# Second order upwind is not UPwind!!!

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

 May 22, 2011, 01:40 Second order upwind is not UPwind!!! #1 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,329 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 45 Sponsored Links 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 is the value at the upwind node. On the other hand when user selects the specified blend factor for (between 0 and 1), 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 is the gradient of 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.

 May 22, 2011, 13:26 #2 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,329 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 45 Dear frends and specially ghorrocks any help and comments please ?

May 22, 2011, 20:01
#3
Super Moderator

Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 13,647
Rep Power: 105
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.

 May 23, 2011, 11:57 #4 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,329 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 45 It is written in CFX help that is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when = 0.5

May 23, 2011, 19:08
#5
Super Moderator

Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 13,647
Rep Power: 105
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.

May 24, 2011, 04:14
#6
Super Moderator

Sijal
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,329
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 45
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?

 May 24, 2011, 07:37 #7 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 13,647 Rep Power: 105 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 28, 2011, 21:24
#8
New Member

A.R. Baserinia
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Far It is written in CFX help that is equal to the average of the adjacent nodal gradients. It clearly shows scheme is central differencing when = 0.5
No, it's not CDS! In the formula, leads to 1st-order upwind, and leads to 2nd-order upwind. 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 if and only if the 2nd-order upwind fails to converge.

 May 31, 2011, 04:59 #9 Super Moderator   Sijal Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Islamabad Posts: 4,329 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 45 What about high resolution scheme? since this scheme does not guarantee the 2nd order upwind scheme every where.

 May 31, 2011, 08:21 #10 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 13,647 Rep Power: 105 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.

 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 stevenvanharen OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 April 11, 2011 05:54 buscapeh Main CFD Forum 0 September 23, 2010 22:32 khsiavash Main CFD Forum 0 August 4, 2009 15:00 enricokr FLUENT 26 March 29, 2009 18:22 leung FLUENT 2 June 13, 2004 08:09