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

How to stabilize an advection dominated finite volume scheme? WITH VIDEO!

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 9, 2013, 12:44
Default How to stabilize an advection dominated finite volume scheme? WITH VIDEO!
  #1
New Member
 
Max
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
xammm is on a distinguished road
Dear forum users!

I'm currently implementing a reaction-advection-diffusion system on a closed 2D-surface (surface of a sphere) using C. First I started using finite elements which works just fine for the diffusion, however I could not get the advection to work. After doing some research on the internet I've came to the conclusion that it's better to use finite volume for the advection part instead.

So I've now implemented a vertex-centered finite volume routine with upwind scheme for the advection. However it's still unstable! My test is a single Gaussian pulse which is supposed to be advected around the sphere.

Here's a typical plot I get:



which is a cut at theta = pi/2. phi goes from 0 to 2*pi. The red curve is the initial condition and you can clearly see that this is unstable even though diffusion is still pretty strong. I would like to have a code, where the pulse gets advected by (e.g.) one rotation and has still the same shape. There's also a video:

http://www.xammm.com/surf.mpeg

I'm using a Crank-Nickolson/Cholesky decomposition scheme.

Is there an easy way to stabilize this?

Last edited by xammm; January 9, 2013 at 12:56. Reason: added "with video" in title
xammm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 9, 2013, 13:23
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
what about the cfl number at which your code was tested?
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   January 9, 2013, 17:20
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
cfdnewbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 551
Rep Power: 11
cfdnewbie is on a distinguished road
The mesh you are using looks indeed fine enough to rule out major dispersion and dissipation from the spatial scheme.... I assume it is a first order approximation (constants in cells?) .

As Filippo pointed out, the temporal scheme could be the issue. Whatever your CFL number, reduce it by a factor of 10, rerun the simulation and check the results.

Just out of interest: What flux function are you using?
cfdnewbie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 9, 2013, 17:26
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdnewbie View Post
The mesh you are using looks indeed fine enough to rule out major dispersion and dissipation from the spatial scheme.... I assume it is a first order approximation (constants in cells?) .

As Filippo pointed out, the temporal scheme could be the issue. Whatever your CFL number, reduce it by a factor of 10, rerun the simulation and check the results.

Just out of interest: What flux function are you using?
If I have well understood, the flux function should be piece-wise constant ...
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2013, 04:55
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Rami Ben-Zvi
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 147
Rep Power: 8
Rami is on a distinguished road
Hi xammm,
  1. First, your solution exhibits over- and under- shoots already at t=1. It indicates your convection treatment is inefficient. Try using a 1st order upwind as a starting point to remove that behavior. Only then enhance it to higher order.
  2. I suggest you start by pure convection, so that you know what the expected solution is.
  3. I also suggest to start with a rectangular domain in a Cartesian coordinate system with periodic BCs, to rule out possible bugs arising from the spherical coordinates treatment.
  4. I join the recommendation to decrease the CFL No.
  5. A comment: In convection-dominated problems FEM should work fine, but needs more effort. FVM is simpler to formulate (but less consistent).
Best luck,

Rami
Rami is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2013, 05:04
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,651
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rami View Post
Hi xammm,
  1. First, your solution exhibits over- and under- shoots already at t=1. It indicates your convection treatment is inefficient. Try using a 1st order upwind as a starting point to remove that behavior. Only then enhance it to higher order.
  2. I suggest you start by pure convection, so that you know what the expected solution is.
  3. I also suggest to start with a rectangular domain in a Cartesian coordinate system with periodic BCs, to rule out possible bugs arising from the spherical coordinates treatment.
  4. I join the recommendation to decrease the CFL No.
  5. A comment: In convection-dominated problems FEM should work fine, but needs more effort. FVM is simpler to formulate (but less consistent).
Best luck,

Rami



What do you mean?
Perhaps, owing to the second order time integration, is not strange that the solution shows over/under-estimation even with first-order upwind ..
FMDenaro is online now   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
The aspect ratio of the volume elements in Finite Volume Method CharlieTan84 Main CFD Forum 3 August 28, 2012 02:34
Finite Volume Method cfd seeker Main CFD Forum 3 September 8, 2011 04:36
Control Volume Finite Element Method gerardosrez Main CFD Forum 0 March 16, 2011 15:49
About finite volume methods for N-S Lionel BRS Main CFD Forum 6 July 16, 2006 03:15
Finite Volume Example Matt Kellerman Main CFD Forum 1 April 10, 2002 11:42


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:48.