CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > CFX

Unbounded advection discretisation

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 21, 2009, 11:20
Default Unbounded advection discretisation
  #1
New Member
 
Abby
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
acarey is on a distinguished road
I am new to both CFX and, in general, CFD and am working on a multi-component flow simulation. I have a fluid pair of nitrogen and a custom fluid "Mixture", which consists of hydrogen peroxide and water. The fluid Mixture was defined as a variable composition mixture.

The premise is to simulate an injection of 8% hydrogen peroxide into a large vessel, which also experiences nitrogen sparging, and to then run a transient simulation to see how long it will take for the vessel to be a uniform 8% peroxide (initial conditions of 0% peroxide, 100% water). I had been using an upwind advection scheme in order to produce converged results. However, I have been having problems converging and recently read that the upwind scheme may be the reason if a mesh is too refined. I then tried to switch to a specified blend factor of 0.8, but got the below error when running the simulation in -Solver:

"An unbounded advection discretisation scheme was specified for the transport equation of a bounded variable. The advection scheme is changed to a bounded scheme." The "Effective adv. scheme" was subsequently switched to High Resolution

I didn't see an explanation for this in the help files and would appreciate any thoughts.

Thank you.
acarey is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 21, 2009, 22:07
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,700
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
Hi,

First order upwinding is very diffusive and can give erroneous results. That is why it is not recommended for almost all applications. They are however very easy to converge so can make good initial guesses. Second order schemes are much less diffusive but have boundedness problems. To counter this problem CFX has a hybrid scheme where you can use a bit of first order to stabilise it. An alternative approach in CFX is to use the high-res differencing scheme which has a limiter built-in to try to reduce boundedness issues.

Looks like you are having convergence problems when you move from upwinding (easy to converge but inaccurate) to second order (hard to converge but more accurate). Try smaller timesteps and/or tighter convergence and lots of other things but we'll do those first.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 22, 2009, 09:25
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Abby
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
acarey is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the additional information. Two more questions:

1.) Irregardless (for the purposes of this question) of my convergence problems, why was I unable to use the Specified Blend Factor advection scheme for my multi-component flow? When switching from upwind, I had initially specified a blend factor of 0.8, but -Solver immediately switched me into the High-Res scheme (see error message from original post). Is there something about multi-component flow that does not allow use of the specified blend factor?

2.) I have been playing around with reducing the timestep, etc, and am now in a place where my transient solution converges under the High Resolution scheme to RMS<1e-4 in 6 coefficient loops with a timestep on the order of 0.002sec. Unfortunately, I am looking to run at least an hour of this transient simulation, which will take weeks if things continue at this rate (my domain is ~3 million elements). Is there any information on what precisely is "inaccurate" about the upwind advection scheme? Essentially, I am looking to find out if there are any areas in my domain that are not mixed as well as others. If I can obtain this information using the upwind scheme, I can likely get there a lot faster. Or, is upwind so inaccurate that even general solutions are not usable?
acarey is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 25, 2009, 11:49
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 169
Rep Power: 17
joey2007 is on a distinguished road
Specified blend is not bounded, mean that you can have numerical wiggles. E.g. mass fraction can get smaller than zero or larger than one resulting in unphysical states. Clipping can not heal that in any case. At my phd times I struggled a lot with that issue in my inhouse code.

Possibly there is upper limit for the blending within highres. Have look at help or ask the support. Please post if you find something.
joey2007 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2009, 19:05
Default
  #5
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 17,700
Rep Power: 143
ghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really niceghorrocks is just really nice
Hi,

Any decent CFD text should discuss the pitfalls of first order upwinding. The classic text on CFD accuracy is "Computational Fluid Dynamics" by Roache - this text discusses accuracy issues far beyond first order upwinding.

If you use upwinding for the mass fractions you will get additional mixing effects caused by the diffusive nature of the first order scheme. Whether that is a problem or not depends on what you are trying to do. If you need concentration gradients to remain sharp then upwinding will not work. From reading your description above the mixing rate is the key parameter in the simulation so that means upwinding will be very inaccurate.

You got convergence problems with the hybrid scheme using a blend of 0.8 because it is using 80% second order and 20% first order differencing and the second order differencing is unbounded and (in your case) causing convergence problems. That's why I recommend the high res scheme as it keeps boundedness - but it is still less stable than upwinding so will be harder to converge.

The simulation run time looks long? Welcome to CFD - that's why CFD uses supercomputers. I suspect if you use adaptive timestepping after the initial transient is done it will be able to speed the simulation up, but still I would count on a very long simulation.

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
advection, high resolution, multi component, specified blend factor, upwind


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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advection time scale Tanveer ahmad Rubani CFX 1 February 24, 2009 16:16
Advection & Stretched grids... again :o( Frank Main CFD Forum 11 April 8, 2007 21:30
Discretisation scheme in CFX-1st or 2nd order? Pete CFX 10 January 12, 2005 12:48
Scales of Chaotic Advection Farshid Main CFD Forum 0 December 30, 2001 13:10
Higher-order bounded convection schemes for pure advection with discontinuity Anthony Main CFD Forum 3 June 13, 1999 02:36


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:30.