Abaqus convergence issue for large

deformation of compression of a cylinder any thoughts?

I am compressing a cylinder up to half of its length. But Abaqus is giving only ~35%
compression and after that it is giving convergence problem and Job agets aborted. Can
anyone please tell me how to do that?

Topics

Solid Mechanics
Finite Element Method
Abaqus

Jul 7, 2014
Share

2/0

Popular Answers

Martin Baeker Technische Universitt Braunschweig

I would not recommend to use an explicit step just to get things to converge - if the
problem is numerically sound, you should get it to converge, using the right tricks.
Did you try the option
*controls, analysis=discontinuous
in the inp-file? (You can also do this with CAE somehow)
This will cause abaqus to be less strict to decide that a calculation does not converge.
Apart from that, what exactly is the problem?First, look at numerical stuff:
-Was the minimum time increment reached? If so, try to make it smaller - sometimes
in a difficult spot the stable increment may become very small.

-Was the number of cutbacks too large? You can increase this also with the solution
controls.
- If your model is plastic, what element type did you use? Hybrid elements may be
better than standard elements.
Next, what is the physical problem:
- Is it a contact issue? If so, there are many things you can try but it is difficult to
advise on this without knowing details.
- Is the problem load-controlled? If so, could you have reached an unstable point
(force maximum, as in necking)?
- Is it a problem of too large plastic strains? Try to see what happens if you use a
simpler material law, for exampl ideally plastic. Does the problem persist?
There are many more things to try, but without seeing the model, it is hard to give
more advice than this.
Jul 9, 2014

All Answers (16)

Sanjeev Saxena Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute

Whihc analysis u r doing 3D or 2D axi-symmetry problem and with what element.
Have u looked at the defromed mesh. is it Ok ? Is lngeom is "On" in abaqus???
looked at the stress-strain curve that u r using, where the stresses and strain lying wrt
to 35 % deformation
Jul 7, 2014

Sanjeev Saxena Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute

its better to use some failure criteria with fine mesh in the analysis as, upto 50 %
compression cylinder will develop significant cracks
Jul 7, 2014

Rashid Zafar Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

Dear Sanjeev,
I did both 3d and 2d axi-symetric analysis. Deformed mesh looks good. nlgeom is on.
I am using power law of plasticity.
Jul 7, 2014

Farhad Rahimi Iran University of Science and Technology

Dear Rashid,
In my opinion try to use remesh criteria.
Jul 8, 2014

Sanjeev Saxena Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute

look at the friction coefficient that u r using and try to relax them a bit to see whether
u can run farther than 35 %? looked at the stress-strain curve that u r using, where the
stresses and strain lying wrt to 35 % deformation
Jul 8, 2014

Sanjeev Saxena Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute

how u decided the friction coefficient , did u performed ring compression test to
evaluate the actual boundary condition?
Jul 8, 2014

Seyed Amin Mousavi University of Tehran

Try to use Dynamic/Explicit in your step. No divergence problem would occur in this
step type.
Jul 8, 2014

Marcin Gajewski Instytut Badawczy Drg i Mostw / Road and Bridge Research
Institute / Warsaw University of Technology
Seyed,you are right, but the problem is that explicit procedure is not so precise, and
sometimes leads to unphysical solution.
The problems with convergence for elasto-plastic material even with NLGEOM on
are very common. I would suggest:
1) try to change element types and check mesh influence
2) try to use STABILIZE option, but very carefully
3) try RIKS algorithm
4) take care that for very large plastic strain in constitutive model you have always
strain hardening (even very weak but positive)
4) if nothing help, go for explicit algorithm
regards, All
Jul 8, 2014

Martin Baeker Technische Universitt Braunschweig

I would not recommend to use an explicit step just to get things to converge - if the
problem is numerically sound, you should get it to converge, using the right tricks.
Did you try the option
*controls, analysis=discontinuous
in the inp-file? (You can also do this with CAE somehow)
This will cause abaqus to be less strict to decide that a calculation does not converge.
Apart from that, what exactly is the problem?First, look at numerical stuff:
-Was the minimum time increment reached? If so, try to make it smaller - sometimes
in a difficult spot the stable increment may become very small.
-Was the number of cutbacks too large? You can increase this also with the solution
controls.
- If your model is plastic, what element type did you use? Hybrid elements may be
better than standard elements.

