Chapter 16 - CFD PDF

Computational Fluid Dynamics
16 Computational Fluid Dynamics
16.1 What is CFD?
CFD Stands for Computational Fluid Dynamics . It is a numerical tool to solve the equations of
Fluid Dynamics by suitable methods which can capture the essential physics of the fluid .
The numerical schemes that are used for discretization of the equilibrium of equations for fluid ,
i.,e. the Navier – Stokes equations can be one of the following :
a. Finite Difference Method

b. Finite Volume Method
c. Finite Element Method .
CFD is now reckoned as a matured major discipline owing to the hand in hand development over
the past 30 yrs of numerical algorithms for complex flow computations , and of computers with
enormous memory and speed , for churning out vast amount of numerical data to simulate these
complex flow situations .
While the possibility to resolve small scale phenomenon ( turbulence ) has driven Computational
Fluid Dynamics in the direction of phenomenological studies , such as Direct Numerical Simulation
of Turbulence , the possibility to obtain speedy solutions has endeavoured CFD to practicing
engineers and designers , who view the fast turn around time as an essential ingredient to reducing
design cycle times and cut in project costs .
The recent trend of using too much of CFD in industrial applications and the consequent
improved performance of the designed products have lead some of the enthusiasts to announce
that the days of the wind tunenels may be limited. While such an extreme view is unnecessary,
a synergetic use of CFD and experimental Fluid Dynamics or wind tunnels should be the key
for a successful design.
The three dimensions of Fluid Dynamics :
As described earlier every problem in CAE can be described in terms of the following :
1. Level of physics
2. Level of geometric complexity
3. Computing power required.
G
E
O
M
E
T
R
Y
Physics
Computing Power
270
Practical Finite Element Analysis
The same is also true for Computational Fluid Dynamics and the classification of problems can
be the following :
1. Simple Geometry Simple Physics : Several textbook examples can belong to this category .
Following are some examples :
a. Quasi one dimensional nozzle flow with various flow conditions.
b. Laminar boundary layer flow past a flat plate.
c. Shock Tube problem for compressible flows.
Such kind of problems can be solved on PCs today.
2. Simple Geometry Complex Physics : A typical example can be development of vortices in the
following what is called as driven cavity problem . Here although the geometry is simple , the
physics can be very complex and the ultimate model can be Direct Numerical Simulation of
Turbulence .
3. Complex Geometry Simple Physics : An example of such a flow can be say solution of
potential flow ( inviscid irrotational ) over a full aeroplane or an automobile . Such problems
are solved by Source and panel methods in aerodynamics but in principle these are similar to
Boundary Element Methods used in Structural Mechanics .
4. Complex Geometry Complex Physics : An example can be solution of Reynolds Stress

averaged Navier Stokes ( RANS ) Equations over a full aircraft . Such problems are solved on
parallel computers .
16.2 Various levels of approximations in Fluid Dynamics
There are many levels of approximation in Fluid Dynamics and each has got a different physical
meaning thereby it emphasizes the need for a proper scheme of numerical discretization.
That is a numerical method which can perform best for a specific flow application may be
totally unsuitable for another flow range or type . It is said that “ Numerical Fluid should follow
the actual fluid ’’ .
This is similar to the kinds of various analysis that we perform in structural analysis . That is linear
static , geometric nonlinearity , material nonlinearity , contacts , a combination of nonlinearities ,
dynamics in frequency and time domain . One can select a suitable model which can simulate
the actual physics to the maximum extent .
Similarly a hierarchy of fluid –flow models is obtained by simplifications to the Navier-Stokes

equations resulting progressively through the neglect of viscosity , rotationality , time dependence
or less – dominant terms or through linearization or through simplification of boundary
conditions.
The following levels of approximations are used in CFD in the decreasing order of
complexity:
271
1. Reynolds – Averaged Navier- Stokes equations with suitable turbulence modeling .
2. Parabolized Navier – Stokes Equations (Streamwise viscous terms are neglected) Which
are similar to Boundary Layer philosophy.
3. Euler Equations for inviscid but rotational flows.
4. Potential Equations for inviscid and irrotational flows.
5. Small -perturbation potential equation with simplified boundary conditions.
6. Linearized Potential Equations which are the simplest Laplace Equations.
16.3 Equilibrium Equations for a Fluid
The equilibrium equations solved in CFD are mass , momentum and the energy balance equations
which under the assumptions of linear relation between the stress tensor and the strain rate are
the well known Navier – Stokes Equations .
By using the standard notation of Cartesian tensors these are :
Mass Conservation / Continuity Equation :

∂p ∂(puj )
+ =0 --------------------- (1)
∂t ∂xj
Momentum Conservation :
∂(pui) ∂(puiuj ) ∂p ∂τij

+ = + --------------------- (2)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj
Energy Conservation :
∂(pe) ∂(puj(pe + p)) ∂(qi) ∂(τijui)
+ + = --------------------- (3)
In the above equations :
p = fluid density
x1, x2, x3 = Cartesian coordinates
ui = fluid velocity along
p = pressure
272
e = specific total energy per unit mass

t = time
qj = heat flux vector
τi j = viscous stress
For a perfect gas the following holds true

p u12 + u22 + u32
e = + --------------------- (4)
e(r-1) 2
Where r = ratio of specific heats

