I do actually think the set up of these two simulations are SAME, despite the mesh has a changed name for refinements, but why the results from two of them deviate so much?
A link down here is for the WRONG one:
Another link for the one I’m satisfied with:
Please inform me on how to improve or correct the setting of the wrong one, if you need further information, feel free to leave a comment below.
I do think it’s something related to the mesh, as all things including boundary conditions and result managements are same, while I couldn’t be specific on what’s the difference between two operations. I can’t understand why the result for the 20x5 one is so ridiculous.
Hey gass,
Thanks for posting on the forum.
Please give me some time before I take a look at your project, your message and get back to you!
Best,
Satvik
I think both runs are not satisfactory results-wise due to a possible misunderstanding in the application of the boundary conditions. I see that you’ve set a time-dependent velocity inlet as a table:
However, for Steady-State simulations, as the one you’re performing, you’re not dealing with real time but rather iterations that converge to a final solution. In that case, such a table would be useful in case you wanted to stabilize the results as done in this tutorial.
If you’re interested in observing different flow regimes, I’d advise you to go for separate runs!
As a last comment, make sure your velocities do not have a magnitude greater than 0.3 Mach, as this is the limit supported by the Incompressible solver.
Best,
-Igor
