CFD toolkit or from scratch?

serviet · June 7, 2012, 04:53

Hello everyone,

i have to start writting a new cfd code and i really wonder what is the drawback of CFD toolkits (openfoam or freefem) again rewritting everything for a really specific use case?
As i can tell, by beginning from scratch, you're able to choose between all numerical schemes and technical stuff (parallel, kinds of meshes...) you want depending on your needs between precision and performance. But regarding the poor programming skills of physicists in front of the custom solution designed by the opensource community...
Someone can make a good case for it?

Thx for your answers.

cfdnewbie · June 7, 2012, 12:01

It all depends on what you are trying to to. If you are interested in solving a flow problem for an established code exists, then go ahead and use that. Writing a CFD code that runs in parallel efficiently and solves complicated physics is very time consuming.

However, if there's no code out there that does what you need or if you are interested in actual code development, then, by all means, go and write your own code.... you will learn a lot and have fun doing it, but it will take some of your time.

JBeilke · June 7, 2012, 13:27

It depends on what you want to do with the code later.

Search the web for "gpl commercial use".

andreasp · June 12, 2012, 14:39

I would always recommend to go at least with an existing framework, if you really want to produce a code usable on realistic applications.

Even if there is no software out there which can solve your specific problem out of the box, I believe it is much more efficient to extend some given "back bone" code rather than starting your own project from scratch. Just think of such basic challenges like mesh handling, memory management, etc. before you can actually start programming your *equations* -- the heart of your code. There are many open source frameworks available which readily provide this infrastructure (e.g. DUNE, OF). It might be cumbersome to understand their structure/philosophy, but I think in the end it pays off.

However, I also agree with the previous answers: If you want to gain knowledge in mathematics, numerical methods and/or basic FV/FEM code development (preferably with only a 1D or 2D code), then go for it!

Fenris9469 · June 12, 2012, 20:56

I have been writing my own FEM code for several years. I have to say while there will be many stumbling blocks you will learn a lot from the experience. that being said it is by no means a quick process (Assuming you are trying to go for a general purpose do lots of neat stuff bells and whistles) even with good programming skills. I would counsel you to ask what your goals are for the code? if you are looking for the knowledge of how it works and are one of those people who needs to reinvent the wheel before you accept something else, I say go for it. I would start simple work in 1-D and then 2-D then 3-D. Bear in mind each method has pros and cons and once you commit and are deep into one method you probably won't want to turn back and are stuck with the required work around of that method (of which there are many for all methods).

Hope this Helps,

Seth

serviet · June 13, 2012, 06:48

Thank you all,

I've already wrote several codes (FEM,FV, spectral and in fortran,c++...) so i begin to be familiar with the different numerical schemes

The problem is indeed more about software engeneering : as andreasp and fenris said, I don't need to reinvent the wheel especially for technical improvments like multigrid mesh handling or parralel computing. OS solution exists and are maintained by community. I don't know DUNE or OF, but as far as i saw openFOAM let you choose between a lot of solution for numerical schemes, boundary conditions or linear solver. However, I don't really know about the future of my code and so, maybe will it be sold one day

No joke, what's the best OS framework on your mind to deal with CFD?

Fenris9469 · June 13, 2012, 08:12

That depends on the goal of the code. If you want it to be general purpose and you want to sell it. Then it needs to be stable on all platforms. Not to mention as easy to use as possible.

SergeAS · June 13, 2012, 09:03

I think when you write your own CFD/FEM code, the most valuable is not the code itself but the experience that you get. It costs more than any code.

cfdnewbie · June 13, 2012, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris9469

That depends on the goal of the code. If you want it to be general purpose and you want to sell it. Then it needs to be stable on all platforms. Not to mention as easy to use as possible.

as well as very stable in terms of sensitivity to input parameters by the user.... you don't want your hotline to be flooded by complaints that the code blows up all the time... but you pay for stability the price of accuracy...

serviet · June 13, 2012, 20:16

don't worry, sadly I really don't think it has any chance to be sold... This is just for analyse purposes, so I wonder if it could be of great utility to let us easily switch between different numerical solutions with the help of kind-of factory-classes by exemple...
If I don't really need to gain more knowledge, but if I prefer an easily maintable code, which use well structured and optimized code for simple operations (3D derivatives) or whatever...? Which are the other good points beginning from scratch??
Thanks again !

June 7, 2012, 04:53	CFD toolkit or from scratch?	#1
serviet New Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 13	Hello everyone, i have to start writting a new cfd code and i really wonder what is the drawback of CFD toolkits (openfoam or freefem) again rewritting everything for a really specific use case? As i can tell, by beginning from scratch, you're able to choose between all numerical schemes and technical stuff (parallel, kinds of meshes...) you want depending on your needs between precision and performance. But regarding the poor programming skills of physicists in front of the custom solution designed by the opensource community... Someone can make a good case for it? Thx for your answers.

