CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

First Order to Higher Order Blending Factor

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

Like Tree7Likes
  • 7 Post By oj.bulmer

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   September 5, 2012, 13:47
Default First Order to Higher Order Blending Factor
NormalVector's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 15
NormalVector is on a distinguished road
I'm trying to understand the discretization blending factor Fluent has available (accessible through TUI solve/set/numerics). From what I see in the Fluent users' manual, a value of 0 will use a first order discretization while a value of 1 will "recover higher order discretization." It notes that in order to use it effectively, one of the higher order schemes must be selected for the desirable variables. Does that mean that I have to use at least a second order discretization for density, momentum, etc. in order for the blending to work properly?

I'm having convergence troubles at second order upwind so I'm trying to squeeze all the accuracy I can out of first order.
NormalVector is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2013, 17:57
Senior Member
Astio Lamar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pipe
Posts: 186
Rep Power: 13
asal is on a distinguished road

I have the same question. Do you find any answer?
asal is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 1, 2013, 18:56
NormalVector's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 15
NormalVector is on a distinguished road
Nope, never did. I just pushed through second order by changing the relaxation factors.
NormalVector is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 3, 2013, 15:43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: United Kindom
Posts: 473
Rep Power: 20
oj.bulmer will become famous soon enough
Yes you do need to have a second (or higher order) solution in order to be able to use the blending factor. In very simplistic terms, blending factor B can be defined as:

\phi  =  \phi_{first-order} +  B*(\phi_{higher-order}-\phi_{first-order})

Here \phi is the quantity like velocity, pressure etc.

Now, if you have a look at the equation, if B=0, we have results of first order and if B=1, we have results of higher order. But if you don't have a higher order solution, then \phi_{higher-order} becomes \phi_{first-order}, and for any value of B, you get the solution the same as \phi_{first-order}.

Hence it is necessary to have a second or higher order solution in order to use blending factor.

It is healthy to go gradually from first order to different blending factors (0.4, 0.7) etc depending on your unstability and then switch to second order, if you are having problems with direct second order solutions.

heron1, waiter120, asal and 4 others like this.
oj.bulmer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 13, 2023, 07:06
New Member
Czech Republic
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 9
jan.kracik is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone,

It is exactly as oj.bulmer stated. When you have a blending factor of 1 active, the code uses all the settings specified under Spatial discretization in the Methods panel. On the other hand, when you use a BF of 0, the code always uses the first order upwind no matter what a scheme you specified. So, setting up a BF between 0 and 1 basically specifies interpolation between these schemes. A BF can, in some circumstances, help with oscillations which you can observe when you are using a higher order scheme. However, one should bare in mind that some accuracy is always lost. Therefore, you can think of the BF as a trade-off between numerical stability and accuracy of the solution. In my experience, by using a BF between 0 and 1, I was able to smooth out some oscillations in the solution variables, however I always got a less accurate solution, and the numerical value of the monitored variable was always between the values I got for the pure 1st Order or Higher order scheme. In some cases, I rather used a transient solver, which sometimes served a very similar purpose.Hope it might be helpful to someone.
jan.kracik is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First order simulation better than second order Torque_Converter CFX 7 January 8, 2013 04:07
How to compute UDS fourth order gradient Emma66 FLUENT 1 April 27, 2010 05:44
Higher Order FV Schemes for unstructured meshes Apurva Shukla Main CFD Forum 4 December 15, 2000 09:17
Gradient Estimation for Higher Order Schemes jianxia Main CFD Forum 0 June 6, 2000 19:40
Higher order FVM Sergey Smirnov Main CFD Forum 10 April 15, 2000 01:49

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17.