
[Sponsors] 
April 30, 2010, 14:47 
Conservative versus Nonconservative forms

#1 
New Member
Miguel Caro
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 15 
Hi,
i readed in the Leveque's book and the Toro's book about the difference between the conervative and non conservative formulation. But it is not clear how they explained the difference between these two forms. Does anybody has a clear explanation of this? Thanks. 

April 30, 2010, 17:13 

#2 
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 148
Rep Power: 17 
I have been trying to understand this myself.
Both forms are conservation laws but the basic idea is that the mathematical character of the equation may be suited better towards different physics or have other advantages/disadvantages. My comments won't be too helpful but here's some random information that I've gathered. See discussion at http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/main/10994conservativenonconservativeform.html There may also be information at http://books.google.com/books?id=J5y...page&q&f=false http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Eart...A870/0/ch1.pdf For energy conservation, it is better to solve the Total Energy Equation than the Thermal Energy Equation if there are shocks. A seemingly common misconception is that only one of these forms of the equations includes friction. Both are fundamental conservation laws which are related to each other and which include friction. The thermal energy equation, for example, is the total energy equation minus the dot product of the velocity vector and conservation of momentum. I was also told by an ANSYS engineer that  Method is inherently conservative  Guarantees conservation of fluxes through the control volume  Overall solution will be conservative in nature but may not be the actual solution  Formulation sensitive to distorted elements which can prevent convergence if such elements are in critical flow regions Unfortunately, I do not know which form of the equation to which these apply. Maybe this will give a starting point for issues to look out for. I'm sorry that I do not have any clear information. Good luck. 

April 30, 2010, 20:51 

#3 
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 349
Rep Power: 18 
The conservative form derives from expressing the conservation equations in a divergence form, i.e. the equations have the form of local time rate of change + divergence of flux = source terms. The nonconservative form is a form of the equations that is not expressible in this form. One of the principle advantages to the the conservative form is that once the equations are discretized, the flux terms "telescope", that is if you sum the fluxes into and out of a row of cells, the intercell fluxes cancel and the net flux is just the flux out of one end of the row  flux in the other end.


May 1, 2010, 09:32 

#4 
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 16 
Conservative form has an advantage: its integral form allows discontinuous solutions (leading to RankineHugoniot relation and correct shock speed). Nonconservative form does not have such a character (it allows only smooth differentiable solutions).
Discrete conservation is important in computing shocks. If conservation is violated, a shock may travel at a wrong speed. Successful nonconservative schemes may turn out to satisfy some form of discrete conservation. Rather than conservation itself, it is more important to use a right conservation form (need to pick right quantities that should be conserved) since a wrong conservation form can lead to a wrong shock speed. 

May 1, 2010, 18:32 
Thank you all, it is now a little more clear

#5  
New Member
Miguel Caro
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 15 
Quote:


May 3, 2010, 10:10 

#6 
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 148
Rep Power: 17 
Does CFX allow you to choose which form of the equations are solved?
I see that CFXPre allows one to choose "Thermal Energy" or "Total Energy." Which one is the conservative form? I do not see where there is a choice for the momentum equations. Thanks so much for any information! 

May 5, 2010, 10:12 

#7 
New Member
Nicholas F Camus
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, England.
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 16 
Jade the manual explains the difference between the "Thermal Energy" or "Total Energy" options. If I remember correctly the Total Energy option is just applied as a power [kg m^2 s^3] to be applied to a domain, subdomain or boundary  the solver then calculates the heat flux accross each cell according to volume/surface ratios of the cells to the domain selected. Using the Thermal Energy option, you are required to supply the power per unit volume.
Both of these options supply the solver with an enery source term (a addtional term in the energy equation), thus the solver is working with the conservative variables. The CFX solver always works with conservatives, although transformations to primatives are bound to occur during the soultion process in order to calculate various quantities such as fluxes etc. There is options to apply momentum source terms; again this is clearly described in the manuals. All the best. 

