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

Physical motivation of Upwind scheme

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   August 18, 2012, 09:53
Question Physical motivation of Upwind scheme
  #1
lnk
Senior Member
 
lnk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 6
lnk is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone,

What's the physical motivation of upwind scheme?

Best,
lnk
lnk is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 18, 2012, 10:46
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnk View Post
Hello everyone,

What's the physical motivation of upwind scheme?

Best,
lnk
The fact that the exact solution of the equation d phi/dt + u d phi/dx = 0 is

phi(x,t) = phi (x- u (t-t0), t0)

that means the the solution comes from an "up-winded" region of the space.

Than cna be seen also in terms of the characteristics, the solution is constant along the trajectories.

For 3D linear case the solution is equivalent, but when you consider the non-linear and diffusive case, things are more complex
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 23, 2012, 11:27
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 251
Rep Power: 6
leflix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnk View Post
Hello everyone,

What's the physical motivation of upwind scheme?

Best,
lnk

The idea behind upwind schemes states that the solution would essentially depends on what happened in upwind locations as Filipo stated it. But to my mind the use of upwind scheme is more dictated by stability numerical considerations rather than physical ones.
For hyperbolic equations where the solution depends only from upwind locations characteristic method (based on this upwind dependence) is an option but not the only one.
On elliptic equations where the solution on one point depends on every locations, one use upwind scheme in order to stabilize the flow, due to the amount of numerical diffusion (artificial viscoisty) that such scheme brings in the system.
leflix is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2012, 05:23
Default
  #4
Member
 
Francesco Capuano
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 78
Rep Power: 7
francesco_capuano is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnk View Post
Hello everyone,

What's the physical motivation of upwind scheme?

Best,
lnk
The rationale for upwind schemes stems from the fact that, in hyperbolic equations, information propagates at finite speeds of either positive or negative value.

For scalar equations, there is only one wave-speed and the above consideration results in using a one-sided method, in which the flux is based exclusively on the cell-value from which the information is coming. For a system of n equations, we have n waves travelling at n speeds, and there may be waves coming from both directions. In this case, a characteristic decomposition is needed in order to obtain a decoupled system of scalar equations to which apply the upwind method, before going back to the physical space.

I suggest the book of R. J. Leveque "Finite-Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems", in which such concepts are explained very clearly.

Regards,
Francesco
francesco_capuano is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2012, 06:45
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
I think that talking about "physical motivation" has to be better focused ...

Using ideal fluid the system of Euler equations is hyperbolic but "Real physics" in fluid dynamics involves real fluid, with non-vanishing molecular viscosity (and other transport coefficients) that makes the governing system of NS equations hyperbolic in the continuity but parabolic in the momentum and energy equations. That makes much more problematic the concept of physical motivation of upwind, I think that in such a case is better to say "numerical motivation" in using upwind schemes. Theory for parabolic equations do not justify specific direction in waves propagation as for pure hyperbolic equation. For very small viscosity one can consider a perturbation approach on the hyperbolic system. The issues become complex...
Just as an example, DNS and especially LES, are quite always performed avoinding upwind discretizations...
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2012, 08:44
Default
  #6
Member
 
Francesco Capuano
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 78
Rep Power: 7
francesco_capuano is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
I think that talking about "physical motivation" has to be better focused ...

Using ideal fluid the system of Euler equations is hyperbolic but "Real physics" in fluid dynamics involves real fluid, with non-vanishing molecular viscosity (and other transport coefficients) that makes the governing system of NS equations hyperbolic in the continuity but parabolic in the momentum and energy equations. That makes much more problematic the concept of physical motivation of upwind, I think that in such a case is better to say "numerical motivation" in using upwind schemes. Theory for parabolic equations do not justify specific direction in waves propagation as for pure hyperbolic equation. For very small viscosity one can consider a perturbation approach on the hyperbolic system. The issues become complex...
Just as an example, DNS and especially LES, are quite always performed avoinding upwind discretizations...
That is a good point.
Actually for upwind-biased schemes "physical" and "numerical" motivations are strongly coupled. Besides the question about wave-propagation, those schemes were born as shock-capturing methods thanks to their inherent numerical dissipation, which is able to produce an entropy-satisfying, stable solution. For this reason, upwind-biased schemes are successfully used in high-speed aerodynamics, where strong shocks are present. In this case, such schemes work very well thanks both to a numerical and a physical reason. In many other cases (e.g. parabolic equations), as Filippo states, there might be no particular physical arguments (i.e. wave-propagation) to justify the adoption of upwind schemes.

For instance, the numerical properties of shock-capturing methods make them unsuitable for calculations in which small numerical viscosity is needed (e.g. "classical" LES), but their dissipation can be properly used to mimic subgrid-scale motions in the so-called "Implicit-LES" approach. In the latter case upwind-biased schemes are used relying exclusively upon their numerical properties, which, for some reasons, are capable to correctly reproduce the physical phenomena.
francesco_capuano is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 3, 2012, 09:55
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by francesco_capuano View Post
That is a good point.
Actually for upwind-biased schemes "physical" and "numerical" motivations are strongly coupled. Besides the question about wave-propagation, those schemes were born as shock-capturing methods thanks to their inherent numerical dissipation, which is able to produce an entropy-satisfying, stable solution. For this reason, upwind-biased schemes are successfully used in high-speed aerodynamics, where strong shocks are present. In this case, such schemes work very well thanks both to a numerical and a physical reason. In many other cases (e.g. parabolic equations), as Filippo states, there might be no particular physical arguments (i.e. wave-propagation) to justify the adoption of upwind schemes.

For instance, the numerical properties of shock-capturing methods make them unsuitable for calculations in which small numerical viscosity is needed (e.g. "classical" LES), but their dissipation can be properly used to mimic subgrid-scale motions in the so-called "Implicit-LES" approach. In the latter case upwind-biased schemes are used relying exclusively upon their numerical properties, which, for some reasons, are capable to correctly reproduce the physical phenomena.
I agree
for this reason the "physical/numerical motivations" for using upwind schemes should be seen in a framework in which the physical problem, the class of solution, the goal of the simulation are taken into account
FMDenaro 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
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 18 March 3, 2015 06:36
2nd order upwind vs 2nd order upwind!!! Far Main CFD Forum 7 March 14, 2013 13:29
Use of upwind scheme for interpolation of u/v quarkz Main CFD Forum 6 August 30, 2011 04:10
Second order upwind is not UPwind!!! Far CFX 9 May 31, 2011 08:21
2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX) Far FLUENT 0 May 22, 2011 01:50


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:22.