This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/27986319/AUnifFemFormCompandIncompFlAugConVar
03/07/2010
text
original
ElSEVIER
Comput. Methods App1. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering
A unified finite elementformulation for compressible and incompressibleflows using augmented conservationvariables
s. Mittala, T. Tezduyarb,*
"Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, UP 208 016, India bDepartment of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Anny High Performance Computing Research Center, University of Minnesota, 1100 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415, USA Received 6 November 1997
Abstract
A unified approach to computing compressible and incompressible flows is proposed. The governing equation for pressure is selected based on the local Mach number. In the incompressible limit the divergencefree constraint on velocity field determines the pressure, while it is the equation of state that governs the pressure solution for the compressible flows. Stabilized finite element formulations, based on the spacetime and semidiscrete methods, with the 'augmented' conservation variables are employed. The 'augmented' conservation variables consist of the usual conservation variables and pressure as an additional variable. The formulation is applied to various test problems involving steady and unsteady flows over a large range of Mach and Reynolds numbers. @ 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Computationalmethodsto solve flow problemsfall mainly into two categories: methodsfor compressible (a) flows and (b) methodsfor incompressible flows. Thesetwo casesof methodsare quite different from eachother with respect to the choice of variables, issuesrelated to numerical stability and choice of solvers.Various researchers the past have proposedideas for a unified approachto compressibleand incompressible in flows. Turkel [1] suggested preconditioning method to acceleratethe convergence a steady state for both the a to compressibleand incompressibleflow equations.Hauke and Hughes [2] and Hauke [3] presenteda finite elementformulation for solving the compressible NavierStokes equations with different setsof variables.They also showedthat in the context of primitive or entropy variables,the incompressible limit is well behavedand therefore,one formulation can be usedfor solving both compressible incompressible and flows.Weissand Smith [4] proposeda preconditioningtechniquein conjunction with a dual timestepprocedureto computeunsteady compressible and incompressibleflows with densitybased variables.Karimian and Schneider[5] presented a collocatedpressurebased method that works in both compressibleand incompressible regimes. In this article we presentan alternate,unified approachto computingcompressible and incompressible flows using 'augmented' conservationvariables formulation. Compressibleflows have been computedby several researchers the past with the conservationvariablesformulation [613]. It was shown by Hauke [3], that in in the incompressible limit, the Euler Jacobians the formulation employing conservationvariablesis not well for behaved.In the incompressiblelimit, since density becomesconstant,some of the coefficients must go to infinity to accommodate finite variations in pressure.It has also been shown by Panton [14] that in the
* Corresponding author.
00457825/98/$19.00 @ 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. PII: SO0457825(97)003186
230
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar I Camput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
incompressible limit, the stateequationdegenerates a result accordingto which the densityof a fluid particle to is constant.This relation along with the massbalanceequationleads to the divergencefree constraint on the velocity field that can be used to determine the pressurein incompressibleflows. The formulation that we proposein this article is basedon the philosophythat pressureis determinedby the equationof statewhen the flow is compressible, whereasit is determinedby the divergencefree constraintwhen the flow is incompressible. To this end we employ the 'augmented'conservationvariableswhich consist of the usual conservation variables(density, momentaand energy) and pressureas an additional variable. We begin by reviewing the governingequationsfor compressible and incompressible fluid flow in Section2. The equationsare cast in a nondimensionalform and a parameterz, basedon the local Mach number, is introduced that governs the choice of equations for compressibleand incompressibleflows locally in the computationaldomain. The stabilized spacetime variational formulation of these equationsin terms of the augmented conservationvariablesis presentedin Section 3. The SUPG (streamlineupwind/PetrovGalerkin) stabilization technique [6,7,9,13,15,16]is employed to stabilize our computationsagainst spurious numerical oscillations.In Section4 we presentsomenumericalresults to test the performance the proposed of formulation. We begin with the computationof the shockreflection problem that involves three flow regionsseparated an by oblique shockand its reflection from a wall. The exact solution for this problemis known and is comparedwith the computedsolution. Next, supersonicflow past a cylinder at Mach 2 and Re 2000 is computedwith the unified formulation and with the compressible flow formulation basedon the equationof state.Finally, results are presentedfor unsteadyflow past a cylinder at Re 100. These computationsare carried out for different subsonicMach numbersincluding the incompressiblelimit.
