1

CFD Open Series

Revision 1.86.9

Essentials of CFD
Edited and Adapted by :
Ideen Sadrehaghighi, Ph.D.

Pressure
countours over
NACA 0012
wing section on
transonic flow

High Lifting
Surfaces

Aerodynamics

ANNAPOLIS, MD
 2

Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... 20

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 29
1.1 Fluid & Aerodynamic Flow Regions As Characterized By Mach Number.................................... 30
1.1.1 Subsonic Flow (M < 1 everywhere)................................................................................................. 31
1.1.2 Transonic Flow (Mixed Regions M < 1 & M > 1) ....................................................................... 31
1.1.3 Supersonic Flow (M > 1 Everywhere) ............................................................................................ 32
1.1.4 Hypersonic Flow (Very High Supersonic Speeds) ..................................................................... 33
1.2 Motivation .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
1.3 CFD Processes....................................................................................................................................................... 35
1.3.1 Partial Differential Equations (PDE) ............................................................................................... 35
1.3.2 Boundary Conditions............................................................................................................................. 35
1.3.3 Math Modeling and Simulation of Physical Processes............................................................. 36
1.3.4 Verification, Validation & Calibration............................................................................................. 36
1.4 History and Success Stories ............................................................................................................................ 37
1.5 Advantages of Using CFD ................................................................................................................................. 39
1.6 Vision for Further................................................................................................................................................ 39
1.7 CFD in Aerospace Industry.............................................................................................................................. 40
1.8 CFD vs. Wind Tunnel.......................................................................................................................................... 42

2 Linear PDE’s and Exact Solution of Some Model Equations ....................................... 44

2.1 Mathematical Character of Basic Equations ............................................................................................ 44
2.2 Behavior of the Different Classes of PDE ................................................................................................... 45
2.2.1 Hyperbolic Equations............................................................................................................................ 45
2.2.1.1 Steady Inviscid Supersonic Flow ................................................................................................ 45
2.2.1.2 Unsteady Inviscid Compressible Flow ..................................................................................... 46
2.2.2 Parabolic Equations ............................................................................................................................... 47
2.2.3 Elliptic Equations .................................................................................................................................... 47
2.2.4 Some Observation................................................................................................................................... 48
2.2.5 The 'Par-Elliptic' Problem ................................................................................................................... 48
2.3 Nonsingular Transformation.......................................................................................................................... 49
2.4 Exact (Closed Form) Solution to Linear Model Equations ................................................................. 49
2.4.1 Linear Wave Equation (1st Order).................................................................................................... 50
2.4.2 Inviscid Burgers Equation ................................................................................................................... 50
2.4.3 Diffusion (Heat) Equation ................................................................................................................... 51
2.4.4 Viscous Burgers Equation ................................................................................................................... 51
2.4.5 Tricomi Equation .................................................................................................................................... 51
2.4.6 2D Laplace Equation .............................................................................................................................. 51
2.4.6.1 Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 52
2.4.7 Poisson’s Equation ................................................................................................................................. 52
Viscous Burgers Equation ................................................................................................................... 52
2.4.8 The Advection-Diffusion Equation .................................................................................................. 53
2.4.9 The Korteweg-De Vries Equation..................................................................................................... 53
2.4.10 Helmholtz Equation ............................................................................................................................... 53
2.4.11 Summary List of Exact Solution Methods ..................................................................................... 53

3 Solving System of Linear Algebraic Equation.................................................................. 55

 3

3.1 Interpolation ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

3.2 Numerical Integration ....................................................................................................................................... 56
3.3 Algebraic Eigenvalues & Eigenvectors Problems .................................................................................. 56
3.3.1 Eigenvalues Calculation ....................................................................................................................... 57
3.3.1.1 Eigenvector Calculation ................................................................................................................. 57
3.3.1.2 Right and Left Eigenvectors ......................................................................................................... 58
3.3.1.3 Diagonalization of a Matrix........................................................................................................... 58
3.3.1.4 Case Study 1 - Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors of 3D Euler Equation ........................... 58
3.3.1.5 Governing Equations ....................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.1.6 Transformation Matrix ................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.2 Case Study 2 – Non-Reflecting Boundary Condition in 2D ................................................... 60
3.3.2.1 General Fourier Analysis and Eigenvectors........................................................................... 61
3.4 Solving Systems of Linear Algebraic Equations...................................................................................... 62
3.4.1 Direct Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 62
3.4.1.1 Cramer’s Rule ..................................................................................................................................... 62
3.4.1.2 Gaussian Elimination ................................................................................................................ 62
3.4.1.3 Thomas Algorithm............................................................................................................................ 62
3.4.1.4 Advanced-Direct Methods............................................................................................................. 63
3.4.2 Iterative Methods.................................................................................................................................... 63
3.4.2.1 Stationary Iterative Methods ....................................................................................................... 63
3.4.2.1.1 Jacobi Method ........................................................................................................................ 63
3.4.2.1.2 Gauss-Seidel Iteration......................................................................................................... 64
3.4.2.1.3 Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR) ................................................................................ 64
3.4.2.1.4 SOR by Line ............................................................................................................................. 65
3.4.2.1.5 Block-Iterative Methods .................................................................................................... 65
3.4.2.1.6 Strongly–Implicit Methods ............................................................................................... 66
3.4.2.1.7 ADI Methods ........................................................................................................................... 66
3.4.2.2 Non-Stationary Iterative Methods ............................................................................................. 67
3.4.2.2.1 Conjugate Gradient (CG) .................................................................................................... 67
3.4.2.2.2 Minimum Residual (MINRES) and Symmetric LQ (SYMMLQ) ........................... 67
3.4.2.2.3 Generalized Minimal Residual (GMRES)..................................................................... 67
3.4.2.2.4 Bi-Conjugate Gradient (BiCG).......................................................................................... 67
3.4.2.2.5 Quasi-Minimal Residual (QMR) ...................................................................................... 67
3.4.2.2.6 Conjugate Gradient Squared (CGS) ............................................................................... 68
3.4.2.2.7 Chebyshev Iteration ............................................................................................................ 68
3.4.3 Classical (Stationary) Iterative Schemes vs. Krylov Subspace Methods .......................... 68
3.5 Converting Conservative to Primitive Variables for 2D Euler Equations .................................... 69
3.5.1 Symmetrizing Matrix Variables ........................................................................................................ 69
3.6 Programming Languages & Paradigms for CFD ..................................................................................... 70
3.6.1 Difference Between Object Oriented (OO) vs. Procedural Programming ....................... 70
3.6.1.1 Object Oriented Programming (OOP) ...................................................................................... 70
3.6.1.2 Procedural ........................................................................................................................................... 70
3.6.2 Pillars of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) ......................................................................... 71
3.6.2.1 Abstraction .......................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.2.2 Encapsulation ..................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.2.3 Inheritance .......................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.2.4 Polymorphism .................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.3 Main Language Styles ............................................................................................................................ 71
3.6.4 Comparison between MATLAB, C/C++ and FORTRAN ........................................................... 72
3.6.4.1 FORTRAN ............................................................................................................................................. 72
 4

3.6.4.2 C/C++ ..................................................................................................................................................... 72

3.6.4.3 MATLAB ................................................................................................................................................ 73
3.6.4.4 Graphics and GUI programming in MATLAB ........................................................................ 74

4 CFD Basics .................................................................................................................................... 75

4.1 Marching vs. Equilibrium Problems ............................................................................................................ 76
4.2 Non-Linear CFD Equations .............................................................................................................................. 76
4.3 Coupled vs Segregated Algorithms .............................................................................................................. 77
4.4 Explicit vs. Implicit Methods .......................................................................................................................... 77
4.5 Model Finite Difference Schemes ................................................................................................................. 78
4.6 General Discretization Scheme (Beam-Warming) ................................................................................ 79
4.7 Linearization of Equations .............................................................................................................................. 80
4.7.1 Frozen (Lagging) Coefficient Method ............................................................................................. 80
4.7.2 Simple Iterative Method....................................................................................................................... 80
4.7.3 Newton Raphson Linearization Method........................................................................................ 81
4.7.3.1 Newton Linearization with Coupling........................................................................................ 81
4.7.4 Extrapolating the Coefficients ........................................................................................................... 81
4.7.5 Case Study – Linearization of 1D Unsteady Euler Equation.................................................. 81
4.7.6 Multi-Dimensional Problem and Approximate Factorization (AF) Scheme................... 82
4.7.7 Recommendation on Linearization ................................................................................................. 84
4.8 Convection & Diffusion Terms Discretization ......................................................................................... 84
4.8.1 Upwind Differencing For Convection ............................................................................................. 85
4.8.1.1 Flux Vector Splitting Schemes ..................................................................................................... 85
4.8.1.2 Flux Difference Splitting (Godunov) Schemes ...................................................................... 86
4.8.2 Diffusion Term Discretization ........................................................................................................... 86
4.9 Pressure Based (Incompressible) Schemes ............................................................................................. 88
4.9.1 Methods Based on the Vorticity Equation .................................................................................... 89
4.9.2 Methods Based on Artificial (Pseudo) Compressibility .......................................................... 90
4.9.3 Methods Based on Pressure Iterations or Pressure Correction .......................................... 90
4.9.3.1 PISO Algorithm .................................................................................................................................. 92
4.9.3.2 Case Study - Second Order Non-Iterative PISO-Algorithm vs Iterative PISO........... 93
4.9.3.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 93
4.9.3.2.2 Preliminary Results ............................................................................................................. 93
4.9.4 Fast Fluid Dynamic (FFD).................................................................................................................... 94
4.10 Density Based (Compressible) Schemes ................................................................................................... 96
4.10.1 Case Study 1 - Density Based Solver for Turbulent Compressible Flows ........................ 97
4.10.1.1 Result for Subsonic and Transonic Flow over a Bump ............................................... 98
4.10.2 Case Study 2 - Transonic Flow Through a Turbine Cascade ................................................. 98
4.10.3 Case Study 3 - Numerical Study of Compressible Lid Driven Cavity Flow ...................... 99
4.10.4 Case Study 4 - 3D Structured/Unstructured Hybrid Navier-Stokes Method for
Turbine Blade Rows .............................................................................................................................................. 101
4.10.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 101
4.10.4.2 Governing Equation Unstructured Solver ..................................................................... 102
4.10.4.3 Inviscid Flux Spatial Discretization .................................................................................. 102
4.10.4.4 Viscous Flux Spatial Discretization .................................................................................. 103
4.10.4.5 Time Integration ...................................................................................................................... 104
4.10.4.6 Spatial Discretization ............................................................................................................. 104
4.10.4.7 Hybrid Coupling ....................................................................................................................... 104
4.10.4.8 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 105
 5

4.10.4.8.1 Transonic Wing .................................................................................................................. 105

4.10.4.8.2 3D Viscous Flow Through Turbine Blades-Hybrid Procedure ....................... 106
4.11 Some Observations on Usage of Pressure Based vs. Density Based Schemes ....................... 107
4.12 Residual Implication ....................................................................................................................................... 108
4.12.1 Explicit Schemes ................................................................................................................................... 109
4.12.2 Implicit Schemes .................................................................................................................................. 109
4.12.2.1 Convergence Rate and Storage Requirement .............................................................. 110
4.12.2.2 Reflections on the Evolution of Implicit Navier-Stokes Algorithms ................... 112
4.12.2.2.1 The Noniterative Time-Linearized Block-Coupled ADI Scheme .................... 112
4.12.2.2.2 Early Work at NASA Ames Research Center .......................................................... 113
4.12.2.2.3 Characteristic-Based Upwind Schemes .................................................................... 114
4.12.2.2.4 Reducing Factorization Error in Time-Linearized Schemes ........................... 114
4.12.2.2.5 Iterative Time-Linearized Schemes for Structured and Unstructured Grids
114
4.12.2.2.6 Iterative Newton-Linearized Unsteady Schemes ................................................. 115
4.12.2.2.7 Scalable Parallel Algorithms for Structured and Unstructured Grids ......... 115
4.13 Numerical Listing to CFD Methods ........................................................................................................... 116
4.14 What Constitute Solver in CFD ................................................................................................................... 119

5 Finite Differencing (FD) & Spatial Discretization ....................................................... 120

5.1 Major Integration Schemes for CFD ......................................................................................................... 120
5.2 Finite Difference Method (FD) .................................................................................................................... 120
5.2.1 Some Issues Related Finite Differencing .................................................................................... 120
5.2.1.1 Truncation Error ............................................................................................................................ 121
5.2.1.2 Consistency ...................................................................................................................................... 122
5.2.1.3 Stability and Effect of CFL Number ........................................................................................ 123
5.2.1.4 Convergence .................................................................................................................................... 124
5.2.1.4.1 Numerical Convergence .................................................................................................. 124
5.3 Spatial Discretization Schemes................................................................................................................... 125
5.3.1 1st order Upwind (UD) ....................................................................................................................... 125
5.3.2 Central Differencing (CD) ................................................................................................................. 125
5.3.3 2nd order Upwind Differencing (UD)............................................................................................ 126
5.3.4 Power Law Scheme ............................................................................................................................. 126
5.3.5 Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Convection Kinetics (QUICK) ................................ 127
5.3.6 Monotone Upstream-Centered Schemes for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) ................. 127
5.3.7 Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) .............................................................................................. 127
5.3.7.1 Total Variation Diminishing Cubic Interpolated Propagation (TVDCIP) ............... 127
5.3.8 Monotone Advection and Recons traction Scheme (MARS) .............................................. 128
5.3.8.1 Reconstruction................................................................................................................................ 128
5.3.8.2 Advection .......................................................................................................................................... 128
5.3.9 Blended Differencing .......................................................................................................................... 128
5.3.10 Higher Order Upwind Schemes...................................................................................................... 128
5.3.10.1 Other High Resolution Differencing Scheme For Arbitrarily Unstructured
Meshes 129
5.3.11 ENO and WENO Schemes.................................................................................................................. 130
5.4 Implementation of Boundary Conditions............................................................................................... 131

6 Finite Volume Method (FV) ................................................................................................ 133

6.1 Finite Volume Method using a 1D Example .......................................................................................... 133
 6

6.2 Unsteady 2D Poisson Equation .................................................................................................................. 134

6.3 General Steady 2D Transport Equation in Finite Volume ............................................................... 135
6.3.1 Approximation of Surface and Volume Integrals ................................................................... 136
6.3.2 Discretization of Convective Fluxes ............................................................................................. 138
6.3.3 Central Differences .............................................................................................................................. 138
6.3.4 Upwind Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 138
6.3.5 Flux-Blending Technique.................................................................................................................. 140
6.3.6 Discretization of Diffusive Fluxes.................................................................................................. 140
6.3.7 Non-Cartesian Grids............................................................................................................................ 142
6.3.8 Discrete Transport Equation........................................................................................................... 144
6.3.9 Treatment of Boundary Conditions.............................................................................................. 144
6.3.10 Case Study - Numerical Analysis of Turbulent Flow Around 2D Bodies....................... 146
6.3.10.1 Introduction and Literature Survey................................................................................. 147
6.3.10.2 Governing Equations .............................................................................................................. 148
6.3.10.3 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................. 150
6.3.10.4 Finite Volume Discretization of Governing Equation ............................................... 151
6.3.10.5 The Wall Functions ................................................................................................................. 153
6.3.10.6 SIMPLE Algorithm ................................................................................................................... 153
6.3.10.7 Results and Discussion for NACA 0012 Hydrofoil ..................................................... 153
6.3.10.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 155
6.4 Some Abnormalities Associated with Control Volume (CV) .......................................................... 155
6.4.1 Numerical Diffusion Effects ............................................................................................................. 156
6.4.2 Balancing the Diffusion vs. Convection using Peclet Number (Pe) ................................. 157
6.4.2.1 Case Study – 1D Convection / Diffusion Problem ............................................................ 158
6.5 Some Attributes to Spatial Discretization .............................................................................................. 159
6.5.1 Cell-Centered (CC) vs. Node-Centered (NC) ............................................................................. 159
6.5.2 Staggered vs. Collocated Grids ....................................................................................................... 160
6.5.3 Desired Properties in Discretization Schemes ........................................................................ 160
6.6 Wall Distance Estimation .............................................................................................................................. 161
6.6.1 Case Study - Influence of Hybrid Grid and Turbulence Model .......................................... 162
6.6.1.1 Gridding ............................................................................................................................................. 162
6.6.1.2 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................................... 163
6.6.1.3 Governing Equations and Solver Settings ........................................................................... 163
6.6.1.4 Drag findings ................................................................................................................................... 163
6.6.1.5 Impact of Turbulence Model ..................................................................................................... 164
6.6.1.6 Concluding Remarks..................................................................................................................... 164
6.7 Gradient Smoothing Method (GSM) ......................................................................................................... 165
6.7.1 Gradient Smooth Operation............................................................................................................. 166
6.7.2 Case Study 1 - Implicit Gradient Method for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Solver on
Unstructured Meshes............................................................................................................................................ 166
6.7.2.1 Background and Introduction .................................................................................................. 167
6.7.2.2 Finite-Volume Discretization .................................................................................................... 167
6.7.3 Case Study 2 - Transonic Flow Over a Joukowsky Airfoil at M = 0.8 ............................ 169
6.7.4 Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................................... 170

7 Boundary Conditions Types ............................................................................................... 171

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 171
7.2 Naming Convention for Different Types of Boundaries ................................................................... 171
7.2.1 Dirichlet Boundary Condition......................................................................................................... 171
 7

7.2.2 Von Neumann Boundary Condition ............................................................................................. 171

7.2.3 Mixed or Combination of Dirichlet and von Neumann Boundary Condition .............. 171
7.2.4 Robin Boundary Condition .............................................................................................................. 172
7.2.5 Cauchy Boundary Condition............................................................................................................ 172
7.2.6 Periodic (Cyclic Symmetry) Boundary Condition .................................................................. 172
7.2.7 Generic Boundary Conditions ......................................................................................................... 172
7.3 Wall Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 173
7.3.1 Velocity Field ......................................................................................................................................... 173
7.3.2 Pressure ................................................................................................................................................... 173
7.3.3 Scalars/Temperature ......................................................................................................................... 174
7.3.3.1 Common Inputs for Wall Boundary Condition .................................................................. 174
7.4 Symmetry Planes .............................................................................................................................................. 174
7.5 Inflow Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................... 175
7.5.1 Velocity Inlet .......................................................................................................................................... 175
7.5.2 Pressure Inlet ........................................................................................................................................ 175
7.5.3 Mass Flow Inlet ..................................................................................................................................... 176
7.5.4 Inlet Vent ................................................................................................................................................. 176
7.6 Outflow Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................ 176
7.6.1 Pressure Outlet ..................................................................................................................................... 176
7.6.2 Pressure Far-Field ............................................................................................................................... 177
7.6.3 Outflow ..................................................................................................................................................... 177
7.6.4 Outlet Vent .............................................................................................................................................. 177
7.6.5 Exhaust Fan ............................................................................................................................................ 177
7.7 Free Surface Boundaries ............................................................................................................................... 178
7.7.1 Velocity Field and Pressure ............................................................................................................. 178
7.7.2 Scalars/Temperature ......................................................................................................................... 178
7.8 Pole (Axis) Boundaries .................................................................................................................................. 178
7.9 Periodic Flow Boundaries ............................................................................................................................ 179
7.10 Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions (NRBCs) ................................................................................... 179
7.10.1 Case Study 1 - Turbomachinery Application of 2D Subsonic Cascade ........................... 180
7.10.2 Case Study 2 - CAA Application of Airfoil Turbulence Interaction Noise Simulation
181
7.11 Turbulence Intensity Boundaries .............................................................................................................. 181
7.11.1 Turbulence Intensity .......................................................................................................................... 181
7.12 Immersed Boundaries .................................................................................................................................... 182
7.13 Free Surface Boundary .................................................................................................................................. 182
7.13.1 The Kinematic Boundary Condition ............................................................................................. 182
7.13.2 The Dynamic Boundary Condition................................................................................................ 183
7.14 Other Boundary Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 183
7.15 Further Remarks .............................................................................................................................................. 184

8 Temporal Discretization and Time Marching .............................................................. 185

8.1 Transient 1D Diffusion with Source Term ............................................................................................. 186
8.1.1 Euler Implicit ......................................................................................................................................... 186
8.1.2 Crank-Nicolson ..................................................................................................................................... 186
8.1.3 Simple Explicit....................................................................................................................................... 188
Case Study – Numerical Solution of 1D Heat Model Equation .............................. 188
8.1.4 Runga-Kutta Method .......................................................................................................................... 188
8.1.4.1 Explicit Treatment......................................................................................................................... 188
 8

8.1.4.2 Implicit Runge-Kutta Methods ................................................................................................. 189

8.1.4.3 Case Study - Time Integration Schemes for the Unsteady NS Equations ............... 190
8.1.5 Piecewise Analytical Method ......................................................................................................... 190
8.2 Transient Simulation ...................................................................................................................................... 190
8.2.1 Time Step Size ....................................................................................................................................... 191
8.2.2 Steady-State Vs. Transient Run ...................................................................................................... 191
8.2.2.1 Case Study 1 - Vortex Shedding Behind a Cylinder - Ran as Steady State (Wrong!)
192
8.2.2.2 Case study 2 - Double Sided Membrane - Ran as Steady State (Right!) .................. 192
8.2.3 Concept of Dual Time Stepping ...................................................................................................... 192
8.2.3.1 Backward Differencing Formula (BDF) ................................................................................ 193
8.3 Essence of Local Preconditioning in CFD ............................................................................................... 193
8.3.1 Pseudo (Artificial) Compressibility .............................................................................................. 194
8.3.2 Case Study 1 – Preconditioned Methods for Solving 2D Incompressible Flow.......... 195
8.3.3 Case Study 2 – Preconditioned Methods for 3D Unsteady Low Speed Compressible N-
S 197
8.3.3.1 Low Speed Preconditioning Formulation ............................................................................ 197
8.3.3.2 Numerical Integration ................................................................................................................. 198
8.3.4 Case Study 3 - Numerical Analysis of a Dual-Time Pseudo-Compressibility Method
199
8.3.4.1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................. 199
8.3.4.2 Governing Equations .................................................................................................................... 201
8.3.4.3 Time Integration ............................................................................................................................ 202
8.3.4.4 Six-Degree-of-Freedom Rigid Body Motion ........................................................................ 203
8.3.4.5 3D Flow Evolution of a Dam Break......................................................................................... 204
8.3.4.6 Free-Surface Wave Around Surface-Piercing NACA Foils............................................. 206
8.3.4.7 Computational Model and on a NACA 66 Hydrofoil ........................................................ 207
8.3.4.8 Water Entry of Free-Falling Rigid Objects........................................................................... 207
8.3.4.8.1 Hemisphere.......................................................................................................................... 207
8.3.4.8.2 Sphere .................................................................................................................................... 208

9 Solution Methods for Inviscid (Euler) Equations........................................................ 210

9.1 Background......................................................................................................................................................... 210
9.2 Method of Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 210
9.2.1 Linear Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 210
9.2.2 Non-Linear Systems ............................................................................................................................ 212
9.3 Shock Capturing Method ............................................................................................................................... 214
9.3.1 Explicit McCormack Method ........................................................................................................... 214
9.3.2 1D Upwind Flux-Splitting Scheme (Steger-Warming) ......................................................... 215
9.3.3 Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) as other Upwind Schemes ........................................ 216
9.3.3.1 The Upwind Connection to Explicit Artificial Dissipation ............................................ 217
9.3.4 3D Unsteady Euler Equation Solutions Using Flux Vector Splitting ............................... 217
9.3.4.1 Flux Splitting .................................................................................................................................... 219
9.4 The Riemann Problem ................................................................................................................................... 219
9.4.1 Roe Approximate Riemann Solver ................................................................................................ 220
9.5 Method for Solving the Potential Equation ........................................................................................... 221
9.5.1 Conservative Forms ............................................................................................................................ 221
9.6 Method for Transonic Flow.......................................................................................................................... 222
9.7 Panel Methods for Solving the Laplace’s Equation ............................................................................ 223
 9

9.7.1 Vortex Lattice Method ....................................................................................................................... 224

9.7.2 VLM vs DLM ........................................................................................................................................... 224
9.7.3 Vortex Panel Method (VPM) vs. DLM .......................................................................................... 225

10 Solution Methods for Viscous (Navier-Stokes) Equations ....................................... 226

10.1 General Transformation ................................................................................................................................ 227
10.2 Solution Methods for Compressible (Density Based) N-S Equation ........................................... 228
10.2.1 Explicit Scheme (Mac Cormack) .................................................................................................... 228
10.2.2 Case Study – Dual Block Applied to Navier-Stokes Equations in 2D ............................. 230
10.2.2.1 Governing Equations .............................................................................................................. 230
10.2.2.2 Numerical Method................................................................................................................... 231
10.2.2.3 Block Interface .......................................................................................................................... 231
10.2.2.4 Stability Consideration .......................................................................................................... 232
10.2.2.4.1 Test 1 - Flow Over a Backward-Facing Step ........................................................... 232
10.2.2.4.2 Test 2 - Flow Over a Curved Ramp ............................................................................. 234
10.2.2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 235
10.2.3 Other Explicit Schemes ...................................................................................................................... 235
10.2.4 Implicit Schemes .................................................................................................................................. 235
10.2.4.1 Beam-Warming ........................................................................................................................ 235
10.2.4.2 Mac Cormack ............................................................................................................................. 236
10.3 Solution Methods for Incompressible N-S Equations (Pressure Based) ................................... 237
10.3.1 Explicit Schemes ................................................................................................................................... 237
10.3.1.1 Vorticity-Stream Function Approach (2D).................................................................... 237
10.3.1.2 Primitive-Variable Approach .............................................................................................. 238
10.3.2 Implicit Schemes .................................................................................................................................. 239
10.3.2.1 SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equation) for 2D N-S
Equation 239
10.3.3 Projection Methods ............................................................................................................................. 240
10.4 Approximation (Thin-Layer) of N-S Equation...................................................................................... 240
10.5 Parabolized N-S Equation ............................................................................................................................. 241
10.5.1 3D Compressible Implicit Numerical Solution of PNS Equation ...................................... 242
10.5.2 Case Study - New-Generation Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes Schemes: Speed-Up and
Accurate Viscous/Heat Fluxes ......................................................................................................................... 245
10.5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 246
10.5.2.2 Simplified Discretization ...................................................................................................... 246
10.5.2.3 Speed-up...................................................................................................................................... 246
10.5.2.4 Accurate Viscous/Heat Fluxes ........................................................................................... 246
10.5.2.5 First-Order 2D Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes System ..................................................... 247
10.5.2.6 Discretization ............................................................................................................................ 250
10.5.2.7 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 252
10.5.2.8 Concluding Remarks and Future Developments ........................................................ 253
10.6 Multigrid Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 256
10.6.1 Multigrid Cycle ...................................................................................................................................... 256
10.6.2 Unstructured Mesh Cycling ............................................................................................................. 257
10.6.3 Viscous Flow Consideration ............................................................................................................ 258
10.6.4 Case Study - Development and Application of Agglomerated Multigrid Methods for
Complex Geometries ............................................................................................................................................. 259
10.6.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 259
10.6.4.2 Discretization ............................................................................................................................ 260
 10

10.6.4.3 Agglomeration Scheme ......................................................................................................... 261

10.6.4.4 Single-Grid Iterations............................................................................................................. 266
10.6.4.5 Multigrid...................................................................................................................................... 266
10.6.4.5.1 Multigrid V-Cycle ............................................................................................................... 266
10.6.4.5.2 Inter-Grid Operators ........................................................................................................ 266
10.6.4.5.3 Coarse-Grid Discretization ............................................................................................ 267
10.6.4.5.4 Relaxations ........................................................................................................................... 268
10.6.4.5.5 Cost of Multigrid V-Cycle ................................................................................................ 268
10.6.4.6 Results for Complex Geometries ....................................................................................... 270
10.6.4.6.1 Model Diffusion Equation .............................................................................................. 270
10.6.4.6.2 Inviscid Flows ..................................................................................................................... 271
10.6.4.6.3 Turbulent Flows (RANS) ................................................................................................ 272
10.6.4.7 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................. 272
10.6.4.8 References .................................................................................................................................. 272

11 Hypersonic Flow .................................................................................................................... 274

11.1 Characteristics of Hypersonic Atmosphere .......................................................................................... 275
11.1.1 Reentry Vehicles (RV) ........................................................................................................................ 275
11.1.2 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicle (CAV) ....................................................................................... 275
11.1.3 Ascent and Reentry Vehicles (ARV) ............................................................................................. 275
11.1.4 Aero assisted Orbit Transfer Vehicle (AOTV) .......................................................................... 275
11.2 Physics of Hypersonic Flow Regime......................................................................................................... 276
11.2.1 Thin Shock Layers................................................................................................................................ 276
11.2.2 Entropy Layer ........................................................................................................................................ 276
11.2.3 Viscous Interaction ............................................................................................................................. 276
11.2.4 High-Temperature Flows ................................................................................................................. 277
11.2.5 Low-Density Flow ................................................................................................................................ 277
11.3 Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Heating Computations ............................................. 278
11.3.1 Introduction and Literature Survey ............................................................................................. 279
11.3.2 Governing Equations .......................................................................................................................... 281
11.3.2.1 Computational Method.......................................................................................................... 282
11.3.3 Three Properties for Hypersonic Surface Heating Computations ................................... 284
11.3.3.1 Property 1: Shock Stability/Robustness ........................................................................ 284
11.3.3.1.1 One-Dimensional and Multidimensional Shock Irregularities ....................... 284
11.3.3.1.2 Modified 1.5D Tests .......................................................................................................... 285
11.3.3.2 Property 2: Conservation of Total Enthalpy................................................................. 286
11.3.3.3 Property 3: Boundary-Layer Resolution........................................................................ 288
11.3.3.4 Case Study – 2D Hypersonic Heating Test: Hypersonic Viscous Flow Over a
Blunt Body 290
11.3.3.4.1 Baseline Grid ....................................................................................................................... 290
11.3.3.4.2 Fine Grid for Additional Discussions ......................................................................... 292
11.3.3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 294
11.4 Case Study - Numerical Analysis of Hypersonic Flows around Blunt-Nosed Models .......... 295
11.4.1 Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................................ 296
11.4.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 296
11.4.3 Simulation Models and Test Conditions Applied to Hypersonic flows over a 2D
Cylindrically Blunted Flat Plate and an Axisymmetric Hemi-Spherical-Nosed Cylinder ......... 297
11.4.4 Grid Independence Study ................................................................................................................. 299
11.4.5 Results Associated with Hypersonic Flows Over a 2D Cylindrically Blunted Nose . 300
 11

11.4.5.1 Validation of Slip Boundary Conditions ......................................................................... 300

11.4.5.2 Validation for Chemical Non-Equilibrium ..................................................................... 302
11.4.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 303
11.4.7 References............................................................................................................................................... 303
11.5 Case Study - Shock Wave Laminar Boundary Layer Interaction Over a Double Wedge in a
High Mach Number (Hypersonic) Flow............................................................................................................... 304
11.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 305
11.5.2 Problem Description........................................................................................................................... 305
11.5.3 Method of Solution .............................................................................................................................. 306
11.5.3.1 Grid Generation ........................................................................................................................ 306
11.5.3.2 Governing Equations .............................................................................................................. 307
11.5.3.3 Solution Algorithm .................................................................................................................. 308
11.5.4 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 308
11.5.4.1 Inviscid Case .............................................................................................................................. 308
11.5.4.2 Laminar Low Enthalpy Case ............................................................................................... 309
11.5.4.3 Laminar High Enthalpy Case............................................................................................... 311
11.5.4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 312
11.5.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 312
11.5.6 References............................................................................................................................................... 312

12 Airfoil Aerodynamics ............................................................................................................ 314

12.1 Preliminaries...................................................................................................................................................... 314
12.2 Case Study 1 - Aerodynamic Analysis of NACA 0012 With Different Turbulence Models
315
12.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 315
12.2.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 315
12.2.3 Turbulent Model................................................................................................................................... 316
12.2.4 Grid Independence Test .................................................................................................................... 316
12.2.5 Computation Method.......................................................................................................................... 316
12.2.6 Simulation Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 317
12.2.6.1 Pressure Contours ................................................................................................................... 317
12.2.6.2 Velocity Contours .................................................................................................................... 318
12.2.7 Result ........................................................................................................................................................ 318
12.2.8 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 318
12.3 Case Study 2 - Aerodynamic Performance of NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil ............................... 319
12.3.1 Background & literature Survey .................................................................................................... 319
12.3.2 Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions ................................................................ 320
12.3.3 Setting up of the Numerical Simulation Parameters ............................................................. 321
12.3.4 Mesh Independence Tests ................................................................................................................ 321
12.3.5 NACA 0015 Airfoil with Zero Flap Deflection Results .......................................................... 323
12.3.6 NACA 0015 Airfoil with Flap Deflection Results ..................................................................... 326
12.4 Case Study 3 - Dynamic Stall Investigation of 2D Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Blades Using
CFD 327
12.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 327
12.4.2 Model Geometry and Numerical Technique ............................................................................. 329
12.4.3 Dynamic Mesh and Oscillating Pattern ....................................................................................... 329
12.4.4 Results and Discussions .................................................................................................................... 330
12.4.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 332
 12

12.5 Case Study 4 - Numerical Investigation Of Turbulent Flow Around An Stepped Airfoil At
High Reynolds Number .............................................................................................................................................. 333
12.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 333
12.5.2 Governing Equations .......................................................................................................................... 335
12.5.2.1 Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) Equations ............................................ 335
12.5.2.2 Turbulence Modelling ............................................................................................................ 336
12.5.2.3 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................. 336
12.5.3 Numerical Solution Procedure ....................................................................................................... 336
12.5.4 Validation Test & Grid Independency Study ............................................................................ 336
12.5.5 Results & Discussion........................................................................................................................... 337
12.5.5.1 Effect of Step Location ........................................................................................................... 338
12.5.5.2 Effect of Step Depth ................................................................................................................ 342
12.5.5.3 Effect of Step Configuration ................................................................................................ 344
12.5.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 345
12.6 Case Study 5 - Numerical Study of 3D Flow Around the Wing Airfoil E562 With Forward
and Rearward Wingtip Fence .................................................................................................................................. 346
12.6.1 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 346
12.6.2 Grid Independency .............................................................................................................................. 348
12.6.3 Result and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 349
12.6.3.1 Velocity Vector.......................................................................................................................... 349
12.6.3.2 Velocity Path Line .................................................................................................................... 350
12.6.3.3 Velocity Magnitude ................................................................................................................. 351
12.6.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 352
12.6.5 References............................................................................................................................................... 353

13 Boundary Layer and Axisymmetric Flow ...................................................................... 354

13.1 Unsteady 2D Compressible Boundary Layer ........................................................................................ 354
13.1.1 Steady Solution for 2D Boundary Layer Flows ........................................................................ 355
13.1.1.1 Case Study - Numerical Study Aerodynamically Enhanced Mixing .................... 356
13.1.1.1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 356
13.1.1.1.2 Mathematical Model ......................................................................................................... 358
13.1.1.1.3 Numerical Model and Boundary Conditions .......................................................... 360
13.1.1.1.4 Results .................................................................................................................................... 361
13.1.1.1.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 363
13.2 Compressible 3D Laminar Boundary Layer .......................................................................................... 364
13.3 Axisymmetric Flow.......................................................................................................................................... 365
13.3.1 Case Study 1 – Steady Aerodynamics Characteristic of Axisymmetric Surface ......... 365
13.3.1.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 365
13.3.1.2 Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................... 366
13.3.2 Case Study 2 – Unsteady Flow and H.T. Analysis of a Blunt Object with/without
Forward Facing Spike ........................................................................................................................................... 368
13.3.2.1 Background, Introduction and Literature Survey..................................................... 368
13.3.2.2 Governing Algorithm.............................................................................................................. 370
13.3.2.2.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions ................................................................................. 370
13.3.2.2.2 Computational Grid .......................................................................................................... 370
13.3.2.3 Geometrical Details of Model.............................................................................................. 371
13.3.2.3.1 Heat Shield with Forward Facing Spike ................................................................... 371
13.3.2.3.2 Conical Spike Attached to Blunt Body....................................................................... 372
13.3.2.3.3 Conical, Disk and Flat Spiked Body ............................................................................ 372
 13

13.3.2.4 Results and Discussions ........................................................................................................ 373

13.3.2.4.1 Flow and Heat Transfer Analysis of Axisymmetric Blunt Body ..................... 373
13.3.2.4.2 Heat Shield with a Forward-Facing Spike ............................................................... 374
13.3.2.4.3 Conical Spike Attached to the Blunt Body ............................................................... 375
13.3.2.4.4 Shock Stand-Off Distance ............................................................................................... 375
13.3.2.4.5 Surface Pressure Variations .......................................................................................... 377
13.3.2.4.6 Stagnation Point Heating and Wall Heat Flux ........................................................ 378
13.3.2.5 Heat Transfer Measurements ............................................................................................. 380
13.3.2.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 381
13.4 Flow Separation ................................................................................................................................................ 381
13.4.1 Boundary Layer Separation ............................................................................................................. 381
13.4.2 Adverse Pressure Gradient .............................................................................................................. 382
13.4.3 Influencing Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 382
13.4.4 Internal Separation ............................................................................................................................. 383
13.4.5 Effects of Boundary Layer Separation......................................................................................... 383
13.4.6 Case Study 1 - Numerical Study on Flow Separation in 90° Pipe Bend with High
Reynolds Numbers and k-ε Modelling ........................................................................................................... 383
13.4.6.1 Background and Introduction ............................................................................................ 383
13.4.6.2 Governing Equations and Numerical Methodology .................................................. 384
13.4.6.3 Turbulence Model ................................................................................................................... 385
13.4.6.4 Problem Definition.................................................................................................................. 385
13.4.6.5 Validation .................................................................................................................................... 386
13.4.6.6 Results and discussions ........................................................................................................ 386
13.4.6.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 389
13.4.7 Case Study 2 - Flow Separation in Subscale Rocket Nozzles ............................................. 389
13.4.7.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 389
13.4.7.2 Description of Experimental Setup and Numerical Simulations ......................... 390
13.4.7.3 Numerical Flow Simulations ............................................................................................... 391
13.4.7.4 TIC Nozzle ................................................................................................................................... 392
13.4.7.5 TOP Nozzle ................................................................................................................................. 392
13.4.7.6 Experimental Results ............................................................................................................. 394
13.4.7.7 Comparison of CFD and Experimental Results ........................................................... 396
13.4.7.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 397

14 Finite Element Method (FE)................................................................................................ 398

14.1 Continuous & Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element Methods .................................................. 398
14.2 Steps in the Finite Element Discretization ............................................................................................ 399
14.3 Concept of Shape (Basis) Function ........................................................................................................... 400
14.3.1 Lagrangian Elements .......................................................................................................................... 400
14.4 Simple 1D Discretization Example using Shape (Basis) Function ............................................... 401
14.5 Mathematics Behind Finite Element Method ....................................................................................... 401
14.6 Summary of Math Procedure for Finite Element Analysis .............................................................. 402
14.7 Example with Heat Source ........................................................................................................................... 402
14.7.1 Steady State Heat Sink; Weak Formulation; Basis Functions & Test Functions ........ 403
14.7.2 Test Function ......................................................................................................................................... 404
14.7.3 Weak Formulation ............................................................................................................................... 404
14.8 Effect of Basis Function ................................................................................................................................. 406
14.9 Different Elements ........................................................................................................................................... 406
14.10 Error Estimation ............................................................................................................................................... 407
 14

14.11 Additional Finite Element Formulations ................................................................................................ 407

14.12 Case Study - A High Order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier Incompressible 3D Navier–
Stokes Solver with Rotating Sliding Meshes ..................................................................................................... 408
14.12.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 408
14.12.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 411
14.12.2.1 Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian Temporal Discretization ...................................... 412
14.12.2.2 3D Fourier Extension ............................................................................................................. 412
14.12.2.3 Rotating Cases ........................................................................................................................... 414
14.12.3 An Application: Three Bladed Cross-Flow Turbine ......................................................... 414
14.12.4 3D Flows ............................................................................................................................................ 415
14.12.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 416
14.13 Conceptual Differences Between Three Most used Prediction Methods .................................. 417
14.13.1 Finite Differencing (FD) .............................................................................................................. 417
14.13.2 Finite Volume (FV) ........................................................................................................................ 417
14.13.3 Finite Element (FE) ....................................................................................................................... 418
14.13.4 Comparing FV and FE for Spatial Convergence of 3D Benchmark Cases ............... 418
14.13.4.1 Case Study - Subsonic Flow Over 3D Swept Bump Configuration ...................... 419
14.13.4.2 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 420

15 Spectral and Other High Degree Methods ..................................................................... 422

15.1 Spectral Difference Method (SD) ............................................................................................................... 422
15.2 Spectral Volume Method (SV) ..................................................................................................................... 423
15.2.1 Basic Formulation................................................................................................................................ 424
15.3 Fast Fourier Transform Methods (FFT).................................................................................................. 425
15.3.1 Case Study - Flow and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Analyses for Tip Clearance
Effect in an Operating Kaplan Turbine .......................................................................................................... 426
15.3.1.1 Background and Literature Survey .................................................................................. 426
15.3.1.2 Governing Equations .............................................................................................................. 430
15.3.1.3 Validation of Numerical Results ........................................................................................ 431
15.3.1.3.1 Performance Characteristics ........................................................................................ 431
15.3.1.3.2 Effect of Tip Clearance..................................................................................................... 432
15.3.1.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 433
15.4 Finite Differences vs. Spectral Methods.................................................................................................. 434
15.5 Weighted Residual Method (WRM) .......................................................................................................... 434
15.5.1 General Formulation .......................................................................................................................... 435
15.6 Boundary Element Method (BEM) ............................................................................................................ 435
15.6.1 Comparison to Other Methods ....................................................................................................... 436
15.7 Dispersion-Relation-Preserving (DRP) Algorithms for 3D Problems ....................................... 436
15.7.1 Effects of AeroAcoustics .................................................................................................................... 437
15.8 Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) ............................................................................................................. 438
15.8.1 Approaches ............................................................................................................................................. 438
15.8.2 Dilute Gas Regimes .............................................................................................................................. 439
15.8.3 Middle of the Scale............................................................................................................................... 440
15.8.4 Maxwell Distribution Function ...................................................................................................... 440
15.8.5 Boltzmann Transport Equation ..................................................................................................... 441
15.8.6 The BGKW Approximation ............................................................................................................... 443
15.8.7 Lattices & DnQm Classification ...................................................................................................... 443
15.8.8 Lattice Arrangements......................................................................................................................... 444
15.8.8.1 1D Lattice Boltzmann Method (D1O2) ........................................................................... 444
 15

15.8.8.2 2D Lattice Boltzmann Method (D2Q9) ........................................................................... 445

15.8.9 Case Study 1 – Solving 2D Conduction with Heat Flux Boundary Using The Lattice
Boltzmann Method (LBM) .................................................................................................................................. 447
15.8.9.1 Formulation and Kinetic Equation ................................................................................... 447
15.8.9.2 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 449
15.8.9.2.1 Case (1): Four Boundaries Are at Known Temperatures ................................. 449
15.8.9.2.2 Case (2): Effects of Heat Generation and the Four Boundaries are at
Specified Temperatures .......................................................................................................................... 450
15.8.9.2.3 Case (3): The Bottom and Top Boundaries are at Prescribed Fluxes and
Remaining Two Boundaries at Known Temperatures .............................................................. 450
15.8.9.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 451
15.8.10 Case Study 2 - Lid-Driven Cavity Flow .................................................................................. 451

16 Best Guidelines for Optimal CFD Simulation ................................................................ 453

16.1 Element of Uncertainty .................................................................................................................................. 454
16.1.1 Geometry & Grid Generation........................................................................................................... 454
16.1.2 Convergence........................................................................................................................................... 454
16.1.3 Numerical ................................................................................................................................................ 455
16.1.4 Reaction ................................................................................................................................................... 455
16.1.5 Multiphase Flows ................................................................................................................................. 455
16.1.5.1 Not Knowing the Most Important Physical Mechanisms ........................................ 455
16.1.5.2 Closure Models ......................................................................................................................... 455
16.1.5.3 Time-Scale and Length-Scale Separation....................................................................... 455
16.1.5.4 Choice of Model and Governing Equations ................................................................... 456
16.1.5.5 Numerical Errors ..................................................................................................................... 456
16.1.5.6 Avoiding Risks in Multiphase Flows ................................................................................ 456
16.2 Verification, Validation, Calibration and Certification ...................................................................... 456
16.2.1 Validation for an Intended Purpose. ............................................................................................ 457
16.3 Simulation for Everyone ............................................................................................................................... 457
16.4 CFD on a Deadline ............................................................................................................................................ 458
16.4.1 Optimizing your Modeling Workflow .......................................................................................... 459
16.5 Myths of Computational Fluid Dynamics ............................................................................................... 459
16.5.1.1 CFD is Difficult and Take Too Long to be Used in the Design Process ............... 459
16.5.1.2 Accuracy has to be sacrificed to use CFD during the Design Process ................ 460
16.5.1.3 Experts are Needed to Get Accurate CFD Simulation Results ............................... 461

17 Components of CFD Simulation ......................................................................................... 462

17.1 Simulation vs. Modeling ................................................................................................................................ 463
17.1.1 Part I .......................................................................................................................................................... 463
17.1.2 Part II ........................................................................................................................................................ 463
17.1.3 Part III ....................................................................................................................................................... 463
17.1.4 Part IV ....................................................................................................................................................... 463
17.1.5 Part V......................................................................................................................................................... 463
17.2 Simulation Components as Envisioned by NASA ................................................................................ 464
17.2.1 Formulate the Flow Problem .......................................................................................................... 464
17.2.2 Model the Geometry and Flow Domain ...................................................................................... 465
17.2.3 Establish the Boundary and Initial Conditions ........................................................................ 465
17.2.4 Generate the Grid ................................................................................................................................. 465
17.2.5 Establish the Simulation Strategy ................................................................................................. 465
 16

17.2.6 Establish the Input Parameters and Files .................................................................................. 465

17.2.7 Perform the Simulation ..................................................................................................................... 465
17.2.8 Monitor the Simulation for Completion ..................................................................................... 466
17.2.9 Post-Process the Simulation to get the Results ....................................................................... 466
17.2.10 Make Comparisons of the Results ........................................................................................... 466
17.2.11 Repeat the Process to Examine Sensitivities ...................................................................... 466
17.2.12 Document .......................................................................................................................................... 466
17.3 Comparison of Some Commercially Available CFD Software ........................................................ 466
17.3.1 AcuSolve© (www.altair.com)......................................................................................................... 467
17.3.2 OpenFOAM© (www.openfoam.com) ............................................................................................ 467
17.3.3 OpenFlower (sourceforge.net/projects/openflower) .......................................................... 467
17.3.4 FLASH (flash.uchicago.edu) ............................................................................................................. 468
17.3.5 GADGET© (www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~volker/gadget)............................................... 468
17.3.6 HYDRA© (hydra.mcmaster.ca/hydra) ......................................................................................... 468
17.3.7 ZEUS-MP (lca.ucsd.edu/portal/software) ................................................................................. 468
17.3.8 ANSYS CFX© (www.ansys.com/Products/Simulation+Technology/Fluid+Dynamics)
468
17.3.9 ANSYS ICEM CFD© (www.ansys.com/Products/Other+Products/ANSYS+ICEM+CFD)
468
17.3.10 FLUENT© (www.fluent.com)..................................................................................................... 469
17.3.11 COMSOL Multi-physics© (www.comsol.com/products/multiphysics) ................... 469
17.3.12 CFDRC© (www.cfdrc.com) ......................................................................................................... 469
17.3.13 STAR-CD/STAR-CCM© (www.cd-adapco.com) ................................................................. 469
17.3.14 FLOW3D© (www.flow3d.com) ................................................................................................. 469
17.3.15 TACOMA© (www.ge.com) .......................................................................................................... 470
17.3.16 CONVERGE™ ( www.convergecfd.com) ............................................................................... 470
17.4 NASA Developed CFD Software .................................................................................................................. 470
17.4.1 FUN3D ...................................................................................................................................................... 470
17.4.2 USM3D ...................................................................................................................................................... 471
17.4.3 CFL3D........................................................................................................................................................ 471
17.4.4 Case Study - Grid Convergence for 3D Benchmark Turbulent Flows............................. 472
17.4.4.1 Subsonic Flow Around a Hemisphere Cylinder .......................................................... 472
17.4.4.2 Geometry, Flow Parameters, and Boundary Conditions ......................................... 472
17.4.4.3 Results for Hemisphere Cylinder ...................................................................................... 473
17.4.4.4 Forces and Pitching Moment .............................................................................................. 474
17.4.4.5 Fine Grid Surface Pressure, Skin Friction, and Off-Body Variation ................... 476
17.4.4.6 Effect of Grid Refinement on Surface Pressure and Skin Friction ....................... 477
17.4.4.7 Transonic Flow Around an M6 Wing............................................................................... 477
17.4.4.8 Geometry, Flow Parameters and Boundary Conditions .......................................... 478
17.4.4.9 Grids for M6 Wing ................................................................................................................... 478
17.4.4.10 Results for M6 Wing ............................................................................................................... 479
17.4.4.11 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................. 482
17.5 Symbolic Math Packages ............................................................................................................................... 483
17.5.1 Maxima (maxima.sourceforge.net) ............................................................................................ 483
17.5.2 Mathematica (www.wolfram.com) ............................................................................................ 483
17.5.3 Maple (www.maplesoft.com) ....................................................................................................... 483
17.5.4 MatLab (www.mathworks.com) ................................................................................................ 483
17.5.5 MATHGL (http://mathgl.sourceforge.net/doc_en/index.html)..................................... 483
 17

18 Computational Error and Uncertainty Quantification .............................................. 484

18.1 Classification of Errors................................................................................................................................... 485
18.2 Physical Modeling Error ................................................................................................................................ 485
18.2.1 Uncertainty Quantification of Turbulence Models ................................................................ 486
18.2.2 Single Turbulence Model with Perturbation ............................................................................ 487
18.2.2.1 Transonic Flow over the ONERA M6 Wing ................................................................... 488
18.2.2.2 Supersonic Flow Through a Converging-Diverging Seiner Nozzle ..................... 489
18.2.3 Multiple turbulence Models without Perturbation................................................................ 490
18.3 Geometrical Modeling Errors ...................................................................................................................... 491
18.4 Spatial Discretization (Governing Equations) Errors ....................................................................... 491
18.4.1 Higher Order Discretization ............................................................................................................ 493
18.5 Discretization Errors ...................................................................................................................................... 494
18.5.1 Mesh Density ......................................................................................................................................... 494
18.5.2 Mesh Scaling for Affordable Solution Verification ................................................................. 495
18.5.2.1 Solution Verification Using Scaled Meshes ................................................................... 495
18.5.3 Grid Independence Study ................................................................................................................. 496
18.5.4 Grid Topology ........................................................................................................................................ 496
18.5.5 Sources of Discretization Error ...................................................................................................... 497
18.5.6 Case Study – Hypersonic Flow Over an Axisymmetric Sphere-Cone ............................. 497
18.5.7 Estimating Discretization Error ..................................................................................................... 498
18.5.7.1 Case Study – Domain Discretization Error for the Transitional Flow over a
Sharp Cone 500
18.6 Temporal Discretization Errors ................................................................................................................. 500
18.7 Iterative Convergence Errors ...................................................................................................................... 501
18.7.1 Monitoring Convergence using Residual History ................................................................... 502
18.7.2 Monitoring Quantitative Convergence ........................................................................................ 502
18.7.3 Norms of Convergence Error .......................................................................................................... 503
18.7.4 Case Study – 2D Flow Over a Hill................................................................................................... 504
18.8 Computer Round off Errors ......................................................................................................................... 505
18.9 Truncation Errors ............................................................................................................................................ 506
18.10 Code Errors ......................................................................................................................................................... 506
18.11 Benchmarking & Inter-Code Issues ......................................................................................................... 507
18.12 Is the Problem with the Mesh, the Turbulence Model, or the Solver? ....................................... 508
18.13 Usage Errors ....................................................................................................................................................... 509
18.14 What To Trust and What Not To?.............................................................................................................. 509
18.15 Verification and Validation for Computational Simulation ............................................................ 510

19 Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning in CFD ..................................................... 512

19.1 Background......................................................................................................................................................... 512
19.2 Machine Learning............................................................................................................................................. 512
19.2.1 Difference Between Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning .................................. 513
19.3 Deep Learning ................................................................................................................................................... 513
19.4 Types of Problems and Tasks...................................................................................................................... 514
19.4.1 Supervised Learning ........................................................................................................................... 514
19.4.2 Unsupervised Learning ..................................................................................................................... 514
19.4.3 Reinforcement Learning ................................................................................................................... 514
19.5 List of Common Machine Learning Algorithms ................................................................................... 514
19.5.1 Linear Regression ................................................................................................................................ 515
19.5.2 Logistic Regression ............................................................................................................................. 515
 18

19.5.3 Decision Tree ......................................................................................................................................... 516

19.5.4 Case Study - Prediction & Comparison of the Maximal Wall Shear Stress (MWSS) for
Carotid Artery Bifurcation .................................................................................................................................. 516
19.6 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) ........................................................................................................... 517
19.6.1 Model of a Neuron ............................................................................................................................... 519
19.6.2 Limitations.............................................................................................................................................. 520
19.6.3 Field Inversion and Machine Learning in Support of Data Driven Environment ...... 520
19.6.3.1 Functional Relationship Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) ................................ 520
19.6.4 Overview of ANNs in Turbulence Applications ....................................................................... 522
19.6.5 The Future of ANNs for Fluids Modelling .................................................................................. 522
19.6.6 Case Study 1 – 2D Laminar Flow Analysis of a Plane Sudden Expansion Flows with
Emphasis on Boundary Reattachment Lengths Using CFD and (ANN) ........................................... 523
19.6.6.1 Introduction & Literature Survey ..................................................................................... 523
19.6.6.2 Model Equations and Numerical Method ...................................................................... 525
19.6.6.3 Initial-Boundary Conditions and Meshes ...................................................................... 525
19.6.6.4 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) .................................................................................. 526
19.6.6.5 Model Development ............................................................................................................... 526
19.6.6.6 CFD Results ............................................................................................................................... 527
19.6.6.7 ANN Data Preparation, Network Training, Validation, Testing and Results... 529
19.6.6.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 531
19.6.7 Case Study 2 – CFD Expert System Using (ANNs) .................................................................. 531
19.6.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 532
19.6.7.2 Brief Description of Artificial Neural Networks.......................................................... 532
19.6.7.3 Database ...................................................................................................................................... 534
19.6.7.4 Expert System ........................................................................................................................... 535
19.6.7.5 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 537
19.6.7.6 Conclusions and Future Directions .................................................................................. 539

20 CFD Education in the Undergraduate Curriculum...................................................... 540

20.1 Classification of Core CFD Concepts ......................................................................................................... 540
20.1.1 Computer Programming ................................................................................................................... 540
20.1.2 Pre‐Processing and Grid Generation ........................................................................................... 540
20.1.3 Verification and Validation (V&V) ................................................................................................ 540
20.1.4 Numerical Methodologies for CFD ................................................................................................ 542
20.1.5 Turbulence Modeling, RANS and Large‐Eddy Simulation .................................................. 543
20.1.6 Panel and Vortex Lattice Methods ................................................................................................ 544
20.1.7 Software Engineering ......................................................................................................................... 545
20.1.8 Computer Architecture and Parallel Computing .................................................................... 545
20.2 Strategies for Incorporating CFD into Undergraduate Curriculum............................................. 546
20.2.1 CFD Light ................................................................................................................................................. 546
20.2.2 CFD Moderate ........................................................................................................................................ 546
20.2.3 CFD Heavy ............................................................................................................................................... 546
20.3 CFD-Related Concepts in Mechanical Engineering ............................................................................ 548
20.3.1 Computational Heat Transfer ......................................................................................................... 548
20.3.2 Numerical Techniques for Multiphase Flows .......................................................................... 549
20.4 Open-Source vs Commercial Software .................................................................................................... 550

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Classification of Mach Number ................................................................................................................ 30
 19

Table 3.1 Comparison of Iterative Schemes ........................................................................................................... 65

Table 3.2 Differences between OOP vs Procedural ............................................................................................. 70
Table 4.1 Implicit Discretization Methods of Model Equations ..................................................................... 79
Table 4.2 Explicit Discretization Methods of Model Equations...................................................................... 79
Table 4.3 Choice of Parameters ................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 5.1 Solution Error (rms) Reduction with Grid Refinement – Courtesy of Fletcher............... 125
Table 6.1 Approximations for Surface Integrals Over the Face Se - Courtesy of [Schafer]............. 137
Table 9.1 Classification of the Euler Equation on Different Regimes ....................................................... 210
Table 10.1 Comparation of the Results For Flow Over a Backward Facing Step ................................. 233
Table 10.2 Admissible Agglomerations ................................................................................................................ 261
Table 10.3 Summary of discretizations used to define the residual, ^R ................................................. 268
Table 10.4 Summary of costs and typical numbers of linear-sweeps. The multigrid cycle is a 5-
level V (2; 1) with a typical coarsening ratio 8. The numbers in parenthesis denote the number of
point and line sweeps, respectively, and the second set for RANS denotes the number of point and
line sweeps of the turbulent equation. ...................................................................................................................... 269
Table 10.5 Summary of Jacobians, ∂^R*/∂U........................................................................................................ 269
Table 10.6 Summary of grid sizes and parameters for the inviscid cases. ............................................. 270
Table 10.7 Cost of V-cycle relative to a single-grid iteration and speed-up factor. The expected
speed-up factors have been computed with the actual coarsening ratio.................................................... 270
Table 11.1 Summary of Computed Results for 1D and 1.5D M∞ = 6.0 Steady Shock Tests with
Various Flux Functions..................................................................................................................................................... 283
Table 11.2 Evaluation of Euler Fluxes Based on 3 Properties for Hypersonic Heating: Groups 1–3,
4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 290
Table 11.3 Test matrix for the validation of UNIC-UNS.................................................................................. 297
Table 11.4 Material properties for the hot surface region ............................................................................ 299
Table 11.5 Material properties for the nose and flaps region ..................................................................... 299
Table 11.6 Double wedge configuration ............................................................................................................... 306
Table 11.7 Flow properties (Left) and Grid Cells per Zone (Right)........................................................... 306
Table 11.8 Inviscid weak forebody shock values .............................................................................................. 308
Table 12.1 Details of Grids used in Mesh Sensitivity Testing ...................................................................... 322
Table 12.2 Case Specification for Dynamic Stall ................................................................................................ 329
Table 12.3 Analysis of the Three-Dimensional E562 Grid Model Without Winglets ......................... 349
Table 13.1 Decoupling Strategy of Boundary Layer Equations .................................................................. 354
Table 13.2 Differential Equations ............................................................................................................................ 359
Table 13.3 Abbreviations Used in Flow Separation in Subscale Rocket Nozzles................................. 389
Table 14.1 Tetrahedral Grids for Finite-Volume and Finite-Element Solutions .................................. 419
Table 15.1 Main Design Parameters of the prototype Kaplan Turbine ................................................... 429
Table 15.2 Mesh Quality of the Kaplan Turbine ................................................................................................ 430
Table 17.1 An Overview of some commercially available CFD software ................................................ 467
Table 17.2 Statistics of four finest grids for hemisphere cylinder grid families. ................................. 472
Table 17.3 Hemisphere Cylinder: Variation of Aerodynamic Coefficients on L1 Grids ................... 475
Table 17.4 Statistics of Grids for OM6 Wing Grid Families ........................................................................... 478
Table 17.5 Variations of Aerodynamic Coefficients ......................................................................................... 480
Table 18.1 Discretization Error for 2D Burger’s Equation............................................................................ 499
Table 19.1 Results of Different Methods .............................................................................................................. 517
Table 19.2 Parameters of MLPs Created With The Software Flood 2 ...................................................... 534
 20

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 CFD Application in Various Industries ............................................................................................... 29
Figure 1.2 An F/A-18 Hornet Creating a Vapor Cone at Transonic Speed ................................................ 30
Figure 1.3 Block Diagram Categorizing the Types of ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 1.4 Different Regimes of Flow (Courtesy of John D. Anderson) ...................................................... 32
Figure 1.5 Flow over a Supersonic Blunt Body ..................................................................................................... 34
Figure 1.6 A range of V & V techniques and their interaction with each other ....................................... 36
Figure 1.7 Simulation of the Hyper-X Scramjet Vehicle in Operation by NASA ...................................... 38
Figure 1.8 Road Map for CFD Studies ....................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 1.9 Impact of CFD at Boeing. Green areas have strong CFD penetration; Purple areas have
some penetration; Red areas present future opportunities ................................................................................ 41
Figure 2.1 Domain and Boundaries for the Solution of Hyperbolic Equations (Steady) ..................... 46
Figure 2.2 Domain and Boundaries for the Solution of Hyperbolic Equations (Unsteady) ............... 46
Figure 2.3 Domain and Boundaries of Elliptic Equations in Two Dimensions ........................................ 47
Figure 2.4 Domain and Boundaries for the Solution of Parabolic Equations in Two Dimensions .. 47
Figure 2.5 Two-way interchange of information between Parabolic and Elliptic flows ..................... 49
Figure 2.6 Solution of linear Wave equation.......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 2.7 Rate of Decay of solution to diffusion equation .............................................................................. 50
Figure 2.8 Formulation of discontinuities in non-linear Burgers (wave) equation .............................. 51
Figure 2.9 Solution to Laplace equation .................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 2.10 Solution to Poisson's Equation ............................................................................................................ 53
Figure 3.1 Bi-linear (middle) and Bi-Cubic (far right) Interpolation........................................................... 55
Figure 3.2 Iteration Methods Path ............................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 3.3 SOR by line ..................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 3.4 ADI Stencil for Implicit Method ............................................................................................................. 66
Figure 3.5 3D Representation of a Sine Function using MATLAB ................................................................. 73
Figure 4.1 Contributions from other disciplines to CFD ................................................................................... 75
Figure 4.2 Linkage between CFD, Experimental & Analytical approach .................................................... 76
Figure 4.3 Segregated Solution .................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 4.4 Coupled Solutions........................................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 4.5 An Arbitrary Polyhedral Control Volume .......................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.6 Geometric Interpretation of the Diffusion Term Approximation –[H. Jasak] ..................... 88
Figure 4.7 Accessible Pressure Solvers in Fluent................................................................................................. 89
Figure 4.8 PISO algorithm flow chart (Courtesy of Giannopapa, and G. Papadakis ) ........................... 92
Figure 4.9 Flow Around Circular Cylinder in a Channel.................................................................................... 94
Figure 4.10 Lift Force as a Function of Time, using Different PISO-Algorithms for the Flow Around
Fixed Cylinder in a Channel (Courtesy of Tukovic et al.) ..................................................................................... 94
Figure 4.11 Solution Method for FFD........................................................................................................................ 94
Figure 4.12 Mach number distribution for flow over a Bump ........................................................................ 98
Figure 4.13 2D Mach Number Distribution in the Test Turbine Cascade (left) - 3D Pressure
Distribution at the Blades (right).................................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.14 Distribution of Velocities (u, v) along Centerline Horizontal Distance for Re = 100 100
Figure 4.15 Streamlines of the Base Flow in the Symmetry Plane z = 0.5 and Re = 1000 ............... 100
Figure 4.16 Structured-Unstructured Mesh Overlapping ............................................................................ 105
Figure 4.17 Pressure contour lines across the structured-unstructured zonal interface – Courtesy
of [Tsung et al.] .................................................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 4.18 Pressure Contour Across the Structured-Unstructured Interface – Courtesy of [Tsung
et al.]......................................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 4.19 Scope of Incompressible Vs. Compressible Flow Solvers...................................................... 108
 21

Figure 4.20 Comparing the Convergence Rates of the ILU-Preconditioned Newton-Krylov Method
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 5.1 Correlation between truncation error and order of accuracy ............................................... 121
Figure 5.2 Free Jet Flow profile for different order of accuracy ................................................................. 121
Figure 5.3 Conceptual Relationship Between Consistency, Stability and Convergence – Courtesy of
Fletcher ................................................................................................................................................................................... 122
Figure 5.4 1D Stability Analysis Based on CFL Number; (a) CFL < 1 Unstable; (b) CFL ≥ 1 Stable
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 5.5 Different Spatial Scheme ....................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 5.6 Viscous & Inviscid Stencil for a 2nd order accurate MUSCL ..................................................... 127
Figure 5.7 Deciding the Upwind Direction in Arbitrary Unstructured Mesh ........................................ 129
Figure 5.8 Grid Points at a Boundary ...................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 6.1 Definition of CVs and Nodes for Triangular Grids with Donald Polygons ........................ 135
Figure 6.2 Finite Volume in a 2D Hexahedra Cell – Courtesy of [Schafer]............................................. 136
Figure 6.3 Cartesian Control Volume with Notations in Formulas Analogous to Finite-Difference
Methods – Courtesy of [Schafer] ................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 6.4 Approximation of φe with CDS Method – Courtesy of [Schafer] .......................................... 138
Figure 6.5 Mass flux Dependent Approximation of φe with UDS Method .............................................. 139
Figure 6.6 Mass flux dependent approximation of φe with QUICK method – Courtesy of [Schafer]
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 6.7 Central Differencing Formula for Approximation of 1st Derivative at CV face – Courtesy
of [Schafer] ........................................................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 6.8 Central difference approximation ..................................................................................................... 142
Figure 6.9 Approximation of diffusive fluxes for non-Cartesian control volumes – Courtesy of
[Schafer] ................................................................................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 6.10 Interpolation of values in CV edges for discretization of diffusive fluxes for non-
Cartesian CV – Courtesy of [Schafer] ......................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 6.11 Cartesian boundary CV at west boundary ................................................................................... 144
Figure 6.12 Coordinate System and C-type Control Volume ........................................................................ 150
Figure 6.13 Collocated Grid Arrangement ........................................................................................................... 151
Figure 6.14 Cp Contours for NACA 0012 Hydrofoil at 6 Degree Incidence ............................................ 154
Figure 6.15 Potent Numerical Errors in CFD ...................................................................................................... 155
Figure 6.16 Effects a) exact b) 1ST order (Dissipation) c) 2nd order (Dispersion) . 156
Figure 6.17 Progression of Shock Wave on Supersonic Flow over a Backward Step ........................ 157
Figure 6.18 Effect of retaining TE terms ............................................................................................................... 157
Figure 6.19 Correlation Between CD and UD Schemes for Different (Pe) Number ............................ 158
Figure 6.20 Ratio of Convection Vs Diffusion - Effect of (Pe) number ..................................................... 158
Figure 6.21 Spatial effects of (Pe) number on 1D flow ................................................................................... 159
Figure 6.22 Cell Centered and Node Centered ................................................................................................... 159
Figure 6.23 Control Volume for spatial discretization of staggered grid vs collocated .................... 160
Figure 6.24 Near Wall Velocity Profile .................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 6.25 Wall Function Relation in Boundary Layer ................................................................................. 162
Figure 6.26 Grid 1 - Tetrahedral Cell Growth(Left) vs, Grid 2 – Hybrid Prism Layer Growth (Right)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 162
Figure 6.27 Drag Force (N) on the Pilot and Stoker using Different Grids ............................................. 163
Figure 6.28 CP for Different Grids ............................................................................................................................ 164
Figure 6.29 Drag/ Lift and Lateral Forces (N) Acting on the Pilot and the Stoker .............................. 165
Figure 6.30 Stencil for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Discretization – (Courtesy of Nishikawa) . 168
Figure 6.31 Inviscid Flow over a Joukowsky Airfoil at M1 = 0.85 using Unstructured Mesh -
(Courtesy of Nishikawa) ................................................................................................................................................. 169
 22

Figure 7.1 Mixed Boundary Conditions................................................................................................................. 171

Figure 7.2 Symmetry Plane to Model one Quarter of a 3D Duct ................................................................ 174
Figure 7.3 Pole (Axis) Boundary .............................................................................................................................. 178
Figure 7.4 Periodic Boundary ................................................................................................................................... 179
Figure 7.5 Pressure contours plot for 2nd order spatial discretization scheme ................................... 180
Figure 7.6 Aero-Acoustics Application for NRBC’ ............................................................................................. 181
Figure 7.7 Immersed Boundaries ............................................................................................................................ 182
Figure 7.8 Sketch Exemplifying the conditions at a Free Surface Formed by the Interface Between
Two Fluids ............................................................................................................................................................................. 182
Figure 8.1 Numerical Stability of 1D Heat Equation using Explicit & Implicit Algorithms
(Wikipedia) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 187
Figure 8.2 Transient Solution Sequences ............................................................................................................. 190
Figure 8.3 Vortex shedding behind a cylinder run wrongly as a Steady State...................................... 191
Figure 8.4 Steady-State Force and Monitoring for a flow over a double sided membrane case ... 192
Figure 8.5 Flowchart of the Strong coupling of NS/VOF Flow Solver and 6DOF Model (Courtesy of
Nguyen & Park) ................................................................................................................................................................... 203
Figure 8.6 Snapshots of 3D dam-break flow: (a) experimental image and (b) simulation result at
0.5 s (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) .............................................................................................................................. 204
Figure 8.7 Image sequences of the 3D evolution of a dam break in the case of closed downstream
walls, where the color of the free surface denotes the water level (red, z = 0.6 m; green, z = 0)
(Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) ......................................................................................................................................... 205
Figure 8.8 Wave profile Around a Surface-Piercing NACA 0024 Hydrofoil at Fr = 0.37obtained
from Grid Refinement ....................................................................................................................................................... 206
Figure 8.9 Visual Comparison of Simulated and Experimental Free-Surface Wave Profiles .......... 206
Figure 8.10 Grid and Wave Breaking by a NACA 66 Hydrofoil (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) ....... 207
Figure 8.11 Impact Pressure Distributions over the Surface of a Water Entry Hemisphere over
time (Courtesy of V.T. Nguyen, W.-G. Park) ............................................................................................................ 208
Figure 8.12 Chimera Grids for Water Entry of a Sphere: (a) Curvilinear Background Grid (b)
Body-Fitted Grid (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) ..................................................................................................... 209
Figure 8.13 Center-depth variation for a free-falling sphere with time at various entry velocities
(Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) ......................................................................................................................................... 209
Figure 9.1 Characteristics of Linear Equation .................................................................................................... 211
Figure 9.2 Characteristics of Nonlinear solution point (exaggerated)..................................................... 213
Figure 9.3 Supersonic Flow Over Circular Arc with Inlet M=1.4 - Courtesy of [Mahdi and Al-
Kwarizmi] .............................................................................................................................................................................. 214
Figure 9.4 Coefficient of Pressure for a Shock.................................................................................................... 217
Figure 9.5 Cp Contours for a Rotor using Panel Method............................................................................... 223
Figure 9.6 Simulation of an Airplane Based in the VLM ................................................................................. 224
Figure 10.1 Velocity Contours for Flow Over a Backward Facing Step ................................................... 233
Figure 10.2 Flow Field Over a Curved Ramp ...................................................................................................... 234
Figure 10.3 Vorticity-Stream Function Approach For 2D Incompressible N-S Equations .............. 237
Figure 10.4 SIMPLE Procedure as applied to 2D Equation ........................................................................... 240
Figure 10.5 Dual control volume for node-centered finite-volume schemes with unit normal
associated with an edge {j , k}. ...................................................................................................................................... 251
Figure 10.6 Irregular Triangular Grid for the Viscous Shock-Structure.................................................. 252
Figure 10.7 Comparison of Convergence for the 2D Problem. Stars: the Traditional Scheme.
Circles: the Hyperbolic Scheme .................................................................................................................................... 253
Figure 10.8 Error Convergence Results for the Viscous Stresses and the Heat Fluxes in the 2D
problem .................................................................................................................................................................................. 254
Figure 10.9 Multi-Gridding Cycle............................................................................................................................. 257
 23

Figure 10.10 Sequence of gridding in unstructured multigrid scheme ................................................. 258

Figure 10.11 Illustration of a node-centered median-dual control volume .......................................... 260
Figure 10.12 Trailing-edge area of a 3D wing agglomerated by the hierarchical scheme. Primal
grid is shown by thin lines; agglomerated grid is shown by thick lines. ..................................................... 262
Figure 10.13 Typical implicit line-agglomeration showing a curved solid body surface on the left
and a symmetry plane on the right. The projection of the line-agglomerations can be seen on the
symmetry plane................................................................................................................................................................... 262
Figure 10.14 Grids and convergence of the model diffusion equation for the F6 wing-body
combination .......................................................................................................................................................................... 263
Figure 10.15 Grids and Convergence of the Model Diffusion Equation for the DPW-W2 case ...... 264
Figure 10.16 Grids and Convergence for the wing-ap inviscid case. ........................................................ 265
Figure 10.17 Residual versus CPU time for the F6 wing-body case (RANS) ......................................... 271
Figure 11.1 Shock Layers in Hypersonic Flow Regimes (Courtesy of John D. Anderson) ............... 274
Figure 11.2 Features of hypersonic flow around a blunt-nosed vehicle (Courtesy of von Karman
Institute)................................................................................................................................................................................. 274
Figure 11.3 Surface Slip in Low-Density Flow (Courtesy of ......................................................................... 278
Figure 11.4 a) Stable (2: symmetry and converged), b) 1D Anomaly (1: oscillatory), c) MD
Anomaly (1: asymmetry), and d) Carbuncle (0: breakdown of shock) Results for 1.5D Steady Shock
Test (1st order both in space and time; M∞ = 6.0) ............................................................................................... 279
Figure 11.5 Illustrations of a) Original (50 x 25), b) Modified 1 (50 x 250;AR = 10), c) Modified 2
(50 X 250), and d) Modified 3 (50 x 25;AR =10) grids for 1.5 D Steady Shock Tests............................ 284
Figure 11.6 Plots of a) original (50 x 25), b) modified 1 (50 x 250 AR x 10), c) Modified 2 (50 x
250), and d) Modified 3 (50 x 25 AR x 10) 1.5D Tests (van Leer’s FVS, 200,000 steps)....................... 286
Figure 11.7 Residual histories for original and modified 1.5D tests (van Leer [16]). ....................... 287
Figure 11.8 Total Enthalpy-Preserving of Flux Functions Across Normal Shock: a) Grid System, b)
Typical Mach number contours, and c) Computed Total Enthalpy Profiles .............................................. 288
Figure 11.9 Total Enthalpy-Preserving of Flux Functions Across Bow Shock: a) Pressure contours,
and computed Total Enthalpy (j = 60) of b) first-order and c) second-order results ............................ 289
Figure 11.10 Illustrations of a) Grid (every other grid lines are shown), b) Coordinates, and
Results (Mach number contours at 100,000 steps, Baseline Grid) of c) Roe (e-fix), d) EC-Roe (α =
0.8), e) HLLE, f) van Leer , g) Hänel [13], h) AUSM+, i) AUSMPW+, and j) RoeM for Blunt-Body
Viscous Test .......................................................................................................................................................................... 291
Figure 11.11 Mach Number a) Roe (e-fix), b) AUSM+, c) AUSMPW+, and d) RoeM for Blunt-Body
Viscous test (100,000 steps, fine grid) ...................................................................................................................... 292
Figure 11.12 a) Pressure and b) Heat Transfer Rates over Blunt Body (100,000 steps, fine grid)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 293
Figure 11.13 Comparison of Mach number contours of AUSM+ Results of a) Baseline and b) Fine
Grids for Blunt-Body Viscous Tests at 100,000 steps ......................................................................................... 294
Figure 11.14 Boundary-Layer Resolution of Flux Functions ....................................................................... 295
Figure 11.15 Computational domain and boundary conditions applied to the sphericalnosed ... 298
Figure 11.16 Variation of Reynolds numbers and Knudsen numbers W.R.T. Altitude ..................... 299
Figure 11.17 The pressure coefficient distribution along the lower centerline at an altitude of 90
km simulated by different mesh sizes ....................................................................................................................... 300
Figure 11.18 Comparison of temperature fields between UNIC-UNS and DSMC results for cases 1
and 2 in Table 11.3 . Ma = 5, Kn = 0.1 (left) and Kn = 0.5 (right). .................................................................... 300
Figure 11.19 Comparison of temperature profiles along the stagnation streamline between UNIC-
UNS and DSMC results, for cases 1 to 4 in Table 11.3 . (Top): Ma = 5 and (Bottom) : Ma = 10. ........ 301
Figure 11.20 Comparison of surface aerothermodynamic characteristics between UNIC-UNS and
DSMC results, for Case 2 in Table 11.3, Ma = 5 and Kn = 0.5: Pressure and friction coefficients (Top)
and Stanton number (Bottom)...................................................................................................................................... 302
 24

Figure 11.21 Comparison of temperature profiles along the stagnation streamline between UNIC-
UNS results and those from Tchuen and Zeltoun [13]. (Case 5 in Table 11.3 at Mach 18) where X/D
= 0 corresponds to the stagnation point. .................................................................................................................. 302
Figure 11.22 Double wedge characteristics definition ................................................................................... 305
Figure 11.23 Mesh Zones ............................................................................................................................................ 307
Figure 11.24 Mach contours (inviscid case) ....................................................................................................... 309
Figure 11.25 Surface variables, low enthalpy, coarse grid ........................................................................... 309
Figure 11.26 Surface variables, low enthalpy, mid grid ................................................................................. 310
Figure 11.27 Mach contours, low enthalpy, mid grid ...................................................................................... 310
Figure 11.28 Detailed Mach contours, heat transfer ....................................................................................... 311
Figure 12.1 Hierarchy of Models for Industrial Flow Simulations – Courtesy of Antony Jameson
and Massimiliano Fatica ................................................................................................................................................... 314
Figure 12.2 NACA 0012 C-Type Mesh.................................................................................................................... 317
Figure 12.3 Contours of Pressure at 10o Angle of Attack for Different Turbulence Models .......... 317
Figure 12.4 Comparison of CL for Various Turbulent Models ...................................................................... 318
Figure 12.5 Geometry of the NACA 0015 Airfoil with a 30% Trailing Edge Deflected Flap (Top)
and Domain of Calculations and Boundary Conditions (Bottom) - Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]. .......... 321
Figure 12.6 Cp Around NACA 0015 Airfoil for a Few Selected Incidence Angles- (Courtesy of
[Obeid et al.]) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 322
Figure 12.7 Cp (left) and velocity magnitude contours(right) around the NACA 0015 airfoil at
different .................................................................................................................................................................................. 323
Figure 12.8 Pressure Coefficients along the Upper and Lower Surfaces of the Airfoil with 0 Degree
Flap – (Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]) ................................................................................................................................ 324
Figure 12.9 Comparison of Lift Coefficient CL values of the Airfoil at 0° flap Deflection as a
Function of (α) at Chord Re = 106 with Experimental and Numerical Results – (Courtesy of [Obeid et
al.]) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 325
Figure 12.10 Turbulence Intensity (δf ) Around the a Flapped Airfoil – (Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 326
Figure 12.11 (a) Flow velocities of a straight-bladed Darrieus type VAWT [5] (b) Fixed pitch
straight-bladed VAWT[6] ................................................................................................................................................ 328
Figure 12.12 A Blade in the Pitching Motion [5] ............................................................................................... 329
Figure 12.13 Comparison Between Streamline Velocity (a) Numerical (for 𝛼 = 15°, upstroke) .. 330
Figure 12.14 Streamline Velocity for 𝛼 = 22°, Upstroke [Spentzoset al.]................................................ 331
Figure 12.15 Comparison Between Non-Dimensional Velocity Profile (a) Numerical (for 𝛼 = 15°,
upstroke) (b) Experimental Data [Spentzos et al.](for 𝛼 = 22°, upstroke) ................................................ 331
Figure 12.16 Vorticity for the Upstroke Pitching Phase Using (d) 𝛼 = 10°, downstroke (e) 𝛼 = 7.5°,
downstroke (f) 𝛼 = 6.5° downstroke .............................................................................................................................. 332
Figure 12.17 Vorticity for the Upstroke Pitching Phase Using (a) 𝛼 = 5°, upstroke (b) 𝛼 = 9°,
upstroke (c) 𝛼 = 14°........................................................................................................................................................... 332
Figure 12.18 Stepped Airfoil Geometrical Parameters ................................................................................... 334
Figure 12.19 Validation of CL and CD for NACA 2412 Airfoil ........................................................................ 337
Figure 12.20 Grid Independency Study of Stepped Airfoil ........................................................................... 337
Figure 12.21 Step Shapes a) Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoil .................................................................... 338
Figure 12.22 Velocity Profile Over the Top Step Corner and Reattachment ......................................... 338
Figure 12.23 Variation of Re-Attachment Length Versus Step Length for Upper, b) Lower Stepped
Airfoils ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 339
Figure 12.24 Pressure Distribution at α = 0 Angle of Attack for a) Upper, b) Lower Stepped
Airfoils ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 340
Figure 12.25 Change in Lift Coefficient versus Step Length for .................................................................. 341
Figure 12.26 Step Shapes for a)Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoils ............................................................ 342
 25

Figure 12.27 Change in Drag Coefficient vs Step Length a) Upper b) Lower Step Airfoil ................ 342
Figure 12.28 CP Distribution at α = 0 (a) Upper (b) Lower Stepped Airfoil .......................................... 343
Figure 12.29 Step Shapes for (a) Upper, (b) Lower Stepped Airfoils ....................................................... 343
Figure 12.30 Velocity Vectors and Stream Line Within the Step Region at α = 0o .............................. 344
Figure 12.31 Pressure Distribution at α = 0 (a) Upper (b) Lower ............................................................ 345
Figure 12.32 Simulation domain and boundary conditions ......................................................................... 346
Figure 12.33 Specimens Model................................................................................................................................. 347
Figure 12.34 Modeling Dimensions and Background Conditions .............................................................. 347
Figure 12.35 Geometry and Meshing ..................................................................................................................... 348
Figure 12.36 Velocity Vector y and z on Wing Airfoil α = 17o ...................................................................... 350
Figure 12.37 Velocity Path Line on Wing Airfoil α = 17o .............................................................................. 351
Figure 12.38 Velocity Magnitude on Wing Airfoil α = 17o ............................................................................. 352
Figure 13.1 The Krause Zig-Zag scheme (a) Difference Tensile (b) Continuity Equation ............... 355
Figure 13.2 Flow Configuration a) Confined b) Unconfined ........................................................................ 358
Figure 13.3 Initial conditions: a) horizontal and b) vertical velocity component ............................... 360
Figure 13.4 Independency Grid for Confined Case. a) X = 100 mm b) X = 735 mm ........................... 361
Figure 13.5 Vertical Profile of Horizontal Velocity for Confined Configuration .................................. 362
Figure 13.6 Vertical profile of horizontal velocity for unconfined configuration. .............................. 362
Figure 13.7 3D Boundary Layer Formed Between a Squat Cylindrical Body sitting on a Flat Plate
(Courtesy of J. P. Johnston) ............................................................................................................................................. 364
Figure 13.8 Axisymmetric Flow ............................................................................................................................... 365
Figure 13.9 Axisymmetric Body of Revolution with protuberance........................................................... 365
Figure 13.10 Mach Contours for (i) Mach= 3 and (ii) Mach= 8 ................................................................... 366
Figure 13.11 Pressure Contours for (i) Mach = 3 and (ii) Mach = 8 ......................................................... 367
Figure 13.12 Flow Field Features for ; (a) Blunt Body (b) Conical Spike (c) Flat Face Spike (d)
Hemispherical Disc Spike - (Courtesy of Mehta) ................................................................................................... 369
Figure 13.13 (a) Heat Shield with Spike & (b) Enlarged view of the Grid - (Courtesy of Mehta) 371
Figure 13.14 (a) Geometrical Parameters of Reentry Capsule and (b) Enlarged view of Grid-
(Courtesy of Mehta) ........................................................................................................................................................... 371
Figure 13.15 Dimensions of the Aerospike Blunt Bodies with Grid (a) Conical spike (b)
Hemispherical Spike and (c) Flat-Face Disc - (Courtesy of Mehta) ............................................................... 372
Figure 13.16 (a) Dimensions of the Spiked Blunt Body and (b) Computational Grid - (Courtesy of
Mehta) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 372
Figure 13.17 (a) Mach and (b) Temperature Contours over the Blunted-Cone/Flare Module -
(Courtesy of Mehta) ........................................................................................................................................................... 373
Figure 13.18 (a) Variation of Pressure Coefficient and (b) Wall Heat Flux over Re-entry Module -
(Courtesy of Mehta) ........................................................................................................................................................... 374
Figure 13.19 (a) Velocity Vector and (b) Mach Contours over the Heat Shield at M∞= 2.0 ............ 375
Figure 13.20 Contour Plots Over the Spiked Blunt Body: (a) Pressure (b) Density and (c) Mach
Number - (Courtesy of Mehta) ...................................................................................................................................... 375
Figure 13.21 Mach Contours : (a) Conical Spike, (b) Hemisphere, (c) Flat-Faced Aero Spike
Attached to the Blunt Body - (Courtesy of Mehta)................................................................................................ 376
Figure 13.22 Variations of (a) Pressure Coefficient and (b) Wall Heat Flux over the Spiked Blunt
Body - (Courtesy of Mehta) ............................................................................................................................................ 378
Figure 13.23 (a) Schematic of Flow Field over the Blunt Body, (c) The Hemisphere and (b) the
Flat-Face Disc Spiked - (Courtesy of Mehta) ........................................................................................................... 379
Figure 13.24 Representation Boundary Later Velocity Profile (Courtesy of Sturm et al.) ............. 382
Figure 13.25 Schematic Diagram of the Bend Geometry and Mesh (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.]) .. 385
Figure 13.26 Comparison of Normalized Axial Velocity with Experimental and Numerical Results
Re (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.])........................................................................................................................................ 386
 26

Figure 13.27 Normalized Velocity Vector Field for Re = 1 × 105 and Rc/D = 1; (a) Symmetry Plane
(center cross section). (b) Cross Section at Bend Outlet (∝ = 90°) - (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.]) ...... 387
Figure 13.28 Normalized Velocity Profiles at Different Positions in the Bend for Different Re
(Courtesy of [Dutta et al.]) .............................................................................................................................................. 387
Figure 13.29 Normalized Velocity Vector Field - (a) Re = 1 × 105, (b) Re = 10 × 105 - (Courtesy of
[Dutta et al.]) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 388
Figure 13.30 Typical side-load Behavior for TIC Nozzle – Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] .............. 390
Figure 13.31 Cap Shock Pattern with FSS for the TOP Nozzle (Top) vs. Curved Cap Shock for the
TIC Nozzle (Bottom) - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark].......................................................................................... 391
Figure 13.32 Start of transition from Mach disk pattern to curved cap shock pattern for the TIC
nozzle, FSS, pc/pa = 9 - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] ......................................................................................... 392
Figure 13.33 Velocity Vectors showing RSS and Recirculation Bubble for the TOP Nozzle, pc/pa= 9
(Left) and pc/pa = 11 (Right) - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] ......................................................................... 393
Figure 13.34 Side Load Behavior for the TOP Nozzle - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] ..................... 394
Figure 13.35 Schlieren Images of the Plume Behind the Nozzle Exit - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 395
Figure 13.36 Infrared Image Presentation qRSS Pattern for the TIC Nozzle During Startup,
pc/pa=4.7 (left) and 4.9 (right) Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] ....................................................................... 395
Figure 13.37 Sequence of infrared pictures showing qRSS during shutdown for the TOP nozzle,
pc/pa Ranging from 6. 5 to 4.7 from left to right - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark] .................................. 396
Figure 14.1 Continuous vs. Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element Method ....................................... 399
Figure 14.2 Illustration of Different Shape, Basis, and Blending Functions .......................................... 400
Figure 14.3 Mathematical Model of a Steady State Heat Sink...................................................................... 404
Figure 14.4 Basis functions sharing two triangular elements in 2D ......................................................... 406
Figure 14.5 Finite element approximation of the temperature field in the heat sink ....................... 407
Figure 14.6 Mixed Triangular–Quadrilateral Mesh for a Symmetric Airfoil with Curved
Boundaries and a Circular Sliding Mesh. Static and Rotating Subdomains are Distinguished........... 410
Figure 14.7 Snapshots of the Rotating NACA0015 for Polynomial Order k = 5 and Rotational
Speed Lx/U = 0.05 for (a) AOA = 17.2 deg. and (b) AOA = 28.6 deg ............................................................ 414
Figure 14.8 Solution Snapshots of a 3 Bladed Cross-Flow Turbine for Polynomial Order k = 3 for
(a) Unconstrained and (b) Ducted Cases. ................................................................................................................. 415
Figure 14.9 Solution Snapshots of a 3D Circular Cylinder Shadowed by a Rotating NACA Blade (a)
Pressure Contours (b) Iso-surfaces of z velocity w = ±1.5 x 10-6 .................................................................... 416
Figure 14.10 Solution Snapshots of Flow Through a 3D Cross-Flow Turbine: (a) 11 pressure
contours [_1.6:0.8] and (b) iso-surfaces of z-velocity w = ±1 x10-6 ............................................................... 416
Figure 14.11 Propagation Mean Flow Residuals on Different Mesh Density (Courtesy of Pandya, et
al.) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 419
Figure 14.12 Convergence of Cp along symmetry plane (y = 0) using Tetrahedral cells ................. 420
Figure 15.1 Placement of Unknown ( Red Dot) and Flux (Blue ) Points for a Triangular Element;
From left to right - Case (a): First Order; Case (b): Second Order; Case (c): Third Order. ................... 423
Figure 15.2 Partitions of a Triangular SV . Linear, Quadratic and Cubic Reconstructions Publicized
in Case (a), Case(b) and Case(c) respectively ......................................................................................................... 424
Figure 15.3 Runner Vane of the Kaplan Turbine............................................................................................... 426
Figure 15.4 3D Geometry of the prototype Kaplan Turbine......................................................................... 427
Figure 15.5 The Block Diagram ................................................................................................................................ 428
Figure 15.6 Tip Cearance Gap of the Kaplan Turbine ..................................................................................... 428
Figure 15.7 Mesh Independence Test of the Kaplan Turbine ...................................................................... 429
Figure 15.8 Turbine Domain for Computational Analysis ............................................................................ 431
Figure 15.9 Comparison Between Computed and Experimental Results as a Function of Runner
Vane.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 431
 27

Figure 15.10 Tip Clearance (a) Velocity and (b) Pressure Profiles Between the Runner Blade and
the ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 432
Figure 15.11 Blade-to-Blade Velocity Contours ................................................................................................ 432
Figure 15.12 Distribution of the Turbulence Kinetic Energy at Draft Tube .......................................... 433
Figure 15.13 Partial Sums of the Fourier Series of a Square Wave ........................................................... 434
Figure 15.14 Typical Cross Sectional View of a Square Channel Showing Wall Bisectors and
Corner Bisectors (Courtesy of Sriramkrishnan) .................................................................................................... 437
Figure 15.15 Flow Regimes for Diluted Gas ........................................................................................................ 439
Figure 15.16 Simulations Spectrum of Rarefied Gas ....................................................................................... 440
Figure 15.17 Position and velocity vector for a particle after and before applying a force, F ....... 442
Figure 15.18 Real Molecules versus LB particles.............................................................................................. 444
Figure 15.19 Lattice Arrangements for Velocity Vectors for Typical 1D, 2D and 3D Discretization
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 445
Figure 15.20 Schematics of Solving 2D Lattice Boltzmann Model ............................................................. 446
Figure 15.21 Schematic Diagram of the D2Q9 Lattice .................................................................................... 448
Figure 15.22 Centerline(x/X=0.5) Temperature Evolution for Different Instants (Case 1) ........... 449
Figure 15.23 Comparison of Centerline (x/X=0.5) Temperature in the Presence/Absence of Heat
Generation (Case 2) - Courtesy of [Chaabane et al.] ........................................................................................... 450
Figure 15.24 Centerline(x/X=0.5) Temperature Evolution for Different Instants (Case3) -
Courtesy of [Chaabane et al.] ........................................................................................................................................ 451
Figure 15.25 Color plot of the norm of the velocity: Re = 1000, ν = 1/18, τ = 2/3, 256 x 256 lattice
.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 451
Figure 16.1 Component of Uncertainty within a Simulation........................................................................ 453
Figure 17.1 A typical CFD Simulation .................................................................................................................... 462
Figure 17.2 Streamlined CFD Simulation Process ............................................................................................ 464
Figure 17.3 Global view of hemisphere cylinder geometry and boundary conditions ..................... 473
Figure 17.4 Global View of Hemisphere Cylinder Pressure Contours using L1 grid at surfaces y = 0
(left) and x = 6 (right) ....................................................................................................................................................... 474
Figure 17.5 Grid Convergence of Aerodynamic Forces for Hemisphere Cylinder .............................. 475
Figure 17.6 Global View of Surface Pressure and Skin Friction at symmetry plane (y = 0) for
Hemisphere Cylinder ........................................................................................................................................................ 476
Figure 17.7 M6 wing: pressure contours computed by USM3D on family 4 prism/hex L1 grid... 478
Figure 17.8 M6 Grid Convergence of Aerodynamic Forces CL, CD .............................................................. 479
Figure 17.9 M6 Grid Convergence of Pitching Moment.................................................................................. 480
Figure 17.10 M6 section (η=x/c=0.2) Global View of leeside Pressure Grid Refinement ................ 481
Figure 18.1 Schematic Composition of Uncertainty Estimates in a Diffuser ......................................... 487
Figure 18.2 Variation in CP at y/b = 0.4 and 0.65 along the ONERA M6 wing...................................... 488
Figure 18.3 Comparison of (a) the Uncertainty Estimates, versus (b) Shock on the ......................... 488
Figure 18.4 Variation in Mach number, temperature and pressure along the centerline of the jet
efflux x/Djet ............................................................................................................................................................................ 489
Figure 18.5 Pressure Coefficient at 20% Chord Length using Different Turbulence Model ........... 490
Figure 18.6 Effects of Different Turbulence Models in a Steep Obstacle ................................................ 491
Figure 18.7 Inviscid stencil with 1st order cells in red and 2nd order cells in green ........................... 492
Figure 18.8 Viscous stencil with viscous cells in blue and 2nd order cells in green ............................ 492
Figure 18.9 Effect of Pe Number in balancing Diffusive and Convective Flows ................................... 493
Figure 18.10 Effect of 1st and 2nd Order Differencing Scheme in Error.................................................... 493
Figure 18.11 Effects of mesh density on solution domain ............................................................................ 494
Figure 18.12 Overview of Mesh Scaling with a Structured Block Decomposition .............................. 495
Figure 18.13 Domain Topology (O-Type, C-Type, and H-Type; from left to right) ............................. 496
Figure 18.14 Contours of Total Estimated Discretization Error in Density ........................................... 498
 28

Figure 18.15 (a) Exact Error, (b) Estimated Error Scheme for Viscous Burgers’ Equation
(Courtesy of Yan and Ollivier-Gooch) ........................................................................................................................ 500
Figure 18.16 Temporal Discretization Criteria .................................................................................................. 500
Figure 18.17 Effect of CFL Number on Convergence of 1D Wave Equation .......................................... 502
Figure 18.18 Estimated Iteration Error of U1 for Different Level of Tolerance Criteria et .............. 504
Figure 19.1 Scope of Artificial Intelligence - Courtesy of Hackerearth Blog.......................................... 512
Figure 19.2 Schematics of AI, Machine Learning and Deep Learning...................................................... 513
Figure 19.3 Linear Regression .................................................................................................................................. 515
Figure 19.4 Decision Tree ........................................................................................................................................... 516
Figure 19.5 Maximal Wall Shear Stress (MWSS) Value for Carotid Artery Bifurcation ..................... 517
Figure 19.6 Nonlinear Model of a Neuron............................................................................................................ 518
Figure 19.7 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) ..................................................................................................... 518
Figure 19.8 Block-Diagram Representation of a Neuron............................................................................... 519
Figure 19.9 Network Diagram for a feed-forward NN with three inputs and one output .............. 521
Figure 19.10 Skin Friction Coefficient for Onera M6 match to within 2% ............................................ 522
Figure 19.11 Geometrical Configuration of the Plane Sudden-Expansion ............................................. 524
Figure 19.12 The Architecture for the Developed ANN Model ................................................................... 527
Figure 19.13 Reattachment lengths with Reynolds number for E.R = 3 where lines are just for
visual help, filled dots represent the 9 randomly chosen cases by the simulator for testing ............. 528
Figure 19.14 Axial Mean Velocity (Fearn et al), Re=187 ............................................................................... 528
Figure 19.15 Actual vs. Predicted Results for the output Xr1 in the Developed ANN Model ......... 530
Figure 19.16 Actual vs. Predicted Attachment Position for Xr1 in the Testing Cases ......................... 530
Figure 19.17 Scheme of a MLP with the perceptron’s and its interconnections.................................. 533
Figure 19.18 Adjusting of weights of a MLP. Scheme of the learning process for a MLP. The
database is the set of examples used to train the MLP ....................................................................................... 533
Figure 19.19 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 535
Figure 19.20 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 535
Figure 19.21 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 536
Figure 19.22 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 536
Figure 19.23 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 537
Figure 19.24 Scheme of the Expert System ......................................................................................................... 538
 29

1 Introduction
Computational fluid dynamics, usually abbreviated as CFD, is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses
numerical analysis and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers
are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with
surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be
achieved. Ongoing research yields software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex
simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial experimental validation of such
software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in full-scale testing, e.g.
flight tests1. In design and development, CFD programs are now considered to be standard numerical
tools which predict not only fluid flow behavior, but also the transfer of heat, mass (such as in
perspiration or dissolution), phase change (such as in freezing, melting or boiling), chemical reaction
(such as combustion or rusting), mechanical movement (such as an impeller turning, pistons, fans or
rudders) and stress or deformation of related solid structures (such as a mast bending in the wind).
Furthermore, CFD has been applied to deal with problems in environment and architecture. Figure
1.1 summarizes the scope of CFD application2.

Industrial Environmental Physiological

applications applications applications
•Aerospace •Atmospheric pollution •Cadiovascular flows
•Architecture •Climate calculations (heart, major vessels)
•Automotive •Fire in buildings •Flow in lungs and
•Biomedical •Oceanic flows breathing passages
•Chemical Process •Pollution of natural
•Combustion waters
•Electronics and •Safety
computers
•Food Processing
•Glass manufacturing
•HVAC (heat, ventilation
and cooling)
•Petroleum
•Power
•Marine
•Mechanical
•Metallurgical
•Nuclear
•Train design
•Turbo Machinery
•Water Treatment

Figure 1.1 CFD Application in Various Industries

1From Wikipedia.
2Bin Xia, Da-Wen Sun, “Applications of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in the food industry: a review”,
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 34 (2002) 5–24.
 30

1.1 Fluid & Aerodynamic Flow Regions As Characterized By Mach Number

In fluid dynamics, the Mach number (M or Ma) is a dimensionless quantity representing the ratio of
flow velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound 3-4,

V
M=
a
Eq. 1.1
Where M is the Mach number, V is the local flow velocity with respect to the boundaries (either
internal, such as an object immersed in the flow, or
external, like a channel), and a is the speed of sound in
the medium. The local speed of sound, and thereby the
Mach number, depends on the condition of the
surrounding medium, in particular the temperature and
pressure. Figure 1.2 shows an F/A-18 creating a vapor
cone at transonic speed just before reaching Mach 1 (By
Ensign John Gay, U.S. Navy). The Mach number is
primarily used to determine the approximation with
which a flow can be treated as an incompressible flow.
The medium can be a gas or a liquid.
While the terms "subsonic" and "supersonic," in the
purest sense, refer to speeds below and above the local
speed of sound respectively, aerodynamicists often use
the same terms to talk about particular ranges of Mach Figure 1.2 An F/A-18 Hornet Creating
values. This occurs because of the presence of a a Vapor Cone at Transonic Speed
"transonic regime" around M = 1 where approximations
of the Navier-Stokes equations used for subsonic design actually no longer apply; the simplest
explanation is that the flow locally begins to exceed M = 1 even though the freestream Mach number
is below this value. Meanwhile, the "supersonic regime" is usually used to talk about the set of Mach
numbers for which linearized theory may be used, where for example the (air) flow is not chemically
reacting, and where heat-transfer between air and vehicle may be reasonably neglected in
calculations. In the following table (see Error! Reference source not found.), the "regimes" or
"ranges of Mach values" are referred to, and not the "pure" meanings of the words "subsonic" and
"supersonic". Generally, NASA defines "high" hypersonic as any Mach number from 10 to 25, and

Flow Regime Mach knots mph Km/h m/s

Subsonic < 0.8 < 530 < 609 < 980 < 273
Transonic 0.8 - 1.2 530-794 609-914 980-1470 273-409
Supersonic 1.2 - 5.0 794-3308 915-3806 1470-6126 410-1702
Hypersonic 5.0 - 10.0 3308-6615 3806-7680 6125-12251 1702-3403
High-Hypersonic 10.0 -24.0 6615-16537 7680-19031 12251-30626 3403-8508
Re-Entry Speeds > 24.0 > 16537 > 19031 > 30626 > 8508

Table 1.1 Classification of Mach Number

3 Young, Donald F.; Bruce R. Munson; Theodore H. Okiishi; Wade W. Huebsch (2010). A Brief Introduction to
Fluid Mechanics (5 Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 95.
4 Graebel, W.P. (2001). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Taylor & Francis. p. 16.
 31

re-entry speeds as anything

greater than Mach 24.
Aircraft operating in this
regime include the Space
Shuttle and various space
planes in development.
Further details regarding
the Mach number regimes
can be obtained from
[Anderson]5.
The local speed of sound,
and thereby the Mach
number, depends on the
condition of the
surrounding medium, in
particular the temperature
and pressure.
In summary, we attempt to
organize our study of
aerodynamic flows
according to one or more of
the various categories Figure 1.3 Block Diagram Categorizing the Types of
discussed. The block Aerodynamic Flows (Courtesy of John D. Anderson)
diagram in Figure 1.3 is
presented to help
emphasize these categories and to show how they are related. Looking at the whole field
simultaneously, four different speed regimes can be identified using Mach number as the criterion:
1.1.1 Subsonic Flow (M < 1 everywhere)
A flow field is defined as subsonic if the Mach number is less than 1 at every point. Subsonic flows
are characterized by smooth streamlines (no discontinuity in slope), as sketched in Figure 1.4 a.
Moreover, since the flow velocity is everywhere less than the speed of sound, disturbances in the flow
(say, the sudden deflection of the trailing edge of the airfoil in Figure 1.4 a) propagate both upstream
and downstream, and are felt throughout the entire flow field. Note that a freestream Mach number
M∞ less than 1 does not guarantee a totally subsonic flow over the body. In expanding over an
aerodynamic shape, the flow velocity increases above the freestream value, and if M∞ is close enough
to 1, the local Mach number may become supersonic in certain regions of the flow. This gives rise to
a rule of thumb that M∞ < 0.8 for subsonic flow over slender bodies. For blunt bodies, M∞ must be
even lower to ensure totally subsonic flow. (Again, emphasis is made that the above is just a loose
rule of thumb and should not be taken as a precise quantitative definition). Also, we will show later
that incompressible flow is a special limiting case of subsonic flow where M → 0.

1.1.2 Transonic Flow (Mixed Regions M < 1 & M > 1)

As stated above, if M∞ is subsonic but is near unity, the flow can become locally supersonic (M > 1).
This is sketched in Figure 1.4 b, which shows pockets of supersonic flow over both the top and
bottom surfaces of the airfoil, terminated by weak shock waves behind which the flow becomes
subsonic again. Moreover, if M∞ is increased slightly above unity, a bow shock wave is formed in front
of the body; behind this shock wave the flow is locally subsonic, as shown in Figure 1.4 c. This
subsonic flow subsequently expands to a low supersonic value over the airfoil. Weak shock waves

5 John D. Anderson, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hill Inc. pp.37-39, 1976.

 32

are usually generated at the trailing edge, sometimes in a “fishtail” pattern as shown in Figure 1.4 c.
The flow fields shown in Figure 1.4 b and c are characterized by mixed subsonic-supersonic flows
and are dominated by the physics of both types of flow. Hence, such flow fields are called transonic
flows. Again, as a rule of thumb for slender bodies, transonic flows occur for freestream Mach
numbers in the range 0.8 < M∞ < 1.2.

Figure 1.4 Different Regimes of Flow (Courtesy of John D. Anderson)

1.1.3 Supersonic Flow (M > 1 Everywhere)

A flow field is defined as supersonic if the Mach number is greater than 1 at every point. Supersonic
flows are frequently characterized by the presence of shock waves across which the flow properties
 33

and streamlines change discontinuously. This is illustrated in Figure 1.4 d for supersonic flow over
a sharp-nosed wedge; the flow remains supersonic behind the oblique shock wave from the tip. Also
shown are distinct expansion waves, which are common in supersonic flow. (Again, the listing of M∞
> 1.2 is strictly a rule of thumb. For example, in Figure 1.4 d, if θ is made large enough, the oblique
shock wave will detach from the tip of the wedge and will form a strong, curved bow shock ahead of
the wedge with a substantial region of subsonic flow behind the wave. Hence, the totally supersonic
flow sketched in Figure 1.4 d is destroyed if θ is too large for a given M∞. This shock detachment
phenomenon can occur at any value of M∞ > 1, but the value of θ at which it occurs increases as M∞
increases. In turn, if θ is made infinitesimally small, the flow field in Figure 1.4 d holds for M∞ ≥ 1.0.
The above discussion clearly shows that the listing of M∞ > 1.2 in Figure 1.4 d is a very tenuous rule
of thumb and should not be taken literally.) In a supersonic flow, because the local flow velocity is
greater than the speed of sound, disturbances created at some point in the flow cannot work their
way upstream (in contrast to subsonic flow). This property is one of the most significant physical
differences between subsonic and supersonic flows. It is the basic reason why shock waves occur in
supersonic flows, but do not occur in steady subsonic flow6.

1.1.4 Hypersonic Flow (Very High Supersonic Speeds)

Refer again to the wedge in Figure 1.4 d. Assume θ is a given, fixed value. As M∞ increases above
the shock wave moves closer to the body surface. Also, the strength of the shock wave increases,
leading to higher temperatures in the region between the shock and the body (the shock layer). If
M∞ is sufficiently large, the shock layer becomes very thin, and interactions between the shock
wave and the viscous boundary layer on the surface occur. Also, the shock layer temperature
becomes high enough that chemical reactions occur in the air. The O2 and N2 molecules are torn apart;
that is, the gas molecules dissociate. When M∞ becomes large enough such that viscous interaction
and/or chemically reacting effects begin to dominate the flow (Figure 1.4 e), the flow field is called
hypersonic. (Again, a somewhat arbitrary but frequently used rule of thumb for hypersonic flow is
M∞ > 5). Hypersonic aerodynamics received a great deal of attention during the period 1955 –1970
because atmospheric entry vehicles encounter the atmosphere at Mach numbers between 25
(ICBMs) and 36 (the Apollo lunar return vehicle). Again during the period 1985–1995, hypersonic
flight received a great deal of attention with the concept of air-breathing supersonic-combustion
ramjet-powered trans atmospheric vehicles to provide single-stage-to-orbit capability. Today,
hypersonic aerodynamics is just part of the whole spectrum of realistic flight speeds7.

1.2 Motivation
Imagine that you are an aeronautical engineer in the later 1950s. You have been given the task of
designing an atmospheric entry vehicle in those days it would have been an intercontinental ballistic
missile8. You are well aware of the fact that such vehicles will enter the earth’s atmosphere at very
high velocities, about 7.9 km/s for entry from earth orbit and about 11.2 km/s for entry after
returning from a lunar mission. At these extreme hypersonic speeds, aerodynamic heating of the
entry vehicle becomes very severe, and is the dominant concern in the design of such vehicles.
Therefore, you know that your task involves the design of a blunt body for hypersonic speed.
Moreover, you know from supersonic wind tunnel experiments that the flow field over the blunt body
is qualitatively like that sketched in Figure 1.5. You know that a strong curved bow shock wave sits
in front of the blunt nose, detached from the nose by the distance δ, called the shock detachment

6 John D. Anderson, Jr,

Professor Emeritus University of Maryland, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th edition,
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, 2011.
7 See Previous.
8 John D. Anderson Jr., Joris Degroote, G´erard Degrez, Erik Dick, Roger Grundmann and Jan Vierendeels,

“Computational Fluid Dynamics - An Introduction”, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-3-540-85055-7, 2009.

 34

distance. You know that the gas temperatures between the shock and the body can be as high as
7000K for an ICBM, and 11000K for entry from a lunar mission.
And you know that you must understand some of the details of this flow field in order to intelligently
design the entry vehicle. So, your first logical step is to perform an analysis of the aerodynamic flow
over a blunt body in order to provide detailed information on the pressure and heat transfer
distributions over the body surface, and to examine the properties of the high-temperature shock
layer between the bow shock wave and the body. You ask such questions as: what is the shape of the
bow shock wave; what is the detachment distance δ; what are the velocity, temperature and pressure
distributions throughout the shock layer, etc.? However, much to your dismay, you find that no
reliable, accurate aerodynamic theory exists to answer your questions. You quickly discover that an
accurate and practical analysis of supersonic blunt body flows is beyond your current state-of-the-
art. As a result, you ultimately resort to empirical information along with some simplified but
approximate theories (such as Newtonian theory) in order to carry out your designated task of
designing the entry vehicle.
The above paragraph illustrates one of the most important, yet perplexing, aerodynamic problems of
the 1950s and early 1960s. The application of blunt bodies had become extremely important due to
the advent of ICBMs, and later
the manned space program. Yet,
no aerodynamic theory existed
to properly calculate the flow
over such bodies. Indeed, entire
sessions of technical meetings
(such as meetings of the Institute
for Aeronautical Sciences in the
USA, later to become the
American Institute for
Aeronautics and Astronautics)
were devoted exclusively to
research on the supersonic blunt
body problem. Moreover, some
of the best aerodynamicists of
that day spent their time on this
problem, funded and strongly
encouraged by the NACA (later
NASA), the US Air Force and Figure 1.5 Flow over a Supersonic Blunt Body
others. What was causing the
difficulty? Why was the flow field over a body moving at supersonic and hypersonic speeds so hard
to calculate? The answer rests basically in the sketch shown in Figure 1.5, which illustrates the
steady flow over a supersonic blunt body. The region of steady flow near the nose region behind the
shock is locally subsonic, and hence is governed by elliptic partial differential equations. In contrast,
the flow further downstream of the nose becomes supersonic, and this locally
steady supersonic flow is governed by hyperbolic partial differential equations. (What is meant by
‘elliptic’ and ‘hyperbolic’ equations, and the mathematical distinction between them, will be
discussed them later). The dividing line between the subsonic and supersonic regions is called the
sonic line, as sketched in Figure 1.5.
The change in the mathematical behavior of the governing equations from elliptic in the subsonic
region to hyperbolic in the supersonic region made a consistent mathematical analysis, which
included both regions, virtually impossible to obtain. Techniques were developed for just the
 35

subsonic portion, and other techniques (such as the standard ‘method of characteristics’) were
developed for the supersonic region. Unfortunately, the proper patching of these different techniques
through the transonic region around the sonic line was extremely difficult. Hence, as late as the mid-
1960s, no uniformly valid aerodynamic technique existed to treat the entire flow field over the blunt
body. This situation was clearly noted in the classic textbook by [Liepmann and Roshko]9 published
in 1957, where in a discussion of blunt body they state: The shock shape and detachment distance
cannot, at present, be theoretically predicted. The purpose of this lengthy discussion on the status
of the blunt body problem in the late 1950s is to set the background for the following important point.
In 1966, a breakthrough occurred in the blunt body problem. Using the developing power of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) at that time, and employing the concept of a ‘time-dependent’
approach to the steady state, [Moretti and Abbett]10 developed a numerical, finite-difference solution
to the supersonic blunt body problem which constituted the first practical, straightforward
engineering solution for this flow. After 1966, the blunt body problem was no longer a real problem.
Industry and government laboratories quickly adopted this computational technique for their blunt
body analyses. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this comparison is that the supersonic blunt body
problem, which was one of the most serious, most difficult, and most researched theoretical
aerodynamic problems of the 1950s and 1960s, is today assigned as a homework problem in a
computational fluid dynamics graduate course at the University of Maryland. Therein lies an example
of the power of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The purpose of these notes is to provide an
introduction to computational fluid dynamics. The above example concerning blunt body flows
serves to illustrate the importance of computational fluid dynamics to modern aerodynamic
applications. Here is an important problem which was impossible to solve in a practical fashion
before the advent of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), but which is now tractable and
straightforward using the modern techniques of CFD. Indeed, this is but one example out of many
where CFD is revolutionizing the world of aerodynamics. The purpose of the present author writing
these notes, and your reading these notes and attending the VKI short course, is to introduce you to
this revolution.

1.3 CFD Processes

1.3.1 Partial Differential Equations (PDE)
PDEs are mathematical models of continuous physical phenomenon in which a dependent variable,
say u, is a function of more than one sovereign variable, say t (time), and x (spatial position). PDEs
derived by applying a physical principle such as conservation of mass, momentum or energy. These
equations, governing the kinematic and mechanical behavior of general bodies are referred to as
Conservation Laws. These laws can be written in either the strong of differential form or an
integral form.
1.3.2 Boundary Conditions
Conditions on the (finite) boundary of the domain and/or initial conditions (for transient problems)
are required to obtain for a well posed problem. The Well Posed Problems indicate that conditions
on the (finite) boundary of the domain and/or initial conditions (for transient problems) are required
to obtain a well posed problem. The properties of a well posed problem are:

1. Solution exists
2. Solution is unique
3. Solution depends continuously on the data

9Liepmann, H.W. and Roshko, A., “Elements of Gas dynamics”, Wiley, New York, 1957.
10Moretti, G. and Abbett, M., ‘A Time-Dependent Computational Method for Blunt Body Flows,’ AIAA Journal,
Vol. 4, No. 12, December 1966, pp. 2136–2141.
 36

1.3.3 Math Modeling and Simulation of Physical Processes

Altogether, the CFD process can be lumped together as:

1. Define the physical problem

2. Create a mathematical (PDE) model
3. Systems of PDEs, ODEs, algebraic equations
4. Define Initial and or boundary conditions to get a well-posed problem
5. Create a Discrete (Numerical) Model
6. Discretize the domain, generate the grid and obtain discrete model
7. Solve the discrete system
8. Analyze Errors in the discrete system
9. Consistency, stability and convergence analysis

1.3.4 Verification, Validation & Calibration

Verification is a procedure to ensure that the program solves the equations correctly. Validation is
done to test how accurately the model represents reality, and Calibration is often used to adjust the
simulation to known experimental data in order to study parameter sensitivity in the design process.
The distinction between Verification and Validation is rather important. While validation is
concerned with checking that the system will meet the customer’s actual needs, verification is
concerned with whether the system is well-engineered, error-free, and so on. In other word,
Verification will help to determine whether the software is of high quality, but it will not ensure that
the system is useful. Verification includes all the activities associated with the producing high quality
software namely, testing, inspection, design analysis, specification analysis, and so on. It is a relatively
objective process, in that if the various products and documents are expressed precisely enough, no
subjective judgements should be needed in order to verify software. In contrast, validation is an
extremely subjective process. It involves making subjective assessments of how well the (proposed)
system addresses a real-world need. Validation includes activities such as requirements modelling,
prototyping and user evaluation. Having thus carefully distinguished the two terms, the advice to
V&V practitioners was then to forget about the distinction, and think instead about V & V as a toolbox,
which provides a wide range of tools for asking different kinds of questions about software. And to

Figure 1.6 A range of V & V techniques and their interaction with each other
 37

master the use of each tool and figure out when and how to use it. Figure 1.6 shows an attempts to
visualize such a toolbox11.

1.4 History and Success Stories

The fundamental basis of almost all CFD problems are the Navier–Stokes equations, which define
many single-phase (gas or liquid, but not both) fluid flows. These equations can be simplified by
removing terms describing viscous actions to yield the Euler equations. Further simplification, by
removing terms describing vorticity yields the full potential equations. Finally, for small
perturbations in subsonic and supersonic flows (not transonic or hypersonic) these equations can be
linearized to yield the linearized potential equations. Historically, methods were first developed to
solve the linearized potential equations. Two-dimensional (2D) methods, using conformal
transformations of the flow about a cylinder to the flow about an airfoil were developed in the
1930s12. One of the earliest type of calculations resembling modern CFD are those by Lewis Fry
Richardson, in the sense that these calculations used finite differences and divided the physical space
in cells. Although they failed dramatically, these calculations, together with Richardson's book
"Weather prediction by numerical process", set the basis for modern CFD and numerical
meteorology13.
The computer power available paced development of 3D. Probably the first work using computers to
model fluid flow, as governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, was performed at Los Alamos National
Lab, in the T3 group14-15. This group was led by Francis H. Harlow, who is widely considered as one
of the pioneers of CFD. From 1957 to late 1960s, this group developed a variety of numerical methods
to simulate transient 2D fluid flows, such as Particle-in-cell method, Fluid-in-cell method16, Vorticity
stream function method, and Marker-and-cell method. Fromm's vorticity-stream-function method
for 2D, transient, incompressible flow was the first treatment of strongly contorting incompressible
flows in the world. The first paper with three-dimensional model was published by John Hess and
A.M.O. Smith of Douglas Aircraft in 1967. This method discretized the surface of the geometry with
panels, giving rise to this class of programs being called Panel Methods. Their method itself was
simplified, in that it did not include lifting flows and hence was mainly applied to ship hulls and
aircraft fuselages. The first lifting Panel Code was described in a paper written by [Paul Rubbert and
Gary Saaris] of Boeing Aircraft17. In time, more advanced three-dimensional Panel Codes were
developed at Boeing (PANAIR, A502), Lockheed (Quadpan), Douglas (HESS), McDonnell Aircraft
(MACAERO), NASA (PMARC) and Analytical Methods (WBAERO, USAERO and VSAERO). Some
(PANAIR, HESS and MACAERO) were higher order codes, using higher order distributions of surface
singularities, while others (Quadpan, PMARC, USAERO and VSAERO) used single singularities on each
surface panel. The advantage of the lower order codes was that they ran much faster on the
computers of the time. Today, VSAERO has grown to be a multi-order code and is the most widely
used program of this class. It has been used in the development of many submarines, surface ships,
automobiles, helicopters, aircraft, and more recently wind turbines. Its sister code, USAERO is an

11 Serendipity 2017®.
12 Milne-Thomson, L.M. (1973), “Theoretical Aerodynamics”, Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-61980-X.
13 Hunt (1998). "Lewis Fry Richardson and his contributions to mathematics, meteorology, and models of conflict".

Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics.

14 "The Legacy of Group T-3". Retrieved March 13, 2013.
15 Harlow, F. H. (2004). "Fluid dynamics in Group T-3 Los Alamos National Laboratory:(LA-UR-03-3852)".

Journal of Computational Physics (Elsevier) 195 (2): 414–433.

16 Gentry, R. A., Martin, R. E., Daly, J. B. (1966). "An Eulerian differencing method for unsteady compressible

flow problems". Journal of Computational Physics 1 (1): 87–118.

17 Rubbert, Paul and Saaris, Gary, "Review and Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional Lifting Potential Flow Analysis

Method for Arbitrary Configurations," AIAA paper 72-188, presented at the AIAA 10th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, San Diego California, January 1972.
 38

unsteady panel method that has also been used for modeling such things as high speed trains and
racing yachts. The NASA PMARC code from an early version of VSAERO and a derivative of PMARC,
named CMARC, is also commercially available. Figure 1.7 pictures the simulation of the Hyper-X
scramjet vehicle in operation at Mach 7 developed by NASA.
In the two-dimensional realm, a number of Panel Codes have been developed for airfoil analysis and
design. The codes typically have a boundary layer analysis included, so that viscous effects can be
modeled. Professor Richard Eppler of the University of Stuttgart developed the PROFILE code, partly
with NASA funding, which became available in the early 1980s. This was soon followed by MIT
Professor Mark Drela's XFOIL code. Both PROFILE and XFOIL incorporate two-dimensional panel
codes, with coupled boundary layer codes for airfoil analysis work. PROFILE uses a conformal
transformation method for inverse airfoil design, while XFOIL has both a conformal transformation
and an inverse panel method for airfoil design.
An intermediate step between Panel Codes and Full Potential codes were codes that used the
Transonic Small Disturbance equations. In particular, the three-dimensional WIBCO code, developed
by Charlie Boppe of Grumman Aircraft in the early 1980s has seen heavy use. Developers turned to
Full Potential codes, as panel methods could not calculate the non-linear flow present at transonic
speeds. The first description of a means of using the Full Potential equations was published by Earll
Murman and Julian Cole of Boeing in 1970. Antony Jameson, originally at Grumman Aircraft and the
Courant Institute of NYU, worked with David Caughey to develop the important three-dimensional
Full Potential code FLO22 in 1975. Many Full Potential codes emerged after this, culminating in
Boeing's Tranair (A633) code, which still sees heavy use. The next step was the Euler equations,
which promised to provide more accurate solutions of transonic flows. The methodology used by
Jameson in his 3D code (1981) was used by others to produce such programs as Lockheed's TEAM
program and Analytical Methods' MGAERO program. MGAERO is unique in being a structured
Cartesian mesh code, while most other such codes use structured body-fitted grids (with the

Figure 1.7 Simulation of the Hyper-X Scramjet Vehicle in Operation by NASA

 39

exception of NASA's highly successful CART3D code, Lockheed's SPLITFLOW code and Georgia Tech's
NASCART-GT).
Antony Jameson also developed the 3D AIRPLANE code which made use of unstructured tetrahedral
grids. In the two-dimensional realm, Mark Drela and Michael Giles, then graduate students at MIT,
developed the ISES Euler program (actually a suite of programs) for airfoil design and analysis. This
code first became available in 1986 and has been further developed to design, analyze and optimize
single or multi-element airfoils, as the MSES program. MSES sees wide use throughout the world. A
derivative of MSES, for the design and analysis of airfoils in a cascade, is MISES, developed by Harold
"Guppy" Youngren while he was a graduate student at MIT. The Navier–Stokes equations were the
ultimate target of development. Two-dimensional codes, such as NASA Ames' ARC2D code first
emerged. A number of 3D codes were developed (ARC3D, OVERFLOW, CFL3D are three successful
NASA contributions), leading to numerous commercial packages.

1.5 Advantages of Using CFD

CFD has grown from a mathematical curiosity to become an essential tool in almost every branch of
fluid dynamics. It allows for a deep analysis of the fluid mechanics and local effects in a lot of
equipment. Most of the CFD results will give an improved performance, better reliability, more
confident scale-up, improved product consistency, and higher plant productivity. Some design
engineers actually use CFD to analyze new systems before deciding which and how many validation
tests need to be performed. The advantages of CFD can be categorized as (Wanot, 1996):

• It provides a detailed understanding of flow distribution, weight losses, mass and heat
transfer, particulate separation, etc. Consequently, all these will give plant managers a much
better and deeper understanding of what is happening in a particular process or system.
• It makes it possible to evaluate geometric changes with much less time and cost than would
be involved in laboratory testing.
• It can answer many ‘what if’ questions in a short time.
• It is able to reduce scale-up problems because the models are based on fundamental physics
and are scale independent.
• It is particularly useful in simulating conditions where it is not possible to take detailed
measurements such as high temperature or dangerous environment in an oven.
• Since it is a pro-active analysis and design tool, it can highlight the root cause not just the
effect when evaluating plant problems.

1.6 Vision for Further

But of course with advances comes shortcoming like the complaint by [Dimitri Mavriplis]18 which
seems valid. Chief among them are Lack of investment in new fundamental Algorithm Development,
lack of reliable Turbulence modeling, better collaboration between NASA, government agencies and
private companies, and Poorly positioned to exploit coming Exascale revolution in HPC. It criticizes
while in recent years the design cycle enjoyed considerable advances in isolated development such
as airplane wings, it lacks on the other arenas such as full flight envelope in airplane design. This
might be contributed to either deficiency of robust algorithm and turbulence, or both. It also
contributed this to lack of Holy grail of product development, namely Certification. Borrowing
concepts from John D. Anderson’s book, we try to established a road map to help you keep track of
our building blocks. Figure 1.8 shows such a road map.

18Dimitri Mavriplis, “Exascale Opportunities for Aerospace Engineering”, Department of Mechanical

Engineering University of Wyoming and the Vision CFD2030 Team.
 40

Another point of view, expressed by [Charles Hirsch], indicates that there are key issues and major
challenges for industrial CFD analysis and design19, namely:

• To Create Automatic Structured Grid Generation Tools For Families of Topologies, For
Instance for Turbomachinery Passages.
• Efficient full automatic grid generation systems and flow solvers are to be developed further,
particularly for very complex geometries.
• The necessity for improvements in physical modeling, in particular turbulence and
combustion models.
• Fast, full parallel, CFD algorithms are required to reduce design cycle times (provided by
Exascale HPC).
• The development of robust design methodologies taking into account the presence of
uncertainties.
• Next generation of industrial software systems requires high levels of integration of pre and
post-processors, with CFD/CHT/FSI solvers within a global optimization environment, with
highly effective GUI’s to minimize the engineering time associated to simulations and design.

Navier Stokes
and Family
Viscous
Boundary
Layer
Steady State Incompressible Turbulent
Euler
Flow Field
Transient Compressible Laminar Velocity
Potentials

Invscid Laplace

Bernouli

Elementry
Flows

Figure 1.8 Road Map for CFD Studies

1.7 CFD in Aerospace Industry

Here we concern with the perspective of (external) aerodynamics, although many of the issues
identified carry over to the other application areas [Spalart and Venkatakrishnan]20. Turbomachinery
is covered elsewhere in this special issue of the journal. It is fair to write that CFD has had a
tremendous although gradual impact on both commercial and military aircraft. The use of CFD in

19 Charles Hirsch, Prof. Em. Vrije Universiteit Brussel and President, NUMECA int. “The Challenges Of Present
And Future Industrial CFD”, AIAA-Scitech 2015.
20 P. R. Spalart, V. Venkatakrishnan, “On the role and challenges of CFD in the aerospace industry”, Boeing

Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, USA.

 41

commercial aircraft is well documented, with particular success in the design of the high-speed wing
(cruise shape) and its close integration with the engine, dating back to the Boeing 737 Classic of the
late 1980s. The extensive use of CFD in the latest aircraft from Boeing is illustrated in the ‘walk-
around’ chart depicted in Figure 1.9; Airbus has presented a similar chart. It is seen that in certain
areas the use of CFD is at a mature state but there are also emerging areas where CFD is expected to
affect aircraft design in significant ways only in the future.
CFD is increasingly being used in multi-disciplinary design and analysis of aerospace products.
Examples of these include high-speed aerodynamic design taking into account the flexibility of wings
(aero-elastics), icing models, far-field noise propagation models and conjugate heat transfer. An
attractive development is the use of a range of CFD tools to calculate the benefits of formation flight
for large aircrafts. Increasingly, CFD results are compared directly with flight test, rather than wind
tunnel, and the status of the two sources of information in the engineering process and company
culture is slowly shifting, with enlightened organizations drawing on both to good effect. It is
important to transition from wind tunnel to CFD for the right reasons, such as wall effects or Reynolds
number and aero-elastics, whereas doing so only for speed and cost advantages has its dangers. We
believe there is a tendency towards overconfidence in CFD in some circles, even to the extent of
ignoring well-known sources of error, which creates a risk of backlash, were CFD to be blamed for
costly mistakes.
CFD still faces several challenges that need to be addressed. The turnaround time associated with
CFD is one of the factors limiting the use of CFD in the design and creation of databases and also in
multi-disciplinary applications. Another limiting factor is the level of skills required of the user of
CFD. CFD practiced in industry is vastly different from the CFD theory taught in universities,
especially in the late 20th century. A long lead time can be required for a user of CFD to become
proficient in all the various phases of CFD (geometry preparation, gridding, solution set-up, post-
processing). Other limitations include various uncertainties in CFD related to numeric, physical
modelling (especially transition and turbulence), and the time involved in preparing geometries for
carrying out grid generation and aerodynamic analyses. The latter two tasks are still highly manual

Figure 1.9 Impact of CFD at Boeing. Green areas have strong CFD penetration; Purple areas have some
penetration; Red areas present future opportunities
 42

and in many instances dominate in terms of effort, compared to the solution of the fluid-dynamic
equations.

1.8 CFD vs. Wind Tunnel

In addressing CFD, it is essential to compare CFD with Wind tunnels as a validation tool, where
possible. This has indeed been the case, supported by the relentless development in computational
technology and modelling techniques of the modern era. However, CFD has not yet advanced enough
to replace Wind Tunnels entirely, as was initially forecasted years ago. The first thing to understand
is that despite the CFD vs Wind Tunnel debate, the two tools actually measure very different
aerodynamic performance parameters. This was highlighted by Professor Jochen Wiedemann, who
suggested that the primary strength of Wind Tunnel testing is to establish the integral values such as
drag coefficients and lift coefficients. Whereas CFD is more focused on understanding the local and
internal flow field properties that would be almost impossible to define in a full scale Wind Tunnel,
due to the practical constraints. For example, areas such as brake cooling are best investigated
through the use of CFD. The detailed behavior in this specific area would be extremely difficult to
obtain reliably during a Wind Tunnel test, unless the test went on for months, which no company,
motorsport or automotive, has the time or budget to do. However, in areas which are not yet fully
understood such as the complex downstream effects of tire wake, this cannot be accurately measured
in the wind tunnel or precisely simulated by CFD. In fact the head of Aerodynamics Thermal
Management and Acceleration Performance at Honda R&D suggested that only in 2044 will
computing power be fast enough to fully predict such airflows and match the accuracies of wind
tunnels. It is also highlights how no two wind tunnels are the same, and their different designs results
in a wide array of inaccuracies. Whenever you measure something, whether it be by software
algorithms or with a physical instrument there is always some degree of error. For Wind tunnels that
error can be due to either the effects of blockage, the interference between the freestream air with
the walls or the boundary layer strategy. None of which are present in CFD. With each wind tunnel
differing in design, these inaccuracies vary for each individual wind tunnel, making any direct
comparisons unreliable and inaccurate, or as Professor Wiedemann said ‘comparing apples and
oranges’. Therefore, not only do you need to correlate the CFD results with those obtained from the
Wind Tunnel, but you also need to establish a correlation factor between Wind Tunnels. So, CFD is
accurate in some of the areas that wind tunnels are not, while wind tunnels allow investigation into
areas that cannot be done in CFD and both are unreliable in some areas. This is why wind tunnels
have to be used hand-in-hand with CFD. Other researchers such as [John C. Chien] express similar
results below:
In testing, there are two environments to consider, one is the almost real test environment, and
the other is the simulated test environment. The hardware can be either the real hardware or
the scaled model. So, in wind tunnel testing, the issue is in the simulation of the real environment.
Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is difficult, and sometimes it is impossible. In the CFD
approach, the specification of the flow condition is in general not a problem. The computer
simply has no feeling about the inlet or free stream conditions, whether it is hot or cold. In a way,
the simulation of the real environment in the CFD approach is not an issue. At this point, the CFD
approach is slightly better than the wind tunnel testing approach, in simulating the real
environment. Beyond this point, it is really hard to say which approach will produce more
reliable results. For simple problems, CFD approach can generate highly accurate results easily
on computer. But for more complex geometry, the demand for a lot of mesh points, and the lack
of reliable turbulence models always create difficulties in getting a converged solution. These
problems in principle can be resolved in the future, for now, these are big problems. The only
advantage of using CFD approach now is, the cost effectiveness. Simpler problems can now be
simulated on workstations or PC workstations. The cost of wind tunnel testing can be improved
in the rate of data handling, that is high volume of high quality data can be obtained in shorter
 43

time. Thus the cost of testing can be reduced. I think, we will be talking about the optimum use
of both the wind tunnel testing and CFD simulation, instead of which one can better simulate the
free stream conditions. What I am saying is " We have long past the era of wind tunnel VS CFD ".
Since there is no short term solutions to the shortage of wind tunnel testing and CFD simulation,
we are forced to combined these two approaches in the design loops.
 44

2 Linear PDE’s and Exact Solution of Some Model Equations

2.1 Mathematical Character of Basic Equations
The general theory concerning the character of PDE has been developed based on following relation
where A, B, C, D, E, F are assumed to be function of (x, y) only for the time being; making Eq. 2.1
linear in nature

 2  2  2  κ
A 2 +B +C 2 +D +E + F = G(x, y)
x xy y x y
Eq. 2.1
It is found that character of Eq. 2.1 depends upon the sign of determinate function B2 - 4AC as the
flow dependencies for each case shown by solid line. In summary,
 2  2  2   2  2
+ =0 − =0 − =0
x 2 y 2 x 2 y x 2 y 2

B2- 4AC < 0 B2- 4AC = 0 B2- 4AC > 0

Elliptic Parabolic Hyperbolic

Boundary Value mixed initial and
initial value problem
problem Boundary value problem
complete contour boundary conditions must be specifying boundary
closed at one end but remain conditions at one end but
boundary specification open at other remain open at others

Laplace equation Heat conduction equation Wave equation

No real charateristics One real charateristics Two real charateristics

In reality, the viscous flow equations are simply too complicated to fit into a single mode. They can
be elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic or mixture of all three, depending to specific flow, geometry
and time dependencies. Some examples of these model equations will be dealt extensively later. For
example, the unsteady compressible N-S equations are a mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations,
while, for 2D unsteady incompressible N-S for x-momentum is mixed set of elliptic-parabolic-
hyperbolic equations as depicted below:

Parabolic
⏞
∂u ∂u ∂u 1 ∂P μ ∂2 u ∂2 u
+u +v = + ( + )
∂t
⏟ ∂x ∂y ρ ∂x ρ ⏟∂x 2 ∂y 2
Hyperbolic Elliptic
Eq. 2.2
Consequently, different numerical techniques must be used in to solve the N-S equations in
compressible and incompressible flow regions. Similarly the Euler equations governing an in-viscid,
 45

non-heat conducting gas have a different character in different flow regions. If the time dependent
terms are retained, the resulting unsteady equations are hyperbolic and solutions can be obtained by
marching procedures. The situation is different when a steady flow is assumed. In that case, the Euler
equations are elliptic when flow is subsonic and hyperbolic when it is supersonic. It could be said
that Euler’s equation is hyperbolic in temporal domain and elliptic in special domain. Therefore,
different flow regions means different characteristics and demands different solving procedure. A
major difference between subsonic and supersonic flows is that flow disturbances propagate
everywhere throughout a subsonic flow; whereas they cannot propagate upstream in supersonic
flow.

2.2 Behavior of the Different Classes of PDE

In this section we simply discuss, without proof, some of the behavior of hyperbolic, parabolic and
elliptic partial differential equations, and relate this behavior to the solution of problems in fluid
dynamics21. For more details on the characteristics of partial differential equations, see any good text
on advanced mathematics, such as [Hildebrand]22.

2.2.1 Hyperbolic Equations

For hyperbolic equations, information at a given point P influences only those regions between the
advancing characteristics. For example, examine Figure 2.2-(B), which is sketched for a two-
dimensional problem with two independent space variables. Point P is located at a given (x, y).
Consider the left and right-running characteristics through point P, as shown. Information at point P
influences only the shaded region the region labelled I between the two advancing characteristics
through P as demonstrated in Figure 2.2-(B). This has a direct effect on boundary conditions for
hyperbolic equations. Assume that the x-axis is a given boundary condition for the problem, i.e. the
dependent variables u and v are known along the x-axis. Then the solution can be obtained by
‘marching forward’ in the distance y, starting from the given boundary. However, the solution for u
and v at point P will depend only on that part of the boundary between a and b, as shown. Information
at point c, which is outside the interval ab, is propagated along characteristics through c, and
influences only region II in Error! Reference source not found.-(B). Point P is outside region II, and h
ence does not feel the information from point c. For this reason, point P depends on only that part of
the boundary which is intercepted by and included between the two retreating characteristic lines
through point P, i.e. interval ab. As a general rule, in fluid dynamics, the following types of flows are
governed by hyperbolic partial differential equations, and hence exhibit the behavior described
above:

2.2.1.1 Steady Inviscid Supersonic Flow

If the flow is 3D, there are characteristic surfaces in xyz space, as sketched in Figure 2.1-(A).
Consider point P at a given (x, y, z) location. Information at P influences the shaded volume within the
advancing characteristic surface. In addition, if the x−y plane is a boundary surface, then only that
portion of the boundary shown as the cross-hatched area in the x−y plane, intercepted by the
retreating characteristic surface, has any effect on P. In Figure 2.1-(A) , the dependent variables are
solved by starting with data given in the xy-plane, and ‘marching’ in the z-direction. For an inviscid
supersonic flow problem, the general flow direction would also be in the z-direction.

21 John D. Anderson Jr., Joris Degroote, G´erard Degrez, Erik Dick, Roger Grundmann and Jan Vierendeels,
“Computational Fluid Dynamics - An Introduction”, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-3-540-85055-7, 2009.
22 Hildebrand, F.B., “Advanced Calculus for Applications”, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1976.
 46

(A) 3D Steady Flow (B) 2D Steady Flow

Figure 2.1 Domain and Boundaries for the Solution of Hyperbolic Equations (Steady)

2.2.1.2 Unsteady Inviscid Compressible Flow

For unsteady one and two-dimensional inviscid flows, the governing equations are hyperbolic, no
matter whether the flow is locally subsonic or supersonic. Here, time is the marching direction. For
one dimensional unsteady flow, consider a point P in the (x, t) plane shown in Figure 2.2-(B). Once
again, the region influenced by P is the shaded area between the two advancing characteristics
through P, and the interval ab is the only portion of the boundary along the x-axis upon which the
solution at P depends. For two-dimensional unsteady flow, consider a point P in the (x, y, t) space as
shown Figure 2.2-(B). The region influenced by P, and the portion of the boundary in the xy-plane
upon which the solution at P depends, are shown in this figure. Starting with known initial data in
the xy-plane, the solution ‘marches’ forward in time. Standard spacial 3D hyperbolic equations
include the wave equation is (see Eq. 2.3 and Eq. 2.4),

(A) 2D Unsteady Flow (B) 1D Unsteedy Flow

Figure 2.2 Domain and Boundaries for the Solution of Hyperbolic Equations (Unsteady)
 47

∂2 u
2
= ∇2 u
∂t
Eq. 2.3
and the advection (convection or transport) equation:

∂u ∂u
=
∂t ∂x
Eq. 2.4
These equations are time-dependent; they model the transient movement of signals. The wave
equation models acoustic and electromagnetic fields, the advection equation models the translation
of waves such as water waves.

2.2.2 Parabolic Equations

For parabolic equations, information at point P in the xy-plane influences the entire region of the
plane to one side of P. This is sketched in Figure 2.4 where the single characteristic line through
point P is drawn. Assume the x- and y-axes are
boundaries; the solution at P depends on the
boundary conditions along the entire y axis, as
well as on that portion of the x-axis from a to
b. Solutions to parabolic equations are also
‘marching’ solutions; starting with boundary
conditions along both the x- and y-axes, the
flow-field solution is obtained by ‘marching’ in
the general x-direction. In fluid dynamics,
there are reduced forms of the Navier–Stokes
equations which exhibit parabolic-type
behavior. If the viscous stress terms involving
derivatives with respect to x are ignored in Figure 2.4 Domain and Boundaries for the
these equations, we obtain the ‘parabolized’ Solution of Parabolic Equations in Two Dimensions
Navier Stokes equations, which allows a
solution to march downstream in the x-direction, starting with some prescribed data along the x- and
y-axes. A further reduction of the Navier–Stokes equations for the case of high Reynolds number
leads to the well-known boundary layer equations.
These boundary layer equations exhibit the
parabolic behavior shown in Figure 2.4. The
prototypical parabolic partial differential equation is
the diffusion equation. As the term suggests, such
equations diffusion phenomena in physics, such as
the spreading of heat in a conducting material (see
Eq. 2.5).
∂u
= ∇2 u
∂t
Eq. 2.5

2.2.3 Elliptic Equations

For elliptic equations, information at point P in the
xy-plane influences all other regions of the domain. Figure 2.3 Domain and Boundaries of
This is sketched in Figure 2.3, which shows a Elliptic Equations in Two Dimensions
rectangular domain. Here, the domain is fully closed,
 48

surrounded by the closed boundary. This is in contrast to the open domains for parabolic and
hyperbolic equations discussed earlier. For elliptic equations, because point P influences all points
in the domain, then in turn the solution at point P is influenced by the entire closed boundary.
Therefore, the solution at point P must be carried out simultaneously with the solution at all other
points in the domain. This is in stark contrast to the ‘marching’ solutions germane to parabolic and
hyperbolic equations. For this reason, problems involving elliptic equations are frequently called
‘equilibrium’, or ‘jury’ problems, because the solution within the domain depends on the total
boundary around the domain23. In fluid dynamics steady, subsonic, inviscid flow is governed by
elliptic equations. As a sub-case, this also includes incompressible flow (which theoretically implies
that the Mach number is zero). Hence, for such flows, physical boundary conditions must be applied
over a closed boundary that totally surrounds the flow, and the flow-field solution at all points in the
flow must be obtained simultaneously because the solution at one point influences the solution at all
other points. Elliptic equations (such as Laplace or Poisson’s equations) are usually used to model
steady state phenomena. When the solution to either hyperbolic or parabolic equations are assumed
to be invariant with time then they reduce to elliptic equations. (See
Eq. 2.6).
∇2 u = 0 or ∇2 u = f
Eq. 2.6

2.2.4 Some Observation

At this stage it is instructive to return to our discussion of the inviscid flow over a supersonic blunt
body in particular to Figure 1.5. There we pointed out that the locally subsonic steady flow is
governed by elliptic partial differential equations, and that the locally supersonic steady flow is
governed by hyperbolic partial differential equations. Now we have a better understanding of what
this means mathematically; and because of the totally different mathematical behavior of elliptic and
hyperbolic equations, we have a new appreciation for the difficulties that were encountered by early
researchers in trying to solve the blunt body problem. The sudden change in the nature of the
governing equations across the sonic line virtually excluded any practical solution of the steady flow
blunt body problem involving a uniform treatment of both the subsonic and supersonic regions.
However, recall that unsteady inviscid flow is governed by hyperbolic equations no matter whether
the flow is locally subsonic or supersonic. This provides the following opportunity. Starting with
rather arbitrary initial conditions for the flow field in the xy-plane in Figure 2.2-(B), solve the
unsteady, two-dimensional inviscid flow equations, marching forward in time as sketched in Figure
2.2-(A). At large times, the solution approaches a steady state, where the time derivatives of the
flow variables approach zero. This steady state is the desired result, and what you have when you
approach this steady state is a solution for the entire flow field including both the subsonic and
supersonic regions. Moreover, this solution is obtained with the same, uniform method throughout
the entire flow. The above discussion gives the elementary philosophy of the time-dependent
technique for the solution of flow problems. Its practical numerical implementation by [Moretti and
Abbett]24 in 1966 constituted the major scientific breakthrough for the solution of the supersonic
blunt body problem. We will examine the actual, closed-form solution to some linear partial
differential equations of the elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic types.

2.2.5 The 'Par-Elliptic' Problem

23 Anderson, D.A., Tannehill, John C. and Pletcher, Richard

H., Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984.
24 Moretti, G. and Abbett, M., ‘A Time-Dependent Computational Method for Blunt Body Flows,’ AIAA Journal, Vol.

4, No. 12, December 1966, pp. 2136–2141.

 49

An important practical use of the parabolic solution procedure is to refine an elliptic flow solution
of the region outside the boundary layer. In this case it is from the elliptic flow solution that the
pressure must be extracted: pressures for the
nearest-to-surface cells of the elliptic grid are
transferred to all the cells in the parabolic
grid, at the same z location. In general,
because the cells of the parabolic and elliptic
grids are likely to be of different sizes, as
shown below, interpolation is needed. The
above sketch contains a reminder that a two-
way interchange of information may take
place between the elliptic and parabolic
calculations (see Figure 2.5). Thus the
elliptic calculation may take place at first,
with the assumption that friction at the solid
surfaces is absent. Its predicted pressure
distribution is for that reason not quite
Figure 2.5 Two-way interchange of information
correct. However the ensuing parabolic
between Parabolic and Elliptic flows
calculation takes detailed account of friction
and can report the so-called 'displacement
thickness' of the boundary layer. If this is transmitted back to the elliptic solver, that can repeat its
calculation on the assumption that the effective size of the solid object is larger than it first supposed.
Its second flow prediction will be correspondingly more accurate25.

2.3 Nonsingular Transformation

Suppose a we would like to transform (x, y) ⇾ (ξ, η), which means x and y are transformed into new
independent variables ξ and η. We also require that this transformation be nonsingular which
provides that a one to one relationship exists between (x, y) and (ξ, η)26. We are also assumed of a
nonsingular mapping provided that the Jacobian of Transformation is nonzero.

ξ ξ
 ( , ) x y
J= = = ξ x ηy − ξ y ηx  0 Eq. 2.7
 (x, y) η η
x y

Therefore, any real nonsingular transformation does not change the type of PDE27.

2.4 Exact (Closed Form) Solution to Linear Model Equations

Since the exact solutions of Naver-Stokes , Boundary Layer, or Euler methods is not available yet, we
resort to model equation with reduced order to find a closed form solution. For example the viscous
Burger equation can be modelled as a reduced NS equation. The discussion here has centered on the
2nd order equation given by Wave, Heat, and Laplace Equations. In addition, system of 1st order

25 Parabolic Flows by “PHOENICS”.

26 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
27 Taylor, A., E., “Advanced Calculus”, Ginn and Company, Boston, 1955.
 50

equations were examined. A number of other very important equations should be mentioned since
they govern common physical phenomena or they are used as simple models for more complex
problems. In many cases, exact analytical solutions for these equations exist.

2.4.1 Linear Wave Equation (1st Order)

The first and widely used is the 1st order linear u u
+a =0
wave equation which governs the propagation of a t x
wave moving to the right at a constant speed a.
This is also called the advection equation (see
Figure 2.6). A classic example of hyperbolic
equation also requires an initial condition, u(x, 0)
= u0(x). The question of what boundary conditions
are appropriate for this equation can be more
easily be answered after considering its solution.
It is easy to verify that the solution is given by u(x,
t) = u0(x − at). This describes the propagation of
the quantity u(x, t) moving with speed “a” in the x-
direction. The solution is constant along the
characteristic line x − at = c with u(x, t) = u0(c).
Figure 2.6 Solution of linear Wave equation
From the knowledge of the solution, we can
appreciate that for a > 0 a boundary condition
should be prescribed at x = 0, (e.g., u (0) = α0) where information is being fed into the solution domain.
The value of the solution at x = 1 is determined by the initial conditions or the boundary condition at
x = 0 and cannot, therefore, be prescribed. This simple argument shows that, in a hyperbolic problem,
the selection of appropriate conditions at a boundary point depends on the solution at that point. If
the velocity is negative, the previous treatment of the boundary conditions is reversed.

2.4.2 Inviscid Burgers Equation

This is also called non-linear 1st order
wave equation and governs the u  2u
−a 2 =0
propagation of nonlinear wave for 1-D t x
case. An analogous analysis to that used
for the advection equation shows that
u(x, t) is constant if we are moving with
a local velocity also given by u(x, t). This
means that some regions of the solution
advance faster than other regions
leading to the formation of sharp
gradients. This is illustrated in Figure
2.8. The initial velocity is represented
by a triangular “zig-zag” wave. Peaks
and troughs in the solution will advance,
in opposite directions, with maximum
speed. This will eventually lead to an
overlap as depicted by the dotted line. Figure 2.7 Rate of Decay of solution to diffusion equation
This also results in a non-uniqueness of
the solution which is obviously non-
physical and to resolve this problem we must allow for the formation and propagation of
discontinuities when two characteristics intersect.
 51

2.4.3 Diffusion (Heat) Equation

Which is parabolic in nature and in addition to appropriate boundary conditions of the form used for
elliptic equations, we also require an initial
condition at t = 0 of the form u(x, 0) = u0(x) u u
where u0 is a given function. If b is constant, this +u =0
t x
equation admits solutions of the form u(x, t) =
Aeβt sin kx if β + k2a = 0. A notable feature of the u ( x, t ) =  Am e  mt sin k m x
m
solution is that it decays when b is positive as
the exponent β < 0. The rate of decay is a
function of a. The more diffusive the equation
(i.e., larger a) the faster the decay of the solution
is. In general the solution can be made up of
many sine waves of different frequencies, i.e., a
Fourier expansion of the form

u ( x, t ) =  Ame  mt sin km x Eq. 2.8

m

Where Am and km represent the amplitude and

the frequency of a Fourier mode, respectively.
The decay of the solution depends on the Figure 2.8 Formulation of discontinuities in non-
Fourier contents of the initial data since βm = linear Burgers (wave) equation
−k2m b. High frequencies decay at a faster rate
than the low frequencies which physically means that the solution is being smoothed. This is
illustrated in Figure 2.7 which shows the time evolution of u(x, t) for an initial condition u0(x) = 20x
for 0 ≤ x ≤ 1/2 and u0(x) = 20(1 − x) for 1/2 ≤ x ≤ 1. The solution shows a rapid smoothing of the slope
discontinuity of the initial condition at x = 1/2. The presence of a positive diffusion (a > 0) physically
results in a smoothing of the solution which stabilizes it. On the other hand, negative diffusion (a < 0)
is de-stabilizing but most physical problems have positive diffusion.

2.4.4 Viscous Burgers Equation

This is the nonlinear equation with diffusion added. This particular form is very similar to the
equations of governing fluid flow and can be used as a simple nonlinear model for numeric.

u u  2u
+u =υ 2
t x x
Eq. 2.9
1 + (2a 0 − 1)exp((1 − a 0 )/ )
with solution u = where ξ = x − a 0 t − x 0
1 + exp((1 − a 0 )/ )

2.4.5 Tricomi Equation

This equation governs problems of the mixed type such as inviscid transonic flows. The properties of
Tricomi equations include a change of form from elliptic to hyperbolic character depending upon sign
of y.
 2u  2u
y 2 + 2 =0 Eq. 2.10
x y
2.4.6 2D Laplace Equation
 52

The linear Elliptic 2D Laplace equation (see Figure 2.9) has following solutions

 2  2
+ =0 have a solution :
 2 x y 2
2y Eq. 2.11
 = xy ,  = x 2 − y 2 ,  = ,  = e kxsin(kx) k = constant ,   [0,1]
(1 + x) + y
2 2

sinh(x) sin(y) + sinh(y) sin(x)

=
sinh( )

2.4.6.1 Boundary Conditions

The Dirichlet problem for Laplace's equation consists of finding a solution φ on some domain D such
that φ on the boundary of D is equal to some given function. Since the Laplace operator appears in
the heat equation, one physical interpretation of this problem is as follows: fix the temperature on
the boundary of the domain according to the given specification of the boundary condition. Allow
heat to flow until a stationary state is reached in
which the temperature at each point on the domain  2  2
doesn't change anymore. The temperature + =0
distribution in the interior will then be given by the  2 x y 2
solution to the corresponding Dirichlet problem28.
The Neumann boundary conditions for Laplace's
equation specify not the function φ itself on the
boundary of D, but its normal derivative. Physically,
this corresponds to the construction of a potential
for a vector field whose effect is known at the
boundary of D alone. Solutions of Laplace's equation
are called harmonic functions; they are all analytic
within the domain where the equation is satisfied.
If any two functions are solutions to Laplace's
equation (or any linear homogeneous differential
equation), their sum (or any linear combination) Figure 2.9 Solution to Laplace equation
is also a solution. This property, called the
principle of superposition, is very useful, e.g., solutions to complex problems can be constructed
by summing simple solutions29-30.

2.4.7 Poisson’s Equation

This elliptic equation governs the temperature distribution in the solid with heat source described
by f(x, y). Poisson’s equation (see Figure 2.10) also determines the electric field in a region
containing a charge density f(x, y). The f(x, y) in this case is sin(πx)Sin(πy) and the B.C. is u (x, y)= 0
subject to 0 ≤ x , 1 ≤ y, ux(0,y) =-sin(yπ)/2π. The solution is obtained in bottom of Figure 2.10.

Viscous Burgers Equation

This is the nonlinear equation with diffusion added. This particular form is very similar to the
equations of governing fluid flow and can be used as a simple nonlinear model for numeric.

28 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

29 Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001), "Laplace equation", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer, ISBN 978-1-
55608-010-4.
30 Example initial-boundary value problems using Laplace's equation from exampleproblems.com.
 53

u u  2u
+u =υ 2
t x x
Eq. 2.12
1 + (2a 0 − 1)exp((1 − a 0 )/ )
with solution u = where ξ = x − a 0 t − x 0
1 + exp((1 − a 0 )/ )

2.4.8 The Advection-Diffusion Equation

This particular expression represents the advection of a quantity ξ in a region with velocity u. The
quantity υ is a diffusion or viscosity coefficient and a is a constant > 0.

   2
+a = 2
t x x
 (x, t) = exp( −kxt) sin(kx − at) where k = constant and  (x) = sin(kx)   [0,1]

Eq. 2.13
 2u  2u
+ = f(x, y) = sin(π x) sin(π y)
2.4.9 The Korteweg-De Vries Equation x 2 y 2
In 1895, the Korteweg-De Vries (KDV) equation was
created as a means to model water waves. Since the sin( x ) sin( y )
u ( x, y ) =
equation doesn’t introduce dissipation, the waves − 2 2
travel seemingly forever. These waves are now
called solitons, which are seen as single “humps”
that can travel over long distances without altering
their shape or speed31. The motion of nonlinear
dispersive wave is governed by this example.

u u  3u
+u + =0 Eq. 2.14
t x x 3
Today, engineers use the KDV equation to
understand light waves. As a result, one of the main
modern applications of solitons is in optical fibers.
Figure 2.10 Solution to Poisson's
2.4.10 Helmholtz Equation Equation
This equation governs the motion of time dependent harmonic waves where k is a frequency
parameter. Application includes the propagation of acoustics waves.

2 u + k 2 u = (2 + k 2 )u = 0 Eq. 2.15

2.4.11 Summary List of Exact Solution Methods

The solution is obtained from the list provided below. This list by no means exclusive and many more
exists in literature. They are commonly considered Boundary Value Problems (BVP).

1. Method of Characteristics
2. Shock Capturing Methods

31 Caty Fairclough, “COMSOL Blog”, December 20, 2017.

 54

3. Similarity Solutions
4. SCM (Split Coefficient Method)
5. Methods for solving Potential Equation
6. Methods for solving Laplace equation
7. Separation of Variable
8. Complex Variables
9. Superposition of Non-Linear Equation
10. Transformation of Variables
11. Manufacturing Solutions
 55

3 Solving System of Linear Algebraic Equation

In the study of numerical methods, the distinction can be made between a set of methods such as
solving linear systems of equations, solving matrix eigenvalue problems, interpolation,
numerical integration and finding the roots or zeros of equations, which can be somewhat
considered as the building blocks for larger that arise in engineering/applied mathematics/physics.
As an example, the problem of solving ordinary differential equations, optimization and solving
integral equations. But from the point of view of applied mathematics or engineering, perhaps the
most significant problems in numerical methods is the solution of partial differential equations by
Finite Difference Methods, Finite Element Methods or Boundary Element Methods. The study of the
behavior of numerical methods is called numerical analysis. This is a mathematical subject that
considers the modelling of the error in the processing of numerical methods and the subsequent re-
design of methods32.

3.1 Interpolation
Interpolation is a method of finding new values for any function using the given set of values. The
unknown value at a particular point can be found using many interpolation formula's. If the new
value has to be found from the two given points then the linear interpolation formula is used
whereas if 'n' set of numbers are available the new value is found using the Lagrange's interpolation
formula. The Linear Interpolation Formula is given as,

y − y1 y 2 − y1
=
x − x1 x 2 − x 1
Eq. 3.1
Among non-linear interpolation schemes, Lagrange interpolating polynomial is the prominent one
which can be expressed as the polynomial P(x) of degree ≤ (n-1) that passes through the n points (x1,
y1 = f(x1), x2,y2= f(x2), , , , , , , , xn,yn= f(xn)) , and is given by

n n
x − xk
P(x) = ∑ Pj (x) → Pj (x) = yj ∏
xj − xk
j=1 k=1
k≠j
Eq. 3.2

Figure 3.1 Bi-linear (middle) and Bi-Cubic (far right) Interpolation

32 Numerical Methods.com
 56

Cubic splines are other non-linear example such as Non-Rational B-Splines (NURBS) or Bezier
functions. Interpolation schemes are vast and different. For example, Multivariate interpolation is
the interpolation of functions of more than one variable33. Methods include bilinear interpolation and
bi-cubic interpolation in two dimensions, and trilinear interpolation in three dimensions. They can
be applied to gridded or scattered data as depicted in Figure 3.1.

3.2 Numerical Integration

Numerical integration is the numerical approximation of the integral of a function. For a function of
one variable, it amounts to finding the area under the graph of the function. That is finding the
integral I where the numerical method for integration generally replace the integral by a weighted
sum of n weights and n function evaluations, so that

b n

I = ∫ f(x)dx ≈ ∑ wi f(xi )
a i=1
Eq. 3.3
For a function of two variables it is equivalent to finding an approximation to the volume under the
surface. Numerical integration is often also referred to as quadrature or sometimes cubature for
functions of two or more variables. Returning to the one variable case, numerical integration involves
finding the approximation to an integral of a function f(x) through its evaluation at a set of discrete
points. There are two distinct approaches to this. Firstly methods like the trapezium rule or
Simpson's rule determine the integral through evaluating f(x) at regularly spaced points. These are
generally referred to as Newton-Cotes formulae. Alternative methods termed Gaussian Quadrature
methods have arisen that select irregularly-placed evaluation points, chosen to determine the
integral as accurately as possible with a given set of points.
Gaussian Quadrature methods are important as they often lead to very efficient methods. In
numerical integration the efficiency of the method relates to the accuracy obtained with respect to
the number of evaluations of the function f(x). In intensive methods such as the boundary element
method integrations may need to be performed millions of times so the efficiency of the methods
needs to be considered sometimes. In general, care must be taken to match the numerical integration
method to the expected nature of the function f(x). Typically, it may be known that f(x) is regular. On
the other hand f(x) may be singular or oscillatory and will then need special treatment. Often a special
method called a product integration method can be developed for the integration of functions of the
form f(x) = w(x)g(x) where w(x) is a pre-set function and the function and g(x) is known to be a
relatively nice function.

