CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 25, 2003, 06:30
Default Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #1
HN Das
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For a high Reynolds Number (in the order of 10^8) incompressible (steady) flow problem, I have used different decritisation schemes - 1st order Upwind, 2nd order Upwind and QUICK. I am surprised that 1st order upwind scheme is giving more accurate result in terms of drag when validated against experimental results. As higher order upwind schemes are supposed to be more accurate, the result is bit confussing to me. The trend of result is consistant and compared with number of experimental results.

I understand, by default, fluent uses central difference scheme for defussive fluxes and the scheme user chooses is applied for convective fluxes.

Experts may please comment and advise.
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 25, 2003, 07:29
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #2
thomas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hey, Sorry i am not an expert of discretization scheme but I could give you an opinion. By default I never use the 2nd order upwind scheme (not well developped in fluent). Then I do think that the Quick scheme cannot be applied to every type of mesh. You should check on the Fluent online-documentation if your mesh fits to a quick scheme use.

Hope this help. thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 25, 2003, 07:58
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #3
ap
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't think it's a problem of implementation, maybe of stability. Also, as said in the manual, the second order discretization scheme is implemented in order to reduce numerical diffusion, so it should improve accuracy.

However, the QUICK scheme implemented in FLUENT can be used on all kinds of grids (structured and unstructured). It's more accurate on structured grids, if they are aligned with the flow direction.

If you have an unstructured grid or a hybrid one, FLUENT applies the second order discretization scheme at the faces of non hexahedral cells.
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 25, 2003, 08:07
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #4
ap
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First order is suitable only in simple cases, with grids aligned with flows. But if the flow doesn't follow this behaviour, second or higher order schemes should give better results.

Try doing a calculation using first order (you can use the one you've already done). When converged switch to second order scheme to see what happens.

Hi

ap
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 25, 2003, 11:00
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #5
Tom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree with ap. I believe from my experince the 2nd order scheme should give better results. What turbulence model are you using? this will also change your results considerably.

  Reply With Quote

Old   September 26, 2003, 00:11
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #6
HN Das
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks Mr Thomas. My mesh is aligned to flow and fluent on line documentation says that 1st order upwind can be used for this type of mesh.

My problem is when I use second order upwind or QUICK for the same problem (same mesh), my results deviate from experimental results. I am unable to understand why 1st order upwind scheme is giving better result than 2nd order.

Das
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 26, 2003, 00:19
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #7
HN Das
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have used k-e (all three standard, RNG and realizable), k-w and RSM models. Except k-w all the models have given similar results.

In all the instances, when I use 2nd order upwind scheme my results starts deviating from experimental results.( Results with 1st order upwind scheme is close to experimental findings).

I am using a structured grid aligned to flow. It is a convection dominated flow, Reynold's No is very high. Das
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 26, 2003, 07:45
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #8
Helge
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
General speeking results from 1st order scheems must be the same as from 2nd order scheems when you have an infinite fine mesh.

From this it is clear that a coarser mesh will give different results using different discretisation scheems if the solution is mesh-dependent.

So before looking into turbulence models you should try to obtain a mesh independent solution. Using a 2nd order scheme, you will reach this state on a coarser mesh compared to a 1st order scheme.

If you have access to solution dependent mesh refinement this feature will help you saving elements.

If a finer mesh brings you into trouble regarding the validity of your turbulence model (i.e. y+ gets too small) you have of course to use an appropriate turbulene model which can handle high resolution grids.
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 26, 2003, 10:50
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #9
zwdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Helge, Do you know how to get mesh independent solution? Thanks. Zwdi
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 26, 2003, 14:56
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #10
ap
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A solution is said to be grid independent if a further refinement of the grid doesn't implicate a change in the solution.

So, to obtain a grid independent solution, you have to refine your grid until the solution stops to change in consequence of grid refinements.

Hi

ap
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 27, 2003, 19:39
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #11
zwdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks.Is mesh independent solution equal to true solution? Thanks again. Zwdi
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 27, 2003, 19:45
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #12
zwdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Helge, As you said, "If a finer mesh brings you into trouble regarding the validity of your turbulence model (i.e. y+ gets too small) you have of course to use an appropriate turbulene model which can handle high resolution grids". Could you give me guides which kind of turbulence model efficiently handle high resolution grids? Thanks. Zwdi
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 28, 2003, 08:14
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #13
ap
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Just check turbulence models limitations in FLUENT manual.

For example, if you adopt k-eps models with wall-functions, y+ have to be between 30 and 60. So you can't refine your grid too much in order to respect that condition.

Hi

ap
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 28, 2003, 08:27
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #14
ap
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The grid-independent solution is just the solution you obtain when your space discretization doesn't influence the solution anymore.

This doesn't mean it's the physical solution of your problem.

Hi

ap
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 30, 2003, 06:53
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #15
HN Das
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Turbulence Models are not spesific to resolution of grid. I mean, a same turbulence model can be used for a coarse mesh or a fine mesh. You have to look for an appropriate WALL FUNCTION to match with your resolution (in terms of y+). For example, standard wall function works well within a range of y+ between 30 to hundred. Any wall function, based on log law, is suitable for that y+ range. For mesh of higher resolution ( Y+ < 5), you can use two layered wall function like enhenced wall treatment.

You can also use turbulence model like, v2f, to avoid use of turbulence model. I hope this info may be useful for you.

Das
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 30, 2003, 10:34
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #16
zwdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks. I could not find v2f model available in the VISCOUS list. Do you know how to make it work by using text commands in Fluent? Zwdi
  Reply With Quote

Old   September 30, 2003, 22:42
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #17
HN Das
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have never used v2f model while working with fluent. As far as I know, Fluent 6.0 does not contain this model. You have to ask support group of fluent, if it is available with any of Fluent version.
  Reply With Quote

Old   October 1, 2003, 04:49
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #18
Helge
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I would recommend the SST model. It blends the k-e with a k-w model near the wall. The k-w behaves well on fine grids (y+ around or below 1). The normal k-e low reynolds model from my experience converges very slow.
  Reply With Quote

Old   October 1, 2003, 11:02
Default Re: Which Descritisation Scheme to be used?
  #19
zwdi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Helge, I tried SST before. But there are many large shoots and vibration during converge process. Could you give me good suggestions about using SST model? So that I can made solution smoothly converged. Thanks a lot. Zwdi
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When to use upwind or central differencing schemes? quarkz Main CFD Forum 6 August 19, 2011 03:24
2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX) Far FLUENT 0 May 22, 2011 01:50
how to understand high resolution scheme and high order scheme iilw1314 Main CFD Forum 3 September 30, 2010 10:43
Definition of limiter function for central dirrerencing scheme sebastian_vogl OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 January 5, 2009 12:08
extrapolation in MUSCL scheme Chandra Main CFD Forum 6 February 14, 2007 12:21


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55.