|
[Sponsors] |
Different result with 1st/2nd order implicit schem |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 23, 2006, 00:59 |
Different result with 1st/2nd order implicit schem
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hello,
I tried to simulate vortex shedded for a cylinder. The mesh comes from fluent tutorial so there shouldn't be a problem. The Re=185 and according to literature, vortex shedding 'll occur with cl having an amplitude of around 0.6. when i used 2nd order implicit PISO with time step=0.2, i got the correct answer. however, if 1st order implicit PISO is used, with time step=0.2, i got the vortex shedding but the cl amplitude stablises at around 0.2. with time step=0.1, amplitude is 0.4. is it that for 1st order, the simulation must use a smaller time step to get correct ans? is there a way to estimate or is it better to use adpative time stepping? thank you. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Physical Reason for stability of Implicit Schemes? | radhakrishnan | Main CFD Forum | 26 | October 3, 2023 23:05 |
CFL condition for higher order schemes | Shyam | Main CFD Forum | 2 | February 14, 2008 15:24 |
Implicit, high-order methods for Incompressible NS | Dave Rudolf | Main CFD Forum | 10 | January 29, 2007 11:13 |
Euler (explicit or implicit) | anybody | Main CFD Forum | 2 | May 8, 2006 03:12 |
Higher order discretization on staggered grid | Chandra Shekhar | Main CFD Forum | 9 | January 27, 2005 17:31 |