Contents Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Introduction 1D Flows
The staggered grid 1st example : frictionless, incompressible flow through a duct of constant cross‐sectional area
The momentum equations Has a trivial solution Constant velocity
Shows How an initial guess with varying velocities along the length of the duct is updated to satisfy
The SIMPLE algorithm mass conservation using the pressure correction equation.
Assembly of a complete method 2nd example : frictionless, incompressible flow through a planar, converging nozzle
The SIMPLER algorithm With an assumption that the flow is unidirectional and all flow variables are uniformly distributed
throughout every cross‐section perpendicular to the flow direction
The SIMPLEC algorithm
We can develop a set of one‐dimensional governing equations for the problem.
The PISO algorithm Check computed solution against Bernoulli equation .
General comments on SIMPLE, SIMPLER, SIMPLEC and PISO
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1
Example 6.2
Summary
Example 6.1 Example 6.2
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1
Steady, 1D flow of a constant‐density fluid through a duct with constant cross‐sectional area
We use a staggered grid
o Scalar (main) nodes I = A, B, C and D evaluate p pressure
o Staggered (backward) nodes i = 1, 2, 3 and 4 evaluate u velocity
Starting point
Assume that we have used a guessed pressure field p* in the discretized momentum equation to
obtain a guessed velocity field u*.
Pressure correction equation only!
We demonstrate the guess‐and‐correct procedure that forms the basis of the SIMPLE
algorithm.
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1 Example 6.1
Eq. (6.32) is applied to generate pressure corrections p’ : Problem data
Density ρ = 1.0 kg/m3 is constant.
Duct area A is constant.
Wich in turn yield velocity correction u’ with Eq. (6.21) : d = 1.0 not realistic, just for practice . d in Eq. (6.59)
Boundary conditions : u1 = 10 m/s and pD = 0 Pa
Initial guessed velocity field: u2* = 8.0 m/s, u3* = 11.0 m/s and u4* = 7.0 m/s.
Eq. (6.59)
In this very straightforward problem with constant area and constant density,
it is easy to see that the velocity must be constant everywhere by continuity.
And hence the corrected velocity field u Eq. (6. 15) :
Hence, we will be able to compare our computed solution against the exact solution
u2 = u3 = u4 = 10 m/s.
Eq. (6.60)
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1 Example 6.1
Eq. (6.32)
Use the SIMPLE algorithm and these problem data to:
calculate pressure corrections p’ at nodes I = A, B, C and D
and obtain the corrected velocity field u at nodes i = 2, 3 and 4.
compare our computed solution against the exact solution u2 = u3 = u4 = 10 m/s.
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1 Example 6.1
Solution Solution
Eq. (6.32) + 1D
internal internal
node node
u2* = 8.0 m/s u3* = 11.0 m/s u2* = 8.0 m/s u3* = 11.0 m/s
u4* = 7.0 m/s u4* = 7.0 m/s
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1 Example 6.1
Solution Solution
Boundary For all cells,
node Boundary
Solve ~,~
node
u2* = 8.0 m/s u3* = 11.0 m/s u2* = 8.0 m/s u3* = 11.0 m/s
u4* = 7.0 m/s u4* = 7.0 m/s
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.1 Example 6.1
System pressure correction equation Discussion
Pressure correction equation only
In more general problem, the pressure and velocity fields are coupled.
So the pressure correction equation must be solved along with the discretized momentum
equations.
The value of d: assumed to be constant
– Normally, the value of d will vary from node to node
– Should be calculated using control volume face areas and central coefficient values from the discretized
Exact velocity field momentum equations.
in a single iteration! This process will be illustrated in the next example 6.2.
u2* = 8.0 m/s u3* = 11.0 m/s
u4* = 7.0 m/s
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2
Planar two‐dimensional nozzle
The flow is steady and frictionless and the density of the fluid is constant.
Backward‐staggered grid with five pressure nodes and four velocity nodes
The stagnation pressure is given at the inlet and the static pressure is specified at the exit.
