|
[Sponsors] |
July 28, 2003, 05:01 |
Challenge of differencing scheme choice
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Calculation with UD differencing scheme yields results that are closer to the experimentally measured velocity profile. However, with MARS scheme the curve behavior is very similar to the one of experimental data. Which scheme would you choose?
|
|
July 28, 2003, 08:38 |
Re: Challenge of differencing scheme choice
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Basically, one should not use UD for computations. However, sometimes it is the only choice due to bad convergence. But generally speaking, stick to MARS or other second order scheme !
|
|
July 30, 2003, 11:12 |
Re: Challenge of differencing scheme choice
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
If your flow doesn't have sharp gradients or the only mesh you can afford is a coarse one, then it's UD. If you wish to dampen out oscillating effects (ie. simulate a transient phenomena as steady state to just get 'bulk' values -with 2nd orders will not converge), then that's another reason to use UD. But don't expect anything other than 'in-the-ballpark' figures for your results.
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Differencing Scheme MARS | michael | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 1 | August 10, 2006 10:51 |
differencing scheme....help | P.kalyanakumar | Siemens | 1 | July 27, 2005 22:54 |
MARS differencing scheme | Bart | Siemens | 4 | January 27, 2005 09:43 |
Central differencing scheme | alice | FLUENT | 1 | March 11, 2004 19:07 |
Differencing scheme for k-eps model | Ron Barer | Main CFD Forum | 14 | November 2, 2000 00:02 |