Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ELSEVIER
A natural extension of the conventional finite volume method into polygonal unstructured meshes for CFD application
P. Chow, M. Cross, and K. Pericleous
Centre f o r Numerical Modelling and Process Analysis, School o f Computing and Mathematical Science, University o f Greenwich, London, U.K.
A new general cell-centered solution procedure based upon the conventional control or finite volume (CV or FV) approach has been developed for numerical heat transfer and fluid flow which encompasses both structured and unstructured meshes for any kind of mixed polygon cell. Unlike conventional FV methods for structured and block structured meshes and both FV and FE methods for unstructured meshes, tile irregular control volume (ICV) method does not require the shape of the element or cell to be predefined because it simply exploits the concept of fluxes across cell faces. That is, the ICV method enables meshes employing mixtures of triangular, quadrilateral, and any other higher order polygonal cells to be exploited using a single solution procedure. The ICV approach otherwise preserves all the desirable features of conventional FV procedures for a structured mesh; in the current implementation, collocation of variables at cell centers is used with a Rhie and Chow interpolation (to suppress pressure oscillation in the flow field) in the context of the SIMPLE pressure correction solution procedure. In fact all other FV structured mesh-based methods may be perceived as a subset of the ICV formulation. The new ICV formulation is benchmarked using two standard computational fluid dynamics (CFD) problems, i.e., the moving lid cavity and the natural convection driven cavity. Both cases were solved with a variety of structured and unstructured meshes, the latter exploiting mixed polygonal cell meshes. The polygonal mesh experiments show a higher degree of accuracy for equivalent meshes (in nodal density terms) using triangular or quadrilateral cells; these results may be interpreted in a manner similar to the CUPID scheme used in structured meshes for reducing numerical diffusion for flows with changing direction. Keywords: finite volume, unstructured mesh, computational fluid dynamics
I. Introduction
In recent years, the increasing need for solving numerical heat transfer and fluid flow problems in complex geometries has prompted a move toward a finite volume-unstructured mesh (FV-UM) approach. Until fairly recently, the unstructured mesh methodology has been most commonly used by the finite element (FE) method. The conventional finite or control volume (FV or CV) method has the desired conservation properties and compact highly coupled solution procedures necessary for efficient flow calculation but it lacks the unstructured facility needed for treating complex geometries. One such method that com-
Address reprint requests to Dr. P. Chow at the School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Greenwich, Wellington Street, Woolwich, London SE18 6PF, U.K. Received 25 July 1995; accepted 11 October 1995. Appl. Math. Modelling 1996, Vol. 20, February 1996 by Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
bines the best of both worlds and fits into the FV-UM framework is the control volume based-finite element mesh (CV-FE) method. 1-5 This combines the unstructured mesh aspect of FE with the conservation properties of the FV method. It has been used successfully in the field of numerical heat transfer and fluid flow from aerodynamic flows to solidification analysis. Workers such as Baliga and Patankar, 2 Schneider and Raw, 3 and Lonsdale and Webster 4 have used the method for general fluid flow and heat transfer analysis. Commercial CFD codes such as A S T E C from A E A Technology (Harwell, Oxon, U.K.) that are based upon the CV-FE technique are beginning to emerge. In the aerospace context, Jameson et al., 6-8 Morgan et al., 9 Batina, 10 and Barth 11 have used the method for aerodynamic flows, whilest the approach has also been used in solidification by Chow and Cross 5 and in stressstrain analysis by Fryer et al. 12 and Bailey et al. 13 The method adopted by these workers is categorized as the vertex-centered approach because the control volume is formed around the vertices of the element/cell. 0307-904X/96/$15.00 SSDI 0307-904X(95)00156-5
2. Governing equations
With reference to the cartesian coordinate system (x, y), transient, two-dimensional elliptic fluid flow and heat transfer problems are governed by the following differential equations 3a.
Momentum equations:
o(ou)
-
@
+ v. (oVu) = v. -
Ot
Ox + S,
-
(1)
o(o )
-
Op
+ v. (ow) = v. --
Ot
Oy
+S,,
(2)
Continity equation:
oo
--
Ot
v.
(ov)
= 0
(3)
Other transported variables are governed by a generic conservation equation of the form -
V(P6)
-
Ot
(4)
In equations (1)-(4), /x is the dynamic viscosity, p is the density of the fluid, p is the pressure, V is the face resultant velocity, S, and S,, are the sources for the x and y direction, respectively, and u and v are the cartesian velocity components in the respective direction. The symbol th in equation (4) can be used to represent any scalar-dependent variable, such as temperature, enthalpy, turbulence-kinetic energy, etc. The terms F~ and S~, are the diffusion coefficient and the source term, respectively, and are specific to a particular meaning of Oh. Both the momentum and continuity equations can also be represented by the general equation. The four terms in the general differential equation (4) are, from left to right, the transient term, the convection term, the diffusion term, and the source term.
