|
[Sponsors] |
December 1, 2006, 10:39 |
Nonlinear Multigrid: Coarse Grid Operators
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I am implementing a 3D CFD solver, and I have a question about nonlinear multigrid.
I have implemented a 3rd order advection / 2nd order viscous routine on a single grid. The system is solved using a second order implicit scheme, with Roe splitting, similar to Rogers and Kwak (and others): R(Q)=0 => L(dQ) = R(Q) + some iteration residual where Q are the flow variables, R is the discretization of the NS equations (large-stencil) and L is a simplified operator of the non-linear operator R. L is constructed so that the system is block-tridiagonal. Fairly standard fare. Cut to the multi-grid. Following Press et al., on coarser grids I will end up with equations of the form: L_(dQ_)=R_(Q_-I*Q)+f where the underscores represent a coarse grid operator or variable and f is a bunch of stuff left over from restriction/prolongation. I*Q is the restricted solution. The question is thus: Do I have to calculate the coarse grid operator R_ using the same method that I used for the fine grid operator R? This would require evaluating all of the advection terms _at each grid level_, which seems like it would be costly. I would much rather calculate R_ as an agglomeration of the terms in R, or even L: L_(dQ_)=L_(Q_-I*Q)+f This way, L, and all the coarse grid L_'s are calculated once per pseudo-time step. But this seems like I might be breaking the spirit of non-linear multigrid, or drastically hurting convergence. Comments? |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On grid independent solution for pulsatile flow | David | FLUENT | 5 | March 25, 2022 04:33 |
multigrid | sureshkumar | Main CFD Forum | 0 | June 9, 2006 02:20 |
coarse grid to fine grid crashing | Arnab | Siemens | 1 | February 22, 2005 13:27 |
Combustion Convergence problems | Art Stretton | Phoenics | 5 | April 2, 2002 06:59 |
Grid Independent Solution | Chuck Leakeas | Main CFD Forum | 2 | May 26, 2000 12:18 |