|
[Sponsors] |
January 9, 2001, 21:31 |
CFL Condition
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
This question deals with the Courant number and the CFL condition (C<1) that devines the stability of many numerical methods. My question is this, is it true that the strict CFL condition is only for explicit methods for solving highly hyperbolic PDEs, where the numerical domain of influence is in one direction? That direction being forward in time.
I have heard at least one experienced CFD person claim that it is always necessary to have C<1 or C~1 or else the CFL condition is violated, even when dealing with an implict scheme. However, since the numerical domain of influence with an implicit or partially implicit method is not entirely forward, isn't it meaningless to discuss requirement of the CFL condition for an implicit case? I realize as C gets very large transient accuracy may become an issue. However, is there some other stipulations, other than stability for explicit solutions of hyperbolic PDEs, that are implied when someone discusses the CFL condition? Thanks |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFL condition: can a mass balance problem arise if violated? | bzz77 | Main CFD Forum | 3 | August 24, 2011 15:12 |
Is CFL condition irrelevant for incompressible flow? | violet | FLUENT | 0 | November 5, 2009 17:33 |
CFL condition for higher order schemes | Shyam | Main CFD Forum | 2 | February 14, 2008 14:24 |
CFL condition for implicit CD schemes | turb | Main CFD Forum | 4 | August 16, 2005 12:56 |
CFL condition | Sergei | Main CFD Forum | 2 | October 13, 2004 15:38 |