IntroComputationalAero Webinar Revised

Introduction
to Computational
Aerodynamics
Dr. James G. Coder
Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering
University of Tennessee
Poll Question #1
• How often do you use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as part of
your work responsibilities?
a) Frequently (i.e. weekly)
b) Infrequently (i.e. monthly)
c) Rarely (i.e. yearly)
d) Have not used CFD recently
e) Never used CFD
Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 2

Poll Question #2
• How would you rate your experience level with external
aerodynamics theory and applications?
a) Extensive experience
b) Moderate experience
c) Little experience
d) No experience

Impact of Computational Fluid Dynamics for
Aircraft Design
from Boeing from Airbus

Hierarchy of Computational Aerodynamics
DNS
LES
RANS
Inviscid + IBL
Pure Inviscid

Governing Equations of Fluid Flow
• Navier-Stokes Equations (in differential form)
• Conservation of mass (1 equation)
∂ ρ ∂ ρu j
+ =0
∂t ∂x j
Change in mass at a point in space Net flux of mass away from the point

• Conservation of momentum (3 equations)
∂ ρ ui ∂ ρ ui u j ∂P ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ∂ui ∂ui ⎞ 2 ∂u k ⎤
+ =− + ⎢µ ⎜ + ⎟ − µ δ ij ⎥
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ 3 ∂xk ⎥⎦
Total fluid acceleration Net force due to Net force due to viscous
pressure gradient shear stresses
Note: body forces have been neglected

• Conservation of energy (1 equation)
∂ ρ e0 ∂ ρu j h0 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂
∂t
+
∂x j
= ⎜ κ ⎟ +
∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂x j
uiτ ij ( )
Total change in total Diffusive heat Work due to
energy + work due to transfer viscous stresses
pressure gradient

• Equation of State (1 equation)
P = ρ RT
Ideal gas law
Commonly used for flight in the lower atmosphere
• Six unknowns (ρ, P, T, u, v, w), five conservation equations, one

equation of state
Solving the Navier-Stokes Equations
• Equations are a system of non-linear, partial-differential equations
governing complex flow physics
• Viscous diffusion
• Compressibility (i.e. shockwaves)
• Turbulence
• Numerical methods are required to obtain flow solutions for arbitrary

geometries and flight conditions
• Can be solved with a range of fidelity and modeling
• Phenomenological arguments can be used to simplify the equations in certain
scenarios and reduce computational expense

• Observation: External aerodynamic flows typically have high Reynolds
numbers
“Ratio of inertial to viscous forces”
ρU ∞ L
Re =
µ Describes the rate at which momentum is diffused
by viscosity
Re > 25 x 106
Re ≈ 40 x 106 Re ≈ 6 x 106
• Observation: External aerodynamic flows typically have high Reynolds
numbers
• Viscous effects contained in thin layer near surface (“boundary layer”), can be
neglected elsewhere
• Caveat: Massive flow separation
• Consequence: Numerical methods for aerodynamic flows need to be

well-suited for inviscid flow calculations
• Viscosity may be regarded as a small “correction” to the flow field

Possible Simplifications to NS Equations
• Inviscid (μ→0)
• Viscous stresses neglected / infinite Reynolds number
• Reduced computational expense for not resolving the boundary layer
• No-slip condition must be sacrificed due to reduced equation order
• Irrotational (∇x u = 0)
• Sources of vorticity: viscosity, heat addition, curved shockwaves
• Permits the existence of a scalar velocity potential (u = ∇ɸ)
• Incompressible (ρ = constant for fluid element)

• Reasonable for low-speed flows (Mlocal < 0.3)
• Decouples dynamics from thermodynamics

Simplified Forms
• Euler Equations: Inviscid, rotational, compressible
∂ ρ ∂ ρu j
+ =0
∂t ∂x j
∂ ρ ui ∂ ρ ui u j ∂P
+ =−
∂t ∂x j ∂xi
∂ ρ e0 ∂ ρu j h0
+ =0
∂t ∂x j
• Advantages: Only neglects viscosity, reduced expense
• Disadvantages: Does not reduce the number of PDEs
Simplified Forms
• Full Potential Equation: Inviscid, irrotational, compressible
⎛ u2 ⎞ ⎛ v 2
⎞ ⎛ w ⎞
2
2
⎜⎝ 1− a 2 ⎟⎠ φ xx + ⎜⎝ 1− a 2 ⎟⎠ φ yy + ⎜⎝ 1− a 2 ⎟⎠ φzz − a 2 ⎡⎣uvφ xy + vwφ yz + wuφzx ⎤⎦ = 0
γ −1 2 2
a =a −
2
2
2
0( u + v + w 2
)
• Advantages: Reduces solution to that of a single scalar field
• Disadvantages: Implicitly assumes no shockwaves; however, “two-field”
approaches may be used to correct for this

