61 views

Uploaded by CFDiran.ir

Solution to industry benchmark problems with the
lattice-Boltzmann code XFlow

Solution to industry benchmark problems with the
lattice-Boltzmann code XFlow

© All Rights Reserved

- history of CFD and its important methods
- Characteristics Finite Element Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics - J. Iannelli (Springer, 2006) WW.pdf
- A New Mesh-free Vortex Method P-hd Thesis
- Knutsson, M. - IC Engine Intake Noise Predictions
- Ship Vessel ABAQUS
- Using Cfd Hydrodynamic Coefficents
- CFD Books
- Aerodynamics
- Advanced Fluid Mechanics
- Lecture 20 Updated
- CFD_Concept and Applications
- Numerical Flow Analysis for Spillways
- Artigo_rocky Dem and Ansys Cfd Coupling
- WB1_01_DM_11_CH01_Intro
- L5C.ppt
- Xiang 2014
- Vectors.doc
- MODEL HAC
- sm ch (15)
- Prese Nation

You are on page 1of 22

David M. Holman1 , Ruddy M. Brionnaud1 , and Zaki Abiza1

1

david.holman@nextlimit.com

Abstract

This contribution presents some of the capabilities of the Computational

Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code XFlow, which uses a proprietary particle-based

kinetic solver based on the Lattice-Boltzmann Method. Using traditional

CFD software, industrial problems require time consuming meshing process

which often leads to errors or even divergence of the simulation. Due to its

particle-based and fully Lagrangian approach, the complexity of the geometry

surfaces is not a limiting factor in XFlow even in the presence of moving

parts, allowing to solve real industrial problems. The performance of XFlow

will be demonstrated for different industry benchmarks. The first example is

the Ahmed body which is a classical benchmark in the automotive industry.

The second benchmark presented will be the NASA trapezoidal wing. XFlow

results will be described and show good agreement with experimental data.

Keywords: Lattice-Boltzmann, Lagrangian, particle-based, Ahmed body,

NASA trapezoidal wing

1. Introduction

For the past 20 years, the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

has reached a high level of maturity, but it has only been recently that

CFD has been broadly applied to the improvement of several processes at

different stages: research, design, manufacturing, optimization, etc. The

need for robust and reliable analysis tools is therefore growing rapidly, in

proportion to the increasing complexity of simulations. To provide quick,

accurate feedback to realistic engineering problems is consequently essential

for companies to be competitive.

Preprint submitted to ECCOMAS 2012

methods involving finite volumes and finite elements, applied to NavierStokes equations. However, even though such methods have been widely

investigated, they still hold major drawbacks, limiting their capacity to

solve real industrial problems: uncertainties induced by the meshing process; highly empirical approaches to the turbulence modeling (RANS); the

treatment of the nonlinear convective term; artificial stabilization parameters; and so on. Because of this, in most cases engineers are not able to model

real systems; they are forced to fall back on simplified models and approximations. These methods require a time-consuming meshing process, are not

tolerant to moving parts, and are usually limited to steady-state analysis,

ignoring transient dynamics.

Particle-based methods have been in development for several decades, and

are now starting to come to the fore. Among them, the promising LatticeBoltzmann Method (LBM) surmounts many of the drawbacks of traditional

CFD methods. XFlow CFD uses a particle-based and fully Lagrangian approach based on LBM. With this method, classic fluid-domain meshing is

not required and surface complexity is not a limiting factor.

XFlow has been validated in several benchmarks, demonstrating the validity of the method to solve industrial problems. The first example presented

in this paper is the Ahmed body, a classic benchmark for the automotive industry. The cars geometry has a variable slant angle and is a challenging

test case in terms of turbulence modelling and drag estimation. The NASA

trapezoidal wing is the second benchmark presented in this paper, a three

element airfoil composed of a slat, a main blade and a flap. The goal is

to assess the aerodynamic coefficients on a large range of incidence angles,

including the post-stall region.

2. Numerical methodology

Over the last few years, schemes based on minimal kinetic models for the

Boltzmann equation are becoming increasingly popular as a reliable alternative to conventional CFD approaches.

The Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) was originally developed as an improved modification of the Lattice Gas Automata to remove statistical noise

and achieve better Galilean invariance [1, 2]. Due to the flexibility afforded

by its close connection to kinetic theory, the LBM can be adapted to model

several physical phenomena. Recent research has led to major improvements,

2

flow and fully compressible flow [3, 4, 5].

2.1. Lattice Gas Automata

The Lattice Gas Automata (LGA) is a simple scheme for modeling the

behavior of gases. The basic idea behind the LGA is that particles with

specific velocities (ei , i = 1, ..., b) propagate through a d-dimensional lattice,

at discrete times t = 0, 1, 2, ... and collide according to specific rules designed

to preserve the mass and the linear momentum when different particles reach

the same lattice position.

The simplest LGA model is the HPP approach, introduced by Hardy,

Pomeau and de Pazzis, in which particles move in a two-dimensional square

lattice and in four directions (d = 2, b = 4). The state of an element of the

lattice at instant t is given by the occupation number ni (r, t), with ni = 1

being presence and ni = 0 absence of particles with velocity ei .

The stream-and-collide equation that governs the evolution of the system

is

ni (r + ei , t + dt) = ni (r, t) + i (n1 , ..., nb ), i = 1, ..., b,

(1)

where i is the collision operator that computes a post-collision state conserving mass and linear momentum. If one were to assume i = 0, only an

streaming operation would be performed.

From a statistical point of view, the system is made up of a large number

of elements which are macroscopically equivalent to the problem investigated.

The macroscopic density and linear momentum can be computed as:

=

v =

b

1X

ni

b i=1

(2)

b

1X

ni ei

b i=1

(3)

While the LGA schemes use boolean logic to represent the occupation

stage, the LBM method makes use of statistical distribution functions fi

with real variables, preserving by construction the conservation of mass and

linear momentum.

The Boltzmann transport equation is defined as follows:

fi

+ ei fi = i , i = 1, ..., b,

t

3

(4)

where fi is the particle distribution function in the direction i, ei the corresponding discrete velocity and i the collision operator.

The stream-and-collide scheme of the LBM can be interpreted as a discrete approximation of the continuous Boltzmann equation. The streaming

or propagation step models the advection of the particle distribution functions along discrete directions, while most of the physical phenomena are

modeled by the collision operator which also has a strong impact on the

numerical stability of the scheme.

In the most common approach, a single-relaxation time (SRT) based on

the Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) approximation is used

BGK

=

i

1 eq

(f fi ),

i

(5)

as follows

1

= c2s ( ).

(6)

2

fieq is the local equilibrium function usually defined as

fieq

= wi

ei u u u

1+ 2 +

cs

2c2s

ei ei

c2s

!!

(7)

delta and the wi are weighting constants built to preserve the isotropy. The

and subindexes denote the different spatial components of the vectors appearing in the equation and Einsteins summation convention over repeated

indices has been used.

By means of the Chapman-Enskog expansion the resulting scheme can be

shown to reproduce the hydrodynamic regime for low Mach numbers [5, 6, 7].

The single-relaxation time approach is commonly used because of its simplicity. However it is not well-posed for high Mach number applications and

it is prone to numerical instabilities. Some of the limitations of the BGK are

addressed with multiple-relaxation-time (MRT) collision operators where the

collision process is carried out in moment space instead of the usual velocity

space

(8)

MRT

= Mij1 Sij (meq

i mi ),

i

where the collision matrix Sij is diagonal, meq

i is the equilibrium value of the

moment mi and Mij is the transformation matrix [8, 9].

4

approach is the entropic lattice Boltzmann (ELBM) scheme, which may rely

on a single-relaxation-time where the attractors of the particle distribution

functions are based on the minimization of a Lyapunov-type functional enforcing the H-theorem locally in the collision step. However, this method is

expensive from the computational point of view [10] and thus not used in

practical engineering applications.

The collision operator in XFlow is based on a multiple relaxation time

scheme. However, as opposed to standard MRT, the scattering operator is

implemented in central moment space. The relaxation process is performed

in a moving reference frame by shifting the discrete particle velocities with

the local macroscopic velocity, naturally improving the Galilean invariance

and the numerical stability for a given velocity set [11].