Next, what is the physical problem:

- Is it a contact issue? If so, there are many things you can try but it is difficult to
advise on this without knowing details.
- Is the problem load-controlled? If so, could you have reached an unstable point
(force maximum, as in necking)?
- Is it a problem of too large plastic strains? Try to see what happens if you use a
simpler material law, for exampl ideally plastic. Does the problem persist?
There are many more things to try, but without seeing the model, it is hard to give
more advice than this.
Jul 9, 2014

Seyed Amin Mousavi University of Tehran

I haven't seen any inaccuracy in Dynamic/Explicit. However, this step type is quite
sensitive to a couple of parameters such as loading rate, mass scaling, defined
damping, etc. For some structures, no convergence would be achieved through other
steps at all. For example a reinforced solid concrete element under quasi-static
displacement controlled loads with high ductility demand would never converge in
other steps, regardless of the defined mesh sizes, minimum time increment, etc.
In any case I also agree with above comments. Explicit technique should be avoided if
the analysis can be handled through other steps. Because Explicit technique calls for
high experience and thorough knowledge about the behavior under question.
Jul 9, 2014

Marcin Madziarz Institute of Fundamental Technological Research

What constitutive model you used?
Jul 15, 2014

Himayat Ullah Loughborough University

I agree with Seyed that Explicit solver performs better than Implict for highly
nonlinear problems. However, your problem seem to be an elasto-plastic buckling of
cylinders. Define the material with elasto-plastic constitutive law with some

hardening. Also use the stabilize option with some damping. Try to use very small
increments for load application. Dis[placement controlled load application will be
better than direct force/pressure application.
Jul 16, 2014

Djamel Boutagouga University of Tbessa

check load displacement curve of semilar problems (from literature or experimental)
if it has a pick, your have to load you test using a displacement instead of force. i.e
use BC = L/2.
Another thing. you could have no problem if the speciment is totally crashed at the
load you reached. it is impossible to make a software continue with a totally crashed
material.
Jul 17, 2014

Caner Simsir Atilim University

Have you checked the mesh distortion ? Abaqus/Standard does not support automatic
meshing but you can do it semi-automatically. There is an example problem in
Abaqus Example problems manual about axisymmetric compression testing. I guess
you should have a look on that tutorial if you haven`t had yet.

FEM Convergence Testing

Introduction
A fundamental premise of using the finite element procedure is that the body is sub-divided
up into small discrete regions known as finite elements. These elements defined by nodes and
interpolation functions. Governing equations are written for each element and these elements
are assembled into a global matrix. Loads and constraints are applied and the solution is then
determined.

The Problem
The question that always arises is: How small do I need to make the elements before I can
trust the solution?

What to do about it...

In general there are no real firm answers on this. It will be necessary to conduct convergence
tests! By this we mean that you begin with a mesh discretization and then observe and record
the solution. Now repeat the problem with a finer mesh (i.e. more elements) and then
compare the results with the previous test. If the results are nearly similar, then the first mesh
is probably good enough for that particular geometry, loading and constraints. If the results
differ by a large amount however, it will be necessary to try a finer mesh yet.

The Consequences
Finer meshes come with a cost however: more calculational time and large memory
requirements (both disk and RAM)! It is desired to find the minimum number of elements
that give you a converged solution.

Beam Models
For beam models, we actually only need to define a single element per line unless we are
applying a distributed load on a given frame member. When point loads are used, specifying
more that one element per line will not change the solution, it will only slow the calculations
down. For simple models it is of no concern, but for a larger model, it is desired to minimize
the number of elements, and thus calculation time and still obtain the desired accuracy.

General Models
In general however, it is necessary to conduct convergence tests on your finite element model
to confirm that a fine enough element discretization has been used. In a solid mechanics
problem, this would be done by creating several models with different mesh sizes and
comparing the resulting deflections and stresses, for example. In general, the stresses will

converge more slowly than the displacement, so it is not sufficient to examine the
displacement convergence.

dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
11 Dec 09 14:39
Hi,
I'm working on a solid contact model involving sharp edges and small surfaces. I am trying to
get my results to converge but I can't. I started with a coarse mesh (~8000 tetrahedral quad
elements) and refined the mesh by using smaller global seeds in the area of interest while
maintaining larger elements on the peripheries of the model far from the area of contact. The
maximum stress values increase drastically when I use finer meshes and the values do not
seem to converge. Also when I used smaller elements in the contact area the analysis aborts
because of excessive distortion of some elements. I finally ended up with ~100,000 elements
and the analysis has been running for 36 hours now and I am not even sure if the results will
be accurate.
Is there any way to get around this problem? I thought adaptive remeshing might help but it
did not reach the goal (5% error max stress) after several iterations.
Any suggestions
johnhors (Aerospace) 11 Dec 09 15:46
You will never achieve "mesh convergence" with sharp edges present. Do these sharp edges
really exist?

