Computational Fluid Dynamics

Lecture 8
Prof. Jiyuan Tu

Solution Errors--Causes

Solution error depends on:

Discretization error depends on:

Discretion error -- usually the dominant contribution

Equation solver error
Choice of computational domain
Implementation of boundary and initial conditions
Grid size (overall refinement)
Grid quality (aspect ratio, orthogonality)
Grid density (local refinement)
Discretisation formula (low/high order)

Equation solver is: (usually) a minor source of solution error

can be source of instability (or poor iterative convergence)

RMIT University

Sources of errors in CFD

Discretization error (DE)

Computer round-off error (ROE)
Errors due to physical modeling (EPM)
(Turbulence modeling)
Human errors inexperience
Wrong computational domain
Wrong Boundary Condition

Garbage in!

Bad numerical scheme

Garbage out!

Bad computational model

Mesh

RMIT University

Sources of errors in CFD

II

DE-Truncation error

x 2
i 1 i

x x o 2 x 2
i

First order

Truncation error

x 2T
in 1 in

o
2
t
t
i
2 x

Local error
Global error

Space The local and global discretization errors

Time

of finite difference method at the third

time step at a specified nodal point

RMIT University

Sources of errors in CFD

II
SP
7 digitsSingle precision :

ROEDigits

4444.6667

4444.666666

15 digitsDouble precision

A+C+B

4444.6666

A+C+B

Example
:
A simple arithmetic
operation performed
with a computer
in a single precision
using seven significant
digits
RMIT University

Sources of errors in CFD

III
As the mesh or time step size decreases,
the discretization error decreases !
but the round-off error increase!

No. of Computations

Accumulated ROE

EPMLaminar Flow
Turbulence Flow
Modeling
Major error
source in CFD
RMIT University
6

Solution Integrity
Why is predictive reliability important ?
Is the computer (human, hardware) infallible?
What should we expect:

solutions are accurate

& can be validated against reliable experiments

Testing Solution
Integrity

Set up physical experiment and measure key data

Compare with personal experience

We know what to expect (most of the time)

Compare with 'standard cases

Expensive, time-consuming

Equivalent to Validation

Rely on theoretical foundation

Equivalent to Verification

RMIT University

Verification & Validation (I)

(from Roache, 1999 Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering)

Verification: (theoretical framework)

The process of determining if a computational simulation

represents the conceptual world
Provides evidence that the model is solved right
Examples of Verification errors:

Insufficient spatial discretization (i.e. not enough grid

points)
Inaccurate discretization scheme
Insufficient temporal discretization (i.e. not small enough
timesteps)
RMIT University

Verification & Validation (II)

Validation:(compare with standard cases)

The process of determining if a computational simulation
represents the real world
Provides evidence that the right model is solved

Examples of Validation errors:

Inappropriate boundary conditions

Inaccurate turbulence model
Comparison with unreliable/ inaccurate experimental
dataad
RMIT University

10

Computational Solution

CFD is implemented by two-stage process:

Discretisation Conversion of the governing partial

differential equations into a system of algebraic equations

Equation Solver iterative solution of the algebraic

equations to provide the approximate solutions

Overview of the Computational Solution Process

RMIT University

11

(Grid) Convergence

CFD produces an approximate solution

solution error = exact solution -- approximate solution

(Grid) Convergence

expect solution error => 0, as x, t => 0

refine grid until the solution no longer changes

Consistency+Stability => (Grid) Convergence

Iterative
convergence

RMIT University

12

Comments -- Convergence

CONSISTENCY + STABILITY => CONVERGENCE

(Lax Equivalence Theorem)

CFD solution obtained on a finite grid

No computer powerful enough to allow x, t => 0

Practical implication:seek grid-independent solution (grid

convergence)
i.e. refine the grid until solution no longer changes

use local refinement solution adaption

RMIT University

13

Consistency

Definition: As x, y, z, t ==> 0, the system of algebraic

equations should recover the governing partial differential
equation at each grid point

Comments: Test by expanding all nodal values of the

dependent variables about the control volume centre

Example: Mass conservation equation

RMIT University

14

Taylor Series Expansion about

point P

Eqn (1) ==>

Comments:

