Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting

FEDSM2017
July 31-August 3, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA

FEDSM2017-69174

VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CAELUS LIBRARY - INCOMPRESSIBLE

FLOW SOLVERS

Aleksandar Jemcov Darrin W. Stephens∗ Chris Sideroff

Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Applied CCM Pty Ltd Applied CCM Inc
University of Notre Dame Melbourne, Victoria, 3175 Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 6K3
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 Australia Canada
ajemcov@nd.edu d.stephens@appliedccm.com.au c.sideroff@appliedccm.ca

ABSTRACT n Index taking values in the set N(p), [-].

Emphasis of this paper is on the validation and verification
of the open source numerical library, Caelus, suitable for the
simulation of problems in continuum physics. The focus of
this work is the verification and validation of problems in fluid
mechanics. Several test cases including Couette and Kovasznay
flows are used in verification of the steady state solver for
incompressible flows. In addition, flat plate boundary layer,
flow through a tee-junction and triangular lid-driven cavity are
used in the validation part of the work. In all cases excellent
agreement was found between the numerical, analytical and
experimental results.
N(p) Local neighbourhood of the cell with index, p, [-].
p Index of the discretisation cell, [-].
Re Reynolds number, [-].
ui Cartesian component of the velocity field, [m s−1 ].
uL Lid velocity, [m s−1 ].
W Width, [m].
δi Cartesian discrete derivative component, [m−1 ].
ν Kinematic viscosity, [m2 s−1 ].
∂i Cartesian derivative component, [m−1 ].
p̂ Pressure field normalised by the density, [m2 s−2 ].
∗ Superscript denoting predicted values, [-].

ˆ Symbol denoting normalisation by the density, [-].

NOMENCLATURE
a Channel height in Couette flow problem, [m].
an Off-diagonal coefficients in momentum equation, [s−1 ].
a p Diagonal coefficients in momentum equation, [s−1 ].
D Cavity depth, [m].
i Cartesian index, i ∈ (x, y, z), [-].
x Distance in Cartesian x-direction, [m].
y Distance in Cartesian y-direction, [m].
K Spatial dimension, K ∈ (1, 2, 3), [-].
λ Parameter in Kovasznay analytical solution, [-].
c f Skin friction coefficient, [-].
Rex Local Reynolds number, [-].
L Length, [m].
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
1 Copyright c 2017 by ASME
INTRODUCTION
Recent years have witnessed a significant proliferation of
numerical libraries being used in computational continuum me-
chanics [1–3]. While the appearance of open source codes in
general, is a positive development, the question of correct im-
plementation of the various methods and solvers remains to be
addressed. This question can be only answered by performing
validation and verification exercises. In this work we focus on
the verification and validation of Caelus [4], an open source li-
brary for computational continuum mechanics.
The Caelus library is a general purpose framework for the
solution of the continuum mechanics problems. The framework
is a derivative of the OpenFOAM R library with an emphasis
on improved accuracy and robustness. As such, Caelus is an
open source library developed and distributed under the GPL li- which is substituted into the discrete continuity equation
cense agreement. One of the goals is to provide a framework
that is both verified and validated. This work concentrates on the
δi ui = 0, (5)
verification and validation of incompressible flow solvers. Both
analytical methods and experimental data were used in the veri-
fication and validation process. and yields the following modified continuity equation
A few known analytical solutions, such as Couette [5] and
Kovasznay flow [6], are used for verification of the incompress- !!
1
ible flow solver. The Kovasznay class of flow solutions are of δi uip = δi − ∑ ani uni − (δi p̂) p . (6)
particular interest as they represent viscous flow solutions behind ap n∈N(p)
an array of bluff bodies at a non-trivial Reynolds number.
Validation of Caelus’ incompressible solvers consists of Since the incompressibility constraint requires the resultant
computing solutions for a flat plate laminar boundary layer, flow velocity field to be divergence free, the same constraint is applied
through a tee-junction, and a triangular lid driven cavity and to the discrete form of the continuity equation resulting in the
comparing to known values for each case. following pressure equation

 
PREDICTOR-CORRECTOR ALGORITHM FOR STEADY- 1
δi (δi p̂) p = δi ũip , (7)
STEATE FLUID FLOW ap
The Navier-Stokes equations in steady-state form along with
the continuity equation in the divergence-free form: where ũi is defined as

