# Implementation of QUICK scheme

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

 January 20, 2000, 04:02 Implementation of QUICK scheme #1 Romuald Skoda Guest   Posts: n/a Hallo, I am implementing a QUICK convection scheme into a 2d pressure-correction (SIMPLE-like) RANS code for non-orthogonal grids. The code in formulated in cartesian co-ordinates. The time discretisation is fully-implicit. I intend to scale-up the code to 3D later. 1) In the open literature I found the QUICK formulation for non-uniform grids, not for non-orthogonal and body-fitted grids. So firstly I implemted the scheme proposed for non-uniform but orthogonal grids. Is there an advice or a reference what could be done better with non-orthogonal grids? 2) I neglected the transverse curvature terms. Does someone know some references about the implementation of the QUICK scheme including the transverse curvature contribution and/or its performance for highly convective / turbulent flow? 3) I suppose that the scheme works equally for steady-state and transient solutions, if I use an implicit time discretisation. Am I right? What about an explicit time-marching scheme? I intend to implement an explicit pressure-correction scheme. Can I expect that I do not have to modify the interpolation scheme? Thanks a lot in advance! Romuald

 January 20, 2000, 05:16 Re: Implementation of QUICK scheme #2 Dr. Hrvoje Jasak Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, You haven't chosen my favourite scheme (you'll have boundedness problems later!), but I think I can help: 1) QUICK for non-uniform grids in fine and you don't need to modify it any further. All 'curvilinear' or 'non-orthogonal' corrections are unnecessary - they will just increase your computational molecule but won't give you any additional accuracy. 2) You did fine - forget about curvature. 3) The scheme is fine. You'll have to under-relax the system for pressure correction (as does everybody else); this kind of stuff is well tested and publicised with both SIMPLE and PISO. The only trouble you can expect (to my knowledge is): a) boundaries need special treatment as there's no "far upwind" node. b) the scheme is unbounded, i.e. for a variable which is laways positive (e.g. T or k) you can get negative face values, which causes trouble. However, there's a bunch of NVD-modifications to QUICK (called SMART of SHARP, I'm not quite sure) - you will need those when you start convecting scalars c) QUICK is a real bitch to implement on unstructured meshes, as you loose the directions. But that's another subject..... Hrv

 January 20, 2000, 06:39 Re: Implementation of QUICK scheme #3 Romuald Skoda Guest   Posts: n/a Thank you very much for your quite encouraging advice. Actually, I know about the boundedness problem and intend to implement the SMART scheme, which includes the QUICK scheme. May I ask what is your favourite scheme you mentioned, which does not seem to suffer from boundedness problems, even if no flux limiter is used? Thanks Romuald

 January 20, 2000, 09:28 Re: Implementation of QUICK scheme #4 Dr. Hrvoje Jasak Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, Unfortunately, there's no linear scheme other than Upwind differencing that does not suffer from unboundedness, so I'm afraid that you'll always need a limiter. I have developed a scheme called Gamma (Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids,31:431-449, 1999) and it's been extensively tested on a lot of stuff, from combustion to two-phase and free surface flows. It is an NVD (limited!) scheme and its main advantages are i) it works on arbitrarily unstructured meshes (no need for "far upwind node") ii) compact support (blends UD and CD) iii) no time-step dependency and iv) (and most important) it's the simplest I could do! However, (I don't know the aim of your project), I think you made a decent choice, unless you ultimately want to make your code arbitrarily unstructured, so I think you can happily just QUICK away! Have fun, Hrv 1/153 likes this.

 January 28, 2000, 20:43 Re: Implementation of QUICK scheme #5 Seok Ki Choi Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Dr.Hrvoje Jasak You mentioned that you have tested your Gamma scheme on a lot of practical flow problems. How was accuracy of your Gamma scheme for practical flow calculations when compared with QUICK, SMART, HLPA or SOUCUP schemes ? Seok Ki Choi

March 23, 2009, 00:18
#6
New Member

Prakash Ayappan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Romuald Skoda ;7215 Hallo, I am implementing a QUICK convection scheme into a 2d pressure-correction (SIMPLE-like) RANS code for non-orthogonal grids. The code in formulated in cartesian co-ordinates. The time discretisation is fully-implicit. I intend to scale-up the code to 3D later. 1) In the open literature I found the QUICK formulation for non-uniform grids, not for non-orthogonal and body-fitted grids. So firstly I implemted the scheme proposed for non-uniform but orthogonal grids. Is there an advice or a reference what could be done better with non-orthogonal grids? 2) I neglected the transverse curvature terms. Does someone know some references about the implementation of the QUICK scheme including the transverse curvature contribution and/or its performance for highly convective / turbulent flow? 3) I suppose that the scheme works equally for steady-state and transient solutions, if I use an implicit time discretisation. Am I right? What about an explicit time-marching scheme? I intend to implement an explicit pressure-correction scheme. Can I expect that I do not have to modify the interpolation scheme? Thanks a lot in advance! Romuald
Certainly, this is not a advice for you. Actual purpose is I need the open literature for the Quick Scheme. Can you send me to my mail technocrat.prakash@gmail.com

March 23, 2009, 04:03
#7
Senior Member

p ding
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 284
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dr. Hrvoje Jasak ;7220 Hi, Unfortunately, there's no linear scheme other than Upwind differencing that does not suffer from unboundedness, so I'm afraid that you'll always need a limiter. I have developed a scheme called Gamma (Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids,31:431-449, 1999) and it's been extensively tested on a lot of stuff, from combustion to two-phase and free surface flows. It is an NVD (limited!) scheme and its main advantages are i) it works on arbitrarily unstructured meshes (no need for "far upwind node") ii) compact support (blends UD and CD) iii) no time-step dependency and iv) (and most important) it's the simplest I could do! However, (I don't know the aim of your project), I think you made a decent choice, unless you ultimately want to make your code arbitrarily unstructured, so I think you can happily just QUICK away! Have fun, Hrv
Dear friends:
Regards

 March 23, 2009, 04:11 Your paper #8 New Member   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 8 Hi, if it's possible I would also like to get a copy of your paper about the GAMMA scheme. Could you e-mail it to me, if it's not a problem. Thank you

 July 14, 2010, 15:10 #9 Senior Member   Mieszko Młody Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: POLAND, USA Posts: 129 Rep Power: 8 Dear Dr HJ You wrote that QUICK scheme is unbounded, but in OF-1.6 UserGuide in: Table 4.10: Behaviour of interpolation schemes used in divSchemes. It is written that QUICK is bounded. could you tell me which statment is correct ? Best, ZM

 August 3, 2010, 11:50 #10 Member   Nick Gardiner Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chichester, UK Posts: 93 Rep Power: 8 There's a link to Prof.(!) Jasak's PhD at http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/IcoFoam

 August 3, 2010, 12:23 #11 Senior Member   Mieszko Młody Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: POLAND, USA Posts: 129 Rep Power: 8 Thank You ! It is really great works !

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post quarkz Main CFD Forum 4 June 23, 2011 15:04 Wiroon Main CFD Forum 15 July 23, 2010 10:48 mmahdinia OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 3 December 9, 2009 17:30 Markus Main CFD Forum 4 January 6, 2007 02:53 kim FLUENT 1 August 29, 2002 10:16

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:00.