
[Sponsors] 
PISO vs Approximate vs Exact Projection methods for pressurevelocity coupling 

LinkBack  Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
August 8, 2017, 08:29 
PISO vs Approximate vs Exact Projection methods for pressurevelocity coupling

#1 
Member
Katt
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 7 
Hi everyone;
I have a pressurevelocity coupling question. Comparing several softwares, I came across two ways of iteratively solving the NavierStokes equations. 1. SIMPLE/ PISO/ PIMPLE (from OpenFOAM) 2. Approximate/ Exact Projection Method (Gerris/ Basilisk) Though I tried to understand the concept through Wiki, I dont see what really is the difference between all 3 methods. from my understanding (PS: all above mentioned codes use collocated scheme), Step1: From the available velocity at the previous time step stored at cell centers, they are interpolated to the cell faces (as Finite volumes compute cell face flux to be mass conservative) Step2: Apart from pressure gradient term, lump all the source/ sink terms along with the viscosity term and update the cell face momentum flux term Step3: Aiming to achieve a mass conserved solution at the new time, with the available momentum flux term and pressure gradient term the following relation is solved for iteratively: laplacian (pressure) = divergence (not mass conservative flux available from Step2) Step4: from the updated pressure, reevaluate the mass conservative flux. Step5: Proceed to the next time step with the same process. I am aware that projection methods use Hodgedecomposition where: "Intermediate velocity = Mass conserved velocity + grad(pressure)" which ultimately leads to Step 3 above. Then where is the difference between these methods coming from? Can anyone help me, point to a suitable link where the difference is clearly explained. Thanks; Katt 

August 8, 2017, 09:52 

#2 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,044
Rep Power: 64 
Exact or Approximate projection methods are different. The former satisfy the divergencefree constraint up to machine tolerance, the latter only up to the magnitude of the local truncation error. Often this difference is strictly related to the type of colocation of the velocities on the grid (staggered/nonstaggered) as well as for the type of discretization of divergence and gradient operators.


August 8, 2017, 10:18 

#3 
Member
Katt
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 7 
Hi,
So please correct me if wrong. Exact projection: computationally expensive, mass conservative Approximate projection: computationally less expensive, approximately mass conservative. So, from a paper by Gerris developer (S. Popinet, 2003) he states as follows: "We will use both an exact projection for facecentred advection velocities and an approximate projection for the final projection of the cellcentred velocities. The detail of these two projections does not influence the general description of the Poisson solver". What I am wondering is why cant we do exact projection of cell faces and estimate the cell center velocity field from the available mass conservative cell face field computed?  and What makes the projection methods of Chorin different from Issa's PISO method? Thanks and apologies if its a basic question. Too confused 

August 8, 2017, 10:39 

#4 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,044
Rep Power: 64 
Not exactly, both EPM and APM are similar in terms of computational cost.
I worked a lot on these methods and developed a formulation that mixes both approaches in a nonstaggered but exact projection method exploting two set of velocities: faces and cellcentred. PISO is much more similar to SIMPLE procedure than a projection procedure wherein one perform one step for the intermediate velocity and then project it onto the subspace of divergencefree velocity fields. 

August 8, 2017, 10:51 

#5  
Member
Katt
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...985?via%3Dihub From the paper (page  6), I see they too compute an intermediate velocity field using the divergence condition and recompute the mass conservative flux. 

August 8, 2017, 10:56 

#6 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,044
Rep Power: 64 
The projection method has only one projection step to compute the pressure gradients that ensure the continuity constraint. No iterations are performed further.
PISO works differently: https://www.cfdonline.com/Wiki/PISO...Split_Operator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISO_algorithm 

August 16, 2017, 13:52 

#7 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 4,795
Rep Power: 56 
One thing I noticed.
In Chorin's projection method, the first? intermediate velocity field is computed completely ignoring the pressure gradient. The influence of the pressure gradient happens later in the projection step. In SIMPLE/PISO/PIMPLE, the pressure gradient is not neglected. One assumes a pressure field and then calculates the intermediate velocity. 

August 16, 2017, 14:00 

#8  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,044
Rep Power: 64 
Quote:


Tags 
navier stoke solver, piso, pressure velocity, projection method 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Projection Methods  Petrov  Main CFD Forum  2  June 10, 2011 09:50 
Velocity Underrelaxation in SIMPLE type methods  Matt U.  Main CFD Forum  6  July 4, 2005 05:29 
Variables Definition in CFX Solver 5.6  R P  CFX  2  October 26, 2004 02:13 
Terrible Mistake In Fluid Dynamics History  Abhi  Main CFD Forum  12  July 8, 2002 09:11 
Projection methods  ZY Sun  Main CFD Forum  9  September 15, 2000 18:00 