www.Roshaz.com
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
11 Dec 09 16:32
They do. it's a screw and the threads and tip are sharp. What do you suggest?
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
12 Dec 09 09:32
Here's a screenshot of my mesh.I know it is very coarse, but when I use finer elements the
stresses become unrealistically high. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3769/meshb.jpg

xerf (Mechanical) 12 Dec 09 11:41

If I am not wrong, you seem to expect some strong distortion either of the screw edges or of
the material of hole.
If this the case, Abaqus/Standard might not be the tool of choice here. Maybe you should give
it a try first with Explicit and see what type of deformation you can expect. Do not worry
about the stress accuracy at this time.
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
12 Dec 09 12:14

I am sorry for not explaining this. I am not to concerned about the stresses around the threads
since these are stress concentration areas and as I read in other posts the stress will keep
increasing as I use finer elements.
What I'm interested in is the max stress in the material around the screw in general
(neglecting the stresses around the threads). How can I pick the most adequate element size
for this purpose? Can I just create a similar model without the threads and just assume that
the results will be similar?
corus (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 01:51
I'd spend a little time and try and get a mesh with hex elements, preferably linear elements as
these are more stable. Your model looks axisymmetric too, though I'm not sure that applies to
the loads applied. If it is then use a 2D model. Results wil be much faster. The problem with
quad tet elements is that the mid-side nodes can get distorted and so appear as if they have
excessive distortion and become 'inside-out'.

corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
14 Dec 09 08:32
Thank you corus for your reply.
I tried to look up similar problems in the forum and I read somewhere you saying that the
stress values at the corners may be ignored since they are a result of singularities. Let's say I
decide to do this and ignore those values, can I just look at the second stress value in the color
contour for comparison purposes? My main purpose is to see how the length of the screw for
example affects stresses in the nearby area.
The problem is that I already created and modeled many similar models and working on hex
elements or axisymmteric models means I have to start from scracth.
DanStro (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 08:43
I have worked with people that make scalpels in the past and as sharp as they are there is a
standard radius on the cutting edge (R0.002mm is coming to mind but I am not sure) so while
the vendor of the screw, or even the drawing for the screw, might say that they are sharp in
reality it is not EXACTLY sharp.
So, that being said, you might want to try putting a very small radius on those edges.
From the description of what you are looking for I don't see why a small radius would have a
noticeable effect on the results. Even if you are a little off on the actual value.
corus (Mechanical) 14 Dec 09 09:03
The problem definition seems to be a bit vague and looking at the 2nd contour value isn't
really going to help when your results are mesh dependent. If you've ran a couple of models
with different meshes then pick a location that is close to the area of interest but not affected
by your mesh zize and then compare values at that location with your different scenarios.
I'd still spend half an hour looking at the mesh rather than wait 36 hours plus for results
you're not even going to be confident about. It's also often useful to run simple 2D models
first to get an idea of what is going on before going for the full razzamatazz of 3D models.

Even then after running a 3D model you can then say with some confidence that the results
from a 2D model are good enough for comparative studies. A little extra time at the
beginning can save you a lot more in the end.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
14 Dec 09 21:28
Corus,
I followed your advice and worked on a simple 2D model that gave me max stress values that
converged easily. Would it be safe to extrapolate from there to the 3D models (i.e use a mesh
density that gives similar max stress values as in the 2D model)?
I know for a fact that yielding will not occur under the conditions I am applying, I just want
to compare different models.
corus (Mechanical) 15 Dec 09 03:14
It would depend if you really need a 3D model that can be more easily described by results
from a 2D model. Do the results from the 2D model compare with the results from the 3D
model away from areas of high stress? From what I've seen of your model the geometry looks
axisymmetric other than the square block. If that is replaced by a cylinder with radius of half
the breadth of the block, are the results generally similar to the 3D model for a coarse mesh?
If so, then you can use the 2D axisymmetric geometry and use a fine mesh at the 'sharp'
corners, except use a small radius, as others have suggested.
corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
15 Dec 09 08:18
The model is not axisymmetric because the direction of loading is not.
The only two options I can think of now is either to use a coarse 3D mesh with comparable
values to the ones obtained in the 2D analysis or to use a fine mesh and ignore the peak stress
values. Do you think this would work just for comparison?
I am sorry if I'm repeating myself. I appreciate your help, thanks a lot!
corus (Mechanical) 16 Dec 09 08:59
You can ignore the peak stresses if fatigue is not to be considered. In your case the peak
stresses are due to the singularity caused by the geometry, which you can't capture anyway.
I'd use a mesh that gave results that gave smooth contours in regions of the model I'd be
interested in.
If your job is taking a long time to run and has contact in it, then check the time steps it's
taking as these may be very small. Contact controls can make the job more stable and run
faster. In addition, the use of quadrilateral elements increases the bandwidth of the problem
and hence the run time and memory requirements. If you have contact in the problem then try
and use linear hex elements, but more of them. Contact will converge better, and the job will
run faster.

