{"id":313275,"date":"2023-10-25T11:45:18","date_gmt":"2023-10-25T11:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/forums\/topic\/unrealistic-temparetures-outside-the-area-of-interest-in-supersonic-intakes\/"},"modified":"2023-10-25T11:45:18","modified_gmt":"2023-10-25T11:45:18","slug":"unrealistic-temparetures-outside-the-area-of-interest-in-supersonic-intakes","status":"closed","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/unrealistic-temparetures-outside-the-area-of-interest-in-supersonic-intakes\/","title":{"rendered":"Unrealistic temparetures outside the area of interest in supersonic intakes."},"content":{"rendered":"

Hello,<\/p>\n

I am doing a 2D, supersonic analysis on an intake. I extended the domain on top and bottom of my intake geometry for setting up the boundary conditions(pressure- outlet). When I run simulation at design Mach number (2.2) I am getting good results. By good result i mean mass imbalace is less than 1% but residuals are oscillating in the 10^-3 range.<\/p>\n

But when i reduce the mach number I am getting divergence. I made markers at maximum aspect ratio, max skewness points. Max AR point is outside the intake at the end of external domain. There after some iterations temparature is getting limited and sometimes time step is getting reduced due to large temperature change at the external points. Can I solve this by changing the dimension of external domains or through mesh refinements?. I was also thinking about using a pressure based solver instead of density based.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-313275","topic","type-topic","status-closed","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t