2. The governingequations
Let {},tC ~n'd and (0, T) be the spatial and temporaldomains,respectively,where nodis the numberof space dimensions,and let 1; denotethe boundaryof ,{},t'The spatial and temporalcoordinates denotedby x and t, are The NavierStokes equationsgoverning the fluid flow, in conservationform, are iJp iJt+V'(pu)=O on,{},tfor(O,T), on ll, for (0, T) , (1)
(2) (3)
iJ(pu)  at + v. (puu) + Vp  V. T =0
at
a(pe)
+ V. (peu)+ V. (pu) V. (Tu)+ V. q = 0 on n, for (0, T)
Here, p, U, p, T, e, andq are the density,velocity, pressure, viscousstresstensor,total energyper unit mass,and heat flux vector, respectively.The viscous stresstensor is define~as T = ,u«Vu) + (VU)T)+ }"(V. u)1 . where ,u and },.are the viscosity coefficients.It is assumed that ,u and },. are related by 2 },.= 3 ,u . (5) (4)
Pressure relatedto the other variablesvia the equationof state.For ideal gases, equationof stateassumes is the the special form p=(yl)pi, (6)
where y is the ratio of specific heats,and i is the internal energy per unit masswhich is related to the total energy per unit massand kinetic energy as
(7)
The heat flux vector is defined as
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
231
q =  KVO ,
(8)
where K is the heatconductivity and fJ is the temperature. temperature relatedto the internal energyby the the is following relation:
(J=~
(Q)
Cv
where Cv is the specific heat of the fluid at constantvolume. For an ideal gas R Cv =:y=T' (IV)
whereR is the ideal gas constant.Prandtl number(Pr)' assumed be specified,relatesthe heat conductivity of to the fluid to its viscosity accordingto the following relation:
K= JLCp p ,
r
(11)
where Cp is the specific heat of the fluid at constantpressure.For an ideal gas C =  yR p yl In the limit of incompressible flows, i.e. when the Mach number approaches zero, the abovementioned of set equationsassume new form. It can be shown [14], that the stateequationalong with the massbalanceequation a lead to the following relation: pV'u =0. Using the relation, Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) can be modified for incompressible flows as
iJp + V. (pu)  pV' u = 0 iJta(pu) at
(13)
on fl, for (0, T) , on [}" for (O,T), (Tu) + V. q = 0 on {It for (0, T).
(14)
+ v. (puu)  puV. u + Vp v. T=O
a(pe) ae+
V. (peu)  peV.u + V. (pu) pV' u v.
(16)
In this situation, the viscous stresstensor, given by Eq. (4) can be rewritten as
T
= jL«Vu)
+ (VU)T) .
(17)
It is possibleto combinethe two setsof governingequations the compressible incompressible for and flows and expressthem in terms of nondimensionalvariables.The nondimensional variablesthat we chooseare
x x*=L' p*=
pp~
2 p~U~
u* =:::U",'
u
t* = tU~ ' L
(8
.
8* =
 8~)Cp
U2 ~
p*=Lp~
whereall the quantities with the subscript'00' refer to the freestream valuesof the flow variables. The
governingequationsin the nondimensional variablesthat are valid over the entire range of compressible and incompressible flows are iJp* at*"+ V*. (p*u*)

(1  z)p*V*. u* = 0 on [J~ for (0, T*),
(19)
iJ(p*u*) + v* . (p*u*u*)  (1  z)p*u*V* . u* + V* p*  V* . T* = 0 on [J~ for (0, T*) , at
232
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
The Mach number (M) is defined as the ratio of the flow speedto the speedof sound; M~ refers to the freestream Mach number.In the aboveequations z(M) E [0, 1] is a function of Mach numbersuchthat z(O)= 0 and z(M ~ Mc) = 1, whereMc is a 'cutoff Mach number,decideda priori. All the resultsreportedin this article are with Mc = 0.3 and with the following definition of z: M
z='
Mc
M~M,
(23)
M>Mc The nondimensional viscous stresstensor and heat flux vector are defined as T*
= 1
Re I
(V*u*) + (V*U*)T
2   z(V* .u*)1
3
(24)
q* = = 1 V*(J*
R~Pr Here, Re is the ReynoldsNumber defined as R.=
C
(25)
p~U~L
JL
(26)
In the rest of the article we will work with the nondimensional variablesonly and therefore,the superscript' * ' will be dropped.The governing equations(19)(22) can be written in the augmented conservationvariables
.. a~
+~
aF;
I
aE;+ B.!!!!. + SU = 0 on n, for (0, T) , I ax.
