NQ 35361

Adaptive Solution of Viscous Aerodynamic Flows
Using Unstructured Grids
Paul Charles Walsh
A thesis submitted in conformi@ with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philomphy
Graduate Department of Aerospace Science and Engineering
University of Toronto
@Copyright by Paul Chsrles Walsh 1998
National Library
Bibiiohque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and
Bibliographie SeMces
Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques
395 WeUingbDn Street

OttawaON K 1 A W
395. rue Wellington

Ottawa ON K1A OCJ4
canada
CaMda
The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the

National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1
copies of this thesis in microfoq
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accord une licence non

exclusive permettant la
Bibliothque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thse sous
la forme de microfiche/nlm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
lectronique.
The author retains ownership of the

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts ~ o itm
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la proprit du

droit d'auteur qui protge cette thse.
Ni la thse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent tre imprims
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
Adaptive Solution of Viscous Aerodynamic Flows

Using Unstructured Grids
Paul Charles Walsh
University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies
Doctor of Philosophy, 1998
Abstract
Unstnictured grids are used in numericd models applied to aerodynamic design
for their ability to conform easily to complex geometries. Their lack of rigid connectivity
d o m the grid generation process to be highly automated, reducing the expertise needed.
The ~n~tnict~red
grid is idedy suited for bcal refinement basecl on the flow field solution, providing an opportunity for faster, less memory intensive operation for a specific
level of accuracy. The purpose of this research is to develop such an algorithin using
solution-adaptive unstmctured triangular grids to solve the compressible Navier-Stokes
equations on two-dimensiond airfoi1 profiles. The basic solver utilizes a finite-volume
methodology with Runge-Kutta time rnarching to produce steady-state solutions. An
improved artificid dissipation method is developed that provides reduced grid sensitivity and improved accuracy for high-aspect-ratio grids. The solution-adaptive gridding
method identifies under-resolved regions of the solution through an adaptation parameter
based on nomalized grid edge diffrences of the flow field variables. New grid nodes are
added in regions where the magnitude of the adaptation parameter is greatest, yielding
a local grid refhement. The hi&-aspectratio nature of the grid in viscous regions of the
flow is preserved after adaptation through the development of a solutiondependent retrimgdation routine. Several test cases on laminar and turbulent flows are presented that
demonstrate the performmce of the algorithm. It is shown that the adaptation configuration that achieves the greatest improvement in remlution uses an adaptation parameter
consisting of a combination of Mach number and densi@edge differences, with 55% of the
adapted nodes added in the first pass and 45% in the second to yield a four-fold increase
in the number of grid nodes. The test cases also demonstrate that the adaptation rou-
tine is capable of providing at least a 40% reduction in Mt and pressure drag coefficient
errors over d flow regimes compared to solutions obtained on unadapted grids with an
equivalent number of nodes. The effectiveness of the algorithm as a design tool is realized
in a final cornparison of an adapted solution to experimentally determineci results on a
cornplex three-element airfoil configuration.
Acknowledgements
1 wodd like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. D.W. Zingg for his support
and inspiration throughout the development of this research and in the writing of this
thesis. 1would also like to thank the other members of my doctoral cornmittee, Dr. J.J.
Gottlieb and Dr. J.S. Hansen for th& efforts and suggestions.
1 also wish to extend m y thanks to the N a t d Sciences and Engineering Research Counc of Canada, the Goveniment of Ontario, and the University of Toronto for
providing funding which made this work possible.
During my studies at the Universi@ of Toronto my family and &ends provided

ready encouragement, which was indispensible in the completion of this research. To
them 1 offer my gratitude and appreciation. Findy, I would like to extend my sincerest
appreciation to Ruth Boehme for her unflagging support and assistance in the preparation
of this thesis.
Contents
Acknawledgements
iii
List of Tables
List of Figures
ix
Nomenclature
mri
1 Introduction
................................... 1
1.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
1.2.1 Unstructureci Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1 Background
1.2.3
.........................
Grid Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
1.2.4
Solution-Adaptive Gridding
......................
13
1.3 Objectives
16
1.4
....................................
Document Ovewiew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
1.2.2
Turbulence M o d e h g .
2 Numerid Algorithm
2.1 Governing Equations
12
19
..............................
.............................
Spatial Discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2 Turbulence Modelling .
23
2.3
27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .
..............................
2.4 Temporal Discretization
33
2.5 Boundary Conditions
37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5.2 Far-Field Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5.3 Airfoil Surface Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6 Convergence Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.5.1
Free Stream Conditions
2.6.1
Local T h e Stepping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.6.2
Residual Srnoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.7 Grid Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.6.3 The Multigrid Method
3 Artificial Dissipation
3.1 Motivation .
...................................
3.2 Jarneson's Artiticial Dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Stretched Artificial Dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Higher Order Artificial Dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Higher Order Stretched Dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
67
70
73
75
78
Solution Adaptation
84
4.1 Motivation .
84
4.2
85
4.3
4.4
5
67
...................................
Adaptation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Airfoil Boundary Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solution Adaptive &trimgdation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resdts
91
95
101
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2 Casel: NACA 0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.3 Case 2: NACA 0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.4 Case 3: NACA 0012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.1 TestCases
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Case 5: RAE 2822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Case6: AGARDAR303A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012

5.6
5.7
6 Conclusions, Contributions, and Recommendations
166
. . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Contributions . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . 169
6.1 Conclusions . . . . .
6.2
6.3
A Spalart-niimnras Turbulence Mode1
183
List of Tables
2.1
Non-reflecting far-field boundary specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2 Grid specifications for Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.3 Unadapted lift and drag r d t s for Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4 Percent error for unadapteci grid results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.5 Lift and drag resdts after adaptation of grid nacaal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.1 Test Case Summary
5.6
Percent error of lift and drag resuits after adaptation of grid nacaal . . . . 117
5.7 Lift and drag results after adaptation of @d nacaa2 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.8 Percent error for lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa2
5.9
. . . 118
Lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
. . . 119
. . . . . . . . . . 119
5.10 Percent error for lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa3
5.11 Lift and drag results after two adaptations of grid nacaal
5.12 Percent error for lift and drag results after two adaptations of grid nacaal
.........................
Drag results ushg lower order damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
5.13 Grid specifications for Case 2
122
5.14
124
5.15 Absolute value of the percent error of drag results ushg lower order dampingl24
5.16 Drag results using higher order dsmping
...................
124
5.17 Absolute d u e of the percent error of drag remilts using higher order dampingl25
5.18 Drag r d t s after adaptive gridding and higher order damping
. . . . . . . 125
5.19 Absolute value of the drag error after adaptive gridding and higher order
damping
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.21 Unadapted lift and drag results for Case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.22 Percent error for unadapted grid r d t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.23 Percent error for adapted grid r d t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.20 Grid specifications for Case 3
List of Figures
Exampie of a structured grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................
1.3 ~ p l e o f a u n s t m c t u r e d g r i d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Details of unstructured grid connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....................
1.1
1.2 Details of structured grid connectivity
1.5 Adapted grid for NACA 0012 airfoil
5
5
1.6 Mach number field about a NACA 0012 airfoil, M, = 0.8,a = 10.OO, Re =
500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........
31
2.1 m p l e of a cell centered control volume about node k
2.2 Example of a node centered control volume about node k with the control
volume boundary indicated with the dashed line
...............
32
2.3 Example of a control volume adjacent to the airfoil surface centered about
nodek
......................................
2.4 Mach number contours about a NACA 0012 at M,=O.S,
cr=O.O,
Re, =
.......................................
Mach number profile at ~ 0 . 7 0on the upper airfoil surfme . . . . . . . . .
Temperature profile at z=0.?0 on the upper airfoi1 surf'hce . . . . . . . . .
Enlargement of the temperature profile near the airfoil d a c e . . . . . . .
Density prose at -0.70 on the upper airfoil d a c e . . . . . . . . . . . .
5000
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9 Pressure profile at x=0.70 on the upper aidoil surface
44
...........
45
46
46
47
47
48
2.10 Example of a high and low fiequency error on a 1-D grid showing the
appwance of the low frequency error after transfer to the coarse grid
...
52
. . . 54
2.12 Portion of a sample coarse and h e grid showing overlapping triangles . . . 55
2.11 T h e saw-tooth multigrid cycle development on a series of three gr&.
2.13 Airfoil d a c e nodes showing Steiner vectors and gradations of off-wall

spacing .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . 60
2.14 Partidy completed grid at the trailing edge of an airfoi1 showing the advancing &ont after having completed the high-aspect-ratio region
. . . . . 61
2.15 The complete grid near the traing edge of an airfoi1 before smoothing
..
62
2.16 The complete grid near the trailing edge of an airfoil after smoothing . . . 63
2.17 Example of a complete unstructured grid
2.18 ~nstmcturedgrid near an airfoil surface
...................
.............. .. ...
64
65
2.19 'Eansition fiom near quilateral triangles to high-aspect-ratio at the leading

edge of an aidoil
..... ..... . . .. ........ .... ... .. .
66
One error mode possible on an unstructured grid; A and B are different

values of the local solution . . . . . . .
....................
69
Arbitrary control volume about a central node k, with neighbour nodes i

fiom 1 to n, and boundary edges j numbered 1to m .
...........
70
Typical stretched control volume with stretching vector and reference angle
6 i - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 75
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Error imposed on an arbitrary control volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Trailing edge grid of a NACA 0012 airoil, unsmoothed, 12420 nodes . . . . 82
Example of an irregular control volume
Pressure field produced with lower order stretched artificial dissipation,

