
[Sponsors] 
March 7, 2007, 16:02 
Artificial Viscosity

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Can anybody recommend some good references for applying artificial viscosity to an unstructured, finitevolume mesh?


March 7, 2007, 16:34 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Structured or Unstructured,if you use an explicit artificial viscosity then it would usually be a term of the form epsilon*d^4u/dx^4. So all you need to do is discretize the fouth order derivative using your unstructured discretization.There have been other forms of artificial viscosity which have been applied too of which I do not know much.


March 7, 2007, 19:05 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Yes, I understand the form of the actual artificial viscosity terms. The trouble I'm having is understanding how to properly apply themhow to calculate the derivatives on a noncartesian mesh. As the faces of the cells can lie at any angle to the major axes, the dU/dX and dP/dX terms aren't very readily calculated.
Any ideas? Have you read any good references? 

March 7, 2007, 19:14 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

There is a book by lohner. It might give you some ideas on implementing the derivatives.


March 7, 2007, 19:24 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Remember a title?


March 7, 2007, 19:42 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Applied CFD Techniques: An Introduction Based on Finite Element Methods is the name.


March 7, 2007, 23:23 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Why don't you let your mesh create the diffusion term properly, then you'll not need to add 'artificial viscosity' at all.
The trick lies in the size of your mesh element  the smaller you go, the more the discrete groups bias towards the diffusion. Of course, in the limit dx>0 , you tend to the correct pde  with dx>>0, you will be convectiondominated based on large mesh size. desA 

March 8, 2007, 01:01 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#8 
Guest
Posts: n/a

It depends on the kind of discretization being used.Central difference schemes have no inbuilt diffusion and the diffusion of the viscous terms can sometimes be insufficient.Also smaller elements restrict your timestepping.Hence you need to evaluate the relevant parameters and choose the one which can help in the solution of the problem more efficiently.


March 8, 2007, 01:20 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#9 
Guest
Posts: n/a

By adding any other terms to your numeric scheme you are violating the rules of the physical phenomena you are trying to study. What answer do you then believe?
Take the NavierStokes, Euler  what you will  apply the original definition for a partialderivative in terms of a forward difference & limit, take away the limit that dx>0 & then study the terms in this 'original' discrete form. This will tell you everything you need to know about dx, dy, dz & their effect on the relative weighting of each group in the original equation. Don't get drawn into the CD vs other debate too early  it tends to cloud the real issues. desA 

March 8, 2007, 10:42 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#10 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Blending CDUD?


March 8, 2007, 14:00 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#11 
Guest
Posts: n/a

If I were using a fluxsplit scheme, where flux summations across individual cell faces are applied based on the true propagation of influencesthe characteristic directionsI would have no need for artificial viscosity at all. And I've done that in other applications. But this application already exists. It uses a flux summation around cells that essentially decomposes to a centraldifference. Thus the need for artificial viscosity terms.
The application is timecritical. I have to get a good, timeaccurate approximation of the mass, momentum and energy transport through an enclosed volume, and it has to be calculated fast. So I am VERY limited in the number of cells that can be used. I must use only the minumum number of cells possible to maintain stability and capture the secondary flow features. I'm already applying artificial viscosity to the system and getting acceptable results. But my technique has its limits, and I'd like to come up with something more robust. So I'm interested in seeing what others have done in this area. 

March 8, 2007, 14:04 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#12 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Exactly right. See my post responding to desA, 8 March, 11:00 am.


March 8, 2007, 14:09 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#13 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. See my post of 8 March, 11:00 am for more detail.


March 8, 2007, 14:42 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#14 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I mean that you can try to blend a central scheme with an upwind scheme. The level of blend is the level of error of the upwind scheme you will introduce in the solution given by the central scheme. As the upwind scheme tends to be dissipative, you can tune the level of artificial viscosity (which is already proportional to delta_l, your celltocell distance).