Raw moments can be defined as

xk y l z m =

N

X

fi ekix eliy em

iz

(9)

(10)

xk y l z m =

N

X

i

The approach used for turbulence modeling is the Large Eddy Simulation

(LES). This scheme introduces an additional viscosity, called turbulent eddy

viscosity t , in order to model the subgrid turbulence. The LES scheme we

have used is the Wall-Adapting Local Eddy viscosity model, that provides a

consistent local eddy-viscosity and near wall behavior [12].

The actual implementation is formulated as follows:

(Gd Gd )3/2

(S S )5/2 + (Gd Gd )5/4

g + g

=

2

1 2

1

2

2

=

(g + g

) g

2

3

u

=

x

t = 2f

S

Gd

g

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

where f = Cw x is the filter scale, S is the strain rate tensor of the resolved

scales and the constant Cw is typically 0.325.

A generalized law of the wall that takes into account for the effect of

adverse and favorable pressure gradients is used to model the boundary layer

[13]:

U1 + U2

u U1 up U2

U

=

=

+

uc

uc

uc u

uc up

w u

dpw /dx up

+ u

+ up

=

f1 y

f2 y

+

u2 uc

uc

|dpw /dx| uc

uc

uc y

+

y =

uc = u + up

u =

up =

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

|w | /

(19)

!

dp 1/3

w

.

dx

(20)

Here, y is the normal distance from the wall, u is the skin friction velocity,

w is the turbulent wall shear stress, dpw /dx is the wall pressure gradient, up

is a characteristic velocity of the adverse wall pressure gradient and U is the

mean velocity at a given distance from the wall. The interpolating functions

f1 and f2 given by Shih et al. [13] are depicted in figure 1.

25

45

f1 (y + u/uc )

40

20

f2 (y + up /uc )

35

30

15

f2

f1

25

10

20

15

10

5

100

101

y + u/uc

102

100

101

y + up /uc

102

The Ahmed Body is a classic benchmark for the automotive industry. It

was first defined and its characteristics described in the experimental work

of Ahmed [14]. The car geometry was studied at various slant angles from

0 to 40 degrees. The experimental measurements were conducted by Ahmed

in the DFVLR subsonic wind tunnels at Braunschweig and Gottingen which

have a square nozzle of (3 x 3) m and a length of 5.8 m.

The first goal of this study is to validate the curve of the drag coefficient

against the slant angle obtained by Ahmed in [14], and the second one is to

analyze the mean recirculation structures on the slant surface of the Ahmed

body and in the downstream region.

3.1. Simulation setup

A strictly identical geometry to the one used by Ahmed was imported

into the virtual wind tunnel featured in XFlow. This virtual wind tunnel

consists of a rectangular domain and was set to dimensions of (8 x 2 x 2)

m. A far-field velocity boundary condition was used at the inlet and the

top boundaries, and zero gauge pressure was imposed at the outlet. Periodic

boundary conditions were set on the side walls, and a free-slip wall with no

velocity was imposed at the bottom boundary.

The geometry of the Ahmed body was separated into two parts in order

to simplify the setup modification for variable slant angles. The first part is

the fore body that has an invariable geometry. The second part is the rear

body which is replaced when the slant angle changes. These two parts are

shown on figure 2.

Reynolds number based on the car length equal to 4.29 million. The sim7

Inlet velocity

Density

Dynamic viscosity

Car length

Reynolds number

Slant angles

Turbulence intensity

60 m/s

1 kg/m3

1.46014 105 Pa.s

1044 mm

4.29 106

0 ; 5 ; 10 ; 12.5 ; 15 ; 20 ; 25 ; 30 ; 40 degrees

0.5%

ulation time was two seconds and the time step t = 7.69231 105 s is

automatically estimated by XFlow to ensure the numerical stability.

3.2. Spatial discretization

Since XFlow is a particle based technology it does not require a timeconsuming meshing process. The preprocessor generates the initial octree

lattice structure based on the input geometries and the user-specified resolution for each geometry. The lattice may have several levels of detail which

are hierarchically arranged. Each level solves spatial and temporal scales

two times smaller than the previous level, thus forming the aforementioned

octree structure.