3.3 Algebraic Eigenvalues & Eigenvectors Problems

Before we attend the next section about the solution of model PDE’s, we better familiar ourselves
with the concept of Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors because they play an essential rule in solving the
PDE’s. In linear algebra, an eigenvector or characteristic vector of a linear transformation is a non-
zero vector that does not change its direction when that linear transformation is applied to it. In other
words, if v is a vector that is not the zero vector, then it is an eigenvector of a linear transformation T
if T(v) is a scalar multiple of v. This condition can be written as the equation:

T(v) = λv Eq. 3.4

33 Wikipedia,
 57

Where λ is a scalar known as the eigenvalue or characteristic value associated with the eigenvector
v. If the linear transformation [T] is expressed as a square matrix [A] then the equation can be
expressed as the matrix multiplication:

Ax = λx Eq. 3.5

Where x is a column vector. There is a correspondence between n by n square matrices and linear
transformations from an n-dimensional vector space to itself. For this reason, it is equivalent to define
eigenvalues and eigenvectors using either the language of matrices or the language of linear
transformations. Geometrically, an eigenvector corresponding to a real, nonzero eigenvalue points
in a direction that is stretched by the transformation and the eigenvalue is the factor by which it is
stretched. If the eigenvalue is negative, the direction is reversed. The hyperbolic equations have a
both positive distingue eigenvectors, parabolic has one, while the elliptic has complex one.

a11 − λ a12 .... a1n   x1   0 

 a .... a 2n  x   0 
 21 a 22 − λ  2 =   or ( A − λI) x = 0
 .... .... .... ....  ....  ....
     
 a n1 a n2 .... a nn − λ  x n   0 
Eq. 3.6
Where I is the identity matrix. As shown in Cramer's rule, a linear system of equations has nontrivial
solutions if the determinant vanishes, so the solutions of Eq. 3.6 are given by

( A − λI) = 0 or (1 -  )(2 -  ) ...... (n -  ) = 0 Eq. 3.7

Each λi may be real but in general is a complex number. The numbers λ1, λ2…. λn, which may not all
have distinct values, are roots of the polynomial and are the eigenvalues of A. This equation is known
as the characteristic equation of A, and the left-hand side is known as the characteristic polynomial.

3.3.1 Eigenvalues Calculation

The eigenvalues of a matrix [A] can be determined by finding the roots of the characteristic
polynomial. Explicit algebraic formulas for the roots of a polynomial exist only if the degree n is 4 or
less. According to the Abel–Ruffini theorem there is no general, explicit and exact algebraic formula
for the roots of a polynomial with degree 5 or more. It turns out that any polynomial with degree n is
the characteristic polynomial of some companion matrix of order n. Therefore, for matrices of order
5 or more, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors cannot be obtained by an explicit algebraic formula, and
must therefore be computed by approximate numerical methods. In theory, the coefficients of the
characteristic polynomial can be computed exactly, since they are sums of products of matrix
elements; and there are algorithms that can find all the roots of a polynomial of arbitrary degree to
any required accuracy. However, this approach is not viable in practice because the coefficients
would be contaminated by unavoidable round-off errors, and the roots of a polynomial can be an
extremely sensitive function of the coefficients34.

3.3.1.1 Eigenvector Calculation

The eigenvalues must be determined first. Once these are known, the corresponding eigenvectors
can be calculated directly from the linear system. It should be noted that if vector v is an eigenvector.

34 From Wikipedia.
 58

(𝐀 − λ𝐈)𝐯⃗ = 0
Eq. 3.8

3.3.1.2 Right and Left Eigenvectors

Given an eigenvalue λ, The eigenvector r that satisfies [A]r = λr is sometimes called a (right)
eigenvector for the matrix [A] corresponding to the eigenvalue λ. If λ1, λ2, ..., λr are the eigenvalues and
r1, r2, ..., rr are the corresponding right eigenvectors, then is easy to see that the set of right
eigenvectors form a basis of a vector space. If this vector space is of dimension n, then we can
construct an n × n matrix [R] whose columns are the components of the right eigenvectors, which has
the property that [A][R] = [R][Λ] where [Λ] is the diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are the
eigenvalues as shown in Eq. 3.9. By appropriate numbering of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors,

1 0 0 .... 0
0  0 .... 0 
 2

[ Λ ] =  0 0 3 .... 0
 
.... .... .... .... ....
 0 0 0 .... n 
Eq. 3.9
it is possible to arrange the columns of the matrix [R] so that λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ … ≥ λn. In the same spirite, If
this vector space is of dimension n, then we can construct an n × n matrix [L] whose rows are the
components of the left eigenvectors, which has the property that [L][A] = [Λ][L]. This is easily done
if we define [L ] = [R]−1 and define the components of the left eigenvectors to be the elements of the
respective rows of [L]. Beginning with [A][R] = [R][Λ] and multiplying both sides on the left by [R]−1,
we obtain [R]−1[A][R] = [Λ] and multiplying on the right by [R]−1, we have [R]−1[A] = [Λ][R]−1 which
implies that any row of [R]−1 satisfies the properties of a left eigenvector35 or [L][A][R]=[Λ].

3.3.1.3 Diagonalization of a Matrix

Given an n by n matrix [A], we say that [A] is diagonalizable if there is a matrix [X] so that [X]−1[A][X]
= [Λ]. It is clear from the above discussions that if all the eigenvalues are real and district, then we
can use them as matrix of right eigenvectors [R] instead of [X].

3.3.1.4 Case Study 1 - Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors of 3D Euler Equation

The Eigen system/eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Euler equations of inviscid flow form the
basis of total variation diminishing (TVD) algorithms in computational fluid dynamics (CFD)36.
Whether the conservation equations are solved in a finite difference or finite volume format, the
matrices of right and left eigenvectors that can be found in the literature are generally decomposed
along the directions of a global (x, y, z) or local (ξ, η, ζ) coordinate system. Such matrix decomposition,
however, is not necessary. The eigenvalues and eigenvector matrix of 3D inviscid flow can be
expressed along any given direction, e.g. through a unit vector (nx, ny, nz) normal to a surface. The
resulting expression is relatively simple and allows for more efficient code implementation in finite
volume solvers.

35 Kenneth I. Joy, “Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors”, Visualization and Graphics Research Group Department of
Computer Science University of California, Davis.
36 Axel Rohde, “Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Of The Euler Equations In General Geometries”, AIAA 2001-2609.
 59

3.3.1.5 Governing Equations

The 3D unsteady Euler equations of inviscid flow, a system of integral conservation equations for
mass, momentum, and energy, can be written in vector notation as the sum of a volume and surface
integral,
 ρ   ρv n 
 ρu   ρuv + pn 
    n x


t CV
Q dV + CSF dA = 0 where Q =  ρv 
 
, F =  ρvv n + pny 
 
 ρw  ρwvn + pnz 
ρe 0   ρh 0 v n 

v n = v.n̂ = un x + vn y + wn z , n 2x + n 2y + n 2z = 1

e0 = e + ek , h 0 = h + ek , ek =
2
(
1 2
u + v2 + w 2 )
Eq. 3.10
with ek being the kinetic energy per unit mass. Static energy, enthalpy, and pressure can all be
expressed in terms of the local speed of sound a , a function of temperature, and the ratio of specific
heats γ,

a2 a2 ρa 2 cp
e= , h= , p= , a 2 = γRT , λ = Eq. 3.11
γ(γ − 1) (γ − 1) γ cv

3.3.1.6 Transformation Matrix

The first step in determining the Eigen system of the above conservation equations is to derive the
corresponding Jacobian or transformation matrix, which can be found by taking partial derivatives
of the flux

 0 nx ny nz 0 
 (γ − 1)e n − uv v n (γ − 2)un x un y − (γ − 1)vn x un z − (γ − 1)wn x (γ − 1)n x 
F 
k x n

A= =  (γ − 1)e n − vv vn x (γ − 1)un y v n − (γ − 2)vn y vn z − (γ − 1)wn y (γ − 1)n y 

Q 
k y n

(γ − 1)e k n z − wvn wn x (γ − 1)un z wv y − (γ − 1)vn y v n − (γ − 2)wn z (γ − 1)n z 
[(γ − 1)e k − h 0 ]v n h 0 n x (γ − 1)uv n h 0 n y − (γ − 1)vn y h 0 n z − (γ − 1)wn n γ v n 

Eq. 3.12
We can now rewrite the Euler equations in the format of a general wave equation,


 Q dV + CS F(Q) dA = 0
t CV
where F(Q) = [ A] Q Eq. 3.13

The transformation matrix [A] can be interpreted as a wave speed with local and directional
dependence for a nonlinear multi-dimensional wave. The multidimensional character is really
twofold: (1) we are working in a 3D flow field, where waves can travel in any direction; (2) there are
different types of waves, all traveling at their own characteristic speeds, which are determined by the
eigenvalues of the matrix [A]. The eigenvalues of the transformation matrix [A] are the roots λ of the
characteristic equation,
 60

det (A - λI) = 0 Eq. 3.14

where [I] is the identity matrix. It turns out that three eigenvalues are distinct and two are repeated

λ = {Vn , Vn , Vn , Vn + a, Vn − a} , a is speed of sound

Eq. 3.15
where the left and right eigenvector of A is provided in37. Choosing the first set of eigenvectors, both
left and right, the matrix of right eigenvectors for 2D flow is obtained after eliminating the fourth row
and fifth column from the general result, whereas the left eigenvector matrix is found by deleting the
fifth row and fourth column from its original 5x5 matrix. It is interesting to note that after applying
the above 2D definitions, the singularities in the last row of the new 4x4 left eigenvector matrix
disappear. It was demonstrated earlier that two of the five right eigenvectors form a 2-dimensional
subspace, within the general 5-dimensional space spanned by all right eigenvectors, and that every
member of this subspace is itself an eigenvector. This phenomenon was attributed to the fact that
their corresponding eigenvalues are repeated, which creates a “symmetry” within the eigenvector
space. Although it may seem difficult to visualize any symmetry within a 5-dimensional vector space,
part of this symmetry reveals itself when we geometrically interpret the 2-dimensional subspace as
a plane. The Euler equations contain three types, or families of waves, one for every distinct
eigenvalue. Each family of waves carries a different signal. The waves traveling at the speed of the
flow (vn) are called entropy waves, their signal being entropy, whereas waves traveling at the speed
of sound relative to the flow (vn+_ a) are called acoustic waves. Unfortunately, the signal carried by
acoustic waves is not quantifiable in simple thermodynamic terms, but let us just say that they carry
acoustic information38.

3.3.2 Case Study 2 – Non-Reflecting Boundary Condition in 2D

When calculating a numerical solution to an unsteady, hyperbolic, partial differential equation on an
infinite domain, it is normal to perform the calculation on a truncated finite domain. This raises the
problem of choosing appropriate boundary conditions for this far-field boundary. Ideally, these
should prevent any non-physical reflections of the outgoing waves, and should be straightforward to
implement numerically. Also, they must produce a well-posed analytic problem since this is a basic
requirement for the corresponding numerical approximation to be consistent and stable. Here the
aim is at turbomachinery flows. In some ways, these flows are more complex than the flow past
isolated airfoils. Wherever the far-field boundary for isolated airfoils can be many chords away from
airfoils, with turbomachinery the far-field can be typically less than one chord away from the blade.
Consequently, whereas for isolated airfoils the steady-state far-field can be modeled as a vortex
correction to the free stream flow, in turbomachinery the far-field contains a significant component
of several different spatial wavenumbers. This is particularly true for flows which are supersonic in
the flow direction but subsonic in axial direction, in which case shocks propagate indefinitely and can
be reflected by improper boundary conditions. Thus, one of the two aims here to correct formulation
of steady-state non-reflecting boundary conditions which will not produce artificial reflections of
steady waves such as shocks39. The other objective is the formulation of accurate non-reflecting
boundary conditions for unsteady waves. Here again isolated airfoils generally have few issues. The
reason is that the primary concern for isolated airfoils is unsteady flow caused by either airfoils
motion (Airfoil flutter) or a fluid dynamics instability (transonic buzz or install). In either case the
unsteadiness originates in the vicinity of the airfoil and radiates outward. Typically the grids on

37 Axel Rohde, “Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Of The Euler Equations In General Geometries”, AIAA 2001-2609.
38 See previous.
39 M. Giles, “Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions for the Euler Equations”, CFDL-TR-88-1, Feb. 1988.
 61

which such calculations are tend to perfumed becoming progressively coarser as the waves moves
outwards toward the far field boundary, until a radius is reached at which the wavelength of the
unsteady wave is of the order of a few mesh cells. At this point the numerical viscosity will dissipate
the wave and so the unsteadiness will not reach the far-field boundary and accurate non-reflecting
boundary conditions are unnecessary. One of the main concerns in turbomachinery is the
unsteadiness caused by incoming shock waves and wakes from upstream blade rows. The need to
retain an accurate representation of these incoming waves’ represents the use of coarser grids in the
far-field, an instead one must concentrates on accurate non-reflecting boundary conditions.
Unsteady flows can be split into two classes, nonlinear and linear, depending on the amplitude of the
unsteadiness. If the amplitude is sufficiently small that the disturbance everywhere can be
considered to be linear perturbations to a steady flow, then by the principal of superposition the
solution can be decomposed into a sum of modes with different temporal frequencies and different
inter-blade phase angles. Each of these modes can be analyzed separately and so the problem is
reduced to finding the complex amplitude of the harmonic disturbance. This can be achieved be
either a direct method or a pseudo-time marching method, in either case, there is a need for accurate
boundary condition, and it is found that because there is only a single frequency it is possible to
construct the ext. non-reflecting boundary conditions. In nonlinear unsteady flow there are regions
where the amplitude of the unsteadiness is great enough for a second order effects to become
extremely important. This produces a coupling between the different frequencies, and so they cannot
be separated. In the far-field however it is again assumed that the unsteadiness amplitude are small
so that linear theory can be applied. It is no longer possible to construct exact non-reflecting
boundary conditions which can be implemented numerically, but approximate boundary conditions
can be derived instead.

3.3.2.1 General Fourier Analysis and Eigenvectors

Consider the following general unsteady, two dimensional, hyperbolic PDE,

U U U
+A +B =0 Eq. 3.16
t x y

Where U is an n-component vector, A and B are constant NxN matrices. Fourier analysis considers
wave like solutions of the form

U(x, y,t) = u ei(kx+ly−ωt) Eq. 3.17

Substituting this into the PDE, results in

(−ωI + kA + lB) u = 0 or det(−ωI + kA + lB) = 0 Eq. 3.18

This is called the dispersion relation and is a polynomial of degree N in each ω, k, and l. The right
eigenvectors requires that

(−ωI + kA + lB)u R = uL (−ωI + kA + lB) = 0

Eq. 3.19
Where uR and uL are right and left eigenvectors of (kA+lB) with eigenvalues ω. By pre-multiplying
Eq. 3.19 by A-1 the left eigenvectors we obtain:
 62

uL (−ωA−1 + kI + lA −1B) = v L A−1 (−ωI + kA + lB) = 0 Eq. 3.20

From above relation it is obvious that uL is equivalent to vLA-1 and uR is right eigenvector of –k also.
The difference between two sets of left eigenvectors lies in their orthogonality relation with the right
eigenvectors. Since uL is the left eigenvector of (kA+lB), it is orthogonal to the all of the right
eigenvectors of the same matrix except for the ones with the same eigenvalue ω. The key point here
is that the orthogonality for the same k and l but different ω. Thus if ωn and ωm are two different roots
of the dispersion equation for the same values of k and l, then

v L (ωn , k, l) u R (ωm , k, l) = 0 Eq. 3.21

Normally in discussing wave motion one is concerned with propagation on an infinite domain, and
so usually one considers a group of waves with the same k and l and different ω. In that case uR and
uL would be relevant right and left eigenvectors. In analyzing boundary conditions however, a general
solution U at the boundary x=0 can be decomposed into sum of Fourier modes with different values
of ω and l. Each of these modes is then a collection of waves with the same value of ω and l and
different
v L (ω, kn , l ) u R (ω, km , l ) = 0 Eq. 3.22

3.4 Solving Systems of Linear Algebraic Equations

The system is often written in the form [A] x = b where [A] is an MxN matrix, x is an N-vector and b
is M-vectors.

3.4.1 Direct Methods

The full description of these methods are provided in details in40. Here, a brief overview are given for
familiarizing the user and as depicted in Error! Reference source not found..

3.4.1.1 Cramer’s Rule

This is one of the most elementary methods used. Unfortunately the algorithm is immensely time
consuming. The number of operations being approximately proportional to (N+1)! Where there are
N unknowns. Therefore, Cramer’s rule should be avoided.

3.4.1.2 Gaussian Elimination

This is very useful and efficient tool for solving systems of algebraic equations, particularly for special
cases of tridiagonal systems. However, the method is not as fast as some others. Approximately, N 3
multiplication are required in solving N equations. Also, round-off errors which can be accumulate
through the many algebraic operation when N is large. Rearranging the equations to extend possible
in order to put the coefficients of the largest on the main diagonal (pivoting) will tend to improve
accuracy. The main objective is to transform the system to upper triangle array by eliminating some
of unknowns.

3.4.1.3 Thomas Algorithm

Referring the tridiagonal matrix of coefficients, the system is put into an upper triangle form. Some
flexibility exists in the way in which boundary conditions are handled.

40Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
 63

3.4.1.4 Advanced-Direct Methods

Direct methods for systems of algebraic equations which are faster than Gaussian elimination exists.
Unfortunately, none of these methods are general. That is, they are applicable only special class of
equations and associated boundary conditions. Many of these Methods are “field size” limits.
Examples of these are “Error Vector Propagation (EVP), and “Odd-Even Reduction” methods. Clearly,
the fast direct methods should be considered for the problem where overriding consideration is
expected to be CPU time. Again these algorithms are complex and limited.
3.4.2 Iterative Methods
This class of methods is referred as “Relaxation Methods”. It may be further broken into point or
Explicit iterative, and block or Implicit iterative methods 41. The implementation of an elliptic
equation like Laplace Equation can be best suited for this purpose. While iterative methods can
sometimes be viewed as integration in time,
the fact that we are only interested in the
“steady-state” solution allows us to take
“short cuts” to get there as fast as possible as
shown in
Figure 3.2. We will cover two types of
iterative methods. Stationary methods are
older, simpler to understand and implement,
but usually not as effective. Nonstationary
methods are a relatively recent
development; their analysis is usually harder
to understand, but they can be highly
effective. The nonstationary methods we
present are based on the idea of sequences of
orthogonal vectors. (An exception is the
Chebyshev iteration method, which is based
on orthogonal polynomials). The rate at Figure 3.2 Iteration Methods Path
which an iterative method converges
depends greatly on the spectrum of the coefficient matrix. Hence, iterative methods usually involve
a second matrix that transforms the coefficient matrix into one with a more favorable spectrum. The
transformation matrix is called a preconditioner. A good preconditioner improves the convergence
of the iterative method, sufficiently to overcome the extra cost of constructing and applying the
preconditioner. Indeed, without a preconditioner the iterative method may even fail to converge42.
Below are short descriptions of each of the methods to be discussed, along with brief notes on the
classification of the methods in terms of the class of matrices for which they are most appropriate. In
later sections of this chapter more detailed descriptions of these methods are given.

3.4.2.1 Stationary Iterative Methods

Iterative methods that can be expressed in the simple form

x k = [𝐁]x k−1 + 𝐜
Eq. 3.23
where neither [B] nor c depend upon the iteration count k are called stationary iterative methods.
(see Eq. 3.23).

3.4.2.1.1 Jacobi Method

41 See previous.
42 Numerical-Methods.com
 64

The Jacobi method is a method of solving a matrix equation on a matrix that has no zeros along its
main diagonal [Bronshtein & Semendyayev]43. Each diagonal element is solved for, and an
approximate value plugged in. The process is then iterated until it converges. This algorithm is a
stripped-down version of the Jacobi transformation method of matrix diagonalization. The Jacobi
method is easily derived by examining each of the n equations in the linear system of equations Ax =
b in isolation. If, in the i-th equation

n
bi −  a ij x kj −1
a x
j=1
ij j = bi  x ik =
j i

a ii Eq. 3.24

Solve for the value of xi while assuming the other entries of x remain fixed.

3.4.2.1.2 Gauss-Seidel Iteration

Among the many iteration schemes available, Gauss-Seidel in one of the most efficient and useful
point-iterative procedure for large system of equations. The method is extremely simple but
converges under certain conditions related to “diagonal dominance” of the coefficients matrix.
Fortunately, the differencing of many steady-state conservation statements provide this diagonal
dominance. The method uses explicit use of the sparseness of matrix coefficients. A sufficient
condition for convergence of GS procedure is

n
a ii   a ij Eq. 3.25
j=1
j i

The simplicity of the procedure will be demonstrated below,

• Make initial guess of all unknowns (except one).

• Solve each equation for the unknowns whose coefficients are largest in magnitude using
guessed value initially, and the most recent it computed value thereafter.
• Repeat iteratively until changes in unknown becomes small (x = xcalculated + error).

Finally, for a general system of equations, the multiplications per iteration could be as great as N2 but
could be much less if matrix is spares.

3.4.2.1.3 Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR)

Successive Over-Relaxation (SOR) is a technique which can be used to accelerate any iterative
procedure, chief among them Gauss Seidel method. As we apply Gauss-Seidel iteration to a system
of equations, we expect to make several recalculations or iterations before convergence to the
acceptable level. Why not go head and make a correction before the next iteration, hopefully,
accelerating the convergence. According to the form:

43 Bronshtein, I. N. and Semendyayev, K. A.,”Handbook of Mathematics “, 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 892,
1997.
 65

n +1*
(
u i, j = u i,n j + ω u i,n +j 1 − u i,n j
* *
)
n = iteration level , u i,n +j 1 = the most recent value , u i,n j = value from previous iteration
*
Eq. 3.26

u i,n +j 1 = newly adjusted and 1 ω  2

*

Where ω is the relaxation parameter and Iterative Method Number of iterations

when 1<ω<2, over-relaxation is being
Jacobi 1989
employed. In some problems under-
Gauss-Seidel 986
relaxation 0<ω<1 is appears to be most
SOR 91
appropriate when the convergence is
taking oscillatory pattern tends to over- Table 3.1 Comparison of Iterative Schemes
shoot the final solution. As a comparison
on convergence for the 2D Laplace
equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions on, been made by [Grétar Tryggvason-2013] and the
results are for average absolute error (0.001) is presented in
Table 3.1.
3.4.2.1.4 SOR by Line
Although this procedure is workable with almost any
iterative schemes, it make the most sense to work with
Gauss-Seidel method with SOR. We can chose either
rows or columns for grouping with equal ease. In the
SOR by line, one iterative cycle is completed when the
tridiagonal inversion has been applied to all the rows.
The process then repeated until convergence is
achieved. The improved convergence rate observed for
block-iterative methods compared with point-iterative
methods might be due to greater influence by boundary
values. Where ω is the relaxation parameter and when Figure 3.3 SOR by line
1 < ω < 2, over-relaxation is being employed. In some
problems under-relaxation 0 < ω < 1 is appears to be most appropriate when the convergence is
taking oscillatory pattern tens to over-shoot the final solution. The final results, shown in Figure 3.3,
will be

u i,n +j 1 = (1 − ω)u i,n j +

ω
2(1 + β )
2
 (
u in++1,1 j + u in−+1,1 j + β 2 u i,n j+1 + u i,n +j−11 ) Eq. 3.27

Where n denotes the iteration level, i, j, are represents rows and columns. Thomas Algorithm can be
used to sweep by rows and then advances to the next row. β = Δx/Δy is the grid aspect ratio and ω ≤
(1+ β) in order to ensures the diagonal dominance.

3.4.2.1.5 Block-Iterative Methods

The Gauss-Seidel iteration method with SOR stands as the best all-around method for finite-
difference solution of elliptic equation. The number of iterations can be usually reduced even further
by use of block-iterative concepts, but number of algebraic operations required per iterative cycle
generally increase. In block iterative group, subgroups of the unknown are singled out and their value
modified simultaneously by obtaining a solution to the simultaneous algebraic equations be
 66

eliminating method. Thus, the block iterative have an implicit nature and sometimes called implicit-
iterative method. The simplest block procedure is SOR by line.
3.4.2.1.6 Strongly–Implicit Methods
Another type of block-iterative procedure has been gaining favor as an efficient method for solving
the system of equations, arising from elliptic PDE. To illustrate,

[A]u = C Eq. 3.28

Where [A] is the relatively sparse matrix of unknown coefficients, u is the column vector of unknown,
and C is a column vectors on known quantities. The objective is to replace the sparse matrix [A] by a
modified matrix [A+P] which can be decomposed into an upper and lower triangle matrices [U] and
[L]. An iterative procedure is defined by

A + P u n +1 = C + P u n or LU u n +1 = C + P u n

Define : V n +1 = U u n +1 Eq. 3.29
Step1: L V n +1 = C + P  u n Step2 : U u n +1 = V n +1

Which is repeated iteratively. Step 1 consists simply of a forward substation. This is followed by the
backward substitution of Step 2.
3.4.2.1.7 ADI Methods
The SOR by lines proceeds by taking all the lines in the same direction in a repetitive manner. The
convergence rate often improved by following the sequence by rows by a second sequence in the
column. Thus the complete iteration
cycle would consists of a sweep over all
rows followed sweeps over the columns.
The procedure best illustrated in Figure
3.4. In numerical analysis, the
Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI)
method is a finite difference method for
solving parabolic, hyperbolic and elliptic
partial differential equations. It is most
notably used to solve the problem of heat
conduction or solving the diffusion
equation in two or more dimensions. It is
an example of an operator splitting
method. This method results in a very
complicated set of equations in multiple
dimensions, which are costly to solve.
The advantage of the ADI method is that Figure 3.4 ADI Stencil for Implicit Method
the equations that have to be solved in
each step have a simpler structure and can be solved efficiently with the tridiagonal matrix algorithm.
Alternatively, we could include the over-relaxation as part of row and column sweeps in two steps
as:
 67

Step1: u i,n +j 1/2 = (1 − ω)u i,n j +

ω
2(1 + β )
2

u in++1,1/2j + u in−+1,1/2j + β 2 (u i,n j+1 + u i,n +j−1/2
1 )
Eq. 3.30
Step2 : u i,n +j 1 = (1 − ω)u i,n +j 1/2 +
ω
2(1 + β )
2
 
u in++1,1/2j + u in−+1,1 j + β 2 (u i,n +j+11 + u i,n +j−11 )

To preserve the diagonal dominance in Thomas Algorithm we require that ω ≤ (1+β 2) in the sweep
by row and ω ≤ (1+β2)/β2 in the sweep by column.

3.4.2.2 Non-Stationary Iterative Methods

Nonstationary methods differ from stationary methods in that the computations involve information
that changes at each iteration. Typically, constants are computed by taking inner products of
residuals or other vectors arising from the iterative method44.
3.4.2.2.1 Conjugate Gradient (CG)
The conjugate gradient method derives its name from the fact that it generates a sequence of
conjugate (or orthogonal) vectors. These vectors are the residuals of the iterates. They are also the
gradients of a quadratic functional, the minimization of which is equivalent to solving the linear
system. CG is an extremely effective method when the coefficient matrix is symmetric positive
definite, since storage for only a limited number of vectors is required.
3.4.2.2.2 Minimum Residual (MINRES) and Symmetric LQ (SYMMLQ)
These methods are computational alternatives for CG for coefficient matrices that are symmetric but
possibly indefinite. SYMMLQ will generate the same solution iterates as CG if the coefficient matrix
is symmetric positive definite.
3.4.2.2.3 Generalized Minimal Residual (GMRES)
The Generalized Minimal Residual method computes a sequence of orthogonal vectors (like
MINRES), and combines these through a least-squares solve and update. However, unlike MINRES
(and CG) it requires storing the whole sequence, so that a large amount of storage is needed. For this
reason, restarted versions of this method are used. In restarted versions, computation and storage
costs are limited by specifying a fixed number of vectors to be generated. This method is useful for
general non-symmetric matrices.

3.4.2.2.4 Bi-Conjugate Gradient (BiCG)

The Bi-conjugate Gradient method generates two CG-like sequences of vectors, one based on a system
with the original coefficient matrix A, and one on AT . Instead of orthogonalizing each sequence, they
are made mutually orthogonal, or “bi-orthogonal”. This method, like CG, uses limited storage. It is
useful when the matrix is non-symmetric and nonsingular; however, convergence may be irregular,
and there is a possibility that the method will break down. BiCG requires a multiplication with the
coefficient matrix and with its transpose at each iteration.

3.4.2.2.5 Quasi-Minimal Residual (QMR)

The Quasi-Minimal Residual method applies a least-squares solve and update to the BiCG residuals,
thereby smoothing out the irregular convergence behavior of BiCG. Also, QMR largely avoids the
breakdown that can occur in BiCG. On the other hand, it does not effect a true minimization of either
the error or the residual, and while it converges smoothly, it does not essentially improve on the
BiCG.

44 Numerical-Methods.com.
 68

3.4.2.2.6 Conjugate Gradient Squared (CGS)

The Conjugate Gradient Squared method is a variant of BiCG that applies the updating operations for
the A-sequence and the AT -sequences both to the same vectors. Ideally, this would double the
convergence rate, but in practice convergence may be much more irregular than for BiCG. A practical
advantage is that the method does not need the multiplications with the transpose of the coefficient
matrix.
3.4.2.2.7 Chebyshev Iteration
The Chebyshev Iteration recursively determines polynomials with coefficients chosen to minimize
the norm of the residual in a min-max sense. The coefficient matrix must be positive definite and
knowledge of the extremal eigenvalues is required. This method has the advantage of requiring no
inner products45.

3.4.3 Classical (Stationary) Iterative Schemes vs. Krylov Subspace Methods

The iterative schemes discussed so far are belong to Classic or Stationary Iterative methods which
solve a linear system with an operator approximating the original one or relaxation. They based on a
measurement of the error in the result (the residual), form a "correction equation" for which this
process is repeated. While these methods are simple to derive, implement, and analyze, convergence
is only guaranteed for a limited class of matrices. Oppositely, Krylov Subspace iteration methods
which work by forming a basis of the sequence of successive matrix powers times the initial residual
(the Krylov sequence). The approximations to the solution are then formed by minimizing the
residual over the subspace formed. It is an iterative method for the numerical solution of a non-
symmetric system of linear equations, which are trademarks of CFD. The prototypical method in this
class is the Conjugate Gradient method (CG). Other include the Generalized Minimal Residual method
(GMRES), the bi-conjugate gradient method (BiCG), and stabilized CG method (CGSTAB). Conjugate
Gradient methods currently are losing favor to more general Krylov subspace methods based largely
on the GMRES algorithm. As with conjugate gradient, this method is based on the construction of a
set of basis vectors, and formally will converge to the exact solution. Rapid convergence in the initial
iterations requires preconditioning of the matrix in both approaches. GMRES type algorithms have
the advantage that residuals decrease monotonically, and that the algorithms are generally more
robust. They have the disadvantage that they must store an additional basis vector in the Krylov
subspace for each iteration. The partial solution to this problem has been to restart the solution
algorithm after some number of iterations. Providing a recommendation for a "best" solution
algorithm is not currently possible. In fact variability of algorithm performance with machine
architecture and problem type suggests that a "best" algorithm exists only in an average sense46.
Many methods work only for symmetric systems. While the pressure equation is usually symmetric,
implicit methods usually do not lead to symmetric matrices. Usually the system is preconditioned to
make it better behaved47. Generally iterative methods generate a sequence of approximations that
are used to construct a new approximation. Ideally, we only need to keep a few approximations, but
one of the more popular technique, GMRES, requires all the previous iterates. This leads to the
restarted GMRES. At the present time there does not seem to be a “best” Krylov method. In addition
to the relatively simple early methods like the conjugate gradient method, GMRES is fairly popular
(particularly the restarted version) and BiCGSTAB has been used by a number of people. A large
number of pre-written software packages for the solution of elliptic equations are also available on-
line. It is worth mentioning that for set non-linear equations, it is best to use classical Newton’s
method which of course is heavily dependent on initial guess.

45 Numerical-Methods.com.
46 Class Notes, “Iterative Solution of Linear Equations”.
47 Grétar Tryggvason, “Numerical Methods for Elliptic Equations-III”, lecture slides, spring 2013.
 69

3.5 Converting Conservative to Primitive Variables for 2D Euler Equations

We begin with the Euler equations in the conservative form and following closely the work by
[Nishikawa]48, we have

ρ  ρu   ρv 
 ρu  ρu 2 + p  
U F G  , G =  ρuv 
+ + = 0 where U =   , F = 
t x y  ρv   ρuv  ρv 2 + p
      Eq. 3.31
ρE   ρuH   ρvH 
1 p 1 2  p 1 2 2
E= + (u + v 2 ) , H = + (u + v )
 -1  2  -1  2

The vector of primitive variables is given by

1 0 0 0 
ρ  u
u   ρ 0 0 
W=  , −1
U = T W , T −1
= v 0 ρ 0  Eq. 3.32
v  q2
  1 
p  ρu ρv 
 2 γ − 1

Now, we can transform the conservation form into the primitive variable form by multiplying:

∂𝐔 ∂𝐅 ∂𝐆 ∂𝐔 ∂𝐅 ∂𝐔 ∂𝐆 ∂𝐔
𝐓 + 𝐓( + ) = 0 , 𝐓 + 𝐓( + )=0
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂t ⏟ ∂x ∂𝐔
∂𝐔 ⏟ ∂y
𝐀 𝐁
∂𝐖 ∂𝐖 ∂𝐖
or 𝐓𝐀𝐓 −𝟏 (
+⏟ 𝐓𝐁𝐓 −𝟏 (
)+⏟ )
∂t 𝐀𝐖
∂x 𝐁𝐖
∂y
u ρ 0 0 v 0 0p
1 0 v 00
0 u 0 1
where 𝐀W = ρ , 𝐁W = 0 0 v
0 0 u 0 ρ
[0 γp 0 v] [0 0 γp v]
Eq. 3.33

3.5.1 Symmetrizing Matrix Variables

This will have a major impact in preconditioning of governing equations in order to expedite the
convergence rate, as we will see later. Again, sympathizing the work by [Nishikawa]49, the vector of
the symmetrizing variables is

48 Hiroaki Nishikawa. “Forms of the Euler Equations”, January 2000.

49 See previous.
 70

∂p 1
0 0 0
∂u 𝜌𝑎
∂𝐔c = ∂u , ∂𝐔c = 𝐓c ∂𝐖 0 , 1𝐓c = 0 0
∂v 0 0 1 0
∂s [−𝑎2 0 0 1]
∂𝐔c ∂𝐔c ∂𝐔c
or 𝐓𝐀𝐓 −𝟏 (
+⏟ )+⏟𝐓𝐁𝐓 −𝟏 ( )=0
∂t 𝐀𝐜
∂x 𝐁𝐜
∂y
u a 0 0 v 0 a 0
a u 0 0 0 v 0 0
where 𝐀c = [ ] , 𝐁c = [ ]
0 0 u 0 a 0 v 0
0 0 0 u 0 0 0 v
Eq. 3.34

Similar procedures same can be applied to anther symmetrizing variables as dUm={dp/ρa, dq, qdθ,
ds}T .

3.6 Programming Languages & Paradigms for CFD

As mentioned above, computer programming is one of the essentials of CFD learning. The user do not
need to be a programming specialist, only to be familiar with different programming paradigms.
Therefore, a brief discussion of different programs used in CFD and their comparison is provided
below. Let first start with difference between Object-Oriented (OO) and Procedural programming.
3.6.1 Difference Between Object Oriented (OO) vs. Procedural Programming
3.6.1.1 Object Oriented Programming (OOP)
Object-oriented Programming is a programming language that uses classes and objects to create
models based on the real world environment. It is a programming languages are organized around
'objects' rather than 'actions' and 'data' rather than 'logic'. An Object-oriented Programming
application may use a collection of objects which will pass messages when called upon to request a
specific service or information. Objects are able to pass, receive messages or process information in
the form of data. One reason to use Object-oriented Programming is because it makes it easy to
maintain and modify existing code as new objects are created inheriting characteristics from existing
ones. This cuts down the development time considerably and makes adjusting the program much
simpler.

3.6.1.2 Procedural
Procedural Programming which at times has been referred to as inline programming takes a more
top down approach to programming. Object-oriented Programming uses classes and objects,
Procedural Programming takes on applications by solving
problems from the top of the code down to the bottom. This OOP Procedural
happens when a program starts with a problem and then method procedure
breaks that problem down into smaller sub-problems or
object record
sub-procedures. These sub-procedures are continually
broken down in the process called functional decomposition class module
until the sub-procedure is simple enough to be solved. The message procedure call
issue that is obvious in Procedural Programming is that if an
edit is needed to the program, the developer must edit every Table 3.2 Differences between OOP
line of code that corresponds to the original change in the vs Procedural
 71

code. An example would be if at the beginning of a program a variable was set to equal the value of 1.
If other sub-procedures of the program rely on that variable equaling 1 to function properly they will
also need to be edited. As more and more changes may be needed to the code, it becomes increasingly
difficult to locate and edit all related elements in the program. The similarities and dissimilarities, as
detailed in Wikipedia, are depicted in
Table 3.2.

3.6.2 Pillars of Object Oriented Programming (OOP)

Due to simplicity of maintenance and reusability, as well as straightforward design, as relates to CFD,
we describe the 4 pillars of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) as envisioned by [Shri Ram Patel],
which outlined below.

3.6.2.1 Abstraction
Abstraction is a process of exposing essential feature of an entity while hiding other irrelevant detail.
abstraction reduces code complexity and at the same time it makes your aesthetically pleasant.

3.6.2.2 Encapsulation
We have to take in consideration that Encapsulation is somehow related to Data Hiding.
Encapsulation is when you hide your modules internal data and all other implementation
details/mechanism from other modules. it is also a way of restricting access to certain properties or
component. Remember, Encapsulation is not data hiding, but Encapsulation leads to data hiding.

3.6.2.3 Inheritance
The ability of creating a new class from an existing class. Like there word Inheritance literally means
it is a practice of passing on property, titles, debts, rights and obligations upon the death of an
individual. in OOP this is somehow true(Except the death of an individual), where The base class(the
existing class sometimes called as the Parent class) has properties and methods that will be inherited
by the sub class (sometimes called a subtype or child class) and it can have additional properties or
methods. Inheritance is also a way to use code of an existing objects.

3.6.2.4 Polymorphism
Just like in biology, Polymorphism refers to the ability to take into different forms or stages. A
subclass can define its own unique behavior and still share the same functionalities or behavior of its
parent/base class. Yes, you got it right, subclass can have their own behavior and share some
behavior from its parent class BUT!! not vice versa. A parent class cannot have the behavior
of its subclass.

3.6.3 Main Language Styles

The following are widely considered the main programming paradigms, as seen when measuring
programming language popularity. There is some overlap between paradigms, inevitably, but the
main features or identifiable differences are summarized in this table50:

➢ Procedural or Structured Languages

• Based on Individual statements, specifies the steps a program must take to reach a
desired state.
• FORTRAN, ALGOL60, ALGOL68, Cobol, Pascal, C, Ada

➢ Functional Languages

50 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 72

• When you tell the computer to do something it does it. Treats programs as evaluating
mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data.
• LISP, Scheme, CLOS, ML, Haskell

➢ Logic Languages
• Inference engine that drives things. Defines program logic, but not detailed control
flow.
• Prolog, GHC

➢ Object-Oriented Languages
• Bring together data and operations. Organizes programs as objects: data structures
consisting of data fields and methods together with their interactions.
• Smalltalk, C++, Eiffel, Sather, Python, Ada95, Java, OCAML

Note that none of the main programming paradigms have a precise, globally unanimous definition,
nor official international standard. Nor is there any agreement on which paradigm constitutes the
best method to developing software. The subroutines that implement OOP methods may be
ultimately coded in an imperative, functional, or procedural style that may, or may not, directly alter
state on behalf of the invoking program

3.6.4 Comparison between MATLAB, C/C++ and FORTRAN

On the subject of comparing programming languages such as FORTRAN, C and C++, John C. Chien,
among others, writes the following distinction:

3.6.4.1 FORTRAN
In Fortran, you deal with main program, subroutines, data and variables separately. The main
program calls the subroutines which then operate on the data and variables, to print, to compute etc...
For example, to print a number in Fortran, you first define the number, and then write the number
to the screen. In Fortran, data and related functions are defined separately. For example, to print a
number in Fortran, you first define the number, and then write the number to the screen.

3.6.4.2 C/C++
In C++, you deal with main program, classes and objects and functions separately. The class includes
its data and related functions as members. By changing the data, you can define different objects from
the class. In this area, it is like a parametric representation. Member functions are just functions
which operate on the data members. In C++, you declare a class called, say "class print number", then
inside the class you put in the number as the data member, and the function which print the number
as the member function, say "prt()". Then, in the main function (program) you first create an object
from the class, this is a copy of class with number and function in it. You exercise the member function
of the object to print the number. If you had defined the object as "print number myprint", then
"myprint.prt" will print the number for you. The difference is "packaging", in Fortran, there are parts,
in C++ the parts are packaged into many different classes. In this way you can protect your data
similar to your bank account, or money in your pocket instead of money on the desk top with your
name in front of it. With this concept, you can also derive other classes with additional functions in
it, something like custom made PC with add-on in it.
As you see, Fortran and C++ are different things, especially related to the use of classes and objects.
So, if you treat data and the related functions as separate things, then Fortran and C are the way to
go. On the other hand, if you group the data and the related function into classes and use it as object,
then C++ has some nice features for you. Unfortunately, the transformation from Fortran and C to
C++ is not simple because it requires the change in concept. By the way, JAVA is also object-oriented
 73

,without the complexity of the pointer. If your main interest is the solver and number crunching,
then Fortran is the one designed for that purpose, on the other hand, C++ will improve your
vision of the current picture of computer programming technology, therefore, it is essential to
understand its basis concepts.
Similar point of view is in complementing above is expressed by [Taked] of Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics University of Southampton England. Fortran 77 is about the fastest
high-level language for doing numerical computation. Good C code can go about as fast, but it is easier
to write fast F77 than fast C. The reason is that F77 compilers can do a better job optimizing the code.
With C, C++ and FORTRAN 90 the existence of pointers can be detrimental for performance. The
compilers cannot optimize memory accesses if the data is spread all over the place in memory.
However, pointers are incredibly useful for creating useful data structures, such as a linked list for
an unstructured grid. Bear in mind that the performance could be abysmal if implemented naively
though. FORTRAN 90 has two very useful features. The first is dynamic memory allocation. The
second is modules. These make program manageability much easier. Therefore, I think that you can
do well by using a mixture of Fortran 90 and 77. F77 for the number crunching numerical kernel
routines, and F90 for job setup and program management. Similarly, C/C++ could be used together
with F77 numerical routines. This seems to give a good balance between performance and flexible
code structure.

3.6.4.3 MATLAB
MATLAB (matrix laboratory) is a multi-paradigm numerical computing environment and fourth-
generation programming language. A proprietary programming language developed by
MathWorks®, MATLAB allows matrix manipulations, plotting of functions and data, implementation
of algorithms, creation of user interfaces, and interfacing with programs written in other languages,
including C, C++, C#, Java, Fortran and Python. Although MATLAB is intended primarily for numerical
computing, an optional toolbox uses the MuPAD symbolic engine, allowing access to symbolic
computing abilities. An additional package, Simulink, adds graphical multi-domain simulation and
model-based design for dynamic and embedded systems51. In MATLAB, basic data type is matrix.
This would reduce your efforts a lot while writing a CFD code. On the contrary, a program written in
C or Python would give you a complete control over robustness, speed, accuracy and hence efficiency.
Now, MATLAB will solve a Matrix operation for you. C will allow you to write a program that solves
a Matrix operation. Somewhere on the middle ground, C++ is an object-oriented version of C. If your

[X,Y] = meshgrid(-10:0.25:10,-
10:0.25:10);
f = sinc(sqrt((X/pi).^2+(Y/pi).^2));
mesh(X,Y,f);
axis([-10 10 -10 10 -0.3 1])
xlabel('{\bfx}')
ylabel('{\bfy}')
zlabel('{\bfsinc} ({\bfR})')
hidden off

Figure 3.5 3D Representation of a Sine Function using MATLAB

51 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 74

aim is to want to use CFD as your research tool or to use it in research and Development
environments, it would be rather suggest you to go ahead with MATLAB. Elsewhere, (i.e., working in
industry using commercial codes), bite the bullet and to use C/C++/Python etc. Other consideration
is economics and time. How much money and time do you have? This is more of a commercial
question. If you have money and no time to write your own matrix manipulation code, buy MATLAB
and use it! Of course, you may want to explore Octave, a rebellious brother of MATLAB.
3.6.4.4 Graphics and GUI programming in MATLAB
MATLAB supports developing applications with graphical user interface (GUI) features. MATLAB
includes GUIDE (GUI development environment) for graphically designing GUIs52. It also has tightly
integrated graph-plotting features. For example, the function plot can be used to produce a graph
from two vectors x and y. In addition, MATLAB program can produce 3D graphics using the functions
surf, plot3 or mesh is illustrated in Figure 3.5. Further information regarding the MATLAB could be
obtained from excellent resource such as 53-54 among many others.

52 "MATLAB GUI", MathWorks. 30 April 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2013.

53 David Houcque, “Introduction To Matlab For Engineering Students”, Northwestern University, August 2005.
54 Introduction to MATLAB.
 75

4 CFD Basics
With the advent of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in recent decades, it has become an
important tool in dealing with complex issues on different disciplines and engineering applications.
It’s relatively low cost, in relation to experimental data, and the limited availability of theoretical
(analytical) data, made it an integral part of design and analysis loops. More importantly, it is
CFD
relatively easy to adapt to new challenges and problems. Although in the beginning it was only used
by limited number of researches and academics in aeronautical and astronautics, today it is an
integral tool for wide variety of applications. But it is still considered somewhat and art and science,
and in some circles, it is recommended
strongly to be used in conjunction with
experimental data, if available.
Moreover, it is also recommended to be
validated with a simplified and sub-set
of theoretical results, whenever
available. These colorations, known as CFD
Verification & Validation are among an
intensive on-going research in CFD field.
Although there are numerous
definitions on CFD, all excellent in their CFD
own rights, the simplest one could be
stated as CFD is the transformation of
the governing equations from
continuum domain into a discrete one.
The PDE’s are approximated by
difference methods (FDE), resulting in
system of algebraic equations to be
solved numerically. The nature of these Figure 4.1 Contributions from other disciplines to CFD
algebraic equations depends on the
character of the problem posed by the original PDE. The equilibrium (BVP), mathematically elliptic,
usually results in a system to be solved simultaneously in conjunction with satisfying the boundary
conditions. While the marching problems (parabolic or hyperbolic) are usually solved one at a time,
conforming to initial boundary conditions. There are three distinctive disciplines contributing to CFD
analysis;

1. The fluid dynamics which describes the physics of flow behavior as described in in any Fluid
Dynamic text.
2. The mathematical side or the Numerical Analysis which transforms the fundamental
governing equation from continuum into a discrete domain.
3. The computer science (CS) which does that transformation using high-level programming
languages.

The question now arises that do we need expertise of three people from these disciplines in order to
carry out a CFD analysis? The answer is more likely that a person that has some proficiency on each
subsets would be sufficient. These inter-relations are depicted in Figure 4.1. Emphasis should be
made here regarding the Verification & Validation of CFD analysis with respect to analytical or
experimental data. In regard to items (1) and (2), we discussed them briefly before. We will concern
our self with number (3), but restrict ourselves with general information since the aim is not to pay
particular homepage to specific languages, but outline the general information available for CFD and
 76

its particulars. The amount of information

and discussion and literature available on
each topic is enormous. Figure 4.2 shows CFD
the three approaches to fluid dynamic
problems and their strong link as these
approaches do not work in isolation. All
three approaches complement each other
and could be used in coordination. While
the experimentalist might prefer of-
course the experimental approach, or the Analytical Experimental
academics the analytical one, the more
realist and deadline conscious analyst Figure 4.2 Linkage between CFD, Experimental &
would probably prefer the CFD in Analytical approach
conjunction with other two.

4.1 Marching vs. Equilibrium Problems

Marching or propagation problems are transient or transient-like where the solution of PDE is
required on an open domain, subject to a set of Initial or Boundary conditions. Mathematically, these
are parabolic or hyperbolic, as discussed previously where the flow of information is upstream.
Typical examples include unsteady-inviscid flow, steady-state inviscid supersonic, transient heat
conduction, as well as boundary layer flows. Alternatively, the equilibrium problem is where the
solution is subjected to BC’s enclosing the domain, therefore, they are classified as Boundary Value
Problems (BVP). Mathematically, they are elliptic in nature as the flow of information is scattered
through the domain and propagates in all direction. Examples of equilibrium problems are steady-
state temperature distribution, incompressible inviscid flows, and equilibrium stress distribution in
solids.

4.2 Non-Linear CFD Equations

The solution methods could be depending on flow characteristics such steady/un-steady,
compressible/incompressible, viscous/inviscid as well as parameters such as Mach number which
govern flow speed for subsonic/transonic/supersonic regions. Each dependency, or their
combination, could alter the mathematical nature of the equations, therefore, influencing the
selection of appropriate method of solution. Moreover, the 2D & 3D versions of same equations could
under similar conditions, exhibit different characteristics. For example, while 2D boundary layer
equations are parabolic in nature and could be solved by marching methods, the 3D are hyperbolic
and require different technique. The time dependency could also play dominant role. Prime example
would be un-steady Euler equation which of course requires time integration as it is hyperbolic for
all flow regions, and could benefit from a time marching procedure. On the other hand, the steady-
state version, although simpler, has elliptic behavior for subsonic regions, parabolic for sonic and
hyperbolic for supersonic flows. Therefore, requiring different strategy on each occasion as
previously noted55.

55Diskin, Boris; Thomas, James: “Comparison of Node-Centered and Cell-Centered Unstructured Finite-Volume
Discretizations: Inviscid Fluxes,” AIAA Journal 2010.
 77

4.3 Coupled vs Segregated Algorithms

The segregated and coupled approaches differ in the way that the continuity, momentum, and (where
appropriate) energy and species equations are solved, separated. The solver solves these equations
sequentially (i.e., segregated from one another – see Figure 4.3), while the coupled solver solves
them simultaneously (i.e., coupled together – see Figure 4.4). Both formulations solve the equations
for additional scalars (e.g.,
turbulence or radiation
quantities) sequentially. The
segregated solver traditionally
has been used for
incompressible and mildly
compressible flows. The coupled
approach, on the other hand,
was originally designed for high-
speed compressible flows. Both
approaches are now applicable
to a broad range of flows (from
incompressible to highly
compressible), but the origins of
the coupled formulation may
give it a performance advantage
over the segregated solver for
high-speed compressible
flows.56 Coupled flow needs
more resources like memory
and computational time as it
solves coupled equations. But
that also means, it's more stable
in cases with high density
fluctuations like supersonic flow Figure 4.3 Segregated Solution
with shocks etc. It's not the best
choice for a standard case as it might be unstable unless you reduce the courant number a lot.
Segregated flow is a good choice for most cases since it runs fast, but can have problems with
supersonic flows. Mathematically, the main difference is that the fully coupled solver operates on the
full Jacobian matrix as one entity. The segregated solver splits the Jacobian matrix into smaller sub-
problems, usually by degree of freedom type. Different solution strategies can then be used for each
sub-problem. The optimal choice between segregated and fully coupled is problem specific. The fully
coupled solver generally requires less iterations but takes up more memory and solution time per
iteration.57

4.4 Explicit vs. Implicit Methods

The solution methods could be characterized into two main category of Explicit and Implicit. While
the Explicit schemes have the advantage of relative ease in implementation, as they don’t require any
matrix inversions, but are bounded by step size and stability considerations. On the other hand, the
implicit schemes are more prone to be stable, but computationally intensive as they mostly require
linearization of systems of equations and matrix solvers. The linearization of the equations are mostly
achieved by Taylor series expansion of non-linear coefficient matrixes. The final resultant expression

56 Solver Panel, Fluent® Inc. 2003.

57 N. Elabbasi, Certified Consultant, Veryst Engineering, COMSOL Discussion Forum.
 78

could be devised as multiple simpler steps to solve using concepts such Approximate Factorization
(AF). The matrix solvers are also could be grouped as Iterative solvers (Guass-Seidel, SOR, ADI, block
iterative) or direct solvers using schemes such as Guassian Elimination or Thomas Algorithm. Multi-
Grid methods such those implicating V or W cycles for interpolating and extrapolating the results
back and forth between different mesh densities. The validity and feasibility of each method depends
to the application. In
Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD), the governing equations
are nonlinear, and the number
of unknown variables is
typically very large. Under these
conditions implicitly formulated
equations are almost always
solved using iterative
techniques. Iterations are used
to advance a solution through a
sequence of steps from a
starting state to a final,
converged state. This is true
whether the solution sought is
either one step in a transient
problem or a final steady-state
result. In either case, the
iteration steps resemble a time-
like process. Of course, the
iteration steps usually do not
correspond to a realistic time-
Figure 4.4 Coupled Solutions
dependent behavior. In fact, it is
this aspect of an implicit method
that makes it attractive for steady-state computations, because the number of iterations required for
a solution is often much smaller than the number of time steps needed for an accurate transient that
asymptotically approaches steady conditions. On the other hand, it is also this “distorted transient”
feature that leads to the question, “What are the consequences of using an implicit versus an explicit
solution method for a time-dependent problem?” The answer to this question has two parts. The first
part has to do with numerical stability, and the second part with numerical accuracy.

4.5 Model Finite Difference Schemes

Now we examine briefly the various Finite-Difference Schemes applied to various model equations
such as Wave equations, Heat equation, Laplace equation, and Burgers equation as their exact
solution are available and obtained before. These equations can be used to model the behavior of
more complicated partial difference equations. Reader should refer to58 for further details. Here, we
only present the results in Table 4.2 and Table 4.1 as they unique to two different Implicit and
Explicit methods. Each of model exhibits certain distinctive features that characteristic of the class
of methods. Detail description on each method is available in59. Based on the information presented
here, it is clear that many techniques can be used to solve the same problem. The difference is the

58 D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher, ”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, ISBN 0-89116-
471-5 – 1984.
59 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat

Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

 79

quality of solution produced and its applicability to problem in hand. The selection can be aided by
experience gained in programming the various methods to solve the equations.

Table 4.2 Explicit Discretization Methods of Model Equations

Methods Accuracy Stability Test Case Viscosity Usage
ADE 1st order Yes 2D Heat None Not Recommended
Brailovskaya 1st order Conditional 1D Burges Viscous Not Recommended
DuFort-Frankel 2nd order Yes 1D Heat None Recommended
Euler 1st order No 1D Wave None Not Recommended
FTCS 1st order No 1D Burges Viscous Not Recommended
Hopscotch 1st order Yes 2D Heat None Not Recommended
Iterative Method Explicit Conditional 2D Laplace None Recommended
Lax 1st order Conditional 1D Wave None Not Recommended
Lax-Wendroff 2nd order Conditional 1D Wave None yes Recommended
Leap Frog 2nd order Conditional 1D Wave None yes Recommended
MacCormack 2nd order Conditional 1D Wave None yes Recommended
MacCormack 2nd order yes 1D Burgers Viscous yes Recommended
Richardson’s 2nd order no 1D Heat None Not Recommended
Rusanov 4th order Conditional 1D Burges Viscous Recommended
Simple Explicit 1st order Conditional 1D Heat None Not Recommended
Time -Split Mac 2nd order Conditional 2D Burgers Viscous Recommended
Cormack
Upstream 1st order Conditional 1D Wave None Not Recommended
Upwind 2nd order Conditional 1D Wave None yes
Warming-Kutler- 3rd order conditional 1D Wave None yes
Lomax
Table 4.1 Implicit Discretization Methods of Model Equations
Methods Accuracy Stability Test Case Viscosity Usage
ADI 2nd order Yes 2D Heat None yes
Allen-Cheng 1st order Conditional 1D Burgers Viscous no
Beam-Warming 2nd order Conditional 1D Burgers None yes
Briley-MacDonald 1st order Yes 1D Burgers Viscous yes
Crank-Nicolson 2nd order Yes 1D Heat None yes
Euler 1st order Yes 1D Wave None no
Simple Implicit 1st order Yes 1D Heat None no
Splitting/Fractional-Step 1st order Conditional 2D Heat None no
Trapezoidal 2nd order Yes 1D Wave None yes
Upwind – (Beam Warming) 2nd order Conditional 1D Wave None yes

4.6 General Discretization Scheme (Beam-Warming)

Among prominent and widely used integration techniques, but not limited, are Crank-Nicolson,
Beam-Warming and Mac-Cormack’s predictor-corrector schemes60. Most could be used cross
governing equations and techniques. Other notables are Euler and Trapezoidal implicit method. In
fact, most of legacy methods are interpedently related. For example, the Implicit Beam-Warming

60Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
 80

spatial differencing for vector E is

θ1 + Δx  i Δx  i θ  1  
ΔiE = (Δ E) + (E ) + 2 Δ i −1E + O  θ1 − − θ 2 (x) 2 + (x) 3 
1 + θ 2 x 1 + θ 2 x 1 + θ2  2   Eq. 4.1
where Δ i E = Ei +1 − Ei (6.1)

This general differencing formula, with appropriate choices of parameters θ1 and θ2 reproduces
many of the standard differencing schemes as perceived in Table 4.3. As evident, many different
methods could be
used to solve the Θ1 Θ2 Scheme Order of accuracy
same problem. The 0 0 Euler (explicit) (Δx)2
difference in the 0 -1/2 Leap Frog (explicit) (Δx)3
quality of the 1/2 0 Trapezoidal (implicit) (Δx)3
solutions is 1 0 Euler (implicit) (Δx)2
frequently small and 1 1/2 Three-point backward (implicit) (Δx)3
the selection of the
optimal technique Table 4.3 Choice of Parameters
becomes difficult.
However, the selection process could be aided by experience gained to solve model equations.

4.7 Linearization of Equations

For any implicit method, the equation of fluid flow are non-linear in unknown due to appearance of
quantities at i+1 level in coefficients. Prime example is the term u (∂u/∂x) which is from convective
term in NS equation. A simple forward differencing, has been used to approximated by 1D as61

u u −u
u  u i+1 i +1 i Eq. 4.2
x Δx
Which of course non-linear.

4.7.1 Frozen (Lagging) Coefficient Method

In this method simply ignore the non-linear coefficient and evaluate it at known station as

u u −u
u  u i i +1 i Eq. 4.3
x Δx
The procedure provides a consistent representation (0th order Taylor series expansion) and ensure
that the differencing scheme is formally no better than 1st order accurate in marching coordinates.

4.7.2 Simple Iterative Method

In this method, the lagged coefficient is updated through a simple iteration until a specified
convergence criteria is satisfied62. This is complement to previous method.

61 K. A. Haffmann, S. T. Chiang, “Computational Fluid Dynamics”, 4th edition, Aug. 2000.

62 K. A. Haffmann, S. T. Chiang, “Computational Fluid Dynamics”, 4th edition, Aug. 2000.
 81

u i +1 − u i  ε where   1 Eq. 4.4

4.7.3 Newton Raphson Linearization Method

This is by far the method of choice and used extensively. The Newton’s method also called quasi-
linearization proceeds as follows. Let assume (A) and (B) represent the non-linearity. Define ∆ as
change in variable between two consecutive iterations (n),

 A = A n +1 − Â n and  B = Bn +1 − B̂n
A n +1Bn +1 = (Â n +  A )(B̂n +  B )
Expanding, after some manipulation, and dropping the 2nd order term ( A )( B )
A n +1 Bn +1  Â n Bn +1 + A n +1B̂n − Â n B̂n for n = 0 → A n +1 = Â n
Eq. 4.5
Which is now linear. The carrot denotes an evaluation of variables from previous iteration.
4.7.3.1 Newton Linearization with Coupling
Several investigators have observed that convergence of iteration can be accelerated by solving the
momentum and continuity equations in coupled manner. The v (∂u/∂y) term is linearized by using
Which of course is linear63.

vin +1 = v̂in +1 + δ v , u in +1 = û in +1 + δ u
after product terms involving δ dropped: Eq. 4.6
n +1 n +1 n +1 n +1
 u   u   û   û 
 v   v̂ n +1   + v n +1   − v̂ n +1  
 y   y   y   y 
4.7.4 Extrapolating the Coefficients
Values of the coefficients can be obtained at n+1 level by extrapolating based on values already
obtained from previous n level. Formally, the truncation error of this procedure can be made as small
as we wish64. For example, we can use

u u u n − u in −1
n n

u n +1
=u +
n
Δx + + ο(x) 2 where = i + ο(x) 2
x i x i
i i
Δx −
Eq. 4.7
u in − u in −1
n +1
ui = ui +
n
Δx + + ο(x) 2
Δx −

A similar procedure can be used for other coefficients needed at n+1 level.

4.7.5 Case Study – Linearization of 1D Unsteady Euler Equation

A widely used method for achieving this linearization was first suggested by Beam and Warming in
1976. For purposes of discussion, let us consider the system of unsteady 1D Euler equation:

63 D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher, ”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, 1984.
64 D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher, “Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, 1984.
 82

∂U ∂F
+ =0
∂t ∂x
Eq. 4.8
where F = F(U). Using the Crank-Nicolson differencing scheme, Eq. 4.8 can be written in finite-
difference form as
∆t ∂F n ∂F n+1
Uin+1 = Uin − [( ) + ( ) ]
2 ∂x i ∂x i
Eq. 4.9
(Sometimes the representation of the spatial derivatives as an average between time levels n and n
+ 1, is called the trapezoidal rule). Eq. 4.9, as it stands, is a nonlinear difference equation. However,
the Beam and Warming approach leads to a local linearization as follows. Expand F in a series
expansion around time level n, that is,

∂F n n+1 ∂F n
Fin+1 = Fin + ( ) (Ui − Ui )+. . . . where ( ) = Ani
n
∂U i ∂U i
Eq. 4.10
Substituting and rearranging we get

∆t ∂F n ∂ n n+1
Uin+1 = Uin − [2 ( ) + Ai (Ui − Uin )]
2 ∂x i ∂x
Eq. 4.11
Therefore, we have achieved what we wanted. We have taken a nonlinear difference equation,
namely, Eq. 4.11, and by means of a Taylor series expansion using lagging coefficients have
linearized this equation, obtaining the linear difference equation. This is one way of achieving the
linearization; there are others. However, the purpose of this subsection is to emphasize that implicit
finite-difference solutions of the conservation form of the governing flow equations lead to
nonlinear difference equations which must in some fashion be linearized before a practical
numerical solution can be obtained. It should be noted that a similar idea for linearization was carried
out by [Briley and McDonald]. In contrast to Beam and Warming, who treated the function, [Briley
and McDonald] treated the time derivative; the results are effectively the same.

4.7.6 Multi-Dimensional Problem and Approximate Factorization (AF) Scheme

The difficulty of working with large matrices resulting from straightforward implementation of
implicit schemes to PDEs in higher dimensions has led to the development of the so-called split or
factored schemes. As the name implies, such schemes split a multi-dimensional problem to a series
of one-dimensional ones, which are much easier to solve. Of course, in general, this conversion cannot
be done exactly and some error is incurred. However, as we will show below, the splitting error is of
the same order as the error already incurred in discretizing the problem in space and time. That is,
the splitting approximation does not erode the order of accuracy of the scheme.65 The basic system
uner consideration is of the form (2D) given by

U E F
+ + =0 Eq. 4.12
t x y

65 Moin, P; “Fundamentals Engineering Numerical Analysis”, Cambridge University Press.

 83

Where U is the vector of conservative variables and E and F are vector of function of U. If the
Traezoidal rule ( ϴ1=1/2, Ɵ2=0) is used as the basis integration scheme,

Δt  U   U  
n n +1
n +1
U =U +
n
  +  
2  t   t  
Δt  E F   E F  
n n +1
n +1
U =U −
n
 +  + +  
2  x y   x y  

Eq. 4.13
This expression provides a 2nd
order integration algoritem for the unkown vector, Un+1, at the next
time level. A local Taylors series expasion of direvtives of E and F used to obtain a Linear equation
such that
E
(
E n +1 = E n + A  U n +1 − U n ) where A  =
U
F
(
F n +1 = F n + B U n +1 − U n ) where B =
U
Eq. 4.14
When the linearization given by Eq. 4.14 is substitued into Eq. 4.13, a linear system for Un+1 results
as
 Δt   
I  +  An +  Bn U n +1 =
 2  x y 
 
n
Δt  
I  +  An +  Bn U n − Δt E + F 
 2  x y   x y 
Eq. 4.15
This is a linear system for theunknown Un+1. Direct solution of Eq. 4.14 is usually avioded due to
llarge operation count in treating muti-dimensional system. The path chosen is ususlly to reduce the
multi-dimensional problem into a sequence of one-demensional inversrsions using the method of
Approximate Factorization (AP) in cross flow plane. Eq. 4.15 may be approximatly facotred into


 I  +
Δt 
An   I  + Δt  Bn  U n +1 =
 2 x  2 y 
n Eq. 4.16

 I  +
Δt 
An   I  + Δt  Bn  U n − Δt  E + F 
 2 x  2 y   x y 

This equation is much easier and more cost effective to implement than the large system encountered
in the non-factored form. Basically, the multi-dimensional problem is reduced to a series of one-
dimensional problems by ignoring the cross terms while maintaine the formal order of accuracy.
 84

ΔU n = U n +1 − U n
n

 I  +
Δt 
A  n   I  + Δt  B n  ΔU n = −Δt  E + F 
 2 x  2 y   x y 
n
Δt 
A  n  ΔU ' = −Δt E + F 
 Eq. 4.17
 I  +
 2 x   x y 

 I  +
Δt 
B n  ΔU n = ΔU '
 2 y 

The solution of this system is not trival. The x and y sweeps each require the solution of block
tridiagonal system of equations, or better known as TDMA (Thomas Algorithm). Each block is M
x M if there are M elements in the unknown U vector.
4.7.7 Recommendation on Linearization
For many calculations, the linearization introduced by simply lagging the coefficients will cause no
serious deter ration of accuracy. Errors associated with linearization of coefficients are simply
truncation errors which can be controlled by adjustment in marching step size. Many investigators
have been used this procedures satisfactory. For any problem in which this linearization causes
special difficulties, extrapolation or newton’s linearization with coupling is recommended66.

4.8 Convection & Diffusion Terms Discretization

In problems where fluid flow plays a significant role we must account for the effects of convection67.
Diffusion always occurs alongside convection in nature so here we examine methods to predict
combined convection and diffusion. The principal problem in the discretization of the convective
terms is the calculation of the value of transported property Q at control volume faces and its
convective flux across these boundaries. (see Eq. 4.18). We introduced the central differencing
method of obtaining discretized equations for the diffusion and source terms on the right hand side
of equation. It would seem obvious to try out this practice, which worked so well for diffusion
problems. The diffusion process affects the distribution of a transported quantity along its gradients
in all directions, whereas convection spreads influence only in the flow direction. This crucial
difference manifests itself in a stringent upper limit to the grid size (Peclet No.), which is dependent
on the relative strength of convection and diffusion, for stable convection–diffusion calculations with
central differencing.

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂Q
(ρQ) + (ρUj Q) = (ΓQ ) + S⏟Q
⏟
∂t ∂x
⏟j ∂x
⏟j ∂xj
Source
Transient ⏟Convection Diffusion
Transport
Eq. 4.18
Naturally, we also present the case for a number of alternative discretization practices for the
convective effects which enable stable computations under less restrictive conditions. For these

See Previous.
66
67H K Versteeg and W Malalasekera, “An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics - The Finite Volume
Method”, Second Edition, © Pearson Education Limited 1995, 2007.
 85

terms, typically, an LUD (Linear Upwind Differencing), QUICK, TVD, NVD, second-order convective
upstream split scheme (CUSP), or other upwind differencing schemes can be used. Upwind
schemes are developed which take the direction of the flow in consideration68. Nowadays,
upwind schemes are the major spatial discretization technique of main research and commercial
codes69-70.
4.8.1 Upwind Differencing For Convection
It uses the propagation of information with the theory of characteristics in constructing the
information traveling in opposite directions in a separate and stable manner. Second order central
schemes require scalar artificial dissipation to damp oscillations generated near the high gradient
regions. Higher order upwind methods require limiter functions for second order accuracy in space.
Characteristic theory is easy to understand in one-dimensional flows, but for 2D and 3D flow
problems, the flow direction is not clearly identified. However, choosing the upwind direction being
normal to the face of the computational cell across which the fluxes are computed is a commonly
used way for 2D and 3D flows. Upwind schemes may be divided into two categories as Flux Vector
Splitting schemes and Flux Difference Splitting (Godunov) schemes.
4.8.1.1 Flux Vector Splitting Schemes
Upwind discretization is obtained by splitting the flux vector into two parts based on information
coming from upwind and downwind of the cell face in flux vector splitting algorithms71. In other
words, the flux terms are split according to the sign of associated with propagation speeds. The
main drawback of flux vector splitting methods is evident in the vicinity of sonic conditions since
the splitting of flux is done with respect to the sign of the Mach number or the velocity vector.
Consider the Euler equations for unsteady, one-dimensional flow written as,

∂U ∂F
+ =0
∂t ∂x
Eq. 4.19
As described by Eq. 4.19, A is the Jacobian of F; A = ∂F/∂U. For an inviscid flow, the flux vector F
can be expressed directly in terms of its Jacobian as

F = AU
Eq. 4.20
Let us define two matrices [λ+] and [λ-] made up of the positive and negative eigenvalues of A,
respectively. For example, if we have a subsonic flow, then we have λ1 = u and λ2 = u + c, both positive
values, and λ3 = u - c, a negative value. Therefore, in this case, by definition

u 0 0 0 0 0
[λ+ ] = [0 −
u + c 0] , [λ ] = [0 0 0 ] , c = speed of sound
0 0 0 0 0 u−c
68 Korhan Coskun, “Three-Dimensional Laminar Compressible Navier Stokes Solver For Internal Rocket Flow
Applications”, A Thesis Submitted To The Graduate School Of Natural And Applied Sciences of The Middle East
Technical University, 2007.
69 Frink, N. T., "Upwind Scheme for Solving the Euler Equations on Unstructured Grids", AIAA Journal Vol. 30, No.

1, pp. 70-77, January, 1992.

70 Dadone, A., and Grossman, B., "Characteristic-Based, Rotated Upwind Scheme for the Euler Equations", AIAA

Journal Vol. 30, No. 9, pp.2219-2226, September, 1992.

71 Steger, J. L., and Warming, R. F., "Flux Vector Splitting of the Inviscid Gas Dynamics Equations with Applications

to Finite Difference Methods", Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 40, pp. 263-293, 1981.
 86

Eq. 4.21
With this, we can split the flux vector F into two parts, F+ and F-:

+ −
∂U ∂F + ∂F −
F=F +F and + + =0
∂t ∂x ∂x
Eq. 4.22
where F+ and F- are defined by

F + = A+ U → A+ = Tλ+ T −1
F − = A− U → A− = Tλ− T −1
Eq. 4.23
Where T is vector of eigenvectors of eigenvalues λ. Eq. 4.22 is an example of flux-vector splitting
where F+ corresponds to a flux in the positive x direction, with information being propagated from
left to right by the positive eigenvalues λ1 = u and λ2 = u + c. Hence, when ∂F+/∂x is replaced by a
difference expression, a backward (rearward) difference should be used since F+ is associated only
with information coming from upstream of grid point (i, j). Similarly, F - corresponds to a flux in the
negative x direction, with information being propagated from right to left by the negative eigenvalue
λ3 = u - c. Hence, when ∂F/∂x is replaced by a difference expression, a forward difference should be
used since F - is associated only with information coming from downstream of grid point (i, j). This is
why the flux-vector-splitting scheme described by Eq. 4.23 is a type of upwind scheme; flux-vector
splitting is a numerical algorithm which attempts to account for the physically proper transfer of
information throughout the flow. There are various improvisations on flux-vector splitting in the
modem CFD literature. One such example is Van Leer's flux splitting which imposes certain
conditions on F+ and F- to improve the performance of the numerical scheme for local Mach numbers
near 1.
4.8.1.2 Flux Difference Splitting (Godunov) Schemes
In the flux difference splitting schemes, local Riemann problem is solved on each face of cells.
The flow variables are taken as constant over the left and right states of the cell face. Using left
and right states of the face, local Riemann problem is solved to achieve convective fluxes at the
face. In the original Godunov scheme72, the local Riemann problem is solved exactly. Since this
approach is computationally expensive, some approximate Riemann solvers have been built by
[Roe]73, [Osher and Solomon]74, [Toro]75.
4.8.2 Diffusion Term Discretization
The finite-volume discretization which uses meshes made of arbitrary polyhedral control volumes,
Figure 4.5, enabled one to discard with the complicated curvilinear coordinates. There, the diffusive
flux of the variable Φ through an internal cell face f is approximated as

Df = ∫ Γϕ gradϕ. ds ≈ Γϕ (gradϕ)∗f . sf
Sf

72 Godunov, S. K., "A Difference Method for the Numerical Computation of Discontinuous Solutions of
Hydrodynamic Equations", Math Sbornik, Vol. 47, pp. 271-306, 1959.
73 Roe, P. L., "Discrete Models for the Numerical Analysis of Time Dependent Multidimensional Gas Dynamics",

Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 63, pp. 458-476, 1986.

74 Osher, S., and Solomon, F., "Upwind Schemes for Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws", Mathematics of

Computation, Vol. 38, No. 158, pp. 339-377, 1982.

75 Toro, E. F., Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 2nd Edition, Springer, 1999.
 87

ϕn − ϕp (grad ϕ)f . 𝐝𝐟 𝐝𝐟
(gradϕ)∗f = (grade ϕ)f + [ − ]
|𝐝𝐟 | |𝐝𝐟 | |𝐝𝐟 |
Eq. 4.24
The second term on the right
hand side (term in brackets)
represents the difference
between the central difference
approximation of the derivative
in the direction of vector df and
the corresponding value
obtained by interpolating cell-
center gradients. This
correction term detects and
smoothed out any unphysical
oscillations that might occur in
the iteration process76. As the
results one gets: Figure 4.5 An Arbitrary Polyhedral Control Volume

𝐝𝐟 . 𝐝𝐬 𝐝𝐟 . 𝐝𝐬
Df ≈ Γϕ (ϕN − ϕp ) + Γϕ [ (gradϕ)f . sf − (gradϕ)f . 𝐝𝐟 ]
𝐝𝐟 . 𝐝𝐟 𝐝𝐟 . 𝐝𝐟
Eq. 4.25
The first part of this term is treated implicitly, and the rest explicitly. Similarly, [Jasak]77 in his PhD
thesis and in less details in the subsequent publication gives the geometric interpretation to Eq. 4.24,
and Eq. 4.25 naming them the minimum correction, orthogonal correction, and over-relaxed
approach, respectively (Figure 4.6). He approximates the diffusive flux as

(ϕN − ϕp )
Df ≈ Γϕ (gradϕ)∗f . sf = Γϕ [ |∆𝐟| + (gradϕ)f . 𝐤 𝐟 ]
|𝐝𝐟 |
Eq. 4.26
where vectors Δf and kf satisfy the following condition

𝐤 𝐟 = 𝐬𝐟 − ∆𝐟
Eq. 4.27
[Jasak] compared the performance of these three approaches and found out that the over-relaxed
approach is more robust and more efficient than the other two approaches, especially in case of
highly non-orthogonal meshes. This is expected because, unlike the other approaches which are
somewhat arbitrary, the over-relaxed approach comes as a result of a direct discretization of the
transport equations.

76 I. Demirdˇzi´c, “On the Discretization of Diffusion Term in the Finite-Volume Continuum Mechanics”, Numerical
Heat Transfer Fundamentals · July 2015.
77 H. Jasak, Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Volume Method with Applications for Fluid Flow, PhD

Thesis, University of London, 1996.

 88

Figure 4.6 Geometric Interpretation of the Diffusion Term Approximation –[H. Jasak]

𝐝𝐟 . 𝐬𝐟
Minimum Correction ∶ ∆𝐟 = .𝐝
𝐝𝐟 . 𝐝𝐟 𝐟
|𝐬𝐟 |
Orthgonal Correction ∶ ∆𝐟 = .𝐝
|𝐝𝐟 | 𝐟
𝐬𝐟 . 𝐬𝐟
Over − Relaxed Correction ∶ ∆𝐟 = .𝐝
𝐝𝐟 . 𝐬𝐟 𝐟
Eq. 4.28

4.9 Pressure Based (Incompressible) Schemes

Finding a suitable solution for incompressible NS equations are the central issue in the subject of
CFD, dating back to at least the 60's, when the MAC scheme78 and the Projection method79 were
invented. MAC scheme and Staggered Grid enjoyed immediate success and similar ideas were also
applied to electromagnetics. On the other hand, it wasn't until the late 80's and early 90's, did we
begin to understand the mysteries surrounding the projection method and realize its potential. By

78 F.H. Harlow and J.E. Welch, Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid
with free surface, Phys. Fluids, 1965,
79 A. J. Chorin, “On the convergence of discrete approximations of the Navier-Stokes equations”, Math. Comp. 1969.
 89

now projection method is by far the most popular method in this field. The main difficulty in
numerically solving incompressible NS equations is the lack of proper evolutionary equation for
pressure. After all for incompressible flows, pressure does not carry its usual thermodynamic
meaning. It is there mainly as a Lagrange
multiplier for the constraint of
incompressibility. This translates to a
lack of proper boundary condition, when
equations for pressure are derived. The
prime Finite Volume solution methods,
are pressure or density based
methods80. The pressure based schemes
are mainly developed for
incompressible, low Reynolds number
application when pressure value is
guessed to begin and updated using
Poisson’s equation after solving the
momentum equations. The main
advantage is the decoupling of the
momentum and energy equation when
the flow variables could be determined in
segregated fashion. Among notable
methods are SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit
Methods for Pressure-Linked Equations)
and PISO. The density based methods are
more rigorous due to fact that governing
equations are solved in coupled Figure 4.7 Accessible Pressure Solvers in Fluent
environment where pressure is obtained
through equation of state. In both cases,
additional scalar equations are solved in a segregated style. Most commercial CFD vendors try to
provide both methods81.
With segregated methods an equation for a certain variable is solved for all cells, and then the
equation for the next variable is solved for all cells, etc. With coupled methods, for a given cell
equations for all variables are solved, and that process is then repeated for all cells82. The segregated
solution method is the default method in most commercial finite volume codes. It is best suited for
incompressible flows or compressible flows at low Mach number. Compressible flows at high Mach
number, especially when they involve shock waves, are best solved with the coupled solver. Here we
are focused here in incompressible (M < 0.3). Equation system to be solved is the continuity equation
together with the momentum equations, while the continuity equation is considered as a side
condition, demanding a divergence-free flow field. Pressure does not appear in the continuity
equation of continuity and equations of momentum and continuity need to be coupled (see Figure
4.7).

4.9.1 Methods Based on the Vorticity Equation

By taking the curl of viscous incompressible flow, the pressure term vanishes. As for drawbacks it is
limited to 2D applications, but revised 3D approaches are available.

80 Weinan E, “Numerical Methods for Viscous Incompressible Flows: Some Recent Advances”, Department of
Mathematics and Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
81 Introduction to ANSYS Fluent, 2010.
82 Georgia Tech Computational Fluid Dynamics, “Solution Methods for Navier Stokes Equations”, Spring 2007.
 90

4.9.2 Methods Based on Artificial (Pseudo) Compressibility

The pseudo-compressibility method is a preconditioning technique of overcoming the numerical
issues related to the uncoupling of pressure and velocity field in the incompressible equations
[Chorin]83-84. The governing equations are made artificially hyperbolic by adding a density time-
derivative to the continuity equation85. Based on physical analogies, the time derivative of density is
then linked to the pressure by introducing an artificial compressibility factor. A number of possible
approaches are listed below:
∇. uε + εpε = 0
∇. uε + εpεt = 0
∇. uε − ε∆pε = 0
∇. uε − ε∆pεt = 0
Eq. 4.29
The first three versions are well known while the last one was recently introduced in 86. We will refer
them as a class of pseudo-compressibility methods for the unsteady incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations. The aim of this paper is to present some recent analyses on this class of pseudo-
compressibility methods as the perturbation parameter ε → 0. An important aspect of this work is
the error analysis of time discretization schemes (they can be employed, in principle, with any
consistent space discretization) associated with the pseudo-compressibility methods87. As an
example investigated by [Nguyen & Park]88, the topic that is still receiving increasing attention,
particularly for applications in many hydraulic and hydrodynamic problems.
4.9.3 Methods Based on Pressure Iterations or Pressure Correction
These are refer to number of methods as:

1. Projection Methods [Chorin & Temam, 1968]

The projection method is an effective means of numerically solving time-dependent
incompressible fluid-flow problems. It was originally introduced by Alexandre Chorin
in 1967 as an efficient means of solving the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.
The key advantage of the projection method is that the computations of the velocity and
the pressure fields are decoupled89.

• Fractional Step Method [Kim & Moin, 1975]

The method is based on a fractional step, or time-splitting, scheme in
conjunction with the approximate factorization technique.

2. Marker and Cell Method – MAC [Harlow & Welch, 1965]

83 Alexandre Joel Chorin, “Numerical Solution of the Navier-Stokes Equations”, AEC Computing and Applied
Mathematics Center, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.
84 Alexandre Joel Chorin, “The Numerical Solution of the Navier-Stokes Equations for an Incompressible Fluid”,

supported by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Contract No. AT(30-1)-1480.

85 Michele Ferlauto, “A Pseudo-Compressibility Method For Solving Inverse Problems Based On The 3D

Incompressible Euler Equations”, Taylor & Francis in Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering ,2014.
86 “A new pseudo-compressibility method for the Navier-Stokes equations”, SIAM J. Math. Anal, 1994.
87 Jie Shen, “Pseudo-Compressibility Methods for the Unsteady Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations”,

Department of Mathematics, Penn State University, USA.

88 Van-Tu Nguyen and Warn-Gyu Park, “A free surface flow solver for complex three-dimensional water impact

problems based on the VOF method”, International Journal For Numerical Methods In Fluids Int. J. Numerical
Meth. Fluids -2015.
89 Wikipedia.
 91

A technique is described for the numerical investigation of the time‐dependent flow of

an incompressible fluid, with limited capability. The primary dependent variables are
the pressure and the velocity components. Also used is a set of marker particles which
move with the fluid. These called the Marker And Cell (MAC) method.

3. SIMPLE, SIMPLER, SIMPLEST, PISO, [Patankar and Spalding, 1972, 1981]. See below.
4. Fast Fluid Dynamic [Stam, 1999]. See below.

While 1 & 2 are scarcely used in CFD, the third item (3), known as pressure corrections methods,
are used extensively. The basic idea is to make use of a Poisson equation for the pressure; as pressure
appears only in the momentum equations in form of a partial derivative of first order. This can be
achieved by computing the derivative ∂P/∂xi such that the result yields a divergence free flow field.
An adequate iterative method is formulated that iterates the pressure until the conservation of mass
and momentum is obtained. These methods are also known as projection methods. This is celebrated
Poisson Equation. The RHS of the equation is a function of the partial derivatives of the velocity
components and is obtained from the convective part of the momentum equations. All other terms
i.e. the time derivative and the local change of the molecular transport (i.e. the diffusive type terms)
are removed because of the continuity side condition90. The basic procedure can be visualized as
Computation of a velocity field from the solution of the momentum equations with an initial
(guessed) or no pressure field.

1. Computation of the pressure from the Poisson equation with the previously computed
velocity field.
2. Correction of the velocity field with the “new” pressure.

2
∂ui ∂uj ∂(ui uj ) 1 ∂p μ ∂uj
=0 , + =− + ( )
∂xi ∂t ∂xi ρ ∂xj ρ ∂xi
2
∂ ∂uj ∂(ui uj ) ∂ 1 ∂p μ ∂uj
Take Div. of Momentum → [ + ]= [− + ( ) ]
∂xj ∂t ∂xi ∂xj ρ ∂xj ρ ∂xi
∂ ∂uj ∂ ∂(ui uj ) 1 ∂2 p μ ∂ ∂uj ∂uj
( )+ [ ]= − + [ ][ ]
∂t ⏟∂xj ∂xj ∂xi ρ ∂xj 2 ρ ∂xi ∂xi ⏟ ∂xj
0 0
∂2 p ∂ ∂(ui uj )
2
= − ρ [ ]
∂x
⏟ j ⏟∂xj ∂xi
∇2 p f(ui )
Eq. 4.30
Additional detailed information regarding this can be obtained from original classic paper by
[Patankar & Spalding]91, as well as excellent discussion regarding pressure-velocity coupling
(SIMPLE, SIMPLER, SIMPLEC, PISO) algorithms by [Versteeg and Malalasekera]92. There is also an

90 Georgia Tech Computational Fluid Dynamics, “Solution Methods for Navier Stokes Equations”, Spring 2007.
91 S. V. Patankar and D. B. Spalding,”Calculation Procedure For Heat, Mass And Momentum Transfer In Three-
Dimensional Parabolic Flows”, International Journal Of Hear Mass Transfer, Vol. Is, Pp. 1787-1806, 1972.
92 H K Versteeg and W Malalasekera, “An Introduction To Computational Fluid Dynamics - The Finite Volume

Method”, Second Edition, Pearson Education Limited 1995, 2007

 92

investigation by [Rhie, & Chow]93 to demonstrate the pressure scheme of the 2D incompressible,
steady N-S equations for flow past an airfoil. This method is applied to the turbulent flows over
airfoils with and without trailing edge separation, with the aid of k-ε modeling of the turbulent flow.
Instead of the staggered grid, an ordinary grid system is employed and a specific scheme is developed
to suppress the pressure oscillations.
4.9.3.1 PISO Algorithm
PISO algorithm (Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators) was proposed by [Issa] in 1986
without iterations and with large time steps and a lesser computing effort94. It is an extension of
the SIMPLE algorithm. PISO is a pressure-velocity calculation procedure for the Navier-Stokes
equations developed originally for non-
iterative computation of unsteady
compressible flow, but it has been adapted
successfully to steady-state problems. PISO
involves one predictor step and two corrector
steps and is designed to satisfy mass
conservation using predictor-corrector steps.
The PISO algorithm with neighbor correction
is highly recommended for all transient flow
calculations, especially when you want to use
a large time step. (For problems that use the
LES turbulence model, which usually requires
small time steps, using PISO may result in
increased computational expense, so SIMPLE
or SIMPLEC should be considered instead).
PISO can maintain a stable calculation with a
larger time step and an under-relaxation
factor of 1.0 for both momentum and
pressure. For steady-state problems, PISO
with neighbor correction does not provide
any noticeable advantage over SIMPLE or
Figure 4.8 PISO algorithm flow chart (Courtesy of
SIMPLEC with optimal under-relaxation
Giannopapa, and G. Papadakis )
factors.
PISO with skewness correction is
recommended for both steady-state and transient calculations on meshes with a high degree of
distortion. When you use PISO neighbor correction, under-relaxation factors of 1.0 or near 1.0 are
recommended for all equations. If you use just the PISO skewness correction for highly-distorted
meshes (without neighbor correction), set the under relaxation factors for momentum and pressure
so that they sum to 1 (e.g., 0.3 for pressure and 0.7 for momentum)95. A PISO algorithm flow chart
can be appreciated in Figure 4.8. The method is not restricted to using the PISO algorithm, e.g. the
Simple algorithm can be used as well96.

93 C. M. Rhie, W. L. Chow, “Numerical Study of the Turbulent Flow Past An Airfoil With Trailing Edge Separation”,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 21, No. 11, November 1983.
94 Wikipedia.
95 Fluent User Guide.
96 C. G. Giannopapa, and G. Papadakis, “Indicative Results and Progress on the Development of The Unified Single

Solution Method for Fluid-Structure Interaction Problems”, DOI: 10.1115/PVP2007-26420, 2007.

 93

4.9.3.2 Case Study - Second Order Non-Iterative PISO-Algorithm vs Iterative PISO

A new variant of the non-iterative PISO-algorithm for the solution of implicitly discretized fluid flow
equations is proposed and investigated by [Tukovic et al.]97. The governing equations are discretized
in space using a second-order accurate finite volume method. A second-order accurate three-level
implicit temporal discretization scheme is used to discretize the momentum equation, where the
non-linear convection term is linearized using a second- order explicit approximation of mass flux at
the new time level, based on the results from previous two time steps. In order to ensure temporal
consistency on collocated meshes, a consistent Rhie-Chow interpolation for the computation of mass
fluxes is used, which is here extended to moving meshes. The proposed non-iterative PISO-algorithm
is tested on three fixed and moving mesh test cases, demonstrating its second order accuracy in time.
4.9.3.2.1 Introduction
The non-iterative nature of the algorithm implies that momentum equation is discretized and solved
only once in the predictor step at the beginning of time step calculation. Predictor step is followed by
two or more corrector steps, where the conservation of mass and momentum is enforced by the
solution of pressure equation and explicit momentum correction. In the original PISO-algorithm,
temporal discretization is per- formed using first-order accurate (two-level) Euler implicit scheme
and the overall temporal accuracy is first order. It is emphasized in that the application of second-
order accurate three-level implicit temporal discretization scheme does not yield second-order
temporal accuracy, since in the linearized convection term in the momentum equation mass flux from
the previous time step is used. The second-order accuracy in time can be achieved by using outer
iteration loop enclosing the non-iterative PISO-algorithm. The mass flux in the linearized convection
terms stems then from the previous iteration (in the first iteration, it stems from the previous time
step). Such an iterative PISO-algorithm does not have substantial advantages when compared to
other iterative algorithms. [Park]98 proposed a non-iterative PISO-algorithm of second-order
temporal accuracy, where the non-linear convection term in the momentum equation is advanced in
time using an explicit temporal discretization scheme of higher order. He proposed using the second-
order Adams–Bashforth or the third-order Runge–Kutta scheme. The disadvantage of computing
convection flux fully explicitly is the limit on time-step size due to stability constraints of the explicit
scheme. In this study we propose an alternative approach to achieve second-order temporal accuracy
of the non-iterative PISO-algorithm. Only the explicit part of the linearized convection flux is
approximated at the new time level using a second-order extrapolation from two previous time steps.
This is equivalent to using the second-order Adams–Bashforth scheme to advance the mass flux in
time within the predictor stage of the PISO-algorithm. Owing to the fact that remaining part of the
convection flux is treated implicitly, the stability limit is increased.
4.9.3.2.2 Preliminary Results
The proposed second-order non-iterative PISO-algorithm (here labelled as ePISO) is validated on
flow around fixed and oscillating cylinder in a channel. The same test case are also computed using
the second-order iterative version of the PISO-algorithm (here labelled iPISO) and the non-iterative
version equivalent to ePISO, except that explicit terms are computed using values from the previous
time step (here labelled nPISO). Figure 4.9 displays inlet part of the spatial domain, which is
discretized with 7126 quadrilateral finite volumes. The Reynolds number based on the average inlet
velocity and cylinder diameter is Re = 100. At the channel inlet, parabolic velocity profile is specified
with the average velocity u = 1m/s. Calculation is first performed using the iterative PISO-algorithm

97 Željko Tukovi ´c a , Milovan Peri´c , Hrvoje Jasak, “Consistent second-order time-accurate non-iterative PISO-
algorithm”, Computers and Fluids, 2018.
98 Park TS . “Effects of time-integration method in a large-eddy simulation using the PISO algorithm: Part I – Flow

field”. Numerical Heat Transfer Part A 1999;50:229–45 .

 94

and the time step size Δt = 0 . 02s

(corresponding to the maximal Courant
number around 1.2) until a periodic
response of the lift and drag force is
obtained (t = 50s). Afterwards, calculation
is continued from the time instance t = 50
s using the three PISO-algorithms named
in the previous test case: iPISO, nPISO and Figure 4.9 Flow Around Circular Cylinder in a Channel
ePISO. In such a way all algorithms start
with the same initial state; the time step is also kept the same.
Figure 4.10 shows lift force coefficient as a function of time, calculated using different variants of
the PISO-algorithm. The solution obtained using iterative PISO-algorithm (iPISO) can be considered
as the most accurate for a given time step size. One can notice significant departure of the solution
obtained using nPISO, while the present non-iterative PISO-algorithm (ePISO) gives solution with a
negligible difference compared to the solution obtained using the iterative PISO-algorithm. It should
be also noted that numerical results obtained in this study (frequency and amplitude of lift
coefficient) agree well.

Figure 4.10 Lift Force as a Function of Time, using Different PISO-Algorithms for the Flow Around
Fixed Cylinder in a Channel (Courtesy of Tukovic et al.)

4.9.4 Fast Fluid Dynamic (FFD)

As the naming specifies, Fast fluid Dynamic is a fast (50 times by some estimate) method to solve the
incompressible NS equation. It was purposed originally by (Stam)99 for computer graphics and
animation. In recent years it has been also used for indoor airflow simulation. The model would not

Add Force Advect Diffuse Project

Figure 4.11 Solution Method for FFD

99 Jos Stam, “Stable Fluids”.

 95

be accurate enough for most engineering applications. Indeed, it suffers from too much “numerical
dissipation”, i.e., the flow tends to dampen too rapidly as compared to actual experiments. In a
computer graphical application, on the other hand, this is not so bad, especially in an interactive
system where the flow is “kept alive” by an animator applying external forces. It applies a time-
splitting technique to separate the Navier-Stokes equations into several simple equations. Then those
spitted equations are solved one by one. Thus, FFD can solve the Navier-Stoke equations without a
trial correction iterations used in CFD. This is the reason why FFD is much faster than CFD. However,
current FFD model applied many low-order schemes, so its accuracy is poorer than CFD. It splits the
momentum equation over time in 4 steps, (see Figure 4.11).
Because of a linear interpolation used in a semi-Lagrangian approach for advection equation, the FFD
has a significant numerical diffusion. To reduce the numerical diffusion in the FFD model,
improvements have been purposed in two fronts. One is applying a high-order interpolation scheme
in the semi-Lagrangian solver100. The other improvement was to solve the advection equation using
the convectional method used in CFD, such as the Lax-Wendroff scheme and the QUICK. The first
approach is the use of Fast Fluid Dynamics (FFD) that is an intermediate model between the nodal
and CFD models. The FFD, developed for computer flow visualization, can efficiently solve the
incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (top), energy equation (middle) and species transport
equations (bottom):

u u 1 P  2u 1 
= -u − + ν 2 + SF 
t x ρ x x ρ 
T T  T
2 
    2
= -u + α 2 + ST  = -u +k 2 +S+G
t x x  t x x
c c  2c 
= -u + kc + Sc 
t x x 2


Eq. 4.31
where S is the source term and G is the pressure term. The FFD method applies a time-splitting
method (Ferziger and Peric 2002) to solve the governing equations (Eq. 4.31). The purpose of the
splitting method is to divide a complex problem (equation) into several simple ones [Ferziger and
Peric 2002; John 1982; Levi and Peyroutet 2001] since solving these simple equations is
mathematically easy and numerically fast101. Then solutions of these simple equations can be
integrated into an approximated solution for the complex equation. The splitted equations in the FFD
are as follows:

∂φ ∂φ ∂2 φ
= −𝐮 +k 2 +S+G
∂t ∂x ∂x

φ(1) − φ(n) φ(2) − φ(1) ∂2 φ(2)

= ⏟S , =k ,
∆t Source
∆t ⏟ ∂x (2)
Diffusion

100 Wangda Zuo, Qingyan Chen, “Improvements On The Fast Fluid Dynamic Model For Indoor Airflow
Simulation”, Fourth National Conference of IBPSA-USA, New York City, New York, August 11 – 13, 2010.
101 Wangda Zuo, Qingyan Chen, “Simulations of Air Distributions In Buildings By FFD On GPU”, HVAC&R Research.
 96

φ(3) − φ(2) ∂2 φ(2) φ(n+1) − φ(3)

=𝐮 and Finally = ⏟
G
∆t ⏟ ∂x (2) ∆t Projection (Preesure)
Advection
Eq. 4.32
where superscripts (1), (2), and (3) represent temporary variables. The FFD computes sequentially
the above four equations. First source is added through equation. Then the FFD calculates diffusion
equation by using a first order implicit scheme. After that, advection equation is solved with a semi-
Lagrangian solver. For the momentum equation, the FFD solves pressure equation together with
continuity equation by using a pressure-correction projection method [Chorin ]102. It is worth to
notice that there is an extra projection step before the advection step in the implemented FFD code,
which is to provide a divergence-free velocity field for the semi-Lagrangian solver in the advection
equation.

4.10 Density Based (Compressible) Schemes

The system of governing equations for a single-component fluid, written to describe the mean how
properties103, is cast in integral Cartesian form for an arbitrary control volume V with differential
surface area dA as follow


t V
WdV +  [F − G ].dA =  HdV W, F and G are defined as :
V

ρ  ρv i  0 
   
ρu  ρv i u + pî 
  τ xi  Eq. 4.33
   
W = ρv  , F = ρv i v + pĵ  , G = τ yi  i, j = 1,3
ρw     
  ρv i w + p k̂   τ zi 
ρE  ρv i E + pv  τ ij v j + q 
 

and the vector H contains source terms such as body forces and energy sources. Here ρ, v, E, and p
are the density, velocity, total energy per unit mass, and pressure of the uid, respectively. τ is the
viscous stress tensor, and q is the heat flux. Total energy E is related to the total enthalpy H by

2
V
E = H − P/ρ and H=h+ Eq. 4.34
2

The implicit-time stepping method (also known as dual-time formulation) is available in the density-
based explicit and implicit formulation. When performing unsteady simulations with implicit-time
stepping (dual-time stepping), we use a low Mach number time-derivative unsteady preconditioner
to provide accurate results both for pure convective processes (e.g., simulating unsteady turbulence)
and for acoustic processes (e.g., simulating wave propagation). Here we introduce a preconditioned
pseudo-time-derivative term into Eq. 4.33 as

102 Chorin, A.J. (1967) "A numerical method for solving incompressible viscous flow problems," J. of Comp. Physics.
103 “Fluent Guide, Using the Solver”, 2006.
 97

 W 

t V
WdV +
Q τ V
Q dV +  [F − G ].dA =  H dV
 V
Γ

 ρP 0 0 0 ρT 
 ρ u ρ 0 0 ρ T u 
W  P

where Q = [p,u, T] ,
T
=  =  ρP v 0 ρ 0 ρT v 
Q  
 ρP w 0 0 ρ ρT w 
 ρ P H − δ ρu ρv ρw ρ T H + ρC P 
ρ ρ
and ρ P = , ρT = with δ = 1 ideal gas = 0 incompressible
P T T P
Eq. 4.35
Where t denotes physical-time and τ is a pseudo-time used in the time-marching procedure. Note
that as τ⇾1, the second term on the left side of Eq. 4.35 vanishes and Eq. 4.33 is recovered. The time-
dependent term in Eq. 4.35 is discretized in an implicit fashion by means of either a first or second-
order accurate, backward difference in time. Here, we used a three point (2nd order) Backward
Differencing scheme of [Jameson]104. The dual-time formulation is written in semi-discrete form as
follows:
 Γ ε 0 W 
 Δτ + Δt Q  ΔQ + V  F − G .dA =
k +1 1
 
Eq. 4.36
H − (ε 0 W k − ε1W n + ε 2 W n −1 )
1
Δt

Where (ε0 = ε1 = 1/2; ε2 = 0) gives first-order time accuracy, and (ε0 = 3/2; ε1 = 2; ε2 =1/2) gives
second-order. The k is the inner iteration counter and n represents any given physical-time level.
The pseudo-time-derivative is driven to zero at each physical time level by a series of inner iterations
using either the implicit or explicit time-marching algorithm. Many details of density schemes will
be discussed later.

4.10.1 Case Study 1 - Density Based Solver for Turbulent Compressible Flows
The development of coupled implicit density based solver for compressible flows are considered by
JF¨urst]105. The main flow field variables are updated using lower-upper symmetric Gauss-Seidel
method (LU-SGS) whereas the turbulence model variables are updated using implicit Euler method.
The equations can be expressed in the integral form suitable for finite volume approximation as
follows (assuming fixed control volume Ω)
d

dt Ω
WdΩ +  (F c − F v ) dS = 0
Ω
Eq. 4.37

104 Jameson, A., "Time Dependent Calculations Using Multigrid, with Applications to Unsteady Flows Past Airfoils
and Wings," AIAA Paper 91-1596, June 1991.
105 Jiˇr´ı F¨ursta, “On the implicit density based OpenFOAM solver for turbulent compressible flows”, EPJ Web of

Conferences 143, 02027- (2017).

 98

where W = [ρ, ρU, ρE] is the vector of conservative variables and Fc and Fv represent inviscid and
viscous fluxes. In the case of turbulent flow the above mentioned system of equations is coupled to
an additional turbulence model (e.g. a two-equation SST model106) which provides components of
the Reynolds stress tensor and the turbulent heat flux. For detail description special and temporal
discretization, please consult the [F¨urst]107.
4.10.1.1 Result for Subsonic and Transonic Flow over a Bump
The two-dimensional subsonic flow over a 10% circular bump has been chosen as a first benchmark.
The inviscid flow passes through a channel of height H = 1m and length L = 3 m. The total pressure at
the inlet was pT,in = 100 kPa, the total temperature TT,in =293.15K and the inlet flow direction was
parallel to x-axis. The average outlet pressure corresponds to isentropic Mach number M = 0.1. The
solution was obtained using a structured mesh with 150×50 quadrilateral cells. The second
benchmark is a transonic flow over the bump using the same geometry as in the previous case. The
same boundary conditions were used at the inlet and the average outlet pressure was set to a value
corresponding to isentropic M = 0.675. In this case the flow accelerates over the bump and reaches
supersonic speed. Then it passes through a shock wave and continues towards the outlet. One can
see that all methods including the transonic variant of SIMPLE solver give similar results.
Nevertheless the resolution of the shock wave is much better with the AUSM or HLLC based LUSGS
scheme than with the SIMPLE solver which spreads the shock over 4 cell due to higher amount of
numerical viscosity. (see Figure 4.12).

Subsonic Transonic

Figure 4.12 Mach number distribution for flow over a Bump

4.10.2 Case Study 2 - Transonic Flow Through a Turbine Cascade

The next benchmark is two-dimensional compressible turbulent flow through test turbine cascade
SE-1050. The geometry and boundary conditions correspond to the test from database. The inlet total
pressure and total temperature were ptot,in = 100 kPa and Ttot,in = 293.15K and the inlet angle was αin
= 19.3◦. The average outlet pressure corresponds to isentropic outlet Mach number Mout = 1.2, the
Reynolds number related to outlet flow conditions and blade pitch was Re = 1.2 ×106 and the inlet
turbulence intensity was Tuin = 2%. The hybrid mesh was composed of structured quadrilateral layer
around the blade and unstructured triangular part in the rest of the domain. The mesh contained
approximately 66×103 cells and the near-wall refinement corresponded to y+ ≈ 0.2. Figure 4.13
(left) shows contours of the Mach number in two periods of the mesh obtained using LU-SGS scheme
with HLLC flux. One can see here both branches of the shock emanating from the trailing edge as well

106 MENTER, F. R. “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications”. AIAA Journal
32.8 (1994), pp. 1598–1605.
107 same as 109.
 99

as the interaction of the inner branch of the shock wave with the blade. One can see that both
numerical methods shows very good agreement experimental data.
The next case is the 3D flow through a test turbine cascade with prismatic blades. The geometry of
blades correspond to the previous case and the blade has finite span. The flow regime corresponds
to outlet isentropic Mach number Mout = 1.2 and Reynolds number related to chord length Re =
1.34×106. Inlet conditions include a simple model of boundary layer corresponding to conditions in
the experiment. The numerical solution was obtained on an unstructured mesh with 3.3×106 cells
with near wall refinement to y+≈ 0.2. The Figure 4.13 (right) shows the distribution of the pressure
at the blades and the side wall and the distribution of entropy in the test plane. The regions with
higher level of entropy show re-distribution of the energy losses in the vicinity of side walls.

Figure 4.13 2D Mach Number Distribution in the Test Turbine Cascade (left) - 3D Pressure Distribution
at the Blades (right)

4.10.3 Case Study 3 - Numerical Study of Compressible Lid Driven Cavity Flow
 100

Lid-driven cavity flow of Newtonian fluids is one of the most well-known problems in CFD literature
due to its peculiar challenges in the form of singularities in spite of its simple geometry. In addition,
the availability of both analytical solutions and experimental results for the lid-driven cavity flow
field has enabled researchers to test and improve their computational methods through this
benchmark geometry. Recently,
[Hussain]108 is investigated a two-
dimensional (2D), mathematical model
is adopted to investigate the
development of circulation patterns
for compressible, laminar, and shear
driven flow inside a rectangular cavity.
And the results of a commercial code
(Fluent) is compared with in-house
code, as well as the vorticity-stream
function formulation of the 2D
incompressible N-S equations [Ghia et
al.]109, using a pressure based coupled
algorithm. The simulations are carried
out for the unsteady, lid driven cavity
flow problem with moving boundary Figure 4.15 Streamlines of the Base Flow in the Symmetry
Plane z = 0.5 and Re = 1000
(bottom) for different Reynolds
number (Re = 100, 400, 1000), Mach
numbers (M = 0.5), bottom velocities and high initial pressure and temperature. Similar studies has
been conducted by [Hosseinzadeh, et al.]110. A snap shot of the results provided in Figure 4.15 and

Figure 4.14 Distribution of Velocities (u, v) along Centerline Horizontal Distance for Re = 100

108 Amer Hussain, “A Numerical Study of Compressible Lid Driven Cavity Flow with a Moving Boundary”, Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Mechanical, 2016.
109 Ghia, U., Ghia, K.N., and Shin, C.T., 1982, “High-Re Solutions for Incompressible Flow Using the Navier-Stokes

Equations and a Multigrid Method,” Journal of Computational Physics, 48, pp. 387-411.
110 S. Hosseinzadeh, R. Ostadhossein, H.R. Mirshahvalad and J. Seraj, “Using Simpler Algorithm for Cavity Flow

Problem”, Mechatronics and Applications: An International Journal (MECHATROJ), Vol. 1, No.1, January 2017.
 101

Figure 4.14. Another study done by [Giannetti]111 present the results of a linear stability analysis
applied to an incompressible flow in a 3D lid-driven cavity. The principal goal is the evaluation of
the critical value of the Reynolds number and the main characteristics of the flow instability.

4.10.4 Case Study 4 - 3D Structured/Unstructured Hybrid Navier-Stokes Method for Turbine Blade
Rows
A 3D viscous structured/unstructured hybrid scheme has been developed for numerical computation
of high Reynolds number turbomachinery flows, see [Tsung et al.]112. The procedure allows an
efficient structured solver to be employed in the densely clustered, high aspect-ratio grid around the
viscous regions near solid surfaces, while employing an unstructured solver elsewhere in the flow
domain to add flexibility in mesh generation. Test results for an inviscid flow over an external
transonic wing and a Navier-Stokes flow for an internal annular cascade are presented.

4.10.4.1 Introduction
In modern turbomachinery designs, the rotor and stator blade rows often possess extreme turning
angles such that the flow direction deviates greatly from the axial direction. These geometries
frequently cause difficulties in generating structured meshes113. In order to impose point-to-point
periodicity on periodic boundaries in the domain, the computational grids are typically forced into
highly skewed shapes that decrease the accuracy of the solvers. One remedy for reducing the grid
skewness is to forego the point to point correspondence on the periodic boundaries and to
interpolate solution values where necessary. The disadvantage of the non-periodic grid approach is
that the local density of grid lines on either side of a periodic boundary may be vastly different.
Hence, flow features resolved on one side of the domain boundary may be diffused or lost when
interpolated to a coarser grid on the other side. Another solution to grid skewness is to use
unstructured meshes.
However, the cost and technology of present day unstructured solvers still leave much room for
improvement. The computation of both inviscid and viscous flows on unstructured triangular meshes
in two dimensions, and tetrahedral meshes in three dimensions, has matured significantly in recent
years114-115. The ability of unstructured solvers to handle complex geometries has proven to be
valuable for many computations. However, the geometric flexibility of unstructured grid solvers is
also the source of their disadvantages when compared to structured solvers. Due to the naturally-
ordered data connectivity of structured grids, structured solvers require much less memory
(especially for implicit schemes), implicit structured solvers are straight forward to code, and
turbulence modeling is easier to implement.
The shortcomings of both structured and unstructured methodologies are continuously being
addressed and improved. In the meantime, however, it is possible to take advantage of the best
properties of both methodologies. In the present paper, a solution procedure which couples an
efficient structured solver with an unstructured solver is presented. The hybrid procedure takes
advantage of the computational efficiency of structured codes and, at the same time, is able to benefit
from the geometric flexibility of unstructured solvers. With the hybrid approach, densely packed

111 Flavio Giannetti, Paolo Luchini, Luca Marino, “Linear stability analysis of three-dimensional lid-driven cavity
flow”, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Salerno, Italy.
112 F.-L. Tsung, J. Loellbach, O. Kwon, and C. Hah, “A Three-Dimensional Structured/Unstructured Hybrid Navier-

Stokes Method for Turbine Blade Rows”, Prepared for the 30th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE Indianapolis, Indiana, June 27-29, 1994.
113 Aronone, A., Liou, M-S., and Povinelli, A., "Transonic Cascade Flow Calculations Using Non-Periodic C-type

Grids," CFD Symposium on Aero-propulsion, NASA Conference Publication 3078, 1990.

114 Barth, T.J., "A 3-D Upwind Euler Solver for Unstructured Meshes," AIAA Paper 91-1548, June 1991.
115 Batina, J.T., "A Fast Implicit Upwind Solution Algorithm for Three-Dimensional Unstructured Dynamic Meshes,"

AIAA Paper 92-0447, Jan. 1992.

 102

structured grids can be placed in the highly viscous regions near solid surfaces, and unstructured
grids can be used away from solid surfaces 116. This approach can avoid the severe grid skewness
commonly experienced by fully structured grids around turbine blades with high turning angles. The
procedure has various other applications as well, such as providing a means of connecting multi-body
geometries for Chimera-type grids to insure node-to-node correspondence117-118. The strategy of
coupling structured and unstructured methods has been implemented for two dimensional
turbomachinery computations by many researchers in the past119.
The present work extends this strategy to three-dimensional turbomachinery flows. The hybrid
solution technique is first tested for an external fixed-wing transonic flow case and the result is
compared with a structured solution for validation. The code is then applied to an annular cascade
and the result is compared with experimental data.
4.10.4.2 Governing Equation Unstructured Solver
The time dependent, Reynolds averaged, compressible Navier-Stokes equations, which express the
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy, are solved. The turbulence viscosity is calculated
using the high Reynolds number turbulence model of [Launder and Spalding]120. The equations of
motion, written in an integral form for a bounded domain Ω with a boundary ∂Ω, are

∂
̂ ds = ∭ 𝐒 (𝐐)dV
̂ ds − ∬ 𝐆(𝐐). 𝐧
∭ 𝐐dV + ∬ 𝐅(𝐐). 𝐧
∂t
Ω ∂Ω ∂Ω Ω
Eq. 4.38
where Q is the unknown vector containing the conserved properties

Q = [ρ, ρu, ρv, ρw, e0 , ρk, ρε ] T

Eq. 4.39
In the above equation, ρ is the fluid density. u, v, and w are the Cartesian velocity components in x, y,
and z directions, respectively. eo is the total energy per unit volume. The turbulent kinetic energy and
turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate are represented by k and ε. The vector F is the convective
flux term, G is the viscous term, and S is the source term containing the production and destruction
of turbulent kinetic energy. A complete description of the governing equations is presented in
[Reference]121 and will not be detailed here for brevity.
4.10.4.3 Inviscid Flux Spatial Discretization
The inviscid flux across each cell face x is computed using Roe's flux-difference splitting formula122
Here, QL and QR are the state variables to the left and right of the interface K. The matrix A is computed
by evaluating

116 Weatherill, N.P., "Mixed Structured-Unstructured Meshes for Aerodynamic Flow Simulation," Aeronautical
Journal, pp. 111-123, Apr. 1990.
117 Nakahashi, K. and Obayashi, S., "FDM-FEM Zonal Approach for Viscous Flow Computation Over Multiple-

Bodies," AIAA Paper 87-0604, Jan. 1987.

118 Kao, K.H. and Liou, M.S., "Direct Replacement of Arbitrary Grid-Overlapping by Non-Structured Grid," NASA

TM-106601, May 1994.

119 Nakahashi, K., Nozaki, O., Kikuchi, K-, and Tamura, A., "Navier-Stokes Computations of Two- and Three-

Dimensional Cascade Flow fields," Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.320-326, 1989.
120 Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B., 'The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows," Computer Methods in

Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3, 1974.

121 Kwon, O.J. and Hah, C., "Solution of the 3-D Navier-Stokes Equations with a Two-Equation Turbulence Model

on Unstructured Meshes Applied to Turbomachinery," AIAA Paper 94-1833, June 1994.

122 Roe, P.L., "Characteristic-Based Schemes for the Euler Equations," Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 18,

pp. 337-365, 1986.

 103

1 ∂𝐅
̅ |(𝐐R − 𝐐L )}k
𝐅𝐤 = {𝐅(𝐐L ) − 𝐅(𝐐R ) − |𝐀 , ̅=
𝐀
2 ∂𝐐
Eq. 4.40
with Roe-averaged quantities so that

̅ [𝐐R − 𝐐L ]
𝐅(𝐐R ) − 𝐅(𝐐L ) = 𝐀
Eq. 4.41
is satisfied. For a first-order scheme, the primitive variables at each cell face are set equal to the cell-
centered averages on either side of the face. For a higher-order scheme, estimation of the state at
each face is achieved by interpolating the solution at each time step with a Taylor series expansion
in the neighborhood of each cell center. The cell-averaged solution gradients required at the cell
center for the expansions are computed using Gauss' theorem by evaluating the surface integral for
the closed surface of the tetrahedra. This process can be simplified using geometric invariant features
of tetrahedra. The resulting second-order formula for the flow state at each cell face can be written
as
1 1
𝐪𝐟𝟏,𝟐,𝟑 = qi + [ (q n1 + qn2 + qn3 ) − qn4 ]
4 3
Eq. 4.42
where the subscripts nl , n2 , n3 denote the nodes comprising face f 1,2,3 of cell i, and n4 corresponds
to the opposite node. The expansion also requires the nodal value of the solution, which can be
computed from the surrounding cell center data using a second order accurate pseudo-Laplacian
averaging procedure as suggested by [Homes and Connell]123. The three dimensional extension by
[Frink]124 is adopted in the present calculations. The convective terms of the turbulence equations
are calculated using a first-order accurate scheme in the present paper to reduce the computational
cost and to ensure the numerical stability of the time integration125.
4.10.4.4 Viscous Flux Spatial Discretization
The evaluation of the viscous term G requires first derivatives of the velocity, temperature, and k-E
values at the cell faces. They are achieved by first evaluating the gradient of each required flow
quantity at the cell center from the known primitive variables at each time step. The gradient of the
desired quantity is obtained by applying the gradient theorem,

1
∇𝐐n = ̂dS
∮ 𝐐𝐧
VΩ
∂Ω
Eq. 4.43
where Ω represents the volume of the domain over which the theorem is applied. The scalar quantity
¢ can be the three components of velocity, the temperature, or turbulence quantities. In the present
calculations, the integral domain is defined as the individual tetrahedral cell, and the surrounding
surface area as2 consists of the four triangular surfaces covering the cell. This formulation is
consistent with the numerical procedure of evaluating the convective fluxes of the present cell-
centered scheme. Once the gradients of the desired quantities are known at the cell center, nodal

123 Holmes, D.G. and Connell, S.D., "Solution of the 2D Navier-Stokes Equations on Unstructured Adaptive Grids,"
AIAA Paper 89-1932, June 1989.
124 Frink, N.T., "Recent Progress Toward a Three-Dimensional Unstructured Navier-Stokes Flow Solver," AIAA

Paper 94-0061, Jan. 1994.

125 Mavriplis, D.J., "Multigrid Solution of Compressible Turbulent Flow on Unstructured Meshes Using a Two-

Equation Model," AIAA Paper 91-0237, Jan. 1991.

 104

values are calculated using the Pseudo-Laplacian averaging mentioned earlier for the convective
terms. The flux through each of the triangular faces in Eq. 4.43 is obtained by averaging the three
nodal values for the triangle. Once the gradients of the primitive variables are obtained, the shear
stresses and can be calculated, from which G is evaluated at the cell center. The nodal values of these
quantities are calculated once again by applying the Pseudo-Laplacian averaging of the surrounding
cell center values. The surface flux of these quantities in Eq. 4.38 is obtained by taking the average
of the three nodal values for each triangular face of each cell.
4.10.4.5 Time Integration
The solution vector is integrated in time using the implicit Euler method, which is first-order accurate
in time. The nonlinear inviscid flux vectors are linearized at every time level about their values at the
previous time level using Taylor expansions, e.g.

n+1 n
∂𝐄 n
𝐄 =𝐄 + ∆𝐐n+1 + O(∆τ)2 = 𝐄 n + 𝐀𝑛 ∆𝐐n+1
∂𝐐
Eq. 4.44
The viscous terms are evaluated explicitly. Explicit treatment of the viscous terms still permits the
use of large time steps since the Reynolds numbers of interest here are fairly large. To further reduce
computational time and memory, the radial/spanwise flux derivatives are treated explicitly at the
old time level, but the new values are incorporated as soon as they become available. This explicit
treatment of the spanwise flux terms enables the scheme to solve the three-dimensional equations
by solving one spanwise station implicitly at a time. To eliminate any dependency the solution may
have on the spanwise marching direction, the solver reverses the marching direction with every
spanwise sweep. The resulting left-hand-side of the matrix equation is approximately factored into
alternating directions

( 𝐈 + ∆τδξ 𝐀n ) ( 𝐈 + ∆τδζ 𝐂 n )∆𝐐n+1 =

−∆τ [(𝐄 n − 𝐄vn,n+1 )ξ + (𝐅 − 𝐅vn,n+1 )η + (𝐆n − 𝐆vn,n+1 )ζ ]
Eq. 4.45
The implicit operating matrices are then diagonalized using a similarity transformation [27].
4.10.4.6 Spatial Discretization
Standard second-order central differencing is used for the spatial derivatives. Spectral-radius scaled
fourth/second-difference artificial dissipation126 is added for stability and to eliminate oscillations
near shocks. The viscous terms are evaluated using half-point central differencing so that the
computational stencil for the stress terms uses only three nodes in each of the three directions.
4.10.4.7 Hybrid Coupling
Since the structured code has multi-block capability, the coupling procedure treats the unstructured
portion of the hybrid meshes as a separate block. The blocks are solved independently with respect
to each other. Explicit boundary conditions are updated at the end of each time iteration. The two
codes are loosely coupled, essentially running independently of each other. The only interaction
between the structured solver and the unstructured solver is through boundary conditions. The
advantage of this formulation is that almost any two given codes can be coupled together. In this
paper, a central-differencing, finite-difference procedure and an upwind cell-centered finite volume
procedure are coupled. The structured solver is formulated in an inertial frame of reference whereas

Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., and Turkel, E., "Numerical Solution of the Euler Equations by Finite-Volume
126

Methods Using Runge-Kutta Time-Stepping Schemes," ALAA Paper 81-1259, June 1981.
 105

the unstructured solver is in a blade-fixed coordinate system. For non-moving-boundary cases, such
as pressure-driven turbine stator flows, there is no difference between the two formulations.
However, for moving-boundary cases, care must be taken when transferring data between the two
solvers depending on how boundary conditions are prescribed. For example, consider a wing
traveling at a constant velocity.
Since the structured solver
assumes the wing is moving and
the unstructured solver assumes
the domain is fixed in space, the
total energy must be converted
between the two frames of
reference. At the end of each
iteration, mass, momentum, and
energy values are communicated
between the structured and
unstructured solvers. Since the
unstructured solver is a cell-
centered finite-volume scheme
and the structured solver is a
vertex-based finite-difference
scheme, the unstructured and Figure 4.16 Structured-Unstructured Mesh Overlapping
the structured grids are overlap by One Layer – Courtesy of [Tsung et al.]
by one layer at the boundary in
order to minimize interpolation and extrapolation errors at the boundary. By overlapping the grids
instead of abutting them against each other, the boundary nodes for the structured solver are
interpolated from the interior cell center values of the unstructured solver Similarly, the cell
boundary face values of the unstructured solver are interpolated from interior structured nodes. An
illustration of the overlapped grid in 2D is shown in Figure 4.16. Once the grid construction is
completed, a table is generated to index unstructured nodes to their corresponding structured nodes,
and vise-versa. The index is similar to the table generated between structured block boundaries for
multi-block calculations.

4.10.4.8 Results and Discussion

Validation for both the structured and the unstructured solvers have been documented previously
and will not be presented here. To test the structured-unstructured hybrid analysis, calculations for
a transonic inviscid flow over a fixed wing and a viscous flow for a turbine stator blade are presented.
For all calculations in this paper, a structured grid is first generated for the entire geometry. The
unstructured grids are generated by subdividing a portion of the structured cells each into six
unstructured tetrahedra.
4.10.4.8.1 Transonic Wing
The first calculation selected for the hybrid scheme is a transonic wing at a freestream Mach number
of 0.8 and at 1.25 0 angle-of-attack. For this test case, flow periodicity is imposed on the two end wall
boundaries to simulate a two-dimensional flow. A purely structured solution for this case is first
obtained for comparison. An O-H grid topology is used; that is, an O-grid is generated at each
spanwise station. For the structured calculation, each spanwise station consists of 121 (streamwise)
x 41 (normal) points. Six spanwise stations are required due to the memory allocation algorithms for
the multi-block structured solver. The number of spanwise stations used does not alter the results
since the code simulates a two-dimensional problem.
For the structured-unstructured coupled procedure, the grid is divided into three zones. The inner
zone, which wraps around the solid surface (121x12), is calculated using the structured solver. The
 106

middle zone (121x6), which wraps around the inner structured zone, is subdivided into tetrahedra
for the unstructured solver. The outer zone, which extends from the middle zone to the free stream,
is once again calculated using the structured solver. The purpose of dividing the calculation into
three zones is to simulate a Chimera type of grid where a simple background grid is generated for the
entire domain and a structured grid is used around a solid object. Instead of interpolating between
the two grids, an unstructured solver can be placed to connect the two set of grids and obtain node-
to-node correspondence which remove the needs for interpolation. For a finite volume approach, this
also insures flow conservation. This approach is also recommended for multi-body calculations. To
examine the coupling between the structured/unstructured solver across the three-zones, pressure
contour lines are shown in Figure 4.17 for the first-order and the second-order coupling, along with
the single block structured solver for comparison. For the first order coupling, a slight discontinuity
exists across the zonal boundary. However, the discontinuity is small and barely perceptible on a
global scale. For the second-order coupling, the contours show the flow is smooth with little
indication of the presence of the zonal boundaries. The mass flows in and out of the sandwiched
unstructured zone are within 0.03% of each other, indicating that good flow conservation is achieved.
The unstructured shock is somewhat more compact then the structured solver. One reason for this
is that every structured cell becomes six tetrahedra so that in the streamwise direction, the
unstructured cells are twice as dense as the structured cells. The present hybrid procedure converges
considerably slower than the single structured grid due to the explicit formulation of the
incorporated unstructured solver, which requires a low CFL number.

Figure 4.17 Pressure contour lines across the structured-unstructured zonal interface – Courtesy of
[Tsung et al.]

4.10.4.8.2 3D Viscous Flow Through Turbine Blades-Hybrid Procedure

The second test case selected is a 3D annular cascade [29]. The geometry consists of an annular ring
of 36 turbine stator vanes. The blades are 38.10 mm in span, untwisted, and of constant profile with
an axial chord of 38.23 mm. The stator has a tip diameter of 508 mm and a hub-to-tip radius ratio of
0.85. The inlet flow angle is parallel to the axis of the cascade. The Reynolds number based on the
inlet total quantities and axial chord length is 898,650. The inlet total pressure and total temperature
at one axial-chord length upstream of the blade leading edge are known from experiment. The exit
hub static pressure to inlet total pressure ratio is 0.65 at 2.6 axial-chord lengths downstream of the
blade trailing edge.
 107

For the hybrid calculation, the computational

domain extends one axial-chord length
upstream of the blade leading edge and 2.6
axial-chord lengths downstream of the blade
trailing edge. The exit hub static pressure to
inlet total pressure ratio is known from
experiment. The grid has 105 (inlet to exit)
x29 (blade to blade) x15 (hub to tip) nodes
and 23,000 cells are subdivided into
unstructured cells. The structured grid wraps
around the solid surfaces of the hub and the
turbine blade while the rest of the domain is
filled with unstructured cells. For the present
grid, only 15 hub to shroud stations are used
and the grid density near the trailing edge is
very coarse (only 3 points defining the
rounded trailing edge). While such a coarse
grid is not acceptable for accurate prediction
of viscous effects, it is sufficient for
monitoring the communication between the
structured and unstructured zones and to
predict the overall flow field. A no-slip Figure 4.18 Pressure Contour Across the
boundary condition is applied at the hub and Structured-Unstructured Interface – Courtesy of
on the blade surfaces, and an inviscid slip [Tsung et al.]
condition is applied on the shroud. In the
coupled calculation, the unstructured solver is run without turbulence modeling because the effects
of turbulence are much reduced outside the boundary layer. The pressure contour lines across the
structured and unstructured zones are plotted in Figure 4.18.

4.11 Some Observations on Usage of Pressure Based vs. Density Based Schemes
Several researchers commented on CFD blogs as where to use the Pressure or Density based solver,
and it was mentioned here as confidence builder measure. Some interesting ones are:

➢ Strictly speaking, the pressure-based approach was developed for low-speed incompressible
flows, while the density-based approach was mainly used for high-speed compressible flows.
However, recently both methods have been extended and reformulated to solve and operate
for a wide range of flow conditions beyond their traditional or original intent (see Figure
4.19). In both methods the velocity field is obtained from the momentum equations. In the
density-based approach, the continuity equation is used to obtain the density field while the
pressure field is determined from the equation of state. On the other hand, in the pressure-
based approach, the pressure field is extracted by solving a pressure or pressure correction
equation which is obtained by manipulating continuity and momentum equations127.

➢ The pressure-based solver traditionally has been used for incompressible and mildly
compressible flows. The density-based approach, on the other hand, was originally designed
for high-speed compressible flows. Both approaches are now applicable to a broad range of
flows (from incompressible to highly compressible), but the origins of the density-based
formulation may give it an accuracy (i.e. shock resolution) advantage over the pressure-based

127 Johnson Emmanuel , CFD on line.

 108

solver for high-speed compressible flows.

➢ The reason many people extend the simple algorithm for compressible flows is for using a
single unified solver which is valid over the entire flow regime. Many algorithms which are
developed for compressible flows are extended to incompressible flows through
preconditioning for the same reason. Also in certain flow scenarios, there may be wide
variations of the Mach number in the flow region and hence an unified solver is a better way
of handling it. [Harish, CFD online].
➢ According to [Mateu], the main difference is the approach for density variation.
the SIMPLE type algorithm seek for pressure correction with some assumption or
simplification. In other words, we first have an approximate velocity field, for this we
wish to correct it such that continuity satisfies. The velocity correction are expressed in
terms of pressure correction and thus we get pressure correction equation, that is solved
to get new pressure field. When the flow is compressible, the SIMPLE type method goes
little further and relate density change to pressure correction. Since flux is related to
density change, this could also be included into pressure correction equation. This way
you get pressure correction and you update velocity and density. Density based solvers
work on flux balances directly I suppose.

Pressure or Density
Based (Hybrid)

Figure 4.19 Scope of Incompressible Vs. Compressible Flow Solvers

4.12 Residual Implication

In short, the non-linear NS equations are linearized and the accuracy of the linearized equations to
the non-linear ones is the residual where the linear solver solves the linear equations. The
discretization of the spatial terms in the governing equations results in a large coupled set of ordinary
differential equations of the form

d(VMW)
+ R ( W) = 0 Eq. 4.46
dt
Where V represents the local control volume, M the mass matrix, and R(W) the spatially discretized
terms. For a vertex-based scheme, the mass matrix relates the average value of a control volume to
 109

the values at the vertices of the mesh. Both V and M are constants for static meshes, and can therefore
be taken outside of the time derivative, and in absence of M it becomes

d𝐖
V + 𝐑(𝐖) = 0
dt
Eq. 4.47
For steady-state cases, these equations must be integrated in time towards t → ∞, where the time
derivatives become vanishingly small. Since time accuracy is not a concern in such cases, and each
equation may be advanced with the maximum permissible time step, as determined from local
stability considerations. There are two general methods of solving, as Explicit or Implicit scheme,
defined following.
4.12.1 Explicit Schemes
A simple time integration scheme is obtained by replacing the time derivative by a simple forward
difference and evaluating the residual at the current time level:

W n +1 − W n
V + R(W n ) = 0 Eq. 4.48
Δt
This corresponds to a single-stage explicit scheme, since updates are obtained from one evaluation
of currently available quantities. Like Runge-Kutta schemes for ordinary differential equations,
multistage time-stepping schemes (which are required with higher-order discretization for stability
reasons) involve the combination of updates obtained at multiple explicitly evaluated intermediate
states128. The stage coefficients of these schemes can be optimized either to provide large time steps
at the expense of time accuracy or to enhance high-frequency damping properties of the scheme,
which is required in the context of a multigrid algorithm [Jameson et al]129 and [van Leer et
al]130.These schemes are extremely simple to implement and require little additional computer
storage. However, stability considerations restrict the maximum permissible time step to values
proportional to the local cell size. Thus, finer meshes lead to smaller time steps, which in turn lead to
larger solution times. For very fine meshes, the convergence of explicit schemes becomes
unacceptably slow, and more sophisticated solution strategies must be adopted.
4.12.2 Implicit Schemes
An implicit scheme is obtained by evaluating the spatial residual terms at the new time level n+1.
Since these quantities are not known explicitly, a linearization must be performed about the current
time level:
 V R 
 +  ΔW = −R( W )
n
Eq. 4.49
 Δt W 
Where ∂R/∂w represents the Jacobian and constitutes a large sparse matrix131. At each time step, the
above linear system must be solved for the corrections ∆w = wn+ 1 - wn from which the flow variables
can be updated. Implicit schemes may be classified by the degree to which the true Jacobian matrix
is approximated. If an exact linearization is employed, the method is unconditionally stable and

128 D. J. Mavriplis, “Unstructured Grid Techniques”, Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 1997. 29:473–514.
129 Jameson A, Schmidt W, Turkel E.,” Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using
Runge-Kutta time stepping schemes”, AIAA Pap. 81-125- 1981.
130 van Leer B, Tai CH, Powell KG.,” Design of optimally-smoothing multi-stage schemes for the Euler equations”,

AIAA Pap. 89-1933,1989.

131 See 148.
 110

reduces to Newton’s method for ∆t → ∞. Although the quadratic convergence properties of Newton’s
method generally produce solutions in a very small number of time steps (often of the order of 10)
[Venkatakrishnan & Barth]132, [Barth & Linton]133, [Nielsen]134, each time step requires the inversion
of a large sparse matrix, which becomes prohibitively expensive in terms of storage and CPU-time for
fine meshes. A common simplification is to replace the exact linearization with one based on a first-
order discretization [Mavriplis and Anderson]135. While this considerably reduces the storage
requirements of the linear system and improves its condition number, it precludes attaining
quadratic convergence rates, owing to the use of an inexact linearization. This in turn favors the use
of iterative methods to solve the linear system, which can be used to converge the system only
partially, because exact inversion of the Jacobian is no longer beneficial, owing to the mismatch
between Jacobian and residual. However, rigorous criteria for determining the optimal level of
convergence of the linear system at each time step have yet to be determined. Simple iterative
schemes such as Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel schemes have been utilized successfully in the context of
implicit schemes with first-order linearization. However, since these are still local techniques, their
convergence degrades with grid size. More sophisticated techniques such as preconditioned GMRES
methods provide enhanced convergence rates, particularly when applied with powerful
preconditioners such as Incomplete Lower Upper (ILU) factorization methods, which provide more
global information for the solution of the linear system.
Although 1st order linearization methods require substantially less memory overheads than exact
linearization methods, their memory requirements are still nontrivial. For example, on a 3D
tetrahedral grid, the first-order Jacobian of a vertex-based scheme requires on the order of 350
storage locations per vertex, over three times the number required for the implementation of an
explicit scheme. An ILU preconditioning strategy can require an equivalent additional amount of
memory. Since GMRES methods only require the evaluation of matrix vector products of the form
(∂R/∂w).∆w, it is possible to forgo the storage of the Jacobian, and evaluate the Jacobian vector
product directly by finite-difference techniques:

R R(W + ε ΔW ) − R( W)
 ΔW = Eq. 4.50
W ε
Where ε represents a small parameter. This requires multiple residual evaluations (one for each
matrix vector product) and represents a classic tradeoff between storage and computation,
particularly for expensive nonlinear residual constructions. However, it also permits the use of the
more accurate second order linearization in the implicit scheme, by using the same second-order
residual in the finite difference evaluation as in the right-hand side of equation, as is done in the so-
called Newton-Krylov methods.
4.12.2.1 Convergence Rate and Storage Requirement
Figure 4.20 compares the convergence rates of a Newton-Krylov method that employs ILU
preconditioning with convergence of a Gauss-Seidel iterative method applied to a first-order
linearization, as well as with the convergence obtained by a multigrid scheme using the same Gauss-

132 Venkatkrishnan V, Barth TJ., “Application of direct solvers to unstructured meshes for the Euler and Navier-
Stokes equations using upwind schemes”, AIAA Pap. 89-0364, 1989.
133 Barth TJ, Linton SW.,”An unstructured mesh Newton solver for compressible fluid flow and its parallel

implementation”, AIAAPap. 95-022, 1995.

134 Nielsen EJ, Anderson WK, Walters RW, Keyes DE.,”Application of Newton-Krylov methodology to a three-

dimensional unstructured Euler code”, Proc. AIAA CFD Conf., 12th, San Diego. AIAA Pap. 95-1733-CP- 1995.
135 Anderson WK, Rausch R, Bonhaus D.,”Implicit Multigrid Algorithms for Incompressible Turbulent Flows On

Unstructured Grids”, Proc. AIAA CFD Conf., 12th, San Diego. AIAA Pap. 95-1740-CP, 1995.
 111

Seidel solver as a multilevel smoother (Solid line: Gauss Siedel; Dotted line: ILU Preconditioned
Newton-Krylov; Dashed line: Multigrid method -using Gauss Siedel as smoother). The depicted
case involves the solution of two-dimensional subsonic inviscid flow over a NACA 0012 airfoil on a
mesh of 8578 points, using a vertex-based second-order upwind scheme136.
The quadratic convergence property of the Newton-Krylov approach is evident, which achieves a
very rapid asymptotic convergence rate in terms of number of iterations. When compared in terms
of overall CPU-time, the Newton-Krylov scheme, although still superior to the Gauss-Seidel implicit
method, is overtaken by the multigrid scheme, due to the expense of each Newton-Krylov iteration.
Additional improvements to Newton-Krylov methods can be achieved through continuation
techniques, which provide better initial guesses (for example by coarse to fine mesh sequencing), in
order to reduce the initial phase of poor convergence of these schemes. However, one of the
drawbacks of these methods is that they still require powerful preconditioners in order to be
effective, and the best known preconditioners are generally matrix based (such as ILU), which entail
storage requirements similar to those of the first order linearization. A compromise, with obvious
limitations, is to use a weaker but
low-storage preconditioner, such as
block-diagonal with a Newton-
Krylov Method137. For upwind
discretization based on
reconstruction techniques, higher-
order Jacobian vector products can
be formed by multiplying the first-
order Jacobian with a higher-order
reconstructed vector. Although the
method requires the storage of the
first-order Jacobian, it is exact and,
unlike finite-difference techniques,
can also be applied directly to the
solution of the adjoin equations,
which is required in particular
formulations of the design
optimization problem. Additional
approximations to the exact
Jacobian can be employed to further Figure 4.20 Comparing the Convergence Rates of the ILU-
reduce the memory requirements of Preconditioned Newton-Krylov Method
implicit schemes. For example, one
may choose to group sub-regions of the mesh together and only retain the terms of the Jacobian that
pertain to coupling within each region138.
These regions may be determined by a variety of methods and may exhibit varying degrees of
overlap. These approximations may be applied to the Jacobian itself but are most often applied to the
matrix-based preconditioners operating on the true Jacobian. Alternatively, the regions may be
reduced to lines through the mesh joining neighboring vertices, as in the method of line lets, which
attempts to approximate the Alternate Direction Implicit (ADI) scheme of structured grids139. On

136 Nielsen EJ, Anderson WK, Walters RW, Keyes DE. ,”Application of Newton-Krylov methodology to a three-
dimensional unstructured Euler code”, Proc. AIAA CFD Conf., 12th, San Diego. AIAA Pap. 95-1733-CP, 1995.
137 Shakib F, Hughes TJR, Johan Z., “A multi element group preconditioned GMRES algorithm for non-symmetric

problems arising in finite element analysis”, Computer. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 87:415–56, 1989.
138 Chan TF, Mathew TP.,” Domain decomposition algorithms”, Acta Numer. pp. 61–143.
139 Hassan O, Morgan K, Peraire J., “An implicit finite element method for high speed flows”, AIAA Pap. 90-0402.
 112

sequential machines, the regions or lines can be processed individually, thus reducing the maximum
memory requirements to that of the largest region or line (although on parallel machines no savings
are realized if each region is assigned to an individual processor). The numerical coupling between
regions or lines is lost in these approaches, a loss that in turn degrades overall convergence, as the
number of regions increases. However, this degradation can be minimized by judicious choices of the
regions based on the character of the problem, a technique that has not yet been fully exploited. If
these regions are reduced to individual grid points (i.e. all implicit coupling between grid points is
discarded), only the diagonal block matrices of the original Jacobian are retained, and the point-
implicit method is obtained 140-141. These terms represent the coupling between the various fluid
dynamic equations at a grid point. While point-implicit methods can offer increases in efficiency over
regular explicit schemes, they are also plagued by slow convergence for fine grids. Point-implicit
methods are sometimes viewed as preconditioning techniques for explicit schemes, where the point-
implicit matrix is the preconditioner.
4.12.2.2 Reflections on the Evolution of Implicit Navier-Stokes Algorithms142
The motivation for implicit viscous flow solvers has been the need to solve complex flows requiring
highly nonuniform grids and with multiple time and length scales. Such problems can present severe
algorithmic challenges when resolving disparate local length scales introduced by geometry, very
thin shear layers, and other localized flow structures. In addition, the differing time scales of
convection, diffusion, sound propagation, and chemical reaction can result in equation stiffness, a
term used for ordinary differential equations whose system matrices have a wide range of
eigenvalues. In both instances, the enhanced stability properties available from implicit schemes can
help by allowing larger time steps, within an objective of either time accuracy or convergence to a
steady solution. We will briefly comment here on the development of our own noniterative time-
linearized, block-coupled, Alternating-Direction Implicit (ADI) scheme reported during 1973-
1977, and then give some personal reflections on the subsequent evolution of these ideas and some
of the progress achieved through related ideas and innovations introduced by others.
4.12.2.2.1 The Noniterative Time-Linearized Block-Coupled ADI Scheme
With much appreciated support from Dr. Morton Cooper at the Office of Naval Research, we began
work that led to our 1973 implicit algorithm for the3D compressible Navier-Stokes equations in
primitive variables. This algorithm combined

➢ a noniterative implicit time or local linearization,

➢ a coupled block-tridiagonal adaptation of the 1963 Douglas-Gunn formalism for generating
n-dimensional ADI schemes from any linear scalar implicit time-marching scheme, and
➢ the use of implicitly coupled, characteristic-compatible boundary conditions.

Once we recognized the utility of the Douglas-Gunn formalism to generate a 3D block-tridiagonal ADI
scheme for coupled sets of linear parabolic/hyperbolic equations, we needed to develop a suitable
linearization for the Navier-Stokes equations and stable boundary conditions. We did this by
experimenting with different techniques using the trivial one-dimensional test problem of inviscid
uniform flow at constant Mach number. This test problem was ideal because

• the exact solutions to the differential and difference equations are known and identical,

140 Hassan O, Morgan K, Peraire J., “An implicit finite element method for high speed flows”, AIAA Pap. 90-0402.
141 Thareja RR, Stewart JR, Hassan O, Morgan K, Peraire J., “A point implicit unstructured grid solver for the Euler
and Navier-Stokes equations.”, AIAA Pap. 88-0036, 1988.
142 W. R. Briley and H. McDonald, “Reflections on the Evolution of Implicit Navier-Stokes Algorithms”, UTC-CECS-

SimCenter-2008-04, September 2008.

 113

• solutions with central differences are independent of artificial dissipation, and

• it is parametric in Mach number.

We became convinced that the noniterative time linearization was a key ingredient when it provided
stability for large Courant numbers over a full range of Mach numbers without added dissipation,
provided that implicit characteristic-compatible inflow/outflow boundary conditions were used. The
time linearization fully coupled the equations, thus obviating ad hoc decoupling techniques, and it
was also unambiguous in guiding the implicit treatment of nonlinear boundary conditions, for
example the subsonic “wind tunnel” conditions of total pressure and temperature at inflow and static
pressure at outflow. A somewhat related two-dimensional scheme for magnetohydrodynamics was
developed independently in 1973 by [I. Lindemuth and J. Killeen].
They applied the [Peaceman-Rachford] ADI scheme without linearization, and then linearized
progressively about the two successive solutions obtained for each of the half steps. During the
period 1973-1980, our group applied the time-linearized ADI scheme to numerous three-
dimensional steady subsonic flows in straight and curved ducts and pipes, multiphase multispecies
turbulent combusting flows, horseshoe vortex flows, and discrete-hole cooling jets. It was also used
in 1975 as a spatial marching algorithm for three-dimensional supersonic flow.
It was significant that the noniterative linearization has second-order time accuracy and does not
reduce the order of first or second-order time differencing. Thus Newton iteration to solve a
nonlinear implicit equation was unnecessary in principle because halving the time step could reduce
both linearization and time differencing errors at the same cost as a single Newton iteration.
Furthermore, both of these errors vanish in steady solutions, and the use of a pseudo time iteration
avoided the need for an accurate initial guess for Newton iteration. In fact, the time step could control
the linearization error during iteration toward a steady solution.
The cost of a single time step using the noniterative implicit scheme was only about twice that of
explicit methods, and it generally had much faster convergence to steady solutions. This efficiency
was needed for implicit solution at a time when computers were inadequate for many practical CFD
problems, especially in three dimensions. However, many subsequent improvements in implicit
algorithms and solution methodology would be needed to achieve modern high-fidelity simulations,
as increasingly powerful computers enabled them. In our view, the primary long-term contribution
of our Navier-Stokes algorithm was to introduce the noniterative time or local linearization to
systems of nonlinear partial differential equations and boundary conditions, and to recognize the
value of the scalar Douglas Gunn formalization to generate implicit coupled ADI schemes for the time
linearized equations. This stimulated considerable interest and further research in implicit
algorithms for the Navier-Stokes equations.
4.12.2.2.2 Early Work at NASA Ames Research Center
Our 1974 seminar at NASA Ames helped to generate some of this interest, and many important
contributions were made there. In 1976, Beam and Warming developed an implicit approximate
factorization (AF) algorithm for the Euler equations using conservative equations that admit
discontinuous solutions. They gave a very concise and elegant derivation of their algorithm by
expressing the time linearization in terms of flux Jacobian matrices for conserved variables Q, and
then using approximate factorization in terms of the implicit solution variable Qn+1 to generate the
one-dimensional block-tridiagonal systems. Their 1978 Navier-Stokes algorithm was similar but
introduced the “delta-form” factorization in terms of Δ Q = (Qn+1 - Qn). Although written in a different
form, the approximate factorization in terms of Δ Q and the Douglas-Gunn procedure for generating
ADI methods give the same result for Q n+1; however, approximate factorization is much more direct
and quickly became the standard derivation. [Steger and Kutler] also gave an early adaptation of this
time-linearized AF scheme for incompressible flows in 1977, using [Chorin’s] artificial
compressibility formulation.
 114

[Warming and Beam] did extensive work on stability of implicit schemes, and one important
development was their local stability analysis indicating that the Douglas-Gunn ADI scheme for the
first-order wave equation is unconditionally unstable in three dimensions. In the context of implicit
algorithms, the von Neumann stability analysis assumes linear equations with constant coefficients,
a uniform grid, and periodic boundary conditions. We later performed a matrix stability analysis for
this inviscid equation showing that when the periodic conditions are replaced by characteristic-
based inflow/outflow conditions, the algorithm is conditionally stable for inviscid Courant number
less than about 1.2. This may explain why many researchers including ourselves were able to obtain
numerous steady solutions in three dimensions. Although it is unlikely that any algorithm would be
unconditionally stable for complex nonlinear systems, the lack of unconditional stability for this
model problem properly motivated the subsequent development of much improved two-factor AF
schemes for three dimensions, most notably the lower-upper (LU) factorization.
4.12.2.2.3 Characteristic-Based Upwind Schemes
A major algorithmic advance came in the early 1980s when [Steger and Warming, B. van Leer, A.
Harten, P. L. Roe], and others developed high resolution characteristic-based (upwind) numerical
fluxes. These flux formulas are used with conservative finite-volume or integral formulations that are
capable of preserving discontinuities, with consequent higher resolution properties than finite-
difference schemes for flows with discontinuities and/or thin viscous layers. Upwind flux
formulations are also widely used for artificial compressibility formulations. While perhaps
originally motivated by their discontinuity-preserving properties, their local upwind properties later
were a key to developing more effective two-factor three-dimensional implicit methods.
4.12.2.2.4 Reducing Factorization Error in Time-Linearized Schemes
The efficiency of the noniterative implicit algorithms was procured at expense of both time-
linearization and factorization errors. Both of these errors are absent in converged steady solutions,
which was their primary use at the time, especially in three dimensions. However, it became evident
that stability and convergence were degraded by factorization error, especially by the three-factor
stability limitation and by increased stiffness at very low Mach numbers. Two additional algorithmic
advances were significant in reducing these factorization errors.
[Steger and Warming’s 1981] noniterative implicit lower-upper factorization (LU/AF) algorithm
based on flux-vector splitting was a very important development. The well-posed and stable steps of
this and other LU/AF schemes are enabled by characteristic-based numerical flux formulas and a
suitable technique for obtaining exact or approximate implicit flux Jacobian matrices. They provide
a stable two-factor framework for three dimensions and were eventually a key ingredient in
developing effective implicit schemes for unstructured grids. Riemann-based numerical fluxes such
as [Roe’s 1981] flux-difference scheme are now widely used in conjunction with LU/AF schemes.
Another means for reducing factorization error is the use of low Mach number preconditioning
techniques, and in 1983 we first developed a constant global preconditioning matrix that reduced
factorization error at low Mach number and greatly improved convergence to steady solutions. This
basic idea has evolved into other well-known preconditioning techniques that alter system
eigenvalues locally, as introduced by [E. Turkel (1984)] and [D. Choi and C. L. Merkle (1985)].
4.12.2.2.5 Iterative Time-Linearized Schemes for Structured and Unstructured Grids
More progress came with the use of iteration at each time step to completely eliminate the
factorization error. [S. R. Chakravarthy (1984) and R. W. MacCormack (1985)] began using iterative
relaxation methods that eliminated factorization errors in the time-linearized scheme. Iterative
schemes later became the basis for successful implicit algorithms that are applicable to unstructured
grids. Although line-oriented factorizations are not applicable for unstructured grids, the time
linearized equations can be solved by point or line iterative methods and by LU relaxation or
factorization. Iterative time-linearized implicit schemes for unstructured meshes were introduced in
 115

the early 1990s by [J. T. Batina] using point-implicit, two-sweep Gauss-Seidel, and two-sweep point-
Jacobi relaxation, by [V. Venkatakrishnan and D. J. Mavriplis] using preconditioned generalized
minimal residual (GMRES) iteration, and by [W. K. Anderson] using multicolor vectorizable Gauss-
Seidel relaxation.
4.12.2.2.6 Iterative Newton-Linearized Unsteady Schemes
Another significant advance came when [Chakravarthy and M. M. Rai (1986)] introduced an
(approximate) Newton linearization with iterative relaxation that, upon convergence, gives a
solution of the nonlinear unsteady discrete approximation. This introduction of Newton-iterative
schemes became feasible with improvements in computer processing speed and memory, which
allowed both larger problem sizes and algorithm improvements. Although the Newton iterations
themselves were solved approximately using relaxation or factorization techniques, the converged
Newton iteration eliminates both time-linearization and factorization errors at each time step.
Newton-linearized iterative schemes were also developed for the incompressible artificial
compressibility equations by [D. Pan and Chakravarthy (1989), and S. E. Rogers and D. Kwak (1990)].
The Newton linearized methods are distinct from time-linearized methods, which approach Newton
linearization of the steady equations as the time step becomes infinite.
In 1991, we began our current long-term collaboration with Dave Whitfield and his group, then at
the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center at Mississippi State University.
[Whitfield and L. K. Taylor] had developed an iterative Newton-linearized unsteady upwind artificial-
compressibility scheme that incorporated symmetric Gauss-Seidel (LU/SGS) relaxation to solve the
Newton linearization. This method also used numerical differentiation to compute accurate Roe-flux
Jacobian matrices instead of using approximate Jacobians. Their implementation exploited
CPU/memory trade-offs enabled by large memory resources that had become available, at that time
Cray SSD.
By organizing the computation into sequential blocks and storing the residuals and large numerical
Jacobian matrices, the linear LU/SGS iteration sweeps became extremely inexpensive, and the
factorization error could be eliminated at very little cost. They subsequently modified this algorithm
to perform multiple Newton iteration cycles, using LU/SGS sub-iteration to solve each linear Newton
iterate. Another significant advance came in 1998, when [J.C. Newman III, Anderson and Whitfield]
began using complex variable numerical differentiation to compute highly accurate flux Jacobians
and sensitivity derivatives.
There is some algorithmic unity in the fact that symmetric Gauss-Seidel relaxation and two factor AF
are equivalent linear iteration schemes, although they are generally written in different forms. The
Newton-linearized schemes work well for steady solutions and can be used without the added cost
of Newton iterations, but they are especially beneficial for time-accurate simulations, since they
permit fully implicit nonlinear time-integration schemes. Accordingly, the Newton linearization of
the unsteady equations is commonly used instead of the noniterative time linearization.
4.12.2.2.7 Scalable Parallel Algorithms for Structured and Unstructured Grids
In the early 1990s, we began exploring methods for transitioning implicit algorithms to parallel
computers. In 1995, [R. Pankajakshan and Briley] modified Taylor and Whitfield’s iterative Newton-
linearized Navier-Stokes algorithm to enable parallel solution with minimal effect on its algorithmic
performance. The parallel algorithm used a modified block-Jacobi symmetric Gauss-Seidel (BJ-SGS)
sub-iteration scheme with coarse-grained domain decomposition for mapping to distributed-
memory processors. In his 1997 dissertation, [Pankajakshan] developed a parallel iteration
hierarchy for time-accurate solutions that encompassed multigrid, Newton and BJ-SGS iterations, and
evaluated both algorithmic and software performance. A semi-empirical parallel performance model
for his MPICH software implementation indicated constrained-memory scalability to at least 400
processors using contemporaneous distributed-memory computers such as the IBM-SP2 and Cray-
T3E. In 1997, C. Sheng and Whitfield began working with [Kyle Anderson’s] implicit unstructured
 116

time-linearized flow solver and developed a multi-block implementation to reduce memory

requirements on single-processor machines. Building on this work, [D. G. Hyams’s 2000] dissertation
developed a scalable parallel implicit viscous flow solver for highly nonuniform multi-element
unstructured grids. His work addressed issues of parallel iteration hierarchy for the Newton-
linearized method and of the treatment of connectivity and coupling of the sub-domain interfaces.
Finally, after our current group was formed in 2002, [K. Sreenivas, Hyams, D. S. Nichols III,
Pankajakshan, and Taylor] developed a new code (now called Tenasi) based on this same algorithm
but with many refinements, extensions and new capabilities for complex computational engineering
analysis and design applications. Implicit methods that have evolved from our early work continue
to be applied to a wide range of problems. Many of these methods appear sufficiently attractive that
a significant number of researchers are exploring algorithmic development to improve or extend
these methods to an even broader range of practical problems. Our own work in recent years has
focused on various application problems and related algorithm developments. These interests have
included multiphase and chemically reacting flows, the shallow-water and Maxwell’s equations,
preconditioning, treatment of source terms and discontinuities other than shocks, and complex
variable differentiation.

4.13 Numerical Listing to CFD Methods

This section covering the outline of CFD and brought to you by CFD-Wiki and mentioned here as a
recap. The user should refer to this page for further reference. Be aware that this is lengthy and
general list and not all the items are relevant to the problem in hand. Top level is displayed as Red,
next Green, black, Brown, and so on.

• Basic Aspects of Governing Equations as related to CFD

• Classification of Governing Equations (GE)
• Integral form of GE
• Differential form of GE
• Generic Scalar Transport Equation
• Mathematical behavior of Partial Differential Equations
• Classification of physical behavior
• Equilibrium Problems
• Marching Problems
• Mathematical Classification of flows
• Hyperbolic Flows
• Parabolic Flows
• Elliptic Flows
• Mixed Flow
• Stability Analysis
• Fourier Stability Analysis
• von Neuman Stability Analysis
• Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) condition
• Properties of Numerical Solution Methods
• Consistency
• Stability
• Conservation
• Boundedness
• Reliability
• Accuracy
 117

• Solution of Euler Equation

• Method of Characteristics
• Shock Capturing Techniques
• Explicit Mac Cormack Method
• Flux Splitting (Stegar-Warming)
• Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) scheme
• Artificial Dissipation
• The SCM
• Beam & Warming Approximate Factorization scheme
• Solution of Poisson's Equation
• Type-Dependent Differencing
• Solution of Navier-Stokes Equations
• Explicit schemes
• Mac Cormack Predictor-Corrector scheme
• Beam & Warming (AF)
• Vorticity-Stream Function
• Velocity-Pressure Coupling
• Rhie-Chow Interpolation
• Fully Coupled Methods - FC
• Density Methods
• De-Coupled Methods - DC
• Pressure Methods
• SIMPLE
• SIMPLEC - SIMPLE Consistent
• SIMPLEM – SIMPLE Modified
• SIMPLEX
• SIMPLEST - SIMPLE Shortened
• SIMPLER - SIMPLE Revised
• PISO - Pressure Implicit with Split Operator
• PRIME - Pressure Implicit Momentum Explicit
• MSIMPLEC, MPISO , SIMPLESSEC , SIMPLESSE
• CPC - Compressible Pressure Correction algorithm
• MCBA - Mass Conservation Based Algorithms
• GCBA - Geometric Conservation Based Algorithms
• IPSA - Inter-Phase Slip Algorithm
• CPI - Consistent Physical Interpolation
• MWIM - Momentum Weighted Interpolation Method
• PWIM - Pressure Weighted Interpolation Method
• ACM - Artificial Compressibility Method
• CIP - Cubic Interpolating Polynomial Method
• Discrete Operator Splitting
• Solution of Boltzmann Equation CFD Related algorithms
• Wall Distance Calculations
• Moore's k-tree algorithm
• Transport equation based wall distance calculation
• Geometrical Calculations
• Area calculations
 118

• Volume calculations
• Calculation on non-orthogonal curvilinear structured grids, finite-volume method
• General Discretization
• Domain (Field) Discretization
• Grid or Mesh Generation
• Structured
• Algebraic
• PDE
• Adaptive Meshes
• Unstructured
• Advancing Front
• Delaney Triangulation
• Octree Decomposition
• Unstructured Hexahedral Meshes
• Hybrid Meshes
• Overset Meshes
• Cartesian Meshes
• Polyhedral Meshes
• Adaptive Meshes
• Governing Equations Discretization
• Finite Difference
• Finite Element
• Spectral Volume
• Discontinuous Galerkin
• Finite Volume
• Generic scalar transport equation
• Source term linearization
• Gradient computation
• Special Discretization
• Discretization of the diffusion term
• Discretization of the convection term
• Discretization of the transient term
• Time Discretization
• Euler Method
• Crank-Nicolson Method
• Predictor-Corrector Methods
• Runge Kutta Methods
• Adams Bashforth Method
• Adams Moulton Method
• Implicit second order Method

• Linear Systems of Equations

• Direct methods
• Gaussian Elimination
• LU Decomposition
• Tri-Diagonal Matrix Algorithm - (TDMA -Thomas Algorithm)
• Iterative Methods
• Gauss-Seidel Method
 119

• Jacobi Method
• Successive 0ver-Relaxation Method - SOR
• Stone's Method
• Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI) Method
• Conjugate Gradient Methods
• Conjugate Gradient Method of Golub and van Loan
• Bi-Conjugate Gradient Method
• Bi-Conjugate Gradient Stabilized Method
• Matrix Factorization and Preconditioning
• Incomplete LU Factorization - ILU
• Incomplete Cholesky Factorization
• Multigrid Methods
• Geometric Multigrid – Full Approximation Storage (FAS)
• Algebraic Multigrid - AMG
• Efficiency and Stability
• Limiters
• Flux Limiters
• Gradient Limiters

4.14 What Constitute Solver in CFD

According to Aditya Kashi, the “Solver” in CFD, can mean several things depending on the context
which been used. It can refer to the spatial discretization scheme, like “finite volume solver” or
“spectral element solver”. In less than often, it can refer to the algorithm used for time stepping (also
called “integrator”), such as “explicit Runge-Kutta” etc. But it usually refers to the algorithm used
for solving the system of linear equations that needs to be solved (PDE solver) such as “sparse LU
solver” or “GMRES solver”, etc.
 120

5 Finite Differencing (FD) & Spatial Discretization

5.1 Major Integration Schemes for CFD
There are several distinct methods of numerical integration as:

➢ Finite Volume Method (FV) ➢ Lattice Boltzmann Methods (LBM)

➢ Finite Difference Method (FD) ➢ Vortex Methods and other Particle
➢ Finite Element Method (FE) Methods
➢ Weighted Residual (WRM) ➢ Boundary Element Method (BEM)
➢ Spectral Methods ➢ Polynomial Fitting
• Fast Fourier Transform Methods ➢ Integral Meth
(FFT)
Among those, the Finite Difference (FD), Finite Element (FE) and Finite Volume (FV) methods are
the most prominent ones with FD being the older one. FD solves the partial differential equations
(PDEs) in the strong (or differential) form, and FE and FV solve PDEs in a weak (or integral) form
[YAO et al.]143. Each of the abovementioned methods possesses its own distinct advantages and
disadvantages. Although the FV was for a long time the most popular CFD method, and that might
still be the case now, the FE, with sophisticated stabilization techniques, space–time methods, and
NURBS technology, is now in a very advanced stage.

