Introducción a la Dinámica de Fluidos Computacional − Fenómenos de Transporte

Ingeniería Química − Ingeniería Mecánica · Orientación Armamento

INTRODUCCIÓN e HISTORIA de la DINÁMICA de FLUIDOS COMPUTACIONAL

Introduction to CFD
What is CFD?
Fluid dynamics is a field of engineering which studies the physical laws governing the flow of
fluids under various conditions. Great effort has gone into understanding the governing laws and
the nature of fluids themselves, resulting in a complex yet theoretically strong field of research.
Computational Fluid Dynamics or CFD as it is popularly known, is used to generate flow
simulations with the help of computers. CFD involves the solutions of governing laws of fluid
dynamics numerically. The complex set of partial differential equations are solved on a
geometrical problem divided into small volumes, commonly known as mesh (or grid).
CFD has enabled us to understand the world in new ways. We can now see what it is like to be in a
furnace, model how blood flows through our arteries and veins and even create to create virtual
worlds. CFD enables analysts to simulate and understand fluid flows without the help of
instruments for measuring various flow variables at desired locations.
Where CFD scores
There are various reasons why CFD is becoming popular, some of which are:
• CFD allows numerical simulation of fluid flows, results for which are available for study
even after the anaylsis is over. This is a big advantage over, say, wind tunnel testing where
analysts have a shorter duration to perform flow measurements.
• CFD allows observation of flow properties without disturbing the flow itself, which is not
always possible with conventional measuring instruments.
• CFD allows observation of flow properties at locations which may not be accessible to (or
harmful for) measuring instruments. For example, inside a combustion chamber, or
between turbine blades.
• CFD can be used as a qualitative tool for discarding (or narrowing down the choices
between), various designs. Designers and analysts can study prototypes numerically, and
then test by experimentation only those which show promise.
What CFD is not
• CFD is not yet at the level where it can be blindly used by designers or analysts without a
working knowledge of numerics involved.
• Despite the increasing speed of computation available, CFD has not yet matured to a level
where it can be used for real time computation. Numerical analyses require significant time
to be set up and performed.
CFD is still an aid to other analysis and experimental tools like wind tunnel testing, and is used in
conjunction with them.

History of CFD
The purpose of this section is to provide a concise review of the history of CFD. A general
Historical perspective summarizing the key milestones in CFD is presented. The Hall of fame
includes short biographical scketches of the people who made significant contributions to CFD

1/8
along with a summary of these contributions. The Famous achievements in CFD presents a list of
crucial problems that were solved using CFD techniques.
Here are a few milestones in the early history of CFD:

- 1910 - Richardson, 50 page paper to Royal Society, hand calculations with human
computers, 2000 operations per week...
- 1960 - Scientific American articles on CFD
- 1965 - Marker and Cell methods - Harlow & Welch
- 1965 - Use in research and "grand challenges" (NASA, Los Alamos...)
- 1970 - Finite difference methods for Navier-Stokes
- 1970 - Finite element methods for stress analysis
- 1980 - Finite volume methods (Imperial College)
- 1985 - Use in "aero" industries (Boeing, General Electric, ...)
- 1995 - Use in "non-aero" industries (GM, Ford, Astra, Ericsson...)

Historical perspective

The development of computational fluid dynamics is not only restricted to the computer simulation
of fluid flow phenomena. The fact that fluid dynamics was a very attractive research problem for
computational scientist does not make the numerical methods of prime usage for fluid dynamics
simulations. However, there was a complete link between the development of numerical methods
for PDEs and the simulation of fluid flow problems.

Since the 1940s, analytical solutions to most fluid dynamics problems, especially those arising in
aerodynamics, were readily available for simplified or idealized situations. However, it was soon
realized that a wide range of problems still need to be solved especially with the increasing
demands of the industry. This was an incentive for the inception of asymptotic/semi-analytical
methods. These methods included perturbation techniques (asymptotics) and scale similarity
analysis which found appreciable applications for viscous flow problems and inviscid
compressible flow.

Numerical methods, on the other hand, were known since the time of Newton in the 1700s.
Methods for the solution of ODEs or PDEs were conceptually conceived, but only on paper. With
the absence of the personal computer, there was no way for the application of these techniques.

