You are on page 1of 23



Computational fluid dynamics:

abbreviated as CFD, is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods 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 validation of such software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in fullscale testing, e.g. flight tests. Usually The fundamental basis of almost all CFD problems are the NavierStokes equations, which define any single-phase fluid flow. These equations can be simplified by removing terms describing viscosity to yield the Euler equations. Further simplification, by removing terms describing vorticity yields the full potential equations. Finally, these equations can be linearized to yield the linearized potential equations.

NavierStokes equations, describe the motion of fluid substances. These equations arise from applying Newton's second law to fluid motion, together with the assumption that the fluid stress is the sum of a diffusing viscous term (proportional to the gradient of velocity), plus a pressure term. The equations are useful because they describe the physics of many things of academic and economic interest. They may be used to model the weather, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe and air flow around a wing. The NavierStokes equations in their full and simplified forms help with the design of aircraft and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of power stations, the analysis of pollution, and many other things. Coupled with Maxwell's equations they can be used to model and study magneto hydrodynamics.

Fluid flows play an important role in various equipment and processes in the industry. Flows of air or water are often used for cooling purposes. To localize regions of deficient cooling or to improve the cooling performance of an apparatus insight in the cooling flow pattern is necessary. In general, information about the structure of the flow in a process or an apparatus can be obtained from measurements in experimental test facilities or from flow visualization studies. Although these techniques have proven to be of great importance, there are also limitations and a full picture of the flow field is often hard to obtain in this way. Computational Fluid Dynamics, commonly abbreviated as CFD, is a technique to model fluid flow using a computer simulation. Due to the recent rapid grow of powerful computer resources and the development of general purpose CFD software packages CFD can nowadays be applied to solve industrial flow problems. Today, CFD has already proven to be a valuable tool to complement experimental findings in flow structure studies. In a computational simulation the flow structure is computed by solving the mathematical equations that govern the flow dynamics. The result is a complete description of the three-dimensional flow in the entire flow domain in terms of the velocity field and pressure distribution, including profiles of temperature variations, density and other related physical quantities. Today's CFD codes include in their basic flow computations effects of heat and mass transfer and a range of physical and chemical models. These extensions are indispensable for application of CFD in process-technological flow problems. Velocity field The NavierStokes equations dictate not position but rather velocity. A solution of the NavierStokes equations is called a velocity field or flow field, which is a description of the velocity of the fluid at a given point in space and time. Once the velocity field is solved for, other quantities of interest (such as flow rate or drag force) may be found. This is different from what one normally sees in classical mechanics, where solutions are typically trajectories of position of a particle or deflection of a continuum. Studying velocity instead of position makes more sense for a fluid; however for visualization purposes one can compute various trajectories.

Properties Nonlinearity
The NavierStokes equations are nonlinear partial differential equations in almost every real situation .In some cases, such as one-dimensional flow and Stokes flow (or creeping flow), the equations can be simplified to linear equations. The nonlinearity makes most problems difficult or impossible to solve and is the main contributor to the turbulence that the equations model.

The nonlinearity is due to convective acceleration, which is an acceleration associated with the change in velocity over position. Hence, any convective flow, whether turbulent or not, will involve nonlinearity. An example of convective but laminar (non turbulent) flow would be the passage of a viscous fluid (for example, oil) through a small converging nozzle. Such flows, whether exactly solvable or not, can often be thoroughly studied and understood.

Turbulence Turbulence is the time dependent chaotic behavior seen in many fluid flows. It is generally believed that it is due to the inertia of the fluid as a whole: the culmination
of time dependent and convective acceleration; hence flows where inertial effects are small tend to be laminar (the Reynolds number quantifies how much the flow is affected by inertia). It is believed, though not known with certainty, that the Navier [5] Stokes equations describe turbulence properly. The numerical solution of the NavierStokes equations for turbulent flow is extremely difficult, and due to the significantly different mixing-length scales that are involved in turbulent flow, the stable solution of this requires such a fine mesh resolution that the computational time becomes significantly infeasible for calculation (see Direct numerical simulation). Attempts to solve turbulent flow using a laminar solver typically result in a time-unsteady solution, which fails to converge appropriately. To counter this, time-averaged equations such as the Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANS), supplemented with turbulence models, are used in practical computational fluid dynamics (CFD) applications when modeling turbulent flows. Some models include the Spalart-Allmaras, k- (k-omega), k- (kepsilon), and SST models which add a variety of additional equations to bring closure to the RANS equations. Another technique for solving numerically the NavierStokes equation is the Large eddy simulation (LES). This approach is computationally more expensive than the RANS method (in time and computer memory), but produces better results since the larger turbulent scales are explicitly resolved.

