# 3rd-order upwind, flux formulation for limiter

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 September 4, 2011, 16:43 3rd-order upwind, flux formulation for limiter #1 New Member   K Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 8 Sponsored Links How do I reformulate formula for 3rd order upwind (This one: , lets consider positive velocity ) In flux form I want to implement flux limiter: where i get following low fluxes as for the 1st order upwind what should be ? or do i understand the whole idea wrong?
 Sponsored Links

September 5, 2011, 09:57
#2
New Member

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carambula How do I reformulate formula for 3rd order upwind (This one: , lets consider positive velocity ) In flux form I want to implement flux limiter: where i get following low fluxes as for the 1st order upwind what should be ? or do i understand the whole idea wrong?
You should differentiate the state variable (u) from the flux variable (F). For an upwind MUSCL type, the flux limiter will act on the state variable, not on flux variable. The flux at a cell face i+1/2 can be calculated as

F=0.5[F+F-abs(F/u)(u-u)]

The left uL and right state uR can be defined as

u=u-0.25(r)[(1-k)(u-u)+(1+k)(u-u)]

u=u+0.25(r)[(1-k)(u-u)+(1+k)(u-u)]

 September 5, 2011, 17:58 #3 New Member   K Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 8 Thanks a lot for your explanation! Is that the same approach as Kurganov-Tadamor scheme from MUSCL's page in wikipedia? It is totally unclear for me how to calculate this () Probably because I don't clearly get what is F for me. As far as i understand for incompressible convection problem I have equation and equation, where . From that i derive (linearized) form of the convection operator (for 1st component) where is fixed. Now for MUSCL I should consider convection equation in the following form where Then ? Is that it?

September 6, 2011, 01:20
#4
New Member

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carambula Thanks a lot for your explanation! Is that the same approach as Kurganov-Tadamor scheme from MUSCL's page in wikipedia? It is totally unclear for me how to calculate this () Probably because I don't clearly get what is F for me. As far as i understand for incompressible convection problem I have equation and equation, where . From that i derive (linearized) form of the convection operator (for 1st component) where is fixed. Now for MUSCL I should consider convection equation in the following form where Then ? Is that it?
It is wrong! Remember that it is always a square matrix! You can learn how to derive this matrix by taking a look at some CFD books such as CFD Volume 1 (chapter 8, pp 317), CFD Volume 2 (chapter 11) by Hoffman and Chiang. You can download these books at

https://www.yousendit.com/download/M...WkJVVGxFQlE9PQ (Vol. 1)
https://www.yousendit.com/download/M...UnFRR2RFQlE9PQ (Vol. 2)

Also, for more information about Upwind schemes:

R. C. Swanson. and E. Turkel "ON CENTRAL-DIFFERENCE AND UPWIND SCHEMES"
ftp://124.42.15.59/ck/2011-03/165/00...%20schemes.pdf

Brain van Lee: "PROGRESS IN MULTI-DIMENSIONAL UPWIND DIFFERENCING"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1993001620.pdf

cheers!

Last edited by congtuha; September 6, 2011 at 03:50.

 September 6, 2011, 05:52 #5 New Member   K Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 8 Sorry, my bad, and . The same reasoning for H and G. Is that one is ok? As far as I understand from your first reply, I'd better to go with Kurganov-Tadamor rather then upwind scheme. Could you also recommend me which one is less diffusive: KT or TVD MacCormack? Thanks a lot for links!

September 6, 2011, 07:20
#6
New Member

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carambula Sorry, my bad, and . The same reasoning for H and G. Is that one is ok? As far as I understand from your first reply, I'd better to go with Kurganov-Tadamor rather then upwind scheme. Could you also recommend me which one is less diffusive: KT or TVD MacCormack? Thanks a lot for links!
As far as I knew, KT scheme can actually be classified as a modified upwind MUSCL type in which they use a scalar dissipation (the spectral radius of convective flux Jacobian matrix)

It is easy to construct your numerical solution with this scheme. However if you dealt with the boundary layer, the boundary layer seems too big. To improve the accuracy, you should use matrix dissipation

I have tested the upwind MUSCL type and upwind NON-MUSCL type (say TVD scheme - see the Reference below!) with various limiter functions for linear advection equations and inviscid Burgers’ equation. (If you are interested in these comparisons just past your email address here).
Limiter functions play the key role for upwind schemes. Be careful with the choice of limiter function! You might get non-physical results if you do not pick up the suitable limiter for your problem.
I also applied the upwind MUSCL type and upwind TVD to the solution of RANS for two-phase and three-phase mixture flows. The upwind TVD with limiter 9d (see ref.) gave the best accuracy and numerical stability.

I can only share some of my experience on the upwind scheme here. I hope it help for your choice.

Cheers!
Ref.
Yeeh et al. “High-Resolution Shock-Capturing Schemes for Inviscid and Viscous Hypersonic Flows”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1988013267.pdf

Last edited by congtuha; September 6, 2011 at 14:10.

 September 6, 2011, 15:41 #7 New Member   K Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 8 Yes, interested! Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help! кirill.terehоv@gмail.сом Last edited by carambula; September 9, 2011 at 18:07.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Far Main CFD Forum 7 March 14, 2013 13:29 Far CFX 9 May 31, 2011 08:21 Far FLUENT 0 May 22, 2011 01:50 stevenvanharen OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 April 11, 2011 05:54 dim_slo FLUENT 1 April 5, 2011 22:25

 Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top