corus
dw1982 (Bioengineer)
(OP)
16 Dec 09 10:41
Thanks a lot for your helpful comments. I appreciate it.
loki3000 (Mechanical) 18 Dec 09 08:32
what is that model, if i may ask? what it'll be used for?

Tips & Tricks: Convergence and Mesh

Independence Study
Tips & Tricks
by LEAP CFD Team
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

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 104
, 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

It is important that all CFD users follow these steps to ensure that you are reporting accurate
simulation results. Please contact our Support Team if you have any further queries on this
approach.

In the next blogs we will begin to discuss the importance of turbulence model selection.

Share this post

Tags: ANSYS Meshing, CFD simulation accuracy, Convergence, Inflation Layer Meshing,
mesh independence, Residual RMS Error values, Steady State simulation, turbulence
modelling, wall functions
32 comments
Skip to comment form

1.
Al Atresh

September 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
I'm trying to optimise my model(geometry) where; for example, I'm going to change
the inlet diameter many times and I'll do mesh indepenance study for each inlet
diameter. My question is about how I can reduce the number of simulations to reach
mesh-independent solution? On other words, can I conduct only one mesh
independance study when I use my maximum inlet diameter only and for the rest of
inlet diameter values I can use the same number of elements for them.
If not, is there any way to conduct mesh indepenance study more quickly in case of
geometry optimisation?
I'm looking to hear from you ASAP.
CFX user

1.
LEAP CFD Team

September 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC 11)

Hi Al,

Thanks for your question.

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 issue is that this
varies from case to case, depending on the physics involved and flow
structures seen. So if we model the flow in a pipe with lots of bends and vary
the radii of the bends, we can perform mesh independence studies on any of
the configurations. But if we experience flow seperation around the bends as
the radii decreases, we have a new flow structure, so a mesh that is indpendent
at large corner radii may not be independent at smaller radii due to the flow
structure change.
With regards your case, as with any CFD case, it can be hard to get it right
first go. You really need a good idea of the flow that you expect to see. If the
changes in inlet diameter are not going to change the general flow structure,
then mesh independence can be demonstrated on any of your configurations. If
a change is expected, then it's good practice to model for the worst case
scenario.
Also, when doing independence studies, remember that cell volume varies
with the third power of edge length. So there is no point increasing node count
by 10% each time as this will equate to only a 2% change in edge length. Aim
to at least double the mesh count each time, which still only give 25% change
in edge length.
Feel free to contact LEAP's support hotline if you have further questions.
Thanks,
LEAP Support

2.
Al Atresh

September 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC 11)

Hi again,,
I'm trying to conduct mesh indepenace study for swirl flow induced by
buoyancy.
Only for one case, I cannot reach constant value of my intersted variables in
some important regions within my domain or even at least having <1%
differences. while I increase my mesh number, I reach my convergence
criteria (1e-5 7 <0.01 for consevation target.
I conduct my simulation using steady state mode.
any comment can help.

Regards
CFX user

3.
LEAP CFD Team

September 7, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC 11)