∂T
qj = -K --------------------- (5)
∂xj
∂ui ∂uj
τi j = μ ( + ) + λ (div u) δi j --------------------- (6)
∂xj ∂xj
K = Heat conductivity
μ & λ are coefficient of viscosity
δi j = Kronecker’s delta
T is Temperature
These are the most general equations which are the main challenging set of Partial Differential
Equations of the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics .
16.4 The physics of the Navier Stokes Equations
Two things are very important in fluid dynamics : Convection and Diffusion Convection has to
do with the migration or transport of fluid particles from one location to other and diffusion
has to do with spreading of a quantity ( viscous effects in fluid dynamics , heat flux in heat
transfer).
It can be clearly seen that the left hand side of the Navier – Stokes equations is governed by
nonlinear convection terms ( which is very troublesome for a numerical scheme ) and the right
hand side is governed by diffusion terms .
It is very important for a numerical scheme to follow the above behaviour i. .e. to maintain the
273
directionality of the flow ( also called as upwinding ) and the fact that the numerical scheme
should not mask the physical dissipation present in the system by its own dissipation ( called as
numerical or artificial dissipation ) as otherwise the effect will be to produce an totally erroneous
result.
16.5 Conservation form of Fluid Flow Equations
By a slight rearrangement we can write down the Navier-Stokes Equations as follows.
∂(e) ∂(eu)j
Mass conservation + = 0 --------------------- (5)
∂t ∂xj
∂(pu)i ∂(puiuj + pδij - τij)

Momentum conservation + = 0 --------------------- (6)
∂t ∂xj
∂(pe) ∂(puj (pe+p) + qj + τij ui)

Energy conservation + = 0 --------- (7)
∂t ∂xj
OR in an expanded format
∂U ∂F1 ∂F2 ∂F3
+ + + --------- (8)
∂t ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3
Where U= Vector of conserved Variables
Fi =Flux vectors in direction 1, 2 and 3
The vectors of conserved variables and Flux vectors are defined by
p
pu1
pu2
U=
pu3
pe
274
pu1
p + pu21 - τ11
pu1u2 - τ12
F1 =
p + pu22 - τ12
pu1u3 - τ13
(pe+p)u1- τ1iui + q1
pu2
pu2u1 - τ12
p + pu22 - τ22
F2 =
pu2u3 - τ32
pu3
pu3u1 - τ13
pu3u2 - τ23
F3 =
p + pu23 - τ33
The equations are said to be in strong conservation law form. A typical format of a conservation
law is :
∂(Density)
+ Divergence (Flux) = 0 --------- (9)
∂t
One can also separate the contribution from viscous terms and write down the Navier Stokes
Equations in the following format.
∂U ∂ (Fi - Fy) ∂ (Gi - Gy) ∂ (Hi - Hy)
+ + + = 0 --------- (10)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z
Where we have split the flux vector into inside part
Fi , Gi , Hi & viscous part Fy, Gy, Hy
In conventional notations of x,y,z directions and u,v,w begin the velocities in these directions, these
are given by
275
pu pu
p p + pu2 puv
pu1 puv p + pv2
pu2 Fi = Gi =
U= puw pvw
pu3 (pe+p)u (pe+p)v
pe
pw 0
puw τxx
pvw τxy
Hi = Fy =
p + pw2 τxz
(pe+p)w uτxx + vτxy + wτxx - qx
0 0
τxy τxz
τyy τyz
Gy = Hy =
τyz τzz
uτxy + vτyy + wτyz - qy uτxz + vτyz + wτzz - qz
--------- (11)
The above forms of equations of Fluid Dynamics which are nothing but the DIFFERENTIAL
form is the basis of numerical schemes such as Finite Difference and Finite Element
Schemes.
16.6 Inegral Form of the Conservation Laws
It is also possible to recast the equations in integral form as they are valid for any arbitrary
volume . This forms the basis of finite volume method used extensively in CFD.
Consider the inviscid equations ( Euler Equations )

∂U ∂Fi ∂Gi ∂Hi
+ + + --------- (12)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z
For any volume Ω, bounded by surface ∂Ω, we can integrate (12) over volume Ω, and then write
as
276
∫
∂U
∂t
+ dv + ∫
∂Ω
→ → → →
(iFi + jGi +kHi).hds = 0 --------- (13)
Ω
Where we have used Green’s divergence theorem which replaces the volume integral by surface
integrals.
Writing equation (13) separately for each consideration, we obtain,
Mass conservation
∂U
∂t
∫
Ω
pdv + ∫
∂Ω
→ →
pu.n.d.s = 0
--------- (14)
Momentum conservation
∂t
∫
Ω
→
pundv + ∫
∂Ω
→ → →
(pn+pu.un)ds = 0
--------- (15)
Energy conservation
∂t
∫
Ω
pedv + ∫
∂Ω
→ →
(e + p)u.nds = 0
--------- (16)
We can regard equations (14)-(16) as more fundamental than the differential form by treating
them as balance equations .
Note that differential form contains partial derivatives of unknowns as against the integral from
which contains only integrals. The conditions of integratibility are less severe than the conditions of
differentiability. the integral form is much more meaningful from a physical point of view as it clearly
depicts that rate of change of a conserved quantity in volume is due to flux across its interface.
16.7 Model equations for convection and diffusion : Their mathematical

and physical Aspects
We have already written the Navier-Stokes equations goverining the equilibrium of fluid flow. The
are as follows.
277
Mass Conservation / Continuity Equation :

∂p ∂(puj)
+ =0
∂t ∂xj
Momentum Conservation :
∂(pui) ∂(puiuj) ∂p ∂τij
+ = +
Energy Conservation :
∂(pe) ∂(pu.(pe+p)) ∂(qi) ∂(τijui)
+ + =
∂t ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
After understanding the fact that the left hand side of the NS Equations ( above equations)
is a nonlinear convection and the right hand side is a diffusion phenomena , most of the
development of numerical schemes for CFD was based on using schemes for linear convection
equation and the diffusion equation.
The linear convection equation in one dimension is :

∂u ∂u
+ c = 0 --------- (17)
∂t ∂x
This is know as wave equation and the familiar wave equation is structural dynamics can be derived
from (17) by just change of variables in differentiation.
ut = -cux, utt = (-cux)t = (-cut)x = (-c. -cux)x = c2uxx --------- (18)
This equation has following exact solution

