Lecture 5: A First Look at the Diffusion

Equation (cont’d)
 Last Time…

We looked at the 2D diffusion equation on Cartesian

structured meshes. We
z Integrated diffusion equation on CV
z Applied divergence theorem to obtain flux balance
z Made linear profile assumption
z Derived discrete algebraic equation
z Discussed properties of discrete equation set including
» Boundedness
» Scarborough criterion
z Looked at Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions
 This Time…

z Complete discretization of boundary conditions

» Mixed (Robbins)
z Look at conjugate heat transfer
» Spatially variable Γ, particularly when there are
material discontinuities
z Source linearization
z Under-relaxation
 Boundary Conditions

Flux Balance

Different boundary conditions

require different representations
of Jb
 Mixed or Robbins BC
z Mixed boundary condition:

z The flux out of the domain is:

J b ⋅ A b = h (φb − φ∞ ) ∆y
φb is not
z Making linear profile assumption: known
 Mixed BC (cont’d)

z Idea: Find φb from:

z Write J in terms of φP and φ∞

J b ⋅ A b = h (φb − φ∞ ) ∆y Eliminate φb
 Mixed BC (cont’d)

z Substitute for boundary flux term in near-boundary flux

balance:
Final Discrete Equation

For near-boundary
cells:
aP > ∑ anb
nb

Satisfies Scarborough
Criterion !

Also, φP bounded by
interior neighbors and φ∞
in the absence of source
terms
 Recovering Boundary Values and Fluxes

z For mixed bc, first find boundary value:

z Then find boundary flux

J b ⋅ A b = h (φb − φ∞ ) ∆y
 Discussion
z With either Dirichlet boundary conditions or with mixed
boundary conditions, φ is bounded by boundary values
and φ∞ in the absence of source terms
z No guarantee of boundedness with Neumann
Boundary conditions, but this is as expected
z Scarborough criterion satisfied (in the absence of
source terms) for Dirichlet and mixed boundary
conditions
z With all-Neumann boundary conditions, Scarborough
conditions are not satisfied in the absence of source
terms
 Discussion (cont’d)

z Under what boundary conditions does our diffusion

equation admit T and T+C as a solution?
z Is this borne out by our discrete equations?
 Interpolation of Γ
z Recall we need Γ at faces
z Stored at cell centroids
z Possible to interpolate linearly as:

z Instead we consider an alternative

treatment
 Harmonic Mean Interpolation

z Consider 1D conjugate heat transfer

z Two blocks E and P with different
thermal conductivities, say
z Heat transfer rate found by drawing
thermal circuit

P E

0.5∆xP 0.5∆xE
ΓP ΓE
 Harmonic Mean Interpolation (cont’d)

z Equivalently, define Γe

Γ e (φ E − φ P )
Je = −
δ xe
 Discussion

z We define Γe such that the 1D flux is correct

z This guarantees correct solution in 1D conjugate heat
transfer problems
z Consider uniform mesh. Then
z When ΓP>> ΓE , Γe = 2 ΓE
z Does this make sense? Why?
 Source Term Linearization

z Recall we had linearized the source term as:

z Is this always possible to do? If so, how would one go

about doing it?
z Consider truncated Taylor series:

z Starred value is current iterate

Source Term Linearization (cont’d)

Identify:
S

φ
φ*
 Source Linearization

z At convergence, φ =φ*, so S=S* recovered

z Thus linearization does not change the value of the
source term
z Only changes path to solution
z Procedure:
» Guess φ*
» Find Sc and SP
» Solve discrete equations
» Update Sc and SP …
 Example

z In participating radiation problems, we frequently encounter

radiative source terms in the energy equation of the form:
κ
σ (T∞4 − T 4 )
π
z Here κ is the absorption coefficient (1/m)
z Source term in control volume is:

S ∆V ( SC + S PTP ) ∆V

z How would you linearize this source term ? Are there

alternatives? What are the consequences of different choices?
 Example (cont’d)
Can make several (arbitrary) choices to linearize.
κσ *4
Approach 1: SC =
π
( T∞ − TP*4 ) SP = 0

Approach 2: Linearize about current iterate TP*

*
⎛ dS ⎞
S=S + ⎜ ⎟ P P)
( −
* *
T T
⎝ dTP ⎠
κσ *4 4κσ *3
=
π
(∞
T − T *4
) −
π
TP (TP − TP* )

κσ *4 4κσ *4 4κσ
SC =
π
( T∞ − T P )
*4
+
π
TP SP = −
π
TP*3

κσ *4 2κσ 2κσ
Aproach 3: SC =
π
( T∞ − TP*4 ) +
π
TP*4 SP = −
π
TP*3

κσ *4 10κσ *4 10κσ
Aproach 4: SC =
π
( T∞ − TP*4 ) +
π
TP SP = −
π
TP*3
 Example (cont’d)

z Approach 1 may not converge

z Approach 2 is ideal
z Approach 3 is also may not converge because it is not
“implicit enough” – i.e. it does not correctly anticipate
the change of source with temperature
z Approach 4 is conservative – by saying that the source
depends on temperature in a stronger fashion than it
actually does, we slow the rate of change of
temperature with iteration
 Under-Relaxation

z For non-linear problems, a common solution

procedure is Picard Iteration:
» Guess φ
» Find coefficients aP, anb, b
» Use Gauss-Seidel or other iterative solver to find φ
» Value is only provisional since coefficients are
provisional
» Repeat until convergence
z Not guaranteed to converge for strong non-linearities
z Control the amount φ from iteration to iteration using
under-relaxation
 Under-Relaxation (cont’d)

z Consider discrete equation at point P

z At any given iteration, the computed value at point P

would be

z The change with respect to the current iterate would

be:
 Under-Relaxation (cont’d)

z We want to control the change in φ during the iteration:

z Here α is the under-relaxation factor, 0<α <1.0

z Re-arranging:
 Discussion

z At convergence, φ =φ*
z Thus original discrete equation is recovered. Final
solution is independent of under-relaxation factor

z What is the behavior of this equation for α→0 and

α→1?
z Note how under-relaxation improves diagonal
dominance
 Closure

In this lecture, we
z Completed our discussion of boundary conditions
z Considered how to discretize conjugate heat transfer problems
and learned that harmonic mean interpolation of Γ preserves the
correct limits for cases when there are large difference in Γ
z Linearized the source term and saw how different choices affect
convergence
z Examined under-relaxation as a tool to control convergence