Hi Al,
Thanks for this additional information.
In general: When using the steady-state solver, we are asuming that the flow is
not changing with time. If this assumption is not correct, we will possibly
either experience periodic oscillations in our residuals, or periodic oscillations
in our monitor points. This is a clear indication that the physics, geometry
and/or boundary conditions of the setup dictate an unsteady flow. In this case
you will need to activate the unsteady solver, which will allow the unsteady
flow features to be correctly resolved by the solver.
When using the unsteady solver in CFX you specify a timestep size. This must
be small enough to capture the flow features of interest. Say you have a region
where velocity is fluctuating at 5Hz. To correctly resolve a fluctuation you
generally want approx 20 timesteps per cycle. Hence you will want a timestep
of 0.01s or less. There may also be other flow features or physics in your
simulation that require smaller timesteps, so just like with mesh independence
studies, you will need to conduct a timestep independence study, whereby you
test at increasingly small timesteps (dt = 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001, etc)
until you meet the following criteria:
Osciallations in fluid flows at monitor points are well resolved (`20 timesteps
per oscillation) You reach good convergence at each timestep in around 5-10
iterations.
In fact, there are more criteria for assessing the choice of timestep, which vary
with the type of physics you are interested in. The ANSYS Fluent and CFX
user guides have great information on this and are essential reading for anyone
conducting an unsteady simulation. You must also consider how to post
process your data (time averaging) and how to store your transient data during
the simulation.
Finally, a word on your specific case: flows involving buoyancy often do not
exhibit a steady equilibirium and therefore require an unsteady solver and
small timestep to resolve correctly.
Hope this helps!
LEAP Support

2.
Bhawesh

March 20, 2013 at 4:31 am (UTC 11)

Reply
This is with reference to Fluent
In a steady state simulation if a reduction of under relaxation factor (for pressure) and
a reduction of time scale factor (pseudo transient algorithm) gives convergence with
the monitor points then Is it fine to relay on such convergence (or) is it always a must in general to
run a few more iterations by revoking the default under relaxation factor
and with a time scale factor = 1 ?
It is a pressure based coupled solver in double precission with :
pressure --> standard, momentum --> second order, turbulence --> first order, Energy
equation not involved
SST turbulence model with low-Re corrections disabled

1.
LEAP CFD Team

April 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm (UTC 11)

Hi,
The value specified for under-relaxation factors (segregated solver), or
correspondingly the global Courant numbers/pseudo time-step (coupled
solver) will not affect the final converged solution. This is also the case when
you apply explicit relaxation to specific variables. It will however affect the
time required to achieve convergence. So there is no need to set relaxation
factors higher before obtaining a final converged solution.
When using the pressure-based coupled solver, if you set the time-step (or
correspondingly the Courant number) to be too high it may cause the residuals
to hang and not converge, or in some cases may cause divergence. On the
other hand setting the values too low will result in a slowly converging
solution ultimately resulting in higher computing costs. You can estimate the
time-step if you consider a characteristic length and velocity scale of your
model. Alternatively you can start with a conservative value for the time-scale
and appropriately adjust it as you monitor convergence.

3.
AURABINDA

April 24, 2013 at 3:54 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi,i want to know which type of grid is better for 2D unsteady turbulent flow,it is
structured or unstructured ,which type of cell,i am doing on vortex induced vibration
on bluff body.can u please suggest me which type of meshing is better for my case.

1.
LEAP CFD Team

May 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm (UTC 11)

Hi,
There are benefits with adopting either a structured quadrilateral grid or an
unstructured triangular mesh and ANSYS has tools which can be used for
both. The questions to consider are the degree of sophistication of the
modelling process and the complexity of the geometry. If the flow is aligned
with the geometry and the geometry is not complex, then it is beneficial to
adopt a high-quality quadrilateral grid, as you will reduce the overall cell
count and you will produce less error due to numerical diffusion. If the flow is
not aligned well with the geometry (which is generally a result of complexity
in the geometry) then it may prove difficult to generate a quadrilateral mesh,
and you may resort to a triangular grid. In this case, a high-quality triangular
grid will produce a negligible difference in results with a quadrilateral grid,
and the preparation time will be significantly reduced.

4.
Mira-Lisa

July 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi,
I am simulating channel flow with a very high flow in Fluent and I am using unsteady
simulation. You write in this blogpost that for steady flow there are three conditions
that must be satisfied for the solution to be converged for a steady state simulation.
Are the same conditions applicable to an unsteady simulation? And what is meant by

the residual RMS error values? Are those the values for the continuity equation, x-,yand z-velocity, k and epsilon? (when running a k-epsilon turbulence model).
Best Regards,
Mira-Lisa

1.
LEAP CFD Team

July 26, 2013 at 11:39 am (UTC 11)

