See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267597038

Teaching Computational Fluid Dynamics Using MATLAB

Conference Paper · November 2013

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2013-66458

CITATION READS
1 11,082

2 authors, including:

Amitabha Ghosh
Rochester Institute of Technology
28 PUBLICATIONS   201 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Curriculum Improvement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amitabha Ghosh on 18 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of IMECE2013
2013 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
November 15-21, San Diego, California, USA

IMECE2013-66458

TEACHING COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS USING MATLAB

* +
Amitabha Ghosh and Carlos Pantaleón
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY 14623

ABSTRACT
A set of MATLAB modules has been developed for an
introductory graduate course on computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). These
modules can provide a breakthrough in CFD education because
they can assist both learning and comprehension, while
avoiding analytical mistakes by the CFD learner. With
advances in CFD and availability of software, students in upper
level fluid mechanics classes have less incentive to learn theory
and the tools for abstract thinking. This paper proposes for the
first time an alternate approach to teaching and learning of CFD
through the use of symbolic computation in MATLAB, while
preserving the accuracy and content of abstract analyses.
INTRODUCTION
In the past 30 years, advances in computer technology have
brought significant breakthroughs in engineering and science.
Side by side engineering computations were assisted by the
expansion of both memory and data storage. Most conventional
engineering problems in fluid mechanics have been solved and
an abundance of flow software is available in the market at
nominal costs. Most of the engineering graduate schools have
introduced CFD in their curriculum. Student thesis and project
work are routinely solved using FLUENT or CFX where
students need not learn the theory of CFD. As a result CFD has
become a buzzword where many people do not even know what
it is really about. It is true that the field of CFD is fairly broad
beginning with formulations and ending with data analysis and
display. Most of all, today results can be achieved by pressing
one button on the computer keyboard, or a mouse-click.
In the past, many educators have used CFD to solve
engineering questions themselves and taught students the fruit
of their learning. Or they have assisted students to find their
own answers, while they have not been trained in the theory of
CFD. In the graduate programs this approach is the most
prevalent. A student may not have a working knowledge of fluid
mechanics but they can still generate a grid on GAMBIT and
run flow calculations using FLUENT. In this paper these
approaches will be called the conventional or layman's
approaches to CFD. Without the analytical rigor required to
understand the underlying theory of CFD the final user of CFD
software does not necessarily understand the mathematical
behavior of fluid dynamics, the numerical procedures for
solving partial differential equations (PDEs), the different
discretization schemes behind the codes, or the necessary
stability analysis. For this reason, incorrectly computed results –
which at first sight might seem reasonable– may be accepted by
students as valid. In order to reduce this possibility, students
should be taught to properly select a physical model, understand
applicable governing equations, initial and boundary conditions
plus the domain discretization used for the simulation. But with
the current abundance of software in the marketplace how is
this possible? In fact, the engineering advancement has made
students lazy or, disinterested to learn the hard way that our
forefathers had to practice. Innovation in educational research
assisted development of software technology to provide clarity
in thinking and assist visualization.
Computer animation is a powerful tool which can enhance
student understanding significantly when properly designed.
Traditionally, this is where computers could assist advancing
education in a major way. Historically, campus-wide animation
driven courseware were developed as early as 1988 under the
project Athena at MIT [1]. All modules developed under that
project were designed by students with supporting staff experts
in X-windowing software and overseen by faculty mentors. The
first author was a faculty evaluator, and has since used these
tools (e.g., the TODOR courseware) successfully in teaching of
aerodynamics and fluid mechanics. Although such tools are
very user friendly and stand-alone computational marvels, they
require close monitoring of a seasoned instructor for enhanced
student learning in complex topics. Moreover they could not

*
Professor, Member ASME. +Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering.

