
[Sponsors] 
Timestep size for coupled implicit simulations 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
March 15, 2022, 11:04 
Timestep size for coupled implicit simulations

#1 
Member
Pietro
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: London
Posts: 40
Rep Power: 3 
Hello,
I have a question about what is the best choice for timestep size in fully implicit simulations (coupled implicit solver in STARCCM+). From what I understand, in fully implicit simulations, at each timelevel a steady simulation is performed via the pseudotransient strategy. As a consequence, 3 different values need to be set: 1) Courant (or CFL) number: this number defines the pseudo timestep of the steady simulations which are performed at each timelevel and is NOT related to the timestep size of the unsteady simulation. The higher Courant, the higher will be the convergence rate (for a given number of iterations) of the steady simulation. However, for too high Courant, the algorithm may diverge 2) Timestep size: this number represents the intervals in physical time according to which the steady simulations are performed. Fully implicit methods are 1st order in accuracy, therefore the lower the timestep size, the higher will be the accuracy in a linear fashion. A solution with high timestep size will be always stable and always physical, however not timeaccurate 3) Number of inner iterations: the steady simulations inside each timestep are solved with iterative procedures, therefore at each timelevel a certain number of iterations is required to obtain convergence Considering this, I usually set my Courant number as high as possible (e.g. 50), as long as it leads to convergence of the steady simulation. The choice of timestep size and number of inner iterations however is not trivial. For very low timestep sizes, the accuracy increases, but it is not possible to employ a high number of inner iterations as the cost of the simulation would then be too high. Therefore, the steady simulation at each timelevel does not converge. On the other hand, for higher timestep sizes, it is possible to use 50 or 100 iterations, which will lead the steady simulations to converge, but the timeaccuracy will not be as high. Is there any rule of thumb for choosing the timestep size and number of inner iterations? In a previous post I read that you should never exceed 15 inner iterations. Is this true? Or is it strongly dependent on the physics of the simulation? Pietro 

March 15, 2022, 15:26 

#2 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,146
Rep Power: 61 
Knowing that you can always lower your timestep size to make the solution more stable and more accurate, you almost never want to use a high number of inner iterations.
A Courant number of 50 is equivalent to an underrelaxation factor of ~0.98. So after 2 inner iterations you are more than 0.9996 of your timestep size and after 3 inner iterations you are more than 0.999992 of your timestep size. If the solver was not stable enough, it would've blown up already around here. If you set the number of inner iterations to 15, you are spending another 12 inner iterations to advance the simulation by a tiny fraction of the timestep size at hopes of achieving.... what? It's better to spend those 12 inner iterations doing another 4 timesteps. You could have even done 4 smaller timesteps and gotten a more accurate solution in the same time. Now this situation holds when the solution can converge fast with a high Courant number. So when do we absolutely need a high number of iterations possibly with a lower Courant number? You need this to make sure nonlinearities between equations are properly coupled together, i.e. when nonlinear coupling is stalling your convergence. 

March 16, 2022, 05:59 

#3 
Member
Pietro
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: London
Posts: 40
Rep Power: 3 
Hi Lucky Tran,
Thanks for the answer. While I agree that for lower timestep size you gain accuracy, I cannot understand how you link the pseudo timestep size (i.e. CFL number of steady simulation, or underrelaxation factor, which at the end represent all the same thing) to the physical time inside a timestep of the implicit simulation, writing that 'after 2 iterations you are already at 0.9996 of the timestep size'. From how I understand it (and I am probably missing something!) the pseudotransient simulations occurring at each timelevel are solved with algorithms such as SIMPLE. These are iterative algorithms that require underrelaxation to be stable. The lower CFL, the more 'underrelaxed' and therefore stable will be the pseudotransient simulation. The SIMPLE algorithm needs a (usually) relatively high number of iterations to converge, depending on the physics of the problem and on the initial conditions. For example, when you run with the steady solver on STARCCM+, you usually run for 2001000 iterations at least before reaching convergence. I cannot immagine a steady simulation converging in only 2 or 3 iterations (unless the initial conditions are basically the same of the converged solution). I attach as an example the pseudotransient result inside a timestep of my implicit simulation, showing how the shear moment converges only after 200 inner iterations and how for 50 iterations is not converged. Long story short: I agree that low timestep size = higher accuracy, but it seems to me that you should always make sure that your pseudotransient simulation has converged inside such timelevel and 23 iterations sound very low for that. Pietro 

March 16, 2022, 21:08 

#4 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,146
Rep Power: 61 
I recommend to read up on implicit underrelaxation. There is an algebraic relation between Courant number, an implicit underrelaxation factor, and the physical timestep. For implicit solvers, even steady equations have a timestep underthehood which is related to the Courant number.
SIMPLE is just one specific algorithm for solving the pressurevelocity coupling problem, i.e. the continuity and momentum equations. SIMPLE does not do nonorthogonal corrections, relying on outer iterations to do this. Because of this, it's naturally very unstable and requires a lot of underrelaxation. There are other algorithms that are much less unstable (various SIMLPE variants, and nonSIMPLE approaches). You can do transient simulations with 1 inner iteration per timestep. That's exactly what PISO is designed to do for example. You can do this with a pseudotransient solver if you crank up your Courant number to very large values towards infinity (some texts recommend 1e6, I personally use 2e6). Of course your timestep size needs to be small enough or it blows up. You say you can't imagine it... But people do this all the time. Steady simulations don't reach their steady solution in 1 iteration because the solution is not simply not steady. If you guess the solution as the initial guess, it does converge in 1 iteration. Your plots show the classical problem of stable but not accurate. You converge within each timestep by doing a billion iterations, and it is meaningless because the solution is inaccurate anyway. That's why we recommend not to do too many. If there is ever a situation where you need that many inner iterations per timestep, then you are probably already doing something wrong. That is, you should repeat that plot with the same CFL number and inner iterations, but lower the physical timestep size. 

Tags 
courant number, implicit, pseudo time dual time, time accuracy 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
pimpleDyMFoam computation randomly stops  babapeti  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  5  January 24, 2018 05:28 
Stuck in a Rut interDyMFoam!  xoitx  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  14  March 25, 2016 07:09 
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13  msrinath80  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  18  March 3, 2015 05:36 
Micro Scale Pore, icoFoam  gooya_kabir  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  2  November 2, 2013 13:58 
Could anybody help me see this error and give help  liugx212  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  3  January 4, 2006 18:07 