|
[Sponsors] |
Time discretisation scheme for steady state case |
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi, All!
Tell me, please, what is the time discretisation scheme use for steady state problems in CFX: First Order Backward Euler or Second Order Backward Euler? Thanks ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
What do you think?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
It depends on the application, but generally the second order scheme is used.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Mmm... I don't know, were in GUI I can check or change it. How it depends on the application? My usual application is subsonic and transonic flow over airfoils, wings, airplanes, etc.
Thanks… Andrey |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi,
Umm - in steady state flow the transient terms are zero so there is no discretisation. That is why you got a sarcastic reply from Cyclone. CFX uses a psuedo-transient approach to converge to a steady state simulation and that would use a simplified type of first order discretisation. But you should not take any notice of any time related stuff in a steady state flow as the underlying equations do not include all the transient terms. You need to do a transient simulation for that. Glenn Horrocks |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi!
Sorry for my English, guys. Sarcasm is not good. I understand difference in transient and pseudotransient problems. I interested in steady state (pseudotransient) problem. Would you say, that Eqn. 16-20 (p. 282 in CFX-Solver Theory Guide) are not important for steady applications, but Eqn. 7-9 (280) are right for them? So CFX uses for steady problems First order scheme in time (pseudotime ![]() Thank you for your time Andrey |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
CFX uses the first order backwards Euler scheme to implement implicit relaxation. Since time accuracy does not matter:
- no inner iterations are performed, so the flow is not forced to balance within a timestep, only at steady state convergence. - the physical timescale can be set per-equation, so sometimes this is called 'false' timestepping because different equations have different false time values. - the equations are assembled and solved once per iteration/time step. - some under-relaxations for explicit contributions (such as 2nd order corrections for advection) are increased, relative to the true transient values, to help with stability. Make sense? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Yes. Thanks a lot
![]() Andrey |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simulation of a single bubble with a VOF-method | Suzzn | CFX | 21 | January 29, 2018 00:58 |
Orifice Plate with a fully developed flow - Problems with convergence | jonmec | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 3 | July 28, 2011 05:24 |
calculation diverge after continue to run | zhajingjing | OpenFOAM | 0 | April 28, 2010 04:35 |
Differences between serial and parallel runs | carsten | OpenFOAM Bugs | 11 | September 12, 2008 11:16 |
unsteady calcs in FLUENT | Sanjay Padhiar | Main CFD Forum | 1 | March 31, 1999 12:32 |