Time integrators for lagrangian methods

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

 January 13, 2011, 11:00 Time integrators for lagrangian methods #1 New Member   Giuseppe Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 10 Sponsored Links Hi everyone, I'm working with lagrangian methods (vortex methods) and I need to investigate possible time integrators and their efficiency. Being gridless methods without the CFL limit the time step can be increased to lower the computational cost but this leads to the need to find better time integrators than the simple 1st order Euler (with which the accumulation of error in long simulations is evident). I've tried a Runge-Kutta 4th order with good results but a considerable increase in computational time. I need to explore new solutions. I'm looking into symplectic integrators... Do you have any other suggestion? Thanks!

 January 13, 2011, 12:01 #2 New Member   sam Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 8 Hi, If you are dealing with discrete vortex equations, which form a hamiltonian system, symplectic integrators are a good choice since they preserve H. You might also consider designing your own scheme that preserves all the integrals of your discrete system. Sam

 January 17, 2011, 05:51 #3 New Member   Giuseppe Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 10 Thanks mczero, yes symplectic integrators are definitely a possibility, I'm already going in that direction. I was wondering if there were other options that I hadn't considered...

 January 17, 2011, 20:13 #4 Member   adrin Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 82 Rep Power: 10 Symplectic integrators will work only in 2D vortex methods because, to the best of my knowledge, only the 2D equations are Hamiltonian. In 3D, a vortex monopole system is not Hamiltonian. You could, however, use vortex dipoles, or, equivalently, the impulse method (and equations), which is Hamiltonian in 3-D. However, despite the fact that the latter preserves energy, helicity, vorticity/circulation implicitly to machine precision everywhere in the domain, the method has some serious short-comings, which have made it into more of a curiosity than a practical tool. First-order time integration is simply not acceptable in vortex methods. Second-order RK works perfectly well. 4th-order is higher in accuracy and will allow you take larger timestep sizes, which will probably be more than twice the timestep size you can use with 2nd-order time integration (that really depends on the problem), in which case, 4th-order would be more efficient overall even if it's twice more expensive. Alternatively, if memory is not an issue and you just want to reduce cpu time, then you can use backward looking methods (adams-bashforth, etc) so that you use only one evaluation per timestep, but use info from previous steps to get higher order extrapolation to the future. A lot depends also on the remaining details of your implementation (is it purely inviscid, viscous requiring operator splitting, wall-bounded, etc) Adrin

 November 7, 2011, 00:11 #5 New Member   -xnov- Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 10 Rep Power: 10 so is there any progress in symplectic vortex methods? or is it as Adrin said that it is only for 2D vortex methods? to Adrin: could you explain me a little further why 3D vortex methods is not Hamiltonian? Last edited by xnov; November 7, 2011 at 00:29.

 Tags symplectic integrators, time integrators, vortex method

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post pUl| FLUENT 31 August 21, 2015 04:46 xujjun CFX 9 June 9, 2009 07:59 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 9 July 22, 2007 02:58 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 November 7, 2006 16:15 Sanjay Padhiar Main CFD Forum 1 March 31, 1999 12:32