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

Conservation- v.s. non-conservation form in incompressible flows

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

Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 19, 2013, 11:18
Default Conservation- v.s. non-conservation form in incompressible flows
  #1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Hey,

Any particular reason to use either of the two methods when we look at viscous incompressible flow?

Last edited by Simbelmynė; March 20, 2013 at 02:17. Reason: Clarification that it is with regard to viscous flow.
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 12:24
Default
  #2
agd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 166
Rep Power: 7
agd is on a distinguished road
Telescoping of fluxes under a conservation form makes it easier to satisfy a divergence-free condition. At least that has been my experience.
agd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 14:20
Default
  #3
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by agd View Post
Telescoping of fluxes under a conservation form makes it easier to satisfy a divergence-free condition. At least that has been my experience.
What do you mean by easier? Will the solution of the poisson equation for pressure converge faster?

(Both methods should be divergence free upon convergence right?)
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 14:33
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
the discrete conservative form ensures a correct wave propagation
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 17:08
Default
  #5
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
the discrete conservative form ensures a correct wave propagation
Are you talking about surface waves?
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 17:25
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simbelmynė View Post
Are you talking about surface waves?
no, I am talking about convective waves... a good example is the Burgers equation:

- quasi-linear form: du/dt + u du/dx =0
- divergence form: du/dt + d/dx (u^2/2) = 0

in the continuous form such equations are mathematically equivalent but differences appear in the discretizations of the two forms, especially for high wavenumbers. That means for example a good or not description of turbulent waves.
In the book of Leveque you can find an example
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 17:30
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 251
Rep Power: 6
leflix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simbelmynė View Post
Hey,

Any particular reason to use either of the two methods when we look at incompressible flow?
If you use finite difference method you can use either of them.
For finite volume method conservative form (divergence form) is the must.
leflix is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 17:55
Default
  #8
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
no, I am talking about convective waves... a good example is the Burgers equation:

- quasi-linear form: du/dt + u du/dx =0
- divergence form: du/dt + d/dx (u^2/2) = 0

in the continuous form such equations are mathematically equivalent but differences appear in the discretizations of the two forms, especially for high wavenumbers. That means for example a good or not description of turbulent waves.
In the book of Leveque you can find an example
How does the incompressibility constraint affect such an equation (Burger's equation reduces to du/dt=0?)? The book by Leveque deals primarily with hyperbolic equations and shock waves not with incompressible systems. Am I missing something here?
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 17:57
Default
  #9
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by leflix View Post
If you use finite difference method you can use either of them.
For finite volume method conservative form (divergence form) is the must.
Thank you for your reply, but could you please elaborate as to why in the case of finite difference?
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 19, 2013, 18:16
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
in the case of incompressible flows, the momentum equation is parabolic but the continuity equation (div V=0) is hyperbolic.
In practice, the Burgers equation is a simple model to understand the formation of high gradients in the velocity field as those creating by the non-linear term in the momentum quantity.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 02:28
Default
  #11
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
in the case of incompressible flows, the momentum equation is parabolic but the continuity equation (div V=0) is hyperbolic.
In practice, the Burgers equation is a simple model to understand the formation of high gradients in the velocity field as those creating by the non-linear term in the momentum quantity.
Ok this is interesting. I have never seen this mentioned in any textbook. Usually we describe viscous flows as either elliptic (steady) or parabolic (unsteady). Inviscid flows can be elliptic or hyperbolic (steady) or hyperbolic (unsteady).

I have three questions

1. Is div U = 0 really hyperbolic? It seems elliptic to me.

2. If it is hyperbolic, does it mean that we are trying to solve a hyperbolic system although the pressure Poisson equation is elliptic? I don't understand how this works. Pressure disturbances are transmitted all across the domain at infinite speed in case of incompressible flow so there is no domain of dependence/domain of influence.

3. I have changed my original question so that it is clear that it is viscous flow I am interested in, i.e. a parabolic (or elliptic) system. How would your answer be in this case for my original question?


