This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
PRESENTED BY CHINDU DAS AJEESH KUMAR.G III MECHANICAL LORD JEGANNATH OF ENGG & TECH PSN NAGAR
Douglas (HESS). Today. by removing terms describing vorticity yields the full potential equations. Historically. Their method itself was simplified. automobiles. Even with high-speed supercomputers only approximate solutions can be achieved in many cases. using higher order distributions of surface singularities. however. BACKROUND AND HISTORY The fundamental basis of almost all CFD problems are the Navier–Stokes equations. quite a number of Panel Codes have been developed for airfoil analysis and design. Finally. VSAERO has grown to be a multi-order code and is the most widely used program of this class. giving rise to this class of programs being called Panel Methods. HESS and MACAERO) were higher order codes. Its sister code. These codes typically have a boundary layer analysis included. Ongoing research. USAERO and VSAERO) used single singularities on each surface panel. Initial validation of such software is often performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in flight tests. these equations can be linearized to yield the linearized potential equations. using conformal transformations of the flow about a cylinder to the flow about an airfoil were developed in the 1930s. These equations can be simplified by removing terms describing viscosity to yield the Euler equations. The NASA PMARC code from an early version of VSAERO and a derivative of PMARC. In time. which define any single-phase fluid flow. so . The first paper on a practical three-dimensional method to solve the linearized potential equations was published by John Hess and A. NASA (PMARC) and Analytical Methods (WBAERO. Further simplification.O. PMARC. USAERO and VSAERO). named CMARC. McDonnell Aircraft (MACAERO). Two-dimensional methods. more advanced three-dimensional Panel Codes were developed at Boeing (PANAIR. The computer power available paced development of three-dimensional methods. This method discretized the surface of the geometry with panels. Lockheed (Quadpan). surface ships. A502). Computers are used to perform the millions of calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. Smith of Douglas Aircraft in 1967. and more recently wind turbines. The first lifting Panel Code (A230) was described in a paper written by Paul Rubbert and Gary Saaris of Boeing Aircraft in 1968. while others (Quadpan. is also commercially available. USAERO is an unsteady panel method that has also been used for modeling such things as high speed trains and racing yachts.Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the branches of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. methods were first developed to solve the Linearized Potential equations. In the two-dimensional realm. Some (PANAIR. may yield software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. helicopters .M. in that it did not include lifting flows and hence was mainly applied to ship hulls and aircraft fuselages. The advantage of the lower order codes was that they ran much faster on the computers of the time. It has been used in the development of many submarines. aircraft.
The Navier–Stokes equations were the ultimate target of developers. developed by Harold "Guppy" Youngren while he was a graduate student at MIT. PROFIL uses a conformal transformation method for inverse airfoil design. developed by Charlie Boppe of Grumman Aircraft in the early 1980s has seen heavy use. leading to numerous commercial packages. the three-dimensional WIBCO code. which still sees heavy use. while XFOIL has both a conformal transformation and an inverse panel method for airfoil design. such as NASA Ames' ARC2D code first emerged. MSES sees wide use throughout the world. Antony Jameson. Two-dimensional codes. Technicalities . This code first became available in 1986 and has been further developed to design. as the MSES program. developed the ISES Euler program (actually a suite of programs) for airfoil design and analysis. worked with David Caughey to develop the important three-dimensional Full Potential code FLO22 in 1975. the most important being named Program H. An intermediate step between Panel Codes and Full Potential codes were codes that used the Transonic Small Disturbance equations. which became available in the early 1980s. Frances Bauer. MGAERO is unique in being a structured cartesian mesh code. A further growth of Program H was developed by Bob Melnik and his group at Grumman Aerospace as Grum foil. originally at Grumman Aircraft and the Courant Institute of NYU. This was soon followed by MIT Professor Mark Drela's XFOIL code. Developers next turned to Full Potential codes. with coupled boundary layer codes for airfoil analysis work. Many Full Potential codes emerged after this. 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. as panel methods could not calculate the non-linear flow present at transonic speeds. A number of three-dimensional codes were developed (OVERFLOW. In the two-dimensional realm. Lockheed's SPLITFLOW code and Georgia Tech's NASCART-GT). The next step was the Euler equations. Both PROFIL and XFOIL incorporate two-dimensional panel codes. Antony Jameson also developed the three-dimensional AIRPLANE code (1985) which made use of unstructured tetrahedral grids. CFL3D are two successful NASA contributions). partly with NASA funding. Professor Richard Eppler of the University of Stuttgart developed the PROFIL code. The methodology used by Jameson in his three-dimensional FLO57 code (1981) was used by others to produce such programs as Lockheed's TEAM program and IAI/Analytical Methods' MGAERO program. while most other such codes use structured body-fitted grids (with the exception of NASA's highly successful CART3D code. then graduate students at MIT. In particular. which promised to provide more accurate solutions of transonic flows. for the design and analysis of airfoils in a cascade. is MISES. The first description of a means of using the Full Potential equations was published by Earll Murman and Julian Cole of Boeing in 1970. A derivative of MSES. Mark Drela and Michael Giles. culminating in Boeing's Tranair (A633) code. Both codes are widely used. analyze and optimize single or multi-element airfoils.that viscous effects can be modeled.