Incompressible flow of a Newtonian fluid. T

Methods were first developed to solve the Linearized Potential equations. Twodimensional methods, using conformal transformations of the flow about a cylinder to the flow about an airfoil were developed in the 1930s.[1] The computer power available paced development of three-dimensional methods. The first work using computers to model fluid flow, as governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, was preformed at Los Alamos National Labs, in the T3 group. The group published a paper modeling two dimensional swirling flow around an object in July 1963. This paper used the vorticity stream function method, developed by Jake Fromm at LANL. The first paper with three-dimensional model was published by John Hess [2] 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 (A230) was described in a paper written by Paul Rubbert and Gary Saaris of Boeing Aircraft in 1968. In time, more advanced three-dimensional Panel Codes were developed atBoeing (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 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.

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 PROFIL 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 PROFIL and XFOIL incorporate two-dimensional panel codes, with coupled boundary layer codes for airfoil analysis work. PROFIL uses a conformal transformation method for inverse airfoil design, while XFOIL has both a conformal transformation and an inverse panel method for airfoil design. Both codes are used. 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 EarllMurman and Julian Cole of Boeing in 1970. Frances Bauer, Paul Garabedian and David Korn of the Courant Institute at New York University (NYU) wrote a series of two-dimensional Full Potential airfoil codes that were widely used, the most important being named Program H. A further growth of Program H was developed by Bob Melnik and his group at Grumman Aerospace as Grumfoil. 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 threedimensional FLO57 code (1981) was used by others to produce such programs as Lockheed's TEAM program and IAI/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 exception of NASA's highly successful CART3D code, Lockheed's SPLITFLOW code and Georgia Tech's NASCARTGT).[3] Antony Jameson also developed the three-dimensional AIRPLANE code (1985) 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 NavierStokes equations were the ultimate target of developers. Twodimensional codes, such as NASA Ames' ARC2D code first emerged. A number of three-dimensional codes were developed (ARC3D, OVERFLOW, CFL3D are three successful NASA contributions), leading to numerous commercial packages. In all of these approaches the same basic procedure is followed. During preprocessing The geometry (physical bounds) of the problem is defined. The volume occupied by the fluid is divided into discrete cells (the mesh). The mesh may be uniform or non uniform. The physical modeling is defined for example, the equations of motions + enthalpy + radiation + species conservation Boundary conditions are defined. This involves specifying the fluid behavior and properties at the boundaries of the problem. For transient problems, the initial conditions are also defined. The simulation is started and the equations are solved iteratively as a steady-state or transient. Finally a postprocessor is used for the analysis and visualization of the resulting solution.


Discretization methods
The stability of the chosen discretization is generally established numerically rather than analytically as with simple linear problems. Special care must also be taken to ensure that the discretization handles discontinuous solutions gracefully. The Euler equations and NavierStokes equations both admit shocks, and contact surfaces. Some of the discretization methods being used are:


Finite volume method

The finite volume method (FVM) is a common approach used in CFD codes The governing equations are solved over discrete control volumes. Finite volume methods recast the governing partial differential equations (typically the NavierStokes equations) in a conservative form, and then discretize the new equation. This guarantees the conservation of fluxes through a particular control volume. The finite volume equation yields governing equations in the form,

is the vector of conserved variables, is the vector of fluxes (see Euler equations or NavierStokes equations), is the volume of the control volume where element, and is the surface area of the control volume element.

Finite element method

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 than FVM.[5] In this method, a weighted residual equation is formed:


is the equation residual at an element vertex ,

is the conservation is the

equation expressed on an element basis, volume of the element.

is the weight factor, and

Finite difference method

The finite difference method (FDM) has historical importance and is simple to program. It is currently only used in few specialized codes. Modern finite difference codes make use of an embedded boundary for handling complex geometries, making these codes highly efficient and accurate. Other ways to handle geometries include use of overlapping grids, where the solution is interpolated across each grid.


where is the vector of conserved variables, and the , , and directions respectively.