June 12, 2012, 20:56		#5
Fenris9469 New Member Seth Thompson Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 13	I have been writing my own FEM code for several years. I have to say while there will be many stumbling blocks you will learn a lot from the experience. that being said it is by no means a quick process (Assuming you are trying to go for a general purpose do lots of neat stuff bells and whistles) even with good programming skills. I would counsel you to ask what your goals are for the code? if you are looking for the knowledge of how it works and are one of those people who needs to reinvent the wheel before you accept something else, I say go for it. I would start simple work in 1-D and then 2-D then 3-D. Bear in mind each method has pros and cons and once you commit and are deep into one method you probably won't want to turn back and are stuck with the required work around of that method (of which there are many for all methods). Hope this Helps, Seth krisshoe likes this.

June 13, 2012, 09:03		#8
SergeAS Member Serge A. Suchkov Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 74 Blog Entries: 5 Rep Power: 14	I think when you write your own CFD/FEM code, the most valuable is not the code itself but the experience that you get. It costs more than any code. __________________ OpenHyperFLOW2D Project

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
STAR-Works : Mainstream CAD with CFD	CD adapco Group Marketing	Siemens	0	February 13, 2002 12:23
Where do we go from here? CFD in 2001	John C. Chien	Main CFD Forum	36	January 24, 2001 21:10
ASME CFD Symposium, Atlanta, July 2001	Chris R. Kleijn	Main CFD Forum	0	August 21, 2000 04:49
Since Last June	John C. Chien	Main CFD Forum	3	July 12, 1999 09:38
Which is better to develop in-house CFD code or to buy a available CFD package.	Tareq Al-shaalan	Main CFD Forum	10	June 12, 1999 23:27

June 7, 2012, 12:01		#2
cfdnewbie Senior Member cfdnewbie Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 557 Rep Power: 20	It all depends on what you are trying to to. If you are interested in solving a flow problem for an established code exists, then go ahead and use that. Writing a CFD code that runs in parallel efficiently and solves complicated physics is very time consuming. However, if there's no code out there that does what you need or if you are interested in actual code development, then, by all means, go and write your own code.... you will learn a lot and have fun doing it, but it will take some of your time.

June 7, 2012, 13:27		#3
JBeilke Senior Member Joern Beilke Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Dresden Posts: 498 Rep Power: 20	It depends on what you want to do with the code later. Search the web for "gpl commercial use".

June 12, 2012, 14:39		#4
andreasp New Member Andreas P Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 26 Rep Power: 15	I would always recommend to go at least with an existing framework, if you really want to produce a code usable on realistic applications. Even if there is no software out there which can solve your specific problem out of the box, I believe it is much more efficient to extend some given "back bone" code rather than starting your own project from scratch. Just think of such basic challenges like mesh handling, memory management, etc. before you can actually start programming your equations -- the heart of your code. There are many open source frameworks available which readily provide this infrastructure (e.g. DUNE, OF). It might be cumbersome to understand their structure/philosophy, but I think in the end it pays off. However, I also agree with the previous answers: If you want to gain knowledge in mathematics, numerical methods and/or basic FV/FEM code development (preferably with only a 1D or 2D code), then go for it!

June 13, 2012, 06:48		#6
serviet New Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 13	Thank you all, I've already wrote several codes (FEM,FV, spectral and in fortran,c++...) so i begin to be familiar with the different numerical schemes The problem is indeed more about software engeneering : as andreasp and fenris said, I don't need to reinvent the wheel especially for technical improvments like multigrid mesh handling or parralel computing. OS solution exists and are maintained by community. I don't know DUNE or OF, but as far as i saw openFOAM let you choose between a lot of solution for numerical schemes, boundary conditions or linear solver. However, I don't really know about the future of my code and so, maybe will it be sold one day No joke, what's the best OS framework on your mind to deal with CFD?

June 13, 2012, 08:12		#7
Fenris9469 New Member Seth Thompson Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 13	That depends on the goal of the code. If you want it to be general purpose and you want to sell it. Then it needs to be stable on all platforms. Not to mention as easy to use as possible.

June 13, 2012, 20:16		#10
serviet New Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 13	don't worry, sadly I really don't think it has any chance to be sold... This is just for analyse purposes, so I wonder if it could be of great utility to let us easily switch between different numerical solutions with the help of kind-of factory-classes by exemple... If I don't really need to gain more knowledge, but if I prefer an easily maintable code, which use well structured and optimized code for simple operations (3D derivatives) or whatever...? Which are the other good points beginning from scratch?? Thanks again !