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

offer new exploration of core thoughts analytically because of
their limited scope.
In a way, courseware such as TODOR can excite students
about fluid mechanics, and make them learn flow concepts by
interacting on fundamental levels, but cannot make them strong
in carrying out analyses necessary for CFD formulations.
TODOR was an excellent exposure to undergraduate fluid
flows, and students did not need to master calculus or fluid
mechanics to execute it. In fact, the developers' goals were to
relieve students of the "dirty work" that goes behind the screen
to plan, code and debug the solvers. The users could focus on
the engineering theories only. So the experience could be called
“computational experiments” complementary to the subject
once basic theory was learned.
Though X-windowing enjoyed its benefits in early nineties,
its days were limited. By the late nineties, RIT retired the VAX
and UNIX platforms, together with several host programs such
as FORTRAN. Now most universities use MATLAB as the
scientific platform for computational work. But MATLAB had
not developed enough to do exactly what the authors proposed
in this paper. MATLAB based programs are excellent
computational tools for analyzing flows, but may not have the
user friendliness of TODOR. The search for a solution was
intensified by some new impediments to learning from an
instructional viewpoint.
Educational research on undergraduate engineering
education in the past two decades has focused mainly on
Cooperative Learning approach. This emphasis has a sound
basis. It creates the most excitement among faculty when the
positive results are presented. However, major limitations exist
in practice in the area of time management. The first author
prescribed the team learning approach to students in upper level
fluid mechanics courses [2, 3] and still encourages students to
form study teams because engineers function best with this
approach. It can nudge weak students to take ownership of
engineering problems, but cannot make them strong to function
alone by themselves. In educational research, the support from
an experienced mentor is called the scaffolding. When the
scaffolding is removed, often a cognitive apprentice falters.
Therefore, unless there is a way to encourage self learning [4, 5]
and acceptance of ownership in analytical problems, one cannot
expect to create lifelong learners. Often the lone survivorship in
the analytical arena makes lifelong learners over any other
approach to education.
Even experts disagree on what is the magic prescription to
teach applied mathematics. But one can spend considerable
amount of time learning to motivate students to become self-
learners [6, 7, 8]. Historically, great scientists and
mathematicians all emerged from great schools of thoughts
headed by great scholars, and cognitive apprenticeship has been
the prescribed technique. In today's world these schools are
rare, and learning has thus been altered greatly from traditions.
Modernization and rapid advances in computer technology
have made man the ultimate end user of most of the amenities.
This trend has created more students who do not wish to make
2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
enough engaging efforts to succeed in a highly competitive
engineering curriculum. Pressure of modern hectic lifestyle has
further created piecemeal or, segmented approach with narrow
focus and shrinking attention spans in school age children. All
this has made upper level fluid mechanics classes and
traditional CFD courses even harder to teach at advanced levels.
To prepare a sound curriculum, connectivity with past
courses and upcoming classes must be established to
demonstrate the value of comprehensive learning. This would
enable students truly appreciate the seamless learning
environment offered by a well-designed curriculum. For
example, a typical 3 course sequence of Thermodynamics 
Fluid Dynamics  Heat Transfer should not be perceived as
disjoint subjects. Students should be helped to see the
connections from subject to subject by a “compare and
contrast” approach. Students today fail to connect with this
process approach to learning [9].
In the following sections, topics in an Introductory CFD
course (EMEM 830) will be discussed with their respective
instructional challenges. Then the changes proposed in this
paper will be discussed, benefits of the present approach will be
presented, and concluded with the future goals of this project.
PRELUDE
“Finally I point to the following unwelcome truth: much as we
might dislike the implications, research is showing that didactic
exposition of abstract ideas and lines of reasoning (however
engaging and lucid we might try to make them) to passive
listeners yields pathetically thin results in learning and
understanding – except in the very small percentage of students