Hall of fame

This section presents short biographical sketches of the people who were the pillars in CFD. Here
is an elementary list of some of these people. Please feel free to add more names to the list or
research any of the names presented here and include a short sketch of their lives along with their
contributions to CFD.
• Claude Navier • Chow W.L.(needs a first name!)
• George Stokes • Suhas Patankar
• Daniel Bernoulli • Milovan Peric
• Leonard Euler • Andre-Louis Cholesky
• Ludwig Prandtl • Richard Courant
• Theodore Von Karman • Kurt Friedrichs
• John Von Neumann • Hans Lewy
• Lejeune Dirichlet • Olga Ladyschenskaya
• Spalding D.B.(needs a first name!) • Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier
• Rhie C.M.(needs a first name!) • Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi
2/8
 • Nikolai Mitrofanovich Krylov • Som D. Sharma
• Martin Wilhelm Kutta • J. J. Stoker
• Carl Friedrich Gauss • Hermann Schlichting
• Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov • W.C.S. Wigley
• John Henry Michell • Marshall P. Tulin
• Ernest Oliver Tuck • Klaus W.H. Eggers
• John Nicholas Newman • Louis Landweber
• Touvia Miloh • M.J. Lighthill
• John V. Wehausen • Tuncer Cebeci
• Fritz Ursell • A.A. Townsend
• Horace Lamb • K. Stewartson
• Hajime Maruo • L. Morino
• Georg P. Weinblum • T. Inui
• Thomas H. Havelock • W. Froude
• Carl David Tolmé Runge • Gopal R. Shevare
• A.M.O. Smith • Sergei K. Godunov
• John Hess

CFD quotations
Below is a list of some of the famous quotations on CFD
• It's deja-screw all over again
--Gary Montry
• The world's an exciting place when you know CFD
--John Shadid
• In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is
--Anonymous computer scientist
• There are 3 rules to follow when parallelizing large codes. Unfortunately, no one knows
what these rules are
--W. Somerset Maugham and Gary Montry
• All models are wrong, but some models are useful
--George P. E. Box
• But as no two (theoreticians) agree on this (skin friction) or any other subject, some not
agreeing today with what they wrote a year ago, I think we might put down all their results,
add them together, and then divide by the number of mathematicians, and thus find the
average coefficient of error.
--Hiram Maxim, early aeronautical designer, 1908.
• As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it wasn't as easy to get
programs right as we had thought. Debugging had to be discovered. I can remember the
exact instant when I realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be spent
in finding mistakes in my own programs.
-- Maurice Wilkes discovers debugging, 1949

Historical Developments in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

1. The Subject

The physical aspects of transport phenomena in the macroscale are governed by Newton's laws of motion
and the fundamental principles of mass, energy and species conservation. Depending on the nature of the
problem and the quantities of interest, these fundamental principles can be expressed in terms of algebraic
3/8
equations, ordinary/partial differential equations or integral representations. Numerical simulation is by and
large the technique of replacing the governing transport equations with algebraic equations and obtaining a
final numerical description of the phenomenon in space and/or time domain. Irrespective of the nature of
the problem, numerical simulation involves the manipulation and solution of numbers, leaving behind an
end product which is also a collection of numers. This is in contrast to the symbolic expression of closed
form analytical solution.

The final objective of most engineering investigations, whether they are analytical, experimental or
numerical, is to obtain a quantitative description of the problem, in terms of numbers. In this regard,
numerical simulation techniques provide readily acceptable and often the most descriptive form of solutions
to a variety of transport problems. Numerical simulation of practical problems generally involves the
repetitive manipulation of thousands, or even millions, of numbers - a task that is feasible only with the aid
of a computer. Advances in simulation techniques and their applications to problems of greater complexity
and enormity, are intimately related to the advancement in computer technology. This is exemplified by the
fact that one of the strongest forces driving the development of new supercomputers is the increasing
demand for speed and storage required by the numerical simulation of the flow problems.