As x, y ==> 0 the original governing equation is

recovered
Scheme (1) is 0( x2, y2), i.e. halving the grid size,
reduces the truncation error by four
Expect solution error to reduce like truncation error
Counter--example: DuFort--Frankel
scheme
RMIT University

15

Finite Grid Solutions (1)

Comments:

Grid refinement may be restricted by memory size or CPU time

Obtain the most accurate solution with fixed NX, NY, NZ
Some grids can increase accuracy but increase the number of iterations to
convergence of the algebraic equation solution
Expect solution error to follow truncation error
Typical truncation error:

( x2/6)[ 3( u)/ x3] + ( y2/6)[ 3( v)/ y3]

Therefore refine grid where solution gradients large:

boundary layers, upwind stagnatn points, forward-facing corners

RMIT University

16

Finite Grid Solutions (2)

Is the grid fine enough?

refine grid until important parameter no longer variant

eg force against a wall

Parameter
Value

Number of elements
RMIT University

17

Equation Structure

Most industrial fluid flows involve significant motion

Momentum equations describe three major interactions

u k

t
x k
x k

x k

(1)

(convective) transport------------------ motion of fluid

diffusion--------------------- (turbulent) eddy diffusivity
source terms--------production of turbulent kinetic energy
Is solution accuracy sensitive to discretisation of specific
terms ? (YES)

RMIT University

18

Higher Order Interpolation(I)

Comments:
So far have interpolated e f p ,E i.e. depends on local values
Now interpolate
assuming u is positive

e f W , p ,E and
RMIT University

W f WW , W ,E
19

Higher Order Interpolation(II)

General three point interpolation:

e p xE E x p / x p x E

(1 ) p xW 2p W x p / xW x p

W
and equivalent formula for

Discretisation Scheme

1
0
3/4
2/3

Centered difference
3-pt upwind
QUICK (4 pt)
4-pt upwind

RMIT University

(14)

/x (e W )//
and
Order (T.E.)
2
2
2
3
20

Bounded Higher Order

Scheme
Numerical dispersion may appear as wiggles
Bounded second order scheme:

In (14) evaluate

~ ,1
max 0, min
p

~ ( )/( )
where
p
p
W
E
W

(15)

Bounded QUICK scheme:

choose (2 3~p )/(1 2~p )
3~ /(1 2~ )
p

0.75

for 5/6 ~p 1.0

for 0.5 ~ 0
p

(16)

otherwise
RMIT University

21

Comments

Above bounded schemes available in FLUENT

Bounded schemes more accurate but less robust than power
law scheme
For fast iterative convergence with higher accuracy, start from
converged power law solution
Bounding is effectively introducing very localised numerical
dissipation
Very large literature on bounded schemes (particularly if shock
waves expected)
Flux corrected transport
Total variation diminishing (TVD) schemes
Reference: CAJ Fletcher, Computational Techniques for
Fluid Dynamics, Vol. II, pp 165-171
RMIT University

22

Unstructured Grid
Discretization

Power-law (segregated eqns. only)

Face value obtained from solution to1D Conv-Diff equation

Second-order upwind (SOU)
Face values obtained through multi-dimensional reconstruction

QUICK scheme
(for quad./hex. cells and seg~ated eqns.)
Higher-order construction of face values from SOU and
interpolation in mesh direction
More accurate for structured meshes that are mainly
flow aligned

n
c0

RMIT University

c1

cf

23

Second Order Upwind (SOU)

Linear reconstruction

provides 2nd order accuracy on unstructured grids

upwind values obtained from linear, piecewise discontinuous
shape functions
limiting is used to suppress wiggles

RMIT University

24

Linear Reconstruction

Linear reconstruction provides:

better accuracy than stencil-based schemes

compatibility with arbitrary cell shapes (tetrahedrals,
triangles)
improved accuracy on skewed grids

Comments:

uses more
information than
stencil-based
scheme
example:
diffusion terms

RMIT University

25

Structured vs Unstructured

Accuracy:

Economy:

both can achieve 2nd 0rder accuracy for the convective terms
structured grids rely on truncation error reduction
unstructured grids rely on linear reconstruction
structured grids lead to fewer operations in the discretised equations
unstructured grids can cover a domain with fewer cells

Robustness:

reliable algorithms available for both types

solution adaption on unstructured grids is less likely to affect
robustness
limiters can be introduced for both to avoid wiggles
RMIT University

26

Systematic Procedure for

Solution Integrity -- Overview

Problem definition
turbulent or laminar flow; steady or transient ?
is the physical model, eg granular multiphase, inaccurate ?

