CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

stiff numerical

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 24, 2000, 01:02
Default stiff numerical
  #1
Felipe Figueroa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi, my name is Felipe and have the followin question:

In the Fluent manual, chapter 17, for the coupled solver say

- "The Navier-Stokes equations become (numerically) very stiff at low Mach number due to the disparity between the fluid velocity v and the acoustic speed c (speed of sound)." -

that it means that the equation becomes numerically stiff?. does this have some physical meaning?

  Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2000, 01:57
Default Re: stiff numerical
  #2
John C. Chien
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
(1). No, the physics does not change at low Mach number. (2).The physics does not change whether the air is stationary or the wind is blowing. (3). Only certain formulation and solution procedures will have problem in convergence at low Mach number.
  Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2000, 05:11
Default Re: stiff numerical
  #3
Maurizio Barbato
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Felipe,

the physical meaning you were looking for is already in your message: "disparity between the fluid velocity v and the acoustic speed c (speed of sound)." In the coupled solver Fluent solves a system of equations and not an equation at time as it does in the segregated solver (obvious to say this, but it is worth to repeat it). To clarify how this sentence answer your question let me make a step back in time. The term "stiff" has been introduced by Curtiss and Hirschfelder in 1952 (this two guys are "magister" for the Kinetic Theory of Gases) for a system of springs which had some springs much more "stiff" then others. Then this term has been used to indicate sistems of differential equations where the time constants have a variety of different values (they are spread over a wide range). From the physical point of view this means that the phenomena represented by this system of equations have different time scales. In the case you cited in your mail, you have that pressure waves move with the speed of sound c whereas the fluid has a velocity v which is much much lower than c (v<<c) , therefore the fluid motion has a time scale much lower than that of pressure perturbations. This can be hardly managed by "the coupled solver" unless you use an integration time step (related to the CFL) really-really small, which, provided you achieve stability, will make you waiting for years for a solution.

The segregated solver makes of this "problem" an advantage introducing a series of semplifications of the equations (for example neglecting terms which depend on Ma^2 (being Ma <<1)) and to decouple the solutions procedure for the equations.

I hope this helps.

Ciao

Maurizio

Ref. Comincioli "Analisi Numerica" McGraw-Hill

  Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2000, 05:21
Default Re: stiff numerical (READ THIS ONE!!!))
  #4
Maurizio Barbato
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
(the previous message I have posted was truncated. This is the original text. Sorry for the snag! Maurizio)

Hi Felipe,

the physical meaning you were looking for is already in your message: "disparity between the fluid velocity v and the acoustic speed c (speed of sound)." In the coupled solver Fluent solves a system of equations and not an equation at time as it does in the segregated solver (obvious to say this, but it is worth to repeat it). To clarify how this sentence answer your question let me make a step back in time. The term "stiff" has been introduced by Curtiss and Hirschfelder in 1952 (this two guys are "magister" for the Kinetic Theory of Gases) for a system of springs which had some springs much more "stiff" then others. Then this term has been used to indicate sistems of differential equations where the time constants have a variety of different values (they are spread over a wide range). From the physical point of view this means that the phenomena represented by this system of equations have different time scales. In the case you cited in your mail, you have that pressure waves move with the speed of sound c whereas the fluid has a velocity v which is much much lower than c (v much smaller than c) , therefore the fluid motion has a time scale much lower than that of pressure perturbations. This can be hardly managed by "the coupled solver" unless you use an integration time step (related to the CFL) really-really small, which, provided you achieve stability, will make you waiting for years for a solution.

The segregated solver makes of this "problem" an advantage introducing a series of semplifications of the equations (for example neglecting terms which depend on Ma^2 (being Ma much smaller then 1)) and to decouple the solutions procedure for the equations.

I hope this helps.

Ciao

Maurizio

Ref. Comincioli "Analisi Numerica" McGraw-Hill

  Reply With Quote

Old   September 9, 2009, 18:42
Default wot solver
  #5
Senior Member
 
Nishant
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 7
nishant_hull is on a distinguished road
Hi Maurizio,

This is a very interest piece of information. Thanks for this.

However I have a question for you here. I am working with a open source cfd code and the solver i am using is a basic PISO solver. I am trying to simulate a pulsating pressure field ( p=p0sin(w*t)) through a long pipe. The p0 value is very small.The solver is a compressible solver and it is solving the energy-pressure coupled equations in piso loop. I was wondering if this coupled energy and pressure equation is making my solver stiff??
Although time is not an issue in my case, but accuracy is definetely desirable. Should I use this coupled equation to solve or should I decouple the equations?

regards,

Nishant
nishant_hull is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 9, 2009, 20:02
Default and
  #6
Senior Member
 
Nishant
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 7
nishant_hull is on a distinguished road
In addition, my question is:
Although coupled solvers are stiff but are they more accurate (specially in case of sub sonic Piso based solvers)??

Nishant
nishant_hull is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Numerical viscosity due to the MUSCL and HLL coulpled scheme sonsiest Main CFD Forum 0 May 23, 2011 15:37
Summer School on Numerical Modelling and OpenFOAM hjasak OpenFOAM 5 October 12, 2008 13:14
numerical scheme ado Main CFD Forum 3 October 12, 2000 08:20
Standard for checking and testing numerical schemes? X. Ye Main CFD Forum 7 August 31, 1999 17:05
New Books and Numerical Software Eleuterio TORO Main CFD Forum 0 December 18, 1998 12:41


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:24.