ax;
I
(27)
where U = (p, pu., puv p, pe), is the vector of augmented conservationvariablesand M is a diagonalmatrix definedas M = diag(l, I, 1,0, I). The various terms involving z and (I  z) in Eqs. (19)(22) contributeto the terms involving Bj and S in Eq. (27). Fj and Ej are, respectively,the Euler and viscousflux vectorsdefinedas u;p \ u;pu. + 5jlP ujpu2 + 5;2P 0
uj(pe +p) I
F,=
(28)
0 Ei=
q
Til Ti2 0 '.+7 ikU J
(29)
Here, Ui and
qj are the components the velocity and heat flux vectors, respectively, and Tikare the components of of the viscous stress tensor. In the quasilinear form, Eq. (27) is written as Mat+(Aj+Bj)~~
au
au a ( Kjj~ au )
I I J
+su=O
on {},t for (O,T),
(30)
whprp
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
233
of.
Ai= !. au'
is the Euler JacobianMatrix, and Kij is the diffusivity matrix satisfying au
K.. IJ ;ux. =E. I
J
Correspondingto Eq. (30), appropriateboundary and initial conditions are chosen
3. Finite element formulation In order to construct the finite element function spacesfor the spacetime method, we partition the time interval (0, T) into subintervalsIn = (tn,tn+,), where tn and tn+1 belong to an ordered series of time levels 0 = to< t, < ... < tN = T. Let {In = {J, and 1;:= r;. We define the spacetime slab Q as the domainenclosed n n n by the surfaces{In' {In+'' and Pn' where Pn is the surfacedescribedby the boundary r; as t traverses The In' surfacePn is decomposed into (Pn)g and (Pn)h with respectto the type of boundary condition (Dirichlet or Neumann)being imposed.For eachspacetime slab we define the corresponding finite elementfunction spaces .:;'hand rho Over the elementdomain,this spaceis formed by using firstorder polynomials in spaceand time. Globally, the interpolation functions are continuousin spacebut discontinuousin time. The stabilized spacetime formulation is written as follows: given (Uh), find Uh Er such that 'v' Wh E h n
r,
f
Qn
Wh.Mh_dQ+
auh
at
T(A:)T
f (aWh)
e.
Qn
aWh
aXj
(F~+E~)dQ+f
, + (A h + Bh) \£&, 'ax
Q,
~\.,
( a;; ) . [ Mh at j"
,
 auk Kh   a ',aXi iia;;)
(
B' au' Wh.( , ax;
, +ShUh] dQ
 ,
Qe "
;. , ","
(
J(Pn)h
Wh . hh dP
(33)
Here, hh represents Neumannboundarycondition imposedand (Pn)h is the part of the slab boundarywith the
suchconditions. solution (33) is obtained the to sequentially all spacetime for slabs QI' QQ'
the computationsstart with (U h = U 0' )0
where U 0 is the specified initial condition.