who are specially gifted in the field” – A. B. Arons (1990)
This was a strong remark made by Arons [10] about the
amount of success one may achieve while trying to deliver
topics in an introductory physics course. There are two points
stressed by the above statement – there are only a few handfuls
of gifted students that can understand abstract ideas, and that
most students cannot be actively engaged while attending
classes. Earlier papers [2, 3] by the first author addressed the
latter point, while in this paper we address the first point and
furnish evidence toward a very powerful learning process. For
several years the every attempt was geared toward providing
instructional clarity, better visualization and comprehension
tools. The course has been taught for the last 25 years with
many modifications. But over the same period, student appetite
to complete analytical tasks has constantly diminished. After the
retirement of the UNIX and VAX platforms at RIT, the first
author converted all his old FORTRAN codes which were
developed following the earlier edition of reference [11] into
MATLAB modules, so that all students had FORTRAN type
computational experience. But the assignments were kept
simple because of reasons mentioned before. Finally with the
discovery of symbolic programming in MATLAB, the authors
developed an educational tool that did not have any previous
comparisons in the published MATLAB literature. In addition
to calculating flow results and producing exciting graphics, why
not let the computer train and correct the students’ coding
efforts in developing an understanding in CFD? For limited
space, only a select set of examples will be discussed below.
But the approach developed here also has excellent support
through MATLAB graphics and animation. Ultimately one may
finally expect to be taught by the computers [12, 13].
APPROACH
Appendix A presents the topics taught in Introduction to
CFD Analysis (EMEM 830) class in a short period of 10 weeks.
This class is taught once a year during the spring quarter. For
graduate ME students the course is preceded by Ideal flows
(EMEM 838) during the fall quarter and Convective
Phenomena (EMEM 851) during the winter quarter. These two
classes together with the present course constitute the graduate
core classes in Thermal Fluid Sciences offered by the
department of Mechanical Engineering at RIT. Since time is
limited in a single quarter, fluids syllabus in the graduate core is
taught utilizing all 3 courses. The new proposed CFD course
will also offer students the benefits of a synthesized approach
[9], and work well with the transition to semesters at RIT next
year.
Computational Fluid Dynamics consists of 5 steps of
solving a real life problem:
1) Mathematical formulation of the physical problem,
2) Numerical formulation of the mathematical problem,
3) Solution of the numerical problem using digital
computers,
4) Display of results using graphs, tables, video, etc.,
5) Interpretations of results obtained.
Depending on the nature of the formulations and the desirability
of solutions, a CFD engineer will go through several iterations
of the above steps. It is important to understand that the
conventional computational fluid dynamics courses mostly
followed by undergraduate universities only emphasize the step
3 using commercially available software. At the RIT ME
department, two courses with similar sounding names are
offered. The first course which is the topic of discussion here
emphasizes all five steps, and elaborates much more in steps 2
and 3 than the CFD Applications course which teaches how to
solve flow problems with the help of the FLUENT code. Many
students confuse the CFD Applications class with the
Introduction to CFD class, and later withdraw from this course
after realizing their mistakes. CFD applications class may be
attended by students with a working knowledge of fluid
mechanics, wherein they are not called upon to scrutinize
formulations or solutions, and explain reasons a priori why they
would expect an ill-formulated computational method to fail.
After students take the remedial math courses Math I and
Math II offered by the ME department, students interested in
3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
the graduate thermal fluids area must take Ideal Flows. This
class teaches inviscid flow formulations and solutions in low
subsonic and supersonic speeds. There is no coverage of
viscous flows or boundary layer theory. The second class in
Convective Phenomena focuses on viscous fluid flow solutions,
plus velocity and thermal boundary layers. This course
reinforces the analytical formulations in viscous flows. This is
followed by the Introduction to CFD Analysis, which actually
teaches them how to formulate flow solvers using finite
difference methods, what is the difference between the calculus
based analytical formulation and the discretized mathematical