U(t) = f (x-ct) --------- (19)
The physical meaning of above is that the wave travels in time with its shape being retaired in space
as shown in following figure
Function at t = 0
X
Fig. 2 : Solution of linear wave equation.
278
This wave equation mathematically is an hyperbolic equation.
The standard equation for modeling diffusion problem is

∂u ∂2u
= α in 1-D --------- (20)
∂t ∂x2
∂u
= α ∇2u in 2/3D
∂t
∂2u ∂2u ∂2u
= α + + --------- (21)
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
One can immediately notice the similarities of above equation with heat conduction equation which
is
∂T K ∂2T ∂2T ∂2T
= ( + + ) --------- (22)
∂t pcp ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
This is parabolic equation and α is called the diffusivity of the problem. [The units of diffusivity are
in m2 / sec ]
The physical meaning of above equation is that heat diffuses through the entire structure & ultimately
a steady state is reached. This is illustrated in figure below
Temperature profile at time
t = t0
Temperature profile at later

instants of time t4>t3>t2>t1
t1
t2
t3
t4
Fig. 3 : Typical Solution of a diffusion equation
279
16.8 Numerical schemes for a model convection equation
There are number of numerical schemes for convection equation & to mention a few, following are
same of them
1) Upwind differencing method
2) Lax wendroff central difference method
3) Maccormack method
4) Warming & beam’s upwind schemes
5) Euler implicit method
6) Leap frog method
7) Trapezoidal differencing method
8) Warming kutter-Lomxa method
Comparisons of Some standard methods & their stability limits along with order of accuracy are
presented in the accompanying table.
Stability of a numerical scheme is governed by a non dimensional number called the ‘Courant’
number & is given by
C∆t
v =
∆x
The same number also governs the stability of time integration schemes (central difference scheme)
used for structural crashworthiness analysis.
n- Time level
j- spacial discretization index in x-direction
Table: Comparison of numerical scheme for linear convection equation in 1-D
Sr.No. Method /computational Formula Remarks

molecule
1. Upwind differencing method Uj n + 1 - Ujn Uj n - Uj-1n 1.First order accurate
n+1 +C =0 scheme.
∆t ∆t
2. Has got lot of
Uj n + 1 - Ujn - v (Uj n - Uj-1n) dissipation
n
j-1 j 3.Stability limit: v ≤ 1
280
2. Lax wendroff central difference C∆t 1.Second order accurate

Uj n + 1 = Ujn - (Unj+1 = Unj-1 )
method 2∇x scheme.
n+1 c2∆t2 2.Generates wiggles

+ Unj+1 - 2Ujn + Unj-1 )
2∆x2 or oscillations near
discontinuities.
n
3.Stability limit: v ≤ 1
j-1 j j+1
3. Maccormack method C∆t 1.Two step version of lax

n+1 Uj n + 1 = Ujn - (Unj+1 = Unj-1 )
∇x wendroff method
1 2.Most commonly used

Uj n + 1 = — Uj n + Uj n + 1 - v (Uj n + 1 - Uj-1 n + 1 method in the 1980’s for
n
2 CFD
j-1 j j+1
3.Stability limit:
4. Trapezoidal differencing method v 1.Implicit method
Uj n + 1 = Ujn - — Uj+1n + 1 + Uj+1n - Uj-1n - 1 - Uj-1n
OR 4
Crank- Nicolson Method 2. Second order accurate
n+1 scheme
3.Unconditionally stable
for all value of v.
n
j-1 j j+1
5. Euler implicit method Uj+1 n - Ujn e 1.Implicit method

n+1 + (Uj+1n + 1 - Uj-1n+1) = 0 2. First order accurate
∆t 2∆x
scheme
3.Highly dissipative
scheme
n
4.Unconditionally stable
j-1 j j+1
for all value of v.
16.9 Numerical schemes for a standard diffusion equation
The following methods are to solve the std. diffusion equation are
1) Simple Explicit method
2) Richardson’s Method
3) Simple Implicit /Laasoner Method
4) Crank- Nicolson Method
5) Dafort –Franked Method
The stability of the std diffusion equation is governed by a non –dimensional diffusion number
αt∆
r = ——2
(∆x)
281
Following table gives a comparison of some common methods.
Table: Comparison of scheme for Diffusion Equation in 1-D
Sr.No. Method /computational Formula Remarks

molecule
1. Simple Explicit scheme Uj n + 1 - Ujn Uj n - 2Ujn +Uj-1n 1.First order accurate
=α scheme.
n+1 ∆t ∆x 2
2.Stability limit: r ≤ ½
3.Highly dissipative
n
j-1 j j+1
2. Simple Implicit scheme Uj n + 1 - Ujn Uj+1 n+1 - 2Ujn+1 +Uj-1n+1 1.Second order accurate
=α scheme.
n+1 ∆t ∆x2
2.Generates wiggles
or oscillations near
discontinuities.
n
j-1 j j+1
3. Crank- Nicolson Method Uj n+1 - Ujn 1.Two step version of lax
n+1 ∆t
wendroff method
1
=α —
————————
U - 2U +U
j+1
n
+
j
n
j-1
n
Uj+1 n +1 - 2Ujn+1 +Uj-1 n+1
——————————

