CFD Online Discussion Forums (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/)
-   Main CFD Forum (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/)
-   -   successful time step for 2D problem failing for 3D case of same problem. (https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/149813-successful-time-step-2d-problem-failing-3d-case-same-problem.html)

 mandman March 9, 2015 09:02

successful time step for 2D problem failing for 3D case of same problem.

Hello,
I am trying to simulate 3D convective diffusive unsteady problem using SIMPLER technique (Finite Volume Method). I got successful 2D case of the problem. For 3D I am keeping the size of space step same as in 2D, with one extra direction.
The problem is in choosing the time step. When I keep it same as in 2D the simulation diverges and in order to converge it I have to reduce the time step by order of 4.:confused:
Is this thing common or I am committing some other problem.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
BTW I am running this code with gfortran compilers.

 FMDenaro March 9, 2015 12:17

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mandman (Post 535328) Hello, I am trying to simulate 3D convective diffusive unsteady problem using SIMPLER technique (Finite Volume Method). I got successful 2D case of the problem. For 3D I am keeping the size of space step same as in 2D, with one extra direction. The problem is in choosing the time step. When I keep it same as in 2D the simulation diverges and in order to converge it I have to reduce the time step by order of 4.:confused: Is this thing common or I am committing some other problem.:rolleyes::rolleyes: Unluckily if its common than it will take ages for this simulation.:mad::mad::mad::mad: BTW I am running this code with gfortran compilers.

yes, the numerical stability involves the relation of dimensionality therefore the constraint is more strict when going from 1D, 2D, 3D.

Though it is true that the stability constraint for 3D is stricter than in 2D, it is difficult to believe that the time step size would have to drop by 4 _orders_. By 4 _orders_ I understand you're saying 10^4 (10,000 times). Otherwise, if the drop is _factor_ 4 (4 times) it is somewhat more reasonable, though it depends (very much) on the problem and what physics are introduced by the addition of the third dimension (and 4x increase doesn't really translate to "ages" of simulation time in added cost)

 agd March 10, 2015 09:31

If you are saying that the time step has to be 10000 times smaller rather than 4 times smaller, I would look for an error in the coding. A factor of 10000 is not reasonable for a jump to 3D, in my experience.

 mandman March 10, 2015 15:18

by O(4) I mean 10000.

Then you most likely (definitely?) have a bug in the code! What are the 2- and 3-D problems you were solving and what are the corresponding CFL values?