M,=0.5,a!=O.O,
Rel=50
.................... . ...
83
Pressure field produced with higher order corrected artificial dissipation,

M,=0.5,0=0.0,&~=5000
...... ..... ........ ... . .
83
The possible refinement with a twwpass adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
The refinement of an edge creates two new triangles and three new edges.
87
4.3 The portion of the grid forrning the airfoil boundary- A new node is to be
inserted at the body edge midpoint .
4.4
A Line normal to the boundary edge is drawn through the interior grid.
m m h g points of intersection.
4.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
.........................
The new boundary node is moved to the location specined by the spline
routine. the column of nodes above it moves in conjunction.
4.6
4.7
........
The angles considered in the Minmax edge-swapping triangulation. The
broken line indicates the other possible edge configuration. . . . . . . . . .
................................
96
97
The Minmax retriangulation can generate near equilaterd triangles in highaspect-ratio regions of adapted grids .
4.9
94
A new node is introduced into a high-aspect-ratio region of the grid near
an airfoil surface.
4.8
94
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
The stretched Minmax retriangulation avoids creating near quilateral triangles in high-aspect-ratio regions of adapted grids.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.10 Adapted grid, with retriangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.1 1 Adapted grid, no retriangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.12 Adapted grid. stretched Minrnax retriangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.13 Adapted grid, regular Minmax retriangulation showing inappropriate tri-
angles in the high-aspect-ratio regions .
....................
100
5.1 Unadapted grid nacaa2 with 2736 nodes
...................
109
5.2
Extrapolation of the grid independent liR for case 1. N= total number of

gridnodes
....................................
110
5.3 Extrapolation of the grid independent total drag for case 1. N= total n u ber of grid nodes
................................
110
5.4 Extrapolation of the grid independent m i o n drag for case 1. N= total

number of grid nodes
.............................
111
5.5 Extrapolation of the grid independent pressure drag for case 1. N= total
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.6 Mach number field using grid nacaa2 for case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.7 Adapted grid using Mach number as adaptation parameter. 2887 nodes . . 112
5.8 Density field using grid nacaa2 for case 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.9 Adapted grid using density as adaptation panuneter. 2884 nodes . . . . . . 113
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
. 114
5.11 Adapted grid using pressure as adaptation parameter. 2882 nodes .
5.12 Vorticity fidd using grid nacaa2 for case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.10 Pressure field using grid nacaa2 for case 1
5.13 Adapted grid using vorticity as adaptation parameter. 2891 nodes .
115
5.14 Cornparison of lift results using adapted and unadapted grids. N=number
of grid nodes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.15 Comparison of total drag results using adapted and unadapted grids. N=number
of grid nodes
..................................
120
5.16 Cornparison of fiction drag r d t s using adapted and unadapted grids.

N=number of grid nodes
............................
121
5.17 Cornparison of presnire drag results using adapted and unadapted grids.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Mach number field about the NACA 0012 airfoil using grid nacab3 . . . . 126
5.18
5.19 Cornparison of absolute total drag between lower and higher order artificial
dissipation and adaptive gridding. N = number of grid nodes
. . . . . . . 126
5.20 Comparison of absolute pressure drag between lower and higher order artificiai dissipation and adaptive gridding. N = number of grid nodes
. . . 127
5.21 Cornparison of abso1ute fnction drag between lower and higher order artificial dissipation and adaptive gridding. N = number of grid nodes
. . . . 127
5.22 Surface pressure coefficient using the higher order artificial dissipation on
grid nacab2
...................................
128
5.23 Surface pressure coefncient using the lower order artificial dissipation on
grid nacab2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.24 Surface pressure coefficient using the lower order artificial dissipation on
grid nacab3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.25 Comparison of lift coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted grids.
N = number of grid nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.26 Comparison of pressure drag coefficient produced by adapted and un-
adapted grids. N = number of grid nodes
..................
134
5.27 Comparison of fiction drag coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted

grids. N = number of grid nodes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.28 Comparison of pressure coefficient produced by adapted grid and ARC2D
135
5.29 Comparison of pressure coeflicient produced by unadapted grid and ARC2D
135
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Pressure field for the adapted grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Adapted grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Mach number field for the unadapted grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Pressure field for the unadapted grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Unadapted grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.30 Mach number field for the adapted grid. case 4

5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36 Mach number field for the enlarged adapted grid. case 4
. . . . . . . . . . 144
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.37 Pressure field for the enlarged adapted grid. case 4

5.38 Enlarged adapted grid. case 4
. . . . . . . . . 147
Pressure field for the enlarged unadapteci grid. case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Mach number field about an RAE 2822 sirfoil on adapted grid. case 5 . . 150
Adapted grid of RAE 2822 aidoil. Inn nodes. case 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.39 Mach number field for the enlargecl unadapted grid. case 4
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43 Cornparison of d & c e pressure coefficient using adaptive gridding, unadapted grids, and experimental methods, case 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.44 The location and direction of the total pressure profiles in relation to the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Initial grid about the flap, three element case 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Initid grid about the slat, three element case 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
three element airfoil .
5.45
5.46
5.47 Initial grid of the three element airfoil of case 6, 21,125 nodes
. . . . . . . 158
5.48 Mach number field over the f

dlairfoi1 of case 6, obtained on the adapted
grid
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.49 M adapted grid of the three element airfoil of case 6, 84,385 nodes
5.50 Adapted grid about the slat of the three element airfoil of case 6
. . . 160
. . . . . 161
5.51 Mach number field about the slat obtained on the adapted grid of the three
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Adapted grid about the flap of the three element airfoil of case 6 . . . . . 162
element airfoil of case 6
5.52
5.53 Mach number field about the flap obtained on the adapted grid of the three
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.54 Cornparison of pressure coefficients o w the sudace of the main airfoil
obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
- 163
5.55 Comparison of pressure coefficients over the sudace of the flap obtained
with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment . . . . . . 163
5.56 Comparison of pressure coefficients over the surface of the slat obtained
with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through expriment
. . . . . . 164
5.57 Comparison of total pressure coefficient profiles at 35%chord on the main
Mailobtained with the adapted grid, anadaptecl grid, and through experiment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.58 Cornparison of total pressure coefiicient profiles at the trsiling edge of the
main airfoi1 obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through
experiment
...................................
165
5.59 Cornparison of total pressure coefficient profiles at 50% chord on the flap
obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
165
B.l Arbitrary control volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Nomenclature
area of control volume k
control volume aspect ratio
speed of sound (non-dimensional &er page 22)
far field speed of sound

axial force coefficient
normal coefficient
lift coefficient
total drag coefficient

friction drag coefficient
pressure drag coefficient
pressure coacient
total pressure coefficient
airfoil chord length

t o t d artincial M p a t i o n
distance to airfoil wail

Laphcian approximation
biharmonic approximation
distance to the turbulence trip point
total energy per unit mas (non-dimensional after page 22)
h e Stream totd energy per unit mass

interna1 energy per unit mass
artificial dissipation pressure switch

artScid dissipation pressure switch
convective flux vector, x direction
total flux vector, x direction
viscous flux vector, x direction
viscous flu t e m , energy equation, x cartesisian coordinate direction
general flux term
convective flux vector, y direction
total flux vector, y direction
viscous flux vector, y direction
viscous flux term, energy equation, y direction
total flux vector
free stream enthalpy

general grid spacing
tramfer coefficients for multigrid
unit vector, x direction
unit vector, y direction
thermal conductivity (non-dimensional zrfter page 22)
free stream thermal conductivrn

artificial dissipation constant
artscia1 dissipation constant
edge length
total number of nodes forming a control volume boundw

unit normal vector in x direction at airfoil body d a c e
unit normal vector in y direction at airfoii body d a c e

hx stream Mach number
total number of edges fonning a control volume boundw
forcing fiuiction for multigrid

pressure (non-climensional &er page 22)
total pressure
fkee stream pressure
I&ar
Prandtl number
turbulent Prandtl number

solution vector, [p, pu, pv, pE, pi]
universal gas constant for air
Riemann invariants at the far field boundary

Reynolds number based on speed of sound (ccrlv)
Reynolds number based on free stream velocity (cU,/v)
residual for control volume k
radial distance fkom quarter chord point to a far field node
total turbulence production variable

source term vector
stretching vector for a control volume
temperature (non-dimensional after page 22)
*ee Stream temperature
t h e (nondimemional Bfter page 22)

total rnaxknum t h e step size
m h u m convective time step size
mBlLimum viscous time step size
cartesian coordinate direction (non-dimensional after page 22)

edge length in z coordinate direction
cartesian coordinate direction (nondimemional after page 22)

edge length in y coordiaate direction
tangentid velocity at the far field boundary
normal velocity at the far field boundary

velocity difference between the airfoil wall and the local node
velocity in the z direction (non-dimensional after page 22)
fke stream velocity in the x direction
fa.field velocity in the x direction

velocity in the y direction (non-dimensional after page 22)
fkee stream velocity in the y direction

far field velociw in the y direction
angle of attack
circulation correction
ratio of constant volume to constant pressure specific heats for air

boundary for the control volume about node k
grid spacing parameters for a Stnict~redgrid
polar angle between the position vector and camber line

