.
To quote a classic, my question is: what the heck?
Is there a way to switch this matching interface enforcement off?
November 16, 2023 at 3:57 pmRobForum Moderator
If you turn off the one to one pairing (there's a TUI command) you can set as much or little as you want. Note, some settings will automatically trigger others, I can't remember whether mapped & matching do that.
November 16, 2023 at 5:06 pmLucjan NastalekSubscriber
Thanks Rob, I'll try that.
From documentation, when you switch on "Mapped", "Coupled" gets switched on also. But that is exactly what I want.
I'll report back on the result.
November 16, 2023 at 9:57 pmLucjan NastalekSubscriber
I’m not sure if this is a bug, but it sure looks like a bug.
In version 2023 R2, there are two ways for switching the one-to-one-pairing off:
- by typing in /define/mesh-interfaces/one-to-one-pairing? no
- by switching on the turbo model. This seems to automatically switch off the pairing, also.
1. loaded the model,
2. switched on the Turbo models,
3. created the Turbo interfaces (which switched off the one-to-one)
4. proceeded to set up all other, Mapped, interfaces. This enforced Matching option to every other interface that I’d made, even though I hadn’t selected the option (I wanted Mapped+Coupled, but ended up with Mapped+Coupled+Matching instead).
Just 10 minutes ago I finished setting up the interfaces in a reversed order:
1. I have first switched off the pairing,
2. then created the general interfaces (Mapped+Coupled) – which now recorded the correct options w/o the enforced “Matching” option,
3. after which I switched on the Turbo models
4. and created the Turbo interfaces last.
This time, the other interfaces retained their options ( Matched+Coupled, no Matching “nonesense” added).
Perhaps this behavior is intended. Perhaps even it is very well documented, and I simply glossed over it somehow. But it feels very counter-intuitive to me.
By the way, in the first option, I tried to edit the Matching interfaces to switch off the option, but it would do nothing at all: the Matching option remained switched on.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that this will have improved my case’s convergence, but at least I’ve learned something about setting up interfaces in Fluent 2023 R2. I am therefore putting it out there for anyone else interested.
Any further comments and/or clarifications and/or corrections are welcome!
November 17, 2023 at 9:10 amRobForum Moderator
Thanks for the update. I'll mention it to a colleague who does spinning things, but suspect we won't be able to comment.
It's more likely an intended setting from the Turbo side, which has a specific role and is to simplify set up. The "normal" nonconformal interface in Fluent has many (mis)uses so is marginally less straightforward but was always very adjustable to suit what we were (not supposed to be) doing.
November 17, 2023 at 9:38 amRobForum Moderator
Do you have the same mesh on either side of the interface?
November 26, 2023 at 1:00 amLucjan NastalekSubscriber
No, the mesh is not identical, the interfaces are non-conformal.
– edit –
To summarize my adventure with using the different types of interfaces…
Switching on turbo models on, and then setting up general interfaces would enforce the “matching” option on all of them.
Not switching turbo models on, does not enforce it.
Just a strange (perhaps intended?) behavior that I’ve noticed. I’d like to hear from the developer team if this is indeed intended.
I could, therefore, create the general interfaces with “mapped”+”coupled” options (but not “matching”) prior to turning on turbo models.
Turning turbo models after the creation of those general interfaces would not alter those settings (they would remain “mapped“+”coupled” w/o “matching“).
– end of edit —
However, I’ve discovered that :
- yes – the interfaces were partly causing the divergence issue.
- no – the interfaces were not entirely responsible.
- running the case, first with constant density of air allowed it to converge, albeit with wrong pressures
- switching to ideal gas after 3. allowed me to converge the compressible case.
- Because I am modeling a full 360° wheel geometry/mesh, I found it better to avoid using the turbo interfaces.
- I think (in my opinion, not backed up by any research into it as yet), that the turbo interfaces do not “like” to be applied at an axial exhaust of a radial turbine – perhaps something to do with the radial distance of 0 at the centerline, and therefore some division by 0.
- general interfaces work like a charm, even with the MRF approach.
Would you be able to confirm or deny the limitations of the Mixing plane/ No Pitch Scale interfaces for radial machines?
November 29, 2023 at 10:12 amRobForum Moderator
Shortish answer. Don't use the turbo tools for fully enclosed 360 zones (ie mixing tanks etc), use the traditional sliding interface for that. I'll ask a colleague to review the DOC once 2024R1 is out to check it's clear on what should be used where. Turbo is quite a specialised application area so there's a good chance they didn't consider alternative uses of their tools.
November 29, 2023 at 10:16 amLucjan NastalekSubscriber
That makes perfect sense, thanks!
I do appreciate that writing a documentation is like teaching - audience's perceptions vary.
I will be reviewing the documentation, though - I do sometimes scan for the information that I need.
Anyhow, I shall mark this as answered.
- The topic ‘Non conformal interface with unwanted Matching’ is closed to new replies.
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.
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?
- Difference between K-epsilon and K-omega Turbulence Model
- Getting graph and tabular data from result in workbench mechanical
- The solver failed with a non-zero exit code of : 2
- Time Step Size and Courant Number
- Mesh Interfaces in ANSYS FLUENT
- Suppress Fluent to open with GUI while performing in journal file
- error: Received signal SIGSEGV
- Using GPU in FLUENT
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.