5.2 Finite Difference Method (FD)

The Finite Difference can be used merely as a mathematical tool to develop algebraic approximation
to PDE’s with relative ease. It proceed in rather formal mechanical way, using Taylor’s series
expansion of operating PDE with physical reasoning aside. The equation for u x and uxx evaluated at
point i, can be approximated by

∂u ui+1 − ui ui − ui−1 ui+1 − ui−1

| ≈ ≈ ≈
∂x i ⏟ ∆x ⏟ ∆x ⏟ 2∆x
Forward Backward Cetral
2
∂ u ui+1 − 2ui + ui−1
≈
∂x 2 (∆x)2
Eq. 5.1
Where the ux is approximated using a forward, backward, and central differencing. Δx is small but
finite. Using the same reasoning we obtained an expression for second derivatives. For an excellent
reference in FD, user should refer to144, and will be revisited later.
5.2.1 Some Issues Related Finite Differencing
The idea of finite differencing steams from the definition of derivatives as

u(x, y) u(x + Δx, y) − u(x, y)

= lim Eq. 5.2
x Δx→0 Δx

143 Jianyao Yao, G. R. Liu, Dong Qian, Chung-Lung Chen and George X. Xu. “A Moving-Mesh Gradient Smoothing
Method For Compressible CFD Problems”, Mathematical Models and Methods In Applied Sciences Vol. 23, No. 2
(2013) 273–305.
144 D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, ISBN 0-89116-

471-5 – 1984.
 121

5.2.1.1 Truncation Error

Assuming u to be continuous, this will be a reasonable approximation to the derivative. With the aid
of Taylor’s series expansion for expansion of u(x+Δx) could be expressed as

u  2 u (x) 2
u(x + Δx, y) = u(x, y) + Δx + 2 + ...... Eq. 5.3
x x 2!
Rearranging this and dividing by Δx,
x - values
∂u u(x + ∆x, y) − u(x, y)
=

Truncatuin Error →
2.6
∂x ∆x
∂2 u ∆x
− … 1.2
⏟2 2
∂x 0.5
Truncation Error= ο(∆x) 0.3
Eq. 5.4 Order of Accuracy →
Where the truncation error is the difference between PDE and
FDE representation and characterized by using the order
Figure 5.1 Correlation between
notation. It is inversely related to the order of accuracy for the
truncation error and order of
equations as depicted in Figure 5.1 and would be an accuracy
extremely important criteria in accuracy of discretized equation as it is directly related to the stability
and accuracy consideration. Therefore, for Eq. 5.4, it could be said that the forward finite difference
representation here is 1st order accurate in space (Δx). For most practical applications, 2nd order
accuracy would be sufficient as by increasing the order of accuracy, the CPU cost would also increase.
Free temperature profile of a jet flow would be an excellent example in that case (see Figure 5.2).

First Order Accurate Second Oreder Accurate

Third Order Accutare Fifth Order Accurate

Figure 5.2 Free Jet Flow profile for different order of accuracy
 122

In order to be acceptable, the difference representation needs to meet the conditions of consistency
and stability, to be discussed next.

5.2.1.2 Consistency
Consistency deals with extend on which the finite difference equations approximate the PDEs. It is
directly linked to truncation error by means of showing that in the limit, as mesh been refined
infinitely, the difference between the PDE and FDE vanishes, i.e. lim mesh → 0 (PDE-FDE) = 0 as lim
mesh → 0 (TE) = 0. Therefore, for consistency to be satisfied, on the limit, the truncation error should
vanish. An important question concerning computational solutions is what guarantee can be given
that the computational solution will be close to the exact solution of the partial differential
equation(s) and under what circumstances the computational solution will coincide with the exact
solution. The second part of this question can be answered (superficially) by requiring that the
approximate (computational) solution should converge to the exact solution as the grid spacings At,
Ax shrink to zero. However, convergence is very difficult to establish directly so that an indirect
route, as indicated in Figure 5.3, is usually followed. The indirect route requires that the system of
algebraic equations formed by the discretization process should be consistent with the governing
partial differential equation(s). Consistency implies that the discretization process can be reversed,
through a Taylor series expansion, to recover the governing equation(s). In addition, the algorithm
used to solve the algebraic equations to give the approximate solution, T, must be stable. Then the
pseudo-equation145:
Consistancy + Stability = Convergence
Eq. 5.5
is invoked to imply convergence. The conditions under which Eq. 5.5 can be made precise are given
by the Lax equivalence theorem. It is very difficult to obtain theoretical guidance for the behavior of
the solution on a grid of finite size. Most of the useful theoretical results are strictly only applicable
in the limit that the grid size shrinks to zero. However the connections that are established between

Figure 5.3 Conceptual Relationship Between Consistency, Stability and Convergence – Courtesy of
Fletcher

145C. A. J. Fletcher, “Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics 1 - Fundamental and General Techniques”, 2nd
Ed., Springer.
 123

convergence, consistency and stability are also qualitatively useful in assessing computational
solutions on a finite grid.

5.2.1.3 Stability and Effect of CFL Number

The stability concept is a bit more involved than consistency and in a restrict sense only applicable
to marching problems. A stable numerical scheme is the one that errors do not propagate through
the system. It devises a relation and imposes a restriction between mesh and time step sizes, defined
as CFL number. There are two prominent procedures, namely, the Von Neumann and Fourier for
stability analysis. To better understand, a simple 1D stability criteria could be devised where CFL =
α Δt/Δx with α being a positive constant, as being presented in Figure 5.4. On the right (b), with
reduced Δx, then CFL < 1, point Q is within computational domain of influence (shaded), and could
be differentiated using the neighbor cells, therefore, is stable. But on the left (a), where CFL < 1, Q
lies outside of computational domain of influence, therefore, unstable. But on the left (a), where CFL
≥ 1, Q lies outside of computational domain of influence, therefore, unstable. It is obvious that the size
of mesh, Δx, is crucial in stability here and by reducing it (finer mesh), the stability constrain is
satisfied. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the numerical stability requirement for many explicit
numerical methods for solving hyperbolic PDE’s, is CFL condition which is

Δt
CFL = a 1 Eq. 5.6
Δx

Reducing the Δt, if insisting in keeping the same Δx, would achieve that. Consequently, it is needing
finer step sizes on explicit methodologies for stable conditions. It is known that the best results for
hyperbolic systems using the most common explicit methods are obtained with CFL near unity (see
Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4 1D Stability Analysis Based on CFL Number; (a) CFL < 1 Unstable; (b) CFL ≥ 1 Stable

[Schneider, et al.]146 added some remarks about the CFL condition for explicit time discretization
methods of Adams–Bashforth and Runge–Kutta type. It was shown that for convection-dominated
problems stability conditions of the type Δt ≤ a Δx α are found for high order space discretization’s,
where the exponent α depends on the order of the time scheme. For example, for second order
Adams–Bashforth and Runge–Kutta schemes we find α = 4/3. A more general 3D CFL number using

146 Kai Schneider, Dmitry Kolomenskiy, and Erwan Deriaz, “Is the CFL Condition Sufficient? Some Remarks”.
 124

the empirical formula [Tannehill et al., 1975] defined as:

-1
α(Δt)CFL  u v w 1 1 1 
Δt  where (t)CFL   + + +a + + 
1 + 2 / Re   Δx Δy Δz (x ) (y ) (z )2 
2 2

ρ u Δx ρ v Δy ρ w Δz
with Re Δ = M in (Re Δx , Re Δy , Re Δz ) Re Δx = Re Δy = Re Δz =
μ μ μ
and a = (p /  ) 0.5 , safty factor α  0.9
Eq. 5.7

5.2.1.4 Convergence
A solution of the algebraic equations (Figure 5.3) which approximate a given partial differential
equation is said to be convergent if the approximate solution approaches the exact solution of the
partial differential equation for each value of the independent variable as the grid spacing tends to
zero. Thus we require
̅(xj , t n )
Tjn → T as ∆x , ∆t → 0
Eq. 5.8
The difference between the exact solution of the partial differential equation and the exact solution
of the system of algebraic equations is called the solution error, denoted by enj; that is

̅(xj , t n ) − Tjn
enj = T
Eq. 5.9
The exact solution of the system of algebraic equations is the approximate solution of the governing
partial differential equation. The exact solution of the system of algebraic equations is obtained hen
no numerical errors of any sort, such as those due to round-off, are introduced during the
computation. The magnitude of the error, enj, at the ( j , n)-th node typically depends on the size of
the grid spacings, Dx and Dt, and on the values of the higher-order derivatives at that node, omitted
from the finite difference approximations to the derivatives in the given differential equation. Proof
that a solution to the system of algebraic equations converges to the solution of the partial differential
equation is generally very difficult, even for the simplest cases.

5.2.1.4.1 Numerical Convergence

For the equations that govern fluid How, convergence is usually impossible to demonstrate
theoretically. However, for problems that possess an exact solution, like the diffusion equation, it is
possible to obtain numerical solutions on a successively refined grid and compute a solution error.
Convergence implies that the solution error should reduce to zero as the grid spacing is shrunk
to zero. The solutions have been obtained on successively refined spatial grids, Ax = 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 and
0.025. The corresponding rms errors are shown in Table 5.1 for s = 0.50 and 0.30. It is clear that
the rms error reduces like Δx2 approximately. Based on these results it would be a reasonable
inference that refining the grid would produce a further reduction in the rms error and, in the limit
of Δx (for fixed s) going to zero, the solution of the algebraic equations would converge to the exact
solution.
The establishment of numerical convergence is rather an expensive process since usually very fine
grids are necessary. As s is kept constant in the above example the timestep is being reduced by a
factor of four for each halving of Dx. In Table 5.1 the solution error is computed at t = 5000 s. This
implies the finest grid solution at s = 0.30 requires 266 time steps before the solution error is
 125

computed. [Fletcher]147.

Table 5.1 Solution Error (rms) Reduction with Grid Refinement – Courtesy of Fletcher

5.3 Spatial Discretization Schemes

It is worth noting that concept of discretization commonly refers to Domain Discretization (Grid
Generation), Spatial discretization (Governing Equation), and Temporal discretization (Transient
case). Here we are concerned with Spatial Discretization of G.E. From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia, in mathematics, discretization concerns the process of transferring continuous
functions, models, and equations into discrete counterparts. This process is usually carried out as a
first step toward making them suitable for numerical evaluation and implementation on digital
computers. Among most frequently used discretization schemes are upwind differencing (UD),
Central Differencing (CD), Total Variation Diminishing (TVD), Monotone Upstream-Centered
Schemes (MUSCL), and Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for convection Kinetics (QUICK). Each has its
own characteristics and feasibility, to be discussed below. In addition, order of accuracy
consideration for a jet flow temperature profile has been shown below for 1st – 5th order (see Figure
5.2). Dramatic difference in the character of the solution between the first and second order or
higher is present, but higher order doesn’t mean it’s always more accurate (more CPU time & round
off errors).

5.3.1 1st order Upwind (UD)

Perhaps the most widely used and simplest scheme as shown in Figure 5.5-(a). It is conservative,
bounded and very stable but dissipative and creates false diffusion. Flux limiters are recommended
to encounter that. It is 1st order accurate and ideal for flow exhibiting a primary direction. Usually
recommended for hyperbolic flow regions148.

5.3.2 Central Differencing (CD)

This is a 2nd order accurate scheme as shown in Figure 5.5-(b). It is bounded at lower Peclet (Pe)
number, but not bounded or conservative at higher Pe number. Not recommended for Uni-
directional flows due to its symmetry character. Although it is not dissipative, it is dispersive and
usually recommended for elliptic flow regions. In order to overcome the issues with un-roundness
and wiggles in solution, leading to stability issues, a deferred linear interpolation approach for CD
is proposed a
φf = φ
⏟FUD + φ
⏟FCD − φFUD
implicit explicit
Eq. 5.10
As indicated, the upwind part is treated implicitly while the difference between the central-difference
and upwind values is treated explicitly. Provided that the numerical solution converges, this

147 C. A. J. Fletcher, “Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics 1 - Fundamental and General Techniques”, 2nd
Ed., Springer.
148 Georgia Tech Computational Fluid Dynamics Graduate Course; spring 2007.
 126

approach leads to pure second-order accuracy. On some commercial suites such as Fluent©, the usage
of CD differencing is restricted to pressure-based solvers.

5.3.3 2nd order Upwind Differencing (UD)

This 2nd order accurate scheme as shown in Figure 5.5-(c) is as its first-order cousin, depends on
the flow direction but not bounded. To a lesser extent, it is still dissipative. Flux limiters are advised
on its implementation149.

5.3.4 Power Law Scheme

This is based on the analytical solution of the one-dimensional convection-diffusion equation. The
face value is determined from an exponential profile through the cell values. The exponential profile
is approximated by the following (see Figure 5.5-(d)).

(1 − 0.1 Pe) 5
e = P − ( E −  P ) (5.13)
Pe
Eq. 5.11
Where Pe is the Peclet number and for Pe > 10 the diffusion is ignored and 1st order upwind is used.

Figure 5.5 Different Spatial Scheme

149 Georgia Tech Computational Fluid Dynamics Graduate Course; spring 2007.
 127

5.3.5 Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for Convection Kinetics (QUICK)

This is a 3nd order accurate scheme, independent to flow direction and not bounded. It is based on a
weighted average of second-order-upwind and central interpolations of the variables. It uses
consistent quadratic profile, therefore, conservative. It has a build in transported and is conditionally
bounded.

5.3.6 Monotone Upstream-Centered Schemes for Conservation Laws (MUSCL)

This is a highly accurate scheme for solutions that exhibit shocks and discontinuities. It is a
combination of 1st and 2nd order accurate. Further, the 2nd order spatial accuracy for the inviscid
fluxes is achieved in by using MUSCL extrapolation to reconstruct an approximate value of the
primitive variables, each side of each
cell face. The MUSCL scheme uses a
13 point stencil per cell in three
dimensions, as shown in Figure 5.6
fluxes is achieved in by using MUSCL
extrapolation to reconstruct an
approximate value of the primitive
variables, each side of each cell face.
The MUSCL scheme uses a 13 point
stencil per cell in three dimensions,
as shown in Figure 5.6. The viscous
flux is calculated using a Green's Figure 5.6 Viscous & Inviscid Stencil for a 2nd order accurate
Theorem approach to calculate the MUSCL
derivatives at cell faces and central
differencing is used to calculate the
scalar values. The viscous fluxes require an additional twelve points to be added to the inviscid stencil
for a total of 25 cells in the stencil per cell.

5.3.7 Total Variation Diminishing (TVD)

This is a 2nd order upwind differencing and defined as a system which does not increase the total
variation of the solution,

TV(u n +1 )  TV(u n ) where TV(u) =  u j−1 − u j (5.14)

j

Eq. 5.12

5.3.7.1 Total Variation Diminishing Cubic Interpolated Propagation (TVDCIP)

For special case of fire science, proposed the new scheme, TVDCIP (Total Variation Diminishing Cubic
Interpolated Propagation), that consists of the spatial interpolation and the mathematical algorithm
for switching scheme with high order accuracy. TVDCIP method is applied to solve the nonlinear
hyperbolic partial differential equations numerically such as Navier-Stokes type equations.150 It is
basically used for convection terms. Other special cases including viscoelastic flows, the polymeric
stress derivative term in the momentum we adopt a Fourth-Order Accurate Compact scheme (COM4)
which has no dissipative error.151

150 T. Yamanashi, H. Uchida, and M. Morita,” Study on the Numerical Accuracy for the CFD”, Tokyo University of
Science, 1-3 Kagurazaka, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8601, Japan.
151 S.K. Lele, “Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution”, J. Computational Phys. 103 (1992).
 128

5.3.8 Monotone Advection and Recons traction Scheme (MARS)

MARS is a multidimensional second-order accurate differencing scheme that operates in two
separate steps:

5.3.8.1 Reconstruction
A set of monotone gradients are computed using a multidimensional Total Variation Diminishing
(TVD) scheme. The cell flow properties and the gradients completely define a second-order accurate
spatial discretization.

5.3.8.2 Advection
The reconstructed cell-face flow properties are used to compute the face fluxes for all advected
properties using a monotone and bounded advection scheme. This incorporates a variable
compression level which controls the amount of second-order up winding of the scheme without
affecting the order of accuracy of the spatial discretization. MARS does not rely on any problem
dependent parameters to work properly and it can automatically handle all flow problems and mesh
types supported. However, the user can control the ability of the advection scheme to accurately
capture sharp discontinuities in the flow by setting the scheme’s compression level to a value
between 0 and 1. Low values for this parameter result in a computationally efficient scheme at the
expense of sharpness of resolution. High values improve the resolution but result in an increased
number of iterations when steady flows are computed. The default value for this parameter is 0.5
which is a compromise between accuracy and convergence rate. Of all schemes available, MARS
possesses the least sensitivity of solution accuracy to the mesh structure and skewness.

5.3.9 Blended Differencing

In this method a higher-order, non-monotone scheme like CD or LUD is blended with the lower-order
UD scheme to suppress dispersion. However, the blending factor γ is now user-specified, giving

 jBD = γ jCD/LUD + (1 − γ) jUD where 0  γ 1 (5.15)

Eq. 5.13
Evidently, this practice will sometimes involve some trial-and-error adjustments for optimal results.

5.3.10 Higher Order Upwind Schemes

Even though the fluxes were computed exactly, the solution was very inaccurate due to numerical
diffusion. Since the advection is exact, the problem must lie with the averaging of the solution and
the assumption of a constant state in each cell. To generate more accurate schemes, we need to
reconstruct a more accurate representation of the function in each cell. A fairly general family of
higher order methods can be constructed by weighing the slopes in each cell; in different ways as
evaluation of the function at the cell boundary (see Figure 5.5-(e)). Different values of k give
different schemes as depicted in Eq. 5.14:
1− k
u Lj+1/2 = u j + (u j − u j−1 ) + 1 + k (u j+1 − u j )
4 4
1− k
u Rj+1/2 = u j+1 − (u j+1 − u j ) − 1 + k (u j+2 − u j+1 )
4 4
1
k = -1 → Second order k = → Third order
3
k = 0 → Fromm' s scheme k = 1 → Centeral
1
k= → QUICK
2
 129

Eq. 5.14
To prevent oscillations near shocks when using high order schemes, we have already talked about
artificial viscosity where we attempt to smooth out oscillations around the shocks. The more modern
approach is to prevent the appearance of oscillations by either:

• Limit the slopes when the variables are extrapolated to the cell boundaries.
• Limit the fluxes near shocks to prevent under or over shoot.
• Reduce the cell Reynolds number (Pe < small ⇾ smaller grid size).

To prevent oscillations, apply Limiters to reduce the slopes where they will cause oscillations152.

5.3.10.1 Other High Resolution Differencing Scheme For Arbitrarily Unstructured Meshes153
Discretization of the convective part of fluid transport equations has proven to be one of the most
troublesome parts of the numerical fluid mechanics. The objective is to devise a practice that will
produce a bounded, accurate and convergent solution154. Different procedures for assembling higher-
order bounded differencing schemes have been suggested, the most popular being the total
variation diminishing (TVD)155-156 and the more recent group of normalized variable diagram
(NVD) approaches. All of these schemes introduce some procedure in which the discretization
practice for the convection term is adjusted locally, based on the currently available solution. In both
families, the bounding procedure uses an indicator function that follows the local shape of the
solution and is based on 1D analysis. Often the analysis refers to cells that are more than once
removed from the face under consideration, usually in the ‘upwind’ direction.
One of the requirements of the differencing scheme presented here is its applicability on
unstructured meshes. The convenience of mesh generation for such meshes makes them attractive

(a) Unstructured (b) Arbitrarily

quadrilateral mesh unstructured mesh

Figure 5.7 Deciding the Upwind Direction in Arbitrary Unstructured Mesh

152 Grétar Tryggvason, “Computational Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series”, spring 2013.
153 H. Jasak, H .G. Weller and A. D. Gosman, “High Resolution NVD Differencing Scheme For Arbitrarily
Unstructured Meshes”, Int. J. Numerical Meth. Fluids 31: 431–449 (1999).
154 See Previous.
155 S. Osher and S.R. Chakravarthy, ‘High resolution schemes and the entropy condition’, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 21,

955–984 (1984).
156 B. Van Leer, ‘Towards the ultimate conservative differencing scheme. II Monotonicity and conservation

combined in a second-order scheme’, J. Comp. Phys., 14, 361–370 (1974).

 130

for complicated geometries in industrial CFD applications. Arbitrarily unstructured meshing157-158

further simplifies mesh generation in complicated geometries, but requires a more general face-
based discretization procedure. Only in hexahedral unstructured meshes is it possible to ‘recognize’
the distinct directions needed to implement the TVD and NVD-type schemes in 2D and 3D. In
arbitrarily unstructured meshes, the concept of the ‘far upwind neighbor’ for a face becomes quite
complicated. It is not clear how to determine the far neighbor since the mesh does not have any clear
directionality (see Figure 5.7 (a)-(b)). For example, any of the points U1, U2 or even U3 in Figure
5.7 (b) can be considered to be an appropriate choice of the far upwind node for the face f. The
implementation of TVD- and NVD-type schemes in such circumstances is no longer a straightforward
exercise. In fact, it has also become obvious that the directionality of the hexahedral mesh does not
necessarily offer the appropriate ‘upwind’ information.
On arbitrarily unstructured meshes, the problem is twofold: it is necessary to store the additional ‘far
upwind’ addressing information (which is simply a programming issue) and, more importantly,
determine which of the ‘upwind’ cells represents the right choice, which is neither simple nor unique.
A more general definition of the unboundedness criterion that avoids the use of the ‘far upwind value’
is needed for both the TVD and NVD family of differencing schemes. See the [ JASAK et al.]159.
5.3.11 ENO and WENO Schemes
In numerical analysis of differential equations, ENO (essentially non-oscillatory) and WENO
(weighted essentially non-oscillatory) methods are classes of high-resolution schemes. They been
used in the numerical solution of hyperbolic partial differential equations with aim of capturing
discontinuities within. The first WENO scheme is developed by [Liu, Chan and Osher] in 1994. In
1996, Guang-Sh and Chi-Wang Shu developed new WENO scheme which is called WENO-
JS. Nowadays, there are many WENO methods. Reconstruction procedure of the ENO schemes is
based on the approximation of mean values of the primitive variables for each cell in the mesh by
polynomials of one order less than spatial order Of accuracy expected. For the construction of
polynomials of η-th order, one must use N(η)=(η+1)(η+2)/2 cells. For a 2D triangular grid, the
p (x , y) polynomials can, then, calculated as the following formulation:

p(x, y) = ∑ rβ1β2 (x − xc )β1 (y − yc )β2

|β|≤n
Eq. 5.15
here lβl=β1+β2 with βi ∈ {1,2,3, , ,}, xc and yc are Cartesian coordinates of triangle and rβ1 β2 are
unknown coefficients that must be determined160.

157A.D. Gosman, ‘Developments in industrial computational fluid dynamics’, Trans. I. Chem. E., (1998).
158 H. Jasak, ‘Error analysis and estimation in the finite volume method with applications to fluid flows’, Ph.D.
Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1996.
159 H. Jasak, H .G. Weller and A. D. Gosman, “High Resolution NVD Differencing Scheme For Arbitrarily

Unstructured Meshes”, Int. J. Numerical Meth. Fluids 31: 431–449 (1999).

160 W. R. Wolf, and J. L. F. Azevedo,, “Implementation of ENO and WENO Schemes For Finite Volume

Unstructured Grid Solutions of Compressible Aerodynamic Flows”, Sept. 2018.

 131

5.4 Implementation of Boundary Conditions

We have one more item of business before finishing
this section on finite difference quotients. We pose
the following question: What happens at a
boundary? What type of differencing is possible
when we have only one direction to go, namely, the
direction away from the boundary? For example,
consider Figure 5.8, which illustrates a portion of a
boundary to a flow field, with the y axis
perpendicular to the boundary. Let grid point 1 be
on the boundary, with points 2 and 3 a distance Δy
and 2Δy above the boundary, respectively. We wish
to construct a finite-difference approximation for
∂u/∂y at the boundary. It is easy to construct a
forward difference as

∂u u2 − u1 Figure 5.8 Grid Points at a Boundary

( ) = + Ο(∆y)
∂y 1 ∆y
Eq. 5.16
which is of first-order accuracy. However, how do we obtain a result which is of second-order
accuracy? The central difference fails us because it requires another point beneath the boundary,
such as illustrated as point 2’ in Figure 5.8. Point 2’ is outside the domain of computation, and we
generally have no information about u at this point. In the early days of CFD, many solutions
attempted to sidestep this problem by assuming that u2’ = u2 . This is called the reflection boundary
condition. In most cases it does not make physical sense and is just as inaccurate, if not more so, than
the forward difference given by Eq. 5.16. So we ask the question again, how do we find a second-
order-accurate finite difference at the boundary? The answer is straightforward, as we will describe
here. Moreover, we will seize this occasion to illustrate an alternative approach to the construction
of finite-difference quotients-alternative to the Taylor's series analyses presented earlier. We will use
a polynomial approach, as follows. Assume at the boundary shown in Figure 5.8 that u can be
expressed by the polynomial
u = a + by + cy 2
Eq. 5.17
After applying the b,c, and rearranging, (see [Anderson]161), we obtain:

∂u −3u1 + 4u2 − u3
( ) =
∂y 1 2∆y
Eq. 5.18
Applied successively to the grid points in Figure 5.8. Error! Reference source not found. yields at
grid point 1 where y = 0. resulting in Eq. 5.18. It is a one-sided finite-difference expression for the
derivative at the boundary called one-sided because it uses information only on one side of the grid
point at the boundary, namely, information only above grid point 1 in Figure 5.8. Also, it was
derived using a polynomial expression, namely, Eq. 5.17, rather than a Taylor series representation.
This illustrates an alternative approach to the formulation of finite-difference quotients; indeed, all

161John D. Anderson, Jr., “Computational Fluid Dynamics-The Basics With Applications”, Department of
Aerospace Engineering University of Maryland, McGraw-Hill Series in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering,
1995.
 132

our previous results as summarized could have been obtained using this polynomial approach. It
remains to show the order of accuracy of Eq. 5.18. Here, we have to appeal to a Taylor series again.
Consider a Taylor series expansion about the point 1.

∂u ∂2 u y 2 ∂3 u y 3
u(y) = u1 + ( ) y + ( 2 ) + ( 3) +⋯
∂y 1 ∂y 1 2! ∂y 1 3!
Eq. 5.19
Compare Eq. 5.19 and Eq. 5.18. Our assumed polynomial expression in Eq. 5.18 is the same as
using the first three terms in the Taylor series. Hence, Eq. 5.18 is of O(Δy)3. Thus, we can write from
Eq. 5.18 as
𝜕𝑢 −3𝑢1 + 4𝑢2 − 𝑢3
( ) = + Ο(∆𝑦)2
𝜕𝑦 1 2∆𝑦
Eq. 5.20
This is our desired second-order-accurate difference quotient at the boundary. The Eq. 5.20 is
called one-sided differences, because they express a derivative at a point in terms of dependent
variables on only one side of that point. Moreover, these equations are general; i.e., they are not in
any way limited to application just at a boundary; they can be applied at internal grid points as well.
It just so happens that we have taken advantage of our discussion of Finite difference quotients at a
boundary to derive such one-sided differences. Of course, as we have seen here, one-sided differences
are essentially mandatory for a representation of a derivative at a boundary, but such one-sided
differences simply offer another option when applied internally within the domain of the overall
calculations. Furthermore, Eq. 5.20 displays a one-sided finite difference of
second-order accuracy; many other one-sided difference formulas for a derivative at a point can be
derived with higher orders of accuracy using additional grid points to one side of that point. In some
CFD applications, it is not unusual to see four- and five-point one-sided differences applied at a
boundary. This is especially true for viscous flow calculations. In such calculations, the shear stress
and heat transfer at the wall, due to a flow over that wall, are of particular importance.
 133

6 Finite Volume Method (FV)

The Finite (Control) Volume Method (FVM), examines not only the governing PDE but also the
physical laws or the conservation statement which the PDE represents. The governing PDE could be
transformed through divergence form (conservative) by employing the Gauss Divergence Theorem.
This enables the preservation of conservation quantity within each individual control volume. By
adding these individual control volumes, the overall conservation of the domain would be preserved.
It is difficult to appreciate the subtle differences which may occur in different representation using
FD or FV. In many cases, especially for simple, linear equations, the resulting discretization is the
same. The differences are more pronounced when irregular meshes are used or in some boundary
conditions. In general, the CV method is preferred over FD, due to the fact that they conserve the
physical quantities.

t  Q dV +  FdV = 0
V V
Eq. 6.1
where Q is the vector of conserved variables, F is the vector of fluxes (see Euler equations or Navier
Stokes equations), V is the volume of the control volume element, and is A the surface area of the
control volume element. The time-dependent term and the body force term are assumed constant
over the volume of the cell. Using the divergence theorem and integrating over the control surface,
we obtain semi-discrete form as

Q
V +  (FdA)NS = 0
t NS
Eq. 6.2
Where NS represents the number of surfaces surrounding the CV or cells. In general, the FVM
involves the following steps162:

1. Decomposition of the problem domain into control volumes.

2. Formulation of integral balance equations for each control volume.
3. Approximation of integrals by numerical integration.
4. Approximation of function values and derivatives by interpolation with nodal values.
5. Assembling and solution of discrete algebraic system.

Under certain conditions FD and FV schemes yields the same results. An example would be a 2D
steady state conduction with Dirichlet boundaries.

6.1 Finite Volume Method using a 1D Example

The key to the method is that the integral form of the conservation law


t Ω
U dΩ +  . F dΩ = 0 Eq. 6.3
Ω

can be rewritten, using the Gauss Divergence Theorem.

162Computational Engineering, Introduction to Numerical Methods, http://www.springer.com/978-3-540-

30685-6.
 134

∂
∫ U dΩ + ∮ 𝐅. 𝐧 dΓ = 0 where 𝐅𝐤∗ is numerical flux
∂t Ω ⏟Ω
∑faces 𝐅𝐤∗ .𝐧𝐤
Eq. 6.4
For unsteady 1D problem it becomes

 
RX

t Ω  t Ω
U dΩ + Fx dx = U dΩ + (FR - FL ) = 0 Eq. 6.5
XL

In other words, the rate of change of mass in the control volume is equal to the net mass flux through
its boundary. For simplicity, a forward Euler discretization of the time derivative will be considered,
leading to

Δt
U𝑖𝑛+1 − U𝑖𝑛 = ∑ 𝐹𝑘∗ . 𝑛𝑘 where V𝑖 is control volume of cell
𝑉𝑖
faces
Eq. 6.6
Steady state computations provide a special case. Usually the above is used to iterate to the steady
state. There are many convergence acceleration techniques163. For 3D using

Δt ∗ ∗ Δt ∗
Uin+1 − Uin = − (Fi+1 − Fi−1 )− (G j+1 − G∗j−1 )
∆x 2
,j,k
2
,j,k ∆𝑦 i, 2 ,k i,
2
,k
Δt
− (H ∗ k+1 − H ∗ k-1 )
∆z i,j, 2 i,j,
2
Eq. 6.7
Dimensional splitting is often used here to improve speed and stability, though accuracy may
diminish (Strang, 1968). Clearly conservation is satisfied due to

 
   F .n
Volumes faces

k k  =  Fk .nk
i boundary
Eq. 6.8

so the net flux equal to the contribution from the boundary.

6.2 Unsteady 2D Poisson Equation

The unsteady form of 2D Poisson equation can be written as
∂ϕ ∂2 ϕ ∂2 ϕ
− ( 2 + 2) = S
∂t ∂x ∂y
∂ϕ̄i 1 1
= ∑ ∇ϕ .n̂ds + ∬ SdA = −R(ϕ̄)
∂t Ai Vi CVi
Boundary
Eq. 6.9

163 Matthew Hubbard, “Finite Volume Schemes: A Tutorial”, University of Leeds, UK.
 135

This unsteady equation can be cast in a finite-volume formulation as above. The flux integral,
representing the spatial discretization and the source-term control-volume average, forms the
residual of the scheme.

6.3 General Steady 2D Transport Equation in Finite Volume

We will outline in detail the individual steps following closely the development in [Schafer]164,
(except the solution of algebraic systems). We will do this by example for the general stationary
transport, namely,
∂ ∂φ
(ρvi φ − Γ ) = f
∂xi ∂xi
Eq. 6.10
for some problem domain Ω. The starting point for a finite-volume discretization is a decomposition
of the problem domain Ω into a finite number of subdomains Vi (i = 1, . . . , N), called control volumes
(CVs), and related nodes where the unknown variables are to be computed. The union of all CVs
should cover the whole problem domain. In
general, the CVs also may overlap, but since this
results in unnecessary complications we consider
here the non-overlapping case only. Since finally
each CV gives one equation for computing the
nodal values, their final number (i.e., after the
incorporation of boundary conditions) should be
equal to the number of CVs. Usually, the CVs and
the nodes are defined on the basis of a numerical
grid, which, for instance, is generated. In order to
keep the usual terminology of the FVM, we
always talk of volumes (and their surfaces),
although strictly speaking this is only correct for
the three-dimensional case. For one-dimensional
problems the CVs are subintervals of the problem
interval and the nodes can be the midpoints or Figure 6.1 Definition of CVs and Nodes for
the edges of the subintervals (see Figure 6.1). Triangular Grids with Donald Polygons
For three-dimensional problems on the basis of
hexahedral or tetrahedral grids similar techniques as in the two-dimensional case can be applied. By
integration of (Eq. 6.10) over an arbitrary control volume V and application of the Gauss integral
theorem, one obtains:
𝜕𝜑
∫ (ρv𝑖 φ − Γ ) 𝑛 dS = ∫ f dV
𝑆 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑖 𝑉
Eq. 6.11
where S is the surface of the CV and ni are the components of the unit normal vector to the surface.
The integral balance equation (Eq. 6.10) constitutes the starting point for the further discretization
of the considered problem with an FVM. As an example we consider quadrilateral CVs with a cell-
oriented arrangement of nodes (a generalization to arbitrary polygons poses no principal
difficulties). For a general quadrilateral CV we use the notations of the distinguished points
(midpoint, midpoints of faces, and edge points) and the unit normal vectors according to the so-called
compass notation as indicated in Figure 6.2 (a). The midpoints of the directly neighboring CVs we

164Schafer, M., “Computational Engineering - Introduction to Numerical Methods”, 2006, X, 321 p. 204 ill ..
Softcover ISBN: 978-3-540-30685-6.
 136

denote – again in compass notation – with capital letters S, SE, etc. (see Figure 6.2 (b)).

(a) Quadrilateral control volume (b) Notations for neighboring

with notations control volumes
Figure 6.2 Finite Volume in a 2D Hexahedra Cell – Courtesy of [Schafer]

The surface integral in (Eq. 6.11) can be split into the sum of the four surface integrals over the cell
faces Sc (c = e ,w, n, s) of the CV, such that the balance equation (Eq. 6.11) can be written equivalently
in the form

∂φ
∑ ∫ ( ρv
⏟ iφ − Γ ) nci dSc = ∫ f dV
Sc ⏟ ∂xi V
c convective
diffusivetive
Eq. 6.12
The expression (Eq. 6.12) represents a balance equation for the convective FCC and diffusive fluxes
and FDC through the CV faces, respectively. For a complete description of the analysis, reader should
check out the [Schafer]165.

6.3.1 Approximation of Surface and Volume Integrals

We start with the approximation of the surface integrals in (Eq. 6.12), which for a cell-centered
variable arrangement suitably is carried out in two steps:

(1) Approximation of the surface integrals (fluxes) by values on the CV faces.

(2) Approximation of the variable values at the CV faces by node values.

The integral can be approximated in different ways by involving more or less values of the integrand
at the CV face. The simplest possibility is an approximation by just using the midpoint of the face:

∫ wi nei dSe ≈ g e δSe

Sc
Eq. 6.13

165Schafer, M., “Computational Engineering - Introduction to Numerical Methods”, 2006, X, 321 p. 204 ill ..
Softcover ISBN: 978-3-540-30685-6.
 137

where we denote with ge = weinei the

normal component of w at the location Name Formula Order
e. With this, one obtains an MidPoint Rule δS g
e e 2
approximation of 2nd order (with Trapezoid Rule δSe(gne+gse)/2 2
respect to the face length δSe) for the Simpson Rule δS e(gne+4ge+gse)/6 4
surface integral, which can be checked
Table 6.1 Approximations for Surface Integrals Over the
by means of a Taylor series expansion. Face Se - Courtesy of [Schafer]
The integration formula (Eq. 6.13)
corresponds to the midpoint rule
known from numerical integration. Other common integration formulas, that can be employed for
such approximations are, for instance, the trapezoidal rule and the Simpson rule. The
corresponding formulas are summarized in Table 6.1 with their respective orders (with respect to
δSe). For instance, by applying the midpoint rule for the approximation of the convective and diffusive
fluxes through the CV faces in (Eq. 6.12), we obtain the approximations:

∂φ
FCC ≈ ⏟
ρvi nci g e δSe φc and FCD ≈ −Γnci δSc ( )
∂xi c
ṁ c
Eq. 6.14
where, for simplicity, we have assumed that vi, ρ, and Г are constant across the CV. m˙c denotes the
mass flux through the face Sc. Inserting the definition of the normal vector, we obtain, for instance,
for the convective flux through the face Se, the approximation

FCC ≈ ṁe φe = ρ[v1 (yne − yse ) − v2 (xne − xse )]

Eq. 6.15
Before we turn to the further discretization of the fluxes, we first deal with the approximation of the
volume integral in (Eq. 6.12), which normally also is carried out by means of numerical integration.
The assumption that the value fP of f in the CV center represents an average value over the CV leads
to the two-dimensional midpoint rule:

1
∫ fdv ≈ fp δv = fp |(xse − xnw )(yne − ysw ) − (xne − xsw )(yse − ynw )|
⏟
2
v δv
Eq. 6.16
An overview of the most common two-dimensional integration formulas for Cartesian CVs with the
corresponding error order (with respect to δV). It should be noted that the formulas for the two
dimensional numerical integration can be used to approximate the surface integrals occurring in
three dimensional applications. For three-dimensional volume integrals analogous integration
formulas as for the two-dimensional case are available. In summary, by applying the midpoint rule
(to which we will restrict ourselves) we now have the following approximation for the balance
equation (Eq. 6.12):

∂φ
∑ ṁc φc − ∑ Γnci δSc ( ) = f⏟
p δv
∂xi c
⏟c ⏟c source
conv. fluxes diff. fluxes
Eq. 6.17
In the next step it is necessary to approximate the function values and derivatives of φ at the CV faces
 138

occurring in the convective and diffusive flux

expressions, respectively, by variable values in
the nodes (here the CV centers). In order to
clearly outline the essential principles, we will
first explain the corresponding approaches for
a two-dimensional Cartesian CV as indicated in
Figure 6.3. In this case the unit normal vectors
nc along the CV faces.

6.3.2 Discretization of Convective Fluxes

For the further approximation of the convective
fluxes FCC , it is necessary to approximate φc by
variable values in the CV centers. In general,
this involves using neighboring nodal values
φE, φP, . . . of φc. The methods most frequently
employed in practice for the approximation
will be explained in the following, where we can
restrict ourselves to one-dimensional Figure 6.3 Cartesian Control Volume with
considerations for the face Se, since the other Notations in Formulas Analogous to Finite-
faces and the second (or third) spatial Difference Methods – Courtesy of [Schafer]
dimension can be treated in a fully analogous
way. Traditionally, the corresponding approximations are called differencing techniques. Strictly
speaking, these are interpolation techniques.

6.3.3 Central Differences

For the central differencing scheme (CDS) φe is approximated by linear interpolation with the values
in the neighboring nodes P and E (see Figure 6.4):

𝑥𝑒 − 𝑥𝑝
φ𝑒 ≈ γ𝑒 φ𝐸 + (1 − γ𝑒 )φ𝑝 where γ𝑒 =
𝑥𝐸 − 𝑥𝑝
Eq. 6.18
The approximation (Eq. 6.18) has, for an
equidistant grid as well as for a no equidistant
grid, an interpolation error of 2nd order. This
can be seen from a Taylor series expansion of
φ around the point xP. By involving additional
grid points, central differencing schemes of
higher order can be defined. (see
[Schafer]166).

6.3.4 Upwind Techniques

The simplest upwind method results if φ is
approximated by a step function. Here, φe is
determined depending on the direction of the
mass flux as follows (see Figure 6.5):
Figure 6.4 Approximation of φe with CDS Method
– Courtesy of [Schafer]

166Schafer, M., “Computational Engineering - Introduction to Numerical Methods”, 2006, X, 321 p. 204 ill ..
Softcover ISBN: 978-3-540-30685-6.
 139

φe = φp if ṁe > 0
φe = φE if ṁ e < 0
Eq. 6.19
This method is called upwind
differencing scheme (UDS). Using a
Taylor series expansion of φ around the
point xP, evaluated at the point xe, has an
interpolation error of 1st order. The
leading error term in the resulting
approximation of the convective flux FC
e becomes

∂φ
ṁ (x
⏟e e − x p ) ( )
∂x p
Γnum
Eq. 6.20
The error caused by this is called
artificial or numerical diffusion, since
the error term can be interpreted as a
diffusive flux. The coefficient Гnum is a Figure 6.5 Mass flux Dependent Approximation of φe
measure for the amount of the numerical with UDS Method
diffusion. If the transport direction is
nearly perpendicular to the CV face, the
approximation of the convective fluxes resulting with the UDS method is comparably good (the
derivative (∂φ/∂x)P is then small). Otherwise the approximation can be quite inaccurate and for large
mass fluxes (i.e., large velocities) it can then be necessary to employ very fine grids (i.e., xe − xP very
small) for the computation in order to achieve a solution with an adequate accuracy. The
disadvantage of the relatively poor accuracy is confronted by the advantage that the UDS method
leads to an unconditionally bounded solution algorithm.
An upwind approximation frequently employed in practice is the quadratic upwind interpolation,

Figure 6.6 Mass flux dependent approximation of φe with QUICK method – Courtesy of [Schafer]
 140

which in the literature is known as the QUICK method (Quadratic Upwind Interpolation for
Convective Kinematics). Here, a quadratic polynomial is fitted through the two neighboring points
P and E, and a third point, which is located upstream (W or EE depending on the flow direction).
Evaluating this polynomial at point e one obtains the approximation (see also Figure 6.6):
For an equidistant grid one has:

φe = a1 φE − a2 φw + (1 − a1 + a2 )φp if ṁe > 0

where
φe = b1 φp − b2 φEE + (1 − b1 + b2 )φE if ṁ e < 0
(2 − γw )γ2e (1 − γe )(1 − γw )2
a1 = , a2 =
1 + γe − γw 1 + γe − γw
2
(1 + γw )(1 − γe ) γ2ee γe
b1 = , b2 =
1 + γee − γe 1 + γee − γe
Eq. 6.21
In this case the QUICK method possesses an interpolation error of 3rd order. However, if it is used
together with numerical integration of only 2nd order the overall flux approximation also is only of
2nd order, but it is somewhat more accurate than with the CDS method.

6.3.5 Flux-Blending Technique

The principal idea of flux-blending, which goes back to [Khosla und Rubin] (1974), is to mix different
approximations for the convective flux. In this way one attempts to combine the advantages of an
accurate approximation of a higher order scheme with the better robustness and boundedness
properties of a lower order scheme (mostly the UDS method). To explain the method we again
consider exemplarily the face Se of a CV. The corresponding approximations for φe in the convective
flux FCe for the two methods to be combined are denoted by φMLe and φMHe , where ML and MH are
the lower and higher order methods, respectively. The approximation for the combined method
reads:
φe ≈ βφMH ML
e + (1 − β)φe
Eq. 6.22
From Eq. 6.22, for β = 0 and β = 1 the methods ML and MH, respectively, result. However, it is
possible to choose for β any other value between 0 and 1, allowing to control the portions of the
corresponding methods according to the needs of the underlying problem. However, due to the loss
in accuracy, values β < 1 should be selected only if with β = 1 on the given grid no “reasonable”
solution can be obtained and a finer grid is not possible due to limitations in memory or computing
time. Also, if β = 1 (i.e., the higher order method) is employed, it can be beneficial to use the splitting
according to Eq. 6.22 in order to treat the term bφ,e β “explicitly” in combination with an iterative
solver. This means that this term is computed with (known) values of φ from the preceding iteration
and added to the source term. This may lead to a more stable iterative solution procedure, since this
(probably critical) term then makes no contribution to the system matrix, which becomes more
diagonally dominant. It should be pointed out that this modification has no influence on the
converged solution, which is identical to that obtained with the higher order method MH alone.

6.3.6 Discretization of Diffusive Fluxes

For the approximation of diffusive fluxes it is necessary to approximate the values of the normal
derivative of φ at the CV faces by nodal values in the CV centers. For the east face Se of the CV, which
we will again consider exemplarily, one has to approximate (in the Cartesian case) the derivative
(∂φ/∂x)e. For this, difference formulas as they are common in the framework of the finite-difference
method can be used. The simplest approximation one obtains when using a central differencing
 141

formula
∂φ φE − φp
( ) ≈
∂x e xE − xp
Eq. 6.23
which is equivalent to the assumption that φ is a linear function between the points xP and xE (see
Figure 6.7). For the discussion of the error of this approximation, we consider the difference of the
Taylor series expansion around xe at the locations xP and xE:

2
∂φ φE − φp (xe − xp ) − (xE − xe )2 ∂2 φ
( ) = + ( 2)
∂x e xE − xp 2(xE − xp ) ∂x e
3
(xe − xp ) − (xE − xe )3 ∂3 φ
− ( 3 ) + TH
6(xE − xp ) ∂x e
Eq. 6.24
One can observe that for an equidistant grid an error of 2nd order results, since in this case the
coefficient in front of the second derivative is zero. In the case of non-equidistant grids, one obtains
by a simple algebraic rearrangement that this leading error term is proportional to the grid spacing
and the expansion rate ξe of neighboring grid spacings:

(1 − 𝜉𝑒 )(𝑥𝑒 − 𝑥𝑝 ) ∂2 φ xE − xe
( 2 ) with ξ𝑒 =
2 ∂x e xe − xp
Eq. 6.25
This means that the portion of
the 1st order error term gets
larger the more the expansion
rate deviates from 1. This aspect
should be taken into account in
the grid generation such that
neighboring CVs do not differ
that much in the corresponding
dimensions. formula for
approximation of 1st derivative at
CV face One obtains a 4th order
approximation of the derivative
at the CV face for an equidistant
grid by

∂φ 1
( ) ≈ (φw
∂x e 24∆x
− 27φp Figure 6.7 Central Differencing Formula for Approximation of 1st
Derivative at CV face – Courtesy of [Schafer]
+ 27φE
− φEE )
Eq. 6.26
which, for instance, can be used together with the Simpson rule to obtain an overall approximation
 142

for the diffusive flux of 4th order. Although principally there are also other possibilities for
approximating the derivatives (e.g., forward or backward differencing formulas), in practice almost
only central differencing formulas are employed, which possess the best accuracy for a given number
of grid points involved in the discretization. Problems with boundedness, as for the convective fluxes,
do not exist. Thus, there is no reason to use less accurate approximations. For CVs located at the
boundary of the problem domain, it might be necessary to employ forward or backward differencing
formulas because there are no grid points beyond the boundary.

6.3.7 Non-Cartesian Grids

The previous considerations with respect to the discretization of the convective and diffusive fluxes
were confined to the case of Cartesian grids. In this section we will discuss necessary modifications
for general (quadrilateral) CVs. For the convective fluxes, simple generalizations of the schemes
introduced (e.g., UDS, CDS, QUICK, . . . ) can be employed for the approximation of φc. For instance, a
corresponding CDS approximation for φe reads:

|xe̅ − xp | |xe̅ − xp |
φ𝑒 = φ𝐸 + φ𝑝
|xE − xp | |xE − xp |
Eq. 6.27
where xē is the intersection of the connecting line of the points P and E with the (probably extended)
CV face Se (see Figure 6.8). For the convective flux through Se this results in the following
approximation:
ṁ𝑒
F𝑒𝐶 ≈ (|xe̅ − xp |φ𝐸 + |xE − xe̅ |φ𝑝 )
|xE − xp |
Eq. 6.28

Figure 6.8 Central difference approximation Figure 6.9 Approximation of diffusive fluxes
of convective fluxes for non-Cartesian control for non-Cartesian control volumes – Courtesy of
volumes – Courtesy of [Schafer] [Schafer]

When the grid at the corresponding face has a “kink”, an additional error results because the points
x˜e and xe do not coincide (see Figure 6.8). This aspect should be taken into account for the grid
generation. Let us turn to the approximation of the diffusive fluxes, for which farther reaching
distinctions to the artesian case arise as for the convective fluxes. Here, for the required
approximation of the normal derivative of φ in the center of the CV face there are a variety of different
possibilities, depending on the directions in which the derivative is approximated, the locations
 143

where the appearing derivatives are evaluated, and the node values which are used for the
interpolation. As an example we will give here one variant and consider only the CV face Se. Since
along the normal direction in general there are no nodal points, the normal derivative has to be
expressed by derivatives along other suitable directions. For this we use here the coordinates ξ and
ῆ defined according to Figure 6.9. The direction ˜ξ is determined by the connecting line between
points P and E, and the direction ˜η is determined by the direction of the CV face. Note that ˜ξ and ˜η,
because of a distortion of the grid, can deviate from the directions ξ und η, which are defined by the
connecting lines of P with the CV face centers e and n. The larger these deviations are, the larger the
discretization error becomes. This is another aspect that has to be taken into account when
generating the grid.
A coordinate transformation (x, y) → (˜ξ, ˜η) results for the normal derivative in the following
representation in (see [Schafer]167), which results for the Jacobi determinant in the approximation
where ψ denotes the angle between the direction ˜ξ and ne (see Figure 6.9). ψ is a measure for the
deviation of the grid from orthogonality (ψ = 0 for an orthogonal grid). The derivatives with respect
to ˜ξ and ˜η can be approximated in the usual way with a finite-difference formula. For example, the
use of a central difference of 2nd order gives:

∂φ φE − φp ∂φ φne − φse
≈ and ≈
∂ξ̅ |xE − xp | ∂η̅ δSe
Eq. 6.29
Inserting the approximations, Eq. 6.29, and using the component representation of the unit normal
vector ne we finally obtain the following approximation for the diffusive flux through the CV face Se:

FeD ≈ De (φE − φp ) + Ne (φne − φse ) where

Γ [(yne − yse )2 + (xne − xse )2 ]
De =
(xne − xse )(yE − yp ) − (xE − xp )(yne − yse )
Γ [(𝑦𝑛𝑒 − 𝑦𝑠𝑒 )(𝑦𝐸 − 𝑦𝑝 ) + (𝑥𝑛𝑒 − 𝑥𝑠𝑒 )(𝑥𝐸 − 𝑥𝑝 )]
Ne =
(𝑥𝐸 − 𝑥𝑝 )(𝑦𝑛𝑒 − 𝑦𝑠𝑒 ) − (𝑥𝑛𝑒 − 𝑥𝑠𝑒 )(𝑦𝐸 − 𝑦𝑝 )
Eq. 6.30
The coefficient Ne represents the portion that arise due to
the non-orthogonality of the grid. If the grid is orthogonal,
ne and xE − xP have the same direction such that Ne = 0. The
coefficient Ne (and the corresponding values for the other
CV faces) should be kept as small as possible. The values
for φne and φse in Eq. 6.30 can be approximated, for
instance, by linear interpolation of four neighboring nodal
values:

γp φp + γE φE + γN φN + γNE φNE
φne = Figure 6.10 Interpolation of values in
γp + γE + γN + γNE CV edges for discretization of diffusive
Eq. 6.31 fluxes for non-Cartesian CV – Courtesy of
with suitable interpolation factors γP, γE, γN, and γNE (see [Schafer]

167Schafer, M., “Computational Engineering - Introduction to Numerical Methods”, 2006, X, 321 p. 204 ill ..
Softcover ISBN: 978-3-540-30685-6.
 144

Figure 6.10).

6.3.8 Discrete Transport Equation

Let us now return to our example of the general two-dimensional transport equation Eq. 6.12 and
apply the approximation techniques introduced in the preceding sections to it. We employ
exemplarily the midpoint rule for the integral approximations, the UDS method for the convective
flux, and the CDS method for the diffusive flux. Additionally, we assume that we have velocity
components v1, v2 > 0 and that the grid is a Cartesian one. With these assumptions one obtains the
following approximation of the balance equation Eq. 6.12:

ap φp = aE φE + aw φw + aN φN + as φs + bp
Eq, 6.32
with the coefficients

Γ
aE =
(xE − xp )(xe − xw )
𝜌𝑣1 Γ
a𝑤 = +
𝑥𝑒 − 𝑥𝑤 (𝑥𝑝 − 𝑥𝑤 )(𝑦𝑒 − 𝑦𝑤 )
Γ
aN =
(yN − yp )(yn − ys )
ρv2 Γ
as = +
yN − ys (yp − ys )(yn − ys )
ρv1 Γ(xE − xw )
ap = + +
xe − xw (xp − xw )(xE − xp )(xe − xw )
ρv2 Γ(yN − ys )
+
yn − ys (yp − ys )(yN − yp )(yn − ys )
bp = fp
Eq. 6.33

6.3.9 Treatment of Boundary Conditions

In this particular case (Eq. 6.33) coincides with a discretization
that would result from a corresponding finite-difference method
(for general grids this normally is not the case). It can be seen that
– independent from the grid employed – one has for the
coefficients in (Eq. 6.33) the relation aP = aE + aW + aN + aS . This is
characteristic for finite-volume discretization and expresses the
conservatively of the method. We will return to this important
property. Eq. 6.33 is valid in this form for all CVs, which are not
located at the boundary of the problem domain. For boundary CVs
the approximation it includes nodal values outside the problem
domain, such that they require a special treatment depending on
the given type of boundary condition. Figure 6.11 Cartesian
We consider the three boundary condition types that most boundary CV at west boundary
with notations
frequently occur for the considered type of problems (see Chap.
 145

2): a prescribed variable value, a prescribed flux, and a symmetry boundary. For an explanation of
the implementation of such conditions into a finite-volume method, we consider as an example a
Cartesian CV at the west boundary (see Figure 6.11) for the transport equation (Eq. 6.12).
Correspondingly modified approaches for the non-Cartesian case or for other types of equations can
be formulated analogously. Let us start with the case of a prescribed boundary value φw = φ0. For the
convective flux at the boundary one has the approximation:

C
Fw ≈ ṁ𝑤 φ𝑤 = ṁ𝑤 φ0
Eq. 6.34
With this the approximation of FCw is known (the mass flux m˙w at the boundary is also known) and
can simply be introduced in the balance equation (Eq. 6.17). This results in an additional
contribution to the source term bP. The diffusive flux through the boundary is determined with the
same approach as in the interior of the domain. Analogously, the derivative at the boundary can be
approximated as follows:
∂φ φp − φw φp − φ0
( ) ≈ =
∂x w xp − xw xp − xw
Eq. 6.35
This corresponds to a forward difference formula of 1st order. Of course, it is also possible to apply
more elaborate formulas of higher order. However, since the distance between the boundary point
w and the point P is smaller than the distance between two inner points (half as much for an
equidistant grid, see Figure 6.11), a lower order approximation at the boundary usually does not
influence the overall accuracy that much. In summary, one has for the considered boundary CV a
relation of the form (Eq. 6.33) with the modified coefficients:

aw = 0
ρv1 Γ(xE − xw )
ap = + +
xe − xw (xp − xw )(xE − xp )(xe − xw )
ρv2 Γ(yN − ys )
+
yn − ys (yp − ys )(yN − yp )(yn − ys )
𝜌𝑣1 Γ
b𝑝 = f𝑝 + ( + ) φ0
𝑥𝑒 − 𝑥𝑤 (𝑥𝑝 − 𝑥𝑤 )(𝑦𝑒 − 𝑦𝑤 )
Eq. 6.36
All other coefficients are computed as for a CV in the interior of the problem domain. Let us now
consider the case where the flux Fw = F0 is prescribed at the west boundary. The flux through the CV
face is obtained by dividing F0 through the length of the face xe−xw. The resulting value is introduced
in (Eq. 6.17) as total flux and the modified coefficients for the boundary CV become:

aw = 0
ρv1 Γ
ap = + +
xe − xw (xp − xw )(xE − xp )(xe − xw )
𝜌𝑣2 𝛤(𝑦𝑁 − 𝑦𝑠 )
+
𝑦𝑛 − 𝑦𝑠 (𝑦𝑝 − 𝑦𝑠 )(𝑦𝑁 − 𝑦𝑝 )(𝑦𝑛 − 𝑦𝑠 )
 146

F0
bp = fp +
xe − xw
Eq. 6.37
All other coefficients remain unchanged. Sometimes it is possible to exploit symmetries of a problem
in order to downsize the problem domain to save computing time or get a higher accuracy (with a
finer grid) with the same computational effort. In such cases one has to consider symmetry planes or
symmetry lines at the corresponding problem boundary. In this case one has the boundary condition:

∂φ
n =0
∂xi i
Eq. 6.38
From this condition it follows that the diffusive flux through the symmetry boundary is zero. Since
also the normal component of the velocity vector has to be zero at a symmetry boundary (i.e., vini =
0), the mass flux and, therefore, the convective flux through the boundary is zero. Thus, in the balance
equation (Eq. 6.17) the total flux through the corresponding CV face can be set to zero. For the
boundary CV in Figure 6.11 this results in the following modified coefficients:

aw = 0
ρv1 Γ
ap = + +
xe − xw (xE − xp )(xe − xw )
ρv2 Γ(yN − ys )
+
yn − ys (yp − ys )(yN − yp )(yn − ys )

If required, the (unknown) variable value at the boundary can be determined by a finite-difference
approximation of the boundary condition (Eq. 6.38). In the considered case, for instance, with a
forward difference formula one simply obtains φw = φP. As with all other discretization techniques,
the algebraic system of equations resulting from a finite-volume discretization has a unique solution
only if the boundary conditions at all boundaries of the problem domain are taken into account (e.g.,
as outlined above). Otherwise there would be more unknowns than equations.

6.3.10 Case Study - Numerical Analysis of Turbulent Flow Around 2D Bodies168

This paper deals with the numerical simulation of a turbulent flow around two-dimensional bodies
by the finite volume method with non-orthogonal body-fitted grid. The governing equations are
expressed in Cartesian velocity components and solution is carried out using the SIMPLE algorithm
for collocated arrangement of scalar and vector variables. Turbulence is modeled by the k-
turbulence model and wall functions are used to bridge the solution variables at the near wall cells
and the corresponding quantities on the wall. A simplified pressure correction equation is derived
and proper under-relaxation factors are used so that computational cost is reduced without
adversely affecting the convergence rate. The numerical procedure is validated by comparing the
computed pressure distribution on the surface of NACA 0012 and NACA 4412 hydrofoils for different
angles of attack with experimental data. The grid dependency of the solution is studied by varying
the number of cells of the C-type structured mesh. The computed lift coefficients of NACA 4412
hydrofoil at different angles of attack are also compared with experimental results to further

Md. Shahjada Tarafder and M. Al Mursaline, “Numerical Analysis Of Turbulent Flow Around Two Dimensional
168

Bodies Using Non-Orthogonal Body-Fitted Mesh”, Int. J. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019.
 147

substantiate the validity of the proposed methodology.

6.3.10.1 Introduction and Literature Survey

Turbulence being so ubiquitous in nature has its prominent influence in almost all practical flows,
thus making its computation so important for applied mathematicians and engineers. However, the
fluid mechanics phenomena in the turbulent flow regime are interesting and at the same time
considerably more complicated. In addition to the inherent complicacies of the system of partial
differential equations governing fluid flow, turbulence and geometric complexities of the domain give
rise to further challenges. While turbulence may be dealt with using a suitable turbulence model,
domain complexity may be circumvented using body fitted coordinates.
In the past, various methods were employed to overcome these difficulties associated with numerical
computation of turbulent flow in complex domains. Rhie169 used finite volume method for the
solution of two-dimensional incompressible, steady turbulent flows over airfoils using k -ε
turbulence model and wall functions. Instead of staggered grids, the body fitted grid utilized a
collocated arrangement of variables where the false pressure field was avoided by special
momentum interpolation. Peric170 developed a finite volume method for viscous flow in complex
geometries, discretizing the governing transport equations in terms of Cartesian vector and tensor
components and arbitrary non-orthogonal coordinates.
[Demirdzic et al.]171 provided a complete exposition of a finite volume approach to the calculation of
turbulent flows. [Karki and Patankar ]172 presented a general calculation procedure for computing
fluid flow and related phenomenon in arbitrary-shaped domains with physical covariant velocity
components selected as the dependent variables in momentum equations and the coupling between
the continuity and momentum equations ensured using the SIMPLE algorithm.
[Majumdar]173 reported that solutions of steady-state problems from [Rhie and Chow] momentum
interpolation are dependent on the under-relaxation factor. [Choi]174 reported that the solution using
the original [Rhie and Chow] scheme is time step size dependent. He proposed a modified [Rhie and
Chow] scheme for an unsteady problem which is quite similar to the scheme for a steady problem
used by [Majumdar].
Moreover, [Masuko and Ogiwara]175 carried out numerical simulation of viscous flow around ships
having practical hull forms. The governing equations were discretized by finite difference
approximation and solved with SIMPLE algorithm adopting the k-ε turbulence model and standard
wall functions. [Yu et al.]176 discussed different momentum interpolation practices for collocated grid
systems. [Mulvany et al.]177 carried out an assessment of two-equation turbulence models for high

169 Rhie C.M. (1981): A Numerical Study of the Flow Past an Isolated Airfoil with Separation. PhD Thesis, Dept.
of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
170 Peric M. (1985): A Finite Volume Method for the Prediction of Three-Dimensional Fluid Flow in Complex Ducts.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.

171 Demirdzic I., Gosman A.D., Issa R.I. and Peric M. (1987): A calculation procedure for turbulent flow in complex

geometries. Computers and Fluids, vol.15, pp.251-273.

172 Karki K.C and Patanker S.V. (1988): Calculation procedure for viscous incompressible flows in complex

geometries. Numerical Heat Transfer, vol.14, pp.295-307.

173 Majumdar S. (1988): Role of under-relaxation in momentum interpolation for calculation of flow with Non-

staggered grids. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, vol.13, pp.125-132.

174 Choi S.K. (1999): Note on the use of momentum interpolation method for unsteady flows. Numerical. Heat

Transfer, Part A, vol.36, pp.545-550.

175 Masuko A. and Ogiwara S. (1990): Numerical simulation of viscous flow around practical Hull form. Fifth

International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, pp.211-224.

176 Yu B., Tao W. and Wei J. (2002): Discussion on momentum interpolation method for collocated grids of

incompressible flow. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, vol.42, pp.141-166.

177 Mulvany N., Tu J.Y., Chen L. and Anderson B. (2004): Assessment of two-equation turbulence modeling for high

Reynolds number hydrofoil flow. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol.45, pp.275-299.
 148

Reynolds number hydrofoil flows using the finite volume method and SIMPLE solution technique.
[Kuzmin and Mierka]178 presented a detailed numerical study of the k-ε turbulence model using
algebraic flux correction to enforce the positivity constraint. Emphasis was laid on a new
implementation of wall functions whereby the boundary conditions for κ and ε were prescribed in a
weak sense. [Demirdzic]179 discussed the discretization of diffusion term in finite volume continuum
mechanics. [Martınez et al.]180 proposed a possible correction for under-relaxation factor
dependency in the Original Momentum Interpolation Method (OMIM).
The aim of the present paper is to simulate the turbulent flow around two-dimensional bodies by the
finite volume method with non-orthogonal body fitted grid. The k-ε turbulence model and wall
functions are used to bridge the solution variables at the near wall cells and the corresponding
quantities on the wall. The solution is carried out using the SIMPLE algorithm with a simplified
pressure correction equation for collocated arrangement for scalar and vector variables. Despite
using a simplified pressure correction equation to reduce computational cost, and facilitate the
solution of linear systems, a satisfactory convergence rate is achieved by proper choice of under-
relaxation factors. The pressure distribution and lift forces on the surface of the hydrofoils far away
from the free surface are compared with the experiment and the agreement is found to be quite
satisfactory which reflects the accuracy of the present numerical methodology.

6.3.10.2 Governing Equations

In the Cartesian co-ordinate system, the steady two-dimensional turbulent flow around a hydrofoil
for an incompressible fluid is governed by the following time-averaged equations

∂u ∂v
+ =0
∂x ∂y
∂(ρuu) ∂(ρuv) ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂u ∂p
+ = [(μ + μT ) ]+ [(μ + μT ) ]−
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x
∂(ρuv) ∂(ρvv) ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂v ∂p
+ = [(μ + μT ) ]+ [(μ + μT ) ]−
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂y
Eq. 6.39
where u and v are the mean velocity components in the x and y directions, respectively, ρ is the fluid
density, P is the mean pressure and μ is the laminar viscosity. μT is the turbulent viscosity and is given
by
κ2
μT = C μ ρ
ε
Eq. 6.40
where k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ε is the dissipation rate of k and Cμ is a constant. In the k -ε
turbulence model, k and ε are governed by the following transport equations in the Cartesian
coordinate system

178 Kuzmin D. and Mierka O. (2006): On the implementation of the k- turbulence model in incompressible flow
solvers based on a finite element discretization. International Conference on Boundary and Interior Layers, Bail
2006, Germany, pp.1-8.
179 Demirdzic I. (2015): On the discretization of diffusion term in finite-volume continuum mechanics. Numerical

Heat Transfer, Part B, vol.68, pp.1-10.

180 Martınez J., Piscagliaa F., Montorfanoa A., Onoratia A. and Aithalb S.M. (2017): Influence of momentum

interpolation methods on the accuracy and convergence of pressure-velocity coupling algorithms in Open FOAM.
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol.309, pp.654-673.
 149

∂(ρuκ) ∂(ρvκ) ∂ 𝜇 𝑇 ∂𝜅 ∂ 𝜇 𝑇 ∂𝜅
+ = [(μ + ) ]+ [(μ + ) ] + G − ρε
∂x ∂y ∂x 𝜎𝜅 ∂x ∂y 𝜎𝜅 ∂y
∂(ρuε) ∂(ρvε)
+
∂x ∂y
∂ 𝜇 𝑇 ∂𝜀 ∂ 𝜇 𝑇 ∂𝜀 𝜀
= [(μ + ) ] + [(μ + ) ] + (C𝜀1 G − C𝜀2 ρε)
∂x 𝜎𝜀 ∂x ∂y 𝜎𝜀 ∂y 𝜅
Eq. 6.41
where G is the production of k and is given by

∂u 2 ∂v 2 ∂u ∂v 2
G = 2μT [( ) + ( ) ] +μT ( + )
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
Eq. 6.42
The standard values of the constants are as follows

C𝜇 = 0.09 , σ𝜅 = 1 , σ𝜀 = 1.3 , C 𝜀1 = 1.44 , C 𝜀2 = 1.92

Eq. 6.43
Eq. 6.39-Eq. 6.42 may be represented in the following generic form

∂(ρuφ) ∂(ρvφ) ∂ ∂φ ∂ ∂φ
+ = [Γ ]+ [Γ ] + R 𝜑 (x, y)
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
Eq. 6.44
where u and v are the mean velocity components, φ is any generic dependent variable u, v,k ,ε Γ is
an effective diffusion coefficient and Rφ is the source term. Note that for continuity equation φ = 1, Γ
= 0 , Rφ = 0 , for u-momentum equation φ = u , Γ = μ+μT , Rφ = -∂p/∂x and so on. Considering the body
fitted co-ordinate system, ξ = ξ (x, y) , η= η ( x, y) as shown in Figure 6.12 (a and b). Eq. 6.44 can
be transformed into the following form

1 ∂(ρUφ) 1 ∂(ρVφ)
+
J ∂ξ J ∂η
1 ∂ Γ ∂φ ∂φ 1 ∂ Γ ∂φ ∂φ
= [( α − β )] + [( γ − β )] + S φ (ξ, η)
J ∂ξ J ∂ξ ∂η J ∂η J ∂η ∂ξ
∂y ∂x ∂y ∂x
where U = u − v , V=v −u
∂η ∂η ∂ξ ∂ξ
Eq. 6.45
are the contra variant velocity components.

∂x 2 ∂y 2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑦 2
α=( ) +( ) , β= + , γ=( ) +( )
∂η ∂y 𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜂 𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜂 𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜉
Eq. 6.46
Sφ(ξ ,η) is the source term in ξ,η coordinates, J is the Jacobian of transformation and is given by
 150

𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
J= +
𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜂 𝜕𝜂 𝜕𝜉
Eq. 6.47

Figure 6.12 Coordinate System and C-type Control Volume

6.3.10.3 Boundary Conditions

Neglecting the effect of free surface, the boundary conditions for a flow field around a hydrofoil fixed
in a stream of uniform velocity u0 can be written as:

(a) Inflow boundary: The components of the flow variables are provided as

u = u0 v=0 κ = κ 0 ε = ε0
Eq. 6.48
(b) Outflow boundary: The outlet boundary is located far from the region of interest and the Reynolds
number is high, the gradient in the flow direction is taken to be zero. Thus

∂u ∂v ∂κ ∂ϵ
= = = =0
∂n ∂n ∂n ∂n
Eq. 6.49
where ∂/∂n is the derivative parallel to the streamlines;
(c) Solid boundary: The no slip boundary condition is applied on the surface of the hydrofoil.

u=0 , v=0 , κ=0, ε=0

Eq. 6.50
(d) Far-field boundary: The flow variables on the symmetry plane are prescribed as

us = up v=0 κs = κp εs = εp
Eq. 6.51
Moreover, as the standard k-ε turbulence model cannot be applied in the transition layer and also the
viscous sublayer around the hydrofoil, the wall functions are to be adopted.
 151

6.3.10.4 Finite Volume Discretization of Governing Equation

The discretization is performed following a finite control volume approach in which the
computational domain is divided into a number of contiguous quadrilateral cells. A collocated grid
arrangement is used in which all the variables are stored at the geometric center of the cell (see
Figure 6.13).

Figure 6.13 Collocated Grid Arrangement

The locations of the various dependent variables and the associated cells for this grid configuration.
Eq. 6.45 is integrated over the volume of each cell in the computational domain as

∂(ρUφ) ∂(ρVφ)
∫[ + ] dv =
∂ξ ∂η
CV
∂ Γ ∂φ ∂φ ∂ Γ ∂φ ∂φ
∫ [( α − β )] dv + ∫ [( γ − β )] dv + ∫ JS φ (ξ, η) dv
∂ξ J ∂ξ ∂η ∂η J ∂η ∂ξ
CV CV CV
Eq. 6.52
Applying Gauss’s divergence theorem to convert volume integrals to surface integrals, Eq. 6.52
after little rearrangement, may be written as

(ρUφ∆η) 𝑒𝑤 +(ρVφ∆ξ) 𝑛𝑠 =
e n e
Γ ∂φ Γ ∂φ Γ ∂φ
( α ∆η ) + ( γ ∆ξ ) + {− ( β ∆η )
J ∂ξ w
J ∂η s
J ∂η w
n
Γ ∂φ
−( β ∆ξ ) + J(S c + Sp φp )∆ξ∆η}
J ∂ξ s
Eq. 6.53
The cross derivative terms have been added to the source term which in turn has been linearized as
 152

suggested by [Patanker]181. Using the notation of Figure 6.13, the following approximations may be
made for the derivatives at face e:

∂x xE − xp ∂x (xn − xs )e xne − xse

( ) ≈ , ( ) ≈ =
∂ξ e ξE − ξp ∂η e (ηn − ηs )e ηne − ηse
∂y yE − yp ∂y (yn − ys )e yne − yse
( ) ≈ , ( ) ≈ =
∂ξ e ξE − ξp ∂η e (ηn − ηs )e ηne − ηse
Eq. 6.54
Analogous expressions may be derived for other faces. Eq. 6.68 can be written as

[ Fe φe − Fw φw + Fn φn − Fs φs ] =
[ De (φE − φ𝑝 ) − Dw (φp − φ𝑊 ) + Dn (φN − φ𝑝 ) − Ds (φp − φ𝑠 ) ] +
[ Ne (φn − φ𝑠 )𝑒 − Nw (φn − φ𝑠 )𝑤 + Nn (φe − φ𝑤 )𝑛 − Ns (φe − φ𝑤 )𝑠 ] +
[ (S𝑐 − S𝑝 φp )δV ]
Eq. 6.55
Central differencing is used to discretize the diffusion terms and suitable interpolation for the
convective terms is required to express cell face values in terms of nodal values. This is achieved from
[Demirdzic and Peric]182 by blending second-order central (CDS) differencing and first-order
unconditionally stable upwind differencing scheme (UDS) in a deferred correction manner

[ φUDS
e ]imlicit + λ [ φCDS
e − φUDS
e ]explicit
Eq. 6.56
where λ is the blending factor having value between 0 to 1. The explicit part in Eq. 6.56 is obtained
from previous iteration and added to the source term, like the cross derivative terms. Using the above
scheme for convective terms and after little manipulation, Eq. 6.55 can be written in the following
algebraic form

a𝑝 φ𝑝 = a𝑊 φ𝑊 + a𝐸 φ𝐸 + a𝑁 φ𝑁 + a𝑆 φ𝑆 + S ′
Eq. 6.57
Introducing an under-relaxation factor to slow down changes of the dependent variable in
consecutive iterations, Eq. 6.57 becomes

𝑎𝑝
( ) φ𝑝 = a𝑊 φ𝑊 + a𝐸 φ𝐸 + a𝑁 φ𝑁 + a𝑆 φ𝑆 + S 𝜑
𝛼𝜑
Eq. 6.58
For further information, please consult the development in [Shahjada Tarafder and Al Mursaline ]183.

181 Patanker S.V. (1980): Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. New York: McGraw-Hill.
182 Demirdzic I. and Peric M. (1990): Finite volume method for prediction of fluid flow in arbitrary shaped domains

with moving boundary. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol.10, pp.771-790.
183 Md. Shahjada Tarafder and M. Al Mursaline, “Numerical Analysis Of Turbulent Flow Around Two Dimensional

Bodies Using Non-Orthogonal Body-Fitted Mesh”, Int. J. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019.
 153

6.3.10.5 The Wall Functions

To close the statement of the problem, we still need to prescribe the tangential stress as well as the
boundary conditions for k and ε on the solid boundary. Note that the equations of the k - ε model are
invalid in the vicinity of the wall where the Reynolds number is rather low and viscous effects are
dominant. In the case of laminar flow, the no-slip wall boundary condition is directly applied at the
wall. For turbulent flows however, to avoid using finer grids near walls, where steep cross flow
gradients exist, ‘wall functions’ are used. These wall functions are given as follows

1/4 1/2 1/4 1/2

ρvt Cμ κp ρCμ κp np
τw = where n+
p =
1 μ
ln(En+
p)
κ
Eq. 6.59
vt is the wall parallel velocity and nP is the distance of the first computational node normal to the wall.

1/4 1/2 3/4 3/2

Cμ κ p Cμ κp np
G𝑝 = τ𝑤 εp =
κn𝑝 κn𝑝
Eq. 6.60

6.3.10.6 SIMPLE Algorithm

To obtain velocity and pressure fields and values of turbulent quantities, an iterative solution
procedure akin to the SIMPLE method (Patankar and Spalding]184) is used. In the present work the
scalar and vector variables are stored in a collocated manner.

6.3.10.7 Results and Discussion for NACA 0012 Hydrofoil

The flow past an NACA 0012 hydrofoil with 2.5 m chord length (C) is simulated at Rec = 2. 8 x106 with
grid sizes of 50 x 14 , 88 x 20, 176 x 40 and 0, 6, 10 degrees of incidence. A typical grid arrangement
for 176 x40 cells is shown in Fig.3. In the present simulation the inlet boundary at the front of the foil
along with the upper and bottom boundaries are located 4 chord lengths away from the leading edge.
The outlet boundary at the rear side is 8 chord lengths away from the leading edge. The under-
relaxation factors used are αu = αv = αk = αε = 0.7 , αp = 0.1 and the value of blending factor is λ = 0.5 .
A comparison of obtained pressure coefficients with its experimental results for (6 degree) and a grid
size of 176 x 40 is shown in Figure 6.14 (Top). From these figures it is evident that the computed
results agree very well with the experiment. In fact, at 0 and 6-degree incidence the result agrees
better than that obtained by [Rhie]185 near the leading edge. However, discrepancy can be noted at
the leading and trailing edges which may be attributed partly to inadequate turbulence modeling.
Moreover, the mesh may not be sufficiently fine to capture the very strong gradients existing in those
regions. In addition to the pressure coefficient curves, the pressure contours and streamlines at 6
degrees incidence are shown in Figure 6.14 (Bottom) for a grid size of 176 x 40 at Rec = 2 8 x106 .

184 Patanker S.V. and Spalding D.B. (1972): A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in
three dimensional parabolic flows. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.15, pp.1787–1806.
185 Rhie C.M. (1981): A Numerical Study of the Flow Past an Isolated Airfoil with Separation. PhD Thesis, Dept. of

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 154

The C type structured mesh with three different sizes was issued to investigate the influence on
surface pressure coefficients. At 10 degree angle of attack, pressure coefficients are computed at each
of the three grids. It is evident that refinement of the grid gives increased numerical accuracy of

Figure 6.14 Cp Contours for NACA 0012 Hydrofoil at 6 Degree Incidence

 155

pressure coefficients in the present case. Significant improvement is found on the suction side of the
hydrofoil. However, the effect on the pressure side (where the discrepancy is small) is less
considerable. For complete analysis, please see [Shahjada Tarafder and Al Mursaline ]186.

6.3.10.8 Conclusions
This paper presents the numerical computation of turbulent flow past hydrofoils using the finite
volume method with a k-ε turbulence model. The following conclusions can be drawn from the
present numerical study:

➢ The surface pressure distributions on a number of hydrofoils such as NACA0012187 and

NACA4412 located far from the free surface are computed and then compared with the
theoretical as well as experimental data. The agreement with established data is found to be
excellent except very close to the leading edge.
➢ Grid refinement is carried out systematically keeping a proper distance between the first
computational node and the wall. Significant improvement in results has been obtained with
a refined grid particularly near the leading edge.
➢ Despite simplifying the pressure correction equation by neglecting cross-diffusion
contributions,
➢ proper under-relaxation factors may be used so that computational cost is reduced without
adversely affecting the convergence rate.
➢ Lift coefficients are computed which exhibit an excellent agreement with experimental data
at lower angles of attack. However, due to poor performance of the k - ε turbulence model, at
higher angles of attack when flow separation takes place, the agreement is found to be less
satisfactory.

6.4 Some Abnormalities

Associated with Control
Volume (CV)
For fluid flow, there are special Artificial
considerations. As seen earlier in this Viscosity
section, there are 5 equations for 5
unknowns (u, v, w, p, T). However,
there are two problems with these
Dissaption
equations which are specific to &
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Dispersion
First, the governing equations are not
only coupled, but they have non- Numerical
linear terms, namely the advection or Diffusion
inertia terms. The handling of these
terms has been an ongoing research
project for at least the last 40 years. If
these terms are not modeled
accurately enough, they will
Figure 6.15 Potent Numerical Errors in CFD

186 Md. Shahjada Tarafder and M. Al Mursaline, “Numerical Analysis Of Turbulent Flow Around Two Dimensional
Bodies Using Non-Orthogonal Body-Fitted Mesh”, Int. J. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019.
187 Gregory N. and O'Reilly C.L. (1970): Low Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Airfoil Section,

Including the Effects of Upper Surface Roughness Simulation Hoarfrost. National Physical Laboratory,
Teddington, England, Aero Report No.1308.
 156

introduce an error known as “Numerical Diffusion”.

For fluid flow, there are special considerations. As seen earlier in this section, there are 5 equations
for 5 unknowns (u, v, w, p, T). However, there are two problems with these equations which are
specific to computational fluid dynamics (CFD). First, the governing equations are not only coupled,
but they have non-linear terms, namely the advection or inertia terms. The handling of these terms
has been an ongoing research project for at least the last 40 years. If these terms are not modeled
accurately enough, they will introduce an error known as “Numerical Diffusion”. As its name
indicates, the errors can completely swamp any physical diffusion and misrepresent the physics of
the real world problem. If you model the advection terms with the usual methods of obtaining high
accuracy (central differences, standard Galerkin schemes), you introduce numerical dispersion
errors where the numerical solution oscillates around the true solution. These dispersion errors can
quite easily lead to divergent solutions, especially in turbulent flows. Most commercial finite volume
and finite element methods have discretized these terms in some special way which is a compromise
of accuracy and stability. Finite volume methods use techniques like skew up winding and QUICK
schemes. Successful finite element methods use some sort of streamline upwind element. (Yes, there
are finite element CFD methods available which do not use this method, but they are not generally
applicable). (See Figure 6.15).
The second major difficulty with the governing partial differential equations is that no explicit
equation for pressure exists for incompressible flows. For example, if we use the Navier-Stokes or
momentum equations to solve for the velocities, we have only the continuity equation to solve for
pressure. However, pressure does not appear in the continuity equation. This problem has been side-
stepped by manipulating a combination of these equations. The most predominant method
(commercially, that is) for solving this dilemma of the missing pressure equation was developed for
finite volume methods and is known as SIMPLE or some variant of it. This method is well-explained
in the book by [Patankar]188. Almost all of the commercial finite volume CFD codes use this method
as well as two most popular finite element CFD codes.

6.4.1 Numerical Diffusion Effects

Artificial viscosity tends to reduce all gradients in the solution whether induced physically or
numerically. This effect, which is the direct result of even derivative terms in the truncation error, is
also called Dissipation (upwind differencing). Another quasi-physical effect of numerical schemes is
called Dispersion which is the direct result of odd derivative terms in truncation error (central
differencing). The combined effects are called Diffusion. Figure 6.16 shows these effects. To show
how the impact of the artificial viscosity, consider a supersonic flow over backward facing step as
demonstrated in Figure 6.17. Now let us try to find the numerical solution for this problem by
progressively increasing the magnitude of the artificial viscosity (See Figure 6.17 (a)-(d)). We
observe that adding the artificial viscosity has thickened the shock for sure. The smoothing (Less
wiggles) of the shock can observed for the increasing artificial viscosity. See the Fig (d) for the smooth

Figure 6.16 Effects a) exact b) 1ST order (Dissipation) c) 2nd order (Dispersion)

188 Suhas V. Patankar, “Numerical Heat Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing, 1980, ISBN 0-89116-522-3.
 157

shock(without wiggles). There are essentially two

main classes of convective flux approximation in
widespread use, namely:

1. ‘Low-order’ schemes, which

characteristically generate discretized
equation forms that are easy to solve,
produce solutions which obey the expected
physical bounds, but sometimes give rise to
smearing of gradients. The latter effect has
come to be known as ‘Numerical Diffusion-
Dissipation effects. This is a form of
truncation error that diminishes as the grid is
refined, but at an increased cost of
calculation.
2. ‘High-order’ schemes, which better preserve
steep gradients, but may result in equations
that are more difficult to solve (and, in
extreme cases, may provoke numerical
instabilities) and/or have solutions
exhibiting non-physical spatial oscillations
(‘wiggles-dispersion effects’). These
oscillations may in some cases, lead to
spurious values, e.g. negative species mass
fraction or turbulence kinetic energy. This Figure 6.17 Progression of Shock Wave
phenomenon is often termed Numerical on Supersonic Flow over a Backward Step
Dispersion. It too can be diminished by grid
refinement or by using monotone
schemes (e.g. a blending methodology)
•Lowest-Order term in TE
The effect of retaining order of terms in TE Diffusion contain even (Dissiaptive)
displaying either the Dissipative or Dispersive •Lowest -Order term in TE
effect is can be illustrated in Figure 6.18. contains odd (Disspersive)

6.4.2 Balancing the Diffusion vs. Convection

using Peclet Number (Pe) Figure 6.18 Effect of retaining TE terms
This is an important property in comparing the
CD and UD differencing schemes or other diffusion related issues. As shown in Figure 6.19 for
higher speed flows (large Pe), the CD differencing becomes oscillatory and unstable and not suitable,
while UD reveals more stable and recommended. On the other hand, for low speed flows (smaller
Pe), such as subsonic flows and denser mesh, CD seems comparably more stable.

advection transport rate LU

PeL = = Re.Pr =
diffusive transport rate α
k
where L = characteri tic length , U = velocity and α =
ρC p
Eq. 6.61
 158

Figure 6.19 Correlation Between CD and UD Schemes for Different (Pe) Number

6.4.2.1 Case Study – 1D Convection / Diffusion Problem

To illustrate this more explicitly, solving the 1D convection-diffusion equation on a slab of length L
for variable ϕ subjected to following BC’s

    
(ρ ) =  Γ  subject to BC  x =0 = 0 and  x =L = L Eq. 6.62
x x  x 

Where ρφ and Γ are independent of x. Differentiating results the analytical exponential solution
known as power law (see Figure 6.20):

x
(Pe )
 (x) −  (0) e −1
L
ρuL
= (Pe) where Pe = Eq. 6.63
 (L) −  (0) e − 1 Γ

Following observations could be made from this plot:

• The ratio of the strengths of convection and diffusion may be measured using the Peclet
number, Pe.
• For high absolute Pe << 1
Diffusion dominated
values of Pe number
(i.e., convection Convection dominated
dominated flow), the
value of the Φ0 <ϕ<ϕL
Pe = 0
dependent variable at
the interface (i.e. x =
L/2) can be seen to be
nearly equal to the
Pe >> 1
value at the upwind
boundary which is the
assumption made by 0<X<L
the upwind scheme.
Such assumption Figure 6.20 Ratio of Convection Vs Diffusion - Effect of (Pe) number
could not be hold for
 159

small Pe values (diffusion dominated; see Figure 6.20).

• When Pe=0, (no flow, or pure diffusion), ϕ could be interpolated using a simple linear average
between the values at x = 0 and x = L.
• The upwind scheme always calculates diffusion assuming a linear relationship between the
dependent variable and distance and therefore over estimates diffusion at large absolute
values of Pe189.
Another point of view of above on a 1D
spatial mesh, for general contours of
variable ϕ at point p, for Pe = 0 i.e., pure
diffusion, the contours are concentric
circles for constant values of ϕ because
diffusion tends to spread out ϕ evenly in all
directions. As Pe increases, the curve
becomes more elliptic and the value of ϕ at
E node is more influenced by the upstream
node. At Pe = infinity i.e., pure convection,
Figure 6.21 Spatial effects of (Pe) number on 1D flow
the contours are completely outstretched
and value of ϕ at E is affected only by
upstream conditions (see Figure 6.21).

6.5 Some Attributes to Spatial Discretization

6.5.1 Cell-Centered (CC) vs. Node-Centered (NC)
The cell-centered (CC) referred to a discretization that uses primal grid cells as control volumes, as
opposed to node centered (NC) that uses median-dual cells as control volumes. Illustrates the control
volume partitioning of a finite volume discretization. Performance of flow solvers can also vary with
each algorithm and mesh data structure used. While the CC based solvers integrate the fluxes on the
faces of individual cells, NC based solvers integrate the fluxes over cells connected to individual cells.
Though the number of faces is the same in both approaches, the actual finite volume used in CC based
is smaller hence better spatial resolution. On the other hand, the NC based approach works with less
memory, especially for tetrahedral cells when usually the numbers of cells are five-six times of

Figure 6.22 Cell Centered and Node Centered

189 “Discretization of Convection –Diffusion type equation”; 10th-Indo–German Winter Academy 2011.
 160

nodes190. In cell-centered scheme, the control volumes are identical with the grid cells and the flow
variables are associated with the centers of the grid cells as illustrated in Figure 6.22. When we
evaluate the discretized flow equations, we have to supply the convective and the viscous fluxes at
the midpoints of the faces of the control volume. However, in cell-vertex scheme, the flow variables
are associated with the grid nodes (vertices) rather than the cell centroids. Median-dual control
volumes are formed by connecting the centroids, face- and edge-midpoints of all cells sharing the
particular node. The definition of a median-dual control volume results in a polyhedral hull around
each grid node.

6.5.2 Staggered vs. Collocated Grids

This has nothing to do with grid generation
techniques but rather spatial discretization. A
staggered grid is a setting for the spatial
discretization, in which the variables are not
defined at the same position as in case of the
collocated grid. On a staggered grid the scalar
variables (pressure, density, total enthalpy etc.)
are stored in the cell centers of the control
volumes, whereas the velocity or momentum
variables are located at the cell faces. This is
different from a collocated grid arrangement,
where all variables are stored in the same
positions. A staggered storage is mainly used on
structured grids for compressible or
incompressible flow simulations. Using a
staggered grid is a simple way to avoid odd-even
decoupling between the pressure and velocity.
Odd-even decoupling is a discretization error Figure 6.23 Control Volume for spatial
that can occur on collocated grids and which discretization of staggered grid vs collocated
leads to checkerboard patterns in the solutions.
The disadvantage of using staggered grids is that different variable are stored at different places and
this makes it more difficult to handle different control volumes for different variables and to keep
track of the metrics191. Modern codes instead use a collocated storage. Figure 6.23 shows a regular
staggered grid for the discretization of 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. When solving the
incompressible Navier-Stokes in the primitive variables (u, v, and p) formulation, we need to
discretize the pressure and the velocity components. On a staggered grid these primitive variables
are all defined at different location, with pressure p at the cell center and the velocity components at
the center of the cell faces192.

6.5.3 Desired Properties in Discretization Schemes

In general, any discretization scheme should have the following properties:

• Conservativeness - global conservation of properties must be insured, i.e., flux consistency

in control volume (Flux IN = Flux OUT).

190 Diskin, Boris; Thomas, James: “Comparison of Node-Centered and Cell-Centered Unstructured Finite-Volume
Discretization: Inviscid Fluxes,” AIAA Journal 2010.
191 CFD Online.
192 Nikhil Kumar, PhD candidate - Scientific computing.
 161

• Boundedness - values predicted by scheme should be within realistic bounds. For linear
problems (Heat conduction), those would be the boundary values. For non-linear problems,
the values within the domain could be outside of boundary values.
• Transportiveness - As diffusion works in all direction, but convection only in flow direction,
the numerical scheme should recognize the flow direction since it effects the balance of
convection vs. diffusion (Peclet Number).

The manner in which the convective and diffusive fluxes are expressed in terms of nodal φ values is
one of the key factors determining accuracy and stability, for both steady-state and transient
calculations. At the high Reynolds numbers often encountered in practice, the choice of convective
flux approximation is particularly important.

6.6 Wall Distance Estimation

The non-dimensional y+ quantity, (based on local cell fluid velocity from the wall to the first node),
has a different meanings in terms of Boundary Layer theory and CFD. In Boundary Layer, y+ is simply
a local thickness Reynolds number. In CFD, y+ is a non-dimensional distance from the wall to the first
grid point. Typical range of y+ for a flow over a smooth flat plate with no adverse pressure gradient
is from wall out to about 150. For finer mesh lower values of y+ should be used. The mechanism for
estimating y+ could be followed by using the local Rex and an imperial skin friction correlation as
follow:
ρU  L BL
Cf = 2log10 (Re x ) − 0.65
− 2.3
Re x =
μ
Eq. 6.64
1 τw y +μ
τ w = Cf − ρU 2 2 u = y=
2 ρ ρu 

Now that we know how to obtain non-dimensional y+ (mostly imperially), you might asked why?
Estimating y+ is so important because placing the first layer of mesh had tremendous impact in CFD
and Near Wall analogy. It dictates how many
cell needed to resolve flow accurately. As you
approach the wall you will notice that the
velocity decreases non-linearly up to a point
where the fluid will have zero velocity at the
wall. This is what is termed the "no slip" wall
condition in CFD. If we plot a typical velocity
profile in the near-wall region, we can see
that we have a large change in velocity in the
wall normal direction and it is important to
our CFD simulation that we capture this
gradient correctly. To do this, we need to use
inflation layer meshing to accurately capture
the boundary layer region for any wall-
bounded turbulent flows. The image
below plots the non-dimensional velocity
versus the non-dimensional wall normal Figure 6.24 Near Wall Velocity Profile
distance, with each line from top to bottom
demonstrating the difference between a
favorable pressure gradient (APG) through to adverse pressure gradient (FPG) with flow separation.
(See Figure 6.24). It is clear that the flow behavior in the near wall region is fairly complex and
 162

needs to be captured appropriately to have any confidence in our CFD results, especially if we intend
to report key engineering data such as separation points or pressure drops. Providing a suitable
inflation mesh for the geometry is
strongly tied to the choice of the
turbulence model, and the flow field we
are interested in capturing. We can elect
to resolve the complete profile of the
boundary layer of alternatively we can
make use of empirical wall functions to
reduce the cell count. To use a wall
function approach for a particular
turbulence model with confidence, we
need to ensure that our y+ values are
within a certain range. Figure 6.25 Figure 6.25 Wall Function Relation in Boundary Layer
exemplifies the relationship between y+
and first layer of boundary layer. It is considered good practice to include between 10 and 15 layers
situated within the boundary layer of your flow to accurately resolve and predict any separation or
reattachment points193.

6.6.1 Case Study - Influence of Hybrid Grid and Turbulence Model

To provide guidelines for CFD simulations for tandem cycling aerodynamics, we refer to the
parametric study by [Mannion et al.]194. Specific attention to near-wall grid resolution and
turbulence model choice are provided. Furthermore, the forces experienced by pilot and stoker are
investigated separately to provide an understanding of the drag interaction between the pilot and
stoker athletes.

6.6.1.1 Gridding
Two different grid topologies were devised; (i) a tetrahedral-only grid and (ii) a combined prismatic-
tetrahedral grid, with prismatic cells in the boundary layers and tetrahedral cells beyond (hybrid). A
grid-sensitivity study, comprising of a coarse, medium and fine tetrahedral-only grid, was conducted,
with the surface grid systematically refined with each face size halved for the progressive grids. The
boundary layer resolution depended on the tetrahedral cell size at the surfaces of interest for each
grid as no prism layers were used. The grid sizes were 11.1, 24.6 and 64.9 M cells, respectively. The
medium grid was selected as a reference grid for surface face sizing’s for subsequent grids, providing

Figure 6.26 Grid 1 - Tetrahedral Cell Growth(Left) vs, Grid 2 – Hybrid Prism Layer Growth (Right)

193LEAP CFD Team, Leap Australia CFD Team Blog, 2014.

194 P. Mannion, Y. Toparlar, B. Blocken, M. Hajdukiewicz, T. Andrianne, and E. Clifford, “Improving CFD
prediction of drag on Paralympic tandem athletes: influence of grid resolution and turbulence model”, Sports
Engineering, October 2017.
 163

a compromise between accuracy and computational expense. Cell face sizes varied depending on the
location of the surface on the athlete or bicycle geometry. The dimensions are normalised by the
diameter of the athlete’s head (0.2 m). A new grid was created, denoted as grid 1, which stemmed
from the medium grid in the grid independence study. Figure 6.26 illustrate segments of the surface
grid, and also the volume grid in a vertical centre-plane. The total number of cells in grid 1 was 20.2
M. For the second grid used in this study, denoted as grid 2, settings for grid 1 were implemented as
the background grid with the addition of prism cells to all wall surfaces in the boundary layers. Note
that y* ≈ 1 and < 5 is required to resolve the thin viscous sublayers to reproduce boundary layer flow
and potential separation. 20 prism cells with a growth ratio of 1.2 were used. The total number of
cells in grid 2 was 33.3 M. Further discussion are provided in 195.

6.6.1.2 Boundary Conditions

A uniform velocity of 15 m/s with 0.2% turbulence intensity and a hydraulic diameter of 1 m was
applied as a velocity inlet condition. Air with a density of 1.225 kg/m3 and a viscosity of
1.789E−5 kg/m.s was specified as the fluid. Zero static gauge pressure was applied to the outlet
boundary. A symmetry condition was applied for the lateral boundaries, the top boundary, and also
for the ground boundary to represent a free-slip wall. A no-slip wall with zero roughness was applied
for the tandem bicycle surfaces and for the athlete surfaces.

6.6.1.3 Governing Equations and Solver Settings

The simulations were performed using ANSYS Fluent 16®. The RANS equations were solved in
coordination with the shear stress transport (SST) k-ω turbulence model. The Least Squares Cell
Based method was used to compute gradients. The Coupled algorithm was used for pressure–velocity
coupling(SIMPLE). Second-order pressure interpolation was used, along with second-order
discretisation schemes for all equations. Due to the inherent unsteady nature of tandem cycling
aerodynamics, the pseudo-transient solver within Fluent was used. Averaging was required for the
resulting forces from the pseudo-transient simulations where steady-state convergence was
unachievable. A study was conducted to determine a suitable pseudo-transient time-step, with values
decreasing by one order of magnitude from 0.1 to 1E−05 s. Drag values were averaged over 4500
iterations after an oscillatory phase was reached. A negligible difference was found varying time-step
size, with a final size of 0.01 s used to allow for sufficient oscillations to occur over 2000 iterations
for averaging purposes. All simulations reported were averaged over 2000 iterations after results
reached a statistically steady state.

6.6.1.4 Drag findings

The drag coefficient is described by:

FD
CD =
1 2
2 ρAV
Eq. 6.65
where FD is the drag force (N), ρ the density
(kg/m3), A the frontal area (m2) and V the
velocity (m/s). The total drag force of bicycle
Figure 6.27 Drag Force (N) on the Pilot and Stoker
and two riders for grid 1 and grid 2 were 39.6
using Different Grids
and 43.2 N, respectively. It was expected that
the stoker would experience a lower drag than
the pilot due to drafting. However, Figure 6.27 shows that grid 1 yielded an opposite drag
distribution: 35.9% of total drag for the pilot and 46.1% for the stoker. Grid 2 however, yielded 52.5%

195 See Previous.

 164

of total drag for the pilot and 26.9% for the stoker. Figure 6.28 shows the differences in surface
pressure coefficient for grids 1 and 2. It is clear that the grid resolution in the boundary layer and its
impact on the flow separation locations and resulting wake flow played a critical role in the drag
differences between both grids. predictions. Note that the athletes experienced a larger viscous drag
for grid 1 due to the flow staying attached for longer to the surfaces of the athletes.

Figure 6.28 CP for Different Grids

6.6.1.5 Impact of Turbulence Model

Eight turbulence models were applied to grid1: the T-SST k-ω, the k-kl-ω, the intermittency SST k-ω,
the SST k-ω, the standard k-ε, the realizable k-ε, the renormalization-group (RNG) k-ε, and the 1-
equation Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model. The 1-equation Wolfshtein model was used for low
Reynolds number modelling with the k-ε models. Second-order discretisation schemes were used for
the convective and viscous terms of all equations. The results are summarised in Figure 6.29196.
The T-SST model provided drag evictions for the pilot and stoker that deviated by − 1.0% and
− 14.4%, respectively, from the wind-tunnel results. The T-SST model also failed to predict the
correct direction of the lateral force on the pilot. The intermittency SST k-ω model provided
comparable results to the T-SST model, with drag deviations of 2.4% and − 13.5% for the pilot and
stoker respectively. The k-kl-ω model under-predicted drag for the pilot by − 14.1%, and over-
predicted drag on the stoker by 4.6%. However, it predicted all lateral and lift forces to within the
error region of the force transducers for both the pilot and stoker. The SST k-ω models predicted the
drag of the pilot and stoker to within − 3.7% and − 13.9% of the wind-tunnel values respectively, and
the Spalart–Allmaras model predicted the drag of the pilot and stoker to within − 4.0% and − 15.9%
respectively. The k-ε models all under-predicted pilot drag forces beyond 30%, with the realizable
and standard k-ε models predicting a larger drag force on the stoker than on the pilot.

6.6.1.6 Concluding Remarks

The aerodynamics of a tandem para-cycling road race setup was simulated using CFD, and was found
to have a full-scale CD of 0.787. A grid with coarse near-wall boundary layer resolution was found to
yield counter-intuitive drag distributions for individual athletes, with the stoker experiencing a
higher drag than the pilot. Wind-tunnel experiments proved the counter-intuitive drag distributions
to be incorrect, with the stoker experiencing 39% less drag than the pilot. In addition to this grid
dependency of achieving an average y* value close to 1, the CFD simulations were also shown to have
a dependency on turbulence models, with the SST k-ω turbulence model providing the most accurate

196 Drag/Lift and Lateral Forces (N) acting on the pilot and the stoker as obtained by various turbulence models.

Systematic and random errors within a 95% confidence interval are represented by error bars for the wind-
tunnel data.
 165

drag predictions: 4.0% and 4.2% for the pilot and stoker respectively when compared against wind-
tunnel validation data, and modelling the wind-tunnel geometry within the CFD fluid domain. The
realizable k-ε and standard k-ε models predicted the stoker to experience a larger drag than the pilot,
despite the grid meeting the requirement of an average y* value less than 1, and using low Reynolds
number modelling opposed to wall functions. The RNG k-ε model under-predicted the drag on the
pilot beyond 20%. It is recommended that a fine grid with an average y* value of 1 or less be used in
combination with the SST k-ω turbulence model for future tandem cycling aerodynamics research.

Figure 6.29 Drag/ Lift and Lateral Forces (N) Acting on the Pilot and the Stoker

6.7 Gradient Smoothing Method (GSM)

Recently, a new CFD solver based on Gradient Smoothing Method (GSM) has been developed by [Liu
and Xu]197 by combining the major features of the standard FVM and some mesh free techniques [YAO
et al.]198. It has been found that the GSM is effective for various types of fluid dynamics problems. In
GSM, all the unknowns are stored at nodes (as in mesh free methods and node-centered FVM) and
their derivatives at various locations of interest are approximated using gradient smoothing
operations. Different kinds of compact smoothing domains can be constructed from the primitive (or
background) mesh of the problem domain for calculating the derivatives at different locations of a
cell, such as at nodes, at midpoints of edges, or at the centroid of the cell. Different kinds smoothing
functions can be chosen for approximating the derivatives.
Compared with FVM, the GSM is more like a strong form method since it operates directly on the
governing equations of fluid dynamics as FDM. However, because of the use of gradient smoothing
operation, which approximates the derivatives at a point of interest using an integral form, the GSM
has a weak formulation flavor, and is conservative as the FVM. For this reason, GSM is known as a
weak form-like method. Intensive numerical tests have demonstrated that the GSM often
outperforms the FVM in terms of stability against the grid irregularity, accuracy and efficiency.

197 G. R. Liu and George X. Xu,”A gradient smoothing method (GSM) for fluid dynamics problems”, Int. J. Numerical
Meth. Fluids 2008; 58:1101–1133.
198 Jianyao Yao, G. R. Liu, Dong Qian, Chung-Lung Chen and George X. Xu. “A Moving-Mesh Gradient Smoothing

Method For Compressible CFD Problems”, Mathematical Models and Methods In Applied Sciences Vol. 23, No. 2
(2013) 273–305.
 166

Although the GSM has been successfully applied for solving the compressible and incompressible
fluids for both inviscid and viscous cases on fixed meshes, the GSM has not yet been used for solving
fluid problems with moving boundaries or moving meshes, which is quite common in engineering,
and extremely important for fluid structure interaction simulations.

6.7.1 Gradient Smooth Operation

The gradients of a field variable U at a point of interest at xi in domain Ώi can be approximated in the
form of :

U i  U (x i )   U(x) wˆ (x − x i )dx
i

 1/V x  Ωi
U i   U(x)ŵ(x - x ) n ds -  U(x)ŵ(x - x ) dV
 i
i
i
i and ŵ =  i
0 x  Ωi
Eq. 6.66
where ∇ is a gradient operator and ŵ is a smoothing function that can be chosen properly based on
the requirement on the accuracy of the approximation. ∂Ώi represents the external boundary of the
GSD, and n denotes the unit normal vector on ∂Ώi. Using Eq. 6.66, the right-hand side second term
vanishes and Eq. 6.66 then becomes:

1 1
∇Ui ≈ ⃗ ds
∮ U𝐧 , ∇. (∇Ui ) ≈ ⃗ . ∇Uds
∮𝐧
Vi Vi
∂Ωi ∂Ωi
Eq. 6.67
The above mentioned equation gives an approximation of gradients at a point using a local smoothing
domain. Such a gradient smoothing technique is often adopted in many mesh free methods, for
example, in the widely used Smoothed Particle Method (SPM), to stabilize the nodal integrations
and ensure linear conformability. It has also been used in the development of the smoothed FEM. For
spatial and Temporal discretization, readers are encourage to consult the work by [YAO et al.]199 and
[Liu and Xu]200.

6.7.2 Case Study 1 - Implicit Gradient Method for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Solver on
Unstructured Meshes
An Investigation of an implicit gradient method for a second-order cell-centered finite-volume
method on unstructured grids is done by [Nishikawa]201. In the implicit gradient method, solution
gradients are obtained by solving a global system of linear equations, but they can be computed
iteratively along with an implicit finite-volume solver iteration for the Euler or Navier-Stokes
equations. The cost of the implicit gradient computation is thereby made comparable to or even
cheaper than that of explicit gradient methods such as a least-squares method. Furthermore, a known
stability issue with a face-neighbor gradient stencil is effectively circumvented by expanding the
gradient stencil to the entire domain. We discuss the relative performance of the implicit gradient

199 Jianyao Yao, G. R. Liu, Dong Qian, Chung-Lung Chen and George X. Xu. “A Moving-Mesh Gradient Smoothing
Method For Compressible CFD Problems”, Mathematical Models and Methods In Applied Sciences Vol. 23, No. 2
(2013) 273–305.
200 G. R. Liu and George X. Xu,”A gradient smoothing method (GSM) for fluid dynamics problems”, Int. J. Numerical

Meth. Fluids 2008; 58:1101–1133.

201 Hiroaki Nishikawa, “An Implicit Gradient Method for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Solver on Unstructured

Grids”, AIAA Sci tech 2019 Forum.

 167

method and a least-squares method for various inviscid and viscous flow computations on
unstructured grids.

6.7.2.1 Background and Introduction

Convergence and accuracy of implicit finite-volume solvers widely used in practical computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) codes are greatly affected by gradient computation methods, especially on
unstructured grids. Despite great progress made over the last decades, represented by an extensive
study on least-squares gradients in202, current state-of-the-art unstructured-grid finite-volume
solvers still encounter robustness issues when dealing with highly-distorted grids as typical in
practical applications involving complex geometries. In practical solvers, inconsistent gradient
methods such as the Green-Gauss method are locally employed for robustness203-204-205, or simply
gradients are ignored in problematic regions (e.g., in a cell having a large face angle). Also, stable
computations often require different types of gradient methods for different terms, e.g., unweighted
least-squares (LSQ) gradients for the inviscid terms, and weighted LSQ gradients for the viscous
terms and the source terms. Another known problem is that finite-volume schemes with LSQ
gradients computed over face neighbors are unstable for triangular and tetrahedral grids.
Development of gradient methods for increasing robustness and efficiency without degrading
accuracy, therefore, remains an important subject of research. Recently, in a series of papers, a new
approach called the variational reconstruction (VR) method was proposed. In this method, a globally
coupled system of linear equations for the gradients is derived by minimizing the solution jumps at
faces. The system is iteratively solved along with a finite-volume flow solver. If only one iteration is
performed for the gradients per solver iteration, then the cost per iteration is almost the same as the
explicit methods such as the GG and LSQ methods, or more efficient than LSQ methods with extended
stencils beyond face neighbors. The stability issue mentioned earlier is effectively circumvented by
the gradient stencil spanning the entire grid. A further advantage lies in the straightforward
extension to high-order through minimizing the jumps of high-order polynomials. Inspired by the VR
method, we developed a similar implicit gradient methodology called the Implicit Green-Gauss
(IGG) gradient method206, which was derived from a second-order finite-volume discretization of a
hyperbolic diffusion model. In207, the IGG gradient method was demonstrated, for model advection-
diffusion problems, to produce accurate gradients on highly distorted grids including highly-curved
thin grids, and also allow implicit finite-volume solvers to converge for a discontinuous solution. In
this paper, we investigate the IGG gradient method for inviscid and viscous flow problems.

6.7.2.2 Finite-Volume Discretization

Consider the compressible Navier-Stokes (NS) equations in 2D with a cell-centered finite-volume
discretization is employed for the discretization, where the residual is defined as an approximation
to the NS system integrated over a computational cell j (see Figure 6.30) with the midpoint rule:

202 Diskin, B. and Thomas, J. L., “Accuracy of Gradient Reconstruction on Grids with High Aspect Ratio," NIA Report

No. 2008-12 , 2008.

203 Mavriplis, D. J., Revisiting the Least-Squares Procedure for Gradient Reconstruction on Unstructured Meshes,"

Proc. of 16th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 2003-3986, Orlando, Florida, 2003.
204 Shima, E., Kitamura, K., and Haga, T., Green-Gauss/Weighted-Least-Squares Hybrid Gradient Reconstruction

for Arbitrary Polyhedral Unstructured Grids," AIAA J., Vol. 51, No. 11, 2013, pp. 2740{2747.
205 Moukalled, F., Mangani, L., and Darwish, M., The _nite volume method in computational fluid dynamics: An

intro-duction with OpenFOAM and matlab, Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications, Volume 13, Springer
International Publishing, 2015.
206 Nishikawa, H., From Hyperbolic Diffusion Scheme to Gradient Method: Implicit Green-Gauss Gradients for

Unstructured Grids," J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 372, 2018, pp. 126-160.

207 See previous.
 168

𝐑 j = ∑ 𝛟jk 𝐀jk
k∈{kj}
Eq. 6.68
Where kj is a set of neighbors of the cell j, Ajk is the length of the face across j and k, and φjk is a
numerical flux. In this work, the [Roe] and [HLL] fluxes are used for the inviscid terms, and the alpha-
damping flux for the viscous terms. These numerical fluxes are functions of the primitive-variable
gradients, ∇Wj and ∇Wk, and the primitive variables W = (ρ, u, v, p) linearly extrapolated at the face
midpoint from the two adjacent cells j and k:

𝐖L = 𝐖i + 𝚽j ∇W. ∆𝐱 jm , 𝐖R = 𝐖k + 𝚽𝐤 ∇W. ∆𝐱 km
Eq. 6.69
where Δxjm = xm - xj , Δxkm = xm - xk, xm is the face-midpoint position, xj and xk are the centroid
coordinates of the cells j and k, respectively, and ϕj and ϕk are the Venkat limiter functions computed
based on the enforcement at
nodes. The limiter function is
defined by the minimum, as
typically done, of those
computed for all primitive
variables. The cell gradients,
∇Wj and ∇Wk, need to be
computed from the
numerical solutions stored at
cells. These gradients are
typically computed by a LSQ
method or the Green-Gauss
method. Here, the IGG
gradient method is employed
and its performance is
investigated and compared
with a LSQ gradient method.
For the viscous flux, these
gradients will be used to
evaluate the consistent term
of the alpha-damping viscous
flux: for example, the x- Figure 6.30 Stencil for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Discretization –
velocity gradient is given by (Courtesy of Nishikawa)

1 α
∇u|face = [∇uj + ∇uk ] + (uR − uL )𝐧
̂jk 𝐞jk = 𝐱 k − 𝐱 j
2 |𝐞jk . ̂𝐧jk |
Eq. 6.70
where the first term is the consistent term (i.e., consistently approximating the gradient), the second
term is the damping term (i.e., responsible for damping high-frequency errors) with the damping
coefficient α given an optimal value: α = 4/3, and njk = (nx , ny) is the unit vector normal to the face
pointing from j to k. Further information can be obtained from [Nishikawa]208.

208Hiroaki Nishikawa, “An Implicit Gradient Method for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Solver on Unstructured
Grids”, AIAA Sci tech 2019 Forum.
 169

6.7.3 Case Study 2 - Transonic Flow Over a Joukowsky Airfoil at M = 0.8

The next inviscid test case is a transonic flow over a Joukowsky airfoil of a unit chord at M = 0.8 at
the angle of attack 1.25 degrees. In all calculations, we set CFL = 10. The IGG method was applied
with αg = 4.0 to smooth the gradients across shocks and with and without the Venkat limiter.
Otherwise, the same parameter setting was used as in the previous case. The limiter was applied with
the parameter K = 5.0 for the LSQ gradients and K = 10.0 (less limiting) for the IGG gradients.
Convergence histories are shown in [Nishikawa]209 where the (Implicit Defect-Correction - least-
squares (IDC-LSQ) solver stalls while the IDC-IGG solver converges with and without the limiter
(denoted by IGG-Limited and IGG, respectively). Note that the IDC-LSQ solver converges on a
structured quadrilateral/triangular grid without a limiter; the divergence without a limiter is
therefore considered due to the irregularity. The limited version of the IDC-IGG solver is slightly
slower in CPU time apparently due to the limiter calculation. Solutions are compared in Figure 6.31.
As expected, the IGG solution without a limiter has over and under shoots around the shock on the
upper surface (see Figure 6.31(e)); and they are greatly reduced by the limiter. Contours of the

Figure 6.31 Inviscid Flow over a Joukowsky Airfoil at M1 = 0.85 using Unstructured Mesh - (Courtesy of
Nishikawa)

limiter function are plotted in Figure 6.31(g)-(i). It is detected that the limiter acts much less on
the IGG gradients than on the LSQ gradients, thus preserving accuracy better with the IGG gradients.

209Hiroaki Nishikawa, “An Implicit Gradient Method for Cell-Centered Finite-Volume Solver on Unstructured
Grids”, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum.
 170

6.7.4 Concluding Remarks

The implicit Green-Gauss gradient method was tested and compared with the least-squares gradient
method for a cell-centered finite-volume method on unstructured grids for inviscid and viscous
problems. The gradients are computed by iteratively solving a global system of linear equations with
the Gauss-Seidel relaxation scheme. An implicit defect-correction solver was tested, where the Gauss-
Seidel relaxation is performed once for the gradient in each nonlinear iteration. Numerical results
have confirmed that the per iteration cost of the implicit Green-Gauss gradient method is comparable
to the LSQ gradient computation. The implicit solver has been demonstrated to converge to a
specified tolerance for all problems (subsonic, transonic, and hypersonic inviscid flows, and low- and
high-Reynolds-number viscous flows) even with shock waves and limiters whereas it stalled with the
least-squares gradients; and it converged faster in CPU time than the solver with the LSQ gradients
in all cases except the at plate case. The solution, however, was found to be more accurate with the
implicit Green-Gauss gradient method.
Despite the demonstrated robustness, the solver needs further improvements. The need for the
relaxation factor adjustment in the IGG relaxation seems to imply that the IDC-IGG solver can become
unstable if the gradients gain accuracy too fast. Apparently, the implicit Euler/NS solver and the
implicit Green-Gauss gradient relaxation are not always compatible with each other. A fully-coupled
solver is one possible strategy to address the issue. There can be, at least, two variants. One is
Newton's method applied to the entire set of residual equations, where the Jacobian is compact and
exact but larger (i.e., 20 x 20 blocks in 3D). Another would be a Jacobian-Free Newton-Krylov (JFNK)
method with the IDC-IGG solver used as a preconditioner. These solvers will be particularly useful
for allowing parameters to be defined locally to adapt the gradients to local ow features while keeping
different values in the Jacobian/preconditioner for robust convergence. A preliminary study
indicates that the Newton solver is much more robust than the IDC-IGG and JFNK solvers, but
requires a very efficient linear solver (e.g., multigrid) to minimize the overall computing time; it
seems suggest that the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes formulation is better suited since the linear
relaxation converges rapidly by the reduced condition number (due to the elimination of second
derivatives).
 171

7 Boundary Conditions Types

7.1 Introduction
According to Wikipedia, in the field of differential equations, a boundary value problem (BVP) is a
differential equation together with a set of additional constraints, called the boundary conditions. A
solution to a boundary value problem is a solution to the differential equation which also satisfies the
boundary conditions. To be useful in applications, a boundary value problem should be well posed.
This means that given the input to the problem there exists a unique solution, which depends
continuously on the input. The specification of proper initial conditions (IC) and boundary
conditions (BC) for a PDE is essential, and they are:

➢ If too many IC/BC are specified, there will be no solution.

➢ If too few IC/BC are specified, the solution will not be unique.
➢ If the number of IC/BC is right, but they are specified at the wrong place or time, the solution
will be unique, but it will not depend smoothly on the IC/BC.
➢ This means that small errors in the IC/BC will produce huge errors in the solution.

In any of these cases we have an ill-posed problem210. As an example, [Huang et al.]211 studied the
well possess of inflow/outflow boundary conditions on a subsonic flow reigns for a flat plate. They
demonstrate that some conventional ways of posing subsonic inflow/outflow boundary conditions
are ill-posed.

7.2 Naming Convention for Different Types of Boundaries

Boundary conditions and their correct implementation are among the most critical aspects of a
correct CFD simulation212. Mathematically, there are four types of Dirichlet, Von Neumann, Mixed,
Robin, Cauchy, and Periodic.

7.2.1 Dirichlet Boundary Condition

Direct specification of the variable value at the boundary. E.g.
setting the distribution of a racer ϕi at a west boundary to
zero: ϕw = 0.

7.2.2 Von Neumann Boundary Condition

Specification of the (normal) gradient of the variable at the
boundary. E.g., setting a zero gradient ∂ϕ i /∂n=0 at a
symmetry boundary.

7.2.3 Mixed or Combination of Dirichlet and von Neumann

Boundary Condition
Direct specification of the variable value as well as its
gradient. It is required to satisfy different boundary Figure 7.1 Mixed Boundary
conditions on disjoint parts of the boundary of the domain Conditions
where the condition is stated. (see Figure 7.1).

210 Macintosh HD, Documents, AOSC614-DOCS:PPTClasses, ch3.1: PDEs Well Posed IC&BC. doc Created on
September 26, 2007.
211 Arthur C. Huang, Steven R. Allmaras, Marshall C. Galbraith and David L. Darmofal, “Well-Posed Subsonic

Inflow-Outflow Boundary Conditions for the Navier-Stokes Equations”, 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
212 Bakker André, Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics; Solution Methods; 2002.
 172

7.2.4 Robin Boundary Condition

It is similar to Mixed conditions except that a specification is a linear combination of the values of a
function and the values of its derivative on the boundary of the domain213. Robin boundary
conditions are a weighted combination of Dirichlet boundary conditions and Neumann boundary
conditions. This contrasts to mixed boundary conditions, which are boundary conditions of
different types specified on different subsets of the boundary. Robin boundary conditions are also
called impedance boundary conditions, from their application in electromagnetic problems,
or convective boundary conditions, from their application in heat transfer problems. If Ω is the
domain on which the given equation is to be solved and ∂Ω denotes its boundary, the Robin boundary
condition is:

∂u
au + b =g on ∂Ω
∂n
Eq. 7.1
for some non-zero constants a and b and a given function g defined on ∂Ω. Here, u is the unknown
solution defined on Ω and ∂u/∂n denotes the normal derivative at the boundary. More
generally, a and b are allowed to be (given) functions, rather than constants214.

7.2.5 Cauchy Boundary Condition

In mathematics, a Cauchy boundary conditions augments an ordinary differential equation or a
partial differential equation with conditions that the solution must satisfy on the boundary; ideally
so to ensure that a unique solution exists. A Cauchy boundary condition specifies both the function
value and normal derivative on the boundary of the domain. This corresponds to imposing both a
Dirichlet and a Neumann boundary conditions. It is named after the prolific 19th-century French
mathematical analyst Augustin Louis Cauchy215.

7.2.6 Periodic (Cyclic Symmetry) Boundary Condition

Two opposite boundaries are connected and their values are set equal when the physical flow
problem can be considered to be periodic in space. They could be either physical or non-physical in
nature. Among non-physical conditions, inflow, outflow, symmetry plane, pressure and for physical
the wall (fixed, moving, impermeable, adiabatic, etc.). Some vendors choose their boundary to be
reflected by above description, (OpenFOAM®); and some (i.e., CD-Adapco® and Fluent®) to use
their own particular naming, depending to application in hand.

7.2.7 Generic Boundary Conditions

The most widely used generic B.C’s are:

• Walls (fixed, moving, impermeable, adiabatic etc.)

• Symmetry planes
• Inflow
• Outflow
• Free surface
• Pressure
• Scalars (Temperature, Heat flux)
• Velocity

213 Gustafson, K., (1998). Domain Decomposition, Operator Trigonometry, Robin Condition, Contemporary
Mathematics, 218. 432–437.
214 Wikipedia,
215 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 173

• Internal
• Pole
• Periodic
• Porous media
• Free-Stream
• Non-Reflecting
• Turbulence-Intensity
• Immersed
• Free Surface

Among others and excellent descriptive available through literature for each.

7.3 Wall Boundary Conditions

All practically relevant flows situations are wall-bounded and near walls the exchange of
mass, momentum and scalar quantities is largest. At a solid wall Stokes flow theory is valid
i.e. the fluid adheres to the wall and moves with the wall velocity. Different treatment for the
different variables in the Navier-Stokes equations is required.
7.3.1 Velocity Field
The fluid velocity components equal the velocity of the wall. The normal and tangential velocity
components at an impermeable, non-moving wall are:

v t = v wall = 0 ; v n = 0 Eq. 7.2

Mass fluxes are zero and hence convective fluxes are zero.

Cwall = 𝑚̇ 𝜑 = 0
Eq. 7.3
Diffusive fluxes are non-zero and result in wall-shear stresses.

→
D wall =  τ n ds Eq. 7.4
ij

7.3.2 Pressure
The specification of wall boundary conditions for the pressure depends on the flow situation. In a
parabolic or convection dominated flow a von Neumann boundary condition is used at the wall:

P
=0 Eq. 7.5
n wall

In a flow with complex curvilinear boundaries, at moving walls, or in flows with considerably large
external forces there may exist large pressure gradients towards the walls. The most common
treatment of such boundaries is a linear extrapolation form the inner flow region. If the exact value
of the pressure at the boundaries is not of interest no boundary conditions are needed when a
staggered grid is used. When a pressure correction method is used, wall boundary conditions are also
 174

needed for pressure correction variable p’. Conservation of mass is only ensured when p’=0 at the
walls. For the purpose of stability this is usually accomplished by a zero gradient condition. The
boundary conditions for the pressure and for the velocity components are valid for both laminar and
turbulent flows. In the case of a turbulent flow near wall gradients are significantly larger and a very
high resolution is required particularly for high Reynolds number flows. Therefore, wall functions
were invented that bridge the near wall flow with adequate (mostly empirical) relationships.

7.3.3 Scalars/Temperature
Direct specification of the scalar/temperature at the wall boundary (Dirichlet Boundary condition)

T(x, t) = Twall Eq. 7.6

Specification of a scalar/temperature gradient i.e. specification of a scalar/temperature flux (von

Neumann Boundary condition):

 T( x , t )
q wall ( x , t ) = − λ Eq. 7.7
n wall

7.3.3.1 Common Inputs for Wall Boundary Condition

• Thermal boundary conditions (for heat transfer calculations).
• Wall motion conditions (for moving or rotating walls).
• Shear conditions (for slip walls, optional).
• Wall roughness (for turbulent flows, optional).
• Species boundary conditions (for species calculations).
• Chemical reaction boundary conditions (for surface reactions).
• Radiation boundary conditions.
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations).
• Wall adhesion contact angle (for VOF calculations, optional).

7.4 Symmetry Planes

Used at the centerline (y= 0) of a 2-D axisymmetric
grid. Can also be used where multiple grid lines
meet at a point in a 3D O type grid. They used in CFD
simulations to reduce the numerical effort (see Figure
7.2). Must be used carefully and only when both
geometry and flow are symmetrical. Unsteady flows
around symmetrical obstacles are always asymmetric:
e.g. flow around a square obstacle. Steady flows in
symmetrical diffusers or channel expansions can be
asymmetric and symmetry conditions should only be
used when an asymmetric flow can be excluded a Figure 7.2 Symmetry Plane to Model
one Quarter of a 3D Duct
priori. At a symmetry boundary the following
conditions apply:

➢ The boundary normal component of the velocity disappears and the flux through the
boundary is zero:
 175

⃗n =0
V , Csym = ṁ φ = 0
Eq. 7.8
➢ Scalars have all zero gradients. Consequently the diffusive fluxes of the scalars are also
zero:
φ
= 0 ; Dsym = 0 Eq. 7.9
n
➢ The boundary normal gradient of tangential velocity components is also zero. As a result,
the shear stresses disappear

7.5 Inflow Boundaries

An inflow boundary is an artificial boundary that is used in CFD simulations because the
computational domain must be finite. Proper use of inflow boundary conditions can reduce the
numerical effort and need to be selected carefully so that the flow physics is not altered. At the inflow
usually variables are specified directly i.e. Dirichlet condition. The convective fluxes can be computed
and are added to source term. Diffusive fluxes are computed and added to the central coefficient AP.
Common inflow boundaries are: Pressure inlet, Velocity inlet, Mass flow inlet, among others.

7.5.1 Velocity Inlet

This types of boundary conditions are used to define the velocity and scalar properties of the flow at
inlet boundaries. The contribution inputs usually includes:

• Velocity magnitude and direction or velocity components

• Rotating (Swirl) velocity (for 2D axisymmetric problems with swirl)
• Temperature (for energy calculations)
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Radiation parameters
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations)
• Multiphase boundary conditions (for general multiphase calculations)

7.5.2 Pressure Inlet

These boundary conditions are used to define the total pressure and other scalar quantities at flow
inlets. Required inputs are:

• Total (stagnation) Pressure

• Total (stagnation) Temperature
• Flow direction
• Static pressure
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Radiation parameters
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
 176

7.5.3 Mass Flow Inlet

These boundary conditions are used in compressible flows to prescribe a mass flow rate at an inlet.
It is not necessary to use mass flow inlets in incompressible flows because when density is constant,
velocity inlet boundary conditions will fix the mass flow. Some of the common inputs are:

• Mass flow rate, mass flux, or (primarily for the mixing plane model) mass flux with average
mass flux
• Total (stagnation) temperature
• Static pressure
• Flow direction
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Radiation parameters
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations)
• Open channel flow parameters (for open channel flow calculations using the VOF multiphase
model)

7.5.4 Inlet Vent

boundary conditions are used to model an inlet vent with a specified loss coefficient, flow direction,
and ambient (inlet) total pressure and temperature.

7.6 Outflow Boundaries

An outflow boundary is also an artificial boundary that is used in CFD simulations because the
computational domain must be finite. The location of the outflow boundary must be sufficiently
downstream of the region of interest. At the outlet boundary recirculation zones may not be present
and streamlines should be parallel. The mathematical formulation of the boundary condition may not
influence the flow in the inner part of the domain. Zero gradient conditions are most widely used for
all variables. The outlet boundary is usually used to check global mass conservation during an
iterative process. Commonly used outflow boundaries include: Pressure outlet, Pressure far-field,
Outlet vent, and Exhaust fan.

7.6.1 Pressure Outlet

These boundary conditions are used to define the static pressure at flow outlets (and also other scalar
variables, in case of back flow). The use of a pressure outlet boundary condition instead of an out
flow condition often results in a better rate of convergence when back flow occurs during iteration.
The contributions inputs requires are:

• Static pressure
• Backflow conditions
• Total (stagnation) Temperature (for energy calculations)
• Backflow direction specification method
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
• Multiphase boundary conditions (for general multiphase calculations)
• Radiation parameters
 177

• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations)

• Open channel flow parameters (for open channel ow calculations using the VOF
• multiphase model)
• Non-reflecting boundary (for compressible density-based solver)
• Target mass flow rate (not available for multiphase flows)

7.6.2 Pressure Far-Field

boundary conditions are used to model a free-stream compressible flow at in unity, with free-stream
Mach number and static conditions specified. This boundary type is available only for compressible
flows. Inputs are:

• Static pressure.
• Mach number.
• Temperature.
• Flow direction.
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations).
• Radiation parameters.
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations).
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations).

7.6.3 Outflow
Boundary conditions are used to model flow exits where the details of the flow velocity and pressure
are not known prior to solution of the flow problem. They are appropriate where the exit flow is close
to a fully developed condition, as the outflow boundary condition assumes a zero normal gradient
for all flow variables except pressure. They are not appropriate for compressible flow calculations.

7.6.4 Outlet Vent

boundary conditions are used to model an outlet vent with a specified loss coefficient and ambient
(discharge) static pressure and temperature. The inputs are:

• Static pressure
• Backflow conditions
• Total (stagnation) temperature (for energy calculations)
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
• Multiphase boundary conditions (for general multiphase calculations)
• Radiation parameters
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations)
• Loss coefficient
• Open channel flow parameters (for open channel flow calculations using the VOF
multiphase model)

7.6.5 Exhaust Fan

Boundary conditions are used to model an external exhaust fan with a specified pressure jump and
ambient (discharge) static pressure.
 178

• Static pressure
• Backflow conditions
• Total (stagnation) temperature (for energy calculations)
• Turbulence parameters (for turbulent calculations)
• Chemical species mass fractions (for species calculations)
• Mixture fraction and variance (for non-premixed or partially premixed combustion
calculations)
• Multiphase boundary conditions (for general multiphase calculations)
• User-defined scalar boundary conditions (for user-defined scalar calculations)
• Radiation parameters
• Discrete phase boundary conditions (for discrete phase calculations)
• Pressure jump
• Open channel flow parameters (for open channel ow calculations using the VOF
multiphase model).

7.7 Free Surface Boundaries

7.7.1 Velocity Field and Pressure
Free surface boundaries can be rather complex and the location of the free surface is usually not
known a-priori. E.g. the swash of a fluid in a tank, the pouring of liquid into a glass. Only at the initial
time the position of the free surface is known and in the following an additional transport equation
to determine the location of the free surface is needed. Two boundary conditions apply at the free
surface boundary:

• Kinematic boundary condition - Fluid cannot flow through the boundary. i.e. the normal
component is equal to the surface velocity.
• Dynamic boundary condition - All forces that are acting on the free surface have to be in
equilibrium. These include shear stresses from the fluid below the surface and possibly
from a second fluid on the other side fluid and surface tension216.

In many CFD applications the free surface is treated as a flat plane where the symmetry condition is
applied.

7.7.2 Scalars/Temperature
Treated in an analogue manner as the wall boundary condition. Direct specification i.e. Dirichlet
boundary conditions or von Neumann boundary conditions or a combination of both.

7.8 Pole (Axis) Boundaries

Used at the centerline (y = 0) of a 2-
D axisymmetric grid (see Figure
7.3). It can also be used where
multiple grid lines meet at a point in
a 3-D O-type grid. No other inputs
are required.

Figure 7.3 Pole (Axis) Boundary

216 Georgia Tech Computational Fluid Dynamics Graduate Course; spring 2007.
 179

7.9 Periodic Flow Boundaries

Periodicity simply corresponds to matching conditions on the two boundaries. The velocity field is
periodic BUT the pressure field is not. The pressure gradient drives the flow and is periodic. A
pressure JUMP condition on the boundary must be specified217. Used when physical geometry of
interest and expected flow pattern and the thermal solution are of a periodically repeating nature
(see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4 Periodic Boundary

7.10 Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions (NRBCs)

Many problems in computational fluid dynamics occur within a limited portion of a very large or
infinite domain. Difficulties immediately arise when one attempts to define the boundary condition
for such a system. Such boundary conditions are necessary for the problem to be well-posed, but the
physical system under consideration has no boundary to model. One needs to define an artificial
boundary whose behavior models the open edge of the physical system. Such a boundary definition
is often called a non-reflecting boundary condition (NRBC), as its primary function is to permit wave
phenomena to pass through the open boundary without reflection. The standard pressure boundary
condition, imposed on the boundaries of artificially truncated domain, results in the reflection of the
outgoing waves. As a consequence, the interior domain will contain spurious wave reflections. Many
applications require precise control of the wave reflections from the domain boundaries to obtain
accurate flow solutions. Non-reflecting boundary conditions provide a special treatment to the
domain boundaries to control these spurious wave reflections. The method is based on the Fourier
transformation of solution variables at the non-reflecting boundary218. The solution is rearranged as
a sum of terms corresponding to different frequencies, and their contributions are calculated
independently. While the method was originally designed for axial turbomachinery, it has been
extended for use with radial turbomachinery. In many applications of CFD such as Turbomachinery
because of close approximately of blades and the physical conditions, it is warranted to use NRBC’s.
Another prime candidate is Computational Aero-Acoustics (CAA) which is concerns with propagation
of traveling sound waves. In other word, by restricting our area of interest, we effectively create a
boundary where none exists physically, dividing our computational domain from the rest of the
physical domain. The challenge we must overcome, then, is defining this boundary in such a way that

Solution methods for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations.

217

M. Giles, “Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions for the Euler Equations.”, Technical Report TR 88-1-1988,
218

Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

 180

it behaves computationally as if there were no physical boundary219.

7.10.1 Case Study 1 - Turbomachinery Application of 2D Subsonic Cascade

The first test case is an axial turbine blade where both the in- and outflow are subsonic and the NRBC
will be compared to the Riemann boundary conditions. In the short flow-field simulations the in- and
outflow boundaries are positioned at 0.4 times the chord from the airfoil. For the long flow-field
simulation this distance becomes 1.5 times the chord. Figure 7.5 shows contour plot of the pressure
of the flow. The field of interest is the flow-field close to the boundary220. To give a detailed look at
that part of the flow, the pressure contours are put in close proximity. Unfortunately this means the
flow-field at the suction side becomes less clear. The subsonic flow means that any reflections diffuse
fairly quickly. Therefore there are almost no observable differences when the long flow-field is
considered. For the short flow-field the reflections become more apparent when Riemann boundary
conditions are used. At the outflow the pressure contours are clearly deflected away from the
boundary and never cross it. At the inflow the opposite happens and the pressure contours are bend
towards the boundary. This behavior is not observed when looking at the NRBC. Clearly these
boundary conditions are successful in removing the reflections from the flow. One can have a closer
look at the boundary itself to further clarify this comparison. The pressure at the outflow boundary
presented in Figure 7.5, where we notice that the NRBC do a better job of simulating the pressure
at the outflow, although it should be noted that on the absolute scale, all the differences are very
small.

Figure 7.5 Pressure contours plot for 2nd order spatial discretization scheme

219 John R. Dea, “High-Order Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions for the Linearized Euler Equations”, Monterey,
California, 2008.
220 F. De Raedt, “Non-Reflecting Boundary Conditions for non-ideal compressible fluid flows”, Master of Science at

the Delft University of Technology, defended publicly on December 2015.

 181

7.10.2 Case Study 2 - CAA Application of Airfoil Turbulence Interaction Noise Simulation
The instantaneous contours of the non-dimensional pressure that is radiated from the airfoil due to
the turbulence interaction mechanism (see Figure 7.6). In each case, the entire simulated domain
is shown. It is qualitatively displays that the acoustic pressure waves do not appear to be acted by
the edges of the domain, and are not acted by the changes in domain size between the two
simulations. An exception to this is at the domain edge directly downstream of the airfoil. In this
region, unphysical pressure disturbances can be seen that correspond to the vortical turbulence
encountering the NRBC’s region. However, because these pressure disturbances appear inside the
zonal NRBC region, they are contained and do not radiate back into the domain221.

Domain X Domain X/2

Figure 7.6 Aero-Acoustics Application for NRBC’

7.11 Turbulence Intensity Boundaries

When turbulent flow enters domain at inlet, outlet, or at a far-field boundary, boundary values are
required for222:

➢ Turbulent kinetic energy k.

➢ Turbulence dissipation rate ε.

Four methods available for specifying turbulence parameters:

➢ Set k and ε explicitly.

➢ Set turbulence intensity and turbulence length scale.
➢ Set turbulence intensity and turbulent viscosity ratio.
➢ Set turbulence intensity and hydraulic diameter.
7.11.1 Turbulence Intensity
The turbulence intensity I defined as:

2/3k
I= Eq. 7.10
u

Here k is the turbulent kinetic energy and u is the local velocity magnitude. Intensity and length scale

221 James Gill, Ryu Fattah, and Xin Zhangz, “Evaluation and Development of Non-Reactive Boundary Conditions
for Aeroacoustics Simulations”, University of Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 7QF, UK.
222 Bakker, Andre, ”Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics; Lecture 6 - Boundary Conditions”, 2002.
 182

depend on conditions upstream:

➢ Exhaust of a turbine. (Intensity = 20%. Length scale=1-10 % of blade span).

➢ Downstream of perforated plate or screen (intensity=10%. Length scale = screen/hole size).
➢ Fully-developed flow in a duct or pipe (intensity= 5%. Length scale = hydraulic diameter).

7.12 Immersed Boundaries

The immersed boundaries (IB) method allows
one to greatly simplify the grid generation and
even to automate it completely. The governing
equations are solved directly on a grid in their Fluid Cells
simplest form by means of very efficient
numerical schemes. The grid generator detects
the cell faces that are cut by the body surface
and divides the cells into three types: solid and
fluid cells, whose centers lie within the body
Interface Cells
and within the fluid, respectively; and
fluid/solid interface cells, which have at least
one of their neighbors inside the body/fluid.
Then, the centers of the fluid and solid-
interface cells are projected onto the body Solid Cells
surface along its normal direction, so as to
obtain fluid-cells projection points and solid-
cell projection points, (see Figure 7.7).
Figure 7.7 Immersed Boundaries
7.13 Free Surface Boundary
Free surfaces occur at the interface between two fluids. Such interfaces require two boundary
conditions to be applied223:

• A kinematic condition which

relates the motion of the free
interface to the fluid velocities at
the free surface and
• A dynamic condition which is
concerned with the force balance
at the free surface.

7.13.1 The Kinematic Boundary

Condition
The position of a free surface can always
be given in implicit form as F(xj , t) = 0. For
instance, in Figure 7.8 the height of the
free surface above the x-axis is specified Figure 7.8 Sketch Exemplifying the conditions at a Free
as y = h(x, t) and an appropriate function Surface Formed by the Interface Between Two Fluids
F(x, y, t) would be given by F(x, y, t) = h(x,
t) − y. Fluid particles on the free surface always remain part of the free surface, therefore we must
have:

223 “Viscous Fluid Flow: Boundary and initial conditions”, Lecture Series, Manchester, UK.
 183

DF ∂F ∂F
= + uk
Dt ∂t ∂xk
Eq. 7.11
This is the kinematic boundary condition. For surfaces whose position is described in the form z =
h(x, y, t), the kinematic boundary condition becomes

∂h ∂h ∂h
w= +u +v
∂t ∂x ∂y
Eq. 7.12
where u, v, w, are the velocities in the x, y, z directions, respectively. For steady problems, we have
DF/Dt = 0 and the kinematic boundary condition can be written as uini = 0 or symbolically u · n = 0,
where n is the outer unit normal on the free surface. This condition implies that there is no flow
through the free surface (but there can be a flow tangential to it!).

7.13.2 The Dynamic Boundary Condition

The dynamic boundary condition requires the stress to be continuous across the free surface which
separates the two fluids (e.g., air and water). The traction exerted by fluid (1) onto fluid (2) is equal
and opposite to the traction exerted by fluid (2) on fluid (1). Therefore we must have t(1) = −t(2).
Since n(1) = −n(2) (see Figure 7.8) we obtain the dynamic boundary condition as

τ1ij nj = τ2ij nj
Eq. 7.13
where we can use either n(1) or n(2) as the unit normal. On curved surfaces, surface tension can
create a pressure jump across the free surface. The surface tension induced pressure jump is given
by
1 1
∆p = σκ , κ= +
R1 R 2
Eq. 7.14
In this expression σ is the surface tension of the fluid and κ is equal to twice the mean curvature of
the free surface, where, R1 and R2 are the principal radii of curvature of the surface (for instance, κ
= 2/a for a spherical drop of radius a and κ = 1/a for a circular jet of radius a). Surface tension acts
like a tensioned membrane at the free surface and tries to minimize the surface area. Hence the
pressure inside a spherical drop (or inside a circular liquid jet) tends to be higher than the pressure
in the surrounding medium. If surface tension is important, the dynamic boundary condition has to
be modified to
τ1ij n𝑗1 + σκn1𝑖 = τ2ij n𝑗1
Eq. 7.15
where κ > 0 if the centers of curvature lie inside fluid (1).

7.14 Other Boundary Conditions

Other boundary conditions can occur in special applications. For instance, the presence of an elastic
boundary leads to fluid-structure interaction problems in which the fluid velocity has to be equal to
the velocity of the elastic wall, while the elastic wall deforms in response to the traction that the fluid
exerts on it. At porous walls, the no-penetration condition no longer holds: the volume flux into the
wall is often proportional to the pressure gradient at the porous surface. Non-uniformly distributed
surfactants (substances which reduce the surface tension) can induce tangential stresses at free
surfaces, etc.
 184

7.15 Further Remarks

For an incompressible fluid, the boundary conditions need to fulfill the overall consistency condition

∮ ui ni dS = 0
∂V
Eq. 7.16
where ∂V is the surface of the spatially fixed volume in which the equations are solved. If there are
no free surfaces (and associated dynamic boundary conditions), the pressure is only defined up to an
arbitrary constant as only the pressure gradient (but not the pressure itself) appears in the Navier-
Stokes equations. For initial value problems, the initial velocity field (at t = 0) already has to fulfill the
incompressibility constraint. These remarks are particularly important for the numerical solution of
the Navier-Stokes equations224.

224 “Viscous Fluid Flow: Boundary and initial conditions”, Lecture Series, Manchester, UK.
 185

8 Temporal Discretization and Time Marching

To account for transient effects, the governing equations must be discretized in time225. As it turns
out, the temporal discretization is slightly easier to deal with than that for the spatial effects. Since
the governing equation is hyperbolic/parabolic in time, the solution at time t depends upon its
history and not on its future. Temporal discretization is considered as one sided, while spatial is
two sided. Considering heat conduction where the temperature change in one point influences all
spatial neighbors. Whereas time is always one way and as an example, temperature change at any
point is only affected by current and past temperatures. Transient effects are usually dealt with by
using a time stepping procedure, with an initial condition provided. The time dimension is divided
into a set of discrete time steps, each of size ∆t. The solution algorithm therefore marches forward in
time, computing a solution at each time step. The spatial discretization for the time-dependent
equations is identical to the steady-state case. Temporal discretization involves the integration of
every term in the differential equations over the time step ∆t. The integration of transient effects
takes several forms, each yielding a different accuracy. For simplicity, we express the time dependent
transport of a scalar ϕ as
(ρ )
= L( ) Eq. 8.1
t
Where the function L is an operator that incorporates all of the non-transient terms, namely:
diffusion, convection, and source terms. Integrating the above equation over a control volume yields

(ρ )

V
t
dV =  L( )dV = L( )
V
Eq. 8.2

After the spatial discretization has been performed using the techniques described in the other
sections, we obtain where L denotes the spatial discretization operator (the discretized diffusion,
convection, and source terms), and V denotes the volume. At this point, we make an important
observation. The temporal discretization of the transient term (LHS) need not be the same as that
of the discretized diffusion, convection and source terms (RHS). Each term can be treated
differently yield different accuracies. We are now ready to perform the transient discretization. In
the framework of the finite volume method, there are various methods that can be used to perform
this task, the most popular of which are the Euler Implicit, Crank-Nicolson, Fully Implicit schemes,
Runge Kutta Method and the 2nd order Backward Difference Formula (BDF2). The temporal
discretization of the diffusion, convection, and source terms will be presented first, followed by the
methods used for the transient term. We assume the values at a given control volume are known at
an initial time t and we are interested in obtaining the values at time t+∆t. This method states that
the time integral of a given variable is equal to a weighted average between existing and future values.
For a given control volume ϕ, the RHS of the general discretized equation L(ϕ) contains terms
involving values at ϕ and its neighboring control volumes. The temporal discretization is carried out
through an integration over time of the RHS where each unknown is involved in the process. An
integration over time of the RHS where each unknown is involved in the process.

t
t + Δt
 
φ dt  f φ t +Δt + (1 − f) φ t Δt Eq. 8.3

225 CFD on Line discussion

 186

Where f is a weighing factor between 0 and 1. The following holds:

• f = 0 results in the fully explicit scheme

• f = 1 results in the fully implicit scheme
• f = 0.5 results in the Crank-Nicolson scheme

The product of most frequently schemes are described below. Other notable schemes are time spilt
McCormack method, Lax-Wendorff, and ADI, as well as many more as described in various text
books.

8.1 Transient 1D Diffusion with Source Term

Retaining the time derivative in the conservation equation we get,

d  dU  U
k  + Qv = Eq. 8.4
dx  dx  t

The right hand side includes effects of the source term and the diffusion term.

t + Δt
U U
 (f )
d  dU 
k  + Qv = or =  (x, t) = t + Δt
+ (1 − f) t Δt Eq. 8.5
dx  dx  t t t

where the right hand side includes effects of the source term and the diffusion term. The transient
term on the left can expressed simple explicit method as

U U
1 t

=  dtdx  (U t1 - U t 0 ) x Eq. 8.6

t t0
t

Or, one of following methods.

8.1.1 Euler Implicit

The 1st order accurate Euler Implicit is probably the most used techniques in transient simulation
because of its simplicity. It is
 n +1 −  n
= L( n +1 ) Eq. 8.7
Δt
Where L denote the spatial discretization. This is unconditionally stable and results in a tridiagonal
system of algebraic equations to be solved by Thomas algorithm.

8.1.2 Crank-Nicolson
This is also an implicit scheme and like previous method it is unconditionally stable, but 2nd order
accurate in time. The equations can be written as

 n +1 −  n
= L( n ,  n +1 ) Eq. 8.8
Δt
 187

Figure 8.1 Numerical Stability of 1D Heat Equation using Explicit & Implicit Algorithms (Wikipedia)
 188

Where again L is an operator of spatial discretization and the resulting equations yields a tridiagonal
system of linear algebraic equations.

8.1.3 Simple Explicit

The following explicit scheme which is 1st order accurate in time is presented as

 n +1 −  n
= L( n ) Eq. 8.9
Δt
Although the explicit schemes are not recommended because of the obvious reasons, nevertheless, it
is mentioned as completeness.

Case Study – Numerical Solution of 1D Heat Model Equation

Generally, the explicit schemes tend to become more unstable than the implicit ones. For example,
consider a 1D Heat equation as

1
ut = αuxx where α = , B. C. ∶ u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0
π2
Eq. 8.10
with aid of Separation of Variables we get the exact solution as

1 −t
u(x, t) = e sin(πx)
π2
Eq. 8.11
Using Eq. 8.10 and Eq. 8.11, together with Table 4.2 and Table 4.1, we get the result that using
explicit schemes would be not be stable, while implicit schemes (i.e., Euler implicit or Crank
Nicholson) yield to numerically stable solution, as demonstrated Figure 8.1.

8.1.4 Runga-Kutta Method

In numerical analysis, the Runge–Kutta methods are a family of implicit and explicit iterative
methods, which includes the well-known routine called the Euler Methods (yn+1 = yn+ hf(xn,yn)), used
in temporal discretization for the approximate solutions of ordinary differential equations226. These
methods were developed around 1900 by the German mathematicians [C. Runge] and [M. W. Kutta].

8.1.4.1 Explicit Treatment

The family of explicit Runge–Kutta methods is a generalization of the method mentioned above. It is
given by:

k1 = f(t n , y n ),

k 2 = f(t n + c 2 h, y n + h(a 21k1 )),
s

y n +1 = y n + h  bi k i k 3 = f(t n + c3h, y n + h(a 31k1 + a 32k 2 ))
i =1 . . . .

k s = f(t n + cs h, y n + h(a s1k1 + a s2k 2 + ....... + a s,s −1k s −1 ))
Eq. 8.12

226 “Runge–Kutta methods”, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 189

To specify a particular method, one needs to provide the integer s (the number of stages), and the
coefficients aij (for 1 ≤ j < i ≤ s), bi (for i = 1, 2,..., s) and ci (for i = 2, 3,.., s). The matrix [aij] is called the
Runge–Kutta matrix, while the bi and ci are known as the weights and the nodes defined by

i −1

a
j=1
ij = ci for i = 2,......, s Eq. 8.13

By far the most often used is the classical 4th order Runge-Kutta formula RK4, which has a certain
sleekness of organization about it227. Therefore, fourth-order Runge-Kutta method requires four
evaluations of the right hand side per each step size h. (see Eq. 8.14).

k 1 = h f (x n , y n ) 
 
k = h f  x + h , y + k 1  


2

n
2
n
2 

y n +1 = y n + h f(x n , y n )  
k = h f  x + h , y + k 2 
 3 
n
2
n
2 
 
k 4 = h f (x n + h, y n + k 3 ) 
 

y n +1 = y n +
k1 k 2 k 3 k 4
6
+
3
+
3
+
6
+  h5 ( )
Eq. 8.14

8.1.4.2 Implicit Runge-Kutta Methods

All Runge-Kutta methods mentioned up to now are explicit methods. Explicit Runge–Kutta methods
are generally unsuitable for the solution of stiff equations because their region of absolute stability
is small; in particular, it is bounded. This issue is especially important in the solution of partial
differential equations. The instability of explicit Runge–Kutta methods motivates the development of
implicit methods. An implicit Runge–Kutta method has the form

s  s 
y n +1 = y n +  bi k i where k i = f  t n + ci h, y n + h  a ijk i 
 Eq. 8.15
i =1  j=1 
The difference with an explicit method is that in an explicit method, the sum over j only goes up to i-
1. The coefficient aij of an explicit method is lower triangular. In an implicit method, the sum over j
goes up to s and the coefficient matrix is not triangular. The consequence of this difference is that at
every step, a system of algebraic equations has to be solved. This increases the computational cost
considerably. If a method with s stages is used to solve a differential equation with m components,
then the system of algebraic equations has ms components. This can be contrasted with implicit
linear multistep methods (the other big family of methods for ODEs): an implicit s-step linear
multistep method needs to solve a system of algebraic equations with only m components, so the size
of the system does not increase as the number of steps increase.

227“Numerical Recipes In C: The Art of Scientific Computing”, (ISBN 0-521-43108-5), Copyright (C) 1988-1992
by Cambridge University Press.
 190

8.1.4.3 Case Study - Time Integration Schemes for the Unsteady NS Equations
The focuses here is on the efficiency of higher-order Runge-Kutta schemes in comparison with the
popular Backward Differencing Formulations (BDF). For this comparison an unsteady two-
dimensional laminar, using a thin-layer N-S equation (TLNS3D) code is chosen with a test case of flow
around a circular cylinder at Re=1200. It is concluded that for realistic error tolerances, 4th and 5th
order Runge Kutta schemes are the most efficient. Therefore, for reasons of robustness and computer
storage, the 4th order Runge-Kutta method is recommended. The efficiency of the 4th order Runge-
Kutta scheme exceeds that of 2nd order Backward Difference Formula (BDF2) by a factor of 2.5 at
engineering error tolerance levels (10-1 - 10-2). Efficiency gains are more dramatic at smaller
tolerances. For a constructive discussion, readers should follow the paper by [Bijl, et al.]228.

8.1.5 Piecewise Analytical Method

The new method of solving DE is called piecewise analytic method (PAM). The PAM is based on
dividing the solution interval into subintervals. PAM gives an approximate analytic solution which is
very accurate and can be applied to each subinterval successively [Abassy]229 . The piecewise analytic
method can be made to be of any order of accuracy. PAM gives very interesting results especially
when the solution contains singular points.

8.2 Transient Simulation

Alternatively, the transient (un-steady) scheme could be visualized as series of quasi-Steady-State
solutions to be advanced temporally until pre-defined run time reached (dual time stepping), depicts
such solution propagation though time steps230. Unlike steady-state where the solution is advanced
until residuals fall below pre-defined tolerance level, in transient analysis, there is really no pre-set
convergence criteria defined expect the duration time. The transient residuals although should fall
but could exhibit certain small oscillations, characteristic of unsteady flow. As long as that oscillation
are small enough to limit the temporal approximation errors. In fact the solution sequence which
outlined in Figure 8.2-(left) could be translated to Figure 8.2-(right) which displays residual plots
for a transient flows, .”,

Figure 8.2 Transient Solution Sequences

228 Hester Bijl, Mark H. Carpenter, Veer N. Vatsa, “Time Integration Schemes for the Unsteady Navier-Stokes
Equations”, AIAA-2001.
229 Tamer A. Abassy, “Piecewise Analytic Method”, Int. Journal of Applied Mathematical Research, 2012.
230 Bakker André, Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics; Solution Methods; 2002.
 191

8.2.1 Time Step Size

The choice of time step is of course most important and should be elected carefully. It is restricted by
CFL number on explicit methods. For fully implicit methods, although in principal it could be any
value, in practice other considerations impose limit as previously indicated. This limit, produces in
terms of Δt < h/v where h is the size of smallest cell, and v is typical characteristic flow velocity.
Usually there are options of static (constant) step size, or more robust dynamic evaluation as dictated
internally by the solver.
8.2.2 Steady-State Vs. Transient Run
"How do I know in advance whether to perform a steady-state or an unsteady CFD simulation?" The
simple answer is, "you don't know", so it is imperative to provide some help on when to use unsteady
(also known as transient or time-dependent) simulations231. When you run a steady-state simulation
it uses an iterative scheme to progress to convergence. If you see persistent oscillations in the
residuals plot (solver diagnostics) or oscillations in a key monitor, such as a drag force monitor, with
increasing iterations then that's a good indicator the flow may be unsteady (transient) and the
simulation needs to be run as an unsteady. When you are unsure as to whether your simulation is
unsteady or steady-state it is always worth running a steady-state simulation first because it typically
takes an order of magnitude less CPU time to complete. If the steady-state simulation is sufficient
then you'll save a lot of time over running an unsteady simulation. As an example let us examine the
residual and force monitors for an unsteady simulation of vortex shedding behind a cylinder (see
Figure 8.3 (a)) and compare them with those generated by the same simulation running,
incorrectly, in steady-state mode. Simply put, the rule is that the flow is transient unless proven
otherwise, as many flows in nature are transient.

(a) Pressure
Contours

(b) Steady-State
Force Monitor for
a flow pass a Circle

(c) Steady-State
Residual Monitor
for a flow pass a
Circle

Figure 8.3 Vortex shedding behind a cylinder run wrongly as a Steady State

231 “Steady-State or Unsteady CFD Simulation?” Symscape, Computational Fluid Dynamics Software for All.
 192

8.2.2.1 Case Study 1 - Vortex Shedding Behind a Cylinder - Ran as Steady State (Wrong!)
Remember that vortex shedding behind a cylinder is unsteady as described in the previous section,
so it is interesting to see what happens when you try to run the same simulation in steady-state mode.
Clearly after only 20 updates (200 iterations) there is something wrong, as expected, indicated by
the widely oscillating lift force. For a steady-state simulation you'd expect some oscillations in the lift
force values when you first start the simulation and then see them damp out to a fixed value with
increasing iterations. Something is also wrong, as expected, with the residuals. For a steady-state
simulation you should see all residuals reduce relatively smoothly toward or below 1e -3 with
increasing iterations (see Figure 8.3: (b)-(c)).

8.2.2.2 Case study 2 - Double Sided Membrane - Ran as Steady State (Right!)
For a steady-state simulation the residuals and force profile should be something similar to those in
the tutorial "Flow Over a Double-Sided Membrane". Note the converged lift and drag force values
with increasing iterations232. The relatively smooth reduction below 1e-3 in all the residuals with
increasing iterations. In conclusion, if you run a steady-state simulation for an unsteady flow then
you will get poor results, but as I just pointed out there is usually a good indication from the steady
state results that an unsteady simulation was necessary. However, if you find that that your
simulation has a steady-state then you can avoid the unnecessary expense of performing an unsteady
simulation (see Figure 8.4).

(a) Double Sided

Membrance

(b) Steady-State
Force Monitor

(c) Steady-State
Residual Monitor

Figure 8.4 Steady-State Force and Monitoring for a flow over a double sided membrane case

8.2.3 Concept of Dual Time Stepping

When solving an unsteady fluid flow, inadvertently, two time steps come into the picture. One a real
physical time integration (outer loop), the other is pseudo timing mainly for iterative schemes on
spatial coordinates (inner looping). The idea is to use an implicit scheme with a large stability region
and to solver the implicit equations at each time step, while by inner iterations using an accelerated

232 “Steady-State or Unsteady CFD Simulation?” Symscape, CFD Software for All.
 193

evolution scheme in artificial time or pseudo-time [Jameson]233 as :

d d𝐖
∫ 𝐖dV + ∮ 𝐧𝐢 . 𝐟i . dS = 0 or V + 𝐑(𝐖)
⏟ =0
dt ⏟dt
Cell Cell Boundary 𝐏seudo Time
Real Time
Eq. 8.16
Where w now denotes the average value of the state in the cell. V is the cell volume, or in the two
dimensional case, the cell area. R(w) is the residual resulting from the space discretization.
Applications to external aerodynamic typically use grids in which the cell area or volume varies by
many orders of magnitude between the body and the far field, and this is a principal reason for using
implicit schemes for time accurate simulations.

8.2.3.1 Backward Differencing Formula (BDF)

Introducing superscripts n to denote the time level, the second order Backward Difference Formula
(BDF2) for time integration is

V 3 n+1 1
( 𝐖 − 2𝐖 n + 𝐖 n−1 ) + 𝐑(𝐖 n+1 ) = 0
dt ⏟2 2
𝐑∗ (𝐖)
Eq. 8.17
In the dual time stepping scheme this equation is solved by marching the equation:

d𝐖
+ 𝐑∗ (𝐖) = 0
dτ
Eq. 8.18
In solving Eq. 8.18 one is free to use every available acceleration technique for fast steady state
solutions without regard for time accuracy. It was shown that Multigrid techniques can be very
effective for this purpose. The dual time stepping approach has been quite widely adopted,
particularly in conjunction with the (BDF2) scheme. Recently there has been considerable interest in
whether Implicit Runge-Kutta schemes can achieve better accuracy for a given computational cost
than the Backwards Difference Formulas. Most of the studies to date have focused on Diagonal
Implicit Runge-Kutta (DIRK) schemes, sometimes called semi-implicit schemes, in which the stages
may be solved successively.