2. Historical Perspective

By the turn of the twentieth century, the development of closed form analytical solutions for field problem
had reached a highly mature stage and it was being realized that a large class of problems still remained
which were not amenable to exact analytical solution methods. This gave birth to a variety of approximate
semi-analytical techniques on the one hand and to the development of numerical solution procedures on the
other. The semi-analytical techniques which foundwide use in fluid dynamics research were the
perturbation methods [1], the similarity approach [2], and the integral method [3], - all for the viscous
boundary layer calculations, - and the method of characteristics [4] for inviscid compressible flow
simulations. As regards the numerical techniques for solving field problems, finite difference based
methods were the first to develop, because of their straight forward implementation. Although the finite
difference formulation is relatively simple, the severe limitation faced in the pre-second world war era was
that calculations had to be performed manually. Thus, even linear problems involving Laplacian or
Biharmonic operators were solved iteratively by relaxation methods [5,6]. Southwell [7] introduced a
relaxation scheme which is highly suitable for hand calculations. In this method, the residuals of the
governing equations are calculated at all the grid points of the solution domain and the variable values
corresponding to the locations of largest residuals are relaxed first. Until the advent of digital computers,
Southwell's method was very popular for solving various heat transfer and fluid flow problems. Another
relaxation scheme which found extensive use was the Successive Over Relaxation (SOR) scheme proposed
by Frankel [8].

For structural problems involving elastic deformations, Ritz [9] developed a method which involves the
approximation of a potential functional (virtual work) in terms of trial functions with undetermined
coefficients. The unknown coefficients are evaluated by minimizing the potential functional. A severe
limitation of the Ritz method is that the trial functions need to satisfy the boundary conditions of the
problem. Courant in 1943 [10] made a significant improvement over Ritz method by discretizing the
domain into triangular areas and assuming linear trial functions over each of the triangles. By this ingenious
extension, all the trial functions were not required to satisfy the boundary conditions. Incorporating these
concepts, the full fledged development of the Finite Element Method was first introduced by Clough [11] in
1960. Since then, the method has made rapid strides for the modeling of structural engineering problems
and fluid flow and heat transfer modeling in recent years.

A pioneering work on the uniqueness and existence of numerical solutions to partial differential equations
was presented by Courant, Friedrichs and Lewy[12] in 1928. The stability requirement (CFL condition) for
hyperbolic partial differential equation was first shown in this work. The stability criteria for Parabolic
time-marching problems in Computational Fluid Dynamics were developed by Von Neumann. A detailed
discussion of these criteria has been presented by O'Brien et al [13]. With so much of a ground work having
been accomplished prior to 1950 on the basic numerical methods, iterative schemes and numerical stability,

4/8
the progress on numerical simulation was accelerated by leaps and bounds after the discovery of the
electronic computers in the late fifties.

One of the earliest flow problems to be attacked with the help of digital computer was the viscous flow
simulation at intermediate Reynolds numbers (Re < 1000). Based on the stream function-vorticity
formulation of viscous flow problems, Fromm [14] and Fromm and Harlow [15] developed an explicit
forward time difference method at Los Alamos. Their method was used by Thoman and Szewcsyk [16] for
cross flow over cylinders and Rimon and Cheng [17] for uniform flow over a sphere. Steady state solutions
for stream function-vorticity equations were obtained by Hamielec et al [18,19] using the SOR technique.
An implicit time-marching procedure for viscous flows was developed by Pearson [20]. This method is
based on the Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI) method proposed by Peaceman and Rachford [21] and
Douglas and Rachford [22].

Significant development was witnessed in the fifties and sixties towards the solution of inviscid
compressible flow equations. Starting with shock-capturing technique of Lax [23] which used the
conservative form of governing equations, several methods have been developed. Finite difference
schemes, such as the Particle-in-Cell (PIC) have been found to be inherently shock smearing [24]. In 1960,
a second order accurate finite difference scheme which reduces the shock smearing effect was proposed by
Lax and Wendroff [25]. This scheme later led to the development of the McCormack method [26]. For
moving shocks, shock fitting procedures have been proposed and applied to multidimensional supersonic
flows over various configurations [27, 28, 29]. Even today, some of these schemes are in extensive use.