Von Karman turbulence constant
convective spectral radius
viscous spectral radius
spectral rad for stmctured grid coordinstes

kinernatic lsrminar viscosity (non-dimensional sfter page 22)
dynarnic laminar viscosity (non-dimensional after page 22)
turbulent eddy v i s c o s i ~
fiee stream dynamic Iaminar viscosity

turbulence parameter
density (nonimensional after page 22)
fiee stream density

viscous shear stresses
general conservation variable
turbulence variable (Glu)

control volume about node k
relaxation factor for grid smoothing
vorticity at the turbulence trip point
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
In the last few decades, the world has seen a revolution in technological achievement
brought about by the introduction of the compter microprocessor. Manufacturing automation and computer-aided design have becorne cornmonplace technologies in most
heavy industrial production enviroaments. The aerospace manufacturing industry has
evolved in the ssme m m e r . This fact was made apparent on June 12, 1994 when the
nrst prototype of the Boeing 777 made its maiden Eght. The aircraft had been predom-
inantly designecl and manufsctured with digital cornputers. The result of such increased
automation in the design and manufacture was a significant inprovernent in the overd
production efficiency. The t h e between conception and prototype completion had been
reduced fiom a typical 10 years to approximately five years. The Boeing 777 illustrates
the extent to which increased automation can impact design and manufacture and subsequent costs. Numerical analysis applied to the aerodynamic performance of aircraft f o m
an integral part of this design methodology.

Tkadtionslly, aerodynamic snalysis of airmaft design was performed using both
theoretid and experirnental methods. The theoretical approach approitimates realistic
non-linear flow field phenornena with simplified mathematical relations. Although this
method can produce r d t s quickly with xninimal expense, it is ineffective in accomodat-
ing cornplex fiow fatues. Experimental methods, however, caa produce accurate data
1.1 Background
over a wide range of flow conditions. Scaled models of aircraft or wing sections are constmcted and placed in wind t m e k with various data acquisition transducers. Results
of experimental origin have been heavily relied on for critical aerodynamic design. Although potentially very accurate, wind tunnel tests are t h e consuming to construct and
require extensive resources. For an iterative design process, these constraints can become
prohibitive. With the rapid growth in microcomputing power and the development of
numerical models, the potential for an alternative design tool with a significant reduction
in operational expense while maintaining a high level of accuracy has been realized.
Unlike t heoretical methods, numerical models attempt to resolve all aspects of

the flow field including non-linear effets. AircraR or wing sections are represented in
computer memory as a group of interco~ecteddiscrete points within the physical domain.
Numerical methods solve the conservation relations that represent the behaviour of a
0uid over a set of regions defined by those points. The conservation equations c a n be
represented over these regions in a discrete form suitable for digital processing using a
variety of methods. The cost effectiveness of a numericd model for aerodynamic analysis
is dependent not only on the power of the computer hardware but also on the accuracy
and efficiency of the various discretization methods. Several of these methods can offer
distinct advantages in cost and flexibility of application.
The discrete points or nodes about which the governing equations are solved
can be oriented in either a s t ~ c t ~ or
e dunstmctured configuration (see figures 1.1 and
1.3). The structured grid maintains a rigid connectivity in relating nodes to thw nearest
neighbours, as seen in Figure 1.2. Al1 nodes other than those which define s boundary
will have four nearest neighbours. This co~mectivi@is easily accommodated within the
array structure of computer data storage, leading to low memory requirements and easy
information r e d for such grids. However, for high lift airfoil configurations with multiple
airfoil bodies the dructured grid will enconter difcdties. The ~ t ~ c f u format
~ e d does
not easily conform to complex and irregular geometries. In such instances grid generation
1.1 Background
can be a complicated and t h e consuming process. The unstmctured grid does not have
this limitation since the connectivity is completeiy arbitrary (see Figure 1.4). Such grids
can conform to virtually any airfoil geometry easily, leading to grid generation processes
that are rapid and can be completely automated. The possibility then exsts for the
creation of a completely coupled grid generator and solution algorithm that can model
flows about complex geometries while requiring ver- little user expertise.
The potential for an automated unstructured solver to produce weil resolved
solutions is enhanced through a solution-adaptive gridding method. Adaptive gridding
recognizes that the effectiveness of the numerid model is strongly dependent on how well
critical features of the Bow field are predicted. The presence of boundary layers, wakes,
shock waves and separated flows as well as their interactions must be accurately defined
in order to predict the lift and drag of an airfoil accurately. One possibility is the global
refinement of a grid with the knowledge that the critical features will be covered by some
parts of the fine mesh. However, since additional nodes in the simulation represent added
computational expense, using globdy fine meshes to obtain a high degree of resolution
may not be feasable. Adaptive gridding seeks to obtain the resolution of the globally
fine mesh but without the excessive numbers of nodes. Solutions on grids of moderate
resolution are initially obtained and used as the starting point for new node addition.
The solution-adaptive gridding seeks to locally refine these grids only in regions were the
solution is determined to be poorly resoIved. Thus the accuracy of the algorithm is improved with fewer nodes than the global refinement. U n s t ~ ~ t ~grids
r e d are ideally suited
to adaptive gridding due to their arbitrary connectivity. New nodes cm be placed in the
grid individudy with a minimum of disniption. A structured grid requires the addition
of entire aolumns or rom of nodes to locally rehe a grid. The result is an introduction
of a large number of superfluous nodes rendering the stmctured grid impractical for node
addition adaptive gridding.
A mical example of an adapted unstmctured grid is shown in Figure 1.5. The
1.1
Background
Figure 1.1: Example of a structured grid
Figure 1.2: Details of structurecl grid connectivity
Figure 1.3: Example of a unstructured grid
Figure 1.4: DetaiLs of umtmctured grid comectivity
Figure 1.5: Adapted grid for NACA 0012 d o i l
Figure 1.6: Mach number field about a NACA 0012 airfoil, Mm = 0.8, a = 10.O0, Re =
500
1.2 Literature Review
influence of solution-adaptive gridding is clearly visable in the node distribution shown in

the figure. The Mach number field of the solution that lead to the creation this mesh is
presented in Figure 1.6. Through local refinement of the pertinent flow features, adapted
grids such as this are capable of producing well resolved solutions with relatively few
nodes compared to a global refmement. The development of mch unstmctured solutionadaptive methodologies provides a means of creating an accurate aerodynamic design tool
functional over a range of flow field conditions which can be operated with minimal user
input.
Literature Review
2
1 Unstructured Solvers
The use of numerical methods as a standard design tool in the field of engineering can
trace its history back to the late 1950's. It was at this t h e that the fundamental ideas
that form the fondation of the contemporary finite element method were documented by
Greenstadt [l, 21. His theories permittecl the solution of continuous problems on a finite
set of contiguous subdomains of irreguiar shape. It was the ability of the finite element
method to resolve complex continuum problems disaetely through the unstructured nature of its grids that permitted it to become an acceptecl design tool at the tirne. By the
eady 1960's the finite element method had corne into common use for structural analy-
sis in the aerospsce industry [l, 31. However, i . the

~ numerical analysis of aerodynamic
performance of aircraft the development was sornewhat slower.
In the early 1960's the fmt panel methods started to appear which permitted
the analysis of idealized flow fields about cornplex bodies [4, 51. The panel methods
assume that the 0ow field about an aerodynamic body can be approximated by a potential
function, whose behaviour can be describecl through Laplaces's equation. The simplifying
assumptions inberent to these potential solvers is that the flow field remains inviscid,
irrotational and incompressible. Panel methods detennine the appropriate distribution
1.2 Literature MW
of potential singularities, such as sources, sinks, and vortices, within a body such that
in a d o r m flow the streamlines codorm to the desired body shape. Tkansonic flows
can also be modeued with the linearized, s m d disturbance form of the compressible
potential equation. In 1971, Murman and Cole [6]were the first to solve the linearized
f o m numerically. They used a dineremhg method that adjusted itseif to the character
of the solution. In subsonic regions of the 0ow field where the nature of the potentid
relation is elIiptic, a standard central ciifference method was adopted. However, in areas
of supersonic fiow in which the governing equation is hyperbolic, a
h t
order upwind
differencing method was used. The work of Murman and Cole generated considerable
activity in the field of trmsonic potential solvers and, not long after, their method was
extendecl to three dimensions [7].Despite idealized flow assumptions, potential methods
have proven to been effective as design tools and are still in use [8]. However, some
critical aspects of realistic aerodynamic flows are characterimi by vorticity and entropy
production, and cannot be modelled with potential methods.
The inviscid Navier-Stokes equations, commonly referred to as the Euler equations, are capable of greater realisn than the potential methods. The effects of compressibility can be introduced once an equation of state is specified to close the system.
Transonic flow features such as shock waves and their associated entropy production can
be modelled. Jarneson, Schmidt, and Turkel in 1981 [9] created an Euler solver that permitted the independent solution of the temporal and spatial components of the system of
equations. Their algorithm solved the Euler equations on a dmctured grid using a central
dinerencing finite volume solver that achieved second order spatial accuracy on smooth
grids. Once discretized, the Euler equations were reduced to a system of ordinary Mer-
ential equations which were expLcit1y marched in time to a steady state solution using a
four step Rung+Kutta tirne march routine. Since the central merencing scheme had no
inherent damping mechsnism to control oseillatory behsviour as a solution is marched in
t h e , an artificial dissipation term was included. Jameson et al. use a term composed of
1.2
Literature Review
undivided dinerences of the dependent variables which approximate Laplacian and biharmonic operators. Switching tenns based on a LaplaQan approximation of pressure control
the emphasis of the damping term on either the Laplacian or the biharmonic component.
Shock mves require relatively heavy damping, in these regions the Laplacian damping
component is emphssized. Elsewhere, where lesser damphg is needed, the biharmonic
operator is accentuated.
The work of Jameson and Mavriplis incorporated into unstmctured triangular