8.3 Essence of Local Preconditioning in CFD

It is essentially two types of preconditioning:

1. PDE level and its discretization ,

2. Linear system level (or purely mathematics).

Here we are mainly concern with type (1) which is a time derivative preconditioning to modify the
way the solution evolves in pseudo-time towards convergence (or at each time step, for unsteady).
Traditional time-marching algorithms that use the physical time derivatives in their formulation have
been very successful in the computation of transonic and supersonic flows as argued by [Colin,

233 Antony Jameson, “Time Integration Methods In Computational Aerodynamics”, 2003.

 194

Deniau and Boussuge]234. However, a major shortcoming in most compressible flow solvers is
their inability to solve efficiently problems of mixed flow involving very low Mach numbers in
the flow. At low Mach numbers, most of these codes encounter degraded convergence speeds due to
the wide disparity that exists between the particle and acoustic wave speeds. Local preconditioning
techniques have been first introduced to enable the simulation of an incompressible flow thanks to a
compressible flow solver. They alter the time derivatives of the compressible Euler and Navier-
Stokes (NS) equations to control the propagation velocities of the various modes. The goal of
preconditioning methods is to reduce the disparity between the particle and acoustic wave speeds
so that good convergence properties may be obtained at all speeds. The idea is thus to modify the
time-marching behavior of the equations without altering the steady state solutions.
The use of preconditioning does not only reduce the stiffness of the system of equations; it also
improves accuracy at low speed. The modification of the fluxes required to take into account the new
characteristics of the preconditioned system results in a well-conditioned dissipation formulation
and ensures reliable accuracy. So far, preconditioning techniques have proven to be a powerful tool.
Unfortunately, the gains in convergence and accuracy are accompanied by reduced robustness, which
constitutes the major shortcoming of these methods for their use in an industrial context. The loss of
robustness can be explained for two different flow phenomena. First, for Euler computations, the
loss of robustness is due to stagnation point regions, which result in high local pressure disturbances.
Then, for turbulent computations, the presence of low Reynolds number regions may also lead to
instabilities. Indeed, the preconditioning techniques have been developed to eliminate analytic
stiffness arising from the propagative disparities, inherent to the hyperbolic system of Euler
equations. However, for viscosity dominated flows, the NS system becomes parabolic and the
boundary layer region is dominated by diffusion processes235. [Birken et al.]236 studied the multigrid
methods for finite volume discretization of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) for both
steady and unsteady flows, using a preconditioned smoothers.

8.3.1 Pseudo (Artificial) Compressibility

The objective here is to propose a formulation of the preconditioning parameter to carry out robust
computations for both internal and external flows. Since we are only interested in steady solutions,
we will modify the time. Following the reasoning given by [Turkel]237, the simplest such modification
is the pseud-compressibility approach which adds a pressure time derivative to the continuity
equation. Then all the equations can be marched in time until a steady state is reached. Since there is
no decay mechanism except for boundaries we can accelerate to a steady state only by increasing the
allowable time step. By normalizing the fastest speed it is shown that we accelerate the convergence
when all the speeds are close together in absolute value. Conversely, the worst convergence occurs
when the speeds of the system differ by orders of magnitude. It is also shown in that in order to have
a well-posed problem that is compatible with the steady state, especially in terms of boundary
conditions, it is desirable to have a symmetric hyperbolic system. For a symmetric hyperbolic system,
when the preconditioning matrix is positive definite we are guaranteed that we have not changed the
appropriate number of boundary conditions and that we have not introduced any nonphysical time
reversals. The advantage of this method is its low computational cost and the reasonable
convergence speed. The efficiency of the method relies on the approximation of the inviscid and

234 Yann Colin, Hugues Deniau and Jean-Fran¸cois Boussuge,”A Robust Low Speed Preconditioning Formulation:
Application to Air Intake Flows”, CERFACS, Toulouse, France.
235 See Previous.
236 Philipp Birken, Jonathan Bull, Antony Jameson, “Preconditioned smoothers for the full approximation scheme

for the RANS equations”, October 16, 2017.

237 Eli Turkel, “Preconditioned Methods For Solving The Incompressible and Low Speed Compressible Equations”,

Journal of Computational Physics, 1987.

 195

viscous Jacobians by their spectral radii to eliminate large block matrix inversions. In this context,
the Block-Jacobi preconditioner may not be useful since its simplification within this framework
leads to classical local time stepping procedure.

8.3.2 Case Study 1 – Preconditioned Methods for Solving 2D Incompressible Flow

Here, we consider the incompressible inviscid equations. Extensions to the viscous equations will
be considered later238. We will only consider time-independent solutions and follow closely the
development in239. Nevertheless, since we shall discuss time-marching algorithms we begin with the
time-dependent incompressible inviscid equations,

1 αu
pt + u x + v y = 0 , p + ut + uux + vu𝑦 + p𝑥 = 0
β2 β2 t
αv
p + ut + uvx + vv𝑦 + p𝑦 = 0
β2 t
Eq. 8.19
Here, α and β are functions to be determined. When, α = 0, we recover the standard pseudo-
compressibility method and we need only determine β. To form a conservation system we multiply
the first equation by u and also v and then add to the second and third equations, respectively. We
first rewrite Eq. 8.19 in vector form as

1
0 0
β2
αu p 0 1 0 p 0 0 1 p
1 0 (u) + [1 u 0] (u) + [0 v 0] ( u ) = 0
β2 ⏟ ⏟0 0 u ⏟
αv
v v ⏟0 0 v ⏟ v
0 1 𝐖t 𝐀𝟎 𝐖𝐱 𝐁𝟎 𝐖𝐲
[ β2
⏟ ]
𝐄 −1
Eq. 8.20
p 0 𝛽2 0 p 0 0 𝛽2 p
(u) + [1 (1 − α)u 0] (u) + [0 v −αu ] (u) = 0
⏟v ⏟0 −αv u ⏟ v ⏟1 0 (1 − α) ⏟
v
𝐖t 𝐀 𝐖𝐱 𝐖𝐲
𝐁
Eq. 8.21
In order to consider the wave speeds of Eq. 8.21, we Fourier transform the system [Turkel]240. We
note that the optimal β for α ≥ 1 is gotten by choosing an equality in Eq. 8.22 rather than an
inequality. Hence, if one wishes the system to be both close to optimal and symmetrize, should
choose β2 slightly larger than u2 + v2. Furthermore, for α ≤ 1, Eq. 8.22 implies automatically. For α
≤ 0 , Eq. 8.22 is always satisfied for all β.

β2 > α(u2 + v 2 )
Eq. 8.22

238 See Previous.

239 See Previous.
240 Eli Turkel, “Preconditioned Methods for Solving the Incompressible and Low Speed Compressible Equations”,

Journal of Computational Physics -1987.

 196

We can time integrate using an implicit scheme on Eq. 8.19 such that:

∂ n ∂
[𝐄 −1 + ∆t ( 𝐀0 + 𝐁0n )] ∆𝐖 = −∆t(𝐟xn + 𝐠 ny ) , ∆𝐖 = 𝐖 n=1 − 𝐖 n
∂x ∂y
𝐟 = [u , u2 + p , uv]T , 𝐠 = [u , uv , v 2 + p]T
∂ ∂
𝐄 −1 [𝐈 + ∆t 𝐄 𝐧 ( 𝐀n0 + 𝐁0n )] ∆𝐖 = −∆t(𝐟xn + 𝐠 ny )
∂x ∂y
Eq. 8.23
We now apply an approximate factorization and ignore errors in the conservation form of the left-
hand side to get

∂ ∂
𝐄−1 [𝐈 + ∆t ( 𝐀)] [𝐈 + ∆t ( 𝐁)] ∆𝐖 = −∆t(𝐟xn + 𝐠 ny )
∂x ∂y
Eq. 8.24
Since the matrices [A] = [E][A0] and [B] = [E][B0] are well conditioned, there is no way that the
splitting error can slow down the convergence compared with the standard AD1 splitting. Further
details and formulation for compressible flow are obtainable from [Turkel]241. Additional
information can also be obtained from studies by [Turkel and Vatsa]242 and [Turkel & Vatsa]243

241 Eli Turkel, “Preconditioned Methods for Solving the Incompressible and Low Speed Compressible Equations”,
Journal of Computational Physics -1987.
242 Eli Turkel and Veer N. Vatsa, “Choice of Variables and Preconditioning for Time Dependent problems”, NASA

Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, AIAA Paper.

243 Eli Turkel and Veer N. Vatsa, “Local Preconditioners For Steady And Unsteady Flow Applications”,

Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis.

 197

W  (f - f v )  (g - g v )  (h - h v )
+ + + =0
t x y z
 ρ   ρu   0 
 ρu   ρu 2 + p   τ xx 
     
W =  ρv  , f =  ρuv  , fv =  τ xy 
     
ρw   ρuw + p   τ xz 
 E t  (E t + p)u uτ xx + vτ xy + wτ xz − q x 
 
 ρv   0 
 ρuv    xy 
   
g =  ρv 2 + p  , gv =   yy 
   
 ρvw    yz 
(E t + p)v u xy + v yy + w yz − q y 
 
 ρw   0 
 ρuw    xz 
   
h =  ρvw  , hv =   yz 
   
 ρw + p 
2
  zz 
(E t + p)w u xz + v yz + w zz − q z 
 
Eq. 8.25
8.3.3 Case Study 2 – Preconditioned Methods for 3D Unsteady Low Speed Compressible N-S
The governing equations are the unsteady compressible Navier-Stokes equations which describe the
conservation of mass, momentum and energy of the flow field. Following closely the development in
[Colin et al.]244, the conservative form can be expressed in 3D Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) as Eq.
8.25.

8.3.3.1 Low Speed Preconditioning Formulation

Preconditioning techniques involve the alteration of the time-derivatives used in time-marching CFD
methods with the primary objective of enhancing their convergence. The alteration of the
propagation velocities is done by multiplying the time-derivative by a preconditioning matrix ГW as

W W W W
ΓW + AW + BW + CW = R VW ( W)
t x y z
Eq. 8.26
f g h
where A W = , BW = , BW =
W W W

are the inviscid Jacobians expressed in conservative variables and RWv (W) denotes the differential
operator for the viscous term. An issue related to the study or comparison of preconditioning
matrices relies on the choice of the system variables. Merkle, Turkel or Van Leer thus make different

Yann Colin, Hugues Deniau and Jean-Fran¸cois Boussuge,”A Robust Low Speed Preconditioning Formulation:
244

Application to Air Intake Flows”, CERFACS, Toulouse, France.

 198

variable choices. Besides the choice of the conservative variables set W is not well suited for
preconditioning analysis due to the complex formulation. The analysis is generally simplified by
considering the Euler conservative variables and its differential form of the entropy variables as:

T
T
dp
e 2
𝐖 = [ρ, ρu, ρv, ρw, E] , d𝐖 = [ , du, dv, dw, dp − c dρ]
ρc
Eq. 8.27
where c is speed on sound and superscript e assigns entropy245. In this formulation, the system of
preconditioned Navier-Stokes equations becomes:

Q  Q Q Q 
+ Γ Q−1  A Q + BQ + CQ  = Γ Q−1R V (Q)
t  x y z 
  
 0 0 0 -  c 
  Eq. 8.28
−1 0 1 0 0 0 
where Γ Q = 
0 0 1 0 0 
 
0 0 0 1 0 
 0 0 0 0 1 

where AQ, BQ, and CQ are symmetric matrixes. The Г-1Q is the preconditioning matrix where a generic
Weiss-Smith/Choi-Merkle preconditioner (WSCM) was implemented. In this formulation, ԑ ~ M2 is
the preconditioning parameter, to be defined, and δ is a free parameter varying from 0 to 1. For δ =
0, the preconditioner is the Weiss-Smith preconditioner, whereas for δ = 1 it reduces to the Choi-
Merkle one. At this point, we recall that there are two other types of preconditioners which try to
modify the inviscid flux Jacobian eigenvalues. The first one is the preconditioner by Turkel which
introduces a new parameter to improve the condition number to unity at the low Mach number limit.
The second one is the Van Leer-Lee-Roe preconditioner (VLR) which is designed to optimize wave
speeds across all Mach number ranges. Concerning convergence issues, the natural candidate turns
to be the VLR preconditioner which yields the most optimal condition number obtainable. The WSCM
does not achieve the optimal conditioning at low Mach numbers and possesses a condition number
of 2.61 as the Mach number tends to zero.

8.3.3.2 Numerical Integration

The numerical code solves the compressible Navier-Stokes equations on structured meshes using a
finite volume method where the preconditioning is used as:

W

V
t
dV + Γ -1W  Μ.ndS = 0
S
where M = (f - f v , g - g v , h - h v ) Eq. 8.29

and n is the outward unit normal. These equations are discretized in space using a cell centered finite
volume method. The discretized equations reduce to the following system applied to one cell:

245 Kaveh Hosseini and Juan J. Alonso, “Practical Implementation and Improvement of Preconditioning Methods
for Explicit Multistage Flow Solvers”, AIAA 2004{0763.
 199

W
V + Γ -1
WR = 0 Eq. 8.30
t
where R is the residual of the discretized convective and viscous fluxes. On structured meshes, a large
number of schemes have been developed in order to get an approximation of the convective fluxes.
Most of them may be written using a central discretization in conjunction with an artificial dissipation
model. Therefore, the inviscid part of the numerical flux Fi+1/2 at the cell face i + 1/2 is written as:

Fi +1/2 = Mi +1/2.si+1/2 - Γ W,i +1/2di+1/2 Eq. 8.31

where S = (SX, SY, SZ) is the corresponding surface vector and d is the dissipative flux. The use of
preconditioning does not only reduce the stiffness of the system of equations, it also improves
accuracy at low speeds. It turns out that the artificial dissipation fluxes become extremely large for
very low velocities and are responsible for the loss of accuracy of the original convective schemes.
The modification of the fluxes required to take into account the new characteristics of the
preconditioned system results in a well-conditioned dissipation formulation and ensures reliable
accuracy. The artificial dissipation flux d of [Jameson et al.] consists of a blend of second- and fourth-
order differences. Other relative details can be found in [Colin, et al. ]246.

8.3.4 Case Study 3 - Numerical Analysis of a Dual-Time Pseudo-Compressibility Method

An implicit algorithm based on a dual-time pseudo-compressibility method is developed to compute
water impact forces on bodies, by [Nguyen et al.]247 and [Nguyen & Park]248. Flow fields of
incompressible viscous fluids are solved using unsteady Reynolds-averaged N–S equations. Pseudo-
time derivatives are introduced into the equations to improve computational efficiency. A second-
order volume-of-fluid interface tracking algorithm is developed in a generalized curvilinear
coordinate system to track the interface between the two phases in the computational domain. A grid
refinement study of the dam-break flow is performed as a validation, and the obtained solutions
agreed well with the experimental data and with the results of other numerical simulations.
Numerical analysis of water impact forces on a hemisphere, two cones, and a wedge through free
falling in one degree of freedom is then performed. Free surface deformation, pressure coefficients,
impact velocities, and vertical accelerations during impact are compared with available experimental
data and theoretical results. Good agreement with these results is obtained.

8.3.4.1 Introduction and Background

The computational fluid dynamic simulation of free surface flow for water impact problems is a vast
topic that is still receiving increasing attention, particularly for applications in many hydraulic and
hydrodynamic problems. The important examples for hydraulic problems in civil engineering are the
potential risks of failures of levees, dams, reservoirs, and flood management. The main computational
challenges when solving such highly nonlinear, complex problems, include the determination of the
dynamic pressure loads by water impact and the very violent motions of the interface, including
turbulence, discontinuities, splashing, wave breaking, and mixing or entrapment of one fluid within

246 Yann Colin, Hugues Deniau and Jean-Francois Boussuge, “A Robust Low Speed Preconditioning Formulation:
Application to Air Intake Flows”, CERFACS, Toulouse, France.
247 Van-Tu Nguyen, Duc-Thanh Vu, Warn-Gyu Park, Young-Rae Jung, “Numerical analysis of water impact forces

using a dual-time pseudo-compressibility method and volume-of-fluid interface tracking algorithm”, Computers
& Fluids 103 (2014) 18–33.
248 Van-Tu Nguyen and Warn-Gyu Park, “A free surface flow solver for complex three-dimensional water impact

problems based on the VOF method”, Int. J. Numerical Meth. Fluids (2015).
 200

another. The challenges have motivated researchers to develop novel, efficient, and accurate
numerical models for high resolution, 2D, and 3D flow simulations over the years. A class of particle
methods adopts a Lagrangian framework for the description of the fluid, such as the smoothed
particle hydrodynamics (SPH), the meshless finite element method, or the particle finite element
method. These methods have been developed by many authors for the simulation of an extensive
class of problems involving complex interaction between fluids and solids. Among the Lagrangian
approaches, the earliest method is the SPH technique, originally proposed by pioneers [Gingold and
Monaghan]249 and [Lucy]250.
The technique subsequently received widespread interest and success within the scientific
community, especially for its applications in both hydraulic and hydrodynamic problems because of
its simplicity and high computational efficiency251. However, this method faces some drawbacks, such
as a lack of consistency, and a tensile instability in distortion of the material domain that can lead to
a low accuracy and to a prominent problem in proving the convergence. Based on the best features
of the particle method, together with the finite element method, both the meshless finite element and
the particle finite element methods, in which meshless and mesh-based shape functions are
respectively used, were later introduced. The methods are easy to use and introduce the boundary
condition and have proven their capability for simulating a broad class of problems. Moreover, the
tensile instability in the distortion of the material domain still occurs and leads to a poor accuracy in
simulations using the methods.
For the use of Eulerian approaches, the Level-Set Method (LSM) and the Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF)
method are the most popular and are frequently used by researchers for the prediction of the
problems. The LSM method was originally proposed by [Osher and Sethian]252. The interface is
represented as a smooth function of the distance from the interface, and highly deformed interfaces
can be treated. Because of the simplicity and ability to capture the interface, the method has been
developed and applied to a wide range of problems, such as the Rayleigh Taylor instability, vortex
motion, bubbles and drops, free surface motion, and the interaction between free surface flow and
rigid bodies. However, the drawback with mass conservation of the method is an unphysical
loss/gain of the fluid in simulations. As an alternative to the LSM in capturing the interface, the VOF
technique is a good tool for numerical simulations of free surface flows253. As a result of the high
accuracy of mass conservation, many different novel, accurate, VOF interface tracking algorithms
have been developed and have been used extensively to compute bubbles, droplets, and the Rayleigh
Taylor instability, free surface flows, water impact problems, and multiphase flows of incompressible
fluids. An overview of the methods available can be found in our previously published work254.
The aim here is to develop a robust numerical method that allows the predictive 3D simulation of
free surface flows and dynamic pressure loads by the water impact on complex domains. A dual-time
pseudo-compressibility (NS) model, and a VOF interface tracking algorithm that was implemented in
a generalized curvilinear coordinate system. The NS equations are expressed in the vector form
system, which is discretized on a general curvilinear grid using a class of lower-upper symmetric
Gauss–Seidel method. The Monotonic Upstream-Centered Scheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL)-

249 Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars”.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 1977; 181:375–389.
250 Lucy LB. “A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis”. Astronomical Journal 1977.
251 Prakash M, Rothauge K, Cleary PW. “Modelling the impact of dam failure scenarios on flood inundation using

SPH”. Applied Mathematical Modelling 2014; 38:5515–5534.

252 Osher S, Sethian JA. “Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithms based on Hamilton–

Jacobi formulations”, Journal of Computational Physics 1988; 79:12–49.

253 C. W. Hirt and B. D. Nichols, “Volume of Fluid (VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries”, Journal of

Computational Physics 39, 201-225 (1981).

254 Nguyen V-T, Vu D-T, Park W-G, Jung Y-R. “Numerical analysis of water impact forces using a dual-time pseudo-

compressibility method and volume-of-fluid interface tracking algorithm”. Computers and Fluids 2014.
 201

Roe procedure is employed in the discretization of the convective terms to achieve a high-order
approximation. To evaluate the accuracy of the VOF method on curvilinear grids, the multiple
numerical benchmark tests, including 2D and 3D deformation cases, are first performed. The
numerical procedure is then validated by computing water entries of the free-falling hemisphere and
cone, the dam-break impact flows, and the impact of the wave on a container and on a tall structure
where dam failure is assumed to occur further to the collapse of a water column and a subsequent
impact with the obstacles. The obtained results are compared with the experimental data as well as
with the results of other numerical simulations in the literature.

8.3.4.2 Governing Equations

The dual-time, pseudo-compressibility, homogeneous flow model is developed on the basis of the
unsteady incompressible Reynolds-averaged N–S equations. All dependent variables are non-
dimensionalized using the free-stream conditions, such as free-stream velocity u1, free-stream
density q1, freestream viscosity μ1, and characteristic length of the body D. The governing equations
can be expressed in generalized curvilinear coordinates as follows255-256:

̂ ∂Q
∂Q ̂ ∂Êj ∂Êjv
Γe + + + = Ŝ
∂t ∂τ ∂ξj ∂ξj
Eq. 8.32
where the primitive solution variable, convective, viscous flux, and source vectors are written as
follows:

̂ = Q = 1 [ρ̅, ̅u,
Q ρ ρ̅w]T
ρ ̅v,
J J
1
̂j = [ρm Uj , ρm uUj + ξj,x p , ρm vUj + ξj,y p , ξj,x p , ρm wUj + ξj,z p]T
E
J
1
̂jv = [0 , ξj,k τx,k , ξj,k τy,k , ξj,k τz,k ]T
E
J
1 T
Ŝ = [0 , ρ𝑚 g 𝑥 , ρ𝑚 g 𝑦 , ρ𝑚 g 𝑧 ]
J
Eq. 8.33
and t is the physical time, s is the pseudo-time, and ĝx, ĝy and ĝz are the accelerations due to gravity
and hydrodynamic forces in the x, y and z directions, respectively. The accelerations can be
determined using the dynamic equation of the body. The pseudo-time derivatives involve a pseudo-
density ρ∼; and the pressure field is calculated on the basis of an additional pseudo-state equation:

ρ̃
p = ρm U02 ln ( ) + p∞
ρ∞
Eq. 8.34
where the parameters are set in accordance with U0 = U∞ or U0 = √u2 + v2 + w2, in which u, v, and w
are the local values of the respective velocities obtained at a previous iteration step in pseudo-time.
The mixture density and mixture viscosity are defined as follows:

255 Nguyen V-T, Vu D-T, Park W-G. “3D numerical simulation of water entry of free falling objects using Navier–
Stokes computations and moving chimera grid scheme”. 10th Asian CFD Conference, Korea. 2014.
256 De Jouëtte C, Laget O, Le Gouez JM, Viviand H. “A dual time stepping method for fluid–structure interaction

problems”, Computers and Fluids 2002; 31:509–537.

 202

ρm = α1 ρl + (1 − α1 )ρg , μm = α1 μl + (1 − α1 )μg
Eq. 8.35
where α is the volume fraction, and the subscripts l and g denote liquid and gas phases, respectively.
The contravariant velocities are given as follows:

Uj = ξj,t + ξj,x u + ξj,y v + ξj,z w

Eq. 8.36
And the matrix Гe is given as

0 0 0 0
ρm −u 1 0 0
𝚪e = [ ]
ρ̃ −v 0 1 0
−w 0 0 1
Eq. 8.37

8.3.4.3 Time Integration

The governing equations expressed by Eq. 8.32 are discretized on a general, structured grid, using
the lower-upper symmetric Gauss–Seidel method. An upwind difference scheme, based on the
characteristic information of the governing equations, is used to compute the convective flux
derivatives. For this purpose, the flux Jacobian matrix is split into two sub-vectors associated with
the nonnegative and non-positive eigenvalues. The convective flux in Eq. 8.32 can be linearized as
follows257:

̂ ∂𝐐
∂𝐐 ̂ ∂𝐐 ̂
Γe + + 𝐀𝒋 = 𝐒̅
∂t ∂τ ∂ξ𝑗
−Uj ξj,x ξj,y ξj,z
∂𝐄̂𝐣 ρ −2uUj + U02 ξj,x uξj,x + Uj uξj,y uξj,z
̂𝐣 =
𝐀 =
∂Q̂ ρ̃ −2vUj + U02 ξj,y vξj,x vξj,y + Uj vξj,z
2
[ −2vw + U0 ξj,z wξj,x wξj,y wξj,z + Uj ]
and flow velocity = U0 = √u2 + v 2 + w 2
Eq. 8.38
The physical time derivative is approximated by a second-order backward difference, and the
implicit Euler’s finite difference formula is used for the pseudo-time derivative. The governing
equation, expressed by Eq. 8.32, can be written in a difference form as follows:

257 NguyenV-T, Vu D-T, Park W-G, Jung Y-R. “Numerical analysis of water impact forces using a dual-time pseudo
compressibility method and volume-of-fluid interface tracking algorithm”. Computers and Fluids 2014.
 203

∂Âj 𝚪𝐞 ̂ n+1,k − 4𝐐
3𝐐 ̂n + 𝐐 ̂ n−1
[𝐈 + ∆τ ( + 1.5 − 𝐒)] ∆𝐐 ̂ n+1,k
− ∆τ𝚪e
∂ξj ∆t 2∆t
∂𝐄̂j − ∂𝐄̂jv
= ∆τ ( − 𝐒̂) where ∆𝐐 ̂ n+1,k = 𝐐̂ n+1,k+1 − 𝐐̂ n+1,k
∂ξj
Eq. 8.39
Here, the superscript n represents the physical time index, and the superscript k represents the
pseudo-time index. The pseudo-time step is determined in accordance with the local pseudo-time
step, which is defined by the largest system eigenvalue. At each physical time step, a pseudo-time
iterative procedure is applied, such that ΔQn+1,k /Δτ →0 at convergence.

8.3.4.4 Six-Degree-of-Freedom Rigid Body Motion

A 6 DOF model is integrated into the
numerical solver for considering the
arbitrary motions of rigid bodies. The
flowchart of the strong combination of
the NS/VOF flow solver and 6DOF model
is shown in Figure 8.5. Hydro-forces
and moments are computed after each
pseudo-time step (inner loop) of the
NS/VOF solver, and then, the 6DOF
motions of a rigid body are solved. Next,
the Chimera grid system is redefined
(moved) based on the motions of the
rigid body. At this step, the constraints
based on the difference between two
sequential iterations of calculated loads
are checked. In addition to the
computational Chimera grid, the
fulfillment of such conditions allows for
the continuation of the procedure and
the movement of the body. This inner
loop provides a strongly coupled
solution in the entire computational
domain between the rigid body motions
and flow field. The 6DOF rigid-body Figure 8.5 Flowchart of the Strong coupling of NS/VOF
motion equations are required to Flow Solver and 6DOF Model (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park)
describe the position and orientation
of a rigid body during simulations. Among these, three DOFs provide the location of a point fixed on
the body. The other three DOFs provide the orientation of the body in a fixed reference frame. The
position of the body in a reference frame can be obtained by integrating the velocity in that
frame258,259.

258 P.M. Carrica, R.V. Wilson, R.W. Noack, F. Stern, Ship motions using single-phase level set with dynamic overset
grids, Computational Fluids 36 (2007)1415–1433.
259 N.C. Prewitt, D.M. Belk, W. Shyy, Parallel computing of overset grids for aerodynamic problems with moving

objects, Prog. Aerospace Sci. 2000.

 204

8.3.4.5 3D Flow Evolution of a Dam Break

3D simulations of interfacial structures under wave-front propagation in a dam-break problem are
accessible by [Nguyen & Park]260. The corresponding experiments were conducted by [Fraccarollo
and Toro]261. In the experiment, still water with a total depth of H = 0.6 m was initially placed in a
plane-bottom tank with a width of 2 m and a length of 1 m. The tank had a 0.4 m wide gate and was
connected to a downstream area with dimensions of 2 m × 2 m, which had open boundaries on three
sides. Figure 8.6 shows an image of the experimental setup and the snap shot of the 3D dam-break
flow simulation that was performed using a grid comprising 1.5 M points. The water front flows
through the gate and moves downstream to half the length of the rectangular tank in a relatively
short time of t = 0.5 s.

Figure 8.6 Snapshots of 3D dam-break flow: (a) experimental image and (b) simulation result at 0.5 s
(Courtesy of Nguyen & Park)

As the water flows past the gate and moves down-stream, the water height in the reservoir reduces,
which can be clearly observed from the change in the color of the interface with respect to time. The
free surface becomes smoother after the wave front reaches the bounds. The water level and
velocities of the flow at various positions inside and outside the tank were measured in the
experiment. A comparisons between the predicted and experimental data of the water levels as a
function of time is been made (see [Nguyen & Park]262). The obtained numerical results are similar to
the experimental measurements in terms of the oscillation frequency and amplitude of the velocity
signals. The two aforementioned quantitative comparisons show that the proposed method is
capable of accurately simulating complex interface structure flows. A simulation of the same problem
is conducted to observe other scenarios of dam-break failure. However, in this simulation, closed
boundaries are applied to the downstream area.
Error! Reference source not found. shows the snapshots of the dam-break problem during the s
imulation at time set = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 12.15 s. At t = 0.25 s and 0.5 s, longitudinal
crests appear, and the structure of the interface formed is similar to that in the case of a downstream
area with open boundaries. The interfacial structure remains similar until the wave front reaches the
bounds. The water progressively propagates and hits the lateral and downstream walls, thus

260 Van-Tu Nguyen, and Warn-Gyu Park, “Enhancement of Navier–Stokes solver based on an improved volume-
of-fluid method for complex interfacial-flow simulations”, Applied Ocean Research 72 (2018) 92–109.
261 L. Fraccarollo, E.F. Toro, Experimental and numerical assessment of the shallow water model for two-

dimensional dam-break type problems, J. Hydraulic Res. 1995.

262 Van-Tu Nguyen, and Warn-Gyu Park, “Enhancement of Navier–Stokes solver based on an improved volume-

of-fluid method for complex interfacial-flow simulations”, Applied Ocean Research 72 (2018) 92–109.
 205

resulting in complex waves reflecting from the walls. The back waves return and interact with the
primary waves, forming a complex interfacial structure. Finally, the water returns to an
approximately hydrostatic distribution, as shown at time t = 12.15 s.

Figure 8.7 Image sequences of the 3D evolution of a dam break in the case of closed downstream walls,
where the color of the free surface denotes the water level (red, z = 0.6 m; green, z = 0) (Courtesy of
Nguyen & Park)
 206

8.3.4.6 Free-Surface Wave Around Surface-Piercing NACA Foils

To further validate the numerical method for unsteady free-surface wave flows, the experiments
conducted by [Metcalf and Stern]263 for a surface-piercing NACA 0024 foil are used for comparison
with the numerical results. The hydrofoil has a chord length of 1.2 m and a beam length of 0.29 m.
Figure 8.9 shows the visual comparisons of the wave profiles around the surface-piercing NACA
0024 foil for Fr = 0.37. A quantitative wave pro-file is calculated close to the wall. data for Fr = 0.37
and 0.55. It can be observed that the numerical simulations predict the location of the toe (x < 0.4 in
the case of Fr = 0.37 and x < 0.5 in the case of Fr = 0.55)accurately, but fail to predict the subsequent
regions with sharp rise (0.4 < x < 0.6 in the case of Fr = 0.37 and x > 0.5 in the case of Fr = 0.55). The

Figure 8.9 Visual Comparison of Simulated and Experimental Free-Surface Wave Profiles
(Courtesy of Nguyen & Park)

present results
and the solutions
of [Kandasamy et
al.]264 agree with
the data. Studies
on grid
refinement and
numerical
convergence were
performed using
this large-scale
problem. The
wave profiles
around the
surface-piercing
NACA 0024 foil for Figure 8.8 Wave profile Around a Surface-Piercing NACA 0024 Hydrofoil at Fr =
0.37obtained from Grid Refinement
Fr = 0.37 were
simulated using
grids with five different grid sizes of 180,000 (grid I), 400,000(grid II), 710,000 (grid III), 1,050,000

263 B. Metcalf, J. Longo, S. Ghosh, F. Stern, Unsteady free-surface wave-induced boundary-layer separation for a
surface-piercing NACA 0024 foil: towing tank experiments, J. Fluids Structure. 22 (2006) 77–98.
264 M. Kandasamy, T. Xing, F. Stern, Unsteady free surface wave-induced separation: vortical structures and

instabilities, J. Fluid Struct. 25 (2009)343–363.

 207

(grid IV), and 1,820,000 (grid V)points. The wave profiles for three different grid sizes do not agree
with the experimental data. The discrepancies between the predicted results for medium and fine
grids are small, and the present results agree well with the experimental data as shown in Figure
8.8.
8.3.4.7 Computational Model and on a NACA 66 Hydrofoil
The proposed model is used to simulate a wave breaking around a surface-piercing NACA 66
hydrofoil moving at a speed of 5.33 m/s. The chord and span of the hydro-foil are 0.15 m and 0.45
m, respectively. The hydrofoil is submerged in water at a depth of 0.15 m, and 0.30 m is out of the
water. Figure 8.10 shows the profile of the wave breaking due to the hydrofoil and corresponding
computational grid. The water starts splashing up from the original water surface at the leading part
and extends down-stream, forming a pair of thin liquid sheets. The sheets stretch and subsequently
pinch-off from the liquid sheet with a long wake. The water is separated on two sides of the hydrofoil.
In addition to the two liquid sheets in the wake region, a third liquid sheet, which is at a level lower
than the water level, is formed in the middle region between the two liquid sheets because of gravity.
At the end of the wake, the liquid sheets fall and tend to return to the initial waterline.

(a) Grid (b) Waves

Figure 8.10 Grid and Wave Breaking by a NACA 66 Hydrofoil (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park)

8.3.4.8 Water Entry of Free-Falling Rigid Objects

8.3.4.8.1 Hemisphere
Before applying the model for the simulation of a free-falling sphere and considering the complicated
behavior of a cavity, a model of the 6DOF motion coupled with the numerical solver was used to
simulate a transient free-falling hemisphere entering the free surface of water. This was done to
check and validate the computational model using a simpler problem (presented in265). The
experimental results of [De Backer et al.]266 were compared with simulation results. The diameter
and mass of the hemisphere were 0.3 m and 11.5 kg, respectively. It was freely released into the
water, and it reached a velocity of 4.0 m/s immediately prior to touching the free surface. Figure
8.11 shows the temporal pressure-distribution coefficients defined as Cp = p/(0.5ρU2entry). The case

265 V.-T. Nguyen, W.-G. Park, A free surface flow solver for complex three-dimensional water impact problems
based on the VOF method, Int. J.Numer. Methods Fluids 82 (2015) 3–34.
266 G. De Backer, M. Vantorre, C. Beels, J. De Pré, S. Victor, J. De Rouck, et al., Experimental investigation of water

impact on axisymmetric bodies, Appl. Ocean Res. 31 (2009) 143–156.

 208

is simulated using three different grid sizes, and the obtained results are compared with the
experimental data, the numerical simulation results of [Wang and Soares]267, and the asymptotic
results obtained on assuming a constant water impact velocity as in. The numerical results of [Wang
and Soares]268 contain numerous spurious oscillations and the asymptotic solutions exhibit
remarkable overestimation, while the present results agree well with the experimental data. It was
also shown the experimental and theoretical values of the penetration depth of the free-falling
hemisphere (see [Nguyen & Park]269). The comparisons show that the numerical model is successful
in determining the impact loads due to the interaction of the free surface and structure and the
trajectory of the water-entry body.

Figure 8.11 Impact Pressure Distributions over the Surface of a Water Entry Hemisphere over time
(Courtesy of V.T. Nguyen, W.-G. Park)

8.3.4.8.2 Sphere
Next, the hydrodynamics of a steel sphere freely falling into water are simulated. [Arist off et al.]270
studied this problem experimentally. The diameter of the sphere is 0.0254 m, and the ratio of the

267 S. Wang, C. Guedes Soares, Numerical study on the water impact of 3D bodies by an explicit finite element
method, Ocean Eng. 78 (2014) 73–88.
268 S. Wang, C. Guedes Soares, Numerical study on the water impact of 3D bodies by an explicit finite element

method, Ocean Eng. 78 (2014) 73–88.

269 Van-Tu Nguyen, and Warn-Gyu Park, “Enhancement of Navier–Stokes solver based on an improved volume-

of-fluid method for complex interfacial-flow simulations”, Applied Ocean Research 72 (2018) 92–109.
270 J.M. Aristoff, T.T. Truscott, A.H. Techet, J.W.M. Bush, The water entry of decelerating spheres, Phys. Fluids 2

(2010) 032102.
 209

densities of the sphere and water is 7.86. The sphere enters the water at a velocity of 2.17m/s. For
computational convenience, Chimera grids comprising a body-fitted sphere grid with a size of 130 ×
30 × 50 and a curvilinear background grid with a size of 400×110×40 are used, as shown in Figure
8.12. Simulations are performed for the falling of the sphere at three different entry velocities.
depths increase linearly with entry velocity. The comparison of the penetration depths of the sphere
at various entry velocities is shown in Figure 8.13. The curves in the figure show that when entry
velocity is higher, the sphere penetrates the water faster and cavity pinch-off occurs at a higher depth.
For Further and complete discussion, please consult the [Nguyen & Park]271.

Figure 8.12 Chimera Grids for Water Entry of a Figure 8.13 Center-depth variation for a free-
Sphere: (a) Curvilinear Background Grid (b) Body- falling sphere with time at various entry
Fitted Grid (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park) velocities (Courtesy of Nguyen & Park)

271 Van-Tu Nguyen, and Warn-Gyu Park, “Enhancement of Navier–Stokes solver based on an improved volume-
of-fluid method for complex interfacial-flow simulations”, Applied Ocean Research 72 (2018) 92–109.
 210

9 Solution Methods for Inviscid (Euler) Equations

9.1 Background
The interest in Euler equations arises from the fact that in many primary design the information
about the pressure alone is needed. In boundary layer where the skin friction and heat transfer is
required, the outer edge condition using the Euler. The Euler equation is also of interest because of
interest in major flow internal discontinuities such as shock wave or contact surfaces. Solutions
relating to Rankine-Hugonist
Equations are embedded in Euler Subsonic Sonic Supersonic
Flow
equation. The Euler equations govern M<1 M=1 M>1
the motion of an Inviscid, Non-heat- Steady Elliptic Parabolic Hyperbolic
Conducting flow have different Unsteady Hyperbolic Hyperbolic Hyperbolic
character in different regions. If the flow
is time-dependent, the flow regimes is Table 9.1 Classification of the Euler Equation on Different
hyperbolic for all the Mach numbers and Regimes
solution can be obtained using marching
procedures. The situation is very different when a steady flow is assumed. In this case, Euler
equations are elliptic when the flow is subsonic, and hyperbolic when the flow is supersonic. For
transonic flows, has required research and development for many years.
Table 9.1 shows the different flow regimes and corresponding mathematical character of the
equations.

9.2 Method of Characteristics

For inviscid flows, method of Characteristics is the oldest and most nearly exact method which still
used to solve parabolic PDE’s. Other notable methods are Shock-Capturing which could be used to
capture large pressure gradients within a supersonic flow using a predictor-corrector scheme such
as Mac Cormack’s. The Euler equations for steady-state, isentropic, irrotational can be combined into
a single equation as potential equation. This could be treated using a type-dependent differentiation
where for supersonic regions where the flow is hyperbolic an upwind differential recommended. For
subsonic region, where the flow is elliptic, a central differencing recommended. Evidently, the
solution methods are dependent on several parameters confined to problem at hand. The description
for some legacy discretization methods and their characteristic behavior are available in literature.
Closed form solutions of non-linear hyperbolic partial differential equation do not exists for general
cases. In order to obtain the solution to such an equations we are required to resort to numerical
methods. The method of characteristics is the oldest and most nearly exact method in use to solve
hyperbolic PDEs. Even though this technique is been replaced by newer finite difference method. A
background in characteristic theory and its application is essential. The method of characteristics is
a technique which utilizes the known physical behavior of the solution in each point in the flow.

9.2.1 Linear Systems

Consider Steady Supersonic of Inviscid, Non-heat conducting of small perturbation for 2D perfect
gas272 as depicted in Figure 9.1.

D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, ISBN 0-89116-
272

471-5 – 1984.
 211

 
(1 − M  ) xx +  yy = 0 denoting (1 − M  ) = β 2 and u = ,v=
x y
u v v u w w
β2 − =0 , − =0 write in vector form + [ A] =0
x y x y x y
 1
u  0 − 2
where w =   and [ A] =  β
v  
 − 1 0 
Eq. 9.1
The eigenvalues of this system are the eigenvalues of [A]. These are obtained by extracting the roots
of characteristics equation of [A] as

1
−λ −
[ A] − λ[I] = 0 or β2 = 0 ,
−1 −λ Eq. 9.2
1 1 1
λ2 − = 0 , λ1 = , λ2 = −
β 2
β β

This is pair of roots from the differential equation

of characteristics. Next we determine the
compatibility equation. These equations are
obtained by pre-multiplying the system of
equations by left eigenvectors of [A]. This
effectively provides a method for writing the Figure 9.1 Characteristics of Linear Equation
equations along the characteristics. Let L1
represents the left eigenvectors of [A]
corresponding to λ1 and L2 represents the left
eigenvectors corresponding to λ2. Drive the eigenvectors of [A]:

T
[Li ] [𝐀 − λi 𝐈] = 0
1 1
− − 2
l β β −β β
L1 = [ 1 ] → [l
⏟ 1 l2 ] =0 L1 = [ ], L2 = [ ]
l2 1 1 1
LT −1 −
[⏟ β]
𝐀
Eq. 9.3
The compatibility equations along λ1 is obtained from
 212

L  w    w 
T
T
i
x + [A]w y = 0 or Li x + λi w y = 0
 1 
u x + β u y 
compatabilty along λ1 is obtained [-β 1]  =0 Eq. 9.4
vx + 1 vy 
 β 

(βu − v ) + 1  (βu − v ) = 0 in similar manar  (βu + v ) − 1  (βu + v )
x β y x β y

It is expressed the fact that quantity (βu-v) is constant along λ1, and (βu+v) is constant along λ2. The
quantities are called Riemann Invariants. Since these two quantities are constant and opposite pair
of characteristics, it is easy to determine u and v at a point. If at a point we know (βu-v) and (βu+v),
we can immediately compute both u and v.

9.2.2 Non-Linear Systems

The development presented so far is for a system linear equations for simplicity. In more complex
nonlinear settings, the results are not as easily obtained. In the general case, the characteristics slopes
are not constant and vary with fluid properties273 shown in Figure 9.2. For a general nonlinear
problem, the characteristics equation must be integrated numerically to obtain a complete flow field
solutions. Consider a 2D supersonics flow of a perfect gas over a flat surface. The Euler equation
governing this inviscid flow as a matrix form

w w
+ [ A] =0
x y
 v 
 uv − a2 − 0 
u  
p

v u − a2
( )
2
1  0 
v 2
u − a2
where w =  
0
and [A] = 2  u ρu 
p u − a2  
  − ρva ρua 2
2
uv 0 
e  − ρv

ρu
u
v
u
(
v 2
u −a 2 

)
Eq. 9.5

The eigenvalues of [A] determine the characteristics direction and are274

v v uv + a u 2 + v 2 − a 2 uv − a u 2 + v 2 − a 2
λ1 = , λ 2 = , λ 3 = , λ4 = Eq. 9.6
u u u2 − a2 u2 − a2
The matrix of left eigenvectors associated with these values of λ may be written as

See previous.
273

D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, ISBN 0-89116-
274

471-5 – 1984.
 213

 ρu ρv 
 0 1
a2 a2
 ρu ρv 1 0
−1
 
[T] = − 1
+
u 1 1
0 Eq. 9.7
 u + v2 − a 2
2 v u + v2 − a 2
2 ρva 
 1 u 1 1 
 −v 0
 u 2 + v 2 − a 2 v u 2 + v2 − a 2 ρva 

We obtain the compatibility relations by pre-multiplying the original system by [T]-1. These relations
along the wave fronts are given by:

du dv β dp dy
−v +u + = 0 along = λ3
ds 3 ds 3 ρ ds 3 dx
Eq. 9.8
du dv β dp dy
v −u + = 0 along = λ4
ds 4 ds 4 ρ ds 4 dx

These are an ordinary differential equations which holds along the characteristic with slope λ3, λ4,
while arc length along this characteristics is denoted by s3, s4. In contrast to linear example, the
analytical solution for characteristics is not known for the general nonlinear problem. It is clear that
we must numerically integrate to
determine the shape of the
characteristics in step by step manner.
Consider the characteristic defined by
λ3. Stating at an initial data surface, the
expression can be integrated to obtain
the coordinates of next point at the
curve. At the same time, the
differentials equation defining the
other wave front characteristics can be
integrated. For a simple first-order
integration this provide us with two
equations for wave front
characteristics. From this expressions,
we determine the coordinate of their
intersection, point A. Once the point A
is known, the compatibility relations,
are integrated along the characteristics
to this point. This provide a system of Figure 9.2 Characteristics of Nonlinear solution point
equations at point A. This is a first- (exaggerated)
order estimate of the both the location
of point A and the associated flow variables. In the next step, the new intersection point B can be
calculated which now includes the nonlinear nature of the characteristic curve. In a similar manner,
the dependent variables at point B are computed. Since the problem is nonlinear, the final
intersection point B does not necessary appear at the same value of x for all solution points.
Consequently, the solution is usually interpolated onto an x-constant surface before the next
 214

integration step. This requires additional logic and added considerably to the difficulty in turning an
accurate solution275

9.3 Shock Capturing Method

9.3.1 Explicit McCormack Method
The shock capturing schemes are most used techniques for computing inviscid flows with shocks. In
this approach, the Euler’s equations are cast in conservative form for and shocks wave predicted as
part of solution. The shock waves predicted by these methods are smeared over several grid intervals
bur the simplicity of the approach may outweigh the slight compromised in the results. First we
consider 2D steady supersonic flow. We assume the x-axis forms the body surface and marching
direction. The equations can be written as

 ρu   ρv 
E F
+ = 0 where E = p + ρu 2  and F =  ρuv  Eq. 9.9
x y
 ρuv  p + ρv 2 

This is a hyperbolic PDE and explicit Mac Cormack scheme would be a good choice as

̅̅̅̅̅̅ ∆x n 1 ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ∆x ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅

𝐄in+1 = 𝐄in − (𝐅i+1 − 𝐅in ) → 𝐄in+1 = [𝐄in + 𝐄in+1 − (𝐅in+1 − 𝐅i−1
n+1
)]
⏟ ∆y 2
⏟ ∆y
predictor corrector
Eq. 9.10
At the end of predictor/corrector step, E must be decoded to obtain the primitive variables. This way,
the flux vector can be evaluated for the next integration step. The y-components of velocity v is
immediately known

2
E E γ E2  γ E2  γ −1
v= 3 , ρ= 1 , u=    − (2H − v 2 ) , p = E 2 − ρu 2 Eq. 9.11
E1 u γ + 1 E1  γ + 1 E1  γ + 1

Having completed this process, F can be

recalculate and the next step can be
implemented. Readers also should
consult the work by [Mahdi and Al-
Kwarizmi]276 for shock capturing on a
2D compressible unsteady Euler
equation. Using a Mac Cormack's time
marching method that an explicit finite-
difference technique. The test case
chosen is that of a transonic and
Figure 9.3 Supersonic Flow Over Circular Arc with Inlet
supersonic flow through a channel with M=1.4 - Courtesy of [Mahdi and Al-Kwarizmi]

275 D. Anderson, J., Tannehill, R., Pletcher,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer”, ISBN 0-89116-
471-5 – 1984.
276 Ahmed Fouad Mahdi, Al-Kwarizmi, “Shock Wave Capturing Numerically in Two-Dimensional Supersonic Wind

Tunnel for Different Configurations”, Eng. & Tech. Journal, Vol. 30, No.3 , 2012.
 215

a circular arc bump on the lower wall, half wedge and extended compression corner.

9.3.2 1D Upwind Flux-Splitting Scheme (Steger-Warming)

This is usually used as a Shock Capturing Method and belongs to a class of solutions as AUSM
(Advection Upstream Splitting Method). It is developed as a numerical inviscid flux function for
solving a general system of conservation equations. It is based on the upwind concept and was
motivated to provide an alternative approach to other upwind methods, such as the Godunov
method, flux difference splitting methods by [Roe]277, [Solomon and Osher], flux vector splitting
methods by [Van Leer]278, and [Steger and Warming. The AUSM first recognizes that the inviscid flux
consist of two physically distinct parts, i.e., convective and pressure fluxes. The former is associated
with the flow (advection) speed, while the latter with the acoustic speed; or respectively classified as
the linear and nonlinear fields. Currently, the convective and pressure fluxes are formulated using
the eigenvalues of the flux Jacobian matrices. To illustrates the flux splitting concepts, consider
the one-dimensional system of hyperbolic PDE,

U E + −  U  E+  E−
+ = 0 define E = E + E so + + =0 Eq. 9.12
t x t x x
Where the plus indicates a backward differencing, a minus forward differencing is required. The split
flux can be used either for explicit or implicit algorithms. For example, a second-order upwind,
predictor/corrector scheme (Beam & Warming, 1975) used as

Predicter U nj +1 = U nj −
Δt
Δx
( E +j + Δ E −j )
Eq. 9.13
Correcter U nj +1
1 n
= U j + U nj +1 −
2
Δt
Δx
( )
 2 E +j n +  E nj +1 +
Δx
(
Δt 2 − n
)

Δ E j − ΔE −j n +1 


An implicit algorithm using the trapezoidal rule is derived


I +
Δt
2x
( 
[A j ]+ + Δ[A j ]− ΔU nj = −
Δt
Δx
)
E + + ΔE −   Eq. 9.14
 

This algorithm is 1st order accurate in space, 2nd order accurate in time. The left hand side can be AF
and ignoring the 2nd order cross terms


 I +
Δt
2x

[A j ]+   I +
Δt
2x

Δ[A j ]− ΔU nj = −
Δt
Δx
E + + ΔE −  
  

 I +
Δt
2x

[A j ]+ ΔUj = −
Δt
Δx

E + + ΔE −  Eq. 9.15
 
 Δt 
 I + Δ[A j ]− ΔU nj = ΔUj
 2 x 

277 Roe, Flux Differencing Scheme Details.

278 Bram van Leer, “Flux-Vector Splitting for the 1990s”, The University of Michigan, N91-21073.
 216

In this equations, each one dimensional sweep required the solution of two block bi-diagonal (here
1) system. Usually the advantages of AP is more pronounced in multi-dimension problem. The use of
split flux techniques for shock capturing applications produces somewhat better results than
standard central difference schemes.

9.3.3 Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) as other Upwind Schemes

In numerical methods, Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) is a property of certain discretization
schemes used to solve hyperbolic partial differential equations. To capture the variation fine grids
(∆x = very small) are needed and the computation becomes heavy and therefore un-economic. The
use of coarse grids with central difference scheme, upwind scheme, hybrid difference scheme, and
power law scheme gives false shock predictions. TVD scheme enables sharper shock predictions on
coarse grids saving computation time and as the scheme preserves monotonicity there are no
spurious oscillations in the solution. In systems described by partial differential equations, such as
the following 1D hyperbolic advection equation,

U U E
+ [ A] where [ A] =
t x U
Eq. 9.16
U
TV =  dx =  U j+1 − U j subject to TV(U n +1
)  TV(U )
n

x

Conventional shock capturing schemes for the solution of nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws
are linear and L2-norm stable when considered in the constant coefficient case279. There are three
major difficulties in using such schemes to compute discontinuous solutions of a nonlinear system,
such as the compressible Euler equations:

1. Schemes that are second (or higher) order accurate may produce oscillations wherever the
solution is not smooth.
2. Nonlinear instabilities may develop in spite of the &-stability in the constant coefficient case.
3. The scheme may select a nonphysical solution.

It is well known that monotone conservative difference schemes always converge and that their limit
is the physical weak solution satisfying an entropy inequality. Thus monotone schemes are
guaranteed not to have difficulties (2) and (3). However, monotone schemes are only first-order
accurate. Consequently, they produce rather crude approximations whenever the solution varies
strongly in space or time. When using a second- (or higher) order accurate scheme, some of these
difficulties can be overcome by adding a hefty amount of numerical dissipation to the scheme.
Unfortunately, this process brings about an irretrievable loss of information that exhibits itself in
degraded accuracy and smeared discontinuities. Thus, a typical complaint about conventional
schemes which are developed under the guidelines of linear theory is that they are not robust and/or
not accurate enough. The class of TVD schemes contains monotone schemes, but is significantly
larger as it includes second-order accurate schemes.

H. C. Yee, NASA, “Implicit Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) schemes for steady-state calculations”, Journal of
279

Computational Physics, March 1985.

 217

9.3.3.1 The Upwind Connection to Explicit Artificial Dissipation

If the viscosity isn’t large enough, velocity oscillations about the correct mean velocity are observed
to develop behind a shock. These oscillations can be interpreted as a macroscopic version of heat
energy, i.e., fluctuating kinetic energy in place of fluctuating molecular energy280. These upwind
schemes all claim
(with good
justification) to be
physically consistent
since they follow in
some sense the
characteristics of the
flow. They in general
can be shown to
produce sharp
oscillation free shocks
without added
artificial dissipation.
Figure 9.4 Coefficient of Pressure for a Shock
Figure 9.4 shows the
coefficient of pressure
for a shock without artificial dissipation (left); with artificial dissipation (right). Also these schemes
have an inherent amount of internal dissipation, due to the one sided differences, which cannot be
modified or decreased. It may be advantageous to have the flexibility of a simple central difference
scheme with a controllable amount of artificial dissipation. It can be shown that the upwind schemes
have an equivalence to central difference schemes with added dissipation. The central schemes are
much simpler and more flexible and are therefore desirable if the dissipation can be added in an
analogous fashion to the upwind schemes281. This is often called the Implicit Artificial Dissipation as
opposed to Explicit one which purposely added to a difference equation and, been discussed
previously. In general, the flux of any scheme can be written as

⏟f + f⏟− fFTCS FTCS = Foward Time & Central Space

FTCS flux Flux due to Artificial Viscosity
Eq. 9.17

9.3.4 3D Unsteady Euler Equation Solutions Using Flux Vector Splitting

To compute the flow of a store released from an aircraft, it is desirable to solve the unsteady Euler
equations on a grid that moves with the store along its trajectory282. The objective here is to solve the
3D unsteady Euler equations on a time-dependent grid. The computations presented here are for
bodies whose motion is prescribed. As the solution advances in time, body motion could be
determined from the Euler equations by using force and moment coefficients obtained from the Euler
solution in the dynamic equations of motion for the body to determine the trajectory of the body. The
objective of this report is to present and verify dynamic-grid Euler equations computations.
Following the development in283, the strong conservation law of the Euler equations in curvilinear
coordinates can be written as:

280 Flow Science Blog, “What are Artificial and Numerical Viscosities?”
281 T. H. Pulliam, “Solution Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics”, NASA Ames Research Center, USA.
282 David, L., Whitfield, “Three-Dimensional Unsteady Euler Equation Solutions Using Flux Vector Splitting”,

NASA-CR-173254 19840008789.
283 See Previous.
 218

Q F G H
+ + + =0 (7.18)
τ ξ η ζ
ρ  ρU   ρV   ρW 
 ρu   ρuU + ξ p   ρuV + η p   ρuW + ζ p 
   x   x   x 
Q = J  ρv  , F = J  ρvU + ξ y p  , G = J  ρvV + η y p  , H = J  ρvW + ζ y p 
       
ρw   ρwU + ξ z p   ρwV + ηz p   ρwW + ζ z p 
 ρe   U(e + p) − ξ t p V(e + p) − η t p  W(e + p) − ζ t p
 ( , ,  )
and ξ = ξ (x, y, z) , η = η (x, y, z) , ζ (x, y, z) , t =  and J =
 ( x, y , z )
M atrices of transformation are :
ξ x = J (y η z ζ − y ζ z η ) , ξ y = J (x η z ζ − x ζ z η ) , ξ z = J (x η y ζ − x ζ y η )
η x = J (y ξ z ζ − y ζ z ξ ) , η y = J (x ξ z ζ − x ζ z ξ ) , ηz = J (x ξ y ζ − x ζ x ξ )
 x = J (y ξ z − y z ξ ) ,  y = J (x ξ z − x z ξ ) ,  z = J (x ξ y − x y ξ )
with contvariant velocity components
U = ξ x u + ξ y v + ξ z w , V = ηx u + η y v + ηz w , W = ζ x u + ζ y v + ζ z w
Eq. 9.18
The 3D unsteady Euler equations,
Eq. 9.18, are a hyperbolic system of five equations and hence have five characteristic velocities in
each of the three spatial directions. These characteristic velocities are determined from the
quasilinear form of
Eq. 9.18. A finite volume discretization of
Eq. 9.18 balances the increase of the conserved quantity in a computational cell, or volume, with the
flux of the quantity through the surface of the cell. Assuming the dependent variables are constant
in the interior of cell i, j, k, and that the flux vectors F, G, and H are constant over the constant ξ ,
constant η and constant surfaces of the ζ , respectively, an explicit discretization yields:

n+1 n n n
⏟ i,j,k − Q i,j,k ) ∆ξ∆η∆ζ = − (Fi+1,j,k − Fi−1.j.k ) ∆η∆ζ
(Q
2 2
∆Q
∆τ

− (Gn 1 − Gn 1 ) ∆ξ∆ζ − (H n 1 − Hn 1 ) ∆ξ∆η

i,j+ ,k i,j− ,k i,j,k+ i,j,k−
2 2 2 2
Eq. 9.19
and time step Δτ is given in284, or using the classical Runge-Kutta scheme. The central difference
operator is been used in Eq. 9.19 indicates the flux vectors are evaluated at cell faces in this finite
volume formulation. The numerical scheme used is a finite volume version of the second-order
upwind scheme of [Beam & Warming]285, while the present scheme is an extension of that used by

284 David, L., Whitfield, “Three-Dimensional Unsteady Euler Equation Solutions Using Flux Vector Splitting”,
NASA-CR-173254 -19840008789.
285 Warming, R. F. , and Beam, K. M., "Upwind Second·-Order Difference Schemes .md Applications in Aerodynamic

Flows," AIAA ,Journal, Vol. 14. No.9, September 1976, pp. 1241-1249.
 219

Deese286.

9.3.4.1 Flux Splitting

Hyperbolic partial differential equations, such as the Euler equations, are characterized by the
existence of a limited domain of dependence. The solution at a point does not depend on every
other point in the field; this means that information travels only in certain characteristic directions.
Numerical schemes intended to solve hyperbolic equations are usually enhanced by insuring that
the numerical method propagates information in the direction specified by the partial differential
equation. This can be done by using an upwind method, or one in which the difference operator is
taken in the direction from which the information should come. Stability properties are often
improved by unwinding, and it is usually unnecessary to add smoothing terms or artificial viscosity
to an upwind method. The 3D Euler equations,
Eq. 9.18, are a hyperbolic system of five equations and hence have five characteristic velocities in
each of the three spatial directions. These characteristic velocities are determined from the
quasilinear form of
Eq. 9.18. Details of splitting and test cases can be obtained from287. It is suffice to show that five
eigenvalues are:

λ1k = λ2k = λ2k = ⏟

ku + kv + kz , λ4k = θk + c|∇k| , λ5k = θk − c|∇k|
θk
1/2
where k = {ξ, η, ζ} and |∇k| = (k 2x + k 2y + k 2z )
Eq. 9.20
And c is speed of sound. As evident, two of the five right eigenvectors form a 2D subspace, within the
general 5-dimensional space spanned by all right eigenvectors, and that every member of this
subspace is itself an eigenvector. This phenomenon was attributed to the fact that their
corresponding eigenvalues are repeated, which creates a “symmetry” within the eigenvector space.
Although it may seem difficult to visualize any symmetry within a 5-dimensional vector space, part
of this symmetry reveals itself when we geometrically interpret the 2-dimensional subspace as a
plane. The Euler equations contain three types, or families of waves, one for every distinct eigenvalue.
Each family of waves carries a different signal. The waves traveling at the speed of the flow (λk1,2,3 )
are called entropy waves, their signal being entropy, whereas waves traveling at the speed of sound
relative to the flow ( λk4,5 ) are called acoustic waves. Unfortunately, the signal carried by acoustic
waves is not quantifiable in simple thermodynamic terms, but let us just say that they carry acoustic
information288.

9.4 The Riemann Problem

The Riemann problem consists of a conservation law together with piecewise constant data having a
single discontinuity [Kong]289. Here we will discuss the problem for a linear system, and then discuss
how the Riemann problem for the Euler equations, addressing specific problems that will be focused
on during comparisons of schemes. The initial state of the system is defined as

286 Deese, J. E, "NumericalExperi1D:ents with the Split-Flux··Vector Form of the Euler Equations," AIAA Paper No.
83-0122, January 1983.
287 David, L., Whitfield, “Three-Dimensional Unsteady Euler Equation Solutions Using Flux Vector Splitting”,

NASA-CR-173254 -19840008789.
288 Axel Rohde, ”Eigenvalues And Eigenvectors Of The Euler Equations In General Geometries”, AIAA 2001-2609.
289 Charlotte Kong, “Comparison of Approximate Riemann Solvers”, A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Mathematical and Numerical Modelling of the
Atmosphere and Oceans, 2011.
 220

 u for x  0
u(x, t = 0) =  L Eq. 9.21
u R for x  0

To put into perspective, the initial state is constant for all negative x, and constant for all positive x,
but differs between left and right. In the one-dimensional case we can consider this problem as a gas
with one temperature and density located to the left of a removable wall and another gas with
another temperature and density to the right of the wall. At time t = 0 the wall is instantly removed
and the results are observed. In numerical analysis Riemann problems appear in a natural way in
finite volume methods for the solution of conservation law equations due to the discreteness of the
grid. For this we use approximate Riemann solvers, since iterative schemes are too costly some
assumptions must be made, which will be discussed further in the following section.

9.4.1 Roe Approximate Riemann Solver

The Roe solver, devised by [Roe]290, is an approximate Riemann solver based around the Godunov
scheme and works by looking for an estimate for the inter cell numerical flux or Godunov flux at the
interface between two computational cells. It essentially determine the approximate solution by
solving a constant coefficient linear system instead of the original nonlinear system. We study
the break-up of a single discontinuity. Those cases where F(u) is linear are well-known and
essentially trivial. Those cases where u is scalar and F is non-linear can be surprisingly complicated,
but have been thoroughly investigated. If u is a vector and F is non-linear, then the problem involves
non-linear algebraic equations together with, usually, logical conditions which express the fact that
a given member of the wave system may be present either as a shockwave or as an expansion fan. In
general, the most efficient way to solve these equations will depend on the system of conservation
laws from which they derive; ingenuity is required to exploit special features of each individual
system. The usual way of incorporating the Riemann problem into the numerical solution is to take
(un, un+i), for each i in turn, as pairs of states defining a sequence of Riemann problems, which are
then thought of as providing information about the solution within each interval (i , i+1). Various
individual methods are then distinguished by the way in which this information is put to use. Here,
we consider approximate solutions which are exact solutions to an approximate problem:

u t + Au x = 0  ut + Aˆ u = 0 , A = F
u
x

where A ˆ = 1 ( A + A ) = A 1 (u + u )
L R L R
2 2
1 ~ ~p ~ p  ~p
f Roe = F(u L ) + F(u R ) -  λ p α R  where α ~p = L (u R - u L ) Eq. 9.22
2 p 
~ p ~ p ~p ˆ
and λ , R , L being the eigenvalue s and the right and left eigenvecto rs of A
and p = number of equations

For further information, reader should consult the [Roe]291.

290 P. L. Roe, “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes”, Journal of
Computational Physics 43, 357-372 (1981).
291 P. L. Roe, “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes”, Journal of

Computational Physics 43, 357-372 (1981).

 221

9.5 Method for Solving the Potential Equation

The full potential equation could be either conservative or non-conservative form. Here we deal with
non-conservative form which obtained using the continuity equation and some manipulation via
momentum equation. The 3D velocity potential equation in non-conservative form is,

  
u= , v= , w=
x y z
 2    y2   2  2 x y 2  2 y z
Continuity : 1 - x2   xx + 1 − 2  yy + 1 − z2  zz −  xy − x2 z  xz − 2  yz = 0
 a  2
 a     a  a a a
u 2 + v 2 + w2 dp
Momentum & Energy : + = constant →
2 d
  x2 +  y2 +  z2  ρ   x +  y +  z 
2 2 2

dp = −ρd   =− 2d
 2  a  2 
  
γ −1 2
where a = a 0 − V and V = u 2 + v 2 + w 2 , a 0 = speed of sound
2
9.23
Note that for an incompressible flow, a →∞, the velocity potential reduces to linear Laplace’s equation
and could be solve with relative ease. It represents a combination of continuity, momentum and
energy equations and could be solved for velocities (i.e., Mach number) and then temperature,
pressure and density could be obtained using the isentropic relations, previously defined for local
values. It should be noted that the total quantities are known and obtained from free-stream
conditions. For a 2D flow, after substituting for u, v, we obtain:

 u2   v2  2uv
1 - 2   xx + 1 − 2   yy − − 2  xy = 0 Eq. 9.24
 a   a  a

After the landmark paper by292 , it points to type dependent differencing. The idea is:

u+v u+v
− 1  0 → hyperbolic , − 1  0 → elliptic Eq. 9.25
a a
If the flow is subsonic, elliptic equation prevails and central differencing are used for the derivatives.
On the other hand, if the flow is supersonic, the equation is hyperbolic and upwind differencing could
be used.

9.5.1 Conservative Forms

The conservation form potential equation for 2D may be written:

292 Murman, E, M, and Cole, J, D, “Calculation of Plane Steady Transonic Flows”, AIAA Journal, Volume 9, pp. 114-

121, 1971.
 222

 ( u)  ( v)  
+ +0 where u = ,v =
x y x y
1/γ −1
 γ −1 2 2 
from Energy equation ρ = 1 − M  (u + v 2 − 1
 2 
 A1 = ξ 2x + ξ 2y
 U  V 
 ρ  +  ρ  = 0 where U = A1 ξ + A 2 η , V = A 2 ξ + A 3 η  A 2 = ξ x ηx + ξ y ηy
 J ξ  J η  A = η2 + η2
 3 x y

 ( , )
J= = ξ x η y − ξ y η x where ξ x = Jyη , ξ y = −Jx η , η x = −Jyξ , η y = Jx ξ
 (x, y)
1/(γ −1)
 γ −1 2 
ρ = 1 − M  (U x + V y − 1)
 2 
Eq. 9.26
Where U and V are contravariant velocity components.

9.6 Method for Transonic Flow

The full potential equation is useful for describing transonic flows when Shock wave’s strength is
small. We use the scheme of Retarded density as an example. A second-order finite differencing
approximation can be written for a 2D conservative potential equation in conservative form as:

 ρU   ρV 
ξ   + η   =0
 J  ,j
i +1  J  i, j+1
2 2

1
U i +1/2,j = (A1 ) i +1/2,j ( i +1, j −  i, j ) + (A 2 ) i +1/2,j ( i +1, j+1 −  i +1, j−1 +  i, j+1 −  i, j−1 )
4
1
V i, j+1/2 = (A 3 ) i, j+1/2 ( i, j+1 −  i, j ) + (A 2 ) i, j+1/2 ( i +1, j+1 −  i −1, j+1 +  i +1, j −  i −1, j )
4
 U   ρV 
 ξ ~ ρi    + η   =0
  J  i +1/2,j   J  i, j+1
2

where retarded density ρ = (1 − ν ~ )ρ +ν ρ

i i + k, j i +1/2,j i + k, j i + 2k−1/2,j

0 U i +1/2,j  0   1 
with k= and ν = max 0, C1 1 − 2 
1 U i +1/2,j  0   M 
Eq. 9.27
Where the constant C1 is unity for small regions of supersonic flow but must be increased in regions
where shocks strength is appreciable. This information may be used throughout the flow to solve the
full potential equation at points which are either elliptic or hyperbolic. The solution procedure used
to solve the set of resulting difference equations may take many forms. We choose the Approximate
Factorization (AF) scheme. The full potential equation may be written as
 223

N( n+1 −  n ) + ωL n = 0 Eq. 9.28

Where ω is the relaxation parameter, Lϕn represents the residual of resulting equation, and N is
operator which determines the iteration method consist of N = N1N2. The N1 and N2 must be selected
so their product approximates L. The procedure uses simple matrix operation and the overall scheme
is stable.

9.7 Panel Methods for Solving the Laplace’s Equation

Potential flow plays an important historical role in the theory of flight since 50s and before the CFD
applications become fashionable. Numerical models based on this approach are known as panel
methods in the aerodynamics community. Panel methods are numerical models based on simplifying
assumptions about the physics and properties of the
flow of air over an aircraft293. It is well known fact that
the Boing® used panel techniques for design of original
747s where they are still in service. The viscosity of air
in the flow field is neglected, and the net effect of
viscosity on a wing is summarized by requiring that the
flow leaves the sharp trailing edge of the wing smoothly.
The compressibility of air is neglected, and the curl of
the velocity field is assumed to be zero (no vorticity in
the flow field). Under these assumptions, the vector
velocity describing the flow field can be represented as
the gradient of a scalar velocity potential, to solve the
problem of potential flow over a solid object. Laplace’s
equation must be solved subject to the boundary
condition that there be no flow across the surface of the
object. This is usually referred to as the tangent-flow
boundary condition. Additionally, the flow far from the
object is required to be uniform. The results of solving
Laplace’s equation subject to tangent-flow boundary Figure 9.5 Cp Contours for a Rotor using
Panel Method
conditions provide an approximation of cruise
conditions for an airplane. The basic solution procedure
for panel methods consists of discretizing the surface of the object with flat panels and selecting
singularities to be distributed over the panels in a specified manner, but with unknown singularity-
strength parameters. Since each singularity is a solution to Laplace’s equation, a linear combination
of the singular solutions is also a solution. The tangent-flow boundary condition is required to be
satisfied at a discrete number of points called collocation points. This process leads to a system of
linear algebraic equations to be solved for the unknown singularity-strength parameters. Details of
the procedure vary depending on the singularities used and other details of problem formulation, but
the end result is always a system of linear algebraic equations to be solved for the unknown
singularity-strength parameters. Panel methods are applicable to 2 and 3D flows (see Figure 9.5)
and has one distinctive feature. That is a solution for body pressure distribution can be obtained
without solving the entire domain. For flow over a 2D, the flat panels become straight lines, but can
be thought of as infinitely long rectangular panels in the three-dimensional interpretation.

293 R. L. Fearn, “Airfoil Aerodynamics Using Panel Methods”, The Mathematica Journal, 2008.
 224

9.7.1 Vortex Lattice Method

The Vortex Lattice Method, (VLM), is
a numerical method used in
computational fluid dynamics, mainly
in the early stages of aircraft design
and in aerodynamic education at
university level294. The VLM models
the lifting surfaces, such as a wing, of
an aircraft as an infinitely thin sheet
of discrete vortices to compute lift
and induced drag. (see Figure 9.6).
The influence of the thickness,
viscosity is neglected. The vortex Figure 9.6 Simulation of an Airplane Based in the VLM
lattice method is built on the theory of
ideal flow, also known as Potential flow. Ideal flow is a simplification of the real flow experienced in
nature, however for many engineering applications this simplified representation has all of the
properties that are important from the engineering point of view. This method neglects all viscous
effects. Turbulence, dissipation and boundary layers are not resolved at all. However, lift induced
drag can be assessed and, taking special care, some stall phenomena can be modelled. By the above
assumptions the flow field is conservative vector field, which means that there exists a perturbation
velocity potential φ such that the total velocity vector V is given by

V = V +  Eq. 9.29

and that φsatisfies Laplace's equation. Laplace’s equation is a second order linear equation, and being
so it is subject to the principle of superposition. Which means that if φ1and φ2 are two solutions of
the linear differential equation, then the linear combination c1 φ1 + c2 φ2is also a solution for any
values of the constants c1 and. As [Anderson] put it "A complicated flow pattern for an irrotational,
incompressible flow can be synthesized by adding together a number of elementary flows, which
are also irrotational and incompressible.”. Such elementary flows are the point source or sink, the
doublet and the vortex line, each being a solution of Laplace’s equation. These may be superposed in
many ways to create the formation of line sources, vortex sheets and so on. In the Vortex Lattice
method, each such elementary flow is the velocity field of a horseshoe vortex with some strength Γ295.

9.7.2 VLM vs DLM

The DLM can be regarded as an extension of the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM), which is used for
steady load calculation. The subsonic Doublet Lattice Method (DLM) has been the industry standard
method for the calculation of unsteady air loads for the past three decades. A constant-doublet panel
has exactly the same velocity field as a vortex-ring panel, so there is really no fundamental difference
between the two methods. There are some differences in implementation details, however. Most
documented VL methods place a horseshoe vortex at the ¼ chord location of each surface panel, so
that each panel has its own trailing vortices which extend into the wake. No special treatment of the
wake is then necessary. Putting the vortex at the ¼ chord location allows accurate results with very
few chord-wise panels. Just one or two chord-wise panels are often sufficient. Most DL methods put
a constant-doublet distribution on each surface AND wake panel. This is equivalent to putting a ring
vortex around the perimeter of each panel rather than the 1/4-chord location. The requires more

294 From Wikipedia.

295 From Wikipedia.
 225

chord-wise panels to get the center of lift position roughly correct. On the other hand, DL is more
convenient for unsteady flows, where the wake doublet strengths are not constant and so the
horseshoe vortex representation is not very natural. For further consideration, please consult [L. H.
van Zyl] 296.

9.7.3 Vortex Panel Method (VPM) vs. DLM

The Vortex Panel Method (VPM) is a very simple and computationally inexpensive method to solve
the incompressible/inviscid flow past airfoils. It was investigated by [Sulton et al.]297 and have shown
that it is capable of solving the flow past a thin airfoils for subsonic and laminar flows. For transonic
and turbulent flows, as the angle of attack increased, the method lacks the precision, specially near
leading and trailing edges. As a comparison, vortex lattice methods are:

➢ Similarities
• singularities are placed on a surface
• the non-penetration condition is satisfied at a number of control points
• a system of linear algebraic equations is solved to determine singularity strengths

➢ Differences
• Oriented toward lifting effects, and classical formulations ignore thickness
• Boundary conditions (BCs) are applied on a mean surface, not the actual surface (not
an exact solution of Laplace’s equation over a body, but embodies some additional
approximations, i.e., together with the first item, we find ΔCp, not Cp upper and Cp lower)
• Singularities are not distributed over the entire surface
• Oriented toward combinations of thin lifting surfaces (recall Panel methods had no
limitations on thickness)298.

296 L. H. van Zyl, ”Robustness of the subsonic doublet lattice method”, The Aeronautical Journal, 2003.
297 Khalid M. Sultan, Anas M. Elshabli, Mohammed A. Kashbour, Seraj A. Ben. Ateiga, “Performance assessment
of the vortex panel method”, Libyan Journal of Science & Technology, (2019).
298 Aerodynamics of 3D Lifting Surfaces through Vortex Lattice Methods, 1998.
 226

10 Solution Methods for Viscous (Navier-Stokes) Equations

The Navier-Stokes equation are very difficult to solve in their complete form. In general, a very large
amount of computer resources is needed to obtain a solution. This is particularly true for the
compressible N-S equations which are a mixed set of elliptic-parabolic equations, while the unsteady
incompressible N-S equations are a mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations. As a consequence,
different numerical techniques must be used to solve them. The time dependent solution is normally
used when a steady-state flow is computed. That is, the unsteady N-S solutions are integrated in time
until a steady-state solution is achieved. Thus, for a three-dimensional flow field a four-dimensional
(3 space +1 time) problem must be solved. Besides being very CPU intensive, it needs a very large
amount of storage. That is why whenever possible, the complete compressible N-S equation should
be avoided. The compressible N-S and energy equations in Cartesian coordinates without body
force or external heat addition, in vector notation can be written as:
U E F G
+ + + =0 where U, E, F, and G are given by
t x y z
ρ  ρu 
 ρu   ρu + p − τ xx
2 
   
U =  ρv  , E= ρuv − τ xy 
   
ρw   ρuw + p − τ xz 
 E t  (E t + p)u − uτ xx − vτ xy − wτ xz + q x 
 
 ρv   ρw 
 ρuv − τ xy   ρuw − τ xz 
   
F= ρv 2 + p − τ yy  , G= ρvw − τ yz 
   
 ρvw − τ yz   ρw + p − τ zz
2

(E t + p)v − uτ xy − vτ yy − wτ yz + q y  (E t + p)w − uτ xz − vτ yz − wτ zz + q z 
   
where
2  u v w  2  v u w  2  w u v 
τ xx = μ 2 − −  , τ yy = μ 2 − −  , τ zz = μ 2 − − 
3  x y z  3  y x z  3  z x y 
 u v   w u   v w 
τ xy = τ yx = μ +  , τ xz = τ zx = μ +  , τ yz = τ zy = μ + 
 y x   x z   z y 
T T T  u 2 + v2 + w 2 
q x = −k , q y = −k , q z = −k and E t = ρ e + 
x y z  2 

Eq. 10.1
By setting density to constant, we obtain the incompressible N-S equation for Newtonian flow as:
.V = 0
u gx
V   Eq. 10.2
+ (V. )V + p = ν 2 V + g where V =  v and g = g y
t w g
  z
 227

10.1 General Transformation

These equations can be expressed in terms of a generalized non-orthogonal curvilinear coordinated
system

ξ = ξ (x, y, z) , η = η (x, y, z) , ζ (x, y, z) , t = t

x x x
 ( , ,  ) 1 1
J= = −1 = = 1/ y y y
 ( x, y , z ) J  (x, y,z)
z z z
 ( , ,  )
where matrices are :
ξ x = J (y η z ζ − y ζ z η ) , ξ y = J (x η z ζ − x ζ z η ) , ξ z = J (x η y ζ − x ζ y η )
η x = J (y ξ z ζ − y ζ z ξ ) , η y = J (x ξ z ζ − x ζ z ξ ) , η z = J (x ξ y ζ − x ζ x ξ )
 x = J (y ξ z − y z ξ ) ,  y = J (x ξ z − x z ξ ) ,  z = J (x ξ y − x y ξ )
Eq. 10.3
The generalized transformation to the compressible N-S equations (
Eq. 10.1) written in vector form as299
𝐔𝐭 + ξx 𝐄𝛏 + ηx 𝐄𝛈 + ζx 𝐄𝛇 + ξy 𝐅𝛏 + ηy 𝐅𝛈 + ζy 𝐅𝛇 + ξz 𝐆𝛏 + ηz 𝐆𝛈 + ζz 𝐆𝛇 = 𝟎

𝐔 𝐄ξx + 𝐅ξy + 𝐆ξz 𝐄ηx + 𝐅ηy + 𝐆ηz 𝐄ζx + 𝐅ζy + 𝐆ζz

( ) +( )+ ( )+( )=0
⏟𝐉 ⏟ 𝐉 ⏟ 𝐉 ⏟ 𝐉
U1 t E1 F1 G1
∂𝐔1 ∂𝐄1 ∂𝐅1 ∂𝐆1
+ + + =0
∂t ∂ξ ∂η ∂ζ
Eq. 10.4
By no means is this form of representation is conclusive. Many texts and researchers are attain their
own representation as they see to be relevant. But the concepts should be the same. This is the strong
conversation form of governing equation which is best suited for finite differencing schemes. It
should be noted that the vectors E1, F1and G1 contain partial derivatives of viscous and heat transfer
terms which also has to be transformed. Alternatively, the vectors E, F, and G can be split into an
inviscid (i) and a viscous parts (v). Reason for doing this becomes evident later, and also this make it
more modular and easy to handle.

299Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
 228

U  (Ei - E v )  (Fi - Fv )  (G i - G v )
+ + + =0
t x y z
  U   1
 +  
 ξ x (Ei − E v ) + ξ y (Fi − Fv ) + ξ z (G i − G v ) 
t  J  ξ  J



+
 1
 
 η x (Ei − E v ) + η y (Fi − Fv ) + η z (G i − G v ) 
η  J



+
 1
  
 ζ x (Ei − E v ) + ζ y (Fi − Fv ) + ζ z (G i − G v )  = 0
ζ  J 
ρ   ρu   0 
 ρu   ρu 2 + p   τ xx 
     
U =  ρv  , E i =  ρuv  , E v =  τ xy 
     
ρw   ρuw + p   τ xz 
 E t  (E t + p)u uτ xx + vτ xy + wτ xz − q x 
 
 ρv   0 
 ρuv    xy 
   
Fi =  ρv 2 + p  , Fv =   yy 
   
 ρvw    yz 
(E t + p)v u xy + v yy + w yz − q y 
 
 ρw   0 
 ρuw    xz 
   
G i =  ρvw  , G v =   yz  Eq. 10.5
   
 ρw + p 
2
  zz 
(E t + p)w u xz + v yz + w zz − q z 
 

10.2 Solution Methods for Compressible (Density Based) N-S Equation

The unsteady compressible N-S equations are a mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations, while
the unsteady incompressible is a mixed set of elliptic-parabolic. As a consequence, different
numerical techniques should be used to solve N-S equations in compressible vs incompressible flow
regimes. We start with compressible methods first and divide the categories to Explicit and Implicit
schemes.
10.2.1 Explicit Scheme (Mac Cormack)
The Mac Cormack Explicit, the predictor/corrector which gained a lots of popularity among
research cycles in 70s and early 80s. For an excellent discussion on these and many more, reader is
advised review300. The compressible N-S equations results:

300Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
 229

∂U ∂E ∂F ∂G
+ + + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z

𝑛+1 𝑛 Δt 𝑛 𝑛 Δt 𝑛 𝑛 Δt 𝑛 𝑛
Predictor: Ui,j,k = 𝑈i,j,k − (𝐸𝑖+1,j,k − 𝐸i,j,k ) − (𝐹i,j+1,k − 𝐹i,j,k ) − (𝐺i,j,k+1 − 𝐺i,j,k )
Δx Δy Δz
n+1
Corrector: Ui,j,k
1 n n+1 Δt n+1 n+1 Δt n+1 n+1
= [Ui,j,k + Ui,j,k − (Ei,j,k − Ei−1,j,k ) − (Fi,j,k − Fi,j−1,k )
2 Δx Δy
Δt n+1 n+1
− (Gi,j,k − Gi,j,k−1 )]
Δz
Eq. 10.6
Where x= i Δx, y= j Δy and z = k Δz. This is 2nd order accurate in both space and time. The choice of
Δt for stability consideration is obtained from301 as:

-1
α(Δt)CFL u v w 1 1 1 
Δt  where (t)CFL   + + +a + + 
1 + 2 / Re   Δx Δy Δz (x )2 (y )2 (z )2 
ρ u Δx ρ v Δy ρ w Δz
with Re Δ = Min (Re Δx , Re Δy , Re Δz ) Re Δx = Re Δy = Re Δz =
μ μ μ
and a = (p /  ) 0.5 , safty factor α  0.9
Eq. 10.7
The explicit scheme is 2nd order accurate in both space and time. In the present form, forward
differencing are used for all special derivatives in the predictor step while backward differences are
used in the corrector step. The forward and backward differencing can be alternated between
predictor and corrector steps as well as between the three spatial derivatives in sequential fashion.
This eliminates any bias due to the on sided differencing. Moreover, the derivatives appearing in
viscous terms of E, F and G must be differenced correctly in order to maintain 2nd order accuracy. The
x derivative terms appearing in E are differenced in the opposite direction to that for dE/dx while the
y-derivative and z are approximated with central differencing. Likewise, the y derivative terms
appearing in F and z derivative terms appearing in G are differenced in opposite direction to that
used for dF/dy and dG/dz respectively. Cross-derivative terms in F and G are approximated with
central differencing. After each predictor or corrector step, the primitive variables (ρ, u, v, w, e, p, T)
can be found be decoding the U vector. McCormack modified the original method by splitting the
original McCormack scheme into a sequence of one-dimensional operations302. Thus, it become
possible to advance the solution in each direction (Δtx, Δty, and Δtz) with large differences in mesh
spacing (Δx, Δy, Δz). The explicit Mac Cormack algorithm is a suitable method for solving both steady
and unsteady flows at moderate to low Reynolds numbers. However, it is not satisfactory method for
solving high Reynolds number flows where the viscous regions become very thin. For these flows,
the mesh must be highly refined to resolve the viscous regions. This leads to small time steps and
longer computer time.

301 Tannehill, J,
C., Holst, T, L, and Rakich, J, V, “Numerical Computation of Two-Dimensional Viscous Blunt Body
Flows and Impinging Shock”, AIAA Paper 75-154, Pasadena, Ca, USA, 1975.
302 MacCormack, R, W, “Numerica solution of the Interaction of a shock wave with Laminar boundary layer”,

Proceding of 2nd International Conference in Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics, pp. 151-163.
 230

10.2.2 Case Study – Dual Block Applied to Navier-Stokes Equations in 2D

A 2D Navier-Stokes equation using explicit Mac Cormack method on multi-block structured mesh
are investigated by [Almeida et al.]303, for steady state and unsteady state compressible fluid flows.
The multi-block technique and generalized coordinate system are used to develop a numerical solver
which can be applied for a large range of compressible flow problems on complex geometries without
modifying the governing equations and numerical method. Besides that the numerical method is
based on a finite difference approach and the generalized coordinates introduced allow the
application of the boundary conditions easily. The subsonic flow over a backward facing step and
supersonic flow over a curved ramp are presented, and the results are compared with the
experimental and numerical data.
10.2.2.1 Governing Equations
The two-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations in generalized coordinates system (x ,h)
without body forces, mass diffusion, finite-rate chemical reactions, or external heat addition can be
written in non-dimensional conservative law form as [Anderson et al. ]304.

̂ ∂(𝐄̂𝐢 − 𝐄̂𝐯 ) ∂(𝐅̂𝐢 − 𝐅̂𝐯 )

∂𝐐
+ + =0
∂t ∂ξ ∂η
Eq. 10.8
where Q is the state vector of conservative variables defined as below and Êi and ˆFi are the inviscid
flux vectors,

ρ ρU ρV
ρU ρuU + ξx P ρuV + ηx P
̂=[ ] ,
𝐐 𝐄̂𝒊 = 𝐉 −1 ρvU + ξ P , 𝐄̂𝒊 = 𝐉 −1 [ρvV + η P]
ρV y y
Et [ (Et + p)U] (Et + p)V
Eq. 10.9
The Ev and Fv are the viscous flux vectors in the x and h directions, which are given below

0 0
−1 −1
Re (ξx τxx + ξy τxy ) Re (ηx τxx + ηy τxy )
𝐄̂𝐯 = 𝐉 −1 Re−1 (ξ τ + ξ τ ) , 𝐄̂𝐢 = 𝐉 −1 Re−1 (η τ + η τ )
x xy y yy x xy y yy
−1 −1
[ Re (ξx βx + ξy βy ) ] [ Re (ηx βx + ηy βy ) ]
Eq. 10.10
where J is the Jacobian of the transformation, r is the density, u and v are the velocity components in
the x and h coordinate directions, U and V are the contravariant velocities, Et is total energy per unit
of volume, ξx, ξy, ηx and ηy are the metrics of transformation, βx = τxxu + τxyv, and βy = τxyu + τyyv, p is
the static pressure and t describes the stress components for viscous flow. The Navier-Stokes
equations are based on the universal law of conservation of mass, conservation of momentum and
conservation of energy. However, to complete this system of equations is necessary to add an
equation of state that can be written as:

303 Jeferson Osmar de Almeida, Diomar Cesar Lobão, Cleyton Senior Stampa, Gustavo Benitez Alvarez, “Multi-
block Technique Applied to Navier-Stokes Equations in Two Dimensions”, Original Article, DOI: 10.5433/1679-
0375.2018v39n2p115.
304 Anderson, D.; Tannehill, J.; Pletcher, R. Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer, Hemisphere

Publishing Corporation - McGraw Hill, 1984.

 231

1
p = (γ − 1) [E𝑡 − ρ (u2 + v 2 )]
2
Eq. 10.11
in which the fluid is considered a perfect gas. In the above equation, γ denotes the ratio of the specific
heats. The dimensionless of the variables is performed to eliminate the scale problems. Please see
[Anderson et al. ]305.
10.2.2.2 Numerical Method
The Mac Cormack method306 is used for solving the governing equations as given by Eq. 10.8. The
numerical method is an explicit predictor-corrector scheme based on a finite difference formulation
that has been used for compressible flow, and it has second-order of accuracy in both space and time.
When the method is applied to the two-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations given by
Eq. 10.8, it can be written as

Δt n Δt n
Predictor: ̂ n+1
Q i,j
̂ ni,j −
=𝐐 (𝐄̂i+1,j − 𝐄̂i,jn ) − (𝐅̂ − 𝐅̂i,jn )
Δξ Δη i,j+1
1 n ̅̅̅̅̅̅ Δt n+1̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅ Δt n+1 ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅
Corrector: ̂ n+1
Q i,j = [̂ ̂ n+1
𝐐i,j + 𝐐 i,j − (𝐄̂i,j − 𝐄̂i-1,j
n+1
)− (𝐅̂i,j − 𝐅̂i,j-1
n+1
)]
2 Δξ Δη
Eq. 10.12
where Ê = Êi -Êv and ˆF = ˆFi -ˆFv. The explicit Mac Cormack method requires the predictor be calculated
first to n = 0 (initial conditions). As stated by [Roe]307 any flow which goes through Mach 1.0, the
classical numerical methods (Finite Difference/Finite Volume) present physical discontinuities, so
needs special numerical treatment. In the present work the flow is much greater than Mach 1.0, well
developed supersonic flow. In this case the Mac Cormack method does not require such special
treatment. Note that Mac Cormack method does not carry any special treatment for the convective
terms (inviscid) or any other terms in the formulation, it is a very naive method. Here, the boundary
conditions are defined as follows: inflow, outflow and lower and upper solid wall. The inflow
condition, all variables are prescribed as Dirichlet boundary conditions in supersonic regime. For
outflow condition, with subsonic flow, the value of the static pressure p is prescribed as Dirichlet
boundary conditions and all other variables are extrapolated, but if the flow is supersonic, all other
variables are extrapolated. The solid wall condition are represented by non-slip boundary condition
u = 0 for viscous flow and free-slip boundary condition U. n = 0 for inviscid flow, where in the last
case the velocity components are calculated through of the contravariant velocity components.
However, in both cases all other variables are extrapolated.
10.2.2.3 Block Interface
A multi-block structured mesh with two blocks is used to clarify the block interface boundary
condition treatment. The first block, which is in red, is where the fluid enters. The second block, which
is in blue, is where the fluid from block1 becomes its inlet. The mesh of each block has 60 x 50 nodes.
For the treatment of the boundary between blocks1 and 2, it is observed that they are physically
coincident. For the exchange of information between the blocks, the multi-block structured mesh is
coincident at the boundary. At the boundary between the blocks, the boundary of block1 is
considered as an outflow boundary condition, since the fluid leaves this block. In block2, the

305 Anderson, D.; Tannehill, J.; Pletcher, R. Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation - McGraw Hill, 1984.
306 Mac Cormack, R. The effect of viscosity in hypervelocity impact cratering. AIAA., 1969. p. 69–354, 1969.
307 ROE, P. Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. Journal of Computational

Physics, 1981. v. 43, p. 357–372, 1981.

 232

boundary is the inlet of the fluid exiting block1, being considered an inlet boundary condition. In
order to avoid a numerical discontinuity of the solution at the boundary between the blocks, after
each iteration a numerical boundary condition is applied at this border, where the values of the
variables are determined through the variables neighboring of such boundary. For this numerical
condition, please consult the work by [Almeida et al.]308. With the input and initial conditions and
the boundary conditions mentioned above, it is possible to obtain satisfactory numerical results by
implementing the Mac Cormack original method and the use of multi-block structured mesh in the
cases discussed as follow.
10.2.2.4 Stability Consideration
The monitoring of the stability of the numerical scheme is performed by observing the residue at all
internal points of the discretized domain, according to the equation below:

CFL γP 2
(Δt) = where CFx = |ξx u + ξy v | + √ √ξx + ξ2y
2v ρ
+ CFx + CFy
Re
γP 2
and CFy = |ηx u + ηy v | + √ √ηx + η2y
ρ
Eq. 10.13
Among the conserved variables of ˆQ, the one used in the above equation for determining the residue
is the density ρ. To keep the numerical scheme stable, the value of the time integration step can be
defined by the following empirical formula in generalized coordinates [Anderson et al. ]309, [Mac
Cormack]310, where CFL is the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy number. For the explicit Mac Cormack
scheme the CFL must be less than or equal to 0.5. The values of CFx and CFy for the above equation
can be determined through Eq. 10.13.
10.2.2.4.1 Test 1 - Flow Over a Backward-Facing Step
The first test is the well-known subsonic flow over a backward facing step that is often used as
benchmark problem in computational fluid dynamics. The main feature of this flow is that it has a
simple geometry that generates an interesting and complex flow field, such as flow separation,
reattachment zone and recirculation bubbles on the upper and lower wall of the channel. These
characteristics are dependent on the Reynolds number and the geometrical parameters311; [Biswas
et al.]312, [Breuer and Durst]313, [Saleel et al.]314. For the numerical simulations, the following initial
conditions are assumed: density r0 = 1.21kg/m3, pressure p0 = 1.01x105N/m2, coefficient of dynamic

308 Jeferson Osmar de Almeida, Diomar Cesar Lobão , Cleyton Senior Stampa, Gustavo Benitez Alvarez, “Multi-
block Technique Applied to Navier-Stokes Equations in Two Dimensions”, Original Article, DOI: 10.5433/1679-
0375.2018v39n2p115.
309 Anderson, D.; Tannehill, J.; Pletcher, R. Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer, Hemisphere

Publishing Corporation - McGraw Hill, 1984.

310 Mac Cormack, R. The effect of viscosity in hypervelocity impact cratering. AIAA., 1969. p. 69–354, 1969.
311 Armaly, B.; Durst, F.; Pereira, J.; Schonung, B. Experimental and theoretical investigation of backward facing

step flow. J. Fluid Mech, 1983. v. 127, p. 473–496, 1983.

312 Biswas, G.; Breuer, M.; Durst, F. Backward-facing step flows for various expansion ratios at low and moderate

Reynolds numbers. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2004. v. 126, p. 362–374, 2004. DOI: 10.1115/1.1760532.
313 Baird, S.; Mcguirk, J. J. Multi-block parallel simulation of fluid flow in a fuel cell. In: High-Performance

Computing and Networking. HPCN-Europe 1999. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999. v. 1583.
314 Saleel, C.; Shaija, S.; Jayaraj, S. On simulation of backward facing step flow using immersed boundary method.

American Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 2013.

 233

viscosity μ = 1.81x105 kg/(m.s), and ratio of the specific heats γ = 1.4. The block1 (upstream block )
has a mesh size of 25x25 and the block2 (downstream block ) has size of 160 x 50. The Figure 10.1
(a-b) shows the velocity contours of the steady state flow field for two different Reynolds number
(Re = 50 and 100) for expansion ratio H/h=1.9423 (⋍2). In all cases shown in figures, a vortex is
found in the concave corner behind the step and the maximum velocity is located on the upstream
side of the channel, as found in the experiments performed by, [Biswas et al.]315, [Saleel et al.316]. It
can also be seen that the size of the recirculation region increases with increasing Reynolds number.
The Table 10.1 describes the variation of reattachment length (xr) for two different Reynolds
numbers (Re = 50 and 100), which
clearly shows that the reattachment
Experimental xr Numerical xr
length increase with increasing
Reynolds number, as found in the
Re REF-1 Authors REF-2 REF-3
references. In the second column are
presented experimental values obtained 50 1.70 1.61 1.55 1.55
in [Armaly et al.]317, and denoted by 100 3.06 2.82 2.80 2.81
REF-1. The third column presents the
results obtained in this work, and Table 10.1 Comparation of the Results For Flow Over a
denoted by Authors. The fourth and fifth Backward Facing Step
columns correspond to values obtained

(a) Re = 50

(b) Re = 100

Figure 10.1 Velocity Contours for Flow Over a Backward Facing Step

315 See 283.

316 Saleel, C.; Shaija, S.; Jayaraj, S. On simulation of backward facing step flow using immersed boundary method.

American Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 2013.

317 Armaly, B.; Durst, F.; Pereira, J.; Schonung, B. Experimental and theoretical investigation of backward facing

step flow. J. Fluid Mech, 1983. v. 127, p. 473–496, 1983.

 234

by numerical simulations in [Biswas et al.]318 and [Saleel et al.]319, and denoted by REF-2 and REF-3
respectively. The results obtained by the present work are quite compatible with results found in the
references. As can be clearly seen in Figure 10.1 (a-b) and Table 10.1, the results are in agreement
with the numerical data especially with respect to the reattachment length.

10.2.2.4.2 Test 2 - Flow Over a Curved Ramp

The second test case is a transient supersonic flow over a curved ramp at Mach number 1.5 that can
be used as benchmark problem for the supersonic Euler equations. This flow is characterized by the
formation of a detached bow shock in front of the curved ramp and of an expansion wave. Moreover,
other feature is the wave shock reflection from the solid wall [Lobao]320-321, [Allen]322. For the
numerical simulation, the initial conditions are as follows: density r0 = 1.21kg/m3, pressure p0 = 1.01
x 105N/m2, and ratio of the specific heats γ = 1.4. The mesh for the multi-block solutions of this
problem. The mesh sizes in the first and second blocks are 110 x 80 and 60 x 80, respectively. The
pressure and Mach number contour over a curved ramp are shown in Figure 10.2 (a-b)
respectively, for Mach number 1.5. The detached bow shock in front of the curved ramp can be seen
in the figures as well as the shock reflection from the solid wall. The Figure 10.2 (b) shows the
expansion wave, where is possible to observe the subsonic, transonic and supersonic zones before of
the curved ramp. As can be observed in Figure 10.2 (a-b) there is no spurious oscillation at the
interface boundary between the two blocks even in presence of a very strong shock wave structure.
The numerical interface boundary condition is well suited for this simulation which demonstrates its

(a) Pressure contour (b) Mach number contour

Figure 10.2 Flow Field Over a Curved Ramp

318 Biswas, G.; Breuer, M.; Durst, F. Backward-facing step flows for various expansion ratios at low and moderate
Reynolds numbers. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2004. v. 126, p. 362–374, 2004
319 Saleel, C.; Shaija, S.; Jayaraj, S. On simulation of backward facing step flow using immersed boundary method.

American Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 2013.

320 Lobao, D. High Resolution Schemes Applied to the Euler Equations. (PhD thesis), University of Bristol, 1992.
321 Lobao, D. Numerical simulations of Navier-stokes for transient flows in 2d. In: Mechanical Computational.

Buenos Aires, Argentina: [s.n.], 2010.

322 Allen, C. An Efficient Euler Solver for Predominantly Supersonic Flows with Embedded Subsonic Pockets. (PhD

thesis, University of Bristol, 1992.

 235

applicability. The present numerical results are compared with the numerical data presented in
[Lobao]323.

10.2.2.5 Conclusions
In this work, the discretization of the Navier-Stokes and Euler equations on multi-block structured
mesh is realized using explicit Mac Cormack method. The numerical results for steady state and
unsteady state compressible fluid flow in two-dimensional geometries are presented for two
different test cases in subsonic and supersonic regimes, the flow over a backward facing step and
flow over a curved ramp, respectively, which indicated good agreement with the references data.
Therefore, it is shown the capability of the methodology to obtain numerical results for these types
of subsonic and supersonic flows in two-dimensional complex geometries.

10.2.3 Other Explicit Schemes

In addition to Mac Cormack scheme, other explicit methods can be used to solve the Compressible N-
S equation, including:

• Hopscotch Method
• Leapfrog/DuFort-Frankel Method
• Brailovskaya Method
• Allen-Cheng Method
• Lax-Wendroff Method

These as discussed earlier might be used for Heat equation and viscous Burger’s equation, but
difficult to apply to more complicated equation like compressible N-S. For one thing, all the above,
except the Lax-Wendroff, are 1st order accurate in time. So they cannot be used for accurately
compute the time evolution of a flow field. In addition, all have stability restriction which limits the
maximum time steps.

10.2.4 Implicit Schemes

10.2.4.1 Beam-Warming
In the Beam-Warming scheme, the solution is marched in time using:

θ1Δt  n Δt  n θ  1  
Δn U = (Δ U) + (U ) + 2 Δ n −1U +   θ1 − − θ 2 (t)2 + (t)3 
1 + θ 2 t 1 + θ 2 t 1 + θ2  2   Eq.
Δ n U = U n +1 − U n
10.14

This is a general difference formula (revisited) with appropriate choice of parameters ϴ1 and ϴ2,
represents many of the standard difference scheme. For compressible N-S equations, either the Euler
implicit scheme (ϴ1 =1, ϴ2 =0), which is first order accurate in time, or a three point backward implicit
scheme (ϴ1=1, ϴ2=1/2), which is 2nd order accurate in time, is normally used. The difference formula
so called delta form is linearized using truncated Taylor series expansion. For example

323 Lobao, D. High Resolution Schemes Applied to the Euler Equations. (PhD thesis)”, University of Bristol, 1992.
 236

 E 
n
n +1 n +1
E = E +
n
 (U − U ) + Ο[(t) ]
n 2

 U 
Δ n E = [ A]Δ n U + Ο[(Δt)2 ] where E = Ei - E v
Similary Eq. 10.15
Δ F = [B]Δ U + Ο[(Δt) ]
n n 2

Δ n G = [C]Δ n U + Ο[(Δt)2 ]

Where [A], [B], and [C] are the Jacobian matrix which their definition can be obtained from different
sources, such as [Chung]324. The details for a 2D compressible N-S equation is provided in325.

10.2.4.2 Mac Cormack

Mac Cormack (1981) also developed an implicit algorithm analog to his explicit method. This new
method consists of two stages. In the first stage, uses the original Mac Cormack scheme while the
second stage employs an implicit algorithm which eliminates any stability restriction. The resulting
matrix equations are either lower or upper block equations with details in326. The implicit Mac
Cormack method is defined by:

 λΔt  n +1 λΔt n +1
1 + Δu i = (u i ) explicit + Δu i +1
n
Predictor :
 Δx  Δx
Δu in +1 = u in +1 − u in ( )
(u in ) explicit = u in +1 explicit
− u in
 λΔt  n +1 n +1 λΔt n +1
Corrector : 1 + Δu i = (u i ) explicit + Δu i −1
 Δx  Δx
1
(
u in +1 = u in + u in +1 + Δu in +1
2
) ( ) 1
 ( )
u in +1 explicit = u in + u in +1
2 explicit
(
+ Δu in +1 )
explicit

 2μ Δx  
λ   c + −  , 0.0 c,μ  0
 Δx Δt  
Eq. 10.16
This method is unconditionally stable and 2nd order accurate in both space and time, provided that
μΔt/(Δx)2 is bounded as Δt and Δx approach zero. For detail explanation of method and accuracy, as
well as a 2nd order N-S example, reader could refer to327.

324 T. J. Chung, “Computational Fluid Dynamics”, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cambridge University
Press 2002.
325 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat

Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

326 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat

Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

327 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat

Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

 237

10.3 Solution Methods for Incompressible N-S Equations (Pressure Based)

10.3.1 Explicit Schemes
The incompressible N-S equations are tougher to solve due to their elliptic nature as wells as
decoupling of pressure from continuity.

10.3.1.1 Vorticity-Stream Function Approach (2D)

Taking curl of incompressible momentum equation above, the vorticity potential equation is derived
as
∂v ∂u ∂ψ ∂ψ Dω
ω= − , u= , v=− , ⏟ + ν∇2 ω
= ω∇V
∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x Dt 0
Eq. 10.17
Where the scalars such as pressure vanish. While vorticity is not a primary variable in flow analysis,
it is still extremely instructive to examine the impact of vorticity vector on N-S equation. The first
term on the right arises from the convective derivative and is called vortex stretching term. The
second term is obviously a viscous-diffusion term. The vorticity–stream function approach is one of
the most popular methods for solving 2D incompressible N-S equations. This parabolic PDE is called
Vorticity Transport Equation. An additional equation involving the new dependent variables ω and
ψ can be obtained

Step 1
Set initial ω
and ψ at t=0
Step 2
Step 6 Solve
Solve
for Pressure - if
Vorticity
solution not
Transport
converged
Eqation for ω
return to step 2
at t+Δt
Vorticity-
Stream
Function
Approach
Step 3
Step 5
Iterate for
detemine
new ψ
value of ω on
(Poisson
boundries
Equation)

Step 4
u=ψx v=ψy

Figure 10.3 Vorticity-Stream Function Approach For 2D Incompressible N-S Equations

 238

 2ψ  2ψ
+ = −ω Eq. 10.18
x 2 y 2
This an elliptic equation (Poisson equation) which can be solved readily. As a result of change
variables, we have been able to separate the mixed elliptic-parabolic 2D incompressible N-S equation
into one parabolic equation and one elliptic one. In order to determine the pressure, we have
differentiate the x-momentum equation with respect to y (d/dy), and y-momentum with x (d/dx) and
adding to obtain:
 u v u v 
 2 p = 2ρ −  Eq. 10.19
 x y y x 

Which is a Poisson equations for pressure. These equations are normally solved using time marching
procedure. (see Figure 10.3).

10.3.1.2 Primitive-Variable Approach

The vorticity-stream function approach for solving the incompressible N-S equations losses it
attractiveness when applied to 3D flow because a single scalar stream function does not exist in that
case. One of the early techniques proposed for solving incompressible N-S equation in primitive
variables form is the artificial compressibility method of 328. In this method, the continuity equation
is modified to include an artificial compressibility term which vanishes when a steady-state solution
is reached. With the additional of this term, to continuity equation, the resulting N-S equations are
mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations which can be solved with standard time dependent
approach.
ρ u v w
+ + + =0 Eq. 10.20
t x y z
Where ρ’ is an artificial density and t’ is a fictitious time which is analogous to real time in a
compressible flow. The artificial density is related to the pressure by an artificial equation of state
p=ρ’/β where β is an artificial compressibility factor to be determine later. In general, an implicit
finite-differencing scheme is recommended over an explicit one. The artificial compressibility
method is one of technique for solving the incompressible N-S equations. By far the most common
primitive-variable approach is using a Poisson equation for pressure in place of the continuity
equation, known as one of the Projection Method. The other one is Fractional Step method. The
algorithms generally defined as329:

1. First the system is progressed in time to a mid-time-step position, solving the above transport
equations for mass and momentum using a suitable advection method. This is denoted the
predictor step.
2. At this point an initial projection may be implemented such that the mid-time-step velocity
field is enforced as divergence free.
3. The corrector part of the algorithm is then progressed. These use the time-centered estimates
of the velocity, density, etc. to form final time-step state.

328 Chorin. A, J, “A Numerical Method for Solving Incompressible Viscous Flow Problem”, Journal of Computational
Physics, Volume 2, pp. 12-26, 1967.
329 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 239

4. A final projection is then applied to enforce the divergence restraint on the velocity field. The
system has now been fully updated to the new time.

10.3.2 Implicit Schemes

10.3.2.1 SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equation) for 2D N-S Equation
Since the SIMPLE procedure was described in detail previously, here an outline of it would be
sufficient. It is suffice to say that it can also be applied to the incompressible N-S equation. This
procedure based on a cyclic series of guess-and-correct operations to solve the governing equations.
The velocity is first calculated from the momentum equation using a guess pressure. The pressure
and velocities are then corrected so as to satisfy continuity. This process is continued until the
solution converges. In this procedure, the actual pressure p, u, v is written as

p = p 0 + p
u = u 0 + u Eq. 10.21
v = v 0 + v

Where p0, u0, v0 are the estimated values of velocity and p’, u’ and v’ are the velocity corrections. The
pressure corrections are related to the velocity corrections by approximate form of momentum
equations as
u  p Δt p
ρ =− → u = −
t x ρ x
Eq. 10.22
v p Δt p
ρ =− → v = −
t y ρ y

Where Δt’ is a fictitious time increment. After combining and substituting in continuity equation

∂u ∂v ∂u0 ∂v0 ∆t ′ ∂2 p′ ∂2 p′
( + )−( + )+ ( + 2) = 0
⏟∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y ρ ∂x 2 ∂y
0
∂u0 ∂v0 ∆t ′ 2 ′
( + ) = ( )∇ p
∂x ∂y ρ
Eq. 10.23
Where the Poisson equation can be solved for the pressure correction. The procedure can be
described in fig with steps starting with step 1 until it converges. The SIMPLE procedure has been
used successfully to solve a number of incompressible flow problems. However, for certain cases, it
is found that the convergence rate is not satisfactory. This id due to the pressure correction equation
tends to overestimate the value of p’ even though the corresponding velocities correction are
reasonable. That is why an under relaxation constant ωp is been used for pressure correction as
indicated below:
p = p 0 + ωp p Eq. 10.24

Figure 10.4 shows the necessary steps in SIMPLE procedure. The SIMPLE procedure has been
revised to improve the rate of convergence. The new procedure is called SIMPLER (SIMPLR Revised).
In SIMPLER the velocity corrections are computed in the same manner as the SIMPLE, but a complete
 240

Poisson equation for the pressure is used. Also, the velocity field is guessed initially instead of
pressure.

Step 1
Guess p0

Step 5
Replace Step 2
p0,u0,v0, Solve for
with p , u, u0,v0
v

Step 4 Step 3
Correct Solve for
the pressure
pressure correction
p=p0+p' p'

Figure 10.4 SIMPLE Procedure as applied to 2D Equation

10.3.3 Projection Methods

Other incompressible methods such as Projection Methods of [Chorin, 1967] as well as Fractional
Step , MAC and Fast Fluid Dynamics (FFD) as detailed before.

10.4 Approximation (Thin-Layer) of N-S Equation

For Thin-Layer approximation to the N-S equations, the viscous terms containing derivatives in the
direction parallel to the body surface are neglected in unsteady N-S equations. But all other terms in
momentum equation are retained. Although the thin-layer N-S equations are considerably less
complicated the complete N-S, a substantial amount of computer effort is still required to solve these
equations. The thin-layer N-S equations are a mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic PDE in time. As a
consequence, the time dependent approach can be applied in the same manner of full N-S. Thus, the
methods of solving complete N-S equations previously discussed can be applied here also. (See Eq.
10.25).
 241

U E F G
+ + + =0
t x y z
ρ  ρu   ρv   ρw 
 ρu   ρu 2 + p   ρuv − τ xy   ρuw 
       
U =  ρv  E =  ρuv  F= ρv 2 + p − τ yy  G =  ρvw 
       
ρw   ρuw   ρvw − τ yz   ρw + p 
2

 E t  (E t + p)u (E t + p)v − uτ xy − vτ yy − wτ yz + q y  (E t + p)w

 
Eq. 10.25

10.5 Parabolized N-S Equation

The parabolized N-S (PNS) equations Have recently gained popularity because the can predict
complex 3D, steady, supersonic, viscous flow field in an efficient manner. This efficiency achieved
because the equations can be solved using a space marching finite-difference technique as oppose
the time marching technique which is normally employed for the full N-S equations. The PNS
equations are for an entire supersonic flow field similar somewhat to solving either the inviscid
portions using an Euler equations or the viscous portion using the Boundary Layer equations. The
PNS are mixt set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations provided that certain conditions provided. These
condition include the requirement that the inviscid outer region of the flow field be supersonic and
stream wise velocity component be everywhere positive330.
An additional constraint is caused by the presence of the stream wise pressure gradient in the stream
wise momentum equation. If this term included everywhere in the flow field, then upstream influence
can occur in the subsonic portion of the boundary layer and a space marching method of the solution
is not well-poised. This leads to exponentially growing solutions which are often called departure
solutions. Several techniques are available to circumvent this difficulty. One of the novel technique
for handling the stream wise pressure gradient term was proposed by Vigneron.331. In this approach,
a fraction of pressure gradient term, ω (dp/dx) in the stream wise momentum equation is retained
in the subsonic viscous region and the remainder (1 - ω) (dp/dx) is either omitted or is evaluated
explicitly using a back-ward differencing for the “sub-layer approximation” techniques. The
parameter ω can be obtained by analyzing the 2D PNS equation, where ω was inserted for pressure
gradient (ω p). By ignoring the viscous term and obtaining the eigenvalues of the remaining Euler
equation, an expression can be obtained for ω as

γM 2x σλM 2x
ω = Eq. 10.26
1 + (γ − 1)M 2x 1 + (γ − 1)M 2x

Where σ is safety factor. The PNS equations in generalized coordinates can be obtained by simply
dropping the unsteady and viscous terms containing partial derivatives with respect to stream wise
direction ξ. The resulting equations become:

330 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
331 Vigneron, Y, C, Rakich, J, V, and Tannehill, J, C, “Calculation of Supersonic Viscous Flow over Delta Wings with

Sharp Subsoinc Leading Edge”, AIAA paper 78-1137, Seattle, Washington, 1978.
 242

E3 F3 G 3

+

+

=0 where E3 =
1
J
 
ξ x Ei + ξ y Fi + ξ z G i

1

F3 = η x (Ei − Ev ) + η y (Fi − Fv ) + ηz (G i − Gv )
J

1

G 3 = ζ x (Ei − Ev ) + ζ y (Fi − Fv ) + ζ z (G i − Gv )
J

Eq. 10.27
And the prime indicates that the terms containing viscous partial derivatives w.r.t ξ have been
ignored. The stress and heat flux terms are reduced to

 xx =
2
3

 2( x u +  x u ) − ( y v +  y v ) − ( z w +  z w ) 
2

 yy =  2( y v +  y v ) − ( x u +  y u ) − ( z w +  z w )
3

2

 zz =  2( z w +  z w ) − ( x u +  y u ) − ( y v +  y v )
3


 xy =  yx =   y u +  y u +  x v +  y v 
 xz =  zx =   u
z  +  z u +  x w +  y w 


 yz =  zy =   v
z  +  z v +  y w +  y w 


qx = -k(  xT +  xT ) , qy = -k(  yT +  yT ) , qz = -k(  zT +  zT )
Eq. 10.28
Bear in mind that for many applications, the thin–layer approximation can also be applied to the PNS
equations.

10.5.1 3D Compressible Implicit Numerical Solution of PNS Equation

As previously indicated, the PNS equations are mix set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations in the
stream wise direction provided following has been met:

• Inviscid flow is supersonic.

• Stream wise velocity component is everywhere greater than zero.
• Stream wise pressure gradient term in stream wise momentum equation is either omitted or
the departure behavior is suppressed.

Until recently, the PNS equations have been solved using iterative, implicit finite-differencing
schemes. [Vigneron] were the first to employ a more efficient non-iterative, implicit approximation
factorization (AF) scheme to solve the PNS equations. Let us apply 3D compressible PNS equations
written in Cartesian coordinates (x is stream wise direction) as
 243

 u   0 
 u 2 + p  (1 −  ) p 
E p F G    
+ + + =0 where E =  uv  p= 0 
x x y z    
 uw   0 
( Et + p )u   0 
E = Ei + p , F = Fi − Fv , G = G i − G v
Eq. 10.29
Where we incorporate the pressure gradient term in stream wise direction separately. The solution
is marched in x-direction using the Beam and Warming marching technique as

θ1 + Δx  i Δx  i θ  1  
ΔiE = (Δ E) + (E ) + 2 Δ i −1E + O  θ1 − − θ 2 (x) 2 + (x) 3 
1 + θ 2 x 1 + θ 2 x 1 + θ2  2  
where Δ i E = Ei +1 − Ei , x = ix
substituti ng governing equatio ns in BW marching fo rmula:
θ1 + Δx   (i F)  (i G)  Δx   (F i )  (G i )  θ
ΔE=
i
 +  +  +  + 2 Δ i −1E
1 + θ 2  y z  1 + θ 2  y z  1 + θ 2
where Δ i E = Δ i E + Δ ip , Δ i F = Δ i Fi + Δ i Fv , Δ iG = Δ iG i + Δ iG v
Eq. 10.30
Where the inviscid delta terms ΔiE, ΔiF and ΔiG are linearized using the Taylor series expansion. In
order to linearize the inviscid delta terms, we make use of the fact that E’, Fi, and Gi are function of
the vector:
 U3 
 U 2 U3 
 ρ   U1   
 U1 
 ρu   U 
   2  U 32 ~ 
+U   U 22 + U 32 + U 24 
For example, Fi =  U1
~
U =  ρv  =  U 3  where U = (γ − 1) U 5 − 
       2U1 
ρw   U 4   U3U 4 
 E t   U 5   U1 
 ~ U 
 
 U5 + U 3 
 U1 
 E  i
i

(E) i +1 = (E)i +    U + (x)

2

 U 
Δ i E = [Q]i Δ i U
 F 
i

(Fi ) i +1 = (Fi ) i +  i  i U + (x) 2 or Δ i Fi = [R ]i Δ i U
 U  Δ i G = [S]i Δ i U
 i

 G i  i
i

(G i ) i +1 = (G i )i +    U + (x)
2

 U 
 244

Eq. 10.31
Where [Q], [R], and [S] are the Jacobian of matrices dE’/dU, dFi/dU, and dGi/dU which are given
in332. The viscous delta terms can be linearized using a method suggested by Steger333. In order to
apply this linearization method, the coefficients of viscosity (μ) and thermal conductivity (k) are
assumed to be locally independent of U, and the cross derivative viscous terms are neglected. As the
result of these assumptions Fv and Gv have the general form of

   5  β k  i 
fk = αk (β k ) , f i +1 = f i + α ik   Δ U L  + Ο(Δx) 2
y y  L =1  U L  
 i 
 5  β k  i 
   
i +1
gk = αk (β k ) , g = g + α k
i
 Δ U L  + Ο(Δx)
2

z z  L =1  U L  Eq.

α k is independent of U and β k is a function of U. We can write :
i

Δ i Fv = [V ]i Δ i U , Δ i G v = [ W ]i Δ i U
10.32

Where the [V] and [W] are the Jacobian matrices for viscous terms. We now ready to put everything
in our marching order equation (BW) and the results

 
i
  R V
  S w

i

 E  θ Δx 
  Fi Fv  
 G i G v   i
  + 1  y  U − U  + z  U − U  Δ U =

   1 + θ 2
U        
 Q    A   B  
Δx  Fi G i  θ2 i −1
−  y + z  + 1 + θ Δ E − Δ p
i

1 + θ2   2
i −1 Eq. 10.33
 p =  p + (x)
i 2

 i θ Δx  [ A] [B] i  i
or [Q] + 1  +  Δ U = R.H.S .
 1 + θ 2  y y  

Using Appriximate Factoriziation :
 i θ1Δx  [ A] i   i θ Δx  [B] i  i
[Q] +


1 + θ 2  z  
  i -1 
  (Q )  [Q] + 1   Δ U = R.H.S .
1 + θ 2  y  
 

The partial derivative d/dy and d/dz are approximated by 2nd order accurate central differencing.
The algorithm is implemented in the following manner:

332 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
333 Steger, J, L, “Implicit finite difference Simulation of the flow about Arbitrary Geometries with application to

Aitfoils”, AIAA paper 77-665, Albuquerque, NM, 1077.

 245

 θ1Δx  [ A ]    
 
i
 [B] 
i
   θ Δx  i
  (Q )
-1
[Q] +   [Q]i + 1   Δ U = R.H.S .
i i


 1 + θ 2  z     1+ θ2  y  
 

 θ1Δx  [ A ]  
i
 i
Step 1 : [Q ]i
+   Δ U 1 = R.H.S .

 1 + θ 2  z  

Step 2 : Δ U 2 = [Q] Δ U 1
i i i
Eq. 10.34

 θ1Δx  [B]  
i

Step 3 : [Q] +
i
  Δ i U = Δ i U 2
 1 + θ 2  y  
 
i +1
Step 4 : U =U =ΔU i i

In steps 1 and 3, the system of equations can be solved using a block tridiagonal solve. As the result
of manipulation in step 2, the inverse matrix does not have to be determined in the solution process.
Finally, in step 4, the vector of unknown at station i+1 (Ui+1) is determined and the primitive variable
can be obtained in the following manner

n +1 i +1 n +1 U i2+1 U i3+1 U i +1
ρ =U
1 , u = i +1 , v = i +1 , w n +1 = i4+1 ,
n +1

U1 U1 U1
Eq. 10.35
n +1 U i +1 (u i +1 ) 2 + (vi +1 ) 2 + (w i +1 ) 2
e = 5i +1 −
U1 2

10.5.2 Case Study - New-Generation Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes Schemes: Speed-Up and Accurate
Viscous/Heat Fluxes 334
We introduce a 1st order hyperbolic system model for viscous flows, and propose a unique way of
computing steady viscous flows: integrate the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system in time toward the
steady state. We construct an upwind finite-volume scheme for the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system
and demonstrate remarkable advantages of the resulting Navier-Stokes code: O(1/h) speed-up over
traditional Navier-Stokes codes, where h is the mesh spacing, and the capability of simultaneously
computing the viscous stresses and the heat fluxes to the same order of accuracy as that of the main
variables on irregular grids. The paper concludes with discussions on the future developments and
the potential impact on the future algorithm development for computational fluid dynamics.
Although the 2D development is in the emphasis here, for 3D, readers are encourage to consult [Li et
al.]335.

334 Hiroaki Nishikawa, “New-Generation Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes Schemes: O(1=h) Speed-Up and Accurate
Viscous/Heat Fluxes”, 20th AIAA, June 2011, Hawaii.
335 Lingquan Li, Hong Luo, Jialin Lou and Hiroaki Nishikawa, “High-Order Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes

Reconstructed Discontinuous Galerkin Method for Unsteady Flows”, AIAA Aviation Forum, TX, 2019.
 246

10.5.2.1 Introduction
We extend the 1st order hyperbolic system method developed for model equations in a series of
papers336-337 to the Navier-Stokes equations. We thereby propose a non-traditional way of computing
viscous flows: integrate an equivalent first-order hyperbolic system in time toward the steady state.
The first-order system is deliberately designed such that it reduces to the original Navier-Stokes
equations in the steady state; its viscous part is a hyperbolic system on its own. Navier-Stokes codes
arising from the proposed method will be radically different from those currently used.

10.5.2.2 Simplified Discretization

Robust and accurate viscous discretization is made simple because the viscous term is hyperbolic
just like the inviscid term. Methods developed for the inviscid term such as upwind fluxes and
limiters, are directly applied to the viscous term. The first-order hyperbolic system method has a
great potential for overcoming many difficulties associated with the viscous discretization
encountered particularly in unstructured grids and high-order methods (see 338-339 and references
therein). Note that the proposed method is different from the mixed finite-element method340 and
other first-order system methods 341-342 in that our system is hyperbolic in time while their systems
have no such characterization. It is the hyperbolicity that brings a drastic change in
the viscous discretization.

10.5.2.3 Speed-up
Because the system is hyperbolic, the explicit time step is determined by the CFL condition, leading
to an O(h) time step where h is the mesh spacing. It implies O(1/h) speed-up over traditional schemes
with an O(h2) time step. For implicit time-stepping schemes, the advantage comes in the condition
number of the linearized system to be inverted at every time step: O(1/h) versus O(1/h 2). It brings
O(1/h) speed-up for iterative methods for solving the linearized system. In either case, the
acceleration factor grows for larger-scale problems. In 3D simulations, it will be O(100) for 1M grid
points, and O(1000) for 1 Billion grid points. Such an orders-of-magnitude improvement in the
algorithm will not only allow us to overcome the current hardware limit, but also bring a
continuously-growing advantage for larger-scale problems along with the increase in computing
power.

10.5.2.4 Accurate Viscous/Heat Fluxes

The first-order hyperbolic system method generates a new class of Navier-Stokes codes that are
capable of computing the viscous stresses and the heat fluxes simultaneously with the main ow
variables to the same order of accuracy on irregular grids. The use of irregular grids is common in
practical applications due to complex geometries; the irregularity is hard to avoid particularly once
we start adapting grids for viscous flows.

336 Nishikawa, H., A First-Order System Approach for Diffusion Equation. I: Second-Order Residual-Distribution
Schemes," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 227, 2007, pp. 315-352.
337 Nishikawa, H., A First-Order System Approach for Diffusion Equation. II: Unification of Advection and

Diffusion," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 229, 2010, pp. 3989-4016.

338 Nishikawa, H., Beyond Interface Gradient: A General Principle for Constructing Diffusion Schemes," 40th AIAA

Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2010-5093, Chicago, 2010.
339 Nishikawa, H., Robust and Accurate Viscous Discretization via Upwind Schemes, I: Basic Principle," Computers

and Fluids, 2011, in press.

340 Girault, V. and Raviart, P. A., An analysis of a mixed finite element method for the Navier-Stokes equations,"

Numerische Mathematik, Vol. 33, 1979, pp. 235-271.

341 Heys, J., Lee, E., Manteuffel, T., and McCormick, S., An alternative least-squares formulation of the Navier-

Stokes equations with improved mass conservation," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 226, 2008.
342 Jiang, B.-N., The Least-Squares Finite Element Method, Springer, 1998.
 247

On such grids, the physical quantities sought by the viscous simulation, such as the viscous stresses
and the heat fluxes, can be obtained only with a lower order of accuracy, typically one order less than
that of the main flow variables. They also often exhibit erroneous behavior. For example, current
state-of-the-art Navier-Stokes codes are known to produce erratic viscous stress and heating
distributions343-344. The proposed method has a great potential for overcoming these difficulties.
Also, it can be extended to produce accurate vorticity as well as the viscous stresses and the heat
fluxes. The core of the proposed method lies in the construction of a hyperbolic model for viscous
flows. Therefore, it is fully compatible with virtually any numerical method (e.g., finite-
volume/element, residual-distribution, and other modern higher-order methods such as
discontinuous Galerkin and spectral-volume/difference methods).
Many advantages such as those described above are intrinsic properties of the proposed method.
Here, we present an example of such a hyperbolic model for the compressible Navier-Stokes
equations, and show how it can be discretized by the finite-volume method. Presented here
preliminary results obtained by the resulting Navier-Stokes code, and demonstrate the O(1/h) speed-
up and accurate viscous/heat fluxes on irregular grids.

10.5.2.5 First-Order 2D Hyperbolic Navier-Stokes System

Consider the 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations:

∂ρ ∂(ρu) ∂(ρv)
+ + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y
∂(ρu) ∂(ρu2 + p − τ𝑥𝑥 ) ∂(ρuv − τ𝑦𝑥 )
+ + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y
∂(ρv) ∂(ρuv − τxy ) ∂(ρv 2 + p − τyy )
+ + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y
∂(ρE) ∂(ρuH − τxx u − τxy v + qx ) ∂(ρuH − τyx u − τyy v + qy )
+ + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y
Eq. 10.36
E is the specific total energy, and H = E +p/ρ is the specific total enthalpy. Also, τxx, τxy, and τyy are the
viscous stresses, and qx and qy are the heat fluxes defined as

2 ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v 2 ∂u ∂v
τxx = μ (2 − ) , τ𝑥𝑦 = τyx = μ ( − ) , τyx = μ (2 − )
3 ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x 3 ∂x ∂y
μ ∂T μ ∂T
qx = ( ) , qy = ( )
Pr(γ − 1) ∂x Pr(γ − 1) ∂y
Eq. 10.37
We construct a first-order Navier-Stokes system by replacing Eq. 10.37 by the following evolution
equations for the viscous stresses and the heat fluxes:

343 Gnoffo, P. A., Multi-Dimensional, Inviscid Flux Reconstruction for Simulation of Hypersonic Heating on
Tetrahedral Grids," AIAA Paper 2009-599, 2009.
344 Kitamura, K., Nakamura, Y., and Shima, E., An Evaluation of Euler Fluxes II: Hypersonic Surface Heating

Computation," 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2009-3648, Seattle, 2008.
 248

𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑥 μ𝑣 ∂u 1 ∂v 𝜏𝑥𝑥
= ( − − )
𝜕𝑡 T𝑣 ∂x 2 ∂y 𝜇𝑣
𝜕𝜏𝑥𝑦 μ𝑣 3 ∂u 3 ∂v 𝜏𝑥𝑦
= ( − − )
𝜕𝑡 T𝑣 4 ∂y 4 ∂x 𝜇𝑣
𝜕𝜏𝑦𝑦 μ𝑣 ∂v 1 ∂u 𝜏𝑦𝑦
= ( − − )
𝜕𝑡 T𝑣 ∂y 2 ∂x 𝜇𝑣
∂qx μv 1 ∂T qx
= (− − )
∂t Tv γ(γ − 1) ∂x μh
∂qy μv 1 ∂T qy
= (− − )
∂t Tv γ(γ − 1) ∂y μh
Eq. 10.38
Where μv and μh are the scaled viscosities,

4 γμ ρL2 ρL2
μv = μ , μ = , Tv = , Tℎ =
3 Pr μv μh
Eq. 10.39
Tv and Th are relaxation times associated with the viscous stress and the heat flux, and L is a length
scale of O(1) defined as suggested in345. Note that the first-order system has been deliberately
constructed such that it reduces to the original Navier-Stokes system in the steady state for arbitrary
Tv and Th. Traditionally, the Navier-Stokes system is discretized in two steps: the inviscid term is
discretized by a method suitable for hyperbolic systems (e.g., upwind differencing) followed by the
discretization of the viscous term by a method suitable for parabolic equations (e.g., central
differencing). We challenge the tradition by proposing the following first-order system model. As in
one dimension, we cast the first-order system in the form of a preconditioned conservative system:

∂𝐔 ∂𝐅 ∂𝐆
𝐏 −1 + + =𝐒
∂t ∂x ∂y
Eq. 10.40
Where

345 Nishikawa, H., A First-Order System Approach for Diffusion Equation. II: Unification of Advection and
Diffusion," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 229, 2010, pp. 3989-4016.
 249

ρu
2
ρu + p − τxx
ρ
ρu ρv 2 − τxy
ρv ρuH − τxx u − τxy v + qx
ρE −u
−3
𝐔 = τxx , 𝐅= v ,
τxy 4
u
τyy
qx 2
a2
[ qy ]
γ(γ − 1)
[ 0 ]
𝜌𝑣
𝜌𝑢𝑣 − 𝜏𝑥𝑦
𝜌𝑣 2 + 𝑝 − 𝜏𝑦𝑦
𝜌𝑢𝐻 − 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑢 − 𝜏𝑦𝑦 𝑣 + 𝑞𝑦
−𝑣
𝐆= −3
𝑢
4
−𝑣
0
𝑎2
[ 𝛾(𝛾 − 1) ]
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
τ /μ
𝐏 = xx v , 𝐒 = 0 0 0 0 Tv /μv 0 0 0 0
τxy /μv 0 0 0 0 0 Tv /μv 0 0 0
τyy /μv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tv /μv 0 0
qx /μh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Th /μh 0
[ qy /μh ] [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Th /μh ]
Eq. 10.41
The wave structure of the system can be analyzed by the Jacobian matrix projected along an arbitrary
vector, (nx; ny):
∂𝐅 ∂𝐆
𝐏𝐀𝐧 = 𝐏 ( nx + n )
∂𝐔 ∂𝐔 y
 250

Eq. 10.42
Again, we split the Jacobian into the inviscid and viscous parts:

𝐏𝐀𝐧 = 𝐏𝐀𝐢𝐧 + 𝐏𝐀𝐯𝐧

Eq. 10.43
As Ain and Avn are the projected Jacobians derived from the inviscid and viscous fluxes, respectively.
The Eigen-structure of the inviscid Jacobian is well known: the eigenvalues are

λ1i = u𝑛 − a , λi2 = u𝑛 , λi3 = u𝑛 , λi4 = u𝑛 − a , λi5,6,7,8 = 0

Eq. 10.44
where un = unx + vny. The corresponding linearly independent right-eigenvectors are denoted by Ri,k
, k = 1, 2, 3, , , , 9. The first four eigenvectors represent the inviscid acoustic, shear, and entropy waves,
constituting the inviscid subspaces. The other eigenvectors, Ri k, k = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, are the vectors having
1 in the k-th component and 0 elsewhere. The viscous Jacobian has the following eigenvalues,

λ1v = −anv , λv2 = anv , λv3 = −amv , λv4 = amv , λv5 = −ah ,
λv6 = ah , λv7,8,9 = 0
Eq. 10.45
Where

νv 3νv v νh
anv = √ , amv = √ ,λ , ah = √
Tv 4Tv 4 Th
Eq. 10.46
The speed, anv, is associated with the normal viscous stress; it is called the normal viscous wave. On
the other hand, amv is associated with the shear viscous stress; it is called the shear viscous wave. As
in one dimension, ah is the speed of the heating wave. The corresponding linearly independent right-
eigenvectors can be found and denoted by Rik, k = 1, 2, 3, , , , , 9. Thus, the viscous part is a hyperbolic
system by itself, describing the isotropic normal/shear viscous and heating waves. In both the
inviscid and viscous parts, the corresponding left-eigenvectors denoted by Li k and Lvk, k = 1, 2, , , , 9
can be found. Then, the full Jacobian can be expressed as a sum of 10 (not necessarily orthogonal)
subspaces:
4 6

𝐏𝐀 = ∑ λik ∏ik + ∑ λvk ∏vk

k=1 k=1
Eq. 10.47
where Πik and Πvk are the pure inviscid and viscous projection matrices,

∏ik = 𝐑ik 𝐋ik , ∏vk = 𝐑vk 𝐋vk

Eq. 10.48
As in one dimension, the subspaces are orthogonal only within the inviscid and viscous parts, not
orthogonal across them.

10.5.2.6 Discretization
Given a computational grid composed of quadrilaterals and/or triangles, we store the solution data
at nodes, and discretize the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system by the edge-based finite-volume
method:
 251

j
d𝐔𝐣 1 1
𝐏j−1 = − ∑ 𝚽jk 𝐀jk + ∫ 𝐒dv
dt Vj Vj
k=1 Ωj
Eq. 10.49
where Uj is the solution vector at the node j,
Vj is the median dual volume, Kj is a set of
neighbors of the node j, Φjk is a numerical
flux along the directed area vector (see
Figure 10.5),

𝐧𝐣𝐤 = 𝐧𝐋𝐣𝐤 + 𝐧𝐑𝐣𝐤

Eq. 10.50
defined at the midpoint of the edge, and Ajk
is the magnitude of the directed area vector
(i.e., Ajk =∣ njk∣). For second-order accuracy,
we compute the solution gradients by the
unweighted least-squares method at nodes,
and reconstruct a linear solution within
each dual control volume. On the boundary,
a suitable boundary flux is applied with the Figure 10.5 Dual control volume for node-centered
linearity-preserving quadrature formulas finite-volume schemes with unit normal associated
(see Appendices of Ref. 346 for a with an edge {j , k}.
comprehensive list of linearity-preserving
quadrature formulas in both two and three dimensions). We define the numerical flux as an upwind
flux of the form:

1 1
𝚽jk = [𝐇jk (𝐔R ) + 𝐇jk (𝐔L )] − 𝐏 −1 |𝐏𝐀𝐧 | Δ𝐔
2 2
Eq. 10.51
where ΔU = UR - UL, and UR and UL are the extrapolated solution vectors at the midpoint of the edge,
{j , k}, Hjk is the physical flux projected along the directed area vector,

𝒏𝑗𝑘
𝐇jk = [𝐅, 𝐆]. 𝐧
̂𝑗,𝑘 , ̂𝒋𝒌 =
𝐧
|𝒏𝑗𝑘 |
Eq. 10.52
and An = ∂Hjk/∂U. The dissipation matrix is again computed by the simple approximation:

4 6

𝐏𝐀𝒏 ≈ ∑|λik |∏ik + ∑|λvk | ∏vk

k=1 k=1
Eq. 10.53
The interface quantities are computed similarly as in one dimension; and thus the resulting
numerical flux will reduce to the Roe flux in the inviscid limit. Also, we simplified the viscous part of

346Nishikawa, H., Beyond Interface Gradient: A General Principle for Constructing Diffusion Schemes," 40th AIAA
Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2010-5093, Chicago, 2010.
 252

the dissipation term and implemented it as a single vector. Note that the resulting numerical flux is
upwind for all Reynolds numbers. The Number of Nodes Iteration semi-discrete equation is then
integrated in time by the forward-Euler time-stepping scheme. The global time-step Δt, is defined as
the minimum of the local time-step, Δtj , restricted by the local CFL condition:

2Vj
∆t j = CFL , CFL ≤ 1.0
∑k∈{Kj } 𝐀jk (|un | + a + ah )j
Eq. 10.54
Again, the time step is O(h), not O(h2); it is an intrinsic property of numerical schemes solving the
hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system.

10.5.2.7 Results
Preliminary results are available for a viscous shock-structure problem whose exact solution can be
obtained by numerically solving a pair of ordinary differential equations for the velocity and the
temperature347. The program used to generate the exact solution in this study can be downloaded at
http://www.cfdbooks.com/cfdcodes.html. In all computations, we take M1 = 3.5, Pr = 3/4, γ = 1.4,
Re∞ = 25, and T∞ = 400 [k].
We consider the 1D viscous shock-structure problem in a 2D rectangular domain. Results are
available for irregular triangular grids generated from 21x5, 41x9, 61x13, 81x17, 101x21 regular
grids by random perturbation, random diagonal splitting, and stretching. In each grid, the nodes are
clustered over the viscous shock as shown in Figure 10.6. Again, the exact solution is used as the
initial solution. Also, a similar
internal pressure condition and
boundary conditions are
applied as in one dimension.
Time integration is performed
with CFL= 0.99 until the divided
residual is reduced by six
orders of magnitude in the L1
norm.
The hyperbolic Navier-Stokes
scheme is compared with a
traditional Navier-Stokes
scheme based on the Roe flux
for the inviscid term and the
face-tangent average-least- Figure 10.6 Irregular Triangular Grid for the Viscous Shock-
squares scheme for the viscous Structure
term.
Figure 10.7 shows the convergence results for the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes scheme and the
traditional Navier-Stokes scheme. As clearly seen in Figure 10.7 (a), the traditional scheme takes
orders of magnitude larger number of iterations to reach the steady state than the hyperbolic scheme.
As predicted, and confirmed by Figure 10.7 (b), it increases linearly with the total number of nodes,
denoted by N, for the traditional scheme while it is proportional to the square root of the number of
nodes for the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes scheme. Note again that the speed-up factor grows with the
number of nodes. The hyperbolic scheme gets faster and faster than the traditional scheme for larger-
scale problems.

347 Xu, K., A

Gas-Kinetic BGK Scheme for the Navier-Stokes Equations and Its Connection with Artificial Dissipation
and Godunov Method," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 171, 2001, pp. 289-335.
 253

Error convergence results are given in Figure 10.8. For the traditional scheme, the viscous stress
and the heat flux were computed once at the end of the iterations by the unweighted least-squares
reconstruction. The traditional scheme has some irregularity in the error convergence. It is
considered as a result of the mesh irregularity; we observed a uniform second order convergence for
different sets of grids. Figure 10.8 (a-b) shows the error convergence in the viscous stresses and
the heat fluxes (τyy is equivalent to τxx, and thus the result is not shown).
As expected, the hyperbolic scheme achieved second-order accuracy in these quantities. The
reconstructed values for the traditional scheme are only 1st order accurate. This difference in the
order of error convergence implies orders of magnitude smaller errors in further grid refinement.
We emphasize that this superior accuracy in the viscous stresses and the heat fluxes comes with the
O(1/h) faster iterative convergence. Even if second-order accuracy is achieved by high-order or
implicit reconstruction for the traditional scheme, it remains extremely slower than
the hyperbolic scheme.

Figure 10.7 Comparison of Convergence for the 2D Problem. Stars: the Traditional Scheme. Circles:
the Hyperbolic Scheme

10.5.2.8 Concluding Remarks and Future Developments

We have introduced a first-order hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system to compute the steady state
solution of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. A finite-volume scheme has been constructed
for the hyperbolic system based on an upwind flux. Preliminary results demonstrated the advantages
of the resulting Navier-Stokes code over traditional Navier-Stokes codes: the O(1/h) speed-up by the
explicit time-stepping scheme and the second-order accuracy of the viscous stresses and the heat
fluxes on fully irregular unstructured grids.
 254

For a simple and systematic discretization, we have introduced a preconditioned conservative form
of the hyperbolic Navier-Stokes system. This particular approach greatly simplifies the analysis of
the wave structure of the system by avoiding complications arising from the nonlinearity. It also
paves the way for further improvements by setting a stage for the local preconditioning technique to
ensure the accuracy in the low-Mach number limit as well as to accelerate the convergence to the
steady state348. If the full Eigen-structure were available for the hyperbolic system in the steady form,

Figure 10.8 Error Convergence Results for the Viscous Stresses and the Heat Fluxes in the 2D problem

the optimal local preconditioning matrix could be constructed for the whole system in one and two
dimensions349. This preconditioned-form approach is a general approach applicable to other
nonlinear equations. It makes the proposed method available to a wide range of practical
applications. Also, we have introduced an approximate evaluation of the upwind dissipation matrix:
the full absolute Jacobian is approximated by a sum of the inviscid and viscous absolute Jacobians.
This approximate approach simplifies the construction of the interface flux for the hyperbolic Navier-

348 Nishikawa, H., Roe, P., Suzuki, Y., and van Leer, B., A General Theory of Local Preconditioning and Its
Application to the 2D Ideal MHD Equations," 16th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper
2003-3704, Orlando, 2003.
349 See Previous.
 255

Stokes system. Although the approach has been found successful for the problem considered here, it
may be more sensible to weight them by the Reynolds number as suggested in Ref. 350. Yet, we may
simply view it as a sum of the Roe inviscid flux and the upwind viscous flux, and explore other choices
for each ux. For example, we can employ a more robust inviscid flux such as the Rotated-RHLL flux351
for applications involving strong shocks.
For flows with shock waves, a mechanism to prevent oscillations such as a limiter needs to be
incorporated, perhaps, not only for the main ow variables but also for the extra variables. It can be
considered as introducing a means to control the nonlinear stability such as the positivity of the
viscous discretization. Positivity is considered as a very important property for the viscous
discretization, but it remains difficult to devise a positive viscous discretization on general
unstructured grids. In the first-order hyperbolic system method, if we have a positive scheme for the
inviscid term, we almost immediately have a positive scheme for the viscous term.
The development of shock-capturing hyperbolic Naiver-Stokes schemes is underway. In practical
applications, the computational grid is typically highly-stretched for resolving viscous layers. For
such grids, it would be desired to have implicit time-stepping schemes available. In this case, the
residual Jacobian, which needs to be inverted at every time step, has an O(h) times smaller condition
number, and thus we expect O(1/h) faster iterative convergence. The development of implicit time-
stepping schemes is a very important subject of future work. Eventually, we will extend the method
to time-accurate simulations by employing the dual-time stepping technique where the Navier-
Stokes code arising from the proposed method can be used in the inner iteration.
A rapid convergence is expected over each physical time step. It should be noted that the first-order
hyperbolic system for the Navier-Stokes equations is by no means unique. There are many other
possible choices. For example, an alternative system can be constructed such that it leads to not only
accurate viscous stresses and heat fluxes but also accurate vorticity on unstructured grids. The
development of such alternative systems is currently underway.
The first-order hyperbolic system method is a general method applicable to various partial
differential equations involving second and higher order derivatives. As shown, O(1/h) times faster
iterative methods can be constructed for the Laplace/Poisson type equations with accurate solution
gradients simultaneously computed. Applications of the resulting fast elliptic solvers include the
elliptic grid generation/adaptation, the Poisson equation for the pressure in the incompressible
Navier-Stokes equations, etc. In Ref.352, the method was extended to the advection-diffusion equation,
and in particular a uniform iterative convergence over a wide range of Reynolds numbers was
demonstrated for boundary-layer type problems on stretched grids. The resulting hyperbolic
advection-diffusion scheme can be readily applied, for example, to scalar turbulence model
equations.
Application to higher-order derivative terms is also possible: construct an extended 1st order
hyperbolic system and solve it by an upwind scheme. That is, partial differential equations of
arbitrary order can be discretized by methods for hyperbolic systems, and it leads to orders of
magnitude more efficient and accurate solvers. Finally, the method has been extended to nonlinear
systems in this paper. Opportunities for practical applications are now wide open: incompressible
Navier-Stokes equations, thermal flow and heat transfer phenomena in nuclear applications,
resistive magneto-hydrodynamic simulations, ground-water simulations in hydro-geology, chemical

350 Nishikawa, H., A First-Order System Approach for Diffusion Equation. II: Unification of Advection and
Diffusion," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 229, 2010, pp. 3989-4016.
351 Nishikawa, H. and Kitamura, K., Very Simple, Carbuncle-Free, Boundary-Layer Resolving, Rotated-Hybrid

Riemann Solvers," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 227, 2007, pp. 2560-2581.
352 Nishikawa, H., A First-Order System Approach for Diffusion Equation. II: Unification of Advection and

Diffusion," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 229, 2010, pp. 3989-4016.

 256

diffusion, and so on. The impact of the proposed method on the future CFD development is expected
to grow larger as the grid size gets larger and the geometry gets more complex.

10.6 Multigrid Methods

Multigrid methods are effective techniques that can deliver fast convergence rates with minimal
memory overheads. The basic idea of a multigrid method is to accelerate the solution of a set of fine
grid equations by time stepping on a sequence of fine and coarse grids using a simple explicit scheme.
Multigrid methods capitalize on the effectiveness of explicit methods in reducing high frequency
error modes. A high-frequency error can be thought of as a solution component that oscillates
between neighboring grid points. While explicit methods are effective at eliminating such errors, they
are relatively ineffective at reducing low-frequency or global error components. This is to be
expected, because explicit schemes rely exclusively on local information supplied through the
residual stencil.
The multigrid strategy consists in explicitly time stepping the fine grid equations until the high-
frequency errors have been conquered. The solution is then transferred to a coarser grid, where the
remaining low-frequency errors now manifest themselves as high-frequency errors and can be
effectively damped by the same explicit method. The process is repeated recursively through a
complete sequence of grids, where each level is responsible for a particular bandwidth of errors.
When the coarsest grid of the sequence is reached, the corrections are interpolated back to each
successively finer grid. This entire multigrid cycle is then repeated until overall convergence is
achieved. For structured grids, simply get rid of every other line of grid and make sure that grid is
sufficient for coursing. But for unstructured meshes, the issue is more complicated. Given a fine
unstructured mesh, there is no simple procedure for constructing uniformly coarser levels, as in the
structured-grid case. One of the drawbacks of this approach is that it still requires the user to
generate multiple grids for a single solution, which is at best tedious. With this in mind, several efforts
have been pursued to automate the process. But first we consider the typical (i.e. V &W) cycle which
is the essence of the multigrid process.
10.6.1 Multigrid Cycle
Usually iterative methods would reduce the high-frequency (i.e., oscillatory) errors but fails to reduce
the low-frequency (i.e., smooth) errors thus will results poor rate of convergence353. High-frequency
and low-frequency are the names of the errors that are referring to the error in the coarser and finer
mesh. In the case of the iterative methods, the solution in the finer grid looks smoother but if we
transfer the solution to the coarser grid it will be oscillating. To solve this problem we need to do
sampling of the solution from finer grid to coarser grid where a few iterations (iterative methods for
example, Gauss-Seidel) need to be done to reduce the high-frequency error. Transferring the
solution from finer grid to coarser grid is called restriction. After the few steps of the restriction
are done, the error of high-frequency will be reduced. Later this solution is transferred to finer grid
for further calculation and by then the low-frequency error is also minimized. Transferring the
solution from coarser grid to finer grid is called the prolongation or interpolation, (see Figure
10.9). On the finer grid it is suggested to do a few more iterations to keep the high-frequency error
still small. So the solution that is in the finer grid will be having less high-frequency and less low-
frequency error. These cycles have to be continued until the solution meets the desired convergence
criteria. Prolongation, restriction and less iteration in the finer grid gives a faster convergence rate
and quicker solution than the normal stationary iterative methods354. An investigation into a Multi-

353 Ezhilmathi, “Magic behind the Most of the CFD solvers for HPC “, Scientific Computing blog, 2013.
354 Same as above.
 257

gridding algorithm by [Gargoloff]355 shows that the maximum value of the residuals for a typical
multigrid solver were reduced much faster than the maximum value of the residuals for the one-level
grid solver. The 2D case was run for a NACA 0012 airfoil. Further discussion regarding smoother
terminology and their usage can be obtained from [Birken et al.]356.
10.6.2 Unstructured Mesh Cycling
Methods that remove selected mesh points, using graph-based algorithms, and re-triangulate the
remaining subset of vertices have been demonstrated as effective tools for generating coarse-level
Methods that remove selected mesh points, using graph-based algorithms, and re-triangulate the
remaining subset of vertices have )been demonstrated as effective tools for generating coarse-level
multigrid meshes. However, for very complex geometries, the generation of coarse meshes that
conform to the original geometry either manually or automatically, becomes an unpleasant task. A
usual and tedious approach to unstructured multigrid methods is to generate a sequence of
completely independent coarse and fine meshes and use linear interpolation to transfer
variables back and forth between the various meshes of the sequence, within a multigrid cycle
357-358. The meshes may be generated using any feasible grid generation technique and will generally

be non-nested, and may even not contain any common points.

Figure 10.9 Multi-Gridding Cycle

The only requirement is that they conform to the same domain boundaries. This technique is more
flexible than the nested subdivision approach, since the fine and coarse meshes are not constrained,
and may be optimized independently for accuracy and speed of convergence respectively.
Furthermore, this approach can be applied to a problem with a pre-specified fine mesh. The inter
grid transfer operators can be determined in a preprocessing operation but require smart search
techniques to determine the patterns between coarse and fine grid elements, which in principle may
overlap randomly. Once these have been determined and stored, grid transfers are simply
implemented as a weighted gather and scatter of data between coarse and fine grid arrays.

355 A Dissertation by Joaquin Ivan Gargoloff, “A Numerical Method For Fully Nonlinear Aero-elastic Analysis”,
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 2007.
356 Philipp Birken, J onathan Bull, and Antony Jameson, “A note on terminology in multigrid methods”, Proc. Appl.

Math. Mech. 16, 721 – 722 (2016).

357 Mavriplis DJ., “Three-dimensional multigrid for the Euler equations”, AIAA , 1992.
358 Leclercq MP., “Resolution des equations d’Euler par des methods multigrilles conditions aux limites en regime

hypersonique”, PhD thesis. Dep. Appl. Math, Univ. de Saint- Etienne.

 258

Application of this technique to a

three-dimensional inviscid flow is
depicted in Figure 10.10 where
two grids from the sequence of
grids employed in the overset mesh
multigrid scheme for the
computation of transonic flow over
an aircraft configuration. Yet
another approach is provided by
agglomeration (collection)
multigrid methods. Based on the
control-volume formulation, these
methods form coarser-level meshes
by blending or agglomerating fine-
level control volumes together with
their neighbors359. The resulting
coarse mesh contains a smaller
number of larger and more
complex control volumes. The
precise manner in which control
volumes are agglomerated can be
controlled through a graph-based
algorithm similar to the vertex
removal procedure described
above. The flow solver must be
modified to run on arbitrarily
shaped control volumes on the
coarse levels. For inviscid-flow
control-volume formulations, this
presents little difficulty, since the
equations are generally discretized
as fluxes over individual control-
volume faces, which can be used to
build contour integrals about Figure 10.10 Sequence of gridding in unstructured multigrid
arbitrarily shaped control volumes. scheme
The observed convergence rate of
the agglomeration multigrid method is almost identical to that obtained with the overset-mesh
method.
10.6.3 Viscous Flow Consideration
For viscous flows, the discretization of diffusion terms on arbitrarily shaped control volumes is no
longer straightforward. An algebraic interpretation of agglomeration multigrid provides a
mechanism for dealing with equations sets that contain diffusion terms. Borrowing from the
algebraic multigrid literature [Ruge & St¨uben 1987], a coarse-grid operator may be constructed by
projecting the fine-grid operator onto the space spanned by the coarse-grid basis functions. In
general, the multigrid convergence rates achieved for viscous flow cases are substantially slower
than those achieved for inviscid cases. The slower convergence in the viscous flow cases is principally

Lallemand M, Steve H, Dervieux A., “Unstructured multi gridding by volume agglomeration: current status”,
359

Computational. Fluids 21(3):397–433.

 259

due to the anisotropic stretching of the mesh in the boundary-layer and wake regions. Unstructured
multigrid methods offer the possibility of designing schemes that are insensitive to anisotropic
effects. The graph-based agglomeration or vertex coarsening algorithms described above can be
modified to merge only those neighboring control volumes or delete only those neighboring vertices
that are the most strongly coupled to the current point. By coarsening or agglomerating only in the
direction of strongest coupling, as determined by the magnitude of the coefficients in the fine-grid
discrete equations, rather than eliminating all possible neighbors, coarse levels that are optimal for
the problem at hand can be generated. An alternate strategy for improving the convergence of
multigrid methods is to employ a stronger smoother as the base grid solver. Any of the implicit
methods described above may be substituted for an explicit method. Of course, most. There is an
obvious duality between the construction of sub regions for implicit methods and coarsening
strategies for multigrid methods that should be exploited in the future to better couple locally implicit
strategies with multigrid methods. The above discussion on multigrid methods centers on the Full
Approximation Storage (FAS) technique, where multigrid is applied directly to the nonlinear form
of the governing equations. Multigrid may also be employed as a solver for the linear system arising
at each time step of an implicit scheme, or even as a preconditioner for an iterative solution strategy.
While these strategies may yield desirable robustness characteristics, they are plagued by the high
memory requirements of the implicit linearization, which are avoided in the FAS approach.
10.6.4 Case Study - Development and Application of Agglomerated Multigrid Methods for Complex
Geometries
Authors : Hiroaki Nishikawa, Boris Diskin and James L. Thomas
Appearance : 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 28 June - 1 July 2010, Chicago, Illinois
Source : AIAA 2010-4731. http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-4731
[Nishikawa et al.]360 reports on progress been made on the development of agglomerated multigrid
techniques for fully un-structured grids in 3D. Building upon two previous studies, focused on
efficiently solving a model diffusion equation. It demonstrates a robust fully-coarsened agglomerated
multigrid technique for 3D complex geometries, incorporating the following key developments:
consistent and stable coarse-grid discretization, a hierarchical agglomeration scheme, and line-
agglomeration/relaxation using prismatic-cell discretization’s in the highly-stretched grid regions. A
significant speed-up in computer time over state-of-art single-grid computations is demonstrated for
a model diffusion problem, the Euler equations, and the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations
for 3D realistic complex geometries.
10.6.4.1 Introduction
Multigrid techniques [1] are used to accelerate convergence of current Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) solvers for both steady and unsteady ow solutions, particularly for structured-grid
applications. [Mavriplis et al. ][2, 3, 4, 5] pioneered agglomerated multigrid methods for large-scale
unstructured-grid applications. During the present development, a serious convergence degradation
in some of the state-of-the-art multi-grid algorithms was observed on highly-refined grids. To
investigate and overcome the difficulty, we critically studied agglomerated multigrid techniques [6,
7] for two- and three-dimensional isotropic and highly-stretched grids and developed quantitative
analysis methods and computational techniques to achieve grid-independent convergence for a
model equation representing laminar diffusion in the incompressible limit. It was found in Ref. [6]
that it is essential for grid-independent convergence to use consistent coarse-grid discretization. In

360Hiroaki Nishikawa, Boris Diskin and James L. Thomas, “Development and Application of Agglomerated
Multigrid Methods for Complex Geometries”, 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit 28 June - 1 July 2010,
Chicago, Illinois, AIAA 2010-4731.
 260

the later Ref. [7], it was found that the use of prismatic cells and line-agglomeration/relaxation is
essential for grid-independent convergence on fully-coarsened highly-stretched grids.
Here, we extend and demonstrate these techniques for inviscid and viscous flows over complex
geometries. The paper is organized as follows. Finite-volume discretization employed for target grids
are described. Details of the hierarchical agglomeration scheme are described. Elements of the
multigrid algorithm are then described, including discretization on coarse grids. Multigrid results for
complex geometries are shown for a model diffusion equation, the Euler equations, and the RANS
equations. The final section contains conclusions and recommendations for future work.
10.6.4.2 Discretization
The discretization method is a finite-volume discretization (FVD) centered at nodes. It is based on
the integral form of governing equations of interest:

̂) dΓ = ∬ s dΩ
∮(𝐅. 𝐧
Γ Ω
Eq. 10.55
where F is a flux tensor, s is a source term, Ω is a control
volume with boundary Г, and n^ is the outward unit
normal vector. For the model diffusion (Laplace)
equation, the boundary conditions are taken as
Dirichlet, i.e., specified from a known exact solution
over the computational boundary. Tests are performed
for a constant manufactured solution, U(x; y; z) = 10.0,
Figure 10.11 Illustration of a node-
with a randomly perturbed initial solution. For inviscid
centered median-dual control volume
flow problems, the governing equations are the Euler (shaded). Dual faces connect edge
equations. Boundary conditions are a slip-wall midpoints with primal cell centroids.
condition and inflow/outflow conditions on open Numbers 0-4 denote grid nodes
boundaries. For viscous flow problems, the governing
equations are the RANS equations with the Spalart-
Allmaras one-equation model [8]. Boundary conditions are non-slip condition on walls and
inflow/outflow conditions on open boundaries. The source term, s, is zero except for the turbulence-
model equation (see Ref. [8]).
The general FVD approach requires partitioning the domain into a set of non-overlapping control
volumes and numerically implementing Eq. 10.55 over each control volume. Node-centered
schemes define solution values at the mesh nodes. In 3D, the primal cells are tetrahedra, prisms,
hexahedra, or pyramids. The median-dual partition [9, 10] used to generate control volumes is
illustrated in Figure 10.11 for 2D. These non-overlapping control volumes cover the entire
computational domain and compose a mesh that is dual to the primal mesh.
The main target discretization of interest for the model diffusion equation and the viscous terms of
the RANS equations is obtained by the Green-Gauss scheme [11, 12], which is a widely-used viscous
discretization for node-centered schemes and is equivalent to a Galerkin finite-element discretization
for tetrahedral grids. For mixed-element cells, edge-based contributions are used to increase the h-
ellipticity of the operator [11, 12].
The inviscid terms are discretized by a standard edge-based method with unweighted least-squares
gradient reconstruction and Roe's approximate Riemann solver [13]. Limiters are not used for the
problems considered in this paper. The convection terms of the turbulence equation are discretized
with first-order accuracy.
 261

10.6.4.3 Agglomeration Scheme

As described in the previous papers [6,7], the grids are agglomerated within a topology-preserving
framework, in which hierarchies are assigned based on connections to the computational
boundaries. Corners are identified as grid points with three or more boundary-condition-type
closures (or three or more boundary slope discontinuities). Ridges are identified as grid points with
two boundary-condition-type closures (or two boundary slope discontinuities). Valleys are
identified as grid points with a single boundary-condition-type closure. Interiors are identified as
grid points without any boundary condition. The agglomerations proceed hierarchically from seeds
within the topologies | first corners, then ridges, then valleys, and finally interiors. Rules are enforced
to maintain the boundary condition types of the finer grid within the agglomerated grid. Candidate
volumes to be agglomerated are vetted against the hierarchy of the currently agglomerated volumes.
In this work, we use the rules summarized in Table 10.2.
In order to enable a valid non-degenerate stencil for linear prolongation and least-squares gradients
near boundaries [7], the rules reflect less agglomerations near boundaries than in the interior.
Corners are never agglomerated, ridges are agglomerated only with ridges, and valleys are
agglomerated only with valleys. A typical boundary agglomeration generated by the above rules is
shown in Figure 10.12.