formulation, how and why are solutions are different, and how
to plan and execute different solution techniques. In addition
the class teaches them what to look for when solutions do not
behave exactly what they were intended for. The students who
can completely master the topics taught in this course can
proceed to obtain a Ph.D. in fluid mechanics, or, conduct flow
research in a future career. This area of knowledge is quite
specialized, and most students upon completion will find
gainful employment in well-established research programs.
Target Students: This class is a senior/graduate level class
in the ME curriculum. Most students that enroll have all taken
the previous two graduate courses in Ideal Flows (EMEM 838)
and Convective Phenomena (EMEM 851). Undergraduates are
allowed only when they have taken an upper level fluids course
such as Transport Phenomena (EMEM 550). Occasionally
students from mathematics or physics also enroll in it. Students
are expected to be familiar with graduate level mathematics,
coding in MATLAB, and fluid mechanics level equivalent to
EMEM 550. The current paper opens possibilities of offering a
new graduate level elective course in CFD.
Progress Points: Several methods were chosen to measure
performance. A standard course evaluation was collected on
RIT forms at the end of the quarter. One comprehensive final
examination and two midterm examinations were given. A 2-
week long short project was collected to offer students some
coding experience. Weekly conceptual quizzes were given as a
quick feedback mechanism. In the final survey, some interesting
connections were observed among a student’s own preparation
levels and learning habits, self assessment, and assessment by
the instructor. These are further discussed below.
DISCUSSIONS
Benefits of analytical and/or abstract thinking are enormous.
It can strengthen comprehension and thus engineering
formulations, avoid common misconceptions, strengthen
analysis and synthesis (two important steps in Bloom’s
taxonomy [7]), foster lifelong learning in students, and extend
the solution process of engineering problems to new and
unexplored areas. There is no shortcut for students to learn
abstract thinking unless they take ownership of engineering
problems.
This section discusses examples of the historical approaches
first. In the past, the course Ideal Flows which teaches students
the theory of inviscid flows in low and high speeds had no
counterpart of CFD. The primary outcome of the current
Introduction to CFD Analysis class is to prepare students for a
career in CFD research (see Appendix A- Course Objectives).
In this process, the conventional CFD approach of finite
difference techniques is emphasized. Although the connection
between other approaches (finite volume, finite element, etc.)
were provided the class focused on the finite difference
methods only. The evolution of Marker and Cell (MAC)
techniques got introduced with the classic 1965 paper by
Harlow and Welch and completed with the connection to
FLUENT. However a single 10 week long class had too rapid a
pace establishing all the objectives. Under the proposed
structure, some user friendly MATLAB based software will be
imbedded into both Ideal Flows and Convective Phenomena
courses for students to have an overview of the CFD class
coming later in the sequence. They will also benefit the students
who simply take these classes as electives because they can
solve much more difficult problems using these modules which
were not possible before with a solely theoretical exposure.
With this blended approach, all three courses can benefit to
create interest in students and appropriate students will succeed
in choosing CFD as a career. The presented examples were
carefully chosen from homework assignments and quizzes
which serve the purpose of synthesizing learning. All figures for
discussions are presented in Appendix B.
Figure 1 shows a question from the take home test 2 in the
Convective Phenomena class which had been solved by
students using analytical means, and then brought back in this
class to demonstrate the simplicity of computational solution
over the complex analytical approach.
Problem formulations are of utmost importance, and
considerable amount of time is spent in that area.
Undergraduate classes do not emphasize enough the need for
writing proper analytic expressions, and symbolism needed to
write correct boundary conditions suffers [3]. For example,
many students would write the boundary conditions on the
lower wall of the plate shown in Figure 2 as qout = q. They
have to be taught the context of solvability of differential
problems in terms of independent and dependent variables, plus
how to properly construct a boundary condition using location
of boundaries and sign conventions. Figures 2 and 3 were
chosen to show the transfer of learning in these topics from the