Geometry and grid

is the imported CAD file correct ?

Boundary Conditions
is the upstream boundary too close to the body ?

Solution method
is a higher-order scheme required ?

RMIT University

27

Guidelines Problem
Definition
Define clearly what the problem is
What do you want to find out?
What are the important parameters you need to input?
What will be the defining characteristics of the flow
(eg turbulent heat transfer ?)

Look for computational efficiencies

Can you make any simplifications?

How much of the real domain do you need to model?
Can you run any simple cases first to test your model?
RMIT University

28

Guidelines Geometry

Any possibility of import? ACIS / IGES

Any simplifications?

Symmetry?
Periodic Boundaries?

Use top down approach to geometry creation

Consider dividing the domain up into smaller sections for
more control over the grid
Make use of journal files !

Parametric modelling
Easy transport of geometry specification files

RMIT University

29

Grid Quality

Grid aspect ratio:

AR = y/x

Comments:

Need to choose y small if rapid

solution change in the y direction
If AR < 0.2 or AR > 5,

Grid distortion:
Comments:

Orthogonality ( = 90 deg) desirable

Choose grid so that 45 deg < < 135 deg

Grid distortion causes

possible reduction in accuracy

maybe poor iterative convergence (or divergence)

loss of accuracy
reduced rate of iterative convergence

Area variation: over the computational domain causes reduced

rate of iterative convergence
RMIT University

30

Sudden Changes in Grid Size

Comments:
Could occur at block boundaries in multiblock procedure
Could occur at duct inlet to a plenum chamber

Example: Mass conservation equation

Comments:

T.E. contains diffusion terms (2nd derivs)--destabilising when r x > 1

Make sure grid changes slowly and smoothly
Discretisation of 2nd derivatives requires very smooth grid changes

RMIT University

31

Guidelines Boundary
Conditions
Does your selection of boundary conditions match the real
world conditions ?

Is it possible to limit the domain size by specifying the

boundary condition in more detail ?

eg k, epsilon change rapidly just downstream

of inlet value specification

eg reduce upstream pipe length, if specify inlet profile

Use the patch command to fill areas after initialization.

This is particularly useful for free surface problems.

Are the boundaries in the correct locations?

eg are far-field boundaries far enough away?
RMIT University

32

GuidelinesSolution Convergence

If the residuals are diverging:

Display the contours after initialization. Are the initial conditions

correct?
Check the models. Maybe start as laminar and switch to turbulent
later in the solution, for example.

If the residuals initially reduce & then are oscillatory:

If flow is assumed steady, rerun as a transient problem

Could a different type of boundary condition be more stable? (i.e.
outflow instead of pressure boundary?)
Check for which equation residual is largest

RMIT University

33

Guidelines Solution Accuracy

Higher order differencing schemes are required for

accuracy

Is the problem well-posed ?

Run the solution first with default schemes, then switch to higher
order once converged
Do the boundary conditions suit the problem ?
Incorrect specification of nearby boundary conditions

Adequate grid resolution ?

Distorted volumes solution adaption or revise the grid

High gradients & coarse grid solution adaption

RMIT University

34

Conclusions

Assess CFD solution integrity

physical experiments
personal experience
theoretical foundation

Expect computational solution to converge to the exact

solution as x, y, z, t ==> 0
(seek 'grid - independent' solution)

Finite grid solutions

Avoid --- sudden changes in grid size

--- large c.v. aspect ratios
--- grid distortion
--- large c.v. area variation over domain

RMIT University

35