Q2"'"
QNI
and
(34)
REMARKS (1) In the variational fonnulation given by Eq. (33), the first threeintegralsand the righthandside constitute the Galerkin fonnulation of the problem. Both the Euler and viscous flux tenns are integratedby parts. This fonn of the variational fonnulation ensuresthat, in the presence shocks,the methodgives right of jump conditionsand shocklocation. The Neumannboundarycondition at the outflow boundaryinvolves the nonnal componentsof the stressvector and momentumflux. In the limit of incompressibleflows (wherethe pressure specifiedonly upto a constantand one needsto define a datum pressure) fixes is this the pressureat the boundary.To computeflows that involve free surfacesthe weak fonn given by Eq. (33) has to be modified by carrying out the integrationbypartof the timedependent tenn. (2) The first seriesof elementlevelintegralsin Eq. (33) are addedto the variational fonnulation to stabilize the computationsagainstnumerical instabilities. In the advectiondominated range, thesetenns prevent the nodetonode oscillationsof the flow variables.In the limit of incompressible flows, the inclusion of
~
234
S. Minai, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appi. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
these terms allows one to employ equalorderinterpolation velocity and pressure.The choice of for stabilizationcoefficient 'Tis quite different for compressible incompressible and flows. In the contextof a unified formulation, one would like to design the stabilization coefficient 'T such that it reducesto the appropriatedefinitions in the two limits. The secondseriesof elementlevel integralsin Eq. (33) are the shock capturing terms that stabilize the computationsin the presence sharpgradients.The coefficient of of shockcapturingoperator,fJ is sameas defined in [13]. The stabilizationcoefficient 'T is definedas
'T
= max[O, 'Ta 'TpJ
where 'Tais a diagonal matrix defined as 'Ta= diag(T), T), T), T2' T),
7',=
+
*)
2) 1/2
(36)
(37)
A=
Reu~3
Reu> 3
(38)
In the aboveequations is the cell Reynoldsnumber,c is the wave speed,Iluhllis the flow speed, h Reu and is the elementlength. £(M) E [0, 1] is a function of Mach numbersuchthat £(0) = 0 and £(M ~ Mc) = 1. All the results reportedin this article are with the following definition of £:
'N:) Z
M~M,
z=
M>M,
whereMc = 0.1. Matrix T/3 subtracted is from Tato accountfor the shockcapturing term as shownin Eq. (35). It is defined as
'1",8 i/3 = ~~w
M
(40)
Considerthe computationof compressible flow past a solid body using the unified formulation as in Eq. (33). In the regionswhere the machnumberis low, for examplein the boundarylayer, the flow is almost incompressibleand density assumes, approximately,the freestreamvalue. Under theseconditions the continuity equation, Eq. (19), behaveslike an advection equation for density. Farther away from the boundarylayer, the flow is in the compressible regimeand the densityvariationsare quite significant.The term in Eq. (33) that involves Nh providesnumericalstability to the densityfield in the region wherethe abovementioned transition takes place. This term is not neededin the formulation if one is seeking solutionsgovernedby either the compressible the incompressible or flow equationsonly. The matrix Nh is a diagonal matrix defined as Nh = diag(l, 0, 0, 0, 0). In the stabilizing terms in Eq. (33), components the A k matrix are defined as of
Ah
[A k ].',J.=[A
Ah
h
k ].'.J .+z8 I,k
+ 1 8.
J.5 C
(41)
where C is a constant. This term provides stability to the computations for compressible flows. Notice that such a term is not explicitly added to the formulation in terms of the conservation variables; a similar
term is already presentin the definition of A ~. In the caseof augmented conservationvariablessuch a
term is not presentin the original definitionof A ~. It has been our experience, with augmented
conservation variablesformulation, that in the absence this term the velocity field developsoscillations of that grow with time. In our computationswe chooseC = 2.
S. Mi/tal, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
235
(3) The sixth integral enforcesweak continuity of the velocity field acrossthe spacetime slabs. (4) If one is interestedin strictly incompressibleflows, Eq. (33) can still be used. However, to reducethe computational cost, one can prescribethe density field in the entire domain and therefore,not solve for it. Additionally, if one is not interestedin the temperature field, one can drop the energyequationtoo. This is possiblebecause the incompressible in limit, the energyequationis decoupledfrom the rest of the flow equations. (5) The variational formulation in terms of the augmented conservationvariableshas an advantage that any changein the equation of state can be incorporatedin the implementationwith very little effort. For example,to include the real gas effects in the formulation, one needsto modify the stateequationonly. However, the implementationis not so straightforwardif one usesthe conservationvariables. (6) We also implemented this unified approach in the context of a semidiscreteformulation. In the incompressible limit, Eq. (21) reducesto the divergencefree condition on the velocity field. It behaves like a constraint equation and one looks for a pressurefield such that the velocity field satisfiesthe divergencefree condition at each time level. In an implementationfor timeaccuratecomputationof incompressible flows, the divergencefree equationand the pressure terms are evaluatedat the n + 1 time level while the rest of the termsare evaluated n + 1/2 time level. This ensures at that the velocity field at eachtime level is divergencefree. On the other hand, if the divergencefree equationis evaluatedat the n + 1/2 time level, the velocity field computedat later times may not be divergencefree and one cannot ensure the stability of computations.Therefore, in the semidiscreteimplementation of the unified formulation for timeaccurate computations, pressureand the terms involving divergenceof velocity the are evaluatedat n + 1 time level while the other terms are evaluatedat n + 1/2 time level. We have computed unsteady solutions using, both, the spacetime and semidiscreteimplementationsof our formulation. The results obtained from the two implementationsare almost indistinguishable.In this article, therefore,we report the resultsonly from the spacetime implementation.It must be pointed out that the computationswith the spacetime method are substantiallymore expensivethan the ones with the semidiscretemethod. However, the spacetime method allows one to compute flows involving moving boundariesand interlaces.