171
3. Proposed method
3.1. ICV control volume definition
For a given arbitrary element or control volume, all the face contributions that surround it need to be accounted for in a way that it is naturally conservative. By first constructing an outward normal surface vector at each face and then summing all the face contributions, a conservation system results for the control volume. Figure 1 shows the triangle, quadrilateral, and polygonal control volumes with their outward normal surface vectors. It is in the assembly of the face contributions that the ICV and classical FV or CV methods differ. The classical FV assumes that a cell has a predefined shape, taking advantage of the structured mesh topology that is implicitly imbedded in the formulation and restricts it to elements with four faces in two dimensions and six faces in three dimensions. The ICV has no such presetting of shapes in its formulation and, therefore, the same discretization procedure can be applied to any element/cell type. Hence, both structured and unstructured meshes can be treated by the same method. In fact, it should be clear that the two methods are identical when the present ICV method is given a structured (rectangular) mesh to process.
Source term:
f f f , dv = S, Vp
The more general form of the source term S, is: 31
(7) (8)
= Sc + Sp05p
If a source is nonlinear in 05 it can be appropriately linearized, 31 and cast into the format of equation (8) where the values of S c and Sp are to prevail over the irregular control volume.
Diffusion term:
fr
X[I~ck(n2Ay--~I~)AX)]A +Cdiff
(9)
flap6 3,, at
dv + f pV05ds i =
The s i represents the components of the outward normal area vector, with ds 1 = dy and ds 2 = - d x in counterclockwise traversal of the control volume boundary n i is the coordinate direction in which n I = x and n 2 = y. The terms in equation (5) are evaluated as follows:
Here, N s is the total number of control faces and A represents the adjacent control volumes that share a common face with the P control volume. The symbol h is the unit normal to the cell face, where Ax and Ay are the face surface area vector components and tSx and 3 y are the distance vector components between the nodes A and P in cartesian coordinates. The convention 0a means the variables inside the brackets are to be evaluated using A and P control volumes. Cdiee is the cross-diffusion term 17 for the common cell face. This term disappears when the nodal distance vector N is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the surface vector S (see below for N and S) as in the classical case, and it is small compared with the main term if the nonorthogonality is not severe. In the current study, this term will be zero or near zero by using orthogonal meshes both in structured and unstructured cases. Work is underway in addressing highly nonorthogonal meshes in which the cross-diffusion will be significant. 32
Transient term:
"s
(6)
A=I
The superscript o denotes the old time-step value, Vp is the volume of the irregular control volume P, At the time step, and 05p denotes value of 05 at the centroid of cell P.
The face resultant velocity vector V is of the form V = u[ + v~ and the 05 value at the cell face is calculated using the upwind differencing scheme. To express the total convective-diffusive flux across a face, the same format as the standard CV method is employed, i.e.,
aa
OA -I- m a x [ 0 , - CA]
S.N
(11)
CA=pV'S
DA=F6[NI2
The D a and CA are the diffusive and convective parts, respectively. The S^is the outward normal surface vector with S = Aft--Axj~, and N is the nodal distance vector with N = $xi + 6yj. The generalized convection-diffusion formulation using first-order differencing scheme given by Patankar 31 can now be added to equation (11) to give
Figure 1.
aa = DAF(I PA I) + m a x [ 0 , - CA]
(12)
172
For a full detailed explanation of the velocity correction, see Patankar. 31 The velocity correction formulas are expressed for a face i as follows:
STmletz7
S~tmetcy
(AY)
'
u i = u * + -aU i (PP--P'A)
Cold
Figure 2.
Problem specification.
(17)
where PA is the Peclet number, given by CA/D A, and F(] PA l) is the generic function for the various differencing schemes that can be employed. Summing all the adjacent contributions in equation (12) for an irregular control volume P and substituting it with equations (6) and (7) into equation (4) yields a set of equations of the form
(13)
where
N,
at'= E
A= 1
(pv)t,
aA Jr -
At
SpVp
where p' is known as the pressure-correction variable, the u* and u* are the "starred" velocities (i.e., the guessed velocities at the end of the previous iteration), and a~' and a'i' are the respective u and v coefficients. These starred velocities and the u and v coefficients are calculated using the Rhie and Chow 18 interpolation for the collocated grid arrangement employed here. This was undertaken solely because staggered grid arrangements cannot be readily implemented on an unstructured mesh framework. However, if a staggered grid is feasible, then the staggered values would be automatically substituted into the equation. From equation (11) the convective mass flux for a given face i is pV.
(
b6e At + ScV P
(14) The dependent variable & in equation (13) can be solved with any suitable linear equation solver. Note, for a structured mesh the system of equations [A]~b = b ~ is identical with that produced by standard FV formulations.
