|
[Sponsors] |
March 20, 2019, 05:47 |
2nd order Upwind Scheme (FDM)
|
#1 |
New Member
Jayabrata Dhar
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 17
Rep Power: 7 |
It is a peculiar thing I noticed that the 1st order FDM scheme gives a realistic result than a 2nd order one-sided FDM scheme for approximating first-order derivatives. See the image below for the one-sided approximation.
[IMG]https://doc-0c-2s-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/jtrqejfqmdige42m1bjdhnpue7r3o5t9/1553076000000/02266267703806582586/*/1WrAE_vC_RLNlIgQPHusJ2AOmB2HPjG3A[/IMG] I am using a one-sided approximation for a simple 2nd order upwind scheme wherein my velocity is positive at i=3 (I want to avoid a 1st order scheme for numerical diffusivity issues). Now, because of this anomaly, my code is predicting a negative concentration in spite of concentration at the boundary is 1 (u1) and all other points are zero (u2, u3 and so on) at the initial time. Please note, I have written a 3D geometric multigrid code but given the example of a 1D situation for easier explanation. Since in the first time I am encountering a negative u, the later times are therefore giving all wrong results. It would be really kind of any of the members to let me know is there any simpler scheme to get rid of this issue without sacrificing the 2nd-order accuracy. Thank you in advance. |
|
Tags |
boundary condition error, fdm, second-order upwind |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Third order MUSCL Scheme | 94bb494nd41f | FLUENT | 4 | January 25, 2024 12:23 |
Implementation of 2nd order upwind scheme | jaason | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 4 | February 6, 2015 17:40 |
grid independence and first order upwind scheme | yhy20081016 | Main CFD Forum | 4 | February 23, 2014 23:09 |
IS calc. with 2nd order discret. always necessary? | Azman | FLUENT | 2 | March 14, 2013 04:28 |
second order FD upwind scheme | Heinz Wilkening | Main CFD Forum | 2 | November 3, 1998 14:33 |