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

About the accuracy of DNS with spectral method and FVM method

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 20, 2014, 21:16
Default About the accuracy of DNS with spectral method and FVM method
  #1
Senior Member
 
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CAU,China
Posts: 263
Rep Power: 4
huangxianbei is on a distinguished road
As known, the usual way to perform a DNS is the pseudo-spectral method, even though the grid is larger than Kolmogorov scale, the calculation is expected to be accurate. While when FVM is used, I'm suggested to use a finer mesh if I want to perform a DNS with FVM.
So here I have a question:
Is FVM DNS needs the grid to be smaller than the Kolmogorov scale?
huangxianbei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2014, 03:29
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,588
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by huangxianbei View Post
As known, the usual way to perform a DNS is the pseudo-spectral method, even though the grid is larger than Kolmogorov scale, the calculation is expected to be accurate. While when FVM is used, I'm suggested to use a finer mesh if I want to perform a DNS with FVM.
So here I have a question:
Is FVM DNS needs the grid to be smaller than the Kolmogorov scale?
1) No matter SM or FVM are used, the key is that the grid size is of the order of the Kolmogorov lenght scale to perform a DNS.

2) Using FVM implies that the resolved frequency before Nyquist are smoothed. If your grid is correctly refined, this smoothing lies over the range of physical dissipative frequencies and the simulation is accurate. A general suggestion can be to ensure that the Taylor micro-scale frequency is well resolved by ensuring that pi/h is far from it
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2014, 20:45
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CAU,China
Posts: 263
Rep Power: 4
huangxianbei is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
1) No matter SM or FVM are used, the key is that the grid size is of the order of the Kolmogorov lenght scale to perform a DNS.

2) Using FVM implies that the resolved frequency before Nyquist are smoothed. If your grid is correctly refined, this smoothing lies over the range of physical dissipative frequencies and the simulation is accurate. A general suggestion can be to ensure that the Taylor micro-scale frequency is well resolved by ensuring that pi/h is far from it
As in Moin(1998,DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION:
A Tool in Turbulence Research
):
Code:
It is straightforward to show, using
the modified wavenumber, that the second-order central difference requires a
mesh spacing equal to 0.26 to meet this requirement, while the fourth-order
central difference, sixth-order PadŽe, and Fourier spectral schemes require mesh
spacings of 0.55, 0.95, and 1.5 respectively
Here, the 0.26 and others mean the Kolmogorov scale's multiply.
So it however shows the spectral method is somewhat more accurate in the same resolution.
What's h mean in the formula 'pi/h'?
huangxianbei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 21, 2014, 21:52
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CAU,China
Posts: 263
Rep Power: 4
huangxianbei is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
1) No matter SM or FVM are used, the key is that the grid size is of the order of the Kolmogorov lenght scale to perform a DNS.

2) Using FVM implies that the resolved frequency before Nyquist are smoothed. If your grid is correctly refined, this smoothing lies over the range of physical dissipative frequencies and the simulation is accurate. A general suggestion can be to ensure that the Taylor micro-scale frequency is well resolved by ensuring that pi/h is far from it
Hi,Filippo:
I'm not sure the method I estimate the Kolmogorov scale is right,so I write down my process:
The channel flow I focus on, Re=2900,Re_tau=194,FVM method is used. As dissipation rate can be estimated as epsilon=u_tau^3/l, u_tau is the friction velocity, l is the half-width of channel. So the Kolmogorov scale is write as : yita=Re_tau^(-4/3)*l
The channel dimension is 4*pi*l, 2*l, 2*pi*l in three directions, l=1m. The grid is 128*128*128
Using the former formula, yita=0.0192375031
deltax=0.098125=5*yita
deltaz=0.0490625=2.55*yita
deltay(max)=0.041238518=2.14*yita
Is this calculation reasonable to show a acceptable grid resolution?
huangxianbei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 22, 2014, 03:42
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,588
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by huangxianbei View Post
As in Moin(1998,DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION:
A Tool in Turbulence Research
):
Code:
It is straightforward to show, using
the modified wavenumber, that the second-order central difference requires a
mesh spacing equal to 0.26 to meet this requirement, while the fourth-order
central difference, sixth-order PadŽe, and Fourier spectral schemes require mesh
spacings of 0.55, 0.95, and 1.5 respectively
Here, the 0.26 and others mean the Kolmogorov scale's multiply.
So it however shows the spectral method is somewhat more accurate in the same resolution.
What's h mean in the formula 'pi/h'?

- h is the mesh size
- SM are theoretically more accurate than FD/FV but the problem is that in practice you use SM on the non linear term that produces aliasing. The de-aliasing techniques (filtering and so on) degrades the accuracy of the resolved high frequency and you are forced to use refined grids
- this paper contains some other estimations (for LES but is useful for your aims) http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3676783
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 25, 2014, 09:06
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Huang Xianbei
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CAU,China
Posts: 263
Rep Power: 4
huangxianbei is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
- h is the mesh size
- SM are theoretically more accurate than FD/FV but the problem is that in practice you use SM on the non linear term that produces aliasing. The de-aliasing techniques (filtering and so on) degrades the accuracy of the resolved high frequency and you are forced to use refined grids
- this paper contains some other estimations (for LES but is useful for your aims) http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3676783
Thank you very much.I compared the fvm DNS with that from SM and find a considerable deviation in Reynolds stress vv, I think it's part from the numerical diffusion in the time scheme and the interpolation scheme. So now I use the Crank-Nicholson scheme which is fully second order accurate instead of backward. Also, the fourth order interpolation is used. While I find it's quite unstable when using Crank-Nicholson, the Courant number will go craze when the timestep size is not so small(while comparing with that of the former calculation, the timestep is only 1/6 of that).
So how can I make Crank-Nicholson more stable? until now, the only thing I can do is to use a smaller timestep size when the calculation crashed.
huangxianbei is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 25, 2014, 11:25
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,588
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by huangxianbei View Post
Thank you very much.I compared the fvm DNS with that from SM and find a considerable deviation in Reynolds stress vv, I think it's part from the numerical diffusion in the time scheme and the interpolation scheme. So now I use the Crank-Nicholson scheme which is fully second order accurate instead of backward. Also, the fourth order interpolation is used. While I find it's quite unstable when using Crank-Nicholson, the Courant number will go craze when the timestep size is not so small(while comparing with that of the former calculation, the timestep is only 1/6 of that).
So how can I make Crank-Nicholson more stable? until now, the only thing I can do is to use a smaller timestep size when the calculation crashed.

Generally, the codes us CN for the diffusive terms and Adams-Bashforth for convective terms, that will increase the stability. However, the stability region for small cell Reynolds numbers require very small time steps
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
Question regarding non-uniform FVM staggered grid and order accuracy quarkz Main CFD Forum 2 October 26, 2012 03:11
finite volume daniel Main CFD Forum 17 April 11, 2005 20:36
comments on FDM, FEM, FVM, SM, SEM, DSEM, BEM kenn Main CFD Forum 2 July 18, 2004 18:28
FVM,FDM AND FEM d Main CFD Forum 4 May 30, 2003 03:19
hess-smith method and fvm method yangqing FLUENT 0 March 20, 2002 20:25


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:00.