Simplified Forms
• Incompressible NS Equations: Viscous, rotational, incompressible
∂u j
=0
∂x j
∂ui ∂ui u j 1 ∂P ∂ 2 ui
+ =− +ν
∂t ∂x j ρ ∂xi ∂x j 2
• Advantages: Reduces the number of equations to be solved
• Disadvantages: Limits of incompressibility can be exceeded even in low-speed
flight

Simplified Forms
• Incompressible Potential Equation: Inviscid, irrotational,
incompressible
∇ φ=0 2
!
u = ∇φ
1
P = P0 − ρ u + v + w
2
2 2 2
( )
• Advantages: Poisson equation is linear, solutions may be superposed, surface
singularity methods reduce computational expense
• Disadvantages: Global influence of solution elements

Simplified Forms
• Integral Boundary Layer (IBL) method
Boundary-layer equations integrated in
wall-normal direction
dδ 2 δ 2 dU e
+ ( 2 + H 12 ) = Cf
dx U e dx Growth of momentum (δ2) and energy (δ3)
thicknesses calculable along projected
dδ 3 δ 3 dU e surface streamlines
+3 = C Diss
dx U e dx Can be fully coupled with inviscid flow
solver via the displacement thickness (δ1)

Turbulence
• Direct numerical simulation of turbulence requires extremely small
spatial and temporal scales to be resolved
• Kolmogorov scales
1/4
⎛ν ⎞3
η=⎜ ⎟
⎝ ε ⎠ Estimates show that the number of grid points
required for full DNS scale as N ≥ ReL9/4
⎛ν ⎞
1/2
τ =⎜ ⎟
⎝ε⎠
• DNS of full-scale aircraft remains computational prohibitive for the
foreseeable future

Turbulence
• Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations treats the turbulent
fluctuations as statistically stationary, long-time averages
t+T
1
φ = φ + φ′ φ=
T ∫ φ dt
t
Reynolds stress tensor
∂ ρ ui ∂ ρ ui u j ∂P ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ∂ui ∂ui ⎞ 2 ∂u k ⎤
+ =− + ⎢ − ρ ui ′ u j ′ + µ ⎜ + ⎟ − µ δ ij ⎥
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ 3 ∂xk ⎥⎦
• Compressible RANS (or Favre-averaged Navier-Stokes) methods are

the workhorse of modern computational aerodynamics
Discretizing the Fluid Domain
• Structured grids discretize the domain into quadrilateral (2D) or
hexagonal (3D) elements
• Grid ordering and connectivity implied with array indices (e.g. i,j,k)
• Can be mapped to an equivalent Cartesian mesh
• Advantages: Solution algorithms can easily exploit the data structure
• Disadvantages: Grid generation difficult for complex geometries, typically

requiring multiblock or overset approaches

• Structured grids

• Unstructured grids discretize the domain into primarily triangular
(2D) or tetrahedral (3D) elements
• Mixed-element meshes: tris/tets with quads/hexes and/or prisms
• Advantages: Triangles/tetrahedral can be used to discretize any arbitrary

volume; can handle geometric complexity
• Disadvantages: Unstructured algorithms typically slower than structured

algorithms; difficult to achieve greater than 2nd-order accuracy

• Unstructured grids

• Comments on grid generation
• First off-wall should be y+ ≈ 1 for viscous sublayer resolved calculations
+ ρuτ y τw
y = uτ =
µ ρ
• Wall functions enable larger values to be used
• Calculators available to determine grid spacing
• Avoid excessive stretching and grid skew
• Use prisms in the boundary layer for unstructured FV

• Biasing and inaccurate gradient reconstructions with triangles/tetrahedra

Discretizing the Equations
• Finite-Difference Methods (FD)
i-2 i-1 i i+1 i+2
Derivatives estimated based on information
in local “stencil” around node/cell
η
j+1
Formulae based on Taylor series expansion
Δξ 2
Δξ 3
ξ i-1 i+1 φ = φi + φi ′ Δξ + φi ′′ + φi ′′′ +…