4. Numericalexamples
Most of the computations reportedin this article were carried out on the Digital 3000/300 AXP workstation at liT Kanpur. Some were computedon the CRAY C90 at Networking Computing Servicesin Minneapolis, Minnesota. For the spacetime implementations,the finiteelementbasis functions are bilinearinspaceand linearintime, and 2 X 2 X 2 Gaussian quadrature employedfor numerical integration.The calculationswith is the semidiscrete implementation,basedon bilinear finiteelementbasisfunctions,give almostindistinguishable resultsas the onesfrom the spacetime method.In this article, only the results computedwith the spacetime methodare shown. The nonlinear equationsystemsresulting from the finiteelementdiscretizationof the flow equationsare solved using the GeneralizedMinimal RESidual (GMRES) technique [17] in conjunction with diagonal and blockdiagonalpreconditioners.
4.1. Shockreflection problem This twodimensional, inviscid, steadyprobleminvolves three flow regionsseparated an oblique shockand by its reflection from a wall as shown in Fig. 1. It is a standardbenchmarkproblem and for more details the interestedreaderis referred to the work by Le Beau and Tezduyar [9] and Shakib [18]. The motivation for this computationis to establishconfidencein our formulation and its implementationfor computing flows involving shocks. The computationaldomain is a rectangularregion of dimensions4.1 in the x direction and 1.0 in the y direction. The meshconsistsof 60 X 20 rectangularelements.At the left boundary,flow data corresponding Mach 2.9 is prescribed: to
236
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
'M=2.9
Region 1
p=1 u I =1 U2 =0 ,0 = 0
M=2.378
(42)
M=2.9
M=1.942
Region 1
Region3
Fig. I. Shockreflection problem: problem description.
At the top boundary,the flow conditions that are specifiedcorrespondto Mach 2.3781 and an incident shock angle of 29°:
'M
p
= 1.7
= 2,3781 = 0,9033
(43)
Region 2
Ul
Uz = 0.1746
.f}
= 0.07685
At the lower boundary,the componentof velocity normal to the wall is assigned zero value. The computations a begin with a uniform Mach 2.9 flow in the domain and continuetill the steadystate norm dropsbelow a certain
Fig. 2. Shockreflection problem: density and pressure fields for the steadystate solution.
S. Mittal. T. Tezduyar / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
237
value. It should be pointed out that in this problem, the local Mach number in the entire domain is always greaterthan the 'cutoff Mach numberdefinedin Eq. (23) and, therefore,z = 1 everywhere.This implies that the pressureis determinedby the equationof state for perfect gas everywherein the domain. Fig. 2 showsthe density and pressurefields in the domain for the steadystate solution. Comparedin Fig. 3 are the densityfields for the computedand exactsolutionsat y = 0.25. Our resultscomparequite well with those reportedby other researchers using alternateformulations [9,18]. 4.2. Supersonic flow past a cylinder Mach 2 flow pasta circular cylinder is computedfor two cases. the first casethe original compressible In flow equationsare employedby setting z = 1 in Eqs. (19)(22), i.e. the pressureis determinedby the equationof statefor a perfectgas.The secondcaseis computedwith the unified formulation wherez is definedby Eq. (23). The meshemployed,consistsof 5120 quadrilateralelementsand 5264 nodes.The Reynoldsnumberbasedon the diameterof the cylinder and the freestream valuesof the velocity and kinematic viscosity is 2000, and the Prandtl Number is 0.72. The cylinder wall is assumed be adiabaticand the noslip condition is specifiedfor to the velocity on the surfaceof the cylinder. All the variablesare specifiedat the upstream boundary.At the upper and lower boundaries,normal componentsof the velocity and heat flux are set to zero together with the tangentialcomponentof the stressvector. At the downstream boundary,we specify a Neumanntype boundary condition for the velocity and energythat is consistentwith the variational formulation given by Eq. (33). The computationsare initiated with freestreamconditions in the entire domain and continue till the steadystate norm of the solution falls below a certain desired value. Shown in Fig. 4 are the density, temperatureand pressurefields for the steadystate solution computedand the augmented conservationvaluesformulation with
238
S. Minai, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
,
//'~
~
"
I
0"'
ion ~rl1
~#LJ
~
r""""
W~'.
f
":';/
''~
,""
"'\,
a. ,...".
