Thanks for your quick response! I’m surprised!
Well, first of all, I appreciate yout hints regarding the improvement of the accuracy of my mesh, I will take it into account. However, it’s something I’m not concerned about at this moment since my concerns go into another direction. As per your words, I understand that symmetry BC’s just don’t work
Your assumption about symmetry are likely correct as in this particular case the values can’t simply be obtained by running a quarter or half case unless its for some rough calculations that you just multiply as accordingly to how you’ve “cut” the geometry but I wouldn’t think that would be a good assumption . So doing the full simulation would be best since it is a simple geometry anyway like you’ve mentioned.
I don’t understand why I can’t use the benefits of symmetry in this case, I have a (very) symmetrical geometry undergoing symmetrical loads, why shouldn’t I use symmetric BC’s?
As I was just starting to simulate this case I wanted to get quick results, that’s why I didn’t want to make use of a heavy mesh and I preferred to use a split mesh and leverage symmetry BC’s. Besides that, the fact of using a smaller symmetrical mesh gives me the opportunity to make use of a finer mesh, as you suggested, but only in a part of the overall system, reducing the computation time to get the results. However, it seems that the results I get this way are somewhat “weird”.
Regarding my data, I don’t know what you mean when you say that my data may be wrong. Maybe my description of the case was a little vague, I will give more details about it. In this case, the wind comes from the front of the speaker (positive Y direction) with a velocity of 40m/s (see the picture below). This simulation is to verify that the product will pass a wind tunnel test with this wind velocity as an objective. I have to say that this speaker will not be tested alone but it will be tested a 8-speaker stack mounted on a steel frame (the geometry can be already found in my project folder). However, as I already said, this first simulation is to find out the proper set up for the final case. Besides that, relevant information can be retrieved by means of this simple case without the need of running the global case with the 8-speaker system.
For the next simulations I will give a “slip” condition to the boundary walls, as you suggested, and maybe I could also increase the X and Z sizes of the bounding box, as you also suggested.
But first of all, I would like to really understand why I can’t use symmetry BC’s in this case to get the correct pressure field. In the end, my interest, beyond what I already said, is to simulate just the half of the 8-speaker system in order to minimize the cell number and computing time whereas obtaining accurate results.
I hope this helps you understand my simulation and why I am so interested in getting good results by means of the use of symmetry BC’s.
Thanks again for your help.