2 6
j-1
• Finite-Difference Methods (FD)
∂φ
=
1
∂ξ 2Δξ
(φi+1 − φi−1 ) + O Δξ 2( ) 2nd-order Accurate Central Difference
∂φ 1
=
∂ξ Δξ
(φi − φi−1 ) + O ( Δξ ) 1st-order Accurate Backward Difference
∂φ
=
1
∂ξ 2Δξ
( 3φi − 4φi−1 + φi−2 ) + O Δξ 2 ( ) 2nd-order Accurate Backward Difference
∂ 2 φ φi+1 − 2φi + φi−1

∂ξ 2
=
Δξ 2
+ (
O Δξ 2
) 2nd-order Accurate Central Difference

• Finite-Volume Methods (FV)
Each cell or median-dual (node-based)
treated as its own control volume
x x x ! !
x ∫∫∫ ∇ ⋅ ( uφ )dV = ∫∫ φ (u ⋅ n̂ )dA
!
interior faces
x x x
Numerical solution represents the
x local volumetric average
x
Solution reconstruction required to
estimate face fluxes

• Finite-Element Methods (FE)
ɸ2 Solution is represented as a continuous field within
each element
ɸ3
φ ( ξ ) = ∑ φi N i ( ξ )
ɸ1 i
2
Solution Weight Basis Function
1
Domain can be either piecewise C0 or discontinuous
3 between elements

• Finite-Element Methods (FE)
• Weighted residual methods
(
⎛ ∂q ∂ Fi c − Fi v ⎞ ) Equations are solved in weak form
∫∫∫
Ωk
wm ⎜
⎝ ∂t
+
∂xi
− S ⎟ dV = 0
⎠ Integration by parts necessary
before discretization
Weighting Flow equations
function
• Galerkin methods: Weights wm are in the same space as the solution basis functions

Solution Stabilization
• Pure central differencing in convection-dominated flows can lead to
odd-even decoupling, resulting in spurious oscillations
Update at red points
depends only on blue points
Update at blue points Solution stabilization is necessary

depends only on red points

• Artificial Dissipation introduces an even-order derivative to the
discretization to inhibit odd-even decoupling and damp solution error
∂F Fi+1 − Fi−1 ⎛ qi+1 − 2qi + qi−1 ⎞

→ − aΔξ ⎜ ⎟
∂ξ 2Δξ ⎝ Δ ξ 2
⎠
2nd-order central 2nd-order-accurate

first derivative second derivative
Effective order of accuracy decreases from 2nd to 1st
• Use of higher-order dissipation necessary to preserve the intended
order of accuracy of numerical schemes
∂F Fi+1 − Fi−1 3 ⎛ qi+2 − 4qi+1 + 6qi − 4qi−1 + qi−2 ⎞

→ + aΔξ ⎜ ⎟
∂ξ 2Δξ ⎝ Δξ 4
⎠
2nd-order-accurate
fourth derivative
Effective 2nd-order accuracy is maintained
• Upwinding is another method for stabilizing the numerics by biasing
the differencing stencil towards the direction from which
“information” arrives
∂u ∂u
+a =0 1-D Wave Equation
∂t ∂x
⎧ ui − ui−1
⎪ a>0 Waves propagate from left to right
∂u ⎪ Δx
≈⎨
∂x ⎪ ui+1 − ui
a<0 Waves propagate from right to left
⎪⎩ Δx
Riemann Problem
• The Riemann problem is the model initial value problem for solving
the Euler (and, by extension, the Navier-Stokes equations)
• Solution fields are piecewise constant connected by discontinuities between
cells
Information passes between cells along left-
and right-running characteristics as determined
Left State Right State by the eigenvalues
qL qR
λ = [U + c,U − c,U,U,U ]
UL UR Subsonic flow: 4 from upstream, 1 from
downstream
Cell interface Supersonic flow: 5 from upstream
Riemann Problem
• The challenge then is to define a single flux at the cell interface that
represents an appropriate combination of the left-running and right-
running characteristics
• Exact Riemann solvers are possible, but they are non-linear and require
iterative procedures to evaluate the fluxes
• Approximate Riemann solvers are desirable for computational efficiency, and

are typically either linearized Riemann solvers or are based on a suitably
averaged interface state