1
~
"\'\J '~
~\\
\ \1 \'
Fig. 5. Mach = 2, Re = 2000 flow past a cylinder computed with z defined by Eq. (23): density, temperature and pressure fields (and their closeups in the lower row) for the steadystate solution.
z = 1. One can observea strong bow shock upstreamof the cylinder and a weak tail shock in the wake. The
shock standoff distancecompares quite well with experimentalobservations[19]. It can also be observedthat the shock has been capturedquite well within two to three elements.Solution to the sameproblem has been computedby the conservation variablesformulation on a much finer meshwith 16000 elementsand reportedin [13]. On comparing the two solutions we observe that the conservation variables and the agumented conservationvariablesformulations lead to quite comparableresults. Fig. 5 shows the density, temperatureand pressurefields for the steadystate solution computedwith the unified formulation with z defined by Eq. (23). On comparing Figs. 5 and 4 we observethat they are quite similar exceptthat the density and the temperature fields exhibit somedifferencesclose to the cylinder wall. In the caseof unified formulation, with z definedby Eq. (23), the divergencefree constraintkicksin very closeto the wall of cylinder where the Mach number is nearly zero. In this region, the mass balanceequation (19) behaves like an advectionequationfor density.As a result one observes from the contourplots, very closeto the wall of the cylinder, that the flow attemptsto advect the density from the upstreamto downstreamlocations. This is certainly not the casein Fig. 5 where the pressureis determinedby the stateequationfor a perfect gas and not by the divergencefree constraint.It is quite interestingto note that the pressure fields computedby the two formulations are almost identical. The drag coefficient computedby both the formulations is 1.48. Thesetest problemsdemonstrate that the unified compressibleincompressible formulation results in correct shock location and strengthfor both viscous and inviscid flows.
4.3. Subsonic flow past a cylinder
The main motivation to develop the unified compressibleincompressible formulation is to improve the performance compressible of flow algorithm at low Mach numbers.In this sectionwe presentour solutionsfor
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
239
flow past a circular cylinder at Re 100 and low Mach numbers.The Prandtl Number is 0.72. The cylinder residesin a rectangular computational domain whoseupstreamand downstream boundaries locatedat 15 and are 35 cylinder radii, respectively,from the cylinder's center.The upper and lower boundaries placedat 16 radii are from the centerof the cylinder. The finite elementmeshconsistsof 4688 quadrilateralspacetimeelementsand 4826 nodes.At eachtime step,4741.2nonlinearequationsare solved iteratively to computethe flow field. The cylinder surfaceis assumed be adiabaticand the no slip condition is specifiedfor the velocity on the cylinder to wall. At the upstreamboundary,density, velocity and temperature assignedto their freestreamvalues.At are the downstreamboundary,we specify a Neumanntype boundarycondition for the velocity and energy that is consistentwith the variational formulation given by Eq. (33). At the upper and lower computational boundaries, normal components the velocity and heat flux are set to zero togetherwith the tangentialcomponentof the of stressvector. We first presentour results for Mach 0.2 flow computedwith z = 1. Fig. 6 shows vorticity, the pressureand temperaturefields correspondingto the peak value of lift coefficient. Fig. 7 shows the time histories of the lift and drag coefficientsfor that part of the simulation when the periodic solution is achieved. The Strouhalnumbercorresponding the variation of lift coefficient for this caseis 0.164. Figs. 8 and 9 show to the solution for Mach 0.2 flow computedwith the unified formulation with z definedby Eq. (23). The Strouhal numbercorresponding the variation of lift coefficientfor this caseis 0.169. As expected, two solutionsare to the quite similar. On comparingFigs. 6 and 8 we observethat thereare somedifferencesin the temperature fields of the two cases.As has beenexplainedin the previous section,in the caseof unified formulation, the flow very close to the wall is modeledby incompressible flow equationsand therefore,the temperature changes take place only because viscouseffects. On the other hand,in the caseof computations of with z = 1, density, temperature and pressurechangestake place in accordancewith the equation of state for perfect gas. Therefore, the contribution to temperature changescome from, both, the viscous and compressibleeffects. The formulation basedpurely on the compressible flow equations, with z = 1.,fails to yield an acceptable i.e. unsteadysolution at Mach 0.05 with the presentmesh.However,if the meshis refined it is possibleto compute
r++
\ r
~~
right) at the peak value of the lift coefficient.
