Benefit of using Nodal method instead of finite difference method?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the advantages of the Nodal method over the finite difference method (FDM) and finite element method (FEM) for solving diffusion problems. The Nodal method is noted for its efficiency in reducing both storage requirements and computational work, making it advantageous even with modern supercomputers. It employs higher-order approximations, allowing for less fine mesh-spacing while maintaining accuracy compared to lower-order methods. The Nodal method is particularly beneficial when homogenizing fuel assemblies, as it can effectively calculate peak pin power and heat fluxes. Overall, the Nodal method remains recommended for its computational efficiency and accuracy in contemporary applications.
libertad
Messages
43
Reaction score
1
Nodal Method??

What's the benefit of using Nodal method instead of finite difference method in solving a diffusion problem?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org


libertad said:
What's the benefit of using Nodal method instead of finite difference method in solving a diffusion problem?
Do you mean finite element method?

IIRC, it has to do with the representation of the boundary conditions.

I believe FEM can uses larger cells (elements), and therefore would be more computationally efficient.

I learned the difference 25 years ago when part of the course work was develop FD / FE methods for diffusion, fluid flow and heat transfer. Back then, available computers were severely memory limited, and the emphasis was on computational efficiency (both in terms of memory and time) and accuracy.
 


FEM is mostly used for solving transport equation whereas barely used for diffusion equation.
Nodal method was developed in 70s decade in order to evade the lack of memory of those time computers.

I want to know that in this era in which the super computers are solving the complicated mathematical problems in a few seconds, the use of nodal method is recommended or not.
 


libertad said:
FEM is mostly used for solving transport equation whereas barely used for diffusion equation.
Nodal method was developed in 70s decade in order to evade the lack of memory of those time computers.

I want to know that in this era in which the super computers are solving the complicated mathematical problems in a few seconds, the use of nodal method is recommended or not.
libertad,

As one of the co-developers [ along with Kord Smith ] of the "Analytic Nodal Method" at MIT; I can
speak to your question.

A nodal method reduces both the amount of storage and the computational work. There's no
supercomputer today that is solving time-dependent transport or time-dependent diffusion in just
a few seconds.

In essence; both the finite difference method and the finite element method make very simple
approximations to either the transport and / or diffusion equations. Because of that, one may be
forced to use relatively fine mesh-spacing in order to capture the relavant physics.

A nodal method makes use of a higher order approximation or a higher order discretization of the
transport or diffusion equation. Because of that, one doesn't need as fine a resolution in order to
get equivalent accuracy as the low order finite difference and finite element methods.

Nobody has so much computer power that the difference isn't advantageous in favor of the nodal
method. As long as one "homogenizes" fuel assemblies; which is almost universally done; there
really isn't a reason NOT to use a nodal method. If one desires to find the peak "pin power" and
consequent heat fluxes; a whole core calculation is done with homogenized assemblies in order
to find the high power assemblies. One can then do a calculation on the high power assemblies
with the geometry represented explicitly and surface currents from the nodal calculation used as
boundary conditions.

A good reference to the "Analytic Nodal Method" is Kord's Engineer's Thesis which describes the
3-D implementation in the computer code, QUANDRY. It is available at:

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15979

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Thanks a lot for your information.
I will study the Engineer's Thesis you mentioned.

Regards,
Libertad
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top