Convective Phenomena class to this class with the help of a quiz
and a programming assignment.
Figures 3 through 6 represent courseware examples given
from Ideal Flows class. Each of these modules was developed
to create a user friendly environment similar to the TODOR
courseware mentioned before. The theory behind the
POTFLOW module in TODOR [1] was the primary motivation
to develop the solution presented in Figure 4. Although students
could learn to solve the superposition principle with simple
singularities, distributed singularities in the 8 panels are not
solvable by hand.
After students learn the superposition of placed singularities
at arbitrary locations in the coordinate system, the course brings
4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
discussion of the method of images. At this point in time, it is
appropriate to give students a copy of the panel method
depicted in Figure 3. The same flow resulting from the
superposition of a uniform flow and a doublet at origin can now
be reproduced by the source panel method where students must
learn additional importance of boundary conditions and issues
that the singularities pose computationally. Similarly the vortex
panel method used to solve the lift characteristics for flow over
a cambered airfoil offers the same extended example.
Figure 4 shows the use of vortex panel method. The thin
airfoil theory by the classical approach is currently a very
difficult area for students to understand because they do not
have an exposure to complex analysis before the Ideal Flows
class. Thus the derivation of airfoil characteristics cannot be
explored by the use of residue theorem after the thin airfoil
results are derived. Therefore cambered airfoil results are
sketchy using formulas of Fourier coefficients presented in the
textbook. Now the module represented in Figure 4 can provide
much more interest in this area for the learner.
The next example (see Figure 5) shows the solution of the
monoplane equation over finite wings obtained by the panel
method. This area of Ideal flows is also currently limited by the
deriving results for the elliptic wing, and using charts and tables
for the non-elliptic wings. Now students can seek many of their
own solutions using this user friendly module.
After the low speed aerodynamics some quick examples
from the wind tunnel testing theory are discussed including wall
interference correction schemes. Next the compressible flows
are presented. For brevity, the modules in wall interference
correction schemes and thermodynamic contents will not be
presented here.
Finally the last example (Figure 6) will be given from the
last topic in the Ideal Flows class. This program is simple to
write, but may not be assigned to students because of limited
time to cover the whole theory. In this way, all applications in
the Ideal Flows class would lead students to a future exposure
in CFD.
With the previous examples, introduction and exposure to
CFD were established. Now we present some real issues in
learning the theory of discrete mathematics. The CFD class
starts with the classification of PDE’s. Next it develops the
formulation of CFD by using different approaches. The course
is primarily based on the finite difference methods, although
other methods are discussed at this stage to show the
connectivity of the Taylor Series approach. Taylor series is
conceptually fairly straight forward for students to apply
consistently in all of CFD. But the real issue is the carelessness
to write expressions. As a result, algebraic errors can change the
analytical simplifications. So, order analysis or consistency
checks may be done incorrectly.
After the discussion of the types of errors in CFD, the
course quickly revisits ordinary differential equations, and the
associated numerical techniques. This is to establish a proper
connection with previous coursework familiar to our students.
Since many undergraduates take this class as an elective, these
students had a class each in numerical methods (NUMOD), and
advanced computational techniques (ACT). They have
familiarity with the trapezoidal rule or Runge-Kutta method for
integration. An interesting example showing the instability in
Runge-Kutta method and compared with the Milne’s method
[14] illustrates clearly to the students the need for a stability
analysis. Then the formal theory of linear multistep methods
with some simple examples of consistency and zero-stability are
introduced. Here also, to develop the concepts of optimal
methods and design of a numerical scheme by allowing free
parameters in truncation error expressions, Taylor Series use
must be correctly rendered.
Fortunately MATLAB’s symbolic programming can come
to rescue. MATLAB was originally designed for computations,
and the authors wished to use it like Mathematica for this CFD
class. Some modules were developed to write Taylor series