May 5, 2010, 10:34 

#8 
New Member
Nicholas F Camus
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, England.
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 16 
I have also just read your confused posts on variable conservation. OK.
The books by R. LeVeque and F. Toro are primaraly (almost completely) concerned with hyperbolic systems. These are systems which can be cast into purely conservative form (i.e. in the form of a system of conservation laws (mass, momentum and energy)). There are man many system that can be written in this form: ideal gas dynamics, relativistic hydrodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and relativistic hydrodynamics (including multifluid systems) to name the major ones. The physics of such hyperbolic systems is different to those parabolic systems of viscous unsteady flow that codes such as CFX are designed to deal with. The wave structure of the hyperbolic flows is crucial, as shock formation, and strong rarefraction wave can seriously effect flow dynamics (typically only very fast flows). CFX and the like are not concerned with such wave probagation as at slow speed the wave strengths are very weak indeed  hence their used of a very feable (but robust) upwind scheme. Where the variable conversion comes into such hyperbolic code is in the calculation of the intercell fluxes, the calculation of which often needs sound speed and primative variables  density, pressure ect. The solution for these intercell fluxes for the hyperbolic systems is not streight forward, and it is not possible to use the physical fluxes F = Variable*velocity. This is what the Riemann problem is based around, and this is well documented in the above books. The type of variable used has no bairing on the shock capturing ability of the scheme in question. The ability to resolve strong shocks in such system is wholly dependent on the Riemann solver used. For Riemann solvers there are two main types Exact solutions (only for hydrodynamics and relativistic HD), and approxiamte solutions (the cleaver stuff). The second of these can be split into linear (Roetype (not quite right)) Riemann solvers using eigenvalue formulations, which can use primative varibles as well as conservatives, and basic approxiamte solvers which use conservatives and are based around conservative formulations (see HLL Riemann solver for a popular example). Please feel free to ask any more questions. I think this should be enough for you to read up on for now! All the best, and good luck. 

May 6, 2010, 09:36 

#9 
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 148
Rep Power: 17 
Thanks Killercam. Actually, I am simply asking which equations, "Thermal Energy" or "Total Energy" is considered the conservative form. DO you know?
Also I do not see where there is a choice for the momentum equations in the software. Thanks for any information. 

May 6, 2010, 10:01 

#10 
New Member
Nicholas F Camus
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, England.
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 16 
In CFX these are just terms used for specifing energy sources. If you are asking about equations concerned with purely thermal energy, and total energy...
They are both energy equations and energy is a conservative quantity. As for their form, both when dervived correctly should be fully conservative, for any finite volume method. In CFX  if I can remember, here goes. For any boundary (Inlet, outlet etc.) you can specify boundary source terms for continuity, energy and turbulence. You can also specify momentum sources by introducing a subdomain into you fluid domain. Sources  Boundary Source  Sources  and I think then use sources for continuity. Good luck. 

May 6, 2010, 10:33 

#11 
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 148
Rep Power: 17 
In that case, all the conservation equations are conservative? What is meant by the conservative and nonconservative forms then?


July 20, 2010, 12:13 

#12 
New Member
aNaN
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 
hey anyone please explain about the non conservative form also ..


April 21, 2022, 07:36 

#13 
Member
Hosein
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 93
Rep Power: 14 
Since the answers are vague I just wanted to add a short read for the original question : computational methods for fluid dynamics, Ferziger & Peric, page 79 shortly explains the story behind conservative and nonconservative forms... hope it helps


April 21, 2022, 09:58 

#14 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,635
Rep Power: 65 
There's a wikipedia article that explains the difference between the Conservative form and nonconservative form. It's not that complicated and you can tell right away just be looking at it.


Tags 
conservative form 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
conservative, non conservative form????  vijesh joshi  Main CFD Forum  5  April 21, 2022 07:37 
Wind turbine simulation  Saturn  CFX  58  July 3, 2020 02:13 
RPM in Wind Turbine  Pankaj  CFX  9  November 23, 2009 05:05 
variable versus time  Cesare  CFX  1  September 27, 2004 12:00 
Replace periodic by inletoutlet pair  lego  CFX  3  November 5, 2002 21:09 