2
 ∆x ∆x2

2
2.Most commonly used
method in the 1980’s for
n
CFD
16.10 Explicit and Implicit numerical Schemes
Explicit Scheme : We say that a scheme is explicit when the information at time level “ n+1 ’’
depends on previous time levels i.e “ n , n-1 etc. “ .
e.g. The upwind difference scheme for the convection equation is an explicit scheme .
Implicit scheme : In these schemes the information at time level “ n+1” is dependent not only
on previous time levels but also on the current time level .
e.g. an implicit numerical scheme for a convection equation can be developed as follows.
Ut + CUx = 0
Ujn+1 - Ujn C
———— + —— Uj+1n+1 - Uj-1n+1 = 0 ............................ (23)
∆t 2∆x
We can write above equation as
282
v v
— Uj+1n+1 +(1) Ujn+1 - — Uj-1n+1 = Ujn ............................ (24)
2 2
OR
aUj+1n+1 + dUjn+1 - bUj-1n+1 = c ....................................... (25)

v v
Where a = — , d = 1, b = — & C = Ujn
2 2
Written in matrix form ....................................... (25)
d1 a1 0.........................0................................................. U1n+1 C1
b2 d2 a2 .............. U2n+1 C2
b3 d3 a3 . .
0 . .
. . = .
. . .
. 0 . .
0 bN-1 dN-1 aN-1 UN-1n+1 CN-1
0 . . . . 0 bN dN dN UNn+1 CN
Where N is the number of grid points in x-direction.
16.11 Different types of codes used for CFD calculations
The end result of CFD is in the form of a set of computer codes, which can be of two
categrories:
1. Research codes : These are invariably being developed at research / academic institutions,
typically running on high end Computer configurations to super computers.
2. Industrial Codes : These are commercial softwares to be run in a production mode , are
general purpose codes which tackle the most frequently encountered fluid problems such
as internal and external flows involving compressible and incompressible fluids and laminar and
turbulent flows.
A number of commericial softwares are available today in the market. A list of these can be
found on the internet. Most commonly used industry codes are FLUENT , STAR CD and CFX.
Schemes used in Practical CFD Software :
We have seen various numerical schemes for std. Model equations. It must be remembered that
283
the practical equations to be solved in fluid mechanics are a “System of conservation law “ which are
“nonlinear” in character .
After the development of numerical algorithm for std. Model equation, a straight forward extension of
the scheme to system of conservation laws presented lot of difficulties as fluid dynamic phenomenon
such as shocks present a severe challenge to numerics . This rendered only some of the numerical
schemes to be practically useful .
One difference that must be kept in mind that for incompressible flow , there is no energy
equation to be solved and “ pressure” has meaning as “ mechanical / hydrostatic ’’ rather than
“ thermodynamic” one used in compressible flows .
The following is the list of most common schemes used in standard CFD softwares available
today.
FINITE VOLUME BASED SOFTWARES :
A.) INCOMPRESSIBLE FLOW
1. SIMPLE algorithm due to Patankar and Spalding .
( Semi Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations )
2. Versions of 1. which are SIMPLER and SIMPLEC
3. PISO ( Pressure Implicit Split Operator ) Scheme .
B) COMPRESSIBLE FLOW
B1) Upwind Differeence category scheme
FLUX VECTOR SPLITTING SCHEMES
1. Schemes at Continuum level given by
1.1 van Leer
1.2 Liou and Stefan’s AUSM ( Advection Upstream Splitting Method )
2. Schemes based on Kinetic Theory of Gases / Boltzmann Equation.
In this category several schemes have been developed by researchers in Indian Institute of
Science and the most popular scheme finding application in Defence organizations in our
country is KFVS ( Kinetic Flux Vector Splitting ) Method developed by Deshpande and Mandal .
This scheme has been widely used and tested for complex geometry aerospace configurations .
FLUX DIFFERENCE SPLITTING SCHEMES
1. Roe Scheme
2. Osher Scheme
B2 ) Central Difference Schemes

284
1. Jameson – Schmidt- Turkel Scheme
2. MacCormack Scheme
Jameson Scheme uses Runge Kutta time discretization and central differencing in space and
MacCormack Scheme uses a two step predictor corrector approach as discussed for a linear
convection equation.
Both of these schemes require an additional artificial viscosity for stabilization in presence of
shocks and this has been a major drawback of such schemes .
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD BASED SOFTWARES.
The finite element method presents lot of difficulties to compressible fluid flow dynamics as the
schemes ultimately result into central difference type . The following algorithms have been the
most popular schemes used in softwares based on FE Technology . .
1. SUPG ( Streamline Upwind Petrov- Galerkin ) Method developed by Hughes and researchers in
USA . Used in NASTRAN for thermal problems associated with forced convection . This scheme
has also been used in BOEING and Dassault for practical configurations and it is also used in
several CFD softwares such as ACUSIM .
2. Taylor Galerkin Method developed by Swansea UK . NISA software developed by EMRC uses
a FEM approach for Fluid flow based on this method .
Much unification is now observed on a joint treatment of Finite Volume Method and the Finite
Element Method and research is very active on this front.
The reader is referred to the references given at the end of this chapter for a detailed treatment
of the above methods.
16.12 Different types of grids used for CFD
People use a variety of grids for CFD and the main classification can be structured grids vs.
unstructured grids. Some examples of these are shown in the following figures.
There are some solvers which are based on just using a Cartesian grid and in these the point on
the mesh need not be a point on the body .. These are called as Non-Body fitted grids against the
ones shown here where each point on the body ( airfoil here ) is also a mesh point.
16.13 Difference between meshes used in computational Structural

Mechanics and Computational Fluid Dynamics
In structural mechanics , the mesh continuously deforms with the deformation whereas in fluid
dynamics mesh is always fixed , fluid particles enter and leave the control volume .
This is why mesh quality criteria are somewhat relaxed in fluid mechanics as compared to
structural mechanics .
285
If you take a look on solving say a structural mechanics problem of finding out stress concentration
in plate due to applied loads then one can clearly see the deformed mesh pattern as the structure
develops stresses.
The above distinction comes into picture as in solid mechanics , we follow a lagrangian approach
and in fluid mechanics, we use Eulerian or field approach .
Explain the typical mesh Quality parameters used in CFD and mention how you will check
a mesh quality of a CFD mesh generated by a software or a vendor :
The typical parameters used in CFD are quite similar to structural mechanics except for some
differences in terminology .
For a standard software like ICEM HEXA , the criteria and their values are shown in the
accompanying table .
The element is called as cell in CFD , and the determinant is nothing but the jacobian of the
element. Dihedral angle is the angle between two planes.
A standard table to check the mesh created by you or submitted by a vendor is given here.
TABLE OF CELL QUALITY CHECKS

