We're working on a new experience for engineering.com stories!

Try
the new look (https://new.engineering.com/article/9296?
utm_source=engcom_new)

3 Criteria for Assessing CFD Convergence

Staff (http://www.engineering.com/Author/ID/8/TheEngineer) posted on January 06, 2015 | 2

Comments
(https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/9296/3-Criteria-

for-Assessing-CFD-Convergence.aspx#disqus_thread)

By: Mike Kuron, M.S.M.E., Project Manager at CAE Associates. (https://caeai.com/engineering-consulting/cfd-

consulting)
Fluid flow problems posed by common products are highly nonlinear in nature. Only through imposing
restrictive conditions can the governing Navier-Stokes equations be solved analytically. As a result,

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solutions must be calculated iteratively. This begs the question: How do I
know when my solution has converged?

Since the point at which the analysis is deemed converged is defined by the judgment of the analyst, users

should have a solid understanding of when the analysis has reached its final solution. Typically, when
assessing the convergence of a steady state CFD analysis, at a minimum monitor the following three criteria
as the analysis progresses:

1. Residual Values
2. Solution imbalances

3. Quantities of interest

1. CFD Convergence using Residual

Values
The residual is one of the most fundamental measures of an iterative solution’s convergence, as it directly
quantifies the error in the solution of the system of equations. In a CFD analysis, the residual measures the

local imbalance of a conserved variable in each control volume. Therefore, every cell in your model will have

its own residual value for each of the equations being solved.
In an iterative numerical solution, the residual will never be exactly zero. However, the lower the residual

value is, the more numerically accurate the solution. Each CFD code will have its own procedure for

normalizing the solution residuals. It is best to check your code’s documentation for guidance on an
appropriate criteria when judging convergence.
 For CFD, RMS residual levels of 1E-4 are
considered to be loosely converged, levels

of 1E-5 are considered to be well

converged, and levels of 1E-6 are

considered to be tightly converged. For

complicated problems, however, it's not

always possible to achieve residual levels

as low as 1E-6 or even 1E-5.

For example, look at the residual behavior

of various heat generating components

sitting atop a printed circuit board (PCB)

which is cooled by natural convection. The
residual monitors in Figure 1 demonstrate monotonic convergence, indicating a well-posed problem and a

tightly converged solution.

So how does the solution change as the residuals decrease? Figure 2 shows the temperature field in the
components on the board at different residual levels.

With the RMS residuals at 1E-4, the qualitative behavior of the PCB can clearly be seen, but the peak
temperature of the heat sink is under-predicted by as much as 8°C. As the RMS residuals decrease to 1E-5,

the temperature distribution begins to resemble the more tightly converged solutions and the peak

temperature is predicted to within 1°C. Finally, as the solution further converges, the difference in the
temperature distribution between residual levels of 1E-5 and 1E-6 is almost negligible.
2. CFD Convergence using Solution
Imbalances
Since our CFD analysis is solving conservation equations (conservation of mass, momentum, energy, etc.), we

must ensure that the final solution does indeed conserve these quantities.

As a numerical representation of a physical system, the CFD solution imbalances will never be exactly zero.

However, the imbalances should be sufficiently small before considering the solution converged. As a good
practice, aim for solution imbalances of less than 1% as a starting point. Note that more sensitive

applications may require tighter convergence.

As can be seen in Figure 3, after the initial

startup period, the solution imbalances

for the board example gradually decrease

as the solution progresses. For the most

part, having sufficiently small values of
the solution residuals will lead to small

solution imbalances.

However, for cases that have processes

with widely different timescales, it is

possible to have large imbalances even

when the residuals are small. A common

example of this occurs in Conjugate Heat
Transfer (CHT) analyses, like our board example here, where the conduction timescales can be much longer

than the flow timescales.

3. CFD Convergence using Quantities

of Interest
In a steady state analysis, the solution field should not change iteration to iteration for an analysis to be

deemed converged. Monitoring integrated quantities such as force, drag, or average temperature can help

the user judge when his or her analysis has reached this point. In our board example, two useful monitor
points might be the maximum temperature of the heat sink and the maximum temperature of one of the

heat generating chips.

In Figure 4, we can see the change in the monitor point values vs. iteration number and RMS residual value.
After approximately 50 iterations, the RMS residuals are reduced to 1E-4 and the chip temperature monitor
point is within just a few percent of its final value.
However, the heat sink temperature is still far from its final value, so stopping the analysis here could be

misleading. As the residuals decrease further, the monitor values change less and less between iterations.
Once the monitor point values have "flattened out", we can safely assume the solution is converged.

There are, of course, many other things to consider when judging the value of CFD results. Just because the

solution is numerically accurate does not mean that it is a good representation of the true physical behavior.

A converged solution is not very useful if it's a byproduct of incorrect boundary conditions! Any model should
be thoroughly checked, from geometry and mesh to boundary conditions and solver settings to ensure its

suitability for the problem at hand.

For more simulation tips read: Debugging Complex Finite Element Analysis Using a Single Element Model.

(http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/8705/Debugging-Complex-Finite-
Element-Analysis-Using-a-Single-Element-Model.aspx)

Mike Kuron, M.S.M.E., is a Project Manager at CAE Associates (https://caeai.com/engineering-consulting/cfd-

consulting), and has extensive experience performing CFD and FEA simulations in the aerospace, nuclear,
defense, power generation, and electronics industries. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. at the University of

Connecticut, concentrating in the field of computational turbulent combustion.