Table 10.2 Admissible Agglomerations

The conditional entries denote that further inspection of the connectivity of the topology must be
considered before agglomeration is allowed. For example, a ridge can be agglomerated into an
existing ridge agglomeration if the two boundary conditions associated with each ridge are the same.
For valleys or interiors, all available neighbors are collected and then agglomerated one by one in the
order of larger number of edge-connections to a current agglomeration until the maximum threshold
of agglomerated nodes (4 for valleys; 8 for interiors) is reached. The prolongation operator P1 is
modified to prolong only from hierarchies equal or above the hierarchy of the prolonged point.
Hierarchies on each agglomerated grid are inherited from the finer grid.
For the results reported in this paper, we employ agglomeration scheme II described in previous
papers [6 , 7]. It has been modified to deal with viscous meshes using implicit-line agglomeration. It
performs the agglomeration in the following sequence:

1. Agglomerate viscous boundaries (bottom of implicit lines).

2. Agglomerate prismatic layers through the implicit lines (implicit-line agglomeration).
3. Agglomerate the rest of the boundaries.
4. Agglomerate the interior.
 262

The second step is a line-agglomeration step where volumes are agglomerated along implicit lines
starting from the volume directly above the boundary volume. Specifically, we first agglomerate
volumes corresponding to the second and third entries in the implicit-line lists associated with each
of the fine-grid volumes contained in a boundary agglomerate. The line agglomeration continues to
the end of the shortest line among the lines
associated with the boundary agglomerate.
This line-agglomeration process preserves
the boundary agglomerates. Figure 10.13
illustrates typical implicit line-
agglomeration near a curved solid body.
The implicit line-agglomeration preserves
the line structure of the fine grid on coarse
grids, so that line-relaxations can be
performed on all grids to address the grid
anisotropy. If no implicit lines are defined,
typical for inviscid grids, the first two steps
are skipped.
In each boundary agglomeration (steps 1
and 3), agglomeration begins with corners,
creates a front list defined by collecting
volumes adjacent to the agglomerated Figure 10.12 Trailing-edge area of a 3D wing
agglomerated by the hierarchical scheme. Primal grid
corners, and proceeds to agglomerate is shown by thin lines; agglomerated grid is shown by
volumes in the list (while updating the list thick lines.
as agglomeration proceeds) in the order of
ridges and valleys. During the process, a
volume is selected from among those in
the same hierarchy that has the least
number of non-agglomerated neighbors,
thereby reducing the occurrences of
agglomerations with small numbers of
volumes. A heap data-structure is utilized
to efficiently select such a volume. The
agglomeration continues until the front
list becomes empty. Finally, for both
valleys and interiors, agglomerations
containing only a few volumes (typically
one) are combined with other
agglomerations. Figure 10.14 and
Figure 10.15 show primal grids and
agglomerations for the F6 wing-body
combination and the DPW-W2 [14] grids.
These grids are viscous grids; the primal
Figure 10.13 Typical implicit line-agglomeration
showing a curved solid body surface on the left and a
symmetry plane on the right. The projection of the line-
agglomerations can be seen on the symmetry plane.
 263

Figure 10.14 Grids and convergence of the model diffusion equation for the F6 wing-body
combination

grid has prismatic viscous layers around the body and the wing. Coarsening ratios are indicated by r
 264

k (k = 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4) in the parenthesis. Line agglomeration was applied in these regions. Figure 10.16

Figure 10.15 Grids and Convergence of the Model Diffusion Equation for the DPW-W2 case
 265

show primal grids and agglomerations for a wing-body combination, a wing-ap combination, and a
3D wing with a blunt trailing edge, all are pure-tetrahedral inviscid grids.

Figure 10.16 Grids and Convergence for the wing-ap inviscid case.
 266

10.6.4.4 Single-Grid Iterations

Single-grid iteration scheme is based on the implicit formulation:

Ω ∂𝐑̂∗
( + ̂ (𝐔)
) δ𝐔 = −𝐑
∆τ ∂𝐔
Eq. 10.56
where ^R (U) is the target residual computed for the current solution U, Δτ is a pseudo-time step,
∂Ř*/∂U is an exact/approximate Jacobian, and δU is the change to be applied to the solution U. An
approximate solution to Eq. 10.56 is computed by a certain number of iterations on the linear
system (linear-sweeps). Update of U completes one nonlinear iteration. The RANS equations are
iterated in a loosely-coupled formulation, updating the turbulence variables after the mean-ow
variables at each nonlinear iteration. The left-hand-side operator of Eq. 10.56
includes an exact linearization of the viscous (diffusion) terms and a linearization of the inviscid
terms involving first-order contributions only. Thus, the iterations represent a variant of defect
correction.
Typically in single-grid FUN3D RANS applications, the first-order Jacobian corresponds to the
linearization of Van Leer's flux-vector splitting. For inviscid cases, we consider using the linearization
of Roe's approximate Riemann solver. Jacobians are updated after each iteration. The linear sweeps
performed before each nonlinear update include νp sweeps of the point multi-color Gauss-Seidel
relaxation performed through the entire domain followed by νl line-implicit sweeps in stretched
regions. The line-implicit sweeps are applied only when solving the model diffusion or the RANS
equations. In a line-implicit sweep, unknowns associated with each line are swept simultaneously by
inverting a block tridiagonal matrix [7]. For RANS simulations, νp = νl = 15 for the mean-flow
equations and νp = νl = 10 for the turbulence equation. For the model diffusion equation, only one
linear sweep is performed per nonlinear iteration, i.e., νp = νl = 1, and the exact Jacobian computed
only once at the beginning of the entire calculation. In spite of linearity of the model diffusion
equation, computations of Ř(U) in Error! Reference source not found. do not employ the exact
Jacobian, thus, providing a better similarity to nonlinear computations.
10.6.4.5 Multigrid
Elements of the multigrid algorithm are presented in this section. In this study, we do not explore
various algorithmic options, relying on the methods that proved effective from the previous studies.
10.6.4.5.1 Multigrid V-Cycle
The multigrid method is based on the full-approximation scheme (FAS) [1, 15] where a coarse-grid
problem is solved/relaxed for the solution approximation. A correction, computed as the difference
between the restricted fine-grid solution and the coarse-grid solution, is prolonged to the finer grid
to update the fine-grid solution. The two-grid FAS is applied recursively through increasingly coarser
grids to define a V-cycle. A V-cycle, denoted as V (ν1 ; ν2), uses ν1 relaxations performed at each grid
before proceeding to the coarser grid and ν2 relaxations after coarse-grid correction. On the coarsest
grid, relaxations are performed to bring two orders of magnitude residual reduction or until the
maximum number of relaxations, 10, is reached.
10.6.4.5.2 Inter-Grid Operators
The control volumes of each agglomerated grid are found by summing control volumes of a finer grid.
An operator that performs the summation is given by a conservative agglomeration operator, R0,
which acts on _ne-grid control volumes and maps them onto the corresponding coarse-grid control-
volumes. Any agglomerated grid can be defined, therefore, in terms of R0 as
 267

Ωc = R 0 Ωf
Eq. 10.57
where superscripts c and f denote entities on coarser and finer grids, respectively. On the
agglomerated grids, the control volumes become geometrically more complex than their primal
counterparts and the details of the control-volume boundaries are not retained. The directed area of
a coarse-grid face separating two agglomerated control volumes, if required, is found by lumping the
directed areas of the corresponding finer-grid faces and is assigned to the virtual edge connecting the
centers of the agglomerated control volumes. Residuals on the fine grid, ^Rf , corresponding to the
integral Eq. 10.55 are restricted to the coarse grid by the conservative agglomeration operator, R0,
as

̂ ̂f
𝐑c = R 0 𝐑
Eq. 10.58
where ^Rc denotes the fine-grid residual restricted to the coarse grid. The fine-grid solution
approximation, Uf , is restricted as
𝐑 0 (𝐔f Ωf )
𝐔0c =
Ωc
Eq. 10.59
where Uc 0 denotes the fine-grid solution approximation restricted to the coarse grid. The restricted
approximation is then used to define the forcing term to the coarse-grid problem as well as to
compute the correction, (δU)c:
(δ𝐔)c = 𝐔 c − 𝐔0c
Eq. 10.60
where Uc is an updated coarse-grid solution obtained directly from the coarse-grid problem. The
correction to the finer grid is prolonged typically through the prolongation operator, P1, that is exact
for linear functions, as
(δ𝐔)f = P1 (δ𝐔)c
Eq. 10.61
The operator P1 is constructed locally using linear interpolation from a tetrahedra defined on the
coarse grid. The geometrical shape is anchored at the coarser-grid location of the agglomerate that
contains the given finer control volume. Other nearby points are found by the adjacency graph. An
enclosing simplex is sought that avoids prolongation with non-convex weights and, in situations
where multiple geometrical shapes are found, the first one encountered is used. Where no enclosing
simplex is found, the simplex with minimal non-convex weights is used.
10.6.4.5.3 Coarse-Grid Discretization
For inviscid coarse-grid discretization, a first-order edge-based scheme is employed. For the model
equation and the viscous term in the RANS equations, two classes of coarse-grid discretization were
previously studied [6, 7]: the Average-Least-Squares (Avg-LSQ) and the edge-terms-only (ETO)
schemes. The consistent Avg-LSQ schemes are constructed in two steps: first, LSQ gradients are
computed at the control volumes; then, the average of the control-volume LSQ gradients is used to
approximate a gradient at the face, which is augmented with the edge-based directional contribution
to determine the gradient used in the ux. There are two variants Inviscid Viscous (Diffusion) Primal
grid Second-order edge-based reconstruction Green-Gauss Coarse grids First-order edge-based
reconstruction Face-Tangent Avg-LSQ.
Coarse grids Exact or Approximate (edge-terms only) of the Avg-LSQ scheme. One uses the average-
least-squares gradients in the direction normal to the edge (edge-normal gradient construction). The
other uses the average-least-squares gradients along the face (face-tangent gradient construction).
 268

The ETO discretization are obtained from the Avg-LSQ schemes by taking the limit of zero Avg-LSQ
gradients. The ETO schemes are often cited as a thin-layer discretization in the literature [2, 3, 4];
they are positive schemes but are not consistent (i.e., the discrete solutions do not converge to the
exact continuous solution with consistent grid refinement) unless the grid is orthogonal [13, 16]. As
shown in the previous papers [6, 7], ETO schemes lead to deterioration of the multigrid convergence
for refined grids, and therefore are not considered in this paper. For practical applications, the face-
tangent Avg-LSQ scheme was found to be more robust than the edge-normal Avg-LSQ scheme. It
provides superior diagonal dominance in the resulting discretization [6, 7]. In this study, therefore,
we employ the face-tangent Avg-LSQ scheme as a coarse-grid discretization for the model equation
and the viscous term.
For excessively-skewed faces (over 90◦ angle between the outward face normal and the
corresponding outward edge vector), which can arise on agglomerated grids, the gradient is
computed by the Avg-LSQ scheme and edge contributions are ignored. The Galerkin coarse-grid
operator [1], which was considered in a previous study, is not considered here since the method was
found to be grid-dependent and slowed down the multigrid convergence for refined grids [6]. For
inviscid discretization, we employ a first-order edge-based discretization on coarse grids. Table 10.3
shows a summary of discretization used.

Table 10.3 Summary of discretizations used to define the residual, ^R

10.6.4.5.4 Relaxations
Relaxation scheme is similar to the single-grid iteration described in 10.6.4.4 with the following
important differences. On coarse grids, the Avg-LSQ scheme used for viscous terms has a larger
stencil than the Green-Gauss scheme implemented on the target grid and its exact linearization has
not been used; instead relaxation of the Avg-LSQ scheme relies on an approximate linearization,
which consists of edge terms only. For inviscid cases, the first-order Jacobian is constructed based on
Roe's approximate Riemann solver, and thus it is exact on coarse grids where the first-order scheme
is used for the residual. For RANS cases, the first-order Jacobian is constructed based on Van Leer's
flux-vector splitting, but the inviscid part of the residual is computed by Roe's approximate Riemann
solver. Therefore, the Jacobian is approximate on both the primal and coarse grids. Table 10.5
summarizes the Jacobians used for inviscid and viscous (diffusion) terms on the primal and coarse
grids. In multigrid nonlinear applications, Jacobians are evaluated at the beginning of a cycle and
frozen during the cycle. For inviscid and RANS flow simulations, significantly fewer linear sweeps are
used in a multigrid relaxation than in a single-grid iteration: νp = νl = 5 for both the mean ow and
turbulence relaxations. For the model diffusion equation, still only one sweep is performed per
relaxation.
10.6.4.5.5 Cost of Multigrid V-Cycle
All of the computations in the paper use FAS multigrid. For the linear model diffusion equation, the
computer time would be reduced if the corresponding correction scheme (CS) cycle is used. To
estimate relative cost of multigrid cycles in comparison with single-grid iterations, the cost of
nonlinear residual valuations, relaxation updates, and Jacobian evaluations needs to be taken into
account. Suppose that a nonlinear relaxation and a Jacobian evaluation cost σ and J times a nonlinear
 269

residual evaluation, respectively. Then, the cost of a single-grid iteration relative to the cost of a
nonlinear residual evaluation is given by

W SG = σSG + J
Eq. 10.62
where the superscript SG denotes single-grid iterations. On the other hand, a multigrid cycle involves
ν1 + ν2 nonlinear relaxations, a nonlinear residual evaluation before restriction, and a Jacobian
evaluation per cycle per grid. A residual evaluation on coarse grids is also required to form the FAS
forcing term. The cost of a multigrid cycle, MG, relative to the cost of a fine-grid nonlinear residual
evaluation is given by

W MG = [C(ν1 + ν2 )σMG + J + 1] + C − 1
Eq. 10.63
where C is a coarse-grid factor,

1 1 1
C= + + +⋯
r1 r1 r2 r1 r2 r3
Eq. 10.64
Here, rk is the agglomeration ratio of the k-th agglomerated grid. The relative cost, WMGSG , of a V -cycle
is therefore given by

MG
W MG
WSG =
W SG
Eq. 10.65
Table 10.4 shows
values of WMGSG , σ and J
for each equation set
within the single-grid Table 10.4 Summary of costs and typical numbers of linear-sweeps. The
iteration and the multigrid cycle is a 5-level V (2; 1) with a typical coarsening ratio 8. The
multigrid method. The numbers in parenthesis denote the number of point and line sweeps,
values for σ and J are respectively, and the second set for RANS denotes the number of point and
line sweeps of the turbulent equation.
based on measured
computer times
associated with residual evaluation, Jacobian evaluation, and linear-sweeps on the primal grid for
particular configurations. The corresponding values on a per node basis vary from the tabulated
values on the coarser grids and across configurations. Thus, Eq. 10.65 serves as a reasonable
approximation to the expected code performance. Note that the Jacobian computation has been
ignored for the model diffusion equation. This is because the Jacobian is constant for the linear
problem and therefore it is computed only once and never updated. Observe also that σ is much
smaller in the multigrid cycle than in the single-grid iteration for the nonlinear cases. This saving

Table 10.5 Summary of Jacobians, ∂^R*/∂U

 270

comes from much fewer linear-sweeps in the multigrid method. We experimentally found that the
multigrid convergence did not depend heavily on the number of linear-sweeps. Increasing them
further does not reduce the number of cycles for convergence, but it merely increases the CPU time.
The numbers of linear-sweeps shown for the single-grid method are typical numbers considered
sufficient for robust computations with a reasonably large CFL number. The relative cost (Eq. 10.65)
computed based on the measured σ and J are shown in the third column of the table. Considering a
5-level V (2 ; 1) cycle with a coarsening ration of 8, the relative cost is found to be 4 : 5 for the diffusion
equation, 1: 8 for the inviscid equation, and 1 : 5 for the RANS equations.
10.6.4.6 Results for Complex Geometries
All calculations presented in this paper were performed with a single processor. Parallelization of
the multigrid algorithm is currently underway. The multigrid cycle is a 5-level V (2 ; 1) for all cases.
10.6.4.6.1 Model Diffusion Equation
The multigrid method was applied on grids generated for two practical geometries: the F6 wing-body
and the DPW-W2 wing-alone cases [14]. Both grids are tetrahedral, but prisms are used in a highly-
stretched viscous layer near the solid boundary. Pyramidal cells are also present around the
transitional region. The multigrid V (2; 1) cycle is applied and compared with single-grid iterations.

Table 10.7 Cost of V-cycle relative to a single-grid iteration and speed-up factor. The expected speed-
up factors have been computed with the actual coarsening ratio.

Table 10.6 Summary of grid sizes and parameters for the inviscid cases.

The CFL number is set to infinity. For the F6 wing-body grid (1,121,301 nodes), the grids and
convergence results are shown in Figure 10.14. The speed-up factor is 63 in CPU time. A similar
result was obtained for the DPW-W2 grid (1,893,661 nodes) as shown in Figure 10.15. The speed-
up factor is nearly 22 in this case. The cost of one V -cycle computed according to Eq. 10.65 with
actual coarsening ratios is shown for each case in the fourth column of Table 10.7. It shows that
one V-cycle costs nearly 4 single-grid iterations. The fifth column is an expected speed-up factor
 271

based on the number of single-grid iterations (NSG), the number of multigrid cycles (NMG), and the
factor WMGSG
MG
N𝑆𝐺 ⁄NMG WSG
Eq. 10.66
The last column is the actual speed-up factor computed as a ratio of the total single-grid CPU time to
the total multigrid CPU time. A fairly good agreement can be observed between the expected and
actual speed-up factors.
10.6.4.6.2 Inviscid Flows
The multigrid method was applied to three inviscid cases: low-speed subsonic flows over a wing-
body configuration, a wing-ap configuration, and a NACA15 wing with a blunt trailing edge. Error!
Reference source not found. shows a summary of grid sizes and parameters. Nramp denotes the
number of first iterations/cycles over which the CFL number is ramped from 10 to 200 for single-
grid/multigrid calculations. The multigrid cycle is V (2 ; 1) for these cases.
The convergence results for the wing-ap configuration is given in Figure 10.16 (f). It shows that
the multigrid converges (to machine zero) nearly 2 times faster in CPU time than the single-grid
iterations. For the NACA15 wing case, the solution does not fully converge in either single-grid or
multigrid computations apparently due to an unsteady behavior near the blunt trailing edge.
In all three cases, the ratio of the number of multigrid cycles to the number of single-grid iterations
is about twice the speed-up factor in terms of the CPU time. It implies that the cost of one multigrid
V (2 ; 1) cycle is close to the cost of two single-grid iterations. These results are in good agreement
with the estimates of the cost of one V-cycle computed according to Eq. 10.65 and shown in the
fourth column of Table 10.7. The estimated cost of one V -cycle is 1:8 of the single-grid iteration cost

Figure 10.17 Residual versus CPU time for the F6 wing-body case (RANS)
 272

for all inviscid cases. The estimated speed-up shown in the fifth column agrees well with the actual
speed-up shown in the last column.
10.6.4.6.3 Turbulent Flows (RANS)
We applied the multigrid algorithm to a RANS simulation on the F6 wing-body grid shown in Figure
10.14. The inflow Mach number is 0:3, the angle of attack is 1 degree, and the Reynolds number is 2
: 5 M. For this case, a prolongation operator that is exact for a constant function is used. The P1
prolongation operator encountered a difficulty on a boundary for this particular configuration, and
it is currently under investigation. The CFL number is not ramped in this case, but set to 200 for the
mean-flow equations and 30 for the turbulence equation. Convergence results are shown in Figure
10.17. As can be seen, the multigrid achieved four orders of reduction in the residual 5 times faster
in CPU time than the single-grid iteration. For this case, neither the multigrid nor single-grid method
fully converges seemingly due to a separation near the wing-body junction. Four orders of magnitude
reduction is just about how far a single-grid is run in practice for this particular configuration. The
comparison of the number of cycles with the number of single-grid iterations in the figure implies
that the CPU time for a multigrid V (2 ; 1) cycle is less than the CPU time for two single-grid iterations.
As shown in Table 10.7, one multigrid V-cycle actually costs 1 : 6 single-grid iterations, indicating a
good agreement between the expected and actual speed-up factors.
10.6.4.7 Concluding Remarks
An agglomerated multigrid algorithm has been applied to inviscid and viscous flows over complex
geometries. A robust fully-coarsened hierarchical agglomeration scheme was described for highly-
stretched viscous grids, incorporating consistent viscous discretization on coarse grids. Results for
practical simulations show that impressive speed-ups can be achieved for realistic flows over
complex geometries. Parallelization of the developed multigrid algorithm is currently underway to
expand the applicability of the developed technique to larger-scale computations and to demonstrate
grid-independent convergence of the developed multigrid algorithm.

10.6.4.8 References
[1] Trottenberg, U., Oosterlee, C. W., and Schuller, A., Multigrid, Academic Press, 2001.
[2] Mavriplis, D. J., Multigrid Techniques for Unstructured Meshes," VKI Lecture Series VKI-LS 1995-
02, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-Saint-Genese, Belgium, 1995.
[3] Mavriplis, D. J., Unstructured Grid Techniques," Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 29, 1997,
pp. 473-514.
[4] Mavriplis, D. J. and Pirzadeh, S., Large-Scale Parallel Unstructured Mesh Computations for 3D High-
Lift Analysis," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1999, pp. 987{998.
[5] Mavriplis, D. J., An Assessment of Linear versus Non-Linear Multigrid Methods for Unstructured
Mesh Solvers," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 275, 2002, pp. 302-325.
[6] Nishikawa, H., Diskin, B., and Thomas, J. L., Critical Study of Agglomerated Multigrid Methods for
Diffusion," AIAA Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2010, pp. 839-847.
[7] Thomas, J. L., Diskin, B., and Nishikawa, H., A Critical Study of Agglomerated Multigrid Methods for
Diffusion on Highly-Stretched Grids," Computers and Fluids, 2010, to appear.
[8] Spalart, P. R. and Allmaras, S. R., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows," AIAA
paper 92-0439, 1992.
[9] Barth, T. J., Numerical Aspects of Computing Viscous High Reynolds Number Flows on Unstructured
Meshes," AIAA Paper 91-0721, 1991.
[10] Haselbacher, A. C., A Grid-Transparent Numerical Method for Compressible Viscous Flow on Mixed
Unstructured Meshes, Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough Universit, 1999.
[11] Anderson, W. K. and Bonhaus, D. L., An implicit upwind algorithm for computing turbulent flows
on unstructured grids," Computers and Fluids, Vol. 23, 1994, pp. 1-21.
 273

[12] Diskin, B., Thomas, J. L., Nielsen, E. J., Nishikawa, H., and White, J. A., Comparison of Node-Centered
and Cell-Centered Unstructured Finite-Volume Discretization. Part I: Viscous Fluxes," 47th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 2009-597, January 2009.
[13] Diskin, B. and Thomas, J. L., Accuracy Analysis for Mixed-Element Finite-Volume Discretization
Schemes," NIA Report No. 2007-08 , 2007.
[14] “The DPW-II Workshop for the geometry," http://aaac.larc.nasa.gov/tsab/cfdlarc/aiaa-
dpw/Workshop2/workshop2.
[15] Briggs, W. L., Henson, V. E., and McCormick, S. F., A Multigrid Tutorial, SIAM, 2nd ed., 2000.
[16] Thomas, J. L., Diskin, B., and Rumsey, C. L., Towards Verification of Unstructured Grid Methods,"
AIAA Journal, Vol. 46, No. 12, December 2008, pp. 3070-3079.
 274

11 Hypersonic Flow
As M∞ increases above 1, the shock wave moves closer to the body surface. Also, the strength of the
shock wave increases, leading to higher temperatures in the region between the shock and the body
(the shock layer). If M∞ is sufficiently large, the shock layer becomes very thin, and interactions
between the shock wave and the viscous boundary layer on the surface occur. Also, the shock
layer temperature becomes high enough that chemical reactions occur in the air. The O 2 and N2
molecules are torn apart;
that is, the gas molecules
dissociate. When M∞
becomes large enough such
that viscous interaction
and/or chemically reacting
effects begin to dominate the
flow (Figure 11.1), the flow Figure 11.1 Shock Layers in Hypersonic Flow Regimes (Courtesy of
field is called hypersonic. John D. Anderson)
(Again, a somewhat
arbitrary but frequently
used rule of thumb for hypersonic flow is M∞ > 5).
Hypersonic aerodynamics received a great deal of attention during the period 1955 –1970 because
atmospheric entry vehicles encounter the atmosphere at Mach numbers between 25 (ICBMs) and 36
(the Apollo lunar return vehicle). Again during the period 1985–1995, hypersonic flight received a
great deal of attention with the concept of air-breathing supersonic-combustion ramjet-powered
trans atmospheric vehicles to provide single-stage-to-orbit capability. Today, hypersonic

Figure 11.2 Features of hypersonic flow around a blunt-nosed vehicle (Courtesy of von Karman
Institute)
 275

aerodynamics is just part of the whole spectrum of realistic flight speeds361.

To relate the discussion of thermodynamic and gas-dynamic considerations to applications of
interest it is useful to consider first general high-temperature gas effects that are encountered in the
hypersonic flight of a typical vehicle, as illustrated in Figure 11.2 (it should be noted that apart from
compressibility, none of the attributes mentioned below are found in the supersonic flow regime362.

11.1 Characteristics of Hypersonic Atmosphere 363

Hypersonic flight has special traits, some of which are seen in every hypersonic flight. Presence of
these particular features during a flight is highly dependent on type of trajectory, configuration etc.
In short it is the mission requirement which decides the nature of hypersonic atmosphere
encountered by the flight vehicle. Some missions are designed for high deceleration in outer
atmosphere during reentry. Hence, those flight vehicles experience longer flight duration at high
angle of attacks due to which blunt nosed configuration are generally preferred for such aircrafts. On
the contrary, some missions are centered on low flight duration with major deceleration closer to
earth surface hence these vehicles have sharp nose and low angle of attack flights. Reentry flight path
of hypersonic vehicle is thus governed by the parameters called as ballistic parameter and lifting
parameter. These parameters are obtained by applying momentum conservation equation in the
direction of the flight path and normal to it. Velocity-altitude map of the flight is thus made from the
knowledge of these governing flight parameters, weight and surface area. Ballistic parameter is
considered for non-lifting reentry flights like flight path of Apollo capsule, however lifting parameter
is considered for lifting reentry trajectories like that of space shuttle.
Therefore hypersonic flight vehicles are classified in four different types based on the design
constraints imposed from mission specifications.
11.1.1 Reentry Vehicles (RV)
These vehicles are typically launched using rocket propulsion system. Reentry of these vehicles is
controlled by control surfaces. Large angle of attack flight of blunt nosed configurations is the need
of these flights. Space shuttle ( US ), BURAN (Russian), HOPE ( Japan ) and HERMES (European) are
some examples of these kind vehicles.
11.1.2 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicle (CAV)
Slender configurations with low angle of attack flights are main features of these flights. These
vehicles are prepared for high heating loads with ablative cooling system. Air breathing propulsion
system of ram or scramjet type is generally preferred for these vehicles. Sanger, which is a two stage
(TSTO) hypersonic vehicle, has first stage with air breathing propulsion and second stage is propelled
with rocket. Hence first stage of Sanger falls in CAV category for which separation takes place at Mach
7.
11.1.3 Ascent and Reentry Vehicles (ARV)
These vehicles have opposing requirements of their design due to dual duty of ascent, which is
dominated by fuel requirements, and reentry by aero-braking. Rocket or air breathing propulsion
systems can be preferred for these flights. NASP or National Aerospace Plane of US, Space Plane by
Japan and HOTOL are some examples of these vehicles.
11.1.4 Aero assisted Orbit Transfer Vehicle (AOTV)
This is one more class in which hypersonic vehicles are classified. Ionization and hence presence of
plasma in the vicinity of the spacecraft is the major concern of these vehicles.

361 See Previous.

362 D. G. Fletcher, “Fundamentals of Hypersonic Flow Aerothermodynamics”, von Karman Institute, Belgium.
363 Nptel Online courses.
 276

Each of these vehicles faces different flight challenges based on their missions and flight
configurations. These challenges form the topic of research in the field of hypersonic aerodynamics.

11.2 Physics of Hypersonic Flow Regime

Definition of flow regime is based on the Mach number of the flow. If Mach number is below unity
then the flow is called as subsonic. Sonic flow has Mach number exactly equal to one however flow in
the narrow range of Mach number (0.8 ≤ M ≤ 1.2) is called as transonic flow. When the flow Mach
number exceeds beyond 1 then flow is called as supersonic flow. As per the thumb rules, when flow
speed exceeds five times the sound speed, it is treated as hypersonic flow. However hypersonic flow
has certain characteristics which when experienced in the flow, should then only be termed as
hypersonic. These characteristics of hypersonic flow are mentioned below:
11.2.1 Thin Shock Layers
Region between shock and the body (flight vehicle) is named as shock layer. From the relations
between shock angle, Mach number and flow deflection angle or wedge angle, it would be clear that,
for same flow deflection angle, shock angle decreases with increase in Mach number. Hence the
thickness of the shock layer decreases with increase in Mach number for the same flow deflection
angle. Therefore hypersonic flows have thin shock layer. This interpretation of shock layer thinness
for calorically perfect gas is also applicable for thermally perfect gas and chemically reacting flow.
However, complexity of flow field increases due to thin shock layer where the boundary layer
thickness and shock layer thickness become comparable.
11.2.2 Entropy Layer
One of the main properties of the curved shock waves in that, each streamline passing through the
shock faces differential entropy rise where stronger portion of shock leads to higher entropy rise
than the weaker portion. Therefore, a layer of entropy variation getting formed downstream of the
shock is termed as entropy layer. Analysis of hypersonic flow becomes further troublesome with
consideration of this entropy layer since according to Croco's principle the entropy layer leads to
vorticity. As it was evident that the shock layer thickness decreases with increase in Mach number
and shock comes closer to the sharp leading edge configurations like wedge or cone, it is also obvious
that shock detachment distance decreases with increase in Mach number for blunt bodies. Hence the
entropy layer exhibits strong gradient of entropy which leads to higher vorticity at higher
magnitudes of Mach numbers. Due to presence of entropy layer it becomes difficult to predict the
boundary layer properties and properties at the edge of the boundary layer of hypersonic flow due
to interaction of boundary layer vorticity and entropy layer vorticity. This interaction is termed as
vorticity interaction.
11.2.3 Viscous Interaction
As we know, formation of boundary layer takes place near the wall due to no-slip property of the
viscous fluid flow. Formation of this boundary layer takes place across enormous loss of kinetic
energy at hypersonic speeds. This kinetic energy necessarily gets converted in to thermal energy
which leads to increase in temperature of the flow in the vicinity of the wall. This phenomenon is
called as viscous dissipation. Viscous dissipation leads to increase in boundary layer thickness due to
increase in viscosity coefficient with temperature. This situation can also be interpreted from
boundary layer theory where pressure is considered to be constant across the boundary layer. This
thickened boundary layer displaces outer inviscid flow hence freestream hypersonic flow encounters
an inflated object which changes the shock shape and intern boundary layer parameters along with
surface pressure, wall heat flux, skin friction etc. This interaction or communication loop between
viscous boundary layer and outer inviscid flow is called as viscous interaction. As a result of this
interaction aerodynamic parameters such as lift, drag etc deviate a lot from their base value without
interaction. Hence it becomes mandatory to treat viscous interaction for hypersonic flights since
 277

whole shock layer tends to become viscous due to this interaction.

11.2.4 High-Temperature Flows
As we know, viscous dissipation leads to higher boundary layer thickness and temperature of the
boundary layer fluid. Therefore any hypersonic flight experiences presence of high temperature fluid
in the vicinity of the flight vehicle. Apart from this, blunt nosed configurations encounter very high
temperatures due to normal shock present at the stagnation point. Therefore at these elevated
temperatures, treatment of fluid as calorically perfect or with constant thermodynamic properties
leads to unrealistic estimations. Hence it becomes essential to take in to account the dependence of
specific heats and their ratio as function of temperature for rational estimates.
The dependence of thermodynamic properties on temperature mainly comes from microscopic
changes in the fluid due to increase in internal energy of the fluid by the virtue of loss of kinetic
energy. Increased internal energy leads initially to vibrational excitation followed by dissociation and
finally ionization according to the extent of increase in internal energy. As per the order of magnitude
estimate, vibrational excitation of air takes place at around 800K. Oxygen dissociation starts at
around 2000 K and completes at 4000 K. At around 4000 K nitrogen dissociation commences and
completes at 9000 K. Ionization of this high temperature air or mixture of gases starts from 9000 K
temperature. Hence the initial air with atmospheric composition becomes plasma after 9000 K. As a
result of all these reactions, hypersonic vehicle gets engulfed by reacting boundary layer and high
temperature plasma. Therefore treatment of air or any fluid flowing with hypersonic speed over any
configuration should be done properly by incorporating all the microscopic changes which
essentially leads to change in thermodynamic properties with temperature. This dependence is
highly non-linear, hence analysis or prediction of flow field becomes tougher in this flow regime.
Therefore two types of assumptions are generally made about the flow conditions for high
temperature fluid as equilibrium flow and non-equilibrium flow. If the microscopic changes or
reactions are at faster rate than the movement of the fluid, then it is treated as equilibrium flow
otherwise it is treated as non-equilibrium flow which is difficult to analyze. All these difficulties are
collectively termed as ‘real gas effects'.
Some consequences of presence of high temperature reacting fluid or plasma in the vicinity of the
flight vehicle include, influence on aerodynamic parameters, aerodynamic heating and
communication block-out. Flight parameters like pitch, roll, drag, lift, defection of control surfaces
get largely deviated from their usual estimate of calorically perfect gas. Presence of hot fluid near the
cold vehicle surface induces heat transfer not only through convection but also through radiation.
Communication waves which are necessarily radio waves get absorbed by free electrons formed
from ionization of atmospheric fluid. This phenomenon is called as communication block-out where
on board and ground communication gets terminated.
11.2.5 Low-Density Flow
Hypersonic flights at higher altitudes experience very low density flows. The governing non-
dimensional parameter for these regimes is called as Knudsen number which is defined as the ratio
of mean free path to the characteristic length of the object. Here mean free path is termed as the mean
distance traveled by the fluid molecule between two successive collisions with other molecules. Since
density of air is very high on the earth's surface, therefore Knudsen number is close to zero for
standard dimensions of hypersonic flights. However if we consider any standard hypersonic flight
taking off from earth surface, it becomes clear that, the flight vehicle is going to encounter change in
density with increase in altitude. Validation of continuum assumption and in turn the usage of usual
governing equations remains intact till the altitude of around 90 km from earth surface where
Knudsen number is below 0.3. Above this altitude, till 150 km from earth surface, density becomes
lower as an effect of which fluid velocity and temperature at the surface do not remain in equilibrium
with the surface. Therefore flow for Knudsen number in range 0.3 to 1 is treated in the transitional
regime where slip wall boundary conditions should be used along with the usual governing equations
 278

based on continuum assumption (see

Figure 11.3).
However above 150 km from earth's
surface, density of air becomes very
low therefore this region is called as
free molecular flow where Knudsen
number becomes more than or equal
to unity. Thus need for change in
governing equations arise in this
regime. Hence kinetic theory of gases
finds its application for hypersonic
flights at such altitudes.
From these specifications of
hypersonic flow regime, it is clear that
Mach number to be very much greater Figure 11.3 Surface Slip in Low-Density Flow (Courtesy of
than one is the formal definition of Introduction to Compressible Fluid Flow , 2nd Ed.)
hypersonic flow. Higher density ratio
is also one of the definitions of hypersonic flow. Density ratio across normal shock would reach 6 for
calorically perfect gas (air or diatomic gas) at very high Mach numbers. If concerned fluid is
chemically reacting mixture or even thermally perfect then this ratio increases to value more than
20, which was reached in Apollo flight. For density ratio to reach more than 20, the specific heat ratio
should decrease and reach a value close to one for air. In actual flight conditions, hypersonic flow
field can be reached with increasing the flight velocity without altering thermal properties of
surrounding fluid. However, it is difficult to achieve this flow in ground testing with very high kinetic
energy and high Mach number without change in thermal properties the fluid. Therefore there are
many challenges for experimental simulation of hypersonic flow. One solution for this problem is the
use of different gases to simulate the low specific heat ratio condition. Tetrafluoroethene is used for
specific heat ratio of 1.2 and hexafluoroethane for 1.1. Understanding the challenges faced by
hypersonic flight and derived solutions for some of those problems are the themes of this subject.

11.3 Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Heating Computations

In hypersonic flow computations, it is a key issue to predict surface heating accurately, though this is
still challenging because there always are possibilities of resulting in anomalous solutions [Kitamura
et al.]364. Here, three properties for flux functions are proposed:

• Shock stability/robustness,
• Conservation of total enthalpy,
• Resolving boundary layer.

Then, numerical experiments are performed for widely used or recently developed flux functions,
and these fluxes are categorized into five major groups based on how they satisfy the three
properties. These tests reveal that no flux function investigated here possesses all the three
properties. In particular, the first one is not satisfied by any flux functions, including flux-vector-
splitting. Finally, contributions of those properties are compared in a 2D, viscous, hypersonic blunt-
body problem. Results showed that the first and the third properties are crucial, and the second one
is preferred to predict hypersonic heating. A group of flux functions that best satisfies these

364Keiichi Kitamura, Eiji Shima, Yoshiaki Nakamura and Philip L. Roe, “Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for
Hypersonic Heating Computations”, AIAA Journal Vol. 48, No. 4, April 2010.
 279

properties is suggested, and they are recommended either to be used or designed for hypersonic
heating computations.
11.3.1 Introduction and Literature Survey
In hypersonic flow computations, it is a key issue to predict surface heating accurately. However, it
is still challenging to compute hypersonic flows, because there are always possibilities of resulting in
irregular (unstable or oscillatory) solutions (see Figure 11.4). The most notorious example is the
carbuncle phenomenon first reported by [Peery and Imlay]365. The carbuncle is a shock-induced366-
367 instability and such anomalies appear depending on the following factors and their combinations:

flow conditions (Mach number, Reynolds number, and specific heat ratio), mesh (size, aspect ratio,
etc.), and numerical methods (flux function, accuracy, etc.).

Figure 11.4 a) Stable (2: symmetry and converged), b) 1D Anomaly (1: oscillatory), c) MD Anomaly (1:
asymmetry), and d) Carbuncle (0: breakdown of shock) Results for 1.5D Steady Shock Test (1st order
both in space and time; M∞ = 6.0)

In particular, the authors368 recently made clear that there are at least two causes of the shock
anomalies: one is one-dimensional (1D), and the other is a multi-dimensional (MD) effect. The former
appeared to be alleviated by satisfying the entropy condition (the second law of thermodynamics),
whereas the latter can be suppressed by MD dissipation terms such as those introduced in369.
However, when both of the two causes arise at the same time, these dissipations do not work well.
Thus, a flux function that is free from those two kinds of anomalies is needed, yet we have not had it.
Any flux functions investigated in can lead to at least either of one dimensional or MD anomalous

365 Peery, K. M., and Imlay, S. T., “Blunt-Body Flow Simulations,” AIAA Paper 88-2904, 1988.
366 Pandolfi, M., and D’Ambrosio, D., “Numerical Instabilities in Upwind Methods: Analysis and Cures for the
Carbuncle Phenomenon,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 166, No. 2, 2001.
367 Kitamura, K., Roe, P., and Ismail, F., “Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Flow Computations,” AIAA

Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2009,

368 Kitamura, K., Roe, P., and Ismail, F., “Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Flow Computations,” AIAA

Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2009,

369 Kim, S. S., Kim, C., Rho, O. H., and Hong, S. K., “Methods for the Accurate Computations of Hypersonic Flows I.

AUSMPW_Scheme,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 174, No. 1, 2001.

 280

solutions depending on the shock location relative to grid lines.

Furthermore, [Henderson and Menart]370 confirmed the report from [Pandolfi and D’Ambrosio]371
that cell aspect ratio (AR) plays a role in the occurrence of MD shock anomalies. They showed in
Quirk’s odd–even decoupling test372 that elongation of cells in a direction parallel to the shock, and
similarly, clustering the grids in a direction normal to the shock, are both an effective cure for the MD
anomalies. However, investigations in both are limited to flux functions known to be vulnerable to
the shock anomalies; thus, an extension of their discussions to other fluxes is questionable. Therefore,
in the present work, we will first extend our previous investigations to a wider range of grids with
different ARs and number of cells along with additional fluxes not tested.
Moreover, [Gnoffo and White]373 examined how asymmetry of surface heating appeared in
tetrahedral unstructured grids. [Mazaheri and Kleb]374 performed a grid study on hypersonic heating
using initially shock-aligned but intentionally deformed structured grids.
These studies showed that, even with their version of Roe flux375, stagnation heating deviated as
much as 18% associated with perturbation of grids and hence, captured shock shapes as well as
boundary layers. As reviewed above, accurate computation of surface heat transfer rates is still one
of extremely difficult subjects in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This is partly due to the shock
anomalies, but there remain other two factors to be considered: total enthalpy and boundary layers.
If the total temperature numerically changes, and even if this error itself is insignificant, it could lead
to poor prediction of the surface heating because the heat flux is proportional to temperature
gradient from Fourier’s law of heat conduction.
Therefore, from this point of view, it would be preferred to adopt a flux function that is designed to
conserve the total enthalpy across the shock wave, such as AUSM+376, AUSMPW+377, RoeM378,
Hänel379, and H-CUSP 380.
To capture the temperature gradient near the wall, we also should take into account the capability of
resolving boundary layers. Flux vector-splitting (FVS) fluxes (e.g., Stegar–Warming381, van Leer

370 Henderson, S. J., and Menart, J. A., “Grid Study on Blunt Bodies with the Carbuncle Phenomenon,” AIAA Paper
2007-3904, 2007.
371 Pandolfi, M., and D’Ambrosio, D., “Numerical Instabilities in Upwind Methods: Analysis and Cures for the

Carbuncle Phenomenon,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 166, No. 2, 2001.

372 Quirk, J. J., “A Contribution to the Great Riemann Solver Debate,” International Journal for Numerical Methods

in Fluids, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1994.

373 Gnoffo, P. A., and White, J. A., “Computational Aero-thermodynamic Simulation Issues on Unstructured Grids,”

AIAA Paper 2004-2371, 2004.

374 Mazaheri, A. R., and Kleb, B., “Exploring Hypersonic, Unstructured-Grid Issues Through Structured Grids,” AIAA

Paper 2007-4462, 2007.

375 Roe, P. L., “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes,” Journal of

Computational Physics, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1981, pp. 357–372.

376 Liou, M. S., “A Sequel to AUSM: AUSM+,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 129, No. 2, 1996.
377 Kim, S. S., Kim, C., Rho, O. H., and Hong, S. K., “Methods for the Accurate Computations of Hypersonic Flows I.

AUSMPW+ Scheme,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 174, No. 1, 2001.

378 Kim, K. H., Kim, C., and Rho, O. H., “Cures for the Shock Instability, Development of a Shock-Stable Roe Scheme,”

Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 185, No. 2, 2003.

379 Hänel, D., Schwane, R., and Seider, G., “On the Accuracy of Upwind Schemes for the Solution of the Navier–

Stokes Equations,” AIAA Paper 87-1105, 1987.

380 Jameson, A., “Analysis and Design of Numerical Schemes for Gas Dynamics, 2: Artificial Diffusion and Discrete

Shock Structure,” International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 5, Nos. 1–2, 1995.
381 Steger, J. L., and Warming, R. F., “Flux Vector Splitting of the Inviscid Gas dynamics Equations with Application

to Finite Difference Methods,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1981.
 281

Leer382, and Hänel383) are known to lack this character because they are not formulated to
incorporate effects of contact discontinuities. These fluxes are to be examined here. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that a flux function equipped with the following properties is suitable in hypersonic
surface heat transfer computations:

➢ shock stability/robustness (i.e., free from both 1D and MD anomalies 384),

➢ conservation of total enthalpy (and hence, total temperature,
➢ resolving boundary layer (and hence, temperature gradient near the wall).

Presently, based on the three properties proposed above, we begin with investigating widely used or
recently developed flux functions by conducting numerical experiments:

➢ The aforementioned extension of will be conducted with regard to shock

stability/robustness.
➢ fluxes will be tested for the constancy of total enthalpy in both 1D and 2D contexts with first
and second order of spatial accuracy.
➢ Laminar boundary layer over a flat plate will be solved and the solution accuracy will be
compared. Then, flux functions are categorized into five groups depending on how they meet
the three properties.
➢ Contributions of those properties are compared in a 2D, viscous, hypersonic blunt-body
problem.

Although individual significance of each of these properties has already been addressed by some
researchers, its direct influence on the resultant surface heating or interactions of each of the
properties has not been examined yet. In other words, criteria for choosing fluxes are still unclear for
hypersonic heating computations, despite the fact that a great number of flux functions have been
developed. To establish these criteria, the previous work by the authors has been extended here with
the following features:

• Three properties are introduced for heating computations, and Euler fluxes are evaluated
comprehensively based on how they satisfy these properties.
• Only the first property was studied for limited cases.

However, the current work covers a wider range of fluxes and grids, along with new findings and an
improved rating for fluxes. Therefore, provided here are very useful pieces of information for those
who are currently using upwind schemes in their finite volume codes, as well as those who are
developing CFD algorithms.

11.3.2 Governing Equations

The governing equations are the 2D, compressible Euler or Navier–Stokes equations:

∂𝐐 ∂E ∂𝐅
+ + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y
Eq. 11.1

382 van Leer, B., “Flux Vector Splitting for the Euler Equations,” Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 170, No. , 1982.
383 Hänel, D., Schwane, R., and Seider, G., “On the Accuracy of Upwind Schemes for the Solution of the Navier–
Stokes Equations,” AIAA Paper 87-1105, 1987.
384 Roe, P. L., Nishikawa, H., Ismail, F., and Scalabrin, L., “On Carbuncles and Other Excrescences,” AIAA Paper

2005-4872, 2005.
 282

Navier–Stokes:
∂𝐐 ∂E ∂𝐅 ∂𝐄v ∂𝐅v
+ + = +
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
Eq. 11.2
For convenience, the vector form of the equations can be expressed as:

ρu ρv 0
ρ
ρuv τ11
ρu ρu2 + p
Q = [ ρv ] , E = [ ] ,G = [ 2 ] , Ev = τ21 ,
ρuv ρv + p
∂T
ρE ρuH ρvH
[uj τjk + k ∂x ]
0
τ12
∂uj ∂uk 2 ∂ul
Fv = τ22 , τjk = μ [( + )− δjk ]
∂T ∂x k ∂x j 3 ∂x l
uj τjk + k
[ ∂y]
Eq. 11.3
where ρ is density, u and v are velocity components in Cartesian coordinates, E is total energy, p is
pressure, H is total enthalpy [H = E + (p/ρ)], and T is temperature. The working gas is assumed to be
air approximated by the calorically perfect gas model with the specific heat ratio γ = 1.4. The Prandtl
number is Pr = 0.72. The molecular viscosity μ is calculated by the Sutherland’s formula, and the
thermal conductivity k is given by k = μCp/Pr, where Cp is specific heat at constant pressure.

11.3.2.1 Computational Method

The following methods are used for computations herein, if not mentioned otherwise. As for spatial
discretization, the primitive variables at each cell interface are interpolated to achieve 2nd order
accuracy by using MUSCL reconstruction with [van Albada et al.]385’s limiter. Then inviscid fluxes at
the cell interface are calculated from the following flux functions:

Group 1 (exact or three-wave approximate Riemann fluxes): Godunov, Roe, Roe (e-fix), and EC-Roe.
Property 2 is no and property 3 is yes: 1) Godunov is an exact Riemann solver, 2) Roe is a three-wave
approximate Riemann solver and a FDS scheme, 3) Roe (e-fix) is Roe with Harten’s entropy fix, 4) EC-
Roe (α = 0.2) is an entropy-consistent Roe flux with a small amount of dissipation addition, and 5)
EC-Roe (α = 0.8) is an entropy-consistent Roe flux with a large amount of dissipation addition.

Group 2 (two-wave approximate Riemann fluxes): Harten–Lax–van_Leer–Einfeldt (HLLE) and van

Leer. Property 2 is no and property 3 is no. 1) HLLE is a two-wave approximate Riemann solver, and
a contact discontinuity is ignored, and 2) van Leer is an FVS scheme, and a contact discontinuity is
ignored.

Group 3 (total enthalpy-preserving, two-wave approximate Riemann flux): Hänel. Property 2 is yes
and property 3 is no: 1) Hänel is a variant of van Leer’s flux, which preserves total enthalpy in steady
flow.

385van Albada, G. D., van Leer, B., and Roberts, W. W., Jr., “A Comparative Study of Computational Methods in
Cosmic Gas Dynamics,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 108, No. 1, 1982,
 283

Group 4 (total enthalpy-preserving fluxes): AUSMDV, AUSM+, AUSM+-up, AUSMPW+, and RoeM.
Property 2 is yes and property 3 is yes: 1) AUSMDV is a variant of AUSM (a simplified van Leer’s FVS),
but developed to have the boundary layer-resolving nature of FDS and robustness of FVS, and to
preserve total enthalpy H in steady flow, 2) AUSM+ is a variant of AUSM that preserves total enthalpy
H in steady flow and can also be regarded as a mixture of FDS and FVS, 3) AUSM+-up is variant of
AUSM_that is extended for use in low-speed flows, 4)AUSMPW+ is a variant of AUSM+ that features
a multi-dimensional dissipation term, and 5) RoeM is a variant of Roe that preserves total enthalpy
H and features a multidimensional dissipation term.

Table 11.1 Summary of Computed Results for 1D and 1.5D M∞ = 6.0 Steady Shock Tests with Various
Flux Functions
 284

Group 5 (hybrid fluxes): AUSMDV (shock-fix) and Rotated-RHLL. 1) AUSMDV (shock-fix) is a

combination of AUSMDV in the shock-normal direction and Hänel in the shock-parallel direction.
These two fluxes should be manually selected by users. 2) Rotated-RHLL is a hybrid of HLLE in the
shock-normal ishock = 12+ε
These fluxes have been categorized into the above five groups based on how the second and the third
properties are satisfied, and the flux is whether a single or hybridized one. Note that property 1 was
not used for the grouping because this property cannot be answered yes or no, but we shall rate those
fluxes by quantizing them in the next section. Viscous fluxes are computed by using second-order
central difference, while for time integration, second-order Runge–Kutta method, or lower–upper
symmetric Gauss–Seidel (LU-SGS) is employed.

11.3.3 Three Properties for Hypersonic Surface Heating Computations

11.3.3.1 Property 1: Shock Stability/Robustness
11.3.3.1.1 One-Dimensional and Multidimensional Shock Irregularities
As previously mentioned, there are at least two kinds of shock anomalies at work: that is, 1D and MD
modes. The 1.5D test (see Figure 11.5) in, in which one-dimensional shock is located in a two
dimensional uniform grid (consisting of squares without perturbation), was shown to be very
effective in investigating those two anomalies separately (Figure 11.4). It was also demonstrated
therein that the 1.5D test can roughly but successfully predict the outcome of a 2D blunt-body

Figure 11.5 Illustrations of a) Original (50 x 25), b) Modified 1 (50 x 250;AR = 10), c) Modified 2 (50 X
250), and d) Modified 3 (50 x 25;AR =10) grids for 1.5 D Steady Shock Tests
 285

simulation, in terms of shock anomalies. Thus, we start from reviewing the results of 386, and then
carry out additional cases. The freestream Mach number is M∞ = 6.0, and the computations are
conducted for 40,000 steps with Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) number of 0.5 using first-order
schemes both in space and time. Please be aware that the number 2 represents symmetry and
converged, 1 represents asymmetry or oscillatory, and 0 represents breakdown of shock
(carbuncle).
Both of the present and previous results are summarized in Table 11.1. Note that the notations for
the rating system have been improved from the previous form of S (stable), A (asymmetry), and U
(unstable) to the following: 2 represents stable and symmetric solutions with at least three orders of
density residual reduction, 1 represents asymmetry or oscillation of the shock confined in two cells
of the shock-normal direction, and 0 represents unstable solutions usually associated with total
breakdown of the shock (carbuncle). The residual stagnated at a significant value. These points will
be used later in the comprehensive evaluation of the flux functions.
11.3.3.1.2 Modified 1.5D Tests
Now we consider the more crude extension of the 1.5D test, in which 10 times the cells in the shock-
parallel direction are packed in the same domain; the cell aspect ratio (AR) is taken as 10 (Figure
11.5-b). Modification of this kind for grids can, as shown in, provoke MD shock anomalies. In the
present test (referred to as modified test 1, shock location parameter is set to be ε = 0.0, that is, the
shock is initially put exactly on the grid line (cell interface). Then computations are conducted
200,000 time steps, which is five times as long as the original test, with CFL = 0.5. The results are
summarized in Table 11.1, and because there was no major difference found from the result of one
flux to another, only the van Leer’s case is shown in Figure 11.6-b, along with the results of the
original test for comparison (see Figure 11.6-a). Surprisingly, even FVS fluxes and AUSMDV (shock
fix) that were believed to be carbuncle-free showed MD oscillations in this modified setup. This
tendency is consistent with [Pandolfi and D’Ambrosio’s] finding, but their discussion was limited for
a flux that was already known to suffer from carbuncles.
The results also showed that all the fluxes that passed the (original) 1.5D test failed in the modified
1.5D test. RHLL, which showed no unacceptable results in the original test, yielded slight asymmetry
(not shown due to space limitation). Furthermore, HLLE flux, which showed only a 1D mode of the
shock oscillations in the original test, also exhibited MD mode in the present test (not shown again).
It turned out that the items 3, 6, and 7 in the previous sub subsection were false. These items are
corrected as follows: in item 3, HLLE rarely shows MD anomalies, and it sometimes does one-
dimensional mode. In item 6, rotated RHLL rarely shows MD anomalies. In item 7, FVS and AUSMDV
(shock fix) fluxes rarely show MD anomalies, and they never do one-dimensional mode. Thus, we
have no fluxes that are free from shock anomalies. Moreover, we also found similar results
in the following:

1. Modified test 2: The computational domain is extended in the shock-parallel direction by 10

times in which the number of the cells is increased, but the AR is maintained (Figure 11.5-
c).
2. Modified test 3: The computational domain is compressed to one-tenth the height in which
the number of the cells are unmodified, and the AR is taken as 10 (Figure 11.5-d).

In particular, according to the results in Figure 11.6-c-d, the former case appears to be more
catastrophic. Therefore, findings in [2,7] are true, but the increment of the cell numbers in the shock-
parallel direction actually plays a more significant role than the AR in the present cases. Even worse,

386Nishikawa, H., and Kitamura, K., “Very Simple, Carbuncle-Free, Boundary-Layer-Resolving, Rotated-Hybrid
Riemann Solvers,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 227, No. 4, 2008.
 286

the result tells that any flux functions have the potential to yield full carbuncle solutions, as in Figure
11.6-c. In addition, the anomalous solutions emerged after apparently satisfactory solutions were
once obtained. This is confirmed from residual (L2-norm of density) histories shown in Figure 11.7,
in which the residuals in the cases of the modified tests suddenly began to deviate from the original
(stable) case. This is consistent with the behavior of relatively robust fluxes such as AUSM+ and RoeM
in, in which the MD instability grew very gently.
Unless the grid lines are aligned well with the captured shock as in the most practical situations (and,
of course, in unstructured meshes), it will be much harder to predict whether the computation will
reach a stable or an unstable/oscillatory solution. For example, the more grid points are used near
the shock, the more likely that the MD shock anomalies will be invoked in certain cases. This will be
demonstrated later. Nevertheless, we will use only the results of the original test for the present
evaluation of flux functions.

Figure 11.6 Plots of a) original (50 x 25), b) modified 1 (50 x 250 AR x 10), c) Modified 2 (50 x 250),
and d) Modified 3 (50 x 25 AR x 10) 1.5D Tests (van Leer’s FVS, 200,000 steps)

11.3.3.2 Property 2: Conservation of Total Enthalpy

As mentioned in the Introduction, if a flux function is not designed to preserve total enthalpy H, the
stagnation temperature T0, and hence the calculated wall heat transfer rates qw, may include
significant errors. This aspect of the flux functions was already claimed by other researchers, but its
importance has not yet been demonstrated in a quantitative sense. Thus, comparisons of various
 287

fluxes for this property are made here both in one dimensional and two-dimensional contexts. As
pointed out by [Jameson]387, this property is satisfied, for instance, by modification of the state vector
as follows:
ρ ρ
ρu ρu
Q = [ ρv ] → Q∗ = [ ρv ]
ρE ρH
Eq. 11.4
This modification is regarded as changing equations to be solved from the energy equation
[consisting of the fourth row
of Eq. 11.3 to the equation of
conservation of products of
mass flux and total enthalpy:
that is, the equation of total
enthalpy conservation
[because the mass flux is
already conserved in the first
row of the Eq. 11.3. This
strategy was adopted in H-
CUSP and also later in RoeM.
AUSM family schemes
(AUSMDV, AUSM+, AUSM+
up, AUSMPW+, etc.) and
[Hänel et al]388 employed
another approach. In their
formulations, total enthalpy
Figure 11.7 Residual histories for original and modified 1.5D tests
H is not differentiated, but
(van Leer [16]).
directly used. The final
component of the flux vector
can be expressed as
E4 = f + (ρu). H + + f − (ρu). H −
Eq. 11.5
We call these flux functions H-preserving fluxes (groups 3 and 4) in the rest of the paper, and this
property is not accommodated in other popular fluxes (non-H-preserving fluxes, groups 1 and 2): for
example, Godunov, Roe, and van Leer. Figure 11.8. presents total enthalpy profiles across normal
shock in one-dimensional setup. The computations shown here are that of, conducted with first-order
schemes both in space and time. Each flux function yielded either stable or oscillatory results
depending on the shock position, but here H profiles are extracted only from the stable cases. As
demonstrated here, the H-preserving fluxes showed constancy of total enthalpy even inside the shock
where the Euler equations are no longer valid, whereas the other fluxes exhibited oscillations.
Nevertheless, those values recovered to their original states past the shock, showing that the H
preserving property has minor effects in this test.

387 Jameson, A., “Analysis and Design of Numerical Schemes for Gas Dynamics, 2: Artificial Diffusion and Discrete
Shock Structure,” International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 5, Nos. 1–2, 1995.
388 Hänel, D., Schwane, R., and Seider, G., “On the Accuracy of Upwind Schemes for the Solution of the Navier–

Stokes Equations,” AIAA Paper 87-1105, 1987.

 288

Figure 11.8 Total Enthalpy-Preserving of Flux Functions Across Normal Shock: a) Grid System, b)
Typical Mach number contours, and c) Computed Total Enthalpy Profiles

On the other hand, in the 2D setup (48 x 120 cells, Figure 11.9-a), the total enthalpy calculated by a
non-H-preserving flux deviated at most3%downstream the shock as well as inside the shock along j
= 60 cells [slightly below the symmetry line that lies on the interfaces of j = 60 and 61 cells (Figure
11.9-b)]. These deviations are, however, greatly suppressed when second-order reconstruction is
employed (Figure 11.9-c: note that the scale differs from Figure 11.9-b). This is because these
errors are of the order of truncation, as explained in, although these fluxes still produce larger errors
than H preserving schemes. In addition, it is noted that even H-preserving fluxes suffer from
oscillation of total enthalpy inside the shock.
Thus, we can say that the H-preserving nature does improve the total enthalpy profiles, and
accordingly, surface heating, but that its influence is dramatically reduced with second-order (and
presumably ,higher-order) reconstruction. More practical comparisons for viscous cases will be
performed later.
11.3.3.3 Property 3: Boundary-Layer Resolution
To resolve boundary layers is, of course, considered to be crucial for accurate prediction of surface
heat transfer rates, because the heat flux is proportional to temperature gradient in the boundary
layer. This property is not enjoyed by two-wave approximate Riemann fluxes (groups 2 and 3) due
to ignorance of a contact surface in the formulation. To confirm this property of each flux function,
we conducted computations on a low-speed flow over a flat plate.
The flow conditions are M∞ = 0.2, P1 =1.0128 x 105 Pa, T1 = 294.4 K, and Rex = 2.19 x 104 (Reynolds
number based on where velocity profiles are extracted). The second-order-accurate, van Albada-
limited MUSCL reconstruction (κ = 1/3) is adopted for cell-interface values, along with the second-
order central difference for viscous term, and the second-order Runge–Kutta for temporal
integration. The computations were conducted for 50,000 steps with CFL = 0.5, and all the
 289

computations achieved at least two-order reductions of the residuals (L2-norm of density).

The results of different fluxes are compared in Figure 11.14, as well as Blasius’ analytical solution
for a laminar boundary layer. As shown in these figures, most of the methods successfully reproduced
the analytical velocity profile, and only two-wave solvers (groups 2 and 3) failed, as expected from
their formulations.

Figure 11.9 Total Enthalpy-Preserving of Flux Functions Across Bow Shock: a) Pressure contours,
and computed Total Enthalpy (j = 60) of b) first-order and c) second-order results

All of the above results are summarized in Table 11.2 along with overall ratings with the grand total
of 80 points. As for property 1, the sum of points obtained for each flux (Table 11.2) is employed.
The scaling of rating for each property is proposed based on its impact on the surface heating
(explained later). As can be seen, no flux functions investigated here are found to be completely
satisfying all the three properties.
The classification of fluxes discussed above is also included in Table 11.2. This table provides very
useful information to those who are using and designing upwind schemes. Having addressed three
properties of flux functions and categorized 15 fluxes into five groups, we will show hypersonic
viscous cases with regard to prediction of surface heat transfer rates using these fluxes. Considering
 290

the fact that any combinations are generally possible for hybrid methods, we will focus on only single
fluxes that can be candidate components of hybrid methods in the rest of this study.

Table 11.2 Evaluation of Euler Fluxes Based on 3 Properties for Hypersonic Heating: Groups 1–3, 4

11.3.3.4 Case Study – 2D Hypersonic Heating Test: Hypersonic Viscous Flow Over a Blunt Body
In this section, 2D, viscous, hypersonic flow computations over a blunt body (a circular cylinder) are
conducted. To explain suggested weighting of the three properties in Table 11.2, comparisons are
made for fluxes from different groups from 1 to 4. The surface heat transfer rates computed by
different fluxes from each group are also compared with theory. In contrast to, we used a grid not
aligned with a theoretical shock shape, because shock alignment is practically impossible, for
instance, in shock–shock interacting problems. For the shock-aligned grid cases. We consider the
experimental setup of a two-dimensional blunt body with r = 20 mm radius mounted in Nagoya
University Shock Tunnel, in which the freestream conditions are M∞ = 8.1, P1 =370,7 Pa, T∞ =63.73 K,
and Re = 1.3 x 105 (Reynolds number based on the radius r = 20 mm). The present computation
employed the exact same freestream conditions. In addition, no-slip and isothermal (Tw = 300 K)
conditions are imposed at the wall. The cell Reynolds number, which is based on the minimum cell
size.
11.3.3.4.1 Baseline Grid
The grid employed here is shown in Figure 11.10-a, in which 160 x160 cells are used. Shown in
Figure 11.10-b is the coordinate system whose origin is located at the cylinder stagnation point
(nose), and the angle Φ is taken as -75ᵒ < Φ < +75ᵒ (Φ = 0ᵒ corresponds to the nose). The following
flux functions are employed: Roe (e-fix) and EC-Roe (α = 0.8) for group 1, HLLE and van Leer for
group 2, Hänel for group 3, and AUSM+, AUSMPW+, and RoeM for group 4. All the computations were
conducted for 100,000 steps with CFL = 200 using LU-SGS. The residuals (L2-norm of density)
dropped at least 3 orders of magnitude for most of the cases.
 291

For the Roe (e-fix), EC-Roe (α = 0.8), and RoeM cases, the residuals stagnated around at the 2 orders
of reduction from the initial stage. The solutions are shown in Figure 11.10 c–f. Roe (e-fix) and EC-
Roe (α = 0.8) yielded wiggles that were evidences of shock anomalies, and AUSM+ exhibited slight
oscillations near the shock away from the symmetry line, which is often experienced by this flux.
RoeM showed slight asymmetry. The results of the other fluxes seemed satisfactory. For profiles in
heat transfer and temperature, please refer to [Kitamura et al.]389. In summary, properties 1 and 3
are crucial, whereas property 2 is seemingly preferred to predict hypersonic surface heating

Figure 11.10 Illustrations of a) Grid (every other grid lines are shown), b) Coordinates, and
Results (Mach number contours at 100,000 steps, Baseline Grid) of c) Roe (e-fix), d) EC-Roe (α =
0.8), e) HLLE, f) van Leer , g) Hänel [13], h) AUSM+, i) AUSMPW+, and j) RoeM for Blunt-Body
Viscous Test

389Keiichi Kitamura, Eiji Shima, Yoshiaki Nakamura and Philip L. Roe, “Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for
Hypersonic Heating Computations”, AIAA Journal Vol. 48, No. 4, April 2010.
 292

accurately. This was reflected in the scaling of these properties in Error! Reference source not f
ound.: one-dimensional and MD shock stabilities of property 1 have 20 points in maximum for
each, 10 points for property 2, and 30 points for property 3. According to this table, group 4
fluxes are suitable for hypersonic heating computations.
11.3.3.4.2 Fine Grid for Additional Discussions
Finally, group 4 fluxes, along with Roe (e-fix) for reference, are applied for a finer grid in which the
number of cells only in the direction normal to the wall (j-direction) has been doubled (320 x 160
cells, Re cell 0.7). The computations were conducted for 100,000 steps with CFL = 400. All the
computations showed at least two orders of residual reductions. The pressure contours and surface
pressure/heating profiles are shown in Figure 11.11. According to Figure 11.11, Roe (e-fix)
showed an anomalous result again. AUSM+, which showed a stable result at 50,000 steps (not
shown), exhibited shock anomalies at 100,000 steps. This is consistent with the finding in [4], in
which AUSM+ showed MD anomalies grown subliminally and very gently while the solution was
apparently satisfactory.

Figure 11.11 Mach Number a) Roe (e-fix), b) AUSM+, c) AUSMPW+, and d) RoeM for Blunt-Body
Viscous test (100,000 steps, fine grid)

For AUSMPW+ and RoeM, there is no evidence of shock anomalies. In Figure 11.12, as can be
expected, Roe (e-fix) and AUSM+ yielded small errors in pressure and significant errors in heat
transfer rates. AUSMPW+ and RoeM showed identical results both in pressure and heating and
excellent agreement with theory at stagnation. It is noted that AUSM+, which showed a stable result
on the baseline grid, exhibited anomalies on the fine grid; on the other hand, RoeM, which suffered
from weak shock oscillations on the baseline grid, showed an improvement of the solution on the fine
grid.
The failure of AUSM+ in this case is explained by the relative positioning of the captured shocks on
the grid. Shown in Figure 11.13 are blowup views of the AUSM+ results both on the baseline and
the fine grids. Note that the captured shock is thicker in the baseline case than the fine grid case, and
this seemed to provide the shock with sufficient amount of dissipation that successfully suppressed
the oscillations in the shock-normal direction (one-dimensional stable). On the fine grid, however,
the shock was more likely to move back and forth near the line of symmetry, and it jumped from one
set of a grid line to another. This would be the cause of the oscillation mode in this case. This jump
 293

was also seen in the baseline case, but away from the symmetry line, so its effect on the solution was
subtle.

Figure 11.12 a) Pressure and b) Heat Transfer Rates over Blunt Body (100,000 steps, fine grid)
 294

As discussion before, clustering the grids in the shock-normal direction may or may not result in
worse solutions. From this viewpoint, it would be better to use a one-dimensional stable flux, such as
Roe (e-fix) and EC-Roe (α = 0.8), in combination with MD dissipation390-391, which can suppress the
additional mode associated with, for example, the jumps of the shock between grid lines, though we
have not completed to design it.

Figure 11.13 Comparison of Mach number contours of AUSM+ Results of a) Baseline and b) Fine Grids
for Blunt-Body Viscous Tests at 100,000 steps

AUSMPW+ was the only method that showed stable results both on the two grids in the present cases,
and this explains the highest score of this flux in Table 11.2 (bottom). This is perhaps due to its MD
dissipation term, but this flux may exhibit the shock anomalies on another grid. Nevertheless, it is
confirmed that some of group 4 fluxes are more robust (i.e., property 1 is likely to be satisfied) than
others, and have properties 2 and 3, so would be the most reliable methods for hypersonic heating
computations at this stage. Roe (e-fix) and EC-Roe (α = 0.8) in group 1 are also promising if an
aforementioned MD dissipation is established for practical use. Thus, we are currently engaged in
developing a flux function of group 4 with MD dissipation.
11.3.3.5 Conclusions
An extensive detailed evaluation of Euler fluxes has been conducted in the present study for
hypersonic surface heating computations. We first proposed the following three properties for flux
functions:

1) shock stability/robustness,
2) conservation of total enthalpy (and hence total temperature),
3) resolving boundary layer (and hence temperature gradient).

It turned out that no flux functions investigated here possessed all three properties. In particular, the
first one is not satisfied by any flux functions, including flux-vector-splitting. These fluxes were
believed to be carbuncle free, but even they exhibit multidimensional shock anomalies for a mesh
either with a large numbers of cells in the shock-parallel direction, or a large cell AR. It is confirmed

390Roe, P. L., and Kitamura, K., “Artificial Surface Tension to Stabilize Captured Shockwaves,” AIAA Paper, 2008.
391Gnoffo, P. A., “Multi-Dimensional, Inviscid Flux Reconstruction for Simulation of Hypersonic Heating on
Tetrahedral Grids,” AIAA Paper 2009-599, 2009.
 295

that the second property is strongly satisfied by fluxes that were designed to do so, but the other
fluxes also provided comparable results to those fluxes in second-order-accurate computations.
However, the second order extension did not compensate the lack of the third property unless the
flux was formulated to resolve contact discontinuities. According to how these properties are
satisfied, we categorized 15 popular or recently developed flux functions into the following five
groups:

1) Group 1 (exact or three-wave

approximate Riemann fluxes):
Godunov, Roe, Roe (e-fix), and EC-Roe.
Property 2 is no, and property 3 is yes.
2) Group 2 (two-wave approximate
Riemann fluxes): HLLE and van Leer.
Property 2 is no, and property 3 is no.
3) Group 3 (total enthalpy-preserving,
two-wave approximate Riemann flux):
Hänel. Property 2 is yes, and property 3
is no.
4) Group 4 (total enthalpy-preserving
fluxes): AUSMDV, AUSM+, AUSM+ -up,
AUSMPW+, and RoeM. Property 2 is
yes, and property 3 is yes.
5) Group 5 (hybrid fluxes): AUSMDV
(shock fix) and rotated-RHLL
Then these fluxes are applied for two-
dimensional, viscous, hypersonic flow
computations over a blunt body. It is
concluded from the results that the first
and the third properties are crucial,
and the second one is preferred to
predict hypersonic surface heating
accurately. According to the present
survey, group 4 fluxes such as Figure 11.14 Boundary-Layer Resolution of Flux
AUSMPW+ appeared to be promising Functions
for use, because these fluxes are
relatively robust among the currently available fluxes (i.e., the first property is more likely to be
satisfied than others) and possess the rest of the properties. In designing a flux function, it is
recommended to develop or improve a flux of group 4 or group 1 with multidimensional dissipation,
which is readily applicable to unstructured grids, or in combination with a dissipative flux in a
multidimensional and systematic manner.

11.4 Case Study - Numerical Analysis of Hypersonic Flows around Blunt-Nosed

Models
Authors : Heriberto Saldivar Massimi, Hua Shen, Chih-Yung Wen, Yen-Sen Chen, and Shen-Min Liang
Appeared : Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 360–371.
Source : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.03.017
This work addresses the problem of the aerothermodynamics of hypersonic nonequilibrium flows
 296

over blunt nosed models and space vehicles392 with rarefaction effects393. First, the in-house Navier–
tokes solver, UNIC-UNS code, with the slip boundary condition and finite-rate chemistry is used to
simulate the hypersonic flows over a blunt nosed model. Next, hypersonic flows over the whole
EXPERT 3D model, which correspond to the expected descent trajectory with allowance for
rarefaction and thermochemical nonequilibrium are simulated. By comparing with the Direct
Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method, it is observed that the UNIC-UNS code is reliable in
simulating hypersonic flows with rarefaction and thermochemical nonequilibrium effects.

11.4.1 Nomenclature
a speed of sound v stoichiometric coefficients
C heat capacity ωn species production source term
Cf pressure coefficient X axial location
Ch force coefficient in the x direction αn nth species mass fraction
Cp pressure coefficient γ ratio of specific heat
D nose diameter Δ˜ dimensionless stand-off distance
H enthalpy or energy ϑr turbulence kinetic energy production rate
K thermal conductivity μl laminar viscosity
k, ε turbulence parameters μt turbulence eddy viscosity
mw mixture molecular weight μe effective viscosity
p surface pressure ρb body density
p∞ freestream pressure ρb equilibrium density
q convection heat flux ρs density right after the normal shockwave
Q volumetric heat source σ Prandtl number/Schmidt number
Qt heat source τw wall shear stress
ℜ universal gas constant Φ energy dissipation function
Ts Solid Temperature Ω˜ dimensionless chemical reaction parameter

11.4.2 Introduction
Following renewed interest in manned missions to Mars and the moon as well as increasing success
in the development of new thermal protection materials offering higher possibilities of developing
space vehicles capable of withstanding the higher temperatures caused by higher speed reentries,
the problem of studying specific features of high-velocity flows has brought renewed attention to the
field of hypersonic aerothermodynamics. Several space agencies, e.g., NASA and ESA (Crew
Exploration Vehicle [1], LAPCAT I and LAPCAT II [2]) as well as private companies (ZEHST by EADS
[3] and Dragon by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation [4]) are currently designing several
hypersonic vehicles that, hopefully, will become the next generation of high-speed vehicles. The
development of future generation of space vehicles requires a complete and detailed knowledge of
their aerothermodynamics along with the complete descent trajectory. For this reason, it is necessary
to study phenomena associated with rarefaction and thermochemical non-equilibrium of the gas in
a hypersonic flow.
Such a study could be of help in accurately predicting the in-flight heat flux, pressure and shear
stresses from which the thermal load, aerodynamic forces and moments can be calculated. The
geometry of the vehicle, and in particular, of the nose and the leading edges of wings and other
aerodynamic surfaces, is of a critical consideration in vehicle design.

392 Calculations about the space vehicle, simplified European eXPErimental Re-entry Testbed (EXPERT) model
V4.4, is omitted here. For a complete analysis, please refer to the original paper.
393 Heriberto Saldivar Massimi, Hua Shen, Chih-Yung Wen, Yen-Sen Chen, and Shen-Min Liang, “Numerical

analysis of hypersonic flows around blunt-nosed models and a space vehicle”, Aerospace Science and Technology
43 (2015) 360–371.
 297

However, for nearly every ground-based facility, typical parameters (Mach number, Ma; and Knudsen
number, Kn) associated with flow around the space vehicle at high altitudes are limited to certain
ranges. Therefore, computational fluid mechanics (CFD) has become a necessary supplementary tool
in studying these phenomena [5]. Further, the flight-testing and reproduction of these varied flow
conditions in ground-based laboratories are both expensive and technically challenging. Hence,
computational models play extremely important roles in the development of hypersonic vehicles.
Nevertheless, the lessons learned from past flight-test programs, such as the ESA Atmospheric Re-
entry Demonstrator (ARD) have underlined the need for more accurate and extensive hypersonic
flight data. This is particularly true with the characterization of hypersonic phenomena such as high
temperature and chemistry effects, gas-surface interaction, catalysis and oxidation.
Current work extends the study previously done by the authors [10] and presents the results
obtained by the in-house Navier–Stokes (NS) solver, UNIC-UNS [11], which is based on a high order
finite difference method, with the slip boundary condition and finite-rate chemistry. A pressure-
based predictor plus a multi corrector solution method is employed in the code to make it suitable
for all speed flows. First, the hypersonic nonequilibrium flow over a simple blunt-nosed model is
studied in the interest of reliable validation.
Provided in [Massimi et al.]394, a brief description of the numerical method, comprising an
explanation of the UNIC-UNS code, the turbulence model, simulation methods, slip and
temperature boundary conditions and the finite-rate chemistry model 395. Additionally, a
simulations of hypersonic flows about a two-dimensional (2D) cylindrically blunted flat plate are
carried out so the slip boundary condition is validated and the results are compared with those of
DSMC method from [Bondar et al.]. For validation of the chemical non-equilibrium effect using the
UNIC-UNS code, simulations are run using an axisymmetric hemi-spherical-nosed cylinder and finite-
rate chemistry and compared with simulations performed by [Tchuen and Zeitoun].
11.4.3 Simulation Models and Test Conditions Applied to Hypersonic flows over a 2D Cylindrically
Blunted Flat Plate and an Axisymmetric Hemi-Spherical-Nosed Cylinder
With the view to validating the UNIC-UNS code at different Knudsen numbers, flows over a 2D
cylindrically blunted flat plate were simulated for cases one to four in Table 11.3. The velocity and
temperature profiles, the skin friction coefficient, Stanton number and pressure distributions were
compared with those of DSMC by [Bondar et al.]. Argon was adopted as the test gas. A schematic
diagram of the model is shown in Figure 11.15 Computational domain and boundary conditions
applied to the sphericalnosed. Radius R was set as the reference length equal to 1 unit and the plate
length of 10R. The computational domain was bounded between the supersonic inlet and the outlet.

Table 11.3 Test matrix for the validation of UNIC-UNS

394 Heriberto Saldivar Massimi, Hua Shen, Chih-Yung Wen, Yen-Sen Chen, and Shen-Min Liang, “Numerical
analysis of hypersonic flows around blunt-nosed models and a space vehicle”, Aerospace Science and Technology
43 (2015) 360–371.
395 Readers are strongly inspire to consult the above mentioned papers.
 298

A 2D structured half-model was used in all test cases. The values of R were adjusted to meet the
required Knudsen number (see Table 11.3).
To validate the UNIC-UNSs capability in performing the chemical non-equilibrium flow simulations
in a continuum regime, a Mach 18 dry air flow (Case 5 of Table 11.3) over an axisymmetric hemi-
spherical-nosed cylinder was simulated. The simulation model (see Figure 11.15) and the
freestream conditions are taken from the numerical works done by [Tchuen and Zeitoun], and the
experimental observations reported by [Rose and Stankevics]. Dry Air and [Park]’s two-temperature
chemical model [24] were used.

Figure 11.15 Computational domain and boundary conditions applied to the sphericalnosed
cylinder and the cylindrically blunted flat plate

The Knudsen and Reynolds numbers vary according to the altitudes (see Figure 11.16). To calculate
the Reynolds numbers (Re) and the Knudsen numbers (Kn), the nose diameter, D, and the nose radius,
D/2 were adopted as the reference lengths, respectively. As shown in Figure 11.16, during the
descent trajectory, the freestream Knudsen number varies from free-molecular flow to continuum
flow and the Reynolds number varies from laminar flow to turbulent flow. To better predict the heat
transfer rate, wall temperatures need to be estimated. Considering optimum use of computational
resources, the 1D conjugated heat transfer model can be written as:
 299

∂ρCTs ∂ ∂Ts
= (k )
∂t ∂xj ∂xi
Eq. 11.6
where C, K and Ts stand for heat capacity, thermal
conductivity and solid temperature, respectively.
The wall heat conduction equation was solved
through an iterative procedure until convergence
was achieved for each time step. The heat
conduction model for the wall points was applied Table 11.5 Material properties for the nose
to a simplified model to estimate wall and flaps region
temperatures. It was assumed a wall thickness of
1.5 cm. The initial conditions for the
temperatures on the wall and inside the
capsule were set up to be the same as the
freestream temperature and 300 K,
respectively. Table 11.5 and Table 11.4
show the thermal conductivity, density
and specific heat values adopted for each
section of the capsule wall (nose, flaps and
hot body surface)[25].
The chemical kinetic model used was that Table 11.4 Material properties for the hot surface
of Park’s two-temperature model [24]. For region
the cases of 90 km down to 40 km, the
model was positioned with an angle of
attack of −5.5◦ and a freestream velocity
of 5000 m/s whereas, for the case of 20
km, the angle of attack was set at −5.5◦
and freestream velocity of 2000 m/s. The
computational domain applied was
bounded between the supersonic inlet
and the outlet. A hybrid mesh of 9,326,336
cells composed the computational
domain.
11.4.4 Grid Independence Study
The grid-independence tests were
carefully examined for flows over a 2D
cylindrically blunted flat plate. This was
achieved by running a series of
simulations by increasing the mesh size Figure 11.16 Variation of Reynolds numbers and
Knudsen numbers W.R.T. Altitude
by a factor of 1.5 until the difference in the
surface properties; pressure coefficient,
Cp, skin friction coefficient, Cf , and Stanton number, Ch, between mesh models was smaller than 2%.
Figure 11.17 shows the pressure coefficient distribution along the lower centerline at an altitude of
90 km simulated by different mesh sizes. Skin friction coefficient and Stanton number distributions
also show similar convergence with the mesh size as the pressure coefficient distribution.
 300

11.4.5 Results Associated with Hypersonic Flows Over a 2D Cylindrically Blunted Nose
11.4.5.1 Validation of Slip Boundary Conditions
Rarefied Argon flows at Mach numbers Ma = 5
and Ma = 10 around a 2D cylindrically blunted
thick flat plate (Cases 1–4) were calculated by
the UNIC-UNS code and compared with the
DSMC method. The temperature fields for Ma =5
Argon flows are shown in Figure 11.18 with Kn
= 0.1 and 0.5. Similar results with Kn = 0.1 and 0.5
were obtained for Ma = 10 flows but not shown
here. Figure 11.19, shows in great detail the
temperature profile along the stagnation
streamline for different Mach and Knudsen
numbers.
As shown in
Figure 11.18 and Figure 11.19 although the
shock-wave thicknesses obtained by the UNIC- Figure 11.17 The pressure coefficient
UNS code and the DSMC method are appreciably distribution along the lower centerline at an
altitude of 90 km simulated by different mesh
different, especially at higher Knudsen numbers,
sizes
the temperature profiles of the UNIC-UNS code

Figure 11.18 Comparison of temperature fields between UNIC-UNS and DSMC results for cases 1 and 2
in Table 11.3 . Ma = 5, Kn = 0.1 (left) and Kn = 0.5 (right).
 301

approached that of the DSMC method when the fluid approached the wall. As previous studies have
shown [26–28], for hypersonic
flows with higher Knudsen
numbers; the first continuum
assumption breakdown was
observed within the shock
wave itself. It’s known that the
traditional NS-based CFD
cannot accurately predict
hypersonic shock structures
[29,30]. However, the addition
of slip velocity and
temperature jump boundary
conditions greatly improved
agreement between the NS-
based CFD and DSMC on the
rest of the flow field and the
resulting surface
aerothermodynamics
properties.
Typical comparisons of the
pressure coefficient (Cp), skin
friction coefficient (Cf ) and
Stanton numbers (Ch),
between the NS simulations of
case 2 with the slip boundary
conditions, and the published
DSMC results [7] are shown in
Figure 11.20.
It can be seen that, despite
Figure 11.19 Comparison of temperature profiles along the
relatively small discrepancies
stagnation streamline between UNIC-UNS and DSMC results, for cases
found in the skin friction and 1 to 4 in Table 11.3 . (Top): Ma = 5 and (Bottom) : Ma = 10.
heat transfer comparisons
around the expanding
shoulder region (where the half-cylinder is connected to the flat plate), the overall agreement
between NS and DSMC simulations are good in regards to the pressure, skin friction and heat transfer
distributions, indicating that the slip velocity and temperature jump boundary conditions are all well
justified. The definitions of the pressure coefficient, skin friction coefficient and Stanton number are
as follows

p − p∞ τw q
Cp = , Cf = , Ch =
1 1 1
ρ V2 ρ V2 ρ V3
2 ∞ ∞ 2 ∞ ∞ 2 ∞ ∞
Eq. 11.7
where p is the wall surface pressure, p∞ is the freestream pressure, ρ∞ is the freestream fluid density
and q is the convection heat flux. As the Knudsen number decreases and flow approaches continuum,
the results calculated by the two approaches become closer. The NS equations with the slip boundary
conditions are applicable at Kn = 0.5 and smaller. As the Knudsen number decreases below 0.1, the
 302

results predicted by the UNIC-UNS code are almost identical to the solution from the Boltzmann
equation.
11.4.5.2 Validation for Chemical
Non-Equilibrium
Case 5, with the flow conditions
based on the simulations done by
[Tchuen and Zeitoun], and the
experimental observations
reported by [Rose and Stankevics],
was run by the UNIC-UNS code to
validate its capability to predict
hypersonic chemical dissociation
of flow fields. Figure 11.21 shows
the temperature profile along the
stagnation streamline of an
axisymmetric hemi-spherical-
nosed cylinder. It can be seen that
directly behind the shock, the
temperature increases abruptly
and reaches its maximum value. It
can be observed that, as the
velocity decreases when the flow
approaches the stagnation point,
the gas molecules have more time
to dissociate, therefore bringing
the temperature down to even
Figure 11.20 Comparison of surface aerothermodynamic
lower values. characteristics between UNIC-UNS and DSMC results, for Case 2 in
Though the maximum Table 11.3, Ma = 5 and Kn = 0.5: Pressure and friction coefficients
temperature value shows a slight (Top) and Stanton number (Bottom).
difference of 2.65 % when
compared with the results of [Tchuen and
Zeitoun], the temperature profiles behind
the bow shock waves in both cases are
similar. This good agreement proves the
validity of the NS equations with the Parks
two-temperature chemical model and the
velocity slip and temperature jump
conditions in simulating the hypersonic
chemical dissociating flows. Note that the
simulations of [Tchuen and Zeitoun] have
been well validated with the experiments of
[Rose and Stankevics]. A comparison of the
stand-off distances between the UNIC-UNS
Figure 11.21 Comparison of temperature profiles
simulations and the experimental results of
along the stagnation streamline between UNIC-UNS
[Rose and Stankevics] show a difference of results and those from Tchuen and Zeltoun [13]. (Case 5
1.259 %. Good agreement is observed in Table 11.3 at Mach 18) where X/D = 0 corresponds to
again and the in-house UNIC-UNS code is the stagnation point.
capable of providing accurate predictions
 303

of the shock positions for non-equilibrium hypersonic flows over spherical-nosed cylinders.
11.4.6 Conclusion
The all-speed continuum code UNIC-UNS with finite-rate chemistry and slip boundary conditions has
been implemented to simulate hypersonic flows in the transition regime over spherical-coned. At
first, the UNIC-UNS code and the boundary conditions adopted in present study were validated using
the kinetic DSMC approach [32] and the works of [Wen and Hornung]. For the cases of Knudsen
smaller than 0.1, the results predicted by the UNIC-UNS code were almost coincident with solution
obtained by the Boltzmann equation. Even when the Knudsen number reached 0.5, a good agreement
of Stanton number, pressure and friction coefficients between UNIC-UNS code and the DSMC
simulations were achieved in the vicinity of the body. It can be concluded that the UNIC-UNS code is
reliable in simulating hypersonic flows with rarefaction and thermochemical nonequilibrium effects.

11.4.7 References
[1] S. Whitmore, B. Dunbar, “Orbital space plane, past, present, and future”, AIAA International Air
and Space Symposium: The Next 100 Years, Dayton, Ohio, 14–17 July, 2003, AIAA-2003-2718.
[2] K. Hannemann, Hypersonic flight and (re)-entry in Germany – overview and selected projects, in:
17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 11–14
April, The Grand Hyatt San Francisco, San Francisco, USA, 2011.
[3] L. Serre, Overview of hypersonic in Europe, in: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technology Conference, Tours, France, 24–28 Sept., 2012.
[4] M. Vozoff, J. Couluris, SpaceX products-advancing the use of space, in: AIAA SPACE 2008
Conference & Exposition, 09 September, 2008.
[5] F. Ratti, J. Gavira, G. Passarelli, F. Massobrio, EXPERT – the ESA experimental re-entry test-bed:
system overview, in: 16th AIAA/DLR/DGLR Internatial Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies Conference, Bremen, Germany, 19–22 Oct., 2009.
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_eXPErimental_Reentry_Testbed.
[7] P.V. Vashchenkov, A. Kashkovsky, M.S. Ivanov, Numerical analysis of high altitude aerodynamics
of the expert capsule, in: West–East High Speed Flow Conference, Moscow, Russia, November 2007.
[8] A. Schettino, et al., Aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic data base of expert capsule, in: West–
East High Speed Flow Conference, Moscow, Russia, November 2007.
[9] F. Massobrio, R. Viotto, M. Serpico, A. Sansone, M. Caporicci, J.M. Muylaert, EXPERT: an
atmospheric re-entry test-bed, Acta Astronaut. 60 (ISSN 0094-5765), (12) (June 2007) 974–985,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.10.010.
[10] C.Y. Wen, H. Saldívar Massimi, Y.S. Chen, S.M. Liang, Y. Bondar, M. Ivanov, Numerical simulations
of nonequilibrium flows over rounded models at reentry speeds, in: 18th AIAA/3AF International Space
Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Reston, Virginia, 2012.
[11] S.J. Zhang, J. Liu, Y.S. Chen, D. Godavarty, P. Mallapragada, T.S. Wang, A parallelized, adaptive,
multi-grid hybrid unstructured solver for all-speed flows, in: 40th Aerospace Science Meeting and
Exhibit, Jan. 14–17, 2002, AIAA-2002-0109.
[12] Ye.A. Bondar, A.A. Shershnev, A.N. Kudryavtsev, D.V. Khotyanovsky, S. Yonemura, M.S. Ivanov,
Numerical study of hypersonic rarefied flows about leading edges of small bluntness, in: 28th
International Symposium on Shock Waves, 2012, pp. 215–220.
[13] G. Tchuen, D.E. Zeitoun, Effects of chemistry in nonequilibrium hypersonic flow around blunt
bodies, J. Thermophys. Heat Transf. 23 (Jan. 2013) 433–442.
[14] C.Y. Wen, H.G. Hornung, Non-equilibrium dissociating flow over spheres, J. Fluid Mech. 299 (1995)
389–405.
[15] N. Belouaggadia, H. Olivier, R. Brun, Numerical and theoretical study of the shock stand-off
distance in non-equilibrium flows, J. Fluid Mech. 607 (Jun. 2008).
 304

[16] T.S. Wang, F. Canabal, Y.S. Chen, G. Cheng, Multiphysics computational analysis of a solid-core
nuclear thermal engine thrust chamber, J. Propuls. Power 26 (3) (2010) 407–414.
[17] H.M. Shang, Y.S. Chen, Unstructured adaptive grid method for reacting flow computation, in: 33rd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Seattle, WA, July 6–9, 1997, AIAA-97-3183.
[18] H.M. Shang, Y.S. Chen, M.H. Shih, R.C. Farmer, Numerical prediction of low frequency combustion
instability in a model ramjet combustor, in: HTD-Vol. 335, in: Proceedings of the ASME Heat Transfer
Division, vol. 4, 1996.
[19] Y.S. Chen, H.M. Shang, Reacting and non-reacting flow simulation for film cooling in 2-D supersonic
flows, in: 28th Joint Propulsion Conference, July 6–8, Nashville, TN, 1992, AIAA-92-3602
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE.
[20] Y.S. Chen, Compressible and incompressible flow computations with a pressure based method, in:
27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 9–12, 1989, AIAA paper 89-0286.
[21] George Karypis, Vipin Kumar, A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular
graphs, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 20 (1) (December 1998) 359–392.
[22] F. White, Viscous Fluid Flow, third edition, Mechanical Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 2005.
[23] P.H. Rose, J.O. Stankevics, Stagnation-point heat transfer measurements in partially ionized air,
AIAA J. 1 (12) (1963) 2752–2763.
[24] C. Park, Assessment of two-temperature kinetic model for ionizing air, J. Thermo phys. Heat
Transfer 3 (1989) 233–244.
[25] Online materials information resource – MatWeb. Retrieved from
http://www.matweb.com/index.aspx.
[26] H.A. Carlson, Aerothermodynamic analyses of hypersonic, blunt-body flows, J. Spacer. Rockets 36
(6) (1999) 912–915.
[27] G.V. Candler, I. Nompelis, M.C. Druguet, Navier–Stokes predictions of hypersonic double-cone and
cylinder-flare flow field, AIAA Paper 2001-1024.
[28] I.D. Boyd, K. Trumble, M.J. Wright, Nonequilibrium particle and continuum analyses of stardust
entry for near-continuum conditions, AIAA Paper 2007-4543.
[29] G.V. Candler, S. Nijhawan, D. Bose, I.D. Boyd, A multiple translational temperature gas dynamics
model, Phys. Fluids 6 (11) (Nov. 1994) 3776–3786.
[30] K.A. Fiscko, D.R. Chapman, Comparison of Burnett, super-Burnett and Monte Carlo solutions for
hypersonic shock structure, in: Rarefied Gas Dynamics: Theoretical and Computational Techniques,
in: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
vol. 118, 1989, pp. 374–395.
[31] J.D. Anderson, Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1989.
[32] M. Ivanov, A. Kashkovsky, S. Gimelshein, G. Markelov, A. Alexeenko, Y. Bondar, G. Zhukova, S.
Nikiforov, P. Vaschenkov, SMILE system for 2D/3D DSMC computations, in: Proceedings of 25th
International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2006, pp. 21–28.

11.5 Case Study - Shock Wave Laminar Boundary Layer Interaction Over a Double
Wedge in a High Mach Number (Hypersonic) Flow
Authors : Mohammad A. Badr_ and Doyle D. Knighty
Appearance : American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014
Source : DOI: 10.2514/6.2014-1136
Shock wave laminar boundary layer interaction (SWBLI) over a double wedge at Mach 7.14 and 7.11
were simulated using the commercial flow solver GASPex 396. An inviscid simulation was performed

Mohammad A. Badr and Doyle D. Knighty, “Shock Wave Laminar Boundary Layer Interaction Over a Double
396

Wedge in a High Mach Number Flow “, AIAA 2014.

 305

at Mach 7.14 for validation. Results for the region downstream of the first shock wave show less than
one percent error in comparison with oblique shock wave theory. Laminar perfect gas simulations
were performed for stagnation enthalpies of 2 MJ/kg and 8 MJ/kg. The computed heat transfer
distribution agrees closely with the experiment upstream of the shock wave laminar boundary layer
interaction; however, significant differences are evident in the region of the interaction. In particular,
the time-accurate simulations indicate a significantly longer physical time to achieve steady state
than observed in the experiment.
11.5.1 Introduction
Hypersonic flight is an area of active and intense research. The Boeing X-51A successfully flew for the
fourth time on 1 May 2013, reaching Mach 5.1 through a combined booster and scramjet propulsion
system. Prior to the X-51, other attempts were taken place by NASA's X-43, University of Queensland's
(UQ's) HyShot project and UQ's most recent program, HIFiRE. The HIFiRE program is managed by
the Defense, Science and Technology Organization (DSTO, Australia) and the US Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL).
A critical issue in the design of hypersonic vehicles is the thermal protection system. Reattaching
shear layers can generate extremely high local heat transfer rates, and therefore accurate prediction
of surface heat transfer is important. This initiates interest in investigating SWBLI in depth and
developing high accurate numerical models which are able to predict ow behavior wherever this
phenomena occurs. The NATO Applied Vehicle Technology Task Group AVT 136, established in 2006,
performed a detailed analysis of CFD capability for prediction of surface heat transfer and surface
pressure due to laminar shock wave boundary layer interaction in non-equilibrium hypersonic
flow[1]. The conclusions were mixed. For the Run 42 experiment in Nitrogen of a 25∘ - 55∘ double
cone at Mach 11.7 and stagnation enthalpy of 9.17 MJ/kg performed at the Calspan University of
Buffalo Research Center (CUBRC), the comparison of the predicted and experimental surface pressure
and heat transfer from six different CFD codes was very good. For the Run 40 experiment in Nitrogen
of the same configuration at 5.38 MJ/kg, the comparison of the predicted and experimental surface
pressure and heat transfer from six different CFD codes was poor.
The NATO Applied Vehicle Technology Task Group AVT 205 was established in 2012 to further assess
the capability for prediction of aerothermodynamic heating for hypersonic vehicles. Three
experiments were selected. The double wedge configuration of [Swantek and Austin] was chosen to
assess the CFD capability for prediction of surface heat transfer in hypersonic laminar shock wave
boundary layer interactions. The objective here is to compare the results of a CFD simulation with
the experiment of [Swantek and Austin]. The experiment studies a double wedge in Mach 7 flow with
enthalpy per unit mass of 2.1 MJ/kg and 8.0 MJ/kg. This paper represents a contribution to the AVT
205 activity.
 306

11.5.2 Problem Description

The configuration, as illustrated
in Figure 11.22, is a two
dimensional double wedge. The
total length of model (Lt =Lf +La) is
58.572 mm and total height (Ht =
Hf +Ha) is 46.203 mm. The length
and inclination angle for the
forward and aft wedges are
shown in Table 11.6. In both the
numerical model and
experimental model, a at surface
exists after the second wedge, but
has no significant contribution to
the problem solution. The flow
conditions are shown in Table
11.7 (Left) and correspond to Table 11.6 Double wedge configuration
test M7_8 (high enthalpy) and Figure 11.22 Double wedge characteristics
M7_2 (low enthalpy) in [Swantek definition
and Austin]. The experiment facility is the
University of Illinois Hypervelocity Expansion
Tube (HET) which has a 9.14 m long expansion tube with driver, driven, and accelerator sections. The
internal diameter for all sections is 150 mm. The model is machined from A2 tool steel. Nineteen
coaxial thermocouples with diameter 2.4 mm and response time 1 μs, are placed on sixteen
streamwise locations. Three thermocouples are placed to measure spanwise variations. The error
bar due to gauge uncertainties is 8% [2].
11.5.3 Method of Solution
11.5.3.1 Grid Generation
A multi-block model was generated using the commercial code ICEM-CFD, with three main sections:
Inflow Zone, Object Zone, and Lower Tip Zone. The purpose of the Inflow Zone is to create a space
between the inlet boundary and the object or shock wave in which no disturbance is propagated
upstream and hence it is not sensed by the inflow boundary. In models with a sharp tip, the flow
disturbance propagates upstream into one or two cells. In order to eliminate this propagation, the
Lower Tip Zone was generated under the tip so that flow passes through that face and resolves this
issue. The Inflow Zone is divided into two regions:
Zone 1 from inlet boundary to the lower tip and Zone 3 from the inlet boundary to the tip of the sharp
edge. The Object Zone is divided into three zones: Zone 4 captures the forward wedge, Zone 5
captures the aft wedge and Zone 6 is the at top of the object. Figure 11.23 denotes the geometry
partitions. Mesh orthogonality near the wall is important to achieve accurate calculation of surface
heat transfer. Dividing the object zone into three sub-zones forces ICEM-CFD to generate a nearly
orthogonal mesh on each wedge. Number of cells in each zone for each mesh is shown in Table 11.7
(Right).

Table 11.7 Flow properties (Left) and Grid Cells per Zone (Right)
 307

A total of three separate grids were utilized

for the grid refinement study. Each
successive grid was obtained from the
previous grid by doubling the number of
cells in each direction for every region.
Zones 1 to 3 (upstream of the first shock
wave) The grid spacing in the x-direction is
uniform. The coarse grid utilized 20 cells
with spacing Δs/Lp ≃ 0.0085. The grid
spacing for zone 1 and 2 in the y-direction is
also Δn/LP ≃0.0085.
Zone 4 (downstream of first shock wave,
and over the forward wedge) utilizes 650
cells in the x-direction with first grid cell
having Δs/LF ≃0.0015. Grid spacing in the y-
direction is as same as zone 3 for all zones
downstream of the first shock wave, which
contains 600 cells and first Δn/Ht ≃
Figure 11.23 Mesh Zones
0.00148. The domain height should be able
to capture the bow shock exiting a plane
parallel to inflow, thus after the initial simulation we noted that 4Ht height (144 mm) prevents the
oblique shock from exiting through top boundary (the boundary parallel to the object). This height is
kept constant in the model (except where we have lower tip zones), and as a result the top boundary
is always parallel to the object. The calculated boundary layer thickness using Wilcox's Eddybl
program[4] and [Hoffmann et al.] at x/ Lf (with the assumption of no aft wedge) is δ = 1.135 mm. The
coarse grid contains 15 cells, the mid grid contains 30 cells, and the fine grid contains 60 cells in this
region. The grid size expands in the y-direction and for the last grid cell Δn/Ht ≃ 0.00438.
Zone 5 (downstream of first shock wave, and over the aft wedge) contains 320 cells. In this case,
Δs/La ≃ 0.0031.
Zone 6 (at section at the end of the object) has 500 cells equally distributed.
11.5.3.2 Governing Equations
The governing equations (using Einstein's summation conservation) are as follows[6] .
Conservation of Mass
∂ρ
+ ∇. (ρui ) = 0
∂t
Navier-Stokes Equation

∂ui ∂uj ∂p ∂τij

ρ( + ui )=− +
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi
∂uj ∂ui 2μ ∂um
where τij = μ ( + ) + (μν − ) δ
∂xi ∂xj 3 ∂xm ij

Equation of stat

p = ρRT
Conservation of Energy
 308

∂ρe 𝜕[(𝑝 + 𝜌𝑒)𝑢𝑖 ] 𝜕(𝜏𝑖𝑗 𝑢𝑗 ) 𝜕 𝜕𝑇

+ = + (k )
∂t 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥 𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖

11.5.3.3 Solution Algorithm

The commercial flow solver GASPex [7] with Van Leer's flux-vector splitting and 3rd order upwind
reconstruction is used. Q source is set to have values according to Table 11.7 (Left) for each case.
A modified ENO limiter was used with κ = 0.3333. The inflow used fixed at Q boundary condition (i.e.,
values are set according to Q source input) and other boundaries except the double wedge are first
order extrapolation. The computational domain is initialized to have the same value as Q source. This
corresponds to an impulsive start of the wind tunnel. These are the general settings for both inviscid
and laminar cases.
In the inviscid case, the double wedge has boundary type tangency and the simulation is continued
to reach steady state (normal residual less than 10-3 or absolute residual less than 10-12). The time
step is selected based on CFL=1 based on Q infinity and an automatic time step limiter was added to
prevent change more than one percent by using a five percent restoration factor.
For laminar cases, the double wedge boundary type is NoSlipT =Tw and a 2nd order accurate dual time
stepping with physical time step 10-7s, pseudo time step 10-8 s, and maximum 20 inner iterations are
performed if convergence criteria is not met (normal residual less than 10-2 or absolute residual less
than 10-8). The solution is saved for every 0.01 ms for all time dependent cases. Time dependent cases
are simulated for the necessary time the flow needs to reach steady state. The initial time objective
for the low enthalpy case was 4.0 ms and high enthalpy case was 1.0 ms. These numbers changed
based on the flow characteristics.
The flow is assumed to reach steady state when there is no significant change in the surface heat
transfer distribution. In particular, the location of the drop in heat transfer on the forward wedge,
and magnitude of the maximum heat transfer on the aft wedge are closely related to the boundary
layer separation and hence are sensitive indicators of convergence to steady state.
11.5.4 Results
Computations were performed on a 48, 96, or 128 CPU Linux cluster. For the inviscid case, the coarse
grid was chosen to be investigated. The characteristic time is t=68 μs (i:e:, the time required for a
fluid element to traverse the computational domain based on the velocity downstream of the
forebody shock). Laminar cases were solved using the implicit dual time stepping simulation with
data saved at 0.01 ms physical time increments. The values for Mach, pressure, and temperature for
the flow field and surface heat transfer, skin friction, and surface pressure are investigated. Surface
heat transfer is also compared with experimental results in each case at the physical time reported
for the experiment.
11.5.4.1 Inviscid Case
Table 11.8 shows the analytical [8] and computed (fine grid) values for several parameters. The
computed results are in excellent agreement with the theory. Mach contours and ow segments are
shown in Figure 11.24. As shown in Figure
11.24 (b), the flow approaches the forward
wedge and creates an oblique shock at
location 1. By the value of downstream Mach
number, it can be seen that this oblique shock
is the weak shock solution, while location 2
indicates a strong oblique shock. Location 3 is
inside the subsonic region, and location 4 is
the interaction point between weak shock, Table 11.8 Inviscid weak forebody shock values
 309

strong shock and slip line. After the flow is affected by the forward wedge, it changes velocity
direction to become parallel to the lower surface. A shock wave is reflected at location 5 from the
wall impacting the slip line at location 6. An expansion wave forms toward the surface and creates
another shock reflection at location 7, at the double wedge intersection. Location 8 is a subsonic
region which has an expansion fan on its immediate left. Location 9 is on the top of the double wedge
and as expected, an expansion fan is formed at that point.

Figure 11.24 Mach contours (inviscid case)

11.5.4.2 Laminar Low Enthalpy Case

For the low enthalpy case, the coarse and mid grids were used for the simulation. Both cases were
simulated to 4.0 ms. Figure 11.25 and Figure 11.26 show surface heat transfer, surface pressure,
and skin friction at selected times for each grid. Figure 11.25 (coarse grid) indicates that the flow
does not reach steady state after 4.0 ms, while Figure 11.26 (mid grid) indicates that flow has
reached steady state at 3.3 ms.

Figure 11.25 Surface variables, low enthalpy, coarse grid

 310

The heat transfer, after an initial rise and fall, decreases gradually until it reaches the separation
bubble and has a sudden drop and becomes close to zero. Close to the vicinity of the forward and aft
wedge connection, the surface heat transfer reaches its minimum value and gradually increases on
the aft wedge.

Figure 11.26 Surface variables, low enthalpy, mid grid

Comparing values from these two grids shows that values of surface heat transfer and skin friction
increase as the mesh becomes more dense. Since the coarse grid does not reach steady state, it
generates higher values for surface pressure in the same time that the mid grid has reached steady
state, and its values are lower than the coarse grid.

Figure 11.27 Mach contours, low enthalpy, mid grid

Figure 11.27 shows Mach contours for 3.0 m/s and 4.0 m/s for the mid grid. The flow structure in
this cases is similar to the inviscid case; however, with the addition of viscosity, the boundary layer
now separates. Referring to Figure 11.28, location 1 indicates the weak oblique forebody shock.
Point 2 denotes the recirculation region between two wedges. The upper boundary of this region
(location 3) is a slip line. Supersonic flow over this region is forced to adopt the new velocity direction
 311

which acts as a new wedge. The new weak oblique shock is identified with location 4. Location 5 is
on the edge of the strong oblique shock wave, and formed between the freestream Mach and section
containing location 6. Surrounding location 6 (the subsonic region) is slip line which contains
location 7. Location 8 indicates the bow shock and location 9 indicates the expansion fan on top of
the model.
According to [Swantek and Austin] the experimental heat transfer reached steady state at t = 0.327
ms. The computed and experimental peak heat transfer at reattachment (x = 47 mm) show close
agreement; however, significant disagreement is evident in the separated ow region (16 mm < x < 44
mm). Comparison of the computed heat transfer profile at t = 0.327 ms with the steady state heat
transfer profile in Figure 11.26 (a) indicates that the computed Fallowfield is definitely unsteady
at t = 0.327 ms.

Figure 11.28 Detailed Mach contours, heat transfer

11.5.4.3 Laminar High Enthalpy Case

For the high enthalpy case, the three grid sequences (coarse, mid, and fine) were simulated. Initially,
all cases were set to reach 2.0 ms simulation, but as each case reached steady state, it was stopped.
Mach contours and flow structure are similar to the low enthalpy case. Due to the change of enthalpy,
the surface heat transfer, surface pressure, and skin friction differ from the low enthalpy case. Shown
 312

in [Badr and Knighty]397, surface values for the coarse grid, medium and fine grids, respectively. A
noticeable difference between these three cases is that the time required for the flow to reach steady
state varies between three cases. Another major difference is the bubble size which grows as mesh
becomes more dense. In the high enthalpy case, the maximum value for surface heat transfer,
pressure, and skin friction increases as mesh becomes more dense. This was also observed in low
enthalpy cases.
11.5.4.4 Discussion
The results of the simulations clearly indicate that the computed flow fields for the 2 MJ/kg and 8
MJ/kg cases are not converged to steady state at the times indicated by the experiment. However,
there are two fundamental assumptions of the simulations which may have an effect on this result.
➢ Perfect gas
The assumption of perfect gas (equilibrium flow) is most certainly accurate for the 2 MJ/kg case, but
requires further investigation for the 8 MJ/kg case.
➢ Impulsive start
The initial condition for the simulation is the imposition of the freestream conditions at all grid cells.
This is not identical to the startup process in the wind tunnel.

11.5.5 Conclusion
Hypersonic flow past a double wedge at Mach 7.11 and Mach 7.14 for stagnation enthalpies of 2
MJ/kg and 8 MJ/kg, respectively, were simulated. Both cases were simulated for laminar viscous
laminar flow, while the Mach 7.14 was also simulated assuming inviscid flow. Field values such as
pressure, temperature and Mach number downstream of the forebody shock were compared
between theoretical and numerical solution for inviscid Mach 7.14 flow. The computed results agree
closely with theory. For laminar viscous ow, the surface heat transfer was compared between
experimental and computation for three grid sequences. All viscous laminar cases indicate a
convergence time much greater than those indicated by the experiment. For the Mach 7.11 (low
enthalpy) case, the coarse grid did not reach steady state after 4.0 ms, while mid grid reached steady
state after 3.3 ms. The experiment indicated that the ow reached steady state at 0:327 ms and
indicated a different profile for the steady state surface heat transfer than observed in the
computation.
A similar observation is made for the Mach 7.14 (high enthalpy) case. While the coarse, mid, and fine
grids reached steady state at 1.8, 1.2, and 1.7 ms, respectively, the experiment indicated that the flow
field reached steady state at 0:243 ms. Also, the experimental heat transfer prole differs significantly
from the computed steady state profile. Further research is in progress to investigate the real gas
effect for the high enthalpy case which may affect the predicted heat transfer and time required to
reach steady state. The impulsive start initial condition in the computation is not an exact replica of
the startup process in the experiment, and thus further research is required to understand the effect
of the actual start up process on the time required for the numerical simulation to reach steady state
in the experiment.

11.5.6 References
[1] Knight, D., Longo, J.,Drikakis, D.,Gaitonde, D., Lani, A., Nompelis, I., Reimann, B., and Walpot, L.,
"Assessment of CFD Capability for Prediction of Hypersonic Shock Interactions," Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, Vol. 48-49, 2012, pp. 8-26.

Mohammad A. Badr and Doyle D. Knighty, “Shock Wave Laminar Boundary Layer Interaction Over a Double
397

Wedge in a High Mach Number Flow “, AIAA 2014.

 313

2 Swantek, A.B., and Austin, J.M., "Heat Transfer on a Double Wedge Geometry in Hypervelocity Air
and Nitrogen Flows," Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-2012-0284,
Nashville, TN, 2012.
3 Private communication, Dr. Joanna Austin, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana, October 12, 2012.
4 Wilcox, D.C., Turbulence Modeling for CFD. 3rd ed. La Canaada, CA: DCW Industries, 2006.
5 Hoffmann, K.A., Chiang, S., Siddiqui, S., and Papadakis, M., Fundamental Equations of Fluid
Mechanics. Wichita, KS: Engineering Education Systems, 1996.
6 Kundu, P.K., Cohen, I.M., and Dowling, D.R., Fluid Mechanics. 4th ed. Waltham, MA: Academic, 2012.
7 AeroSoft, Inc. gaspex userguide. Blacksburg: AeroSoft, Inc., 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
8 Ames Research Sta_. Report 1135 Equations, Tables, and Charts for Compressible Flow. Moffet Field:
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. 1953. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
 314

12 Airfoil Aerodynamics
12.1 Preliminaries
Aerodynamics, is the study of motion of air, particularly as interaction with a solid object, such as
an airplane wing. It is a sub-field of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics, and many aspects of
aerodynamics theory are common to these fields. The term aerodynamics is often used
synonymously with gas dynamics, the difference being that "gas dynamics" applies to the study of
the motion of all gases, and is not limited to air. The formal study of aerodynamics began in the
modern sense in the 18th century, although observations of fundamental concepts such
as aerodynamic drag were recorded much earlier. Most of the early efforts in aerodynamics were
directed toward achieving heavier-than-air flight, which was first demonstrated by [Otto
Lilienthal]398 in 1891. Since then, the use of aerodynamics through mathematical analysis, empirical
approximations, wind tunnel experimentation, and computer simulations has formed a rational
basis for the development of heavier-than-air flight and a number of other technologies. Recent work
in aerodynamics has focused on issues related to compressible flow, turbulence, and boundary
layers and has become increasingly computational in nature399.
Figure 12.1 indicates a hierarchy of models at different levels of simplification which have proved
useful in practice. Inviscid calculations with boundary layer corrections can provide quite accurate
predictions of lift and drag when the flow remains attached. The current main CFD tool of the Boeing
Commercial Airplane Company is TRANAIR, which uses the transonic potential flow equation to
model the flow. Procedures for solving the full viscous equations are needed for the simulation of
complex separated flows, which may occur at high angles of attack or with bluff bodies. In current

Figure 12.1 Hierarchy of Models for Industrial Flow Simulations – Courtesy of Antony Jameson and
Massimiliano Fatica

398 "How the Stork Inspired Human Flight". flyingmag.com.

399 Wikipedia.
 315

industrial practice these are modeled by the Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with
various turbulence models400.

12.2 Case Study 1 - Aerodynamic Analysis of NACA 0012 With Different Turbulence
Models 401
Analysis of the two dimensional airfoil was done with the help of CFD Software. The target of the
work is to come across the most suitable turbulent model in calculation of Governing Equations. The
Governing Equations were solved using CFD software. Since two dimensional and three dimensional
airfoil shows the equivalent result that is why the two dimensional airfoil was used. NACA0012 airfoil
is a non-cambered airfoil and it is used in various aeronautical applications. Flow on this airfoil was
analyzed for different angle of attack and compared practical data with simulated data for different
turbulent models. Calculations were done at low Reynolds number keeping a constant velocity for
altered angle of attack. During calculation grid independence test was done to show the accuracy of
result by changing in grid size or nodes. As the number of nodes increases, the lift coefficient is also
increased. But as soon as we reached 102180 nodes, the lift coefficient becomes stagnate.
12.2.1 Introduction
Computational Fluid Dynamics is the technique for analyzing and simulation where fluid flow
involved. This technique has multiple uses in Industrial and Non industrial application areas. This
technique reduces the cost of working and gives good agreement with practical results. The CFD
contains three main elements which are Preprocessor, Solver and Post Processor402-403. During flow,
viscous effect dominates the entire fluid flow field. The fluid exerts pressure force perpendicular to
the surface and there is another force which is parallel to the surface of the body and along the outer
surface of the body is known as shear force. Resultant of pressure force and shear force is the area of
interest. Normal component of the resultant is known as lift force and component which acts in flow
direction is called drag force404. The drag force can be subdivided into two parts skin drag and
pressure drag. Frictions drag force having relation with the position of the body and the amount of
the wall shear stress. Friction drag also varies with the viscosity of the fluid. As we know that
Reynolds number is inversely proportional to the total viscosity. Frictions Drag also depends on the
surface area. In case of laminar flow friction drag is independent of the roughness of the surface but
in turbulent flow it plays a chief role.
12.2.2 Literature Review
2D & 3D models of airfoil with far field was created in GAMBIT and analyzed using FLUENT405. 3D
model consumes much amount of time and requires high memory computer while 2D model gives
the identical results. Author tested NACA 0012 airfoil at different Reynolds Number on 2D and 3D
models of airfoil. Accuracy of FLUENT was not up to the mark for values of above 10o angle of attack.

400 Antony Jameson and Massimiliano Fatica, “Using Computational Fluid Dynamics for Aerodynamics”, Stanford
University.
401 Amit Kumar Saraf, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Tej Singh Chouhan, “Aerodynamic Analysis of NACA 0012 Airfoil

Using CFD”, International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, 2017.

402 Versteeg, H. K., & Malalasekera, W. (2012). An Introduction To Computational Fluid Dynamics. New Delhi

India: Pearson Education, Ltd.

403 Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2008). Fluid Mechanics. New Delhi India: Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing

Company Limited, New Delhi India.

404 Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2008). Fluid Mechanics. New Delhi India: Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing

Company Limited, New Delhi India.

405 Logsdon, N. (2006). A Procedure For Numerically Analyzing Airfoils And Wing Sections. Columbia: University

Of Missouri.
 316

Simulation was done with inviscid and Spalart-Allmaras turbulent models406. Blade Element
Momentum Theory (BEM) can be used to explore the Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Blades. Here S-
809 Blade was used407. Breakaway at a point on the surface is known as separation point & such
phenomenon is called separation. In this report author found that detachment location is
significantly independent on turbulent intensity & vibration but it is dependent on pressure
distribution408. There are many turbulent Models available but these three Models were used
included (Realizable and RNG k-Reynolds and Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)). Here aerodynamic
behavior of
the airfoil with different turbulent models has been studied409. A symmetrical airfoil was used to
study the trailing edge separation on trailing edge. Here the low Reynolds numbers were used. RANS
equations were solved with finite volume method on airfoil SD8020. κ-ω SST turbulent model were
used to simulate the problem. It was noticed at small angles of attack laminar separation happens on
both sides of airfoil while at high angles of attack, the separation reattach to the trailing edge.
12.2.3 Turbulent Model
The turbulent kinetic energy and rate of dissipation of κ-ε is solved by κ-ɛ turbulent model. This
model has good convergence rate compared to other models and requires low memory computers.
Though this model is suitable for bluff and streamlined body, different analysis needs to be done for
different geometric models. The specific rate of dissipation of kinetic energy is solved by k-ω
turbulent models. This model requires higher memory computers for the computation. It is quite
sensitive and has difficulty in converging. This model is useful if κ-ɛ model is not suitable. For details
about airfoil sensitivity w.r.t different turbulence models, please confer with [Saraf et al.]410.
12.2.4 Grid Independence Test
The Grid distribution scheme suffers from some important drawbacks411. There is no control on the
magnitude of global error. Though the local error may be redistributed well, the computed solution
may not possess the desired accuracy due to insufficient number of nodes. This problem can be
resolved by solving the problem repeatedly with different mesh size and finally we can get accurate
results. The result changed with respect to the size of the grid or number of nodes, grid independency
test was done to get much accurate result. Though it increases the time of simulation but tends
towards an accurate result. The Grid independence test was done using CFD Software. In this test
first the simulation was done with coarse mesh, after that the meshing was converted into finer mesh
and simulation was done in order to get a more accurate result. In order to get dense grid, number of
nodes has to be increased.
12.2.5 Computation Method

406 Kulunk, E., & Yilmaz, N. (2009). Computer-Aided Design And Performance Analysis Of Hawt Blades. 5th
International Advanced Technologies Symposium (Iats’09) (P. .). Karabuk, Turkey: Iats’09, Karabük University,
Karabük, Turkey.
407 Potter, J. L., Barnet, R. J., Fisher, C. E., & Costas. (1986). The Influence Of Free-Stream Turbulence On Separation

Of Turbulent Boundary Layers In Incompressible, Two-Dimensional Flow. Department Of Mechanical

Engineering. Nashville Tn 37235: Vanderbilt University.
408 Agrawal, M., & Saxena, G. (2013). Analysis Of Wings Using Airfoil Naca 4412 At Different Angle Of Attack.

International Journal Of Modern Engineering Research , 1467-1469.

409 Juanmian, L., Feng, G., & Can, H. (2013). Numerical Study Of Separation On The Trailing Edge Of A Symmetrical

Airfoil At Allow Reynolds Number. Chinese Journal Of Aeronautics , 918-925.

410 Amit Kumar Saraf, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Tej Singh Chouhan, “Aerodynamic Analysis of NACA 0012 Airfoil

Using CFD”, International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, 2017.

411 Agrawal, M., & Saxena, G. (2013). Analysis Of Wings Using Airfoil Naca 4412 At Different Angle Of Attack.

International Journal Of Modern Engineering Research , 1467-1469.

 317

A NACA0012 airfoil was

used to study various
turbulent models and
here 102180 nodes
used. The airfoil models
was first prepared and
then exported into
ANSYS where far filed
and meshing was done
as shown in Figure
12.2. Here the air was
made to flow at a
constant velocity at 7.3
m/s and density of the
air was taken 1.225
kg/m3. Temperature of
air was taken as 300K.
This site was used to
validate the practical
data412. Practical data
were compared with the
simulated data at
different turbulent
models.
12.2.6 Simulation Figure 12.2 NACA 0012 C-Type Mesh
Outcomes

(a) κ-ε Model (b) κ-ω SST Model

Figure 12.3 Contours of Pressure at 10o Angle of Attack for Different Turbulence Models

12.2.6.1 Pressure Contours

Figure 12.3 (a-b) exhibits of pressure contours for κ-ε and κ-ω SST turbulence models. (see [Saraf
]413 for additional models). It can be seen that upper surface having lower pressure and lower surface

412 Airfoiltools.Com. (2016). Http://Airfoiltools.Com/Polar/Details?Polar=Xf-N0012-Il-500000.

413 See Above.
 318

has higher pressure. This situation shows that pressure on lower side tries to lift the body and hence
increases the lift coefficient. In the given figure of pressure contours it is shown that at the leading
edge of the upper side there is a greenish color and on the lower side the color is reddish, where red
color indicates a higher value of pressure and greenish color indicates a lower value. As the angle of
attack increases, the coefficient of lift also increases but after 15o-16o of angle of attack it starts
decreasing.
12.2.6.2 Velocity Contours
The same thing can be seen in velocity contours (not shown here) that the upper surface of the airfoil
is shown in a reddish color while lower surface is shown in bluish color where a reddish color
indicates higher velocity and according to Bernoulli’s Theorem it will have a lower pressure. Near
the trailing edge there is huge gape amongst the velocity vectors which means that flow starts to
separate near the trailing edge.
12.2.7 Result
The Coefficient of lift (CL), increases with the angle of attack. Three models are presented here and
all models show approximately same results (see Figure 12.4). Stall condition comes near 15o angle
of attack. But while all graphs presented on the single sheet there seems to be a difference amongst
all the graph

Figure 12.4 Comparison of CL for Various Turbulent Models

12.2.8 Conclusion
It was noticed that all the graphs shows similar results but while compared with practical data it
shows that there is some deviation among all the graphs. From the figures of the graph it is seen that
k-ɛ standard model and k-ɛ RNG give a good approximation. Though k-ω SST turbulent model is also
a good model but here it is not as good as the others. All the models show similar result at lower angle
of attack but near angle of stall the deviation in graphs starts showing.
 319

12.3 Case Study 2 - Aerodynamic Performance of NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil

An analysis of 2D subsonic flow over an NACA 0015 airfoil with a 30% trailing edge flap at a constant
Re =106 for various incidence angles and a range of flap deflections is provided by [Obeid et al.]414.
The steady-state governing equations of continuity and momentum conservation are solved
combined with the realizable κ-ε turbulence model using a leading commercial code. The primary
objective of the study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of flow characteristics around
the NACA 0015 airfoil as a function of the angle of attack and flap deflection.
12.3.1 Background & literature Survey
The aerodynamic shape of lifting objects is one of their most important design parameters. This
parameter affects the amount of the lift and the drag forces that the airfoil can generate. Aircraft
wings are mainly intended to provide the maximum value of the lift-to-drag ratio L/D. The L/D ratio
is deemed as a measure of the efficiency of an aircraft and can be stated as the amount of power
(thrust) that is required to force an aircraft of a certain weight. The aircraft wing performance is
seriously impaired if flow separation occurs. Commonly, flow separation results in a loss of lift, an
increase of drag, diminished pressure recovery, etc. Therefore, a considerable amount of research
effort has been devoted to the control of flow separation, and many methods to attain separation
control have been suggested. Among the most promising active flow control approaches are suction,
blowing, synthetic jet actuation and wall movement. Proper flow control methods have the ability to
reduce skin friction and form drag, increase lift and improve flight controllability. The potential
benefits of flow control include enhanced range and payload, short runway landing capability,
improved ecological compliance and savings in overall fuel consumption. For instance, maintaining
laminar flow over the entire wing surface can reduce total aircraft drag by as much as 15% 415.
Recently, there has been considerable interest in flow control, especially in the field of aerodynamics
with the intent of increasing lift and decreasing the drag of airfoils. To allow landing and take-off from
short runways at reduced ground speeds, some modern airplanes are equipped with multi-element
high-lift devices that generate the required high lift. Slat and single or multiple flaps are typical
examples of such devices. Multi-element wing designs, however, are found unfavorable from a weight
and complexity point of view. That is the reason for replacing the multi-element flap with a single-
hinged flap in the current designs to reduce the complexity while increasing the efficiency of the wing.
While reducing the complexity of the wing, the single-hinged flap increases the chance for flow
separation on the flap at large deflection angles. To prevent or at least to minimize the effects of flow
separation, the air flowing over the wing near the surface must be energized so that it could overcome
the effects of the adverse pressure gradient encountered along the flap.
In recent years, the possible application of trailing edge flaps as a potential vibration and noise
control tool has gained considerable attention for application to the helicopter blades and wind
turbines. Applications of trailing edge flap systems in helicopter rotors have been the subject of much
research, both in the context of individual blade control416. The employment of plain flaps in wind
turbines has been also a topic of interest to many researchers. The efficacy of plain flaps in wind
turbines is considered favorable both in relation to load alleviation, as well as power generation.
Furthermore, small flap deflections could delay the laminar-turbulent transition417.
A wide range of engineering applications utilize airfoils operating at relatively low and medium chord
Reynolds numbers ranging from 104 to 106. As noted before, helicopter rotor blades, small-to-

414 Sohaib Obeid, Ratneshwar Jha, and Goodarz Ahmadi, “RANS Simulations of Aerodynamic Performance of
NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil”, Fluids 2017, 2, 2; doi:10.3390/fluids2010002.
415 Schrauf, G. “Application of laminar flow technology on transport aircraft”, Proceedings of the CEAS Drag

Reduction Conference, Potsdam, Germany, 19–21 June 2000.

416 Ham, N.D., “Helicopter individual blade control research at MIT 1977–1985”. Vertica 1987, 11, 109–122.
417 Somers, D.M. “Effect of Flap Deflection on Section Characteristics of S813 Airfoil (Period of Performance: 1993–

1994)”; NREL/SR-500–36335; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
 320

medium-scale wind turbines and unmanned aerial vehicles are typical examples418 . In this Reynolds
number range, the boundary layer on the upper surface of an airfoil is prone to experience flow
separation, even at a low incidence angle. While there is a number of published works on airfoil
performance at low Reynolds numbers, still there are not many studies, either experimentally or
numerically, that cover the range of Re = 106. In addition, despite numerous publications on the lift
and drag of NACA airfoils, better understanding of airfoils with one hinged flap is still of interest.
Symmetric NACA airfoils with a thickness range from 9% to 18% also have many applications in
industry and for demonstration purposes419. [Gault]420 classified the stalling characteristics of the
low speed NACA airfoil sections into: thin airfoil stall, leading edge stall, trailing edge stall and a
combination of leading edge and trailing edge stall. Based on this classification, the NACA 0015 airfoil
was selected for this study as it is classified as a medium thickness airfoil, which is susceptible only
to trailing edge stall at Re = 106.
Numerical studies of the aerodynamic performance of the NACA 0015 airfoil with an integral-type
trailing edge flap were reported by Hassan421 using the 2D Navier–Stokes flow solver developed at
the NASA Ames Research Center. [Zhang et al.]422 studied the aerodynamic performance of the NACA
0015 airfoil at different speeds. They reported the flow patterns pressure distributions, velocity
vector fields and turbulence intensities around the airfoil. Numerical studies for plain (un-flapped)
airfoils were presented by [Srinivasan et al.]423. They investigated various turbulence models for
unsteady flows around a NACA 0015 oscillating airfoil. The main objective of the numerical
simulations presented here is to provide a thorough understanding of flow features around the NACA
0015 airfoil as a function of both angle of attack and flap deflection at fixed (Re = 106). The other
objective is to validate the computational model by comparison of the results with the experimental
data and earlier numerical simulation results. The flow problem here is of a boundary layer nature;
therefore, the fluid motions near the airfoil surfaces are of interest.
12.3.2 Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions
To facilitate the grid generation process, as well as the analysis, similar to the earlier study of Hassan,
the airfoil with the deflected trailing edge flap is treated as a single-element airfoil with no gap
between the flap’s leading edge and the base of the forward portion of the airfoil. For deflecting the
flap, solid body rotations were assumed, and a four-point spline smoothing was made for the
resulting airfoil at the chord-wise position corresponding to the location of the flap hinge point.
Geometry of the NACA 0015 Airfoil with a 30% Trailing Edge Deflected Flap (Top) and Domain of
Calculations and Boundary Conditions (Bottom) - Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]. Figure 12.5 shows the
schematic geometry of the NACA 0015 with various trailing edge flap deflections, as well as detailed
mesh. The grids constructed for this study have about 104K cells with a four-node quadrilateral
element. To simulate the wake area correctly, [Dolle]424 recommended using a fine grid with
quadrilateral cells in these areas rather than other type of cells. Therefore, refined quadrilateral cells

418 McCroskey, W.J. “A Critical Assessment of Wind Tunnel Results for the NACA 0012 Airfoil”; NASA Technical
Memorandum 100019; NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS): Hampton, VA, USA, 1989.
419 Gerakpoulos, R.; Boutier, M.S.H.; Yarusevych, S. “Aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0018 airfoil at low

reynolds numbers”, Proceedings of the 40th Fluid Dynamic Conference and Exhibit, Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
420 Gault, D.E. “A Correlation of Low-Speed, Airfoil-Section Stalling Characteristics with Reynolds Number and

Airfoil Geometry”, NACA Technical Note 3963; NACA Technical: Washington, DC, USA, 1957.
421 Hassan, “A Predicted Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 0015 Airfoil Having a 25% Integral Type Trailing

Edge Flap”, NACA CR/-1999–209328; NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS): Hampton, VA, USA, 1999.
422 Zhang, G.; Jiang, J.; Liu, C. ,”Numerical simulation of aerodynamic performance for wind turbines”. J. E. China

Electric Power 2009, 37, 449–452.

423 Srinivasan, G.R.; Ekaterinaris, J.A.; McCroskey, W.J. “Evaluation of turbulence models for unsteady flows of an

oscillating airfoil”. Computer Fluids 1995, 24, 833–861.

424 Dolle, T.J.A. ,”Flap Performance Improvement by Surface Excitation”. Master’s Thesis, Aerospace Engineering,

Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 23–27.

 321

were placed on top of the boundary layer grid on the upper side and lower side of the airfoil outline.
The pressure far-field boundary is a non-reflecting boundary condition based on “Riemann
invariants” used to model a free-stream condition at infinity, with the free-stream Mach number and
static conditions being specified. At the wall, the standard wall function boundary condition was
used. The calculation procedures at the pressure far-field boundaries, as well as the shear-stress
calculations at wall. The
boundary conditions for this
simulation were the pressure
far-field at the computational
domain periphery and
stationary wall condition at
the airfoil surface. The
pressure far-field boundary
is a non-reflecting boundary
condition based on
“Riemann invariants” used
to model a free-stream
condition at infinity, with the
free-stream Mach number
and static conditions being
specified. At the wall, the
standard wall function
boundary condition was
used. The calculation
procedures at the pressure
far-field boundaries, as well
as the shear-stress Figure 12.5 Geometry of the NACA 0015 Airfoil with a 30% Trailing
calculations at wall Edge Deflected Flap (Top) and Domain of Calculations and Boundary
boundaries were described Conditions (Bottom) - Courtesy of [Obeid et al.].
in . In some cases, the mesh
425

is adapted based on the static pressure gradient, using the default mesh adaptation control settings,
so the solver periodically refines the mesh in the regions of high pressure gradients.
12.3.3 Setting up of the Numerical Simulation Parameters
Time independent pressure-based solver is used. The realizable k-" turbulence model is selected for
analyzing the boundary layer flow over the airfoil. The airflow is assumed to be incompressible. A
simple scheme with the Green-Gauss cell-based gradient implicit formulation of pressure velocity
coupling is utilized. For spatial discretization, the second order upwind differencing scheme which
offers several advantages over a central-differencing formulation for computing viscous flows is
used. A convergence criterion of 1x10-8 was used for the continuity, x-velocity, y-velocity, k and ". All
solutions converged with the standard interpolation scheme for calculating cell-face pressure and
second order up-wind density, momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent dissipation rate and
energy interpolation schemes for turbulent flow.
12.3.4 Mesh Independence Tests
To ensure that the simulation results are independent of grid size, different computational meshes
were inspected. This is done by running cases with increasing number of grid cells until the
simulation results did not change with the use of progressively finer grids. Table 12.1 lists the

ANSYS, Inc. Introduction to ANSYS FLUENT 12.0. “Lecture 5 Solver Setting” ANSYS, Release 13; ANSYS, Inc.:
425

Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2010; pp. 8–30.

 322

properties of six different grids with

varying density that have been inspected Grid No. of Cells Max y+ Min y+ Aver y+
for the flow pattern around the NACA
I 24,910 32.5 4 4.8 13.85
0015 airfoil with zero flap deflection. It
also provides maximum, minimum, and II 53,040 16.5 3.4 06.55
average values of non-dimensional III 76,128 12 1 05.50
normal distance from the wall, y+, for
each grid. It is observed that all of the IV 103,192 9.2 0.8 04.20
grids inspected have considerably low y+ V 141,168 8.8 0.7 04.05
values, particularly Grids III–VI, to VI 367,235 1.01 0.01 0.500
sufficiently resolve the viscous sub-layer.
The mesh size near the airfoil surface is a Table 12.1 Details of Grids used in Mesh Sensitivity
critical parameter for proper simulation Testing
of boundary layer flow properties. The
size of the first cell height near the wall Δy
was estimated based on the physical properties of the fluid used and the selected values of the non-
dimensional normal distance from the wall y+. The last step in the grid convergence inspection was
focused on the analysis of the distribution of the pressure coefficient along the airfoil chord, as well
as the velocity profiles on the upper surface of the airfoil in some selected sections. For detailed
information, reader are encourage to consult [Obeid et al.]426.

Figure 12.6 Cp Around NACA 0015 Airfoil for a Few Selected Incidence Angles- (Courtesy of [Obeid
et al.])

Sohaib Obeid, Ratneshwar Jha, and Goodarz Ahmadi, “RANS Simulations of Aerodynamic Performance of
426

NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil”, Fluids 2017, 2, 2; doi:10.3390/fluids2010002.

 323

12.3.5 NACA 0015 Airfoil with Zero Flap Deflection Results

The airflow properties around the NACA 0015 with zero flap deflection are first studied, and the
corresponding distributions of static pressure and velocity magnitude at different incidence angles
are evaluated and compared with the published numerical results and/or experimental data. Figure
12.6 shows the static pressure and velocity magnitude contours around the NACA 0015 airfoil for a
few selected incidence angles. As NACA 0015 is a symmetric airfoil, at zero incidence angle, the static
pressure and velocity distribution over the airfoil are symmetric, which results in zero lift force and
a stagnation point, exactly at the nose of the airfoil. There are regions of accelerated flows over and

Figure 12.7 Cp (left) and velocity magnitude contours(right) around the NACA 0015 airfoil at different
incidence angles - Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]
 324

under the airfoil that reach the highest speed at the airfoil maximum thickness point. The velocity is
high (marked by red spots) in the low pressure region and vice versa. The maximum pressure occurs
at the stagnation point when the velocity is zero. At an incidence angle of 5 degree, the contours of
static pressure over the airfoil become asymmetric; the pressure on the upper surface becomes lower
than the pressure on the lower surface; regions of high pressure on the airfoil lower surface become
dominant; and a lift coefficient of 0.531 is generated due to the pressure imbalance.
Figure 12.7 shows that as the angle of attack increases, the stagnation point is shifted towards the
trailing edge on the bottom surface; hence, it creates a low velocity region at the lower surface of the
airfoil and a high velocity region on the upper side of airfoil. Thus, the pressure on the upper side of
the airfoil is lower than the ambient pressure, whereas the pressure on the lower side is higher than
the ambient pressure. Therefore, increasing the incidence angle is associated with the increase of the
lift coefficient, as well as the increase of the drag coefficient. This increase in the lift coefficient
continues up to a maximum, after which the lift coefficient decreases. It is also seen that the flow field
around the airfoil varies markedly with the incidence angle.
In addition to the changes in velocity and pressure distributions, the properties of the boundary layer
flow along the airfoil surface also change. At low incidence angles up to about 12 degrees, the
boundary layer is fully attached to the surface of the airfoil, and the lift coefficient increases with
angle of attack, while the drag is relatively low. With the increase of incidence angle, the boundary
layer is thickened. When the incidence angle of the airfoil is increased to about 13 degree or larger,
the adverse pressure gradient imposed on the boundary layers become so large that separation of
the boundary layer occurs. A region of recirculating flow over the entire upper surface of the airfoil
forms, and the region of higher pressure on the lower surface of the airfoil becomes smaller.
Consequently, the lift decreases markedly, and the drag increases sharply. This is a typical condition
in which the airfoil is stalled.
For a further increase of the airfoil incidence angle to 20 degree, the stagnation point shifts
significantly further towards the trailing edge on the bottom surface. The recirculating flow region
becomes dominant and covers the entire upper surface of the airfoil, and the airflow is fully separated
from the upper surface of the airfoil. This leads to further reduction of the lift force and a severe
increase of the drag force. The air flowing along the top of the airfoil surface experiences a change in
pressure, moving from the ambient pressure in front of the airfoil, to a lower pressure over the
surface of the airfoil,
then back to the
ambient pressure
behind the airfoil.
The region where
fluid must flow from
low to high pressure
(adverse pressure
gradient) could cause
flow separation. If
the adverse pressure
gradient is too high,
the pressure forces
overcome the fluid
inertial forces, and
the flow separates
from the airfoil upper
surface. As noted
before, the pressure Figure 12.8 Pressure Coefficients along the Upper and Lower Surfaces of the
gradient increases Airfoil with 0 Degree Flap – (Courtesy of [Obeid et al.])
 325

with incidence angle, and there is a maximum angle of attack for keeping the flow attached to the
airfoil. If the critical incidence angle is exceeded, separation occurs, and the lift force decreases
sharply.
Figure 12.8 presents the chord wise distributions of the pressure coefficient (Cp) profile for the
airfoil at some selected incidence angles. For small angles of attack, the Cp distribution is
characterized by a negative pressure peak near the leading edge on the suction side. Beyond this
point, the Cp value gradually increases along the chord of the airfoil. On the pressure side of the
airfoil, the Cp value reaches a maximum of Cp = 1 at the stagnation line. This point is near the leading
edge, but shifts slightly depending on the incidence angle. Further down the chord length of the
airfoil, the pressure side Cp value increases gradually until it equals the suction side value at the
trailing edge. Figure 12.8 also shows that the flow remains attached to the suction surface up to α
= 13 degree after which flow begins to separate. The separation line starts near the trailing edge and
moves forward toward the leading edge as incidence increases. The flow becomes fully separated
over almost the entire chord of the airfoil for α greater than 15 degrees. For α > 13, the maximum Cp
negative value decreases on the airfoil upper side, and a pronounced shift of the stagnation position
toward the trailing edge is found. This situation continues until α = 17, at which the Cp value starts
to vary in an irregular manner. For better understanding of the airflow characteristics around the
airfoil, variations of the skin friction coefficient are evaluated for selected incidence angles. The skin
friction coefficients increase with the incident angle and also show a smooth variation for angles of
attack equal to or smaller than 13 degrees. The skin friction coefficient curve at α = 16 shows an
irregular variation, which is a typical trend for the cases when there are some separation zones.
Figure 12.9 shows the variation of the lift coefficient (CL) with the incidence angle (α) at free stream
conditions corresponding to a Re = 106. The lift and drag coefficients were calculated, and the results
for the lift coefficient are shown. It is seen that the lift coefficient increases with the angle of attack
up to about 13° and then decreases. The lift coefficient obtained from 2D potential flow analysis using

Figure 12.9 Comparison of Lift Coefficient CL values of the Airfoil at 0° flap Deflection as a Function
of (α) at Chord Re = 106 with Experimental and Numerical Results – (Courtesy of [Obeid et al.])
 326

the panel method, the RANS simulation results of [ Joslin et al.]427 and the large eddy simulation
results of [You and Moin]428 are also shown in this figure for comparison. Further and detailed
analyses can be obtained from [Obeid et al.]429.
12.3.6 NACA 0015 Airfoil with Flap Deflection Results
The effect of downward flap deflection on the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil is studied for
eight different flap positions of 10, 30 and 40 degrees. For zero AoA, the static pressure and velocity
contours for different flap deflections (δf) are presented in Figure 12.10. The comparison of the
static pressure contours for zero flap deflection and for the deflected flap at the same angle of attack
shows that the flap deflection increases the negative pressure over the entire upper surface of the
main airfoil and increases the positive pressure on the lower surface near the trailing edge. The
pressure on the lower surface increases rapidly with flap deflection, while the pressure on the upper
surface increases gradually. The pressures on both the upper and the lower surfaces of the flap
increase with flap deflection. One other interesting observation is the progressive increase of the
velocity magnitude over the upper surface of the main airfoil as the flap deflection increases. The flap
deflection changes the velocity and pressure distributions on the airfoil upper and lower surfaces,
causing higher pressure to be built over the rear portion, generating a net lift force at AoA = 0, and

Figure 12.10 Turbulence Intensity (δf ) Around the a Flapped Airfoil – (Courtesy of [Obeid et al.]

427 Joslin, R.D.; Horta, L.G.; Chen, F.J.

“Transiting action control to application”, Proceedings of the 30th AIAA Fluid
Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, USA, 1999.
428 You, D., Moin, P. “Active control of flow separation over an airfoil using synthetic jets”, 2008.
429 Sohaib Obeid, Ratneshwar Jha, and Goodarz Ahmadi, “RANS Simulations of Aerodynamic Performance of

NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil”, Fluids 2017, 2, 2; doi:10.3390/fluids2010002.

 327

increases the airfoil maximum lift coefficient. The flap deflection also moves the zero lift angle-of-
attack of the airfoil to a lower negative value and greatly increases the drag force.
The turbulence intensity contours of the flow around the flapped airfoil at some selected deflection
angles and zero incidence are also evaluated. Figure 12.10 presents the contours of turbulence
intensity (δf) at 10, 30 and 40 degrees and for zero incidence angle. It is observed that at the zero
incidence angle, the flap deflection has a pronounced influence on the turbulence intensity around
the flapped airfoil. Even a small deflection in flap angle disturbs the flow and creates regions of high
turbulence intensity in the upper surface of the flapped airfoil. These regions expand with increasing
of the flap deflection and shift from the main airfoil towards the flap section. For δf ≤ 15, the
realizable κ-ε model predicts that the peak turbulence intensity occurs in the boundary layer near
both the upper and lower surfaces of the main airfoil close to the leading edge and with a lower level
of turbulence intensity in the wake region. For δf > 15, however, the maximum turbulence intensity
occurs in the wake region close to the flap in addition to the boundary layer regions. This is due to
the fact that the region with recirculating flow becomes larger as the wake width increases with the
flap deflection. At high flap deflections, the flow separates from the flap, and high pressure acting on
the pressure side of the flapped airfoil and consequently marked increase in the drag occur compared
to situations where the flow remains attach to the surface. [Obeid et al.]430.

12.4 Case Study 3 - Dynamic Stall Investigation of 2D Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
Blades Using CFD
Vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) are a type of wind turbines, mainly useful for urban and
residential areas to produce electricity. It has some advantages over Horizontal axis wind turbines
in terms of costs and maintenances. Dynamic Stalling is a common feature of these VAWTs in
unsteady flow conditions. In fact, dynamic stalling is regarded as one of the prior obstructions for the
improved aerodynamic features of VAWTs. Thus, it is important to understand the effects of
dynamic stalling on it. This paper aims to present the dynamic stall investigation of a two-
dimensional VAWT blade, i.e. NACA 0012 at the low-speed condition. The phenomenon was
simulated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques to capture the leading-edge vortex
(LEV) and trailing edge vortex on the airfoil due to unsteady flow conditions. ANSYS FLUENT© with
manually hooked UDF subroutine was used to simulate the numerical results which were later
compared to experimental data. Unsteady Reynold Average Navier Stokes (URANS) SST 𝑘 −𝜔
modeling was used to capture the dynamic stalling in a more detailed fashion.

12.4.1 Introduction
The energy crisis has become one of the major problems for humanity. With the consumption of fossil
fuel and other resources, the world’s climate is changing dramatically. So, environment-friendly
energy resources like wind energy have become an auspicious choice for engineers and scientist.
Developed countries are now relying more on clean energy than conventional fossil fuels. For
instance, in UK, total energy from total wind generation increased by more than one third, offshore
wind energy increased by 27 percent (20.9 TWh)431 vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) has some
conveniences over the Horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs) for the built environment such as low
sound emission, better aesthetic view, its insensitivity to yaw wind direction, and increased power

430 Sohaib Obeid, Ratneshwar Jha, and Goodarz Ahmadi, “RANS Simulations of Aerodynamic Performance of
NACA 0015 Flapped Airfoil”, Fluids 2017, 2, 2; doi:10.3390/fluids2010002.
431 UK Energy In Brief , Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, London, 2018.
 328

output in the skewed form432-433. However, VAWT experiences dynamic stall when the tip speed ratio
(𝜆) is low (generally 𝜆 < 5). So, it’s essential to have a clear understanding of dynamic stall at a low
Reynolds number. Modeling of VAWTs in dynamic stall faces some bold challenges434:

➢ Unsteady flow requires a time, accurate model.

➢ The rotor geometry does not allow for importing time grid simplification.
➢ A large amount of shed vorticity shows that model could be sensitive to numerical
dissipation.
➢ The development of shed vorticity must be modeled correctly inside the rotor diameter. To
avoid numerical dissipation, the spatial resolution of the grid must be very fine.
➢ The variation of the angle of attack of the blade with the azimuthal angle implies a varying
relation
➢ between lift and drag force. Use of the correct turbulence model and near wall model is
essential for this situation.

Figure 12.11-b is schematic of a straight-bladed fixed-pitch VAWT, which is an example of Darrieus

type VAWTs. Relative velocity faces by the blade always changes with the change of azimuthal angle.
Figure 12.11-a shows the rotating VAWT blade for a given azimuthal angle 𝜃. In the counter-
clockwise direction, the angle 𝜃 is increased. The relationship between the angle of attack 𝛼, the tip
speed ratio 𝜆 and the azimuthal angle 𝜃 can be expressed as flows:

U∞ sinθ sinθ sinθ

tan α = = → α = arctan ( )
ΩR − U∞ cos θ λ − cosθ λ − cosθ
Eq. 12.1

A B

Figure 12.11 (a) Flow velocities of a straight-bladed Darrieus type VAWT [5] (b) Fixed pitch straight-
bladed VAWT[6]

432 Mertens, S., van Kuik, G. and van Bussel, G.. Performance of an H-Darrieus in the skewed flow on a roof. Journal
of solar energy engineering, 125(4), pp.433-440, 2003.
433 Ferreira, C.J.S., Van Bussel, G.J. and Van Kuik, G.A., 2006. Wind tunnel hotwire measurements, flow

visualization and thrust measurement of a VAWT in skew. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 128(4).
434 Ferreira, C.S., Bijl, H., Van Bussel, G. and Van Kuik, G., 2007. Simulating dynamic stall in a 2D VAWT: modeling

strategy, verification and validation with particle image velocimetry data. Journal of physics: conference series
(Vol. 75, No. 1, p. 012023). IOP Publishing.
 329

When the angle of attack is significantly beyond the static stall angle, an airfoil or wing faces dynamic
stall under the unsteady motion. This dynamic stall usually followed by some events like larger lift
for a short period of time and pitching moment. This phenomenon is associated with the motion of
helicopter rotor blades, wind turbines, jet engine compressor blades, highly maneuvering air fighter.
The stalled process has four parts: attached flow, development of the LEV, post stall vortex shedding,
and the reattachment of flow. The Darrieus motion of blade is similar to sine curve and so, in a
rotational frame of reference fixed on the turbine blade, the blade will experience a cyclic sinusoidal
motion in the effective air velocity. Keeping that in mind, we choose a sinusoidal motion of the turbine
blade as its pitching motion.
12.4.2 Model Geometry and Numerical Technique
The geometry of this model is a 2D setup of an experimental investigation of [Wernert et al]435. The
blade executes an oscillatory motion around a fixed pivot point and follows a sinusoidal mode as
described in the
introduction. The function
for the angle of attack motion
is:

α = α0 + α1 sinωt
Eq. 12.2
Where 𝛼0 the mean angle of
attack is, 𝛼1 is the pitching
magnitude, 𝜔 is the angular
velocity. The pitched motion Figure 12.12 A Blade in the Pitching Motion [5]
of the blade is shown in
Figure 12.12. We have used
NACA 0012 with a cord length of 0.20 meter and having a Reynolds number of 3.73 × 10 5. The case
specification for the dynamic stall is shown in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2 Case Specification for Dynamic Stall

12.4.3 Dynamic Mesh and Oscillating Pattern

Dynamic mesh technique is used here to simulate the sinusoidal pitching motion. The mesh consists
of two domains: one is the fixed mesh zone and other is the dynamic mesh zone. Dynamic mesh
zone was further divided it into two sections: sub-grid I and sub-grid II in order to get a better
solution of the flow near the blade. We used the C-type mesh grid for sub-grid I. The circular shape
zone oscillates like a rigid body while the fixed mesh zone is kept stationary. A UDF (user defined
function) is developed and hooked up with fluent to control the dynamic mesh motion. Slip boundary
condition is used for the simulation. Upper and lower boundary is 16𝑐 and 12𝑐 away from the blade
respectively so that they have no boundary effects on the flow near the blade. The inlet and outlet are

435Wernert, P., Geissler, W., Raffel, M. and Kompenhans, J., 1996. Experimental and numerical investigations of
dynamic stall on a pitching airfoil. AIAA journal, 34(5), pp.982-989.
 330

placed 8𝑐 upstream and 45𝑐 downstream from the blade respectively. The value of 𝑦+ is less than 1
so that the boundary wall behavior is accurately resolved. For further discussion. see [Hasan et al.]436.
Our point of interest is in the domain of C mesh (sub-grid I) which is coarser than sub-grid II. The
turbulent process is still less understood phenomena in fluid mechanics. Turbulence models used in
modern day are either algebraic type, turbulence energy equation type or second order closure
type437.
Large Eddy Simulation (LES), Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), and Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) are the most used turbulence simulation methods. URANS (Unsteady Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes) is employed here because of its acceptable computational cost with
reasonable accuracy. To solve the governing equations, ANSYS Fluent © is used. Pressure based solver
is used for the incompressible flow. The calculations have been carried out using standard 𝑘−𝜔
model.
12.4.4 Results and Discussions
The objective of the work is to show the effect of dynamic stall on an airfoil having a Darrieus motion.
For this case, SST 𝑘−𝜔 model is used. Streamlines are computed numerically for a particular angle of
attack. The airfoil mostly completes 15° upstroke and then it retreats. Figure 12.13 shows the
streamline velocity vector for 𝛼 = 15° upstroke. Figure 12.13-b represents both experimental PIV
(particle image velocimetry) and numerical streamlines calculated by [Wernert et al]438. The
computed streamline by using SST 𝑘−𝜔 (Figure 12.13-a) is moderately matched with the
experimental data shown in Figure 12.13-b. [Spentzos et al,]439 calculated the streamline velocity
vectors (for 𝛼 = 22°, upstroke) in Figure 12.14 which is taken in three chord wise locations 𝑥/𝑐 =
0.25, 0.5, 0.75, (see [Hasan et al.]440.

(a) (b)

Figure 12.13 Comparison Between Streamline Velocity (a) Numerical (for 𝛼 = 15°, upstroke)
(b) Experimental Data [7] (for 𝛼 = 15°, upstroke)

436 Mahdi Hasan, Asif Kabir and Yeasir Mohammad Akib, “Dynamic Stall Investigation of Two-Dimensional
Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Blades Using Computational Fluid Dynamics”, AIP Conference Proceedings, (2019).
437 Allet, A., Hallé , S. and Paraschivoiu, I., 1999. Numerical simulation of dynamic stall around an airfoil in

Darrieus motion. Journal of solar energy engineering, 121(1), pp.69-76.

438 Wernert, P., Geissler, W., Raffel, M. and Kompenhans, J., 1996. Experimental and numerical investigations of

dynamic stall on a pitching airfoil. AIAA journal, 34(5), pp.982-989.

439 Spentzos, A., Barakos, G.N., Badcock, K.J., Richards, B.E., Wernert, P., Schreck, S. and Raffel, M., 2005.

Investigation of three-dimensional dynamic stall using computational fluid dynamics. AIAA journal, 43(5).
440 Mahdi Hasan, Asif Kabir and Yeasir Mohammad Akib, “Dynamic Stall Investigation of Two-Dimensional

Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Blades Using Computational Fluid Dynamics”, AIP Conference Proceedings, (2019).
 331

Computed non-dimensional
velocity at three different chord
wise location (𝑥/𝑐 = 0.25) is
compared with the experimental
data. At location 𝑥/𝑐 = 0.25 and
𝑥/𝑐 = 0.5, our numerical data
(Figure 12.15-a) matches
nicely with the experimental
data. (Figure 12.15-b). The
conclusion can be drawn by the
comparison between numerical
and experimental results, shown
in Figure 12.13 is that the same
trend in velocity along the three-
particular chord length location
is observed.
For a full pitching cycle, Figure
12.17 shows the vorticity fields Figure 12.14 Streamline Velocity for 𝛼 = 22°, Upstroke
for different angles of attack. For [Spentzoset al.]
the angles of attack 𝛼 = 5° and 𝛼
= 9° flow remains attached with the airfoil (Figure 12.17-a). Small laminar separation occurs at the
leading edge after 𝛼 = 14° (Figure 12.17-b). Counter-rotating vortices are observed in Figure
12.17-c and a LEV (leading Edge Vortex). As well as trailing edge vortex is produced. When the blade
retreats, some counter-rotating vortices is observed (Figure 12.16-d). Then the vortices began to
detach (Figure 12.16-e-f) from the blade and another counter-rotating vortex appear.

(a) (b)

Figure 12.15 Comparison Between Non-Dimensional Velocity Profile (a) Numerical (for 𝛼 = 15°,
upstroke) (b) Experimental Data [Spentzos et al.](for 𝛼 = 22°, upstroke)
 332

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 12.16 Vorticity for the Upstroke Pitching Phase Using (d) 𝛼 = 10°, downstroke (e) 𝛼 = 7.5°,
downstroke (f) 𝛼 = 6.5° downstroke

12.4.5 Conclusion
here, we studied and simulated the sinusoidal pitching motion of vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT)
blade i.e. NACA 0012 to observe the dynamic stalling effects. Unsteady Reynold Average Navier
Stokes (URANS) SST 𝑘–𝜔 modeling was used to simulate the blade under low Reynolds number. The
results are compared with experimental values and the results showed the same trend that we
expected. The leading and trailing edge vortices found in the result is the key features in a pitching
blade under the dynamic stall. From the study, it is observed that a more detailed feature of the blade
can be compared with a higher pitching angle than the present study. To get the full understanding
of the dynamic stall of the VAWTs, new simulations with high fidelity solvers like LES or DNS can be

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12.17 Vorticity for the Upstroke Pitching Phase Using (a) 𝛼 = 5°, upstroke (b) 𝛼 = 9°, upstroke
(c) 𝛼 = 14°
 333

deployed instead of URANS. In order to do so, our present work can be a good guide to compare the
results and draw a full-fledged conclusion on dynamic stalling effects of VAWT blades.

12.5 Case Study 4 - Numerical Investigation Of Turbulent Flow Around An Stepped

Airfoil At High Reynolds Number441
This study presents the numerical simulation of flow development around NACA 2412 airfoil which
utilized the backward facing step to explore the possibility of enhancing airfoil aerodynamic
performance by trapped vortex lift augmentation. This article concentrate on the effect of separated
flow and following vortex formation which is created by backward facing step on pressure
distribution and subsequently on lift and drag coefficient. Reynolds number that based on the free
stream velocity and airfoil chord is 5.7×106. The two equation shear stress transport (SST) k-ω
turbulence model of Menter is employed to determine accurately turbulent flow, as well as the
recirculation pattern along the airfoil. The Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) equations are
solved numerically using finite volume based solution with second order upwind Roe's scheme.
Steps are located on both suction side and pressure side of the airfoil, at different locations, different
length s and various depth s in order to determine their effects on lift, lift to drag ratio and near stall
behavior. The modeling results showed that all stepped airfoil cases studied experienced higher drag
compared to the base airfoil. Considerable lift enhancement was found for airfoil with backward
facing step o n pressure side at all values of angle of attack because of trapped vortex. The results
suggest that the steps on the lower surface that extended back to trailing edge can lead to more
enhancement of lift to drag ratio for some angles of attack; while the rear locations for the step on
upper surface was found to have negative effect on lift to drag ratio. Based on this study , the
backward facing step on suction surface offers no discernable advantages over the conventional
airfoil but showed some positive effect on delaying stall
12.5.1 Introduction
The aerodynamic design of various airfoil sections continues today as an elegant yet practical
engineering design problem. Theoretical studies of airfoil design led to the decomposition of airfoil
geometric characteristic into thickness, camber, trailing edge and angle of attack. Much of the early
design studies dealt with the proper combination of thickness shapes and camber shapes required
to achieve some aerodynamic goals. This subject is not only important in external flow; but also it is
very vital in internal flow such as the flow within the blade passage of a turbo machine.
For example, if one can design a blade that allows making a low mass flow zones in high angles, hence
expects an increase in the working range or operating range of compressors. This article investigates
separated flow developments around an airfoil that incorporate a backward facing step. The step is
employed to generate a vortex over its vicinity, which increase the momentum of special regions on
blade or airfoil and cause the moving of flow over it that may produce favorable effects in some flight
conditions. The origin of this concept in airfoil design is attributed to a two artists in 1985 that
published a book entitled "The Ultimate Paper Plane" in which they introduced the concept of a
stepped airfoil442. A Kline Fogelman airfoil configuration such as this was reported to have vastly
improved the performance of their paper creations and was expected to have a similar effect on real
aircraft.
Stepped airfoils were claimed to possess excellent near stall properties and being capable of "utilizing
drag" to achieve improved aerodynamic efficiency. A similar NASA sponsored study on the Kline

441 Masoud Boroomand, Shirzad Hossienverdi, Numerical Investigation Of turbulent Flow Around A stepped
Airfoil at High Reynolds Number, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009 August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA.
442 Kline R, The ultimate paper plane. Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y, 1985.
 334

Fogelman airfoil was carried out in 1974 at the University of Tennessee443. However, the cross section
carefully examined in the study had a wedge like geometry lifted directly from the patent an d kind
of missed the point.
[Fertis]444 reported considerable enhancement of the aerodynamic characteristics for a three
dimensional wing model in terms o f lift, drag, and stall angle445. Lift and the lift to drag ratio were
greatly improved for specific geometries and angle of attack ranges. Against above studies that have
done in low Reynolds number this work has been done in a high Reynolds number flow (5.7×106).
The airfoil was simulated with the variations of following parameters: step location, step depth, step
configuration and with the step on either the upper or lower surface. A standard NACA-2412 airfoil
was used for simulation because of the availability of experiment data in the literature446.
The present study aims on investigating the aerodynamic characteristic such as lift, drag and near
stall behavior of stepped airfoil configuration. The stepped airfoil parameters such as airfoil chord,
angle of attack, location of step, length and depth of upper and/or lower surface step are shown in
Figure 12.18. In the first phase of the present research, the results of two dimensional flows are
presented. Three dimensional studies are also under construction that its results will present in
future report.