Jameson-Schmidt-Turkel (JST) Scheme
• 2nd-order central difference scheme with non-linear 2nd/4th-order
diffusion
• Primarily for FD methods, applicable to FV as well
1
Fi+1/2 = ( Fi+1 − Fi ) − ε i+1/2
(2)
( qi+1 − qi) + ε i+1/2 ( qi+2 − 3qi+1 + 3qi − qi−1 )
(4 )
2nd-order Low-order dissipative High-order dissipative flux

symmetric flux flux (for shocks) (smoothing away from shocks)
p j+1 − 2 p j + p j−1
ε (2)
i+1/2 = κ 2ψ j+1/2σ j+1/2 ψj =
p j+1 + 2 p j + p j−1
ε i+1/2
(4 )
(
= max 0,κ 4σ j+1/2 − ε (2)
j+1/2 )
MUSCL Schemes
• Monotonic Upwind Scheme for Conservation Laws
Reconstructed solution in red φ
qL,i+1/2 = qi + ⎡⎣(1− κ ) ( qi − qi−1 ) + (1+ κ ) ( qi+1 − qi ) ⎤⎦
4
qL,i+1/2
φ
qR,i+1/2 qR,i+1/2 = qi+1 − ⎡⎣(1− κ ) ( qi+2 − qi+1 ) + (1+ κ ) ( qi+1 − qi ) ⎤⎦
4
Second-order upwind: κ = -1
Third-order upwind: κ = 1/3
i-1 i i+1 i+2
ɸ is the flux (or slope) limiter to
prevent spurious oscillations
MUSCL Schemes
• Flux Limiters prevent overshoots and undershoots in high-resolution
solution reconstructions
• Necessary near shocks
Flux is limited based on
Sharp gradient ratio of successive
leads to gradients
undershoot
“Symmetric” limiters
ensure that the
reconstruction remains
consistent (i.e. linear)

WENO Schemes
• Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory schemes offer increased order
of accuracy over MUSCL schemes
High-order reconstruction regarded

as a weighted average of lower-
order reconstructions
If a low-order stencil has too much

solution “curvature”, its relative
weight goes to zero
Nichols, Tramel, and Buning (AIAAJ, 2008)

Common Fluxes for MUSCL and WENO
• Roe Flux – flux difference splitting
• Linearized Riemann solver
1 1
Fi+1/2 = ( FR + FL ) − Âi+1/2 ( qR − qL )
2 2
Symmetric flux Diffusive flux
Âi+1/2 ( qR − qL ) = FR − FL

Common Fluxes for MUSCL and WENO
• HLLC Flux
U-c U U+c
t
Flux and state at interface found by
qL * qR *
integration and averaging
qL qR Wave speeds determine the ”region”

in which the cell interface lies

SUPG Method
• Streamline-upwind/Petrov-Galerkin
• Stabilized finite element method
(
⎛ ∂q ∂ Fjc − Fjv ⎞ )
∫∫∫
Ωk
wm ⎜
⎝ ∂t
+
∂x j
− S ⎟ dV = 0
⎠
⎡ ∂N ∂Fjc ⎤
wm = N + ⎢ ⎥ [τ ]
⎣ ∂x j ∂q ⎦
• With correct choice of 𝝉, method is consistent with Riemann solvers

Spatial Accuracy
• Higher-order methods are generally less dissipative
• Example: Rotor hover simulations
3rd-order 5th-order
Source: Pulliam, AIAA Paper 2011-3851

Time Integration
• Explicit schemes
• Future state depends entirely on what happened in the past
Example: ∂q
1st-order forward Euler
time discretization ∂t
+ R(q) = 0 → q = q − ΔtR q
n+1 n n
( )
• Advantages: Computationally inexpensive to evaluate residual; higher-order
accuracy easy to achieve (e.g. fourth-order Runge-Kutta)
• Disadvantages: Limitations on permissible time-step size