solvers many of the lessons learned in the structureci solvers. In 1985 Jameson and
Mavriplis [IO] presented an algorithm that was very similar to Jarneson's 1981 solver in
that it used a central Merence finite volume scheme. However, in this work several methO&
of convergence acceleration originally developed on structureci solvers were adopteci.
Local time depping d o w e d each control volume to be marched explicitly through tirne
at its largest permissible t h e step rate. Residuals computed at each controi volume were
redistributeci to their nearest neighbours in a semi-implicit smoothing operation using
several Jacobi iterations. Residual smoothing dowed the algorithm to be rnarched in
time at more than twice the original rate. A multigrid algorithm developed by Jameson
[Il]was implemented. The method uses a series of grids of increasing coarseness to systematicdy remove erors of various fiequencies in an &&nt
rnannner. Coarser meshes
were generated by strategically removing altemathg edges of a fine grid. Flow variables
and residuals computed on the h e r meshes are transferred to the next coarsest mesh
where tirne stepping is conducted. A correction factor is obtained on the coarser meshes
and is tranderred to the solution on the h e r meshes. The effediveness of the multigrid
method derives fkorn the fact that low frequency error can be removed faster with a coarse
mesh than with a very fine mesh. Jameson and Mavriplis found that they could obtain
the same accuracy and an quivalent convergence rate for the triangular grid as for an
q u i d e n t grid made of quadrilateral elements.
One drawback of this multigrid scheme is its reliance on grids that are related to
10
-
each other through a one-twne correspondence in the location of nodes between a fine
and coarse mesh. This precludes the possibility of adaptive gridding adding new nodes on
the hest mesh at any desired location. Jarneson and Mavriplis in 1987 [12, 131 showed
how a mdtigrid scheme could be constnicted using a sequence of progressively h e r grids
with no relation in node location. They demonstrated that this method could solve the
Euler equations on unrelated meshes as quickly as an equivalent solver h
g multigrid on
a series of structureci grids.

The solution of the Euler equations on unstructured grids with the multigrid convergence enhancement provides rapid analysis of many aerodynamic problems. However,
on complex problems in which the effects of viscosity have a strong influence on the solution, the full Navier-Stokes equations must be solved. High lift multi-element airfoils
frequently contain some interaction between boundary layers and wakes and often create
separated boundary layer flows,all of which can only be rnodelIed through the eEects of
viscosity. One of the most significant diflEiculties with this class of problems is resolving
the boundary layer accurately. Gradients of velocity normal to an airfoi1 surface will be
severai orders of magnitude larger than those in the streamwise direction, especially for
high Reynolds number flows. To adequately resolve such features requires a high nodal
density normal to the wall relative to the streamwise density. The result is a layer of c e h
that are highly stretched, commonly known as high-aspectratio cells. Numerous works
have been conducted with the intent of soIving such problems using trianguiar unstructured meshes. Some of these include Anderson and Bonhaus [14],Barth [15],nirkel and
Swgnson [16],Peraire et al. Il?], Luo et al. [18],and Lober (191.
Much of the work done in resolving viscous flows on unstmctured grids has been
developed on solvers other than the finitevolume central difierence type. One of the
drawbacks of the central difference type methods is the insensitivity of the scalar artificiai dissipation to the various wave components of the conservation equations. In the
1980's the upwinding technique was developed that adjusted the magnitude of the dis-
Il
sipation to each wave component. Desideri and D e ~ e u xdeveloped one of the earliupwinding schemes on unstructured gnds in 1988 [201. Other algorithms used to sohe
fluid flow on unstructured grids include the finite element method, originally developed
for stress analysis. Many finite element schemes used in fluid andysis use the G a l e r h
method where the bas& and test functions are identicd [Zl].Other established methods
include the Total Variation Diminishing (TM)
scheme initiated by Harten (221, and the
Monotonie Upstream-centered Scheme for Conservation Lam (MUSCL) by Van Leer (231.
Comprehensive reviews of may unstructurecl solvers used in fluid flow analysis have been
prepared by Vdcatakrishnan [24] and by Mavriplis [25].
Work has continuecl on h i t e volume central Werencing schemes direct& to-
wards improvements in solution accuracy through enhancements to scalar artdicial dissipation. In 1989 Mavriplis et al. [26] expanded on the scalar dissipation scheme that
he reported in 1985. His new method scaled the contribution of each node in the creation of the dissipation operator according to the aspect ratio and the orientation of the
l o d grid. In this manner he was able to create an artificial dissipation operator that
resembles that of sorne scalar operators on stmctured meshes that use different magnitudes of damping depending on the local grid aspect ratio. This new operator reduces
the magnitude of the artScid dissipation in the boundary lsyers of viscous flows reducing
solution contamination. Lindquist [27] demonstrated how an improved Laplacian opera-
tor codd be constructed by application of Gauss' theorem in the plane. Her Laplacian
formulation pennitted second order accuracy on grids formed of irregularly shaped triangles. Lindquia provided several solutions of the Euler equations on transonic flow to
demonstrate improved remlution and the presemed accuracy of the scheme. Although
the improved Laplacian appraicimation produces accurate solutions on inviscid fiows, it
encounters instabiIity on stretched grids used in viscous problems. It is this difnculty
which is addressed in the higher order dissipation formulation presented in this work.
1.2.2
12
Turbulence Modellhg
The viscous regions about airfoils flying under realistic Eght conditions are characterized
by turbulence. Instabities in the shear layers create turbulent fluctuations of the flow
field properties that are manifesteci through increased transport rates in these regions. If
accurate models of the fluid dynamics about aerodynamic bodies in realistic conditions
are to be achieved, the effects of turbulence must be induded. A cornmon approach to
turbulence m o d e h g is with the inclusion of an additional eddy viscosity in the conservation equations. The value of the eddy viscosity is modelled through any one of a range
of methods which vary greatly in sophistication and computational expense. Algebraic
turbulence models determine the value of the eddy viscosity based on empiricism and
the local solution. Mamiplis implemented the Baldwin-Lomax [28] algebraic model on
an unstructured solver [29]. He needed to use a stmctured background grid on which to
solve the turbulence model in order to accommodate its non-local nature. It was found
that in separated regions of flow on multi-element airfoils the Baldwin-Lomax model was
unable to predict surface pressure accurately [30, 311. More cornplex turbulence models
require the solution of additional transport relations. The two-equation k -c model solves
a separate equation for both production and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy, and
has been used widely. Two oneequation models are used frequently on unstructured
grids, the Baldwin-Barth [32]model and the Spalart-Allmaras [33] model. The Baldwin-
Barth model is a combinecl form of the k
- E model. The Spalart-Allmaras model was
derived through empirical arguments, and has been shown to be effective in aerodynamic
applications [Ml.
1.2.3
Grid Generation
Before any numerical model can be used to provide a flow field andysis, a suitable grid
must be generated throughout the computational domain. The generation of unstmctured

grids has followed fiom a number of algorithm that permit a high degree of automation.
Barth [35], Mavriplis [25],and Peraire [36] have all produced reports reviewing numerous
unstructured grid generation methods, not ail of which are presented here. Unstructured
grid generation methods have usually foilowed two approaches, the advancing fiont technique or the Delaunay point insertion routines. The advancing &ontmethod fills a domain
by creating new triangles at the leading edge of a group of preemsting triangles (371.The
front begins with the discretized airfoil body and outer boundary, and procedes into the
computational domain. One advantage of the advancing &ont method is its ability to conform to the regions surroundhg complex airfoil geometries. The Delaunay point insertion
method assumes that a valid grid exists and procedes to insert new points according to
the Delaunay criterion. If a circle is d r a m through the three nodes at the vertices of a
triangle, the Delaunay criterion is met if no other node in the grid is within the circle.
Grid generation begins with a Delaunay grid composed of the airfoil and boundary nodes
only, and procedes with node insertion at triangle centeroids or with some other method
[38].The high-aspect-ratio region near the Sulcfkce of an airfoi1is often generated with the
admcing fiont method and the Steiner point insertion stratetegy [39].The Steiner method
creates vectors rsdiating outward from the airfoi1 surfxe nodes
and inserts new points
along their lengths at user s p d e d distances fkom the surface. In such grids it has been
shown by Barth [35] that the Minmax grid criterion produces smoother hi&-aspect-ratio
grids than the Delaunay method. The Minmax criterion is achieved when each edge is
orienteci in such s manner that the largest interior angle of the two triangles that share
this edge is minimixeci.
1.2.4
Solution-Adaptive Gridding
Solution-sdaptive gridding is used to irnprove the solution resolution in regions that are
determineci to contain a high degree of error. Adaptation ean be divided into three
classes, designated as r-adaptivity, h-adaptivity, and padaptiviw- In padaptation the

