*** WARNING: Diss.-rate fully specified by two-layer wall treatment

That warning is likely related to the turbulence conditions specified at inflow boundaries.  Can you attach the .inp/.Log files?

Unrleated - but if you only have four cells between walls (split by the MRF boundary) that's only three internal nodes, which doesn't give much ability to capture much of the flow gradient/profile.

If you want to stick with a k-epsilon model, the realizable is likely the better choice.

That warning is likely related to the turbulence conditions specified at inflow boundaries.  Can you attach the .inp/.Log files?

Unrleated - but if you only have four cells between walls (split by the MRF boundary) that's only three internal nodes, which doesn't give much ability to capture much of the flow gradient/profile.

If you want to stick with a k-epsilon model, the realizable is likely the better choice.

Thanks for your reply.

You are right, I have used 4 cells to model 1mm airgap after referring CFD analysis of 75KW PMSM motor with SimLab ( Tutorials, How To, Troubleshooting - Multi-physics (EM, NVH, CFD) Analysis of a 75 kW PMSM with SimLab (altair.com) )

I will proceed with realizable K epsilon in future.

Thanks for your reply.

You are right, I have used 4 cells to model 1mm airgap after referring CFD analysis of 75KW PMSM motor with SimLab ( Tutorials, How To, Troubleshooting - Multi-physics (EM, NVH, CFD) Analysis of a 75 kW PMSM with SimLab (altair.com) )

I will proceed with realizable K epsilon in future.

That warning is likely benign, as it goes away after the first time step.

Convergence (based on residual/solution ratio) is not great.  You may want to add more mesh and/or decrease the Solution Update Factor (yields a larger relaxation factor in the input file) to see if that helps.