Figure 12.18 Stepped Airfoil Geometrical Parameters

Nomenclature t Airfoil local thickness

C Airfoil chord
CL Lift coefficient, L/q∞ C
CD Drag coefficient, D/q∞ C Ui Mean velocity component
CP Pressure coefficient, (p-p∞)/ q∞ U∞ Free stream velocity
DS Step depth
K Turbulent kinetic energy Greek Symbols
LR Reattachment length α Angle of attack
LS Step length μ Molecular viscosity
Re Reynolds number, U∞C/ν μt Turbulent viscosity
XS Step location ρ Density

443 Lumsdaine E, Johnson W.S, Fletcher L.M, Peach J.E, Investigation of the Kline-Fogleman Airfoil Section for
Rotor Blade Application.1974, NASA, AE-74-1054-1
444 Fertis D. G, New airfoil design concept with improved aerodynamic characteristics. J Aerospace Eng. ASCE,

1994; 7:328-339.
445 See Previous..
446 ] Abbot I. H, Von Doenhoff A. E, Theory of Wing Sections. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1949.
 335

ω Specific dissipation rate

σk, σω Turbulent model constant
Subscript
L Lower
R Reattachment
S Step
T Turbulent property
U Upper
∞ Free stream value

12.5.2 Governing Equations

12.5.2.1 Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) Equations
For two dimensional flows, the time-averaged continuity equation and Navier-Stokes equations
along with energy equation, in conjunction with the isotropic turbulent viscosity hypothesis, are
written in a tensor form:
∂ρ
+ (ρui )j = 0
∂t
∂ρui
+ (ρui uj + pδij − τij ) = 0
∂t j
∂ρe0
+ [(ρe0 + P)uj + qi − ui τij ] = 0
∂t j
Eq. 12.3
The fluid is assumed to be perfect gas and obey the equation of state for calculation of pressure

1
p = (γ − 1) (ρe0 − uk uk − ρk)
2
Eq. 12.4
Shear stress tensor is
τij = τLam
ij + τTurb
ij
Eq. 12.5
Where the laminar and turbulent stress are

2
τLam = 𝜇 ( u𝑖,𝑗 + u𝑗𝑖 − ρu u δ )
ij
3 𝑘 𝑘 𝑖𝑗
2 2
τTurb
ij = 𝜇𝑡 ( u𝑖,𝑗 + u𝑗𝑖 − ρu𝑘 u𝑘 δ𝑖𝑗 ) − ρkδ𝑖𝑗
3 3
Eq. 12.6
Similarly, the conductive heat transfer rate is
qi = qLam
i + qTurb
i
−γ μ p
qLam
i = ( )
γ − 1 Pr ρ i
−γ μt p
qTurb
i = ( )
γ − 1 Prt ρ i
Eq. 12.7
The fluid is assumed air with a Prandtl number of 0.7 and turbulent Prandtl number of 0.9.
 336

12.5.2.2 Turbulence Modelling

Among the several variations of widely used two-equation turbulence models, the shear-stress
transport (SST) k-ω turbulence model of Menter447-448 is adopted to properly resolve the complex
flow over the stepped airfoil. This model is a two-equation eddy-viscosity model which merges the
k-ω model of Wilcox with a high Reynolds number k-ε model (transformed into the k-ω formulation).
The transport equations for the turbulent kinetic energy and the specific dissipation rate of turbulent
in cartesian coordinate, along with their coefficients, develop in [Boroomand & Hossienverdi]449 and
will not be repeated here.
12.5.2.3 Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions applied to the computational domain are as follows:
No slip boundary conditions are enforced on the airfoil surface.

60ν
u w = vw = κ w = 0 , ω=
β1 d12
Eq. 12.8
Where, d1 denotes the normal distance of the first node (cell centroid) from the airfoil surface.
Pressure is based on a second-order extrapolation from within the flow field. Adiabatic wall
boundary condition is used for temperature.
The far-field boundary conditions follow from the Riemann invariants. Depending on the sign of the
eigenvalues of convective flux Jacobians, the information is transported out of or into the
computational domain along the characteristic. The values of k and ω at the far-field boundary are
calculated from the following equations:

3 1.82k 0.5
κ = (Ti × u∞ )2 , ω=
2 Lm
Eq. 12.9
Where Ti is turbulence intensity and less than 0.1 %, Lm is the length scale constant and is the order
of 0.001.
12.5.3 Numerical Solution Procedure
The above equations are solved by finite-volume method in a non-uniform orthogonal body-fitted
grid. The inviscid flux terms are approximated by Roe's method with MUSCL treatment to achieve
second-order accuracy (2nd order upwind), and viscous terms are approximated by second-order
gradient theorem. The time derivative–terms are discretized using first-order backward Euler
implicit scheme.
12.5.4 Validation Test & Grid Independency Study
The major difficulty of model validation in the present case is the lack of adequately detailed
experimental data. In view of this, model validation is focused on flow over unmodified airfoil of
NACA-2412. Figure 12.19 represented the lift and drag coefficient for the current case at Reynolds
number of 5.7×106 in wide range of angles of attack in which the experimental data are plotted as

447 Menter F. R, Zonal Two Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows. AIAA Paper 1993; 93-2906.
448 ] Menter F. R, Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications. AIAA Journal,
1994; 32: 269-289.
449 Masoud Boroomand, Shirzad Hossienverdi, Numerical Investigation Of turbulent Flow Around A stepped

Airfoil at High Reynolds Number, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009 August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA.
 337

symbols, and the solid and dashed

lines represent the transitional
and fully turbulent models,
respectively. The figure highlights
the improvement achieved for
drag coefficient (CD) when using
the transitional model where the
corresponding curve is
consistently closer to
experimental data from the one
obtained the fully turbulent
model. The comparison of lift
coefficients are in an excellent
agreement with the experimental.
The lift coefficient results are the
same for the both of the models.
The location of maximum lift
coefficient (CL) predicted very
Figure 12.19 Validation of CL and CD for NACA 2412 Airfoil
well by means of k-ω (SST).
The discretized equations are
solved in C-grid system. The distance of the first cell adjacent to the airfoil surface was taken to be
1.5×10-5 chord which is sufficient to resolve the laminar sub layer, (y+≈1). The computational domain
extends 35 chords away from the airfoil. A grid-independent study is shown in Figure 12.20, for
stepped airfoil which XS,U/C=0.4,
DS,U/t = 0.2. Three levels of grid
refinement have been used. In
every refinement, number of total
grid is about 1.5 times more and
third one with 30000 grid nodes is
selected to be sure of grid
independency.

12.5.5 Results & Discussion

Numerical solutions are
presented in three parts and
results are produced in Reynolds
number of 5.7×106 but at four
different angles of attack, (-2o, 0o,
5o, 10o).

Figure 12.20 Grid Independency Study of Stepped Airfoil

 338

12.5.5.1 Effect of Step Location

For studying of influence of step location on aerodynamic behavior of airfoil, step front is moving
toward the leading
edge while the whole
step extended back to
the trailing edge, (LS =
CXS). In all of the cases,
the ratio of step depth
(DS) to the airfoil local
thickness (t) is kept
constant, and equals
0.2 (DS/t = 0.2). Step
location varies
between 0.2C to 0.5C.
The calculations are
done for both upper Figure 12.21 Step Shapes a) Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoil
and lower step
separately. The step shapes are shown in Figure 12.21.
Note in this part the ratio of DS/t is constant, but DS varies with moving of step location. For the upper
and lower step, with the moving forward from XS/C = 0.5 to XS/C =0 .3, step depth, DS, increases and
from XS/C = 0.3 to XS/C = 0.2, decreases. Before detailed discussions of pressure distributions and
corresponding lift and drag coefficients are presented, it seems necessary to introduce the
reattachment length that this length is the indication of circulation region.
The air stream
over the
backward facing
step produces a
separated flow
containing a
circulation zone
and shear layer
which the flow
will be attached
again after a
length of LU
(Reattachment
length). This
phenomenon is Figure 12.22 Velocity Profile Over the Top Step Corner and Reattachment
shown in Figure
12.22. Reattachment length definition and velocity profile over the step corner have to be introduced
as it is that shown in Figure 12.22. Reattachment length equals distance between the points that
skin friction coefficient is zero to the step location.
This length has significant impact on the variation of the lift and drag coefficient. Therefore variations
of this length for upper and lower stepped airfoils for this part are studied in detail. There are two
 339

important factors which influence the reattachment length450-451-452. The first parameter is step
depth and the second parameter is the velocity profile over the step corner. The former parameter
will also vary with angle of attack. If both of them increase, then reattachment length will increase.
The decreased of both of them will eventually reduce the reattachment length. The variations of
reattachment length against the step length for upper stepped airfoils are displayed in Figure 12.23-
(a). Keeping constant step location, the reattachment length is increased with the increasing of angle
of attack. This is due to the higher velocity above the step. Moreover, considering constant angle of
attack, when the step front is moved toward to the leading edge from XS,U/C = 0.5 to XS,U/C = 0.3. It
means that the step length
increased to LS,U/C = 0.7, the
reattachment length increases,
because of the both mention
factors increased, but when the
step front is moved from XS,U/C =
0.30 to XS,U/C = 0.20 (0.7 <LS,U/C <
0.8) the reattachment length
(LR,U/C) stayed without change
or a little reduction at α =-2o and
0o angles of attack. It is resulting
from reduction in step depth; also
velocity increment over the step
is negligible.
Figure 12.23-(b) shows the
same result for lower stepped
airfoils. Similar the above
explanation, in the fixed step
location (XS,L/C = Cte), as angles
of attack increased, the
reattachment length (LR,L/C)
decreases with it, against the
upper stepped airfoils, this is due
to the velocity over the step
decreased. The trend of change in
the reattachment length in the
fixed angle of attack for lower
stepped airfoil is similar to the
upper stepped airfoil but at 5o
and 10o angles of attack, the
LR,L/C is stayed constant or a little
reduction. Because of the velocity
increment over the step is
Figure 12.23 Variation of Re-Attachment Length Versus Step
negligible and step depth
Length for Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoils
decreases.

450 Adams E. W, Johnston J. P, Eaton J. K, Experiments on the structure of turbulent reattaching flow. 1984, Report
MD-43, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University.
451 Armaly B. F, Durst F, Pereira J. C. F, Schonung B, Experimental and theoretical investigation of backward-

facing step flow. J. Fluid Mech, 1983: 127:473-496

452 Thangam S, Knight D. D, Effect of step height on the separated flow past a backward facing step. Phys, Fluids,

1989; 3:604-606.
 340

Figure 12.24(a) shows the surface pressure distribution over upper stepped airfoils at 0o angle of
attack for various step locations. For upper stepped airfoils, only the pressure distribution of upper
surface is shown here. The distribution for the unmodified lower surface reminded the same
regardless of step. Figure 12.24(b) shows the same results for lower stepped airfoils. Also for lower
stepped airfoil, the lower surface pressure distribution is shown here only and the unmodified upper
surface pressure stays without change.
As evidence, significant changes in the pressure distribution occurs because of the presence of the
step. Step on the upper side of the airfoil increases the level of pressure distribution above the airfoil
in LR,U comparison with unmodified upper airfoil surface. The same results show the level of
pressure for airfoil with step on pressure side increase in the lower surface with regard to the
unmodified lower airfoil surface.

Cp

Figure 12.24 Pressure Distribution at α = 0 Angle of Attack for a) Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoils
 341

The location of minimum pressure is placed somewhere in the near of the center of circulation zone.
By extracting the reattachment length from Figure 12.23 for angle of attack of 0.0, it can be shown
that, the location of maximum pressure occurs about at the point that the flow is reattach again.
Figure 12.25 (a) shows the change in the lift coefficient, ΔCL, as a function of step length for the
upper stepped airfoils. Value of ΔCL represents the difference in lift coefficient between an
unmodified airfoil and a stepped airfoil. A positive value indicates an enhancement in CL and negative
value indicates a reduction in CL with respect to the lift coefficient of unmodified airfoil.
For upper step, when the step is moved forward, it means that XS,U/C is decreased consequently the
step length (LS,U/C) is increased, ΔCL is getting more negative. The reason can be seen in Figure
12.24(a), because the high pressure zone on the upper surface increases, hence CL drops more. But
in higher angles of attack (50 and 100) the extent of drop is more, because the circulation zone over
upper surface is larger.
For lower stepped airfoil, because of presence of step on lower surface, as expected, the lift coefficient
is enhanced. This is illustrated by the positive value of ΔCL in Figure 12.25(b). In this case, the high
pressure zone in lower surface increases as can be seen in Figure 12.24(b). Therefore, it is
concluded that the enhancement of lift coefficient is more when the step is moved forward. At higher
angle of attacks (50 & 100) this increment is less than lower angle of attacks because the circulation
zone in lower surface is smaller.

a b

ΔCL

Figure 12.25 Change in Lift Coefficient versus Step Length for

a) Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoils

Change in drag coefficient for upper and lower stepped airfoils are shown in Figure 12.27(a) and
(b). The first object that can be found in these figures is that the all stepped airfoils with different
step lengths, experienced higher drag coefficient in compared to the base airfoil. The other subject
that is the worthy of note is the trend of variation in drag coefficient. Comparison of the behavior of
drag coefficient increment (ΔCD) in Figure 12.27(a) (b) with the extend of the reattachment length
in Figure 12.23(a) & (b) for upper and lower stepped airfoils respectively, it’s found that they have
the same procedure particularly for upper stepped airfoil.
This means that as reattachment length is more, change in drag coefficient (ΔCD) is also getting more,
as reattachment length stayed constant; ΔCD is also stayed without change. Drag increment for lower
stepped airfoil is less than the upper stepped airfoil drag at the same angle of attack and step length.
 342

This is due to the higher reattachment length of upper stepped airfoil compared to the lower stepped
airfoil. For further information, such as effect of CL/CD, please refer to the development in
[Boroomand and Hossienverdi ]453.

Figure 12.26 Step Shapes for a)Upper, b) Lower Stepped Airfoils

ΔCD

Figure 12.27 Change in Drag Coefficient vs Step Length a) Upper b) Lower Step Airfoil

12.5.5.2 Effect of Step Depth

The second parameter which is studied is step depth. In this case, the step location is kept constant
at 0.4 chord (XS/C = 0.4). The step depth, DS is varied in a range between 0 (airfoil without step) and
0.4 airfoil local thickness (t). The step configurations are displayed in Figure 12.26. As a previous
part, the step extends back to the trailing edge. The effect of circulation zone (reattachment length)
on the variation of lift and drag coefficient is similar to the previous investigated. Then they are not
discussed in detailed again.

453 Masoud Boroomand, Shirzad Hossienverdi, Numerical Investigation Of turbulent Flow Around A stepped
Airfoil at High Reynolds Number, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009 August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA.
 343

Upper surface pressure distributions of upper stepped airfoils are shown in Figure 12.28 (a). The
increased in pressure caused by reattachment of the flow can also be seen in this figure. As step
depth increased, a downstream migration of the disturbance was observed for upper stepped airfoils.
This indicates that the circulation zone (reattachment length) increased with increased of step depth.
Also pressure recovery became stronger. The similar trend is seen in Figure 12.28 (b) for lower
surface of lower stepped airfoils.

Figure 12.28 CP Distribution at α = 0 (a) Upper (b) Lower Stepped Airfoil

The variation of lift to drag ratio with the step depth for upper stepped airfoils in are shown
[Boroomand and Hossienverdi ]454, and not repeated here. With increasing of step depth, reduction
in CL/CD happened at all angles of attack. At higher angles of attack (5o, 10o), reduction is significant.

Figure 12.29 Step Shapes for (a) Upper, (b) Lower Stepped Airfoils

454 Masoud Boroomand, Shirzad Hossienverdi, Numerical Investigation of turbulent Flow Around A stepped
Airfoil at High Reynolds Number, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009 August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA.
 344

12.5.5.3 Effect of Step Configuration

In order to study the step configuration especially because the previous studies used a different form
455; it was decided to compare different configurations. In this section, the step location and step

depth are constant and equal XS/C = 0.4, DS/t = 0.3, but against the previous parts, that step extend
back to the trailing edge,
step cuts the
intermediate upper or
lower airfoil surface,
and the cut point varies
from X/C=0.5 to X/C = 1. a
The step shapes are
shown in Figure 12.29.
Before discussion of
pressure distribution
for these cases, it seems
logical to show sample b
of velocity vector and
stream line around a
Figure 12.30 Velocity Vectors and Stream Line Within the Step Region at α
airfoils with step on
= 0o
upper surface with close
up on the step region.
As can be seen in Figure 12.30 (a), for upper stepped airfoil which step extended be back
completely to the trailing edge, a circulation zone formed over the step, as indicated by the stream
line, which also show the flow reattachment some distance downstream the step.
Another flow visualize over the upper stepped airfoil is shown in Figure 12.30 (b), but against the
above sample, the step cuts the intermediate upper surface of airfoil. As expected, flow reattachment
occurs at the shorter length. Because of the convex shape of the region, flow accelerates as indicated
in Figure 12.30 (b) by the increases in lengths of the velocity vectors near the convex location. Both
of these stepped airfoils have the same step location at XS,U/C = 0.4 and step depth of DS,U/t = 0.3.
Figure 12.31 (a) and (b) show the surface pressure distributions of upper and lower stepped
airfoils respectively. The results indicate that there are some differences between these pressure
distributions with the previous cases studied. This discrepancy is due to the presence of convex
region on upper and lower surface. Existence of the convex region caused that flow accelerated and
ensuing pressure drop causes spikes, which can be seen near the X/C = 0.5, 0.6 and 0.75 for upper
stepped airfoil and X/C = 0.6 and 0.75 for lower stepped airfoil. The blue dashed lines exhibit the
stepped airfoils which step extended back completely to the trailing edge and they did not have the
spikes in own pressure distribution.
Variation of the lift to drag ratio of upper and lower stepped airfoils are displayed in456. For upper
stepped airfoils, similar the previous upper stepped airfoils investigated, the lift to drag ratio drop,
but for step which cut the intermediate upper surface, the reduction is less. For lower stepped airfoil,
at α=-2o the lift to drag ratio increased compared to the unmodified airfoil as expected, but the gain
in lift to drag ratio is more for lower stepped airfoil which step stretched back entirely.

455 Finaish F, Witherspoon S, Aerodynamic performance of an airfoil with step-induced vortex for lift
augmentation. J Aerospace Eng, ASCE, 1998; 7:9-16
456 Masoud Boroomand, Shirzad Hossienverdi, Numerical Investigation of turbulent Flow Around A stepped

Airfoil at High Reynolds Number, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009 August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA.
 345

However, the reduction of lift to drag ratio at higher angles of attack (5o, 10o) is less for stepped airfoil
which the step cut the intermediate lower airfoil surface. Improvement in stall condition is more for
upper stepped airfoils which step on upper surface stretched back to the trailing edge. Enhancement
of lift coefficient for lower stepped airfoils are more for step which extended back to the trailing edge
entirely,

Cp

Figure 12.31 Pressure Distribution at α = 0 (a) Upper (b) Lower

12.5.6 Conclusion
Numerical simulation of turbulent flow round NACA-2412 airfoil which utilized a backward-facing
step on upper and lower surface is reported. Based on the observation of the effects of step-induced
vortex on aerodynamic performance of stepped airfoil at Reynolds number of 5.7×106, the following
conclusion can be made:

1. Drag coefficient experienced higher at all angles of attack in all cases. When step front is
moved toward the leading edge which it means step length increased or step depth increased,
drag also increased for both of upper and lower stepped airfoils. Drag increment for lower
stepped airfoil is less than the upper stepped airfoil drag at the same angle of attack, step
depth and step length.
2. Incorporating backward-facing step on upper surface caused a reduction of lift coefficient
and lift to drag ratio at all angles of attack. Therefore the presence of step on upper surface
offers no advantages over unmodified airfoil but showed some positive effects on delaying
the stall point. The improvement of stall angle of attack is increased with the increases of step
length and depth. From the geometric point of view of the step, it is recommended that the
step on upper surface should not be extended back completely to the trailing edge, but step
cuts the intermediate upper airfoil surface in order to reduce the negative effect of reduction
in lift and lift to drag ratio.
3. For lower stepped airfoil, lift coefficient was higher at all angles of attack. In some angle of
attack a better ratio of lift to drag is achieved. This means that airfoils with step on lower
surface have a potential for more improvement.

Against the previous conclusion for upper stepped airfoil, step on lower surface that extended back
to the trailing edge can lead to more enhancement of lift to drag ratio. In conclusion, based on this
study one concluded that a single configuration is not, and cannot be, the best configuration at every
angle of attack.
 346

12.6 Case Study 5 - Numerical Study of 3D Flow Around the Wing Airfoil E562 With
Forward and Rearward Wingtip Fence
Authors : Setyo Hariyadi Suranto Putro, Sutardi and Wawan Aries Widodo
Appeared : AIP Conference Proceedings 2187, 020017 (2019)
Source : https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5138272
Airfoil is an aerodynamic model that is widely used both on aircraft wings, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) and fluid machines such as pumps, compressors, and turbines. The airfoil on aircraft wings
with the resulting lift force is used to lift the entire aircraft. Therefore, the researchers concentrate
more on wing modification so that the resulting lift is more optimal. Increased performance of the
airfoil on the wing can be done in various ways, one of which is adding a winglet to reduce drag. It is
hoped that a large enough lift and drag ratio will improve aircraft performance.
This research was conducted by numerical simulation using Ansys 19.0. with turbulent model k-ω
SST [Putro et al.]457. The velocity flow rate used is 10 m/s (Re = 2.3 x 104) with α = 0o, 2o, 4o, 6o, 8o,
10o,12o,15o, 16o,17o,19o and 20o. The test model is an Eppler 562 (E562) airfoil with and without a
winglet. From this study, tip vortex was seen in plain wings, forward wingtip fence and rearward
wingtip fence with lower speeds. In the area that has been separated (wake) which is indicated by a
lower speed in the three configurations x = 1c. In the z = 1.5c area, it is shown that there is a path line
pattern difference between the three configurations. It is shown that the influence of the three-
dimensional flow on the rearward wingtip fence where there is a higher velocity in the upper surface
area. In the trailing edge, z = 1.9 shows that there is a path line from the lower surface to the upper
surface in the plain wing and rearward wingtip fence. Keywords: wing, Eppler 562, winglet, tip vortex,
forward wingtip fence, rearward wingtip fence.
12.6.1 Research Methodology
This research was conducted by numerical simulation using Ansys 19.0 with turbulent model K-ω
SST. The freestream flow rate used is 10 m/s (Re = 2.34 x 104) with α = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,12,15, 16,17,19
and 20 degrees. The model
specimen is an E562 airfoil with
variations in the use of winglets.
The winglet that will be used is a
forward and rearward wingtip
fence. The Reynolds Number is
determined based on the length of
the chord. In this case, the chord
length used is 20 cm. Figure 12.32
represents the simulation domain
and the boundary conditions used
in the simulation. The test
configuration is shaped in the form
Figure 12.32 Simulation domain and boundary conditions
of an Eppler 562 type airfoil with
and without a winglet in the form of
a wingtip fence as shown in Error! Reference source not found. and the dimensions of the modeling
dimensions in Error! Reference source not found. [7]. While the meshing used in this simulation
study is shown in Figure 12.35.

457 Setyo HariyadiSuranto Putro, Sutardi and Wawan Aries Widodo, “Numerical study of three-dimensional flow
characteristics around the wing airfoil E562 with forward and rearward wingtip fence”, AIP Conference
Proceedings 2187, 020017 (2019.
 347

(a) Forward Wingtip Fence (b) Rearward Wingtip Fence

Figure 12.33 Specimens Model

Figure 12.34 Modeling Dimensions and Background Conditions

 348

Figure 12.35 Geometry and Meshing

12.6.2 Grid Independency

The use of simulation software requires data accuracy both in the pre-processing and post-
processing steps. The grid independence step is needed to determine the level and structure of the
most efficient grids so that the modeling results are close to true. Grid independence is done to get
the amount of meshing that tends to be constant so that it can be obtained in this independence grid,
the number of meshing is divided into 4 types, then from this type of meshing we will look for the
smallest difference in value of each meshing by comparing the numerical CD graph. The CD and y+
value of the grid independency in the numerical simulation is shown in Table 12.3 where it shows
the meshing variations of the three dimensional grid independency of the test model at the Reynolds
number 2.34 x104. To get more complete information on the area around the wall, it requires the
calculation of y+ on each meshing. In addition to the calculation of y+, the inflation layer is needed so
that the area around the wall uses a type of quadrilateral meshing so that information around the
 349

wall is more accurate. To calculate the smaller number of nodes, the area far from the wall will use
meshing tetrahedrons.

Table 12.3 Analysis of the Three-Dimensional E562 Grid Model Without Winglets

In this study, to get the best results, the y+ used is less than 1, as was done in the [Kontogiannis]
research. Based on Table 12.3. CD values that tend to be smaller occur in Meshing C. One of the
considerations in using numerical simulations is the time and memory used, then the meshing used
for comfortable simulations is Meshing C. In this modeling, the flow characteristics step, including
the selection of the solver model and determining the turbulence model are used. The solver model
used is unsteady. The turbulence model used for this airfoil is the k-ω SST model. The k-ω SST model
developed by Menter to combine the formulation of a stable and accurate k-ω standard model in the
area near the wall with the k-ε model which has advantages in freestream flow. To achieve this, a k-
ω SST model was made. (10)
12.6.3 Result and Discussion
12.6.3.1 Velocity Vector
In Figure 12.36, it is shown that velocity vector visualization comparison of the plain wing, forward
wingtip fence, and rearward wingtip fence. When the velocity moves from an angle of 90o to 270o, the
velocity strength is higher. But when velocity moves from 270o to 90o it has a lower value. In Figure
12.36 (a) it is shown that the plain wing has a high velocity density value at x = 0.5c. In Figure
12.36 (b) it is shown that at x = c, the velocity density has decreased but still has a high value. This
is indicated by the resulting velocity vector length. In Figure 12.36 (c), the forward wingtip fence
cant angle 90o produces The forward wingtip fence cant angle 90o produces velocity vector that
congregates around the fence and the vector density is more tightly than the plain wing. A similar
phenomenon occurs in Figure 12.36 (d) which shows the velocity vector decreases. However, at
rearward wingtip fence cant angle 90o at α = 17o, it produces the lowest velocity pattern compared
to plain wing and forward wingtip fence. This is possible because there is a flow leak around the
leading edge that is larger than the forward wingtip fence. This flow leakage not only causes a
decrease in speed around the rearward wingtip fence but also causes an irregular flow pattern as
shown in Figure 12.36 (e). In Figure 12.36 (f) it can be seen that irregular flow patterns behind
the wing into the direction of the wingspan. The flow pattern from the bottom side controverts with
the airflow from the top side. This results in a decrease in the velocity value at the rearward wingtip
fence.
 350

Figure 12.36 Velocity Vector y and z on Wing Airfoil α = 17o

12.6.3.2 Velocity Path Line

Figure 12.37 shows the velocity contour along with the path line of the flow passing through the
plain wing Eppler 562 and with the winglets, at α = 17o. It is seen from the cut in the midspan and the
area near the tip (z/s = 0.9). It can be seen that the visualization of the velocity path line and contours
value in each variation show a certain pattern.
At α = 17o, there is a difference in the phenomenon of flow passing through the airfoil midspan. On
the Eppler 562 airfoil with a forward wingtip fence (
Figure 12.37 (c)) it has a wake phenomenon that occurs slightly smaller than the plain wing Eppler
562 (
Figure 12.37 (a)). Rearward wingtip fence configuration has a smaller wake region than forward
wingtip fence configuration but larger than the plain wing. (
Figure 12.37 (e)). However, the plain wing and rearward wingtip fence have a slight velocity path
line that collides with the wake. It is suspected that this is the effect of leaps in fluid flow from the
lower surface to the upper surface. The effect of this fluid flow jump is seen in the z = 0.9 area both
on the plain wing (
Figure 12.37 (b)) and on the rearward wingtip fence (
Figure 12.37 (f)). But this does not occur in the forward wingtip fence. This shows that the influence
of fluid flow jumps from the lower surface to the upper surface is felt up to the midspan region. But
the result of the flow jump is influenced by the shape of the end wall in the wingtip area.
 351

Figure 12.37 Velocity Path Line on Wing Airfoil α = 17o

12.6.3.3 Velocity Magnitude

To observe the flow phenomenon in the tip region, velocity contours are observed in an isometric
view of a particular y-z plane. It can be seen from Figure 12.38 that tip vortex develops when the
flow is at greater x/c. This is the following numerical studies conducted by Wells (2009). To facilitate
the analysis of the vortex tip phenomenon in each configuration, the contours are only compared to
x/c = 1, 1.5, and 2. In addition to facilitating analysis, all configurations show the same pattern where
the magnitude of the tip vortex is greater at a large x/c. The illustration also displays velocity
magnitude in the y and z directions to clarify the tip vortex phenomenon. Figure 12.38 gives
information on the airflow of the trailing edge that moves from the lower side to the upper side. The
airflow forms a vortex called the tip vortex. This is caused by pressure magnitude value on the upper
side is smaller than the lower side so that the fluid jump to the tip of the wing. In the plain wing, it is
pointed out that the tip vortex phenomenon is relatively larger than two other configurations. The
 352

tip vortex then shrinks at a greater distance from the wing. Similar tip vortex phenomena also occur
in other configurations. Tip Vortex was arisen a small size develop with the shape of the end wall.
However, in the forward wingtip fence and rearward wingtip fence, it can be seen that the contour is
redder (velocity increases) around the airfoil in addition to the wake area. In areas that have been
dispersed (wake), the area with blue color increases. This phenomenon indicates that the wake
region is getting bigger when the angle of attack is raised.

Figure 12.38 Velocity Magnitude on Wing Airfoil α = 17o

12.6.4 Conclusion
This study shows the influence of the use of winglets significantly on fluid flow patterns. The
difference in flow patterns is seen in the midspan and the area near the winglet. The velocity vector
and velocity path line contours show this effect. From the numerical simulation, several fluid
characteristics are shown, including:
➢ Fluid flow leaps affect the velocity vector value and density patterns. The geometry
configuration of the rearward wingtip fence causes a decrease in the value and density of the
velocity vector compared to the plain wing and forward wingtip fence.
➢ The plain wing has the highest velocity vector value and density compared to other geometric
configurations.
➢ The effect of a fluid flow jump (tip vortex) has an impact that reaches the fold including in the
form of the wake. Wake formed from plain wing shows the lowest value and wider area
compared to other configurations. The use of winglets can reduce wake wide, especially in
midspan areas. In the wingtip region, the fluid flow jumps from the lower surface to the upper
surface.
 353

➢ The addition of winglets influences the size of the wake in the midspan area and the size of
the vortex tip behind the wingtip. Adding winglets will reduce wake size and tip vortex.
➢ The reduction in wake means reducing the induced drag generated from the E562 airfoil.

12.6.5 References
1. Kody F, Bramesfeld G, Schmitz S. An Efficient Methodology for Using a Multi-Objective Evolutionary
Algorithm for Winglet Design. Tech Soar. 2013;37(3), pp.45–56.
2. El Haddad N. Aerodynamic and Structural Design of a Winglet for Enhanced Performance of a
Business Jet Scholarly Commons Citation. 2015;112. Available from:
https://commons.erau.edu/edt/265
3. Hossain A, Rahman A, Hossen J, Iqbal P, Shaari N, Sivaraj GK. Drag reduction in a wing model using
a bird feather like winglet. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng. 2011;5(3),pp.267–72.
4. Amendola G, Dimino I, Concilio A, Andreutti G, Pecora R, Cascio M Lo. Preliminary design process
for an adaptive winglet. Int J Mech Eng Robot Res. 2018;7(1),pp.83–92.
5. Wei Z, Meijian S. Design optimization of aerodynamic shapes of a wing and its winglet using modified
quantum behaved particle swarm optimization algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng.
2014;228(9):1638–47.
6. Panagiotou P, Efthymiadis M, Mitridis D, Yakinthos K. A CFD-aided investigation of the morphing
winglet concept for the performance optimization of fixed-wing MALE UAVS. 2018 Applied Aero. Conf.
2018,pp.1–14.
7. Setyo Hariyadi SP, Sutardi, Widodo WA, Mustaghfirin MA. Aerodynamics analysis of the wingtip
fence effect on UAV wing. Int Rev Mech Eng. 2018;12(10).
8. Mulvany N, Chen L, Tu J, Anderson B. Steady-State Evaluation of Two-Equation RANS (Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes) Turbulence Models for High-Reynolds Number Hydrodynamic Flow
Simulations. Dep Defense, Aust Gov [Internet]. 2004;1–54. Available from:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA426359
9. Kontogiannis SG, Mazarakos DE, Kostopoulos V. ATLAS IV wing aerodynamic design: From
conceptual approach to detailed optimization. Aero. Sci Technol [Internet]. 2016;56:135–47.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.07.002
10. Harinaldi, Budiarso, Tarakka R, Simanungkalit SP. Effect of active control by blowing to
aerodynamic drag of bluff body van model. Int J Fluid Mech Res. 2013;40(4):312–23.
 354

13 Boundary Layer and Axisymmetric Flow

13.1 Unsteady 2D Compressible Boundary Layer
The 2D formulation which are both applicable to Cartesian and axisymmetric flow are devised in Eq.
13.1. The m, is a flow index equal to the unity for axisymmetric flow (r m = r) and equal to zero
for 2D flow (rm = 1). For a generalized 2D, unsteady, compressible Boundary Layer equations, they
are:

ρ  m 
continuty : + (r ρu) + (r mρv) = 0
t x y
u u u p 1   m  u 
momentum : ρ + ρu + ρv =− + r  μ 
t x y x r m y   y 

H p H H 1   m  μ H  1  u  
energy : ρ + + ρu + ρv = m  
r + u  1 − μ  
t t x y r y   Pr y  Pr  y  
u2 + w2
state : ρ = ρ(p,T) and H = cpT +
2
Eq. 13.1
Equation Marched to obtain
A few common difference schemes and the
decoupling strategy will be outlined in X - Momentum ujn+1
Table 13.1. Chief among them are Energy Hjn+1

• Crank-Nicolson scheme (CN) Equation of State + vjn+1

• Krause zig-zag scheme - The Krause Continuity
difference scheme is somewhat
Table 13.1 Decoupling Strategy of Boundary Layer
simpler than CN scheme, primarily Equations
because most difference
representation are only averaged between n+1 and n. (see Figure 13.1).

A general strategy that can be adopted for solving this system is:

1. Use ∂P/∂y = Constant to deduce the pressure field (from a knowledge of the outer, free-stream
conditions).
2. Solve the U-momentum equation, treating it as 1D in the y direction.
3. Obtain V from continuity.

Some iteration over steps 2 and 3 will be needed, since V appears in the U-momentum convection
terms. The above process is then repeated until it converges. The unsteady 2D boundary layer
equations differs only in couple of terms. It is also parabolic but with time as the marching
parameter. Values of u, v, H and fluid properties must be stored at grid points. The main objective is
to develop computational procedures which will provide accurate and stable results when flow
reversal (u < 0) is present. When the flow reversal occurs in thru steady flow, it is crucial to employ
a difference representation which permits upstream influence. One of such techniques is Krause zig-
zag representation (Figure 13.1).
 355

13.1.1 Steady Solution for 2D Boundary Layer Flows

The primary dependent variable in the momentum equation in u and it is useful to think it as
transport equation for u in which terms representing convection, diffusion, and a source term.
Likewise, the energy equation can be viewed as a transport equation for H. This interpretation can
also be extended to include the unsteady term. With this, the equations can be cast as:

∂φ ∂φ 1 ∂ ∂φ
ρu + ρv = m [r m λ (μ )] + ⏟S
⏟ ∂x ∂y ⏟r ∂y ∂y Source
Convection of φ Diffusion of φ
Eq. 13.2
Where ϕ is a generalized
variable which would be u for
the boundary layer
momentum equation and H
for the boundary layer energy
equation, λ is a generalized
diffusion equation and S
represents the source term.
The source term are those
terms which are involved a
derivative of ϕ. The term
ρeuedue/dx is an example. The
momentum and energy
equations which can be cast
into this the general form are 
n +1 / 2
 nj ,k +1 −  nj ,k +  nj ,+k1 −  nj ,+k1−1

parabolic in x, therefore, a z i , j 2z
marching method will be
sufficient. By making
Figure 13.1 The Krause Zig-Zag scheme (a) Difference Tensile (b)
appropriate assumptions Continuity Equation
regarding the coefficients, it
is possible to decouple the
finite difference representation of the equation permitting the momentum, continuity, and energy
equations to be marched independently. After each marching step the coefficients in the equations
are updated458. Listed below are the popular solutions methods:

• Simple Explicit
• Crank-Nicolson and Fully Implicit Methods
• The DuFort-Frankel Method
• The Box and Modified Box Methods

And the recommended finite-difference schemes for their estimated order of increasing
programming effort as

• DuFort_Frankel

458Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984,”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
 356

• Fully Implicit (including Patankar-Spalding version)

• Crank-Nicolson implicit
• Fully implicit with continuity equation coupling
• Crank-Nicolson implicit with continuity coupling
• Modified Box scheme
• Box Method

Further information regarding the developments and implementation of boundary layer could be
obtained from [Köhler]459 and [H. Schlichting]460. Among the widely used techniques for 2D integral
boundary layer, Pohlhausen, Walz, and Thwaites worth mentioning. Others, by means of using a
transformation to convert a PDE to ODE, are the Falkner-Skan and Görtler.

13.1.1.1 Case Study - Numerical Study Aerodynamically Enhanced Mixing461

The focus here is the turbulent mixing of coaxial confined jets in which is demonstrate by several
studies that there are several parameters (geometrical and operating) influencing the process. That
is the reason we have simulated computationally a 2D shear layer study which by comparison with
experimental values.

13.1.1.1.1 Introduction
he turbulent mixing of coaxial confined jets is a complex dynamic process that is applied in a large
number of devices such as the engineering ejectors, pumps jet, industrial burners, combustion
chambers of jet engines, nuclear rockets gas, mixing chambers of turbofans or afterburners. Previous
work indicate that there are various parameters (geometrical and operating) that influence the
process of turbulent mixing such as velocity, temperature or density ratios, compressibility effects,
levels of turbulence of jets, pressure gradient and shape of the duct. [Ahmed and Sharma]331-462-463
presented a detailed review of the work done in the field, and have also presented measurements
obtained with LDV, and static and total pressures for seven velocity ratios. They concluded that the
process of turbulent mixing is strongly dependent on the velocity ratio between the two jets, and
found that the total pressure decay is greater when the velocity ratio increases, but is minimal when
the velocities of the outer and inner jets are equal.
[Acharya]464 conducted a detailed and quantitative research to study the influence of the velocity and
temperature ratios on the mixing with confinement, and concluded that the shear friction between
the two turbulent currents is greater in confined jets than in unconfined jets. The experiments

459 Michael Köhler, “Development and Implementation of a Method for Solving the Laminar Boundary Layer
Equations in Airfoil Flows”, Master-Thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2011.
460 H., Schlichting, “Boundary -layer Theory”, 7th edition, McGraw Hills Book Company, 1979.
461 Pedro S. D. Carvalho, Fernando M. S. P. Neves, Andre R. R. Silva and Jorge M. M. Barata, “Numerical Study

Aerodynamically Enhanced Mixing”, 11th Int. Conference on Combustion and Energy Utilization (ICCEU),
Coimbra, Portugal, May 09 – 13, 2012.
462 E. Razinsky and J.A. Brighton, “Confined jet mixing for non-separating conditions”, ASME J. Basic Eng. 93 3,

(1971), pp. 333–347.

463 Y.V.G. Acharya, “Momentum Transfer and Heat Diffusion in the Mixing of Coaxial Turbulent Jets Surrounded by

a Pipe”, Vliegtuig bouwku-ndig Ingenieur Geboren Te Mysore, Uitgeverij Excelsior, India, 1954.
464 Y.V.G. Acharya, “Momentum Transfer and Heat Diffusion in the Mixing of Coaxial Turbulent Jets Surrounded

by a Pipe”, Vliegtuig bouwku-ndig Ingenieur Geboren Te Mysore, Uitgeverij Excelsior, India, 1954.
 357

conducted by [Zawacki and Weinstein]465 and [Rozenman and Weinstein]466 on a wide range of
velocity ratios showed the presence of a vortex near the exit of jets of high velocity ratios, which was
attributed to a more effectiveness of the process of turbulent mixing in the shear layer region. The
experimental results for velocity ratios, λ, less than 1 also showed that the uniformity of the velocity
profile is achieved much more quickly than for the case of higher velocities467. A wide range of
velocity ratios was studied by those researchers revealing that the velocity ratio is a major factor in
the turbulent mixing process.
The rate of transfer of momentum between the jets increases when the velocity ratio increases,
promoting a faster turbulent mixing, which could be decisive in many practical cases, such as systems
for combustion and exhaust nozzles of the gas turbines. Other studies report the effect of the level of
turbulence of the jets468-469, and showed that a higher level of turbulence favors a faster mixture, but
did not reveal the presence of any recirculation zone, probably because of the range of velocity ratios
used. A similar observation was made about the effect of swirl in the process of turbulent mixing470-
471. A wide range of relations between the diameters of jets (2 <d t/d < 38) with relevance to many
ex int
applications was also studied13. When the ratio of the diameters is high, the transfer of the amount
of momentum between the jets increases with λ> 1 and the uniformity of the axial velocity profile is
achieved more rapidly.
On the other hand, when the ratio of inner and outer diameters is small, the transfer of momentum
between the jets increases when the velocity ratio, λ, is less than. [Razinsky and Brighton] studied
the effect of the ratio of the diameters of the jets, and found higher levels of turbulence for the largest
ratios. They also concluded that the length required to complete mixing is not affected by the
diameter ratio in the range studied. The investigations of the effect of the diameter ratio in the case
of the practical application to ejectors showed that the extension of the secondary flow increases
linearly with respect to the diameter472. [Neves at al.]473 study numerically the effect of the
turbulence

465 M.R. Ahmed, “Experimental investigation on turbulent mixing in co-axial, confined jets with low annular to
core area ratio”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
1997.
466 T.S. Zawacki, H. Weinstein, “Experimental investigation of turbulence in the mixing region between co-axial

streams”, NASA CR-959 (1968).

467 M. R. Ahmed, M.R. & S. D. Sharma, “Effect of velocity ratio on the turbulent mixing of confined, co-axial jets”

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 22 (2000) pp. 19-33.

468 T.S. Zawacki, H. Weinstein, “Experimental investigation of turbulence in the mixing region between co-axial

streams”, NASA CR-959 (1968).

469 R. Curtet and F.P. Ricou, “On the tendency of self-preservation in jets”, ASME J. Basic Eng., 86 4 (1964), pp.

765–776. 99.
470 L.E. Fink, “Influence of external turbulence on mixing of axisymmetric co-axial jets”, in: Proceedings of the

First Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, 2.11–2.21 (1977)

471 S.N. Singh, D.P. Agarwal and R.C. Malhotra, Mean velocity distribution of contras wirling co-axial confined

jets. Exp. Fluids 7 2 (1989), pp. 501–504.

472 See Previous.
473F.M.S.P. Neves, J.M.M. Barata, A.R.R. Silva, “Numerical Study of the Mixing of Co-Axial Jets”, International

Review of Mechanical Engineering (IREME), Vol. 5 n. 5, pp. 876-883, 2011.

 358

intensity in the turbulent mixing of coaxial jets and the results revealed that for relatively high
turbulence intensities of the outer jet a vortex is always present for velocity ratios of 6 or larger, and
this is independent of the turbulence intensity ratio. When the turbulence intensity of the inner jet is
kept constant and the ratio of turbulence intensities is increased, the recirculation zone decreases in
size, its center moves further upstream until it disappears completely. The existence of a favorable
pressure gradient as a similar effect, revealing that this is an additional parameter to be taken into
consideration together with the velocity ratio and turbulence intensity ratio as far as the
recirculation zone is concerned. In the pursuit to a more efficiency mixing of coaxial jets several
studies had been done in particular the topic of mixing of turbulent jets, being examples of its real
life application the turbofan engines with low bypass ratio.
In the sequence of this subject this paper presents a computational study of 2D shear layers confined
and unconfined (see Figure 13.2) with diameter ratios less than 2 were the predictions will be
compared with the experimental data. Next section describes the computational method used and
the boundary conditions. The results are presented and discussed in section III, and last section
describes the main findings and conclusions of this work.

13.1.1.1.2 Mathematical Model

The mathematical model is based in equations of continuity and momentum. The turbulent model
used is k-ε model where the governing equations are constitute by a set of coupled of partial
differential equations, which can be written in a general form as:

Figure 13.2 Flow Configuration a) Confined b) Unconfined

 359

∂ 1∂ ∂ ∂ϕ 1∂ ∂ϕ
(ρuϕ) + (rρvϕ) = (Γϕ ) + (rΓϕ ) + Sϕ
∂x r ∂r ∂x ∂x r ∂r ∂r
Eq. 13.3
where ∅ may represent any of the velocities, turbulent kinetic energy, dissipation, or any scalar
property, and S∅ and Γ∅ assume different values for each particular ϕ as shown in Table 13.2. The
terms of turbulent diffusion are approximated with the two equations k-ε turbulence model. The
Reynolds stresses are related to the rate of shear strain by the following equation:

𝜕𝑢𝑖 𝜕𝑢𝑗 2
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ρu′𝑖 u𝑗′ = −μ 𝑇 ( + ) + 𝛿𝑖𝑗 𝜌𝑘
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 3
Eq. 13.4
where μT is the turbulent viscosity, which is derived from the turbulence model and expressed by:

k2
μT = Cμ ρ
ε
∂u ∂v v ∂u ∂v 2
ϕ = −μT {[2 ( ) + ( ) + ( )] + [ + ] }
∂x ∂r r ∂r ∂x
Eq. 13.5
The turbulent model constants that are used have given good results for large number of flows.

Table 13.2 Differential Equations

 360

13.1.1.1.3 Numerical Model and Boundary Conditions

For the computational study of 2D shear layers (un)confined, with diameter ratios less than 2, is used
the TEACH code in which the turbulent model adopted is k-ε turbulent model in order to perform an
2D analyses of the velocity profiles and turbulent kinetic energy of two interacting jets in a confined
and an unconfined flow configurations. The two flows configurations that is study use are: a flow
configurations were the test section is confined (see Figure 13.2 a) and an unconfined test section
(Figure 13.2b). The computational domain, for both configurations, presents the same horizontal
length of 1.200 m. For the confined flow configuration the solution domain present a height of 0.150
m, therefore we have a solution domain of 1.200 x 0.150 m. This computational domain comprehends
two jets, an outer and an inner jet, the inner jet presents a height of 0.128 m, for the outer jet the
height is 0.032 m. For the unconfined flow configuration the total height of the simulation domain is
0.290 m remaining the same positions of the inner and outer jet. The solution domain for both flow

Figure 13.3 Initial conditions: a) horizontal and b) vertical velocity component

configurations are limited by four boundaries where dependent variables are specified: the inlet at
west, the outlet at east, an axis of symmetry and a solid wall or a free boundary at north depends of
the flow configuration. In the symmetry axis the vertical velocity is null as also the normal derived
from others variables, while at the outlet is considered a self-similar flow. At west the inlet region
where the velocity profile was generated through the experimental set of values and at north the
boundary depends of the flow configuration. For the confined flow configuration the north boundary
is represented by a solid surface, where typical wall function method is used, while for the unconfined
flow configuration is considered a free boundary.
Error! Reference source not found. presents the experimental velocity profiles that were used at t
he inlet solution domain for both confined and unconfined cases. The horizontal velocity, U, and
vertical velocity, V, was dimensionless by the mass averaged velocity, Umean between the inner and
outer jets at the inlet (X = 0). For the both configurations the mass averaged velocity is Umean equal
to 6.774 m/s. A sensitive study of the free boundary was also performed for the unconfined flow
configuration in order to set the height of the computational domain most convenient to this present
 361

study. In order to guarantee the validation of the grid used an independency grid test was perform
for three grids case for both configurations cases. Error! Reference source not found. represents t
he vertical profile of dimensionless horizontal velocity for the test section longitudinal length of X=

Figure 13.4 Independency Grid for Confined Case. a) X = 100 mm b) X = 735 mm

100 mm and X= 735 mm.

13.1.1.1.4 Results
In this section is presented and discussed the results from the computational study of 2D shear layers
confined and unconfined with diameter ratios less than 2 which will be compared with the
experimental data done in order to guarantee the experimental data validation. This subject presents
a greatly importance since the turbulent mixing of coaxial confined jets is an important factor in
turbofan engines with low bypass ratio. The Figure 13.5 - Figure 13.6 shows the vertical profile
for horizontal velocity for the confined and unconfined configuration, respectively.
In the Figure 13.5 for X = 50 mm downstream of the inlet the numerical and experimental values
are very similar until Y = 110 mm, where a peak discrepancy zone appears. The initial value for
numerical and experimental is u/umean= 0.8 and until Y = 110 mm the two sets of values are described
as almost vertical. For higher values of Y, an inflection point is present and the pattern change
abruptly. Further downstream of the computation domain, at X =100 mm, the velocity profile remain
similar as previously for Y <100 mm. Although at higher values of _ the discrepancy describe behind
are more pronounce, where the numerical values present a linear shape with constant slope and the
experimental values present fluctuations nevertheless they follow the numerical set of data pattern
being the velocity peak of u/umean =1.2 . For X= 200 mm the overall pattern remain similar with
retreat in _ initial values (Y = 0 mm) where the numerical and experimental initial values, for X = 0
mm, indent to 0.7 and 0.9 respectively. For the case of X= 395 mm the inflection point is progressively
moving further down in Y axis and the transition zone are increasable becoming smoother. The
inflection point is now at X =70 mm. The experimental values follow the pattern of the numerical
ones though with a wave like pattern. As concern the initial values they continue to retreat in the X
axis. For test section length of X =735 mm the numerical line is smother presenting a much more soft
 362

inclination with a descent of the

inflection point, situate now at X= 50 mm.
The numerical initial value is now 0.65.
Another interesting feature is that the
velocity profile at the north boundary is
constantly decreasing the velocity as
moving further downstream of the test
section. The experimental values follow
the pattern line of the numerical ones
and are increasable more similar with
lower discrepancy between them. At X =
735 mm of the test section the northern
point of the velocity profile present no
longer the fastest velocity. Finally at the
last position of the test section, X= 985
mm, the numerical line pattern is
smoother, the initial value retreat more,
now at 0.6, the point near the wall (north
boundary) is showing lower velocity and
the experimental set of values is more
uniform and similar with the numerical
data.
Figure 13.6 shows the vertical profiles Figure 13.5 Vertical Profile of Horizontal Velocity for
of horizontal velocity for the unconfined Confined Configuration
flow configuration. For the first case, X=
50 mm, the numerical set of values
present a straight line, vertical in the
position u/umean= 1.1 and continue until
reach Y=123 mm. From this position
until Y = 139 mm the numerical line
presents exponential increases in
velocity. For the interval (139 mm; 162
mm)the numerical data retreats and
decreases, also abruptly, the velocity.
Above 162 mm in the Y axis, the
numerical line starts to increase lightly
the horizontal velocity with smooth
curvature. The experimental values
present some discrepancies, until
position Y= 83 mm the pattern mean
line move away from the numerical
vertical line, although for higher values,
Y > 83 mm, the experimental set of
values converges to the numerical ones.
Downstream from X = 100 mm of the
test section until X = 985 mm, the
computational velocity profile move in
the direction of a uniformity in velocity Figure 13.6 Vertical profile of horizontal velocity for
profile, this means that in the section X unconfined configuration.
= 985 mm the profile presents less
 363

emphasize extreme, peak values of velocity, following an almost constant path and increase lightly
the velocity in the interval (0 mm ; 137 mm) of the Y axis and decreases until Y= 300 mm. The initial
values of experimental data, for Y= 0 mm is u/umean =1.1 and as moves downstream of the test section
the initial values decreases to u/umean=1.0 as we reach X=985 mm. As far as concern the peak values
of velocity and inflection points, namely 1.15, 2.2, 0.2 in the X axis, they become less pronounced. In
the last section X = 985 mm, only two inflection points exist: one at 80mm and the other 123 mm in
the Y axis. As concert to peak points the highest and lowest velocities are: 1.19 and 0.49, respectively.

13.1.1.1.5 Conclusions
In conclusion the present paper presented the analyses of the numerical simulation of 2D shear layer
for confined and unconfined flow configuration with diameter ratio less than 2. This subject
contribute to the global knowledge of turbulent mixing of coaxial confined jets which is an important
factor in some devices like turbofan engines with low bypass ratio. The computational method was
tested using the available experimental data, and revealed good capabilities for the simulation of this
kind of flows. The confined test cases reveal a jet flow attraction tendency to a nearby wall surface,
while for the unconfined test cases the wall confinement removal acted on the velocities and
provoked an outer jet deflection. It looks like in the confined test cases the confinement of the outer
flow retards the deflection due to the wall presence. For the both configurations no recirculation was
found. For complete info, please see [Carvalho]474.

474Pedro S. D. Carvalho, Fernando M. S. P. Neves, Andre R. R. Silva and Jorge M. M. Barata, “Numerical Study
Aerodynamically Enhanced Mixing”, 11th Int. Conference on Combustion and Energy Utilization (ICCEU),
Coimbra, Portugal, May 09 – 13, 2012.
 364

13.2 Compressible 3D Laminar Boundary Layer

The 3D unsteady boundary layer equation in Cartesian coordinates (see Figure 13.7), applicable to
a compressible laminar flow, are given below with y-direction is normal to the wall. This depicts the
3D boundary layer which forms in the neighborhood of a squat cylindrical body, resembling a blunt
nose. The body is placed in flat plate. By far, the most commonly case which involves 3D boundary
layer is on bodies of revolution at incident angle. The subject of 3D boundary layer equations will
not be covered extensively. Instead, we will outline the general numerical strategy required for such
solutions. Although the 3D boundary layer equations have hyperbolic nature in the x-z plane, it has
inviscid flow solution, required to provide pressure gradient input. The 3D boundary layer equations
have a hyperbolic character in x-z plane, and the Cartesian versions are depicted in Eq. 13.6.

 u v w

+ + + =0
t x y z
u u v w p   u 
X - momntum : + u + v + w = - +   
t x y z x y  y 
w w w w p   w 
Z - momntum : + u + v + w = - +    Eq. 13.6
t x y z z y  y 
H H H H    H  1  u w 
Energy : + u + v + w =  +  1 −  u + w 
t x y z y  Pr y  Pr  y y 
u2 + w2
where H = cpT +
2

Figure 13.7 3D Boundary Layer Formed Between a Squat Cylindrical Body sitting on a Flat Plate
(Courtesy of J. P. Johnston)
 365

13.3 Axisymmetric Flow

A 2D axisymmetric problem that includes the prediction of the
circumferential or swirl velocity. The assumption of
axisymmetric implies that there are no circumferential
gradients in the flow, but that there may be non-zero
circumferential velocities as depicted in Figure 13.8.

13.3.1 Case Study 1 – Steady Aerodynamics Characteristic of

Axisymmetric Surface
This work deals with the problem of an axisymmetric surface
protuberance mounted on a spherical nosed body of revolution
as investigated by [Qamar & Sanghi]475. The numerical
computations are carried out for laminar supersonic viscous
flow for trapezoidal shape axisymmetric protuberances. A
newly developed Particle Velocity Up-winding (PVU) scheme
Figure 13.8 Axisymmetric
has been used for the computation, as described in [Qamar, et
Flow
al.]476, where the it is an explicit two-step predictor–corrector
scheme, in which the convective fluxes are evaluated on cell faces using a first-order up-winding
method.

13.3.1.1 Problem Statement

Flow past a surface protuberance, as presented in
Figure 13.9, is an important class of problem
specifically for high speed moving vehicle in
supersonic/hypersonic regimes. Discontinuities in the
aerodynamic shapes often occur in the form of kinks,
fins, steps, cable covers, structure joints, spoilers,
stiffeners etc. The presence of such discontinuities
creates a drastic change in the local flow field
Figure 13.9 Axisymmetric Body of
surrounding the protuberance. A free stream Mach Revolution with protuberance
number ranging from 3 to 8 in steps of 1 at a fixed free
stream Re = 1.8×104 has been used. The steady solutions
are obtained using a time marching approach. with fixed free stream has been used.
The spatial flow pattern exhibits a strong bow shock in front of the hemispherical nose, which engulfs
the entire base body. Near the protuberance, the fluid particle decelerates due to the adverse
pressure created by the protuberance and thus the flow separates in front of the protuberance. This
point of separation is found to be a function of Mach number and the protuberance shape. A low-
pressure expansion region dominates the base region of the obstacle. The reattachment point for the
base separation is also a function of Mach number. As the Mach number is increased the reattachment
point shifts toward the protuberances base. A weak recompression shock is also seen in the base,
which affects the separated zone behind the protuberance. The important design parameters such as
skin friction, heat transfer, drag, and surface pressure coefficients are reported extensively. The
conservation laws are formulated in two dimensional curvilinear (ξ,η) coordinated system, with
transformation obtained from Navier-Stokes equation physical (r-z) plane. The non-dimensional
form of the governing equations in (ξ,η) coordinate system, expressed in vector notation is written

475 Adnan Qamar and Sanjeev Sanghi,” Aerodynamics Characteristic of Axisymmetric Surface Protuberance in
Supersonic Regime”, Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 6, No. 3, 2012.
476 Adnan Qamar, Nadeem Hasan, and Sanjeev Sanghi, “New Scheme for the Computation of Compressible Flows”,

AIAA Journal, 2006.

 366

in a slightly different form as:

U (F C − F D ) (G C − G D )
+ + =S Eq. 13.7
t ξ η
where subscript denote the convective and diffusive pressure term and described in details in
[Qamar and Sanghi]477.

13.3.1.2 Results and Analysis

The presence of protuberance on the base body introduces several new features in the flow field. The
detached bow shock formed upstream of the hemispherical nose and the region above this shock
remains unaltered by the introduction of the trapezoidal protuberances. The influenced region is

Figure 13.10 Mach Contours for (i) Mach= 3 and (ii) Mach= 8

477 See 158.

 367

primarily the region between the bow shock and the base body. Figure 13.10 (i) shows the steady
state contours of local Mach number of 3 and 8 with trapezoidal protuberance of H= 0.04. The Mach
contours clearly define the supersonic and subsonic regions of the flow. For the protuberance case
two new subsonic regions are created apart from the subsonic region in front of the hemispherical
nose. The recirculation regions in front and back of the protuberance are new subsonic regions
created by the protuberance. Also, since the new local shock and expansion waves are created around
the protuberance, the Mach ranges in the supersonic region are altered as compared to the case
where no protuberance is mounted on the body. The pressure contours (see Figure 13.11) indicate
wave structures in the flow field apart from the bow shock, which is surrounding the entire base
body. In the upstream region of the protuberance a weak oblique shock structure appears. For this
weak shock, the pressure gradient in the external flow (flow outside boundary layer) is large. But
near the surface, the pressure gradient is small which is mitigated by the interaction of the shock
wave with the boundary layer developing upstream of the protuberance. The pressure rise that the
shock wave imposes on the boundary layer creates a band of compression waves in the subsonic
region. These waves start in the subsonic part of the boundary layer and propagate to the external
flow. The boundary layer upstream of the protuberance thus converts the sharp pressure rise into a
more gradual one that it can negotiate. This gradual pressure rise, which is induced because of the
weak shock interaction with the boundary layer, is further aided by the pressure rise induced
because of the presence of the protuberance. This results in deceleration of the fluid particles in the
inner portion, which progressively increases until the stage is reached at which forward flow is no
longer possible at the surface itself. Thus, the separation appears in the continuously developing flow
pattern. The upstream separated vortex remains trapped between the weak oblique shock and the
left face of the protuberance.

Figure 13.11 Pressure Contours for (i) Mach = 3 and (ii) Mach = 8

The downstream region of the protuberance is characterized by flow separation, reattachment and
viscous-inviscid interactions. The flow separates slightly below the sharp corner on the right face of
the protuberance. The free stream above the corner undergoes an expansion resulting in a sharp
pressure drop behind the protuberance. The boundary layer that is separated behind the
protuberance develops a free shear layer in a region of essentially constant pressure. As this shear
 368

layer approaches the wall downstream of the step, it is compressed. The low-velocity part of the shear
layer reverses into a region of slowly circulating fluid in the base of the protuberance. In this region
the pressure is low and nearly constant. Downstream of the reattachment, the high-velocity part of
the shear layer overcomes the pressure rise at reattachment and forms a new uniform stream with
the redeveloped boundary layer. The incoming fluid flow above the protuberance, which is deflected
at the protuberance corner by the expansion fan, turns back to a direction approximately parallel to
the inflow by the oblique reattachment waves in the base region.

13.3.2 Case Study 2 – Unsteady Flow and H.T. Analysis of a Blunt Object with/without Forward
Facing Spike
The CFD and heat transfer analysis around un-spiked and spiked bodies at high speeds, was explored
by [Mehta]478. A spike attached to a blunt-nosed body drastically alters its flow field and influences
the aerodynamic heating in a high speed flow. The effect of spike length, shape and spike-nose
configuration is numerically studied at zero angle of incidence. The numerical analysis describes
overall flow field features over without and with forward facing spike attached to a blunt body at
high speed flow. The shock stand-off distance, sonic line, stagnation point velocity gradient and
stagnation point heat flux are analyzed and compared with different aero-disk configurations. It is
found that the hemispherical aero-disk experiences high wall heat flux as compared to the flat-faced
aero-disk. Numerical and experimental studies reveal that the wall heat flux levels are decreased in
the presence of the spikes and aerospike as compared to without attached spiked to the blunt-nose
basic configuration.
13.3.2.1 Background, Introduction and Literature Survey
The shock wave dominates aerodynamic drag and aerodynamic heating at high speeds of a blunt
body. The analytical479 and experimental480 investigations have shown that for the blunt body noses
with a fixed length, a pointed geometry with a blunt nose tip is most beneficial to minimize the wave
drag at high speeds. If aerodynamic heating is considered, a large blunt nose radius RN is preferred
since the wall heat flux, is reciprocally proportional to the square root of RN. A blunt nose481 is
beneficial in increasing the volumetric space to accommodate more payload and avionic components
in a space vehicle.
The features of the high speed flow field can be delineated through these experimental482 and
numerical483-484 studies. Based on these investigations a schematic of the flow field around the blunt
body, the conical, the hemispherical and the flat-face spiked blunt body at zero angle of incidence is
delineated in Figure 13.12. A hemi-spherical portion of the blunt body is accomplished by a bow
shock wave as depicted in Figure 13.12 (a). The total pressure loss over the shock leads to a high
wave drag. A well-known concept for reducing the impact of the bow shock wave on a blunt body,
while keeping a blunt nose, is the aerospike.

478 Rakhab Chandra Mehta, “Heat Transfer Analysis without and with Forward Facing Spike Attached to a Blunt
Body at High Speed Flow”, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Noorul Islam Center for Higher Education,
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, India, IntechOpen, 2018.
479 Takovitskii SA. Analytical solution in the problem of constructing axisymmetric noses with minimum wave

drag. Fluid Dynamics. 2005.

480 Eggers AJ, Meyer M, Resniko D, Dennis H. Bodies of Revolution Having Minimum Drag at High Supersonic

Airspeeds. Moffett Field, USA, NACA TR-1306: Ames Research Laboratory; 1957.
481 Yamamoto Y, YoshiokaM. CFD and FEM coupling analysis of OREX aero-thermodynamic flight data. 29th AIAA

Thermo-physics Conference, June 19–22, 1995, San Diego, California, USA, AIAA 95–2087.
482 Kalimuthu R, Mehta RC, Rathakrishnan E. Experimental investigation on spiked body at hypersonic flow.

The Aeronautical Journal. 2008.

483 Mehta RC. Numerical simulation of the flow field over conical, disk and flat spiked body at Mach 6. The

Aeronautical Journal. 2010.

484 Mehta RC. Numerical heat transfer study around a spiked blunt-nose body at Mach 6. Heat & Mass, 2013.
 369

The simplest aerospike design is a thin rod mounted on the tip of a blunt body as in Figure 13.12
(b). For the aerospike in ideal case, the boundary layer on the rod separates along the whole rod
surface due to the pressure rise over the bow shock wave485. The separated boundary layer forms a
shear layer that is reattached on the blunt nose. Due to the shear layer, the outer supersonic bow is
detected and a weaker conical shock is formed instead of the initial bow shock. The conical shock
unites with the reattachment shock further downstream. A recirculation zone forms inside the shear
surface and shows significantly lower pressure levels compared with the blunt body without an
aerospike. In the model of the flat-face and the hemispherical aero-disk, we observe a formation of a
bow shock wave ahead of the body as delineated in Figure 13.12(c) and (d). The flow separation
zone is noticed around the root of the spike up to the reattachment point of the flow at the corner of
the blunt body.

Figure 13.12 Flow Field Features for ; (a) Blunt Body (b) Conical Spike (c) Flat Face Spike (d)
Hemispherical Disc Spike - (Courtesy of Mehta)

Due to the recirculating region, the pressure at the stagnation region of the blunt body will reduce.
However, because of the reattachment of the shear layer on the corner of the blunt body, the pressure
near the reattachment point becomes large. However, the reattachment point can depend on the
geometrical parameters of the spike or the blunt body configuration. The spike is characterized by a
free shear layer, which is formed as a result of the flow separating from spike leading edge and
reattaching to the blunt body, essentially bridging the spike.
The separating shear layer from the spike leading edge of the aerospike attaches to the blunt body,
after entering through an expansion fan at the leading edge corner and a recompression shock at
attachment point. The attached shear layer then separates near the trailing edge and generates a
separation shock before reattaching point at the trailing edge prior to undergoing flow expansion.
The separated boundary layer forms a shear layer that reattaches on the blunt nose. The above
descriptions of the flow field features show that the flow field past a spiked blunt body appears to be
very complicated and complex and having a number of interesting flow phenomena and

485Mehta RC. Numerical heat transfer study over spiked blunt bodies at Mach 6.8. Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets. 2000.
 370

characteristics, which have been further studied in order to compute the aerodynamic heating at high
speeds. [Mehta]486.
13.3.2.2 Governing Algorithm
The time-dependent axisymmetric compressible fluid dynamics equations were written in integral
form, and the system of equations was augmented by the ideal gas law for numerical simulation487.
The coefficient of molecular viscosity was calculated using Sutherland’s law. A laminar flow is
considered in the numerical simulation which also agrees with [Bogdonoff and Vas]488, [Fujita and
Kubota]489, [Yamauchi et al.]490 and [Ahmed and Qin]491. The flow field solver uses a finite-volume
discretization employing the method of lines. The spatial computational region was divided into a
number of finite non-overlapping quadrilateral grids. Thus, the discretized solution to the Navier-
Stokes equations results in a set of volume-averaged state variables of mass, momentum and energy,
which are in balance with their area-averaged fluxes (inviscid and viscous) across the grid faces. The
finite-volume flow solver algorithm written in this way reduces to a central difference scheme and is
second order accurate in space provided that the grid is generated in an orderly manner and is
smooth enough. The cell-centered spatial discretization method is non-dissipative; therefore,
artificial dissipation terms are added as a blend of a Laplacian and bi-harmonic operator in an
analogous to the second and fourth difference. The artificial dissipation term was added in the
algorithm explicitly to prevent numerical oscillations near flow discontinuity to dampen high
frequency undamped modes. Temporal integration was performed using a multistage time stepping
scheme of [Jameson et al.]492 and numerical integration used on the Runge–Kutta method. The
artificial dissipation is evaluated only at the first stage.
13.3.2.2.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions
An initial condition corresponding to freestream conditions is considered. All flow quantities were
extrapolated at the outer-boundary, and the no-slip condition was imposed on the wall. An isotherm
wall condition was used for the wall of the model, that is, a surface temperature of 300K. The
symmetric condition is imposed on the centerline.
13.3.2.2.2 Computational Grid
One of the controlling factors for the numerical simulation is the proper grid arrangement. The grid
points are generated by a homotopy scheme493. Mesh-independence tests were performed, taking
into consideration the influence of the computational region, the stretching factor to control the mesh
intensity in the vicinity of body surface and the number of mesh points in the axial and normal
directions. The outer surface of the computational zone is varied about 5–8 times the maximum blunt
body diameter D. the mesh stretching factor in the radial direction is varied in order to resolve

486 Rakhab Chandra Mehta, “Heat Transfer Analysis without and with Forward Facing Spike Attached to a Blunt
Body at High Speed Flow”, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Noorul Islam Center for Higher Education,
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, India, IntechOpen, 2018.
487 See Pervious.
488 Bogdonov SM, Vas IE. Preliminary investigations of spiked bodies at hypersonic speeds. Journal of Aerospace

Sciences. 1959.
489 Fujita M, Kubota H. Numerical simulation of flow field over a spiked blunt nose. Computational Fluid Dynamics

Journal. 1992.
490 Yamauchi M, Fujjii K, Tamura Y, Higashino F. Numerical investigation of hypersonic flow around a spiked blunt

body. AIAA Paper 93-0887; 1993.

491 Ahmed MYM, Qin N. Recent advances in the aerothermodynamics of spiked hypersonic vehicles. Progress in

Aerospace Science. 2011.

492 Jameson A, Schmidt W, Turkel E. Numerical simulation of Euler equations by finite volume methods using

Runge-Kutta time-stepping schemes. AIAA paper 81–1259; 1981.

493 Mehta RC. Isoperimetric finite element method to generate structured grid for numerical flow simulation.

Journal of Aerospace Sciences and Technologies. 2017.

 371

boundary layer. The convergence criterion is based on the difference in density value at any grid
point between two successive iterations, that is, ∣ρn + 1 - ρ∣ ≤ 10-5, where n is the iteration index.
13.3.2.3 Geometrical Details of Model
The spherical blunted-cone/flare configuration without spike is illustrated in Figure 13.14 (a). The
spherical fore body has RN = 0.51 m, D = 2.03 m, L = 1.67 m, and cone angle of 20_. The flare has a
semi-cone angle 15 deg. and is terminated with a right circular cylinder. A close-up view of the
computational mesh is shown in Figure 13.14 (b).

Figure 13.14 (a) Geometrical Parameters of Reentry Capsule and (b) Enlarged view of Grid- (Courtesy
of Mehta)

Figure 13.13 (a) Heat Shield with Spike & (b) Enlarged view of the Grid - (Courtesy of Mehta)

13.3.2.3.1 Heat Shield with Forward Facing Spike

 372

The fore and after body diameters of the heat shield are 43.26 x 10-3 and 35 x 10-3 m, respectively, as
shown in Figure 13.13-(a). The semi-cone angle of the heat shield is 20 degrees. The hemispherical
nose of the forward facing spike has radius of 0.55 x 10-3 m and length of the spike is 10-2 m. The
other end of spike has diameter of 0.98 x10-3 m and is attached to the blunt spherical cap of the heat
shield of radius 8.75 x10-3 m. The computational grid is displayed in Figure 13.13-(b).
13.3.2.3.2 Conical Spike Attached to Blunt Body
The model is axisymmetric, the main body has a hemisphere-cylinder nose and diameter D = 7.62 x
10-2 m. The spike’s stem has a conical and cylindrical shape. The angle of the spike’s cone is 10 degree
and diameter of the cylinder of the spike is 0.1D. Length to diameter ratio of spike are considered as
0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 in the flow field and heat transfer analysis. Figure 13.16-(a) depicts the geometrical
dimensions and enlarged view of mesh over the model
in Figure 13.16-(b).

Figure 13.16 (a) Dimensions of the Spiked Blunt Body and (b) Computational Grid - (Courtesy of
Mehta)

13.3.2.3.3 Conical, Disk and Flat Spiked Body

(A) Dimensions of the Aerospike Blunt Bodies

(B) Close-up view of Computational Grid

Figure 13.15 Dimensions of the Aerospike Blunt Bodies with Grid (a) Conical spike (b) Hemispherical
Spike and (c) Flat-Face Disc - (Courtesy of Mehta)
 373

The dimensions of the spiked blunt body are depicted in Figure 13.15. The basic body has a
hemispherical-cylinder nose and diameter D = 4.0 x10-2 m. The conical spike is as shown in Error! R
eference source not found.-(a). The semi cone is 15_, the spike length L = 0.5 D and stem diameter
of 0.1 D. The spike having a hemispherical cap of diameter Ds is 0.2 D, attached to a stem of diameter
of 0.1D. The aero disk type configuration utilizes a hemispherical disk on its nose of diameter Ds is
0.2D as depicted in Figure 13.15-(b). The flat-faced aero disk with spike length L = 0.5 D is shown
in Figure 13.15-(c).
13.3.2.4 Results and Discussions
Characteristic features of the flow field around the hemispherical and the flat-disk aerospike attached
to the blunt body at high speeds were investigated with the help of velocity vector plots, density,
pressure and Mach contours diagram.

Figure 13.17 (a) Mach and (b) Temperature Contours over the Blunted-Cone/Flare Module -
(Courtesy of Mehta)

13.3.2.4.1 Flow and Heat Transfer Analysis of Axisymmetric Blunt Body

 374

Computed Mach and temperature contours around the un-spiked reentry module are shown in
Figure 13.17 for M∞ = 2.0–6.0. The Mach contours exhibit the vortices formation at the shoulder
region of the module. Behaviors of the flow field around the blunt body at supersonic speeds shows
the formation of the bow shock wave ahead of the blunt body; the wake, and the recompression shock
waves coming out from the neck point are observed in the Mach contours. The flow expands at the
base region and is followed by the recompression shock downstream of the base. Then, the flow
progress in the wake region. The flow ground of the capsule is divided into regions inside and outside
of the flow recirculation zone, and two flow zones are separated by the shear layer. From the
temperature contours, a rapid raise of temperature with the increase of M∞ can be observed.
Figure 13.18 shows the pressure coefficient [Cp = 2{(p/p∞)-1}/ϒM2∞] and wall heat flux qw
variation along the surface of the reentry module for M∞ = 2.0–6.0. The s/D = 0 location is the
stagnation point, where s is the distance taken along the surface of the blunt body from the stagnation
point and D is the maximum diameter of the module. The pressure coefficient on the spherical cap of
the capsule decreases gradually for a given M∞. It can be visualized from Figure 13.18 (a) that the
Cp falls on the sphere-cone junction and remains constant over the cone. A sudden drop in Cp is
observed on the shoulder of the module followed by a negative Cp variation in the base flow region.
A low pressure is occurred immediately downstream of the base of the module which is characterized
by a low speed recirculating flow region. In the base region, Cp is decreases with increasing M_. The
variation of wall heat flux along the body is shown in Figure 13.18 (b). The wall heat flux qw
distribution along the wall shows similar characteristics as the pressure coefficient variation and qw
increases with increasing M∞.

Figure 13.18 (a) Variation of Pressure Coefficient and (b) Wall Heat Flux over Re-entry Module -
(Courtesy of Mehta)

13.3.2.4.2 Heat Shield with a Forward-Facing Spike

Figure 13.19 depicts the close-up view of the velocity vector plots and Mach contours un-spiked
and spiked over the heat shield. We can visualize from the vector plot in Figure 13.19 (a) the
interaction between bow shock wave and reattachment shock. The recirculation region behaves as if
it has a spike boundary. A significant flow field is found around the un-spiked and spiked heat shield
as depicted in Figure 13.19 (b).
 375

Figure 13.19 (a) Velocity Vector and (b) Mach Contours over the Heat Shield at M∞= 2.0
(Courtesy of Mehta)

13.3.2.4.3 Conical Spike Attached to the Blunt Body

Interaction between the conical oblique shock wave starting from the tip of the spike and the
reattachment shock wave of blunt body is observed in the pressure, density and Mach contours in
Figure 13.20. The reflected reattachment wave and shear layer from the interaction are shown
behind the reattachment shock wave. A large separated region is found in front of the blunt body
and the shear layer, the boundary of the separated region is Figure 13.18.

Figure 13.20 Contour Plots Over the Spiked Blunt Body: (a) Pressure (b) Density and (c) Mach
Number - (Courtesy of Mehta)

13.3.2.4.4 Shock Stand-Off Distance

The computed density contour plots over the conical, the hemispherical and the flat-faced aero
spiked configurations are shown in Figure 13.21 (a), (b) and (c), respectively. The separated shear
layer and the recompression shock from the reattachment point on the corner of the un-spiked blunt
body are observed in the flow field region of contour diagram. The bow shock wave in front of the
aerospike disk will decrease the aerodynamic drag as compared to the case the un spiked body as
observed in the contour plots. In the fore-region of the aero disk, the flow velocity decreases after the
bow shock wave. At the corner of the aero disk, the flow turns and expands rapidly, the boundary
layer separates, gives a free-shear layer that separates the recirculating flow zone after the base
region to the outer region. For the case of a button type spike flying at hypersonic speeds, a detached
bow shock wave is observed in front of the spike which is appeared normal at to the body axis. Since
the flow behind the normal shock is subsonic, simple continuity considerations may show that the
 376

shock-detachment distance and stagnation-velocity gradient are essentially a function of ρ2/ρ∞

across the normal shock. The flow behind the bow shock wave is subsonic; the flow is no longer
independent of the far downstream influences.

Figure 13.21 Mach Contours : (a) Conical Spike, (b) Hemisphere, (c) Flat-Faced Aero Spike Attached to
the Blunt Body - (Courtesy of Mehta)

An alteration of the spike geometry in the subsonic region alters the complete flow field up to the
bow shock wave. Figure 13.23(a) shows schematic bow shock standoff distance and the position
of the sonic line. A schematic sketch of the bow shock stand-off distance of the flat-faced and the
hemispherical spike attached to the blunt body is shown in Figure 13.23 (b) and (c). The bow
shock-detachment distance becomes smaller with increasing ρ2/ρ∞. [Probstein]494 gives an
expression for the shock detachment distance ∆F (Figure 13.23(b)) with diameter of the flat-disk
DS radio as:

∆F ρ∞
= 2.8√
DS ρ0
Eq. 13.8
The gas is considered thermally and calorically perfect. The ratio of the flow properties across the
normal shock wave495-496 can be calculated as a function of M∞ and ϒ, the relations are

494 Probstein RF. Inviscid flow in the stagnation region of very blunt-nosed bodies at hypersonic flight speeds.
WADC–TN 56-395; Sept. 1956.
495 Ames Research Staff. Equations, Tables and Charts for Compressible Flow. Moffett Field, USA, NACA report

1135: Ames Research Laboratory, 1953.

496 Liepmann HW, Roshko A. Elements of Gas Dynamics. 1st South Asian ed. New Delhi: Dover Publications Inc,

2007.
 377

2
ρ2 (Υ + 1)M∞
=
ρ∞ (Υ − 1)M∞2 +2
Eq. 13.9
1
( )
2 2 γ−1
ρ2 (γ + 1)M∞ γ − 1 (γ − 1)M∞ +2
= [1 + [ ]]
ρ∞ (γ − 1)M∞2 +2 2 2γM∞ 2 −γ+1

Eq. 13.10
γ 1
2 (λ−1) ( )
pe (γ + 1)M∞ γ+1 γ−1
=[ ] [ 2 +γ−1
]
p∞ 2 2γM∞
Eq. 13.11
The effects of the subsonic flow on the hemispherical and the flat-face disk bodies have been
investigated by [Truit]497. The nomenclature is illustrated in Figure 13.23 (a). The freestream flow
passes through the normal portion of the shock wave reaching state 2 then decelerates isentropically
to state e, which constitutes the edge condition for the thermal boundary layer at the stagnation
point. The ratio of shock stand-off distance ∆S with hemispherical spike of diameter,

ρ
∆S 2 ( ∞)
ρ0
=
DS ρ
8 ∞
√ ( ρ0 )
1+
3
Eq. 13.12
The values of ∆F/DS and ∆S/DS are found to be 0.1898 and 0.1109, respectively. The spherical spike
shows the greatest change in velocity gradient as compared to the flat-face disk. The flow is
compressed to subsonic condition, which appears as inviscid and incompressible. The shock wave
stands in front of the blunt body and forms a region of subsonic flow around the stagnation region.
The bow shock wave stand-off distance is calculated employing the following asymptotic formula of
Frank and Zierep498:
2
∆ 2(b)3
= 2 −1
RN 2
M∞−1 3
[ 2]
(γ + 1)M∞
Eq. 13.13
where the value of b is taken as 0.14. The bow shock stand-off distance Δ/RN is 0.17. The present
numerical data is in agreement with the experimental data, asymptotic formula of [Frank and
Zierep]499 and with the theoretical results of Van Dyke and Gordon500.
13.3.2.4.5 Surface Pressure Variations

497 Truitt RW. Hypersonic Aerodynamic. New York, USA: Ronald Press Co.; 1959.
498 Frank W, Zierep J. Schallnahe überschallströmung um rotationssymmetrische körper. Acta Mech.
1974;19:277-287.
499 Stilp, A: Strömungsuntersuchungen an Kgeln mit tranonischen und supersonischen Geschwidigkeiten in Luft

und Frigen-Luftgemischen Bericht Nr. 10.65, Fckerstrasse 4, Germany; 1965.

500 Van Dyke MD, Gordon HD. Supersonic flow past a family of blunt axisymmetric bodies. NASA TR-R 1; 1959.
 378

The pressure coefficient distribution on the spiked blunt-body with other aerospikes configurations
is given in Figure 13.22. The x/R = 0 is the location of the spike tip, where R is radius of the blunt
body. The maximum pressure on the surface of the spiked blunt body is found at an angle of about
40 degrees. This is the point of flow reattachment. It is interesting to notice that the maximum
pressure is obtained on the same location on the hemisphere body. The low pressure region in front
of the body attributes reason for the drag reduction. [Mehta]501 depict the variation of pressure
coefficient, non-dimensional pressure, skin friction coefficient and wall heat flux over the spike
surface facing the flow direction along the spike.

Figure 13.22 Variations of (a) Pressure Coefficient and (b) Wall Heat Flux over the Spiked Blunt Body -
(Courtesy of Mehta)

The s/DS = 0 is measured from the stagnation point. The s is location along the surface of spike and
DS is diameter of the spike as shown in Figure 13.23 (b) and (c). The p/p∞ on the stagnation point
is 38.23 and 48.84 for the flat-disk aerospike and the hemispherical disk aerospike, respectively. The
pressure ratio across the normal shock is 41.83. It shows the percentage p/p∞ difference of the order
of -8.59% and 16.77% for the flat-disk and the hemispherical disk aerospike, respectively. The
difference is attributed to the finite compressibility in the shock and the spike surface.
13.3.2.4.6 Stagnation Point Heating and Wall Heat Flux
The nose tip of a high-speed vehicle usually is hemi-spherically in shape. Consequently, a normal
detached shock is formed in front of the stagnation point as depicted in Figure 13.23 (a) which
extends around the body as a curved oblique shock. The shock wave stands in front of the blunt body
and forms a region of subsonic flow around the stagnation region and sonic line. The flow in the shock
is at low subsonic speeds in the stagnation region and accelerates to sonic speeds in the shoulder
region. For flat-nosed body, the detached bow shock wave of the nose is particularly normal to the
body axis. A compressible subsonic region is formed between the body and the shock which is a
function of density ratio across the normal shock.

501 Rakhab Chandra Mehta, “Heat Transfer Analysis without and with Forward Facing Spike Attached to a Blunt
Body at High Speed Flow”, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Noorul Islam Center for Higher Education,
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, India, IntechOpen, 2018.
 379

Figure 13.23 (a) Schematic of Flow Field over the Blunt Body, (c) The Hemisphere and (b) the Flat-
Face Disc Spiked - (Courtesy of Mehta)

The shock-detachment distance Δ and stagnation-velocity gradient K are essentially functions of

density ratio across the normal shock. One of the areas of concern is the stagnation point heating of
a spiked and un-spiked body, when the incoming high-velocity flow is come to stagnation on the wall
by a normal shock and adiabatically compression process. The problem now becomes finding out the
heat flux in the vicinity of the stagnation point. It requires a solution of the entire flow field from
shock to the body.
The inviscid flow field in the vicinity of the stagnation point is described in a fluid dynamics sense as
the conversion of a unidirectional high-velocity stream by a normal shock wave into a high
temperature subsonic layer, which is taken to be inviscid and incompressible. The heat transfer rate
is directly proportional to the enthalpy gradient on the body surface and square root of the velocity
gradient, (β = due/dx)s. The inviscid flow field in the vicinity of the stagnation point is described as
the conversion of the unidirectional, high-velocity flow by a normal shock wave into a high
temperature subsonic flow. The enthalpy gradient is depended on the shape of the velocity profile in
the boundary layer and by the variation of the air properties with temperature. Wall heat flux at the
stagnation point of the blunt body can be calculated using the following expression of [Fay and
 380

Riddell]502
𝜌𝑤 𝜇𝑤
q𝑤 = 0.736 Pr −0.6 √(𝜌𝑒 𝑢𝑒 𝑘)√ (ℎ − ℎ𝑤 )
𝜌𝑒 𝜇𝑒 𝑒
Eq. 13.14
The stagnation point velocity gradient can be written as non-dimension parameter as (K = βD/V∞),
where D is the diameter of the blunt body. Newtonian flow and similarity method methods do not
take into consideration the finite compressibility that exists between the shock wave and the spike
surface. Experiments were conducted in the supersonic wind tunnel to obtain the values of the
stagnation point velocity gradient. The numerical analysis is able to take into consideration the
compressibility effects in the subsonic region. The stagnation point stream-wise velocity gradient is
given by the Newtonian impact theory, viz., due

due 1 2(ρ2 − ρ∞ )
( ) = √
dx s RN ρ2
Eq. 13.15
It is important to mention here that the sphere shows the greatest change in velocity gradient as
compared to the flat disk. The magnitude of the stagnation-velocity gradient indicates the maximum
heat transfer rate. The disk or flat plate with free streamlines will experience the lowest stagnation
wall temperature of blunt body. The value K is considered as 0.3. The hemispherical aerospike
exhibits the significant changes in the magnitude of K as compared to the flat disk aerospike. The
magnitude of the K also indicates the maximum heat transfer rate over the hemispherical disk. The
computed values of the stagnation point heat flux qw,s are 0.556 x 107 W/m2 and 1.45 x107 W/m2 for
the flat-disk and the hemispherical disk aerospike, respectively. The qw,s calculated using Eq. 13.14
is 0. 831 x 107 W/m2 and 1.55 x107 W/m2 for the flat-disk and the hemispherical disk spike,
respectively. The discrepancy is due to the value of the K. The value of K is difficult to calculate
analytically and experimentally for the flat-face disk spike. The expression for the stagnation point
heat transfer for a sphere is

−4
ρw 0.5 2 Hw
q̇ w,s = 1.83 × 10 ( ) V∞ [1 − ]
RN Hs
Eq. 13.16
where RN is nose radius in m, V∞ is freestream velocity, Hw is the wall enthalpy and HS the stagnation
enthalpy. Experiments were carried out to evaluate the stagnation point velocity gradient.

13.3.2.5 Heat Transfer Measurements

Experiments were carried out in shock tunnel to measure the heat flux on the blunt body attached
with the hemispherical aerospike of L/D = 1.5 and 2.0 at zero angle of attack. The shock tunnel
consists of a shock tube divided into driver and driven sections, separated by a metallic diaphragm.
The shock tube is connected to the wind tunnel portion by a convergent-divergent conical nozzle,
test-section and dump tank separated by a diaphragm to obtain M∞ = 6. The platinum sensors were
fabricated by depositing a thin coating of platinum on the surface of Macor kept on the surface of the
spiked model. The stagnation wall heat flux for the un-spiked blunt body configuration was evaluated
for the shock-tunnel conditions, using [Fay and Riddell]503 equations. Surface heat flux on the basic

502 Fay JA, Riddell FR. Theory of stagnation point heat transfer in dissociated air. J. of Aeronautical Sciences. 1958.
503 Fay JA, Riddell FR. Theory of stagnation point heat transfer in dissociated air. J. of Aeronautical Sciences. 1958.
 381

body was obtained employing Lees equation. Numerical methods involve division of the time
interval (0, t) into a finite number of increments and the evaluation of the integrand at each of the
division points. The heat flux over the basic configuration with and without spiked for a fixed L/D of
1.5 and 2.0. It is seen that for the basic body with spike the heat flux values is lower than the basic
body without spike. Except the conical aerospike, all other spike configurations result in lower heat
flux values than the basic body alone. For this length also, the spikes could reduce the heat flux on
the basic body substantially, as seen from these results.
13.3.2.6 Conclusions
The flow field around a forward facing a hemispherical and a flat disk spike attached to blunt-nosed
body has been numerically simulated at high speeds at zero angle of attack. The flow visualizations
were done using the velocity vector and contour plots in order to analyze the influence of the shape
of the spike on the drag reduction and wall heat flux. The formation of the bow shock wave is
observed over the un-spiked and spiked blunt body. Different flow separation zones depend on the
shape of the spike attached to the blunt body. The stand-off distances of the bow shock wave for the
hemispherical and the flat aerospike are compared with the analytical solutions and are seen in good
agreement. The variations of surface pressure, the skin friction coefficient and the wall heat flux along
the surface of the spike facing the flow direction is significantly influenced by the geometrical shape
of the spike. The density and pressure ratio and the heat flux at the stagnation point are computed
and compared with the analytical results. The numerical analysis delineates complete flow field
information over the un-spiked and the spiked blunt-body surface including the bow shock, shock
stand-off distance shock, sonic line and stagnation point velocity gradient. For further and complete
discussion, please consult the [Mehta]504.

13.4 Flow Separation

Flow separation occurs when the boundary layer travels far enough against an adverse pressure
gradient that the speed of the boundary layer relative to the object falls almost to zero505-506. The fluid
flow becomes detached from the surface of the object, and instead takes the forms
of eddies and vortices507. In aerodynamics, flow separation can often result in increased drag,
particularly pressure drag which is caused by the pressure differential between the front and rear
surfaces of the object as it travels through the air. For this reason much effort and research has gone
into the design of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic surfaces which delay flow separation and keep
the local flow attached for as long as possible. Examples of this include the fur on a tennis ball,
dimples on a golf ball, turbulators on a glider, which induce an early transition to turbulent flow
regime; vortex generators on light aircraft, for controlling the separation pattern; and leading edge
extensions for high angles of attack on the wings of aircraft.
13.4.1 Boundary Layer Separation
Boundary layer separation is the detachment of a boundary layer from the surface into a broader
wake508. Boundary layer separation occurs when the portion of the boundary layer closest to the
wall or leading edge reverses in flow direction. The separation point is defined as the point between
the forward and backward flow, where the shear stress is zero. The overall boundary layer initially

504 Rakhab Chandra Mehta, “Heat Transfer Analysis without and with Forward Facing Spike Attached to a Blunt
Body at High Speed Flow”, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Noorul Islam Center for Higher Education,
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, India, IntechOpen, 2018.
505 Anderson, John D. , “Introduction to Flight”, Section 4.20 (5th ed.), 2004.
506 L. J. Clancy, “Aerodynamics,” Section 4.14, 1975.
507 Wikipedia.
508 White, "Fluid Mechanics", (7th ed.), 2010.
 382

thickens suddenly at the separation point and is then forced off the surface by the reversed flow at
its bottom.
13.4.2 Adverse Pressure Gradient
Graphical representation of the velocity profile in the boundary layer. The last profile represents
reverse flow which shows separated flow. The flow reversal is primarily caused by adverse pressure
gradient imposed on the boundary layer by the outer potential flow. The stream wise momentum
equation inside the boundary layer is approximately stated as

∂u 1 dP ∂2 u
u =− +ν 2
∂x ρ dx ∂y
Eq. 13.17
where x, y are stream-wise and normal coordinates. An adverse pressure gradient is when dp/ds
> 0, which then can be seen to cause the velocity u to decrease along s and possibly go to zero if
the adverse pressure gradient is strong enough.
Figure 13.24 shows graphical representation of the velocity profile in the boundary layer, where the
last profile represents reverse flow which shows separated flow509.
13.4.3 Influencing Parameters
The tendency of a boundary layer to separate primarily depends on the distribution of the adverse
or negative edge velocity gradient du0/ds(s) < 0, du0/dx < 0 along the surface, which in turn is
directly related to the pressure and its gradient by the differential form of the Bernoulli relation,
which is the same as the momentum equation for the outer inviscid flow.

du0 dp
ρu0 = −
dx dx
Eq. 13.18

Figure 13.24 Representation Boundary Later Velocity Profile (Courtesy of Sturm et al.)

509Hannes Sturm, Gerrit Dumstorff, Peter Busche, Dieter Westermann and Walter Lang, “Boundary Layer
Separation and Reattachment Detection on Airfoils by Thermal Flow Sensors”, Sensors 2012, 12, 14292-14306.
 383

But the general magnitudes of du0/ds and du0/dx required for separation are much greater
for turbulent than for laminar flow, the former being able to tolerate nearly an order of magnitude
stronger flow deceleration. A secondary influence is the Reynolds number. For a given
adverseduo/ds, du0/dx distribution, the separation resistance of a turbulent boundary layer
increases slightly with increasing Reynolds number. In contrast, the separation resistance of a
laminar boundary layer is independent of Reynolds number; a somewhat counterintuitive fact. (See
Figure 13.24)

13.4.4 Internal Separation

Boundary layer separation can occur for internal flows. It can result from such causes such as a
rapidly expanding duct of pipe. Separation occurs due to an adverse pressure gradient encountered
as the flow expands, causing an extended region of separated flow. The part of the flow that separates
the recirculating flow and the flow through the central region of the duct is called the dividing
streamline. The point where the dividing streamline attaches to the wall again is called the
reattachment point. As the flow goes farther downstream it eventually achieves an equilibrium state
and has no reverse flow.

13.4.5 Effects of Boundary Layer Separation

When the boundary layer separates, its displacement thickness increases sharply, which modifies the
outside potential flow and pressure field. In the case of airfoils, the pressure field modification results
in an increase in pressure drag, and if severe enough will also result in loss of lift and stall, all of which
are undesirable. For internal flows, flow separation produces an increase in the flow losses, and stall-
type phenomena such as compressor surge, both undesirable phenomena510. Another effect of
boundary layer separation is shedding vortices, known as Kármán vortex street. When the vortices
begin to shed off the bounded surface they do so at a certain frequency. The shedding of the vortices
then could cause vibrations in the structure that they are shedding off. When the frequency of the
shedding vortices reaches the resonance frequency of the structure, it could cause serious structural
failures.

13.4.6 Case Study 1 - Numerical Study on Flow Separation in 90° Pipe Bend with High Reynolds
Numbers and k-ε Modelling
The effect of flow separation characteristics under high Reynolds number in pipe bends, was
investigated by [Dutta et al.]511, using k-ε turbulence model. After the validation of present model
against existing experimental results, a detailed study has been performed to study the influence of
Reynolds number on flow separation and reattachment. The separation region and the velocity field
of the primary and the secondary flows in different sections have been illustrated. Numerical results
show that flow separation can be clearly visualized for bend with low curvature ratio. Distributions
of the velocity vector show the secondary motion clearly induced by the movement of fluid from inner
to outer wall of the bend leading to flow separation. This paper provides numerical results to
understand the flow characteristics of fluid flow in 90° bend pipe.

13.4.6.1 Background and Introduction

Pipe bends are the most important part of any pipeline network system as these provide flexibility
in routing. Investigations of the flow through bends are of great significance in understanding and
improving their performance and minimizing the losses. It is already well known that the flow of
incompressible viscous fluids through pipe bends is characterized by flows separation, secondary

510Fielding, Suzanne. "Laminar Boundary Layer Separation", University of Manchester, 12 March 2008.
511Prasun Dutta , Sumit Kumar Saha, Nityananda Nandi, Nairit Pal, “Numerical study on flow separation in 90°
pipe bend under high Reynolds number by k-ε modelling”. Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal 19 (2016) 904–910.
 384

flow and unsteadiness, which are dependent on Reynolds number as well as the radius of curvature
of the bend. Whenever a fluid flows through a bend, there is a radial pressure gradient developed by
the centrifugal force acting on the fluid. Because of this, a double spiral flow field and a pair of
counter-rotating vortices can also be observed inside the bend i.e. because of the presence of
pressure gradient, fluid at the center of pipe moves towards the outer side and comes back along the
wall towards the inner side. Now if the bend curvature ratio is very small (Rc/D ≤ 1.5), the adverse
pressure gradient near the inner wall and immediately downstream of the bend may lead to flow
separation, giving rise to a large increase in pressure losses. However, the flow characteristics of
incompressible flows in pipe bends are not fully clarified yet. Accurate estimation of mass flowrate
and losses is critical for most incompressible flow systems. The applications of water-flows through
pipe bends are found in many engineering applications. Some of the excellent reviews bear testimony
to this fact. A number of researchers have investigated turbulent flows in pipe bends by means of
theoretical, experimental and numerical methods. To perform numerical simulation of fluid flow in
curved pipes, on the other hand, the Navier–Stokes equation has to be expressed in curvilinear or
body fitted coordinate system. A very useful database for direct numerical simulation (DNS) and
large eddy simulation (LES) on pipe bend is provided by two studies512. Recently, in the nuclear
sector due to the fatigue by the unsteady motion of the vortices, this has also attracted the interest of
the researchers513’514-515. Hence, it is interesting to see the flow separation and reattachment under
high Reynolds number

13.4.6.2 Governing Equations and Numerical Methodology

Three dimensional Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations are solved using the
segregated implicit solver. The right choice of a turbulence model is critical when an industrial
turbulent flow problem is faced, especially when this problem involves three dimensional flow
phenomena, which needs an accurate modelling. The second order scheme is used for the URANS
equations calculations, with a pressure velocity coupling achieved using SIMPLE algorithm. The time
step size used in the present study is 0.001s with 1000 time steps. The default under relaxation
factors were used to aid convergence for all models. The governing equations for incompressible fluid
flow with constant properties are

∂ui
=0
∂xi
∂ui ∂ui 1 ∂p ∂2 u i
+ uj = fi − +υ
∂t ∂xj ρ ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
Eq. 13.19
Eq. 13.19 are conservations of mass and momentum, respectively; fi is a vector representing
external forces, υ is the kinematic viscosity.

512 A. Noorani, G.K. El Khoury, P. Schlatter,

“Evolution of turbulence characteristics from straight to curved pipes”,
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 41 (2013) 16–26.
513 H. Takamura, S. Ebara, H. Hashizume, K. Aizawa, H. Yamano, “Flow visualization and frequency characteristics

of velocity fluctuations of complex turbulent flow in a short elbow piping under high Reynolds number condition”,
J. Fluids Eng. 134 (10) (2012) 101201.
514 J. Sakakibara, N. Machida, “Measurement of turbulent flow upstream and downstream of a circular pipe bend”,

Phys. Fluids 24 (4) (2012) 041702.

515 A. Ono, N. Kimura, H. Kamide, A. Tobita, “Influence of elbow curvature on flow structure at elbow outlet under

high Reynolds number condition”, Nuclear Eng. Des. 241 (11) (2011) 4409–4419.
 385

13.4.6.3 Turbulence Model

It is well known that turbulent flows are basically designated by the fluctuations of the velocity fields.
Different transported quantities such as momentum, energy, etc. also fluctuate for this fluctuation of
velocity field and these fluctuations can be of very high frequency and small scale; they are very
difficult and computationally crucial to analyses directly in industrial engineering calculations. The
turbulence model needs to be selected based on some considerations, e.g., the physics of the flow, the
insight into the capabilities and limitations of turbulence models, the attempt for the specific problem
by other researchers, the accuracy needed, the available computational resources, and time. The k-ε
turbulence model is adopted for the present study as k-ε turbulence model performs better for both
single-phase and two phase flows in pipe bend. In this model, the turbulence kinetic energy (k) and
the turbulence dissipation rate (ε) are solved to determine the coefficient of turbulent viscosity (μt).
Transport equation for k-epsilon can be obtained from [Dutta et al.]516.

13.4.6.4 Problem Definition

The problem that is
considered here is the fluid
flow through 90° pipe
bends having inner
diameter of 0.01m with
curvature ratio (Rc/D) = 1
for different Reynolds
numbers ranging from 1 ×
105 to 10 × 105. The inlet
length of straight pipe in
the calculations was set up
50 D for all cases to save
computational time. The
fluid medium was air
having density (ρ) of
1.2647 kg/m3 and
dynamic viscosity (μ) of
1.983 × 10−5 kg/m-s for
validation purpose and
water having density (ρ) of
990.2 kg/m3 and dynamic
viscosity (ν) of 0.0006
kg/m-s for the present
study with working
temperature of 300 K in
both cases. Three
dimensional structured
mesh was used containing
hexahedron elements,
which was optimized via a
grid-independence study. Figure 13.25 Schematic Diagram of the Bend Geometry and Mesh
The bend geometry and (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.])

516Prasun Dutta , Sumit Kumar Saha, Nityananda Nandi, Nairit Pal, “Numerical study on flow separation in 90°
pipe bend under high Reynolds number by k-ε modelling”. Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal 19 (2016) 904–910.
 386

mesh are shown in Figure 13.25. It is defined that the axial direction downstream the bend is x-
coordinate, the direction from inner core to outer core of the bend is y-coordinate and the
perpendicular direction to x and y is z-coordinate.

13.4.6.5 Validation
At the very beginning of our study, our model and simulation setup are first validated against the
existing experimental and numerical data517,518,519. For that intension, same geometrical
configuration is adopted. In their experiment, the authors of the previously mentioned studies used
a circular cross sectioned 90° bend with a curvature ratio (Rc/D) of 2 and the measurements of
velocities were performed at a Re = 6 × 104. For the validation of our present model, the simulation
is performed on a computational mesh containing total 2.85 M hexahedron elements, which was
optimized via a grid-independence study, (see Figure 13.25). The value of non-dimensional
distance from wall (Y+) is strictly controlled
using standard wall treatment function (30 <
Y+ < 90 for a near wall cell used for present
study). The mean axial velocity profile
normalized with inlet velocity along
symmetry line at bend outlet (α = 90°) shows
very good agreement with both experimental
and numerical results 520’ 521, (see Figure
13.26). In the inner core region of the bend
(negative X-axis), some discrepancies
between experimental and numerical data
are observed. This discrepancies may arise
due to the adverse pressure gradient near the
inner wall of the bend and this is also
consistent with a recent study522. From the
validation part, it has been seen that the
model is in close approximation with the
published results; hence, this procedure of Figure 13.26 Comparison of Normalized Axial
Velocity with Experimental and Numerical Results Re
mesh generation and simulation set up has
(Courtesy of [Dutta et al.])
been used for further analysis.

13.4.6.6 Results and discussions

The main objective of the present study is to characterize the effect of Reynolds number on flow
separation of single phase turbulent flow in a 90° pipe bend through numerical simulation. The
results of the mean velocity profile, velocity fluctuation and separation reattachment points for
different Reynolds numbers along the different positions of the bend in central symmetry plane are

517 J. Kim, M. Yadav, S. Kim, “Characteristics of secondary flow induced by 90-degree elbow in turbulent pipe flow”,
Eng. Appl. Computational Fluid Mech. 8 (2) (2014) 229–239.
518 K. Sudo, M. Sumida, H. Hibara, “Experimental investigation on turbulent flow in a circular-sectioned 90-degree

bend”, Exp. Fluids 25 (1) (1998) 42–49.

519 M.A. Tanaka, H. Ohshima, H. Monji, “Numerical investigation of flow structure in pipe elbow with large eddy

simulation approach”, ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2009, pp. 449–458.
520 See Previous.
521 K. Sudo, M. Sumida, H. Hibara, “Experimental investigation on turbulent flow in a circular-sectioned 90-degree

bend”, Exp. Fluids 25 (1) (1998) 42–49.

522 J. Kim, M. Yadav, S. Kim, “Characteristics of secondary flow induced by 90-degree elbow in turbulent pipe flow”,

Eng. Appl. Computational Fluid Mech. 8 (2) (2014) 229–239.

 387

presented in this section. Figure 13.28 shows the mean velocity profile normalized with inlet
velocity (Uin) for different Reynolds numbers (Re = 1 × 105 to 10 × 105). The negative r values
represent the inner core of the bend and SP, RP, MP represent positions of separation point,
reattachment point, middle point
between separation and
reattachment points respectively.
Velocity acceleration is depicted
at the outer core of the bend as
expected. It is found that with the
increase of Reynolds number, the
velocity profile at the inner core of
the pipe bend tries to recover its
fully developed shape by
decelerating and accelerating
effects at the outer and the inner
parts of the pipe bend
respectively. Hence, it may be
speculated for higher values of the
Reynolds number that pipe
curvature effects are reducing.
Figure 13.28 shows the
normalized flow velocity vector Figure 13.28 Normalized Velocity Profiles at Different Positions
fields at the central plane and at in the Bend for Different Re (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.])
the bend outlet (α = 90°) for Re =
1 × 105, Rc/D = 1. The mean velocity is shifted upward due to the faster moving fluid near the outer
core. Secondary flow pattern can clearly be observed in this section. At the inner core of the bend, a
region having very low velocity was found and the flow was highly unsteady and complex.

Figure 13.27 Normalized Velocity Vector Field for Re = 1 × 105 and Rc/D = 1; (a) Symmetry Plane
(center cross section). (b) Cross Section at Bend Outlet (∝ = 90°) - (Courtesy of [Dutta et al.])

Figure 13.29 shows the normalized velocity fields for two different Reynolds numbers (Re = 1 × 105
& 10 × 105) at the bend outlet. The top of the each figure is the outer core of the bend and the bottom
 388

is the inner core of the bend. The low velocity region near the inner core of the bend was seen clearly.
This region is concluded to be the separated region [46]. Because of the relation between the
centrifugal force with high velocity and pressure gradient on the flow, two identical counter rotating
Dean vortices were also found for both Reynolds numbers. As mentioned above, a flow separation
region was found at the inner core of bend outlet; another study has been made to understand the
dependency of separation and reattachment points on Reynolds number. For illustration of various
starting points of flow separation from the bend inlet and corresponding reattachment points from
the bend outlet, consult with [Dutta et al.]523. It was found that the starting point of flow separation
moves upstream in the bend as Reynolds number increases, while the reattachment point moves
downstream. This trend corresponds to the dependency of Reynolds number on the total pressure
loss and consistent with experimental results in524. Negative values of r represent the inner core of
the bend. It is found that velocity fluctuation is maximum in both x and y directions at the separation
region; however, the intensity of fluctuation is higher in the x direction. The Urms profiles do not show
much Reynolds number dependency, the peak position is almost same for all measurements but the
peak value is high for higher Reynolds number. For the Vrms profiles, a clear Reynolds number
dependency can be observed. The peak value becomes larger and shifted from the inner core towards
the center of the bend with increasing Reynolds number. As mentioned earlier, a very complicated
fluid structure is formed at the downstream of bend outlet due to the flow fluctuation induced by the
movement separation region and the acceleration of flow velocity.

Figure 13.29 Normalized Velocity Vector Field - (a) Re = 1 × 105, (b) Re = 10 × 105 - (Courtesy of [Dutta
et al.])

523 Prasun Dutta , Sumit Kumar Saha, Nityananda Nandi, Nairit Pal, “Numerical study on flow separation in 90°
pipe bend under high Reynolds number by k-ε modelling”. Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal 19 (2016) 904–910.
524 H. Takamura, S. Ebara, H. Hashizume, K. Aizawa, H. Yamano, “Flow visualization and frequency characteristics

of velocity fluctuations of complex turbulent flow in a short elbow piping under high Reynolds number condition”,
J. Fluids Eng. 134 (10) (2012) 101201.
 389

13.4.6.7 Conclusions
It is found that with the increase of Reynolds number, the velocity profile at the inner core of the pipe
bend tries to recover its fully developed shape by decelerating and accelerating effects at the outer
and the inner parts of the pipe bend respectively. Hence, it may be speculated for higher values of the
Reynolds number that pipe curvature effects are reducing. The separation region for all bends was
generated and a clear Reynolds number dependency on flow separation was found. As Reynolds
number increased, the separation point moved towards the upstream, while the reattachment point
moved towards downstream of the bend. A low velocity region was found near the inner core of the
bend leading to the flows separation. Two counter rotating Dean vortices were formed at the bend
outlet. The rms of the velocity fluctuation in x direction of flow has no significant Reynolds number
dependence, the peak value and the position of the peak value are nearly the same for different
Reynolds numbers; however, the peak value was observed for the highest Reynolds number. For the
rms profile in y direction, a little Reynolds number dependence can be observed. With increasing
Reynolds number, the peak value becomes larger and situated further from the wall. Overall velocity
fluctuation became larger in the separation region near the inner core of the bend; however, the
intensity of fluctuation in x direction is lower than that of y direction. The flow became very complex,
unsteady and coherent at the downstream of the bend due to the flow separation showing three flow
motions. Further details can acquired from [Dutta et al.]525.

13.4.7 Case Study 2 - Flow Separation in Subscale Rocket Nozzles

Separated flows in rocket nozzles due to overexpansion are known to lead to side loads on the nozzle.
To investigate the origin of side loads in over expanded rocket nozzles by [Kwan and Stark]526,
experiments have been conducted with wall pressure measurements, Schlieren pictures and infrared
imaging. Also numerical simulations were
made. Especially the origin of a side load peak TIS Truncated Ideal Contour
at a low pressure ratio has been given attention TOP Thrust Optimized Parabola
and could, for the first time, be explained. The FSS Fee Shock Separation
mutual interaction of the shock pattern of the
RSS Restricted Shock Separation
over expanded flow and a recirculation region
behind the shock, seems to cause a short, qRSS Quasi-Restricted Shock Separation
asymmetric reattachment of the flow to the SLP Side Load Peak
wall. Experiments and numerical simulations
both show that this reattachment of the flow is Table 13.3 Abbreviations Used in Flow
resulting in the mentioned side load peak. To Separation in Subscale Rocket Nozzles
acquainted further, the abbreviations used in
this study presented in Table 13.3.

13.4.7.1 Background
For future rocket systems, thrusters with high area ratio nozzles are envisaged. These high area ratio
nozzles feature a higher specific impulse during the ascent of the rocket, but will be strongly over
expanded in sea level operational mode. This strong overexpansion causes an uncontrolled flow
separation inside of the nozzle and therefore uncontrolled side loads, until a certain altitude is
reached. So far unexplained side load peak at lower pressure ratio (see Figure 13.30) has been

525 Prasun Dutta , Sumit Kumar Saha, Nityananda Nandi, Nairit Pal, “Numerical study on flow separation in 90°
pipe bend under high Reynolds number by k-ε modelling”. Engineering Science and Technology, an International
Journal 19 (2016) 904–910.
526 W. Kwan*, R. Stark, “Flow Separation Phenomena in Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für

Luft- und Raumfahrt, Lampoldshausen, D-74239 Hardthausen, Germany, AIAA.

 390

encountered during experiments at several test stands527. Here we presents an investigation into the
origin of this side load peak. In connection to side loads, the shock pattern and its interaction with a
recirculation bubble, which is often present behind the normal shock in the nozzle flow, will be
discussed. Both experiments and numerical simulations have been used for this purpose. For the
experiments at DLR the test stand P6.2 was used. Two types of nozzles have been tested; a Truncated
Ideal Contour nozzle (TIC) and a Thrust Optimized Parabola nozzle (TOP). Both nozzles had the same
throat radius of 10 mm, the same mass flow and wall exit pressure. Furthermore the specific impulses
are equal and the wall areas too , leading to comparable structural masses.

Figure 13.30 Typical side-load Behavior for TIC Nozzle – Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]

13.4.7.2 Description of Experimental Setup and Numerical Simulations

In 2001 DLR-Lampoldshausens cold gas test facility was enhanced with an additional horizontal test
bench position. The objectives were:

➢ To enable subscale nozzle testing without the influence of phenomena caused by the
interaction of high altitude chamber, nozzle itself and the diffuser
➢ To have a good access for all kind of optical measurement devices
➢ To have no longer any scale restrictions

As operating gas, dry nitrogen at ambient temperature and total pressures up to 6 MPa is used. The
absence of species like water vapor or carbon-dioxide, which condensate earlier than nitrogen make
nitrogen a preferable alternative to air. Another disadvantage of air is that the condensation of one
or more of these early-condensing species forms droplets, which act as initiators for the condensation
of the nitrogen part of the air. Finally nitrogen can be easily modelled in collateral CFD calculations
as a perfect gas. These numerical simulations have been performed with the commercial finite
volume solvers. Steady state CFD calculations have been performed for the TIC and TOP nozzle. The
results published here have been obtained using Roe’s flux vector splitting scheme with an Osher-
Chakravarthy flux-limiter. Furthermore the standard k-ε turbulence model with wall functions has
been used. (see Figure 13.31).

527 See Pervious.

 391

Figure 13.31 Cap Shock Pattern with FSS for the TOP Nozzle (Top) vs. Curved Cap Shock for the
TIC Nozzle (Bottom) - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]

13.4.7.3 Numerical Flow Simulations

The over expanded flow in the nozzle can roughly be distinguished into two separation patterns. Free
Shock Separation (FSS) where the flow detaches from the wall and continues as a free jet and
Restricted Shock Separation (RSS). In this case a separation-bubble forms at the wall. Behind the
detached region, the flow reattaches to the nozzle wall again and continues as an attached flow until
the end of the nozzle. Furthermore one can distinguish between two shock patterns in the over
expanded flows in nozzles. These are the Mach-disk pattern and the cap shock pattern528-529-530-531-

528 M. Frey, Behandlung von Strömungsproblemen in Raketendüsen bei Überexpansion, PhD thesis, Institut für
Aerodynamik und Gasdynamik, Universität Stuttgart, 2000, Germany.
529 M. Frey, G. Hagemann,” Status of FlowSeparation Prediction in Rocket Nozzles”, AIAA 98-3619, 1998,

Cleveland OH, USA.

530 M. Frey, “Shock Patterns in the Plume of Over expanded Rocket Nozzles”, 3rd European Symposium on

Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESA-SP-426, 1998, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands.

531 G. Hagemann, M. Terhardt, M. Frey, Ph. Reijasse, M. Onofri, F. Nasuti, J. Östlund, “Flow Separation and Side

Loads in Rocket Nozzles”, 4th International Symposium on Liquid Rocket Propulsion, 2000, DLR
Lampoldshausen, Germany.
 392

532-533.The classical cap shock pattern is only seen in nozzles with an internal shock, like thrust
optimized nozzles or compressed ideal nozzles. RSS usually only happens in combination with this
cap shock pattern and has therefore only been observed in TOP nozzles. The CFD calculations
presented here, however also show the reattachment phenomenon in the TIC nozzle, which here
happens only at lower pressure ratios. In this case the reattachment takes place without the
appearance of the usual cap shock pattern. A similar kind of shock pattern is present, without the
existence of the internal shock. The triple point that connects three shocks in the cap shock pattern
for the TOP is now replaced by a curved shock, starting perpendicular to the symmetry axis. Instead
of a pressure jump across the internal shock, in the TIC nozzle the flow field features a gradual
increase in static pressure upstream of the shock, when one follows the curved shock, starting at the
symmetry axis. This shock pattern can, like in the TOP nozzle, create an impulse of the flow towards
the nozzle wall, which is big enough to cause reattachment of the flow.

13.4.7.4 TIC Nozzle

For the TIC nozzle, this reattachment is calculated for pressure ratios from 7 to 15. A solution
featuring FSS can however be calculated for the TIC for every pressure ratio, including the range 7-
15. In this range therefore two solutions are possible. For this reason and because experiments have
shown that this form of reattachment will not show up in a steady state form, but only as a transient,
we will call this kind of
reattachment “quasi-RSS” or
qRSS. The initiation of the
transition from FSS to qRSS in this
nozzle can be seen in Figure
13.32. Just behind the Mach disk
at the symmetry axis, a small
recirculation zone builds. (pc/pa =
7 at the lower boundary, pc/pa =
15 at the upper boundary). In the
region where qRSS is possible the
recirculation zone grows and the
Mach disk pattern can change into
a curved cap shock pattern.
Figure 13.32 Start of transition from Mach disk pattern to
13.4.7.5 TOP Nozzle
curved cap shock pattern for the TIC nozzle, FSS, pc/pa = 9 -
For the TOP nozzle RSS solutions Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]
have been calculated for pressure
ratios of 9 to 34. In between
pressure ratios ranging from 24 to 34, only an RSS solution can be obtained. For pressure ratios 9 to
24, both an RSS as well as an FSS solution can be found, while for other pressure ratios only an FSS
solution exists. Often a recirculation bubble is present in over expanded nozzle flows, behind the
shock pattern, at the symmetry axis of the flow. There seems to be a strong mutual influence between
the formation and the location of this recirculation bubble and the shock pattern. For the Mach disk
pattern there is sometimes a small recirculation bubble found, usually at a small distance behind the
Mach disk. In case of a cap shock pattern there is often a recirculation bubble found in the
calculations, which for FSS flow is usually located at some distance behind the normal shock. In the
case of reattaching flow, both for the TIC and the TOP nozzle, there is always a large recirculation

532 Ph. Rijasse, L. Morzenski, D. Blacodon, J. Birkemeyer, ”Flow Separation Experimental Analysis in Over
expanded Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, AIAA 2001-3556, Salt Lake City.
533 Ph. Reijasse, L. Morzenski, P. Naudin, F. Geneau, “Fluctuating Side-Load Measurements in Over expanded

Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, AIAA 2001-3557, Salt Lake City.

 393

bubble found, just behind the shock pattern. For the TOP nozzle the bubble can consist of more than
one vortex like in Figure 13.33, where two contra-rotating vortices are found. The more upstream
vortex does not appear to be a realistic steady state solution but seems a reasonable solution for a
transient flow.
Sometimes additional to the recirculation bubble at the symmetry axis, a small recirculation just
behind the shock is found. The x-positions of the separation shock at the wall and the normal shock
at the symmetry axis, together with the x-position of the recirculation bubble, are shown in [Kwan
and Stark]534. The black lines show the wall separation point location. It is clearly visible that for the
TIC as well as for the TOP nozzle the wall separation point moves downstream for reattaching flow
compared to free shock separation. At the lower pressure ratios for the TOP nozzle with FSS there is
no or only a very small separation bubble present. This is the region where the flow features a Mach
disk pattern. (pc/pa≈2 , pc/pa≈24) For the higher pressure ratios with FSS a cap shock pattern exists,
where partially a large recirculation bubble is located at a fair distance behind the normal shock.

Figure 13.33 Velocity Vectors showing RSS and Recirculation Bubble for the TOP Nozzle, pc/pa= 9
(Left) and pc/pa = 11 (Right) - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]

534W. Kwan*, R. Stark, “Flow Separation Phenomena in Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für
Luft- und Raumfahrt, Lampoldshausen, D-74239 Hardthausen, Germany, AIAA.
 394

(pc/pa ≈ 40 , pc/pa ≈ 140) In the RSS case for the TOP nozzle there is a small region of backflow just
behind the normal shock, followed by a large recirculation bubble.
In the figure the position of the recirculation bubble is however determined by using the direction of
the flow velocity at the symmetry axis. Often the CFD results show that in the space between the
recirculation bubble as shown in [Kwan and Stark]535 and the normal shock, a second contra-rotating
vortex exists. while comparing. Therefore, it can be concluded that for reattaching flow, for both the
TIC and the TOP nozzle, the recirculation region is extending from just behind the normal shock to
clearly behind the nozzle exit. The position of the recirculation bubble for the TIC can be seen in536.
In this case the flow features a small recirculation bubble, just behind the shock, for FSS solutions at
pressure ratios at which also a qRSS solution can be calculated. In the other cases a recirculation
bubble is not found for the FSS solution. For the qRSS solution there is always a large recirculation
bubble present.

13.4.7.6 Experimental Results

Experimental results with both hot and cold gas show sharp side-load peaks at the transition from
RSS to FSS and back537-538-539. For the DLR-TOP nozzle these peaks are present at pressure ratios of
about 31 and 35 during startup, and 35 and in the range of 13 to 17 during shutdown. (see Figure
13.34). A side load peak is also seen during experiments at several cold gas test stands at lower
pressure ratios in the region of 6 to 9 . Some texts have mentioned this phenomenon before while in
other publications it is only
visible in the graphs but
not mentioned in the text.
The magnitude of this low
pressure ratio peak is
smaller than the peaks
during transition at higher
pressure ratios, in the TOP
nozzle. Besides the TOP
nozzle this low pressure
ratio side load peak is seen
too for the TIC nozzle.
Experimental
investigations at the DLR
P6 test stand have Figure 13.34 Side Load Behavior for the TOP Nozzle - Courtesy of [Kwan
confirmed the hypothesis and Stark]
that this low pressure
region side load peak is,
like the other large side load peaks for the TOP nozzle, also due to transition from free separation to
reattaching flow and back. The same result applies to the TIC nozzle. A steady state flow, like the CFD
results suggest, is however not obtained. The flow merely reattaches to the wall asymmetrically and
for a short time only. The reattached region hereby also moves in circumferential direction. One can

535 W. Kwan*, R. Stark, “Flow Separation Phenomena in Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für
Luft- und Raumfahrt, Lampoldshausen, D-74239 Hardthausen, Germany, AIAA.
536 See Previous.
537 Ph. Rijasse, L. Morzenski, D. Blacodon, J. Birkemeyer, Flow Separation Experimental Analysis in Over expanded

Subscale Rocket Nozzles, AIAA 2001-3556, Salt Lake City, USA.

538 G. Hagemann, M. Terhardt, D. Häseler, M. Frey, Experimental and Analytical Design Verification of the Dual-

Bell Concept, AIAA 2000-3778, 2000, Huntsville AL, USA.

539 M. Terhardt, G. Hagemann, Flow Separation and Side-Load Behaviour of the Vulcain ,AIAA 99-2762, 1999, Los

Angeles CA, USA.

 395

therefore say that when increasing the pressure ratio from 1 to full flowing regime, for the TIC as
well as for the TOP nozzle at a low pressure ratio a transition from FSS to qRSS and back occurs. At a
higher pressure ratio, for the TOP a transition from FSS to RSS and back then occurs. During
decreasing of the pressure, the same phenomena happen in reverse order. For the TOP a hysteresis
is present transition FSS-RSS
during start up and RSS-FSS
during shutdown. The
reattachment during qRSS can
be seen in infrared images as
well as in Schlieren pictures and
wall pressure measurements.
Figure 13.35 shows Schlieren
pictures of the plume of the TOP
nozzle540. The left side of the
pictures coincides with the
nozzle exit plane and the flow Figure 13.35 Schlieren Images of the Plume Behind the Nozzle Exit
direction is from left to right. - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]
The pictures were taken during
ramping-up of the pressure ratio. Before the side load peak the plume is narrow, indicating a FSS
flow. At the side load peak the plume has clearly widened, following the nozzle wall until the exit and
showing qRSS. The flow is clearly non-symmetrical around the axis of the nozzle, indicating the
transient behavior of the qRSS. After the side load peak the flow has returned to FSS again. The nozzle
geometry is superimposed on the
pictures as gridlines seen in white.
The nozzle wall temperatures are
represented by a color palette, with
increasing temperatures from blue to
red. The flow is coming from the
nozzle throat towards the reader.
Figure 13.36 clearly shows the qRSS
phenomenon; at the upper right side
of the left picture there is still free
shock separation, with the separation
point just behind the nozzle throat.
The wall temperature in this region is
determined by the inflowing ambient
air, coming from the exit of the nozzle.
This is represented by the red colored
region at the upper right side of the
nozzle. At the lower side of the nozzle Figure 13.36 Infrared Image Presentation qRSS Pattern for
the flow reattaches to the wall again. the TIC Nozzle During Startup, pc/pa=4.7 (left) and 4.9 (right)
Following an imaginary line along the Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]
nozzle wall, starting at the throat
towards the lower left side, one at first sees the flow expanding, thereby sinking in temperature. This
is the blue region in the picture. At about 1/3 of the nozzle length the flow separates and forms a
separation bubble, after which the flow reattaches again. In this separation bubble the wall
temperature rises again forming a yellow spot in the picture at about half of the nozzle length. Clearly

540Schlieren Images of the Plume Behind the Nozzle exit before, during and after the side load peak, showing
the flow with FSS at pc/pa=7.3 (left), qRSS at pc/pa=9.3 (middle) and FSS at pc/pa=12.9 (right)
 396

one can see that the separation point for the reattached region is much more downstream than for
free separation region. After the separation bubble the reattaching flow can be seen as the dark green
area at the lower left side of the figure and the dark blue part at the left side of the figure. The flow
expands again, gaining speed and sinking in temperature.
The right picture in Error! Reference source not found. shows the flow on the brink of the jump to F
SS again. The initial separation front before the separation bubble has moved jumped upstream
again, while the separation bubble can only be seen as a slight red line in the yellow region. Error! R
eference source not found. shows the qRSS during decreasing pressure ratio. The sequence of
pictures clearly shows the transient behavior of the reattachment, starting at the right side of the
most left picture and then moving upward. Often a hysteresis shows up in the pressure ratio regions
where qRSS occurs during startup and during shutdown. During shutdown qRSS usually occurs at a
slightly lower pressure ratio than during startup. For the TIC, the reattachment during qRSS seems
quite surprising. Since the nozzle contour is designed in such a way that a flow without an inner shock
is obtained, reattachment should be prevented.
Therefore, until now all workers have ruled out the possibility of reattachment in a truncated ideal
nozzle. For transient flows, the characteristics method, which is used for the design, however does
not apply. The reattachment may be due to the interaction of the shock pattern and the recirculation
bubble. The bubble forms an obstacle for the flow and forces the flow around it towards the nozzle
wall, thus increasing the outward impulse of the flow. Like for the TOP nozzle the qRSS pattern can
be seen on the infrared images of the TIC too. In this case the qRSS pattern is however not so
pronounced as for the TOP. An example of qRSS for the TIC is shown in Figure 13.37. Like for the
TOP, the nozzle geometry is made visible through an overlaid grid, with the nozzle throat visible as a
circle at the middle of the right edge of the each picture. Coming from the nozzle throat, at first the
expanding flow can be seen as the dark green region around the nozzle throat. While flowing towards
the exit of the nozzle the attached flow cools down which is represented by the dark blue path in the
dark green region. Then the flow separates and the wall temperature increases again. Continuing
towards the nozzle exit, the wall temperature keeps increasing, except for a region in the lower part
of the nozzle. In this part the flow reattaches to the wall again. The flow velocity increases and the
temperature decreases again.

Figure 13.37 Sequence of infrared pictures showing qRSS during shutdown for the TOP nozzle, pc/pa
Ranging from 6. 5 to 4.7 from left to right - Courtesy of [Kwan and Stark]

13.4.7.7 Comparison of CFD and Experimental Results

The calculated results, showing qRSS for the TIC and the TOP nozzle for lower pressure ratios may
not be entirely realistic, as they are not transient calculations. Compared to experimental results, the
region of pressure ratios where reattaching flow can appear is over predicted; continuously from 9
to 34 for the TOP, compared to two regions, ranging from approximately 6-9 (qRSS) and 15-36 (RSS)
experimentally. For the TIC nozzle the calculated region for qRSS is from 7 to 15 compared to a small
 397

region at about 4-6 experimentally. The calculations do however give an increased insight into the
flow characteristics and are helpful to the interpretation of experimental results.
Figure 14 of [Kwan and Stark]541, the calculated position of the recirculation bubble for the TOP is
compared with experiments, where the bubble was located with tufts that were placed in the flow.
Also in this case, it would be better to use transient calculations. The bubble namely shows an
unsteady, oscillating behavior, especially at pressure ratios close to those where transition FSS-RSS
or FSS-qRSS and vice versa occurs. Still the matching of the numeric and experiments is not bad.
Clearly the strong interaction between the size of the recirculation bubble and the occurrence of
reattaching flow can be seen. In the RSS region (pc/pa 30-36 during start-up and pc/pa 36-15 during
shut-down) the recirculation bubble increases significantly in size, Starting not far behind the normal
shock and extending to clearly behind the nozzle exit. CFD results as well as experiments show that
like in the RSS region for the TOP nozzle, the separation point moves downstream when
reattachment occurs as the lower pressure ratio (i.e. qRSS). When the flow separates again, a small
jump upstream of the separation front in the neighborhood of the nozzle throat can be seen in the
infrared images.

13.4.7.8 Conclusions
With the aid of infrared and Schlieren imaging combined with side load measurements and CFD
calculations, the origin of the side loads at low pressure ratios in over expanded nozzle flows has
been explained, for the first time. Like the side load peaks at higher pressure ratios in the thrust
optimized nozzle these side loads are due to transition of FSS flow to reattaching flow and back. This
phenomenon occurs in both the TIC and the TOP nozzle. A steady state reattaching flow is however
not found experimentally. The flow merely reattaches asymmetrically and instantaneous only. This
reattaching flow at a low pressure ratio is therefore described as “quasi-restricted shock separation”
or qRSS. Furthermore there seems to be a strong interaction between the occurrence of reattaching
flow and the existence and size of the recirculation bubble at the symmetry axis, behind the normal
shock. In case of reattaching flow there is always a large recirculation bubble present behind the
shock pattern in the plume.

541W. Kwan*, R. Stark, “Flow Separation Phenomena in Subscale Rocket Nozzles”, DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für
Luft- und Raumfahrt, Lampoldshausen, D-74239 Hardthausen, Germany, AIAA.
 398

14 Finite Element Method (FE)

The finite element method (FEM) is used in structural analysis of solids, but is also applicable to
fluids. However, the FEM formulation requires special care to ensure a conservative solution. The
FEM formulation has been adapted for use with fluid dynamics governing equations. Although FEM
must be carefully formulated to be conservative, it is much more stable than the finite volume
approach. However, FEM can require more memory and has slower solution times than the FVM. In
this method, a weighted residual equation is formed:

R i =  WiQdV ε Eq. 14.1

Ri

Where Ri is the equation residual at an element vertex i, Q is the conservation equation expressed on
an element basis, Wi is the weight factor, and Vε is the volume of the element542. This is very general
statements and to illustrate we resort to simple examples to follow. But first some terminology and
definition of them.
The most powerful method in finite elements is the Galerkin method. Here, the solution is first
expanded in a set of basis functions and the residual is made orthogonal to a set of test functions.
When the basis and the test functions are the same, the method is termed a Galerkin method;
otherwise it is called a Petrov-Galerkin method. The standard Galerkin method leads to a centered
scheme and is unconditionally unstable for hyperbolic problems when combined with forward Euler
discretization in time. Therefore, artificial viscosity has to be added in some form to stabilize the
procedure. In contrast with the finite volume methods, finite element practitioners have always
preferred cell vertex schemes since the global function is usually expressed as a summation of trial
functions multiplied by the values at the vertices. These trial functions are typically assumed to be 1
at a vertex and zero at all other vertices.

14.1 Continuous & Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element Methods

In mathematics, in the area of numerical analysis, Galerkin Methods are a class of approaches for
converting a continuous operator problem (such as a differential equation) to a discrete problem. In
principle, it is the equivalent of applying the method of variation of parameters to a function space,
by converting the equation to a weak formulation. Typically one then applies some constraints on
the function space to characterize the space with a finite set of basis functions. Galerkin's method
provides powerful numerical solution to differential equations and modal analysis. The approach is
usually credited to [Boris Galerkin] but the method was discovered by [Ritz], to whom Galerkin
refers.
The basic idea of the Galerkin method is to multiply the system of partial differential equations by
arbitrary test functions. In Discontinuous Galerkin Methods we perform a partial integration over
each element resulting in a weak formulation. When we discretize the weak formulation the
discontinuous Galerkin methods specifically uses a numerical flux at the boundaries of the element
that concerns the two neighboring elements. The discontinuity may occur at the element boundaries.
The advantage of this method that we can refine hp locally, which means that we may refine the
element size h of one element or that we may adjust the order of our polynomial expansion p in an
element.
We can consider a piecewise linear discretization of a function u(x) in one dimension, see Figure
14.1-(top), in which the nodal values of uh(x) determine uh everywhere else. Hence, this finite

542 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 399

element discretization is based on

function values at the nodes and is
continuous across elements. In
contrast, in a discontinuous
Galerkin finite element method a
piecewise linear discretization is
found on each element and the
limit or trace values approaching
the nodes from the element left or
right of a node are not assumed to
be continuous, see Figure 14.1-
(bottom). Hence, this
discretization is continuous in
each element but discontinuous
across elements. While more
degrees of freedom are required in
the discontinuous discretization, it Figure 14.1 Continuous vs. Discontinuous Galerkin Finite
offers generally more flexibility Element Method
and more accuracy.

14.2 Steps in the Finite Element Discretization

For the both continuous and discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element, discretization usually contain
the following steps543:

1. Derive weak formulation: Each equation is multiplied by its own arbitrary test function,
integrated over the domain of validity entirely or as a sum of integrals over all elements, and
integrated by parts to obtain the weak formulation.
2. Form discretized weak formulation/algebraic system: The variables are expanded in the
domain or in each element in a series in terms of a finite number of basis functions. Each
basis function has compact support over neighboring elements (for continuous finite
elements) or within each element (for discontinuous finite elements). This expansion is then
substituted into the weak formulation, and a test function is chosen alternately to coincide
with a basis function, to obtain the discretized weak formulation. The resulting system is a
linear or nonlinear algebraic system.
3. Evaluate of integrals in local coordinate system: A local or reference coordinate system is
used to evaluate the integrals. In the continuous finite element discretization global matrices
and vectors are assembled in the assembly routine.
4. Solve algebraic system: The resulting algebraic system is solved (iteratively) using forward
time stepping methods or linear algebra routines.

Steps 1 and 2 are often combined in discontinuous Galerkin methods. If in step 3, we have not
discretized time, we choose a time discretization of the ordinary differential equations resulting after
the spatial finite element discretization. If in step 4 the algebraic system is nonlinear, we choose an
iterative solution method which essentially will solve a linear system at each iteration step. Compact
support means that the test functions are only nonzero locally over one or a few neighboring
elements. In the continuous finite element method (we consider), the basis functions are zero at the
edge of their domain of influence, while in the discontinuous case the basis function is (generally)

Onno Bokhove and Jaap J.W. van der Vegt, “Introduction to (dis)continuous Galerkin finite element methods”,
543

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Twente.

 400

nonzero within an element including the element boundary and zero elsewhere. The careful
definition of function spaces for the test and basis functions is common practice in finite element
methods. This is often perceived to be complicated, but we will see that all the function spaces make
sense, also intuitively.

14.3 Concept of Shape (Basis) Function

The shape function is the function which interpolates the solution between the discrete values
obtained at the mesh nodes. Therefore, appropriate functions have to be used and, as already
mentioned, low order polynomials are typically chosen as shape functions (see Figure 14.2). For
three-dimensional finite element simulations it is convenient to discretize the simulation domain
using tetrahedrons, as depicted. Thus, linear shape functions must be defined for each tetrahedron
of the mesh, in order to apply the Galerkin method. For one dimensional shape function, If a
polynomial is selected as basis function, then

1 , i = j
N i (x) = a1 + a 2 x + a 3 x 2 + . . . . . . . . N i (x j ) = δ ij = 
0 , i  j
1 - Linear Case : For two nodes of x1 and x 2 we have N i (x) = a i1 + a i2 x
2 - Quadratic Case : x1 , x 2 , and x 3 N i (x) = a i1 + a i2 x + a i3 x 2
3 - Cubic Case : x1 , x 2 , x 3 and x 4 N i (x) = a i1 + a i2 x + a i3 x 2 + ai 4 x 3
Eq. 14.2

14.3.1 Lagrangian Elements

To avoid solving this so complex system of equations, the well-known properties of the Lagrangian
polynomials can be used where it compasses all these shape functions. This equation is easier to

Linear Quadratic

Cubic Lagrangian

Figure 14.2 Illustration of Different Shape, Basis, and Blending Functions

 401

implement, as can be checked using this Matlab code. The graphic representation of each case show
case in Figure 14.2544.

14.4 Simple 1D Discretization Example using Shape (Basis) Function

This definition is applicable to every bit as of FV method. The description of the laws of physics for
space and time-dependent problems are usually expressed in terms of partial differential equations
(PDEs). The Finite Element Method (FEM) is used to compute such approximations545. Take, for
example, a function u that may be the dependent variable in a PDE (i.e., temperature, electric
potential, pressure, etc.) The function u can be approximated by a function uh using linear
combinations of basis (shape) functions according to the following expressions:

u  uh where u h =  u i ψi Eq. 14.3

i

Here, ψi denotes the basis functions and ui denotes the coefficients of the functions that approximate
u with uh. The principle for a 1D problem. u could, for instance, represent the temperature along the
length (x) of a rod that is non-uniformly heated. Here, the linear basis functions have a value of 1 at
their respective nodes and 0 at other nodes. In this case, there are seven elements along the portion
of the x-axis, where the function u is defined (i.e., the length of rod). One of the benefits of using the
finite element method is that it offers great freedom in the selection of discretization, both in the
elements that may be used to discretize space and the basis functions. Depending on the problem at
hand, other functions may be chosen instead of linear functions.

14.5 Mathematics Behind Finite Element Method

To enlighten ourselves without details, we resort to the following statements. According to [Jeff H
Peterson]546, the mathematical basis for the FEM, lies in the math of Hilbert spaces. A Hilbert space
is a way of treating a function like a vector so that we can do some vector math tricks with it.
Remember that a vector is a series of values multiplied by a set of orthogonal basis vectors (like the
unit vectors that define the x, y, and z directions... think i, j, k unit vectors). We can use a similar
technique to define a function. First, we pick a set of basis functions instead of vectors (the functions
need to be orthogonal to each other Orthogonal functions but that's getting too much into the math)
and then we can define the original function as a sum of coefficients multiplied by those basis
functions like this:

u =  αk ψk where ψ is the basis function Eq. 14.4
k =1

The next step is to convert our differential equation into something called the "weak formulation".
This is basically multiplying by a test function and then integrating over the space. Without going into
the specifics, this is how we convert our differential equation into a form we can use our vector math
on. This form is an "inner product" (the equivalent of a dot product except we're dealing with
functions now, see Inner product space) of our solution and the test function. This inner product is
an integral and we can use Integration by parts to convert it to more manageable form (that also
includes some nice ways to impose boundary conditions). After this, we recognize that we're actually

544 CFD online, 2009.

545 Detailed Explanation of the Finite Element Method (FEM), COMSOL Inc.
546 Jeff H Peterson, “What exactly is Finite element analysis – Quora”, PhD in mathematical modeling of crystal

growth systems.
 402

dealing with a finite-dimensional space. Thus the function vectors aren't infinite and we're not really
summing to infinity. This is what is meant by discretization in the FEM. Remember our basis
functions we picked earlier? We use a finite number of these to represent the solution of our
differential equation like this:
N
u =  α k ψ k Eq. 14.5
k =1

The only difference between this and what's above is that now our sum is finite. The next trick is to
let our test function be a basis function. We also make sure to choose basis functions such that they
don't overlap. This ensures that they are "orthogonal" like we wanted earlier and gives us a really
easy way to approximate our solution over the domain of interest. These basis functions are often
polynomials (especially quadratic polynomials). It almost seems like we've made the problem harder
by adding all this abstraction and mathematics but at the end of all of this, what have we really done
here? We have converted the problem into its matrix form and we can now solve it using matrix
algebra. If the problem was linear to begin with, we're simply solving

𝐀𝐱 = 𝐛
Eq. 14.6
which, is what most numerical methods classes teach you how to solve. Of course even if the problem
wasn't linear, we can linearize it with something like Newton's Method and still solve it. For a simple
problem such as Poisson's equation, the matrix A is very easy to compute and is often called the
"Stiffness Matrix" in homage to the FEM's beginnings in elasticity problems. This matrix is formed
by the inner product of the basis functions with themselves (very sparse and diagonal dominant if
you constructed your problem rationally) multiplied by whatever constant is in your original
equation. The solution vector then is a list of the coefficients being multiplied by the basic functions,
and in order to plot your solution and get real values out, you multiply this by your series of basis
functions. This provides a function (albeit a long, complicated one) that approximates the solution to
your problem.

14.6 Summary of Math Procedure for Finite Element Analysis

So in short we are performing these steps:

➢ Convert our problem into a vector problem using the properties of Hilbert spaces.
➢ Create the weak formulation so that now we can pose our problem as an inner product.
➢ Discretize our domain and choose basis functions that don't overlap elements.
➢ Convert our inner product into a set of linear equations.
➢ Solve the linear set of equations and get your solution.

14.7 Example with Heat Source

Say there is a solid with time-varying temperature but negligible variations in space. In this case, the
equation for conservation of internal (thermal) energy may result in an equation for the change of
temperature, with a very small change in time, due to a heat source

dT
c p = g(T, t) Eq. 14.7
dt
 403

Here, ρ denotes the density and cp denotes the heat capacity. Temperature, T, is the dependent
variable and time, t, is the independent variable. The function may describe a heat source that varies
with temperature and time. The ODE in Eq. 14.7 states that if there is a change in temperature in
time, then this has to be balanced (or caused) by the heat source. Oftentimes, there are variations in
time and space. The temperature in the solid at the positions closer to a heat source may, for instance,
be slightly higher than elsewhere. Such variations further give rise to a heat flux between the different
parts within the solid. In such cases, the conservation of energy can result in a heat transfer equation
that expresses the changes in both time and spatial variables (x), such as:

T
c p + .q = g(T, t, x) Eq. 14.8
t
As before, T is the dependent variable, while x (x = (x, y, z)) and t are the independent variables. The
heat flux vector in the solid is denoted by q = (qx, qy, qz) while the divergence of q describes the change
in heat flux along the spatial coordinates referred to as Fourier’s law. Here, the derivatives are
expressed in terms of t, x, y, and z. When a differential equation is expressed in terms of the
derivatives of more than one independent variable, it is referred to as a partial differential equation
(PDE), since each derivative may represent a change in one direction out of several possible
directions. Further note that the derivatives in ODEs are expressed using d, while partial derivatives
are expressed using the more curly ∂. Rather than solving PDEs analytically, an alternative option is
to search for approximate numerical solutions to solve the numerical model equations. The finite
element method is exactly this type of method; a numerical method for the solution of PDEs. Similar
to the thermal energy conservation referenced above, it is possible to derive the equations for the
conservation of momentum and mass that form the basis for fluid dynamics. Further, the equations
for electromagnetic fields and fluxes can be derived for space and time-dependent problems, forming
systems of PDEs. Continuing this discussion, let's see how the so-called weak formulation can be
derived from the PDEs.

14.7.1 Steady State Heat Sink; Weak Formulation; Basis Functions & Test Functions
Assume that the temperature distribution in a heat sink is being studied, given by Eq. 14.8, but now
at steady state, meaning that the time derivative of the temperature field is zero. The domain
equation for the model domain, Ω, is the following:

.(-kT) = g (T, x) in Ω
with B.C. T = T0 on Ω1
Eq. 14.9
(−kT).n = h (T − Tamb ) on Ω 2
(−kT).n = 0 on Ω 3

further, assume that the temperature along a boundary (∂Ω1) is known, in addition to the expression
for the heat flux normal to some other boundaries (∂Ω2). On the remaining boundaries, the heat flux
is zero in the outward direction (∂Ω3). The boundary conditions at these boundaries then becomes
where h denotes the heat transfer coefficient and Tamb denotes the ambient temperature. The
outward unit normal vector to the boundary surface is denoted by n. The situation is best describe in
Figure 14.3. The next step is to multiply both sides of Eq. 14.8 by a test function φ and integrate
over the domain Ω:
 404

 .(-kT)  dV =  g(T, x) dV

Ω Ω
in Ω
Eq. 14.10

Figure 14.3 Mathematical Model of a Steady State Heat Sink.

14.7.2 Test Function

The test function φ and the solution T are assumed to belong to Hilbert spaces. A Hilbert space is an
infinite dimensional function space with functions of specific properties. It can be viewed as a
collection of functions with certain nice properties, such that these functions can be conveniently
manipulated in the same way as ordinary vectors in a vector space. For example, you can form linear
combinations of functions in this collection (the functions have a well-defined length referred to as
norm) and you can measure the angle between the functions, just like Euclidean vectors. Indeed, after
applying the finite element method on these functions, they are simply converted to ordinary vectors.
The finite element method is a systematic way to convert the functions in an infinite dimensional
function space to first functions in a finite dimensional function space and then finally ordinary
vectors (in a vector space) that are tractable with numerical methods.

14.7.3 Weak Formulation

The weak formulation is obtained by requiring Eq. 14.9 to hold for all test functions in the test
function space instead of Eq. (5.8) for all points in Ω. A problem formulation based on Eq. (5.8) is
thus sometimes referred to as the pointwise formulation. In the so-called Galerkin Method, it is
assumed that the solution T belongs to the same Hilbert space as the test functions. This is usually
written as φ ϵ H and T ϵ H, where H denotes the Hilbert space. Using Green’s first identity (essentially
integration by parts), the following equation can be derived from (5.9):
 405

 kT. dV −  (−kT) . n dS =  g (T, x)  dV

Ω 2Ω Ω
Eq. 14.11
The weak formulation, or Variational formulation, of Eq. 14.9 is obtained by requiring this
equality to hold for all test functions in the Hilbert space. It is called “weak” because it relaxes the
requirement Eq. 14.9, where all the terms of the PDE must be well defined in all points. The relations
in Eq. 14.11 and Eq. 14.10 instead only require equality in an integral sense. For example, a
discontinuity of a first derivative for the solution is perfectly allowed by the weak formulation since
it does not hinder integration. It does, however, introduce a distribution for the second derivative
that is not a function in the ordinary sense. As such, the requirement (Eq. 14.9) does not make sense
at the point of the discontinuity. A distribution can sometimes be integrated, making Eq. 14.10 well
defined. It is possible to show that the weak formulation, together with boundary conditions (5.8), is
directly related to the solution from the pointwise formulation. And, for cases where the solution is
differentiable enough (i.e., when second derivatives are well defined), these solutions are the same.
The formulations are equivalent, since deriving (5.10) from (5.8) relies on Green’s first identity,
which only holds if T has continuous second derivatives. This is the first step in the finite element
formulation. With the weak formulation, it is possible to discretize the mathematical model equations
to obtain the numerical model equations. The Galerkin method one of the many possible finite
element method formulations can be used for discretization. First, the discretization implies looking
for an approximate solution to Eq. 14.11 in a finite-dimensional subspace to the Hilbert space H so
that T ≈ Th. This implies that the approximate solution is expressed as a linear combination of a set of
basis functions ψi that belong to the subspace:

Th (x) =  Ti ψi (x)
i
Eq. 14.12
The discretized version of Eq. 14.12 for every test function ψj therefore becomes:

 T  kψ .ψ dV +   (−kT ψ ).nψ dS =  g T ψ

i
i i j
i
i i j
i
i i ψ jdV
Ω 2Ω Ω
Eq. 14.13
The unknowns here are the coefficients Ti in the approximation of the function T(x). Eq. 14.13 then
forms a system of equations of the same dimension as the finite-dimensional function space. If n
number of test functions ψj are used so that j goes from 1 to n, a system of n number of equations is
obtained according to Eq. 14.13. From Eq. 14.12, there are also an unknown coefficients (Ti).
Once the system is discretized and the boundary conditions are imposed, a system of equations is
obtained according to the following expression:

ATh = b Eq. 14.14

where T is the vector of unknowns, T h = {T1, .., Ti, …, Tn}, and A is an NxN matrix containing the
coefficients of Ti in each equation j within its components Aji. The right-hand side is a vector of the
dimension 1-n. A is the system matrix, often referred to as the stiffness matrix, harkening back to the
finite element method’s first application as well as its use in structural mechanics. If the source
function is nonlinear with respect to temperature or if the heat transfer coefficient depends on
temperature, then the equation system is also nonlinear and the vector b becomes a nonlinear
function of the unknown coefficients Ti. One of the benefits of the finite element method is its ability
to select test and basis functions. It is possible to select test and basis functions that are supported
 406

over a very small geometrical region. This implies that the integrals in Eq. 14.14 are zero
everywhere, except in very limited regions where the functions ψj and ψi overlap, as all of the above
integrals include products of the functions or gradients of the functions i and j. The support of the
test and basis functions is difficult to depict in 3D, but the 2D analogy can be visualized.

14.8 Effect of Basis Function

Assume that there is a 2D geometrical domain and that linear functions of x and y are selected, each
with a value of 1 at a point i, but zero at other points k. The next step is to discretize the 2D domain
using triangles and depict how two basis functions (test or shape functions) could appear for two
neighboring nodes i and j in a triangular mesh. Two neighboring basis functions share two triangular
elements. As such, there is some overlap between the two basis functions, as shown in Figure 14.4
(A - B). Further, note that if i = j, then there is a complete overlap between the functions. These
contributions from the coefficients for the unknown vector T that correspond to the diagonal
components of the system matrix Ajj. If the two basis functions are now a little further apart where
these functions do not share elements but they have one element vertex in common. As the Figure
14.4 (A) indicates, they do not overlap. When the basis functions overlap, the integrals in Eq. (5.12)
have a nonzero value and the contributions to the system matrix are nonzero. When there is no
overlap, the integrals are zero and the contribution to the system matrix is therefore zero as well.
This means that each equation in the system of equations for (5.12) for the nodes 1 to n only gets a
few non-zero terms from neighboring nodes that share the same element. The system matrix A in Eq.
(5.13) becomes sparse, with nonzero terms only for the matrix components that correspond to
overlapping Tij. The solution of the system of algebraic equations gives an approximation of the
solution to the PDE. The denser the mesh, the closer the approximate solution gets to the actual
solution547.

(B) Not overlapping

(A) Overlapping

Figure 14.4 Basis functions sharing two triangular elements in 2D

14.9 Different Elements

As mentioned above, the Galerkin Method utilizes the same set of functions for the basis functions
and the test functions. Yet, even for this method, there are many ways (infinitely many, in theory) of
defining the basis functions (i.e., the elements in a Galerkin finite element formulation). Let's review
some of the most common elements. The linear basis functions, as defined in a triangular mesh that
forms triangular linear elements, are depicted in Figure 14.5. The basis functions are expressed as
functions of the positions of the nodes (x and y in 2D and x, y, and z in 3D). In 2D, rectangular elements
are often applied to structural mechanics analyses. They can also be used for boundary layer meshing

547 Detailed Explanation of the Finite Element Method (FEM), COMSOL Inc.
 407

in CFD and heat transfer modeling.

Their 3D analogy is known as the
hexahedral elements, and they are
commonly applied to structural
mechanics and boundary layer
meshing as well. In the transition
from hexahedral boundary layer
elements to tetrahedral elements,
pyramidal elements are usually
placed on top of the boundary layer
elements. The corresponding second-
order elements (quadratic elements)
are shown in the figure below. Here,
the edges and surfaces facing a
domain boundary are frequently
curved, while the edges and surfaces Figure 14.5 Finite element approximation of the
facing the internal portion of the temperature field in the heat sink
domain are lines or flat surfaces. Note,
however, that there is also the option to define all edges and surfaces as curved. Lagrangian and
serendipity most common element types in 2D and 3D. It is difficult to depict the basis of the
quadratic basis functions in 3D inside the elements above, but color fields can be used to plot function
values on the element surfaces. When discussing FEM, an important element to consider is the error
estimate. This is because when an estimated error tolerance is reached, convergence occurs. Note
that the discussion here is more general in nature rather than specific to FEM.

14.10 Error Estimation

The finite element method gives an approximate solution to the mathematical model equations. The
difference between the solution to the numerical equations and the exact solution to the
mathematical model equations is the error: e = u - uh}. In many cases, the error can be estimated
before the numerical equations are solved (i.e., an a priori error estimate). A priori estimates are
often used solely to predict the convergence order of the applied finite element method. For instance,
if the problem is well posed and the numerical method converges, the norm of the error decreases
with the typical element size h according to O(hα), where α denotes the order of convergence. This
simply indicates how fast the norm of the error is expected to decrease as the mesh is made denser.
An a priori estimate can only be found for simple problems. Furthermore, the estimates frequently
contain different unknown constants, making quantitative predictions impossible. An a posteriori
estimate uses the approximate solution, in combination with other approximations to related
problems, in order to estimate the norm of the error.

14.11 Additional Finite Element Formulations

In the examples above, we have formulated the discretization of the model equations using the same
set of functions for the basis and test functions. One finite element formulation where the test
functions are different from the basis functions is called a Petrov-Galerkin Method. This method is
common, for example, in the solution of convection-diffusion problems to implement stabilization
only to the streamline direction. It is also referred to as the streamline upwind/Petrov-Galerkin
(SUPG) method. In the solution of coupled systems of equations, different basis functions may be
used for different dependent variables. A typical example is the solution of the Navier-Stokes
equations, where the pressure is often more smooth and easy to approximate than the velocity.
 408

Methods where the basis (and test) functions for different dependent variables in a coupled system
belong to different function spaces are called mixed finite element methods.

14.12 Case Study - A High Order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier Incompressible

3D Navier–Stokes Solver with Rotating Sliding Meshes548
We present the development of a sliding mesh capability for an unsteady high order (order P ≥3) h/p
Discontinuous Galerkin solver for the 3D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. A high order
sliding mesh method is developed and implemented for flow simulation with relative rotational
motion of an inner mesh with respect to an outer static mesh, through the use of curved boundary
elements and mixed triangular–quadrilateral meshes. A second order stiffly stable method is used to
discretize in time the Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian form of the incompressible Navier–Stokes
equations. Spatial discretization is provided by the Symmetric Interior Penalty Galerkin formulation
with modal basis functions in the x–y plane, allowing hanging nodes and sliding meshes without the
requirement to use mortar type techniques. Spatial discretization in the z-direction is provided by a
purely spectral method that uses Fourier series and allows computation of spanwise periodic 3D
flows. The developed solver is shown to provide high order solutions, second order in time
convergence rates and spectral convergence when solving the incompressible Navier–Stokes
equations on meshes where fixed and rotating elements coexist.
In addition, an exact implementation of the no-slip boundary condition is included for curved edges;
circular arcs and NACA 4-digit airfoils, where analytic expressions for the geometry are used to
compute the required metrics. The solver capabilities are tested for a number of two dimensional
problems governed by the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on static and rotating meshes:
the Taylor vortex problem, a static and rotating symmetric NACA0015 airfoil and flows through three
bladed cross-flow turbines. In addition, three dimensional flow solutions are demonstrated for a
three bladed cross-flow turbine and a circular cylinder shadowed by a pitching NACA0012 airfoil.

14.12.1 Introduction
Problems where the forces on rotating/oscillating geometries are to be predicted are common in
engineering and fluid–structure interaction problems. Examples are flows around isolated rotating
bodies and airfoils, turbomachinery applications, insect flight aerodynamics, unmanned air vehicles
and more recently flows around renewable energy devices; wind and tidal turbines. These flows are
characterized by long wake structures, vortex shedding and stalled flows associated with flow
unsteadiness. To accurately simulate wakes and vortex structures and their evolution, high order
(typically P≥3) numerical methods (i.e. h/p conformal spectral and h/p non-conformal
Discontinuous Galerkin methods) are preferred since dissipation and dispersion errors are
minimum549 when compared to low order (typically 63) methods. Furthermore, for smooth
problems, the exponential decay of the error with polynomial enrichment (p-refinement) in high
order methods as opposed to the fixed decay rate characteristic of low order methods (i.e. h-
refinement only) renders high order methods particularly attractive to obtain accurate solutions for
flows where viscosity limits discontinuities (i.e. elliptic type equations) as in the incompressible
Navier–Stokes (NS) equations.
For conformal discretization (i.e. classic low order finite elements or h/p spectral type methods), if
geometric discontinuities arise (e.g. hanging nodes), a geometric incompatibility550 is created since
C0 continuity cannot be ensured across elements. Similarly, when neighboring elements have

548 Esteban Ferrer, Richard H.J. Willden, “A high order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier incompressible 3D
Navier–Stokes solver with rotating sliding meshes”, Department of Engineering Science, U. of Oxford, UK.
549 G. Karniadakis, S. Sherwin, Spectral h/p Element Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Oxford Science

Publications, 2005.
550 See Previous.
 409

different numbers of degrees of freedom (e.g. mixed triangular–quadrilateral mesh), a functional

incompatibility is created. Over the past few decades methods to overcome these difficulties have
been developed in the framework of conformal discretization, examples are iterative patching,
constrained approximation or mortar patching (see 419 for a review). A natural alternative to
overcome these incompatibilities is to relax the continuity condition across elements, which leads to
the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) finite element approach.
The DG finite element method can be seen as an extension of h/p spectral methods where the C0
continuity requirement across element boundaries is relaxed or also as a high order finite volume
method with compact stencil. Contrary to conformal finite elements or h/p spectral methods, DG
methods are locally conservative by construction. As in spectral methods, high-order polynomials
can be used within each element allowing exponential convergence, whilst discontinuities in the
solution are permitted at element interfaces.
It has been argued that DG methods are prohibitively expensive, when compared to conformal spatial
discretization (e.g. h/p spectral methods), since additional degrees of freedom (DOF) arise from the
discontinuities between elements. However, the relative number of the additional boundary degrees
of freedom to internal degrees of freedom for each element, decreases rapidly for high polynomials.
To exemplify this, let us consider a two dimensional problem and a mesh with Nel triangular elements
with polynomial spaces of order k. On the one hand, if a h/p spectral discretization is considered, the
number of global degrees of freedom required is DOF spectral ≈ (Nel /2) k2 (see551). On the other
hand, a DG discretization leads to a global number of DOF: DOFDG ≈ (Nel2/2) (k+1)(k+2). The last
expression shows that for high polynomial orders k, the number of degrees of freedom for the DG
discretization tends to DOFDG ≈ (Nel2/2)/k2. This simple analysis shows that for high polynomial
orders DOFDG ≈ DOFspectral and the additional cost of DG methods is not overwhelming.
DG formulations to solve the incompressible NS equations have seen increased popularity over
recent years as evidenced by the number of publications on the topic. Previously, the authors
presented the development of a DG code that uses the Symmetric Interior Penalty Galerkin (SIPG)
formulation for solving the unsteady 2D NS equations using straight sided triangular elements.
Simulation results from the solver were shown to be in good agreement with experimental results
and results from a h/p conformal spectral code. The present implementation is an extension of the
previous work to enable solutions on hybrid meshes (i.e. mixed triangular and quadrilateral
elements) with rotationally sliding meshes and with curved boundary conditions. In addition, Fourier
series applied orthogonally to the 2D DG plane are used to enable 3D flow solutions for problems
with spanwise geometric homogeneity. These developments have been implemented and tested and
results are reported herein.
The sliding mesh technique allows for mesh motion where an inner mesh zone region rotates with
respect to an outer static mesh. This relative motion creates hanging nodes at the interface between
static and rotating elements and boundaries (i.e. walls) curved edged elements are essential. To
clarify these concepts before continuing, we depict in Figure 14.6 an example of a 2D mesh, where
the static and rotating subdomains, the external curved boundary for a symmetric NACA airfoil and
the curved sliding mesh interface with the associated hanging nodes have been highlighted.
The present work shows that in the DG context, the geometric incompatibility arising from the
hanging nodes due to mesh rotation does not cause loss of exponential convergence properties.
Further, we show that the functional incompatibility originating from the use of triangular and
quadrilateral element types (these elements have different numbers of local degrees of freedom) in
combination with orthogonal modal basis functions, does not present a problem. Finally, the sliding
mesh implementation shows high accuracy when solving the incompressible NS equations in two and
three dimensions.