If you are using an unsteady simulation then you would expect to see a
changing flow field over time and therefore your simulation will need to be
time accurate. It accounts for this by solving the unsteady terms in the
governing equations using an implicit second order backward time-stepping
algorithm. The governing equations in CFD aim to satisfy the conservation
laws of mass, momentum and energy. The RMS residuals give us the change
in error from subsequent iterations (averaged over each cell) from solving
algebraic forms of the conservation laws. At the start of the simulation, we
might expect to have a large residual error and as we progressively iterate we
will expect to see a decline in the residual error as the flow field converges.
You can assess how the solver is satisfying the conservation laws by checking
the domain imbalances (i.e. the mass, energy, etc. out the mass, energy, etc.
in). This is another methodology to assess global convergence, as we cannot
safely assume the flow field is converged until these imbalances tend towards
zero (and is especially evident for problems involving heat transfer, source
terms and other complex physics). As you have suggested the more physics
you implement, the more additional scalars need to be solved for. Hence a
three dimensional turbulent problem involving heat transfer and a mixture of
gases will solve for mass, momentum (in x, y and z directions) and energy, as
well as for the additional scalars which account for the production and
dissipation of turbulence and the mass fractions of the gas mixture. For your
unsteady simulation, these need to be satisfied for each timestep.

2.
Mira-Lisa

August 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm (UTC 11)

So does this mean that I can use monitor points (in combination with the
residuals and flux report) when showing that my unsteady solution has
converged?
Thank you for your help!
Best regards,
Mira-Lisa

5.
Mehdi

August 15, 2013 at 8:08 am (UTC 11)

Reply
Hello ,
Thank you for your useful article,
I have some questions that would appreciate if you answer them.
- I have seen some discussion on the CFD-Online that suggests the Steady state time
step(physical time step) should not be lower than the advective time step to ignore
capturing the disturbances in the flow that cause residuals not to converge, if it is true
how I can check the advective time step?
- On the CFX manual I have read that physical time step can be set to the 1/3 of the
flow residual time , and the residual time can be estimated on the post.P by checking
the time of the stream line.Please let me know if I am correct.
- CFX uses the implicit method , then it should not be so sensitive to the steady state
time step , then why should we do the time step study?
Thank you in advance

1.
LEAP CFD Team

September 27, 2013 at 11:23 am (UTC 11)

ANSYS CFX employs the so called False Transient. A timescale is used to
move the solution towards the final answer. In a steady-state simulation the
timescale provides relaxation of the equation in non-linearities . A steady-state
simulation is a transient evolution of the flow from the initial guess to the
steady-state conditions
The physical time step is the time represented in each iteration of the solution.
CFX-Solver has the ability to calculate physical time step size for steady-state
problems. If you do not know the time step size to set for your problem, you
can use the Auto Timescale option.
You can check the residence time either by having a look at the time on the
streamlines or by dividing your volume by the volumetric flow rate. You want
to know the time step in order to avoid having it too small (so that it takes a
long time to have your solution to be calculated), or too large (that might

cause convergence issues and it is not able to capture the characteristics of the
phenomena you are studying).

6.
Luis Perez

October 20, 2013 at 11:24 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Excelent blog my friend, it has been a lot of help in the development of my thesis

7.
Ernesto

January 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
This is a very interesting blog!
I have a question about "Residual RMS Error values": How I can determine the
acceptable values for the RMS? Although normally RMS values are 10-4 or 10-5, I've
seen simulations in which values 10-3 or 10-2 are used.
What is the criterion for choosing one value or another?. Is there any recommendation
according to the problem considered?
Best regards

1.
LEAP CFD Team

January 17, 2014 at 9:08 am (UTC 11)

There is no real precursor to determine what residual error values should be
reduced to for acceptable convergence. This is because residual error may also
reflect local areas of instability which is not representative of global
convergence. We would advise that you monitor residual plots in conjunction
with additional monitor points that reflect the convergence of a quantitative
result of interest. For example, if you are performing an aerodynamic
simulation, you may choose to monitor the convergence of the drag coefficient
(along with the residuals) to judge convergence. Alternatively if you are
performing an internal flow you may choose to monitor the pressure drop in

your system. If you see that the monitor points have converged, but residuals
are still oscillating due to small local regions of instability, we would likely
accept the solution as a converged result.

8.
Brice

February 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Hello,
Thank you for this article !
I have a question regarding the mesh independance study. If a mesh independance
analysis has been done with a steady-state flow, I wonder is the mesh independance
study does still make sense when switching to a transient simulation for the same
geometry. I know that I have to check the influence of the time step when performing
my new simulations but if the independance is reached for a steady flow, is it for a
transient one ?
Thank you for your help.

