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

OpenFOAM, Courant number and implicit methods

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

Like Tree4Likes
  • 3 Post By luca
  • 1 Post By hz283

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 19, 2011, 20:30
Default OpenFOAM, Courant number and implicit methods
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 7
fsaltara is on a distinguished road
I am carrying out some simulations of vortex shedding and vortex induced vibration for the case of a 3D circular cylinder at Re=10000 using Smagorinsky LES and the pimpleDyMFoam solver.

I have noticed that, although I am using the 2nd order backward implicit method for the temporal discretization, I must use adaptative time stepping with Courant number below 1.0 to get successful simulations.

I would expect this behaviour with explicit methods.

If Co is greater than 1.0, simulations stop due to large errors. The problem is not related to the convective discretization , because it happens even if I use limited methods like SuperBee.

Even for laminar 2D simulations with Re=200 and the implicit 1st order Euler method I was unable to use large time-steps.

Could someone explain why implicit methods do not allow larger time-steps when running transient vortex induced vibration simulations with OpenFOAM?

Thanks,

Fabio
fsaltara is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 20, 2011, 05:52
Default
  #2
Member
 
Patricio Bohorquez
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jaén, Spain
Posts: 87
Rep Power: 7
pbohorquez is on a distinguished road
Because the solver is segregated. Please see the thread entitled "Courant number and implicit treatment".
pbohorquez is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 21, 2011, 03:52
Default
  #3
Member
 
Luca M.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 7
luca is on a distinguished road
If you are interested about Implicit methods and coupled solvers you can take a look here

http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/File:Coupled.pdf.tar

Regards

Luca
luca is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 21, 2011, 07:59
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Karl-Johan Nogenmyr
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Linköping
Posts: 232
Rep Power: 11
kalle is on a distinguished road
Stability is one thing, but accuracy another. If you want an accurate LES, you do not only need spatial resolution but also temporal. Therefore, a maxCo of about 0.2 to 0.3 is usually recommended.

Regards,
Kalle
kalle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 21, 2011, 08:41
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 9
vkrastev is on a distinguished road
Hi all, correct me if I'm wrong: the Backward and Euler time-differencing schemes are simply two different approximations (the former being more accurate) of the first order time derivatives. The implicit or explicit time integration of the discretized equations is a different matter, and in OF is treated by using the fvm (fully implicit) or fvc (fully explicit) syntax inside the code. Combining the two alternatives, one can obtain some blended implicit treatment, such as for instance the Crank-Nicolson one. So, If all these statements are true, I guess that instabilities in time-dependent problems can arise (for Co > 1) if there are some explicitly treated terms inside the discretized governing equations.

Regards

V.
vkrastev is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 22, 2011, 12:05
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Chris Sideroff
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON, CAN
Posts: 333
Rep Power: 11
cnsidero is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca View Post
If you are interested about Implicit methods and coupled solvers you can take a look here

http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/File:Coupled.pdf.tar

Regards

Luca
Luca,

I'm very interested in the coupled solvers. I read your presentation and it looks very promising. Are you now using the new coupledMatrix solver in 1.6-dev? Are you willing/able to share your coupled solvers or do you need a beta tester?

Thx, Chris
cnsidero is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 24, 2011, 03:47
Default
  #7
Member
 
Luca M.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 59
Rep Power: 7
luca is on a distinguished road
Thank you Chris,

for your comments. At the moment the developing is going very slowly cause of other priorities anyway if you are interested in more details send me an e-mail and we can discuss about it

Regards

Luca
luca is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 27, 2012, 10:27
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 168
Rep Power: 3
hz283 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalle View Post
Stability is one thing, but accuracy another. If you want an accurate LES, you do not only need spatial resolution but also temporal. Therefore, a maxCo of about 0.2 to 0.3 is usually recommended.

Regards,
Kalle
Hi kalle,

in the computational domain, if there is a small geonetry like a very small inlet, the maxCo will be greatly increase there. If I would like to limite maxCo to a small very, I need to reduce the time step to a small value. This directly lead to an expensive simulation. Is there any method to avoid this ?

Thanks.
H
miladrakhsha likes this.
hz283 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 28, 2012, 04:16
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Karl-Johan Nogenmyr
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Linköping
Posts: 232
Rep Power: 11
kalle is on a distinguished road
Hi Hz283,

This is a common problem in LES. You can see it as if you are trying to solve two problems with different scales in the same simulations, commonly known as a stiff problem. One way to get around such problems is to solve the two problems separately, which in this case could be to solve the inlet region in one simulation, and create an inflow library, which provides inflow to the larger domain (the inflow is then continuously repeated). Of course, such a solution may be inappropriate for your specific case. I am not aware of any general solution to your problem.


K
kalle is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
courant number limit, implicit method, transient simulation

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
ddt explicit or implicit with courant number!! mrshb4 OpenFOAM 0 December 13, 2010 11:13
Courant number fireman FLUENT 4 October 4, 2010 12:54
Implicit ddt and Courant Number Aleksey_R OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 February 12, 2010 03:41
Courant number and implicit treatment pbo OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 7 January 19, 2008 15:29
Any questions about implicit Runge-Kutta methods? Runge_Kutta Main CFD Forum 3 March 4, 2005 17:36


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:45.