Time Integration
• Implicit schemes
• Future state depends on what happens in the future
Example: ∂q
1 -order backward Euler
st
time discretization ∂t
+ R(q) = 0 → q n+1
( )= q
+ ΔtR q n+1 n
• Advantages: Improved stability characteristics, much larger time steps

allowed; beneficial for viscous flow calculations
• Disadvantages: Linear matrix problem to solve (greater expense per

iteration), subiterations required attain temporal order of accuracy
Time Integration
• Two perspectives on implicit schemes
• 1. Linearization
∂R n+1
( )
R q n+1
=R q +
∂q
( )
q −q n
n
( )
⎡ ∂R ⎤ n+1
(
⎢ I + Δt ∂q ⎥ q − q = −ΔtR q
n n
) ( )
⎣ ⎦
(1st-order backward Euler)
Time Integration
• Two perspectives on implicit schemes
• 2. Newton’s Method
R *n+1
=q n+1
− q + ΔtR q
n
( )= 0
n+1 Unsteady Residual
(1st-order backward Euler)
∂R *n+1,k
= I + Δt
∂R q ( n+1,k
) Newton-Raphson subiterations
∂q n+1,k
∂q n+1,k
(Identical to linearization
∂R *n+1,k
∂q n+1,k
q (
n+1,k+1
− q n+1,k
= −R )
*,n+1,k method if qn+1,1 = qn and one
iteration performed)

Time Integration
• Prominent time-accurate schemes
q n+1 − q n
Backward-Difference Formulae
Δt
+ R q n+1 = 0( )
3q n+1 − 4q n + q n−1
2Δt
+ R q n+1 = 0 ( )
q n+1 − q n 1
Trapezoidal
Δt 2
( ) ( )
+ ⎡⎣ R q n+1 + R q n ⎤⎦ = 0
( )
S
Runge-Kutta Methods q n+1 = q n − Δt ∑ bi R q i ,t + ci Δt

i=1

Time Integration
• Effect of time accuracy
Holst et al.
AIAA Paper 2018-0027

RANS Turbulence Modeling
• Differential Reynolds Stress Models directly model the individual
components of the stress tensor
∂ ρ Rij ∂ ρu k Rij SSG/LRR model
+ = ρ Pij + ρΠ ij + ρ Dij + ρ M ij
∂t ∂xk
∂ ρω ∂ ρu kω αω Pkk ∂ ⎡⎛ ρ k ⎞ ∂ω ⎤ ρ ⎛ ∂k ∂ω ⎞
+ =ρ − ρβω +
2
⎢⎜⎝ µ + σ ω ω ⎟⎠ ∂x ⎥ + σ d ω max ⎜ ∂x ∂x ,0 ⎟
∂t ∂xk k 2 ∂xk ⎣ k ⎦ ⎝ k k ⎠
• Advantages: Seemingly reduced modeling dependency
• Disadvantages: Greater computational cost and complexity (7 extra
equations)

• Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis simplifies the tensor by
assuming it to be parallel to the mean-strain-rate tensor
⎡⎛ ∂ui ∂ui ⎞ 2 ∂u k ⎤
− ρ ui ′ u j ′ = µt ⎢ ⎜ + ⎟ − δ ij ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ 3 ∂xk ⎥⎦
• Eddy-viscosity models come in a wide variety of forms and levels of

complexity
• 1- and 2-equation models are most popular at present

• Spalart-Allmaras one-equation model
• Solves for a modified eddy viscosity that maps to the actual eddy viscosity
Dν
! ⎡ c ⎤ ⎛ ν
! ⎞
2
1 ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂ν! ⎞ ∂ν! ∂ν! ⎤
= cb1S!ν! (1− ft 2 ) − ⎢ cw1 fw − 2 ft 2 ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ + ⎢
b1
⎜ (ν + ν! ) ⎟ + cb2 ⎥
Dt ⎣ κ ⎦ ⎝ d ⎠ σ ⎢⎣ ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂x j ∂x j ⎥⎦
• Advantages: Mathematically well-behaved, extensively validated for external

aerodynamics, compatible with finite-element modeling
• Disadvantages: Separation location inconsistently predicted, excessively
diffusive in wakes, poor prediction of axisymmetric jets/wakes

• Menter k-ω Shear Stress Transport two-equation model
• Two-layer model with automatic switching
∂ ρ k ∂ ρu j k ∂ ⎡ ∂k ⎤
∂t
+
∂x j
= ρµt S − ρβ kω +
2 *
⎢
∂xk ⎣
( µ + σ k µt )
∂xk ⎥⎦
∂ ρω ∂ ρu jω ∂ ⎡ ∂ω ⎤ ρσ ω 2 ∂k ∂ω
∂t
+
∂x j
= ρα S − ρβω +
2 2
⎢
∂xk ⎣
( µ + σ ω µt ) ⎥
∂xk ⎦
+ 2 (1− F1 )
ω ∂xk ∂xk
• Advantages: Slightly better treatment of non-equilibrium flows

