Brooks (brooksmoses) wrote,
Brooks
brooksmoses

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Er, right. I should have remembered that.... (a revel in jargon)

So this computer program I was writing this week (simulating flow around a cylinder) isn't working right.



It turns out that pure second-order spatial discretization with first-order explicit Euler timestepping is unstable for inviscid compressible flow. Because the combined fluid equations, discretized in space, are a second-order differential equation with a negative real coefficient, and thus the solution's on the imaginary axis, and a first-order explicit Euler timestep has a stability region that's a circle centered on the negative real axis and only touching the imaginary axis, so of course it doesn't ever get stable although it gets really really close if I make the timesteps small.

And that's why including the viscosity, when I was doing that by accident, makes such a difference -- it pushes the poles slightly into the negative real side of things, and suddenly we've got an actual stability region. A pretty tiny one, though, it seems, still.

And I should have remembered this, because that was actually a very specific example from one of the classes that I've taken. I don't remember where, but it somewhere I have a memory of the information that a second-order spatial discretization and a first-order explicit Euler timestepping -- that being the simplest and most obvious way to approach the problem -- doesn't work even with the hack of making the timestep really small and letting the machine crunch forever.

And, of course, once I remembered that, I felt like I should have remembered it in the first place.... But I'd thought I also remembered that a staggered grid fixed the problem, and I didn't really investigate that much. Now that my memory is cleared with being reminded, I remember that the staggered grid just fixes the checkerboarding problem; it doesn't actually add any other stability. And using a timestepping method -- say, an RK-5 for the sake of genericity, although I think a predictor-corrector step might work as well -- that's got a stability region that covers a reasonable bit of the imaginary axis ought to fix the stability problem, but it wouldn't fix the checkerboarding if I'd used a colocated grid (like my other code uses), and that's a fair part of what all the artificial dissipation takes care of.

So I understand now. Whee! All I have to do is implement it, and that should fix that (large) bug.


And I post the above, on the grounds that it was pretty much exactly my thought process as I was walking home tonight, and I figure that enough of my friends-of list presumed-readers write sf and can use it with words substituted as a template for technobabble as she is spoke by a Real Engineer(tm), with all the caveats and entertainments thereby implied. And there's always the amusing possibility that someone might understand.

It's also a good argument for the existence of jargon; there are at least a half-dozen words in there that would take a couple of paragraphs to explain in non-jargon terms, and there's no way to have a thought-pattern like that if you've got to stop every half-sentence and explain all that.

On the other hand, I could probably outline a fairly complete computational fluid mechanics course that did little more than explain the above post. *grin*

- Brooks
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments