|
[Sponsors] |
November 18, 2001, 22:21 |
essence of upwinding
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I EVER believed that upwinding is an effective means to introduce numerical dissipation into the scheme. It is also this numerical dissipation that makes upwinding diserable in shock capturing.
-Are these claims correct? However, as we known, Lax-Friedrichs is a contral method, and it is more dissipative than the first-order upwind scheme. How to justify the effect of upwinding of a numerical scheme? For dissipation or for the correct influence domain? |
|
November 18, 2001, 22:29 |
Re: essence of upwinding
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Both claims are correct!
In my opinion, dissipation and influence domain go hand in hand (please read my post below yours, which tries to explain inviscid drag). |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
when and where the upwinding method should be used | seema | Siemens | 1 | August 27, 2006 12:24 |
upwinding in the convective term | Steve Moore | FLUENT | 0 | September 12, 2005 01:31 |
Upwinding for FE | Olshanski | Main CFD Forum | 0 | October 2, 2000 12:45 |
Upwinding 2-D fluid flow | shahriar afkhami | Main CFD Forum | 3 | September 19, 2000 20:34 |
upwinding of "curl"-type convection | Maxim Olshanskii | Main CFD Forum | 4 | October 24, 1998 04:57 |