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

Does MULES::implicitsolve allow for Courant numbers > 1?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 31, 2011, 03:00
Default Does MULES::implicitsolve allow for Courant numbers > 1?
  #1
New Member
 
Philip Simons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
Philip is on a distinguished road
Hello,

although there are several threads concerning the time step size for MULES VOF (in interFoam and/or interDyMFoam) I have not found a definitive answer whether you (I/OpenFOAM) can safely increase the time step size, or that anyway the max Courant number should still remain < 1?

thanks,

Philip
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 31, 2011, 05:09
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
akidess's Avatar
 
Anton Kidess
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posts: 912
Rep Power: 16
akidess will become famous soon enough
No, you are still bound by the PISO algorithm to Co < 1. However, using explicit MULES you are bound by the capillary wave length, which usually gives a time step criterion dt << (Co < 1). MULES implicit somewhat relaxes that time step criterion.
akidess is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 31, 2011, 05:37
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Philip Simons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
Philip is on a distinguished road
Hi Akidess,

thanks for this fast reply. I am an openfoam beginner and I did not know that all PISO (so all transient Navier-Stokes) calculations were limited by Co < 1. Do you know why this is so? Apart from losing accuracy for larger steps, I am not aware of stability issues with eg backward Euler time integration and SIMPLE (or PISO).

thanks,

Philip
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 31, 2011, 05:54
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
akidess's Avatar
 
Anton Kidess
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posts: 912
Rep Power: 16
akidess will become famous soon enough
The restriction is not OpenFOAM specific, but tied to the PISO algorithm itself. If you read the derivation of the algorithm, there is a step where it is assumed that the velocity only slightly changes between time steps. This is the reason why PISO does not require relaxation and usually converges within 2-3 iterations. With SIMPLE you don't have the same time step restriction, but you'll have to do a lot more work to get a converged solution for a given time step.

You can read more about this in the original paper of the PISO algorithm:
***
R. I. Issa, Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting, Journal of Computational Physics, Volume 62, Issue 1, January 1986, Pages 40-65, ISSN 0021-9991, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(86)90099-9.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21999186900999)
akidess is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 31, 2011, 06:25
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Philip Simons
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 7
Philip is on a distinguished road
Hi again,

Thanks. I will look up the original article of Issa.
I found a similar discussion under the title "Courant number and implicit treatment thread":

Courant number and implicit treatment

that make things a bit clearer. At this moment I still wonder if this has been tried: Looping (within a time step) over the momentum solver + corrections does not allow for a larger time step?

Philip
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
courant number, implicit, mules

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
1.7.x -> buoyantPimpleFoam -> hRhoThermo -> incompressible and icoPoly3ThermoPhysics? will.logie OpenFOAM Programming & Development 1 February 16, 2011 20:52
CAD -> gMsh -> enGrid -> OpenFOAM Problem AlGates OpenFOAM 7 August 6, 2010 12:46
IcoFoam parallel woes msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 July 22, 2007 02:58
HELP!! Prandtl numbers in RNG k-e turbulence model maoasis FLUENT 0 April 24, 2006 10:51
Could anybody help me see this error and give help liugx212 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 January 4, 2006 18:07


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:58.