S= [(
pu)it+
= ( puAy)i-
Substituting the expression given in equation (17) and rearranging in terms of p' gives
pAy a"
(19)
(15) (16)
Buoyancy vs Pressure Gradient
v = v* + v'
(20)
forward/ backward
0.8
I u) 0.6
> "~ 0.4 E 80.2
0.02
VerticalDistance
0.04
0.06
0.08
o.1
o.o2
0.o4
o.oe
0.o8
o.1
173
aA =
a, -
pAx2) ]
+
(21)
av i A
Us
ap = E
A=I
(or),
aA + At
(22)
Us be=
A=I
[( p u * A y ) i - (
( PV)e
Du*Ax)i]A -1- _ _
At (23)
Pressure correction gradient. With the interpolating of the boundary pressure in the pressure gradient term, there is a corresponding need to interpolate a pressure correction value at the boundary. This is to be used in the pressure correction gradient for updating the velocity components. Forward or backward differencing can be used to interpolate a pressure correction value when the Bernoulli equation is used to interpolate the pressure. A better and more consistent way of evaluating the pressure correction is to use the same basic principle that was used to derive the pressure correction, equation (20). The Bernoulli equation for estimating a boundary pressure is
The pressure correction, equation (20), can be solved by any suitable solver and then used to update the variables in equations (15) and (16).
(24)
With a guessed pressure field p* and starred velocity V*, the guessed boundary value becomes
(25)
With the known boundary velocity VB, subtracting equation (25) from (24) gives
, , PB _- P e + ~
- V2 2
(26)
with V = V* + V' and V' = d A p ' . The pressure correction gradient, dAp', is treated like the pressure gradient term in equations (1) and (2), with d = 1/a e. By just considering the u velocity component case, where the boundary is on the west face of a cell that is regular, the pressure correction gradient can be evaluated as
Interpolating boundary pressure. In the momentum equations (1) and (2), the pressure gradient term requires a pressure at both inlet and wall boundaries. How this pressure is estimated can have a profound influence on the overall behavior of the solution. The straightforward forward/backward differencing can result in a large error in the pressure gradient term when buoyancy plays a major role in the calculations. This can be highlighted with a simple cavity problem that is buoyancy driven, with the top wall hot, the bottom wall cold, and a symmetry condition on both side walls, as illustrated in Figure 2. Of course in this problem the velocity is zero everywhere, and the pressure gradient in the vertical direction equals the gravity force term. Figure 3a shows a plot of the buoyancy and pressure gradient in the vertical direction. The pressure gradient obtained using forwar/backward differencing is under/overpredicted at both the boundaries. Figure 3b shows the same variables being plotted with the boundary pressure estimated using the Bernoulli equation. Again the pressure gradient is under/overpredicted at both the boundaries, but it is a significant improvement over the forward/backward differencing. Both the methods of estimating a pressure value at the boundary will improve with grid refinement. There will always be a finite error though in the pressure gradient for control volumes that coincide with the boundary, owing to the interpolation of the boundary pressure. The staggered grid arrangement has no such problem; no boundary pressure estimation is required.
@'=
Us ~ (p'dy)a=(p'Ay)e+(p'Ay),
A=I
(27)
By substituting the boundary pressure correction of equation (26) into equation (27), we have
(29)
which can be solved for directly or iteratively for use in the velocity corrections. This method works well but it can be expensive in computations. A less expensive route is to take p~ = p~,. This is possible since at convergence Ve = V*, thereby making the last term in equation (26) zero.
174
iiiii!iiiiiJiii!i!i!!iiljjiii
:::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::
<?
Figure 4. Regular mesh results for Re= 400: (1) velocity vector, (2) pressure, (3) u velocity, (4) v velocity.
In this section the proposed method is applied to two well-known benchmark problems. These problems have been solved using both finite volume and finite element techniques by numerous investigators, and these are duly regarded as standard benchmarking for CFD codes and algorithms in fluid flow and heat transfer. The problems are flow in a cavity with a moving lid 34,35 and the natural convection-driven cavity. 36,37 Since the problems are well documented in the literature, their detailed description may be found in Ref. 35 and 36 and will not be reproduced here. Below the results of using the ICV procedure on these problems using both regular and polygonal meshes are compared with the benchmark solutions published by others.
Results with regular elements - rectangular mesh. Results for Reynolds numbers of 100, 400, and 1,000 were obtained and compared with those of Ghia and Ghia 35 which are regarded as the standard benchmark results. Figure 4 shows contour plots of pressure, u and v velocity components, and a velocity vector plot for one of these results with a Reynolds number of 400. Figure 5 shows the result of the u velocity component in the vertical direction and horizontal for v in their respective middle of the cavity compared those of Ghia and Ghia. In this investigation into unstructured meshes, a uniform mesh of 33 X 33 (1,089 cells) and 200 iterations for the solution procedure were found to be sufficient. Solutions were obtained for several first-order convection schemes, upwind, hybrid, exponential, and power law. All the findings
Re-400 C U - v e l o c l t y 3 w i t h r e c t a n g l e s
mOO iT,4rltlOOi 11 1 n,9 P'g B? B6 05
D,4
Re-400 ( V - v e l o c i t y )
B4
with rectangles
~00 11(4i11LIOM
O,3 D OR
I'1
9.1
O,3
-D.