order of acmacy in the local discretization is increased. For a finite eiement routine this
translates to a local increase in order of the bas& function used to obtain the soliition.
14
In conceptual t e m the simplest adaptive method is the r-adaptive approach. In this

method, the node locations are altered to minimize a local m e m e of error. For highly
stretched grds in high-Reynolds-number flows this could lead to diaiculties in skewness
or inappropriately srnd triangle sizes [24, 401. For compressible unstnictured flow solvers
the most commonly used adaptation method is the h-adaptive method. Here, nodes are
simply added to regions that are determined to la& refinement. A review of adaptive
methods is given in the survey paper of Powell et d.[41].
One common aspect of ad adaptive routines is their need to mesure the local
error
the numerical solution in order to direct refinement. Approaches to error caku-
lation have used either a direct calculation of the truncation error or a heuristic method
using undivided differences or flow gradients. In 1985 Dannenhoffer [42] presented an

investigation of the improved performance using several undivided difference adaptation
parameters. He solved transonic inviscid flows using an embedded grid with h-adaptation
implemented in two passes. Cornparisons were made between the computation times of
adapted grids and globally r e h e d meshes. Adaptation was directed by undivided first and
second differences of density, pressure, velocity, and entropy. It was found that undivided
differences of density provided the greatest improvement in solution times for a given
level of solution accuracy. The adapted grids based on undivided second differences were
more irregular than the fust dinerences, and contained isolated regions of rehement. The
topologid difnculties created by the second diference adaptation lead to unreasonably
long nui times.
Fhrther stuclies in adaptation parameters were conducted by Warren et al. [43]
using an h-adaptive invisciid unstructured flow solver. The location of a normal shockwave
for a well known problem was used as an estimate of the solution error. Two adaptation
parameters were used to estimate the local solution error, undivided velocity dinerences
and the absolute value of the second derivatives of density. Grid edges that exceeded a
t h h o l d value of error based on the standard deviation of all edge values were flagged for
adaptation. It was found that excessive adaptation of the shock wave at the expense of
the smooth regions of flow lead to an incorrect location of the shock wave. hirthermore,
they found that improvements in the accuracy of a solution through adaptation were best
achieved when smooth regions of the flow adjacent to discontinuities were also rehed.
Other studies on error estimators were conducted using gradient measurements [44, 451.
In this instance the error indicators over shockwaves tended towards weasonably large
values as repeated refinements were conducted.
Numerous works using unstructurecl adaptive grids have been developed. Holmes
and Conne11 (461 in 1989 used a hybrid grid of quadrilateral and triangular cells for the
adaptation of a high Fkynolds number Navier-Stokes flow. The quadrilateral cells were
restricted to areas adjacent to the body and in anticipated d
e regions, while triangular
cells Eed the remaining regions. Node addition adaptive gridding was performed using
undivideci Merences of pressure and velocity dong grid &es.
Holmes and Conneil
applied their algorithm successfully to attached interna1 Bows. They later extended their
algorithm to solve three-dimensional Euler flows [47].
Mavripiis applied his methodology for adaptation on t r i a n d m grids [48, 491 to
high Reynolds number serodynarnic problems in 1991 [50]. The thin boundary layers
of such flows present special problems to adaptation. The high aspect ratio of the celis
adjacent to the airfoil created a large number of cell edges located very cbse to the surface.
DifEculties c m arise in regions of cumrture when the new body node is rnoved into the
interior of the flow field where it may c r m over edges located near the body surface.
Mavrips uses a method of edge tagging and relocation for edges above a new boundary
node that are at risk of creating c r d edges. Mavriplis also uses a modified Delaunay
retriangulation method tu realign the edges of the grid to create a smoother configuration.
Prestretching is applied to the grid according to a predetermined stretching vector before
edge mpping. This prevents the retnanguiation fkom destroying the high aspect ratio
nature of the grid in viscous regions of the flow. Stretching vectors are determined fiom
an unadapted grid before a solution is computed.
A number of methods have been developed that achieve adaptation through the
r-adaptive approach. Most such methods use a spring equilibrium method with variable
spring constants. Edges attached to each node are considerd to act in a manner equivalent
to springs, with each spring constant proportional to some m e m e of the local error or
grid quality. After several Jacobi iterations, the 'springs' wiU attain some equilibrium
state d e h i n g the new location of the node. An edge with a high error and therefore a
high spring constant will draw the node in such a manner as to shorten the edge length
and increase the local node densi*
A number of researchers have recently investigated
such methods for inviscid unstructurecl grids, such as Trepanier and Camarero (511 and
Richter and Leyland [52]. Habashi et al [53]have recently developed a finite element
solver that uses both node addition and node movement. They have applied their solver
to a number of inviscid and laminar aerodynamic problems and have successfdly shown
a global reduction in truncation error.
1.3
Objectives
The ultimate objective of this work is to construct a numerical algorithm that is capable
of accurately modelling the flow field about both single-element airfoils and cornplex
hi& lift aidoil codigurations. To be a relevant aeronautical design tool, the algorithm
must be capable of performing such calculations over a range of Reynolds numbers and
incident angles. The algorithm must therefore be sufnciently flexible in its operation to
accommodate all such demands. Such goals are embodied in the following list of objectives
which are used to guide the development of this algorithm.

1. The first objective of this work is to develop an unstructured finite-volume solver
that produces accurate solutions of redistic aemdynamic flows over two-dimensional
airfoil profiles.
1.4 Document Overview
17
--
2. The second objective of this thesis is to develop a solution-adaptive gridding scheme
using nodeaddition rehement. The procedure here is to determine which va.riables

and node allocation schernes provide the adaptive gridding scheme with the most
successful error detection as indicated by a reduction in lift and drag coefficient
error.
3. The final objective of this work is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the solution-
adaptive gridding strategy in providing well resolved solutions. Several test cases
of l h a r and turbulent airfoil flows are used to judge on both a qualitative and
quantitative basis, the improvernent in accuracy achieved through adaptation.
Document Overview
This document is divided into six chapters that cover both the details of the solutionadaptive solver and a series of test cases used to assess its performance. The second
chapter o u t h e s the solution of the compressible twdimensional Navier-Stokes quations through the tev volume methodology. Implementation of the turbulence model,
the t h e marching scheme, the flux integration, the boundary conditions, and the multi-
grid routine are all reviewed in this chapter. The third chapter concentrates on the
application of artficial dissipation to the solver. A traditional dissipation method and a
higher-order scheme are both presented. The higher-order method is shown to produce
srnoother solutions in the presence of irreguiar and high-aspect-ratio grids. The fowth
chapter reviews the solution-adaptive gridding method. The edge selection process and
a solution dependent retriangulation scheme are presented. Solutions to a nurnber of
aerodynamic problems for both laminar and turbulent flows are presented in Chapter 5.
Various flow field variables are investigated as possible adaptation parameters to determine the configuration that produces the lowest solution error. The adaptive gridding
scheme is shown to produce results that are more accurate than an equident unadapted
solution. Chapter 6 reviews the signifiaut features and contributions of this research and
1.4 Document Overview

make recornmendations for future work.
18
Chapter 2
Numerical Algorithm
2.1
Governing Equations
The behaviour of the fluid flow about aerodynamic bodies is describecl by a coupled
set of non-linear partial differential equations collectively known as the Navier-Stokes
equations. These equations describe the conservation of mass, momentum, and total
energy of a homogeneous fluid. The simultaneous solution of these equations provides
the densi@ (p), the components of the moment-
vector (pu, pu) in the x,y cartesian
coordinate directions respectively, and the total energy (pE) of the fluid. The density is
obtained through application of the conservation of mas, yielding a relation known as
the continuity equation. The mornentum components are obtained through application of
Newton's second law to yield one expression for momenturn conservation for each cartesian
component. The fmt law of thermodynarnics provides a relation to determine the total
energy of the fluid. The four goveming equations written in two-dimensional consemitive
form are given by the following expression:
where
These relations contain the laminar dynamic viscosity, denoted as p, the thermal conductivity of the fluid k, the pressure p, and the temperature T given in the Kelvin scale.
The governing relations given in equations (2.1) through (2.8) contain eight unknown quantities (p, u,w , E, p, T ,p, k). To close the system of equations four more relations are required. An equation of state can be obtEhined if the fluid medium is assumeci
to behave as a perfect gas aceording to the ided gas law, which is given as:
where R is the ideal gas constant for air. The assumption of a perfect gas allows the use
of the following thermodynmnic relations:
where e is the intemal energy of the fluid per unit maos, and Cp and C .are the specific
heats at constant pressure and constant volume respectively. The ratio of the specific heats
2.1 Goveming Equations
21
y , is assumed to have a constant value, 1.4 for air. For subsonic and transonic flows in the
absence of chernicd reaction the ratio of specik heats has negligible variation throughout
the fiow field, allowing this assumption. The total energy of the fluid per unit mass is
viewed as cornprising only of intemal and kinetic energies:
where u and v are the velocity components in the z,y cartesian coordinates respectively.
Using equations (2.10) and (2.11), the equation of state can be written in a form that
makes direct use of the solution vector Q shown in equation (2.2):
The two remaining transport properties p and k must be related to the known thermodynamic variables to close the system. Under subsonic and transonic aerodynamic
conditions these properties csn be considered to be dependent on the air temperature
only. Sutherland's law is used to relate the air temperature, in the Kelvin scale, to the
Here p, and T, are conditions in the fieestrearn far enough from the aerodynamic body
to negate its influence on these parameten, and are assumed to be constant. The thermal
conductivity is related to the dynamic viscosity through the Prandtl number:
In lnminm subsonic and transonic flows of air, the Prandtl number assumes a constant
value of 0.72. The Prandtl number is introduced into the total energy equation through
a change of variable in the thermal diffusivity tem. The speed of sound squared a2, is
substituted for the temperature variable based on the relation:
2.1 Governing Equations
22
The thermal diffusivity terms can be written in the foLIowing forms:
The algorithm is intended for use over a range of initial conditions and airfoil
geometries. The input parameters are the keestrearn Mach number, the laminar and turbulent Prandtl numbers, and the Reynolds number based on the chord length of the airfoil
under consideration. To investigate each of these parameters independently, the governing

