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

2nd order (convection) schemes

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

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By cfdnewbie

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 17, 2012, 15:52
Default 2nd order (convection) schemes
  #1
Member
 
Ford Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 72
Rep Power: 8
Ford Prefect is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I would like to discuss the reasons behind upwind biased 2nd order schemes having higher accuracy than the central difference scheme (while below the Peclet number restriction for the CD scheme). Do the CD scheme become progressively more accurate as we approach a Peclet number of 0? And if so, is the opposite true for the upwind biased schemes?

Cheers!
__________________
"Trying is the first step to failure." - Homer Simpson
Ford Prefect is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2012, 16:18
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
cfdnewbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 551
Rep Power: 11
cfdnewbie is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Prefect View Post
Hello,

I would like to discuss the reasons behind upwind biased 2nd order schemes having higher accuracy than the central difference scheme (while below the Peclet number restriction for the CD scheme). Do the CD scheme become progressively more accurate as we approach a Peclet number of 0? And if so, is the opposite true for the upwind biased schemes?

Cheers!
Hello Ford,
I'm wondering: Why/in what way do upwind schemes become more accurate than CD schemes? in the classical FD setting, CD schemes are dissipation-error free, while having larger dispersive errors. Upwind schemes are a lot more dissipative than CD scheme, but have better wave-propagation properties....

The way to analyze the accuracy of a scheme (at least as far as I know) is to actually look at the dissipation and dispersion curves over wavelength...

Cheers!
cfdnewbie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2012, 16:26
Default
  #3
Member
 
Ford Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 72
Rep Power: 8
Ford Prefect is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdnewbie View Post
Hello Ford,
I'm wondering: Why/in what way do upwind schemes become more accurate than CD schemes? in the classical FD setting, CD schemes are dissipation-error free, while having larger dispersive errors. Upwind schemes are a lot more dissipative than CD scheme, but have better wave-propagation properties....

The way to analyze the accuracy of a scheme (at least as far as I know) is to actually look at the dissipation and dispersion curves over wavelength...

Cheers!
Hey cfdnewbie!

Well I have not made any direct comparisons myself, and admittedly I have only one reference where they compare a QUICK and CD scheme against each other. The QUICK scheme comes out as more accurate of the two compared to the analytical solution. However the reference gave no indication as to why this is the case.
__________________
"Trying is the first step to failure." - Homer Simpson
Ford Prefect is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2012, 16:41
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
cfdnewbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 551
Rep Power: 11
cfdnewbie is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Prefect View Post
Hey cfdnewbie!

Well I have not made any direct comparisons myself, and admittedly I have only one reference where they compare a QUICK and CD scheme against each other. The QUICK scheme comes out as more accurate of the two compared to the analytical solution. However the reference gave no indication as to why this is the case.

Hey Ford,
I haven't personally worked with the QUICK scheme, but from Fluent's handbook (which I just googled) it seems that QUICK is a blend of upwind and CD scheme.

Let me take a step back for a second:
In general, the error of a computational scheme is made up of two parts: the dissipative error (which smears out the solution) and the dispersive error (which misjudges frequencies and results in unphysical wiggles). Depending on the leading term in the schemes error, the one or the other error dominates, and both or only one may be present.

Upwind schemes are generally designed to capture wave propagation well, i.e. the show low dispersive errors. On the downside, they are not dissipation-free. (there's always a price to pay for using any form of discretization instead of the real continuous formulation). You could look at this from the other side: Upwind schemes capture waves and introduce dissipation, which is why they work well for convection-dominated problems like shocks.

CD schemes are by design dissipation-error free, but they lack the wave-propagation properties, i.e. they have a dispersive error.

Now, depending on the problem at hand, one or the other type of error may dominate, and one or the other formulation is more accurate. If you have a convection-dominated problem, probably the upwind scheme gives less errors overall, because the flow itself is convection dominated.

If on the other hand you are trying to solve a dissipative problem, you are better of with a CD scheme, where it is essential to capture the dissipation correctly, while wave propagation plays a lesser role.


So saying that one scheme or the other is always better in any kind of flow is a tricky thing to do. Schemes are designed with a certain application in mind.

I hope this helps!

Cheers!
Toorop likes this.
cfdnewbie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 18, 2012, 04:53
Default
  #5
Member
 
Ford Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 72
Rep Power: 8
Ford Prefect is on a distinguished road
Hey cfdnewbie,

Tnx for the reply. 2nd order upwind schemes have the same leading term as CD. Perhaps you are thinking of 1st order upwind schemes in your reasoning?
I also stated that we have a flow that is within the CD scheme Peclet number range, i.e. it is a flow with relatively weak convection. Still the QUICK scheme manages to produce a better solution..

Regarding dispersion you could of course choose a TVD scheme that preserves monotonicity, but this is not my original question

Cheers!
__________________
"Trying is the first step to failure." - Homer Simpson
Ford Prefect is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 18, 2012, 07:38
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
cfdnewbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 551
Rep Power: 11
cfdnewbie is on a distinguished road
Hey Ford,
sorry, I guess I got carried away a little bit. Well, to answer your original questions, I guess the only good way to find out is to do a dissipation / dispersion analysis of the schemes and compare them....can't think of another way....

sorry again!
cheers!
cfdnewbie 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
2nd order upwind vs 2nd order upwind!!! Far Main CFD Forum 7 March 14, 2013 13:29
Higher order convection schemes with unstructured grids vkrastev OpenFOAM 28 March 28, 2012 08:15
2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX) Far FLUENT 0 May 22, 2011 01:50
Unstable flow simpleFoam 2nd order Valle OpenFOAM 0 August 26, 2009 08:12
2nd order conservative schemes taw Main CFD Forum 1 September 16, 2008 07:05


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57.