Although in the early simulation methods for viscous incompressible flow, vorticity and stream function
were the calculated variables, and the late sixties, simulations in terms of primitive variables (velocity
components and pressure) began. Pioneering work in this direction was performed by Harlow and Welch
[30] and Harlow and Amsden [31] at Los Alamos. These authors introduced explicit transient algorithms
such as MAC and SMAC. Chorin [32] in 1968 developed the artificial compressibility method for handling
viscous incompressible flows. Adopting some of the concepts proposed in these studies, a successful
implicit formulation in terms of primitive variables was developed by Patankar and Spalding [33]. Based on
this well known SIMPLE algorithm and its later improvements such as SIMPLER [34] and SIMPLEC [35],
a horde of multi-dimensional viscous incompressible flows have been simulated. These implicit methods
have an inherent advantage over the explicit algorithms that they have no restrictions on the time step from
the point of view of numerical stability.

In the late seventies and eighties considerable interest has been evinced on the techniques for handling
flows in arbitrary shaped geometries. Methods for transforming complex geometries into simple ones have
been proposed and excellent discussion on these methods are provided in the book by Thompson, Warsi
and Mastin [36] and the reviews on this subject [37, 38]. In recent years, Baliga and coworkers [39, 40, 41]
have introduced a control volume based finite element method which can handle arbitrary geometric.
Independently, weighted residual based finite element algorithms have been developed [42, 43, 44]. Peric
[45] and Majumdar et al [46] have proposed the application of conservation laws to non-orthogonal control
volumes. Research is still being conduction on these methods and several complex flow situations are being
simulated using them.

Although a large volume of research publications have appeared in recent years on numerical flow
simulation, the potential for further research is expanding at an ever increasing rate. In the decades to come,
it appears that many more powerful algorithms will be evolved and several complex flow/heat transfer
problems will be successfully simulated. The scope and potential for applying numerical simulation in real
life problems is described briefly in the next section.

3. Role of Numerical Simulation in Modern Technological Environment

The role of numerical simulation in engineering is so vital that it has been accepted as an emerging subject
which has its own standing based on analytical and experimental knowledge of the engineering disciplines
concerned and numerical analysis. If we consider advances in fluid mechanical applications, we observe
that major contributions have so far been rendered by a combination of experiments and approximate
5/8
theoretical analysis. The analytical solution, albeit being a consequence of simplified form of governing
equations, has the distinct advantage of immediately identifying some of the fundamental parameters of the
given problem, and demonstrating some of the effects of these parameters on the physics of the problem.
However, in order to include all the physical details of the problem formulation, total numerical simulation
stepped in with its ability to handle the governing equations in their complete form during the end 1960's.
Very soon it became a popular and reliable tool in engineering analysis. Today predictive procedures
support experiments, enrich/extend the range of analytical solutions and finally contribute in product
development.

Some of the major applications of numerical simulation are discerned in wind tunnel testing and
combustion studies. In these applications the rapid decrease in the cost of computations (with the advent of
modern high speed computers) compared to the increase in the cost of performing experiments with
sophisticated gadgets has made numerical simulation an attractive alternative. The calculation of
aerodynamic characteristics related to any new design through the application of numerical simulation is
becoming indeed cheaper than measuring these characteristics in a wind tunnel. As such, in aircraft
industries, the testing of preliminary design for new aircrafts or their components are first performed on the
computer before taking-up rigorous wind tunnel tests. The wind tunnel is used to do the final fine-tuning of
the design of new aircrafts and its components. In addition to economy, numerical simulation provides
detailed flow field information when required. Even in very reliable experiments, measurements are
generally taken at a few points. Over and above, many realistic conditions such as large sizes, very high
temperature, toxic substances, fast transients which are indeed formidable to handle in experiments, can be
simulated to some degree of confidence. Sometimes, in fluid mechanical studies, we are interested in
investigating idealized conditions such as two dimensional or constant density flows. These tasks can be
accomplished comfortably through numerical simulation.

An important question to address during the use of numerical simulations, however, is the validation of the
Fig.1. Unstructured grid for two Fig. 2. Iso-surfaces of the spanwise vorticity (wz = +
automobiles(after Weatherill, 1988 0.25) after Saha, 1999
predicted results. The results of numerical
simulation are only as much as valid as the physical models incorporated in the governing equations. In
addition, truncation errors associated with a particular algorithm employed to obtain a numerical are often
amazingly accurate. Let us focus on some results generated by CFD. Figure 1 shows a typical
computational domain and the grid-mesh used to discretize the domain for analysing flow around two
automobiles (after Weatherill [47]). Figure 2 shows the isosurfaces of the spanwise vorticity in the wake of
a square cylinder (courtesy Saha [48]).