551P.E. Vos, S. Sherwin, R. Kirby, From h to p efficiently: implementing finite and spectral h/p element methods
to achieve optimal performance for low and high-order discretization, J. of Computational Physics (2010).
 410

To account for the relative mesh movement of the inner mesh with respect to the static outer mesh,
it is advantageous to write the equations for fluid motion in their Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian
(ALE) form552. The ALE description was first introduced for finite difference methods and
unstructured meshes for fluid simulation553 and subsequently extended to finite elements. The ALE
approach is generally used for dynamically deforming mesh elements (i.e. arbitrary node movement)
and has been widely explored in combination with DG methods to solve hyperbolic type equations
including the compressible NS equations. As for the incompressible ALE form of the NS equations
with arbitrary mesh movement, work was limited for a long time to conformal h/p spectral
discretization554. However, very recent work combines this technique with a DG approach.

Figure 14.6 Mixed Triangular–Quadrilateral Mesh for a Symmetric Airfoil with Curved Boundaries and
a Circular Sliding Mesh. Static and Rotating Subdomains are Distinguished

Deforming element techniques (e.g. ALE for deforming elements) require either generally small body
motions or remeshing for large motions that would have otherwise lead to unacceptably element
distortions. To avoid these limitations, an appealing approach is provided by combining the ALE
approach with the sliding mesh technique. This method is particularly suitable to problems where
the mesh movement is known a priori; e.g. rigid body rotation without mesh deformation. We chose
to follow this approach, the ALE formulation with sliding meshes for non-deforming elements, and
summarize some of its advantages below:

• Inertially fixed and rotating objects can be present in the same simulation.
• No remeshing is required (with its associated computational cost) as mesh elements do not
distort, enabling unlimited rotation as opposed to non-sliding or deforming ALE methods in
which large distortions and subsequent remeshing need to be handled.

552 J. Donea, A. Huerta, Finite Element Methods for Flow Problems, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2005.
553 C. Hirt, A. Amsden, J. Cook, An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds, Journal
of Computational Physics 14 (3) (1974).
554 A. Beskok, T. Warburton, An unstructured hp finite-element scheme for fluid flow and heat transfer in moving

domains, Journal of Computational Physics 174 (2) (2001) 492–509.

 411

• Subsequently, no projection of the solution into a new mesh is required to advance the
solution in time, which is generally a non-conservative process.
• In our approach, no interpolation through the sliding interface is required (as in low order
methods) which would introduce large numerical errors, destroying the high order
properties of the method.

The ALE approach with sliding mesh interfaces, has been previously studied in the context of h/p
conformal spectral methods that require mortar techniques for subdomain linking. Recently, a sliding
mesh capability has been described for the incompressible NS equations555, where the authors used
is geometric analysis and a low order conformal discretization (using NURBS) coupled with a special
treatment for the sliding curved interface exploiting ideas from DG methods. Purely DG discretization
in conjunction with the sliding mesh approach, have been used for the solution of electromagnetic
problems (i.e. Maxwell equations). It was shown innumerous references that to solve the Maxwell
eigensystem with sliding mesh interfaces, mortar techniques are beneficial.
To the authors’ knowledge, the work presented herein details the first high order (order P≥3) DG
solver with sliding meshes for the solution of the incompressible NS equations. We present a novel
approach where non-conformal DG is used in all elements and the curved sliding mesh interface is
approximated through an analytical mapping for the description of the circular interface. We show
that our approach and implementation does not require of mortar type techniques to accurately solve
the incompressible NS equations. In addition, to account for curved external boundary surfaces (i.e.
walls) representing NACA 4-digit airfoils, we introduce an analytical mapping as is required to obtain
smooth solutions for high order techniques. An efficient three dimensional extension of the 2D DG
solver is included, which enables 3D flow solutions on rotating geometries that present a geometrical
homogeneity in the spanwise (Fourier) direction.

14.12.2 Methodology
We are interested in solving the incompressible NS equations in primitive variable formulation in a
unique domain composed of non-overlapping static and moving subdomains:

Ω(t) = Ωsta ∪ Ωrot (t)

Eq. 14.15
Where Ωstat ∩ Ωrot(t) = Γsta-rot and Γsta-rot defines the circular sliding mesh interface. The non-
dimensional incompressible NS equations in ALE form556 can be written (in the absence of body
forces) as:

∂𝐮 1
= ((𝐮 − 𝐰). ∇)𝐮 = −∇p + ∇2 𝐮 ; ∇. 𝐮 = 0 in Ω(t)
∂t Re
Eq. 14.16
where u = (u, v)T and w are non-dimensionalised using the characteristic free stream flow velocity
magnitude U and represent the flow and mesh velocities, respectively. Re is the Reynolds number
(i.e. Re = UL/ν where L is a characteristic length scale and ν is the kinematic viscosity), t represents
the dimensionless time and p is the non-dimensional pressure (normalized using upstream dynamic
pressure q = ρU2, where ρ is the fluid density). We distinguish between the static and rotating
subdomain meshes (see Figure 14.6) by setting:

555 J. Cottrell, T. Hughes, Y. Bazilevs, Isogeometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, 2009.
556 J. Donea, A. Huerta, Finite Element Methods for Flow Problems, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2005.
 412

0 ∈ Ωsta
𝐰={
̅ × 𝐱 ∈ Ωrot (t)
𝛚
Eq. 14.17
where el are the mesh elements in Ω(t), ϖ = (0, 0, Lω/U) is the non-dimensional mesh rotational
velocity and ω represents the dimensional mesh rotational speed. To solve the described system, we
select to discretize temporally using finite differences (here a dual splitting method), and a high order
DG-Fourier method for spatial discretization.
14.12.2.1 Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian Temporal Discretization
We perform the temporal discretization using a second order splitting scheme developed in557 and
studied previously by the authors in conjunction with a DG method for the incompressible NS
equations in Eulerian form. The ALE version of this algorithm has been previously used in the context
of h/p spectral discretization. Within this scheme the nonlinear terms are treated explicitly whilst
viscous and pressure terms are handled implicitly. The resulting temporally discretized momentum
equation is given by:

γ0 𝐮𝐧+𝟏 − α0 𝐮𝐧 − α1 𝐮𝐧−𝟏 1 2 n+1

= −∇pn+1 + ∇ 𝐮 −
∆𝐭 Re
β0 [((𝐮n − 𝐰 n ). ∇)𝐮n ] − β1 [((𝐮n−1 − 𝐰 n−1 ). ∇)𝐮n−1 ]
Eq. 14.18
Using second order Adams–Bashforth values for the coefficients, we set: γ0 = 3/2, α0 = 2, α1 = -1/2,
β0 = 2 and β1 = -1. This second order method is not self-starting and we select: γ0 = α0 = β0 = 1 and α1
= β1 = 0 which reduces to the first order explicit forward Euler method for the first time step. For
detailed information such as rigid mesh motion, special discretization, mapping, users encourage to
access with [Ferrer and Willden]558.
14.12.2.2 3D Fourier Extension
The selected tensorial representation of the mappings from physical to computational space in
combination with tensorial orthogonal basis functions allow for 3D extensions of the method without
further modifications. In this section, we describe a 3D extension where the 2D Discontinuous
Galerkin capabilities presented in the previous sections are extended to account for three
dimensional flow features using Fourier series. The selected Fourier extension enables the use of the
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm and provides an efficient 3D solver for problems involving
spanwise geometric homogeneity. The use of Fourier series, to efficiently extend two dimensional
codes and account for three dimensional flows, has been previously reported for h/p conformal
spectral methods. To the authors’ knowledge, this type of extension has not been used together with
DG discretization. However, this technique leads to a series of 2D DG linear solves that are coupled
through the non-linear terms (see details below), in a similar manner to conformal implementations.
This feature renders these Fourier extensions similar. Let us introduce the three dimensional DG-
Fourier velocities and pressure as:

557 J. Hesthaven, T. Warburton, Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Algorithms, Analysis, and Applications,
Springer, 2008.
558 Esteban Ferrer, Richard H.J. Willden, “A high order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier incompressible 3D

Navier–Stokes solver with rotating sliding meshes”, Department of Engineering Science, U. of Oxford, UK.
 413

M M
−1 −1
2 2

𝐮(x, y, z) = ∑ 𝐮(x, y)eiβmz , p(x, y, z) = ∑ 𝐮(x, y)eiβmz

M M
m=− m=−
2 2
Eq. 14.19
i=√-1, b = 2p/Lz represents the wavenumber in the z-direction and Lz defines the length of the domain
in the periodic z-direction. In addition, M defines the number of planes in physical space (and the
number of modes in the Fourier space) and m denotes the m-th mode of the Fourier transformation.
Let us note that um(x,y) and pm(x,y) have been previously defined (see [Ferrer and Willden]559)
through Eq. (28) and represent the x–y plane DG solution for the m-th Fourier mode. Applying the
Fourier transform to the momentum and continuity equations in ALE form Eq. 14.16 and using its
linearity property, one obtains:

M
−1
2
∂𝐮m 1 2
∑ { ̂m pm − ∇
+∇ ̂m 𝐮m + FFT[(𝐮 − 𝐰). ∇ 𝐮]} eiβmz = 0
∂t Re
M
m=−
2
M
−1
2
̂m 𝐮m }eiβmz = 0
∑ {∇ in Ω(t)
M
m=−
2
Eq. 14.20
where FFTm{_} represent the m-th mode of the Fourier transform of the argument and the Fourier
operators ⟑ are defined as:

T
∂ ∂
̂m = (
∇ , , iβm) = (∇2D , iβm)T
∂x ∂y
∂2 ∂2
̂
∇𝑚 = ( 2 + 2 − β2 m2 ) = (∇22𝐷 − β2 m2 )
2
∂x ∂y
Eq. 14.21
where ⊽ 2D and ⊽22D are the two dimensional gradient (nabla) and Laplacian operators, respectively.
The system described by Eq. 14.20 is equivalent to solving an independent equation for each mode
m:

∂𝐮m 1
{ ̂m pm −
+∇ ̂2m 𝐮m + FFT[(𝐮 − 𝐰). ∇ 𝐮]} = 0 ; ∇
∇ ̂m 𝐮m = 0 in Ω(t)
∂t Re

The coupling between modes is ensured by the non-linear terms which are computed in physical
space. It should be noted that this Fourier extension only requires real to complex transforms and
hence only M/2 + 1 modes need to be computed at each time step.

Esteban Ferrer, Richard H.J. Willden, “A high order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier incompressible 3D
559

Navier–Stokes solver with rotating sliding meshes”, Department of Engineering Science, U. of Oxford, UK.
 414

14.12.2.3 Rotating Cases

In this section we consider cases where the NACA 4-digit boundary is used conjointly with the sliding
mesh technique (mesh depicted in Figure 14.6 and solution snapshots in Figure 14.7). A
NACA0015 airfoil under impulsive start conditions is rotated around its quarter chord point for a
range of geometric angles of attack (i.e. the angle between the free stream velocity and the airfoil
chord line) AOA = 0–35 degrees and four rotational speeds Lx/U = 0.005, 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1, where L
= c and c represents the airfoil chord. The Reynolds number is fixed to Re = 100. We use a triangular–
quadrilateral mesh constituted by 1462 elements and fix the polynomial order to k = 5. We show in
Figure 14.7 snapshots of the unsteady simulation for Lx/U = 0.05 at two geometric AOAs (AOA =
17.2 and 28.6 deg.). We observe that the contours are smooth across the interfaces between
triangular and quadrilateral elements and also across the sliding mesh interface.
In addition, the time averaged forces for the static cases for AOA = 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees have
been included. Comparison between static cases and dynamic simulations at low rotational speed
show very good agreement demonstrating the low error level introduced by the rotating mesh
interface. We also note that dynamic effects cause an increase in the vertical and horizontal
components of the forces with increasing rotational speed.

Figure 14.7 Snapshots of the Rotating NACA0015 for Polynomial Order k = 5 and Rotational Speed
Lx/U = 0.05 for (a) AOA = 17.2 deg. and (b) AOA = 28.6 deg

14.12.3 An Application: Three Bladed Cross-Flow Turbine

This section presents the solver’s ability to compute flows through cross-flow turbines (Darrieus
type) in two dimensions. This type of turbine exhibits azimuthal changes in blade aerodynamics,
leading to complex flow-phenomena such as stalled flows, vortex shedding and blade-vortex
interaction. We consider two configurations: an unconstrained three bladed turbine and a three
bladed turbine placed in an elliptically shaped duct (constrained or ducted case). In addition to the
classic unconstrained configuration, the ducted case has been selected to demonstrate the ability of
the sliding mesh technique to simulate the relative rotational motion of the inner mesh (rotating with
the turbine blades) with respect to the outer static mesh (stationary with respect to the duct walls).
The three bladed turbine configuration consists of NACA0015 airfoils located at a radial distance
from the center of rotation of two chords R = 2c. The relative angle between blades is fixed at 120_ as
 415

shown in Figure 14.8. The rotational speed is set to Lx/U = 0.5, where U is the free stream velocity
magnitude and L = c. The Reynolds number based on the free stream velocity and the blade chord is
Re = 50. We note that at this low Reynolds number, three dimensionalities may be disregarded,
enabling purely 2D flow simulations.

Figure 14.8 Solution Snapshots of a 3 Bladed Cross-Flow Turbine for Polynomial Order k = 3 for (a)
Unconstrained and (b) Ducted Cases.

The polynomial order is fixed to k = 3, the time step Dt to 0.0005 and we use two triangular–
quadrilateral meshes with curved NACA boundaries constituted of: 3320 elements for the
unconstrained three bladed turbine and 3614 for the ducted three bladed turbine. We depict in
Figure 14.8 (a) and (b), snapshots of the velocity magnitude for the unconstrained and ducted
devices respectively. It can be seen that the DG solver is able to resolve the complex flow physics
arising from the rotational motion, loading and unloading of the blades, and the interaction with the
boundary layers of the inertially fixed duct walls.

14.12.4 3D Flows
In this last section, we provide two examples of three dimensional flow simulations using the Fourier
extension of the DG solver with rotating sliding meshes. Firstly, the three bladed cross-flow turbine
geometry described is simulated with a rotational speed of Lx/U = 0.1 at a Reynolds number (based
on the freestream velocity and blade chord) of Re = 200 (i.e. large enough to trigger three
dimensionalities in the flow). The spatial discretization consists of polynomials of order k = 4 in the
x–y DG plane and 16 Fourier planes in the z-direction to discretize a spanwise length of Lz/c = 2,
where c is the blade chord. Figure 14.10 (a) shows pressure contours and Figure 14.10 (b) depicts
iso-surfaces of z-velocity showing the three dimensional character of the solution.
Secondly, we present a problem where a circular cylinder is shadowed by a pitching NACA0012
airfoil. This test case is presented to illustrate the possibility of locating static and rotating 3D
geometries together in a single mesh domain. In addition, all of the features presented in this paper
are included in a single simulation: high order sliding meshes and external curved boundary
condition for NACA airfoils and circular cylinders. The NACA airfoil is pitching with a rotational speed
of Lx/U = 0.5 and the Reynolds number based on the airfoil chord (which is equal to the cylinder
diameter) is Re = 200. As in the previous 3D case, the spatial discretization consists of polynomials
 416

of order k = 4 in the x–y DG plane and 16 Fourier planes in the z-direction. The spanwise length is, in
this case, set to Lz/c = 2.5. Figure 14.9 shows the pressure contours and iso-surfaces of z-velocity.
It can be seen that the sliding mesh technique does not damage the numerical solution and captures
the pressure interactions between static and rotating geometries. In addition, Figure 14.9 (b)
shows that three dimensionalities are present in the wake of both geometries.

Figure 14.10 Solution Snapshots of Flow Through a 3D Cross-Flow Turbine: (a) 11 pressure contours
[_1.6:0.8] and (b) iso-surfaces of z-velocity w = ±1 x10-6

Figure 14.9 Solution Snapshots of a 3D Circular Cylinder Shadowed by a Rotating NACA Blade (a)
Pressure Contours (b) Iso-surfaces of z velocity w = ±1.5 x 10-6

14.12.5 Conclusions
This work details the formulation, implementation and verification of a novel approach to solve the
three dimensional incompressible NS equations using a high order DG-Fourier formulation with
rotating sliding meshes. The solver allows accurate solutions with curved elements that conform to
either arced surfaces (internal or external) and the profile of NACA 4-digit airfoils. Hybrid
 417

unstructured meshes (i.e. with triangular and quadrilateral elements) can be handled without
damaging the solver’s high order numerical properties. To account for relative motion, the NS
equations are written in Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian form and the sliding interface is given special
treatment that maintains the temporal convergence rates and spectral properties of the code when
rotational motion is applied to a region of the mesh. In addition, it has been shown that the high order
properties are maintained when using body fitted NACA 4-digit boundaries.
We have demonstrated that geometric and functional incompatibilities do not represent a problem
in the DG context and that sliding mesh interfaces can be handled naturally without the necessity of
mortar type techniques. The solver accuracy has been verified with three test cases for two
dimensional flows: the Taylor vortex problem, a static and rotating NACA0015 airfoil and a three
bladed cross flow turbine under unconstrained and ducted flow conditions. These test cases have
enabled verification of the code as well as demonstrating its capabilities to simulate flow problems
in which accuracy is mandatory.
Three dimensional flow features are captured through a Fourier extension that allows high order 3D
solutions for rotating geometries that present a spanwise geometric homogeneity. 3D flow
simulation examples are provided for a three bladed cross-flow turbine and a pitching airfoil
shadowing a circular cylinder. The presented two and three dimensional simulations have
demonstrated the solver’s capability to compute complex flow physics for problems where static and
rotating geometries coexist in a single domain. We conclude that the novel approach to account for
sliding mesh interfaces and curved external boundaries provides a promising framework for
studying fluid–structure interaction problems involving rotation. For further evidence, please see the
[Ferrer and Willden]560.

14.13 Conceptual Differences Between Three Most used Prediction Methods

The partial differential equations shown earlier in this section must be discretized or transformed
into a set of algebraic equations which can be solved digitally. There are numerous methods available
to do this discretization. The three most popular, based on the number of commercial (CFD) codes
are:
• Finite Difference (FD)
• Finite Volume (FV)
• Finite Element (FE)

14.13.1 Finite Differencing (FD)

In the Finite Difference Method (FD), the partial derivatives are replaced with a series expansion
representation, usually a Taylor series. The series is truncated usually after 1 or 2 terms. The more
terms you include, the more accurate the solution. However, more terms in the expansion causes the
complexity and number of discrete points or nodes of the solution to increase dramatically. Applying
this method to a regularly shaped geometry is straightforward. However, for irregularly shaped
geometries, the equations must be transformed before the Taylor series can be applied. This
transformation introduces all sorts of problems in terms of additional cross-coupling of equations,
mesh generation and general convergence561.
14.13.2 Finite Volume (FV)
In the Finite Volume Method (FV), the governing equations are integrated over a volume or cell
assuming a piece-wise linear variation of the dependent variables (u, v, w, p, T). Again the piece-wise
linear variation determines both the accuracy and the complexity. Using these integrations, you

560 Esteban Ferrer ⇑, Richard H.J. Willden, “A high order Discontinuous Galerkin – Fourier incompressible 3D
Navier–Stokes solver with rotating sliding meshes”, Department of Engineering Science, U. of Oxford, UK.
561 “Finite Element vs Finite Volume”, Autodesk Knowledge Network.
 418

essentially balance fluxes across the boundaries of the individual volumes. The flux is calculated at
the mid-point between the discrete nodes in the domain. Hence, you must calculate a flux between
all neighboring nodes in the domain. In a topologically regular mesh (same number of divisions in
any one direction), this flux calculation is quite straightforward. In an irregular mesh (as in an
automatically generated tetrahedral mesh), this calculation will lead to an excruciating amount of
fluxes and a major bookkeeping effort to make sure all the fluxes have been calculated properly.
14.13.3 Finite Element (FE)
In the Finite Element Method (FE), Galerkin's method of weighted residuals is generally used. In
this method, the governing partial differential equations are integrated over an element or volume
after having been multiplied by a weight function. The dependent variables are represented on the
element by a shape function, which is the same form as the weight function. The shape function may
take any of several forms. The main advantage as well as the main disadvantage of finite elements is
that it is a mathematical approach that is difficult to put any physical significance on the terms in the
algebraic equations. In the finite volume method, you are always dealing with fluxes, not so with finite
elements. However, the application of finite elements on any geometric shape is the same. Also, the
boundary conditions which must be added after the fact for finite volume methods are an integral
part of the discretized equations. While it is true that early (FE) CFD methods struggled with
modeling high speed flows as many of the successfully applications demonstrated (FV) techniques to
the (FE) discretization method has produced a highly robust means of predicting not only high speed
turbulent flows, but compressible flows, as well. All of this has been accomplished with the strictest
application of Galerkin's method of weighted residuals. For simple geometries, you can show that
all 3 of these methods produce the exact same solution matrix or digital representation. All 3 methods
can produce similar sets of discretized equations for the governing equations of fluid flow and heat
transfer.
14.13.4 Comparing FV and FE for Spatial Convergence of 3D Benchmark Cases
Recently, [Park & Anderson]562 investigated the FV and FE schemes, both implemented within the
same flow solver to evaluated for several test cases. Different grid densities and types were used. The
cases include subsonic flow over a hemisphere cylinder, subsonic flow over a swept bump
configuration, and supersonic flow in a square duct. The FV and FE schemes are both used to obtain
solutions for the first two cases, whereas only the FV scheme is used for the supersonic duct.
Altogether, the FE scheme produces results on biased tetrahedral mesh topology that are closer to
the reference solution than the FV scheme. But the reader is advised not to take these results as
universal rule. The simulation used FUN3D, a NASA research code, but similar results is obtained by
other NASA linked codes such as CFD3D and USM3D.
To solve nonlinear flow equations, FUN3D uses a Hierarchical Adaptive Nonlinear Iterative
Method (HANIM). The main objective in using (HANIM) is the preconditioner alone (PA) baseline
solver technology to advance nonlinear solution in pseudo-time where (HANIM) preconditioner
based on defect-correction scheme and point-implicit Gauss-Seidel solution method563. It effectively
results in speed up iterative convergence on finer grids as shown in Figure 14.11. On the innermost
level HANIM uses a preconditioner based on a defect-correction method and iterates on a simplified
first-order Jacobian with a pseudo-time term. One preconditioner iteration involves a point- or line-
implicit multi-color pass through the domain. The number of preconditioner iterations may vary for
different nonlinear iterations. A Generalized Conjugate Residual (GCR) method uses the

562 Michael A. Park_ and W. Kyle Anderson, “Spatial Convergence of Three Dimensional Turbulent Flows”, DOI:
10.2514/6.2016-0859.
563 Mohagna J. Pandya, Boris Diskin, James L. Thomas, and Neal T. Frink, “Assessment of Preconditioner for a

USM3D Hierarchical Adaptive Nonlinear Iteration Method (HANIM) (Invited)”, AIAA Science and Technology
Forum and Exposition (SciTech 2016), San Diego, California, January 4-8 2016.
 419

preconditioner solutions to converge

linear residuals and to compute solution
correction [Diskin, et al.]564. Details
regarding this, as well as other
benchmark cases can be found in565.

14.13.4.1 Case Study - Subsonic

Flow Over 3D Swept Bump
Configuration
The test case is a swept 3D bum where
the finite-element and finite-volume
solutions are obtained on pure
tetrahedral and pure hexahedral
meshes ranging in size from just over 18
K nodes, up to over 966 K nodes.
Comparisons are made with simulations
that have been computed on hexahedral
meshes with almost 59 M nodes. The 3D
bump depicted in shows the surface
mesh for representative tetrahedral and
hexahedral meshes, respectively. The
flow conditions correspond to a Figure 14.11 Propagation Mean Flow Residuals on
freestream Mach number of 0.2 and a Different Mesh Density (Courtesy of Pandya, et al.)
Reynolds number of 3 M based on unit
grid length. In the results that follow, comparisons are again made with the results described in
[Diskin et al.]566 for drag coefficients, pressure distributions, and profiles of u-velocity and the
turbulence working variable. A summary of the mesh sizes used for this study is given in Table 14.1.
Note that for the finest mesh, finite-volume results on hexahedra from [Diskin et al.]567 are used as
reference solutions. Because the tetrahedral were not used beyond mesh sizes of 966 K nodes, the
number of tetrahedral for the finest two meshes is designated with “NA." Pressure distributions,

Table 14.1 Tetrahedral Grids for Finite-Volume and Finite-Element Solutions

564 Boris Diskin, James L. Thomas, Mohagna J. Pandya, Christopher L. Rumsey, “Reference Solutions for
Benchmark Turbulent Flows in Three Dimensions”, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
565 See previous.
566 Diskin, B., Thomas, J. L., Pandya, M. J., and Rumsey, C. L., “Reference Solutions for Benchmark Turbulent Flows

in Three Dimensions," AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition (SciTech 2016), AIAA.
567 See Previous.
 420

velocity profiles, and profiles of the turbulence working variable computed using the finite-element
and finite-volume results on tetrahedral meshes have been obtained on grid levels 3-5, and are
compared to corresponding results on hexahedral meshes of the same density.
14.13.4.2 Results and Discussion
The tetrahedral meshes are generated directly from the hexahedral meshes by splitting each
hexahedra into six tetrahedral with a consistent stencil568. During this process, all the surface
triangles have been generated by splitting the surface quadrilaterals in identical directions, thereby
introducing a strong bias in the mesh that apparently has a stronger effect on the finite-volume
solutions than on the finite-element solutions. Meshes with more random dissection of the hexahedra
or meshes typically produced by unstructured grid generation, may mitigate the strong bias of these
tetrahedral grids. Surface pressure distributions along the y = 0 symmetry plane are shown in Figure

(a) - Finite Element

(b) - Finite Volume

Figure 14.12 Convergence of Cp along symmetry plane (y = 0) using Tetrahedral cells

568Dompierre, J., Labb_e, P., Vallet, M.-G., and Camarero, R., “How to Subdivide Pyramids, Prisms, and Hexahedra
into Tetrahedra," 8th International Meshing Roundtable, 1999.
 421

14.12 (a-b) which displays the Cp for finite-element and finite-volume discretization on tetrahedral
meshes ranging in size from 18 K nodes to 966 K nodes. The finite-volume reference solution, which
is computed on the mesh with almost 59 M nodes.
 422

15 Spectral and Other High Degree Methods

In the field of CFD, low-order methods are generally robust and reliable; as a result, they are
routinely employed in practical calculations. For the same computing cost, high-order methods can
provide considerably more accurate solutions, but they are more complicated and less robust569.
Spectral method, among the most widely used, are powerful methods for the solution of partial
differential equations. Unlike finite difference methods, spectral methods are global methods, where
the computation at any given point depends not only on information at neighboring points, but on
information from the entire domain. The numerical solution is expressed as a finite expansion of
some set of basis functions. When the PDE is written in terms of the coefficients of this expansion,
the method is known as a Galerkin Spectral Method. Spectral methods converged exponentially,
which makes them more accurate than local methods. Global methods are preferable to local
methods when the solution varies considerably in time or space, when very high spatial resolution is
required, and also when long time integration is needed570. In the past several years, the activity on
both theory and application of spectral methods have been concentrated on collocation spectral
methods. One of the reasons is that collocation methods deals with nonlinear terms more easily than
Galerkin Methods. The nonlinear terms are treated on a FD manner, via grid points values
multiplication. The underlying idea of a collocation spectral method is to approximate the
unknown solution in the entire computational domain by an interpolating high order
polynomial at the collocation points. The spatial derivatives of the solution are approximated by
the derivatives of the polynomial and the time derivative, if it exists, is solved through classical finite
differences schemes. Periodic and non-periodic problems are respectively treated with
trigonometric and algebraic polynomials. Some of the methods commonly used in the literature are
the Fourier collocation methods for periodic domains and the Jacobi polynomials for non-periodic
domains, with the Chebyshev and Legendre polynomials as special cases571.
Spectral methods and finite element methods are closely related and built on the same ideas; the
main difference between them is that spectral methods use basis functions that are nonzero over the
whole domain, while finite element methods use basis functions that are nonzero only on small
subdomains. In other words, spectral methods take on a global approach while finite element
methods use a local approach. Partially for this reason, spectral methods have excellent error
properties, with the so-called "exponential convergence" being the fastest possible, when the
solution is smooth. However, there are no known three-dimensional single domain spectral shock
capturing results (shock waves are not smooth). In the finite element community, a method where
the degree of the elements is very high or increases as the grid parameter h decreases to zero is
sometimes called a spectral element method. Spectral methods are computationally less expensive
than finite element methods, but become less accurate for problems with complex geometries and
discontinuous coefficients572.

15.1 Spectral Difference Method (SD)

The spectral difference (SD) method combines the prominent features of structured and
unstructured grid methods to achieve high computational efficiency and geometric flexibility. It
utilizes the concept of discontinuous and high-order local representations to achieve conservation
and high accuracy. Universal reconstructions are obtained by distributing unknown and flux points
in a geometrically similar manner for all unstructured cells. In this thesis, we consider first order (p0),

569 H.T. Huynh a,⇑, Z.J. Wangb, P.E. Vincent, “High-order methods for computational fluid dynamics: A brief
review of compact differential formulations on unstructured grids”, Computers & Fluids · June 2013.
570 Sigal Gottlieb and David Gottlieb (2009), Scholarpedia.
571 Bruno Costa, “Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations”, A Mathematical Journal Vol. 6, No 4,2004.
572 From Wikipedia.
 423

second order (p1) and third order (p2) schemes. The unknowns are updated using the differential
form of the conservation law equations by approximating the flux derivatives at these unknown
points. In order to obtain the flux derivatives, we use a polynomial reconstruction of the fluxes from
their values at available flux points to the unknown points. As a result, the method is defined as a
difference method. The SD method is similar to the multi-domain spectral method developed by
[Kopriva] and can be viewed as an extension of the multi-domain spectral method to a simplex
unstructured grid573. If the unsteady 2D Euler equations are considered, Q is a vector of conservative
variables, the viscous fluxes are zero vectors and F and G are the inviscid fluxes,

ρ  ρu   ρv 
ρu   ρu 2 + p   ρuv 
Q F G    
+ + =0 where Q = , F= , G= 2 
t x y ρv   ρuv   ρv + p 
     
E u(E + p)  v(E + p)
Eq. 15.1
The current cell residual term R(Q) can be evaluated once the neighboring three cells are known. We
can denote the unknown and flux points for cell i as rj,i , and rk,i, respectively. The solutions of Q at
flux points can be conveniently constructed using a Lagrange-type polynomial basis function ,L j,i(r)
as
Np
Q(rk, j ) =  L j,i (rk,i )Q j,i Eq. 15.2
j=1

where Np=(n+1)(n+2)/2 is the number of unknown points required to support a degree p polynomial
construction as already illustrated in Figure 15.1. As a result, Q(rk) is continuous inside individual
cell element, while across the element interfaces, it is discontinuous and the inviscid fluxes F(rk) and
G(rk), are not uniquely determined.

Figure 15.1 Placement of Unknown ( Red Dot) and Flux (Blue ) Points for a Triangular
Element; From left to right - Case (a): First Order; Case (b): Second Order; Case (c): Third
Order.

15.2 Spectral Volume Method (SV)

Spectral volume is a numerical method for conservation laws. It has all the desired properties of a
higher order scheme. The spectral volume (SV) method can be interpreted as a derivative of the finite

573Ravishekar Kannan, “High Order Spectral Volume and Spectral Difference Methods on Unstructured Grids”, A
Dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 2008.
 424

volume method where each cell (called spectral volume) is sub divided into a structured set of
smaller sub-cells(called control volume). This scheme exhibits many of the desirable properties of
the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method. It achieves high-order accuracy on unstructured grids and
has a compact stencil (as each SV only communicates only with its nearest neighbors), thus making
it suitable for parallel applications. As the DOFs are the control volume averages, the limiting
phenomenon can be applied at a control volume level. Thus the SV scheme can attain a higher
resolution for discontinuities than the DG method. In this thesis, we consider 2nd , 3rd and 4th order
SV schemes. Here, we following the development by [Kannan] closely.
15.2.1 Basic Formulation
Eq. 15.1 is considered in domain Ω with the appropriate initial and boundary conditions. Domain Ω
is discretized into I non-overlapping triangular (2D) cells. In the SV method, the simplex grid cells are
called SVs, denoted Si, which are further partitioned into CVs, denoted Cij, which depend on the
degree of the polynomial reconstruction. Figure 15.2 shows linear, quadratic and cubic partitions
in 2D.

Figure 15.2 Partitions of a Triangular SV . Linear, Quadratic and Cubic Reconstructions Publicized in
Case (a), Case(b) and Case(c) respectively

We need N unknown control volume solution averages (or DOFs). Np is calculated using the below
formula Np=(m+1)(m+2)/2 where m is the degrees of the polynomial, constructed using the CV
solution averages. The CV averaged conserved variable for Cij is defined as

1
Q (rkj ) =
Vij  QdV
Cij
, j = 1, , , N p , i = 1, , I Eq. 15.3

Where Vi,j is the volume of Cij. Given the CV averaged conserved variables, a mth degree polynomial
can be constructed such that it is (m+1)th order approximation to Q. In other words, we can write
the polynomial as
Np
pi (x, y) =  L j (x, y)Qi, j Eq. 15.4
j=1
where the shape functions Lj(x,y) satisfy

1
Vij L
Cij
n (x, y)dV = δ jn Eq. 15.5

The G.E. (Eq. 15.1) is integrated over the Cij. This results in the below equation
 425

K
∂𝐐 1
+ ∑ ∫ (𝐇⃗⃗ . 𝐧
⃗ ) dA = 0
∂t Vij Ar r=1
Eq. 15.6
where H = (F - Fv, G - Gv) , Ar represents the rth face of Cij, n is the outward unit normal vector of Ar
and K is the number of faces in Cij. The surface integration on each face is done using a (m+1)th order
accurate Gauss quadrature formula. The fluxes are discontinuous across the SV interfaces.

15.3 Fast Fourier Transform Methods (FFT)

The most accurate method for calculating spatial derivatives is to use Fast Fourier Transforms.
Instead of being (Δx)2, (Δx)6 or (Δx)n , the spectral, semi-spectral or Galerkin Methods converge to
the exact solution faster than any algebraic value of n < ∞. As Δx decreases, the rate of convergence
is exponential. That does not mean however, that for some finite value of Δx that the spectral method
will give a perfect solution574. The French mathematician [Fourier] discovered that periodic
waveforms can be modeled as the sum of sine and cosine waves called a Fourier series. The
mathematical expression is given in Eq. 15.1 for a generic signal with a known range. Application of
Eq. 15.7 for a square wave with increasing values of “n” yields to Figure 15.13, where it is apparent
that as n -> ∞ the square wave is more accurately reproduced.

1 
  nx   nx 
f(x) = a 0 +  a n cos   + b n sin  
2 n =1   L   L 
Eq. 15.7
The Fourier transform is used to represent a periodic function by a discrete sum of complex
exponentials. Instead of Eq. 15.7 above, we could equally write the summation in complex form:

 inπn L inπn
1
f(x) =  e
2L −L
L
, cn = f(x) e L
dx Eq. 15.8
−

If we define a new variable k = 2πn⁄α we can define the Fourier Integral (after some math):


f(k) =  f(x) eikxdx (5.7)
−
Eq. 15.9
If we want a result for f(k), which is called the Fourier Transform f(x), we apply Eq. 15.9 in the limit
as approaches infinity with the Fourier series coefficients cn = ckα/2π. The Fourier transform is
closely related to a Fourier series and is used to represent a general function by a continuous
superposition (or integral) of complex exponentials. The Fourier transform decomposes an arbitrary
waveform into its sine components, thus revealing its frequency content that might else be difficult
to detect. A Discrete-Time Fourier transform (DTFT) is a form of the Fourier transform that is
applicable to uniformly sampled continuous functions. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) takes
advantage of powers of two and is a numerically efficient implementation of computing DTFTs.
Simply stated, the FFT is an efficient numerical algorithm that allows for the transformation of a time

574 Computational Fluid Dynamics lecture series in Spectral Methods.

 426

dependent signal into the frequency domain (or vice-versa)575.

15.3.1 Case Study - Flow and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Analyses for Tip Clearance Effect in an
Operating Kaplan Turbine576
The Kaplan turbine is an axial propeller-type turbine that can simultaneously control guide vanes
and runner blades, thus allowing its application in a wide range of operations (see Figure 15.3).
Here, turbine tip clearance plays a crucial role in
turbine design and operation as high tip clearance
flow can lead to a change in the flow pattern,
resulting in a loss of efficiency and finally the
breakdown of hydro turbines. This research
investigates tip clearance flow characteristics and
undertakes a transient fast Fourier transform
(FFT) analysis of a Kaplan turbine. In this study,
the computational fluid dynamics method was
used to investigate the Kaplan turbine
performance with tip clearance gaps at different
operating conditions. Numerical performance was
verified with experimental results. In particular, a
parametric study was carried out including the
different geometrical parameters such as tip Figure 15.3 Runner Vane of the Kaplan
clearance between stationary and rotating Turbine
chambers. In addition, an FFT analysis was
performed by monitoring dynamic pressure fluctuation on the rotor. Here, increases in tip clearance
were shown to occur with decreases in efficiency owing to unsteady flow. With this study’s focus on
analyzing the flow of the tip clearance and its effect on turbine performance as well as hydraulic
efficiency, it aims to improve the understanding on the flow field in a Kaplan turbine.
15.3.1.1 Background and Literature Survey
Kaplan hydro turbines are widely used in hydropower plants because of their high efficiency over a
wide range of operating conditions. A propeller-type turbine is suitable when the load on the turbine
remains constant. For a Kaplan turbine’s design and operation, tip clearance, which is formed by the
rotating runner blades and the stationary runner chamber577-578 is essential. Because of the clearance
gap between the blade tips and turbine casing of axial turbomachinery rotor blades, tip leakage flows
are expected. In both compressors and turbines, the tip region flow tends to include a pressure-
driven, oblique leakage flow from the pressure side to the suction side of the blade, and the roll-up of
a tip vortex in the corner bounded by the casing and the blade on the suction side. Leakage flows then
cause efficiency loss because of the increase in tip clearance in Kaplan turbines579.

575 A Guide to Random Data Analysis for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Published by Computer Aided
Engineering Associates Inc.
576 Hyoung-Ho Kim , Md Rakibuzzaman, Kyungwuk Kim and Sang-Ho Suh, “Flow and Fast Fourier Transform

Analyses for Tip Clearance E_ect in an Operating Kaplan Turbine”, Energies 2019.
577 Fox, R.W.; Mcdonald, A.T.; Pritchard, P.J.; Leylegain, J.C. Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012

578 Wu, H.; Feng, J.J.;Wu, G.K.; Luo, X.Q. Numerical investigation of hub clearance flow in a Kaplan turbine. IOP

Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2012.

579 Roussopoulos, K.; Monkewitz, P.A. Measurements of Tip Vortex Characteristics and the Effect of an Anti-

Cavitation Lip on a Model Kaplan Turbine Blade. Flow Turbulence. Combust. 2000, 64, 119–144.
 427

An unsteady state analysis of hydro-turbines can be useful in predicting and analyzing the instability
caused by the unsteady flow field and in developing mitigating techniques to minimize the effects of
these phenomena580. [Wang et al.]581 investigated the characteristic frequencies in the unsteady
hydraulic behavior of a hydraulic turbine experimentally wherein their results showed that the
pressure fluctuation in a draft tube is stronger than that in the upstream flow passage. A more recent
study by [Su et al.]582 investigated the chaotic dynamic characteristics of pressure fluctuation signals
in hydro-turbines, and their results revealed that the main energy pressure fluctuations in a draft
tube are located at low-frequency regions. Also recently, [Glowacz]583 investigated the fault diagnosis
of a single-phase induction motor based on acoustic signals and then proposed a signal processing
method for early fault diagnosis of electrical and mechanical faults of rotating machines.

Figure 15.4 3D Geometry of the prototype Kaplan Turbine

At present, the conventional methods for monitoring the stability of the fluid machinery include
pressure fluctuation, acoustic, output, and other inspections. In the running monitoring, the pressure

580 Anup, K.C.; Thapa, B.; Lee, Y.-H. Transient numerical analysis of rotor–stator interaction in a Francis turbine.
Renew. Energy 2014, 65, 227–235
581 Wang, F.J.; Li, X.Q.; MA, J.M.; Yang, M. Experimental investigation of characteristic frequency in unsteady

hydraulic behavior of a large hydraulic turbine. J. Hydrodyn. 2009.

582 Su, W.T.; Li, X.B.; Lan, C.F.; Ah, S.; Wang, J.S.; Li, F.C. Chaotic dynamic characteristics of pressure fluctuation

signals in hydro-turbine. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2016, 30, 5009–5017.

583 Glowacz, A. Fault diagnosis of single-phase induction motor based on acoustic signals. Mech. Syst. Signal

Process. 2018, 117, 65–80.

 428

fluctuation is the major focus to identify the operating conditions. To extract the characteristics of
fluctuated signals, mathematical tools like the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analysis is often
utilized, wherein the signals’ features in the time domain, frequency domain, or amplitude can be
obtained. Such methods are
significantly helpful for the
working stability and state
inspection of hydro-
turbines. Therefore, the
unsteady pressure
fluctuations characteristics
in the tip leakage flow play
an important role in load
instabilities.
With this, this study focuses
on the investigation of the
tip clearance flow of a
Kaplan turbine through
numerical simulations.
Furthermore, unsteady
three-dimensional turbulent
flow throughout the full
domain of a Kaplan turbine
was investigated through
simulations, and the Figure 15.5 The Block Diagram
pressure pulsation in the
runner and generator (hub)
was predicted and analyzed using the FFT analysis. Geometrical Model and Meshing The 3D geometry
of the horizontal prototype Kaplan turbine was selected to analyze the flow characteristics of the
hydrological aberration as shown in Figure 15.4. The runner shape was scanned using a noncontact
portable 3D scanner from the operation site. During scanning, the 3D scanner generated the 3D
geometrical shape of the runner blade through the laser detection technique connected to the
computer; however, the 3D runner blade shape generated was not smoothened out. Therefore, the
gaps were filled, and the rough geometry was modified using CAD software ANSYS ICEM to get the
original 3D runner
shape. The block
diagram of the research
study is represented in
Figure 15.5.
The 3D geometry of the
casing, generator, guide
vane, runner hub, and
draft tube domains was
designed by ICEM-CFX
from the 2D drawing
information provided by
Chungju 2 Hydropower
Plant, K-Water, Korea. In
this study, two model Figure 15.6 Tip Cearance Gap of the Kaplan Turbine
cases (cases 1 and 2)
were invested. The tip clearance gap of case 1 was 1.75 mm and 6 mm (only two blades) for case 2.
 429

Figure 15.6 shows the tip gap between the runner and runner chamber (adopted from K-Water). In
this figure, A, B, and C represent the gap height between the runner and the runner housing. The tip
gap of A was 6.05 mm, 4.80 mm for B, and 3.35 mm for C. The runner tip clearance was considered
the uniform gap, because it is difficult to
make the real shape as well as good grid Description Dimension
of the runner. Table 15.1 shows the Runner outlet diameter 1648.25 mm
specifications of the model turbine. Head 9.2 m
The model was meshed by ANSYS ICEM- Flow Rate 75.3 m3/s
CFX based on a finite volume methods Max. Power 6000 KW
FVM)584. Because of the flexibility of the Rotational Speed 171.4 rpm
complex design of the hydraulic turbine Runner Blade 4
when solving complex geometries, the Guide Vane 16
unstructured prism tetrahedron grid
system was employed to make the grid. Table 15.1 Main Design Parameters of the prototype
The total meshing grids of case 1 were Kaplan Turbine
3,167,233 nodes and 16,506,970
elements, and 4,937,129 nodes and 27,291,793 elements for case 2. The meshing grids are shown in
Figure 6. To precisely simulate the flow in a whole turbine channel, further grid refinement around
the blades’ edges is required. In the blade end surfaces, the volumes’ sizes were controlled as shown
in [Hyoung-Ho Kim]585. Because of the complex prototype geometry, the grid becomes large, which
is needed for a comparatively fine grid, as numerical simulations lead to a considerable amount of
computational data. To reduce the influence of grid number on the computational results, a grid
independence test is important to check the convergence of the simulation. The grid independence
test was performed at the rated operating condition (GV 67° and RV 23°), and the results found that
the efficiency deviation was less than 1% as shown in Figure 15.7. The mesh independence test was
carried out based on the most accepted grid convergence index (GCI) method [30–32]. With this, the
approximate and extrapolated relative error can be expressed as:

εnew − εold
εa = × 100%
εnew
Eq. 15.10
The grid convergence index (GCI) can be
written as:

1.25 × εa
GCI =
r2 − 1
Eq. 15.11
where εa is the relative error, and r is the
mesh ratio. The finite volume approaches
of the cells near the wall boundary are
irregular, thus possibly requiring a
particular treatment. Prisms can first
Figure 15.7 Mesh Independence Test of the Kaplan
create a layer of regular prisms near the Turbine
wall and then mesh the remaining

584 Ansys Inc. ANSYS-CFX, “Introduction, CFX Reference Guide, CFX Tutorials, CFX-Pre User’s Guide, CFX-Solver
Manager User’s Guide, Theory Guide”, Release 16.00; Ansys Inc.: Cannonsburg, PA, USA, 2016.
585 Hyoung-Ho Kim , Md Rakibuzzaman, Kyungwuk Kim and Sang-Ho Suh, “Flow and Fast Fourier Transform

Analyses for Tip Clearance E_ect in an Operating Kaplan Turbine”, Energies 2019.
 430

volume with tetrahedrons

[33,34]. This grid approach
enhances the near walls and
gives better solutions and
convergence of computational
methods586. The quality of the
model turbine grids is
represented in Table 15.2. The
estimated numerical
uncertainties in the hydraulic
Table 15.2 Mesh Quality of the Kaplan Turbine
turbine are shown in587. It shows,
the 3,167,233 grid density
showed lower uncertainties. Also, the total meshed element and nodes were different for each guide
vane and runner vane opening angle as represented in [Hyoung-Ho Kim]588 for cases 1 and 2,
respectively.
15.3.1.2 Governing Equations
Numerical analysis of the fluid flow was based on the continuity and momentum equations589, which
are expressed as Eq. 15.12 as follows:

∂ui ∂ui ∂ui ∂p ∂ ∂ui

=0 , ρ( + uj )=− + (μ ̅̅̅̅̅
− ρu ′ u′ )
i j
∂xi ∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
Eq. 15.12
where ρ and μ are density and dynamic viscosity respectively, p is the pressure scalar, ρu’iu’j is the
apparent turbulent stress tensor. For numerical simulation, the turbine domain was considered with
its steady-state, incompressible flow. The runner domain was rotating on the z-axis at a given
rotating speed, and the casing and draft tube were on a stationary domain. The turbine domain is
shown in Figure 15.8. The analysis boundaries were imposed on the inlet and the outlet as static
pressure of 90,221 Pa and 0 Pa on each domain model. All boundary walls were assumed to be
smooth with a nonslip condition. A frozen rotor was applied to couple the rotation and stationary
domain for steady analysis. The rotational speed was 171.4 rpm. Menter’s shear stress transport
(SST) turbulence model was used to solve the turbulence behavior of the flowing fluid590. The residual
value was of 1 x 10-5 was controlled by convection criteria. The unsteady simulation was carried out
to investigate the dynamic behavior of the model Kaplan turbine. The time step of the 3_ rotation of
the runner blade was selected. In general, 4–5 cycles would be enough to get the stable unsteady flow,
but because of the limitation of computer resources, two rotation cycles were made for case 1, and
five cycles for case 2. Therefore, the time step was 7.29 x 10-3 s. The total time for case 1 was 0.70 s,
and 1.75 s for case 2. The transient stator–rotor was accounted to couple the rotation and stationary
interface for the unsteady analysis. Furthermore, the FFT analysis of the Kaplan turbine investigated
the stability of the operating conditions.

586 Friziger, J.H.; Peric, M. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd ed., Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
587 See Previuos.
588 Hyoung-Ho Kim , Md Rakibuzzaman, Kyungwuk Kim and Sang-Ho Suh, “Flow and Fast Fourier Transform
Analyses for Tip Clearance E_ect in an Operating Kaplan Turbine”, Energies 2019.
589 Drtina, P.; Sallaberger, M. Hydraulic turbines—Basic principles and state-of-the art computational fluid

dynamics applications. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C. 1999.

590 Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 1st ed., DCW Industries, Inc.: La Cañada Flintridge, CA, USA, 1994.
 431

Figure 15.8 Turbine Domain for Computational Analysis

15.3.1.3 Validation of Numerical Results

To confirm the numerical results, simulation results were validated with experimental data. Figure
15.9 show the comparison of the experiment and the numerical values at different operating
conditions for the tip clearance interval of 1.75 mm. It is seen from that figure that both results had
almost similar trends. Therefore, it was revealed that the results of the computer simulations agree
with experimental results.

Figure 15.9 Comparison Between Computed and Experimental Results as a Function of Runner Vane
Opening Angle

15.3.1.3.1 Performance Characteristics

Computer simulations were conducted at different flow rates by changing guide vane and runner
vane opening angles of the Kaplan turbine for cases 1 and 2. The guide vane opening angles varied
 432

from 23.5 to 72.0 deg, and the runner vane opening angles varied from -4 to 25 deg for cases 1 and 2.
The simulations were conducted with output ranging from 1000 to 6000 kW. For details regarding
the performance issues, please refer to [Hyoung-Ho Kim]591.

Figure 15.10 Tip Clearance (a) Velocity and (b) Pressure Profiles Between the Runner Blade and the
Shroud (case 2)

15.3.1.3.2 Effect of Tip Clearance

The analysis of the internal
flow characteristics was
performed at the rated
condition 67 deg and RV 23
deg), which is mostly
operated during power
generation. Tip clearance
flow creates a vortex that
separates from the runner
blade suction side and gives
rise to a local pressure
reduction near the tip on the
suction side of the runner
blade and at the center of the
tip vortex. In this region, if
the static pressure falls
below the vapor pressure of
the liquid water flowing
through the turbine, then
cavitation will occur. Figure
15.10 shows the tip
clearance velocity and Figure 15.11 Blade-to-Blade Velocity Contours

Hyoung-Ho Kim , Md Rakibuzzaman, Kyungwuk Kim and Sang-Ho Suh, “Flow and Fast Fourier Transform
591

Analyses for Tip Clearance E_ect in an Operating Kaplan Turbine”, Energies 2019.
 433

pressure profiles distribution in a plane view. It is observed that the tip clearance vortex impacts on
the shroud of the runner, where pressure suddenly drops into the center of the runner; here, pressure
is gradually increased, and velocity is velocity is decreased near the runner blade trailing edge. In this
case, a possible cavitation scenario could be formed inside the tip vortex.
Figure 15.11 shows the blade-to-blade velocity contour for the models for cases 1 and 2 at rated
conditions; here, for case 1, the flow velocities inside the turbine are well predicted. No recirculation
zone was found inside the runner and shroud tip gap. However, for case 2, the flow instability
occurred near the tip of the runner, velocity is increased at the center of the runner suction side, and
the flow is highly unsteady. Moreover, the tip clearance gap increases the turbulent kinetic energy
and reduces the output of the turbine. Figure 15.12 shows the turbulent kinetic energy in the
vicinity of the draft tube of cases 1 and 2 at a rated condition. It was observed that for case 1, the
turbulent kinetic energy at the exit of the runner outlet was symmetrical in the up and down
directions, and for case 2, it was asymmetric, which may be because of the instability of the flow near
the uneven tip gap of the runner.

Figure 15.12 Distribution of the Turbulence Kinetic Energy at Draft Tube

15.3.1.4 Conclusions
This study was based on the steady and unsteady flow analyses with varying tip gaps between the
runner and the discharge ring of the Kaplan turbine through a computerized flow analysis. For
numerical analysis, three-dimensional modeling of the existing Kaplan turbine was performed from
the drawing and scanning shape data. The performance analysis of the existing turbine was
accomplished by changing the runner vane opening from -4 to 25 deg and the guide vane opening
from 23.5 to 72.0 deg. The computed results were compared with the experimental data provided by
the manufacturer to verify the validity of the simulation. The performance of the standard tip gap
(1.75 mm) and that of an abnormal tip gap (6 mm) of the Kaplan turbines were also compared. It was
confirmed that the output of the turbine decreased when the interval was generated. In the
comparison of the results, in both cases, the flow rate of case 2 was 1.46% less than of the
conventional turbine, and the output difference was a maximum of 81 kW. In the case of efficiency,
the difference between both cases was only 4.59% within the rated range. The internal flow field and
the turbulent kinetic energy distribution was also observed and found that unsteady flow occurred
as the gap became higher than usual, and pressure fluctuation and period were confirmed at the
peripheral part of the vane. Through the FFT analysis, it was confirmed that the vibration caused by
the flow instability of the runner vane was transmitted to the generator. To reduce the dynamic
vibration effect of the turbine, the tip gap of the machine should be minimized. Therefore, repairing
 434

the runner and discharge ring gap within the normal range should be considered because this flow
may cause severe vibrations to the runner. The study notes that the simulation results did not
consider the bearing and mechanical loss of the turbine that occurred in the machine. The thrust
bearing, shaft seals, and guide bearings into the model could be a great interest for further research
combined with the FFT analysis.

15.4 Finite Differences vs. Spectral Methods

Finite difference methods are obtained by approximating a function u(x) by a local polynomial
interpolant, and the derivatives of u(x) are then approximated by differentiating this local
polynomial. Here local refers to the use of nearby grid points to approximate the function or its
derivative at a given point. For slowly varying functions, the use of local polynomial interpolants
based on a small number of interpolating grid points is very reasonable. Indeed, it seems to make
little sense to include function values far away from the point of interest in approximating the
derivative. However, using low-degree local polynomials to approximate solutions containing very
significant spatial or temporal variation requires a very fine grid in order to accurately resolve the
function. Clearly, the use of fine grids requires significant computational resources in simulations of
interest to science and engineering. In the face of such limitations we seek alternative schemes that
will allow coarser grids, and therefore fewer computational resources. Spectral methods are such
methods; they use all available function values to construct the necessary approximations.

Figure 15.13 Partial Sums of the Fourier Series of a Square Wave

15.5 Weighted Residual Method (WRM)

Weighted residual methods (WRM) assume that a solution can be approximated analytically or
piecewise analytically. In general a solution to a PDE can be expressed as a superposition of a base
set of functions
N
T(x, t) =  a j (t) j (x) Eq. 15.13
j=1
 435

where the coefficients aj are determined by a chosen method. The method attempts to minimize the
error, for instance, finite differences try to minimize the error specifically at the chosen grid points.
WRM’s represent a particular group of methods where an integral error is minimized in a certain
way and thereby defining the specific method. Depending on the maximization WRM generate

• Finite Volume Method,

• Finite Element Methods,
• Finite Difference Methods.
• Spectral Methods,

15.5.1 General Formulation

The starting point for WRM’s is an expansion in a set of base or trial functions. Often these are
analytical in which case the numerical solution will be analytical

N
T(x, y,z, t) = T0 (x, y,z, t) +  a j (t) j (x, y,z) Eq. 15.14
j=1

with the trial functions φj(x; y; z). T0(x; y; z; t) is chosen to satisfy initial or boundary conditions and
the coefficients aj(t) have to be determined. possible trial functions are φj(x) = xj-1 or φj(x) = sin(jπx).
The expansion is chosen to satisfy a differential equation L(͠T) = 0 (where T is the exact solution)

T 2T
L(T) = −α 2 = 0 Eq. 15.15
t x
However, the numerical solution is an approximate solution, i.e., T≠ ̅T such that the operator L
applied to T produces a residual L (T) = R . The goal of WRM’s is to choose the coefficients aj such that
the residual R becomes small (in fact 0) over a chosen domain. In integral form this can be achieved
with the condition

 W m (x, y,z) R dx dy dz = 0 Eq. 15.16

where Wm is a set of weight functions (m = 1 , , , , M) which are used to evaluate above equation. The
exact solution always satisfies (6.2) if the weight functions are analytic. This is in particular true also
for any given subdomain of the domain for which a solution is sought. There are four main categories
of weight or test functions which are applied in WRM’s, namely,

• Subdomain Method
• Collocation Method
• Least Squares Method
• Galerkin Method
For excellent discussion regarding these method and general information, readers should consult592.

15.6 Boundary Element Method (BEM)

The boundary element method (BEM), also known as panel methods, is a numerical computational
method of solving linear partial differential equations which have been formulated as integral

592 Weighted Residual Methods, Chapter 6.

 436

equations (i.e. in boundary integral form). It can be applied in many areas of engineering and science
including fluid mechanics, acoustics, electromagnetics, and fracture mechanics. The integral equation
may be regarded as an exact solution of the governing partial differential equation. The boundary
element method attempts to use the given boundary conditions to fit boundary values into the
integral equation, rather than values throughout the space defined by a partial differential equation.
Once this is done, in the post-processing stage, the integral equation can then be used again to
calculate numerically the solution directly at any desired point in the interior of the solution domain.
BEM is applicable to problems for which Green's functions can be calculated. These usually involve
fields in linear homogeneous media. This places considerable restrictions on the range and generality
of problems to which boundary elements can usefully be applied. Nonlinearities can be included in
the formulation, although they will generally introduce volume integrals which then require the
volume to be discretized before solution can be attempted, removing one of the most often cited
advantages of BEM. The benefits of this approach is that it takes a 2D or 3D PDE and reduces it to an
algorithm that involves 1D or 2D computations only, respectively. In 2008, [Baltazar]593 investigated
a low-order potential-based panel method for the calculation of the incompressible steady for his
thesis. The potential flow around wings and marine propellers is presented, with an on the modelling
of the potential flow wings and marine propellers using a boundary element method. In another
attempt, same author presents the mathematical formulation and the numerical implementation of
a Boundary Element Method for the calculation of the steady incompressible potential flow around
delta wings with leading-edge vortex sheet separation, where a partial wake relaxation model with
given wake geometry is used [Baltazar]594.
15.6.1 Comparison to Other Methods
The boundary element method is often more efficient than other methods, including finite elements,
in terms of computational resources for problems where there is a small surface/volume ratio.
Conceptually, it works by constructing a mesh over the modelled surface. However, for many
problems boundary element methods are significantly less efficient than volume-discretization
methods (finite element method, finite difference method, finite volume method). A good example of
application of the boundary element method is efficient calculation of natural frequencies of liquid
sloshing in tanks. Boundary element formulations typically give rise to fully populated matrices. This
means that the storage requirements and computational time will tend to grow according to the
square of the problem size. By contrast, finite element matrices are typically banded (elements are
only locally connected) and the storage requirements for the system matrices typically grow quite
linearly with the problem size.

15.7 Dispersion-Relation-Preserving (DRP) Algorithms for 3D Problems

The Dispersion-Relation-Preserving (DRP) algorithms is to minimize the numerical dispersion error
in large-scale (3D) Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD), as explored by [Wang and Teixeira]595.
The dispersion error is first expanded in spherical harmonics in terms of the propagation angle and
the leading order terms of the series are made equal to zero. Frequency-dependent FDTD coefficients
are then obtained and subsequently expanded in a polynomial (Taylor) series in the frequency
variable. An inverse Fourier transforation is used to allow for the incorporation of the new

593 J. Baltazar, “On the Modelling of the Potential Flow About Wings and Marine Propellers Using a Boundary
Element Method”, University of Lisbon, 2008.
594 J. Baltazar, “Leading-Edge Vortex Flow Modelling Around Delta Wings Using a Boundary Element Method”,

September 2009.
595 S. Wang and F. L Teixeira, “Dispersion-Relation-Preserving FDTD Algorithms for Large-Scale Three-

Dimensional Problems”, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 51, No. 8, August 2003.
 437

coefficients into the FDTD updates.

Readers should also consult the work
by [Sriramkrishnan]596, where an
incompressbile NS on channel flow
been investigated for Re = 800 &
1200. In that particular article, author
was interested in transition to
turbulence. (See Figure 15.14).
Other prominent references in this
topic would be [Wang et al.]597.
15.7.1 Effects of AeroAcoustics
In contrast with (CFD), which has a
history of fast development,
computational aeroacoustics (CAA)
has only recently emerged as a
separate area of study598. CAA focuses
on the accurate prediction of
aerodynamically generated sound as
well as its propagation. Both aspects
of the problem, sound generation and
propagation, are enormously
Figure 15.14 Typical Cross Sectional View of a Square
demanding in terms of time-domain
Channel Showing Wall Bisectors and Corner Bisectors
computation due to the large number (Courtesy of Sriramkrishnan)
of grid points normally required. For
aeroacoustic simulation to become
more practical, CAA schemes must thus be higher order accurate and numerically optimized in order
to reduce the required number of grid points per wavelength while still ensuring tolerable levels of
numerically induced dissipation and dispersion. Numerical dissipation and numerical dispersion are
the two primary sources of error associated with computational schemes. Because of these errors,
classical CFD schemes have been found to be unsatisfactory for the study of wave propagation over
long distances and large time intervals. Many CFD schemes, such as the MacCormack scheme, upwind
schemes, and essentially nonoscillatory (ENO) schemes have been extended to high order using more
stencil points for application to acoustic problems. Recent reviews of computational aeroacoustics
by [Tam]599and [Wells and Renaut]600 have discussed various numerical schemes currently popular
in CAA. In many computational aeroacoustics applications, the DRP schemes have often been favored
for their accuracy and efficiency. DRP schemes, however, are implemented only on uniform Cartesian
grids. Practical problems in aeroacoustics, however, are seldom confined to uniform Cartesian grids
with the associated computing grids often being nonuniform Cartesian or curvilinear. Grid-
optimized, dispersion-relation-preserving (GODRP) finite difference schemes are proposed, based on

596 Sriramkrishnan M, “DNS of Three-Dimensional Incompressible Channel Flow”, A Report Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur May, 2014.
597 J. L. Wang, Q. B. Huang, Z. X. Liu, and K. Li., “Explicit High Accuracy Maximum Resolution Dispersion Relation

Preserving Schemes for Computational Aeroacoustics”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation,

598 Cheolung Cheong and Soogab Lee, “Grid-Optimized Dispersion-Relation-Preserving Schemes on General

Geometries for Computational Aeroacoustics”, Journal of Computational Physics 174, 248–276 (2001).
599 C. K. W. Tam, “Computational aeroacoustics: Issues and methods”, AIAA J. 33, 1788 (1995).
600 V. L. Wells and R. A. Renaut, “Computing aerodynamically generated noise”, Annual. Rev. Fluid Mechanic,

1997.
 438

optimization that gives finite difference equations locally the same dispersion relation as the original
partial differential equations on the grid points in the nonuniform Cartesian or curvilinear mesh601.

15.8 Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)

Lattice Boltzmann Methods (LBM) (or Thermal Lattice Boltzmann Methods (TLBM)) is a CFD
methods for fluid simulation. Instead of solving the Navier–Stokes equations, the discrete Boltzmann
equation is solved to simulate the flow of a Newtonian fluid with collision models such as
Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook (BGK). By simulating streaming and collision processes across a limited
number of particles, the intrinsic particle interactions evince a microcosm of viscous flow behavior
applicable across the greater mass602. It is a modern approach in Computational Fluid Dynamics and
often used to solve the incompressible, time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations numerically. Its
strength lies however in the ability to easily represent complex physical phenomena, ranging from
multiphase flows to chemical interactions between the fluid and the surroundings. The method finds
its origin in a molecular description of a fluid and can directly incorporate physical terms stemming
from a knowledge of the interaction between molecules. For this reason, it is an invaluable tool in
fundamental research, as it keeps the cycle between the elaboration of a theory and the formulation
of a corresponding numerical model short. At the same time, it has proven to be an efficient and
convenient alternative to traditional solvers for a large variety of industrial problems603. In LBM, the
fluid is replaced by fractious particles. These particles stream along given directions (lattice links)
and collide at the lattice sites. The LBM can be considered as an explicit method. The collision and
streaming processes are local. Hence, it can be programmed naturally for parallel processing
machines. Another beauty of the LBM is handling complex phenomena such as moving boundaries
(multiphase, solidification, and melting problems), naturally, without a need for face tracing method
as it is in the traditional CFD.

15.8.1 Approaches
There are two main approaches in simulating the transport equations (heat, mass, and momentum),
continuum and discrete604. In continuum approach, ordinary or partial differential equations can be
achieved by applying conservation of energy, mass, and momentum for an infinitesimal control
volume. Since it is difficult to solve the governing differential equations for many reasons
(nonlinearity, complex boundary conditions, complex geometry, etc.), therefore finite difference,
finite volume, finite element, etc., schemes are used to convert the differential equations with a given
boundary and initial conditions into a system of algebraic equations. The algebraic equations can be
solved iteratively until convergence is insured. Let us discuss the procedure in more detail, first the
governing equations are identified (mainly partial differential equation). The next step is to discretize
the domain into volume, girds, or elements depending on the method of solution. We can look at this
step as each volume or node or element contains a collection of particles (huge number, order of
1016). The scale is macroscopic. The velocity, pressure, temperature of all those particles
represented by a nodal value, or averaged over a finite volume, or simply assumed linearly or bi-
linearly varied from one node to another. The properties such as viscosity, thermal conductivity, heat
capacity, etc. are in general known parameters (input parameters, except for inverse problems). For
inverse problems, one or more thermos-physical properties may be unknown.
On the other extreme, the medium can be considered made of small particles (atom, molecule) and

601 Cheolung Cheong and Soogab Lee, “Grid-Optimized Dispersion-Relation-Preserving Schemes on General
Geometries for Computational Aeroacoustics”, Journal of Computational Physics 174, 248–276 (2001).
602 CFD online
603 NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, “Lattice Boltzmann Methods”, 2002.
604 A. A. Mohamad, “Lattice Boltzmann Method”, Fundamentals and Engineering Applications with Computer

Codes, ISBN 978-0-85729-454-8.

 439

these particles collide with each other. This scale is microscale. Hence, we need to identify the inter-
particle (inter-molecular) forces and solve ordinary differential equation of Newton’s second law
(momentum conservation). At each time step, we need to identify location and velocity of each
particle, i.e., trajectory of the particles. At this level, there is no definition of temperature, pressure,
and thermo-physical properties, such as viscosity, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, etc. For
instance, temperature and pressure are related to the kinetic energy of the particles (mass and
velocity) and frequency of particles bombardment on the boundaries, respectively. This method is
called Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations.
15.8.2 Dilute Gas Regimes
The rarefied gas dynamics can be best classified by Knudsen Number (Kn) where it is a measure of
collisions in a gas flow, and equals to mean free path of a molecule λ divided by L the flow length
scale. For rarefied gas, the Monte Carlo simulation has been used where it described as: Direct
simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method is the Monte Carlo method for simulation of dilute gas
flows on molecular level, i.e. on the level of individual molecules. To date DSMC is the basic
numerical method in the kinetic theory of gases and rarefied gas dynamics. It is basically a
generic numerical method for a variety of mathematical problems based on computer
generation of random numbers. Applications of DSMC simulations would be:

➢ Satellites and space crafts on LEO and in deep space

➢ Re-entry vehicles in upper atmosphere
➢ Nozzles and jets in space environment
➢ Dynamics of upper planetary atmospheres
➢ Fast, non-equilibrium gas flows (laser ablation, evaporation, deposition)
➢ Flows on microscale, microfluidics

to name a few605. The flow regimes of diluted gas, with the aid of Knudsen number, is demonstrated
in Figure 15.15.

Free molecular Transitional Flow Continuum Flow

(collisionless) Flow • Non-equilibrium • Local equilibrium
• Non-equilibrium flows • Kn << 1 (Kn < 0.01)
flows • Kn ~ 1
• Kn >> 1 (Kn > 10)

Figure 15.15 Flow Regimes for Diluted Gas

605 G.A. Bird, “Molecular gas dynamics and the direct simulation of gas flows”. Clarendon Press, 1994
 440

15.8.3 Middle of the Scale

As usual, in the process of , the book keeping plays a major role. We need to identify location (x, y, z)
and velocity (cx, cy, and cz are velocity components in x; y and z direction, respectively) of each
particle. Also, the simulation time step should be less than the particles collision time, which is in the
order of (10-12 s). Hence, it is impossible to solve large size problems (order of cm) by MD method.
At this scale, there is no definition of viscosity, thermal conductivity, temperature, pressure, and
other phenomenological properties. Statistical mechanics need to be used as a translator between
the molecular world and the macroscopic world. The question is, is the velocity and location of each
particle important for us? For instance, in this room there are billions of molecules traveling at high
speed order of 400 m/s; like rockets, hitting us. But, we do not feel them, because their mass
(momentum) is so small. The resultant effect of such a ‘‘chaotic’’ motion is almost nil, where the air
in the room is almost stagnant (i.e., velocity in the room is almost zero). Hence, the behavior of the
individual particles is not an important issue on the macroscopic scale, the important thing is the
resultant effects. What about a middle man, sitting at the middle of both mentioned techniques? the
lattice Boltzmann method (LBM). The main idea of Boltzmann is to bridge the gap between micro-
scale and macro-scale by not considering each particle behavior alone but behavior of a
collection of particles as a unit, Figure 15.16. The property of the collection of particles is
represented by a distribution function. The keyword is the distribution function. The distribution
function acts as a representative for collection of particles. This scale is called meso-scale. The
mentioned methods are illustrated in Figure 15.16. LBM enjoys advantages of both macroscopic
and microscopic approaches, with manageable computer resources. LBM has many advantages. It is
easy to apply for complex domains, easy to treat multi-phase and multi-component flows without a
need to trace the interfaces between different phases. Furthermore, it can be naturally adapted to
parallel processes computing. Moreover, there is no need to solve Laplace equation at each time step
to satisfy continuity equation of incompressible, unsteady flows, as it is in solving Navier–Stokes (NS)
equation. However, it needs more computer memory compared with NS solver, which is not a big
constraint. Also, it can handle a problem in micro and macro scales with reliable accuracy.

Molecular Dynamics Lattice Boltzmann Continuum

• Microscopic scale Method • Macroscopic Scale
• Hamilton s Equation • Mesoscopic scale • Finite Volume, Finite
• Boltzman Equation Element, etc
• Navier-Stokes Equations

Figure 15.16 Simulations Spectrum of Rarefied Gas

15.8.4 Maxwell Distribution Function

In 1859, Maxwell (1831–1879) recognized that dealing with a huge number of molecules is difficult
to formulate, even though the governing equation (Newton’s second law) is known. As mentioned
before, tracing the trajectory of each molecule is out of hand for a macroscopic system. Then, the idea
of averaging came into picture. The idea of Maxwell is that the knowledge of velocity and position of
each molecule at every instant of time is not important. The distribution function is the important
 441

parameter to characterize the effect of the molecules; what percentage of the molecules in a certain
location of a container have velocities within a certain range, at a given instant of time. The molecules
of a gas have a wide range of velocities colliding with each other’s, the fast molecules transfer
momentum to the slow molecule. The result of the collision is that the momentum is conserved. For
a gas in thermal equilibrium, the distribution function is not a function of time, where the gas is
distributed uniformly in the container; the only unknown is the velocity distribution function. For a
gas of N particles, the number of particles having velocities in the x-direction between cx and cx + dcx
is Nf (cx)dcx . The function f(dcx) is the fraction of the particles having velocities in the interval cx and
cx dcx; in the x-direction. Similarly, for other directions, the probability distribution function can be
defined as before. Then, the probability for the velocity to lie down between cx and cxdcx; cy and cy dcy;
and cz and cz dcz will be N f(cx) f(cy) f(cz) dcx dcy dcz: It is important to mention that if the above
equation is integrated (summed) over all possible values of the velocities, yields the total number of
particles to be N,

 f(c x ) f(c y ) f(cz ) dc x dc y dc z = 1

Eq. 15.17
Since any direction can be x, or y or z, the distribution function should not depend on the direction,
but only on the speed of the particles. Therefore,

f(cx ) f(c y ) f(cz ) =  (c2x + c2y + c2z )

Eq. 15.18
where φ is another unknown function, that need to be determined. The value of distribution function
should be positive (between zero and unity). Hence, in Eq. 15.18, velocity is squared to avoid
negative magnitude. The possible function that has property of Eq. 15.18 is logarithmic or
exponential function. After some manipulation and math, as well as help from kinetic theory, the
final form of distribution is

3  mc 2 
−  
 m  2 
f(c) = 4π   ce
2  2kT 
Eq. 15.19
 2ππk 
Note that this function increases parabolically from zero for low speeds, reaches a maximum value
and then decreases exponentially. As the temperature increases, the position of the maximum shifts
to the right. The total area under the curve is always one, by definition. This equation called Maxwell
or Maxwell–Boltzmann Distribution function. For detail information, see 21.
15.8.5 Boltzmann Transport Equation
A statistical description of a system can be explained by distribution function f (r, c, t) ; where f (c, r,
t) ; c is the number of molecules at time t positioned between r and dr which have velocities between
c and cdc; as mentioned before. An external force F acting on a gas molecule of unit mass will change
the velocity of the molecule from c to c +F dt and its position from r to r +c dt . (see Figure 15.17).
The number of molecules, f (r, c, t) before applying the external force is equal to the number of
molecules after the disturbance, f (r + c dt , c + F dt , t + dt), if no collisions take place between the
molecules. Hence,

f(r + cdt , c + Fdt , t + dt) dr dc − f(r, c, t) dr dc = 0 Eq. 15.20

 442

However, if collisions take place between the molecules there will be a net difference between the
numbers of molecules in the interval drdc: The rate of change between final and initial status of the
distribution function is called collision operator, Ώ. Hence, the equation for evolution of the number
of the molecules can be written as,

f(r + cdt , c + Fdt , t + dt) dr dc − f(r, c, t) dr dc = Ω(f) dr dc dt Eq. 15.21

Dividing the above equation by dt

dr dc and as the limit dt → 0; yields

df (r, c, t)
= Ω(f)
dt
Eq. 15.22
The above equation states that the
total rate of change of the
distribution function is equal to the
rate of the collision. The Ώ is a
function of f and need to be
determined to solve the Boltzmann
equation. For system without an
external force, the Boltzmann
equation can be written as, Figure 15.17 Position and velocity vector for a particle after and
before applying a force, F

f (r, c, t)
+ c.f = Ω(f) where c and f are vectors
t
Eq. 15.23
Eq. 15.23 is an advection equation with a source term (Ώ), or advection with a reaction term, which
can be solved exactly along the characteristic lines that is tangent to the vector c, if Ώ is explicitly
known. The problem is that Ώ is a function of f and Eq. 15.23 is an integral-differential equation,
which is difficult to solve. Therefore, there are several approximations available for Ώ. The relation
between the above equation and macroscopic quantities such as fluid density, q; fluid velocity vector
u, and internal energy e, is as follows

ρ(r, t) =  m f(r, c, t) dc
ρ(r, t) u(r, t) =  m c f(r, c, t) dc
1 3
ρ(r, t) e(r, t) =
2  m u a2 f(r, c, t) dc and e =
2m
k BT
Eq. 15.24
where m is the molecular mass and ua the particle velocity relative to the fluid velocity, the peculiar
velocity, ua = c – u. The conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are shown Eq. 15.24
respectively.
 443

15.8.6 The BGKW Approximation

It is difficult to solve Boltzmann equation because the collision term is very complicated. The outcome
of two body collisions is not likely to influence significantly, the values of many measured quantities
(Cercignani, 1990). Hence, it is possible to approximate the collision operator with simple operator
without introducing significant error to the outcome of the solution. Bhatnagar, Gross and Krook
(BGK) in 1954 introduced a simplified model for collision operator. At the same time Welander
(1954), independently, introduced similar operator. The collision operator is replaced as,

1 eq
Ω(f) = ω(f eq - f) = (f - f)
τ
Eq. 15.25
The coefficient ω is called the collision frequency and τ is called relaxation factor (ω =1/τ). The local
equilibrium distribution function is denoted by feq , which is Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution
function. After introducing BGKW approximation, the Boltzmann equation (Eq. 15.25), without
external forces can be approximated as,

f 1
+ c.f = (f eq - f)
t τ
f i (r + ci Δt , t + Δt) = f i (r, t) +
τ

Δt eq

f i (r, t) − f i (r, t)
Eq. 15.26
The above equation is the working horse of the Lattice Boltzmann Method and replaces Navier–
Stokes equation in CFD simulations. It is possible to derive Navier–Stokes equation from Boltzmann
equation. The local equilibrium distribution function with a relaxation time determine the type of
problem needed to be solved. The beauty of this equation lies in its simplicity and can be applied for
many physics by simply specifying a different equilibrium distribution function and source term
(external force). Adding a source term (force term) to the above equation is straightforward.
However, there are a few concerns, which will be discussed in the following chapters. Also, the details
of implementing the above equation for different problems, such as momentum, heat and mass
diffusion, advection–diffusion without and with external forces. It is possible to use finite difference
or finite volume to solve partial differential. Some authors used this approach to solve fluid dynamic
problems on non-uniform grids. The main emphasis is to solve Eq. 15.26 in two steps, collision and
streaming.
15.8.7 Lattices & DnQm Classification
Lattice Boltzmann models can be operated on a number of different lattices, both cubic and
triangular, and with or without rest particles in the discrete distribution function606.A popular way
of classifying the different methods by lattice is the DnQm scheme. Here "Dn" stands for "n
dimensions", while "Qm" stands for "m speeds". For example, D3Q15 is a 3Dimensional Lattice
Boltzmann model on a cubic grid, with rest particles present. Each node has a crystal shape and can
deliver particles to 15 nodes: each of the 6 neighboring nodes that share a surface, the 8 neighboring
nodes sharing a corner, and itself (The D3Q15 model does not contain particles moving to the 12
neighboring nodes that share an edge; adding those would create a "D3Q27" model). Real quantities
as space and time need to be converted to lattice units prior to simulation. Non-dimensional
quantities, like the Reynolds number, remain the same. (see Figure 15.18).

606 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 444

Figure 15.18 Real Molecules versus LB particles

15.8.8 Lattice Arrangements

In general, two models can be used for lattice arrangements, called D1Q3Q and D1Q5Q, as shown in
Figure 15.19. D1Q3 is the most popular one. The black nodes are the central node, while the gray
nodes are neighboring nodes. The factitious particles stream from the central node to neighboring
nodes through linkages with a specified speed, called lattice speed.
15.8.8.1 1D Lattice Boltzmann Method (D1O2)
The kinetic equation for the distribution function (temperature distribution, species distributions,
etc.), fk(x,t) can be written as:

f k (r, t) f (r, t) x
+ ck . k =Ω k ck = Eq. 15.27
t x t
where k = 1 , 2 (for one dimensional problem, D1Q2). The left-hand side terms represent the
streaming process, where the distribution function streams (advects) along the lattice link. The right-
hand term, X k , represents the rate of change of distribution function, f k , in the collision process. BGK
approximation for the collision operator can be approximated by

Ωk =
1
τ
 
(f k (x, t) - f keq (x, t) Eq. 15.28

The term s represents a relaxation time toward the equilibrium distribution (f eq k ), which is related
to the diffusion coefficient on the macroscopic scale. The above equation is the working horse for the
diffusion problem in one dimensional space, which can be reformulated as,

f k (x + Δx, t + Δt) = f k (x, t)[1- ω] + ω f keq (x, t)

Eq. 15.29
where ω=Δt/τ is the relaxation time. Error! Reference source not found. represents a number of e
quations for different k values (k ¼ 1 and 2), in each direction. The schematic diagram for three nodes
 445

with necessary linkages, central and neighboring nodes, where c1 = c, c2= -c. The dependent variable
can be related to the distribution function fi, as,

2 2
 ( x, t ) =  f k (x, t) , f eq
k = w k (x, t) and w k =1 Eq. 15.30
k =1 k =1

Figure 15.19 Lattice Arrangements for Velocity Vectors for Typical 1D, 2D and 3D Discretization

15.8.8.2 2D Lattice Boltzmann Method (D2Q9)

The process can be modelled using the Boltzmann transport equation, which is

f (x, t)
+ u.f = Ω Eq. 15.31
t
where f(x,t) is the particle distribution function, u is the particle velocity, and is the collision
operator607. The LBM simplifies Boltzmann's original idea of gas dynamics by reducing the number
of particles and confining them to the nodes of a lattice. For a two dimensional model, a particle is
restricted to stream in a possible of 9 directions, including the one staying at rest. These velocities
are referred to as the microscopic velocities and denoted by ei, where i = 0, , , , 8. This model is
commonly known as the D2Q9 model as it is two dimensional and involves 9 velocity vectors. For
each particle on the lattice, we associate a discrete probability distribution function fi(x, ei, t) or
simply fi(x, t), i = 0 , , , 8, which describes the probability of streaming in one particular direction. The

607 Yuanxun Bill Bao & Justin Meskas,” Lattice Boltzmann Method for Fluid Simulations”, April 14, 2011.
 446

macroscopic fluid density and velocity can be defined as a summation of microscopic particle
distribution function,

8 8
1
 (x, t) =  f i (x, t) , u(x, t) =  f (x, t) Eq. 15.32
i =0  i =0
i

The key steps in LBM are the streaming and collision processes which are given by

Equilibrium
[fi (x, t) − fi (x, t)]
fi (x + ∆x, t + ∆t) − fi (x, t) = −
⏟ ⏟ τ
Steaming
Collision
Eq. 15.33
In the actual implementation of the model, streaming and collision are computed separately, and
special attention is given to these when dealing with boundary lattice nodes. In the collision term of
(Eq. 15.33), feq i (x, t) is the equilibrium distribution, and τ is considered as the relaxation time
towards local equilibrium. For simulating single phase owes, it success to use Bhatnagar-Gross-
Krook (BGK) collision, whose equilibrium distribution feqi is defined by

 e .u 9 (e i .u) 2 3 u.u 
f ieq (x, t) = w i ρ + ρs i (u(x, t)) , s(u) = w i 3 i + 2
− 
 c 2 c 2 c2 
 4/9 i=0
 Δx
w i =  1/9 i = 1,2,3,4 , c= is the lattice speed
1/36 i = 5,6,7,8 Δt

Eq. 15.34
The fluid kinematic viscosity in the D2Q9 model is relate d to the relaxation time by

2 - Streaming 3 - Compute
1 - Initialize ρ, step: move fi → macroscopic ρ
u, fi and feq fi* in the and u from f*i
direction of ei using Eq. (4.29)

5 - Collision step:
calculate the updated
6 - Repeat step 2 4 - Compute feq i
distribution function fi
to 5 using Eq. (4.20)
= f*i - 1/τ (f*i-feqi)
using Eq. (4.20)

Figure 15.20 Schematics of Solving 2D Lattice Boltzmann Model

 447

2 - 1 (x) 2
 = Eq. 15.35
6 t
The algorithm can be summarized in
Figure 15.20. Notice that numerical issues can arise as τ → 1/2. During the streaming and
collision step, the boundary nodes require some special treatments on the distribution functions
in order to satisfy the imposed macroscopic boundary condition.

15.8.9 Case Study 1 – Solving 2D Conduction with Heat Flux Boundary Using The Lattice
Boltzmann Method (LBM)608
The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) has been developed over the last decade as an alternative
promising tool for fluid flows. It has been widely used in many kinds of complex flows such as
turbulent flow, solar collectors, multiphase flow and micro flow. This article deals with the
implementation of the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) for the solution of conduction problems with
heat flux and temperature boundary conditions. Problems in 2D rectangular geometries have been
considered. In the 2D geometry, the south and the north boundary are subjected to constant heat flux
condition. The remaining boundaries are at prescribed temperatures. The energy equation is solved
using the LBM. The results of the LBM have been found to compare very well with those available in
the literature.
15.8.9.1 Formulation and Kinetic Equation
We have considered transient heat conduction heat in a 2D rectangular geometry. Thermo-physical
properties of the medium are assumed constant. The system is initially at prelature T E . For time t >
0, the south and the north boundaries are subjected to heat fluxes qT ,S and qT ,N , respectively. The east
and the west boundaries are kept at temperatures TE and TW , respectively. For the problem under
consideration, and in the absence of convection and radiation, the energy equation is given by

∂T
= α∇2 T + Q
∂t
Eq. 15.36
Where α is the thermal diffusivity. The starting point of the LBM is the kinetic equation satisfies a
discretized evolution equation of the form 609

∂fi (r, t) 1
+ e̅i . ∇fi (r, t) = [fi (r, t) − fi0 (r, t)] , i = 1,2,3, , , , , b
∂t τ
Eq. 15.37
fi is the particle distribution function denoting the number of particles at the lattice node ȓ at time t
moving in direction i with velocity êi along the lattice link Δȓ = êi Δt connecting the nearest neighbors.
b is the number of directions in a lattice through which the information propagates. The basis of the
discrete velocity model is a finite set of virtual velocities êi or equivalently, of virtual fluxes of the
considered scalar field T(ȓ, t) which given by

608 Raoudha Chaabane, Faouzi Askri, Sassi Ben Nasrallah, “Application of the lattice Boltzmann method for
solving conduction problems with heat flux boundary condition”, International Renewable Energy Congress
November 5-7, 2009 - Sousse Tunisia.
609 S. Succi, “The Lattice Boltzmann Method for Fluid Dynamics and Beyond”, Oxford University Press, New York,

2001.
 448

T(r, t) = ∑ 𝑓𝑖 (𝑟, 𝑡)
𝑖=0
Eq. 15.38
The observed flux is expressed by

∑ 𝑓𝑖 (𝑟, 𝑡) e⃗𝑖
𝑖=0
Eq. 15.39
The well-known D2Q9 lattice model (Figure
15.21) will be considered here. In that model,
the set of êi is such that they connect the point,
on which the lattice stencil is centered, to its
nearest neighbors on a spatial grid with
uniform spacing in both coordinate directions.
Any LBM advances the probability densities fi (ȓ Figure 15.21 Schematic Diagram of the D2Q9
, t) in time and thereby computes the evolution Lattice
of the considered scalar. In the absence of
external sources or fluxes for the scalar, the corresponding discrete evolution equation can be
written in the following general form (Eq. 15.37). It is a single-relaxation-time model with relaxation
constant that can be related, via Chapmann–Enskog analysis, to the diffusivity of the medium f0i is
the equilibrium distribution function. The relaxation time can be related with the thermal diffusivity,
the lattice velocity C and the time step 610 by the following relation

3α ∆t
τ= +
|c|2 2
Eq. 15.40
For the D2Q9 model in particular, the 9 velocities êi and their corresponding weights wi are the
following

i−1 i−1
e⃗0 = (0,0) , e⃗i = [cos ( π) , (sin π)] . c i = 1,2,3,4
2 2
2i − 1 2i − 1
e⃗i = √2 [cos ( π) , (sin π)] . c i = 5,6,7,8
2 2
4 1 1
w0 = wi = i = 1,2,3,4 wi = i = 5,6,7,8
9 9 36
Eq. 15.41
It is to be noted that in the above equations, C = Δx/Δt = Δy/Δt and the weights satisfy the relation
∑wi = 0. After discretization, and considering heat generation, equation can be written as

610 D.A. Wolf-Gladrow,“Lattice Gas Cellular Automata and Lattice Boltzmann Models : An introduction”, Springer
Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2000.
 449

∆t
f (r, e𝑖 ∆t, t + ∆t) = fi (r, t) = [f (r, t) − fi0 (r, t)] + w𝑖 ∆tQ∗
τ i
Eq. 15.42
where Q* is the non-dimensional heat generation and wi is the weight in corresponding direction. To
process equation, an equilibrium distribution function is required. For heat conduction problems,
this is given by
fi0 (r, t) = wi T(r, t)
Eq. 15.43
15.8.9.2 Results and Discussion
We consider transient heat conduction problems in 2D Cartesian geometry with the following
conditions:
15.8.9.2.1 Case (1): Four Boundaries Are at Known Temperatures
The initial and the boundary conditions for cases (1) are the following

T(x, y, 0) = Tref , T(x, 0, t) = 0.25Tref

T(x, Y, T) = T(0, y, t) = T(X. y, t) = Tref
Eq. 15.44

Figure 15.22 Centerline(x/X=0.5) Temperature Evolution for Different Instants (Case 1)

Courtesy of [Chaabane et al.]
 450

Steady state conditions were assumed to have been achieved when the temperature difference
between two consecutive time levels at each lattice center did not exceed10-6. Non dimensional time
was defined as ξ = αt/L2 where L is the characteristic length. Δξ was taken as 10-4. To check the
accuracy of the present LBM algorithm, the same problem was solved using the finite volume method
and the results given by the two algorithms are compared with those available in the literature. In
Figure 15.22, the non-dimensional centerline (x/X=0.5) temperature has been compared at
different instants ξ for the case (1).
15.8.9.2.2 Case (2): Effects of Heat Generation and the Four Boundaries are at Specified
Temperatures
In Figure 15.23, the effects of volumetric heat generation are shown. The non-dimensional
volumetric heat generation is taken as unity. Effect of heat generation is very less in the beginning
compared to steady state because it takes some time to influence the temperature profile. For the 2D
geometry, the number of iterations for a 50x50 grid is (3719) compared to that cited at the literature
(3257)611.

Figure 15.23 Comparison of Centerline (x/X=0.5) Temperature in the Presence/Absence of Heat

Generation (Case 2) - Courtesy of [Chaabane et al.]

15.8.9.2.3 Case (3): The Bottom and Top Boundaries are at Prescribed Fluxes and Remaining Two
Boundaries at Known Temperatures
It is seen from the Figure 15.24 that the steady state results match exactly which each other.

T(x, y, 0) = T0 , q(x, 0, t) = q𝑠 , q(x, Y, t) = q𝑛

611S.C. Mishra, M. Bittagopal, K. Tanuj, B.S.R. Krishna, “Solving transient heat conduction problems on uniform
and non uniform lattices using the Lattice Boltzmann Method”, International Communications in Heat and Mass
Transfer, 36, pp.322-328, 2009.
 451

T(x, y, T) = T(X, y, t) = T0
Eq. 15.45
15.8.9.3 Conclusions
The LBM is used to solve transient
heat conduction problems in two
dimensional geometries with
uniform lattices having constant
temperature and/or flux boundary
conditions. Effect of heat generation
is also studied. The same problems
are solved using the finite volume
method. The results given by the two
numerical approaches are compared
with those available in the literature
and good agreement is obtained. On
the other hand, the effect of lattice
size is highlighted via the number of
iterations and the CPU time. The
considered 2D geometry is a simple
one, to allow simple validation. Figure 15.24 Centerline(x/X=0.5) Temperature Evolution for
Advection and radiation are omitted. Different Instants (Case3) - Courtesy of [Chaabane et al.]
Thus, it remains to demonstrate the
viability of the LBM as heat
diffusion-advection solver. For
further details, please consult the
work by [Chaabane et al.]612 and
[Hamila et al.]613.

15.8.10 Case Study 2 - Lid-Driven

Cavity Flow
In this simulation, performed by
[Bao & Meskas]614, we have a 2D
fluid flow that is driven by a lid at the
top which moves at a speed of ũ(x ,1,
t) = Vd in the right direction. The
other three walls have bounce-back
BCs for the distribution function and
no-slip BCs for the velocity, u = 0 and
v = 0. The initial conditions state that
Figure 15.25 Color plot of the norm of the velocity: Re = 1000,
the velocity field is zero everywhere
ν = 1/18, τ = 2/3, 256 x 256 lattice
and the initial distribution function

612 Raoudha Chaabane, Faouzi Askri, Sassi Ben Nasrallah, “Application of the lattice Boltzmann method for
solving conduction problems with heat flux boundary condition”, International Renewable Energy Congress
November 5-7, 2009 - Sousse Tunisia.
613 Rihab Hamila, Raoudha Chaabane, Faouzi Askri, Abdelmajid Jemni, Sassi B. Nasrallah, “Lattice Boltzmann

method for heat transfer problems with variable thermal conductivity”, International Journal of Heat And
Technology, June 2017.
614 Yuanxun Bill Bao & Justin Meskas, “Lattice Boltzmann Method for Fluid Simulations”, April 14, 2011.
 452

is set by the weights, fi = wi. This results in an initial condition that ρ = 1 from. The only exception is
the velocity of the fluid on the top is set to be Vd. The two top corner lattice points are singular points
and are considered as part of the moving lid. Simulations were done with a 256 x 256 lattice, ν = 1/18,
τ = 2/3 and with Re = 400 and 1000. Figure 15.25 shows a color visualization of the simulation for
Re = 1000.
 453

16 Best Guidelines for Optimal CFD Simulation

CFD does not provide an exact solution to all problems, but is in many cases a reliable tool that can
provide useful results when an experienced user employs it615. Still is some circles, considered an art
that science. An inexperienced user, on the other hand, may obtain very nice graphs that are very far
from being a prediction of the stated problem. Some of the problems arise from the many default
settings in commercial CFD codes, since the user may obtain results without knowing what the code
is doing by accepting settings that are not appropriate for the specific problem. The user must make
an active decision regarding each setting because many problems can arise from a user failing to
understand what the proper settings should be. CFD simulation contains both errors and
uncertainties. An error is defined as a recognizable deficiency that is not due to a lack of knowledge,
whereas an uncertainty is a potential deficiency that is due to a lack of knowledge. Poor simulation
results may arise for many different reasons; the user may make mistakes in formulating the problem
to solve or in formulating the geometry and meshing. Numerical errors may occur due to lack of
convergence and a poor choice of discretization methods. The models for turbulence, reactions and
multiphase flow are not exact descriptions of the real world, and poor results may be introduced by
not selecting the best model for the specific case. In the end, the robustness and reliability of the
simulations should be analyzed by sensitivity analysis, verification, validation and calibration.

Figure 16.1 Component of Uncertainty within a Simulation

Figure 16.1 shows components of uncertainty within a simulation where Up is all the other flow
parameters which contribute to the uncertainty, i.e., boundary conditions, initial conditions, spatial
and temporal discretization, choice of turbulence, auxiliary equations, etc. In general, it is good
practice to study the obtained simulation results critically. CFD is not (yet) at the stage at which it
can be treated as a black box. Simulation results should be verified with experimental findings, fluid-
mechanics theory and, sometimes, instinct. It may also help to understand the limitations of the CFD
model if a simulation is performed for a case regarding which the results are known, prior to
exploring new ground with the model. Some common errors and recommendations for best practice
are given following.

615 Computational Fluid Dynamics for Engineers, Cambridge University Press.

 454

16.1 Element of Uncertainty

16.1.1 Geometry & Grid Generation
➢ Make sure that the CAD geometry is complete for the flow simulation. The CAD drawing
should be kept as simple as possible. All details smaller than the computational cells can in
most cases be removed, but small details on the surface can sometimes be important for the
flow, e.g. a welded joint may induce flow separation.
➢ Symmetric boundary conditions restrict the solution to a symmetric solution, and no
transport is allowed across the symmetry plane, e.g. bubble columns and fluidized beds are
poorly described by 2D simulations.
➢ When the inflow and outflow are not known exactly, they should be put far from the region
of interest.
➢ With constant-pressure outflow, specify the direction of the outflow (e.g. normal to the plane)
to minimize the pressure difference across the surface.
➢ Use pressure outflow for multiple outflow boundaries.
➢ Avoid having non-orthogonal cells close to the boundaries. The angle between the grid lines
and the boundary should be close to 90◦. Use body-fitted grids when the grid cannot be
aligned with the surface.
➢ Avoid the use of highly skewed cells. The angles should be kept between 40◦ and 140◦. The
maximum skewness should be < 0.95 and the average below 0.33. The aspect ratio should be
below 5, but may be up to 10 inside the boundary layer.
➢ The squish index describes how the cell faces are oriented, where 0 is a perfect cell and the
upper limit is 1. The recommendation is that the maximum squish index should be below
0.99.
➢ Perform a grid check to avoid problems due to incorrect connectivity. This can often be done
in the mesh-generator software.

16.1.2 Convergence
➢ Use different convergence criteria for different variables.
➢ Monitor integral quantities of solution-sensitive variables.
➢ Make global balances for mass, momentum and energy.
➢ Monitor the solution at specific important points.
➢ Test for steady state by switching to a transient solver.
➢ Plot the residual to evaluate whether the solution is poor in some regions of the
computational domain.
➢ Use more robust numerical schemes, e.g. initially employ first-order upwind, changing to a
higher order for the final iterations.
➢ Reduce the under-relaxation or CFL number initially.
➢ Examine the local residual. The convergence problem might be localized to one small region.
Use grid adaptation to refine or coarsen the mesh in areas where it is needed.
➢ Using a fine grid throughout may diminish the convergence rate.
➢ Solve steady-state problems transiently.
➢ Try different initial guesses, e.g. obtain an initial guess from a short transient simulation or
obtain an initial guess from a steady-state simulation.
➢ Solve for only a few variables at a time, e.g. solve for the flow field first and keep the velocities
constant whilst solving concentration and chemical reactions. Finally solve for all variables.
➢ Use the coupled solver for high-speed compressible flows, highly coupled flows with strong
body forces or flows being solved on very fine meshes. Keep in mind that the coupled solver
requires 1.5–2 times more memory than needed by a segregated solver.
 455

16.1.3 Numerical
➢ The exact inlet conditions for the turbulence properties are usually not known exactly. The
value of k/ε times the average velocity gives an order-of-magnitude estimation of how far
into the system the settings at the inlet will survive.
➢ Exact inlet conditions for LES are not possible. Modern CFD programs can generate simple
turbulent eddies at the inlet, but the inlet should be far from the area of interest in order to
allow a proper statistical distribution of eddies to develop. Periodic boundary conditions
should be used when possible, but may introduce unphysical correlations. As always, it is
important to verify the obtained solution critically.
➢ For RANS models, the lower level of y+ should typically be between 20 and 30 at the walls.
Some commercial CFD programs can be made to accept lower y+ levels by adjusting the
appropriate model. (Check the manual for actual values.) The upper limit of y+ is usually in
the range 80–100.
➢ LES models require additional treatment at no-slip walls.
➢ For low-Re turbulence models the first grid should be at y+< 4, preferably at y+ ≈ 1 with 5 –
10 mesh points below y+=20. Standard wall functions are not recommended for flow with a
negative pressure gradient, e.g. with flow separation at the wall.

16.1.4 Reaction
➢ Check the Dahmk¨ohler number. Slow chemical reactions with Da ≪ 1 are straightforward.
Very fast, mixing-controlled, isothermal chemical reactions with Da ≫ 1 can be modeled
rather accurately. Most other conditions with Da ≈ 1 and reactions that lead to heat formation
and changes in density will give uncertain results.
➢ Very low residuals as a convergence criterion for concentration are often required, and
monitoring integral quantities for mass balances or steady local concentrations usually
provides more reliable indicators than low residuals.

16.1.5 Multiphase Flows

Generally speaking, multiphase flows are more challenging than single-phase flows, and errors in
multiphase flow simulations are typically larger than those in single-phase simulations and
propagating faster. These errors may have a number of different origins. They are:

16.1.5.1 Not Knowing the Most Important Physical Mechanisms

Because of the wide variety of multiphase flow types, there is not one ‘generic’ model for multiphase
flows. Before attempting to model a multiphase flow system, it is very important to understand the
physical mechanisms occurring in the flow system. This includes understanding the most important
forces and mechanisms in the flow and the properties of the fluid(s) and/or solids, as well as a good
estimate of the length scales and timescales of the physical processes. Only with this knowledge can
appropriate models be selected and their shortcomings in a simulation estimated.

16.1.5.2 Closure Models

Most errors in multiphase flow simulations arise from shortcomings of the closure models employed.
Most closure models are empirically determined, which makes them applicable, strictly speaking,
only under conditions similar to those for the data they are built from. Analytical closure models are
developed for ‘ideal’ conditions, which are hardly ever met in reality. Using closure models for
conditions or regimes different from those to which they are applicable may be asking for trouble.

16.1.5.3 Time-Scale and Length-Scale Separation

In the derivation of turbulence models, a separation between the timescales and length scales of the
‘large’ eddies carrying the energy and the scale(s) at which energy is dissipated is assumed. Similar
 456

assumptions are required in order to derive governing and closure models for multiphase flows. For
instance, many closure models require the particles to be smaller than the large-scale flow structures
in a flow.

16.1.5.4 Choice of Model and Governing Equations

It is important to understand the implications and assumptions of each multiphase model, and under
what conditions it may be employed. For instance, in the derivation of the Euler–Euler or two-fluid
model, the pressure gradient over large interfaces, which is important in separated-flow situations,
is neglected. This means that such a model will not capture the dynamics of free surfaces very
accurately.

16.1.5.5 Numerical Errors

Many numerical errors potentially arising in single-phase calculations may also arise in multiphase
flow calculations. Therefore, it is important to check the best-practice guidelines for single-phase
flow computations. However, there may be additional problems. Many of the ideas employed in
solving multiphase flows arise from single-phase flows, leading to slow convergence, or, worse, an
erroneous result.

16.1.5.6 Avoiding Risks in Multiphase Flows

To minimize the potential problems occurring when performing multiphase flow simulations, the
following checklist may be employed,

I. If possible, start the simulation with a single-phase flow situation resembling the system. This
simulation can be optimized in terms of grid size, time step, etc. by using the best-practice
guidelines for single-phase flow.
II. Determine the regime of the multiphase flow in terms of dimensionless parameters (Re, We,
St,) . . . This enables the choice of suitable closure models and may give insight into the
expected flow situation.
III. Make an estimate of the forces acting on bubbles, particles or droplets and under which
conditions these forces will occur.
IV. Make a suitable selection of the turbulence model and decide which terms (and coupling to
the dispersed phase) are important.
V. If possible, start with a geometry, flow properties and dispersed-phase properties similar to
those of a system of which you know the behavior or for which experimental data are
available. This creates confidence in the models employed.
VI. If there is a large size distribution of the dispersed phase, a multi-fluid approach might be
required for the dispersed phase. This allows the use of a range of size classes, which can be
monitored separately. Size distributions can have a big effect on the flow.
VII. First-order-accurate models, such as the VOF model and the surface-tension models, require
a very fine mesh – in these cases a relatively mesh-independent solution is very important.
VIII. Make sure that iterations are well converged. Many popular commercial CFD solvers will start
with a new time step when a specified maximum number of iterations is reached, regardless
of convergence criteria. This may be detrimental in terms of the quality of results obtained.

16.2 Verification, Validation, Calibration and Certification

Verification is a procedure to ensure that the program solves the equations correctly. Validation is
done to test how accurately the model represents reality, and calibration is often used to adjust the
simulation to known experimental data in order to study parameter sensitivity (‘what if’) in the
design process. More detailed discussion of V&V, Uncertainty, Errors and Sensitivity analysis would
 457

present later on. The follow-on work to determine the degree to which results from a CFD code are
an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of that code
has been referred to as “calibration”, “certification”, or just further validation. [Melnik, et. al,]616
describe a process for “certification” which is indicative of our current practices. The reality is that
these processes for determining usability of a CFD process for an intended purpose are “…ongoing
activities that do not have a clearly defined technical completion point”. Rather than referring to
these processes as “calibration” or “certification” we will just continue to call them “validation” and
validation for an intended purpose 617.

16.2.1 Validation for an Intended Purpose.

A CFD code by itself can never be validated for an intended use because there are just too many
variables. These variables include those user accessible “knobs” within the solver that control the
discretization, dissipation, convergence strategy, turbulence model, etc. and the BIG external variable
called the grid. As a minimum it is the process of how a particular CFD solver is run along with its
related grid generation that must be validated. And as previously stated, using wind tunnel data for
CFD validation is best done on a trend and increment basis which means we will be running CFD to
compare those trends and increments. The question is not can CFD give me a great answer for one or
two test cases, but can the CFD “processes” give me good answers for a range of cases when run by a
competent engineer? This is what validation for an intended purpose is all about 618.

16.3 Simulation for Everyone

Putting simulation into the hands of the non-expert is a subject that elicits much discussion within
CFD committees619. A crucial element is the relationship between the simulation expert and the non-
expert, where the responsibility of the expert ends and the ability for the non-expert to be able to use
simulation safely starts. This requires simulation experts to design smart simulation applications and
is somewhat analogous to the traditional handbooks where experts would develop solutions in a
parametric form and a working engineer didn’t have to know how those solutions were developed
but would use a formula and perhaps some graphs in conjunction with the formula to come to some
kind of a prediction. For this approach to work with simulation, it is extremely important for the
simulation application to have incorporated into it a solution validation & verification procedure,
since inexperienced and non-expert users are less likely to be able to judge accuracy.
The development of the most effective smart applications requires both external software and
internal company design processes. In this case, the experience and knowledge of the in-house
application experts can be embedded into the interface for the simulation tool. Whilst an expert in
simulation is required to develop these context-specific tools, most small/medium enterprises often
do not employ dedicated simulation engineers so need to rely on external consultants. The most
difficult part of developing an application for non-expert users is getting the technical requirements
from the organization defined in such a way that they can be distilled into an application that can
then be released to the general population. It requires a process that has a clear statement of what
senior engineering staff expect these applications to do and how do they define success and
acceptance for them. The benefits are huge once the tool is created as it can then be inserted into the

616 Melnik, R.E., Siclari, M.J., Barber, T., and Verhof, V., “A Process for Industry Certification of Physical Simulation
Codes,” AIAA-1994-2235, June 1994.
617 Edward N. Tinoco, “CFD Uncertainty and Validation for Commercial Aircraft Applications”, Boeing

Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, USA

618 Tinoco, Edward N. and Bussoletti, John E., “Minimizing CFD Uncertainty for Commercial Aircraft Applications

(Invited),” AIAA-2003-407, January 2003.

619 This article, written by Althea de Souza , first appeared in NAFEMS Benchmark Magazine, April 2017 edition.
 458

workflow, saving engineering time and making solutions operator-independent but it requires
acceptance into the culture of the organization.
According to Jean-François Imbert , “A smart application can’t be commercial software only. It is
a tool which combines commercial software and embedded knowledge-based processes and
rules in order to secure the product simulation and design.” This is easier said than to be done.
From previous experience, all the commercial vendors, has their own deadline and customers. And
their cooperation regarding this, would be hard to come by. Rendering to Oxford Dictionaries,
democratization is the action of making something available to everyone. In the context of
engineering simulations, it is making simulation tools available to everyone. It could be argued (and
has been) that the tools have been available to everyone for some time, including free and open
source codes, tools that can be run on laptop computers with relatively modest specifications and
tools with easy to use interfaces and GUIs. The limiting factor though is the ability to be able to use
those tools effectively and responsibly. The complexities of the simulation are generally hidden from
the user (no need to see the mesh or select the turbulence model) and the terminology used is that
of the application engineers, rather than simulation engineers.
There are now a number of organizations offering CAE app-building facilities, whether they are
mainstream code vendors allowing users to create apps from their more general purpose code or
independent organizations. There has been a growing call for software vendors to provide users with
tools for solution verification. These tools can be incorporated into the approved workflow for use
by non-experts. There is still a problem with validation; it is directly tied to the user. A strong
argument is that this is as it should be, since validation entirely depends on how the tool is used and
has little to do with the mathematical solution procedure. This is particularly important with general
purpose codes that are used for a wide range of applications. Can vendors put anything into the tools
to guide the users? Asking for a demonstration of simulation validation from non-expert users will
always prove challenging and so tools designed for this class of user should be built very carefully
around a proven simulation approach and tightly restricted to prevent use outside the scope of
applicability.
Distinguishing between the development of design rules and the application of design rules can help
to differentiate when an expert or non-expert user can undertake an activity. Developing design rules
requires validation and expert involvement, whereas applying design rules can be done by non-
experts using smart tools. Smart applications should have been verified and have embedded
modelling rules so users are not expected to carry out verification. Validation of both the software
and the tightly constrained modelling approach is a pre-requisite for smart tools and should be
conducted before they are released to users620.

16.4 CFD on a Deadline

Have you ever feared a deadline because your model took longer to solve than expected? What is an
Optimal Workflow for Complex Modeling Projects on a Deadline? Unfortunately not an easy answer
available. But there are common causes to avert them. There are few suggestion, but not too many.
A full 3D model might take anywhere from minutes to several hours to run. Thus, every mistake in a
complex model takes longer to find out about. Moreover, you can’t be sure what causes the issue.
[Ruud Börger & Andrew Griesmer] of COMSOL Multiphysics® exploring this question and came up
with some suggestion. The first option is to bite the bullet and try to debug or optimize the 3D model.
This is of course more reliable and error proof approach, but harder to implement. The other, if your
model geometry allows that, is to create a 2D or asymmetric model of the original one, and try to use
it for debugging purpose.

620 David Quinn, “The Big Issues in Engineering Simulation- Democratization”, May 25, 2017.
 459

16.4.1 Optimizing your Modeling Workflow

There are many situations where a 3D model with complicated physics is required. A common
approach is to take all of the expected “ingredients”, put them together, and reach your goal. But
what if something unexpected happens? What if the model doesn’t converge? Any of the following
could be the problematic:

➢ For multi-physics cases, any boundary condition that you used in the first, second, third, etc.
on physics interface
➢ A coupling between any of the physics
➢ Material behavior
➢ The mesh requirements for any of these factors
➢ An unexpected or unknown phenomenon

This solution is more geared toward multi-physics models. A full 3D model might take anywhere from
minutes to several hours to run. Thus, every mistake in a complex model takes longer to find out
about. Moreover, you can’t be sure what causes the issue. There are remedies pipelined and following
suggestion to implement:

1. Using achieved cases with similar phenomena (i.e., educating by example).

2. Start your own model in 2D or 2D axisymmetric, if applicable.
3. Test the major physical principles of your model in a single-physics environment.
4. After each successful step, add complexity, such as multi-physics effects, nonlinear materials,
etc.

Not to be outdone, STAR-CCM+® like many other commercial vendors, provides a simple way for 2D
simulation to test out designs and boundary conditions. In STAR-CCM+ there are two new features
that will put that problem to rest. STAR-CCM+ is a 3D based tool so most of the controls are based on
surface and volumetric selections thus we needed a way to bridge the gap between a traditional 2D
meshes and the inputs for STAR-CCM+. To do this all parts that are to be run in 2D need to have a
planar surface on the Z=0 plane, from there it could be a revolver, extrude or frankly any shape.
“Badge for 2D”; is the feature flags the surfaces that lie on the Z = 0 plane and marks the perimeters
as 2D boundaries, thus preventing unneeded part surfaces from being sent to regions. There are
other issues to be considered when using 2D instead of 3D models. Beside geometry, the first thing
to recall is turbulence. Mixing and more generally diffusion phenomena are never purely 2D. If you
are in turbulent conditions and you are using RANS models, 3D diffusion might be accounted for by
the transport equation of your turbulence quantities.

16.5 Myths of Computational Fluid Dynamics

It is an interesting topics which haunts the CFD users, or potential CFD users, to the date. Although
the original posting is with regards to commercial CFD and its market, nevertheless, the benefits
outweigh the commercial usage. Therefore, we included here to clear some of common
misperceptions in regard to CFD621.

16.5.1.1 CFD is Difficult and Take Too Long to be Used in the Design Process
This myth has a historical basis. Like FEA codes in the distant past, CFD codes of the 1980s and 1990s
were difficult to use622. Fit-for-purpose meshing, choice of solution numeric, turbulence modeling,

621 Ivo Weinhold & John Parry,” The 10 Myths Of Computational Fluid Dynamics”, Mentor Graphics White Paper,
Mechanical Analysis Division, 2014.
622 “The Five Myths of Computational Fluid Dynamics”, NAFEMS BenchMARK magazine, April 2008, pp. 28-29.
 460

achieving and judging solution convergence, assuring result fidelity, and correct result interpretation
were all once expert-only activities. Today, the skills a mechanical designer needs to operate the CFD
software are simply knowledge of the CAD system and the physics pertaining to the product, both of
which the majority of design engineers already possess. The greatest time sink for CFD has always
been the meshing process, with a considerable amount of manual intervention needed to achieve
acceptable mesh quality by eliminating gaps and overlaps, reducing skewness, aspect ratio, warpage,
and controlling the volume of individual cells (cell size ratio to neighbor cells, smallest cell size, and
mesh distribution). As design inherently involves changing geometry, this semi-manual process had
to be repeated for each design iteration. All of these steps can now be fully automated using native
3D CAD data directly for fluid flow simulations without the need for translations or copies. New parts
and features resulting from design changes can be meshed in a matter of minutes, dramatically
reducing the time required for analysis.

16.5.1.2 Accuracy has to be sacrificed to use CFD during the Design Process
Traditional CFD has taken the approach of attempting to resolve everything on the volume mesh.
This was not always the case. Years ago, limited computing power meant that wall functions were
the only way to represent the effect of the boundary layer between the solid surface and the bulk
flow. These wall functions were originally applied only in the near-wall cell. Using mesh to resolve
the boundary layer was prohibitively expensive, and the result quality achievable on any tractable
mesh for all but the simplest of situations was far inferior to what could be achieved using empirically
based wall functions, which could be further refined to account for surface roughness623.
Small discrepancies between physical reality and simulation result for a mesh cell were transmitted
to the neighbor cells by convection and diffusion as a natural part of the solution. Compounded across
the mesh, this compromised overall solution accuracy. Solution convergence was also much harder
to achieve. The effect of the variation in mesh quality was such that the physical effects of minor
geometric variations were masked. This issue has plagued traditional body-fitted CFD ever since. The
industry has, of course, risen to the challenge in various ways: Increases in computing performance
have allowed ever finer meshes to be used. More mesh allows the variation in size and shape from
one mesh cell to the next to be reduced, improving orthogonality. Considerable effort has continued
to be expended on the development of automated mesh generators, allowing mixtures of hexahedra,
tetrahedral, and prisms to be used. More recently, polyhedral meshes, which have better
orthogonality properties for any arbitrary flow direction4, have been constructed, e.g., by
aggregating tetrahedral. Finally, more sophisticated numerical schemes that improve the estimation
of cell face fluxes and pressure coupling have been devised.
The new generation of CFD software, however, comes with key technologies that allow high-quality
results to be obtained fast. In a matter of a few minutes, it is possible to construct an octree Cartesian-
based mesh that automatically refines around solid–solid and solid–fluid interfaces, sidestepping the
need to separately generate surface and volume meshes. Designers can control mesh density with a
single slider, maximizing ease-of-use. Being Cartesian, the mesh has the highest possible numerical
mesh quality, because the cells in Cartesian and Cartesian-based meshes are perfectly
orthogonal624,625. Hence, it is not possible to improve the mesh quality through manual intervention.
This unparalleled ease-of-use actually leads to a significant improvement of result accuracy, because
the fidelity of the CFD simulation no longer has to be limited by project time constraints. In an
industrial setting, engineers who are using traditional CFD do not have time to refine y+ values across
the whole model even when the geometry is relatively simple. The more complex the geometry, the

623 M. R. Malin and J. D. Parry, “Turbulent Heat and Momentum Transfer in Rough Tubes”, Journal of
computational Fluid Dynamics and its Applications, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 59-80.
624 John Parry and David Tatchell “Flomerics’ EFD Meshing Technology: A White Paper”.
625 “Advanced Immersed Boundary Cartesian Meshing Technology in FloEFD” MGC 02-11 TECH9690-W
 461

greater the benefit obtained from using octree Cartesian meshing. Octree Cartesian meshes are highly
suited to solution-adaptive mesh refinement, where the mesh self-refines as the solution progresses
to ensure that gradients are adequately captured, for example, in shock capture.

16.5.1.3 Experts are Needed to Get Accurate CFD Simulation Results

Building in ease-of-use lowers the level of simulation-specific expertise needed, thereby allowing
engineers to focus on the engineering problem. The numerical and physical modeling expertise of the
software developers is accessed by the design engineer via the automation provided within the tool.
Inputs are limited to what needs to be known about the problem being described: boundary
conditions, materials, etc. applied directly to the native 3D geometry within the CAD system. Thus,
non-simulation experts can get reliable, repeatable, high-quality simulation results. We are in no way
ignoring the value of analysis experts. Such people are the very reason that CFD has grown to become
what it is today, pioneering new applications that have driven the development of new physical and
numerical models, etc. In late design, when the geometry is stable, traditional CFD can be applied,
leveraging the availability of analysis-ready CAD which is refined using a CAD-embedded CFD
solution, to provide further design verification if desired. Alternatively, analysis experts can
themselves use CAD-embedded CFD during design. CAD-embedded CFD and traditional CFD can, and
arguably should, complement one another. CAD-embedded CFD also integrates well with other CAE
tools used in product design, allowing temperature data to be exported as a thermal load for use in
Simulation and NASTRAN-based FEA solvers, among others, helping to accelerate other aspects of
the design.
 462

17 Components of CFD Simulation

Having positioned CFD, and its importance, in the global technological world of virtual prototyping,
we should now look at the main components of a CFD system626. We wish to answer the following
question: What are the steps you have to define in order to develop, or to apply, a CFD simulation?
We make no difference at this stage between these two options, as it is similarly essential for the User
of a CFD code to understand clearly the different options available and to be able to exercise a critical
judgment on all the steps involved. At this juncture, it is imperative to define difference between
Modeling and Simulation, since both terms used interchangely in CFD.

Figure 17.1 A typical CFD Simulation

626 Introduction: An Initial Guide to CFD and to this Volume; page 1, 2007.
 463

17.1 Simulation vs. Modeling

A model is a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, or process. The
Simulation is a method of implementing a model over time627. A typical CFD component of simulation
is illustrated in Figure 17.1, and steps are defined below.

17.1.1 Part I
It selects the mathematical model, defining the level of the approximation to reality that will be
simulated. This could be include what kind of equation would be sufficient for simulation, Euler, N-S,
Heat Transfer, etc. For most commercially available CFD codes this step is automatically defined
within the code and the no need for end-users intervention. Then the discretization of G.E. which
includes examples of CD, UD, QUICK, MARS etc.

17.1.2 Part II
It covers the discretization phase, which has three main components, namely Spatial Discretization,
Temporal Discretization, and Field Discretization as defined by the grid generation which discussed
in details and quite tedious. Spatial and Temporal discretization of the governing equation in space
and time respectively.

17.1.3 Part III

The numerical scheme must be analyzed and its properties of stability and accuracy have to be
established. The immediate following step II is to decide upon the type of the solver needed (density
based, pressure based, steady, unsteady, etc.) to address the specific problem. Later, it is required to
select appropriate physical model (turbulence, multiphase, species transport, combustion or
aerodynamic) based on the problem defined. The selection of solver and physical model should be
followed by defining the material properties, operating conditions and boundary conditions. One
should also establish convergence monitors in order to avoid extra computing time. Once the solver
and physics are set up, the flow field should be initialized. Numerical stability and consistency criteria
would be stablished for different flow solver (Implicit vs Explicit).

17.1.4 Part IV
The solution of the numerical scheme has to be obtained, by selecting the most appropriate time
integration methods, as well as the subsequent resolution method of the algebraic systems, including
convergence acceleration techniques. Monitoring solutions as well as revising the solution control
during the run also important.

17.1.5 Part V
Graphic post-processing of the numerical data to understand and interpret the physical properties of
the obtained simulation results. This is made possible by the existence of powerful visualization
software. Whenever possible, it must verify the result. Repeat the process to obtain the mesh and
other flow sensitivities. Alternatively, another way is to be envisioned as following (see Figure
17.2). They are simulation process which can be further streamlined. The solver and solver setting,
as well as, pre-processing, including, mesh generation and CAD date (solid molding), and post
processing are represented. It is well known in CFD circuits that about %70 of engineer times is
spend in pre-processing (CAD data and Mesh Generation). So that it is a big field by itself and requires
keen specialties.

627 Grand Challenges on the Theory of Modeling and Simulation

 464

Material
Physical Properties
Models: Boundary
Turbulence Conditions
Combustion Solver
Radiation Settings
Mutiphase
Moving Mesh
Transport Equations:
Mass - Momentum
Energy
Equation of state
Supporting physical Solid
Post models Modling
Processing

Material Properties
Boundary Conditions Mesh Generation
Initila Conditions

Figure 17.2 Streamlined CFD Simulation Process

17.2 Simulation Components as Envisioned by NASA

Finally, NPARC (alliance for CFD verification and validation) of NASA describes the CFD simulation
process as below. Bear in mind that this is a detailed and lengthy endower and not all the components
are needed all the time, but the user should be confident with the concepts at least.

1. Formulate the Flow Problem

2. Model the Geometry and Flow Domain
3. Establish the Boundary and Initial Conditions
4. Generate the Grid
5. Establish the Simulation Strategy
6. Establish the Input Parameters and Files
7. Perform the Simulation
8. Monitor the Simulation for Completion
9. Post-process the Simulation to get the Results
10. Make Comparisons of the Results
11. Repeat the Process to Examine Sensitivities

Further details include:

17.2.1 Formulate the Flow Problem

The first step of the analysis process is to formulate the flow problem by seeking answers to the
following questions:
➢ What is the objective of the analysis?
 465

➢ What is the easiest way to obtain those objective?

➢ What geometry should be included?
➢ What are the freestream and/or operating conditions?
➢ What dimensionality of the spatial model is required? (1D, quasi-1D, 2D, axisymmetric, 3D)
what should the flow domain look like? What temporal modeling is appropriate? (steady or
unsteady)
➢ What is the nature of the viscous flow? (inviscid, laminar, turbulent)
➢ How should the gas be modeled?

17.2.2 Model the Geometry and Flow Domain

The body about which flow is to be analyzed requires modeling. This generally involves modeling the
geometry with a CAD software package. Approximations of the geometry and simplifications may be
required to allow an analysis with reasonable effort. Concurrently, decisions are made as to the
extent of the finite flow domain in which the flow is to be simulated. Portions of the boundary of the
flow domain coincide with the surfaces of the body geometry. Other surfaces are free boundaries
over which flow enters or leaves. The geometry and flow domain are modeled in such a manner as to
provide input for the grid generation. Thus, the modeling often takes into account the structure and
topology of the grid generation.

17.2.3 Establish the Boundary and Initial Conditions

Since a finite flow domain is specified, physical conditions are required on the boundaries of the flow
domain. The simulation generally starts from an initial solution and uses an iterative method to reach
a final flow field solution.

17.2.4 Generate the Grid

The flow domain is discretized into a grid. The grid generation involves defining the structure and
topology and then generating a grid on that topology. Currently all cases involve multi-block,
structured grids; however, the grid blocks may be abutting, contiguous, non-contiguous, and
overlapping. The grid should exhibit some minimal grid quality as defined by measures of
orthogonality (especially at the boundaries), relative grid spacing (15% to 20% stretching is
considered a maximum value), grid skewness, etc... Further the maximum spacing’s should be
consistent with the desired resolution of important features. The resolution of boundary layers
requires the grid to be clustered in the direction normal to the surface with the spacing of the first
grid point off the wall to be well within the laminar sublayer of the boundary layer. For turbulent
flows, the first point off the wall should exhibit a y+ value of less than or equal to 1.0.

17.2.5 Establish the Simulation Strategy

The strategy for performing the simulation involves determining such things as the use of space-
marching or time-marching, the choice of turbulence or chemistry model, and the choice of
algorithms.

17.2.6 Establish the Input Parameters and Files

A CFD codes generally requires that an input data file be created listing the values of the input
parameters consisted with the desired strategy. Further, a grid file containing the grid and boundary
condition information is generally required. The files for the grid and initial flow solution need to be
generated.

17.2.7 Perform the Simulation

The simulation is performed with various possible with options for interactive or batch processing
and distributed processing.
 466

17.2.8 Monitor the Simulation for Completion

As the simulation proceeds, the solution is monitored to determine if a "converged" solution has been
obtained, which iterative convergence is. Further discussion can be found on the page entitled
Examining Iterative Convergence.

17.2.9 Post-Process the Simulation to get the Results

Post-Processing involves extracting the desired flow properties (thrust, lift, drag, etc.) from the
computed flow field.

17.2.10 Make Comparisons of the Results

The computed flow properties are then compared to results from analytic, computational, or
experimental studies to establish the validity of the computed results.

17.2.11 Repeat the Process to Examine Sensitivities

The sensitivity of the computed results should be examined to understand the possible differences
in the accuracy of results and / or performance of the computation with respect to such things as:

• dimensionality
• flow conditions
• initial conditions
• marching strategy
• algorithms
• grid topology and density
• turbulence model
• chemistry model
• flux model
• artificial viscosity
• boundary conditions

Further information can be found on the pages entitled Verification & Validation Assessment.

17.2.12 Document
Documenting the findings of an analysis involves describing each of these steps in the process. Again,
the user normally does not have the luxury of time to perform all of these, but it is mentioned here
for completeness.

17.3 Comparison of Some Commercially Available CFD Software

There are multitude of commercially available CFD tools and in-house software designed for special
needs. On a commercially available front, there are about 30 packages and three of them, general
purpose products, covering about %50 percent of market. They are ANASYS© CFX and FLEUNT, and
CD© Star-CD, and its sister product Star-CCM+ with comparison of these 3 codes been made on Table
17.1. An OpenFOAM is another arrival which is open source and free to use. The OpenFOAM project
emerged from the Field Operations And Manipulations (FOAM) concept at Imperial College London
in the late-1980s. It has one disadvantage: namely lack of GUI interface but on the plus side it has
open-source routine which are easily to manipulate. Each has its own strength and shortcoming and
the user is advised to choose according to specific needs. But in general, they are yields to the same
results for general application. A good source of what is available and their associated problems is
the CFD-online site. Beside these, there are number of research oriented codes which attribute to
specific problems and needs.
 467

One of latest study in inter code comparison is study to be done by [Bayraktar et al.]628. There,
underlying benchmark problem which have been defined in 1996, is a steady simulation of flow
around a cylinder at Re = 20. The benchmark problems are studied with three CFD software packages,
OpenFOAM, CFX and in-house code FeatFlow which employ different numerical approaches to the
discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. It sets for finite volume method
(OpenFOAM), element based finite volume method (CFX), and finite element method (FeatFlow)
respectively. As for result, the CFD software package with high order finite element approximation
has been found to be computationally more efficient and accurate than the ones adopting low order
space discretization methods629.

Supported Pressure Density Based Multi- System Discretization

Grid Type Based grid Solver
Fluent Structured SIMPLE Coupled Algebraic Gauss- UD
Unstructured SIMPLEC Implicit Geometric Seidel TVD
Hybrid PISO Preconditioned QUICK
Star- Structured SIMPLE Conjugate UD
CD Unstructured SIMPLEC ----------- ----------- Gradient TVD
Star- Hybrid PISO OUICK
CCM+ CD
CFX Structured SIMPLE Algebraic UD
Unstructured ----------- Coupled ILU TVD
Hybrid QUICK
CD

Table 17.1 An Overview of some commercially available CFD software

17.3.1 AcuSolve© (www.altair.com)

It is a leading general-purpose Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) solver that is capable of solving
the most demanding industrial and scientific applications. AcuSolve’s robust and scalable solver
technology empowers users by providing unparalleled accuracy on fully unstructured meshes.
Applications ranging from steady RANS simulations to complex, transient, multi-physics simulations
are handled with ease and accuracy.

17.3.2 OpenFOAM© (www.openfoam.com)

OpenFOAM is a free, open source CFD software package produced by a commercial company,
OpenCFD Ltd. It has a large user base across most areas of engineering and science, from both
commercial and academic organizations. OpenFOAM has an extensive range of features to solve
anything from complex fluid flows involving chemical reactions, turbulence and heat transfer, to solid
dynamics and electromagnetic.

17.3.3 OpenFlower (sourceforge.net/projects/openflower)

OpenFlower is a free and open source CFD code (for Linux and Windows) mainly intended to solve
the turbulent incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with a LES approach. It can deal with arbitrary
complex 3D geometries with its finite volume approach.

628 E. Bayraktar_, O. Mierka and S. Turek, “Benchmark Computations of 3D Laminar Flow Around a Cylinder
with CFX, OpenFOAM and FeatFlow”, Institute of Applied Mathematics (LS III), TU Dortmund Vogelpothsweg
87, D-44227, Dortmund, Germany.
629 See Pervious.
 468

17.3.4 FLASH (flash.uchicago.edu)

A modular, parallel adaptive-mesh code initially designed for thermonuclear runaway problems but
now capable of a wide variety of astrophysical problems. Includes modules for MHD, nuclear burning,
radioactive cooling, self-gravity, particle dynamics, and cosmological expansion. I can give you the
most help with this code since I am one of the principal authors. FLASH is described in Fryxell et al.
2000, ApJS, 131, 273; extensive current documentation is available at their web site.

17.3.5 GADGET© (www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~volker/gadget)

A parallel N-body tree plus smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code. Gadget can be used to
address a wide array of astrophysical interesting problems, ranging from colliding and merging
galaxies, to the formation of large-scale structure in the Universe. With the inclusion of additional
physical processes such as radioactive cooling and heating, Gadget can also be used to study the
dynamics of the gaseous intergalactic medium or to address star formation and its regulation by
feedback processes. Gadget is described in Springel 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105 and in documentation
available at its web site.

17.3.6 HYDRA© (hydra.mcmaster.ca/hydra)

Adaptive particle-particle-particle-mesh (AP3M) plus smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code.
Designed for (but not restricted to) cosmological simulation (includes a cosmological initial
conditions generator).. Current documentation is available with the Hydra source code.

17.3.7 ZEUS-MP (lca.ucsd.edu/portal/software)

Parallel, non-adaptive hydro- and magneto hydrodynamics code with self-gravity and radiation.
Zeus-MP is extensively discussed in astro-ph/0005109 and references therein.

17.3.8 ANSYS CFX© (www.ansys.com/Products/Simulation+Technology/Fluid+Dynamics)

ANSYS CFX computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software delivers best-in-class technology no matter
what level of CFD is required. Using ANSYS Design Modeler, ANSYS CFX works with your CAD
package. The ANSYS Workbench platform is used through all stages of a complete CFD simulation
providing consistency, persistence of information and a convenient work flow. ANSYS CFX guides the
user through the physics setup process. Post-processing provides graphics and hard numbers as well
as animations that can be used by themselves or in presentations. ANSYS CFX also includes a freely-
distributable 3D viewer for sharing 3D designs with colleagues. In addition, the ANSYS CFX suite
contains industry-leading CFD solver capabilities using a unique multi-grid linear solver, essentially
linear parallel CPU scalability and access to a broad set of models that provide accurate answers to
deliver real world results. With ANSYS CFX it is simple to add more functionality while continuing to
seamlessly support and leverage the investments in existing CAE assets. ANSYS CFX delivers the
ability to apply the most powerful and precise CFD technology to virtually every fluid engineering
problem. Explore in depth the technology and advantages of ANSYS CFX using the chart below or
menu on the left.

17.3.9 ANSYS ICEM CFD© (www.ansys.com/Products/Other+Products/ANSYS+ICEM+CFD)

From CAD to mesh generation for analysis, ANSYS ICEM CFD provides sophisticated geometry
acquisition, mesh generation, mesh editing, a wide variety of solver outputs and post-processing.
ANSYS ICEM CFD is the only Universal pre-processor for analysis including FEA, CFD and other CAE
applications such as particle transport and computational electro-magnetic. Used for engineering
applications such as computational fluid dynamics and structural analysis, ANSYS ICEM CFD’s mesh
generation tools offer the capability to parametrically create grids from geometry in multi-block
structured, unstructured hexahedral, tetrahedral, hybrid grids consisting of hexahedral, tetrahedral,
pyramidal and prismatic cells; and Cartesian grid formats combined with boundary conditions.
ANSYS ICEM CFD is the Swiss army knife of meshing, our product vision is to provide a variety of
 469

flexible tools that can generate “any” type of mesh on “any” type of geometry for “any” solver or “any”
application.

17.3.10 FLUENT© (www.fluent.com)

Replaced by Ansys Workbench. The broad physical modeling capabilities of FLUENT have been
applied to industrial applications ranging from air flow over an aircraft wing to combustion in a
furnace, from bubble columns to glass production, from blood flow to semiconductor manufacturing,
from clean room design to wastewater treatment plants. The ability of the software to model in-
cylinder engines, aero acoustics, turbo machinery, and multiphase systems has served to broaden its
reach.

17.3.11 COMSOL Multi-physics© (www.comsol.com/products/multiphysics)

COMSOL Multi-physics is a modeling package for the simulation of any physical process you can
describe with partial differential equations (PDEs). It features state-of-the-art solvers that address
complex problems quickly and accurately, while its intuitive structure is designed to provide ease of
use and flexibility. You can easily model most phenomena through predefined modeling templates.
Modifying these to specific applications is possible through equation-based modeling capabilities. To
deal with the increasing demand for realistic representations of the world around us, you can easily
model systems of coupled physics phenomena. COMSOL Multi-physics provides a friendly, fast and
versatile environment for multi-physics modeling. Fast results and unprecedented flexibility make
COMSOL Multi-physics the ideal modeling and simulation software for research, product
development, and education.

17.3.12 CFDRC© (www.cfdrc.com)

CFDRC offers unique capabilities for Multiphysics, Multiscale, and Coupled Simulations of fluid,
thermal, chemical, biological, electrical, and mechanical phenomena for real-world applications.
CFDRC’s technologies, products, and services enable better understanding of complex problems, and
lead to better decisions resulting in better concepts, designs, products and systems.

17.3.13 STAR-CD/STAR-CCM© (www.cd-adapco.com)

The STAR-CD solver provides one of the most effective numerical methodologies available in an
industrial CFD code with the high level of accuracy needed for complex unstructured meshes. This is
delivered with the speed, efficiency and robustness demanded by engineering design and
development cycles. STAR-CD uses state-of-the-art, proprietary numerical schemes to achieve the
highest levels of accuracy in both steady and transient simulations, making this solver one of the least
sensitive to mesh type and quality, including distorted tetrahedral meshes. Remarkably, this has been
achieved without sacrificing efficiency or robustness. So, whatever the choice of mesh or engineering
application, the STAR solver will provide the best solution in the shortest time. A particular feature
of STAR-CD is its fast CPU performance for transient flows. As the first to introduce moving mesh into
a CFD code, we have always been technology leaders in this area. The meshes can not only move and
deform, but they can also slide along non-matching interfaces; furthermore, selected cells or cell
regions can be deleted or added, detached and again attached to the core model.

17.3.14 FLOW3D© (www.flow3d.com)

FLOW-3D is a powerful modeling tool that gives engineers valuable insight into many physical flow
processes. With special capabilities for accurately predicting free surface flows, FLOW-3D is the ideal
software to use in your design phase as well as in improving production processes. FLOW-3D is an
all-inclusive package. No special additional modules for meshing or post-processing are needed. An
integrated graphical user interface ties everything together, from problem setup to post-processing.
 470

17.3.15 TACOMA© (www.ge.com)

Has been under development at General Electric Global Research for16 years and it been used for
turbomachinery application. It comprises almost 500,000 lines of code, from twenty or more authors.
The equations solved are the steady, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS), or the
unsteady, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (URANS). TACOMA is a density-based, multi
block, time-marching code using the well-established Jameson, Schmidt, Turkel (JST) algorithm.
Available turbulence models include several flavors of Wilcox’s (k, ω) model and Menter’s SST model.
A two-equation transition model due to Menter is available.

17.3.16 CONVERGE™ ( www.convergecfd.com)

This is a general purpose 3D CFD Code with focus on engine simulation. It claims to be is very efficient
and accurate, where complex geometries and/or moving geometries and chemistry are to be
modeled. Although it is a general purpose CFD tool, but is primarily developed as Internal
Combustion Engine simulations (ICE). There are many and flexible ways to adjust the simulation
grid resolution in space and in time, including using a stationary and orthogonal mesh in the interior
of your domain, whose grid density automatically varies to resolve gradients using Adaptive Mesh
Refinement (AMR). CONVERGE is loaded with the physical models needed to accurately simulate
HCCI, Diesel and spark ignited engines. Included are advanced spray and combustion models,
including the SAGE detailed chemistry solver. Of course, CONVERGE runs well in parallel as well.

17.4 NASA Developed CFD Software

17.4.1 FUN3D
FUN3D is a finite-volume, node-centered, unstructured-grid RANS solver, which is widely used for
high-fidelity analysis. FUN3D solves the governing flow equations on mixed-element grids; the
elements are tetrahedral, pyramids, prisms, and hexahedra. At median-dual control-volume faces,
the inviscid fluxes are computed using an approximate Riemann solver. For second-order accuracy,
face values are obtained by a MUSCL scheme, with unweighted least-squares gradients computed at
the nodes. The viscous fluxes use full approximation of viscous stresses. For tetrahedral meshes, the
viscous fluxes are discretized using the Green-Gauss (cell-based) gradients. For non-tetrahedral
meshes, the edge-based gradients are combined with Green-Gauss gradients. The diffusion term in
the turbulence model is handled in the same fashion as the mean flow viscous terms. FUN3D uses the
SA-neg variant of the SA turbulence model that admits negative values for the Spalart turbulence
variable. This variant was designed for improved numerical behavior. The SA-neg model is identical
to the original SA model for positive values of the Spalart turbulence variable.
To solve nonlinear flow equations, FUN3D uses a Hierarchical Nonlinear Iterative Method (HANIM).
On the innermost level HANIM uses a preconditioner based on a defect-correction method and
iterates on a simplified first-order Jacobian with a pseudo-time term. One preconditioner iteration
involves a point- or line-implicit multi-color pass through the domain. The number of preconditioner
iterations may vary for different nonlinear iterations. A Generalized Conjugate Residual (GCR)
method uses the preconditioner solutions to converge linear residuals and to compute solution
correction. A nonlinear controller assesses the correction computed by the linear solver. The
controller is responsible for the CFL adaptation strategy and for deciding when to update the
Jacobian. As a result of this assessment, the suggested correction can be applied fully, partially, or
completely discarded; the current Jacobian may be updated or reused in the next iteration; and the
current CFL number may increase, decrease, or stay the same. The nonlinear iterations can be tightly
or loosely coupled, i.e., operate on the mean flow and turbulence equations collectively or separately.
Initially, the CFL number is ramped over a prescribed number of iterations, but then it automatically
changes within prescribed bounds.
 471

17.4.2 USM3D
USM3D is an unstructured finite-volume cell-centered RANS solver that has been widely used within
NASA, other U.S. government agencies, and industry as a workhorse for aerodynamic analysis of
complex configurations. A fully-implicit formulation is implemented implying that the auxiliary
solution variables at the grid nodes and boundary faces as well as the cell gradients are computed
solely from the current solution variables defined at the cell centers. Solution values at the nodes are
averaged from solutions at surrounding cells using a pseudo-Laplacian method, which is equivalent
to a least-squares minimization procedure with a linear fit. The second-order spatial discretization
of inviscid fluxes is accomplished by reconstructing solutions at the cell faces; the reconstruction is
based on solution gradients computed within cells. The reconstruction scheme corresponds to the
MUSCL scheme with k = 0. For this study, the cell gradients are evaluated with the Green-Gauss
integration using solution values at the nodes.
Inviscid fluxes are computed at each cell face using the upwind Roe’s FDS scheme. Face gradients
required for evaluation of viscous fluxes are computed from the Mitchells stencil. The convective
term of the SA turbulence model equation is approximated with the first-order accuracy. The velocity
gradients contributing to the source term of the SA model are computed at cell centers using the face
area average of face gradients. In the presence of grid lines, accuracy of the velocity gradients is
improved by augmentation with a directional gradient based on the line mapping. A HANIM solver
described in630 is used for nonlinear iterations. The USM3D preconditioner uses a defect correction
scheme. The approximate Jacobian for the mean flow equations is formed using the linearization of
the first-order FDS inviscid fluxes and a thin-layer approximation for the viscous fluxes. The
approximate Jacobian for a turbulence-model equation includes the contributions from the
advection, diffusion, and source terms. The advection term is linearized with a first-order
approximation. A thin-layer approximation is used for the diffusion term. The entire contribution
from the linearized source term is added to the diagonal.
The preconditioner equations are solved with point- or line-implicit Gauss-Seidel (G-S) iterations.
The mean flow and turbulence model preconditioner G-S iterations are loosely coupled. Residual
reduction targets are used for an earlier termination of G-S iterations to improve the runtime
efficiency. HANIM uses CFL adaptation as a comprehensive tool to improve robustness and efficiency
of nonlinear iterations. It provides two additional hierarchies over the USM3D preconditioner solver.
The hierarchies are an enhanced linear solver for the exact linearization of RANS equations and a
nonlinear control of the solution update. The linear solver uses GCR-based matrix-free methods,
couples residuals of the mean-flow and turbulence model equations, and is expected to meet certain
residual reduction targets. The nonlinear solution update strategy automatically checks solution
reliability (positive pressure and density) at cell centers and adapts the under-relaxation parameter
and pseudo-time step.

17.4.3 CFL3D
CFL3D is a structured-grid multi-block cell-centered finite-volume code widely applied for analysis
of complex flows. It has been used in many recent workshops involving complex turbulent flows. It
uses second-order, upwind-biased spatial differencing scheme (a MUSCL scheme corresponding to k
= 1/3 that allows a third-order accuracy in one dimension for the convective and pressure terms, and
second-order differencing for the viscous terms; it is globally second-order accurate. Roe’s FDS
method is used to obtain inviscid fluxes at the cell faces. The option to model the full Navier-Stokes
mean-flow equations is exercised for all cases. CFL3D uses the SA-neg scheme to model eddy
viscosity. In distinction from the other two codes that use a first-order approximation for the
convection term in the SA model, CFL3D uses a second-order approximation. The turbulence-model

630Pandya, M. J., Diskin, B., ames L. Thomas, and Frink, N. T., “Assessment of Preconditioner for a USM3D
Hierarchical Adaptive Nonlinear Method (HANIM),” AIAA 2016-????, 2016.
 472

diffusion term uses the thin-layer approximation. The iteration scheme is loosely coupled, i.e., first,
the mean-flow equations are advanced with the eddy-viscosity fixed, then the turbulence-model
equation is advanced with the mean-flow solution fixed. CFL3D employs local time-step scaling, grid
sequencing, and multigrid to accelerate convergence to steady state.

17.4.4 Case Study - Grid Convergence for 3D Benchmark Turbulent Flows

Grid convergence studies are performed by [Diskin et al.]631 to establish reference solutions for
benchmark three dimensional turbulent flows in support of the ongoing turbulence model
verification and validation effort NASA. The benchmark cases are a subsonic flow around a
hemisphere cylinder and a transonic flow around the ONERA M6 wing with a sharp trailing edge. The
study applies widely-used CFD codes developed and supported at the NASA Langley Research Center:
FUN3D, USM3D, and CFL3D. Reference steady-state solutions are computed for the RANS in
conjunction with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model on families of consistently-refined grids
composed of different types of cells. Coarse-to-fine and code-to-code solution variation is described
in detail. For further details, readers should consult the work by 632.

17.4.4.1 Subsonic Flow Around a Hemisphere Cylinder

Five grid families are generated for this study. Unstructured grids of families 1 to 4 have triangular
faces on the hemisphere surface and no polar singularity. Each family has four levels of nested grids;
L1 is the finest grid level, L2 is the second finest grid level, etc. Statistics of grids from families 2 (Tet),
4 (prism/hex), and 5 (structure) are shown in Table 17.2. These grids have a polar singularity at the
axis attached to the apex of the hemisphere, i.e., along this polar axis, hexahedral cells degenerate
into prismatic cells. Unstructured grids corresponding to the same level have the same distribution
of grid nodes. In comparison with unstructured grids at the same level, family 5 (structure) grids
have the same number of surface elements on the hemisphere surface, the same distribution of nodes
on the cylinder surface, and more nodes on the hemisphere surface. All the L1 grids have the near-
surface normal spacing approximately corresponding to y+ = 0.5. FUN3D solutions are computed on
grids of families 2 (Tet) and 4 (prism/hex); SFE solutions are computed on family 2 (Tet) grids,
USM3D solutions are computed on grids of families 2 (tet) and 5 (structure), and CFL3D solutions are
computed on family 5 (structure) grids.

Table 17.2 Statistics of four finest grids for hemisphere cylinder grid families.

17.4.4.2 Geometry, Flow Parameters, and Boundary Conditions

The geometry is taken from the experimental study reported by [Tsieh]633. In the experiment, the
radius of the hemisphere was 0.5 in., the body length was 10 in., and the unit Reynolds number per
foot was 4.2x106. Thus, in the computational domain with the unit length taken as 1 in., the

631 B. Diskin, W. K. Andersony, M. J. Pandyaz, C. L. Rumseyx, J. L. Thomas , Yi Liuk, and H. Nishikawa, “Grid
Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows”, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
632 See Previous.
633 Tsieh, T., “An Investigation of Separated Flow About a Hemisphere Cylinder at 0 to 19 Degrees Incidence in the

Mach Number Range from 0.6 to 1.5," AEDC-TR-76-112, 1976.

 473

hemisphere radius is 0.5, the cylinder length is 9.5, and the Reynolds number is Re = 3.5 x 105 per
unit length. The reference solutions have been computed at the following flow conditions: the
reference Mach number Mref = 0.6, angles of attack of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 19 degrees, and the reference
temperature Tref = 540 degree R. Here, presents only solutions corresponding to the 19 degrees angle
of attack. The origin of the coordinate system is located at the apex of the hemisphere. The positive x
direction is the stream wise direction collinear with the axis of the hemisphere and cylinder. Figure
17.3 sketches the layouts of boundary conditions and shows the global view of a computational grid
with half-plane symmetry. The downstream computational boundary is located at the back of the
cylinder, x = 10. The outflow conditions specified at the downstream boundary are constant pressure
conditions corresponding to P = Pref = 1. The far field boundary is a hemisphere with radius of 100
units centered at x = 10; y = 0; z = 0.

Figure 17.3 Global view of hemisphere cylinder geometry and boundary conditions

17.4.4.3 Results for Hemisphere Cylinder

For solution visualization, Figure 17.4 presents the FUN3D solution computed on the prism/hex L1
grid. The pressure contours and streamlines are shown in two planes corresponding to y = 0, and x =
6.0. The pressure is non-dimensional by ρref a2ref , where ρref and aref are the dimensional freestream
density and speed of sound, respectively. In the symmetry plane corresponding to y = 0, the cross-
stream separation is characterized by downward ow velocity. The separation occurs behind the
hemisphere-cylinder junction and continues for the entire cylinder length. A minimum pressure is
observed on the leeside, upstream of the hemisphere-cylinder junction. A large primal vortex and a
smaller secondary vortex are shown in the cross flow planes corresponding to x = 6.0. The separation
locations of these primal and secondary vortices are similar to those documented in the experiment.
An off-body vortex is seen in the shear layer of the primal vortex, outboard of the secondary one.
 474

Figure 17.4 Global View of Hemisphere Cylinder Pressure Contours using L1 grid at surfaces y = 0
(left) and x = 6 (right)

17.4.4.4 Forces and Pitching Moment

Grid convergence plots of the lift, total drag (including pressure and viscous components), and
pitching moment coefficients and the maximum eddy viscosity are shown in Figure 17.5. The value
of the characteristic grid spacing, h, is computed as h = N -1/3, where N is the number of degrees of
freedom (cells for USM3D and CFL3D, nodes for FUNFV634 and SFE). The aerodynamic coefficients
computed with different codes on different grid families are generally converging to the same limit
with grid refinement. Convergence of the maximum eddy viscosity is less clear, mainly because of the
disagreement between limit projections from FUNFV (prism/hex) solutions and other solutions,
even though the SFE and FUNFV (prism/hex) solutions agree well on the finest L1 grids. Overall code-
to-code aerodynamic coefficient variation from the L4 grids to the L1 grids is up to 20%. In this
estimate and in the rest of the paper, relative variation is computed with respect to the middle of the
variation range. Extrapolation to the infinite-grid limit is problematic because no reliable order of
convergence can be established. No solution appears to converge uniformly in all quantities. Three
solutions, USM3D (structure), FUNFV(prism/hex) and SFE, converge monotonically. Considering lift,
USM3D (structure) solutions show less than first-order convergence, i.e., the lift approaches the limit
from above with a concave shape. The FUNFV (prism/hex) and SFE lift curves approach the limit
from above with convex shapes, indicating a convergence order that is higher than first order. The
FUNFV (tet) lift appears to converge with first order on the three finer grids. The USM3D (tet) lift
converges from above and changes the curve shape from concave to convex.
Considering pressure drag convergence, the FUNFV (prism/hex) and SFE convergence curves
approach the limit with convex shapes from above, but intersect. Lacking an exact solution, we use a
quantitative characterization of observed solution variation to evaluate accuracy. Variation of the
aerodynamic coefficients computed on the L1 grids is described in Table 17.3. The largest relative
difference among all solutions is observed for the pitching moment and does not exceed 4.4%.
Accuracy of aerodynamic coefficients improves proportionally to degrees of freedom used in CFD
computations. This property is the foundation of all grid refinement studies. It also justifies the
expectation of accuracy benefits from tetrahedral-grid cell-centered formulations that provide more

634Two different discretization available in FUN3D are employed: the baseline finite-volume discretization
(FUNFV) and a recently implemented stabilized finite-element discretization (SFE) based on a Streamlined
Upwind Petrov-Galerkin formulation.
 475

Figure 17.5 Grid Convergence of Aerodynamic Forces for Hemisphere Cylinder

degrees of freedom on grids of the same level. The USM3D solutions use about six times more degrees
of freedom on grids of family 2 (tet) than other solutions on grids of the same level. Because grid
convergence shown in Table
17.3 is not regular,
quantitative assessments of
accuracy improvements due
to additional degrees of
freedom are difficult and
imprecise. Qualitatively, the
aerodynamic coefficients
computed by USM3D(tet) on
the L2 grid are within the
variation range of the L1
solutions. Looking at the grid
Table 17.3 Hemisphere Cylinder: Variation of Aerodynamic
convergence on the three Coefficients on L1 Grids
 476

finer grids, the maximum and minimum values of integrated aerodynamic quantities have been
generally exhibited by the CFL3D solutions and the FUNFV (tet) solutions. (The only exception is that,
for the viscous drag coefficient, the minimum is exhibited by the SFE solutions). Relative variation
among the core-group L1 solutions is also shown in Table 17.3.
The deviations of the CFL3D solutions from the core-group solutions may be attributed to the thin-
layer approximation. The abnormalities in the FUNFV (tet) solutions observed on the current grids
are harder to explain. In the limit of grid refinement, all FUNFV and SFE solutions are expected to
converge to the same “infinite-grid" solution. On the current grids, nonphysical oscillatory solution
modes resembling checker-board instabilities were observed in the FUNFV (tet) solutions with the
default MUSCL scheme coefficient, κ = 0.0. The FUNFV solutions computed on grids of other families
are smooth. Note that the default value of the MUSCL scheme coefficient on non-tetrahedral grids is
κ = 0.5. In this study, an increased coefficient of κ = 0.75 is used for FUNFV (tet) solutions. Solutions
with κ = 0.75 do not exhibit nonphysical oscillations, but appear to be somewhat less accurate.
Although not shown, FUNFV solutions with κ = 0.0 were computed on tetrahedral grids by using the
approximate mapping discretization method for inviscid fluxes635-636. Approximate-mapping
solutions do not exhibit nonphysical oscillations and provide aerodynamic coefficients well within
the core-group variation range.

17.4.4.5 Fine Grid Surface Pressure, Skin Friction, and Off-Body Variation
In this section, surface pressure and skin friction are shown for four sets of solutions: USM3D (tet),
FUNFV(prism/hex), SFE, and CFL3D solutions. Hereafter, only these four hemisphere-cylinder
solutions of the available set are shown mainly for conciseness and presentation clarity. First, global
views of solution variation on the L1 grids are shown. Figure 17.6 displays the surface pressure and
the x-component of skin friction at the symmetry plane corresponding to y = 0. The pressure
maximum indicating the leading edge stagnation is located near x = 0.03 on the windward side of the
hemisphere. The pressure minima are observed on the leeside near x = 0.3 and on the windward side

Figure 17.6 Global View of Surface Pressure and Skin Friction at symmetry plane (y = 0) for
Hemisphere Cylinder

635 Diskin, B. and Thomas, J. L., “Comparison of Node-Centered and Cell-Centered Unstructured Finite-Volume
Discretizations: Inviscid Fluxes," AIAA J., Vol. 49, No. 4, 2011, pp. 836-854.
636 Diskin, B. and Thomas, J. L., “Erratum: Comparison of Node-Centered and Cell-Centered Unstructured Finite-

Volume Discretizations: Inviscid Fluxes," AIAA J., Vol. 51, No. 1, 2013, pp. 277.
 477

near x = 0.45. A zone of low pressure is also observed on the leeside at x > 4. Near the outflow
boundary, the leeside pressure increases and the windward pressure decreases, creating a small
negative-lift zone. The L1-grid surface pressure distributions computed with different codes are
almost indistinguishable. The fine-grid code-to-code differences in the surface pressure at the local
extrema located on the hemisphere are within 0.5%. Although comparisons with experimental data
are not the focus of this paper, the computed surface pressure agrees qualitatively with the
experimental measurements. Figure 17.6-(b) shows the x-component of the skin friction vector.
Note that the y and z components of the skin friction are zero at the symmetry plane. The skin-friction
profiles computed with different codes are similar in most places. The largest discrepancy of about
15% is observed on the leeside, near x = 6.5. Other places of noticeable but more local discrepancies
are downstream from the hemisphere-cylinder junction at x = 0.5 and near the outflow are non-
dimensionalized by aref . The solutions are plotted along a vertical line attached to the upper surface
of the cylinder at x = 5 and y = 0.21. The view is chosen to show solution variation across the core of
the primal crossflow vortex located in this area. All off-body profiles are over plotted in the global
view.

17.4.4.6 Effect of Grid Refinement on Surface Pressure and Skin Friction

Grid refinement and zooming have been applied to study solution variation near nontrivial flow
features and near regions of the largest solution differences observed in global views. Although not
shown, global views of the surface pressure profiles in the three planes (y = 0, z = 0, and x = 5)
computed on four grids in corresponding families are hardly distinguishable. The results in [Diskin
et al.]637 illustrates local grid convergence of the leeside surface pressure near the location of the
minimum pressure. Even in the zoomed view, only the coarsest L4 grid solutions are clearly
distinguishable. All codes appear to approach the same limit. Variation between L1 solutions is less
than 0.07%. The minimum pressure coefficients computed with USM3D, FUNFV, and CFL3D decrease
monotonically with grid refinement and show similar coarse-to-fine grid variation of about 7%. The
SFE minimum pressure coefficients show remarkably small coarse-to-fine grid variation of less than
0.5%, but converge non-monotonically with grid refinement. For complete discussion, please consult
the work by [Diskin et al.]638.

17.4.4.7 Transonic Flow Around an M6 Wing

The ONERA M6 experiment has been widely used for validation of CFD solvers639. A relatively simple,
well-documented geometry and a rich experimental database for a large variety of ow conditions
provide a unique combination for practical and inexpensive benchmark studies. Reference solutions
for transonic flows around the M6 wing are presented in this section. Authors believe that the
solutions computed on grids with more than 360 million degrees of freedom represent the largest
M6 computations conducted to date. The grid generation, coarsening, partition, and multigrid
capabilities for the M6 model are described in an accompanying paper640. The M6 wing geometry
used in this study has been slightly redefined for numerical analysis of turbulence model simulations.
(See Figure 17.7).

637 B. Diskin, W. K. Andersony, M. J. Pandyaz, C. L. Rumseyx, J. L. Thomas , Yi Liuk, and H. Nishikawa, “Grid
Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows”, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
638 See Previous.
639 Schmitt, V. and Charpin, F., “Pressure Distribution on the ONERA-M6-Wing at Transonic Mach Numbers," In

Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment. Report of the Fluid Dynamics Panel Working
Group 04, AGARD AR 138, 1979.
640 Nishikawa, H. and Diskin, B., “Customized Grid Generation and Processing for Benchmark Three-Dimensional

Flows," SciTech-2018, Kissimmee, FL, Jan., 2018, To be published as AIAA Paper.

 478

17.4.4.8 Geometry, Flow Parameters and Boundary Conditions

Recently, a group at ONERA has considered the M6 model and its past experiments in greater
detail641-642. As part of this effort, the group has created a new CAD geometry for the wing. In this
geometry, the trailing edge of the
wing has been made sharp for the
purpose of this particular CFD
exercise. The reference solutions
for the OM6 wing are computed at a
freestream Mach number 0.84,
Reynolds number 14.6 x 106 based
on the unit root chord, and the angle
of attack of 3.06 degrees. The far-
field boundary in the shape of a
hemisphere is located at 100 unit
chords. The symmetry condition is
assigned at the plane containing the
root airfoil. Note that the
experiment used a splitter plate
near the wing root, which is not
modelled by CFD codes. This
discrepancy is believed to be the
cause of disagreement between CFD
solutions and experiment
measurements at inboard sections. Figure 17.7 M6 wing: pressure contours computed by USM3D
on family 4 prism/hex L1 grid
17.4.4.9 Grids for M6 Wing
The M6 grids used in this study are topologically equivalent to the full-geometry (y = 0 symmetry
plane) hemisphere-cylinder grids described before. The cylinder surface is mapped on the wing
surface with the specified wing section, and the hemisphere surface is mapped on the rounded wing
tip. Five nested grid families have been generated for the M6 geometry by using input profiles
available at the TMR website. Statistics of L4 - L1 grids from families 1 (prism), 2 (tet), 4 (prism/hex)
and 5 (structure) are shown in Table 17.4. The far field boundary grids are not shown because they
look similar to the full-geometry extension of those for the hemisphere-cylinder configuration. The
surface grids have a moderate stretching toward the leading and trailing edges resulting in a
relatively coarse grid spacing in the mid-chord region. All the L1 grids have the first node off the

Table 17.4 Statistics of Grids for OM6 Wing Grid Families

641 Gleize, V., Dumont, A.,

Mayeur, J., and Destarac, D., “RANS simulations on TMR test cases and M6 wing with the
ONERA elsA flow solver (Invited)," AIAA Paper 2015-1745, 2015.
642 Mayeur, J., Dumont, A., Gleize, V., and Destarac, D., “RANS simulations on TMR 3D test cases with the ONERA

elsAfl ow solver," AIAA Paper 2016-1357, 2016.

