[liuhuafei]

Maybe the MUSCL scheme is same as the MC scheme? Please check them
in the MUSCL.H and MC.H

MUSCL.H

75 scalar r = LimiterFunc::r
76 (
77 faceFlux, phiP, phiN, gradcP, gradcN, d
78 );
79
80 return max(min(min(2*r, 0.5*r + 0.5), 2), 0);

MC.H
76 scalar r = LimiterFunc::r
77 (
78 faceFlux, phiP, phiN, gradcP, gradcN, d
79 );
80
81 return max(min(min(2*r, 0.5*(1 + r)), 2), 0);

Another question:
Now most of the openFOAM's high resolution schemes are based on TVD.
Many famous NVD schemes such as SMART are not implemented in the openFOAM. What is the reason? Is the implementation of NVD schemes is more difficult than that of TVD schemes?

[henry]

Thanks for pointing out the equivalence of the MUCSL and MC schemes. I played with various formulations of the MC scheme a few years ago but was not really satisfied with it and in the end it seems it morphed into the MUCSL within the TVD framework we use. I will delete the MC scheme.

NVD and TVD schemes are equivalently easy to implement in OpenFOAM as you will see from the code for the schemes we currently offer. If you would like to use a scheme not currently implemented please feel free to implement it yourself. If it performs better than the schemes we currently offer we would be happy to include it in the next release.

H

[lucky1729]

Hello Dr. Weller,
I have been trying to find the source of LimiterFunc class that is used in each of the surfaceInterpolationSchemes but have not found it yet. Can you (or anybody interested) suggest what I should look at for the definition of this class?

Thanks,
Lakshman

[alberto]

Are you looking for this (OF 1.6.x)?

/home/.../OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.6.x/src/finiteVolume/interpolation/surfaceInterpolation/limitedSchemes/LimitedScheme

P.S. This forum is only for bug reports. Questions on the code that are not bug should be in other forums :-)

Best,