The lattice structure may be modified later by the solver if the computational domain changes (due to the presence of moving parts) or if the

resolution changes dynamically in order to adapt to the flow patterns (adaptive wake refinement). The adaptive wake refinement feature in XFlow is

based on the module of the vorticity field: in the lattice elements where

the vorticity reaches a threshold value the lattice is automatically refined.

Similarly, when the vorticity is lower than another threshold, eight adjacent

lattice elements are merged to form a coarser lattice element. This saves

computational resources and removes the need to refine your solution in advance. Consequently, as in illustrated figure 3, three resolutions are required

by the user: the far field, the wake and the near wall resolutions.

In order to select the best resolution near the walls and within the wake

that allows us to get good results in an acceptable time, a resolution dependency study is conducted before starting the validation of the Ahmed body.

This preliminary study consists in refining the resolutions and seeing how this

affects the accuracy of the results, but also checking if the code is converging

8

Figure 3: Example of lattice structure using the near wall and adaptive wake refinement

Table 2: Near walls and wake resolutions used in the resolution dependency study

Resolution (m)

# of Elements at t = 0.3 s

h

0.04

88,316

h/2

0.02

222,337

h/22

0.01

1,132,292

h/23

0.005

8,316,626

by XFlow for a slant angle of 35 degrees which is a reference angle for this

benchmark. The far field is taken constant as 0.08 m, and four resolutions

are considered for the walls and the wake as described table 2.

The drag coefficient is computed for the four cases and compared with

the experimental value measured by Ahmed [14]. The drag points from the

simulations are plotted in figure 4 in function of the number of elements at

t = 0.3 s. The point corresponding to the resolution h/22 = 0.01 m gives

good results and in an acceptable time for a slant angle = 35 , and will

therefore become the reference near wall resolution for the rest of the study.

The figure 4 also confirms the convergence of the code to the correct solution.

A second question arises regarding the value of the wake resolution. As

the wake refinement algorithm creates a significant number of elements as it

develops, its importance in the drag contribution must be assessed accurately

to get a good compromise between solution quality and computational time.

Hence, a second study is conducted on the wake resolution starting from the

elected near wall resolution (0.01 m) and then increasing by multiples of two,

due to the lattice structure. The figure 5 demonstrates the importance of

solving the wake accurately: using the same resolution near the walls and

within the wake the drag coefficient history shows a nice prediction, but

9

0.65 h

0.60

0.55

Drag Coefficient, Cx

0.50

0.45

0.40

h/2

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.200

h/22

1000

h/23

2000

3000

4000

5000

N (103 nodes)

6000

7000

8000

9000

Figure 4: Drag coefficient against the number of lattice nodes for different resolutions at

= 35

as soon as the wake resolution is the double or quadruple of the near wall

resolution affects the results quite dramatically. Hence, for all our runs, the

spatial discretization chosen for all the different slant angles is done with an

automatic wake refinement with a resolution of 0.08 m for the far field, and

0.01 m around the Ahmed body and within the wake.

3.3. Numerical results

The time required in XFlow to set up the case is about 10 minutes and

mainly consists in geometry importation, the flow and boundary specifications, and the resolution setup. The calculation time is almost the same for

all the slant angles and varies between 6 and 8 hours with the previously

selected resolutions on two Intel Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz).

The first result given by Ahmed is the curve representing the drag coefficient against the slant angle , and gives the drag contributions of every

part of the Ahmed body: the front Ck , the rear vertical surface Cb , the rear

slant surface Cs and the friction drag Cr . The total drag Ahmed found was

Cw and was the sum of the different contributions. Hence, the total drag

obtained from XFlow for the different slant angles is superimposed with the

Cw from Ahmed, as shown in figure 6.

