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

Domain Decomposition

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   August 30, 2009, 02:18
Default Domain Decomposition
  #1
New Member
 
Ertan Karaismail
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 7
ertan is on a distinguished road
Hi all,
I've been working on parallelization of a 3D FVM based CFD code running on a backward staggered grid with two ghost cells at the end of each direction. I use MPI for massage passing.

I wrote the boundary exchange subroutines, and I believe they are working fine. However, I have doubts about the necessity of solver based modifications. To be more clear, do I need to make changes to the solver, should I leave it as it is?

I have some experience with PVM and parallelization of Finite Difference based CFD code. I remember, we made no midifications to the solver, and it was working just fine. Though we were using LSODES, ROWMAP, etc. I don't know if they handle those things by themselves.

I would really deeply appreciate if could find a chance of communicating with experienced fellas.

Thanks

Ertan
ertan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 31, 2009, 04:11
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Alexey
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 7
ignat is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ertan View Post
Hi all,
I've been working on parallelization of a 3D FVM based CFD code running on a backward staggered grid with two ghost cells at the end of each direction. I use MPI for massage passing.

I wrote the boundary exchange subroutines, and I believe they are working fine. However, I have doubts about the necessity of solver based modifications. To be more clear, do I need to make changes to the solver, should I leave it as it is?

I have some experience with PVM and parallelization of Finite Difference based CFD code. I remember, we made no midifications to the solver, and it was working just fine. Though we were using LSODES, ROWMAP, etc. I don't know if they handle those things by themselves.

I would really deeply appreciate if could find a chance of communicating with experienced fellas.

Thanks

Ertan
If your code is fully explicit no solver modifications are needed.
ignat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 1, 2009, 12:22
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Ertan Karaismail
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 7
ertan is on a distinguished road
Hi Ignat,

thanks for the reply. For the time being, I run the code fully explicitly, though I will have to get it running fully implicit and Crank-Nicholson as well. If you have experience in parallelization on overlapping staggered grid, and if you don't mind, may I ask you some questions about the data exchange at the boundaries. It seems the, with the way I do, mass is not conserved.

Or if you can suggest any source worth for reading, I will appreciate that too.

Thanks
ertan is offline   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
Default domain jaho CFX 5 February 16, 2014 00:00
CFX - domain decomposition. Urgent!!!! Elena Saldaeva CFX 4 June 30, 2008 07:18
CFX Solver Memory Error mike CFX 1 March 19, 2008 08:22
rotating domain in rotating domain, different axis Robert Stringer CFX 3 December 4, 2006 07:04
Domain decomposition rajesh Main CFD Forum 2 August 31, 1999 04:22


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:16.