Quality Target # of Cells Failed % of Cells Failed Max/Min
Value
ICEM HEXA Quality types (3 D)
Determinant > 0.2
Aspect Ratio < 10
Internal Angle
Min Angle = 200
Max Angle = 1600
Max Dihedral Angle < 165
Warpage = 550
Tetra Quality = 0.15
(2 D)
Min Quad Face Angle > 35
Max Quad Face Angle < 145
Min Tria Face Angle > 20
Max Tria Face Angle < 120
Aspect Ratio < 10
Jacobian > 0.2
286
Cell information
Total no. of Cells
Total no. of nodes
Turbulence Modeling for CFD :
It is said that “ laminar flows ” exist in textbooks and turbulent flows exist in practice . Laminar
flow is characterized by streamlines running in well ordered manner with adjacent fluid layers
sliding relatively to each other with no motion or change normal to streamlines . As it is currently
impossible to solve full Navier – Stokes Equations or use Direct numerical simulation of turbulence
, we always use a time averaged form called as the RANS ( Reynolds Averged Navier Stokes
) equations . These introduce a closure problem as the number of unkowns is greater than the
number of equations and one must introduce some ways to suitably model the Reynolds Stresses
. The Reynolds stresses are now new flow parameters apart from the fluid’s own constitution in
terms of stresses to kinematic relationships . This is the crux of Turbulence modeling right from
1960s and the following models are commonly used .
1. Two equation k- ε model using turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rate
.
2. Zero Equation OR Prandtl’s mixing length model which calculates the turbulent
viscosity without using the transport equations .
3. One Equation model using a transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy
and an algebraic expression for the dissipation rate .
4. Reynolds Stress model which models the transport of turbulent shear stresses in
each direction rather than using an isotropic turbulence .
5. Large Eddy Simulation which uses a spatial filtering removing small scales in
turbulence but capturing larger scale fluctuations thereby more accurately
representing the true flow condition .
16.14 Strengths and weaknesses of CFD against experimental Fluid

Dynamics or wind tunnel testing
Much is said about use of CFD as a “ Numerical Wind Tunnel “ , some enthusiasts mentioning
that CFD can replace wind tunnels in the future but it is very important to realize that the role
of CFD is or should be synergetic and the one that compliments experimental Fluid dynamics .
We can classify the development of CFD algorithms into the following stages :
1. Fundamental Research Phase : There has been a lot of fundamental research

work into the mathematical modeling and numerical simulation of relevant
physical phenomena such as turbulence , boundary layers , shock waves
287
2. Development of Basic CFD Tools / codes : This involves creating user – oriented
numerical methods for solving physically approximate functions , applicable to a
large range of “ Boundary Value Problems “ of engineering interest sometimes
requiring the incorporation of algorithms / modules of Research Phase .
These require a VALIDATION , involving the assessment of the accuracy with which
the numerical method solves the boundary value problem posed . This is a task
undertaken completely by the method developers , involving the examination and
reduction of the numerical errors to an acceptable level from an engineering point
of view .
3. Development of EVALUATED CFD Tools . : This involves the comparison of

Basic CFD methods with experiment , the aim being to produce reliable , efficient
programs that give quantitative simulations ( of acceptable engineering accuracy )
of actual physical flow situations . In general , the evaluation process will involve
both the development of empirical correction procedures and the modification of
Basic CFD tools to incorporate the correction procedures . The evaluation process
must involve both the method developers and specially trained users .
Using the above terminology , our concern is to let the designer use EVALUATED CFD tools
which reduce the design cycle time , cost and uncertainty WITHOUT Compromising design
standards , performance and safety .
In view of the above the strengths and weaknesses of CFD softwares can be conveniently
examined in the two following contexts :
1. Assessing the Quality of the BASIC CFD tools relative to both experiement and
more realistic numerical solutions ; such assessments should lead eventually to
EVALUATED CFD Tools.
2. ( most important ) in the context of meeting the GOALS of EVALUATED CFD Tools
described previously .
Thus in examining the strengths and weaknesses of CFD tools we distinguish between the
evaluation process and the application capabilities of EVALUATED CFD Tools .
It is worth emphasizing that it is the coordinated and complimentary use of VALIDATED BASIC
CFD Tools together with EXPERIMENT thus giving EVALUATED CFD Tool that can dramatically
improve the effectiveness of the designer . Thus the strengths of both theory and experiement
are coordinated in such a way as to compensate for their individual weaknesses leading to
improved and more credible techniques from the point of view of project managers . CFD offers
a great promise against experimental fluid mechanics / wind tunnel simulation in the coming years
as the numerical algorithms and computers become more powerful .
The main strengths of today’s CFD tools are as follows :
1. Complete Domain data and Better flow Visualization of results : CFD solutions give you
values of pressure , density etc at all the locations inside the domain as opposed to wind tunnels
which can give you surface data values . Certainly windtunnel simulation gives you a very clear
picture of flow characteristics but fails to provide the information of flow parameters which
288
can be very easily obtained as a by-product of a CFD simulation . It is very important to realize that
a typical windtunnel set up can consume enormous amount of time as compared to a quick CFD
result which can generate data within a much reduced time and at a much lesser cost . The post
processing of CFD results can give a more clearer picture rather than Wind tunnel photographs.
2. Convenient ways to alter design : The geometry modifications through CAD data can take
place very quickly and remodeling can be done immediately . A practical example is say a
design modification in the side mirror of a car .Physical models require much more time and
effort for adjustments .CFD is thus much cheaper as compared to Wind tunnel simulations as
they require a huge expensive set up ( and manitainance also ! ) . Wind tunnels are found only at
the large companies and universities , government laboratories whereas CFD tools can be used by
small companies having sufficient expertise on flow physics and the software use.
3. Measurement of certain quantities : Monitoring and Measuring wind direction , pollutant