From the figure 6 we observe a good overall drag prediction by the code:

the drag breakdown occurs right after 30 degrees and the minimum drag point

10

0.50

Wake 0.01m

Wake 0.02m

Wake 0.04m

Experimental

0.45

Drag Coefficient, Cx

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.200.0

0.1

0.2

Time (s)

0.3

0.4

0.5

is the critical angle 12.5 degrees, as measured by Ahmed. The absolute drag

values predicted by XFlow are accurate and the relative error varies from

only 0.4% to 3.2% for most of the angles, except around the drag breakdown

and at 0 degree angle where it reaches a maximum of only 7.1%. These small

discrepancies can be explained, on the one hand, by the complexity around

the flow around 30 degrees of slant angle which is switching from a massive

3D separation in the near-wake region to an almost 2D attached structure at

higher angles [15], and, on the other hand, by stronger gradients produced

by the rear of the car at 0 degree angle.

3.4. Flow field results

The second part of the results analysis is done by analyzing the main

recirculation structures resulting from the flow around the Ahmed body. For

this study, the averaging of the flow fields is required in order to filter the

temporal fluctuations and to identify the main structures of the turbulent

wake. The averaging of the fields started from t = 0.3 s when the flow was

established, as indicated for example by figure 5, to cut off the transient

period.

Ahmed provides pictures of the oil flow on the slanted surface for =

12.5, 25 and 30 degrees. It can be compared with XFlow which features

Line Integral Convolution (LIC) that approximates the surface streamlines

on a body. The figure 7 shows similar structure for the three angles: a quite

11

smooth and attached flow at 12.5 degrees, smooth flow patterns with two

small and symmetric fringes on the sides at 25 degrees, and two large and

symmetric separation bubbles at 30 degrees.

Ahmed also provides different velocity vectors plots in the symmetry

plane of the car, showing the near-wake region. This allows the study of

the separation bubble on the rear slant and within the wake for different

slant angles.

Figure 8 compares the near-wake region for a slant angle of 5 degrees

between the experimental results measured by Ahmed and results obtained

by XFlow at the same scale. This allows us to check the length of the bubble

separation located around the non-dimensional coordinate x/Lref = 0.375,

predicted in an extremely similar way in the two pictures. Two main eddy

structures are detected - highlighted in red boxes on figure 8 - which are

symmetrical from the top and bottom of the separation bubble. The code

tends to locate them slightly further downstream, though with reasonable

overall flow patterns.

The near-wake structure for a slant angle of 25 degrees also show good

similarities. This figure 8 shows an equivalent triangular separation bubble,

ending around the non-dimensional coordinate x/Lref = 0.2 for both cases.

4. NASA trapezoidal wing benchmark

The NASA trapezoidal wing benchmark comes from the 1st AIAA CFD

High Lift Prediction Workshop (HiLiftPW-1), sponsored by the Applied

Aerodynamics Technical Committee, which took place in June 2010 in Chicago,

IL. The challenge was to simulate a half aircraft configuration composed of

a body and a 3-element airfoil with a plane of symmetry as shown in figure

9 for a wide range of angles of attack. The trapezoidal wing is composed

of slat, main element and flap. The latter can be in two different configurations: Configuration 1 at 25 degrees and Configuration 8 at 20 degrees of

angle-of-attack.

The objectives of the benchmark are multiple [16]:

Assess the prediction capability of CFD codes in landing/taking-off

configuration,

Develop practical modeling guidelines for the analysis of high-lift configurations,

12

Wake (m)

# of Elements at t = 0.3 s

h

0.04

0.08

201,513

h/2

0.02

0.04

653,211

h/22

h/23

0.01

0.005

0.02

0.01

2,893,687 21,880,186

CFD codes and modeling techniques,

Identify areas that require additional research and development.

4.1. Simulation setup

XFlow simulations were run for the Configuration 1 with no brackets. The

Mach number was 0.2, the Reynolds number based on the mean aerodynamic

chord (MAC) was 4.3 million. The angles of attack run for this benchmark

were: -4, 1, 6, 13, 21, 25, 28, 32, 34 and 37 degrees. The hardware used in

all the computations was a single workstation with two Intel Xeon E5620 @

2.4 GHz processors (8 cores) and 12GB of RAM.

A resolution dependency study has also been performed for this benchmark using the four resolutions described in Table 3 and a constant far field

resolution of 1.28 m. An incidence angle of 13 degrees which is one of the

reference angles of the first workshop was employed.

