Convergence criteria

I see all kind of mistakes on these forums when dealing with convergence,
so I will give brief review of methods...
At convergence, the following should be satisfied:

All discrete conservation equations (momentum, energy, etc.) are

obeyed in all cells to a specified tolerance OR the solution no longer
changes with subsequent iterations.

Overall mass, momentum, energy, and scalar balances are achieved.

Monitoring convergence using residual history:

Generally, a decrease in residuals by three orders of magnitude

indicates at least qualitative convergence. At this point, the major
flow features should be established.

Scaled energy residual should decrease to 10-6 (for the pressurebased solver).

Scaled species residual may need to decrease to 10-5 to achieve

species balance.

Monitoring quantitative convergence:

Monitor other relevant key variables/physical quantities for a

confirmation.

Ensure that overall mass/heat/species conservation is satisfied.

In addition to residuals, you can also monitor lift, drag and moment
coefficients.
Relevant variables or functions (e.g. surface integrals) at a boundary or any
defined surface.
In addition to monitoring residual and variable histories, you should also
check for overall heat and mass balances.
The net flux imbalance (shown in the GUI as Net Results) should be less
than 1% of the smallest flux through the domain boundary
If solution monitors indicate that the solution is converged, but the solution
is still changing or has a large mass/heat imbalance, this clearly indicates
1

the solution is not yet converged.

In this case, you need to:

Reduce values of Convergence Criterion or disable Check

Convergence in the Residual Monitors panel.

Continue iterations until the solution converges.

Selecting None under Convergence Criterion disables convergence checking

for all equations.
Numerical instabilities can arise with an ill-posed problem, poor-quality
mesh and/or inappropriate solver settings.

Exhibited as increasing (diverging) or stuck residuals.

Diverging residuals imply increasing imbalance in conservation

equations.

Unconverged results are very misleading!

Troubleshooting

Ensure that the problem is well-posed.

Compute an initial solution using a first-order discretization scheme.

For the pressure-based solver, decrease underrelaxation factors for

equations having convergence problems.

For the density-based solver, reduce the Courant number.

Remesh or refine cells which have large aspect ratio or large

skewness.

Remember that you cannot improve cell skewness by using mesh

adaption!

Under-relaxation factor, , is included to stabilize the iterative process for

the pressure-based solver

Use default under-relaxation factors to start a calculation.

Decreasing under-relaxation for momentum often aids convergence.

Default settings are suitable for a wide range of problems, you can reduce
the values when necessary.
2

Appropriate settings are best learned from experience!

For the density-based solver, under-relaxation factors for equations outside
the coupled set are modified as in the pressure-based solver.
A transient term is included in the density-based solver even for steady
state problems.
The Courant number defines the time step size.
For density-based explicit solver:

Stability constraints impose a maximum limit on the Courant number.

Cannot be greater than 2(default value is 1).

Reduce the Courant number when having difficulty converging.

For density-based implicit solver:

The Courant number is not limited by stability constraints.

Default value is 5.

Convergence can be accelerated by:

Supplying better initial conditions

Starting from a previous solution (using file/interpolation when

necessary)

Gradually increasing under-relaxation factors or Courant number

Excessively high values can lead to solution instability convergence

problems

You should always save case and data files before continuing
iterations

Controlling MultiGrid solver settings (not generally recommended)

Default settings provide a robust Multigrid setup and typically do not

need to be changed.

A converged solution is not necessarily a correct one!

Always inspect and evaluate the solution by using available data,

physical principles and so on.

Use the second-order upwind discretization scheme for final results.

3

Ensure that solution is grid-independent:

Use adaption to modify the grid or create additional meshes for the
grid-independence study

If flow features do not seem reasonable:

Reconsider physical models and boundary conditions

Examine mesh quality and possibly remesh the problem

Reconsider the choice of the boundaries location (or the domain):

inadequate choice of domain (especially the outlet boundary) can
significantly impact solution accuracy

Numerical errors are associated with calculation of cell gradients and cell
face interpolations.
Ways to contain the numerical errors:

Use higher-order discretization schemes (second-order upwind,

MUSCL)

Attempt to align grid with the flow to minimize the false diffusion

Refine the mesh

Sufficient mesh density is necessary to resolve salient features of

flow

Interpolation errors decrease with decreasing cell size

Minimize variations in cell size in non-uniform meshes

Truncation error is minimized in a uniform mesh

FLUENT provides capability to adapt mesh based on cell size variation

Minimize cell skewness and aspect ratio

In general, avoid aspect ratios higher than 5:1 (but higher ratios are
allowed in boundary layers)

Optimal quad/hex cells have bounded angles of 90 degrees

Optimal tri/tet cells are equilateral

A grid-independent solution exists when the solution does not change when
the mesh is refined.
Below is a systematic procedure for obtaining a grid-independent solution:

Generate a new, finer mesh.

Return to the meshing application and manually adjust the mesh.

OR Use the solution-based adaption capability in FLUENT.

VERY IMPORTANT: Save the case and data files first.

Create adaption register(s) and adapt the mesh. Data from the
original mesh is interpolated onto the finer mesh. FLUENT offers
dynamic mesh adaption which automatically changes the mesh
according to user-defined criteria.