• During preprocessing o The geometry (physical bounds) of the problem is defined. Methodology In all of these approaches the same basic procedure is followed. liquid/solid). a Lagrangian method of solving fluid problems. More advanced codes allow the simulation of more complex cases involving multi-phase flows (e. the range of length scales appropriate to the problem is larger than even today's massively parallel computers can model. the distinguishing characteristic of the former is that each cell must be stored separately in memory. etc. turbulent flow simulations require the introduction of a turbulence model. are two techniques for dealing with these scales. or chemically reacting flows (such as combustion). In addition. These other equations can include those describing species concentration (mass transfer). or pyramidal solids in 3D) or regular. notably : • • • Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH). It is possible to directly solve the Navier–Stokes equations for laminar flows and for turbulent flows when all of the relevant length scales can be resolved by the grid (a Direct numerical simulation). Lattice Boltzmann methods (LBM). . One method is to discretize the spatial domain into small cells to form a volume mesh or grid.The most fundamental consideration in CFD is how one treats a continuous fluid in a discretized fashion on a computer. Where shocks or discontinuities are present. such a mesh can be either irregular (for instance consisting of triangles in 2D. and Navier–Stokes equations for viscous flow). If one chooses not to proceed with a mesh-based method. Large eddy simulations (LES) and the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS) formulation. Spectral methods. The mesh may be uniform or non uniform.g. or MUSCL schemes are needed to avoid spurious oscillations (Gibbs phenomenon) in the solution. Flux Corrected Transport (FCT). In general however. instead of solving the macroscopic system (or the real microscopic physics). a technique where the equations are projected onto basis functions like the spherical harmonics and Chebyshev polynomials. chemical reactions. with the k-ε model or the Reynolds stress model. and then apply a suitable algorithm to solve the equations of motion (Euler equations for inviscid. solid/gas. liquid/gas. nonNewtonian fluids (such as blood). o The volume occupied by the fluid is divided into discrete cells (the mesh). which simulate an equivalent mesoscopic system on a Cartesian grid. In many instances. In these cases. Essentially NonOscillatory (ENO). heat transfer. high resolution schemes such as Total Variation Diminishing (TVD). other equations are solved simultaneously with the Navier–Stokes equations. a number of alternatives exist.
