Premium
Performance analysis of IDEAL algorithm for three‐dimensional incompressible fluid flow and heat transfer problems
Author(s) -
Sun DongLiang,
Qu ZhiGuo,
He YaLing,
Tao WenQuan
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in fluids
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.938
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1097-0363
pISSN - 0271-2091
DOI - 10.1002/fld.2004
Subject(s) - ideal (ethics) , mathematics , algorithm , convergence (economics) , compressibility , incompressible flow , rate of convergence , computation , flow (mathematics) , iterative method , mathematical optimization , relaxation (psychology) , computer science , geometry , mechanics , key (lock) , physics , philosophy , computer security , epistemology , economics , economic growth , psychology , social psychology
Recently, an efficient segregated algorithm for incompressible fluid flow and heat transfer problems, called inner doubly iterative efficient algorithm for linked equations (IDEAL), has been proposed by the present authors. In the algorithm there exist inner doubly iterative processes for pressure equation at each iteration level, which almost completely overcome two approximations in SIMPLE algorithm. Thus, the coupling between velocity and pressure is fully guaranteed, greatly enhancing the convergence rate and stability of solution process. However, validations have only been conducted for two‐dimensional cases. In the present paper the performance of the IDEAL algorithm for three‐dimensional incompressible fluid flow and heat transfer problems is analyzed and a systemic comparison is made between the algorithm and three other most widely used algorithms (SIMPLER, SIMPLEC and PISO). By the comparison of five application examples, it is found that the IDEAL algorithm is the most robust and the most efficient one among the four algorithms compared. For the five three‐dimensional cases studied, when each algorithm works at its own optimal under‐relaxation factor, the IDEAL algorithm can reduce the computation time by 12.9–52.7% over SIMPLER algorithm, by 45.3–73.4% over SIMPLEC algorithm and by 10.7–53.1% over PISO algorithm. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.