equations are placed in non-dimensiond form. The chord length of the airfoil, denoted
as c, and the fkeestream values of densi@ (p,), sound speed (a-), dynamic viscosity
(p-), temperature
(T,),and thermal conductivity (km) are used to non-dimensionalize
the primitive variables according to:
The prime notation indicates the non-dimensional form of the variable and is omitted
fkom all subsequent variable referaces. Application of the non-dimensional format to the
governing equations yields a scaling factor:
Re, = P o o c a ,
Cr,
This relation is a Reynolds number based on the keestream sound speed and the chord
length. It is related to the more traditional form of the Reynolds number (Re) through
the keestream Mach number (M,):
The governing equatiom in nondimensional form now have the form:
2.2
2.2
Wbulence Modelling
23
Turbulence Modelling
It is intended that the numencd algorithm describeci in this work be applicable to realistic high Reynolds number aerodynamic flows. In reality, aircraft wing sections are
used exc1usively in flow regimes that are characterized by Reynolds numbers well above
the critical value for turbulence. Such flows are defined by the fluctuations of ail the
dependent variables over a range of scales. The Navier-Stokes equations, as they have
been previously stated, are M y capable of resolving such fluctuations. Unfortunately, to
adequately resolve the length and time scales of the turbulent fluctuations would exceed
contemporary computational resowces 1541. An alternative practice is to reduce the variables into a sum of mean and fluctuating components. T i e averaging of the compressible
Navier-Stokes equations with the fluctuating components isolates the effects of turbulence
and yields the Favre form of these equations. Several additional terms proportional to
products of the fluctuating components are created. In the momentum equations, the new
terms act as additional stress terms and are commonly referred to as the Reynolds stress.
The Boussinesq approximation relates the turbulence stress terms to the mean rate of
strain through a scalar parameter referred to as the eddy viscosity. Numerous turbulence
models atternpt to determine the value of the eddy viscosity through algebraic or difFerential equations. Classification of such models is ofken based on the number of additional
dinerential equations the modd introduces into the numerical environment. Models that
introduce only one additional equation are referred to as 'one equation models' and so
forth.
Recently, Godin, Nelson, and Zingg [34, 551 investigated the performance of
several one and two equations models commonly used in aerodynamic snaiysis. They
tested the Menter tw-uation
mode1 and the Spalart-Aumaras and Baldwin-Barth on+
equation models on a stmctured grid solver. Test cases included single-element and
multiple-eiement high lift auf0i.k. They concluded that ad of these models performed
well based on experimentay determined d a c e pressures and velocity profiles. When
2.2 Turbulence Modelling
24
considering complex fiows with several confluent boundary layers and wakes the Spalart-
h a r a s model perfomed slightly better. It was &O demonstrated that for attached and
slightly separated boundary layers this model &O performed well. The Spalart-Allrnaras
is ais0 advantageous in that it requires only one additional field equation to solve, con-
serving cornputer memory and computation effort. It does not require any specific grid
structure, making it ideal for an unstructurecl algorithm.
The SpalartAharas turbulence model used in this algorithm solves a differential

expression for a turbulence parameter . The equation consists of convective and dinusive
components as weli as several source t e m . In conservative non-dimensional form the
dinerential expression is
Re,
+ --
[(~)~+(g)~]
P cb2
--
Re,
(z
8s
The h e m a t i c eddy viscosity ut, is obtained from the following relation
where
fol
2
2 + Gl
25
with the laminar bernatic viscosity u used to d e h e X,
The turbulence production variable S, is dehed as the magnitude of the vorticity in the
flow field
Spalart and Allmaras use the vorticity for production based on the obsenmtion that
vorticity is present wherever turbulence exists in an aerodynamic context. The production
term (2.25) contains d, the distance to the closest waU and
id,which is defined as
The destruction tenn (2.26) contains the functions
where
and
with
The function fa is defined as
Turbulence is initiateci at trip points along the airfoil d a c e at locations specified

by the user. At these points, the trip term (2.27) appearing in the turbulence mode1 attsins
sufticient value to initiate turbulence. The && of the trip term is local, meaning that
its value decreases rapidly with distance from the trip point. Tkip points are specined on
26
the upper and lower surfkes of each airfoil element. However, the localized nat,ure of the
trip term is such that every point near an airfoi1 d a c e will be predominantly effected
by only one trip point. The functions ftl and gt of the trip term are defined as
ftl
= e t 1 gt exp
(-G&[# + dg])
( .),
gt =- min 0.1,
The distance fiom the field point to the nearest trip point is designated as 4. The
vorticity at the nearest trip point is denoted as wt. The term AU is the ciifference in
velocity between the field point and the trip, with Az being the node spacing at the
trip dong the body surface. Numerous constants are used in the mode1 which have the
following values
The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence equation is solved in the same msnner as the

general governing equation. Once resolved, the turbulence variable can be used to derive
the kinematic eddy viscosity fiom equation(2.28). Following the Favre form of the conservation equations with the Boussinesq approximation the totd shear stress terms (2.42.6)
and thermal dinusvity terms (2.16-2.17) become
2.3 Spatial Discretization
27
Here, the dynamic eddy viscosity is denoted as b, and the turbulent Prandtl number
Prt is assigned the value 0.90 based on empincism. Traditionally, an additional term
is included in the normal stresses of the Boussinesq approximation proportional to the
turbulent kinetic energy. These terms are not present in the SpaIart-Allmaras mode1 and
are therefore not included here [33].
2.3
Spatial Discretization
The governing equations presented in the previous sections are written in a differential
format describing a continuum flow field at a discrete point. To extend the conservation
of the dependent variables to arbitrary regions of the real space domain, it is necessary
to write these relations in integral form. Considering an arbitrary control volume Qk,
integration of a generalized conservation equation yields the following expression
In this relation, C$ represents sny conservative variable on a per unit mass basis, such
as the z velocity component u, the y velocity component v , the total energy E, or the
turbulence variable Y . In the mass conservation equation the value of q5 wiU be 1. The
vector H represents both convedive and diffusive fluxes for esch dependent variable.
The vector S, contains the source terms for each equation. If sources or si&
of mas,
momentum, or energy e t within the flow field, the components of S will have a nontrivial value. However, for homogeneous fluids in the a h c e of chemical reaction, such
as air in an external aerodynamic context, such influences are not present [56]. The rnass,
momentum, and energy equations will not contain source tenns. However, for turbulence
2.3
Spatial Discretkation
28
models that solve one or more conservation equations,source terms wiU be present. The
Spalart-Allmaras mode1 contains a number of terms that can be treated as source terms,
iisted in equations (2.24-2.27). If these turbulence source terms are represented by St, and
the diffusive flux terms given in equations (2.41-2.45) are used, the vectors of equation
(2.46) can be written as,
The partial derivatives of the turbulence variable in the x,y cartesian directions respectively are i,,i,. The vectors fix and i, are unit vectors in the z,y coordinate directions,
and Ftand Gtare the total flux vectors.
The integral equation (2.46) can be further simpMed such that it is more amenable
to discretization methods. The control volumes over which the integral equation is solved
are h e d in space with no movement of nodes or edges during solution. The Leibnitz
theorem [57]then allows the first term of (2.46) to be written as a function of time only.
This is a direct result of the fact that the domain of integration is not a function of time
but of space only. The divergence term can also be e x p r d in a simplifieci format.
Gauss' theorem in the plane allows the integral of the flux &vergence to be expressecl as
a line integral of the flux through the control volume boundary [58, 59, 601. This d o w s
s simplined evaluation of the convective and diffusive fluxes through the reduction of the
order of Werentiation. Uistead of calculating the spatial derivatives of the convective
fluxes, the simplifieci form only requires the dculstion of the flux components about the
outer boundary of the control volume. hpreseoting the outer boundary of the arbitrary
control volume as 6&, the integral equation (2.46) can be written as
Equation (2.49) is the starting point for the trazlsformation fkom a cornpletely analytical
problem to a discrete one. The integral terms of the equation are approximated as sum
and products of the f

