|
[Sponsors] |
February 10, 2009, 11:23 |
Estimating 3d run time from 2d run time.
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi Folks:
Let us say I have a 2d case that takes x sec/cell/iteration to execute, based on bench marked tests. Is it a reasonable assumption that a 3d case will take the same amount of time ? Thanks for your answers. Sam |
|
February 10, 2009, 12:23 |
Re: Estimating 3d run time from 2d run time.
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Your 3D case presumably will have one additional equation to solve (W-momentum), right? If so then no, the 3D case will be more expensive per cell per iteration.
|
|
February 10, 2009, 13:42 |
Re: Estimating 3d run time from 2d run time.
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Your parameter is the correct one to look at. By the way, that was defined as the "grind time" by the T-3 group at Los Alamos in the late 60's. [At least, that's the only place I ever heard it used.]
Another factor to consider is that (for a transient problem at least), the stability limit on the time step will probably shrink as the third dimension is added. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Transient simulation not converging | skabilan | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 14 | December 17, 2019 00:12 |
PostChannel | maka | OpenFOAM Post-Processing | 5 | July 22, 2009 10:15 |
Differences between serial and parallel runs | carsten | OpenFOAM Bugs | 11 | September 12, 2008 12:16 |
Convergence moving mesh | lr103476 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 30 | November 19, 2007 15:09 |
Total run time | Dominic | Main CFD Forum | 0 | August 25, 2006 00:12 |