It is also necessary to mention here than in many complex applications, experimental data base corroborate
to a high degree accuracy, with numerical predictions. Keeping in mind such prediction power and
acknowledging the fact that computations are frequently cheaper than conducting sophisticated
experiments, engineers are more and more shifting towards the numerical simulations for testing and
calibrating preliminary design.

Inspite of their extensive utility, prediction procedures are not completely devoid of limitations. For
instance, they cannot reproduce physics that has not been properly included in the formulation of the
6/8
problem. Thus, complex problems for which an adequate mathematical model support is not available can
only be simulated through some approximate models. Accuracy of the results will definitely depend on the
correctness of the model. For example, most of the solution procedures available for turbulent flow
predictions use turbulence models which are indeed mere approximations of the real physical phenomena
and the success of such models depend on the choice of some empirical constants. However, in recent times
that there is also an emerging thought that on a fine enough scale, all turbulent flows obey the regular
Navier Stokes equation and if a very fine grid can be used (order of 109 to 1012 grid points in a domain
that typically has dimension of a few cms!) both the small scale and the large scale aspects of turbulence
can be evaluated. This approach is known as Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) of turbulence (Rai and
Moin [49]).

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) is another technique intermediate between the direct simulation and the
modeling approach discussed earlier. In LES, the contribution of the large scale structures to the momentum
and energy transfer is computed exactly and the effect of the smallest scales of turbulence is modeled
(Piomelli and Liu [50]). These developments indicate the close linkage between the level of physical
understanding of a problem and the predictive procedures employed.

Another limitation of numerical simulations is discerned in reacting flows with moving flame fronts.
Generally, there are a lot of uncertainties with respect to the determination of chemical reaction rates and
the result of the numerical simulation of reactive flows are not free from such uncertainties. In addition, the
presence of moving fronts complicate the problem tremendously. This is due to the fact that very small time
steps are required to resolve the large gradient regions near the moving fronts. Since a numerical solution
can only be as good as the grid employed to predict it, simulations of reactive flows result in the vicious
circle of choosing appropriate grids which can adequately capture the important features of the unknown
solutions. At times, if the choice of the numerical grid is not proper or the convergence of the iterative
scheme is insufficient, the accuracy of the predictions may be unreliable. However in conclusion, it can be
said that the results of numerical simulation are very much dependent on the physical understanding of a
problem and the implementation of the subtle numerical considerations.

4. Closure

In the developed countries, the CFD has made rapid inroads in the academic and research institutions.
Universities in the west and Japan possess, by definition, a synergy between teaching and research. They
contribute to the society by two major products, professionals and technology. The CFD has brought about
a major break-through in the technology-development in past twenty years. The Universities have been
partly prodded into the technology development by generous support from the government agencies such as
NASA (USA), DLR (Germany) and ONERA (France). In India, till date, the CFD is mostly practised in the
IITs, IISc, DRDL (Hyderabad), VSSC (Trivandrum), NAL (Bangalore), ADA (Bangalore), ADE
(Bangalore), GTRE (Bangalore), HAL (Bangalore), TRDDC (Pune) and BHEL (Hyderabad and Bhopal).
Some well known multinational companies, such as FLUENT and ICEMCFD have started their operations
in India. A need has been felt to promulgate the importance and utility of CFD to the engineering colleges
(state and regional ) and medium-range industries. We hope that the next Millennium will benefit a low
with such a spread of the CFD. The academia will come forward to help the industry in understanding the
difficulties and the industry will expose the intricate problems of technology to the academia.

References:

