
[Sponsors] 
September 4, 2011, 16:43 
3rdorder upwind, flux formulation for limiter

#1 
New Member
K
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 8 

September 5, 2011, 09:57 

#2  
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
F=0.5[F+Fabs(F/u)(uu)] The left uL and right state uR can be defined as u=u0.25(r)[(1k)(uu)+(1+k)(uu)] u=u+0.25(r)[(1k)(uu)+(1+k)(uu)] 

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 KurganovTadamor 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:
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 CENTRALDIFFERENCE AND UPWIND SCHEMES" ftp://124.42.15.59/ck/201103/165/00...%20schemes.pdf Brain van Lee: "PROGRESS IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL 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 

September 6, 2011, 07:20 

#6  
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
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 NONMUSCL 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 nonphysical 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 twophase and threephase 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. “HighResolution ShockCapturing 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  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
2nd order upwind vs 2nd order upwind!!!  Far  Main CFD Forum  7  March 14, 2013 13:29 
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 
Changing LimitedLinear to blend with 2nd order upwind instead of 1st order upwind  stevenvanharen  OpenFOAM Programming & Development  0  April 11, 2011 05:54 
Aerospike flow 3rd order  dim_slo  FLUENT  1  April 5, 2011 22:25 