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

HELP! time step too small?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   August 3, 2009, 17:20
Default HELP! time step too small?
  #1
Member
 
Casey
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 8
meangreen is on a distinguished road
I really need some help with a problem I have run into. I am running a eulerian multiphase simulation using the k-epsilon turbulence model and an unsteady (implicit) solver. I am using fluent and i am including dense phase stresses for the solids phase. I am modeling the interaction of a jet of gas a bed of particles.
Is it possible for a time step to become too small and cause instability? I have found as I decrease the time step, my solution continues to change and I can not figure out what the problem is. I have used different grid sizes and I even see the same problem running with second order implicit discritization.

my time step has gone down to 1x10^-7s and I am still seeing time step sensitivity, and I dont want to go below this because it doesn't really make any physical sense nor does it make sense from a computational cost point of view.

Has anyone found that with a time step too small there are stability problems? If so please explain.

Are there any residuals (or balances) I can look at to monitor the stability or maybe to find what the root cause of this time step problem may be?

ANY INPUT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

Thanks,
Casey

here is a link to some plots that show the change in the scour hole depth as the time step in changed.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Casey.La...eat=directlink
meangreen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 8, 2009, 22:46
Default
  #2
Member
 
Edison
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 40
Rep Power: 8
hadesmajesty is on a distinguished road
I think a possilble reason is the use of second order implicit method. You may try to use a higher order explicit method and keep the CFL number small enough.
hadesmajesty is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 9, 2009, 11:34
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Ahmed
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 250
Rep Power: 9
Ahmed is on a distinguished road
Let us say that the solver has to maintain a Courant number Less or equal 1 throughout the whole solution domain, look for the smallest cell size in your domain and calculate the time step accordingly
Good Luck
Ahmed is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 10, 2009, 14:32
Default
  #4
Member
 
Casey
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 8
meangreen is on a distinguished road
Why would the implicitness be the problem? I thought stability problems were avoided by using implicit schemes. Also, when I calculate the Courant number it is very low.
meangreen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 11, 2009, 18:01
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Rich
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montrose, Colorado, USA
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 8
Rich is on a distinguished road
Remember that, as you march forward into the solution, influences travel along the characteristics of the flowfield. From two adjacent points or two adjacent cells, characteristic lines will propagate into the future and intersect each other after a certain length of time. It's at that point in space and time that we want to make our next calculation, for that new point's domain of dependence includes exactly the two preceding points. Instead, we make our timestep slightly smaller. And that means that, traveling backwards along the characteristics, our new point's domain of dependence now falls slightly *inside* of the two preceding points. And that means that the solution at our new point will have some error in it--because we're now calculating based on values from two prededing points, but the domain of dependence for this point no longer quite includes those points. If we continue making the timestep smaller and smaller, the error grows. So for greatest accuracy, it's important to use the largest timestep possible, without exceeding the timestep dictated by the characteristics. For your implicit solution, you'll know that you've exceeded that point when the solution thrashes back and forth between two different values.
Rich is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 27, 2009, 12:32
Default
  #6
Member
 
Casey
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 8
meangreen is on a distinguished road
Rich,

thanks for the insight. Would you be willing to open an email dialogue with me? I have a few questions that may be easier to answer with the quick response of email.
Do you have the same error if you start out with a smaller time step? SO I am seeing this time step dependence when I start the simulation with time steps of DT1Eneg6, DT1Eneg7, DT1Eneg7.
below is a link to an album of plots that show the time dependence.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Casey.La...eat=directlink

THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP SO FAR!!!!
meangreen is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
multiphase, timestep, unsteady

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
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 18 March 3, 2015 06:36
How to write k and epsilon before the abnormal end xiuying OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 August 27, 2013 15:33
Differences between serial and parallel runs carsten OpenFOAM Bugs 11 September 12, 2008 11:16
AMG versus ICCG msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 November 7, 2006 16:15
VOF özgür FLUENT 8 January 6, 2004 09:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44.