CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Non-iterative time advancement

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 19, 2013, 08:01
Default Non-iterative time advancement
  #1
New Member
 
Martin Goddard
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
McFly is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I am running OpenFOAM and Fluent in a transient, laminar case on a large mesh.

Fluent is outperforming OpenFOAM on speed (icoFoam or pisoFoam), possibly because the Fluent case is using non-iterative time stepping.

Is this type of feature implemented in OpenFOAM? I have tried to find out more information however searching doesn't come up with anything. Is this the 'fractional step method'?

Apologies if this is a stupid question. The fact things are named differently across the codes is very confusing to me sometimes.

Regards,


McFly
McFly is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 23, 2013, 02:15
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Martin Goddard
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
McFly is on a distinguished road
Perhaps I should pose this question differently.

If Fluent and OpenFOAM are running the same mesh, same convergence criteria, same turbulence model (nil) - why should OpenFOAM run so much slower than Fluent?

I realise this is a simplification, however I'm stumped. This project was to determine which package would be better for the case, and so far Fluent is faster than expected, although I believe that's more to do with my lack of knowledge than the packages themselves...
McFly is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 23, 2013, 06:39
Default
  #3
Member
 
joegi
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: genoa
Posts: 67
Rep Power: 7
joegi.geo is on a distinguished road
Try to setup exactly the same method in fluent and openfoam. The NITA in fluent is a coupled method, which is a way much faster than segregated methods, but it uses more memory. As far as i know this method is not implemented in the official release of openfoam.

Try to use the piso method in fluent and openfoam, you should get the same results (or close). Be careful to setup exactly the same parameters, namely, time-step, relaxation-parameters, numerics, bc and ic, solvers (multigrid) and convergence criteria, and run fluent with no gui.

In my personal experience fluent is faster, but not that much.

jg
joegi.geo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 25, 2013, 22:11
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Martin Goddard
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
McFly is on a distinguished road
G'day Joel,

Thanks very much for the information. I will look over the cases again and try to ensure equivalency.

I've not found any examples where NITA has been implemented in OF, official or not, which surprises me as it has been around for years.

However, again, that could just be my lack of knowledge on the topic.

Thanks again,


Marty
McFly is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
non iterative, performance, time stepping

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
Rapidly decreasing deltaT for interDyMFoam chrisb2244 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 July 1, 2014 16:40
pimpleFoam: turbulence->correct(); is not executed when using residualControl hfs OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 October 29, 2013 09:35
calculation stops after few time steps sivakumar OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 7 March 17, 2013 07:37
pisoFoam with k-epsilon turb blows up - Some questions Heroic OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 26 December 17, 2012 04:34
calculation diverge after continue to run zhajingjing OpenFOAM 0 April 28, 2010 04:35


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12.