|
[Sponsors] |
April 1, 2005, 22:25 |
1st order vs 2nd order
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi I'm simulating flow throught 2 parallel plates with inclined inlet and outlets. I tried the second order upwind momentum discretization (and also QUICK) but it couldn't converge very well. For example the average velocity in a plane was fluctuaing at around 1% of its maximum value. But when I switched to the first order upwind, this fluctuation is reduced to 0.2%.
I know first order can converge more easily and 2nd order is more accurate. But will a 2nd order solution that is partially converged be more accurate than a 1st order one? Are there any ways to help the 2nd order solution converge? I have reduced the momemtum under relaxation to 0.3 but to no avail. I was wonder if I should make some changes to the multigrid entries. Any suggestions? |
|
April 2, 2005, 15:54 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Try to increase the pressure under-relaxation factor to 0.6 or so.
Also consider a grid refinement. Regards, ap |
|
April 3, 2005, 16:46 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Unfortunately that didn't work. In fact the integral of the pressure in the system is also fluctuating and can't converge.
|
|
April 4, 2005, 04:51 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Check your grid elements. If they are high skewed that could be the possible reason. Luca
|
|
April 4, 2005, 21:55 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Some of the elements are indeed skewed but I can't do much about it because of the geometry of the domain. Can I work around this by using skewness correction in SIMPLEC or PISO? If so, what is a common value to try?
|
|
April 4, 2005, 22:34 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Just found of that PISO dosen't work. I tried it with and without skewness correctiona and used the QUICK scheme with it.
|
|
April 5, 2005, 04:04 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
You should try to correct your grid...I had your same problem and when I remeshed the problem was solved. Luca
|
|
April 6, 2005, 02:23 |
Re: 1st order vs 2nd order
|
#8 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I remeshed taking care in reducing the number of skewed elements. It dosen't seem to work. As before, the residuals can't get below 1e-3 when I used 2nd order upwind. Pressure is also fluctuating.
|
|
March 14, 2013, 04:43 |
Van leer second order and AUSM+
|
#9 |
New Member
kian
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 13 |
Hi, I've got a fortran code for solving 2D compressible flow over an airfoil with the method of first order van leer flux vector splitting . I have to change it to second order van leer flux vector splitting method . Can you please help me on how to do it? It's also possible for me to solve this project with the method of AUSM+ . Are you familiar with this method? can you help me with it please?
Thanks a lot in advance |
|
|
|
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 |
Order of accuracy: 1st or 2nd order? | fisch | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | July 6, 2011 05:37 |
Changing LimitedLinear to blend with 2nd order upwind instead of 1st order upwind | stevenvanharen | OpenFOAM Programming & Development | 0 | April 11, 2011 06:54 |
Multicomponent fluid | Andrea | CFX | 2 | October 11, 2004 06:12 |
1st order temporal & 2nd order spatial | Prateep Chatterjee | FLUENT | 0 | January 19, 2003 01:31 |