Continue calculations until convergence.

Compare the results obtained on the different meshes.

Repeat the procedure if necessary.

To use a different mesh on a single problem, use the TUI commands

file/write-bc and file/read-bc to facilitate the setup of a new problem.
Better initialization can be obtained via interpolation from existing case/data
by using solution data interpolation
A web-based training module is available to train users in replication of case
setup and solution data interpolation.
Summary:
Solution procedure for both the pressure-based and density-based solvers is
identical.

Calculate until you get a converged solution

Obtain a second-order solution (recommended)

Refine the mesh and recalculate until a grid-independent solution is

obtained.

All solvers provide tools for judging and improving convergence and
ensuring stability.
All solvers provide tools for checking and improving accuracy.

Solution accuracy will depend on the appropriateness of the physical models

that you choose and the boundary conditions that you specify.

Tips & Tricks: Convergence

and Mesh Independence
Study
Posted By LEAP CFD Team on Jan 17,
2012 | 26 comments
The previous posts have discussed the meshing requirements that we need to pay attention to for a valid
result. It is important to remember that your solution is the numerical solution to the problem that you
posed by defining your mesh and boundary conditions. The more accurate your mesh and boundary
conditions, the more accurate your "converged" solution will be.

CONVERGENCE
Convergence is something that all CFD Engineers talk about, but we must remember that the way we
generally define convergence (by looking at Residual values) is only a small part of ensuring that we have
a valid solution. For a Steady State simulation we need to ensure that the solution satisfies the following
three conditions:

- Residual RMS Error values have reduced to an acceptable value (typically 10-4 or 10-5)
- Monitor points for our values of interest have reached a steady solution
- The domain has imbalances of less than 1%.

RMS Residual Error Values

Our values of interest are essentially the main outputs from our simulation, so pressure drop, forces, mass
flow etc. We need to make sure that these have converged to a steady value otherwise if we let the
simulation run for an additional 50 iterations then you would have a different result. Ensuring that these
values have reached a steady solution means that you are basing your decisions on a single repeatable
value.

Example of Monitoring a Value of Interest

As a rule, we must ensure that prior to starting a simulation we clearly define what our values of interest
are, and we make sure that we monitor these to ensure that they reach a steady state. As previously
highlighted, we also need to make sure that the Residual RMS Error values are to at least 10-4. Finally, we
need to ensure that the overall imbalance in the domain is less than 1% for all variables.

Imbalances in the Domain

MESH INDEPENDENCE STUDY

A bit of background We conduct mesh independence studies in CFD to make sure that the results we
get are due to the boundary conditions and physics used, not the mesh resolution. So if the results do not
change with mesh density, we have achieved mesh independence.

The approach outlined above results in a single solution for the given mesh that we have used. Although
we are happy that this has "converged" based on RMS Error values, monitor points and imbalances, we
need to make sure that the solution is also independent of the mesh resolution. Not checking this is a
common cause of erroneous results in CFD, and this process should at least be carried out once for each
type of problem that you deal with so that the next time a similar problem arises, you can apply the same
mesh sizing. In this way you will have more confidence in your results.

The way we carry out a mesh independence study is fairly straight forward.

- Step 1
Run the initial simulation on your initial mesh and ensure convergence of residual error to 10-4, monitor
points are steady, and imbalances below 1%. If not refine the mesh and repeat.

- Step 2
Once you have met the convergence criteria above for your first simulation, refine the mesh globally so
that you have finer cells throughout the domain. Generally we would aim for around 1.5 times the initial
mesh size.

Run the simulation and ensure that the residual error drops below 10-4, that the monitor points are steady,
and that the imbalances are below 1%.

At this point you need to compare the monitor point values from Step 2 against the values from Step 1. If
they are the same (within your own allowable tolerance), then the mesh at Step 1 was accurate enough to
capture the result.

If the value at Step 2 is not within acceptable values of the Step 1 result, then this means that your solution
is changing because of your mesh resolution, and hence the solution is not yet independent of the mesh.
In this case you will need to move to Step 3.

- Step 3
Because your solution is changing with the refinement of mesh, you have not yet achieved a mesh
independent solution. You need to refine the mesh more, and repeat the process until you have a solution
that is independent of the mesh. You should then always use the smallest mesh that gives you this mesh
independent solution (to reduce your simulation run time).

- Example
The best way to check for a mesh independent solution is to plot a graph of the resultant monitor value vs
the number of cells in your simulation. This is illustrated below where we have three results from our
steady monitor points for the average temperature at an outlet.

We can see that with 4 million cells we have a result, which could be "converged" for that particular mesh,
with 10-4 residuals and imbalances below 1%. By increasing the mesh resolution to 6 million cells, we can
see that there has been a jump in the value of interest that is not within my user specified tolerance (in this
example I'll say +/-0.5 degrees).

By increasing the mesh size further we can see that the 8 million cell simulation results in a value that is
within my acceptable range. This indicates that we have reached a solution value that is independent of
the mesh resolution, and for further analysis we can use the 6 million cell case, as it will give us a result
within the user defined tolerance.

Example of Mesh Independence Study