Some of the discretization methods being used are: • Finite volume method (FVM). quantities such as density remain physically meaningful) : where Q is the vector of conserved variables. This guarantees the conservation of fluxes through a particular control volume.e. This method is popular for structural analysis of solids. however. Q is the conservation equation expressed on an element basis. it is much more stable than the FVM. This is the "classical" or standard approach used most often in commercial software and research codes. The governing equations are solved on discrete control volumes. the initial conditions are also defined. • Finite element method (FEM). The FEM formulation has been adapted for use with the Navier–Stokes equations. FVM recasts the PDE's (Partial Differential Equations) of the N-S equation in the conservative form and then discretize this equation. Generally stability/robustness of the solution is better in FEM though for some cases it might take more memory than FVM methods. For transient problems. This method has historical importance and is simple to program. but is also applicable to fluids. The FEM formulation requires. F is the vector of fluxes (see Euler equations or Navier–Stokes equations). Though the overall solution will be conservative in nature there is no guarantee that it is the actual solution. It is currently only used in few specialized codes. • Finally a postprocessor is used for the analysis and visualization of the resulting solution. Moreover this method is sensitive to distorted elements which can prevent convergence if such elements are in critical flow regions. • Finite difference method. In this method. and contact surfaces.o The physical modeling is defined – for example. The Euler equations and Navier– Stokes equations both admit shocks. Wi is the weight factor and Ve is the volume of the element. a weighted residual equation is formed: where Ri is the equation residual at an element vertex i . Special care must also be taken to ensure that the discretization handles discontinuous solutions gracefully. the equations of motions + enthalpy + radiation + species conservation o Boundary conditions are defined. This involves specifying the fluid behaviour and properties at the boundaries of the problem. Discretization methods The stability of the chosen discretization is generally established numerically rather than analytically as with simple linear problems. approach Consequently it is the new direction in which CFD is moving. This integration approach yields a method that is inherently conservative (i. and is the cell surface area. Modern finite difference . V is the cell volume. special care to ensure a conservative solution. Although in FEM conservation has to be taken care of. • The simulation is started and the equations are solved iteratively as a steady-state or transient.
This approach is extremely expensive. y. Failure to do so may result in an unsteady simulation. and z directions respectively. Turbulence models Turbulent flow produces fluid interaction at a large range of length scales. if not intractable. When solving the turbulence model there exists a trade-off between accuracy and speed of computation. To capture sharp changes in the solution requires the use of second or higher order numerical schemes that do not introduce spurious oscillations. and H are the fluxes in the x. and F. but the turbulence models used to close the equations are valid only as long as the time over which these changes in the mean occur is large compared to the time scales of the turbulent motion containing most of the energy. This is sometimes referred to as URANS. There is nothing inherent in Reynolds averaging to preclude this.codes make use of an embedded boundary for handling complex geometries making these codes highly efficient and accurate. for complex problems on modern computing machines. An ensemble version of the governing equations is solved. Other ways to handle geometries are using overlapping-grids. This adds a second order tensor of unknowns for which various models can provide different levels of closure. It is a common misconception that the RANS equations do not apply to flows with a time-varying mean flow because these equations are 'time-averaged'. This problem means that it is required that for a turbulent flow regime calculations must attempt to take this into account by modifying the Navier–Stokes equations. hence the need for models to represent the smallest scales of fluid motion. G. The boundary occupied by the fluid is divided into surface mesh. Direct numerical simulation Direct numerical simulation (DNS) captures all of the relevant scales of turbulent motion. • High-resolution schemes are used where shocks or discontinuities are present. where the solution is interpolated across each grid. This usually necessitates the application of flux limiters to ensure that the solution is total variation diminishing. which introduces new apparent stresses known as Reynolds stresses. Where Q is the vector of conserved variables. so no model is needed for the smallest scales. In fact. statistically unsteady (or non-stationary) flows can equally be treated. RANS models can be divided into two broad approaches: . • Boundary element method. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations are the oldest approach to turbulence modeling.
Though DES was initially formulated for the Spalart-Allmaras model (Spalart et al. Detached eddy simulation Detached eddy simulations (DES) is a modification of a RANS model in which the model switches to a sub grid scale formulation in regions fine enough for LES calculations.Boussinesq hypothesis This method involves using an algebraic equation for the Reynolds stresses which include determining the turbulent viscosity. Grid generation is more complicated than for a simple RANS or LES case due to the RANS-LES switch. Mixing Length Model (Prandtl) and Zero Equation (Chen). and the k-ε on the other hand is a "Two Equation" model because two transport equations are solved. Reynolds stress model (RSM) This approach attempts to actually solve transport equations for the Reynolds stresses. mimicking the physical structures in turbulence. This means introduction of several transport equations for all the Reynolds stresses and hence this approach is much more costly in CPU effort. Vortex method The Vortex method is a grid-free technique for the simulation of turbulent flows. solving transport equations for determining the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation. Models include k-ε (Spalding). DES is a non-zonal approach and provides a single smooth velocity field across the RANS and the LES regions of the solutions. thereby considerably cutting down the cost of the computation. Therefore the grid resolution for DES is not as demanding as pure LES. This method generally requires a more refined mesh than a RANS model.. by appropriately modifying the length scale which is explicitly or implicitly involved in the RANS model. The models available in this approach are often referred to by the number of transport equations they include. DES based on other models (like two equation models) behave as a hybrid RANS-LES model. it can be implemented with other RANS models (Strelets. 1997). . for example the Mixing Length model is a "Zero Equation" model because no transport equations are solved. and depending on the level of sophistication of the model. Large eddy simulations (LES) is a technique in which the smaller eddies are filtered and are modeled using a sub-grid scale model. Large eddy simulation Volume rendering of a non-premixed swirl flame as simulated by LES. the regions are solved using the LES mode. Vortex methods were developed as a grid-free methodology that would not be limited by the fundamental smoothing effects associated with grid-based methods. 2001). while the larger energy carrying eddies are simulated. So while Spalart-Allmaras model based DES acts as LES with a wall model. It uses vortices as the computational elements. Regions near solid boundaries and where the turbulent length scale is less than the maximum grid dimension are assigned the RANS mode of solution. but a far coarser mesh than a DNS solution. As the turbulent length scale exceeds the grid dimension.