l
w terms using a process commonly referred to as discretization, thus
making them suitable for solution through numerical means. The temporal and spatial
terms can be addressed separateiy, allowing a solution process to use various combinations
of methods.
The finite volume method begins with the discretization of equation (2.49). The
dependent variables p$k in the fmt term of the equation are continuous over each control
volume. The discretization commences with the replacement of this continuous variable
with one that represents the average value over the control volume (see Figure 2.2). The
fkst term can then be approximated by
were dkis now the average value over the control volume. The term Ak is the area of the
control volume, which is constant and can be removed fkom the temporal differentiation.
The source term of equation (2.49) has an identical formulation to the temporal term and
can be treated in the same manner.
The second term in equation (2.49) represents the net flux through the closed
boundary of the control volume. In its present foxm, this term requires that exact expressions for the boundary fluxes be provided to complete its evaluation. Therefore, it
must also be approximated to d o w a numerical formulation. This implies that some
assumption must be made as to the representation of the flux across the control volume
boudaries. One of the most common methods is to use a trapezoidal formulation to

a p p r h a t e the integral. A linear interpolation is made of the flux h
g an edge based
on values obtaine at either end of the edge. As an example, if the flux at the midpoint
of an edge j is denoted as fi,and the flux values at either end of the edge f i ,
are
evaluated using (2.48), t hen
This method of flux evaluation can be performed very quickly with only the information
at the ends of each edge being required. This allows a numerical algorithm based on this
formulation to be computationally efficient in terms of computer effort and memory.
The finite volume method provides the option of using either the 'cell centered'
or 'node centered' data codguration. In the c d centered format the dependent variables
(p&) are not specified at any exact location inside each control volume. Consequently,
each datum is considered a cell average, with every triangle in the grid now an individual
control volume. Figure 2.1 shows a cell centered grid with a typical control volume about
cell k. Nearest neighbour nodes are denoted with i, and control volume boundary edges
are indicated with paramter j . The control volume boundary is indicated with a dashed
h e in the figure. Fluxes through each control volume boundary edge must use data
interpolated fkom adjacent control volumes. Presnve data on the surface of an airfoil
must also be interpolated from bounding control volumes.
The node centered scheme assigns each datum to a s p d c node (see figure 2.2).
A control volume is then centered around each node with its boundw defined in ei-
ther an overlapping or non-overlapping configuration. In the nonsverlapping case the

control volume boundaries are specified by some geometric parameter of the local d d .
For instance, the median dual method links all surrounding triangle centroids and edge
midpoints to d&e
the control volume boundary (see Barth [59, 611 for a discussion of
possible configurations). The overlapping formulation uses the nearest nodal neighbours
about a particulaz node to define the boundary of the control volume. The dependent
vatlables are then a d a b l e on the boundaries of each control volume without the need
for interpolation. Fluxes through the control volume boundaries can then be computed
Figure 2.1: Example of a cell centered control volume about node k

directly using equation (2.51).
Based on its grid storage requirements and the ease of boundary flux calculations
the node centered scheme with overlapping control volumes was used in this algorithm.
Since there are a p p r h a t e l y twice as many c e h as nodes in a twdimensional unstructured grid, the ceii centered scheme will requVe additional data storage costs above that of
the node centered scheme. The non-overlapping control volume formulation sufZers from
similar difficulties. In this instance, two grids must be stored simultaneously; a primary
grid to store the nodes and their connectivity, and a secondary grid to store the control
volume boundaries. In the overlapping contml volume grid, only the primary grid will be
required for the fluxdcdations (see figure 2.2). One of the primary objectives of any
numerical aemdynamic snalysis is to produce an accurate represe$ation of the conditions
on the d a c e of an airfoil. The cell centered scheme will require data extrapolations fiom
the interior of the domain to obtain airfoil d a c e pressure, density, and energy. The node
centered scheme can have nodes located on the d h c e of the airfoil negating the expense
2.3 Spatial Discretization
32
Figure 2.2: Example of a node centered control volume about node k with the control
volume boundary indicated with the dashed line
and potential inaccuracy of an extrapolation of data. A comprehensive discussion of these

methods is given by Wilkinson [62], Barth [59, 611,and Swanson and Radespiel [63].
Using equations (2.50) and (2.51) the integrated conservation equation (2.49) can
be written in discrete form for a control volume centered about a node k,
AZ, and Ayj are the length components of the edge j in the x and y cartesian
coordinate directions respectively. This flux term is summed over a l l m edges that form
The te-
the outer boundary of control volume k. The format of this ordinary differentid equation
permits any number of time marching stnrtegies to be applied. The five-step Runge-Kutta
method applied to the discretized equation will be reviewed in the next section.
The flues listed in equation (2.48) contain fht derivatives of the dependent
variables which must be apprcncimated at each node. FoUowhg the strategy presented
in the flux discretization, whereby Gauss' theorem in the plane was used to determine a
2.4
Teniporal Discretkation
33
control volume averaged value, the derivative evaluation can be written as,
In this expression the convention presented in figure 2.2, with the edges j forming the
boundary of the control volume numbered koom 1 to m, and the nodes i bounding the
control volume numbered 1to n, is followed.
With the spatial discretization presented in this section, and the conservative
relations outlined in the previous section, a range of subsonic and transonic aerodynamic
problems can be attempted. The discretization att&
second-order spatial accuracy
[IO, 641 on smooth grids and can be marched in time to obtain a steady-state solution.
2.4
Temporal Discretization
The previous section demonstrated a procedure for the finite volume discretization of the
advection and source terrns while neglectulg the time dependent terms. This section will
address the treatment of the time dependent terms in a manner that perxnits a solution
of the coupled set of governing equations. The objective of this numerical mode1 is to
produce a solution that is independent of any transient effects. Instead of neglecting the
transient terms of the governing equations, their presence does d o w a simple and effective
relaxation procedure in the solution of the system. The format of equation (2.52) is that
of an initial value problem on a coupled set of ordinary dinerential equations. ExpIicit
time march methods, snch as the Runge-Kutta routines, rely on the transient nature of
these equations to integrate the systern from one point in time to the next. The simplicity
and low cornputer mernory requirements of such methods highlight their effectivenets for
large problems.
The Runge-Kutta explicit time march methods have a number of advantages over
2.4 Temporal Discretkation
34
other explkit s01vers. These schemes are c l d e c i as 'one-step' methods since they advance the system in time using only the information provided in the previously computed
time step, as oppased to several previous tirne steps. This implies that the Runge-Kutta
methods need only store one additional t h e step other than the present one, reducing
the need for cornputer memory. The start up procedure is also very simple since one-step
methods need only an initial solution at t = O. A five stage Runge-Kutta scheme has been
developecl by Mavriplis [64] specincally for numerical models that rely on a multigrid routine for convergence acceleration. Multigrid routines enhance convergence through the
rapid damping of a range of error kequencies. Multigrid methods will be discussed in
greater detail in section 2.6. Mamiplis's five-stage method damps the highest error fre
quencies, which are not scted on by the multipid routine. The scheme begias with the
calculation of the fluxes and source tenns bom equation (2.52) using the dependent variables Q determined at an initial point in t h e ta. Thus, the dependent variables a t the
outset are denoted as lQb and for example at the third stage in the Runge-Kutta scheme
by Q(3). The residual R over a control volume k at time step t , is defineci as,
The five stage Runge-Kutta routines cornputes the dependent variables at the new t h e
level Qb+*' using the following sequence of relaxation steps,
In these expressions, Ar is the control volume ares, At is the time step size, and D(Q)
is the artScid dissipation which is used to control numericd instabilities, and will be
discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The dissipation is calculated at the first, third, and fifth
stages only. The Runge-Kutta co&cients are defined by Mavriplis as,
Explicit time march schemes such as the five-stage Runge-Kutta have aa inherent
limit on the rate at which they can advance in tirne. This is a direct result of the limited
domain of influence prescribed by such schemes. The residuals that determine the flow
characteristics at a point are functions of the local conditions at the previously determined
t h e level Qk. Disturbances can therefore travel no faster than one local node spaeing
between updates of the solution field. This limitation is known as the Courant-F'riedrichsLewy condition and for a fixed grid places a limit on the local time step size.
The speed at which a solution csn be found through the numerical mode1 can be
enhanced by advancement at the large& possible tirne step. The magnitude of the largest
time step size is determined fkom local grid characteristics and disturbance speed. In the
Navier-Stokes equations disturbances may travel through both convective and difhisive
mechanians. Any upper bound on the time step size must reflect both these Miuences.
The convedive t h e step limit Atc, and its diffusive counterpart At. can be combined to
produce a locd time step Mt,
~t = CFL
(Atc + At,)
The CFL parameter scales the time march rate by an amount specifkd by the stabity
limits of the time march method. In this algorithm, the largest possible value of CFL
that can be used was found to be 4.
The lmgest time step size permissible is computed through the quotient of a
local grid length and the largest disturbance speed. The convective disturbance speed is
obtai~edfrom the rnmchnum eigenvalue of the inviscid flux Jacobian, IU( a, where
U is
the fluid velocity and a is the local wave speed [65]. On a structured grid the convective
time step size limit in the coordinate direction 5 with local grid spacing Ac and Buid
velocity u in this direction is
The final t h e step size limit on the stmctured two-dimensional mesh would be the smdest of the time step &es computed fiom (2.59) in either coordinate direction. The sim-
plicity of mch a procedure is a direct result of the structured mesh having only two grid
directions that need be considered. For unstructured grids which tend to be isotropie,
order of this nature is cornpletely absent, complicating matters.
In the unstmctured mesh, the t h e step size constraints cannot be defhitively

