CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

QUICK discretizaion scheme

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 28, 2005, 05:07
Default Hi everybody, I am computin
  #1
New Member
 
Max
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 8
didomenico is on a distinguished road
Hi everybody,
I am computing a jet in still air and I want to test different discretization schemes for the convection term using simpleFoam.
I set up the geometry (axisymmetric), got the solution with default parameters (first order upwind) and then I wanted to switch to QUICK scheme (to compare the solution with Fluent). Therefore I set

div(phi,U) Gauss QUICK;

w/o changing any other parameter. After few iterations (50) I get suddenly unphysical velocities (1e3 m/s) near the outflow. I am using the standart kEpsilon model with wall function. Am I missing something?
Thanks
Massimiliano
didomenico is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 05:11
Default No, that sounds like QUICK to
  #2
New Member
 
Chris Greenshields
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 8
chris is on a distinguished road
No, that sounds like QUICK to me...
chris is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 05:35
Default Actually, QUICK will behave ve
  #3
Senior Member
 
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,758
Rep Power: 21
hjasak will become famous soon enough
Actually, QUICK will behave very much like other 2nd order schemes and will not cause you much difference in the solution for steady turbulent flows compared to central differencing or Gamma schemes.

What you probably got is a recirculation across the outlet boundary of some sort, e.g. a vortex straddling the outlet patch with sone flow going in. That will make it blow up in a hurry. You will need to use a combination of totalPressure and inletOutlet boundary conditions - if you don;t know what I'm talking about, please search the discussion group and documentation.

Enjoy,

Hrv

P.S. If the blow-up were simply to do with QUICK, it would indicate that the scheme has not been implemented correctly, and I know it is. :-)
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak
Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk
hjasak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 05:46
Default My current implementation of Q
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
My current implementation of QUICK has been well tested and should work fine for any case for which linear works.

Using inletOutlet for U at the outlet may solve the problem if you specify the inletValue to be (0 0 0) in which case it should be used in conjunction with a fixed pressure BC not total-pressure because the total-pressure evaluation is only used for inflow and hence will be equivalent to the fixed-pressure but more expensive to evaluate.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 06:02
Default Hmm, looks exactly like my ori
  #5
Senior Member
 
Hrvoje Jasak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,758
Rep Power: 21
hjasak will become famous soon enough
Hmm, looks exactly like my original implementation (1995, my Thesis)... note the bounding between upwind and downwind values.

Anyway, there's a "full" unbounded QUICK somewhere about as well, if you wish to try that, but it's no great shakes because it is unbounded.

Hrv
__________________
Hrvoje Jasak
Providing commercial FOAM/OpenFOAM and CFD Consulting: http://wikki.co.uk
hjasak is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 06:08
Default It's easy to remove the upwind
  #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
It's easy to remove the upwind-downwind bounding from the scheme but would be rather unwise. In OpenFOAM-1.1 I also included UMIST which is a TVD form of QUICK and MUSCL which is another related TVD scheme which is great for shock-capturing but is also generally a decent scheme and a lot better behaved than QUICK.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 28, 2005, 10:54
Default Thank you for your explanation
  #7
New Member
 
Max
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 8
didomenico is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your explanations.
The problem is solved using inletOutlet condition for U, I can use QUICK scheme both for U and k-epsilon equations. Of course, particular attention in setting under-relaxation factors for turbulence equations have to be payed at the beginning of the simulation...
Thanks
Massimiliano
didomenico 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
Implementation of QUICK scheme Romuald Skoda Main CFD Forum 10 August 3, 2010 12:23
Quick Scheme Mikel A. Main CFD Forum 2 February 23, 2004 13:58
Quick Scheme Ahmad Falahat Pisheh Main CFD Forum 0 January 10, 2004 12:38
QUICK scheme kim FLUENT 1 August 29, 2002 10:16
Quick scheme Beginner FLUENT 1 June 26, 2002 11:28


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:45.