concentration , radiation , chemical reactions , species concentration : These are extremely
difficult tasks in wind tunnel simulation whereas the information from a CFD result is much
flexible accounting for each of these unique aspects .
The main weaknesses of CFD are as follows :
1. Acceptance of Results : Wind tunnel simulation results are usually much accepted in the
engineering industry due to a belief that they represent the real world correctly . Turbulence
modeling and the use of RANS , large eddy simulation have offered a lot of success and further
research is improving the technology continuously . Validation studies have been taken to minimize
and eliminate uncertainties and errors which creep in due to a lack of knowledge and otherwise .
Many CFD simulation results are often criticized by academics as insufficiently exact even though
the solutions were found “ satisfactory “ for engineering purposes .
2. Use of Experienced people : CFD results can be erroneous as there are many problem
areas where CFD results do not coincide with the real world results in certain circumstances . This
can be corrected by using experienced people using the software and who can understand the
flow physics and interprete the results in much better way . Sometimes the size of the project
modeled is limited by the computing power and the software . Typical cases are simulations of
flows in stadiums and flows around a number of tall building
surrounded by small buildings and trees where atmospheric boundary layer is so important .
Wind Tunnel simulations can better represent such kind of effects as there is no limitation on the
size and complexity of the model .
Lot of groups are taking care now to use “ best practice guidelines “ to enhance the quality and
trust in industrial CFD . See e.g. ERCOFTAC Special interest Group guidelines . It requires a lot
of justification on which level of approximation should be used and a thorough check on the
Computational model before one can ensure the validity of the results.
Some Guidelines for Executing a Practical CFD Analysis :
CFD is jokingly called sometimes as “ Colourful Fluid Dynamics ” . We must take sufficient care to
ensure that the numerical model must represent the physical problem as close as possible and
avoid the “ falling in love with the model ” as otherwise it can lead to a severe discrepancy with
289
what exists in nature / practice and what was solved . It is always good practice to treat the CFD
solution with caution and find out meaningful tests to determine whether the solution is valid or
atleast serves the purpose of analysis .
Any CFD project can be thought of consisting of the following steps and we suggest some
guidelines based on our experience .
1. Problem Definition with Accuracy level desired .
2. The Finite Volume or Finite Element Mesh Generation
3. Solution step and postprocessing of results in software .
1. Problem Definition : It should be remembered all the time that the purpose of computing is
insight and not just generating numbers ( or beautiful plots ! ) . Most important is to check the
application of results that are going to be used . This will dictate the level of accuracy desired and
reduces the inappropriate simulation on a too fine mesh or using a complex turbulence model .
Project managers should strictly avoid a tendency of it should be done because of the presence
of a software or it can be done for the sake of CFD . Any computed (or measured ! ) data is of little
practical use unless there is some indication of the accuracy attached to it . With no associated
uncertainty or standard error a person using the data cann’t tell whether the data is in accordance
with the solution or not . It is always desirable to have an estimate of the probable accuracy of CFD
solutions which can be obtained by comparison with known validation test case studies . One
can also carry out the sensitivity studies such as grid refinement , flow parameters and report the
influences of assumptions made , boundary conditions apriori so as to clearly mention a standard
deviation limit and confidence level .
2. Grid Generation Considerations :
a. A Very complex geometry can lead to a distorted mesh thus offering problems with convergence
and quality of results . Although it might be necessary to use a simple geometry to improve the
mesh Quality , it poses the risk of altering the flow pattern . Better would be to run both cases of
with and without simplification to ensure sufficient confidence level if it affects the flow . Whether
alternative modeling strategy or type of mesh can be used is another question that need to be
answered .
b. The finite volume mesh should be such that it should be fine enough to resolve the flow features.
An aspect ratio of < 5.0 is recommended . ( See the table for typical mesh quality parameters ).
However in boundary layers long thin elements are acceptable . In turbulent flows , cells should have
correct range of y + values if wall functions are being used . Ensure that there are a sufficient cells
within a boundary layer thickness of the wall for an adequate representation . Use exponential
biasing and bell curve biasing features to represent the boundary layer properly . Resolution of
the vertical grid is much important than the horizontal one for boundary layers .
c. Always run initial simulations on a coarser mesh rather than too fine . Advantage of this is that
all initial problems with model set up are dealt on a model which converges quickly thus saving
a lot of computational time . It is always better to use topologically fitting ( body fitted meshes )
reather than using Cartesian grids .
d. For flows with heat transfer , use large number of points for representing the thermal boundary
290
layer .
e. Grid sensitivity studies should be carried out to show that solution is grid independent or how
much the solution changed due to grid refinement . Expert users can also use advanced tools
such as dynamic mesh adaptivity rather than using conventional practice of doubling the entire
mesh .
3. Solution and post processing checks : Convergence of the solution to steady state and
checking the physics as solution develops are two most important things for the CFD analyst .
The residual history which is a global measure of the error plotted against iteration number in
a suitable norm ( L 2 or maximum norm ) gives a very convenient indication of the numerical
convergence of the model . A necessary condition is that residuals should be sufficiently low
(min. of 1e-06 rather than 1e-10 ) and that it should remain constant from iteration to iteration.
There should not be sudden spikes or oscillations in the residue plot as they indicate that the
mesh is too coarse or inappropriate mesh type was used .
Sensitivity studies should be carried out to understand whether the correct level of physical
approximation was used or not . There can be a number of possibilities such as 2-D vs. 3 D , Steady
vs Unsteady , Viscid Vs. Inviscid , choice of a numerical scheme ( second order vs. first order ) ,
effect of boundary conditions of pressure and velocity on solution . Here the expertise help of
CFD specialist play a very important role . A good understanding of physics of flow is one of the
few ways of protecting the analyst from presenting non physical or incorrect solution . The
checks that can be useful during or at the end of the run to give a basic confidence are proper
flow entrance at inlet and outlets , mass conservation , sensible pressure drops and temperature,
velocity profiles .
The tendency of just giving colourful contour plots should be avoided . It is well accepted that
CFD solutions generate a huge amount of data but the analyst must present the x-y plots such
as those representing the fluid and thermal boundary layer , pressure vs. length of the airfoil
which is much more physically meaningful . Particle tracing animations can also be of immense
help .
We now present here a detailed CFD Project Tracking Sheet along with a solution sheet details.
16.15 CFD Project Tracking Sheet
CFD PROJECT TRACKING SHEET
PROJECT ID
PROJECT TITLE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE 1. Configuration
PROBLEM 2. Analysis Purpose
OUTPUT REQUESTS ( Tick a right mark against variables and specify the desired locations )
291
1. Velocities
2. Temperatures
3. Pressures
4. Density
5. Vorticity
6. Streamlines
7. Mach Number
8. Pathlines
9. Residue Fall
10. X- Y Plots
ACCURACY TARGET Low / Medium / Accurate Solution
TIMESCALE Slow / Normal / Fast
GEOMETRIC DATA 1. CAD / Hardcopy Drawing
2. Number of Geometric Configurations
3. Possible Geometry Simplifications
4. Upstream Geometry
5. Downstream Geometry
PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Operating temperature
CONDITIONS 2. Operating Pressure
3. Can the flow be assumed to be isothermal ?
4. Can the flow be assumed to be incompressible ?
5. Max. Mach Number Expected for the flow
6. Is the flow Laminar OR Turbulent
7. Reynolds Number of the flow
8. Any Simplified model for Dimensionality ?
1- D / Quasi 1 – D / 2- D / Axi-symmetric / 3- D
9. Does the flow include special features such as combustion , porous media ,
moving boundaries , other ?
10 . Any Influence of Gravity ?
MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1. Density ( If Constant )
2. Viscosity ( If Constant )
3. Any special constitutive law to be used
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 1. Inlet conditions
2. Outlet Conditions
3. Wall Conditions
4. Free Stream Conditions ( if applicable )
IF MORE THAN ONE FLOW
Sr. No. Description of flow Parameters
CONFIGURATION REQUIRES
configuration
SIMULATION, GIVE THE DETAILS
DATA FOR COMPARISON 1. Experimental