The drag coefficient obtained with each of the four simulations is plotted

in figure 10 as a function of the number of elements at t = 0.3 s. The

point corresponding to resolution h/23 gives the best estimation of the drag

compared to the experimental data, with only 1% of relative error. This

value will therefore be used as the reference near wall resolution for the rest

of the study.

However, two different wake resolutions have been used depending on the

incidence of the NASA trapezoidal wing. Indeed, for large angles of attack,

a significant wake develops and the number of lattice elements introduced by

the adaptive wake refinement increases. At 32 degrees, the simulation reaches

25 million lattice elements, which is the maximum number of elements that

can fit in the 12 GB of RAM available on the workstation. Special care is

thus required in order to keep this number within the memory constraints

for higher angles. The wake resolution has been limited to double the normal

value for those cases (Resolution 2 in table 4).

13

Table 4: Resolutions used for the 1st High Lift Prediction Workshop

Resolution 1

Resolution 2

Walls (m)

0.005

0.005

Wake (m)

0.01

0.02

1.28

1.28

Max. # of Particles

Angles

6

25 10

[-4 ; 32 ]

10 106

[34 ; 37 ]

The experimental data were produced at the 14x22 wind-tunnel at the

well-known NASA Langley. Forces, moments, and Cp distribution were provided with free transition [17]. Data were provided as lower and upper values

which are assumed to be the range of uncertainty in the wind tunnel measurements.

On figure 11, the drag coefficient against the angle of attack is shown.

XFlow results show very good agreement with the experimental data along

the whole range of angles. The drag slope is accurate and still behaves

correctly at both low and high incidences, with a slight slope decrease.

The lift coefficient is also very well predicted for the whole range of angles.

Within the range [1, 28] degrees, XFlow predicts accurately both slope and

absolute lift coefficient values. Starting from 32 degrees, the critical angle

is reached and the code also succeeds in predicting this: the wind tunnel

data indicates the maximum lift point at around 33 degrees, and it happens

between the point of 32 degrees and 34 degrees. Starting from that point,

the lift drops, due to a large bubble of separation on the wing. The bubble

of separation grows on the tip of the wing, as shown in the Figure 12.

Since both drag and lift coefficients are quite well predicted, the polar

curve on Figure 11 is hence matching the experimental results, especially in

the pre-stall region.

The pitching moment coefficients also lie between the upper and lower

limits of the experimental results within almost the whole range.

5. Conclusions

The CFD code XFlow features a kinetic particle-based solver that differs

from the traditional approaches, which are usually mesh-based. The latticeBoltzmann method employed is able to solve advanced industrial problems

even in the presence of complex geometries or moving parts.

14

efficiently. For instance the Ahmed body is a classic benchmark for the automotive industry that XFlow solved with a high degree of accuracy. XFlow

did not face convergence issues even for extreme slant angles, and changing

the rear of the car did not add additional workload. The code has been

demonstrated to be robust and accurate in terms of drag and flow pattern

prediction, and closely matches the data measured by Ahmed in the DFVLR

subsonic wind tunnel of Braunschweig including the drag breakdown around

30 degrees and the low slant angles where gradients are stronger.

The High Lift Prediction Workshop benchmark has also been successfully

validated by XFlow. The NASA trap wing geometry was tested within a

range of incidence between -4 and 37 degrees, which includes the post-stall

region. The drag, lift and pitching moment coefficients predicted by the code

are in good agreement with the experimental tests conducted in the NASA

Langley 14x22 wind tunnel. The stall angle is also accurately predicted

around 33 degrees.

XFlow has therefore demonstrated its robustness and accuracy in different

benchmarks. The method is well-suited for external aerodynamics and shows

strong potential for more advanced topics, such as analysis involving complex

geometries, the presence of moving parts and fluid-structure interaction.

References

[1] U. Frisch, B. Hasslacher, Y. Pomeau, Lattice-gas automata for the

navier-stokes equation, Physical review letters 56 (14) (1986) 15051508.

[2] G. R. McNamara, G. Zanetti, Use of the Boltzmann equation to simulate lattice-gas automata, Physical Review Letters 61 (1988) 23322335.

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.2332.