symbolically rather than evaluating it. Now one could generate
Taylor series expansions through any number of terms using
any one or two variables by specifying 4 arguments in a newly
created function Tay. It prints out a table containing desired
number of terms from the Taylor series. Using these, the
development of linear multistep methods can be learnt. Finally
when hyperbolic equations are discussed, learning the modified
equation approach could benefit student comprehension
enormously.
Table 1 shows the application of Taylor series to determine
consistency and zero-stability of a linear multistep method. This
table shows some one, two, three and 4 step methods. The
symbolism is adopted from the textbook by Lambert [14]. The
table shows the determination of order (and thus consistency)
for the given choices of α and, and also if the method is zero-
stable. Simplifying algebraic expressions and solving
simultaneous equations by hand is a typical area of weakness in
our students today. This demonstrates how students can attempt
to solve analytical work based on Taylor series to an advantage
by using the proposed courseware.
Table 2 shows the results for von-Neumann stability
analysis performed on 2 partial differential equations of
hyperbolic and parabolic type. The table was prepared with the
same symbol r used in the MATLAB code for two different
expressions. In the hyperbolic case, r = c t/x, whereas, r =
αt/(x)2 for the parabolic case. Also the numerical schemes
shown on the table represent the forms on the left hand side of
the equation = 0. In each case, the limits on r as obtained from
the stability analysis were indicated in the last column of the
table.
Table 3 shows how to obtain the modified equation of the
first order upwind method to solve the wave equation given in
Table 2. For comparison, the textbook's [reference 15] Table
4.1 is reproduced through the 3rd order terms. The MATLAB
program can print out any order terms, but the size was chosen
to be able to fit the table in a standard 8.5 x 11 sheet. The
benefit of correctly generating the modified equation for a
numerical scheme is that students can study both amplitude and
5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
phase errors closely related to stability and accuracy of
calculations. This is probably the biggest contribution so far of
this MATLAB based approach. In the past every attempt to
generate such tables by hand failed in some fashion because of
errors committed by average students. This development can
correct that obstacle using symbolic computations in MATLAB.
Also the software is very user friendly. So students can learn
CFD confidently and even research into development of new
methods without actually doing the "dirty work" themselves.
In the past, some students were asked to hand calculate
programming solutions on a small grid because it was difficult
to determine analytical errors while writing programming steps.
Usually this poses a formidable task for the self-learner because
the only way to check errors in expressions written manually is
to let someone else catch it. This paper has shown how to
overcome this using the computers in the subject of CFD. The
authors will keep on adding and developing new MATLAB
modules for this purpose and will publish relevant methodology
in forthcoming papers.
CONCLUSION
In this paper a MATLAB based new CFD course structure
has been proposed. The fundamental difference between this
paper and earlier approaches is that the current approach is
based upon symbolic computation which can teach students
analytical CFD concepts in addition to doing conventional
computations, display of data and presentations. This furnishes
one of the biggest needs in CFD education, as the future lies in
enhancing CFD research more effectively. MATLAB examples
were presented where CFD has been used to both teach and
simultaneously retain accuracy of analytical work, thereby
opening a new instructional technique to teach fluid mechanics
at upper levels. Although the modules were developed with the
student in mind, researchers will also find them useful to check
accuracy in their formulations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to Mr. William Tierney who
developed the MATLAB modules for Ideal Flows last spring
quarter as part of a graduate independent study course guided
by the first author.
REFERENCES
[1] McCune, J., Wachman, H. and Murman, E, 1990, “A
Workshop on Teaching Fluid Mechanics with Workstation
Based Software”, Final Report, National Science Foundation.
[2] Ghosh, A., 2009, “Development of Analytical Skills through
Cooperative Learning”, Paper No. IMECE2009-12947,
ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, November 13 – 19, Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
[3] Ghosh, A, 2011, "Teaching Formulation Skills in an Upper
Level Fluid Mechanics Course", Paper No. IMECE 2011-