0,2
D 4 0 -| I -D,3 -0.4 -02
-O.2 -D.3
*'
0
.,
I111 Or. i l - YDwfrlcI
,,'
yO0 @ ~k4Of'fd
,I
li~
,,I
X ~
*
O
'
0110 DIL i |
o', .
- -
. ' . ,', .
xCu)
~dr'irl~
'
Ik/'J~ld
,',
& ~
'
,',
X
'
175
914
A},!OOle^ a (') 'AI!OOle^ n (~) 'oJnssaJd (E) '10108^ /q!oole^ (I.) : O O L = a ~ ~ot S~,lnse~ 4 s e w ~ e l n f i u e P l "L e~nfi!-I
C~
:::::::::::::::::::::
iiiiiE~EHE~iiiiiiiiiii:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.
If:
. -..-......,
,_
!i!ii!iiiiiSi!!!i!iiii!ii
;::.!:::.::;
!........
1: ::
u! pasn uop~lod~alu! ~eOU!l aldtu!s aql ol onp s! siql tsau![ poffffe[ pau!uluoa Slold aql jo atuo S 'alaA!padsaa 'uoffelao pu~ 'uoffgxaq 'al~U~!Zl "a'! 'qsam qa~a Joj sllnsaJ 0017 = a~t aql A~oqs 6 o1 Z gaang*.d "atuaqas ffu!auaJagg!p pIJqaq aql ql!~ qsatu zeln~aJ aql tu se sJaqmnu splouaa}i atues aql Joj saqsatu aazql lle Joj pau!elqo a~a~ SUOlmlOS "asea zeln~uelaaa aql m se aanpaaozd uoilnlos atues aql ql!~ palea~l l[e pue paxitu aJa,~ sluatuala jo soda1 [ezaaas 'saqsatu OA~I Jalle I aql u I "so[flue!z1 g[ pue 'suoffexaq 09 'szalelIzpenb 1717g 'suo~elao [817 jo ffups!suoa 'Sllaa L60'I jo [elo1 e 'qsatu paseq-ieuoffelao ue s! paIql a q i "salffUepl 1789 pue 'saale I -ppenb 9E 'suoffexaq g jo dn apetu Sllaa Z170'I jo 1elo1 e peq qsatu paseq-leUOffexa q oRj, "Sllaa ggI'[ jo palsIsuoa qsatu zelnffuepl aq,l "qsam zelnffaz aql ~o aaqtunu aql ol ~el!tuIs Sllaa jo zaqmnu [elol aql daa:t ol apetu s e ~ lzojjo ue 'saqsatu aa.lql IIe u I "(9 aan&zI) Sllaa ieuo~alod .lel -nffazz! fftllle{~!lSaAU ! ZOJ pasn aaaA~ sattsatu luaaajjlp aaJq,l, qsam p o a n p n a l s u n - s l u a m a p lVUOS1od ql!A~ sllnsaR
"sluatuaffu~zz~
puff pmeaolIoa pue pazaffffels qloq u! samaqas ffupuaza]tIp arums aql ql!~ poqlotu Ad Ieuo!l uaAuoa aq:l fftusn tualqo~d aql paAIOS o q ~ S~ 'uaqD jo asoql ql!~ luals!suo3 a ~
:c 2< x
~ ~ KK~C~ KK~3 2~ 2~
A~!OOle^ A (17) 'A~!OOle^ n (E) 'e~nsseJd (E) 'Jo~,oe^ A),! -OOle^ (L) :001~ = aM ~oj m,lnseJ 4 s e w p e s e q - u o S e x e H "8 e]nl~pI
o
xxxx x xxxxxxXXXXXX{~ I
/
X~X
XXXX
XXXX
X X
J>
i
i
XXXX XXXX
x x~,x,,~x~xx,x,~,~ ,
i L
iiixxx i/
X XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX
~J
(
' 5 ; (<:-:'::C;:~:bk :
,%%-. . . . . . . . . ,%. :.: ...... %':;':7'UUUI'U: ,L:.:.:.%:.LI,~,LLI,I :':7"U:':':'CUU~UUI
"1 .la wlott,,9 "d :uo!~eo!l dde GJ,.9 Joj poq,~etu atunloA e.l!ug leuo!.luaAuo 0 e
(:U-velocity:)
Im ttlrltlu
wl~h triangles
In g.,m
ge-'lDn ( : V - v e l o c i t y : )
wlth trTl~nglem
oos
D,4
O,I
.m 4 -a.o
ol
I.I
l,e
O.!
