
[Sponsors] 
January 23, 2014, 16:26 
conservative finite differences and finite volumes

#1 
Senior Member
Joachim
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 140
Rep Power: 6 
Hey everyone!
I have a question regarding finite volume / difference methods. If someone could explain this to me, that would be really cool. Let's say you have a structured grid. If you use generalizes coordinates, can you say that a conservative finite difference scheme IS a finite volume scheme? (computing the fluxes at the midpoints, etc). Basically, can you use the methods for cartesian finite volumes schemes with finite difference approximations in generalized coordinates? (U1n+1(i,j))  U1n(i,j))/dt = F1(i+1/2,j)  F1(i1/2,j) + G1(i,j+1/2)  G1(i,j1/2) where U1, F1 and G1 are defined using generalized coordinates, etc. sorry if the question is not super clear! Thanks! Joachim 

January 23, 2014, 16:41 

#2 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,003
Rep Power: 27 
FD is a method for discretizing the pointwise form of NS equations, conversely FV is a method for discretizing the integral form of the NS equations ...
Therefore, the methods are definitely different in general 

January 23, 2014, 16:46 

#3 
Senior Member
Joachim
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 140
Rep Power: 6 
hmm, you sometime end up with the same equations after using both methods though...
My question: if you try to solve the equation in generalized coordinates: dU1/dt + dF1/dxsi = 0 then, using finite volumes, you would end up with dU1/dt + F1(i+1/2,j)  F1(i1/2,j) = 0 (assuming the midpoint rule) since delta_xsi = 1. Your volume would appear as the jacobian of the cell in the equation. Then you can get the fluxes using finite differences in generalized coordinates. Can you then still say that this approach is finite volume? 

January 23, 2014, 17:10 

#4  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,003
Rep Power: 27 
Quote:
the only case in which FV and FD produces the same algebraic equation is for linear equation discretized with second order central scheme, otherwise you get different equations. Then, the integral equation writes as d/dt Int [V] U dV + Int [BV] n.F dS = 0 in physical space. You can use any type of grid and write this equation in a FV manner directly in the physical space. It retains its phycial meaing of conservation equation Conversely, dU/dt + Div.F dS = 0 need a transformation into the computational space but that does not correspond to solve a physical integral equation in the transformed space 

January 23, 2014, 17:12 

#5 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,003
Rep Power: 27 
just as note, you can looking for some similar posts on CFD Online


January 23, 2014, 17:14 

#6 
Senior Member
Joachim
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 140
Rep Power: 6 
so solving the integral form of the equations written in generalized coordinates does not make the scheme finite volume?


January 23, 2014, 17:30 

#7  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,003
Rep Power: 27 
Quote:
have a look to the dedicated chapter in the Ferziger & Peric book 

January 23, 2014, 17:32 

#8 
Senior Member
Joachim
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 140
Rep Power: 6 
I have it right there...the don't use general coordinates at all for finite volume methods.
I thought that solving the integral form of the equations would make a finite volume scheme, not the coordinates... 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Comparison: Finite Volume Method vs. Analytic Method  mfry  Main CFD Forum  1  April 20, 2010 14:40 
Natural convection  Inlet boundary condition  max91  CFX  1  July 29, 2008 20:28 
Multigrid for finite differences  Enda Bigarelli  Main CFD Forum  4  November 6, 2001 13:04 
Finite differences  Zdravko Stojanovic  Main CFD Forum  8  March 24, 2001 23:31 
U.F.D. :Finite Differences on Unstructure grids  STROHM  Main CFD Forum  4  August 6, 1998 15:25 