, and

are the fluxes in

Spectral element method

Spectral element method is a finite element type method. It requires the mathematical problem (the partial differential equation) to be casted in a weak formulation. This is typically done by multiplying the differential equation by an arbitrary test function and integrating over the whole domain. Purely mathematically, the test functions are completely arbitrary - they belong to an infinitely dimensional function space. Clearly an infinitely dimensional function space cannot be represented on a discrete spectral element mesh. And this is where the spectral element discretization begins. The most crucial thing is the choice of interpolating and testing functions. In a standard, low order FEM in 2D, for quadrilateral elements the most typical choice is the bilinear test or interpolating function of the form . In a spectral element method however, the interpolating and test functions are chosen to be polynomials of a very high order (typically e.g. of the 10th order in CFD applications). This guarantees the rapid convergence of the method. Furthermore, very efficient integration procedures must be used, since the number of integrations to be performed in numerical codes is big. Thus, high order Gauss integration quadratures are employed, since they achieve the highest accuracy with the smallest number of computations to be carried out. At the time there are some academic CFD codes based on the spectral element method and some more are currently under development, since the new time-stepping schemes arise in the scientific world. You can refer to the C-CFD website to see movies of incompressible flows in channels simulated with a spectral element solver or to the Numerical Mechanics (see bottom of the page) website to see a movie of the lid-driven cavity flow obtained with a completely novel unconditionally stable time-stepping scheme combined with a spectral element solver.

Boundary element method

In the boundary element method, the boundary occupied by the fluid is divided into a surface mesh.






Path lines temperature circulation Inside the incubator.

colored illustrate

by the





Post processing Michal-Noawak.



Flow modeling with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software lets you visualize and predict physical phenomena related to the flow of any substance. It is widely used in medical, pharmaceutical, and biomedical applications to analyze: manufacturing processes, device performance, physiological flows,


fluid-structure interactions, The effectiveness of drug delivery systems, etc. It is also gaining recognition as a valuable tool for streamlining the regulatory approval process. The insight you gain using Ansys' CFD software allows you to make accurate predictions, troubleshoot endless scenarios rapidly, and achieve overall cost reduction in development projects while reducing cycle time.



The Ansys' flagship CFD software, ANSYS-FLUENT, as well as the electronics industry custom-designed ANSYS-ICEPAK suite, offer high-performance electronics cooling solutions covering a wide range of real life problems on any level: Component, Board, Package, System. ANSYS-ICEPAK has been the industry standard for speed, accuracy, and ease-of-use, for many years now.



To meet the vast fluid flow modeling needs of a broad spectrum of industries around the world, Fluent has been at the forefront of developing and driving computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for more than two decades. Diverse modeling capabilities allow Fluent's software products to tackle problems from most major industry sectors. Product flexibility and customizability allow our customers to routinely push our products into new application areas. The number of industries that have benefited from using Asnsys' software products and services continues to expand. Customers have learned that CFD analysis can reduce the time to market, improve product quality, and save money.



Aerated lagoon. Path massless particles.



Plume path temperature.




Protecting and improving the quality of our environment today requires innovative design solutions that establish compliance with ever-expanding and more stringent regulations Flow modeling with Ansys' computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software helps you tackle your environmental flow problems in the most efficient and costeffective way. CFD complements physical modeling and other experimental techniques by providing a detailed look into your fluid flow problems, including complex physical processes such as turbulence, chemical reactions, heat and mass transfer, multiphase flows. In many cases, you can build and analyze virtual models at a fraction of the time and cost of physical modeling. This allows you to investigate more design options and "what if" scenarios than ever before. Moreover, flow modeling provides insights into your fluid flow problems that would be too costly or simply prohibitive by experimental techniques alone. The added insight and understanding gained from flow modeling gives you confidence in your design proposals, avoiding the added costs of over sizing and over specification, while reducing risk..


CFD for the Aerospace Industry


Aircraft Aerodynamics Advances made in CFD technologies, coupled with the phenomenal growth in the speed and memory of computers in the last decade, have made it possible to routinely conduct aerodynamic simulations of complete aircraft configurations. The ability to model a complete aircraft at desired flight conditions provides valuable aerodynamic data to enable faster and cheaper design and evaluation cycles.

Military Aircraft Configurations CFD solutions on complete military aircraft configurations have become a routine requirement. CFD solutions are used to augment test data or provide data that is difficult or impossible to obtain otherwise. Because CFD can model actual flight conditions, problems that arise with sub-scale ground testing are not a concern. Reynolds number effects, tunnel blockage effects, and support hardware effects do not exist with CFD. Obtaining flow field data near flight test vehicles is extremely difficult, while such data is inherent in the CFD solution.