l.e
"11
Ii
IIi
014
iiiii
l l
4-
Will
Ro-100 ( U - v e l o c i t y )
lid 1.4 4 lie IIi n; gaUl ltrl~tul
with
hoxo,gons
n| g.ll =q
Re-lOB C v - v e l o c l t y Z )
im
with
hexngons
i tl-lt
=l m
nw
o.e 0.4
O,I
.,.2
-a I -o-a -o,2 -all -0
?:
::
gl.I 00Io~ g.4 le r~up ~ 1 4. Hl~ld II.g g.I 'O
il
III
is4
oi
II
Figure 11.
Re-lO0 (:U-veloclty)
MlO i t w . t 1.4 4 ~
w i t h octo,gons
o,~e 04 om g -o.m -o 4 -o15 -IpJ
Re--t00 C v - v e l O c l t y Z )
n= =MrIL = == I
w i t h octagons
Om
nil n?
gi
i;.ll O,,I 0.$
na
n4
-.~
-u
-o.$
. . . . .
'..
.~.
,..
all
i
n4
i
oil
i
liB 4
Figure 12.
the contouring and is not present in the numerical results. (Unfortunately, since we had no software available that can accept data from polygonal meshes, simple programs were specially written for the plotting.) To see how all the results compared with those of Ghia and Ghia, comparative plots of the u and v velocity profiles were produced. For the case where Re = 100, Figures 10 to 12 show comparisons with Ghia and Ghia for the triangle, hexagon, and octagon results, respectively. All three meshes agree well with the benchmark. The Re = 400 comparisons are
shown in Figures 13 to 15. Here both triangle and hexagon meshes under predict the peaks and troughs a little, with the hexagon mesh being slightly better than the triangular one. The octagonal mesh, however, is slightly over the peaks and troughs, but still it is by far the best result for both regular and irregular meshes at the node density specified. The results for the Re = 1,000 case are shown in Figures 16 to 18. Again, both triangular and hexagonal meshes underpredict the peaks and troughs, with the hexagonal doing slightly better than the triangular mesh.
Appl.
Math.
Modelling,
177
Figures 19 and 20 show the upwind and power law results for Re = 1,000. None of the results obtained with the various schemes on the octagonal mesh were poorer than the best from the regular case. The reason for the significant improvement with the octagonal mesh lies in the average number of connections with neighboring nodes in a control volume. As experienced with high-order schemes Used in regular meshes, the numberical diffusion for flows with changing direction is significantly reduced by taking more surrounding nodes into account. In the triangular and regular mesh cases, the
CFl~ngle5
all
0.11
..
Re-400 n4 o m o
0,4 m
CV-velocfty) u i ~ 0 ~
with
trl~ngle~
o
o,z 4
on
04
II
eli
...,'.~
....
wrt.h
hex,',gons
04 ilSi a
Re-4OO
CV-veloclt.y')
wlth
hexngon8
ann I t . Q ' ~ L l ~
!.i
a
-g,,0
o,,o
ii ,
~1
i t el
~ll
wlt.h
octagons
g4
Re-4OO
Cv-veloclt.y')
wlt.h
octagonn
un
o7
I1 e; ~ -D,I .m -I| i
::I :':
g,g
'
f
0 o,I D.e o,|
i
-or onl
DB I i n -n
-o,~
OH
o4
OI
in
.i
178
Re-lO00 C U - v o l o c l t y : )
1,1
"I o 01 g.7
0,| oo
wlth
ottoon
Re-100O
CV-veloclty3
= =
with
octagons
u it11~
r
o ~
DI
P -D.'I -o
D.| 4
o o
ii
. ,
.:
,l t Ii, ll i 'IL
un U4 nl in
.i
)fL~O ii +
14e41rld
,, . . , . . , o , ,
....,
I,'1
o|
Re-'lO00
(U-veloclty:)
u l u r ~
wlth
j.
.I
h~gons
~-qO00
CV-veloclty~ = =
with
hexsgo~
ol 0,7
D.O l o'1 o *D.1
:.:
0,1 o4
o a Ol 0 04 11111~xllClO+
on
I~IrIo
el
N~rld
Re-t000
1.1
CU-voloclty:)
wlth
octon
nq
Re-qDng
CV-veloclty::)
with
octagons
i n It4rl~ I I ~ l
0
on
nl nl u
O. O 04 .l O,| 04
I
-o -0.4
-O.I
-o ~
.a
o l
....
. . . .
',o
, j.
.,..
-o|
114
no
el
.i
. .....'2...,.
...:.~
....
