Re: first_post-first_question
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:26 pm
Filippo, the time it will take depends more on the size of the mesh (quantity of elements) and the "quality" of it, rather than on the physical dimensions, i.e. it will take longer to calculate a 1m beam discretized with 10 elements than the same beam discretized in 4 elements (asuming the mesh converges). About the quality, a mesh will converge faster if the elements are regular, homogeneous in size and shape, with smooth size variations from cell to cell, and preferably if the mesh is structured. I can tell you that good mesh of 10^6 elements has converged faster for me than a bad 10^5 mesh.
Having said that, I've been running a steady flow simulation with a mesh of 10^6 elements, mostly structured (but not high quality), laminar flow, in a low end hardware (Sempron processor with 1.9GHz, only one core, 32bit Mandriva system) and I got quite surprised to see that each step took only 2mins or less to finish and using no more than 1.5GiB RAM. With a modern multicore precessor that time will drop amazingly.
Hint: make a run of a case, with different mesh densities, and check regualrly the "listing" file. At the end of each step (provided you have configured it so) you'll see the time it took to finish that step, and after the 100th step (usually) the shown time stabilizes.
Having said that, I've been running a steady flow simulation with a mesh of 10^6 elements, mostly structured (but not high quality), laminar flow, in a low end hardware (Sempron processor with 1.9GHz, only one core, 32bit Mandriva system) and I got quite surprised to see that each step took only 2mins or less to finish and using no more than 1.5GiB RAM. With a modern multicore precessor that time will drop amazingly.
Hint: make a run of a case, with different mesh densities, and check regualrly the "listing" file. At the end of each step (provided you have configured it so) you'll see the time it took to finish that step, and after the 100th step (usually) the shown time stabilizes.