∂ j (ui u j ) − ∂ j (ν∂ j ui ) = −∂i p̂,

!
(1) 1
ũip = p − ∑ ani uni . (8)
a n∈N(p)

∂i ui = 0, (2) Eq. (3) and Eq. (7) together with the corresponding boundary
conditions represent the system of linear algebraic equations that
where p̂ = p/ρ is the modified pressure normalised by the fluid can be solved using the predictor-corrector algorithm shown in
density. Both density and kinematic viscosity are taken to be Alg. (1)
constant and the time derivative term is omitted from Eq. (1) per
the steady assumption.
In order to define a well posed problem, Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) initialise p and ui fields;
are supplemented by an appropriate set of boundary conditions. set the boundary conditions;
Cell-centered finite volume scheme is used for the discretisation while convergence criterion is not satisfied do
of the momentum equation [7] resulting in the following discrete predictor step;
equation solve aip (uip )∗ = − ∑n∈N(p) ani uni − (δi p̂) p for the
predicted velocity field (uip )∗ ;
aip uip + ∑ ani uni = −(δi p̂) p , (3) use the predicted velocity to obtain the pressure field
δi a1p (δi p̂) p = δi (ũip )∗ ;


n∈N(p)
update fluxes;
where symbol δi represents the discrete form of the gradi- corrector step;
ent operator and N(p) denotes the neighbourhood of the point update the velocity uip = (ũip )∗ − a1p (δi p) p ;
“p”. Cell-centred finite volume discretisation practice leading to check the convergence criterion;
Eq. (3) is known to produce M-matrices [7]. By introducing the end
appropriate average of central coefficients a p = ∑Ki aip /K we can Algorithm 1: PREDICTOR-CORRECTOR ALGORITHM
formally solve Eq. (3) for the discrete velocity uip

! The predictor-corrector algorithm is called

1
uip = p − ∑ ani uni − (δi p̂) p , (4) simpleSolver in Caelus and was used for the verifica-
a n∈N(p) tion and validation in this paper. The simpleSolver is well

2 Copyright c 2017 by ASME

TABLE 1. PARAMETER VALUES IN ANALYTICAL EXPRES-
SION FOR THE SOLUTION OF COUETTE FLOW IN Eq. (8).

a ν ∂x p̂
1.0 1.0 3.0

suited for steady-state incompressible flow problems since the

pressure equation, Eq. (7), satisfies the divergence free con- FIGURE 1. COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN FOR COUETTE FLOW
straint through the solution of an elliptic equation. This equation
requires only Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions. The
resulting matrix is symmetric making it suitable for conjugate
gradient solution methods [7].

SOLVER VERIFICATION
The simpleSolver in Caelus is verified by utilising an-
alytical solutions for viscous flows. We consider two types of
viscous flows, namely Couette [5] and Kovaznay [6] flow. In
both cases analytical solution are available thus enabling the ver-
ification of the solver implementation.

Couette Flow
Couette flow [5] represents laminar fluid flow between two
plates driven by a pressure gradient or by the motion of one of
the plates. Due to its simplicity, Couette flow has an analytical
solution. A special case of stationary plates and non-zero pres- FIGURE 2. COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND COMPUTA-
sure gradient has the following analytical solution for the veloc- TIONAL X-VELOCITY PROFILES COUETTE FLOW PROBLEM
ity field:
λ λx
a2 uy = e sin(2πy), (11)
   
y 2 y
ux = ∂x p̂ − . (9) 2π
2ν a a

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the parameter a is the channel height. r

Values of the other parameters are listed in Tab. 1. The aspect ra-
tio of the computational domain is 5 and the computational mesh
that was used in computations has 500 cells in x-direction and
100 cells in y-direction. Second order schemes utilising linear
interpolation was used for all terms in the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions. Results are shown in Fig. 2. Excellent agreement between
computed and analytical results was observed for Couette flow.
Kovasznay Flow
An analytical solution for a non-trivial Reynolds number is
available the Kovaszany flow [6]. Kovasznay flow is a prototype
laminar flow behind a periodic array of cylinders. The analytical
expressions of the velocity is as follows:
ux = 1 − eλ x cos(2πy), (10)
Re Re2
λ= − + 4π 2 . (12)
2 4
The computational domain used was rectangular with 50
cells in x-direction and 75 cells in y-direction. The overall height
of the domain is 2 m and the length is 1 m. A non-trivial value
of Reynolds number of 40 was selected in the verification simu-
lations. Comparison of the computed and analytical solutions is
shown in Fig. 3 for ux and in Fig. 4 for uy component of the ve-
locity. Both velocity profiles show excellent agreement between
computations and analytical solutions.
SOLVER VALIDATION
Pressure-velocity coupling is achieved in simpleSolver
using the predictor-corrector algorithm described in Alg. (1).

3 Copyright c 2017 by ASME


FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND COMPUTA-
TIONAL X-VELOCITY PROFILES KOVASZNAY FLOW PROB-
LEM
FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND COMPU-
TATIONAL Y-VELOCITY PROFILES FOR KOVASZNAY FLOW
PROBLEM
Pressure and velocity gradients were calculated using a cell-
based Green-Gauss method. A 2nd order linear upwind discreti-
sation with multidimensional interpolation utilising the Barth-
Jespersen limiter [8] was used for the convective terms.
Blasius Solution for Flat Plates
In this case, steady, incompressible, laminar flow over a
two-dimensional sharp-leading edge flat-plate with zero pres-
sure gradient was investigated. Computational results were com-
4 Copyright c 2017 by ASME
FIGURE 5. FLAT PLATE COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN.
pared with the Blasius solution [9]. Blasius obtained a solu-
tion to the boundary layer equations using a transformation tech-
nique where the equations of continuity and momentum in two-
dimensional form are converted into a single ordinary differen-
tial equation (ODE). The solution to the ODE can be determined
numerically and is regarded as an exact solution to the bound-
ary layer equations. This leads to an analytical expression for
the skin friction coefficient (c f ) distribution along the flat-plate
given by
0.644
cf ≈ √ , (13)
Rex
where Rex is the local Reynolds number defined as
ux
Rex = , (14)
ν
and u is the freestream velocity, x is the distance from the leading
edge, and ν is the kinematic viscosity.
This case was based on the validation case from [10] using
the same conditions in the incompressible limit. A schematic
of the geometric configuration is shown in Fig. 5. A freestream
velocity of 10.4306 ms−1 was computed from the Mach number
(0.1) and temperature (300K). The plate length was L = 2.0 m,
wherein, x = 0 is at the leading edge. The Reynolds number
based on the plate length was 200,000. The kinematic viscosity
(ν) was determined using U∞ and Re.
Fig. 5 illustrates the domain boundaries used in two-
dimensions (x − z plane). The region of interest, highlighted
in blue, extends between 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3048 m and is a no-slip
boundary. Upstream of the leading edge, a slip boundary is
used to model freestream flow approaching the flat-plate. The
inlet boundary is placed at the beginning of the slip boundary at
x = −0.06 m while the outlet is at end the no-slip boundary at
x = 1.2192 m. A slip condition is used for the entire top bound-
ary. At the inlet a fixed uniform velocity u = 10.4306 ms−1 in
FIGURE 6. SKIN-FRICTION COMPARISON BETWEEN
CAELUS AND BLASIUS SOLUTIONS.
x-direction and zero gradient for pressure is applied. At the outlet
a fixed uniform pressure p̂ = 0 m2 s−2 and zero gradient for ve-
locity is applied. The simulation was initialised with a constant
velocity u = 10.4306 ms−1 in the x-direction and uniform zero
pressure field.
A 3D hexahedral mesh was generated using Pointwise [11]
by extruding the 2D quadrilteral mesh one cell in the x − y
plane. The grid was refined perpendicular to the wall in order
to resolve the near wall velocity gradients. To ensure that the
gradients in boundary layer were well resolved, about 50 grid
nodes are placed between the wall and the boundary layer edge.
Grid refinement is also added at the leading edge so that the
growth of the boundary layer is also well resolved. In this par-
ticular case, 399 cells were used in the streamwise x-direction
(x ≤ 0 ≤ 0.3048 m) and 297 in the wall normal y-direction.
For the no-slip wall beyond x > 0.3048, a similar distribution is
used, resulting in a total cell count of 217,998.
In Fig. 6, the skin-friction distribution along the flat-plate
obtained from Caelus is compared with that of the Blasius analyt-
ical solution. The distance x along the plate is normalised to the
total plate length (L). Excellent agreement is observed along the
entire length of the flat-plate. At the exit plane of the flat-plate,
velocity data was extracted through the boundary layer and com-
pared to the Blasius analytical solution. These results are shown
in Fig. 7, where the velocity profile is plotted using similarity
variables from the Blasius solution. η is the non-dimensional
vertical distance to the boundary layer edge and Ue is the veloc-
ity at the boundary layer edge. Similar to skin-friction profile,
the velocity profile also exhibits excellent agreement with the
Blasius solution.
5 Copyright c 2017 by ASME
FIGURE 7. NON-DIMENSIONAL VELOCITY PROFILE COM-
PARISON BETWEEN CAELUS AND BLASIUS SOLUTIONS.
Flow Through Tee-Junction
In this validation case, laminar, incompressible flow through
a two-dimensional 90◦ tee junction was investigated. Due to the
presence of the side branch, the flow separates and forms a re-
circulation region. The recirculating region influences the mass
flow through the main and side branches. The numerically com-
puted mass flow ratio was calculated and compared with exper-
iment. A comprehensive study of flow through planar branches
has been carried out by [12] due to its prevalence in the bio-
mechanical industry.
Figure 8 shows the schematic of the tee-junction. Here, L =
3.0 m and W = 1.0 m respectively, the Reynolds number based on
the width is 300, and v is the velocity in the y-direction. For sim-
plicity, we have assumed the velocity, v = 1 ms−1 . Using these
values the resulting kinematic viscosity was 0.00333 m2 s−1 .
Since this is an internal flow problem, the computational domain
is contained within tee-junction geometry. All tee-junction walls
have a no-slip boundary condition. At the inlet, a fully devel-
oped laminar flow parabolic profile is applied with a mean ve-
locity v = 1.0 ms−1 , otherwise a much longer main branch would
be required for the flow to develop. The domain has two outlets,
one at the end of the main channel and the other at the end of side
branch. Exit pressures at the two outlets are equal ( p̂ = 0 m2 s−2 )
and a zero gradient condition is applied to the velocity. The simu-
lation is initialised with uniform zero velocity and pressure fields.
The two x − y planes obtained as a result of grid extrusion
have empty boundary conditions applied to achieve 2D flow.
A total of 2,025 hexahedral cells comprise the tee-junction of
which, 90 cells are distributed along the height of the main chan-
nel, and 45 along the length of the side branch. The distribution
is such that a dimensional length of L = 1 m has a total of 45
cells, giving a distribution of 30 cells for the (2/3)L segment of
 FIGURE 9. COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN OF THE TRIANGU-
LAR CAVITY (NOT TO SCALE).

FIGURE 8. COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN REPRESENTING TEE-

JUNCTION.

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF MASS FLOW RATE SPLIT FOR

CAELUS AND EXPERIMENT.

Experimental Caelus Percentage Difference

0.887 0.8869 5.1 × 10−3 %

the main channel. The width, W , consists of 15 cells.

The mass flow rate was calculated at the inlet and at the main
outlet (outlet-1) and the ratio was subsequently calculated. Ta-
ble 2 compares the Caelus result with the experimental value. As
can be noted, the agreement between the two is excellent.
FIGURE 10. HYBRID GRID FOR THE TRIANGULAR CAVITY.

Triangular Cavity
This validation study concerns the laminar, incompressible
flow inside a lid driven triangular cavity. Here, the top wall of
the cavity moves at a constant velocity initiating a recirculating
motion within the cavity. Experiments on this configuration have
been reported in [13] for a Reynolds number of 800. The main
objective of this validation case was to compare the x velocity
distribution against experimental data.
A schematic of the triangular cavity is presented in Fig. 9
where the depth of the cavity is D = 4 m and the width W =
2 m. The Reynolds number based on the cavity depth is 800 and
the wall velocity is u = 2 ms−1 . Using the Reynolds number,
u, and D, kinematic viscosity was calculated to be 0.01 m2 s−1 .
The side walls of the cavity have a no-slip boundary condition
while the top wall, has a uniform velocity in the x-direction. The
simulation is initialised with zero velocity and pressure fields.
The mesh in x − y plane is shown in Fig. 10. A hybrid mesh
is employed for this case with a total of 5,538 cells. Up to a depth
of D = 1.35 m hexahedral elements are used while below that
value triangular prisms are used. The triangular prisms are used
in the bottom portion because they resulted in better cell qual-
ity. For the hexahedral region, 39 cells are distributed across the
width of the cavity and 39 along the depth. The cavity walls in
the prism region have 100 cells along each. The interface of the
two regions is node matched and has 39 cells across the width.
The mesh close to the cavity lid was refined to better capture the
shear layer. The flow characteristics in the cavity can be assumed
to be 2D and here it has been solved with the same assumption.
In Fig. 11, the x velocity distribution along the cavity centre-

6 Copyright c 2017 by ASME


FIGURE 11. COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND COM-
PUTATIONAL X VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE CAV-
ITY’S CENTRE-LINE.
line is compared with that of the experimental data [13]. The
y distance is normalised with the cavity depth (D) which gives
y/d = 0 at the cavity lid and y/d = −1 at the bottom vertex. Sim-
ilarly, the u velocity is normalised with the velocity of the cavity
lid (uL ). As seen in Fig. 11 the comparison with the experiment
is excellent.
CONCLUSIONS
A predictor-corrector based steady, incompressible solver in
the open source Caelus library was verified and validated. The
focus of this work was on laminar flows. Analytical, experimen-
tal and numerical data were used in the verification and valida-
tion process. Analytical solutions for Couette and Kovaznay flow
problems were used to verify that the solver was implemented
correctly. Agreement between computed and analytical solutions
was excellent for both Couette and Kovaznay flows. In the vali-
dation part of the paper, Blasius laminar boundary, flow through
a tee-junction, and the flow in the triangular cavity were used
to confirm that physically correct solutions were obtained. Ex-
cellent agreement was obtained in all cases indicating that the
steady-state solver computed accurate solutions.
Validation and verification performed in this work suggests
that the predictor-corrector solver implemented in Caelus under
the name simpleSolver was implemented correctly. While
this work does not concentrate on verification and validation of
the components of the solver such as boundary conditions, con-
vective and diffusive terms discretisation, gradient computations
to name just a few, results however indicate that the core compo-
nents of the solver perform as expected.
7 Copyright c 2017 by ASME
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The open source library Caelus version 6.10 was used to per-
form validation and verification in this work. The Caelus library
is a free and open source library licensed under the GNU Public
License (GPL). Caelus can be downloaded from the following
URL:http://www.caelus-cml.com/download/.
REFERENCES
[1] Jasak, H., Jemcov, A., and Tuković, Ž., 2007. “Open-
FOAM: A C++ library for complex physics simulations”.
In International Workshop on Coupled Method in Numeri-
cal Dynamics, IUC Dubrovnik, Croatia.
[2] Popinet, A., 2017. Gerris Flow Solver [Software]. In-
stitut Jean le Rond d’Alambert. Available at URL
http://gfs.sourceforge.net.
[3] Palacois, F., Economon, T. D., Wendroff, A. D., and
Alonso, J. J., 2015. “Large-scale aircraft design using
SU2”. In 53rd AIAA aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA.
AIAA Scitech.
[4] Applied CCM, 2016. Caelus: Computational Mechanics
Library (Version 6.10) [Software]. Applied CCM. Avail-
able at URL http://www.caelus-cml.com.
[5] Munson, B. R., Young, D. F., and Okiishi, T. H., 2002. Fun-
damentals of Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
[6] Kovasznay, L. I. G., 1947. “Laminar flow behind a two-
dimensional grid”. Proceeding of the Cambridge Philo-
sophical Society, 19(5), pp. 369–375.
[7] Ferziger, J. H., and Perić, M., 2002. Computational meth-
ods in fluid dynamics. Springer, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.
[8] Berger, M., Aftosmis, M. J., and Murman, S. M., 2005.
“Analysis of slope limiter on irregular grids”. In 43rd AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA. AIAA Paper-2005-
0490.
[9] Blasius, H., 1908. “Grenzschichten in Flüssigkeiten mit
kleiner Reibung”. Z. Math. Phys, 56, pp. 1–37.
[10] http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/fplam/fplam.html,
2014.
[11] Pointwise Inc., 2014. Pointwise, Mesh Generation Software
for CFD, Version 17.2R2. Pointwise Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
See also URL http://www.pointwise.com/.
[12] Hayes, R. E., Nandkumar, K., and Nasr-El-Din, H., 1989.
“Steady Laminar Flow in a 90 Degree Planar Branch”.
Computers and Fluids, 17(4), pp. 537–553.
[13] Jyotsna, R., and Vanka, P., 1995. “Multigrid Calculation
of Steady, Viscous Flow in a Triangular Cavity”. J. Comp.
Phys., 122, pp. 107–117.