I'm confused, for the same problem for the same setting, the results are changed.
There are a different results for the two initialization methods (hybrid - Standard) as shown in the attached figures.
The final answer should be identical if the solution has been converged with a good accuracy.
Have both of these simulations with these two different initialization methods reached to convergence?
If no, increase the number of iterations.
If yes, try to reduce the convergence criterion values.
The final answer should be identical if the solution has been converged with a good accuracy.
Amr Kaood All of other Fluent settings were identical as well? Turbulence modeling and other options.
That's really odd. I have not encountered with such a thing in this software.
I think the most different part between the standard and Hybrid is that they could put a different initialized turbulence factor (i.e. k and e) when you start your calculation. The flow field could converge in two different modified turbulent viscosity without any difficulty. So, maybe you could monitor your "turbulent viscosity ratio" value and check if there is any different here. Although a very low residual was achieved, the turbulent viscosity ratio may still change that means the code is trying to find a more reasonable value of the turbulent viscosity.
In my view, it's a good choice to set the residual monitor to none and let the calculation continue. In general case, the Hybrid has a more accurate prediction on turbulence factors, and the results are more reasonable. But if they have a similar turbulent viscosity ratio, the final result should be similar too.
- Badges
- Science topic