[3] S. Chen, G. Doolen, Lattice boltzmann method for fluid flows, Annual

review of fluid mechanics 30 (1) (1998) 329364.

[4] S. Succi, The lattice boltzmann equation, For Fluid Dynamics and Beyond.

[5] Z. Ran, Y. Xu, Entropy and weak solutions in the thermal model for

the compressible euler equations, Arxiv preprint arXiv:0810.3477.

15

Navier-Stokes equation, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 17 (1992) 479.

doi:10.1209/0295-5075/17/6/001.

[7] F. J. Higuera, J. Jimenez, Boltzmann approach to lattice gas simulations, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 9 (1989) 663. doi:10.1209/02955075/9/7/009.

[8] X. Shan, H. Chen, A general multiple-relaxation-time boltzmann collision model, International Journal of Modern Physics C 18 (4) (2007)

635643.

[9] D. dHumi`eres, Multiplerelaxationtime lattice boltzmann models in

three dimensions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

360 (1792) (2002) 437451.

[10] P. Asinari, Entropic multiple-relaxation-time lattice boltzmann models,

Tech. rep., Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy (2008).

[11] K. Premnath, S. Banerjee, On the three-dimensional central moment

lattice boltzmann method, Journal of Statistical Physics (2011) 148.

[12] F. Ducros, F. Nicoud, T. Poinsot, Wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity

models for simulations in complex geometries, in: Proceedings of 6th

ICFD Conference on Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 1998, pp.

293299.

[13] T. Shih, L. Povinelli, N. Liu, M. Potapczuk, J. Lumley, A generalized

wall function, NASA Technical Report.

[14] S. Ahmed, G. Ramm, G. Faitin, Some salient features of the timeaveraged ground vehicle wake, Tech. rep., Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA (1984).

[15] G. Franck, N. Nigro, M. Storti, J. DEla, Numerical simulation of the

flow around the ahmed vehicle model, Latin American applied research

39 (4) (2009) 295306.

[16] C. Rumsey, The 1st aiaa cfd high lift prediction workshop (Jun. 2010).

URL http://hiliftpw.larc.nasa.gov/index-workshop1.html

16

[17] C. McGinley, L. Jenkins, R. Watson, A. Bertelrud, 3-d high-lift flowphysics experimenttransition measurements, AIAA Paper 5148 (2005)

2005.

17

18

Figure 7: Averaged Line Integral Convolution (LIC) on the slanted surface from Ahmed

(left) and XFlow (right)

19

20

0.40

XFlow

Experiment

Drag Coefficient, CD

0.38

0.36

h/2

0.34

h/23

0.32

h/22

0.300

15

10

Number of Lattice Nodes (106 )

20

25

Figure 10: Drag coefficient against the number of lattice nodes for different resolutions at

= 13

0.8

3.5

Experimental

Experimental Lower

Experimental Upper

XFlow

3.0

Lift Coefficient, CL

Drag Coefficient, CD

1.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 10

3.5

10

(deg)

20

30

0.0 10

40

10

10

(deg)

20

30

20

30

40

0.1

2.5

Pitching Moment, Cm

Lift Coefficient, CL

(b)

0

0.0

3.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.00.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

(a)

0

2.5

2.0

(c)

0.2

0.4

0.6

Drag Coefficient, CD

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(d)

10

(deg)

40

Figure 11: Drag (a) and lift (b) coefficients against the angle of attack, the polar curve

(c), and the pitching moment coefficient (d)

