
[Sponsors] 
March 11, 2010, 01:31 
Inner non linear iterations and Newton method

#1 
New Member
Isabel
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 10 
Sponsored Links
Not obtaining the desired results in two different problems, I would like to clarify a concept that is the “Newton method”. In both cases I want to simulate Navier Stokes equations: the first one is a time dependent problem (which has an analytical solution) and the second one is a steady state problem which uses time as a way to get the steady state, so I will always have a temporal term in the equation. In both cases, the NS equations are: du/dt+(u*grad)uviscosity(grad²)u+(grad)p=0; (div)u=0; To implement these equations I use different schemes: coupled method, pressure projection method, consistent pressure method... and I am using Finite Element Method (FEM). The way I advance in time is the following one: Assemble the unchanged matrices (i.e. mass matrix, diffusion matrix, gradient matrix, divergence matrix) for(unsigned int i=0; i<maximum_num_iterations;i++) { step value++; Assemble the matrices (i.e. convection matrix and right hand side vector) Solver the linear system (if working with coupled method) or the linear systems (if working with projection method). Steady state case: if the residual is less than a tolerance value I give I stop the loop. Time dependent problem: I continue until the total time I want to simulate is reached. } I mean, inside this loop, I don't create any inner nonlinear loop. I am not sure if I must also apply the Newton method in every case since I always use the convection term in a previous time step or I linearize it using (u^(n)*gradu)^(n+1). Anyway, it is supposed that convection term is the only term that introduces a non linearity in the equation, isn't it? And it is because of it, we should introduce the Newton method to reach the right solution or on the contrary, I would like to know when and why we should use Newton method to get the right solution. Is it always compulsory? I would be really grateful if you could clarify me this concept. Thankyou very much in advance. Isa 

Sponsored Links 
March 11, 2010, 11:14 

#2 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 245
Rep Power: 12 
Don't know if this will help, but I'll try  it's difficult to express some concepts on a message board. I find it very useful to think of the Newton iteration (which occurs inside the time step loop) as a search over solution space. If you discretize the governing equations at the new time level, you can write the system as
R(Q(N+1)) = 0 This is prior to any application of a Newton scheme, so you have essentially a semidiscrete form of the equation. Apply a Newton iterative scheme to this system, i.e. we solve for DQ where A*DQ = R(Q) Here A is a system Jacobian, and Q is a possible solution out of a solution space, call it Q(N+1,M). The next Newton iterate of Q, call it Q(N+1,M+1) = Q(N+1,M) + DQ. If we drive DQ to zero (which is the purpose of the Newton scheme) then at convergence we have the "correct" solution at the new time step N+1. One of the first applications I remember of this type of scheme was in conjunction with a BeamWarming approximate factorization scheme. In the original scheme the splitting error completely destroys time accuracy in 3D for reasonable timestep sizes, but by using a Newton iterative solver the factorization error is contained within the Newton iteration and does not affect the converged value of Q(N+1). So it is not necessary, but it is a very useful approach for creating a scheme that is stable and accurate at very large timesteps. Hope that helps. 

March 11, 2010, 11:42 

#3 
New Member
Isabel
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 10 
Agd,tThankyou very much!
But even being usefual approach, calculating the system Jacobian (A) for a NS equations must be really computationally expensive, mustn't it? Best Isa 

March 11, 2010, 12:19 

#4 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 245
Rep Power: 12 
Depending on the way you construct the lefthand side, the system Jacobian is a combination of the inviscid flux Jacobians and/or viscous flux Jacobians. These have to be determined for an implicit scheme anyway. So the overall cost of using the Newton method versus a standard temporal marching approach is just roughly the product of the FLOPS for the temporal stepping and the number of Newton iterations. But the expense is offset by the improved convergence, the fact that you can impose boundary conditions within the Newton loop to get quasiimplicit BC implementation using simple BCs, and greatly enhanced timeaccurate behavior.


Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
how to increase "Newton Pressure Iteration Limit"  kus  CFX  9  April 21, 2013 01:54 
About Newton iteration  Lixian  CFX  3  November 27, 2008 08:57 
Newton's method failed to converge  Mohan  CFX  3  November 24, 2008 04:53 
Newtons method failed(Error)  Chetan Prashant  CFX  4  May 17, 2007 00:58 
newtons method failed/fatal overflow  ioana  CFX  0  March 2, 2005 03:57 
Sponsored Links 