Abstract
Abstract The accuracy of six numerical approximations of the convection terms in the conservation equations is examined for a steady, recirculating flow. Quadratic upwind, central, nine-point, third-order, and power-law approximations are tested as alternatives to the widely used upwind I central hybrid method. Forced flow in a heated cavity is chosen as a reasonably severe test problem. An exact analytical solution is used to evaluate truncation errors and solution errors. Expressions for the leading truncated terms, including velocity derivatives, provide insight into why errors in the convection terms dominate errors in the diffusion terms for high grid Peclet numbers. If an average solution error of less than 10% is desired, higher order methods are clearly superior to the first-order upwind/hybrid method. One must have at least one finite domain within a wall gradient layer to reduce flux errors to 10% with the second-order central-difference method, whereas one must have at least two finite domains across the layer to achieve similar accuracy with the first-order hybrid method. Both quadratic upwind and central differencing are recommended for the numerical approximation of the convection terms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