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Using the SIMPLE algorithm write down the discretised momentum and pressure Problem data
correction equations and solve for the unknown pressures at nodes I = B, C and D and = 1.0 kg/m3
velocities at nodes i = 1, 2, 3 and 4. L = 2.00 m; Δx = L/4 = 2.00/4 = 0.5 m
Check whether the computed velocity field satisfies continuity and evaluate the error in Inlet area: AA=0.5 m2, outlet area: AE=0.1 m2
the computed pressure and velocity elds by comparing with the exact solutionPlanar – Area change is a linear function of distance from the nozzle inlet.
two‐dimensional nozzle Boundary conditions
The flow is steady and frictionless and the density of the fluid is constant. – Inlet p0 = 10 Pa
– Exit pE = 0 Pa
Backward‐staggered grid with five pressure nodes and four velocity nodes
Initial guess
The stagnation pressure is given at the inlet and the static pressure is specified at the exit. – m=1.0 kg/s
– Linear pressure variation
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Solution Solution
The governing equations for steady, one‐dimensional, incompressible, frictionless equations With UDS
through the planar nozzle
pw p e
Feue Fwuw
x
V ue u P and u w uW or ue u E and uw u P
max Fe ,0 u E min Fe ,0 u P max Fw ,0 uW min Fw ,0 u P
From NS equation max Fe ,0 u E max Fw ,0 uW min Fe ,0 min Fw ,0 u P
a E u E aW uW min Fe ,0 min Fw ,0 u P
Discretization of u‐momentum equation
a E u E aW uW a E aW Fe Fw u P S u
aE max Fe ,0
aE aW Fe Fw u p aE u E aW uW Su aW max Fw ,0
p w pe
Feue Fwuw V Upwind differencing scheme! a P a E aW Fe Fw
x
w e w e
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Solution Solution
For intermediate velocity For intermediate velocity
aE max Fe ,0
– For face velocities needed for F w and F e aW max Fw ,0
F uA a P a E aW Fe Fw a E max Fe ,0
aE 0
aW Fw
For initial step: initial guess aW max F w ,0
aP aE aW F e Fw
During iteration, the corrected velocity obtained after solving the pressure correction equation. a P a E aW Fe F w
– For source term,
w
Su p* pe* 1 Aw Ae p *A
P
2
Crude approximation?
Su
p*w pe*
1
V p*w p*e Aav p*w p*e Aw Ae The accuracy order is
x 2 no worse than the UDS
w e w e
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Solution Solution
Pressure correction vs. velocity correction Pressure correction vs. velocity correction
a u * a u * a u * p* A
P P E E W W P
a u' a u' a u'
P P E E W W p '
w
p ' e AP
a P u P a E u E aW uW p AP
a Pu 'P p ' w p 'e AP
aP uP u P* aE u E u E* aW uW uW* p p * AP
u 'P d p ' w p ' e
aP uP u P* aE u E u E* aW uW uW* p p *w p p * e AP
a u' a u' a u'
P P E E W W p '
w
p' e AP
w e w e
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Solution Solution
Continuity equation Pressure correction equation
d eA e d w Aw p P' de Ae p E' d w Aw pW' ue* Ae u w* Aw 0
ue ue* ue' ue* d e pP' p'E aP pP' aW pW' a E pE' b'
uw u u u d w p p
*
w
'
w
*
w '
W
'
P System pressure correction equation !
aW dw Aw
ue Ae u w Aw Ae ue* d e pP' p'E Aw uw* d w pW' p'P aE de Ae
deA e d w Aw p P' de Ae p E' d w Aw pW' ue* Ae u w* Aw0 b ' u w* Aw u e* Ae Fw* Fe*
Return to the momentum eq.
w e w e
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Numerical values
Momentum equation for intermediate velocity (node2) Momentum equation for intermediate velocity
F uA
aE max Fe ,0 0
aW max Fw ,0 Fw
a P a E aW Fe Fw
S u p* AP
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Numerical values
Momentum equation for intermediate velocity Momentum equation for intermediate velocity
pw
Feue Fwuw p e
V – Place the negative contribution to coefficient on the right hand side
x – Deferred correction approach
– Effective in stabilizing the iterative process if the initial velocity field is very poor.
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Numerical values
Momentum equation for intermediate velocity Momentum equation for intermediate velocity From the continuity
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Numerical values
Momentum equation for intermediate velocity Pressure correction equation
aP pP' aW pW' a E pE' b'
aW dw Aw
aE de Ae
b ' u w* Aw u e* Ae Fw* Fe*
System pressure correction equation !
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Mass conservation is satisfied! Numerical values Mass conservation is satisfied!
Pressure and velocity correction Momentum conservation? The computed velocity solution at the end of an iteration cycle Momentum conservation?
is not yet in balance with the computed pressure field
Momentum is not yet conserved.
– The entries in the discretized momentum equations were
Return to the momentum eq. Return to the momentum eq.
computed on the basis of an assumed initial velocity field.
– The velocity and the pressure were corrected.
– We need to perform iterations until both continuity and momentum equations are satisfied.