1.
LEAP CFD Team

February 19, 2014 at 9:32 am (UTC 11)

Hi Brice, the validity of this approach is problem dependent. If the flow
features in your initial steady state results are representative of the likely
transient flow features, then you can confidently assume that your mesh
fidelity is appropriate. If transient flow exhibits shedding or other flow
features that were not present in the steady result, then you will need to use
your judgement on mesh requirements (in many cases, dynamic mesh adaption
can be very helpful in these transient cases where the final flow features are
unpredictable). As with all simulations, you should continue to review your
results in the context of your initial assumptions and adjust modelling inputs
(such as mesh and boundary conditions) as needed.

9.
Dave

April 23, 2014 at 3:16 am (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi, I am trying to simulate a turbulent flux in a completely open valve, but the
residual of continuity equation does not converge. I have tried changing my model
(initially, I wanted to use the k-omega SST model) and I have found the best solution
with the standard k-omega model. So, I thought that refining the mesh I would find a
better solution! I have tried but the solution found is, actually, even worse!! The other
residuals are in the order of 10-4 10-5, but the residual of continuity passes from
9*10-3 for the coarser mesh, to 5*10-2 for the refined one. The solution presents a
mass imbalance of 10-5 on 50 kg/s. What do you think should I do to obtain a better
solution? can I consider the solution converged even if the RMS of the continuity
equation is so high?
I would love to have any suggestions because I do not know how to proceed.
Thanks
Dave

1.
LEAP CFD Team

June 16, 2014 at 5:04 pm (UTC 11)

Hi, if you are a Fluent user, you can try locally scaling the residuals to have
better indication of convergence. What do your monitor points suggest? For
example, monitoring the force in the streamwise direction over the valve wall
would be a good indication of convergence. It is likely that you have picked
up a small area of unsteadiness (e.g. small oscillating vortex), and as you
gradually refine the mesh you are tending to refine the unstable region even
more, hence the mass residuals do not converge in steady state. We
recommend that you solve transiently and review the convergence behaviour.

10.
Abdalellah

May 23, 2014 at 2:36 am (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi,
This is a very interesting article,
Actually, I'm simulating slug flow in a pipe and I want to perform mesh independence
study, of course the phenomenon is unsteady. From the initial run with time step
0.005 sec the global residual monitor shows oscillation for x,y,z, energy, continuity
and water in a range between 0.1 to .005 but the turbulent kinetic fluctuated between
1 to 30+. for improving the convergence I set lower value for under-relaxation factor
for pressure, velocity, and turbulent k-omega. Do I need to perform time

independence study to reach better convergence and after that start mesh
independence study?
I ran the analysis for 3 sec first and then for 8 sec, I realized a bit difference in the
result. Do you think the total physical time will affect the results? if not, can I run the
analysis for 3 sec in the mesh independence study and then generalize it for 8 sec?
Regards

1.
LEAP CFD Team

January 22, 2016 at 4:38 pm (UTC 11)

A model should only be considered converged if the 3 criteria described in this
post have been met (residual targets achieved, monitor invariance, and mass
balance). As the model is not currently converging, you need to the refine the
mesh to the point where a convergent model is obtained and then perform a
mesh independence study. Typically, the physics being modelled dictate the
time-step to such a degree that if the time-steps are converging, the temporal
discretisation is already sufficient. This, in effect, renders time-step
independence a bit of a foregone conclusion. With regard to the relationship
between total run times and mesh-independence, if there are regions of
important physics or high-gradient areas that are changing location over time,
then it is certainly possible that a 8s solution would require a different mesh
than a 3s solution.

11.
Mustafa

August 19, 2014 at 6:41 am (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi,
Thanks for useful comments and helps.
I have question about y+ value,for transient aeroacoustic problem which y+ should be
used?Could you please advise?

1.
LEAP CFD Team

October 9, 2014 at 9:19 am (UTC 11)

Hi Mustafa,
For aeroacoustic problems, considering that you want to accurately predict
surface pressure fluctuations for dipole source contribution, you should
definitely aim for a y+ of 1.
Regards,
LEAP CFD Support

12.
Hashim Kareem

September 17, 2014 at 5:30 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
How are you doing?
Hopefully, everyone is doing well!
I want to ask you question, I would be very thankful for your answer!
I am running Eddy dissipate concept models (EDC) for more than 10 real
experimental data. The cold flow is converged easily.
But the problem is the time for hot flow, it takes long time like around 10 days or
more to converge and get solution as well results.
What is the problem in your opinion? What can I do to solve this problem? Please, I
need your experience to help me solving this issue.
Thank you so much
Hashim

