SIMPLEC Algorithm Application To Body-Fitted Meshes Introduction To Co-Located Schemes

Lecture 22:
SIMPLEC Algorithm
Application to Body-Fitted Meshes
Introduction to Co-Located Schemes
Last Time …
z Did example problems using SIMPLE

z Started looking at improvements to SIMPLE
» SIMPLER
This Time …
z Look at another variant of the SIMPLE family of

pressure-based schemes
» SIMPLEC algorithm
z Consider how to apply staggered mesh ideas to body-
fitted meshes
z Discuss difficulties in applying staggering ideas to
unstructured meshes
z Start looking at co-located schemes and how to avoid
checkerboarding
SIMPLEC Algorithm
z SIMPLE-Corrected (SIMPLEC) algorithm seeks to

mitigate the effects of dropping velocity neighbor
correction terms:
SIMPLEC Velocity Correction Equation
z SIMPLEC retains neighbor velocity correction terms,

but makes an approximation:
z Thus
Velocity Correction (Cont’d)
z Therefore, re-define d coefficients:
Need under-relaxation in
the momentum equation
to avoid division by zero
for Sp =0, steady flow
Discrete Pressure Correction Equation
aP p = ∑ anb p + b
'
P
'
nb
z Form of equation is
nb the same as for
SIMPLE
z b term is still the
amount by which the
starred velocities do
not satisfy continuity
z Only d coefficients
are different from
SIMPLE
SIMPLEC Algorithm
z The overall algorithm is identical to that for SIMPLE

z Only the d coefficients used to drive the p’ equation
are different.
z With SIMPLEC, because the ∑ a u '
nb nb nb and ∑ a v '
nb nb nb
are not dropped, there is no need to under-relax the p’

correction. Thus:
SIMPLEC Performance
z SIMPLEC is found to converge faster that SIMPLE

» Gains of 20-30% can be found for many problems
» Does not solve extra equations like SIMPLER
» Cost per iteration approximately the same as
SIMPLE
z However, like SIMPLE, the SIMPLEC algorithm will
also destroy a good velocity field unless there is also a
good pressure guess.
Curvilinear/Body-Fitted Meshes
z For the last few lectures, we were looking at path-to-

solution issues
z Let’s now go back to the issue of staggered storage
and see whether it can be applied to body-fitted
meshes
z What coordinate system to use ?
» Cartesian velocity components?
» Other?
z Let’s see what happens if we use Cartesian
components of velocity on a curvilinear mesh
Curvilinear Meshes (Cont’d)
Grid-Following
Velocity
One Cartesian
Component on
Face
Covariant Velocity System
z Look at curvilinear coordinate system

z Covariant velocity components are components in the
(ξ,η) directions
z Store velocity parallel to ξ direction on ξ=constant face
z Similarly for η
Contravariant Velocity System
z Contravariant velocity components are components

perpendicular (ξ,η) directions
Advantages
z Can use either co- or contravariant velocity

components in a staggered system
z Only one velocity component per face
z Non-overlapping staggered control volumes can be
defined just as for Cartesian meshes
z Can devise SIMPLE family algorithms for solution
z Widely used in the 80’s and 90’s.
Disadvantages
z Major disadvantage is complexity

z Because these velocity components are curvilinear,
recasting momentum equations into these
components generates complicated curvature terms
» Result of the fact that linear momentum is
conserved; hence Cartesian velocity momentum
equations can be written in conservation form
» Curvilinear velocity momentum equations always
have extra terms because “curvilinear” momentum
not conserved!
Disadvantages (Cont’d)
z Need Cartesian velocity gradients for turbulence

production terms, viscosity for complex rheologies,
etc.
» Difficult to cast these terms in curvilinear
coordinates
» Typically need to carry both curvilinear and
Cartesian components
» Find Cartesian components from curvilinear
components each iteration and then find production
terms etc.
Unstructured Meshes
z Generally difficult to apply staggering to unstructured