 479

surface located at an average of approximately y+ = 0.5.

17.4.4.10 Results for M6 Wing

Figure 17.7 presents the contours of the surface pressure computed by USM3D on the prism/hex L1
grid of family 4. The pressure is non-dimensionalized by ρref a2ref. A lambda shock is clearly visible on
the surface with the shock intersection located at about 80% of the wingspan. Grid convergence of
aerodynamic coefficients is described next. USM3D solutions have been computed on grids of families
2 (tet) and 4 (prism/hex); FUNFV solutions have been computed on grids of families 1 (prism) and
4 (prism/hex); and CFL3D solutions have been computed on structured grids of family 5 (structure).
All computations have been
conducted with no flux
limiters. Figure 17.8 (a)-(b)
show convergence of the lift,
total drag. No solution
converges monotonically for
all plotted quantities; thus,
no order property can be
deduced from the observed
convergence. Nevertheless,
all solutions approach the
same aerodynamic
coefficient values in the limit
of grid refinement. The
slopes of pitching moment
convergence curves shown in
Figure 17.9 are highly
irregular for solutions on grid
families 4 (prism/hex) and 5
(structure). For example, the
pitching moment coefficient
computed from the family 4
USM3D (prism/hex)
solutions decreases initially
with grid refinement from L4
grid to L3 grid, increases on
L2 grid, and decreases again
on L1 grid. Lift and pitching
moment convergence
observed for FUNFV (prism)
and USM3D (tet) solutions is
more regular. The differences
among lift and pitching-
moment coefficients
computed by all codes on all
grids do not exceed 6%. Drag
coefficients appear to be Figure 17.8 M6 Grid Convergence of Aerodynamic Forces CL, CD
converging with more
regular slopes, but do not provide convergence patterns suitable for the infinite-grid extrapolation.
The total and pressure drag coefficients computed from CFL3D and FUNFV solutions change the
direction of convergence on the L1 grids. The viscous drag coefficient computed from the USM3D
 480

(tet) solution changes the direction

of convergence on the L1 grid. Only
USM3D (prism/hex) solutions
converge monotonically for the
three drag coefficients. Relative
variation of drag coefficients
computed on different grids is
more significant than variation of
the lift and pitching moment
coefficients; pressure and viscous
drag coarse-to-_ne variation is
approximately 30% and 16%,
respectively. To establish solution
accuracy, Table 17.5 shows code-
to-code variation of the forces,
pitching moment, and maximum
eddy viscosity on the L1 grid.
Figure 17.9 M6 Grid Convergence of Pitching Moment
Among all integral aerodynamic
coefficients, the maximum relative
difference of 0.94% is observed for the pressure drag. Maximum eddy viscosity variation exceeds
10%, indicating considerably higher uncertainty than in integrated quantities.

Table 17.5 Variations of Aerodynamic Coefficients

For quantities that converge regularly in grid refinement, e.g., lift (Figure 17.8-(a)) and pitching
moment (Figure 17.9), the USM3D (tet) solutions appear to provide significant accuracy benefits on
same-level grids. Variation of surface pressure coefficients computed on the L1 grids at the
measurement sections used in the 9 of 35 experiment is shown in [Diskin et al.]643. Only three
computations, FUNFV (prism/hex), USM3D (prism/hex), and CFL3D (structure), are used in this
section for conciseness. The three codes extract surface pressure at the same span wise locations
specified. The wingspan is taken as b = 1.47601797621980 and the relative axial position was
computed as x/c = (x - xmin)/(xmax - xmin). In the global view, the L1 pressure profiles from different
codes are in close agreement. Small oscillations in FUNFV solutions are observed near the shocks at
sections 1-4. All solutions place shocks at the same locations and identify the same pressure minima
on the lower and upper wing surfaces. The pressure profiles at leading and trailing edges are

643B. Diskin, W. K. Andersony, M. J. Pandyaz, C. L. Rumseyx, J. L. Thomas , Yi Liuk, and H. Nishikawa, “Grid
Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows”, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
 481

indistinguishable. As compared to
other studies, an improved agreement
with the experiment is observed at
section 4. This improvement is
observed to be due to the increased grid
resolution provided by the L1 grids.
Figure 17.10 show a global view of
leeside pressure grid refinement at
sections 1 (η = 0.2). The pressure plots
show significant variation with grid
refinement. The mid chord grid spacing
on L4 and L3 grids is too coarse to
represent details of the pressure
profiles; the corresponding coarse-grid
solutions miss most of the shock
structure and are significantly different
from the solutions obtained on the fine
grids. All solutions computed on L2 and
L1 grids represent the shock details and
agree to each other remarkably well.
The grid convergence patterns of
USM3D and CFL3D solutions are quite
similar, as expected, because both
codes use cell-centered formulations.
FUNFV uses a node-centered
formulation and exhibits a different
convergence pattern.
All codes identify the minimum of
pressure at the same location, x/c≈
0.39. The code-to-code discrepancy in
the minimum-pressure value is about
0.09%. Minimum pressure computed
from all solutions converges
monotonically with grid refinement
and demonstrates at least a second-
order convergence rate. Most of L4 and
L3 solutions completely miss the
double-shock structure in this region.
Only the FUNFV L3 solution indicates a
presence of a shock structure; USM3D
and CFL3D L3 solutions miss it.
However, all the L1 solutions predict a
double-shock structure in this region
and agree well with each other. All the
L1 solutions predict a pressure plateau Figure 17.10 M6 section (η=x/c=0.2) Global View of
between two shocks at 0.3 < x/c < 0.35. leeside Pressure Grid Refinement
The normalized x-direction grid
spacing at this location is Δx/c ≈ 0.02, providing just four grid nodes across the plateau. In spite of
the minimal grid resolution, the maximum code-to-code difference between pressure values on this
plateau is less than 6%.
 482

17.4.4.11 Concluding Remarks

Detailed grid-convergence studies for two benchmark (3D) flows have been conducted to establish
reference solutions for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations using a “negative"
variant of the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model [Diskin et al.]644. The benchmark flows are a
subsonic flow around a hemisphere cylinder and a transonic flow around the ONERA M6 wing (M6)
with a sharp trailing edge. The reference solutions have been computed with three widely used CFD
codes developed at NASA Langley, FUN3D, USM3D, and CFL3D. The codes use different discretization
approaches and iterative solution methods. Two different unstructured-grid second-order node-
centered discretization available in FUN3D are used for the hemisphere-cylinder computations: the
FUNFV discretization uses a standard finite-volume scheme and the SFE discretization uses a
recently added stabilized finite-element formulation. SFE is not used for M6 computations. USM3D
uses an unstructured-grid second-order cell-centered finite-volume formulation. CFL3D uses a
second-order cell-centered structured-grid formulation. Five families of consistently-refined nested
grids of different topology have been generated for the studies, including both structured grids and
unstructured grids with various types of elements. The finest family grids provide from 60 M to over
400 M degrees of freedom. To eliminate iterative errors, all solutions on all grids have converged to
near machine-zero residual levels. Although turbulence model validation is not the focus of the paper,
the reference solutions have been compared with available experimental data. The main thrust of the
paper is assessing variation between CFD solutions computed with different codes on different
families of consistently-redefined grids. The assessment includes two characteristics:

(1) relative coarse-to-fine variation of solutions computed on grids of different families and
(2) relative code-to-code variation of solutions computed on the finest family grids.

All codes show close agreement in predicting aerodynamic coefficients for the separated flow around
the hemisphere-cylinder configuration. The code-to-code discrepancy among all aerodynamic
coefficients computed on the _nest family grids is less than 4.5% and variation among a core group
of four solutions is less than 0.75%. The coefficients appear to converge to the same limit with grid
refinement, but no convergence order can be discerned for the observed convergence. There is more
uncertainty about the grid convergence limit of the maximum eddy viscosity. The surface pressure
and skin friction in different _ne-grid solutions over plot in most global views. A local disagreement
among the codes of about 15% is observed in the vicinity of the leeside just past the middle section
of the cylinder. Various off-body solution components probed outside of this region also over plot.
Local solution characteristics, such as surface pressure minima and the circumferential angle of
vortex separation and reattachment locations, also converge to the same limit with grid refinement.
The reference solutions compare well with available experimental data.
The reference solutions for a transonic flow around M6 have been computed using the three
formulations, FUNFV, USM3D, and CFL3D. The aerodynamic coefficients computed by different codes
on the finest grids of different families agree well; the maximum difference among all coefficients
does not exceed 0.73%. The difference in maximum eddy viscosity is 10.3%, which is much larger
than the corresponding difference in the aerodynamic coefficients. The surface pressure computed
with the three codes have been compared at seven OM6 wing sections. The pressure profiles
computed on the finest grids over plot in the global views. Away from shocks, all the pressure profiles
computed on the two finest grids are close to each other, within a 1-2% range. Increased grid
resolution allows for an improved resolution of the lambda-shock feature that was a challenge in past
M6 computations. As compared to previous studies available in the literature, the present solutions

644B. Diskin, W. K. Andersony, M. J. Pandyaz, C. L. Rumseyx, J. L. Thomas , Yi Liuk, and H. Nishikawa, “Grid
Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows”, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
 483

on the finest grids provide an improved agreement with the experiment. Further details is available
in [Diskin et al.]645.

17.5 Symbolic Math Packages

17.5.1 Maxima (maxima.sourceforge.net)
Open-source symbolic math package based on the classic Macsyma computer algebra system.
17.5.2 Mathematica (www.wolfram.com)
Commercial symbolic math package, available on department machines (try man Mathematica). Also
available inexpensively through a UIUC site license.
17.5.3 Maple (www.maplesoft.com)
Another commercial symbolic math package.
17.5.4 MatLab (www.mathworks.com)
Yet another famous commercial symbolic math package, a bit more geared toward engineering and
numerical work than Mathematica or Maple.
17.5.5 MATHGL (http://mathgl.sourceforge.net/doc_en/index.html)
MathGL is a huge open-source plotting library for scientific graphics. It can be used for many
programming languages, in particular for C++. Mainly we will use the Figure library (implemented
by J. Gacon, student of CSE@ETH)

645B. Diskin, W. K. Andersony, M. J. Pandyaz, C. L. Rumseyx, J. L. Thomas , Yi Liuk, and H. Nishikawa, “Grid
Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows”, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
 484

18 Computational Error and Uncertainty Quantification

CFD is still a tool which requires that a user has a good understanding of uncertainties and errors
that might spoil a CFD simulation. There exists no error control in CFD and any CFD simulation must
be interpreted by an experienced user to have some credibility. Without some knowledge about
possible errors and how they can be handled a CFD simulation cannot be trusted. Errors can occur at
different places:

• Definition of the problem;

• What needs to be analyzed;
• Selection of the solution strategy;
• What physical models and what numerical tools should be used;
• Development of the computational model;
• How should the geometry and the numerical tools be set up;
• Analysis and interpretation of the results;
• How should the model be analyzed and the results be interpreted;

There exist many different definitions on errors. In this guide the errors are classified into four types
of errors:

• Problem definition errors,

• Model errors,
• Numerical errors and
• User and Code errors.

The sections below describe these errors and give some guidelines on how to avoid them. While the
Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) and Error are commonly used interchangeably in everyday
language, some basic definitions are warranted here. We follow the definitions of the AIAA Guidelines
which defines Uncertainty as: "A potential deficiency in any phase or activity of the modeling
process that is due to the lack of knowledge." And Error as: “A recognizable deficiency in any
phase or activity of modeling and simulation that is not due to lack of knowledge”. (AIAA G-077-
1998). The key phrase differentiating the definitions of uncertainty and error is lack of knowledge.
The key word in the definition of uncertainty is potential, which indicates that deficiencies may or
may not exist. Lack of knowledge has primarily to do with lack of knowledge about the physical
processes that go into building the model. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses can be used to better
determine uncertainty. Uncertainty applies to describing deficiencies in turbulence modeling for
example. There is a lot about turbulence modeling that is not understood. One approach for
determining the level of uncertainty and it effect on one's analysis is to run a number of simulations
with a variety of turbulence models and see how the modeling affects the results646. The definition
for error implies that the deficiency is identifiable upon examination. One can differentiate between
local and global errors. Local errors refer to errors at a grid point or cell, whereas global errors refer
to errors over the entire flow domain. We are interested here in the global error of the solution that
accounts for the local error at each grid point but is more than just the sum of the local errors. Local
errors are transported, advected, and diffused throughout the grid. The definition of error presented
here is different than that an experimentalist may use, which is "the difference between the
measured value and the exact value". Experimentalist usually defines uncertainty as "the estimate

646 Responsible NASA Official/Curator: John W. Slater

 485

of error". These definitions are inadequate for computational simulations because the exact value is
typically not known. Further these definitions link error with uncertainty. The definitions provided
in the above paragraphs are more definite because they differentiate error and uncertainty according
to what is known.

18.1 Classification of Errors

Here we provide a classification or taxonomy of error; namely Acknowledge Errors and Un-
Acknowledged Errors. According to NASA, acknowledged errors (examples include round-off error
and discretization error) have procedures for identifying them and possibly removing them.
Otherwise they can remain in the code with their error estimated and listed. Unacknowledged errors,
on the other hand, (examples include computer programming errors or usage errors) have no set
procedures for finding them and may continue within the code or simulation.

1 - Acknowledged Errors
➢ Modeling Errors
• Physical Modeling Errors
• Geometry Modeling Errors
➢ Discretization Errors
• Spatial Discretization Errors (Discretization of Governing Equations)
• Domain Discretization Errors (Grid Generation)
✓ Grid Density (Grid Independence Study)
✓ Topology
✓ Grid Sensitivity
✓ Error Estimation
❖ High-Ordered Accurate (Richardson’s Extrapolation)
❖ Residual Based (Truncation Method)
• Temporal Discretization Errors
➢ Iterative Convergence Errors
➢ Computer Round-off Errors
➢ Truncation Errors

2 – Un-Acknowledged Errors
➢ Code Errors
➢ Usage Errors

Each of these types of errors will be discussed below.

18.2 Physical Modeling Error

Physical modeling errors are those due to uncertainty in the formulation of the model and deliberate
simplifications of the model. These errors deal with the continuum model only. Converting the model
to discrete form for the code is discussed as part of discretization errors. Errors in the modeling of
the fluids or solids problem are concerned with the choice of the governing equations which are
solved and models for the fluid or solid properties. Further, the issue of providing a well-posed
problem can contribute to modeling errors. Often modeling is required for turbulence quantities,
transition, and boundary conditions. Mehta lists sources of uncertainty in physical models as

• The phenomenon is not thoroughly understood;

 486

• Parameters used in the model are known but with some degree of uncertainty;
• Appropriate models are simplified, thus introducing uncertainty;
• Experimental confirmation of the models is not possible or is incomplete.

Even when a physical process is known to a high level of accuracy, a simplified model may be used
within the CFD code for the convenience of a more efficient computation. Physical modeling errors
are examined by performing validation studies that focus on certain models (i.e. inviscid flow,
turbulent boundary layers, real-gas flows, etc...). It is essential to have an overview of the physics
involved and how the problem can best be analyzed. Running a 2D simulation in order to understand
secondary flows or running a steady simulation in order to understand transient behavior is of course
no use. When assessing a CFD simulation the first thing to consider is what physical phenomena are
important for the results and if the selected type of simulation is suitable to resolve this type of
phenomena. For further information about selecting the most suitable type of simulation please see
the previous chapter on deciding what type of simulation to perform. Once the type of simulation has
been selected the next step is to select what type of physical models the simulation should use. The
following points should be considered:

• Gas data (incompressible/compressible, perfect gas/real gas, ...)

• Turbulence modeling (type of model, type of near-wall treatment, ...)
• Other models (combustion, sprays, ...)

When assessing model related errors, it is important to know the features of the selected model and
think carefully how these features and possible short comings might affect the predicted physical
behavior. Using the wrong turbulence model or combustion model can completely destroy the
results of a CFD simulation.

18.2.1 Uncertainty Quantification of Turbulence Models 647

The uncertainty arising due to the turbulence model form has been described as the greatest
challenge in simulation based design in aerospace applications648. A vast majority of CFD
computations rely on eddy-viscosity based closures, such as the k-ε and k-ω models. Due to
assumptions and simplifications introduced in their formulations, these models are limited in the
characteristics of turbulent flows that they can replicate and their overall fidelity. Such
simplifications include coarse graining where it is assumed that the Reynolds stress tensor can
adequately describe the turbulent flow field, the eddy viscosity hypothesis that assumes the Reynolds
stress anisotropy to be proportional to the mean rate of strain, the application of the gradient
diffusion hypothesis, besides others. These simplifications introduce structural uncertainty in the
predictions of such turbulence models649-650. While both reliable methodologies and validated tools
651 are available to quantify the uncertainty due to other sources, there are no strategies or tools

647 A. Mishra, J. Mukhopadhaya , G. Iaccarino , J. Alonso, “Uncertainty quantification of turbulence models for
complex aerospace flows”, Stanford University, 2018.
648 T. A. Zang, M. J. Hemsch, M. W. Hilburger, S. P. Kenny, J. M. Luckring, P. Maghami, S. L. Padula, and W. J. Stroud,

“Needs and opportunities for uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace vehicles,
NASA/TM-2002-211462," tech. rep., NASA Langley Research Center, 2002.
649 B. Launder, D. Tselepidakis, and B. Younis, “A second-moment closure study of rotating channel flow," Journal

of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 183, pp. 63{75, 1987.

650 T. Craft, B. Launder, and K. Suga, “Development and application of a cubic eddy viscosity model of turbulence,"

International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 108{115, 1996.
651 B. H. Thacker, D. S. Riha, S. H. Fitch, L. J. Huyse, and J. B. Pleming, “Probabilistic engineering analysis using

the nessus software," Structural Safety, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 83{107, 2006.
 487

available to estimate the epistemic uncertainty due to turbulence model form. There are two major
effort can be contributed as

➢ Using Single turbulence model (e.g., RANS) with perturbation

➢ Using Different models without perturbation

18.2.2 Single Turbulence Model with Perturbation

The uncertainty estimation library utilizes the Eigenspace Perturbation methodology, where the
underlying rationale and function thereof are detailed in652-653. The focus here is on the results of the
library using the same, thus, in this section, we provide a brief overview. To account for the errors
due to closure assumptions, the spectral representation of the modeled Reynolds stress tensor is
perturbed, during CFD solution iterations. The process of deriving uncertainty estimates from
perturbed simulations is schematically reported in Figure 18.1. The central panel outlines the
unperturbed, baseline CFD solution, giving a unique flow field realization in the domain and a single
profile for the QoI at the highlighted region(here, the mean velocity at x/H = 24 in the diffuser). The
upper and lower panels of the figure outline perturbed solutions (only two of the perturbations are
shown for clarity). Each perturbation leads to a different realization of the flow field, leading to a
different profile for the QoI.
The uncertainty estimates on the profiles of a QoI at a location are engendered by the union of all the
states lying in the profiles from this set of perturbed RANS simulations. This is illustrated by the gray
shaded zone on the right of Figure 18.1. The results presented in the following section focus on
uncertainty quantification in complex turbulent flows relevant to aerospace design. In all cases, the
k-ω SST model was used and the unperturbed model prediction are reported as the baseline solution.

Figure 18.1 Schematic Composition of Uncertainty Estimates in a Diffuser

652 G. Iaccarino, A. Mishra, and S. Ghili,,”Eigenspace perturbations for uncertainty estimation of single-point
turbulence closures," Physical Review Fluids, vol. 2, no. 2, 2017.
653 M. Emory, J. Larsson, and G. Iaccarino, “Modeling of structural uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged navier-

stokes closures," Physics of Fluids, vol. 25, no. 11, 2013.

 488

(a) y/b = 0.44 (b) y/b = 0.65

Figure 18.2 Variation in CP at y/b = 0.4 and 0.65 along the ONERA M6 wing

18.2.2.1 Transonic Flow over the ONERA M6 Wing

The ONERA M6 design is a low aspect ratio, swept, tapered wing model. The transonic ow over this
configuration manifests shock-boundary layer interactions, leading to significant challenges for
eddy-viscosity based models. We perform simulations of this case at M = 0.84, α = 3.06 deg , and
Re = 11.72 x106, corresponding to the conditions of representative of the actual flight of military and
civilian aircraft. The reference data consists of Coefficient of Pressure (CP ) measurements at fixed
spanwise locations. We outline this case as a test against the false positive. In locations where RANS
model discrepancy is significant, the uncertainty bounds should indicate this. However, locations
where the RANS predictions are accurate, having spurious uncertainty bounds that are significant in
their extent would be misleading and amount to a false positive. In the ONERA wing, the RANS
discrepancy is restricted to the suction surface and the RANS predictions are accurate on the
pressure surface. This is reflected in the uncertainty bounds , that are substantial only on the suction
surface at the locations of the shock and near the trailing edge.
In Figure 18.3, we outline a qualitative spatial comparison of the uncertainty magnitude of the Cp
and the location of the shock. The uncertainty in RANS predictions is substantial at the trailing edge
and the locations of the shock. Physically, RANS models are unable to capture the complex shock-
boundary layer interactions and should have deficient predictions at the shock locations, as is

Figure 18.3 Comparison of (a) the Uncertainty Estimates, versus (b) Shock on the
Surface of the ONERA M6 Wing.
 489

suggested in the figure. Additionally, the figure highlights the capability of the UQ library to provide
spatial estimates on the reliability of RANS predictions, which may be invaluable to guide design
decisions.
18.2.2.2 Supersonic Flow Through a Converging-Diverging Seiner Nozzle
Eddy-viscosity based models are the workhorse for the design of aircraft exhaust nozzles, but have
significant limitations for jets with three-dimensionality, compressibility, and high temperature
streams. With the advent of increasingly stringent regulations on aircraft noise and efficiency, the
industry is exploring new designs such as lobed mixers, chevrons, etc. 654In this scenario, it is
critically important to have tools that can guide this design process by providing reliable uncertainty

P/Pexit

T/Texit

Figure 18.4 Variation in Mach number, temperature and pressure along the centerline of the jet efflux
x/Djet

654J. M. Seiner, M. K. Ponton, B. J. Jansen, and N. T. Lagen, “The e_ects of temperature on supersonic jet noise
emission," in 14th DGLR/AIAA aeroacoustics conference, vol. 1, pp. 295-307, 1992.
 490

estimates for the RANS model predictions. To this end, we replicate the experiment configuration.
The experiment was conducted on an axisymmetric, convergent-divergent nozzle with diameter
9.144cm. The jet exhausted into a quiescent ambient, with M = 2.0 and Reynolds number 1.3 x 10 6.
As the results in Figure 18.4 indicate, the SST model over-predicts the potential core and the rate of
mixing is lower than that indicated in the experimental data. A major source of RANS discrepancy is
due to the incorrect prediction of the relative strengths of turbulent kinetic energy production and
dissipation. The perturbations on the eigenvectors of the Reynolds stresses modulate their alignment
with the mean rate of strain eigendirections. This varies and gives bounds on the relative strengths
of the production and dissipation mechanisms. The resultant uncertainty estimates are able to
account for the discrepancy for the Mach number, temperature and pressure along the centerline of
the jet efflux.
18.2.3 Multiple turbulence Models without Perturbation
Figure 18.5 depicts effects of different turbulence models on a turbine blade vortex at 20% chord
length. Another example would be effect of different turbulence models on a steep obstacle as shown
in Figure 18.6. As it evident, in both cases, it results in slightly different solution, and therefore,
source of uncertainty and error.

κ-ε κ-ω SST

LES Reynold Stress

Figure 18.5 Pressure Coefficient at 20% Chord Length using Different Turbulence Model
 491

Figure 18.6 Effects of Different Turbulence Models in a Steep Obstacle

18.3 Geometrical Modeling Errors

It is almost always necessary to simplify the geometry in some form. When assessing a CFD
simulation one should consider how the geometrical simplifications can affect the interesting
physical phenomena. Typical geometrical errors are: Simplifications Small geometrical features like
fillets, small steps or gaps etc. can often be disregarded. When disregarding this type of features one
should consider if they might affect the important physics. For example, a very large fillet on the
suction-side of a vane might affect corner separations near the end-walls. A large tip-leakage might
affect the flow physics significantly in the upper part of a compressor. Tolerances and manufacturing
discrepancies if the geometry has very large tolerances or is manufactured in a way which might
produce a non-ideal shape or position it might be necessary to perform additional CFD simulations
in order to cover the whole span of possible real geometries. For example, surface conditions,
roughness, welds, steps, gaps etc. Often CFD simulations assume a perfectly smooth surface. A non-
smooth surface which might have welds, steps or even gaps will of course produce different results.
If the physical phenomena of interest might depend on the surface conditions these should of course
be considered. Typical phenomena that might be dependent on this type of errors are transition
prediction, leakage flows etc.

18.4 Spatial Discretization (Governing Equations) Errors

In general, discretization error is defined as the difference between the numerical solution to the
discretized equations and the exact solution to the partial differential (or integral) equations. Spatial
Discretization of the governing equation is to facilitate the discrete equations over the domain
discretization. There are currently four methods of discretization available. They are

• Taylor Series expansion

• Polynomial fitting
• Integral method
• Control Volume approach
 492

Each of these has its own characteristics and sometimes possible to obtain exactly the same
formulation by using all four method; especially for linear simple cases. Two different idea should be
discussed. The first has to do with PDE themselves in regard to terms like “conservation form”,
“conservation law form”, or “divergence form”. The difference between conservative and non-
conservative representation of equation has been discussed before. Normally for PDE which
represents a physical conservation statement, this means the divergence of a physical quantity can
be identified in the equation. The second idea is that of the Conservative properties of finite
difference representation. Such PDE represents a conservation statement to the point. We strive to
construct a finite difference representation which provide a good approximation to PDE in a small,
local neighborhood involving a few grid points. The same conservation principal which gave rise to
the PDE’s also apply to arbitrary large regions (control volume) through the use of Divergence
theorem (Eq. 18.1), by converting a control volume to a control surface, to be integrated through.

∭(V. ⃗F)dV = ∯(F

⃗ .n
⃗ ) dS
V S
Eq. 18.1
Those finite difference schemes which maintain the discretize
version of the conservation statement is said to have the
conservation property. For majority of problems it is crucial.
Differences between finite difference and finite volume method
are subtle but could be generalized as:

Finite difference
• Approximates the governing equation at a point.
• Finite difference methods were developed earlier, the
analysis of methods is easier and further developed.

Finite volume Figure 18.7 Inviscid stencil with

• Approximates the governing equation over a volume. 1st order cells in red and 2nd order
• Finite volume is the most physical in fluid mechanics cells in green
codes, and is actually used in most codes.

To that end, several discretization techniques were tableted (tables 1 & 2) as previously which would
be excellent guide to spatial discretization techniques, both explicit and implicit. Although high order
schemes seems to perform better, but the high CPU costs
prevent them to be implemented. In balance, based on
recommendation from these table, only 2nd order or higher
should be considered with their stability in mind. Further, to
illustrates this, we Second-order spatial accuracy for the
inviscid fluxes is achieved by using MUSCL extrapolation to
reconstruct an approximate value of the primitive variables,
each side of each cell face. The MUSCL scheme for inviscid uses
a 13 point stencil per cell in three dimensions, as shown in
Figure 18.7; with 1st order in red and 2nd order cells in green.
The viscous flux is calculated using a Green's theorem
approach to calculate the derivatives at cell faces and central Figure 18.8 Viscous stencil with
viscous cells in blue and 2nd order
differencing is used to calculate the scalar values. The viscous
cells in green
fluxes require a further twelve points to be added to the
 493

inviscid stencil for a total of 25 cells in the stencil per cell in three dimensions, as shown in Figure
18.8; with blue and 2nd order cells in green (25 cells).
18.4.1 Higher Order Discretization
There is a big debate in CFD community whether to use the 1st or 2nd or higher order discretization.
There are of course differences between 1st and 2nd order as depicted in in Figure 18.10. The 2nd
order, i.e., central differencing, reaches the desired error much faster than 1st. But it remain murky
for higher ordered differences.
There are flows which diffusion
dominated, versus convection. An
example, consider is the
supersonic flows (high Reynolds
number or convective flows) vs
subsonic (diffusive) one. In that
case, the rule of thumb is to use
the Pe number (Pe = RePr)
rendering to Figure 18.9. Now
when you plan to discretize the
Navier-Stokes equations this
notion apply on the discretization
of the convective term of the NS
equation. While centered scheme
is 2nd order accurate when upwind
scheme is only first order, the
upwind scheme is more diffusive Figure 18.10 Effect of 1st and 2nd Order Differencing Scheme in
than centered scheme but it is also Error
more stable than centered scheme
which can lead to some spurious oscillations (dispersive errors). It is well known than when Peclet
number is > 2 it is preferable to switch from centered scheme to upwind scheme. So due to this
possible oscillating behavior of the
centered scheme, especially on
convective dominated flow (high re
number) the use of the upwind scheme
could stabilize the solution. In
conclusion, the QUICK and third-order
MUSCL discretization schemes may
provide better accuracy than the 2nd
order scheme. The QUICK scheme is
applicable to quadrilateral or
hexahedral meshes, while the MUSCL
scheme is used on all types of meshes.
In general, however, the second-order
scheme is sufficient and the QUICK Figure 18.9 Effect of Pe Number in balancing Diffusive
scheme will not provide significant and Convective Flows
improvements in accuracy. There are
other fancy higher order schemes which been design for most designed and work in special occasion.
For the time being, 2nd or 3rd order accuracy is deem to be sufficient for most applications.
 494

18.5 Discretization Errors

18.5.1 Mesh Density
To minimize the effort, users are advised to consult with guidelines developed by ITTC, ASME, or
Journal of Fluids Engineering before instigating a numerical simulation. These errors are due to the
Discretization errors can either be spatial errors in space or temporal errors in time. Spatial
discretization errors are what people normally call discretization errors. The effects of spatial
discretization are the most pronounced and have rightfully been investigated in depth. These can be
quantified by a sequence of systematic mesh refinement/coarsening as depicted later on. The errors
and uncertainties, as well as the sensitivity of the solution with respect to mesh size could be
estimated. To minimize the uncertainties and error within a numerical simulation, sets of parametric
studies and comparisons are developed. These, are simple and yet time consuming and tedious,
especially for real difference between the exact solution and the numerical representation of the
solution in space. Describing exactly what discretization different codes use and what errors this
might lead to is not possible here. Instead some general rules to avoid these errors can be
summarized as: Use at least a 2nd order accurate scheme, preferably a 3rd order accurate scheme.
Some general purpose codes have a 1st order upwind scheme as default; this is a very diffusive
scheme that often gives too smooth results. For new applications always run a simulation with a
finer mesh to see how grid independent your solution is. Be aware of checker-board errors. Checker
board errors occur close to strong shocks and other large discontinuities and can be seen as a wavy
pattern with a wavelength of two cells. Some schemes, especially those who behave like central

Figure 18.11 Effects of mesh density on solution domain

 495

differencing schemes, are more prone to checker-board errors. Upwind schemes are a bit better and
schemes like TVD or chock-capturing schemes, are even better. (See Figure 18.11).
18.5.2 Mesh Scaling for Affordable Solution Verification655
Herein, we introduce Mesh Scaling, a new global mesh refinement technique for building series of all-
hexahedral meshes for solution verification, without the 8X multiplier. Mesh Scaling reverse
engineers the block decomposition of existing all-hexahedral meshes followed by remeshing the
block decomposition using the original mesh as the sizing function multiplied by any positive floating
number (e.g. 0.5X, 2X, 4X, 6X, etc.), enabling larger series of meshes to be constructed with fewer
elements, making solution verification tractable. In this paper, we introduce Mesh Scaling, which
globally increases or decreases the number of elements in all hexahedral meshes by any positive
floating point multiplier. By allowing arbitrary scale factors, larger series of meshes with fewer
elements can be produced significantly reducing the cost of numerical error estimation. As illustrated
in Figure 18.12, Mesh Scaling traverses an existing mesh identifying and propagating constraints
from CAD associativity, material assignments, boundary conditions, and mesh irregularities to
construct a block decomposition. Each block in the decomposition is either a structured block or a
swept block which can be meshed with a simple all-hex meshing algorithm. The original mesh is then
deleted and the block decomposition is re-meshed with a sizing function based on sizes from the
original mesh, scaled by an input multiplier.

Figure 18.12 Overview of Mesh Scaling with a Structured Block Decomposition

18.5.2.1 Solution Verification Using Scaled Meshes

In this section we provide results for solution verification using Mesh Scaling for two example
problems. Both problems use a nonlinear large deformation solid mechanics code to produce the
results using a quasi-static solver. The material models used are incremental elastic-plastic models.
We used an error model with three parameters. If h is the mesh size, Q(h) is the approximate quantity
of interest for mesh size h, and E(h) is the error, then the error estimate takes the form in:

655Matt Staten, Brian Carnes, Corey Mcbride, Clint Stimpson, Jim Cox, “Mesh scaling for affordable solution
verification”, 25th International Meshing Roundtable, 2016.
 496

E(h) = Q − Q(h) = Chp

Eq. 18.2
Traditional extrapolation requires three meshes to estimate the three parameters in this error model.
We considered a nonlinear least squares fitting of the error model using three or more meshes. For
additional information, please consult the paper by [Staten et al.]656.
18.5.3 Grid Independence Study
To perform a Grid Independent Study, is fairly straight forward as seen in a compressible flow over
a forwarding step size example (Figure 18.11):

1. Run the initial simulation on your initial mesh and ensure convergence of residual error to
10-4, monitor points are steady, and imbalances below 1%. If not refine the mesh and repeat.
2. Once you have met the convergence criteria above for your first simulation, refine the mesh
globally so that you have finer cells throughout the domain. Generally we would aim for
around 1.5 times the initial mesh size. Run the simulation and ensure that the residual error
drops below 10-4, that the monitor points are steady, and that the imbalances are below 1%.
At this point you need to compare the monitor point values from Step 2 against the values
from Step 1. If they are the same (within your own allowable tolerance), then the mesh at
Step 1 was accurate enough to capture the result. If the value at Step 2 is not within acceptable
values of the Step 1 result, then this means that your solution is changing because of your
mesh resolution, and hence the solution is not yet independent of the mesh. In this case you
will need to move to Step 3.
3. Because your solution is changing with the refinement of mesh, you have not yet achieved a
mesh independent solution. You need to refine the mesh more, and repeat the process until
you have a solution that is independent of the mesh. You should then always use the smallest
mesh that gives you this mesh independent solution (to reduce your simulation run time)

18.5.4 Grid Topology

Before we pay attention to the individual cell topology, we consider domain topology which are
compared for the 2D case, namely H, C, and O topologies. Meshes with H-H and C-H topology were
constructed for 3D comparison; however due to the incompatibility of the C-H structure on a sharp
wing tip or trailing edge with the current solver, no C-H studies are included. Most of the studies were
under lifting inviscid flow conditions. Multiple studies were conducted under turbulent conditions
but only one is included. Overall when it comes to topology, the H mesh scores first place followed by
the C mesh and the O mesh comes last. When it comes to mesh parameters, the studies show that
with carefully chosen mesh spacing around the leading edge, good orthogonality and skewness

Figure 18.13 Domain Topology (O-Type, C-Type, and H-Type; from left to right)

656Matt Staten, Brian Carnes, Corey Mcbride, Clint Stimpson, Jim Cox, “Mesh scaling for affordable solution
verification”, 25th International Meshing Roundtable, 2016.
 497

factors, smooth spacing variation, and a reasonable number of nodes, excellent CFD results can be
obtained from the mesh in terms of accuracy of computed functional, determined convergence order
and adjoin error estimation. Now with regard to Topology of individual cells, three types are
considered; Hexahedral, Tetrahedral, and Polyhedral. The solution on the polyhedral mesh produced
the lowest absolute residual value as evident in Fig and the number of iterations for each mesh type
to reach the same level of convergence (10-4) for the pressure residual are shown. While there are
minor differences in the converged pressure drop the simulations are in broad agreement on the
overall value. The number of iterations for each mesh type to reach a steady state value for the
pressure drop are shown accordingly. The number of volumetric counts for Polyhedral cells are less
than other two, therefore, saving valuable time and effort in computation. (See
Figure 18.13).

18.5.5 Sources of Discretization Error

Discretization error occurs during the approximate numerical solution of differential equations.
Evaluation of discretization error requires knowing the exact solution for the governing equations
which is generally not known for problems of practical interest. In such scenarios, a mathematically
rigorous technique called the Method of Manufactured Solutions (MMS) can be used where a
solution is manufactured and used as an exact solution. MMS is based upon the philosophy that
code verification deals with the mathematics of the problem and hence arbitrary functions (with
certain requirements as discussed later) can be selected as exact solutions657. Of the various sources
of numerical error, discretization error is generally the largest and usually the most difficult to
estimate. The goal here is to review the different approaches for estimating discretization error and
to present a general framework for their classification. The first category of discretization error
estimator is based on estimates of the exact solution to the differential equation which are higher-
order accurate than the underlying numerical solutions and includes approaches such as underlying
numerical solutions and includes approaches658.

➢ Residual (i.e., the truncation error)

➢ Gradient and Flux Calculation (different geometries)

Residual includes discretization error transport equations, finite element residual methods, and
adjoin method extensions. The discretization error has two components: one that is locally-generated
and the other is transported from elsewhere in the domain. The transported component is called
pollution error by the finite element community which can be used to relate the convergence of the
numerical method, (i.e., truncation error). The truncation error is the difference between the discrete
equations and the mathematical model equations. Thus the discretization error is transported in the
same manner as the underlying solution properties (e.g., it can be convected and diffused) and it is
locally generated according to the truncation error.

18.5.6 Case Study – Hypersonic Flow Over an Axisymmetric Sphere-Cone

An example of error transport for the Euler equations is shown below in Figure 18.14, which gives
the error in the density for the inviscid, Mach 8 flow over an axisymmetric sphere-cone (Roy)659. The
flow is from left to right, and large discretization errors are generated at the bow shock wave where

657 Aniruddha Choudhary, “Verification of Compressible and Incompressible Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes

and Residual-based Mesh Adaptation”, Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, 2014.
658 Christopher J. Roy, “ Review of Discretization Error Estimators in Scientific Computing”, 48th AIAA Aerospace

Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition January 2010, Orlando, FL.
659 Roy, C. J. (2003). “Grid Convergence Error Analysis for Mixed-Order Numerical Schemes”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 41,

No. 4, pp. 595-604.

 498

the shock and the grid lines are misaligned. In the subsonic (i.e., elliptic) region of the flow
immediately behind the normal shock, these errors are convected along the local streamlines. In the
supersonic (hyperbolic) regions these errors propagate along characteristic Mach lines and reflect
off the surface. Additional error is generated at the sphere-cone tangency point, which represents a
singularity due to the discontinuity in the surface curvature. Errors from this region also propagate
downstream along the characteristic Mach line. An adaptation process which is driven by the global
error levels would adapt to the characteristic line emanating from the sphere-cone tangency point,
which is not desired. An adaptation process driven by the local contribution to the error should adapt
to the sphere-cone tangency point, thus obviating the need for adaption to the characteristic line that
emanates from it.

Figure 18.14 Contours of Total Estimated Discretization Error in Density

18.5.7 Estimating Discretization Error

There are a number of approaches available for estimating discretization error. These methods can
be broadly categorized as a priori methods and a posteriori methods. A priori methods are those
that allow a bound to be placed on the discretization error before any numerical solution is even
computed. One approach to developing an a priori discretization error estimator is to perform a
truncation error analysis for the scheme, relate the truncation error to the discretization error (e.g.,
through a discretization error transport equation), then develop some approximate bounds on the
solution derivatives. The main failing of a priori error estimators is extremely is that the resulting
error estimate greatly over-estimates the true discretization error. A priori methods are generally
only useful for assessing the formal order of accuracy of discretization scheme. These methods
provide an error estimate only after the numerical solution has been computed. They use the
computed solution to the discrete equations, possibly with additional information supplied by the
equations, to estimate the error relative to the exact solution to the mathematical model. The initial
 499

developments up to the early-1990s were mainly concentrated on linear, elliptic, scalar mathematical
models. Up to this point, a posteriori error estimation was limited to analysis of the energy norm of
the discretization error, which for Poisson’s equation can be written on element k as:

‖ε‖k = [ ∫|∇u ⃗ exact |2 dV]

⃗ h − ∇u
Vk
Eq. 18.3
where ε the discretization error, h is a measure of the element size (e.g., Δx), and p is the formal order
of accuracy of the method, Uh represents the solution to the discrete equations on a mesh with a
representative cell length of h, and the exact solution to the mathematical model UExact. In general, the
level of maturity for a posteriori error estimation methods is strongly problem dependent. All of the
discretization error estimators to be discussed here were originally developed for elliptic problems.
As a result, they tend to
work well for elliptic Mesh spacing L2 – norm Slope of segment
problems, but are not as 0.75 0.013831341 N/A
well-developed for
mathematical models 0.375 0.00350755 1.97940
that are parabolic or 0.1875 0.00095693 1.87398
hyperbolic in nature. The 0.09375 0.00023901 2.00129
level of complexity of the
0.046875 0.00006023 1.98851
problem is also an
important issue. The 0.0234375 0.00001505 2.00001
error estimators work 0.0117188 0.00000375 2.00000
well for smooth, linear
problems with simple Table 18.1 Discretization Error for 2D Burger’s Equation
physics and geometries;
however, strong nonlinearities, discontinuities, singularities, and physical and geometric complexity
can significantly reduce the reliability and applicability of a posteriori discretization error estimation
methods. Similarly, an investigation perfumed by [Yan & Ollivier-Gooch]660, where an Error
Transport Equation (ETE) been developed to estimate the discretization error. The ETE is an
auxiliary partial differential equation (PDE) derived from the primal one. We compare the accuracy
of the resulting discretization error estimate from the linearized ETE and nonlinear ETE to solving
the higher order primal problem. It was shown that for finite-volume discretization of 2D viscous
burger’s equation on an unstructured mesh, the error estimate can exposed in Eq. 18.3, for
comparing visually. For structured grid (Table 18.1), the same applied and the resulted in 2nd order
accuracy obtained for different grid density661. Other studies suggest improving finite-volume
diffusive fluxes through better reconstruction [Sejekan and Ollivier-Gooch]662, where they believed
inaccuracy originates as the error in the flux integral. The aim is to compute the gradient and flux
more accurately at the cell boundaries and hence obtain a better flux integral for a slight increase in
computational cost.

660 Gary Kai Kin Yan, Carl Ollivier-Gooch, “Discretization Error Estimation by the Error Transport Equation on
Unstructured Meshes Applications to Viscous Flows”, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
661 I. Sadrehaghighi, “Verification & Validation”, Presented in CDI Marine, March 2011.
662 Chandan B. Sejekana, Carl F. Ollivier-Goocha,”Improving Finite-Volume Diffusive Fluxes Through Better

Reconstruction”, Computers & Fluids · August 2016.

 500

18.5.7.1 Case Study – Domain Discretization Error for the Transitional Flow over a Sharp Cone
An example of using the Richardson extrapolation procedure as an error estimator was presented
by [Roy and Blottner]663. They examined the hypersonic, transitional flow over a sharp cone. The
system response quantity was the heat flux distribution along the surface. The surface heat flux is
shown versus the axial coordinate in Figure 18.15-(a) for three systematically-refined mesh levels:
fine (160×160 cells), medium (80×80 cells), and coarse (40×40 cells). Also shown are Richardson
extrapolation results found from the fine and medium mesh solutions. The sharp rise in heat flux at
x = 0.5 m is due to the specification of the location for transition from laminar to turbulent flow. In
Figure 18.15-(b), the Richardson extrapolation results are used to estimate the discretization error
in each of the numerical solutions. Neglecting the immediate vicinity of the transition location, the
maximum estimated discretization errors are approximately 8%, 2%, and 0.5% for the coarse,
medium, and fine meshes, respectively. The solutions thus appear to be converging as h → 0.
Furthermore, these estimated errors display the expected hp reduction for these formally second-
order accurate computations. In the turbulent region, the maximum errors are also converging at the
expected rate giving error estimates of approximately 4%, 1% and 0.25%.

(a) - Exact error (b) - Estimated error

Figure 18.15 (a) Exact Error, (b) Estimated Error Scheme for Viscous Burgers’ Equation (Courtesy of
Yan and Ollivier-Gooch)

18.6 Temporal Discretization Errors

Temporal discretization errors mainly effect transient simulations. However, some codes use a time
marching method also for steady simulations and then a temporal discretization error might affect
the final steady solution slightly. The
discretization in time can be done with
1st or 2nd order schemes or a Runge-
Kutta Method, which is more accurate
and saves memory. Some codes can
adapt the time-step, but often it is
necessary to prescribe a time-step in
advance. Think of the time-step as
Figure 18.16 Temporal Discretization Criteria
your grid in time and make sure that

663Roy, C. J. and Blottner, F. G. (2003). “Methodology for Turbulence Model Validation: Application to
hypersonic Transitional Flows,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 313-324.
 501

the grid-resolution in time is fine enough to resolve the highest in time and make sure that the grid-
resolution in time is fine enough to resolve the highest frequencies. It is obvious to see the CFL
number has a bearing on temporal accuracy. In analogy with (Spatial accuracy) arguments it is easy
to see that a very small physical time step will give you very time-accurate results, though it would
take more time. Too high a time step, not only reflects as a loss in temporal accuracy but also could
affect the stability. adapt the time-step, but often it is necessary to prescribe a time-step in advance.
Think of the time-step as your grid in time and make sure that the grid-resolution in time is fine
enough to resolve the highest in time and make sure that the grid-resolution in time is fine enough
to resolve the highest frequencies. It is obvious to see the CFL number has a bearing on temporal
accuracy (see Figure 18.16). According to some, compromise therefore is needed from practical
engineering approach, To avoid problems with temporal discretization errors the following should
be considered; Try to use at least the same order as special discretization in your temporal one. For
example, if you use Crank-Nicolson which is 2nd order accurate, use a 2nd order scheme in time as
well. For Euler Implicit which is 1st order, use a 1st order accurate, and so on. Accordingly, a smaller
time step for Euler implicit scheme is not much helpful. An easier way is to look at "temporal
refinement" in the same perspective as "spatial refinement" studies. On the same grid, CN has a slope
of 2, when dt reduces, while EI would have a slope of 1. This means that to achieve the same error
levels as CN, the dt must be lowered substantially for EI. Do a physical estimation of the typical
frequencies in time of the phenomena that you are interested in and select a time-step which is fine
enough to resolve these frequencies well. After the simulation also look at the frequencies captured
and make sure that they are well resolved by the chosen time-step. For new applications try a finer
time-step to ensure that your solution in time is fairly grid independent in time. This dictates a
balancing act between spatial discretization and temporal one, as discussed earlier, and related
directly to CFL number. It is customer to choose CFL number of 1 or less to be consistent as depicted
to follow. For example, the 1D wave equation could be written as:

∂u ∂u α∆t n
+α = 0 ≫ un+1
j = u n
j − (uj − unj−1 )
∂t ∂x ⏟
∆x
CFL
Eq. 18.4
And the effect of different CFL numbers as displayed.

18.7 Iterative Convergence Errors

To judge when a CFD simulation is converged is not always that easy. Different codes and different
applications behave very differently. Before we pay attention to the convergence issue, it is prudent
to establish what the proper convergence level for the solution is. According to Wikipedia, in
computational mathematics, an iterative method is a mathematical procedure that generates a
sequence of improving approximate solutions for a class of problems. A specific implementation of
an iterative method, including the termination criteria, is an algorithm of the iterative method. An
iterative method is called convergent if the corresponding sequence converges for given initial
approximations. A mathematically rigorous convergence analysis of an iterative method is usually
performed; however, heuristic-based iterative methods are also common. In the problems of finding
the root of an equation (or a solution of a system of equations), an iterative method uses an initial
guess to generate successive approximations to a solution. For a pure aero-simulation on a fairly
coarse grid convergence is easy to judge, but for more complex simulations involving resolved
boundary layers, heat transfer, combustion etc. convergence can be very tricky. Aside from looking
at residuals one should always also look at how global parameters like static pressure distributions,
 502

total pressure losses, skin friction, heat transfer etc. change in time. To summarize at convergence,
the following should be satisfied664.
All discrete conservation equations (momentum, energy, etc.) are obeyed in all cells to a specified
tolerance OR the solution no longer changes with subsequent iterations. Overall mass, momentum,
energy, and scalar balances are achieved. Simply put, for a time-marching or time-accurate strategy,
this involves examining whether the final time has been reached with proper convergence at each
time step. For a space-marching strategy, this involves examining whether the end of the marching
segment has been reached with proper convergence at each marching step. (See Figure 18.17).

Figure 18.17 Effect of CFL Number on Convergence of 1D Wave Equation

18.7.1 Monitoring Convergence using Residual History

Generally, a decrease in residuals by three orders of magnitude indicates at least qualitative
convergence. At this point, the major flow features should be established. Scaled energy residual
should decrease to 10-6 (for the pressure-based solver), and scaled species residual may need to
decrease to 10-5 to achieve species balance.

18.7.2 Monitoring Quantitative Convergence

Two important aspects of quantitative monitoring are:

• Monitor other relevant key variables/physical quantities for a confirmation.

• Ensure that overall mass/heat/species conservation is satisfied.

In addition to residuals, you can also monitor lift, drag and moment coefficients and relevant
variables or functions (e.g. surface integrals) at a boundary or any defined surface. Furthermore, in
addition to monitoring residual and variable histories, you should also check for overall heat and
mass balances. The net flux imbalance (shown in the GUI as Net Results) should be less than 1% of
the smallest flux through the domain boundary. If solution monitors indicate that the solution is
converged, but the solution is still changing or has a large mass/heat imbalance, this clearly indicates
the solution is not yet converged. In this case, you need to reduce values of Convergence Criterion or

664 Mike Kuron, M.S.M.E., Project Manager at CAE Associates

 503

disable Check Convergence in the Residual Monitors panel and continue iterations until the solution
converges.

18.7.3 Norms of Convergence Error

A more attractive way to estimate the iterative error is to use norms of the change in the solution
from one iteration to the other665. The iterative error is related to the non-linearity of the system of
partial differential equations solved in CFD. There are several sources of non-linearity in the RANS
equations:

• The convective terms. The usual linearization procedures are Picard or Newton methods,
which imply an iterative solution.
• The turbulence closure. For example, one and two-equation eddy-viscosity models have
nonlinear convective terms and non-linear production and dissipation terms. Also, the
turbulence model equations are often solved segregated from the continuity and momentum
equations.

Furthermore, the linear system of algebraic equations obtained from the discretization of the
linearized partial differential equations is rarely solved with a direct method. Therefore, the flow
solution includes an extra iterative cycle corresponding to the method applied in the solution of the
linear systems of equations. In most flow solvers, no clear distinction is made between the various
iterative cycles. Therefore, in the estimation of the iterative error it is important to point out the
meaning of one iteration of the solution procedure.

L  (φ) = M ax Δφi 1  i  Np
NP NP

 Δφ i  ( Δφ ) i
2
Eq. 18.5
L1 (φ) = i =1
, L 2 (φ) = i =1
NP NP

Where NP stands for the total number of nodes of a given grid and ∆ϕ for the local change of the flow
quantity ϕ. Two options were used for ∆ϕ; the variable change between consecutive iterations, ∆ϕd
=ϕn - ϕn-1, and the normalized residual of the discretized equations, ∆ϕr. In using these options, there
are some important practical details. The difference in ϕ between iterations, ∆ϕd, is readily evaluated.
However, it may be affected by the use of under-relaxation in the calculation procedure. If implicit
under-relaxation schemes are applied, as for example local time-stepping, ∆ϕd will reflect its
influence correctly. On the other hand, explicit under-relaxation must be handled carefully; ∆ϕd
should be calculated before the under-relaxation is applied, otherwise, the values of ∆ϕd will become
artificially small. The relation between the residual of the discretized equations and the flow
quantities depends on the method adopted. Nevertheless, in general, the normalized residual, ∆ϕr, is
equivalent to the differences in the solution of a Jacobi iteration for the system of equations of a given
iteration. The term normalized means that the main diagonal of the system is scaled to one in order
to obtain a right-hand side which represents a change in the dependent variable. Then ∆ϕr is also a
measure of the differences between consecutive iterations. The values of L1, L2 and L∞ obtained in
any iteration n that satisfies the selected convergence criteria may be used as iterative error

665L. Ec¸a, M. Hoekstra,” On the Influence of the Iterative Error in the Numerical Uncertainty of Ship Viscous
Flow Calculations”, 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics Rome, Italy, 17-22 September 2006
 504

estimators. However, there is no guarantee that these values bound4 the iterative error, especially
when the rate of convergence is small.

18.7.4 Case Study – 2D Flow Over a Hill

The calculations of the turbulent flow around the two-dimensional hill of 241x241 grid with
Reynolds number of 6x104, were performed with the eddy viscosity one-equation model of Spalart &
Allmaras. In each of the seven grids tested, the calculations were started from scratch copying the
inlet profiles to the complete flow field. In this test case, we have chosen to monitor the behavior of
the two Cartesian velocity components, U1 and U2 and the pressure coefficient, Cp. All the quantities
presented are dimensionless using the hill height and the mean centerline velocity as the reference
values. The reference pressure to compute Cp is the pressure at the outlet of the computational
domain, i.e. Cp = 0 at the outlet. The convergence criterion is based on the maximum difference
between consecutive iterations, L∞ (∆ϕd). Figure 18.18 presents the iterative error of U1 based on
the solution converged to machine accuracy, in the finest grid. With the data shown it is easy to assess
the quality of the iterative error estimators based on the last iteration performed. For the three levels
of et plotted, the values of L2 (∆ (U1)d) of the last iteration performed are 10-4.3, 10-6.6 and 10-9.1.
Iterative error estimations based only on the values of the last iteration performed are not reliable666.
The L∞ is best suited for the iterative error estimation. The L2 norm is clearly worse, but still a better
choice than the L1 norm. The results based on ∆ϕd are globally the most consistent. The most
appropriate norm to perform iterative error estimation is the L∞ norm. The L2 and L1 norms do not
The calculations of the turbulent flow around the two-dimensional hill of 241x241 grid with
Reynolds number of 6x104, were performed with the eddy viscosity one-equation model of Spalart &
Allmaras. In each of the seven grids tested, the calculations were started from scratch copying the
inlet profiles to the
complete flow field. In this
test case, we have chosen
to monitor the behavior of
the two Cartesian velocity
components, U1 and U2 and
the pressure coefficient, Cp.
All the quantities
presented are
dimensionless using the
hill height and the mean
centerline velocity as the
reference values. The
reference pressure to
compute Cp is the pressure
at the outlet of the
computational domain, i.e.
Cp = 0 at the outlet. The
convergence criterion is
based on the maximum
difference between
consecutive iterations, L∞
(∆ϕd). Figure 18.18 Figure 18.18 Estimated Iteration Error of U1 for Different Level of
presents the iterative error Tolerance Criteria et

666L. Ec¸a, M. Hoekstra,” On the Influence of the Iterative Error in the Numerical Uncertainty of Ship Viscous
Flow Calculations”, 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics Rome, Italy, 17-22 September 2006.
 505

of U1 based on the solution converged to machine accuracy, in the finest grid. With the data shown it
is easy to assess the quality of the iterative error estimators based on the last iteration performed.
For the three levels of et plotted, the values of L2 (∆ (U1)d) of the last iteration performed are 10-4.3,
10-6.6 and 10-9.1. Iterative error estimations based only on the values of the last iteration performed
are not reliable667. The L∞ is best suited for the iterative error estimation. The L2 norm is clearly
worse, but still a better choice than the L1 norm. The results based on ∆ϕd are globally the most
consistent. The most appropriate norm to perform iterative error estimation is the L∞ norm. The L2
and L1 norms do not lead to iterative error estimates which are representative of the complete
computational domain. In most of the tested cases, the error estimators based on these two norms
do not bound the iterative error obtained from the difference with the solution converged to machine
accuracy. The locations where such estimates fail to bind the iterative error may cover a significant
part of the computational domain. Estimates of the iterative error based only on the results of the
last iteration, be it the change in the variables or the normalized residuals, are unreliable. In most
cases, a major part of the computational domain exhibits iterative errors larger than these last
iteration values. Indeed, the maximum values of the iterative error may be more than one order of
magnitude larger than the differences between consecutive iterations or the normalized residuals of
the last iteration. The extrapolation to an infinite number of iterations improves significantly the
performance of the iterative error estimation. The least squares fit to a geometric progression seems
to be a good option to make reliable estimates of the iterative error.

18.8 Computer Round off Errors

Any commutated solution, may be affected by rounding to a finite number of digits 668. In some
calculations, the magnitude of round-off errors is proportional to the number of grid points in
domain. In these cases, refining the grid may decrease the truncation error but increase the round-
off error. When using single precision care needs to be taken to avoid round-off errors. In-viscid Euler
simulations and simulations using wall-function meshes can most often is performed in single
precision. For well resolved boundary layers with Y plus close to 1 it is often necessary to use double
precision. If using double precision for very fine mesh resolutions make sure that you also create the
mesh in double precision and not just run the solver in double precision. Sometimes a single precision
solver converges slower than a double precision solver due to numerical errors caused by round-off
errors. When using advanced physical models like combustion, free-surface simulations, spray and
transient simulations with quick mesh motions it is also often necessary to use double precision. A
notorious example is the fate of the Ariane rocket launched on June 4, 1996 (European Space Agency
1996). In the 37th second of flight, the inertial reference system attempted to convert a 64-bit floating
point number to a 16-bit number, but instead triggered an overflow error which was interpreted by
the guidance system as flight data, causing the rocket to veer off course and be destroyed.669 Round-
off error in a numerical method is error that is caused by using a discrete number of significant digits
to represent real numbers on a computer. Since computers can retain a large number of digits in a
computation, round-off error is problematic only when the approximation requires that the
computer subtract two numbers that are nearly identical. This is exactly what happens if we apply
an approximation to intervals that are too small. Thus, the effort to decrease truncation error can
have the unintended consequence of introducing significant round-off error.

667 L. Ec¸a, M. Hoekstra,” On the Influence of the Iterative Error in the Numerical Uncertainty of Ship Viscous
Flow Calculations”, 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics Rome, Italy, 17-22 September 2006.
668 Anderson, Dale A; Tannehill, John C; Plecher Richard H; 1984:”Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat

Transfer”, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

669 Weisstein, Eric W. "Round off Error." From Math World - A Wolfram Web Resource.
 506

18.9 Truncation Errors

Truncation error represents the difference between the PDE and FDE and represented by order
notation, as previously discussed. It is inversely related to the order of accuracy for the equations
and would be extremely important criteria in accuracy of discretized equation as it is directly related
to the stability consideration. Often, truncation error also includes discretization error, which is the
error that arises from taking a finite number of steps in a computation to approximate an infinite
process. The truncation error associated with 1D heat equation can be expanded below (Eq. 18.6). It
is obvious that better FDE approximation → smaller the Truncation error. But like many other things
in CFD, there should be a balanced between FDE approximation and truncation error. For most
practical applications, 2nd order accuracy would be sufficient670. Alternatively, truncation error in a
numerical method is error that is caused by using simple approximations to represent exact
mathematical formulas. The only way to completely avoid truncation error is to use exact
calculations. However, truncation error can be reduced by applying the same approximation to a
larger number of smaller intervals or by switching to a better approximation. Analysis of truncation
error is the single most important source of information about the theoretical characteristics that
distinguish better methods from poorer ones. With a combination of theoretical analysis and
numerical experiments, it is possible to estimate truncation error accurately.

∂u ∂2 u un+1
j − unj α
−α 2 = − (unj+1 − 2unj + unj+1 ) +
⏟
∂t ∂t ⏟ ∆t (∆x)2
PDE FDE
2
∂ u ∆t ∂ u (∆x)2
4
[{− 2 } + {α 4
} + . . . .]
⏟ ∂t 2 ∂t 12
T.E.
Eq. 18.6
Practitioners of numerical approximation are most concerned with truncation error, but they also
try to restrict their efforts at decreasing truncation error to improvements that do not introduce
significant round-off error. Here, we consider only truncation error. We seek information about error
on both a local and global scale. Local truncation error is the amount of truncation error that occurs
in one step of a numerical approximation. Global truncation error is the amount of truncation error
that accumulates in the use of a numerical approximation to solve a problem.

18.10 Code Errors

Errors related to bugs in the code used or mistakes made by the Programmer. A general methodology
called method of Manufactured Solutions (MS) has been proposed to circumvent the issue. As a
physically realistic solution is not needed, the code verification being purely a mathematical
assessment activity, not a physical one, one can suppose an arbitrary and analytic solution field. Then,
with a mathematical derivation, where symbolic mathematical systems can help, the unknowns are
replaced in the differential terms with the assumed solution. The obtained result, which will be
different than zero, corresponds to a source term field for the original governing equations and a set
of boundary conditions. This source term field will have a complicated but analytical expression and
can be set in the simulation code. With this setup the simulation is launched. As the exact solution is
known, it is possible to compute an error with an appropriate norm (typically L2 norm) which is the
difference between the numerical result and the exact solution.

670 Gerald Recktenwald, 2006.

 507

18.11 Benchmarking & Inter-Code Issues

The CFD benchmarking project is a large collection of CFD benchmark configurations that are known
from literature671. It stems from the need to compare the results of a CFD software not only by the
"picture norm" (i.e. looking at the produced pictures and saying, "Oh, that software works quite
accurate"), but to compare hard numerical numbers with reference values which were commonly
accepted by the CFD community. The benchmark problems here will mainly be designed in 2D and
aim to give a deeper understanding of how mathematical methods work in practice. This will
hopefully also initiate further discussions about the reasonability of one or the other method. Of
course we try to give references to literature wherever possible. There will also be section with "mini-
benchmarks", which contains very basic tests (sometimes even with analytical results). This section
should serve as a reference to give developers of CFD codes a base for testing different solver
components for correctness. A common issue that arises in CFD is the validation and testing of the
code to be used for a computation. According to CFD on Line, some of the better known cases for
validation purposes are:

➢ 1D Test Cases
• Shock Tube Problem

➢ 2D Test Cases
• 2D Vortex in Isentropic Flow
• 2D Riemann Problem
• 2D Laminar/Turbulent Driven Square Cavity Flow
• Circular Advection
• Explosion Test in 2D
• Lid-driven Cavity Problem
• Jeffery-Hamel Flow
• Flow Over Backward Facing Step (Laminar – Turbulent)
• Flow Around a Circular Cylinder
• Flow Across a Square Cylinder
• NACA 0012 Airfoil
• RAE 2822 Airfoil
• Ringleb Flow
• Scramjet Intake
• Suddhoo-Hall Airfoil
• Turbulent Flat-Plate
• Viscous diffusion of multiple vortex system
• Williams Airfoil
• 2D Ramp in Channel Problem
• 2D Single Mode Rayleigh-Taylor Instability
• 2D Single Mode Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability
• 2D Mach 3 Wind Tunnel With a Step
• Gresho Vortex

➢ 3D Test Cases
• Ahmed Body
• Flow in the 180 degree U-Bend Square Duct

671 Lehrstuhl III, Angewandte Mathematik und Numerik Technische Universität, Dortmund, Germany.
 508

• DARPA SUBOFF Model

• Hypersonic Blunt Body Flow
• ONERA M6 Wing
• Turbomachinery
• Eckardt Centrifugal Compressor
• NASA Rotor 37 for Axial Rotors
• NASA Rotor 67 for Axial Fans
• 3-D Single Mode Rayleigh-Taylor Instability
• 3-D Single Mode Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability
• Free-Surface Piercing NACA 0024 Hydrofoil

➢ Transition Test Cases

• 2D Cascade

18.12 Is the Problem with the Mesh, the Turbulence Model, or the Solver?
[Ollivier-Gooch]672 has presented an statistical analysis of data for one case from the 3rd High-Lift
Prediction Workshop and one case from the 5th Drag Prediction Workshop. Here, we present its
concluding results. For each of 39 high lift datasets, the grid-converged values of lift, parasite drag,
and moment coefficients were derived from raw participant data. Datasets were matched into groups
for which only one of the three primary variables mesh set, turbulence model, and flow solver
varied. In principle, the grid converged data should be independent of the mesh set and the flow
solver, though not the turbulence model. In practice, all three variables induced large variations
within groups; for instance, the results on different mesh sets with the same turbulence model and
flow solver differed about as much as the average results for these groups varied from each other.
The same statistical analysis was performed on 39 DPW5 datasets, for a mandatory grid convergence
test case. Data sets were matched in the same way. The overall variation in aerodynamic quantities
was significantly smaller than for the high lift data, as one would expect. By far the largest absolute
impact on output quantities came from the turbulence model, in part because of one model that
was an extreme outlier for pitching moment compared with other data. A re-analysis without the
datasets using that turbulence model would tell more about the relative importance of mesh,
turbulence model and implementation for the non-outlying data. Because of the sparse amount of
data available, compared with the number of combinations of mesh, model, and code in a full factorial
numerical experiment, it is impossible to draw any statistically rigorous conclusions from this
analysis. The analysis does seem to support some qualitative conclusions, however:

➢ The mesh set and the turbulence model appear to have about equally large impacts on the
output. For the turbulence model, we should expect to see differences in the grid-converged
values. When changing mesh sets, on the other hand, the grid converged values should be
identical, so this is more concerning. This outcome suggests strongly that even with the
relatively fine meshes used for these workshops, there are still flow features that are resolved
by some mesh sets but not by others. This is especially true for the HiLiftPW3 results, and for
custom meshes for DPW5 results.

➢ The flow solver is at least as big a difference as other factors. As a community, we need to do
a better job of verification of RANS and turbulence model implementations. If a code’s
correctness has not been demonstrated by the method of manufactured solutions, or some

672 Carl Ollivier-Gooch, ”Is the Problem with the Mesh, the Turbulence Model, or the Solver?”, Advanced Numerical
Simulation Laboratory, The University of British Columbia.
 509

other equally rigorous test, its results can only be considered suspect. Note that I refer here
to code verification, not to validation of the mathematical models encoded, which is of course
a whole other matter. Future workshops should continue the practice of HiLiftPW3, and
request (probably even require) that participants submit turbulence model verification
results as part of their submission.

➢ Choices made by the user can cause a significant variation in output values. This is a
confounding 17 of 20 factor in all the other measurements, because this effect in not small,
especially for high-lift cases. Improved user training can help alleviate this problem.

The cases run for these two workshops in particular, the combinations of mesh, turbulence model,
and flow solver were not selected based on the design of experiments. This should surprise no one:
the participants in such workshops are typically volunteering their time and CPU allocations, and
have access only to a limited set up flow solvers (often one) with a pre-determined set of turbulence
models implemented. Further, not all mesh sets are suitable for use with a particular solver.
Nevertheless, to be able to draw conclusions about the relative importance of mesh set, turbulence
model, and solver implementation, it would be ideal to create a sub-factorial experimental design, to
generate multiple results for each of the two-way combinations of factors. In a simple example,
suppose that we have three mesh sets (A, B, and C); three turbulence models (I, II, and III); and three
flow solvers (1, 2, and 3). To test all possible combination would require 27 runs (plus possible
repeats to measure variability between users). A subfactorial design would require nine cases to
ensure that all the possible two-way combinations have been tested. The difficulty of even this
reduced factorial design rises rapidly with the number of options in each category; at the 3 × 3 × 3
level, this is still certainly feasible, given the willingness of participants and workshop organizers.
For further information, used are encouraged to consult the work by [Ollivier-Gooch]673.

18.13 Usage Errors

Usage errors are due to the application of the code in a less-than-accurate or improper manner. Usage
errors may actually show up as modeling and discretization errors. The user sets the models, grid,
algorithm, and inputs used in a simulation, which then establishes the accuracy of the simulation.
There may be blatant errors, such as attempting to compute a known turbulent flow with an
assumption of inviscid flow. A converged solution may be obtained; however, the conclusions drawn
from the simulation may be incorrect. The errors may not be as evident, such as proper choice of
turbulence model parameters for separated flows with shocks. The potential for usage errors
increases with an increased level of options available in a CFD code. Usage errors are minimized
through proper training and the accumulation of experience. A good source of information are
obtained by [Melot, et al,]674 and [Roy, et al,]675.

18.14 What To Trust and What Not To?

CFD is generally quite good at predicting surface static pressure distributions. With care CFD can also
be used to predict performance, total-pressure losses and blade turning. Predicting separation, stall
and off-design performance can be a challenge and results with non-attached flows should be
interpreted with care. Heat transfer is often very difficult to predict accurately and it is common to

673 Carl Ollivier-Gooch, ”Is the Problem with the Mesh, the Turbulence Model, or the Solver?”, Advanced Numerical

Simulation Laboratory, The University of British Columbia.

674 Matthieu Melot, Bernd Nennemann and Claire Deschenes, ”Verification of transport equations in a general

purpose commercial CFD code”, 28th IAHR symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems (IAHR2016).
675 C. J. Roy,1, C. C. Nelson, T. M. Smith, and C. C. Ober, ”Verification of Euler / Navier-Stokes Codes using the

Method of Manufactured Solutions”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2004.
 510

obtain heat-transfer coefficients that are 100% wrong or more. Validation data is critical in order to
be able to trust heat transfer simulations. Transition is almost impossible to predict accurately in
general. However, there exist models that have been tuned to predict transition and these tend to
give acceptable results for cases close to the ones they were tuned for. In general, time permitting, to
contain the numerical errors associated with calculation of cell gradients and face interpolations, we
must676 :

• Use higher-order discretization schemes (second-order upwind, MUSCL, etc.)

• Attempt to align grid with the flow to minimize the “false diffusion”
• Refine the mesh – do a mesh-independent study
• Sufficient mesh density is necessary to resolve salient features of flow
• Interpolation errors decrease with decreasing cell size
• Minimize variations in cell size in non-uniform meshes (mesh quality)
• Truncation error is minimized in a uniform mesh
• Minimize cell skewness and aspect ratio (mesh quality)

18.15 Verification and Validation for Computational Simulation

There are inherent inaccuracies in any numerical simulation of continuum problems due to
discretization of the domain. Depending on the size of discrete elements used, numerical instabilities
and uncertainties are introduced. To identify and quantify the main source of these uncertainties,
sets of verification and validation procedures are employed. While the terms are often used
interchangeably, verification and validation are distinct. Verification is the assessment of the
accuracy of the solution by comparing to known solutions; validation is the assessment of accuracy
of simulation with benchmark experimental data. A more compact explanation is provided by
(Roache - 1997), with “verification defined as solving the equations right”, and “validation is
solving the right equations”. In short, verification deals with the mathematics; where validation
deals with the physics. To minimize the uncertainties and error within a numerical simulation, sets
of parametric studies and comparisons are developed. These, are simple and yet time consuming and
tedious, especially for real applications. To minimize the effort, users are advised to consult with

guidelines developed by ITTC, ASME, or Journal of Fluids Engineering before instigating a numerical

676 CFD Online forums, Convergence.

 511

simulation. Journal of Fluid Engineering guideline is depicted here as reference.

 512

19 Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning in CFD

19.1 Background
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the broadest way to think about advanced, computer intelligence. In
1956 at the Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference, the technology was described as such:
"Every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely
described that a machine can be made to simulate it." AI can refer to anything from a computer
program playing a game of chess, to a voice-recognition system like Amazon's Alexa interpreting and
responding to speech. IBM's
Deep Blue, which beat chess
grand master Garry Kasparov
at the game in 1996, or Google Machine Learning
DeepMind's Alpha Go, are
examples of AI. According to
HackerEarth Blog, AI can be
classified into the following Neural Networks
(see Figure 19.1):

• Machine Learning
• Neural Networks
• Deep Learning Artificial Deep Learning

19.2 Machine Learning Intelegence

Before we pay tribute to the
field of machine learning in Figure 19.1 Scope of Artificial Intelligence - Courtesy of
CFD, it best to go briefly of Hackerearth Blog
what is machine learning itself.
Machine learning is a type of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that provides
computers with the ability to learn without being explicitly
programmed. Machine learning focuses on the development of
computer programs that can change when exposed to new data. In the
past decade, machine learning has given us self-driving cars, practical
speech recognition, effective web search, and a vastly improved
understanding of the human genome. Machine learning is so pervasive
today that you probably use it dozens of times a day without knowing it.
The process of machine learning is similar to that of data mining. Both
systems search through data to look for patterns. However, instead of extracting data for human
comprehension as is the case in data mining applications machine learning uses that data to detect
patterns in data and adjust program actions accordingly. Machine learning algorithms are often
categorized as being supervised or un-supervised. Supervised algorithms can apply what has been
learned in the past to new data. Unsupervised algorithms can draw inferences from datasets.
Facebook's News Feed uses machine learning to personalize each member's feed. If a member
frequently stops scrolling in order to read or "like" a particular friend's posts, the News Feed will
start to show more of that friend's activity earlier in the feed. Behind the scenes, the software is
simply using statistical analysis and predictive analytics to identify patterns in the user's data and
use to patterns to populate the News will be included in the data set and the News Feed will adjust
accordingly. Google and Amazon are other heavy users of Machine Learning.
 513

19.2.1 Difference Between Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a computer program that does something smart. It can be a pile of
statements or a complex statistical model. Usually, when a computer program designed by AI
researchers actually succeeds at something; like winning at chess many people say it's "not really
intelligent", because the algorithms internals are well understood. So you could say that true AI is
whatever computers can't do yet. Machine learning, as others here have said, is a subset of AI. In
short, Machine learning is a science that involves development of self-learning algorithms. These
algorithms are more generic in nature that it can be applied to various domain related problems.
Machine learning uses statistics (mostly inferential statistics) to develop self-learning algorithms.
Artificial Intelligence is a science to develop a system or software to mimic human to respond
and behave in a circumstance. As field with extremely broad scope, AI has defined its goal into
multiple chunks. Later each chuck has become a separate field of study to solve its problem. The
"learning" part of Machine Learning means that ML algorithms attempt to optimize along a certain
dimension; i.e. they usually try to minimize error or maximize the likelihood of their predictions
being true. How does one minimize error? Well, one way is to build a framework that multiplies
inputs in order to make guesses as to the inputs' nature. Different outputs/guesses are the product
of the inputs and the algorithm. Usually, the initial guesses are quite wrong, and if you are lucky
enough to have ground-truth labels pertaining to the input, you can measure how wrong your
guesses are by contrasting them with the truth, and then use that error to modify your algorithm.
That's what Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) do. They keep on measuring the error and modifying
their parameters until they can't achieve any less error. They are, in short, an optimization algorithm.
If you tune them right, they minimize their error by guessing and guessing and guessing again.

19.3 Deep Learning

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
are inspired by our understanding of
the biology of our brains all those Dee
interconnections between the p
neurons677. But, unlike a biological Lea
brain where any neuron can connect rnin
g
to any other neuron within a certain
physical distance, these artificial
neural networks have discrete layers, Machine
connections, and directions of data Lerning
propagation. You might, for example,
take an image, chop it up into a bunch Artifical
of tiles that are inputted into the first Inteligence
layer of the neural network. In the
first layer individual neurons, then
passes the data to a second layer. The
second layer of neurons does its task,
and so on, until the final layer and the Figure 19.2 Schematics of AI, Machine Learning and Deep
final output is produced. Each neuron Learning
assigns a weighting to its input; how
correct or incorrect it is relative to the task being performed. The final output is then determined by
the total of those weightings. So think of our stop sign example. Attributes of a stop sign image are
chopped up and “examined” by the neurons its octagonal shape, its fire-engine red color, its

677Michael Copeland, “What’s the Difference Between Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep
Learning?”, July 2010.
 514

distinctive letters, its traffic-sign size, and its motion or lack thereof. The neural network’s task is to
conclude whether this is a stop sign or not. It comes up with a “probability vector,” really a highly
educated guess, based on the weighting. In our example the system might be 86% confident the
image is a stop sign, 7% confident it’s a speed limit sign, and 5% it’s a kite stuck in a tree ,and so on
and the network architecture then tells the neural network whether it is right or not.
In short, Deep Learning is a technique for implementing Machine Learning. Deep Learning has
enabled many practical applications of Machine Learning and by extension the overall field of AI as
perceived in Figure 19.2. Deep Learning breaks down tasks in ways that makes all kinds of machine
assists seem possible, even likely. Driverless cars, better preventive healthcare, even better movie
recommendations, are all here today or on the horizon. Today, image recognition by machines
trained via deep learning in some scenarios is better than humans, and that ranges from cats to
identifying indicators for cancer in blood and tumors in MRI scans. Google’s AlphaGo learned the
game, and trained for its Go match it tuned its neural network by playing against itself over and over
and over.

19.4 Types of Problems and Tasks

Machine learning tasks are typically classified into three broad categories, depending on the nature
of the learning "signal" or "feedback" available to a learning system. These are:

19.4.1 Supervised Learning

How it works: This algorithm consist of a target / outcome variable (or dependent variable) which
is to be predicted from a given set of predictors (independent variables). Using these set of variables,
we generate a function that map inputs to desired outputs. The training process continues until the
model achieves a desired level of accuracy on the training data. Examples of Supervised Learning:
Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, KNN, Logistic Regression etc.678

19.4.2 Unsupervised Learning

In this algorithm, we do not have any target or outcome variable to predict/estimate. It is used for
clustering population in different groups, which is widely used for segmenting customers in different
groups for specific intervention. Examples of Unsupervised Learning: Apriori algorithm, K-means.

19.4.3 Reinforcement Learning

Using this algorithm, the machine is trained to make specific decisions. It works this way: the machine
is exposed to an environment where it trains itself continually using trial and error. This machine
learns from past experience and tries to capture the best possible knowledge to make accurate
business decisions. Example of Reinforcement Learning: Markov Decision Process679.

19.5 List of Common Machine Learning Algorithms

Here is the list of commonly used machine learning algorithms. These algorithms can be applied to
almost any data problem where we explain a little bit of the first four.

• Linear Regression
• Logistic Regression
• Decision Tree
• Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
• Support Vector Machine (SVM)
• Naive Bayes

678 Sunil, Ray, “Essentials of Machine learning Algorithms (with Python and R codes)”, August 2015.
679 same as previous.
 515

• K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)

• K-Means
• Random Forest
• Dimensionality Reduction Algorithms
• Gradient Boost

19.5.1 Linear Regression

It is used to estimate real values (cost of houses, number of calls, total sales etc.) based on continuous
variable(s). Here, we establish relationship between independent and dependent variables by fitting
a best line. This best fit line is known as regression line and represented by a linear equation Y = a ⋆
X + b. The best way to understand linear regression is to relive this experience of childhood. Let us
say, you ask a child in fifth grade to
arrange people in his class by
increasing order of weight, without
asking them their weights! What do
you think the child will do? He / she
would likely look (visually analyze)
at the height and build of people and
arrange them using a combination of
these visible parameters. This is
linear regression in real life! The
child has actually figured out that
height and build would be correlated
to the weight by a relationship,
which looks like the equation above.
In this equation, Y-Dependent
Variable, a-Slope, X-Independent
variable and b-Intercept.
These coefficients a and b are Figure 19.3 Linear Regression
derived based on minimizing the
sum of squared difference of distance between data points and regression line. Look at the below
example. Here we have identified the best fit line having linear equation y = 0.2811 x +13.9 (see
Figure 19.3). Now using this equation, we can find the weight, knowing the height of a person.
Linear Regression is of mainly two types: Simple Linear Regression and Multiple Linear Regression.
Simple Linear Regression is characterized by one independent variable. And, Multiple Linear
Regression(as the name suggests) is characterized by multiple (more than 1) independent
variables. While finding best fit line, you can fit a polynomial or curvilinear regression. And these are
known as polynomial or curvilinear regression680.

19.5.2 Logistic Regression

Don’t get confused by its name! It is a classification not a regression algorithm. It is used to estimate
discrete values ( Binary values like 0/1, yes/no, true/false ) based on given set of independent
variable(s). In simple words, it predicts the probability of occurrence of an event by fitting data to a
logit function. Hence, it is also known as logistic regression. Since, it predicts the probability,
its output values lies between 0 and 1 (as expected). Again, let us try and understand this through a
simple example. Let’s say your friend gives you a puzzle to solve. There are only 2 outcome scenarios
; either you solve it or you don’t. Now imagine, that you are being given wide range of puzzles/
quizzes in an attempt to understand which subjects you are good at. The outcome to this study would

680 Sunil, Ray, “Essentials of Machine learning Algorithms (with Python and R codes)”, August 2015.
 516

be something like this ; if you are given a trigonometry based tenth grade problem, you are 70%
likely to solve it. On the other hand, if it is grade fifth history question, the probability of getting an
answer is only 30%. This is what Logistic Regression provides you. Coming to the math, the log odds
of the outcome is modeled as a linear combination of the predictor variables odds = p/(1 - p) =
probability of event occurrence / probability of not event occurrence. ln(odds) = ln(p/(1 - p)),
logit(p) = ln(p/(1 - p)). Above, p is the probability of presence of the characteristic of interest. It
chooses parameters that maximize the likelihood of observing the sample values rather than
that minimize the sum of squared errors (like in ordinary regression). Now, you may ask, why take a
log? For the sake of simplicity, let’s just say that this is one of the best mathematical way to replicate
a step function. It can go in more details, but that will beat the purpose of this article.

19.5.3 Decision Tree

This is favorite algorithm and used
it quite frequently. It is a type of
supervised learning algorithm that
is mostly set for classification
problems681. Surprisingly, it works
for both categorical and
continuous dependent variables.
In this algorithm, we split the
population into two or more
homogeneous sets. This is done
based on most significant
attributes/ independent variables
to make as distinct groups as
possible. In the image above, you
can see that population is
classified into four different
groups based on
multiple attributes to identify
‘if they will play or not’. To split Figure 19.4 Decision Tree
the population into different
heterogeneous groups, it uses various techniques (see Figure 19.4).

19.5.4 Case Study - Prediction & Comparison of the Maximal Wall Shear Stress (MWSS) for
Carotid Artery Bifurcation
Steady state simulations for 1886 geometries were undertaken and MWSS values were calculated for
each of them. This dataset was used for training and testing following data mining algorithms; k-
nearest neighbors, linear regression, neural network: multilayer perceptron, random forest
and support vector machine. The results are based on Relative Root Mean Square (RMSE):

 (f i − f̂ i ) 2 

f i = desired value (target)
RM SE = i =1
n
,  f̂ i = predicted value (predicted using dataminig algorithm)
 (f
i =1
i − fi ) 2 f = average value (average value of M WS for all 1886 samples)
 i
0  RM SE  1
Eq. 19.1

681 Sunil, Ray, “Essentials of Machine learning Algorithms (with Python and R codes)”, August 2015.
 517

Visualization of the global importance of features

used for modeling MWSS. The horizontal axis of Model RMSE
each diagram denotes the values of particular K-Nearest Neighbors 0.760
feature and the vertical axis denotes the respective Linear Regression 0.748
average contribution value for that particular
Neural Network 0.140
feature value. The application of the model
explanation methodology results in quantitatively Random Forest 1.127
describing how much features and their individual Support Vector Machin 0.612
values, on average, influence the target prediction
values of the model. Visualization of the global Table 19.1 Results of Different Methods
importance of features used for modeling MWSS.
The horizontal axis of each diagram denotes the
values of particular feature and the vertical axis denotes the respective average contribution value
for that particular feature value. The application of the model explanation methodology results in
quantitatively describing how much features and their individual values, on average, influence the
target prediction values of the model. (See Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference so
urce not found.).

Figure 19.5 Maximal Wall Shear Stress (MWSS) Value for Carotid Artery Bifurcation

19.6 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)

Computational model used in machine learning, computer science and other research disciplines,
which is based on a large collection of connected simple units called artificial neurons, loosely
analogous to axons in a biological brain. Connections between neurons carry an activation signal of
varying strength. If the combined incoming signals are strong enough, the neuron becomes activated
and the signal travels to other neurons connected to it. Such systems can be trained from examples,
rather than explicitly programmed, and excel in areas where the solution or feature detection is
difficult to express in a traditional computer program. Like other machine learning methods, neural
networks have been used to solve a wide variety of tasks, like computer vision and speech
 518

recognition, that are difficult to solve using ordinary rule-based programming. Typically, neurons
are connected in layers, and signals travel from the first (input), to the last (output) layer. Modern
neural network projects typically have a few thousand to a few million neural units and millions of
connections; their computing power is similar to a worm brain, several orders of magnitude simpler
than a human brain. The signals and state of artificial neurons are real numbers, typically between 0
and 1. There may be a threshold function or limiting function on each connection and on the unit
itself, such that the signal must surpass the limit before propagating. Back propagation is the use of
forward stimulation to modify connection weights, and is sometimes done to train the network using
known correct outputs. However, the success is unpredictable: after training, some systems are good
at solving problems while others are not. Training typically requires several thousand cycles of
interaction, (see Figure 19.7).
The goal of the neural network is to solve problems in the same way that a human would, although
several neural network categories are more
abstract. New brain research often stimulates
new patterns in neural networks. One new
approach is use of connections which span
further to connect processing layers rather
than adjacent neurons. Other research being
explored with the different types of signal over
time that axons propagate, such as deep
learning, interpolates greater complexity than
a set of Boolean variables being simply on or
off. Newer types of network are more free
flowing in terms of stimulation and inhibition,
with connections interacting in more chaotic
and complex ways. Dynamic neural networks
are the most advanced, in that they dynamically
can, based on rules, form new connections and
even new neural units while disabling others. Figure 19.7 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
Historically, the use of neural network models
marked a directional
shift in the late 1980s
from high-level
(symbolic) artificial
intelligence,
characterized by expert
systems with knowledge
embodied in if-then
rules, to low-level (sub-
symbolic) machine
learning, characterized
by knowledge embodied
in the parameters of a
cognitive model with
some dynamical system.
A simple example
provided below
demonstrates a better Figure 19.6 Nonlinear Model of a Neuron
explanation.
 519

19.6.1 Model of a Neuron682

A neuron is an information-processing unit that is fundamental to the operation of a neural network.
Figure 19.6 shows the model for a neuron. A set of synapses or connecting links, each of which is
characterized by a weight or strength of its own. Specifically, a signal xj at the input of synapse j
connected to neuron k is multiplied by the synaptic weight wkj. It is important to make a note of the
manner in which the subscripts of the synaptic weight wkj are written. The first subscript refers to
the neuron in question and the second subscript refers to the input end of the synapse to which the
weight refers; the reverse of this notation is also used in the literature. The weight wkj is positive if
the associated synapse is excitatory; it is negative if the synapse is inhibitory. An adder for summing
the input signals, weighted by the respective synapses of the neuron; the operations described here
constitute a linear combiner.
An activation function for limiting the amplitude of the output of a neuron. The activation function,
is also referred to in the literature as a squashing function in that it squashes (limits) the permissible
amplitude range of the output signal to some finite value. Typically, the normalized amplitude range
of the output of a neuron is written as the closed unit interval [0,1] or alternatively [-1,1]. The model
of a neuron also includes an externally applied threshold θk that has the effect of lowering the net
input of the activation function. On the other hand, the net input of the activation function may be
increased by employing a bias term rather than a threshold; the bias is the negative of the threshold.
In mathematical terms, we may describe neuron k by writing the following pair of equations:

uk = ∑ wkj xj , yk = φ(uk − θk )
j=1
Eq. 19.2
where xj’s are the input signals; wkj’s are the synaptic weights of neuron k; uk is the linear combiner
output; θk is the threshold; φ(.) is the activation function; and yk is the output signal of the neuron.
(see Figure 19.8). For additional information please consult the [Tavşanoğlu]683 and [Zurada]684 .

Figure 19.8 Block-Diagram Representation of a Neuron

682 Vedat Tavşanoğlu, “Neural Networks”.

683 Vedat Tavşanoğlu, “Neural Networks”.
684 Jacek M. Zurada, “Introduction to Artificial Neural Systems”, West Publishing Company, 1992.
 520

19.6.2 Limitations685
Flow on low Re number (i.e., laminar flow), follows a predictable pattern given a geometry through
or around which the fluid flows and a suitable neural network might be able to pick up the complex
nonlinear dependencies between simulated geometry and final fluid flow. The structure of fluid flow
in reality does not only depend on the shape of obstacles but also on fluid properties such as viscosity,
density, and temperature. Other parameters include the type of boundary condition, chemical
reactions, and many more. Partially turbulent flows or even fully turbulent flows with higher
Reynolds numbers exhibit a much more complex behavior that cannot expected to be modeled by a
data-driven approach to CFD.
A physically accurate model of fluid flow accounts for the field quantities flow velocities v(x), density
ρ(x), pressure p(x) and energy e(x). In a laminar setup with low flow speeds and no chemical reaction
occurring, however, density, pressure, and energy of the fluid are distributed approximately
uniformly within the simulation domain and can thus be neglected. Thus, we focused only on fluid
flow velocity components in our data-driven approach. Therefore, specific constant fluid parameters
and boundary conditions were chosen for the generation of training samples. As a consequence, the
learned dependencies between simulated geometry and fluid flow are only valid for a small subset of
simulation setups where the simulation parameters are equal or close to the ones used for the
creation of the training data set. As these simulation parameters are not encoded into any of the
inputs of the neural network in our approach, we do not expect the network to be able to generalize
to simulation parameters it was not trained on previously.

19.6.3 Field Inversion and Machine Learning in Support of Data Driven Environment
A machine learning technique such as an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) can adequately describe
by its field inversion on data driven context. The Calibration Cases (offline data) where few
configuration data (DNS or Experimental data) such as the one showing in Error! Reference source n
ot found.. The Prediction cases (Machine Learning with no data) has similar configuration with
different; (1) Twist, (2) Sweep angles, and (3) Airfoil shape686. The challenge in predictive modeling,
however, is to extract an optimal model form that is sufficiently accurate. Constructing such a model
and demonstrating its predictive capabilities for a class of problems is the objective.

19.6.3.1 Functional Relationship Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)

The functional relationship b(η), where η = [η1, η2, , , , ηM]T are input features derived from mean-
field variables that will be available during the predictive solution process. The functional
relationship must be developed by considering the output of a number of inverse problems
representative of the modeling deficiencies relevant to the predictive problem. Further, as explained
below, elements of the feature vector η are chosen to be locally non-dimensional quantities. The
standard NN algorithm operates by constructing linear combinations of inputs and transforming
them through nonlinear activation functions687. The process is repeated once for each hidden layer
(marked blue in Figure 19.9) in the network, until the output layer is reached. Figure 19.9 presents
a sample ANN where a Network diagram for a feed-forward NN with three inputs, two hidden layers,
and one output. For this sample network, the values of the hidden nodes z1,1 through z1,H1 would
be constructed as

685 Jannik Zürn, “Neural Networks for Steady-State Fluid Flow Prediction : Part 1”, 2018.
686 Heng Xiao, “Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Predictive Turbulence Modeling: Status, Perspectives,
and Case Studies”, Machine Learning Technologies and Their Applications to Scientific and Engineering
Domains Workshop, August 17, 2016.
687 Anand Pratap Singh, Shivaji Medida, Karthik Duraisamy, “Machine Learning-augmented Predictive Modeling

of Turbulent Separated Flows over Airfoils”, Nov 2016.

 521

 3 1 
z1,i = a   w i, jηi 
1
Eq. 19.3
 i =1 
where a1 and w1i,j are the activation function and weights associated with the first hidden layer,
respectively. Similarly, the second layer of hidden nodes is constructed a

 H1 2 
z 2, j = a   w i, jz1,i 
2
Eq. 19.4
 i =1 
Finally, the output is
 H2 3 
y  f( ) = a   w i, jz 2,i 
3
Eq. 19.5
 i =1 

Figure 19.9 Network Diagram for a feed-forward NN with three inputs and one output

Given training data, error back-propagation algorithms688 are used to find wnij . Once the weights are
found, computing the output depends only on the number of hidden nodes, and not on the volume of
the training data. Hyper-parameters of the NN method include the number of hidden layers, the
number of nodes in each hidden layer, and the forms of the activation functions. Typically, 3 layers
and about 100 nodes were employed with a sigmoid activation function.

688 Zhang, Z. J. and Duraisamy, K., “Machine Learning Methods for Data-Driven Turbulence Modeling,” 22nd AIAA
Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Aviation, (AIAA 2015-2460), Dallas, TX, Jun 2015.
 522

19.6.4 Overview of ANNs in Turbulence Applications

Turbulent flows generally exhibit multi-scale (spatial and temporal) physics that are high
dimensional with rotational and translational intermittent structures also present. Such data provide
an opportunity for ANN to make an impact in the modelling and analysis of turbulent flow fields.
[Kurzawski & Templeton]689 have proposed using ANNs for Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
models which are widely used because of their computational tractability in modelling the rich set of
dynamics induced by turbulent flows. In this highlighted body of work, the specific aim is to use
ANNs to build an improved representation of the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor from high-
fidelity simulation data. Remarkably, despite the widespread success of ANNs at providing high-
quality predictions in complex problems, there have been only limited attempts to apply deep
learning techniques to turbulence. Thus far, these attempts have been limited to a couple hidden
layers. Figure 19.10 shows Skin Friction Coefficient for Onera M6 wing to be matched within 2%690.

True Machine Learning

Figure 19.10 Skin Friction Coefficient for Onera M6 match to within 2%

19.6.5 The Future of ANNs for Fluids Modelling

ANNs will almost certainly have a transformative impact on modelling high dimensional complex
systems such as turbulent flows. The successes with many complex data sets will compel researchers
to utilize this rapidly emerging data analysis tool for improving predictive capabilities. ANNs
represent a paradigm shift for the community. Whereas many innovations have often been inspired
from expert-in-the-loop intuition and physically interpretable models, ANNs have challenged these
traditional notions by building prediction engines that simply outperform competing methods
without providing clear evidence of why they are doing so. To some extent, the application of ANNs
to turbulent flows will bring awareness to the fluids community of the two cultures of statistics and
data science. These two outlooks are centered around the concepts of machine learning and
statistical learning. The former focuses on prediction (ANNs) while the latter is concerned with
inference of interpretable models from data (POD/DMD reductions). Although both methodologies
have achieved significant success across many areas of big data analytics, the physical and

689 Ling, J.,

Kurzawski, A. & Templeton, J. “Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks
with embedded invariance”. J. Fluid Mech 807, 155–166, 2016.
690 Karthik Duraisamy, “A Framework for Turbulence Modeling using Big Data”, NASA Aeronautics Research

Mission Directorate (ARMD) LEARN/Seedling Technical Seminar January 13-15, 2015.

 523

engineering sciences have primarily focused on interpretable methods. Despite its successes,
significant challenges remain for ANNs. Simple questions remains:

1. How many layers are necessary for a given data set?

2. How many nodes at each layer are needed?
3. How big must my data set be to properly train the network?
4. What guarantees exist that the mathematical architecture can produce a good predictor of
the data?
5. What is my uncertainty and/or statistical confidence in the ANN output?
6. Can I actually predict data well outside of my training data?
7. Can I guarantee that I am not overfitting my data with such a large network?

And the list goes on. These questions remain central to addressing the long-term viability of ANNs.
The good news is that such topics are currently being intensely investigated by academic researchers
and industry (Google, Facebook, etc.) alike. Undoubtedly, the next decade will witness significant
progress in addressing these issues. From a practical standpoint, the work of determine the number
of layers and nodes based upon prediction success, i.e. more layers and more nodes do not improve
performance. Additionally, cross-validation is imperative to suppress overfitting. As a general rule,
one should never trust results of a ANN unless rigorous cross-validation has been performed. Cross-
validation plays the same critical role as a convergence study of a numerical scheme. Given the
computational maturity of ANNs and how readily available they are (see Google’s open source
software called Tensor Flow), it is perhaps time for part of the turbulence modelling community to
adopt what has become an important and highly successful part of the machine learning culture:
challenge data sets.

19.6.6 Case Study 1 – 2D Laminar Flow Analysis of a Plane Sudden Expansion Flows with Emphasis
on Boundary Reattachment Lengths Using CFD and (ANN)691
It has been clearly established that the reattachment length for laminar flow depends on two non-
dimensional parameters, the Re and the expansion ratio (E.R.). Therefore in this work, an ANN model
that predict reattachment positions for the expansion ratios of 2, 3 and 5 based on the above two
parameters has been developed. The R2 values of the testing set output Xr1, Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4 were
0.9383, 0.8577, 0.997 and 0.999 respectively. These results indicate that the network model
produced reattachment positions that were in close agreement with the actual values. When
considering the reattachment length of plane sudden-expansions the sensible combination of CFD
calculated solutions with ANN will result in a considerable saving in computing and turnaround time.
Thus CFD can be used in the first instance to obtain reattachment lengths for a limited choice of
Reynolds numbers and ANN will be used subsequently to predict the reattachment lengths for other
intermediate Reynolds number values. The CFD calculations concern unsteady laminar flow through
a plane sudden expansion and are performed using a commercial CFD code STAR-CD® while the
training process of the corresponding ANN model was performed using the NeuroShellTM simulator.

19.6.6.1 Introduction & Literature Survey

When a fluid is flowing through a plane sudden-expansion duct, the boundary layers separate at the
expansion plane because of a singularity in the wall geometry. The separating shear layer will
reattach at a downstream location that varies with the Reynolds number defined as Re = Ud/ν and
the expansion ratio equal to D/d where D and d refer to the downstream and upstream duct
respectively, see Figure 19.11. At reattachment, part of the shear layer is deflected upstream into

691Lyes Khezzar & Saleh M. Al-Alawi, “CFD and Artificial Neural Networks Analysis of Plane Sudden Expansion
Flows”, International Journal of Engineering (IJE), Volume (4): Issue (4).
 524

the recirculation zone

and the other part
proceeds downstream
as a recovering
boundary layer. The
behavior of such flows
and especially the
reattachment lengths
downstream of the
expansion plane are
important topics of
consideration for design
of fluidic devices, heat
exchangers and mixing
systems. Figure 19.11 Geometrical Configuration of the Plane Sudden-Expansion
It is known that laminar
flow downstream of a sudden expansion remains symmetric with two equal separation zones on
either side of the centerline of the duct for low Reynolds numbers. However, beyond a critical value
of the Reynolds number the flow becomes asymmetric, producing two or three unequal separation
zones. The exact underlying phenomenon is still not well understood but is thought to be due to a
Coanda like phenomenon and the appearance of asymmetric flow is thought to coincide with a
bifurcation of the Navier-Stokes equations. It has been found both experimentally and numerically
that the value of the critical Reynolds number beyond which the flow behavior becomes asymmetric
is dependent on the expansion ratio. Of particular interest in these flows, is the variation of
reattachment lengths with Reynolds number and expansion ratio.
Plane sudden expansion flows have been investigated experimentally by {Durst et al.]692, [Cherdron
et al.]693 and [Fearn et al.]694. These investigations included flow visualization and fluid velocity
measurements by laser Doppler anemometry. The techniques used were generally based on time
integration by finite difference/element techniques of the incompressible form of the Navier-Stokes
equations. The calculations of these flows with mesh sizes necessary to resolve the flow field, provide
grid-independent solutions and to obtain the salient features of the flow for every Reynolds number
can be very time consuming. For example, using a (CFD) commercial code, around 27 hours of
computing time on a SUN-20 workstation, are necessary to obtain a converged solution for a single
Reynolds number.
ANNs are computer models that are trained in order to recognize both linear and non-linear
relationships among the input and the output variables in a given data set. In general, ANN
applications in engineering have received wide acceptance. The popularity and acceptance of this
technique stems from its features, which are particularly attractive for data analysis. These features
include handling of fragmented and noisy data, speed inherent to parallel distributed architectures,
generalization capability over new data, ability to effectively incorporate a large number of input
parameters, and its capability of modeling non-linear systems.
In general, ANN models consists of three basic elements: an organized architecture of interconnected
processing elements, a method for encoding information during training, and a method for recalling

692 F. Durst, J. F.C. Pereira, C. Tropea. “The plane symmetric sudden-expansion flow at low Reynolds numbers”. J.
Fluid Mechanics, 248:567-581, 1993.
693 W. Cherdron, F. Durst, J. H. Whitelaw. “Asymmetric flows and instabilities in symmetric ducts with sudden

expansions”. J. Fluid Mechanics, 84:13-31, 1974.

694 R.M. Fearn, T. Mullin, K.A. Cliffe, K. “Non-linear flow phenomena in a symmetric sudden expansion”. J. Fluid

Mechanics, 211:595-608, 1990.

 525

information during testing. [Simpson (1990)] provides a coherent description of these elements and
presents comparative analyses, applications, and implementation of 27 different ANN paradigms.
This tool can be used by mechanical engineers in conjunction with other analytical and graphical
techniques for data analysis, optimization and model evaluation.
When considering the reattachment length of sudden-expansions the judicious combination of CFD
calculated solutions with ANN will result in a considerable saving in computing and turnaround time.
Thus CFD can be used in the first instance to obtain reattachment lengths for a limited choice of
Reynolds numbers and ANN will be used subsequently to predict the reattachment lengths for other
intermediate Reynolds number values.
The purpose of this work is twofold. First present a CFD analysis of flows through plane sudden
expansions. Second, the results of this analysis will be used in conjunction with ANN to demonstrate
that the hybrid combination of ANN and CFD modelling allows a considerable time saving in the
prediction of reattachment lengths for plane sudden expansions. The next section will present the
theoretical model used to obtain finite-volume solutions to the flow through plane sudden
expansions chosen from previously published work. Section 19.6.6.4 presents the ANN model, then
and the results are presented, followed by conclusions.

19.6.6.2 Model Equations and Numerical Method

The flow is assumed to be laminar, two-dimensional and unsteady, the fluid viscous and
incompressible. Under these assumptions, the continuity and momentum equations are therefore
written in their conservative form and for Cartesian systems of co-ordinates as:

∂u ∂v
+ =0
∂x ∂y
∂u ∂uu ∂uv 1 ∂p μ ∂2 u ∂2 u
+ + =− + ( + )
∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂x ρ ∂x 2 ∂y 2
∂v ∂uv ∂vv 1 ∂p μ ∂2 v ∂2 v
+ + =− + ( + )
∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂y ρ ∂x 2 ∂y 2
Eq. 19.6
where, (u, v) are the fluid velocity vector Cartesian components, P represents the pressure and ρ and
μ the density and viscosity of the fluid respectively. The finite-volume technique is used to solve the
above equations. The second order QUICK scheme was employed for the discretization convection
fluxes and a second-order centered difference scheme was adopted for diffusive fluxes. The pressure
field P is solved with the PISO algorithm. Temporal integration is achieved through a fully implicit
formulation with a time step of 10-5. Convergence was assumed when the global rates of change of
the variables were between 10-10 and 10-11 for laminar flow and 10-7 for turbulent flow and
monitoring of variables at relevant positions in the flow field. All the calculations were carried on a
SUN-20 workstation, to 64-bits precision.

19.6.6.3 Initial-Boundary Conditions and Meshes

The geometrical details of the configuration are shown on Figure 19.11. The computational grid
was rectangular and extended from the exit plane of the expansion to a downstream position giving
a length of up to 70 step-heights. The calculations proceeded by impulsively starting the flow from
rest. At the inlet boundary, a fully developed parabolic profile was prescribed. At the outlet plane, a
zero gradient condition is enforced for all variables and this boundary was located at a downstream
distance of 50 and in some instances 70 step heights. The axial length of the domain of integration
was assumed to be long enough to capture the flow details and remove upstream influence of the
outlet boundary face value. At solid boundaries, the usual law of the wall was used. The mesh was
 526

rectangular with uniform distributions along the stream wise and cross-stream directions. Three grid
sizes were used 150×55 and 200×93 and 250×110 to generate grid independent solutions as judged
by the profiles of the axial velocity. There were no significant differences between the results of the
last two grids and therefore the intermediate one was adopted in all the computations.

19.6.6.4 Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)

An artificial neural network (ANN) method is a computational mechanism able to acquire, represent,
and compute a mapping from one multivariate space of information to another, given a set of data
representing that mapping. ANNs have the ability to mimic the human brain as well as their ability to
learn and respond. This technique found wide acceptance in various engineering applications since
they have proven to be effective in performing complex operations, process and functions in a variety
of fields. An ANN can be considered as a collection of numerous simple processors organized in layers
called neurons or nodes. These nodes are the basic organizational units of a neural network that are
arranged in a series of layers to create the ANN by unidirectional communication channels
(connections) that carry numerical data.
Nodes are classified as input, output, or hidden layer nodes depending on their location and function
within the network see [Stern]695. Data is received from sources external to the neural network
through the input layer nodes, while data is transmitted out of the neural network through the output
layer nodes. Hidden layer neurons act as the computational nodes in the neural network,
communicating between input nodes and other hidden layer or output nodes. The number of nodes
in the input layer is equal to the number of independent variables entered into the network which
represent the input parameters whereas the number of output nodes corresponds to the number of
variables to be predicted. The number of hidden layers and nodes used within the hidden layer vary
according to the complexity of the task the network must perform [see DeTienne et al.]696.

19.6.6.5 Model Development

It has been clearly established that the reattachment length for laminar flow depends on two non-
dimensional parameters, the Reynolds number and the Expansion Ratio (E.R.=D/d). This
dimensional analysis relationship forms the basis of the Artificial Neural Network model which is
developed below. Thus, an ANN model was developed for predicting reattachment positions for the
expansion
ratios of 2, 3 and 5. The ANN Architecture for this model is shown in Figure 19.12. The model
consists of three layers, an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer. The neurons in the input
layer receive two input representing the Reynolds number (Re) and the Expansion ratios (E.R.);
hence, two neurons were used for input in the ANN architecture. The output layer, on the other hand,
consists of four neurons representing the reattachment positions (Xr1, Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4 of Figure
19.11). The single hidden layer used consisted of 5 neurons. The initial number was calculated using
the equation developed by [Carpenter and Hoffman ]697:

N = η{h[H(I + 1) + n(H + 1)]}

Eq. 19.7
Where, h is a constant greater than 1.0 (i.e. h = 1.25 would give a 25% over-determined
approximation, N the number of training pairs available, H the number of hidden nodes to be used in

695 H.S. Stern. “Neural networks in applied statistics”. Proceedings of the statistical computing section. American
Statistical Association, pp.150-154, 1991.
696 K.B. DeTienne, D. H., DeTienne, L. W., Lewis. “Artificial neural networks for the management researchers: the

state of the art”. Research Report, Department of Organizational Leadership and Strategy, Brigham Young
University, 2003.
697 W.C. Carpenter, M.E. Hoffman. “Training Back-Propagation Neural Networks”. AI Expert, 10:30-33, 1995.
 527

the network with one hidden Layer, I and n the number of input and output nodes respectively. The
result obtained using Eq. 19.7 indicated that four hidden nodes could be used in the hidden layer to
develop the ANN architecture. However, the best result for the model was found with eight nodes in
the hidden layer. Research in this area by [Lapeds and Forber]698 and [Hecht-Nielsen]699 proved that
one or two hidden layers with an adequate number of neurons is sufficient to model any solution
surface of practical interest

Figure 19.12 The Architecture for the Developed ANN Model

19.6.6.6 CFD Results

The results of the CFD simulations are presented first. A detailed comparison with measured velocity
data is conducted so as to provide the necessary confidence in other predicted flow parameters such
as reattachment lengths for other values of Reynolds number. The experimental results of [Fearn et
al.]700 are used in the study of the velocity profiles predictions. The heights of the upstream and
downstream ducts were 4 and 12 mm respectively and the area and aspect ratios 1:3 and 8:1
respectively. Below a Reynolds number of 60, the flow was found to be symmetric. Figure 19.14
illustrates detailed comparison of the calculated axial velocity profiles and their experimental
counter parts, as measured by [Fearn et al.]701, for several downstream positions for a Reynolds
number equal to 187. The agreement between the calculated and measured profiles is excellent. The
profile inside the third recirculation zone is also accurately predicted.

698 Lapeds, R. Forber. “How Neural Network Works”. Neural Information Processing Systems, American Institute
of Physics, pp.442-456, 1988.
699 R. Hecht-Nielsen. “Theory of Backpropagation Neural Network”. Proc. Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks,

IEEE, Washington, D.C., 1:593-605, 1989.

700 R.M. Fearn, T. Mullin, K.A. Cliffe, K. “Non-linear flow phenomena in a symmetric sudden expansion”. J. Fluid

Mechanics, 211:595-608, 1990.

701 See Previous.
 528

Figure 19.14 Axial Mean Velocity (Fearn et al), Re=187

Figure 19.13 Reattachment lengths with Reynolds number for E.R = 3 where lines are just for visual
help, filled dots represent the 9 randomly chosen cases by the simulator for testing
 529

Figure 19.13 shows the predicted reattachment lengths with Reynolds number for the three
expansion ratios of 3. They correspond to the experimental studies and configurations of [Cherdron
et al.], [Fearn et al.] and [Ouwa et al]702. The reattachment location is determined as the position
where the stream wise velocity is zero at the first grid point from the wall. The trend of all the three
curves reveals a symmetric flow at low values of the Reynolds number and transition to asymmetric
flow occurs at a critical value of the latter. Initially, only two recirculation zones are present with a
third one appearing later. The part of the curves that corresponds to symmetric flow extrapolates to
a finite recirculation length at zero Reynolds number. [Ouwa et al.]703 reported variations of the two
first reattachment lengths (Xr1 and Xr2) with Reynolds number and their results agree remarkably
well with the present calculations. The inferred values of the critical Reynolds number for the three
ratios of 2, 3 and 5 are 180, 60 and 45 respectively and compare well with the experimental values
of 185, 54 and 45. The source of the discrepancies is difficult to trace but can be explained in terms
of difficulty in obtaining an exact value for the transitional Reynolds number.

19.6.6.7 ANN Data Preparation, Network Training, Validation, Testing and Results
Before the ANN model can be used to provide the desired output, the model needs to be trained to
recognize the relationships between the input (Re and E.R.) and the desired attachment positions
(Xr1, Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4). These relationships will be stored as connection weights between the different
neurons. The process of determining the weights is called the training or the learning process. Prior
to conducting the training process, a set of input-output patterns are first prepared. The data set used
in the development of this model was taken from the results of the extensive CFD calculations for the
expansion ratios of 2, 3, and 5 respectively of Figure 19.13.
The data set consisted of 44 cases or data sets. 35 of these cases were used for model development
and training while the remaining 9 cases, shown as filled dots on Figure 19.13 (20%) of the data set
were used to evaluate the developed model performance. These nine cases were selected randomly
from the data set, but were chosen to be representative of the span of the Reynolds numbers at hand
and the three expansion ratios.
The multi-layer feed-forward network used in this work was trained using the Back-propagation
(BP) paradigm developed by [Rumelhart and McClelland]704. [Simpson]705 gives a different equation
that provides a generalized description of how the learning and recall process is performed by the
BP algorithm. The training process of this ANN model was performed using the NeuroShellTM
simulator. After completing 180429 epoch, the network converged to a threshold of 10-5. The
network model goodness of fit, R2 (R2 is defined as the coefficient of determination), demonstrated
that the developed ANN model produced attachment positions that were in close agreement with the
actual values. The R2 values of the outputs Xr1, Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4 were 0.8617, 0.8325, 0.9397 and 0.9682
respectively. Having trained the network successfully, the next step is to test the network’s
generalization capability using a different data set in order to judge its performance.
Using the 9 cases that were randomly selected from the data set, the developed model was tested to
assess its generalization capabilities. The R2 values for the Xr1, Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4 were 0.9383, 0.8577,
0.997 and 0.999 respectively. Figure 19.15 and Figure 19.16 illustrate the relationship between
actual and predicted attachment positions of Xr1, (Note :Xr2, Xr3, and Xr4 not Shown here, Please

702 Y. Ouwa, M. Watanabe, H. Asawo. “Flow visualisation of a two-dimensional water jet in a rectangular channel”.
Japanese J. of Applied Physics, 20:243-247, 1981.
703 See Previous.
704 D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland. In: Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the Microstructure of

Cognition, Foundations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1986).

705 P.K. Simpson. “Artificial Neural Systems: Foundations, Paradigms, Applications, and Implementations”,

Pergamon Press, first edition, Elmsford, New York, (1990).

 530

consult [Khezzar & Al-Alawi ]706 ) for the training data and the testing data sets respectively.

Figure 19.15 Actual vs. Predicted Results for the output Xr1 in the Developed ANN Model

Examination of the results obtained from the testing set of ANN model, suggests that there are very
close agreement between actual and predicted values for the attachment positions X r2, Xr3, and Xr4
and a moderate agreement for Xr1. As shown in Figure 19.16 the predicted attachment position for
Xr2 differ slightly from the actual attachment position, the predicted value in case 1 was 1.81 while
the actual was 0.0, similarly there was small difference in the predicted value of the second testing
case the actual was 0.0 while the ANN model predicted 2.82.

Figure 19.16 Actual vs. Predicted Attachment Position for Xr1 in the Testing Cases

706Lyes Khezzar & Saleh M. Al-Alawi, “CFD and Artificial Neural Networks Analysis of Plane Sudden Expansion
Flows”, International Journal of Engineering (IJE), Volume (4): Issue (4).
 531

All the other seven cases predictions are in close agreement with the actual attachment position the
R2 value for Xr2 was 0.8577. For Xr1 the results are shown in Figure 19.16. The testing results
indicates that Xr1 was predicted with higher accuracy the R2 value is 0.9383 which indicate that 93.83
percent of the variation in the data provided can be explained by the two input given and the
developed model. The R2 value was 0.997 and 0.999 for Xr3 and Xr4 respectively.
Intensive double precision (because of small magnitude of numbers) computations are necessary to
obtain the CFD solutions. For a single Reynolds number as long as 27 hours of computing time are
necessary to reach a converged solution on a SUN-20 workstation. Hence tremendous effort was
necessary to produce the results of Figure 19.14. In addition to being computer intensive, CFD
solution provide a large amount of information as part of the solution that has limited usefulness if
one is only interested in reattachment lengths. In engineering design where parametric studies are
common, time management becomes of primary importance. The present study has shown that in
the case of laminar flows through plane sudden expansions, it is only necessary to obtain CFD
solutions for a limited number of Reynolds numbers. An ANN model can then be trained to reproduce
with good accuracy the variation of reattachment length with Reynolds number. These results
indicate that reattachment positions can be predicted instantly with good accuracy for any E.R
between 2 and 5 and Re value between 0.0 and 400 using the developed ANN model.

19.6.6.8 Conclusions
Computations were performed using both CFD and ANN. In engineering design where parametric
studies are common time management becomes of primary importance. The present study has
shown that in the case of laminar flows through plane sudden expansions, it is only necessary to
obtain CFD solutions for a limited number of Reynolds numbers and expansion ratios. An ANN model
can then be trained to reproduce with good accuracy the variation of reattachment length with
Reynolds number and expansion ratio. The time needed to develop and test the ANN model is very
short; if the data are available, and the person is experienced and familiar with the ANN software,
model development and testing can be accomplished in approximately one hour or two. If the model
was already developed and only some new data to be tested or changes are needed to be performed
on the model, then it is a matter of very few minute. Neural networks offer a number of advantages,
including shorter modelling time, less formal statistical training requirements, ability to implicitly
detect complex nonlinear relationships between dependent and independent variables, ability to
detect all possible interactions between predictor variables, and the availability of multiple training
algorithms. Artificial neural networks models also allow fast processing of large amounts of
information. Their generalization capability makes them more robust to noise.

19.6.7 Case Study 2 – CFD Expert System Using (ANNs)707

The design of a modern aircraft is based on three pillars: theoretical results, experimental test and
computational simulations. As a results of this, (CFD) solvers are widely used in the aeronautical field.
These solvers require the correct selection of many parameters in order to obtain successful results.
Besides, the computational time spent in the simulation depends on the proper choice of these
parameters. Currently, we create an expert system capable of making an accurate prediction of the
number of iterations and time required for the convergence of a computational fluid dynamic (CFD)
solver. Artificial neural network (ANN) has been used to design the expert system. It is shown that
the developed expert system is capable of making an accurate prediction the number of iterations
and time required for the convergence of a CFD solver.

707 Gonzalo Rubio, Eusebio Valero and Sven Lanzan, “Computational Fluid Dynamics Expert System using
Artificial Neural Networks”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of
Computer and Information Engineering Vol:6, No:3, 2012.
 532

19.6.7.1 Introduction
Due to the highly non-linear nature of the Navier-Stokes equations, analytical solutions for real
problems are not available708. Hence, (CFD) solvers are used to obtain numerical results. These
solvers require a high level of user’s knowledge in order to optimize their performance. Moreover,
the calculations involved are expensive, as far as computational time is concerned, i.e., a non-expert
user employs long times trying different program’s parameters in order to achieve the required
results. Afterwards, when this user becomes an expert, his own experience will be used to select the
correct CFD parameters. On the other hand, when a new aircraft is designed, a lot of CFD calculations
are carried out to estimate the aircraft performances. These calculations involve a lot of CPU
computational time, which is projected according only to the experience. The moral of the story is
that important decisions are taken using the gained experience.
Every CFD calculation performed in a design process is recorded in a database. Therefore all the
experience that the manager or the user need is stored there. A mathematical algorithm can be used
in order to extract this information; afterwards it can be used to create an expert system. Usefulness
of artificial neural networks (ANN) in modeling unknown complex nonlinear systems has been
broadly proved709. Therefore in recent years, problems in the aeronautic field such as: modeling high
speed turbulent boundary layer inducing optical distortions710, optimization of low Reynolds number
airfoils711 and restricted flight dynamic models for aircraft parameters estimation712 have been
solved using these techniques. Consequently our expert system will be based on ANN technology.
Presently, TAU solver has been used to run the simulations. TAU is one of the most used CFD solvers
used in Airbus. TAU originates from the MEGAFLOW project and is constantly developed by the
German Aerospace Center DLR. More information about TAU could be obtained in713. Here, we present
a novel use of ANN which is the creation of an expert system for the CFD software TAU. In section
19.6.7.2 a brief description of artificial neural networks is presented. The database used to feed the
expert system is depicted in section 19.6.7.3. The expert system is described in section 19.6.7.4.
The results are exposed in section 0. Finally conclusions and future directions are shown in section
19.6.7.6.

19.6.7.2 Brief Description of Artificial Neural Networks

Artificial neural networks (ANN) are very sophisticated modelling techniques inspired in the brain.
A biological neural network is a group of highly interconnected parallel processing units called
neurons. Consequently the mathematical model for the neuron and the interconnections defines the
ANN714. There are many different types of neural networks. The choice of the type of network
depends on the nature of the problem to be solved . The most used ANN for problems with a database
of run cases is the multilayer perceptron (MLP). In the MLP the neuron model is called perceptron,

708 C. Fefferman, Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation, Clay Millenium Problems 2000.
709 S. Lek, J.F. Gu´egan, Aircraft parameter estimation using a new filtering technique based upon a neural network

and Gauss-Newton method, The Aeronautical Journal, April 2009, Volume 113, No 1142 243.
710 L. Wu, J. Fang, Z. Yang, S. Wu, Study on a neural network model for high speed turbulent boundary layer

inducing optical distortions, - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics, Vol. 122, No. 17, 2011.
711 M. Bellman, J. Straccia, B. Morgan, K. Maschmeyer, R. Agarwal, Improving Genetic Algorithm Efficiency with

an Artificial Neural Network for Optimization of Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, AIAA 2009-1096, 47th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 5-8 2009, Florida.
712 N.K. Peyada, A.K. Ghosh, Aircraft parameter estimation using a new filtering technique based upon a neural

network and Gauss-Newton method, The Aeronautical Journal, April 2009, Volume 113, No 1142243.
713 T. Gerhold, V. Hannemann, D. Schwamborn, On the Validation of the DLR-TAU Code, New Results in Numerical

and Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, 72, pp. 426-433, 1999.
714 R. L´opez, Aircraft parameter estimation using a new filtering technique based upon a neural network and

Gauss-Newton method, The Aeronautical Journal, April 2009, Volume 113, No 1142 243.
 533

and the interconnections structure, layered feedforward (see Figure 19.17 715). The MLP shown in
Figure 19.17 has one output. Although it is possible to use MLPs with more than one output, one
unique output is suggested in order to avoid crosstalk. Crosstalk produces a deterioration of the
solution caused by the noise one output introduces in the others.
As far as the connections are concerned, it
should be noticed that not all the connections
have the same power .Each connection is
weighted (similar to synapses is biological
systems). These weights act like free
parameters and varying them any function can
be approximated. The MLP learns by example,
therefore, in order to train the MLP, a database
is required. The database is constituted by a
set of examples (inputs-outputs) of the
performance the MLP is supposed to learn. The
learning process is carried out using the
training algorithm. This algorithm alters the
MLP weights in order to minimize an error
(See Figure 19.18). The error is defined as the
Figure 19.17 Scheme of a MLP with the
difference of the MLP output (when the inputs
perceptron’s and its interconnections
of the database are computed) and the outputs
of the database.
The number of hidden layers and the number of perceptron’s in each hidden layer, define the
complexity of the function the MLP can approximate. Moreover, it’s known that the multilayer

Figure 19.18 Adjusting of weights of a MLP. Scheme of the learning process for a MLP. The database is
the set of examples used to train the MLP

715Each circle is a perceptron and the lines represent the connections. It can be seen that the information is
propagated from left to right, from one layer to the next. The first layer is called input layer and it is the one in
charge of receiving the input information to the MLP. The last one is called output layer and is the one which
generates the output of the MLP. Each layer between these is called hidden layer.
 534

perceptron with at least

Transfer function Hyperbolic tangent
one hidden layer is a class
Objective functional Sum of squared errors
of universal
approximated716. Any Training algorithm Quasi-Newton method
function defined between Pre-training method Evolutionary algorithm
two finite-dimensional Pre/post-processing method Mean and standard deviation
spaces could be
approximate to any grade Table 19.2 Parameters of MLPs Created With The Software Flood 2
of accuracy, provided
enough hidden neurons are available. The optimal number of hidden layers and neurons can be
obtained using cross validation techniques717. These techniques are based on dividing the set of
examples available into subsets, in order to use some for training and the rest for validating the MLP.
More information about ANNs and MLPs could be found in718-719. In order to perform all the
calculations, FLOOD 2, an open source library, has been used. This software provides an easy way to
create and train MLPs. The technical details of the MLPs used can be seen in Table 19.2. The hidden
layer’s number and the neuron’s number are different in each MLP depending on the complexity of
the problem. More information about these details could be found in FLOOD 2 user guide.

19.6.7.3 Database
In the previous section, the working of a MLP has been explained. It has been established that the
MLP learns by example, so in order to teach the MLP, a database with examples is needed. Moreover,
it is impossible to obtain a good trained MLP without a high-quality database. The desirable features
of a good database are720:

• Completeness: the phenomenon the MLP is supposed to learn must be depicted by the
variables in the database.
• Uniformity: a good database has to be well distributed so every example is equally
represented.
• Size: the required minimum size of the database increases proportionally to the complexity
of the problem.

In order to create our database, first of all it is important to remember the phenomenon the MLP is
supposed to learn: CFD computation time and number of iterations for convergence. A real CFD
database previously generated was used to train the MLP. It can be noticed that most of the
parameters which affect the desired output are present in the database, so the completeness is
fulfilled. Besides, there are no size problems. However, it lacks of uniformity. There are special cases
poorly represented [β ≠ 0, (Yaw angles) cases without multigrid, Mach∼ 0.5, central inviscid flux
discretization. . . ]. In order to fix this fault the database has been filtered. The specific filter used is
different in each particular case and is detailed in what follows. Finally, the database is divided before
using it to train the MLP in order to use cross validation technique.

716 K. Hornik , M. Stinchcombe, H. White, Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximations, Neural
Networks, 2(5):359-366, 1989
717 G. Zhang, M. Hu, B. Patuwo, D. Indro, Artificial neural networks in bankruptcy prediction: General framework

and cross-validation analysis, European Journal of Operational Research 116(1999) 16±32.

718 T. Hill, P. Lewicki, Statistics: methods and applications: a comprehensive reference for science, industry and

data mining, The Aeronautical Journal, April 2009, Volume 113, No 1142 243.
719 R. L´opez, Aircraft parameter estimation using a new filtering technique based upon a neural network and

Gauss-Newton method, The Aeronautical Journal, April 2009, Volume 113, No 1142 243.
720 K.-K. Sung, Learning and Example Selection for Object and Pattern Detection, MIT AI Lab, Jan. 1996.
 535

19.6.7.4 Expert System

An expert system to estimate the computation time and number of iterations required for the
convergence of the CFD simulation has been developed. The expert system uses ANN technology. The
tool can provide very useful information: on the one hand, it can estimate in advance the required
time and number of iterations for convergence. On the other hand, it can provide recommendations
of the values of the parameters that improve the CFD solver, in terms of time consuming and
iterations number for convergence. A scheme of the expert system is shown in Figure 19.19.

Figure 19.19 Scheme of the Expert System

Figure 19.20 Scheme of the Expert System

 536

The expert system is constituted by four MLPs. The reasons of using four MLPs instead of only one
are: on the one hand, the crosstalk which makes a neural network works better if it only has one
unique output. Our expert system has three outputs (iterations convergence for CL and CD and time)
therefore three MLPs are the minimum necessary to avoid crosstalk. On the other hand, the lack of
uniformity of the database makes an extra MLP very useful to improve the performance of the expert
system. This extra MLP has a filtering purpose (see section III). The first MLP is created to divide the
database between two possible scenarios: convergence with enough number of iterations and no
convergence. The set of examples used to extract this performance is filtered from the database to β
= 0, upwind inviscid flux discretization, Multigrid=3w. A scheme with the first MLP is shown in
Figure 19.20.

Figure 19.22 Scheme of the Expert System

Figure 19.21 Scheme of the Expert System

 537

The purpose of the second and third MLPs is discerning if a case is converged with a specific number
of iterations. The second MLP is CL (partial) convergence classifier. The third MLP is CL & CD (total)
convergence classifier. The set of examples used is filtered to β = 0, upwind inviscid flux
discretization, Multigrid=3w, and positive final convergence.
A scheme with CL (partial) convergence MLP is shown in Figure 19.22 and with CL & CD (total)
convergence in Figure 19.21. The number of iterations for convergence is an output in the expert
system (see Figure 19.19), though for the MLPs trained it is an input (see Figure 19.22 and Figure
19.21). In the expert system for each group of inputs (Mach, CFL and α) different number of
iterations are computed and the number of iterations for convergence is displayed.
The fourth MLP is trained to predict the time for reaching convergence. The most important filter
performed in this case is the HPC where the solver runs. Only the cases run in Marignan’s HPC were
considered. This is one of the most important Airbus’ High Performance Machines. There are also
filters for Multigrid=3w, upwind inviscid flux discretization, Turbulence model =2 and Processors’
number of 32, 64 and 128. A scheme with time for convergence MLP is shown is Figure 19.23. Each
MLP used has its optimum architecture. It has been found using cross validation [12]. This method
consists on split the database in three. The first part is used to train the MLP. The second one is used
to evaluate the trained MLP. The third one is reserved to obtain the Expert System results exposed in
Section 19.6.7.5.

Figure 19.23 Scheme of the Expert System

19.6.7.5 Results
In this section, the results obtained using the expert system developed are exposed. These results
have been obtained using cross validation [12]. As it was explained, the database was split in three
sets. The first two thirds were used in the training stage. The third one was reserved, as an
independent data set, to check the accuracy of the expert system results (see Figure 19.24). When
the MLP is used for classification the next agreement is going to be used:

➢ Right result: the result is correct. Safe wrong result: the result is incorrect, however is safe.
The expert system result is of non-convergence when the right answer is convergence.
➢ Unsafe wrong result: the result is incorrect and unsafe. The expert system result is of
convergence when the right answer is non-convergence.
 538

➢ Not wrong result: is the sum of right results and safe wrong results. Wrong result: the result
is incorrect. It is the sum of safe wrong results and unsafe wrong results.

Figure 19.24 Scheme of the Expert System

A. First MLP - Possible convergence [Yes/No]

Following the agreement explained before, the next results for the first MLP can be presented:
Right / Total (%) = 71%
Not Wrong / Total (%) = 81%
This error was not as good as expected. However, the iterations prediction (second and third MLP)
will be accurate where it counts (the cases with final convergence). The result would be better if
information about the mesh’s geometry, e.g. High lift configuration, was available in the database.

B. Second MLP - CL convergence

Right / Total (%) = 80%
Not Wrong / Total (%) = 99%
C. Third MLP - CL & CD convergence
Right / Total (%) = 78%
Not Wrong / Total (%) = 94%
The importance of the Not Wrong/Total error must be noticed. The expert system is designed in
order to have a safe behavior. If any doubt about the result is harbored the answer is of non-
convergence. However a positive convergence result is always obtained by adding some iterations.
D. Fourth MLP - Time
We have created an error distribution with the independent data set. In order to check if the error
distribution was normal, the next statistical analyses were performed: Shapiro-Wilk, Chi2,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kuiper V, Cramer-Von Mises W2, Watson U2. The conclusion of these analyses
was that the distribution is normal, with media and standard deviation of:

Media: -0,012
Standard deviation: 0,1251
With this information, we can assure we can predict time with the next accuracy:
Error < 12,68 % with 68,27 % of confidence (1σ)
Error < 25,36 % with 95,44 % of confidence (2σ)
 539

19.6.7.6 Conclusions and Future Directions

In this study, we have applied the artificial neural network technology to an interesting problem from
industry’s point of view. Specifically, we have shown that the MLP constitutes a perfectly valid
analysis technique for predicting CFD convergence time and number of iterations. In order to obtain
the expert system, an industrial CFD database was used. A MLP combination was needed to solve the
drawbacks of the database. Finally the expert system results have been analyzed. There are some
aspects which could be improved in order to achieve better results. First of all the entire database
used in this work was highly non-uniform. A database specifically created for the expert system
would improve the results; e.g. if information about the aircraft configuration was included a better
final convergence prediction could be done. Secondly the expert system could be more ambitious and
auto optimize the TAU parameters in order to obtain minimum iterations number. Finally newer
training algorithms instead of Quasi-Newton method for MLP training could be used in order to get
better results.
 540

20 CFD Education in the Undergraduate Curriculum

20.1 Classification of Core CFD Concepts
In this section, we follow closely the development by [Eldredge et al.]721 where our objective is to
itemize the core tools and concepts of CFD, and assess their placement in an undergraduate
curriculum. We are particularly focused here on prioritization of the topics, and in particular, in
establishing the baseline knowledge of an intelligent user of CFD. Our objective is to distill each of
these topics to a sufficient degree that they can be organized, in the following section, into various
levels of CFD curriculum.

20.1.1 Computer Programming

Beyond introducing the syntax of a programming language of choice (e.g. Fortran, C++, Java, Matlab,
or Python etc.), computer programming, most importantly, is an essential skill to develop
computational thinking in students. Computer programming also formally introduces students to the
computer hardware and its operation. One could argue that programming is not an essential skill for
CFD education on the basis that commercial CFD packages have graphical user interfaces, but almost
all commercial software provides an interface for users to tailor the software for their application
(e.g. user defined functions (UDF) in ANSYS Fluent). A practicing engineer may also need to write
computer programs to manipulate experimental and/or computational data. Additionally, some
undergraduate students continue their studies at the graduate level where they may need to develop
computational tools in their research. For these reasons, computer programming is a fundamental
skill in aerospace or mechanical engineering education.

20.1.2 Pre‐Processing and Grid Generation

This constitutes the first, and arguably, the most important step in any CFD application. It is also the
one for which students likely have the least appreciation for the challenges involved, and would tend
to breeze past without proper guidance. The interlinked choices for the computational domain,
governing equations, boundary and initial conditions, specification of physical parameters, desired
accuracy and solution time, and solution parameters of interest, all require compromises that
students seldom appreciate when first introduced to the topic. Furthermore, the preparation of the
geometry and the grid generation itself are subtle topics that require an intuition for the expected
solution, as well as the capabilities and limitations of the underlying numerical methodology.
Students are often surprised to find that there is no immediate “Solve” button to press once they have
imported a geometry into a commercial CFD tool. Thus, because of its inevitable and challenging role
in any CFD project, this topic poses the greatest challenge for instruction. This is particularly true in
a context in which CFD is desired as a tool for achieving a certain objective such as in a design class
or project team without providing a foundational experience in a prior course. In any context, the
topic is best introduced by patiently walking through several examples before leaving the students
to make the choices themselves. It is important that students learn to carefully observe the
consequences of their choices at this stage, and to systematically determine how to make appropriate
choices.

20.1.3 Verification and Validation (V&V)

Verification and validation (V&V), as discussed before, are the primary means to assess accuracy and
reliability of computational simulations, a task that is absolutely mandatory in science and
engineering. Indeed, aptitude for this particular step is likely the clearest indicator of an intelligent

721Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 541

user of CFD. In learning V&V, a student learns to avoid blind faith in output from a CFD code, but
rather, to inspect CFD results with a critical eye. Much of the discussion in this subsection is based on
the excellent Sandia report “Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics”722, which
the interested reader is highly encouraged to read for more in depth information. There is also a long‐
standing AIAA Committee on Standards for Computational Fluid Dynamics that has thoughtfully laid
out guidelines for V&V723. Verification and validation are often confused, but it is important to
distinguish their roles. The fundamental strategy of verification is the identification, quantification
and reduction of errors in the computational model and its solution (one can ask, “Am I solving the
equations correctly?”). The fundamental objective of validation, on the other hand, is to assess how
accurately the computational results compare with the experimental data (one can ask, “Am I solving
the right equations?”). Stated differently, verification is primarily a mathematics issue, whereas
validation is primarily a physics issue.
There is a natural but unfortunate inclination to give these tasks very short treatment, both in
practice as well as in CFD instruction. Particularly in the use of a commercial code, verification is too
often entirely neglected (“the software package I am using is well verified, thus I do not have to do
it”) and the typical validation procedure in CFD (and other fields) usually only involves graphical
comparison of computational results and experimental data. If the computational results “generally
agree” with the experimental data, the computational results are declared “validated”. However, with
a graphical comparison, one does not commonly see quantification of the numerical error or
quantification of computational uncertainties due to missing initial conditions, boundary conditions,
or modeling parameters. Also, an estimate of experimental uncertainty is not typically quoted, and in
most cases it is not even available.
Because of the time and patience required, the road to instill V&V standards into CFD users is long
and difficult. However, it is essential to instill a commitment to this practice, particularly as reliance
on CFD (and other) software will only increase in the future. Thus, V&V forms an essential component
of any level of CFD instruction, and should be presented as inseparable from the other CFD tasks.
Instruction of verification assessment should focus on the use of benchmarks. It is critical for students
to learn to distinguish between exact and approximate solutions, and to recognize that even a highly
accurate numerical solution can be regarded as a standard against which to measure. Students should
become familiar with some important examples of such benchmarks. Verification necessarily invokes
a discussion on major sources of error: insufficient convergence of spatial and temporal
discretization, insufficient convergence of iterative procedures, computer round‐off, and computer
programming errors. The questions that must become second nature to students are: “Does the
discrete solution converge to the exact solution as the grid is refined?” and “What is the discretization
error that is actually observed for real calculations on finite grids?” In addressing these questions,
students should become adept at critically assessing the pre‐processing steps, notably the grid
construction, and their effect on the sources of error. They should also learn to use standard error
metrics and techniques such as Richardson extrapolation.
Validation assessment, with its focus on the suitability of the underlying model for the physics,
necessarily requires comparison between sufficiently accurate computational results and high‐
quality experimental data. The latter are to be understood as a more faithful reflection of reality.
Consequently, in this task, students must learn to be cognizant of an estimate the uncertainty of
experimental data, and to faithfully represent the experimental setup in the numerical model.
Because of the infeasibility and impracticality of conducting true validation experiments for

722 W. L. Oberkampf and T. G. Trucano. “Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics”, Sandia
Report 2002‐0529, 2002.
723 R. R. Cosner, W. L. Oberkampf, C. L. Rumsey, C. R. Rahaim and T. I.‐P. Shih, “AIAA Committee on Standards for

Computational Fluid Dynamics: Status and Plans,” AIAA Paper 2006‐0889, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, 2006.
 542

essentially all complex engineering systems, the usual method is to use a building‐block approach,
wherein the complex system of interest is progressively divided into simpler subsystems that are all
validated separately. In short, V&V constitutes an essential practice for even casual users of CFD. It
should therefore be regarded as essential content in any level of CFD instruction. [Eldredge et al.]724.

20.1.4 Numerical Methodologies for CFD

This is clearly a broad topic with a wide range of subtopics, and this breadth alone poses a challenge
for fitting it adequately into an undergraduate‐level CFD course. Furthermore, many of the topics
require a full cadre of mathematical prerequisites linear algebra, and ordinary and partial differential
equations some of which may not be adequately treated in the core engineering curriculum. This
requires one to be realistic about what is and is not practical in designing an undergraduate CFD
course. A list of topics is as follows:

➢ Classification and characteristics of model PDEs

➢ Finite difference approximations
• Basic schemes
• Truncation error and order of accuracy
• Scheme construction
• Fourier error analysis
➢ Finite volume approximations
• Cell‐ and face‐centered quantities
• First‐ and second‐order schemes
➢ Solution characteristics of systems of linear ODEs
➢ Time marching methods
• Canonical methods and application to ODE systems
• Application to model PDEs
• Error analysis
• Stability analysis
• Treatment of numerical stiffness
➢ Solution of linear systems of equations
• Direct methods
• Relaxation methods
➢ Methods for compressible flow
• Central schemes
• Flux splitting and up winding
• Artificial dissipation and flux limiter
• Numerical and physical boundary conditions
➢ Methods for incompressible flow
• Collocated and staggered grids
• Pressure‐correction methods

In order to establish an appropriate level of pedagogical treatment of this topic in a certain course, it
is perhaps most effective to establish the overall high‐level objective and then work backward to
distill the necessary prerequisite material. We believe, as we stress throughout this report, that the
minimal objective must be to develop a student into an intelligent user of CFD. This means that a

724Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 543

student must learn enough about numerical methodologies to be able to make a meaningful
assessment of, for example, the expected level of numerical dissipation in a result, the reasons for a
certain solution to fail to converge, or the numerical origin of (and an appropriate cure for) spurious
noise. These needs accompany most of the high-level topics described in this section, i.e. pre‐
processing and grid generation, as well as verification and validation. In particular, solution
verification relies on having an adequate understanding of the major sources of error in numerical
approximation of the governing equations, and therefore, basic knowledge of spatial and temporal
discretization schemes and their associated truncation error. A compact treatment of numerical
methodologies say, within a design course that lacks a CFD prerequisite can often be facilitated by
judiciously chosen documentation and tutorials associated with commercial software. For example,
if the objective is to provide students with minimal understanding of the methodologies required to
obtain a subsonic steady‐state solution around a complex geometry with a commercial CFD code,
then it might be appropriate to design the syllabus by referencing the code’s underlying low‐speed
flow methodology and choosing appropriate topics from the list above. [Eldredge et al.]725.

20.1.5 Turbulence Modeling, RANS and Large‐Eddy Simulation

Turbulence modeling poses a difficult paradox in undergraduate instruction. Reynolds‐averaged
Navier‐Stokes (RANS) solvers have a nearly universal presence in industry, and nearly all
engineering‐oriented applications of CFD invoke turbulence models in their solutions. However, one
is generally challenged to find enough time to adequately treat this subject in an undergraduate
course, giving preference instead to the more elementary topics on this list. Thus, it is easy to find
CFD users who are simply ignorant of the consequences of choosing between RANS, large‐eddy
simulation (LES) and hybrid RANS‐LES, or a k‐epsilon versus Spalart-Allmaras model. And it is not
surprising to see students expecting a chaotic, random looking solution from a “turbulence model”.
It is natural to classify this topic as too advanced for undergraduate instruction and simply omit it
from the curriculum. But as mentioned above, most engineering CFD simulations require a
turbulence model in the solution. It is also reasonable to view the topic of turbulence modeling as an
opportunity to teach the topics of turbulence and high Reynolds number flow physics, which
generally receive cursory treatment at best in an undergraduate‐level fluid dynamics course. One
ostensible reason for this cursory treatment is that it is difficult to visualize some of the abstract
concepts statistical versus instantaneous or point‐wise properties, eddy viscosity, etc. We believe, if
taught with reference to a CFD code and its implementation of various turbulence models, that this
subject can be illuminated more effectively. Students should be aware of the fact that turbulence
remains one of the great unsolved problems of classical physics, and as engineers we develop models
for turbulence in order to move forward as problem‐solvers. Thus, we offer here a list of expected
outcomes for undergraduate‐level instruction in turbulence modeling:

1. Familiarity with time averaging of the governing equations, associated turbulent stresses,
and the “turbulence closure” problem.
2. Recognition of some basic differences between and appropriate uses of commonly used
turbulence models and wall functions.
3. Familiarity with the law of the wall and non‐dimensional wall units, and their use in setting
appropriate grid spacing in conjunction with turbulence models and wall functions.
4. Awareness of common trouble spots for RANS simulations.

725Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 544

It should be emphasized that none of these outcomes requires much, if any, prerequisite material
from the other CFD concepts described earlier in this section, aside from a basic treatment of spatial
discretization. Indeed, these outcomes could be naturally incorporated into the existing outcomes of
an intermediate‐level fluid dynamics class, in the CFD Light or Moderate profiles described in the
next section. For example, sample results of wall stress from resolved and under‐resolved turbulent
channel or pipe flow simulations could be used to illuminate why it is important to respect the
underlying assumptions in turbulence modeling. Large‐, detached‐eddy simulation (DES), hybrid
RANS‐LES approaches are more advanced than RANS, and are likely only feasible for inclusion in a
senior level CFD course. A set of more advanced expected outcomes associated with these concepts
is, for example,

1. Familiarity with filtering (versus time averaging) of the governing equations, and statistical
properties of a flow field.
2. Understanding of the objectives, requirements and expectations of LES versus those of RANS
(and direct numerical simulation, DNS).
3. Ability to approximate integral and Kolmogorov length scales, and to use them to determine
appropriate LES grid spacing.
4. Familiarity with the characteristics of basic sub‐grid‐scale models.
5. Familiarity with the basic strategy of hybrid RANS‐LES and DES.

Perhaps, the most important message to ingrain is that adopting the LES approach does not readily
mean better results than the RANS approach. In particular, a random and chaotic looking flow field
does not necessarily mean a good simulation, and that one must be aware of statistical measures to
gauge success. Because of their relatively higher expense, large‐eddy simulations are likely
impractical for course projects. Instead, one might rely on interrogating a database of “good” and
“bad” pre‐computed results in order to investigate turbulence statistics and develop awareness of
best practices. [Eldredge et al.]726.

20.1.6 Panel and Vortex Lattice Methods

These numerical tools have been a part of engineering analysis and education longer than CFD, and
remain valuable tools in both contexts. In an aerodynamics curriculum, they provide a student with
an opportunity to solve for the essential features of a meaningful aerodynamics problem, with
minimal computational resources. The introduction of the methods follows naturally from the
presentation of classical inviscid flow solutions, and a discussion of the coupling of these inviscid
solvers with solutions from boundary layer theory is physically enlightening. The number of choices
required for getting a reasonable solution with an existing open source code is relatively small
compared with a full CFD application. Thus, there are few obstacles to getting students to the point
where they can use it to complete class assignments or design projects. The development of a
rudimentary panel or vortex lattice solver from scratch also constitutes a valuable computing project.
The disadvantage is that the tools have limited applicability, and therefore cannot be used to directly
illustrate phenomena such as flow separation and transition to turbulence (though they can be used
to present the origins of these phenomena). For the same reasons, their use in industry is also in
decline. Nonetheless, they remain essential pedagogical tools.

726Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 545

20.1.7 Software Engineering

This topic is generic to scientific computing, and more commonly associated with computer science
than aerospace or mechanical engineering. However, it nonetheless warrants consideration in this
discussion because of the inevitable important role that technical computing plays (and will continue
to play even more) in all engineering disciplines. Software engineering in this context includes:
learning to work in a Unix‐like environment, code compilation, revision control, debugging, code
performance profiling, documentation, data visualization, and use of third‐party libraries. It
also includes discussion on data structures and language abstraction relevant to, e.g., grid
generation, linear solvers, etc. The only essential prerequisites are programming, and possibly,
linear algebra. Such a course is necessarily project‐oriented, and works most effectively when
students are able to define their projects. Thus, it would be useful if coordinated with some
application‐oriented project class.

20.1.8 Computer Architecture and Parallel Computing

CFD simulations can be demanding and expensive in terms of computing and data storage
requirements. A majority of industrial fluids engineering applications involve high Reynolds number
turbulent flows in a complex geometry setting. High-fidelity CFD simulation of such engineering
problems typically requires fine meshes. Equally important, it is not uncommon that time‐dependent
computations (e.g., LES or URANS) are used in these types of simulations. In terms of undergraduate
CFD education, where CFD is introduced in an accelerated fashion with two dimensional fundamental
laminar flow calculations that finish rather quickly on a standard desktop computer, students can
develop a misconception of the computational requirements for CFD simulations in general.
Therefore, an intelligent CFD user should be able to estimate the spatial and temporal resolution
needed to produce an acceptable simulation, and be able to identify and distinguish the available
computing resources. In other words, an intelligent CFD user should be able to estimate
computational turnaround time, memory and file storage requirements before adopting or
suggesting CFD analysis in solving an engineering problem. This skill requires a basic understanding
of hardware and software for parallel computing.
Over the last decade, computer hardware and software has radically changed to the point where
workstations with 64 cores of central processing units (CPU) augmented with multiple graphics
processing units (GPU) as accelerators are becoming common in the engineering workplace. Thanks
to industry‐university partnerships, high‐performance computing (HPC) platforms are more
available to engineers than before. Most commercial and open‐source CFD models can take
advantage of parallel computing. Equally important, parallel visualization software (e.g., Paraview
and VisIT) are is freely available for rendering large data sets. A large majority of open‐source
software is based on the Linux operating system and adopts MPI for parallel programming. New
simulation software is being developed to take advantage of GPUs to accelerate simulation. This new
software is based on new languages such as CUDA or OpenCL and often interleaved with other
parallel programming languages (e.g., MPI, OpenMP, Pthreads) to afford large‐scale computations on
multiple GPUs. Therefore, undergraduate CFD education should convey the concept of “large‐scale
computations” and inform students about software and hardware platforms used in HPC. Students
should be able to identify shared memory and distributed memory systems and parallel
programming environments that are needed to perform large‐scale computations and ways to
process large data sets that are too large for a workstation for visualization. [Eldredge et al.]727.

727Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 546

20.2 Strategies for Incorporating CFD into Undergraduate Curriculum

In the previous section, an effort was made to present the list of CFD‐related concepts and tools
hierarchically. This effort was in anticipation of the current section, in which a hierarchy of CFD
curriculum profiles from low to high is described. In this fashion, the modular CFD elements can
naturally be identified for inclusion in an appropriate setting. For example, in the lowest profile
setting, precomputed CFD solutions are to be used to illuminate fundamental fluid dynamic
phenomena, and therefore only some elements of the concept hierarchy are invoked (in this case,
post‐processing). The objective in this section is to present a number of examples, drawing where
possible on existing curricula. This allows us to present the accompanying syllabi, some brief
descriptions of sample homework problems and projects, and lessons learned on the development
and continuing evolution of these existing courses.

20.2.1 CFD Light

This represents the lowest profile inclusion of CFD in an undergraduate curriculum. In such a case,
an instructor of an introductory or intermediate fluid mechanics course uses pre‐computed CFD
simulations in order to reinforce fundamental concepts. With the availability of free high‐quality
visualization software (e.g., Paraview and VisIT), this approach is relatively straightforward to
introduce into an existing curriculum, provided a repository of solutions has already been generated.
Students would be able to download the CFD solution files and use them to study fluid flow in and
around various geometries. This approach would help eliminate software cost, and also introduce
more realistic engineering simulations into the undergraduate curriculum while avoiding long
simulation times and resources and instruction needed to conduct such simulations.

20.2.2 CFD Moderate

At this level of CFD instruction, CFD modules are used to augment course material, by substituting
the module into an existing lecture‐form fluid mechanics or aerodynamics course, or into the
accompanying lab unit of the course. The CFD content is heavier than in the CFD light scenario, in
that here, the students are expected to compute the solutions before analyzing them. As the examples
below will suggest, this approach often makes use of free or in‐house inviscid aerodynamic solvers
(i.e. panel and vortex lattice codes) in order to compute flows and predict forces on lifting surfaces.
For further information, please consult the [Eldredge et al.]728.

20.2.3 CFD Heavy

In this format, CFD is taught as a stand‐alone course, and therefore more emphasis is placed on
teaching fundamental concepts of CFD. The U.S. Air Force Academy created this course nearly a
decade ago, and the course has been continuously evolving since then. The course topics are largely
presented to the students “just in time” as projects and assignments require a given knowledge set.
The course topics include:

➢ Potential flow review

➢ Panel methods review
➢ Vortex lattice methods
➢ Introduction to CFD concepts
➢ Computer system overview
➢ Vector algebra review
➢ Governing equations of fluid motion review

728Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 547

➢ Levels of governing equations (assumptions and simplifications)

➢ Finite differencing/finite volume/finite element approaches
➢ Truncation error
➢ Stability, consistency, convergence, and CFL number
➢ Stability analysis
➢ Modified equation
➢ Classification of PDEs
➢ Algorithm types (explicit, implicit)
➢ Steady and unsteady flow
➢ Time integration
➢ Boundary conditions (far field, solid surfaces, matching PDE types)
➢ Grid generation (structured, unstructured, Cartesian, overset, topology, transformed
coordinates)
➢ The solution process (initial conditions, convergence, stability/robustness)
➢ Grid independence
➢ Time accuracy
➢ Turbulence models (RANS, LES, DES), model types (eddy viscosity, stress transport)
➢ Flow visualization
➢ Parallel computing
➢ Optimization approaches

Specifically, we learned the following aerodynamic concepts while performing these projects:

➢ Boundary conditions and their relationship to flow type (viscous or inviscid)

➢ Boundary layer thickness, growth, and velocity profiles
➢ Importance of understanding boundary‐layer theory while doing CFD (sublayer types and
thicknesses, pressure gradients, etc.)
➢ Stagnation points and stagnation streamlines
➢ Flow separation and reattachment
➢ Laminar separation bubbles
➢ Airfoil/wing stall
➢ Airfoil pressure gradients as a function of angle of attack
➢ Airfoil surface and off‐surface pressures, circulation, and the resulting lift and
➢ drag variations with angle of attack
➢ The relationship between pressure gradients and flow separation
➢ Pressure and skin friction drag
➢ Unsteady vortex shedding
➢ The impact of wing‐tip vortices
➢ Compressibility effects at subsonic Mach numbers
➢ In addition, the following aerodynamic theories and concepts are taught to the students while
they are performing their projects (or are learned in a prior course):
➢ NACA airfoil designations and data
➢ Potential flow theory
➢ Kutta‐Joukowski theorem
➢ Thin airfoil theory
➢ Lifting‐line theory

So, while many faculty members might have believed they were giving up a great deal by teaching
computational aerodynamics to their students in lieu of the more traditional syllabus, we found that
 548

many of the same concepts were still covered, but in different (and project‐based) ways. The main
idea behind the course design is to give students an exposure to the application as well as code
development aspects of CFD. It also contains tutorials on the use of commercial CFD software (ANSYS
Fluent). The outline of the course is as follows:

• Introduction and Background

o Conservation Laws and Model Equations
• Spatial Discretization
o Finite‐Difference Approximations
o Grid Convergence Studies
o Finite‐Volume Methods
• Solving Linear Systems
o Direct Methods
o Iterative Methods
o Preconditioning
• Time‐Marching Methods
o Some popular Time‐Marching Methods
o Implementation of Implicit Methods
o Stability
• Turbulence
o Direct Numerical Simulations
o Basics of Turbulence Modeling
o Some popular Turbulence Models
o Large Eddy Simulations

20.3 CFD-Related Concepts in Mechanical Engineering

It is appropriate to address the needs of mechanical engineering in this document, since many
universities have joint programs in mechanical and aerospace engineering, and the topics are often
of interest to both. Here, we briefly comment on two topics heat transfer and multiphase flows
traditionally included in the mechanical engineering curriculum that are associated with a distinct
set of CFD concepts, and therefore merit separate discussion. [Eldredge et al.]729.

20.3.1 Computational Heat Transfer

Computational heat transfer, within the context of an introductory CFD class, can be incorporated in
essentially two different modes: stationary problems involving heat conduction and/or thermal
radiation; and coupled heat transfer and fluid flow. The necessary prerequisites for this component
would be an introductory course in fluid mechanics as well as a good knowledge of thermodynamics.
An additional course in heat transfer, common in most mechanical engineering curricula, is also
beneficial especially in connection with thermal radiation. The inherent value of heat conduction is
that the governing equations are linear, and thus, it is well suited as an introductory learning vehicle
for finite‐volume (or finite difference) analysis and associated numerical techniques for linear
systems of algebraic equations. For cases of steady standalone heat conduction in solids, classic
solutions of Laplace’s equation can be recreated numerically and rigorously compared with
analytical solutions. Doing so can allow students to better appreciate concepts of spatial grid
refinement and validation within the setting of a relatively simple problem.

729Jeff D. Eldredge, Inanc Senocak, Paul Dawson, James Canino, William W. Liou, Ray LeBeau, Darren L. Hitt,
Markus P. Rumpfkeil, and Russell M. Cummings, “A Best Practices Report on CFD Education in the Undergraduate
Curriculum”, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee.
 549

The introduction of unsteady heat conduction terms may similarly be exploited to introduce concepts
of numerical stability and time discretization. With the establishment of these course concepts, the
topical coverage of conjugate heat transfer at a later stage is a natural extension of the flow and
conduction analysis that links thermal interaction between a flow and its surrounding solid
geometry. Finally, it is worthwhile noting that it is often possible to leverage commercial CFD
software to perform these calculations, although not originally designed for this purpose. This
provides an option for the instructor to use CFD software throughout the course if they so choose.
The solution of steady, or unsteady, convection‐diffusion problems with a known flow field
represents the next level of sophistication while maintaining a linear set of governing equations. Here
the focus can be upon the numerical treatment of convective versus diffusive terms and the
associated consequences. In particular, discretization effects such as instability or artificial diffusion
can be examined in a very simple setting. Direct comparisons with analytical solutions are again
available in many cases.
The numerical simulation of natural convection phenomena can often represent a useful illustration
of the two‐way coupling of the thermal and velocity fields. In such flows, the coupling occurs via a
buoyancy term in the momentum equation as opposed to fully thermodynamic coupling in high‐
speed compressible flows. Because the velocity gradients are low in these types of problems, grid
development is straightforward and the required spatial resolution is typically modest. As such, the
computations themselves are well suited for introductory classes. Classic problems in Rayleigh‐
Benard flow are natural choices for course projects. The modeling of thermal radiation heat transfer
is a complex topic flowing to its inherent nonlinear nature as well as its dependence on geometric
configuration. It also represents a specialized regime of heat transfer that is of significance under
conditions of very high temperatures and/or under highly rarefied conditions where convection or
diffusion modes of transport are negligible. One potential utility of radiation coverage would be in a
topical module that leverages the capabilities of commercial software to handle the calculation of
radiative view factors for realistic surface geometries. For students with prior experience in radiation
heat transfer, comparisons with radiative circuit modeling are also possible for simplified scenarios.
If desired, instructors could also introduce in parallel a discussion involving the calculation of
theoretical view factors using Monte Carlo methods for line of sight.

20.3.2 Numerical Techniques for Multiphase Flows

This topic introduces the CFD concept of simulating a system that consists of multiple phases. In
practical terms, this topic must be limited in scope for an introductory CFD course given the advanced
level of the topic. Unless the student has prior experience in multiphase flows resulting from an
advanced elective course, the instructor should be prepared to allocate a sufficient amount of time to
provide a summary of key issues. A natural division in such content is the use of Eulerian mixture
models and Lagrangian approaches. For Eulerian models, the theory of averaging can be presented
to develop the averaged equations of motion for a multiphase mixture based on the volume fractions
of its constituents. This is appropriate for examining flow scenarios such as bubbly flows or
suspensions where the details of the individual particles are not important, but rather their aggregate
effects are. The resulting equations can then be solved in a manner using methods developed for
flows of single fluids. Thus, with appropriate presentation of the underlying theory, it is possible to
introduce this into an introductory CFD class. Appropriate model problems include the simulation of
bubbly flows in pipes, for which an extensive empirical database exists that can be used for
comparison and validation.
In Lagrangian modeling one treats the phases separately and track interfaces. This, in general,
represents a much more challenging computational problem and is likely better suited for an
advanced computational class. Nonetheless, a discussion of common methods such as the volume‐of‐
fluid (VOF) and level‐set could be incorporated into an introductory CFD class provided this is done
carefully. While a presentation of the underlying theory of these approaches can be effectively
 550

delivered at the introductory level, the numerical implementation represents an undertaking that
may be beyond this course level unless a commercial CFD code is utilized. To this end, the VOF
method is available within the FLUENT CFD package, and the level‐set method is available within
COMSOL Multiphysics CFD Module. Appropriate model problems for an introductory coverage of
Lagrangian methods could include the classic problem of a rising bubble in an infinite medium at
varying Reynolds number, for which theoretical and empirical descriptions are available for
comparison.

20.4 Open-Source vs Commercial Software

Once an instructor has obtained the necessary computers for the students to perform their CFD
analyses, they must select the software that will be used by the students. This is both an important
and difficult decision that must be made when introducing CFD into a curriculum. Initially, it must be
determined if open source or commercial software will be used. Both forms have their advantages
and drawbacks. Two advantages of open source software are price and the ability for students to
examine the source code. In particular, by utilizing the XSEDE system and open source software, a
university could implement a high‐performance CFD education component into their curriculum
with little to no cost. Furthermore, the ability of students to examine the source code would allow
them to more fully understand the implementation of the various schemes and the method by which
data is handled within a CFD code. The advantages of open source software, however, do come at a
cost. Most though not all open source codes are based on a Unix/Linux operating system, with which
relatively few undergraduates are familiar. Thus, there is slightly higher overhead, measured in time
units, in initiating hands‐on progress with open source codes.
Commercial CFD codes, on the other hand, place a premium on the user interface. The GUIs are
usually well thought out and their use is intuitive, especially to those students who have worked with
computers all of their lives. Furthermore, commercial CFD codes usually contain excellent
documentation. This documentation might have tutorials and training materials available that will
allow the students to quickly utilize the software. However, selecting a commercial code means added
costs for an academic site license with an adequate number of seats and a general lack of
transparency in the implementation of the numerical schemes. There are many commercial software
packages for grid generation, solution, and visualization.