|
[Sponsors] |
Question on OpenFOAM and implicit time discretization |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
March 10, 2016, 18:32 |
Question on OpenFOAM and implicit time discretization
|
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,232
Rep Power: 25 |
Hello folks,
OpenFOAM has quite a few implicit time schemes which are used pretty heavily. But what I don't understand is that often in practice and a lot of advice on this forum says you should still try to get a CFL of 1, even though the implicit scheme shouldn't require that. I have found, though, that in many instances without this, the code blows up. For my higher-speed cases, this can happen with dt=1e-4s. With much smaller timesteps, 1e-5s or 1e-6, the code doesn't blow up. Does this represent some kind of instability in the scheme, or am I missing something? Thanks. |
|
March 11, 2016, 04:05 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Anton Kidess
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,377
Rep Power: 30 |
The time marching is stable, the system coupling is not.
__________________
*On twitter @akidTwit *Spend as much time formulating your questions as you expect people to spend on their answer. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Implicit Time Integration for Euler Equations | maHein | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 1 | April 20, 2015 14:40 |
Suggested unsteady, implicit solver stable with arbitrarily large time steps | djbungee | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 45 | March 23, 2015 05:14 |
Dual time step implementation in openfoam | Kossivi | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | February 11, 2015 13:18 |
Question on transient simulation in OpenFOAM and FLUENT | nicklj | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | May 8, 2014 23:30 |
OpenFOAM, Courant number and implicit methods | fsaltara | OpenFOAM | 8 | December 28, 2012 05:16 |