2. Hand Calculations
3. Validated Model
292
ADDITIONAL DETAILS 1. Surface Modeling Software

2. Flow Solver : CFx / PHOENICS / FLUENT / STAR CD / OTHER
3. Solution algorithm details
a. Segregated / Coupled
b. Implicit / Explicit
c. Steady / Unsteady
d. Time step size
TURBULENCE TREATMENT (IF 1. Turbulence Mode a. LES b. DNS
APPLICABLE ) 2. Near Wall Treatment
3. Estimation of first cell size at key locations for acceptable y + value
CFD SOLUTION MONITORING SHEET

SIMULATION IDENTIFIERS
Path and directory name
Pre - Processor filenames
Solver filenames
Post processing Filenames
Pre - Processor and version
Solver and version
Post processor and version
Additional files
SOLVER CONTROLS
Discretization Pressure
Momentum
Kinetic Energy k
Dissipation rate Є
Other Variables
Pressure - Velocity Coupling
Under - Relaxation Pressure

Momentum
Kinetic Energy
Viscosity
Body Forces
Density
Dissipation rate
INITIAL CONDITIONS
293
Pressure
X - Velocity
Y - Velocity
Z - Velocity
Kinetic energy
Dissipation Rate
Other variables
RESIDUE MONITORING
Pressure
X - Velocity
Y- Velocity
Z- Velocity
Kinetic energy
Dissipation rate
Other variables
SOLUTION VERIFICATION
Residuals
Variables
Mass Flux
Grid Independence
Other sensitivity check
SOLUTION VALIDATION :
1.Hand Calculations
2 . Experimental Data
3. Pre –validated Simulations
SOLUTION ISSUES IF ANY :
Sr. No. Description of the Date Noticed Action taken Date Closed
Problem
294
16.16 Typical Applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics in various

industries :
There are lot of applications of CFD and some typical applications are as follows :
Aerospace Engineering :
1. To determine flow structures over wings , rudders .
2. To estimate the drag and the lift coefficients .
3. Propulsion fluid dynamics where we study the internal flow and interest is in
computing the distortion at compressor face for various points in flight envelope,
computing reacting flows through combustors .
Automobile Engg :
1. Estimation of drag and streamlining of the vehicle .
2. Rear flow , study of spoilers , impact on vehicle noise .
3. Engine CFD involving reaction chemistry .
4. Underhood flow and thermal management of vehicle .
5. Disc Brake cooling .
6. Radiators .
7. Computation of side mirror noise where a pressure distrtibution on the structure

is first necessary .
Civil Engg :
Computing the flow patterns over a tall building and simulating the effect of the atmospheric
boundary layer .
CFD also finds a lot of application in process industry ,mechanical industry and typical problems
include mold flow simulation ( metal castings and plastics ) , flow through pipelines and as such
there are vast applications due to universal nature of fluid flow .
Mold Flow Simulation of metal castings and plastic components :
Solidification of castings is a nonlinear transient phenomena including a change of phase with

liberation of latent heat from a moving liquid –solid boundary . The influence of the location of
the ingate and the poring rate as well as the varying rates of heat transfer in different parts of the
mould owing to cores , feeders are some of the factors that must be taken care of .
CAE simulation of castings models the physics so that important process variables can be identified
and controlled resulting in significant benefits . This leads to prediction of shrinkage porosity
defects , effects of metal fluid flow and solidification. Progressive and directional solidification
295
contours can be used to predict the hot spots or the last freezing regions . Alternate designs of
castings and the system , thickness map analysis , placement of chills and gating system can be
quickly carried out on today’s software easily .
The following softwares are available for mold flow simulation of castings.
Sr. No Software Developed by Website for further details