179
C U - v e l o c T t y ) w i t h octagons
04
o.a
o.7 9.0 n|
:.:
D.t n.I 0 -O,a ~
n -o D,4 [ -D
ii
o a al
a.I
I,,P
o,i;
l;.@
-o
oa xcno
el + LlO~lnd
e|
...;r
~.,.,
IPeril i I : an
Figure 19.
tt=-i~ ~
uP,aDie
ale
D.8
X
-0.I
o
n4 -D,| -e -ue .
IN. o p.~ ll~a eL ol Q. Ip,i I
-o
Nil
U4 x ~ D ~0uw ~ in
oau
me
Figure 20.
Table 1.
A comparison between the nonuniform mesh and the de Vahl Davis solution 3.638 0.825 3.696 0.175 1.114 1.507 0.09 0.692 0.99
Ra = 103 (3.649) Ra = 104 16.151 (16.178) Ra = 105 34.861 (34.73) Ra = 106 65.173 (64.63)
Urnax
Table 2.
A comparison between the uniform mesh and the de Vahl Davis solution 3.63 0.803 3.677 0.167 1.118 1.51 0.076 0.69 0.985
Ra = 103 (3.649) Ra = 104 16.127 (16.178) Ra = 105 34.822 (34.73)
ea = 106
Umax
(64.63)
(0.85)
(219.36) (0.0379) (8.817)
(17.925)
(0.0378) (0.989)
(1)
180
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i[i:~!!:!!!!!!?!?ii)iii!ii~
!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i,iii]
were obtained with the hybrid differencing scheme and compared with those of de Vahl Davis. 37 The solutions were obtained following similar practices used by numerous investigators, such as those of Markatos and Pericleous, 39 giving 200 iterations for the solution procedure,
using results at one Rayleigh number as initial values for
Figure 21. N o n u n i f o r m mesh results for Ra = 10s: (1) velocity vector, (2) t e m p e r a t u r e , (3) u velocity, (4) v velocity. Table 3.
Umax
y Vrnax x
NU o
the next higher Rayleigh number and a Prandtl number of 0.71. Here a mesh size of 33 33 cells was found suitable. Tables 1 and 2 show the results for both nonuniform and uniform structured meshes compared against the solution
NUma x x Ngmi n y
:i iii!! ii!iiiiiiiiii!!!iiiiii'
i:!ii!i!!!iii!i!iiiiiiiii!:
!ii!!i!!!:::::!!!!!:::::!i!
Figure 22.
Octagon-based mesh results for Ra = 106: (1) velocity vector, (2) temperature, (3) u velocity, (4) v velocity.
181
In the natural convection-driven cavity problem, it is well understood that thin boundary layers will develop in the two conducting walls for high Rayleigh numbers. The nonuniform structured mesh has been adapted to pickup the thin boundary layers near the surface of the walls with the mesh remaining orthogonal. This mesh adaption cannot be easily applied to polygonal meshes; it is not a straightforward process even in a square cavity, and the solution for a low-order polygon would not be any better than the regular case. However, even without any adaptation to the mesh, the results of polygonal cells would still be of interest for the study undertaken here. From the work carried out with the moving lid cavity, the octagon mesh proved to give the best results, and consequently the same mesh is used for this investigation with the hybrid scheme. Table 3 shows the comparison of the octagon results against those of de Vahl Davis. The result is obviously not as good as the nonuniform structured mesh case but it is similar to those of the uniform mesh. The comparison is good at low Rayleigh numbers but differs at high values. This is highlighted extremely well by the u and v velocity contour plot at Ra = 1 0 6 (Figure 22). For the uniform structured mesh, the usual features for a contour plot of the u and c velocity are all present. In the octagonal mesh case, the u velocity plot is identifying the two recirculation zones that are in the de Vahl Davis u velocity plot. In the same plot for the nonuniform structured mesh case, the recirculation is only just visible and it is not as well defined as the octagon. For the v velocity plot, there is a significant difference between the de Vahl Davis and the octagon result. The reason for this is the thin boundary layers at the two conducting walls where both heat and mass transfer is convection-dominated. In this case, the rectangular mesh is better suited than the high-order polygonal ones. Since the flow is aligned with the cell this makes the neighboring diagonal contribution insignificant. This has also been experienced by Patel et al. 40 in a structured mesh context, who employed a CUPID scheme that uses more neighboring nodes in the approximation where convection-dominated flow yields results that are essentially first-order. For recirculating flows, the polygonal cells are able to identify the flow details where the rectangular mesh cannot, as shown in the u velocity plot. This highlights the similarity in characteristics between the high-order polygon cells and the CUPID scheme where both breat more of the surrounding nodes in the discretization.