Under relaxation
– Necessary in the iteration process
1.68015 m/s 2.16020 m/s 3.02428 m/s 5.04047 m/s
2.22222 m/s 2.85714 m/s 4.00000 m/s 6.66666 m/s
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Example 6.2 Example 6.2
Numerical values Solution
Iterative convergence and residuals
Update the coefficient with new velocity and pressure
1.143596u1 1.830413?
Need to check!
With proper number of the computational grid,
Momentum residual
– The difference between the left and right hand sides of the discretized momentum equation at every
reasonable solution can be obtained.
velocity node.
<10‐5, accept the solution
Contents
Introduction
The staggered grid
The momentum equations
The SIMPLE algorithm
Assembly of a complete method
The SIMPLER algorithm
The SIMPLEC algorithm
The PISO algorithm
General comments on SIMPLE, SIMPLER, SIMPLEC and PISO
Worked examples of the SIMPLE algorithm
Summary
The SIMPLER algorithm The SIMPLER algorithm
SIMPLER (SIMPLE Revised) Continuity equation
Proposed by Patankar (1980)
Derive a discretized equation for pressure uAi1,J
uAi,J vAI , j1 vAI ,j 0
Instead of a pressure correction equation as in SIMPLE
Intermediate pressure field is obtained directly without the use of a correction.
Velocities are, however, still obtained through the velocity corrections.
Discretized momentum equation
Pseudo velocity
The SIMPLER algorithm The SIMPLER algorithm
SIMPLER vs. SIMPLE SIMPLER vs. SIMPLE
The SIMPLEC algorithm The PISO algorithm
SIMPLEC (SIMPLE Consistent) PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators)
Proposed by Van Doormal and Raithby (1984) Proposed by Issa (1986)
One predictor + two corrector steps
Predictor step
Same method as the SIMPLE
Corrector step 1
The first corrector step of SIMPLE is introduced to give a velocity field (u**, v**) which satisfies the
discretized continuity equation.
The resulting equations are the same as the velocity correction equations (6.21)–(6.22) of SIMPLE
but, since there is a further correction step in the PISO algorithm, we use a slightly different
notation
The PISO algorithm The PISO algorithm
PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators) PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators)
Corrector step 2 Corrector step 2
To enhance the SIMPLE procedure To enhance the SIMPLE procedure
=0
The PISO algorithm The PISO algorithm
PISO (Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operators)
Corrector step 2
Twice‐corrected pressure field is obtained from
The PISO algorithm The PISO algorithm
General Comments General Comments
SIMPLE SIMPLEC and PISO
Relatively straightforward and has been successfully implemented in numerous CFD have proved to be as efficient as SIMPLER in certain types of flows but it is not clear whether
procedures. it can be categorically stated that they are better than SIMPLER.
The other variations of SIMPLE can produce savings in computational effort due to improved Comparisons have shown that the performance of each algorithm depends on the flow
convergence. conditions, the degree of coupling between the momentum equation and scalar equations,
In SIMPLE, the pressure correction p′ is satisfactory for correcting velocities but not so good the amount of under‐relaxation used, and sometimes even on the details of the numerical
for correcting pressure. technique used for solving the algebraic equations.
SIMPLER A comprehensive comparison of PISO, SIMPLER and SIMPLEC methods for a variety of steady
flow problems by Jang et al.(1986) showed that, for problems in which momentum
Hence the improved procedure SIMPLER uses the pressure corrections to obtain velocity
equations are not coupled to a scalar variable, PISO showed robust convergence behavior
corrections only.
and required less computational effort than SIMPLER and SIMPLEC.
A separate, more effective, pressure equation is solved to yield the correct pressure field.
It was also observed that when the scalar variables were closely linked to velocities, PISO had
Since no terms are omitted to derive the discretized pressure equation in SIMPLER, the
no significant advantage over the other methods.
resulting pressure field corresponds to the velocity field.
Iterative methods using SIMPLER and SIMPLEC have robust convergence characteristics in
Therefore, in SIMPLER the application of the correct velocity field results in the correct
strongly coupled problems, and it could not be ascertained which of SIMPLER or SIMPLEC
pressure field, whereas it does not in SIMPLE.
was superior.
Consequently, the method is highly effective in calculating the pressure field correctly. This
has significant advantages when solving the momentum equations. Although the number of
calculations involved in SIMPLER is about 30% larger than that for SIMPLE, the fast
convergence rate reportedly reduces the computer time by 30–50% (Anderson et al., 1984).
