|
[Sponsors] |
July 13, 2004, 04:55 |
how implicit is implicit?
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi, just a general question:
Suppose I have a time-dependent partial differential equation and would like to discretise (temporally) it into an implicit form. Does that mean that the time step size that I choose will not affected by the grid size that I choose to discretise my spatial derivatives? Or will I also have to consider the method that I choose to solve my implicit form? Suppose, instead of solving simultaneously all the unknowns under one large matrix, I choose an iterative method, like a multiple predictor-corrector, will my time step size be more restricted then(as like in an explicit form of temporal discretisation)? |
|
July 13, 2004, 05:03 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Even if your disretization is implicit, if the solver is iterative, then you have time step size restriction. You can estimate that with local mode analysis.
Junseok |
|
July 13, 2004, 20:05 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
How can this 'local mode analysis' be done?
|
|
July 13, 2004, 20:15 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
You can check most numerical analysis text books.
Junseok |
|
July 14, 2004, 13:18 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi, I guess the highest speed of local disturbance is critical. I think the delta_x/delta_t of the computational domain must be smaller than the physical speed of disturbances. So for the same grid size, time step has to be smaller for a shock wave of say Mach 3 then the Mach 1.5 wave. You can verify this with any one dimensional moving shock problem. -amol
|
|
July 15, 2004, 21:54 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ok, great, thanks all!
I'm trying to sort this out.. so I should say that even though the scheme is implicit, it really has to depend on how the scheme is solved. But I suppose the time size restriction has to be looser than that of an explicit scheme, right? Can anyone verify with me if a Crank Nicolson 2nd order time discretization is a semi-implicit, semi-explicit scheme? And, amol, I'm doing an incompressible flow of low to medium Re. So for this local speed, I should be using the maximum |(U,V)| within the domain, right? I suppose this is basically the CFL criterion. |
|
July 16, 2004, 02:02 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Usually we say Crank Nichoson is semi-implicit.
|
|
July 16, 2004, 12:10 |
Re: how implicit is implicit?
|
#8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
yeah i think you are right Joe. -amol
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help. implicit discritization | dearboy | Main CFD Forum | 0 | November 25, 2010 22:46 |
Can anyone explain the difference between these implicit concepts? | bearcat | Main CFD Forum | 0 | February 20, 2010 19:39 |
ADI implicit doesn't converge | George Papadakis | Main CFD Forum | 2 | July 8, 2009 14:27 |
implicit vs explicit | pXYZ | Main CFD Forum | 2 | April 21, 2006 10:48 |
UDF : Chemical Reaction in Catalytic Converter | adhimac | FLUENT | 1 | March 27, 2001 15:04 |