63989, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition, November 11 – 17, Denver, Colorado.
[4] Rimer, S, 2009, “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Moran, John Wiley & Sons, (iii)Computational Fluid Mechanics -
Way of the Blackboard, NY Times Report, January 12. John D. Anderson, McGraw Hill, (iv)Computational Fluid Dynamics -
[5] Mazur, E, 1997, "Peer Instruction: A User's Manual", P. J. Roache, Hermosa Publishers, (v)An Introduction to
Computational Fluid Mechanics - C.Y. Chow, Seminole Publishing.
Prentice Hall.
[6] Felder, R. M. and Brent, R., 2002, “Designing and Teaching
Course Objectives: On successful completion of the course, students
Courses to Satisfy Engineering Criteria 2000”, Contract Report will be able to
EEC-9727411, Southeastern University and College Coalition  Formulate and analyze external inviscid flow techniques at low
for Engineering Education. and high speeds
[7] Anderson, L.W., and D. Krathwohl (Eds.), 2001, “A  Formulate and analyze external and internal flow techniques for
Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: a Revision of viscous flows
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”, Longman, New  Formulate and analyze steady and unsteady heat conduction
York. problems
[8] Love, P. G., Guthrie, V. L., 1999, “Perry’s Intellectual  Understand the basis of solution methodology of finite difference
Scheme”, Chapter from Understanding and Applying Cognitive methods
Development Theory: New Directions for Student Services, No.  Understand the fundamental concepts of Elliptic Grid Generation
Technique
88, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
 Conduct further research on topics in computational fluid
[9] Schneck, D. J, 2001, “Integrated Learning: Paradigm for a dynamics
Unified Approach”, Journal of Engineering Education, Volume Course Content: The following topics will be covered
90, Number 2.  Review and Fundamentals – Flow kinematics and kinetics,
[10] Arons, A. B., 1990, “A Guide to Introductory Physics Integral and differential formulations of fluid flows and heat
Teaching”, John Wiley and Sons, New York. transfer
[11] Biringen, S., and Chow, C. Y., 2011, "An Introduction to  Classification of Partial Differential Equations
Computational Fluid Dynamics by Example", John Wiley and  Parabolic, Hyperbolic and Elliptic Systems
Sons.  Well Posed Problems
[12] Topp, G., 2011, "Flipped classrooms take advantage of  Initial and Boundary Conditions
 System of Equations
technology", USA Today, 6 Oct 2011.
 Computational Methods
[13] Mazur, E., 1991, "Can We Teach Computers to Teach?",  Discrete Approximation of Derivatives
Computers in Physics, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1991.  Linear Multi-step Methods
[14] Lambert, J. D., 1974, “Computational Methods in Ordinary  Control Volume Approach
Differential Equations”, John Wiley & Sons.  Integral Method
[15] Pletcher, Tannehill and Anderson, 2013, "Computational  Polynomial Fitting Approach
Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer", 3rd Edition, CRC Press.  Errors in Computation
 Irregular Meshes
APPENDIX A: COURSE HANDOUT  Solutions of Algebraic Equations
 Direct Methods – Gaussian Elimination, Tri-diagonal
EMEM 830 Solvers, Gauss-Jordan Method
Introduction to CFD Analysis  Iterative Methods – Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel, Successive Over-
Relaxation Technique
 One-Dimensional Steady State Systems
Spring 2012-2013
 Diffusive System – Cartesian, Cylindrical, Spherical
Instructor: Dr. Amitabha Ghosh, Department of Mechanical Geometry
Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology  Diffusive-Convective System
 Diffusive-Convective System with Flow
Introduction: This course introduces the theory of Computational  Critical Considerations for Computational Schemes
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to students of engineering and science. CFD is  The Well-Posed Problem
an essential tool to solve fluid flow equations in the modern era. There  Consistency, Convergence, Stability, Lax’s Theorem
are several solution methods which will be discussed in CFD. The  Conservative and Transportive property
emphasis in the course will be on finite difference techniques. Some  Heuristic, Von-Neumann, and Matrix Stability Analysis
software tools will be overviewed if time permits.  Solution of One-Dimensional Parabolic Systems
 Explicit Scheme
Prerequisites: EMEM 838, EMEM 851 (or, equivalent)  Implicit Scheme
 Crank-Nicolson Scheme
Textbook: Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer –  Three-Time Level Method
Pletcher, Tannehill and Anderson, 3rd Edition, CRC Press, 2013.  Cylindrical and Spherical Symmetry
 Solution of Multidimensional Parabolic Systems
References: (i)Introduction to Fluid Mechanics - Fox & McDonald, J.  Explicit and Implicit Schemes
Wiley & Sons,(ii)Theoretical and Computational Aerodynamics –J.  Crank-Nicolson Scheme