1.50 1.25 1.00 "C U.0.50 <3 0.25 0.00 0.25 .0.50 0.75
I I.
... 1\\
Fig. 6. Mach = 2, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computed with z = 1: vorticity, pressure and temperature fields (and their closeups on the
~
~
~~~J
i\ i\
\ j
20
f"\
f\
\;
0
\/
40
v
t
f\
\J
60
f\
\ I
/'\
v
80
100
Fig. 7. Mach = 0.2, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computedwith z = 1: time histories of the lift and drag coefficients.
240
S. Minai, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
the unsteadyflow at Mach 0.05. It hasbeenour experience that the low Mach numberflows are very sensitiveto the spatialrefinement.For a given meshthere exists a certainMach numberbelow which the compressible flow formulation breaksdown. On the other hand, with the unified compressibleincompressible flow formulation, one is able to computeflows at any Mach number.Figs. 10 and 11 show the solution for unsteadyflow past a cylinder at Mach 0.05 computedwith z definedby Eq. (23). The Strouhalnumbercorresponding the variation to
Fig. 8. Mach = 2, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computed with z defined by Eq. (23): vorticity, pressure and temperature fields (and their closeups on the right) at the peak value of the lift coefficient.
1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75
C3 0.50 : U 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50
~~~J
~ !\
i\
\J
0
f\
\ I
20
\/
40
v
I
'\
('\
i\
vi
I
'\
'\ I
\/
'\ I
60 80 100 t Fig. 9. Mach = 0.2, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computedwith z defined by Eq. (23): time histories of the lift and drag coefficients.
S. Mitral, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
241
1.50
1.25 1.00 0.75
"C U
..: 0.50
[JJ~~J
~(\
1
U 0.25 0.00
0.25 0.50
(\
'V
'\J
20
(\
'V
(\
'V
40
I
(\
(\
( '\
'\ /
v
'\ /
\ i
60 80 100 t Fig. 11. Mach = 0.05, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computedwith z definedby Eq. (23): time histories of the lift and drag coefficients.
0
of lift coefficient for this case is 0.170.We observethat the solutions at Mach 0.05 and Mach 0.2 are quite similar except for certain differencesin the temperature fields that are due to the compressibilityeffects. The demonstrate robustness the unified formulation we computethe unsteadyflow past a cylinder at Mach the of 0.001 and in the incompressible limit. The solution at Mach 0.001 is shown in Figs. 12 and 13 while the one in the incompressible limit is shownin Figs. 14 and 15.The incompressible flow caseis computedby settingz = O. The Strouhal number for vortex sheddingin both the casesis 0.170.We observethat the solutions for Mach numbers0.05, 0.001 and in the incompressiblelimit are almost indistinguishableand agree quite well with results from alternateformulations for incompressibleflows [20].
:~
,I
Fig. 12. their closeups on the right) at the peak value of the lift coefficient.

~
Mach = 0.001, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computed with z defined by Eq. (23): vorticity, pressure and temperature fields (and
t Fig. 13. Mach = 0.001, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computedwith z definedby Eq. (23): time historiesof the lift and drag coefficients.
.


.
242
S. Mittal, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
Fig. 14. Incompressible, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computed withz= on the right) at the peak value of the lift coefficient.
0: vorticity, pressure and temperature fields (and their closeups
1.50 1.25 1.00 "0 O 0.50 U 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
~~~] "(\
v v
20
(\
f\
\/
f\
\;
40
f\
f\
\/
60
v
f"\
\J
80
f\
\/
100
Fig. 15. Incompressible, Re = 100 flow past a cylinder computed with z
= 0:
time histories of the lift and drag coefficients.