A new general cell-centered solution procedure based on the classical CV or FV approach has been developed for numerical heat transfer and fluid flow for both structured and mixed polygonal cell unstructured meshes. The ICV method is a natural extension of the classical FV method to facilitate the treatment of geometrically complex problems. The limitation of having to predefine element/cell shapes, implicitly embedded in the conventional FV approach, has been addressed and overcome in the new formulation. Elements/cells such as triangles, quadrilaterals, polygons, and the mixing of different element types may now all be treated in the same solution procedure so that the ICV and convectional FV method are identical given a mesh that is rectangular. The method was applied to two standard well known CFD benchmark cases: the moving lid cavity and the natural convection-driven cavity to benchmark the new approach with the standard method. In both the cases they were solved first with regular (rectangle) and then irregular element meshes. In the regular case, the results obtained are virtually identical with the findings of other authors using the classical FV method. This is expected, of course, since both the ICV and FV methods reduce to the same set of equations when the mesh has a rectangular structure. However, the polygonal element meshes with first-order schemes yield a significant improvement in numerical accuracy over the rectangular mesh with the same or a similar number of nodes. This improvement in solution accuracy has also been experienced recently by other workers 7,28 using the vertex-centered approach over the cell-centered one with triangular and quadrilateral elements for aerodynamic flows. In these cases, the control volume is constructred around the vertices of the element which naturally forms a polygon cell that is not too dissimilar to the polygon elements used here. However, the vertex-bases scheme is more complicated with respect to its formulation and programmability; it is also more computationally expensive. 5 The above improvements in accuracy are simply due to each cell having a greater connectivity to its neighbors, thereby reducing numerical diffusion for flows with changing direction. Similar experience has been observed by the authors with the CUPID scheme 40 in a structured mesh context, where once again more surrounding nodes are treated in the formulation giving an improvement in the solution. Therefore, one may view the polygon element/cell in the control volume context as a high-ordered cell which utilizes more neighboring node information in the formulation. Work is ongoing to address highly nonorthogonal meshes using the present ICV method in three dimensions.
Nomenclature
/x p V Su S~
The dynamic velocity The density of the fluid The face resultant velocity Source for the x direction Source for the y direction
182
r,
S,
si ni
At
Cartesian velocity components diffusion coefficient Source term represents the components of the outward normal vector (ds t = dy and ds 2 = - d x ) Coordinate direction in which n 1 = x and n 2 = y Volume of the irregular control volume P The time step The value of q~ at the centroid of cell P Total number of control faces Adjacent control volume(s) The unit normal to the cell face Face surface area vector components Distance vector components between the nodes A and P in cartesian coordinates The cross-diffusion term for the common cell face Nodal distance vector The surface vector The resultant velocity vector The Peclet number Raynolds number The Rayleigh number
Sc A h Ax, A y 6x, 6 y
Cdiff
N S V
PA
Re Ra
References
1. Winslow, A. M, Numerical solution of quasilinear Poisson equation in nonuniform triangle mesh, J. Comput. Phys. 1966, 1, 149-172 2. Baliga, B. R. and Patankar, S.V, A new finite element formulation for convection-diffusion problems, Num. Heat Transfer 1980, 3, 393-409 3. Schneider, G. E. and Raw, M. J, A skewed positive influence coefficient upwinding procedure for control-volume-based finite-element convection-diffusion computation, Num. Heat Transfer 1986, 9, 1-26 4. Lonsdale, R. D. and Webster, R, The application of finite element methods for modelling three dimensional incompressible flow on an unstructured mesh, Numerical Methods in Laminar and Turbulent Flow, eds. C. Tayler et al, Pineridge Press 1989, pp. 1615 5. Chow, P. and Cross, M, An enthalpy control-volume-unstructuredmesh (CV-UM) algorithm for solidification by conduction only, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 1992, 35, 1849-1870 6. Jameson, A, Baker, T. J. and Weatherill, N. P, Calculation of inviscid transonic flow over a complete aircraft, AIAA paper 86-0103, 1986 7. Liu, F. and Jameson, A, Multigrid Navier-Stokes calculations for three-dimensional cascades, A/AA J. 1993, 31, 1785-1791 8. Jameson, A. and Mavriplis, D, Finite volume solution of the two-dimensional Euler equations on regular triangular mesh, A/AA J. 1986, 24, 611-618 9. Morgan, K., Peraire, J. and Peiro, J, The computation of three dimensional flows using