Thank you everyone for a nice discussion.
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 02:41
Default
  #12
Super Moderator
 
praveen's Avatar
 
Praveen. C
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 239
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 8
praveen is on a distinguished road
div(u) = 0 is a constraint and it does not have any dynamics in it. The momentum equation is a convection-diffusion equation. So the convection brings in some wave type behavior.
__________________
http://twitter.com/cfdlab
praveen is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 03:49
Default
  #13
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by praveen View Post
div(u) = 0 is a constraint and it does not have any dynamics in it. The momentum equation is a convection-diffusion equation. So the convection brings in some wave type behavior.
Thank you Praveen for you input, so how would you respond to my original question?
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 04:38
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
The original Burgers paper is dedicated to viscous flow, he treated the equation as a sample model for turbulence..
The continuity equation is intrinsically hyperbolic both for viscous and non viscous flows. The elliptic character "appears" under trasformation of the divergence-free constraint Div V= 0 in terms of the pressure equation Div(Grad phi) = q. The acustic waves are therefore "modelled" such as having infinite travelling velocity. But the convective waves have finite velocity and must be numerically well resolved. This is a typical issue in turbulence for example, owing to high gradients in the flow...
It is well known that discrete conservative formulations ensure a correct (convective) waves propagation...
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 05:02
Default
  #15
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
The original Burgers paper is dedicated to viscous flow, he treated the equation as a sample model for turbulence..
The continuity equation is intrinsically hyperbolic both for viscous and non viscous flows. The elliptic character "appears" under trasformation of the divergence-free constraint Div V= 0 in terms of the pressure equation Div(Grad phi) = q. The acustic waves are therefore "modelled" such as having infinite travelling velocity. But the convective waves have finite velocity and must be numerically well resolved. This is a typical issue in turbulence for example, owing to high gradients in the flow...
It is well known that discrete conservative formulations ensure a correct (convective) waves propagation...
Ok, but there seem to be some discrepancy in the subject. For instance:

http://www.flow3d.com/cfd-101/cfd-101-conservation.html

Particularly the part with unstructured grids.

I fully agree that conservation form is good when we have extremely sharp gradients, but it seems that there is more to it than just using conservation form all the time.
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 05:27
Default
  #16
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simbelmynė View Post
Ok, but there seem to be some discrepancy in the subject. For instance:

http://www.flow3d.com/cfd-101/cfd-101-conservation.html

Particularly the part with unstructured grids.

I fully agree that conservation form is good when we have extremely sharp gradients, but it seems that there is more to it than just using conservation form all the time.

I totally disagree in what is stated in the post ... if you use a flux-balance for developing the conservative formulation, the numerical flux function is unique by construction and the method ensures conservation of the resolved variable on any type of grid!
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 20, 2013, 06:03
Default
  #17
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
I read it as:

On unstructured grids using conservation form the conservation is still ensured, however accuracy is not (if first order approximations are used).

Perhaps this is a no-issue since we generally do not want to use first order approximations anyway.

I don't know if their statement is correct or not, but I think it is worth discussing.
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 22, 2013, 13:16
Default
  #18
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Ok to summarize this discussion so far:

agd advocates conservation form because it makes it easier to satisfy the divergence free condition.

lefix says conservation form is a must for FVM, but in the case of FDM either conservation or non-conservation form can be used.

FMDenaro advocates conservation form because it ensures correct wave propagation.

Flow3D (commercial software) use non-conservation form on unstructured grids.

Could anyone point me to a benchmark that can test the statements by agd and FMDenaro? Will standard test cases be enough (cavity flow, backward facing step, flow over cylinder)?

Even better, if someone can point me to a paper that illuminates these matters?

Have a nice weekend!
Simbelmynė is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 22, 2013, 13:43
Default
  #19
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,138
Rep Power: 16
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
some years ago we performed spectral analysis about this issue:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...d.179/abstract

see also § 12.9 in the book of Leveque "Finite Volume Methods for Hypoerbolic Problems"
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 22, 2013, 20:18
Default
  #20
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 4
Simbelmynė is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
some years ago we performed spectral analysis about this issue:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...d.179/abstract

see also § 12.9 in the book of Leveque "Finite Volume Methods for Hypoerbolic Problems"
Thank you for the references. I am at home so I can not check the paper but I Will on Monday.

Regarding the book reference, yes I understand that in the case of a discontinuous solution we are better off using conservation form. And from your previous posts I understand that we should always expect discontinuous solutions in most incompressible flows and hence always use conservation form. Correct?

Cheers!
Simbelmynė 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
time step for incompressible flows Suriyanarayanan Main CFD Forum 2 August 23, 2005 08:34
Solutions of Nozzle Flows by MacCormack Technique worasit Main CFD Forum 5 September 29, 2003 11:38
Numerical methods for incompressible flows stein Main CFD Forum 4 August 11, 2003 21:20
Code for incompressible flows Pawel Main CFD Forum 7 October 24, 2002 00:22
Compressible vs. Incompressible formulations Fernando Velasco Hurtado Main CFD Forum 3 January 7, 2000 16:51


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34.