|
[Sponsors] |
May 13, 2001, 20:16 |
upwind v.s. chequerboard
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi! eveybody
Does anyone know how the upwind schemes eliminate the chequerboard oscillation on pressure and velocity field? Does it mean that use upwind scheme to determine the velocity on contral volume surface? Best regard Darcy |
|
May 14, 2001, 05:41 |
Re: upwind v.s. chequerboard
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
An upwind discretization of the advection term as nothing to do with the elimination of checkerboard board pressure solutions.
1) An upwind discretization of the advection term stabilized the solution for advection driven transport of a scalar quantity. 2). The checkerboard type solution for pressure as to do with incorrect space functions for velocity and pressure. |
|
May 14, 2001, 11:10 |
Re: upwind v.s. chequerboard
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi,
Sebastien is definitively true!! To avoid checkerboard pressure solutions, the easiest way is to use staggered grid (see Patankar) for pressure and velocity, which is equivalent to use Raviart-Thomas element for velocity and Q0 element for pressure. Bye |
|
May 16, 2001, 07:15 |
Re: upwind v.s. chequerboard
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Or of course if you opt for the "better" more suitable Co-located grid, you may use the so called "Rhie and Chow" interpolation. Co located grids is the obvious choice as unstructured grids may be handled without too much complications.
|
|
May 19, 2001, 03:05 |
Re: upwind v.s. chequerboard
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hi,dear Sebastien,
I have a problem about the upwind or hybrid scheme,I want to extend my code(central difference for all space derivatives) to fluid field including separation,now,I use Adams-bashforth for the convective terms[i.e.,du/dx(t+1)=3/2(du/dx(t))-1/2(du/dx(t-1))],I wonder,if I can use upwind or hybrid scheme for du/dx(t) and du/dx(t-1) to evaluate du/dx(t+1)?here,t is the time step. thanks |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2nd order upwind vs 2nd order upwind!!! | Far | Main CFD Forum | 7 | March 14, 2013 12:29 |
Why results differs between upwind and vanLeerV | kjetil | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | November 10, 2012 04:55 |
Second order upwind is not UPwind!!! | Far | CFX | 9 | May 31, 2011 08:21 |
2nd order upwind scheme (Fluent and CFX) | Far | FLUENT | 0 | May 22, 2011 01:50 |
Wrong fvm::div assembling | santiagomarquezd | OpenFOAM Bugs | 90 | December 27, 2010 12:54 |