CFD Online URL
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX)

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 22, 2011, 02:50
Default 2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX)
  #1
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,902
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 37
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
http://www.kxcad.net/ansys/ANSYS_CFX.../i1311648.html

It is stated in the CFX theory (above link) that when one selects the high resolution scheme as below

\phi_{ip}=\phi_{up}+\beta\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}

\nabla\phi\ is the value at the upwind node.

On the other hand when user selects the specified blend factor for \beta (between 0 and 1), \nabla\phi\ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. I wanna know, this scheme is the upwind or central differencing scheme?


http://my.fit.edu/itresources/manual...ug/node992.htm

Where as in fluent user guide (above link) 2nd order upwind scheme is given by following formula

\phi_{f,SOU}=\phi+\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}

\nabla\phi\ is the gradient of \phi\ in the upwind cell

Both high resolution (CFX) and 2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent) are based on the principles by Barth and Jespersen [1] so that no new extrema is introduced in the solution, therfore monotonic behavior is preserved.



1. Does it mean that the high resolution scheme of CFX and 2nd order upwind scheme of fluent are equivalent.

2. Does it mean that the CFX 2nd order scheme is more like a baised 2nd order scheme with one term of upwind and 2nd term (anti diffusive term) is central differencing type?

3. Will 2nd order upwind (CFX definition) will make the solution worst than even 1st order upwind scheme?





References:
[1]
Barth and Jespersen "The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes" .
Technical Report AIAA-89-0366, AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 1989.




Far is offline   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
Comparison of fluent and CFX for turbomachinery Far CFX 51 Today 14:54
Second order upwind is not UPwind!!! Far CFX 9 May 31, 2011 09:21
CFX or Fluent for Turbo machinery ? Far FLUENT 3 May 27, 2011 04:02
High Resolution (CFX) vs 2nd Order Upwind (Fluent) gravis ANSYS 3 March 24, 2011 04:43
Fluent Vs CFX, density and pressure Omer CFX 9 June 28, 2007 05:13


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:43.