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

  Fractional Time Step Methods – A.D.I, A.D.E, L.O.D, Connectivity Example B:
Hopscotch scheme
 Upwind Schemes – First Order, Donor Cell Differencing
 Solution of Hyperbolic Systems
 Euler Implicit and Upwind Schemes
 Modified Equations Approach
 Lax, Lax-Wendroff and MacCormack schemes
 Solution of Incompressible Navier Stokes Equations
 Stream Function-Vorticity Formulation
 Primitive Variable Formulations
 Numerical Grid Generation
 Body-fitted Coordinate Systems – Algebraic Method
 Elliptic Grid Generation Scheme
 Relations in Physical and Transformed Planes
 Grid Quality and Convergence

Syllabus: (Refer to your textbook)

Chapters 1 – 4, 9, 10 (some parts will be omitted to maintain the
theme, see detailed schedule)

APPENDIX B: MATLAB COURSEWARE ON CFD

PART 1 – THE CONVENTIONAL APPROACH Figure 2. Quiz Question from Convective Phenomena

Connectivity Example A:

Figure 3. Home Assignment 6 from CFD Analysis class

Courseware Examples:
Figure 1. Test Question from Convective Phenomena to
Home Work in Introduction to CFD Analysis A. Superposition in Ideal Flows using Panel Method

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 1.5

0.5

Figure 4: Streamlines and Source Distribution

-0.5

-1

-1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
B. Vortex Panel Method to Calculate Airfoil Results

Figure 7: Nozzle walls calculated by MATLAB code

Figure 5: Airfoil & Lift Calculations (shown on right panel)

C. Wing Theory (Solutions of the Monoplane Equation)

Figure 6: Lift Characteristics & the Drag Polar

D. Supersonic Nozzle Design using Theory of

Characteristics

8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

PART 2 – THE NEW PROPOSED APPROACH

Linear Multistep Method Coefficients Zero Stability Order

θ-method, k=1  j  1,1       1    1   12  p  1
yn 1  yn  h  f n 1  1    f n   j  1   ,  Strongly stable   12  p  2
Implicit, k=2, free factor d      2  1  d    1, d d  1  p  3
 j  d ,1 ,1
yn  2  1 yn 1  dyn  d 1 p  4
 j   0 , 1 ,  2 
h   2 f n  2  1 f n 1  0 f n  Strongly stable for d  1
Adams-Moulton, k=2  j  0, 1,1      2      0,1
p3
yn  2  yn 1  h
12 5 f n  2  8 f n 1  f n   j  121 1,8,5 Strongly stable
 j  0,0, 1,1
Adams-Bashforth, k=3      3   2    0,0,1
 j  121 5, 16, 23,0 p3
yn1  yn  h
12  23 fn 16 fn1  5 fn2  Strongly stable

Milne’s Method, k=4  j  1,0,0,0,1      4  1    1, i

p4
yn 1  yn 3  h  2 f n  f n 1  2 f n  2 
4
3 j  4
0,2, 1,2,0 Weakly stable
3

Quade’s Method, k=4  j  191 19,8, 8,19      4  198  3     1

yn  4  8
19  yn  3  yn 1   yn   j  196 1, 4,0, 4,1   1,0.2105  0.9776i p6
6h
19  f n  4  4 f n 3  4 f n 1  f n  Weakly stable
Table 1: Checking Consistency and Zero-Stability of Linear Multistep Methods

PDE Numerical scheme Amplification factor, G r

explicit u n 1
j
 u  12 r u
n
j  n
j 1
u n
j 1  1  i  r sin  
r u  1 1  i  r sin   0, 
FTCS
1-D linear convection
implicit
u nj 1  u nj  12 n1
j 1
 u nj 11
u u
c 0
t
c0
x explicit 
u nj 1  u nj  r u nj  u nj 1  1  r  rei {0,1]
 r u    0, 
FTBS
implicit
u nj 1  u nj n1
j
 u nj 11 1 r  re i  1

1-D diffusion explicit 

u nj 1  u nj  r u nj 1  2u nj  u nj 1  1  4r sin 2  12   {0, 12 ]
u  2u
 2  r u  
1 1  4r sin 2  12    0, 
FTCS
u nj 1  u nj n1
 2u nj 1  u nj 11
t x implicit j 1

Table 2: Performing von-Neumann Stability Analysis of Finite Difference Equations

9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Derivatives ut ux utt utx u xx uttt uttx utxx u xxx
t x t 2
x 2
FTBS wave equation 1 c 0 c 0 0 c
2 2 6 6
t  t t t 2 t x
 0 0  c 0  0 c 0
2 t 2 2 4 4
t  t t t 2 t x
c 0 0 0 c c2 0 c 0 c 2
2 x 2 2 4 4
t 2  2 t 2 t 2
0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0
12 t 2 12 12
t 2  2 t 2 t 2
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c 2 0
3 xt 3 3
t 2 t  4ct  3x  t  4ct  3x 
c  4ct  3x  2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c2
12 x 12 12
x x2
Sum of coefficients 1 c 0 0 c   1 0 0 0 c   1 2  1
2 6

Table 3: Comparison of Analytical Modified Equation [Ref. 15] with MATLAB generated table through u xxx term

10 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

View publication stats