1.
LEAP CFD Team

October 9, 2014 at 9:05 am (UTC 11)

Hi Hashim
Converging combustion problems can be very difficult at times, due to the
high coupling between the flow/turbulence, energy due to reaction heat
release, radiation, particle tracking, etc. Our advice would be to first converge
the cold flow simulation, and then progressively ramp up the physics and
high-order discretization in your simulation to give you better stability in
convergence. For example, you can begin with cold flow in first order, then
couple reactions (again using low-order discretization), then add higher-order
discretization, and finally radiation. Additionally, residuals are very
ambiguous and will not accurately report global convergence of your model. I
would suggest the use of monitor points wherever possible to judge
convergence.

Regards,
LEAP CFD Support

13.
Yogi

October 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi LEAP,
I'm running an unsteady state simulation about hot water charging process in a
stratified thermal storage tank, and I have a problem. The mass & energy imbalance
are still too high until 30 mins of charging process, though the majority of residuals
has converged. Whereas I've tried to run it with steady state simulation before, and the
mass & energy imbalance were <1%. My question is: does unsteady state simulation
has effect on mass & energy balance?
Thanks,
Yogi

1.
LEAP CFD Team

October 9, 2014 at 8:58 am (UTC 11)

Hi Yogi,
If anything an unsteady simulation should assist in convergence as the
unsteady term in the scalar transport equations aims to provide additional
stability to the simulation process. Can you comment on your convergence
dependency on the time-step size? To ensure a more stable solution (especially
given your application) you can try use adaptive time-stepping. This method
will allow you to select a range of local cell Courant number for your domain,
and will implicitly determine your time-step size to give the solution greater
stability in convergence.
Regards,
LEAP CFD Support

14.
Markus

October 29, 2014 at 3:49 am (UTC 11)

Reply
Hi LEAP Team,
Thanks for the interesting article.
I have a question concerning mesh independence studies:
As far as I know, a properly done mesh independence study requires a uniform and
consistent refinement of the whole mesh (i.e. every region should be refined by the
same factor and the quality of the mesh should at least remain constant). How can I
achieve a uniform and consistent refinement for a unstructured and non-uniform mesh
(with inflation layers), e.g. in ANSYS Meshing (i.e. how should the meshing
parameters be adjusted in order to achieve a uniform and consistent grid refinement)?
I would really appreciate if you could give me some hints concerning the question
above or refer me to some reference which could help! Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Markus

1.
LEAP CFD Team

January 22, 2016 at 2:47 pm (UTC 11)

If you have only used Global controls in ANSYS Meshing, you can use the
Relevance slider to refine your mesh accordingly. If you specified
body/surface/edge sizes, you can obviously alter those directly. For inflation
layers, if you used aspect ratio, the cell heights should update appropriately as
they will be directly related to the size of the underlying surface mesh. A first
layer thickness specification would operate like the body/surface/edge sizes.

15.
George_CFD

May 25, 2015 at 7:08 pm (UTC 11)

Reply
Dear LEAP team,
We are performing CFD studies of an automotive geometry in a wind tunnel. We
monitor drag and lift. We solve steady state with k-omega STT but in reality the flow
field is transient and as a result the residuals do not drop. We average drag and lift
over many iterations after the residuals reach the plateau, as much as 15 or 20
thousand.

We also perform mesh independence studies by refining the mesh from coarse to
medium to fine. However we do not reach a nice convergence of drag and lift as in the
plot you show. Cl for example may increase from coarse to medium and then decrease
to fine mesh.
I have read somewhere that too fine meshes in steady state RANS may lead to
problems.
Could you please comment on this?
Thanks!

1.
LEAP CFD Team

January 22, 2016 at 12:20 pm (UTC 11)

In the absence of experimental data with which to compare your results, it can
be difficult to have confidence or draw conclusions about a simulation for
which the typical marks of convergence (target residuals met, steady-state
behaviour of solution monitors, and mass imbalance <~2%) have not met.
These hallmarks are certainly the recommended approach to judging
convergence. Refining a mesh will capture the modelled physics with
increasing fidelity. For a turbulent model, this means capturing an increasing
amount of the transient behaviour in the system, which certainly causes
convergence difficulty for a steady-state solver. If high fidelity of turbulent
flow is required, a transient solution is usually a corollary. See Section 15.4.1
in the CFX Modeling Guide or 28.13 in the Fluent Users guide for additional
details.