unstructured grid, Comp. Meth. Appl. Eng. 1991, 87, 335-352 10. Batina, J, Implicit flux-split Euler schemes for unsteady aerodynamic analysis involving unstructured dynamic meshes, A/AA J. 1991, 29, 1836-1843 11. Barth, T. J, On unstructured grids and solvers, Proceedings of the VK1 Lecture Series 1990-03 on CFD, March 1990 12. Fryer, Y. D., Bailey, C., Cross, C. and Lai, C. -H, A control volume procedure for solving the elastic stress-strain equations on an unstructured mesh, Appl. Math. Modelling 1991, 15, 639-645 13. Bailey, C., Fryer, Y. D., Cross, M. and Chow, P, Predicting the deformation of castings in moulds using a control volume approach on unstructured meshes, Mathematical Modelling for Material Processing eds. M. Cross et al, Oxford, 1993, pp. 259-272
14. Gordon, W. J. and Hall, C. A, Construction of curvilinear coordinate systems and applications to mesh generation, Int. J. Num. meth. Eng. 1973, 1, 461-477 15. Thompson, J. F, Thames, F. C. and Mastin, C. W, Automatic numerical generation of body-fitted curvi-linear coordinate system for fields containing any number of arbitrary 2D bodies, J. Comput. Phys. 1974, 15, 291-319 16. Thompson, J. F, Warsi, Z. U. A. and Mastin, C. W, Boundary-fitted coordinate system for numerical solution of partial differential equations - - A review, J. Comput. Phys. 1982, 47, 108 17. Demirdzic, I. and Peric, M, Finite volume methods for predication of fluid flow in arbitrarily shaped domains with moving boundaries, Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids 1990, 10, 771-790 18. Rhie, C. M. and Chow, W. L, A numerical study of the turbulent flow past an isolated airfoil with trailing edge separation, A/AA J. 1982, 21, 1525-1532 19. Weatherill, N. P, Mixed structured-unstructured meshes for aerodynamic flow simulation, Aeronaut. J. 1990 20. Peace, A. J. and Shaw, J. A, The modelling of aerodynamic flows by solution of the Euler equation on mixed polyhedral grids, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 1992, 35, 2003-2229 21. Childs, P. N., Shaw, J. A., Peace, A. J. and Georgala, J. M, SAUNA: A system for grid generation and flow simulation using hybrid structured/unstructured grids, First European Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Brussels, September 1992 22. Thareja, R. R., Stewart, J. R., Hassan, O., Morgan, K. and Peraire, J, A point implicit unstructured grid solver for the Euler and NavierStokes equations, Int. J. Numt, er. Metho. Fluids 1989, 9, 405-425 23. Mavriplis, D.J. and Jameson, A, Multigrid solution of the NavierStokes equations on triangular meshes, AIAA J. 1990, 28, 1415-1425 24. Pelz, R. B. and Jameson, A, Transonic flow calculations using triangular finite elements, A/AA J. 1985, 23, 569-576 25. Batina, J, Accuracy of an unstructured-grid upwind-Euler algorithm for the ONERA M6 wing, J. Aircraft 1991, 26. Batina, J, Unsteady Euler algorithm with unstructured dynamic mesh for complex-aircrafi aerodynamic analysis, AIAA J. 1991, 29, 327333 27. Batina, J, Unsteady Euler airfoil solutions using unstructured dynamic meshes, A/AA J. 1990, 28, 1381-1388 28. Hammond, S. W. and Barth, T. J, Efficient massively parallel Euler solver for two-dimensional unstructured grids, AIAA J. 1992, 30, 947-952 29. Strawn, R. C. and Barth, T. J, A finite-volume Euler solver for computing rotary-wing aerodynamics on unstructured meshes, J. Am. Helicopter Soc, 1993, 38, 61-67 30. Struijs, R., Vankeirsbilck, P. and Deconinck, H, An adaptive grid polygonal finite volume method for the compressible flow equations, AIAA paper 89-1957-CP, 1989 31. Patankar, S. V, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere, Washington, DC, 1980 32. Croft, N., Cross, M., Pericleous, K. and Chow, P, In preparation. 33. Patankar, S. V. and Spalding, D. B, A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows, Int. J. Num. Heat Mass Transfer 1972, 15, 1787-1806 34. Burgraff, O. R, Analytical and numberical studies of the study of steady separated flows, J. Fluid Mech. 1966, 24, 113 35. Ghia, K. N. and Ghia, U, Elliptic systems: Finite-difference method III, Handbook of Numerical Heat Transfer, eds. W. J. Minkowycz, et al, Wiley, 1988 36. Jones, I. P, A comparison problem for numberical methods in fluid dynamics: The "double-glazing" problem, Numerical Method in Thermal Problem eds. R. W. Lewis and K. Morgan, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K, 1979 37. de Vahl Davis, G, Natural convection in a square cavity: A bench mark numerical solution. Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids 1983, 3, 249-264 38. Chen, J, The numerical solution of complex fluid flow pehnomena, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds, U. K, 1991 39. Markatos, N. C. and Pericleous, K. A, Laminar and turbulent natural convection in an enclosed cavity, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1984, 27, 755-772 40. Patel, M. K., Cross, M. and Markatos, N. C, An assessment of flow oriented schemes for reducing false diffusion, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 1988, 26, 2279-2304
183