1. Van Dyke, M., Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics, Academic Press (1964).
2. Howarth, L., Proceedings of Royal Society of London, A164, 547, 1938.
3. Schlichting, H., Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, 1987.
4. Von Mises, R., Mathematical Theory of Compressible Fluid Flow, Academic Press, 1958.
5. Richardson, L.F., Phil. Trans. the Royal Society of London, Ser-A, 210, 307-357, 1910.
6. Liepman, H., Acad. Wiss., Math. Phys. Klasae, Sitzungsber, 3, 388, 1918.
7. Southwell, R.V., Relaxation Methods in Engineering Science, Oxford Univ. Press, 1940.
8. Frankel, S.P., Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computations, 4, 65-75, 1950.
7/8
9. Ritz, W., Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik and Mechanik, 35, 1-61, 1909.
10. Courant, R., Bulletin of the Americal Mathematical Society, 49, 1-23, 1943.
11. Clough, R.W., Proceedings of the Second ASCE Conference, Pittsburgh, 1961.
12. Courant, R., Friedrichs, K.O. and Lewy, H., Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32-74, 1928.
13. O'Brien, G.G., Hyman, M.A. and Kaplun, S., J. of Math. Phys., 29, 223-251, 1950.
14. Fromm, J.E., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report, LA-2910, 1963.
15. Fromm, J.E., and Harlow, F.H., Phys. of Fluids, 6, 975-982, 1963.
16. Thoman, D.C. and Szewczyk, A.A., Phys. of Fluids, Supplement II, 76-87, 1969.
17. Rimon, Y. and Cheng, S.I., Phys. of Fluids, 12, 949-959, 1969.
18. Hamielec, A.E., Hoffman, T.W., and Ross, L.L., AIChE J, 13, 212-219, 1967.
19. Hamielec, A.E., Johnson, A.I. and Houghton, W.T., AIChE J, 13, 220-224, 1967.
20. Pearson, C.E., J. Fluid Mech., 21, 611-622, 1965.
21. Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H., J. Soc. Indust. Applied Math, 3, 28-41, 1955.
22. Douglas, J. and Rachford, H.H., Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 82, 421-439, 1956.
23. Lax, P.D., Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 7, 159-193, 1954.
24. Evans, M.E. and Harlow, F.H., Los Alamos Report LA-2139, 1957.
25. Lax, P.D. and Wendroff, B., Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 13, 217-237, 1960.
26. MacCormack, R.W., AIAA Paper 69-354, Cincinnati, 1969.
27. Gary, J., Courant Institute Report, NY 09603, New York Univ, 1962.
28. Moretti, G. and Abbett, M., AIAA J. 4, 2136-2141, 1966.
29. Moretti, G. and Bleich, G., Sandia Report, SC-RR-68-3728, 1968.
30. Harlow, F.H. and Welch, J.E., Phys. Fluids, 8, 2182-2188, 1965.
31. Harlow, F.H. and Amsden, A.A., Los Alamos Report, LA-4370, 1970.
32. Chorin, A.J., Math. Comput., 22, 745-762, 1968.
33. Patankar, S.V., and Spalding, D.B., Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15, 1787-1806, 1972.
34. Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere, 1980.
35. Van Doormaal, J.P. and Raithby, J.D., Numerical Heat Transfer, 7, 147-163, 1984.
36. Thompsan, J.F., Warsi, Z.U.A. and Mastin, C.W., Numerical Grid Generation, 1985.
37. Anderson, D.A., Advances in Grid Generation, ASME Fluids Eng. Conference, 1983.
38. Babuska, I., Chandra, J., and Flahertx, J.E. (Ed.), Adaptive Computational Methods for Partial
Differential Equations, SIAM, 1983.
39. Baliga, B.R., PhD Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota, Mineeapolis, 1978.
40. Baliga, B.R. and Patnakar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer, 6, 245-261, 1983.
41. Baliga, B.R., Pham, T.T. and Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer, 6, 263, 1983.
42. Taylor, C. and Hood, P., Computers and Fluids, 1, 73-100, 1973.
43. Jackson, C.P. and Cliffe, K.A., Int. J. Num. Meth. Engg., 17, 1980.
44. Taylor, C. and Hughes, T.G., Finite Element Programming of the Navier-Strokes Equations, Pineridge
Press, 1987.
45. Peric, M., Ph.D Thesis, University of London, 1985.
46. Majumdar, S., Rodi, W. and Zhu, J., Journal of Fluids Engineering, 114, 496-503, 1992.
47. Weatherill, N.P., Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 8, 181-197, 1988.
48. Saha, A.K., Dynamical Characteristics of the Wake of a Square Cylinder at Low and High Reynolds
Numbers, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT Kanpur, 1999.
49. Rar, M.M. and Moin, P., J. Comput. Phys.,96, 15-53, 1991
50. Piomelli, V. and Liu, J., Phys. Fluids, 7, 839-848, 1995.

8/8