The CFD-FASTRAN flow solver has been widely used for aerodynamic predictions over complete and partial aircraft configurations. Block structured, chimera overset, and unstructured meshes have all been used with CFD-FASTRAN for analyses over a wide range of flight conditions. ESI Group engineers have considerable experience in applying CFD technology for aircraft aerodynamic analysis and design support. The F/A-18 results shown here were obtained from separate studies for buffet and control analysis and for store loaded aircraft aerodynamic predictions.


Business Jet Configuration Analysis The CFD-FASTRAN flow solver has been used for aerodynamic flow field predictions of civil transport and business jets. The flexibility of using block structured, chimera overset, and unstructured meshes, and the availability of several turbulence models and high-order schemes make the software a very attractive tool for business jet applications. ESI Group engineers also provide consultation services to the aircraft industry in the area of aerodynamic analysis and design support. The results shown here were obtained from a study conducted to optimize the wing design and inlet duct placement on a new business jet.

Rotorcraft Hover Aerodynamic Predictions The helicopter rotor flow-field presents many challenges for flow prediction computational tools. Several flow phenomena including turbulence, blade stall, rolling vortices, and wildly disparate velocities on the retreating and advancing blades make rotorcraft flow fields some of the most difficult to predict. ESI Group has developed several technologies for rotorcraft flow field predictions. Some of these technologies are embedded in the CFDFASTRAN code, which provides a powerful tool for modeling rotorcraft aerodynamics. The chimera/overset grid methodology can be used to model the moving rotor-blade. The motion model dependencies capability can be used to model complex rotor motion such as lead, lag, and flapping. The code's high order schemes and several turbulence


models can be used to model the highly viscous phenomena such as tip-vortex generation.

The simulations shown here were performed to predict the flow field of a generic Rotor Body Interaction (ROBIN) helicopter body with a fourbladed rotor in a hover configuration. The animation shows the time accurate predictions of the blade motion and its effects on fuselage surface pressure distribution.

G e n r

Aerodynamic Analysis of X-35B VSTOL Effects VSTOL aircraft in ground effect produce a very complex flow. High and low temperature gases impinge on the ground, spread, and mix in very intricate patterns. In the early stages of the design process, predictions of this type of flow are critical for analyses of ground crew safety, hot gas ingestion, twin-jet fountain effects, and VSTOL suck down. ESI Group has developed and implemented into the CFD-FASTRAN code a structured chimera overset mesh technology for complex geometry modeling and moving body applications. This overset mesh technology has been successfully applied to many types of problems. In a recent project for the U.S. Navy, the overset capability was used to model a complete X-35B aircraft in VSTOL mode. This capability allowed the modeling of all the open doors, inlets, landing gear and deflected surfaces of the aircraft in the complex flow field generated by the downward directed jets.


Pitching Airfoil Wing Analysis This moving airfoil case demonstrates some of the moving body capabilities of CFD-FASTRAN. In this solution, the motion of the flap relative to the airfoil was prescribed using the Prescribed Motion Module. The aerodynamic loads on the system were calculated and used by the Rigid Body Motion 6-DOF Module to determine the motion of the entire airfoil-flap system. This type of solution process is easily applied to more complex geometries, enabling the simulation of maneuvering aircraft or moving control surfaces.

Crew Escape System Crew escape systems are an integral feature in combat aircraft. Two main concerns with such systems are their aerodynamic stability, and the potential injury level to which their occupants are exposed. CFDRC, sponsored by the US Navy and the SBIR program, has been on the forefront of developing CFD technology for escape system aerodynamic analysis, design support and injury reduction. CFDRC engineers have worked very closely with the U.S Navy and major ejection seat manufacturers on developing and applying CFD technology to support major escape system programs including ejection seat upgrades, mishap investigations and design of new systems. Areas of applications include ejection seat and canopy trajectory simulation, windblast protection, stabilization devices, head and neck injury assessment, helmet mounted Display (HMD) and goggles, inflatable restraint systems and rocket plume interference. The developed numerical technologies and related capabilities have been incorporated into the CFD-FASTRAN code.


Analysis of Helmet-Mounted Display and Goggles The presence of a helmet-mounted display (HMD) and night vision goggles adds another level of complexity to the crew escape sequence. Before such devices can be safely used , any harmful side effects they may have must be determined.