![]() ![]() If Studio reports that they match then you should probably be ok with your solution.Ĭan you clarify your moving boundary question with an example? It is important that the triangulations on the periodic faces match. We also have the make engine sector surface tool in Studio that may be useful. If you want the areas of the periodic faces to match exactly, you can often delete one of them and copy/rotate the other periodic face into the same position as the deleted face, and then reconnect to nearby non-periodic triangles. Secondly, regarding to the segmenting method, is it also useful when applying moving boundaries? When the wall boundary is moving, the association between boudaries and regions might change, can this method account for this situation? making CONVERGE less sensitive to the geometry accuracy. Is it possible to ignore this tiny difference? i.e. In some cases, there were no differences when measuring the areas of paired periodic boundaries in Studio, but the log file still showed a tiny difference when running the simulation. ![]() I refined the geometry when I exported stl files, but it didn't work. I think this is due to the accuracy of the geometry. Did I do it right?įirstly, there are some warnings that the areas of paired periodic boundaires do not match, but the difference is very small (at the level of 10^-7). I used some edge to make fences, and segmented the periodic boundary into several small boundaries, and the errors disappeared. Hi Tristan, thank you for your reply! It helps. In your events setup, you need permanent OPEN events between the following regions: Region 3: 2 periodic face segments, outer wall segment, outlet Region 2: 2 periodic face segments, outer wall segment Region 1: 2 periodic face segments, outer wall segment Region 0: inlet, 2 periodic face segments, outer wall segment Looking at your diagram, you should have the following in each region: The simulation can continue with such errors, but is it correct?Įach periodic face should be broken into four segments so that you can assign the relevant sections to the appropriate region. After I assigned the periodic boundaries to region0, there were connection events between regions that were not physically connected (ie region 0 and region 3 as shown in attached sketch), and even if I closed these connections, the error still existed. There are many similar error messages regarding to different regions and vertex locations.īesides, the events about region connection also confused me. "error, the separation between region 0 and 1 is not in a continuous loop I divide the domain into several different regions along the flow direction, as the attached sketch shows (not the real case geometry), and the periodic boundaries cover all the regions.Īfter getting your reply, I assigned the periodic boundaries to the same region as the inlet boundary, and the simulation can continue but the errors still exist: If you take a look at any of our sector example cases in Studio, you'll see that the periodic boundaries are assigned to the same region as the piston and the head (or if you think about a quarter-pipe simulation, the same region as the inlet and the outlet).Īctually, I tried to get some ideas from the example cases, but all the sector example cases have only one region for the whole domain, which are different than my case. You probably don't want to use Dependent region assignment in this case. Error, the separation between regions doesn’t have a continuous loop - CFD Online Discussion Forums ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |