This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
D. Tam1 , R. Radovitzky1,∗ and R. Samtaney2
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institue of Technology, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.
SUMMARY We present an algorithm for modeling coupled dynamic interactions between very thin ﬂexible structures immersed in a high-speed ﬂow. The modeling approach is based on combining an Eulerian ﬁnite volume formulation for the ﬂuid ﬂow and a Lagrangian large-deformation formulation for the dynamic response of the structure. The coupling between the ﬂuid and the solid response is achieved via an approach based on extrapolation and velocity reconstruction inspired in the Ghost Fluid Method. The algorithm presented does not assume the existence of a region exterior to the ﬂuid domain as it was previously proposed and, thus, enables the consideration of very thin open boundaries and structures where the ﬂow may be relevant on both sides of the interface. We demonstrate the accuracy of the method and its ability to describe disparate ﬂow conditions across a ﬁxed thin rigid interface without pollution of the ﬂow ﬁeld accross the solid interface by comparing with analytical solutions of compressible ﬂows. We also demonstrate the versatility and robustness of the method in a complex
to: Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institue of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 02139, U.S.A.
ﬂuid-structure interaction problem corresponding to the transient supersonic ﬂow past a transverse, highly ﬂexible structure. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ﬂuid-solid interaction, compressible ﬂows, ﬂexible structures
Current and future interplanetary exploration missions demand the availability of numerical tools for the design of light structures such as gossamer spacecraft and parachutes, [1, 2, 3]. In many situations of interest, an adequate description of the continuum ﬁelds in both the ﬂuid ﬂow and the solid structure dynamic deformations, as well as of their coupled interactions, is necessary. In this work we propose a computational strategy for modeling the coupled response of a thin structure immersed in a supersonic ﬂow. In general, the dynamic deformation of solid structures is most adequately described in a Lagrangian framework, especially in the case of large deformations. The main advantage of the Lagrangian approach lies in its natural ability to track the evolution of properties at material points in materials with history, as well as in the treatment of boundary conditions at material surfaces such as free boundaries or ﬂuid-solid interfaces. In contrast to Eulerian approaches, boundary conditions are enforced at material surfaces ab initio and therefore require no special attention. In this work, we propose a Lagrangian formulation for describing the large dynamic deformations of two-dimensional thin structures (rods) having both bending and membranal stiﬀness. By contrast, Lagrangian formulations are inadequate in the case of high-speed ﬂows or
Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prepared using nmeauth.cls Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 00:0–0
2 ﬂows involving signiﬁcant vorticity due to the unavoidable mesh distortion incurred during deformation which reduces the stable time step and the overall accuracy of the simulation and, eventually, breaks the numerical method. This problem can be partially remedied by the use of remeshing . However, remeshing increases the complexity of the algorithm and of its implementation and suﬀers from robustness problems in the three-dimensional case. Eulerian approaches, in which the ﬁeld equations are formulated in terms of spatial variables and ﬁxed or adaptive—albeit not distorting—meshes, are more adequate for most ﬂuid ﬂows. We concern ourselves with ﬂows where the viscous time scales far exceed the convection time scales, i.e. we model the ﬂuid ﬂow with the compressible Euler equations. In this work, the supersonic, unsteady ﬂow conditions are modeled by recourse to a ﬁnite volume formulation of the Euler equations of compressible ﬂow following Samtaney et al [5, 6]. A number of diﬀerent strategies for coupling ﬁxed-grid Eulerian ﬂuid dynamics formulations with Lagrangian solid mechanics formulations have been proposed. For incompressible viscous ﬂows, the immersed boundary method of Peskin and McQueen  has received signiﬁcant attention, especially owing to its success in modeling the complex conditions of blood ﬂow in the heart. A recent review of the method may be found in Peskin . Several extensions of this method have been recently proposed by Liu . Our work is concerned with problems involving high-speed compressible ﬂows. For this type of problems, the so-called Cartesian boundary method [10, 11] and the Embedded boundary approach of Colella et al  have recently gained signiﬁcant popularity. In these approaches, the computational domain is discretized by rectangular ﬁnite volume cells and the geometry is represented by intersections with the underlying Cartesian grid. This leads to “cut-cells” in those grid locations where the boundary intersects the grid. A detailed description of this
Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prepared using nmeauth.cls Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2004; 00:0–0
20]. Numer. robustness and ease of implementation especially considering the minimal modiﬁcations required in each solver. which is the basis of the coupling algorithm based on level sets. This class of methods is inspired in the Ghost Fluid Method of Fedkiw et al . This restriction is imposed by the assumption that the ﬂuid domain has a well-deﬁned interior and exterior. However. is given by Colella  and references therein. Prepared using nmeauth. Among the advantages of the approach one ﬁnds its simplicity. 22]. 2. The convergence properties of this Eulerian-Lagrangian coupling approach have been carefully studied by Arienti et al . 3]. Another advantage of this class of ﬂuid-solid coupling Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. In this work. A similar treatment of irregular boundaries in cartesian grid approaches including second order accurate formulation of boundary conditions has been recently given by Sussman [19. The extended approach retains the basic concepts of the original algorithm. An alternative approach that explicitly avoids these issues from the outset by replacing the imposition of boundary conditions with an approach based on ﬁeld extrapolation into exterior ghost cells has been proposed [13. we extend this approach to the case of thin structures that at the same time are open and in which the ﬂow on both sides of the structure may be relevant. 14. Meth. Ltd.3 approach. 17]. in the case of thin shells they are limited to situations in which the shell is closed and ﬂow takes place only on one side of it. but allows an unbiased consideration of the ﬂow conditions on both sides of the immersed structure as well as an adequate treatment of the boundary conditions on both sides of the boundary. The algorithms presented in the references above are adequate for ﬂows interacting with bulk solids [13. 16. 15. 14] or thin shells [21. J. [1.cls Int. These situations arise in important applications such as the deployment of parachutes used as decelaration devices during planet entry in space exploration missions. 00:0–0 . Engng 2004. along with some issues related to the unavoidable appearance of small cells.
Engng 2004. For simplicity. 2. the three-dimensional parallel implementation of this class of ﬂuid-solid coupling algorithms was demonstrated. In [14. Ltd. 26] and references therein. we restrict our attention to the two dimensional problem. including scalability properties on up to 1856 processors. Meth. 25. In the following sections we ﬁrst present the formulation and numerical approach for describing large dynamic deformations of a thin rod structure. 22]. J. may be consulted. This is followed by a review of the numerical method adopted for the ﬂuid.cls Int. Large-displacement rod dynamics model In this section. the vast literature on the subject.4 methods is their suitability for parallel implementation. With the conventions shown in this schematic. These simulations demonstrate the ability and accuracy of the proposed approach to describe the ﬂow on both sides of a very thin structure. 00:0–0 . The rod element is allowed to undergo a motion consisting of a ﬁnite rotation. Prepared using nmeauth. Subsequently. We ﬁrst present veriﬁcation simulations and a convergence study corresponding to the supersonic ﬂow past a very thin ﬂat rigid boundary at diﬀerent angles of attack. we brieﬂy summarize the model adopted for describing the dynamics of slender rods. The last section of the paper is devoted to establishing the feasibility and properties of the method. A representative rod element is shown in Figure 1. the deformation Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. see for example [24. For more general beam or slender rod models. a ﬁnite uniform stretch and a small bending distortion. which traces its origins to the work of Euler and Bernoulli . we describe the ﬂuid-solid coupling algorithm and the proposed extension to thin open immersed structures. Numer. We ﬁnally present a fully coupled simulation of a supersonic ﬂow initially normal to a ﬂexible structure which demonstrates the versatility and robustness of the overall method in simulating complex ﬂuid-structure interaction problems.
Meth. Numer. 00:0–0 .cls ∂w ∂x1 (4) Int. Ltd. Engng 2004. Prepared using nmeauth. J. x2 ) is assumed to follow the classic Euler-Bernoulli hypothesis: θ≈ Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Schematic describing the conventions and kinematics of the rod model proposed mapping of the rod element follows as: x1 x2 ≈ l X1 − θ(X1 )X2 L (1) (2) ≈ X2 and the stretch of the longitudinal ﬁbers of the rod element follows as λ= ∂x1 l ≈ − θ (X1 )X2 ∂X1 L (3) The small bending distortion measured from the rotated and stretched conﬁguration (axes x1 .5 Figure 1.
Linear momentum balance is enforced weakly by recourse to Hamilton’s principle for continuous media. Prepared using nmeauth. The explicit derivation of the ﬁrst variation of the action integral.cls Int. equation (3). i. The strain energy of the rod is obtained by integrating equation (5) over the volume of the undeformed rod after inserting the assumed rod kinematics. Meth. see for example . J. 00:0–0 . A complete derivation of Hamilton’s principle for continuous systems may be found in standard references. Ltd. Equation (7). This energy density gives a linear relation between the nominal stress and the logarithmic or true strain. Π = U + Πext is the potential energy of the system and Πext is the potential of the external forces. Numer. leading to Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. where E is the Young’s modulus. Engng 2004. Equation (7).6 A strain energy density per unit undeformed area of the rod of the form: W (λ) = E(1 − λ + λ log λ) (5) is assumed. a change of variables to the deformed conﬁguration has been conveniently taken advantage of. by ﬁnding the paths between two arbitrary times t1 and t2 for which the action integral is stationary: t1 δ t0 Ldt = 0 (7) where L is the associated Lagrangian deﬁned as L = K − Π. Equation (7) must hold for any variationally admissible virtual displacement.e. with the result U ≈ EA [L − l + l log(l/L)] + EI 2 l 0 θ (x1 )dx1 2 (6) where A and I are the area and moment of inertia with respect to the axis normal to the bending plane of the undeformed cross section of the rod. K is the kinetic energy of the system. We take Hamilton’s Principle. as the basis for ﬁnite element discretization. In evaluating the integral along the undeformed axis of the rod.
00:0–0 . the array Fext in equation (10) h represents the external nodal forces equivalent to the traction boundary conditions imposed by the ﬂow on the structure. see for example Reddy . Mh is the mass matrix. the unknowns represent the physical displacements and rotation at extremity (node) a = 1. xh the array of nodal accelerations and ¨ Fint (xh ) = h Fext = − h ∂U ∂xh (9) (10) (8) ∂Πext ∂xh are the arrays of internal forces and time-varying external forces. J. The computation of these forces is discussed in section 4. This automatically satisﬁes the requirement of C 1 interelement continuity of w.cls Int. Engng 2004. 2 of the rod element.7 the explicit expression of the continuous variational form is omitted for conciseness. respectively. Prepared using nmeauth. Explicit expressions of the strain and kinetic energy of the rod element in terms of the degrees of freedom are derived in . In the ﬁnite element formulation proposed. We use hermitian cubic interpolation to represent w and its derivatives as a function of x1 . Meth. Upon spatial discretization. This derivation for diﬀerent linearized beam models may be found in standard textbooks. The equations of motion (8) are integrated in time using Newmark’s family of algorithms: xn+1 = xn + ∆txn + ∆t2 ˙ 1 − β xn + β¨n+1 ¨ x 2 (11) xn+1 = xn + ∆t (1 − γ)¨n + γ¨n+1 ˙ ˙ x x M¨n+1 + Fint (xn+1 ) = Fext (tn+1 ) x Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Numer. In the ﬂuid structure interaction problems of interest in this work. since it is not necessary for the numerical formulation. Ltd. the stationarity condition (7) leads to the semi-discrete system of nonlinear ordinary diﬀerential equations: ¨ Mh xh + Fint (xh ) = Fext (t) h h In these expressions.
Ltd.8 where β and γ are the Newmark algorithm parameters. ρv 2 + p.cls T T Int.y (U ) = 0 where U = ρ. ρ(E + )u ρ p G(U) = ρv. Numer. 5. ρu. These equations may be expressed in the following strong conservative form: U . The ﬂow is modeled as compressibe and inviscid. 3. ρv. J. 6]. For β = 0. Eulerian compressible ﬂuid solver In this section we summarize the formulation of the ﬂuid solver. 00:0–0 . [31. ρu2 + p. Engng 2004. a conventional implicit predictor-corrector algorithm  is adopted to solve the system of equations (11). Meth. leading to the incremental nonlinear algebraic system: M U + Fint (xn+1 + U) = Fext n+1 β∆t2 (12) where U = β∆t2 xn+1 . Prepared using nmeauth. A consistent linearization of this nonlinear algebraic equation about ¨ the predictor conﬁguration leads to the computation of the tangent stiﬀness matrix: K= ∂Fint ∂x (13) b xn+1 which enables a quadratic convergence of the Newton Raphson algorithm used to obtain dynamic equilibrium at t = tn+1 . Explicit expressions for the mass matrix. ρuv. ρ(E + )v ρ Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. ρuv.t + F. array of internal forces and consistent tangent moduli in our slender rod model are derived in . leading to the governing Euler equations of compressible ﬂow.x (U ) + G. ρE T (14) p F(U) = ρu. Further details may be found in the original references.
j− 1 and Gi. 37.j Gi. These discretization schemes are ﬁrst order in space and can be taken as a starting point for the formulation of higher order schemes. In this work. The ﬂuxes at the cell interfaces may be calculated either by the Equilibrium Flux Method (EFM) (a kinetic ﬂux vector splitting scheme) . ﬂows with strong compressibility eﬀects leading to the formations of shocks are best modeled by a conservative formulation [32. E is the speciﬁc total energy.j is an average value of U over the (i. An additional equation of state closes the system of equations. F(U ) and G(U ) are the components of the ﬂux vector. Fi+ 2 . Prepared using nmeauth. The discretized equations may be written as: 1 Fi− 1 . U is the vector of conservative variables. A ﬁnite volume formulation is adopted as the numerical approximation of these equations.j+ 2 2 2 are the ﬂuxes at the cell interfaces. Equations (16) are integrated explicitly in time using the second-order Runge-Kutta algorithm: Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. p is the pressure. Numer. where γ is the speciﬁc heat ratio and e is the speciﬁc internal energy with E =e+ 1 2 u 2. j)th cell.9 where ρ is the density. Engng 2004. 38]. 00:0–0 .cls Int.j − Fi+ 1 . and Fi− 1 .j . This formulation is numerically conservative and thus.j 2 2 2 = + ∂t h h (16) 1 1 where Ui. J. 33. Gi. This method is often referred to as the MUSCL approach (Monotone Upstream-centered Schemes for Conservation Laws) [36.j . second order accuracy is achieved via linear reconstruction with Van Leer type slope limiting applied to projections in characteristic state space. For stability reasons.j− 1 − Gi. or the Godunov  or Roe method  (a ﬂux diﬀerence splitting scheme). the variation of U over one cell of the mesh is equal to the inward ﬂux.j+ 2 ∂Ui. Ltd. 33]. u and v are the Cartesian components of the velocity vector. the equation of state of perfect gases: p = (γ − 1)ρe (15) is adopted. Meth. In our case.
Numer. an open shell) or. Ltd.j = Ui. 38.j+1/2 (U n+ 2 )] 1 1 (18) The ﬂuid solver imposes restrictions on the stable time step given by the Courant-FriedrichsLevy (CFL) stability condition [32.. when the structure is a manifold with boundary (e.j−1/2 (U n ) − Gi.j+1/2 (U n )] (17) Second step: n+1 n Ui.j (U n+ 2 ) − Fi+1/2. Meth. these methods usually suﬀer from stability  and excessive mesh distortion problems .10 First step: Ui. The resulting ﬂuid model is second order in time and space. However. This objective is relatively easy to achieve with an unstructured mesh. J. in the case of a thin rigid boundary. for example. Details of the parallel implementation of this algorithm.j (U n ) 2h + Gi. 00:0–0 . i. 33].j + 1 1 ∆t [Fi−1/2. or when the structure deformations are relatively small. 4. Prepared using nmeauth. . including adaptive mesh reﬁnement capability may be found in Ref. Such situations arise. Engng 2004.j n+ 1 2 n = Ui.j + ∆t [Fi−1/2. if the manifold is closed. Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation  or with other alternative mesh moving techniques in the case that the thin structure is ﬁxed. ﬁnite element. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Eulerian-Lagrangian coupling algorithm Our objective in this work is to develop a ﬂuid-structure coupling algorithm with the ability to describe situations in which the details of the ﬂow on both sides of a very thin structure are of equal importance. when the deformations are large.g.e. when there is ﬂuid in the shell interior as well as in the exterior.j (U n+ 2 ) h + Gi.cls Int.j (U n ) − Fi+1/2.j−1/2 (U n+ 2 ) − Gi.
we consider that the only aerodynamic force acting on the structure is due to the ﬂuid pressure. on the ﬂuid-solid boundary (19) where [. 45]. Meth. Prepared using nmeauth. For simplicity. Equation (20) is enforced weakly by directly applying the pressure exerted by the ﬂuid on the structure at time tn as traction boundary conditions for time step tn+1 in a variationally consistent manner. heat transfer across the ﬂuid-solid interface is neglected. these boundary conditions correspond to continuity of the normal component of the velocity ﬁeld: [v · n] = 0. Numer. on the ﬂuid-solid boundary (20) which enforce conservation of mass and linear momentum. The Eulerian ﬂuid solver and the Lagrangian solid solver are weakly coupled by applying appropriate boundary conditions at the ﬂuid-solid interface at the beginning of each time step. Ltd. In this work we extend this algorithm in a way that this restriction can be eliminated. Engng 2004. J. we restrict our attention to the two-dimensional case. For simplicity. we have focused on ﬂow geometries with closed boundaries and a well deﬁned exterior region.cls Int. and continuity of the normal component of the traction across the ﬂuid-solid interface: [t · n] = [σij ni nj ] = [σn ] = 0.11 In previous work.] represents ﬁeld jumps. In the model proposed. This results in the following expression for the external force array Fext in Equation (10): h ext Fia n+1 = So2 −pn Na ni ds (21) Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. 00:0–0 . respectively. In the case of inviscid ﬂows considered. . Other possible implicit and staggering schemes in coupled systems have been proposed and studied in detail in [44. The formulation of the algorithmic steps to enforce these conditions is described in the following.
enforce Equation (19). the non-physical extrapolated velocity ﬁeld in the ghost cells is reconstructed according to the expression: v F = (2v S − v F ) · n n + (˜F · t)t ˜ v (23) where v F is the ﬂuid velocity extrapolated from the active ﬂuid cells and v S is the velocity of ˜ the solid interface. u. Prepared using nmeauth. p. whereas the tangential component is left unchanged. We employ simple upwinding along the normal n to march forward in τ in the extrapolation step above. mass.cls Int. in the case of open boundaries a separate data structure is required to store the extrapolated ghost values. Engng 2004. When the steady state (∂q/∂τ = 0) is reached. as ghost and real ﬂuid regions overlap. which is interpolated bilinearly from the computed ﬂow ﬁeld at time tn . The ﬂuxes thus computed from real and ghost values at the boundary. pressure and density cell averages from the physical ﬂuid domain are extrapolated to a narrow band of ghost cells across the boundary. To this end. ghost and real ﬂow values can be supported on the same grid. On the ﬂuid. Na the shape function of node a and pn is the local value of the pressure. J. First velocity. v) is the array of extrapolated quantities and n is the normal to the interface computed from the level set function. By contrast. The resulting ghost velocities correspond to a reﬂection of the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity relative to the moving boundary. 00:0–0 . In the case of ﬂows with a welldeﬁned exterior domain. in eﬀect. Ltd. This extrapolation is done by advection in pseudo-time τ : ∂q +n· ∂τ q=0 (22) where q = (ρ. momentum and energy conservation at the boundary are enforced via extrapolation and a ﬂow reconstruction step.12 where i is the degree of freedom. two arrays are used: one storing the real values of the conserved variables on the whole domain on which Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. see section 3. Meth. Numer.
It should be noted that the use of an additional array to store and access ghost data imposes some additional–albeit straightforward–modiﬁcations to the ﬂuid solver.cls φ φ (24) Int. as compared with conventional ghost ﬂuid approaches one of whose attractive features is the minor solver modiﬁcations required. Engng 2004. Real ﬂuid and ghost ﬂuid arrays The location of the boundary as well as the boundary normal required to apply these boundary conditions.13 the main computation takes place and another one storing the values of the extrapolated variables in the ghost ﬂuid cells next to the interface. as shown in Figure 2. as described above. The normal n to the interface is also interpolated directly from the level set function: n= Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. J. Prepared using nmeauth. 00:0–0 . need to be computed eﬃciently to avoid computational bottlenecks. the level set function φ(x) which gives the minimum distance to the ﬂuid-solid interface at each grid point of the ﬂuid domain is used. Meth. To this end. Numer. It bears emphasis that signiﬁcant storage savings may be achieved by adopting specialized sparse arrays  to store ghost values. Figure 2. which is used for the application of boundary conditions in the ﬂuid. which eﬀectively reduce the dimensionality of the required storage size. Ltd.
the manifold may be endowed with an orientation by a suitable choice of a speciﬁc parametrization. The computation of the distance function at each time step is accomplished with an optimal algorithm developed by Mauch . Meth. the side of the boundary is identiﬁed on the ﬂuid grid by endowing the distance function φi. i. it has two unequivocally identiﬁable—albeit arbitrarily chosen—positive and negative sides which can be conveniently assigned to the adjacent ﬂuid domain. Prepared using nmeauth.. J.cls Int. interior and exterior cannot be deﬁned. from which the surface tangent vector(s) and a positive normal may be deﬁned. In the case of ﬂows with a well-deﬁned exterior.e. j to the boundary and n is the local normal to the boundary.j · n ≥ 0 (25) otherwise sign(φi. The main limitation of this approach is that it precludes the possibility of ﬂows coexisting on both sides of a thin boundary. In the case of open boundaries. a key observation is that the boundary remains an orientable manifold. 00:0–0 . as shown in Figure 3. Therefore. cells lying in the half space pointed to by the surface normal are assigned a positive sign and all other a negative one.j with a sign next to the interface. whose complexity is O(m + n). Thus. a sign is assigned to the level set function.j ) = where di.j is the distance vector from grid point i.14 The boundary is located where φ(x) = 0. this Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. φ(x) is taken as negative (positive) in the interior (exterior) of the physical ﬂuid domain. by contrast. 21]. This sign is obtained from the–dimension independent–formula: +1 −1 if di. where m is the number of elements in the shell mesh and n is the number of grid points in the subset of the ﬂuid grid where the level set is required. Numer. as assumed in [13. Based on this observation. Both in the two and three dimensional case. This facilitates the immediate identiﬁcation of real and ghost ﬂuid cells. Ltd. However. Engng 2004.
as described earlier.15 “pseudo-signed” level set function oﬀers a straightforward manner to determine if two grid points lie on the same side of the boundary or not. at the beginning of the time step. Engng 2004. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Equations (22) and (23). Pseudo sign deﬁned by the orientation of the interface Once the “pseudo-signed” distance function is computed. Meth. Equation (21).cls Int. J. Ltd. 00:0–0 . values from each side of ﬂuid-solid interface are symmetrically extrapolated to the corresponding other side and stored on the auxiliary ghost array. Numer. After the explicit application of boundary conditions by extrapolation in the ﬂuid. time integration proceeds independently in each solver as described in sections 2 and 3. The computation of the ﬂuxes in the ﬂuid. and in the structure. Figure 3. Prepared using nmeauth. for cells next to the ﬂuid-solid boundary. Equation (16). The velocity ﬁelds are then reconstructed in the entire ghost region to impose non-penetration boundary condition.
∆y) vS (27) which prevents the solid boundary from crossing more than one ﬂuid cell per time step.16 i. It is important to remark that in order to avoid singularities stemming from the violation of the Sobolev cone condition at the ends of vanishing-thickness boundaries. Meth. One of the main advantages of this explicit coupling approach is its suitability for parallel implementation. the solution is computed on the whole ﬂuid grid. ∆tb ) (26) where ∆tCF L is the stable time step for the ﬂuid and: ∆tb = min (∆x. 00:0–0 . The resulting ﬂuid-structure coupling algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 1. The stability of diﬀerent weak coupling schemes in coupled systems has been studied in detail in .cls Int. The staggering method adopted remains stable if the time step is chosen as: ∆t ≤ min (∆tCF L . needs to be done using both real and ghost values. as real structures are expected to have. as the integration is done implicitly. As explained in section 2. J. Engng 2004. Numer. structures embedded in the ﬂow are endowed with a ﬁnite thickness. The latter are obtained from the auxiliary array described above.j changes sign. where φi. Apart from this consideration. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Prepared using nmeauth. the structure does not impose additional time step restrictions related to stability. The scalability properties of this coupling scheme on upwards of 1800 processors has been reported in . Ltd.e. without the need of any additional special treatment of the boundary.
cls Int. Interpolate pressure ﬁeld at the interface directly from ﬂuid grid ii. Extrapolate ﬂow ﬁeld values to the ghost region using Equation (22) and store extrapolated ﬁelds in auxiliary ghost array. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Compute pseudo-signed distance function from updated location of solid boundary ii.Compute stable time step: (a) Compute stable time step for the ﬂuid solver ∆tf according to CFL condition (b) Compute time step restrictions at the interface ∆tb . iii. Prepared using nmeauth. ∆tb ). Ltd. Integrate solution in time: (a) Integrate in time the ﬂuid solution Second order Runge-Kutta integration. Numer. (c) Increment time-step in both ﬂuid and solid: t ← tn + ∆t (d) Update location of the interface. Equation (27) (c) Adopt stable time step as: ∆t = min (∆tf . (b) Integrate in time the solid solution using Newmark’s algorithm. . 00:0–0 .17 Algorithm 1. Equations (11). (18). J. . i. Fluid-Solid Coupling 1. Meth. Equation (26) 3.. access ghost values from auxiliary array to compute ﬂuxes in Equation (16). Engng 2004. Equations (17). the reference conﬁguration of the solid. Next to the boundary. Apply pressure as external loading on the structure using Equation (21) 2. Reconstruct velocity ﬁeld in the ghost region using Equation (23) (b) For the solid solver: i.e.Apply boundary conditions using solution from previous time-step: (a) For the ﬂuid solver: i.
49] and. Schematic solution of the supersonic ﬂow past a thin rigid plate 5. see schematic in Figure 4. To this end.cls Int. is computed using the numerical method described in the foregoing. The plate proﬁle induces a weak shock attached to its leading edge on the side where the cross section of the ﬂow decreases and an expansion wave on the opposite side. Numer. The pressure behind the shock and Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.1. therefore. J. 00:0–0 . Meth. provides a convenient means of assessing the accuracy and convergence properties of the extended ghost ﬂuid method. This problem is amenable to analytical treatment [48. Supersonic ﬂow past a ﬁxed thin plate The ﬁrst example is intended to assess the ability of the extended ghost ﬂuid method to describe supersonic ﬂows past open thin boundaries. Ltd. Engng 2004. the ﬂow past a ﬁxed thin plate immersed in a high-speed ﬂow at diﬀerent angles of attack α. Prepared using nmeauth. Numerical examples 5.18 Figure 4.
Contours show pressure normalized with upstream value The Mach number adopted in these calculations is M = 1. the Prandtl-Meyer function . Figure 5. respectively.19 the expansion wave is uniform and can be computed analytically as a function of α using the Rankine-Hugoniot relations and. ρ = 1. J. the Mach number is M = 1.4. and γ = 1. In order to avoid singularities in the solution. Engng 2004. Ltd. the rigid boundary is Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. In the case shown.8 and the initial properties of kg the gas are: p = 1. Numer.293 m3 . 00:0–0 . Meth.0atm.8 and the angle of attack is α = 15 degrees. The ﬂuid domain is discretized with a 400 × 680-cell ﬂuid grid. Prepared using nmeauth. Computed solution of the supersonic ﬂow past a thin rigid plate.cls Int.
Values shown are normalized with upstream pressure. Analytical values are shown in thick gray lines. Numer.20 (a) y=-0. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.245 (b) y=0. Numerical results are shown in thin black lines and + symbols. Comparison of numerical and analytical horizontal pressure proﬁles for diﬀerent values of the vertical coordinate y.275 Figure 6.095 (c) y=0. Meth. J. 00:0–0 . Ltd. Engng 2004.cls Int. Prepared using nmeauth.
which usually constitutes a challenge in methods based on extrapolation. Prepared using nmeauth. respectively. As α is increased. Figure 6 (b) corresponds to a cross section through the center of the plate (y = 0. Figures 6-(a) and (c) correspond to cross sections one grid cell away from the bottom (y = −0.275) tips of the rigid boundary.095) and shows that the pressure values behind the shock and in the expansion region behind the plate are accurately computed up to the interface.cls Int. Engng 2004. As it can be seen in these ﬁgures. Ltd. As expected. In both cases. Numer. a very good agreement between the exact and numerical results is obtained.245) and top (y = 0. Figure 7 shows the variation of the pressure behind the shock as a function of the angle of attack. The numerically-computed ﬂow ﬁeld for the case of α = 15 degrees is shown in Figure 5. the pressure behind the shock increases with α. The corresponding dependence of the pressure in the expansion region behind the plate on the angle of attack is shown in Figure 8. the pressure behind the expansion wave decreases. Above 18 degrees and for an upstream Mach number of M = 1. Several simulations were conducted for angles of attack ranging from α = 5 to 18 degrees. the quality of the numerical solution is very good both far and near the rod ends. The contours indicate the value of the pressure normalized with its upstream value. as real structures are expected to have. J. 00:0–0 . Figures 6 (a)-(c) show comparisons of the normalized horizontal pressure proﬁles against the analytical solution for diﬀerent values of the vertical coordinate. as these loads determine the Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.8 the shock at the leading edge of the proﬁle detaches. as expected.21 given a ﬁnite thickness. Meth. It bears emphasis that there is no pollution of the solution from one side of the boundary to the other. A critical aspect of ﬂuid-structure interaction models is the ability to compute the aerodynamic loads on the structure with suﬃcient accuracy. The numerically computed values are plotted on the same Figures 7 and 8.
7143. Ltd. Other aspects of the convergence of the coupling approach based on the ghost ﬂuid method were previously reported by Arienti et al .3453) sides. A series of simulations corresponding to the case of upstream Mach number M = 1.cls Int. and the normalized length of the ﬂat plate (= 1 cos α =1. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.051). 00:0–0 . Comparison of analytical and numerical values of the pressure behind the shock vs.5759) for M = 1.8 and angle of attack α = 18 degrees is conducted for grid resolutions starting at 85 × 50. J. where p∞ = 1 γ = 0. Engng 2004.22 Figure 7. Prepared using nmeauth. In the following.8 and α = 18 degrees is readily obtained from the diﬀerence between p1 p2 the analytical pressure values in the windward ( p∞ = 2.5515) and leeward ( p∞ = 0. angle of attack structural response. In each subsequent simulation. Meth. The ﬁnest grid resolution is 680 × 400. the resolution is increased by a factor of 2 in each direction. The exact nondimensional value of the aerodynamic lift (= 1. Numer. we study the convergence of the pressure load on the structure in the supersonic ﬂow past a ﬁxed plate problem.
angle of attack The error in the computed lift.6772 3.08946629 0. is reported in Table 5. Meth.5680707 Error 0. Numer. as well as the rate of convergence. Ltd.4864950 1.5285353 1.cls Int.04734034 0.0041 1.31 —- Table I.23 Figure 8. Prepared using nmeauth.5564916 1. Convergence analysis of the aerodynamic lift on the solid structure.29 1.1. deﬁned as the absolute value of the diﬀerence between the numerical and the analytical values normalized by the analytical value.4952 Convergence Rate 0.01938427 0. The ﬁrst order convergence rate obtained is attributed Grid resolution 85 x 50 170x100 340x200 680x400 Computed value 1. 00:0–0 .00780513 Error in % 5. Engng 2004. J. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.2300 0. Comparison of analytical and numerical values of the pressure in the expansion region behind the plate vs.92 1.
24 to the ﬁrst order description of the geometry. The initial properties of the gas are: upstream pressure p∞ = 1. A schematic of the simulation set up is provided in Figure 9. Supersonic ﬂow past a highly-ﬂexible structure In this section.0 · 10−3 m2 and its moment of inertia I = 2. its cross sectional area A = 1.0 · 109 P a and mass density ρ = 1000.2. Ltd.20m×9. its thickness is 3.0 m3 . in turn.60m and the grid resolution adopted in this calculation is 260 × 480 ﬂuid cells. The simulation corresponds to a supersonic ﬂow transverse to an initially-ﬂat structure made of an elastic fabric with a Young’s Modulus kg E = 6. Second order schemes for similar treatment of irregular boundaries in cartesian grids have recently been proposed [19. we demonstrate the versatility of the overall computational methodology in describing complex ﬂuid solid interactions. Numer.0. mass density kg ρ∞ = 1. At ﬁrst. the structure is held ﬁxed and the steady-state ﬂow around the ﬂat structure is computed. A strong shock develops upstream of the structure. It can be concluded from these results that the algorithm proposed applies boundary conditions on both sides of the thin proﬁle in a consistent manner and results in convergent pressure distributions caused by the ﬂow on the solid boundary. 00:0–0 . 20]. but are more expensive in terms of CPU and memory. and γ = 1. J. The ﬂow’s Mach number is M∞ = 2. Meth.293 m3 .25 · 10−9 m4 . Prepared using nmeauth.0 · 10−3 m.cls Int. The size of the computational ﬂuid domain is 5.0atm. will result in correct traction boundary conditions on the structure in coupled simulations.m and is discretized with 50 elements as described in section 2.4. Engng 2004. 5. The length of the structure is 1. It can therefore be expected that this. The highly ﬂexible structure is Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. and the ﬁrst order interpolation of the ﬂuid pressures on the boundary.
0) on ∞ the windward (leeward) side of the structure. When released. Ltd.0 ( pp ≤ 1. 00:0–0 . Numer. Prepared using nmeauth. Meth. see Figure 10. and starts inﬂating under the pressure of the ﬂow.25 Figure 9. J. Figure 10 (b). the structure starts to accelerate rigidly except at the extremities where the horizontal supports create a ﬂexural wave which propagates towards the center. Figures 10 (b)-(c). Engng 2004. A strong shock forms in front of the structure which causes a very high (low) pressure p p∞ ≥ 5. the ﬂow in Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. which travels upstream towards the strong shock lowering the upstream pressure. As the structure deforms until it reaches a maximum deﬂection. The forward motion of the structure releases an expansion wave in the ﬂow. The ﬂexural waves in the structure converge at its center at t = 2. Schematic of simulation of supersonic ﬂow past a ﬂexible structure tranverse to the ﬂow then released. inducing complex interactions between the ﬂow and the thin structure. Figure 10 (a) shows the initial steady-state ﬂow past the ﬁxed structure.cls Int.80ms. except at its tips which are restrained horizontally.
26 (a) Step 0. 00:0–0 . Numer. Ltd. J. t = 3.60ms Figure 10. t = 2. Simulation of supersonic ﬂow past a ﬂexible structure Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.80ms (d) Step 450.cls Int.00ms (b) Step 150. t = 0.20ms (c) Step 350. Prepared using nmeauth. Engng 2004. t = 1. Meth.
80ms (c) Step 1050. t = 5.27 (a) Step 650. Numer. t = 6. Simulation of supersonic ﬂow past a ﬂexible structure (continued) Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Prepared using nmeauth.20ms (b) Step 850. t = 24. 00:0–0 . Engng 2004. Meth. Ltd.cls Int. J.40ms Figure 11.40ms (d) Step 3050. t = 8.
As the elastic energy is released. aﬀecting its shape and causing it to move downstream.28 the windward side stagnates and the pressure increases again. Figure 10 (d). aﬀect the ﬂow in a non-trivial manner. Meth. Figure 11 (c). This example illustrates the robustness of the coupling algorithm in describing complex ﬂuid-solid interactions in which the structure undergoes large nonlinear elastic deformations which. in turn. In order to reach a steady-state inﬂated conﬁguration. as shown in Figure 10 (c). At t = 3. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. equation (11).40ms. the compression wave reaches the shock front.cls Int. Ltd. Figure 11 (b) clearly shows the compression wave shed by the structure propagating upstream towards the shock front.60ms.5 and γ = 1. a small numerical dissipation is added to the structure by a convenient choice of the parameters of Newmark’s algorithm. thus following with some delay the initial forward motion of the rod. At t = 8.40ms after the structure was ﬁrst released. Figure 11 (d) shows the steady-state conﬁguration reached at time t = 24. The ability of the model to describe these interactions across a very thin structure without cross pollution of the ﬂow across the interface is particularly noteworthy. Engng 2004. as no physical dissipation mechanisms are taken into account in the model. the expansion wave propagating upstream reaches the shock front. J. Prepared using nmeauth. at this point. as β = 0. the structure pushes the upstream ﬂow generating a compression wave. This process in which the structure ﬁrst inﬂates storing elastic energy and then recoils restoring the energy to the ﬂow continues ostensibly unchanged. Numer. In the same Figure. it can be observed that. Figure 11 (a). This emphasizes the ability of the method to describe aspects of the ﬂow caused by the dynamic deformation of the structure. following again with some delay the motion of the structure. the elastic strain energy stored in the structure starts causing it to recoil. aﬀecting its shape and causing it to move backwards. 00:0–0 .
S. J. The new algorithm was veriﬁed against the analytical solution of the supersonic ﬂow past a ﬂat rigid plate at diﬀerent angles of attack. REFERENCES Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons.cls Int. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the U. Among the necessary components of the overall computational framework. Meth. Ltd. The simulation shows that a complex pattern of highly unsteady coupled interactions are set in motion between the ﬂow and the structure. a simulation of the transient supersonic ﬂow normal to a highly-ﬂexible structure is presented. A convergence analysis of the lift load on the structure conﬁrms the theoretical ﬁrst order accuracy of the coupling approach. Numer. As an example of a coupled application. The coupling algorithm constitutes an extension of the ghost ﬂuid method without the restrictions of thick solid structures and closed boundaries in which a well-deﬁned exterior to the ﬂuid domain exists. B523297) is gratefully acknowledged. leading to the large oscillations of the structure until a steady-state is reached in its ﬁnal inﬂated conﬁguration.29 Summary and conclusions We have proposed a computational strategy for the coupling of high-speed ﬂows interacting with the large. The numerical solution is shown to converge to the analytical solution on both the shocked and rareﬁed regions on the windward and leeward side of the plate without pollution of the solution across the inﬁnitely thin boundary. 00:0–0 . Prepared using nmeauth. a formulation is presented for the large dynamic deformations of thin rod structures including the bending and membrane response. dynamic deformations of very thin open structures. Department of Energy through the ASC Center for the Simulation of the Dynamic Response of Materials (DOE W-7405-ENG-48. Engng 2004.
Cao and H. Samtaney and N. S. The virtual test facility: An environment for simulating the nonlinear dynamic response of solids under shock and detonation wave loading. McQueen. and V. Quadrelli. I. 1994. pages 1–39. 3 Aircraft Parachute ﬂying physical model and inﬂation simulation analysis. MI. Meiron. 23:125–142. Acta Numerica. R. 2003. 3. R. 2004. J. Radovitzky. Samtaney. X. 8 Physics of Fluids. Meth. Numer. 76(2):215–220. 2004. Dearborn. 2 12. 9. Radovitzky. Colella. 193:1305–1321. Validation of a simulation model for a planetary entry capsule. G. Int. J. Toro. Liu. 23(1):39–50. Prepared using nmeauth. J. 2. J. Circulation deposition on shock-accelerated planar and curved densitystratiﬁed interfaces: models and scaling laws. 2. R.B. Journal of Aircraft. 3 Engineering and Aerospace Technology. 40(1):127–136.H. Ltd. Journal of Computational Physics. 1. 2002. Cameron. 2. 1989. The immersed boundary method. Lagrangian ﬁnite element analysis of newtonian ﬂuid ﬂows. 2001. 1996. Extended immersed boundary method using fem and rkpm. Volume-of-ﬂuid methods for partial diﬀerential equations. Multibody dynamics of parachute and balloon ﬂight systems for planetary exploration. 1994.M. Quirk. A three–dimensional computational method for blood ﬂow in the heart: (i) immersed elastic ﬁbers in a viscous incompressible ﬂuid. Radovitzky and M. International Journal For Numerical Methods In Engineering. J. 14 14. 2002. 2.S. and D.M. Peskin. Journal Of Supercomputing. 3 13. R. 5. 2004. M. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Kerzhanovich. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Samtaney. Meiron. Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics. Engng 2004. Charles S. An alternative to unstructured grids for computing gas dynamic ﬂows around arbitrarily complex two-dimensional bodies. Wang and W. U. 81:372–405. Y. 20:427–453. In E. 6. 00:0–0 . 2 11. Quagliotti. R. Quirk. 8 Hypervelocity Richtmyer-Meshkov instability.S. 27(4):564–571. R. 2 10. 2 1.30 1. D. editor. 7. Applied Numerical Mathematics. National Congress on Computational Mechanics. 1. 269:45–78. 1997. Computers & Fluids. P. Aivazis. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Samtaney and D. J. Meiron. New York. Guglieri and F. 2 2 8. Cummings. 2001. 9(6):1783–1803. J. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. K.cls 3. 43(4):607–617. 1998. 3. A parallel adaptive grid algorithm for computational shock hydrodynamics. M. F. Godunov Methods: Theory and Applications. Mauch. In Proceedings of the Sixth U. Xu. and R. A virtual test facility for the simulation of dynamic response in materials. C. Association for Computational Mechanics. Ortiz.S Peskin and D. Zabusky. J. 3 4.
June 1-6 2003. NJ. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 4 25. 2005. April 7-10 2003. New York. A two-dimensional ﬂuid-structure coupling algorithm for the interaction of high-speed ﬂows with Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. 7 29. Applied Mechanics Reviews. J. M. A Lagrangian-Eulerian shell-ﬂuid coupling algorithm based on level sets. F. 17. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 3. Ltd. New Brunswick.J. Cirak and R. 1972. 3 19. 185:213–251. VA. Radovitzky. M. Vertica. Hung. Sussman. N. adaptive algorithm for multiphase ﬂows in general geometries. 11:573–589. and Materials Conference. Computers and Structures. Hodges. Numer. J. 1987. 1999. and J. R. May 2003. Osher. and S. A parallelized. Fedkiw. F. Hughes. R. D. Journal of Computational Physics. 16 15. 3. 24 A general algorithm for coupling Lagrangian-shell withe Eulerian-ﬂuid formulations. T. Engng 2004. NJ. 1991. 24 20. 3 16. Coupling an Eulerian ﬂuid calculation to a Lagrangian solid calculation with the ghost ﬂuid method. John Wiley and Sons. Radovitzky.. H. D. Cirak and R. Second Edition. A second order coupled level set and volume-of-ﬂuid method for computing growth and collapse of vapor bubbles. Energy Principles and Variational Methods in Applied Mechanics. Arienti. E. N. R. 22 coupling. Englewood Cliﬀs. Vertica. Hodges. Crespo da Silva. M. 83:491–498. 2005. F. 00:0–0 . B. A non-oscillatory Eulerian approach to interfaces in multimaterial ﬂows (the ghost ﬂuid method). A new ﬂuid-shell coupling algorithm based on level sets. Journal of Computational Physics. Finite rotation and nonlinear beam kinematics. 11 A level set approach to Eulerian-Lagrangian 3. E. R. International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. 21. 3. 187:110–136. Radovitzky. Merriman.and Shepherd. Structural Dynamics. 1983. H. 3. Journal of Computational Physics. Prepared using nmeauth. In Proceedings of the 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures.P. 24. Mathematical foundations of elasticity. 3.P. Aslam. 14 22. Tam. Equations for nonlinear analysis of 3d motions of beams. M.. Cirak and R. 175:200–224. D. 4 27. 1987. Hoboken. Gere and Timoshenko. Meth. Norfolk. 2002. Prentice-Hall.cls Int. Journal of Computational Physics. Reddy. 83:435–444. Fedkiw. J. 44:S51–S59. Computers and Staggered. 2003. Morano. 6 28. 152:457–492. 18. M. Nonlinear beam kinematics for small strains and ﬁnite rotations. Mechanics of Materials. 4 4 23. P. In Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposim on Integrated Modeling of Fully Coupled FluidStructure Interactions Using Analysis. J. 4 26. 11:297–307. Sussman.31 4. Marsden and T. 2002. Computations and Experiments.
C. 10 Computation of moving boundaries and interfaces and stabilization parameters. Thomas J. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. P. Cruchaga. 10 9. MA. Grandmont. A. 10 40. Park. Fundamentals of Numerical Discretization. E. K. 1988. LevVeque. D. Journal of Computational Physics. Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems. T. Finite-diﬀerence method for the numerical computation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of ﬂuid dynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. P. John Wiley and Sons. M. Sbornik (Mosk. Master’s thesis. ASCI Alliance Center for the Simulation of Dynamic Response of Materials. 10 44. Computational Methods for Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Stabilization of staggered solution procedures for ﬂuidstructure interaction analysis. Laney. Felippa. Stein. Cambridge University Press. 174:669–694. In T. 30. and R. Geers.K. and T. C. Tezduyar. Mesh moving techniques for ﬂuid-structure interactions with large displacements. The discrete geometric conservation law and the nonlinear stability of ale schemes for the solution of ﬂow problems on moving grids. Culbert B. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids. 10 33. Journal of Computational Physics. R. Meth. volume 1. Journal of Computational Physics. 74:382–408. Cambridge University Press. 47:271–306. Van Leer.32 open shells. 43:555–575. Geuzaine. volume 2. 34. computations over ﬁxed meshes. 9 38. Glaister. Mat. 70:58–63. C. Cambridge. S. 1980. Celentano. J. 9. Hughes. Ltd. 2002. and J. 191:525– 543.caltech. An approximate linerarised Riemann solver for Euler equations for real gases. 36. Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows. 2000. 43. 9 35. John Wiley and Sons. 1977. The Finite Element Method. Direct simulation methods for compressible ideal gas ﬂow. 34:231–244. 9 Towards the ultimate conservative diﬀerence scheme iv: A new approach to numerical 9 converction. 2003. Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows. 9 32. Dover. Tezduyar. 2000.). L. 1959. 10 42. URL: http:// www. 8. Farhat. FY00 Annual Report. I. Godunov. Engng 2004. June 2004. D. 1988. 2001. editors. Numer. Computational Methods for Inviscid and Viscous Flows. C.cls Int. T. B. Benney. 9. Journal of Computational Physics. 8 31. 8 7. C. Deruntz. A.edu/ ASAP/onlineresources/publications/. Hirsch. 2001. 00:0–0 .cacr. K. 10 39. Tezduyar. Hirsch. 1998. Prepared using nmeauth. Journal of Applied Mechanics-Transactions of the ASME. 2003. 37. Computational Gasdynamics. Pullin. Randall J. 1990. 10 A moving Lagrangian interface technique for ﬂow 41. and C. 23:276–299. Belytschko and T.
Toulouse. 48. Meth.caltech. Pasadena. 60:2013–2029. 1997.33 Fluid-Structure Interaction Problems. ASME. 2004. Bonnet and J.edu/˜seanm/software/cpt/cpt. J. 13 Preprint. McGraw-Hill. P. C´padu`s Editions. Compressible Fluid Dynamics.cls Int. France. 11. Mauch. California Institute of Technology. 1972. Th´orie de la Dynamique des Fluides. 2003. Copyright c 2004 John Wiley & Sons. Eﬃcient Algorithms for Solving Static Hamilton-Jacobi Equations. A. 14 http://www. Q. pages 94–124. 11 45. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 19 49. Numer.acm. PhD thesis. Ltd. 2001. e e e 1989. 16 46. Hisada. Luneau. Zhang and T. New York. 18 18.html. Prepared using nmeauth. Thompson. Sean Mauch. Engng 2004. A fast algorithm for computing the closest point and distance transform. New York. 47. 00:0–0 . Studies of the strong coupling and weak coupling methods in fsi analysis. S. CA.
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.