• Disadvantages: Ill-posed near walls, computationally difficult to solve on fine
grids

• Enhancements to eddy-viscosity models have been developed to
improve their predictive capabilities
• Spalart-Shur rotation/curvature (‘RC’) correction

• Improves predictions in flows with solid-body rotation (e.g. vortex cores)
• Quadratic Constitutive Relation (‘QCR’)

• Introduces additional anisotropy to Reynolds stress tensor, improving
predictions in corner flows
• More consistent predictions of separation in junctures
• Hybrid RANS/LES methods are becoming more commonplace and are
designed to combat the excessive diffusivity of typical RANS turbulence
models in wakes and separated regions
• Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) and its variants trades the RANS length
scale with a grid-based, LES-like length scale
• Scale-Adaptive Simulation (SAS) introduces an additional solution-based

length scale to adapt to resolved turbulent content
• Special care must go into grid generation to ensure that the grid can
support the resolved turbulent content

Questions?

Thank you for attending AIAA’s DirectTech Webinar
• Upcoming DirectTech Webinars
• 22 February 2018 - UAV Conceptual Design and Testing Using Computer Simulations
• 8 March 2018 - Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification and Industry Challenges
• 16 April 2018: Electric Aircraft Design Fundamentals: Enabling Technologies and
Analysis Methods for More-, Hybrid-, and All Electric Aircraft
• Many more planned for 2018 - www.aiaa.org/onlinelearning/
• Previous Webinars On-Demand

• Applications of Model-Based Systems Engineering – Replay Available(took place 16
November 2017)
• Materials for Hypersonic Vehicles – Replay Available(took place 7 December 2017)
• Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles – Replay Available(took place 14 December 2017)

2

IntroComputationalAero Webinar Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IntroComputationalAero Webinar Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 2

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 3

from Boeing from Airbus

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 4

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 5

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 6

Note: body forces have been neglected

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 8

• Six unknowns (ρ, P, T, u, v, w), five conservation equations, one

• Numerical methods are required to obtain flow solutions for arbitrary

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 10

• Consequence: Numerical methods for aerodynamic flows need to be

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 12

• Incompressible (ρ = constant for fluid element)

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 13

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 15

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 16

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 17

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 18

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 19

• Compressible RANS (or Favre-averaged Navier-Stokes) methods are

• Advantages: Solution algorithms can easily exploit the data structure

• Disadvantages: Grid generation difficult for complex geometries, typically

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 21

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 22

• Advantages: Triangles/tetrahedral can be used to discretize any arbitrary

• Disadvantages: Unstructured algorithms typically slower than structured

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 23

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 24

• Avoid excessive stretching and grid skew

• Use prisms in the boundary layer for unstructured FV

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 25

ξ i-1 i+1 φ = φi + φi ′ Δξ + φi ′′ + φi ′′′ +…

∂ 2 φ φi+1 − 2φi + φi−1

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 27

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 28

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 29

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 30

Update at blue points Solution stabilization is necessary

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 31

∂F Fi+1 − Fi−1 ⎛ qi+1 − 2qi + qi−1 ⎞

2nd-order central 2nd-order-accurate

∂F Fi+1 − Fi−1 3 ⎛ qi+2 − 4qi+1 + 6qi − 4qi−1 + qi−2 ⎞

• Approximate Riemann solvers are desirable for computational efficiency, and

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 36

2nd-order Low-order dissipative High-order dissipative flux

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 39

High-order reconstruction regarded

If a low-order stencil has too much

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 40

Symmetric flux Diffusive flux

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 41

qL qR Wave speeds determine the ”region”

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 42

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 43

Source: Pulliam, AIAA Paper 2011-3851

• Disadvantages: Limitations on permissible time-step size

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 45

• Advantages: Improved stability characteristics, much larger time steps

• Disadvantages: Linear matrix problem to solve (greater expense per

Feb. 1, 2018 Introduction to Computational Aerodynamics 48

Runge-Kutta Methods q n+1 = q n − Δt ∑ bi R q i ,t + ci Δt