Common Approximations: Finite Volume Method - 3

COMMON
APPROXIMATIONS
Finite Volume Method -3
SYNOPSIS
• Overview
• Time-dependent vs steady-state
• Two-dimensional vs three-dimensional
• Compressible vs incompressible
• Viscous vs inviscid
• Streamwise marching
• Turbulent flow – Reynolds averaging
• Potential flow
Overview
Fluid dynamics is governed by conservation
equations for mass, momentum and energy. The
most important of these is the Navier-Stokes
equation, which is based upon:
- continuum mechanics;
- the momentum principle;
- a linear stress-strain relationship
The full equations are
- time-dependent;
- 3-dimensional;
- viscous;
- compressible;
- non-linear;
- highly coupled.
Time-Dependent vs Steady-State
Flows are often assumed to be steady if the boundary
conditions are steady.However, many systems are naturally
time-dependent and many flows with stationary boundaries
become time dependent through an instability; e.g. vortex
shedding.
Important consequence. The time-dependent equations are
“parabolic” (1st-order in time, 2nd-order in space, and
solved by time marching). The steady-state equations are
“elliptic” (boundary conditions required on all boundaries
and solved by implicit, iterative methods).
Unsteady Flows
Two- Dimensional vs Three-
Dimensional
• Geometry and boundary conditions may dictate

that the flow is two-dimensional
• Two-dimensional calculations clearly require less
computer storage and calculation time. By
contrast, true two-dimensionality may be
surprisingly difficult to achieve in the laboratory.
Note that “two-dimensional” can be extended to
include “axisymmetric”. The latter is often easier
to achieve in the laboratory.
Compressible vs
Incompressible
All fluids are compressible to some degree.
However, the effects of pressure changes on
density may be neglected if: the Mach number,
u/c << 1; (Ma < 0.3 is a good rule of thumb);
absolute temperature changes are small.This is the
case in hydrodynamics.
Important numerical consequences.
Compressible flow:
• - transport equations for density and internal
energy (or enthalpy);
• - pressure derived from a thermodynamic relation
(e.g. the ideal gas law);
• - solution by “ density-based” methods.
Incompressible flow:
• - internal energy is irrelevant: no thermodynamics;
• - mass conservation leads to an equation for
pressure;
• - solution by “ pressure-based” methods.
Viscous vs Inviscid
• If viscosity is neglected, the Navier-Stokes

equations become the Euler equations.
• Important consequence. Dropping the viscous
term reduces the order of the highest space
derivative from 2 to 1. Consider, e.g, streamwise
momentum in a developing boundary layer:
• If we drop the viscous term there is no second-
order derivative and we would expect one less
boundary condition.
Very important consequence.
• Viscous flows (real fluids) require a non-
slip condition (zero velocity) at rigid walls –
the dynamic boundary condition.
• Inviscid (ideal) flows require only the
velocity component normal to the wall to be
zero – the kinematic boundary condition.
The wall shear stress is zero.
• Although the influence of viscosity in much of the
flow is tiny, the small regions (of large velocity
gradients) where viscosity is important can have
global effects. For example, it is the viscous
boundary layer required to satisfy the non-slip
condition that is responsible for flow separation in
an adverse pressure gradient.
• Prandtl’s boundary-layer hypothesis: idealise the flow as
an outer inviscid layer driven by pressure
gradients,matched with a thin inner layer (across which the
pressure is effectively constant) to satisfy the no-slip
condition. The inner-layer solution is often derived by a
forward-marching calculation.
This sort of flow decomposition (“ viscid-inviscid
interaction” ) is widely used for aerofoils:
– outer flow → pressure distribution and hence “ form” lift
and drag;
– inner flow → viscous drag (small).
The boundary-layer hypothesis is OK if the
boundary layer is thin, slowly-developing and
doesn’t separate. Using a potential-flow method in
the outer layer offers considerable computational
savings. However, matching-type calculations are
seldom used in general purpose codes because:
- they limit the class of flows which can be computed;
- the matching region is difficult to establish a priori.
Streamwise Marching
The steady-state Navier-Stokes equation, however, is
elliptic; the presence of second derivatives (hence two
boundary conditions) in all directions in the viscous terms
and demands an iterative solution for the whole domain
simultaneously.
If, however:
• (i) there is a dominant flow direction (x say);
• (ii) cross-stream derivatives are much larger than
streamwise derivatives then the reduced equation
contains only first-order derivatives in the x
direction and the solution can be obtained by
marching forward in that direction. The reduced x-
momentum equation can be rearranged
• The approximation (also known as the “
parabolised Navier-Stokes equation” , because it is
amenable to solution by forward-marching in
space) is common in boundary-layer calculations,
where the pressure field is already known from an
inviscid outer-flow calculation.
• When the approximation is valid it yields
enormous computer-storage advantages, because
only the data on two or three cross-stream planes
needs to be held in memory at any time.
• The method is, however, completely inappropriate
for separated flow, because of flow reversal.
Turbulent Flow – Reynolds
Averaging
• The majority of flows encountered in engineering
are turbulent. Most, however, can be regarded as
small time-dependent and 3-d fluctuations
superimposed on a much simpler mean flow.
Generally, we are only interested in the mean
quantities – the mean flow itself or rootmean-
square (rms) levels of turbulence – rather than
details of the time-dependent flow.
• The process of Reynolds-averaging decomposes
each flow variable into mean and turbulent parts.
The “mean” may be a time average (this is usually what
is measured in the laboratory) or an ensemble average (a
hypothetical statistical average over a large number of
identical experiments).
When the averaging process is applied to the Navier-
Stokes equation, the result is:
• an equivalent equation for the mean flow, except for
• turbulent fluxes, − ρu′v′ etc. (called the Reynolds
stresses) which provide a net transport of momentum.
In order to solve the mean-flow equations, a turbulence model
is required to specify the turbulent stresses. Popular models
exploit an analogy between viscous and turbulent transport
and employ an eddy viscosity µt to supplement the molecular
viscosity. Thus,
This is readily incorporated into the mean momentum equation

because it simply requires a (position-dependent) effective
viscosity. However, actually specifying µt is by no means trivial
Potential Flow
• In constant-density flows the angular momentum of a fluid
element can only change due to the action of viscous
forces (since pressure forces always act perpendicular to a
surface and cannot impart rotation). For an ideal (inviscid)
fluid the flow can be regarded as irrotational. For such
flows it can be shown that the velocity u can be related to
a velocity potential via:
Then the continuity eqn
becomes
• Important consequence. The entire 3-d flow field is
completely described by a single scalar
• equation.
• Velocity components u, v and w are obtained by
differentiating φ. Pressure is then recoverable from
Bernoulli’s theorem:
• This often gives an adequate description of the flow and

pressure fields for real fluids, except very close to the
surface where viscous forces are significant. Since
Laplace’s equation occurs in many branches of physics, a
lot of good solvers exist. However, in ignoring the effects
of viscosity it says absolutely nothing about the tangential
stresses on boundaries and leads, in particular, to the
erroneous conclusion that an object moving through a fluid
experiences no drag. (D Alembert’s Paradox)

Common Approximations: Finite Volume Method - 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Approximations: Finite Volume Method - 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Common Approximations: Finite Volume Method - 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMON

• Geometry and boundary conditions may dictate

• If viscosity is neglected, the Navier-Stokes

This is readily incorporated into the mean momentum equation

Then the continuity eqn

• This often gives an adequate description of the flow and

You might also like