1 Magmasoft Magma Foundary http://www.magmasoft.com
Technologies , Illinois
2 CastCAE Castech Inc. Finland http://www.castech.fi
3 AFS Solid 2000 American Foundrymen’s
Society
4 NovaFlow/ NovaCast Novacast Ab, Sweden http://www.novacast.se
5 ProCAST UES Software Inc, Ohio
6 Auto CAST Advanced Reasoning http://www.alphacast-software.co.uk
Technologies, Bombay, India
7 WRAFTS/KENT EKK software Inc http://www.ekkinc.com
8 PAMCast / SIMULOR ESI Group http://www.esi.fr/products/pamcast
9 SIMTEC SIMTEC-Inc http://www.simtec-inc.com
10 CASTFLOW Walkington Engg , Inc http://www.walkengr.com
The same technology has also been used to analyze the filling phase of injection moulding
process of plastic components . Typical software capabilities of such a software include sizing
of the runners to balance the flow in multi-cavity and family mold layouts , determine the best
gate location for a given part design , prediction of flow front temperatures , pressures , air trap
locations . Interested readers can refer to [10] and [11] for more details .
296
References :
1. Dale A Anderson , John C Tannehill and Richard H Pletcher ( 1984 ) : Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat
Transfer , Hemisphere Publishing Corporation . ( Classical Reference for CFD with fantastic description of model
convection and diffusion equations alongwith Grid Generation and physics of fluid flow ).
2. Pietier Wesseling ( 2004 ) : Principles of Computational Fluid Dynamics , Springer Verlag
3. John D Anderson ( 1995) : Computational Fluid Dynamics : The basics with applications , McGrawHill
4. Joel L Ferziger and Milovan H Peric ( 1999 ) : Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics , Springer Verlag
5. T. J. Chung ( 2002 ) : Computational Fluid Dynamics , Cambridge University Press
6. O . C . Zienkiewicz and R L Taylor ( 2000 ) , Finite Element Method Vol.3 , Butterworth Heinemann .
7. ERCOFTAC SIG Best Practice Guidelines for
8. Versteeg H K and Malalasekara W ( 1995 ) : An introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics . The Finite Volume
Method, Longman Group Ltd.
9 Wilcox : Turbulence Modeling for CFD ,
10. www. Moldflow.com
11. www.imtechdesign.com
297

Chapter 16 - CFD PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 16 - CFD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Fluid Dynamics

16 Computational Fluid Dynamics

16.1 What is CFD?

a. Finite Diﬀerence Method

The three dimensions of Fluid Dynamics :

a. Quasi one dimensional nozzle ﬂow with various ﬂow conditions.

b. Laminar boundary layer ﬂow past a ﬂat plate.

c. Shock Tube problem for compressible ﬂows.

Such kind of problems can be solved on PCs today.

4. Complex Geometry Complex Physics : An example can be solution of Reynolds Stress

16.2 Various levels of approximations in Fluid Dynamics

Similarly a hierarchy of fluid –flow models is obtained by simplifications to the Navier-Stokes

1. Reynolds – Averaged Navier- Stokes equations with suitable turbulence modeling .

3. Euler Equations for inviscid but rotational ﬂows.

4. Potential Equations for inviscid and irrotational ﬂows.

5. Small -perturbation potential equation with simpliﬁed boundary conditions.

6. Linearized Potential Equations which are the simplest Laplace Equations.

16.3 Equilibrium Equations for a Fluid

By using the standard notation of Cartesian tensors these are :

Mass Conservation / Continuity Equation :

∂(pui) ∂(puiuj ) ∂p ∂τij

In the above equations :

e = speciﬁc total energy per unit mass

For a perfect gas the following holds true

Where r = ratio of specific heats

μ & λ are coefficient of viscosity

16.4 The physics of the Navier Stokes Equations

16.5 Conservation form of Fluid Flow Equations

By a slight rearrangement we can write down the Navier-Stokes Equations as follows.

∂(pu)i ∂(puiuj + pδij - τij)

∂(pe) ∂(puj (pe+p) + qj + τij ui)

Where U= Vector of conserved Variables

Fi =Flux vectors in direction 1, 2 and 3

The vectors of conserved variables and Flux vectors are defined by

Where we have split the flux vector into inside part

Fi , Gi , Hi & viscous part Fy, Gy, Hy

16.6 Inegral Form of the Conservation Laws

Consider the inviscid equations ( Euler Equations )

Writing equation (13) separately for each consideration, we obtain,

16.7 Model equations for convection and diﬀusion : Their mathematical

Mass Conservation / Continuity Equation :

The linear convection equation in one dimension is :

This equation has following exact solution

This wave equation mathematically is an hyperbolic equation.

The standard equation for modeling diffusion problem is

Temperature proﬁle at later

Fig. 3 : Typical Solution of a diﬀusion equation

16.8 Numerical schemes for a model convection equation

1) Upwind differencing method

2) Lax wendroff central difference method

4) Warming & beam’s upwind schemes

5) Euler implicit method

6) Leap frog method

7) Trapezoidal differencing method

8) Warming kutter-Lomxa method

j- spacial discretization index in x-direction

Table: Comparison of numerical scheme for linear convection equation in 1-D

Sr.No. Method /computational Formula Remarks

2. Lax wendroﬀ central diﬀerence C∆t 1.Second order accurate

n+1 c2∆t2 2.Generates wiggles

3. Maccormack method C∆t 1.Two step version of lax

1 2.Most commonly used