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

why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 16, 2007, 07:16
Default why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?
  #1
ravi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi I have read that implicit methods should not be used with unstaedy problems. Explicit method is best suited for unsteady problems. Can anybody suggest reason.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 16, 2007, 10:12
Default Re: why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?
  #2
ag
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Implicit methods can be used for unsteady flows. Many years ago most implicit methods were constructed using forms of the equations that did not treat the transient terms correctly. Hence those schemes were not suitable for unsteady simulations. But as long as the transient term is treated properly and the time step used is sufficient to resolve the time scales of interest, implicit methods can be used for unsteady flows. Whether they are the most efficient is another question and depends on the time scales you are trying to resolve (among other things).
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 16, 2007, 11:44
Default Re: why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?
  #3
Mani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Not only are implicit methods often suitable, as ag said, but they are actually quite frequently the method of choice, with one exception: Explicit methods are superior if accuracy considerations demand such a small time-step that the stability issues of the explicit method (and the advantage of the implicit approach) become irrelevant. This clearly depends on the application (and scheme). What is your application?
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 16, 2007, 12:42
Default Re: why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?
  #4
ravi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
but when you will have small time step, then can it work? I mean which will be better at that time, explicit or implicit? i.e., When u have very small time step then which will be better?
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 16, 2007, 13:43
Default Re: why implicit isn't suited for unsteady case?
  #5
ag
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It is reallly a question of efficiency - if your time step must be so small as to satisfy a CFL constraint, then explicit methods will generally be the correct choice. The reason for this is that explicit codes typically run much faster than implicit codes. However, understand that "small time step" is a meaningless term if you don't state how you define "small". In many cases a "small" time step that is appropriate for the simulation physics is still much larger than any CFL criterion. In such a case an implicit method would be a better choice.
  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
Error reading new case montag dp FLUENT 5 September 15, 2011 06:00
Instable natural convection case Peter88 OpenFOAM 5 August 18, 2011 01:23
Pressure instabilities with interDyMFoam for the floatingObject case nbadano OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 14 March 8, 2011 08:19
Interfoam Droplet under shear test case adona058 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 May 3, 2010 18:46
How to save a case running in background us FLUENT 0 July 6, 2005 10:43


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13.