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

AMG+FVM

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 8, 2005, 08:18
Default AMG+FVM
  #1
Isa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello everybody:

I would like to point out some questions about algebraic multigrid (AMG) applied to an algorithm that solves the uncoupled Navier-Stokes equations with pressure poisson equation with a finite volume method (FVM).

(I have been working with the lid driven cavity benchmark)

I only apply AMG over the pressure poisson equation and, in each iteration, I must calculate the Galerkin operators since the coefficients of the pressure matrix changes each time, so it takes a long time. And although, the number of iterations for the convergence goes down with AMG, the total time of the algorithm increases.

So I think, AMG is better for FEM (because the Galerkin operators only have to be calculated one time) instead of FVM, am I right, if not why not?

Thank-you very much for your time and for your replies. I would like to say that the information about multigrid in this page is really good,congratulations! Isa
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 11, 2005, 06:35
Default Re: AMG+FVM
  #2
andy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why do the coefficients change? Between grids or between iterations?

From my experience, multigrid can work almost perfectly for the driven cavity test problem. I implemented a Full Approximation Scheme (i.e. solving for u, v, p together on all grid levels) in an industrial code in the late 80s. If I recall correctly, convergence required about 6 or 7 outer iterations to enter single precision roundoff and was independent of the size of the grid. I tried to find the report to check Reynolds numbers but do not seem to have it anymore. My guess is the results were for lowish Reynolds numbers but the scheme upwinded and so it might have held for higher Reynolds as well.

I should add that for real industrial problems with turbulence models the multigrid scheme was more efficient than the ADI-like scheme it replaced but the convergence rates were no where near as good as those for the laminar driven cavity tests.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 11, 2005, 07:16
Default Re: AMG+FVM
  #3
andy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think the report is gone but I have found my notes. If you want some numbers to check against drop me an email.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 12, 2005, 04:02
Default Re: AMG+FVM
  #4
Isa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Andy,

The coefficients change in each iteration, I mean, I apply SIMPLE with FVM (finite volume method) and when I calculate the intermediate velocities (u*,v*), I calculate the pressure correction matrix and this one depends on the velocities coefficients so, that is why it changes each time I calculate the velocity. And to calculate the Galerkin operator I have to work with the new coefficients' matrix, don't I?

If you don't mind I would like to have your notes or your results to check if I am doing the right thing. Did you use FAS with FVM and with Fortran?

Thank-you very much for your time and your reply. Isa
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 12, 2005, 06:40
Default Re: AMG+FVM
  #5
andy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The coefficients for the pressure equation (divergence of momentum equation) are purely geometrical. The dependence on velocity comes from the approximation SIMPLE makes for the relationship between pressure correction and velocity correction. Other pressure correction schemes make other approximations and many do not involve velocities. The simplest is to simply retain the time derivative in the momentum equation to express this approximate relationship. It works as well and sometimes better than SIMPLE so long as you get the size of the time step right.

Having said that, the evaluation of the pressure correction coefficients in a SIMPLE scheme is usually trivial because one simply reuses the diagonal coefficients from the momentum equations. There is no point reevaluating these coefficient, as you seem to be doing, because the relationship is approximate.

If you are looking to keep the scheme longer term it may be wise to look at extended pressure correction schemes like SIMPLER and relatives which require more computation per iteration but solve the equations to a better degree and are usually more robust.

The implementation was mainly in Fortran but with a PL/I frontend when used by the company. I cannot recall if it was a finite difference of finite volume implementation which makes a difference to the scaling of the residuals and coefficients between the grids. Mass conservation between the grids was also important but, I think, you should get that by manipulating the coefficients directly.
  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
v4 & AMG warning msg more work CD-adapco 4 March 29, 2012 04:47
Quarter Burner mesh with periosic condition SamCanuck FLUENT 2 August 31, 2011 11:34
AMG versus ICCG msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 November 7, 2006 16:15
comments on FDM, FEM, FVM, SM, SEM, DSEM, BEM kenn Main CFD Forum 2 July 18, 2004 18:28
References for FVM Anthony Wachs Main CFD Forum 8 February 20, 2002 20:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:38.