Most of these methods are either good in maintaining a sharp interface or at conserving mass. • • • • It is practically grid-free. Vorticity Confinement method The Vorticity Confinement method (VC) is an Eulerian technique. vortex methods require means for rapidly computing velocities from the vortex elements – in other words they require the solution to a particular form of the Nbody problem (in which the motion of N objects is tied to their mutual influences). Among the significant advantages of this modern technology. producing a system of (usually) nonlinear algebraic equations. well known for the simulation of turbulent wakes. Different methods have been proposed. Solution algorithms Discretization in space produces a system of ordinary differential equations for unsteady problems and algebraic equations for steady problems. Time-series simulations. All that is required is specification of problem geometry and setting of boundary and initial conditions. Software based on the Vortex method offer the engineer a new means for solving tough fluid dynamics problems with minimal user intervention. . VC is similar to shock capturing methods. This is crucial since the evaluation of the density. so that the essential integral quantities are accurately computed. This breakthrough paved the way to practical computation of the velocities from the vortex elements and is the basis of successful algorithms. viscosity and surface tension in based on the values averaged over the interface. No modeling or calibration inputs are required. The small scale and large scale are accurately simulated at the same time. Implicit or semi-implicit methods are generally used to integrate the ordinary differential equations. A longsought breakthrough came in the late 1980’s with the development of the Fast Multi pole Method (FMM). where conservation laws are satisfied. a nonlinear difference equation is solved as opposed to finite difference equation. however.To be practical. All problems are treated identically. but the Level set method and front tracking are also valuable approaches. It uses a solitary-wave like approach to produce stable solution with no numerical spreading. Within these features. The Volume of fluid method gets a lot of attention lately. an algorithm by V. are possible. which are crucial for correct analysis of acoustics. VC can capture the small scale features to over as few as 2 grid cells. Two phase flow The modeling of two-phase flow is still under development. Greengard (Courant Institute) that has been heralded as one of the top ten advances in numerical science of the 20th century. thus eliminating numerous iterations associated with RANS and LES. Rokhlin (Yale) and L.
so the problem structure must be used for effective pre-conditioning. but low-frequency components typically require many iterations to reduce. The traditional methods commonly used in CFD are the SIMPLE and Uzawa algorithms which exhibit mesh-dependent convergence rates. By operating on multiple scales. are frequently too large for direct solvers. Traditional solvers and pre conditioners are effective at reducing high-frequency components of the residual. multi grid reduces all components of the residual by similar factors. but recent advances based on block LU factorization combined with multi grid for the resulting definite systems. have led to pre conditioners which deliver mesh-independent convergence rates. particularly in 3D. leading to a mesh-independent number of iterations. . pre-conditioners such as incomplete LU factorization. Multi grid is especially popular. both as a solver and as a pre conditioner. additive Schwarz. and multi grid perform poorly or fail entirely. operate by minimizing the residual over successive subspaces generated by the preconditioned operator. so iterative methods are used. due to its asymptotically optimal performance on many problems. For indefinite systems. Krylov methods such as GMRES. Such systems. either stationary methods such as successive over relaxation or Krylov subspace methods. typically used with preconditioning.Applying a Newton or Picard iteration produces a system of linear equations which is non-symmetric in the presence of advection and indefinite in the presence of incompressibility.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.