meshes
» Geometric complexity too great
z Many finite element methods and node-based finite
volume methods use unequal-order interpolation
» Some node-based finite volume methods store
pressure on a coarser mesh than velocity
» Some FEM use lower-order interpolation functions
for pressure compared to velocity (p linear; v
quadratic)
Unequal-Order CVFEM
z Baliga and Patankar (1983)
• One-fourth fewer
pressures than
velocities in 2D –
accuracy?
• How to chop up
tetrahedra in 3D?
Co-Located Storage
z Store (u,v,P,φ) at cell

centroid
z Same control volume
for all
z Also sometimes called
equal-order
interpolation or a non-
staggered formulation
Discrete Momentum Equation
z Let’s do this in 1D to avoid algebra; assume uniform

mesh
z Discrete momentum equation for velocity up:
We are writing an
equation for uP but
we need ue
Momentum Equation (Cont’d)
z Interpolating pressure linearly, we get:

Pressure Checker-Boarding
z Divide momentum equations by center coefficients:
z Here:
Pressure Checker-Boarding (Cont’d)
z Interpolating from momentum equations:
Any pressure field in which pW = pP and pWW = pP =

pEE is seen by these equations as a uniform field
Discrete Continuity Equation
z Discretizing continuity equation over control volume:
z Interpolate linearly:
z Obtain: Supports velocity

checkerboarding
Co-Located Formulation
z Idea is to write face velocities ue and uw in terms of

adjacent pressures rather than alternate pressures
z If we interpolated cell velocities to the face linearly, we
would get:
z Instead, we use
Co-Located Formulation (Cont’d)
z Velocity interpolation to the face:
z We are subtracting the ‘alternate’ pressure term and

adding in an ‘adjacent’ pressure term
Discussion
z Face velocities are designed to be driven by adjacent

pressure differences, not alternative ones
z Thus, these velocities are sensitive to checker-
boarding and will not allow a checker-boarded
pressure field
z The momentum equation still supports a checker-
boarded pressure field, but since the continuity
equation does not, the final solution is not checker-
boarded.
Discussion (Cont’d)
z Another way to think about this is to think of ue as a

sort of staggered velocity
z Instead of creating a staggered control volume and
associated geometry, uˆe , uˆw are interpolated from
cell values, and an ”adjacent” pressure term is added
on
z This type of interpolation is called “momentum
interpolation”; sometimes also called an “added-
dissipation” scheme
z Similar ideas used in the compressible flow literature
Closure
In this lecture, we
z Looked at improvements to the SIMPLE algorithm
» SIMPLEC
z Considered covariant/contravariant velocity forms for
use with staggered body-fitted meshes
» Too cumbersome
z Saw that there was no easy way to apply staggering to
unstructured meshes
z Started looking at co-located schemes

SIMPLEC Algorithm Application To Body-Fitted Meshes Introduction To Co-Located Schemes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIMPLEC Algorithm Application To Body-Fitted Meshes Introduction To Co-Located Schemes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIMPLEC Algorithm Application To Body-Fitted Meshes Introduction To Co-Located Schemes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 22:

z Did example problems using SIMPLE

z Look at another variant of the SIMPLE family of

z SIMPLE-Corrected (SIMPLEC) algorithm seeks to

z SIMPLEC retains neighbor velocity correction terms,

z Therefore, re-define d coefficients:

z The overall algorithm is identical to that for SIMPLE

are not dropped, there is no need to under-relax the p’

z SIMPLEC is found to converge faster that SIMPLE

z For the last few lectures, we were looking at path-to-

z Look at curvilinear coordinate system

z Contravariant velocity components are components

z Can use either co- or contravariant velocity

z Major disadvantage is complexity

z Need Cartesian velocity gradients for turbulence

z Generally difficult to apply staggering to unstructured

z Baliga and Patankar (1983)

z Store (u,v,P,φ) at cell

z Let’s do this in 1D to avoid algebra; assume uniform

z Interpolating pressure linearly, we get:

z Divide momentum equations by center coefficients:

z Interpolating from momentum equations:

Any pressure field in which pW = pP and pWW = pP =

z Discretizing continuity equation over control volume:

z Obtain: Supports velocity

z Idea is to write face velocities ue and uw in terms of

z Velocity interpolation to the face:

z We are subtracting the ‘alternate’ pressure term and

z Face velocities are designed to be driven by adjacent

z Another way to think about this is to think of ue as a

You might also like