Second order upwind is not UPwind!!!

Far · May 22, 2011, 01:40

http://www.kxcad.net/ansys/ANSYS_CFX.../i1311648.html

It is stated in the CFX theory (above link) that when one selects the high resolution scheme as below

$\phi_{ip}=\phi_{up}+\beta\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}$

$\nabla\phi\$ is the value at the upwind node.

On the other hand when user selects the specified blend factor for $\beta$ (between 0 and 1), $\nabla\phi\$ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. I wanna know, this scheme is the upwind or central differencing scheme?

http://my.fit.edu/itresources/manual...ug/node992.htm

Where as in fluent user guide (above link) 2nd order upwind scheme is given by following formula

$\phi_{f,SOU}=\phi+\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}$

$\nabla\phi\$ is the gradient of $\phi\$ in the upwind cell

Both high resolution (CFX) and 2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent) are based on the principles by Barth and Jespersen [1] so that no new extrema is introduced in the solution, therfore monotonic behavior is preserved.

1. Does it mean that the high resolution scheme of CFX and 2nd order upwind scheme of fluent are equivalent.

2. Does it mean that the CFX 2nd order scheme is more like a baised 2nd order scheme with one term of upwind and 2nd term (anti diffusive term) is central differencing type?

3. Will 2nd order upwind (CFX definition) will make the solution worst than even 1st order upwind scheme?

References:
[1] Barth and Jespersen "The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes" .
Technical Report AIAA-89-0366, AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 1989.

Far · May 22, 2011, 13:26

Dear frends and specially ghorrocks any help and comments please ?

ghorrocks · May 22, 2011, 20:01

It has been a while since I looked into this stuff, but this is my understanding:

Quote:

Does it mean that the high resolution scheme of CFX and 2nd order upwind scheme of fluent are equivalent.

From your information they appear similar, if not the same. I was not aware the Fluent 2nd order upwind scheme had a limiter on it.

Quote:

Does it mean that the CFX 2nd order scheme is more like a baised 2nd order scheme with one term of upwind and 2nd term (anti diffusive term) is central differencing type?

There is no central differencing in the CFX high res scheme to my knowledge. Just first and second order upwinding.

Quote:

Will 2nd order upwind (CFX definition) will make the solution worst than even 1st order upwind scheme?

It should not. Where the extra dissipation of first order upwinding is required for stability the intention is this is detected and beta reduced to reduce the unstable 2nd order and increase the stable 1st order. But the user always has the option of selecting first order upwinding if it is not working.

Far · May 23, 2011, 11:57

It is written in CFX help that $\nabla\phi\$ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when $\beta\$ = 0.5

ghorrocks · May 23, 2011, 19:08

Quote:

It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when

= 0.5

Not so clearly for me, I cannot find any comment to this effect. It says the CDS uses beta=1.0 and the del (phi) is now defined as the local element gradient.

So I cannot see anything which suggests beta=0.5 gives you CDS.

Far · May 24, 2011, 04:14

Quote:

It says the CDS uses beta=1.0

Does it mean that when we select specified blend factor option with beta = 1.0 , the scheme becomes CDS?

ghorrocks · May 24, 2011, 07:37

No, read the full sentence - the del (phi) is redefined in CDS, so the high res scheme cannot become the CDS as the del (phi) terms are different.

baserinia · May 28, 2011, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Far

It is written in CFX help that $\nabla\phi\$ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when $\beta\$ = 0.5

No, it's not CDS! In the formula, $\beta=0\$ leads to 1st-order upwind, and $\beta=1\$ leads to 2nd-order upwind. $\beta=0.5\$ is a blend of 1st- and 2nd-order upwind schemes which supposedly is more accurate than 1st-order scheme, but also more stable than 2nd-order scheme. You should use $\beta<1\$ if and only if the 2nd-order upwind fails to converge.

Far · May 31, 2011, 04:59

What about high resolution scheme? since this scheme does not guarantee the 2nd order upwind scheme every where.

ghorrocks · May 31, 2011, 08:21

This thread is getting tiresome. Please read the documentation.

It clearly says that the CDS has a different implementation to the upwinding schemes so you won't be able to get the CDS from any version of upwinding schemes - first order, hybrid or high res.

May 22, 2011, 01:40	Second order upwind is not UPwind!!!	#1
Far Senior Member Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,560 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 55	http://www.kxcad.net/ansys/ANSYS_CFX.../i1311648.html It is stated in the CFX theory (above link) that when one selects the high resolution scheme as below $\phi_{ip}=\phi_{up}+\beta\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}$ $\nabla\phi\$ is the value at the upwind node. On the other hand when user selects the specified blend factor for $\beta$ (between 0 and 1), $\nabla\phi\$ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. I wanna know, this scheme is the upwind or central differencing scheme? http://my.fit.edu/itresources/manual...ug/node992.htm Where as in fluent user guide (above link) 2nd order upwind scheme is given by following formula $\phi_{f,SOU}=\phi+\nabla\phi\bullet\bar{r}$ $\nabla\phi\$ is the gradient of $\phi\$ in the upwind cell Both high resolution (CFX) and 2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent) are based on the principles by Barth and Jespersen [1] so that no new extrema is introduced in the solution, therfore monotonic behavior is preserved. 1. Does it mean that the high resolution scheme of CFX and 2nd order upwind scheme of fluent are equivalent. 2. Does it mean that the CFX 2nd order scheme is more like a baised 2nd order scheme with one term of upwind and 2nd term (anti diffusive term) is central differencing type? 3. Will 2nd order upwind (CFX definition) will make the solution worst than even 1st order upwind scheme? References: [1] Barth and Jespersen "The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes" . Technical Report AIAA-89-0366, AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 1989. 8cold8hot likes this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Second Order Upwind: Residuals	enricokr	FLUENT	28	January 2, 2018 17:41
Changing LimitedLinear to blend with 2nd order upwind instead of 1st order upwind	stevenvanharen	OpenFOAM Programming & Development	0	April 11, 2011 05:54
First Order Upwind X High-Order Upwind (CUBISTA) Schemes	buscapeh	Main CFD Forum	0	September 23, 2010 22:32
second order upwind cause divege !!	khsiavash	Main CFD Forum	0	August 4, 2009 15:00
First order upwind	leung	FLUENT	2	June 13, 2004 08:09

May 22, 2011, 13:26		#2
Far Senior Member Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,560 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 55	Dear frends and specially ghorrocks any help and comments please ?

May 23, 2011, 11:57		#4
Far Senior Member Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,560 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 55	It is written in CFX help that $\nabla\phi\$ is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when $\beta\$ = 0.5

May 24, 2011, 07:37		#7
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,934 Rep Power: 145	No, read the full sentence - the del (phi) is redefined in CDS, so the high res scheme cannot become the CDS as the del (phi) terms are different.

May 31, 2011, 04:59		#9
Far Senior Member Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,560 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 55	What about high resolution scheme? since this scheme does not guarantee the 2nd order upwind scheme every where.

May 31, 2011, 08:21		#10
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,934 Rep Power: 145	This thread is getting tiresome. Please read the documentation. It clearly says that the CDS has a different implementation to the upwinding schemes so you won't be able to get the CDS from any version of upwinding schemes - first order, hybrid or high res.