March 8, 2007, 14:59 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#15 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Ah, I see. Yes, that's a possibility. The region I'm modelling is typically subsonic, but does have shocks passing through it. It's also largely enclosed by walls, which makes numerical stability a more sensitive issue than in external flows. I'll have to think about your suggestion a bit.
There was a paper at this year's AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting that applied a similar philosophy to a fully fluxsplit approach using secondorderaccurate flux summations across all cell faces. But that's major surgery at this point, so I'm looking to see if I can first improve upon the artificial viscosity scheme that's in use already. 

March 8, 2007, 18:20 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#16 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Artifical vicsosity methods are so darn old. Why not try any of WENO, CENO, NT schemes? They are pretty good for Euler equations, structured or nonstructured grids, all works.


March 8, 2007, 23:43 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#17 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Rich wrote:
If I were using a fluxsplit scheme, where flux summations across individual cell faces are applied based on the true propagation of influencesthe characteristic directionsI would have no need for artificial viscosity at all. desA's reply: The characteristic directions for the Euler equations will show up pretty well, but with diffusion present, these directions are suppressed in their action  in many cases. The correct balance between convection & diffusion terms must be maintained if you are to correctly capture the secondary (wave) effects. If you are forced to use large elements, then you need to be able to capture your physics correctly within your computational cell/element. You may want to look into schemes which could allow use of exponential & sin/cos terms  I've seen something similar in FEM  can't remember offhand their exact element interpolation function (eif), but it was a good idea. To capture the first 4 terms of a Taylor series of a cos function, you'll need something like a P6 (28 node) element using a conventional polynomialtype eif. This is where a smart element design is useful. I hope this helps. desA 

March 8, 2007, 23:49 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#18 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Upwinding does its best to suppress some of the 'secondary effects' as you refer to them. I find these 'blurring' schemes to be somewhat like a magical incantation on the way to an incorrect representation of the physics. I see no use at all for stabilisation schemes that noone can truly understand. Better to understand the underlying physics & to tune your simulation accordingly  then, no stabilisation is necessary.
desA 

March 9, 2007, 01:51 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#19 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Unfortunately that cannot be the case all the time. Sometimes the size of your grid is restricted by the memory you have and the time limit. Also sometimes on complex geometries you cannot capture all the physics without resorting to some form of approximations.Why do people do LES when DNS is much more accurate ? In the field of aeroacoustics if you do not filter out the waves due to one sided approximation of boundary conditions or grid non uniformity , you might not be able to get good numerical results for the computations.


March 9, 2007, 04:21 
Re: Artificial Viscosity

#20 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Harish wrote:
Unfortunately that cannot be the case all the time... In the field of aeroacoustics if you do not filter out the waves due to one sided approximation of boundary conditions or grid non uniformity , you might not be able to get good numerical results for the computations. desA wrote: How are we, as scientists, able to judge whether these waves are important, or not, if we try to filter them out all the time? Why not try & develop techniques to better capture the bulk + wave mechanisms properly, without trying to tell nature what to do? Take a good look at Van Dyke's flow gallery  if we cannot see wave activity at almost each & every level of flow activity, then we are modeling the wrong physics. Sometimes this activity is low energy, sometime highenergy. We need to get the simulations to accurately reflect the full situation  not continue to try & exclude intrinsic physics. Set your solution timing up appropriate to the equations you are using  the 'sweet spot' is different for Euler, creeping & NavierStokes. When we stop trying to trick the physics, we will see the root cause of the phenomena we observe. Hint: Just remember, (1/dt) is the inverse of (dt). What do we use in our discrete simulation space? Is the inverse of a smooth function, another smooth function? Try a line, parabola etc, for instance. For Euler equations, the system is pretty straightforward in (dt)  (dx,i) relationship. Have fun desA 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Artificial Viscosity  Luiz Eduardo Bittencourt Sampaio  Main CFD Forum  12  November 13, 2011 11:21 
Artificial Viscosity  MAB  CFX  1  July 30, 2008 22:00 
Artificial viscosity  rads  CFX  2  July 31, 2006 07:02 
artificial viscosity  rvndr  Main CFD Forum  1  March 2, 2004 11:24 
Artificial Viscosity  Girish Bhandari  Main CFD Forum  5  January 13, 2001 14:22 