Comparison study of implicit gauss-seidel line iteration method for transonic flows

Yiqing Shen, Baoyuan Wang, GeCheng Zha

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper studies the sweep direction effect on the convergence rate and CPU time of the implicit unfactored Gauss-Seidel line relaxation (GSLR) method for compressible flows. The line Gauss-Seidel iteration is also compared with the LU-SGS (lower-upper symmetric Gauss-Seidel) method. A modified LU-SGS method, namely LU-GSLR, is studied. The LU-GSLR use the unfactored GSLR method with the simple matrix of the LU-SGS. The numerical experiments indicate that for the external flows, the line Gauss-Seidel relaxation methods with sweeping in all directions achieves the optimum convergence rate and CPU efficiency. For an inviscid transonic internal flow, the best convergence rate is obtained with sweeping in streamwise direction only. Within each time step, one sweep (a forward sweep plus a backward sweep) per time step is sufficient. For the three implicit methods, GSLR, LU-SGS, and LU-GSLR, the GSLR is the most efficient method when the Roe scheme is used. The LU-GSLR method is a feasible method and can achieve better efficiency than the LU-SGS for some cases.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCollection of Technical Papers - 18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
Pages1580-1593
Number of pages14
Volume2
StatePublished - Nov 7 2007
Event18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference - Miami, FL, United States
Duration: Jun 25 2007Jun 28 2007

Other

Other18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
CountryUnited States
CityMiami, FL
Period6/25/076/28/07

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering (miscellaneous)
  • Automotive Engineering

Cite this

Shen, Y., Wang, B., & Zha, G. (2007). Comparison study of implicit gauss-seidel line iteration method for transonic flows. In Collection of Technical Papers - 18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1580-1593)