|
[Sponsors] |
February 21, 2005, 21:57 |
time step size requirement
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Dear CFDers, Stupid question: is there any number (analog to CFL condition) dictating numerical sustaining of turbulence?
What I mean is: suppose I dont use any Subgrid model in LES and try to run some simulation in a let's say coarse mesh. In this case, one would be able to run with time step size bigger than the one associated with the highest "physical" frequency present, but still respecting CFL condition. Altough this would (pehaps) have no physical meaning, from the numerical point of view, is there any theorem about wether it is possible to get "oscilatory" solutions (just like turbulence)? And some criteria on how big can this time step be in order to still have this oscilatory, but unreal solution? (Suppose we are using a non dissipative numerical scheme) Any ideas/references? |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Orifice Plate with a fully developed flow - Problems with convergence | jonmec | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | July 28, 2011 05:24 |
Time step, Number of time step, Maxximum Iterations per time step | sandisk | FLUENT | 0 | July 18, 2011 02:57 |
OF 1.6 | Ubuntu 9.10 (64bit) | GLIBCXX_3.4.11 not found | piprus | OpenFOAM Installation | 22 | February 25, 2010 13:43 |
Problems in compiling paraview in Suse 10.3 platform | chiven | OpenFOAM Installation | 3 | December 1, 2009 07:21 |
how to increase time step size? | co2 | FLUENT | 6 | May 17, 2004 07:25 |