5. Conclusions A unified formulation for compressibleand incompressibleflows in terms of the augmentedconservation variableshasbeenproposed. caseof compressible In flows the equationof statedetermines pressure the whereas it is the divergencefreeconstraint on velocity field that sets the pressurefor incompressibleflows. The appropriategoverning equationsare chosen locally based on the local Mach number. The formulation was successfullyapplied to various numerical testsinvolving steadyand unsteadyflows over a range of Mach and Reynoldsnumbers.
Acknowledgement This work was sponsored ARPA and by the Army High Performance by Computing Research Centerunder the auspicesof the Department of the Army, Army ResearchLaboratory cooperative agreementnumber DAAH049520003 contract number DAHH04950008.The content does not necessarily / reflect the position or the policy of the government, and no official endorsement shouldbe inferred. The CRAY time was provided, in part, by the University of Minnesota Supercomputer Institute.
References
[1] E. Turkel, Review of preconditioning methods for fluid dynamics, Technical Report 9247, Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, NASA Langley Research Center, September 1992.
S. Mittai, T. Tezduyar I Comput. Methods Appi. Mech. Engrg. 161 (1998) 229243
243
[2] G. Hauke and T.J.R. Hughes, A unified approach to compressible and incompressible flows, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 113 (1994) 389395. [3] G. Hauke, A unified approach to compressible and incompressible flows and a new entropyconsistent formulation of the Kepsilon model, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, 1995. [4] J.M. Weiss and W.A. Smith, Preconditioningapplied to variable and constantdensity flows, AIAA J. 33(11) (1995) 20502057. [5] S.M.H. Karimian and G.E. Schneider, Pressurebased controlvolume finite element method for flow at all speeds, AIAA J. 33(9) (1995) 16111618. [6] T.E. Tezduyar and T.J.R. Hughes, Development of timeaccurate finite element techniques for firstorder hyperbolic systems with particular emphasis on the compressible Euler equations, Report prepared under NASAAmes University Consortium Interchange, No. NCA20R745104, 1982. [7] T .E. Tezduyar and T.J .R. Hughes, Finite element formulations for convection dominated flows with particular emphasis on the compressible Euler equations, in: Proc. AIAA 21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 830125, Reno, Nevada, 1983. [8] G.J. Le Beau, The finite element computation of compressible flows, Master's Thesis, Aerospace Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1990. [9] G.J. Le Beau and T.E. Tezduyar, Finite element computation of compressible flows with the SUPG formulation, in: M.N. Dhaubhadel, M.S. Engelman and J.N. Reddy, eds., Advances in Finite Element Analysis in Fluid Dynamics, FEDVol. 123 (ASME, New York, 1991) 2127. [10] G.J. Le Beau, S.E. Ray, S.K. Aliabadi and T.E. Tezduyar, SUPG finite element computation of compressible flows with the entropy and conservation variables formulations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 104 (1993) 2742. [II] S.K. Aliabadi and T.E. Tezduyar, Spacetime finite element computation of compressible flows involving moving boundaries and interfaces, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 107(12) (1993) 209224. [12] S.K. Aliabadi, S.E. Ray and T.E. Tezduyar, SUPG finite element computation of compressible flows with the entropy and conservation variables formulations, Comput. Mech. II (1993) 300312. [13] S. Mittai, Finite element computation of unsteady viscous compressible flows, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. (1997), to appear. [14] R.L. Panton, Incompressible Flows (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984). [15] T.J.R. Hughes and A.N. Brooks, A multidimensional upwind scheme with no crosswind diffusion, in: T.J.R. Hughes, ed., Finite Element Methods for Convection Dominated Flows, AMDVol. 34 (ASME, New York, 1979) 1935. [16] T.J.R. Hughes and T.E. Tezduyar, Finite element methods for firstorder hyperbolic systems with particular emphasis on the compressible Euler equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 45 (1984) 217284. [17] Y. Saad and M. Schultz, GMRES: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsyrnrnetric linear systems, SIAM J. Scient. Statist. Comput. 7 (1986) 856869. [18] F. Shakib, Finite element analysis of the compressible Euler and NavierStokes equations, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, 1988. [19] H.W. Liepmann and A. Roshko, Elements of Gas Dynamics (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1957). [20] M. Behr, D. Hastreiter, S. Mittal and T.E. Tezduyar, Incompressible flow past a circular cylinder: Dependence of the computed flow field on the location of the lateral boundaries, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 123 (1995) 309316.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?