# Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid

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

 June 8, 2007, 01:10 Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #1 Dave Rudolf Guest   Posts: n/a Hey all, This should be easy, but I just need a nudge in the right direction. I have an implementation of a simple 2D eulerian NS solver that uses a uniform staggered grid. It just computes a velocity field (and consequently a pressure field as well), but not temperature or anything else like that. I want to implement adaptive time-stepping on this creature. So, the CLF conditions are easy enough. However, according to "Numerical Simulation in Fluid Dynamics: a practical introduction" by Griebel, Dornseifer, and Tilman Neunhoeffer, there is another condition that takes viscosity into account. Their condition looks like this: dt < ( Re / 2 ) ( 1/dx^2 + 1/dy^2 )^-1 However, it seems intuitively wrong to me (and my experiments with the code seem to validate my skepticism). If that condition is right, then higher Reynolds numbers are more stable. So, what should this condition really be? Thanks.

 June 8, 2007, 08:03 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #2 Tom Guest   Posts: n/a This is a property of explicit time integration schemes when applied to the diffusion operator. Basically the domain of influence of a point at t = t_n is the whole domain at t=t_n + dt. However in an explicit method this domain of influence is only to the nearest neighbours and so the timestep dt needs to be sufficiently small that the influence this error in the domain of influence is "small". Increasing the viscosity (thus reducing Re) increases the effect of diffusive spreading and hence requires a reduction in timestep. Implicit methods don't have this problem.

 June 8, 2007, 10:29 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #3 Dave Rudolf Guest   Posts: n/a Hmm, so why is it that people talk about how hard it is to simulate large Reynolds numbers? According to that stability property, it should be easier than simulating lower ones.

 June 8, 2007, 11:32 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #4 otd Guest   Posts: n/a The classic condition is nu*(delta t)/(delta x)^2 < 1/2. Combine this with the Courant condition, U*(delta t)/(delta x) < 1. What does the combination tell you about a Reynolds number limit?

 June 8, 2007, 11:35 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #5 Dave Rudolf Guest   Posts: n/a Well, your condition says that higher Reynolds number is harder to simulate, which was what I had understood was true. The condition that I gave says the opposite. Is your condition for a first-order explicit method? Better yet, can you cite where you got it? Thanks.

 June 8, 2007, 11:41 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #6 Tom Guest   Posts: n/a Just because the explicit scheme is "more stable" doesn't mean that it's giving better answers! (1) explicit methods don't do a good job of the boundary conidtions (basically they allow the fluid to slip along the no-slip boundary) (2) at hight Reynolds number a thin boundary layer is formed near the surface (where no-slip is satisfied) and the vertical grid spacing, h, needs to be small in this region; typically a lot less than (1/Re)**(1/2) for the boundary layer to be resolved. So, if h= a.(1/Re)**(1/2) with a<<1, then your stability condition becomes dt < a/2. If you want to resolve the instability of this layer (for transition) your horizontal length scales and time scales also need to be able to resolve fluctuations with wavenumbers and frequencies of O(Re^(1/2)). This requires a very fine grid and short timestep!

 June 8, 2007, 11:50 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #7 ag Guest   Posts: n/a Just out of curiosity, how does an explicit method allow the flow to slip along a non-slip boundary? This is the first I'd heard of that.

 June 8, 2007, 12:54 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #8 otd Guest   Posts: n/a It's a classic: C. W. Hirt, "Heuristic Stability Theory for Finite-Difference Equations," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 2, No. 4, June, 1968, pp. 339-355. This was reprinted in Computer Fluid Dynamics - Recent Advances, edited by Francis H. Harlow, published by the AIAA, February, 1973. The examples (from the 60's remember) are on constant spatial increments and fully explicit, cartesian coordinate systems. However, the technique is robust and is still used for variable mesh implicit techniques. I don't know if the ideas are workable on distorted (skewed) meshes or not.

 June 8, 2007, 13:04 Re: Stability of finite diffs on a staggered grid #9 Tom Guest   Posts: n/a Because explicit methods do not rigourously enforce the boundary conditions at the new time level. This is eqivalent to letting it slip by a small amount proportional to the timestep.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post quarkz Main CFD Forum 2 June 18, 2011 17:18 yfyap Main CFD Forum 3 March 14, 2006 13:01 agg Main CFD Forum 3 September 28, 2005 01:43 Marcus Main CFD Forum 3 December 5, 2000 01:25 J. Ehrhard Main CFD Forum 1 October 8, 1998 19:47

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09.