21

22

- history of CFD and its important methodsUploaded byKaleeswaran Einstein
- Characteristics Finite Element Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics - J. Iannelli (Springer, 2006) WW.pdfUploaded bysana
- A New Mesh-free Vortex Method P-hd ThesisUploaded byPanot Ch
- Knutsson, M. - IC Engine Intake Noise PredictionsUploaded byThomas Moura
- Ship Vessel ABAQUSUploaded byamir_siddiq
- Using Cfd Hydrodynamic CoefficentsUploaded byJuan Santiago Latigo Colli
- CFD BooksUploaded byKamalpreet Saini
- AerodynamicsUploaded byFeiD.Hola
- Advanced Fluid MechanicsUploaded byEme Elibe Johnson Emestar
- Lecture 20 UpdatedUploaded byDanny Cheng
- CFD_Concept and ApplicationsUploaded byTejas Shah
- Numerical Flow Analysis for SpillwaysUploaded byZaid Hadi
- Artigo_rocky Dem and Ansys Cfd CouplingUploaded byEruaro Guerra Carvajal
- WB1_01_DM_11_CH01_IntroUploaded bytobeloyalty
- L5C.pptUploaded bybrian
- Xiang 2014Uploaded byVivian Itu Bioage
- Vectors.docUploaded byromwama
- MODEL HACUploaded byHossein Zohdi Rad
- sm ch (15)Uploaded byFlya Leung
- Prese NationUploaded bydddids
- 1564_infoUploaded byvenmeen14
- Computational Fluid DynamicsUploaded byck
- CFD BasicsUploaded byZaib Shahid
- Full TextUploaded byRabijit Dutta
- 01754Uploaded byNirmal Advani
- MuhammadAizatBinAbdHalim SKMT SynopsisUploaded bySaya Aizat Halim
- CltUploaded byCarlos Diaz
- 1-s2.0-S0142727X13000672-main.pdfUploaded byMicke Sandoval
- 1-s2.0-S0009250907000085-main (1).pdfUploaded byMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Analyzing-Indoor-Environment-of-Minahasa-Traditional-House-Using-CFD_2014_Procedia-Environmental-Sciences.pdfUploaded byAnonymous YSnVjeg

- ANSYS Polyflow Tutorial GuideUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- Fuel Cell Bipolar PlateUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- ANSYS System Coupling Users GuideUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- Tutorial Using Solar Load Model for Indoor VentilationUploaded byvahidss
- GH Bladed Theory ManualUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- Cfx Fsi 6dofUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- 85737554 Turbulence PrimerUploaded byMuhammad Shujan
- FDheatUploaded byShaan Shafaat
- Using the VOF ModelUploaded byCFDiran.ir
- ICEM Hexa 2dpipe DOCUploaded byvenkatesh4386

- UTMConversions2.xlsUploaded byAdnan Riaz
- 1-s2.0-S0950061814004097-mainUploaded byMassimo Latour
- Scoble - Measurement of Blast DamageUploaded byRalph Paredes
- ch12.pdfUploaded byTom
- Bearing Life Optimization of Taper Roller BearingUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- CRE1 PAPER - Alif_Farhandi_HannahUploaded byFarhandi Fadillah Fedrizal
- mg46.pdfUploaded byShridhar Mathad
- 526_MS27_ABS_1018Uploaded byMarcoFranchinotti
- Partial FR Expt3Uploaded byyay
- Sorbead H BASF - Data Sheet.pdfUploaded byLeo Crisu
- InertiaUploaded byZalini Abdullah
- Temp Pressure RelatedUploaded bykleeph
- CAE ReportUploaded byHaziq Mansor
- Science ScrapbookUploaded byAbbi Bolias Nelson
- Urea PhenolUploaded byMarthaLuceroPerez
- ijsrp-p18151Uploaded byrsallagoe
- QP MScUploaded byShantha Kumar G C
- Lecture 3Uploaded byDaVenki
- Plant Integrity Case Study Finned TubesUploaded byhcmcrlho
- ANALYTICAL BALANCE Auxillary Balance (Top Pan BalanceUploaded byNur Arina Dayana
- General Information - Solar Domestic Hot WaterUploaded bySunMaxx Solar
- FlowCAM Brochure[1]Uploaded byMohammed Khair Bashir
- Chap 1 Wave 2Uploaded byArnold Edward
- How to Inspect a Gearbox.pdfUploaded bysurawutwijarn
- Exploring Methods for Measuring Pipe WeldUploaded byBrim Ernesto
- Laminate Code InputUploaded byantonioulbra
- Strain EnergyUploaded byBright Muza
- L7-L10Uploaded byIftekharul Nirjhar
- Cadsys Plastic Part 1_v01-1Uploaded byKeerthi Swarup M Gowda
- Simrit 08 - Diaphragms (Technical Manual 2007)Uploaded byjo_rz_57