d e h e d by consideration of the grid and flow field characteristics in only two coordinate
directions. A more generalized approach recognizing the arbitrary orientation of the
unstructured grid is needed. Calculating the normal flux of disturbances through the
boadaries of a control voIume k, the spectral radius of the convective flux Jacobian
matrix is d e h e d as
The variables aj,uj,vj represent the linear average speed of sound and the averaged velocity
components respectively on edge j. The spectral radius in the context of equation (2.60)
is proportional to the largest possible disturbance speed integrated over a control volume
boundary. It offers a means of scaling the maximum t h e step size estimate with a
parameter that is dependent on the highest disturbance speed and independent of the
control volume orientation. The maximum convective time step size can be determined
following Mavriplis p6] and Johnston and Stolcis [60],
where Ak is the control volume area.
2.5
Boundary Conditions
37
An equident expression can be constructecl for the diffusive thne step limit.
Following the same procedure as in the convective t h e step mit and using the maximum
eigenvalue of the diffusive operator in the Navier-Stokes equations, the diffusive time step
limit in non-dimensional temm is
At, =
. ,A:
2.5
Bo-mdary Conditions
Boundary conditions must be specified at both the fsr-field boundary and at the nirfoil
surface. The manner in which these conditions are imposed and the information they
provide will determine what problem is solved. The Navier-Stokes equations contain
second-order viscous stress operators and heat flux terms. The presence of these teailows not only Dirichlet boundary conditions, where specific values of the dependent
variables are imposed, but also Neumann boundary conditions where gradients of the
flow variables are specined. The following sections use both of these boundary conditions
to create realistic models of high Reynolds number steady-state aerodynamic flows.
2.5.1
Free Stream Conditions
The fiee stream flow conditions are those that would ast if the Mail and its associated flow field disruptions were absent. Specification of these conditions is of primary
importance since they are used to set far-field boundary conditions and initial conditions.
Before the fht t h e step is taken the entire flow field is set to free Stream conditions as
an initial solution. In the next section on far-field conditions it will be apparent that adjustment of the flow field at the outer boundary d l require knowiedge of the free stream
conditions. Therefore, a statement concerning the derivation and d u e of the free stream
dependent variables in non-dimensional form is provided.
2.5
-
Boundary Conditions
-
38
-
- -
--
--
The fiee stream velocity components are determined fkom the angle of attsck
incident on the airfoil a,and the free stream Mach nurnber hiooboth provideci to the
algorithm by the user.
uoo= M, cos a!
v, = M, sin a.
(2.64)
The pressure, density, and sound speed in the fiee stream are obtained fiom equations
(2.9,2.15,2.18,2.19) and by specifying p = p, and p = p, to yield,
P o o = - -Poo -1
POO
P m = - - -Poo pooam
The kee stream total energy term is found kom equation (2.12) and the previously determinecl d u e s of p,,u,,v,
,p, through,
E, =
Poo
1
+ -(uL
+ vm).
2
The free stream total enthalpy (H,)is found fkom E,, p,, and p, using,
H,=E,+-- Pm
Poo
2.5.2
Far-Field Boundary Conditions
As aircraft wings pass through the atmosphere, the aVtlow about thern is disturbed by
their presence. The domain over which this disturbance is significant c m extend a considerable distance from the aidoil. Since numerical models are applied over finite regions, an
outer boundary must be placed on the computational domain. The distance of the outer
fm-field boundary fiom the aidoil and the type of boundary condition applied there can
have a significant influence on the lift and drag compnted at the aidoil surface. Pulliam
[65]conducted a numerical investigation to determine what effect the outer b o u n d q

location had on the lift coefficient of a single element NACA 0012 airfoil. Freestream
conditions were applied at the outer boundary of a stnictured grid while the location of
the boundary was altered by successive r e m d of the outer mesh rings. This procedure
2.5
Boundarv Conditions
-
39
--
maintained a constant grid spacing for each case studied, dowing the effects of the outer
boundary location to be isolat&. What was shown is that the lift coefficient was adversely
affecteci by the location of the outer boundary up to the point where it was about 100
chords from the d a c e of the aidoil.
The implication of this result is that if fieestream conditions are to be imposeci a t
the outer fm-field boundary of a grid, its distance from the airfoil surface must be considerable if performance characteristics are to be unaffected. Placing the far-field more than
100 chords from the airfoi1 sUTface requires either a large number of nodes in the outer
regions near the boundary or very stretched c h , both of which rnay be detrimental to
the performance of the algorithm. Additional nodes in the fax-field require greater computational resources, while stretched c e h may lead to a degradation of solution accuracy.
An alternative method is to impose a correction on the far-field fiee stream conditions
in order to simulate the &ect of a larger domain had it been present. This allows the
far-field boundary to be rnoved closer to the airfoil without any l o s of accuracy. Salas et
al. [66, 671 provide a correction in the form of a velocity perturbation added to the free
stream velocities u ~v,., The perturbation velocities are denved assuming the effects of
the lifting airfoil can be replaced by a point vortex placed at the quarter chord location.
The circulation r induced by a point vortex is cornputed using the chord length c, and
the lift coacient Cr according to
The liR coefficient is obtained through a closeci integration of the pressure p and surface
shear stress
T.,
about the d a c e of the airfoil. Initidy, the axial and normal force
coefficients Ca,C,are obtained,
40
-
where nz and n, are unit outward normal vectors in the z and y cartesian directions
respectively. The lift and drag coefficients are then determined fkom
Cd = Cnsin
+ CaCOS a.
(2.72)
Once the lift coefficient is obtained the circulation c m be used to compute the final
far-field corrected velocities,
The location of the nodes that define the far-field boundary are provided by their radius r
and polar angle B relative to the quarter chord point. Enforcement of constant free stream
enthalpy provides a corrected far-field sound speed which is used in the non-reflective
boundary conditions,
The solution process generates disturbances that propagate throughout the cornputational domain. Simple imposition of the circulation corrected fiee Stream conditions
at the far-field boundary may cause outgoing disturbances to be reflected back into the
computational domain. Non-reflective boundary conditions can be applied by considering the flow through the fa-field boundary to be l o d y one-dimensional normal to the
boundary surface. The Riemann invariants of the one-dimensionaiproblem are given by,
where Un is the local velocity normal to the boundary. The associateci characteristic
velocities of the Riemann invariants Ri,R2 are respectively,
2.5
Boundary Conditions
41
The Riemann invariants are determineci through the corrected Mnables provided by e q u a
tions (2.73-2-75). Two additional quantities must also be specified in order to d e b e all
pertinent flow vaaiables at the boundary. These two quantities are the entropy and tangential velocity Utd e h e d as,
Both of these quantities are convected with the fluid flow and are therefore associated
with the normal velocity Un.The turbulence variable remains at zero on the boundary
since it is only associated with viscous effects near the airfoil surface.
Thomas and Salas [66] impose a sign convention on the characteristic boundary
conditions that determines if kee stream conditions are to be used in the calcdation of
the invariant terms or if values extrapolateci fkom the interior computational domain are
to be used instead. Fluid and disturbances moving from the interior of the computational
domain out through the far-field boundary are ansignecl a positive convention. Therefore,
at a subsonic outflow boundary node O < Un < a and X2 > O while Xi < 0, imply-
ing that invariants associated with Un and Az are defined by information interior to the
boundary. Invariants R2,R3,and & can then by determuied by values obtained fkom the
nearest interior neighbour to the boundary node in what is commonly referred to as a
'zeroth order' extrapolation. The invariant associated with Al, RI, represents characteristics moving into the computational domain and must be determined from free stream
information. For a subsonic i d o w boundary node, -a < Un < O and invariant R2 must
again be extmpolated, whe &,Ra,and & must now be obtained fkom the free stream.
This information is summarzed in the following table.
2.5.3
Airfoil Surface Conditions
In viscous flow problems, such as air moving over an aidoil surfixe, the region adjment
to the airfoil inside the boundary layer will be dominated by the d e c t s of viscosi~.The
Boundary type
Subsonic Inflow
42
1 Normal Velocity 1 F'ree stream 1 Extrapolated 1

-a
< Un< O
conditions
&,R3 ,&
conditions
R2
Table 2.1: Non-reflecting far-field boundary specications

boundary conditions on the airfoil surface are chosen to accurately reflect such phenornena.
In real flows, the intermolecular forces between the 0uid and the airfoil surface will give
rise to the 'no-slip' condition, where the velocity of the fluid drops to a negligible d u e
[56].In the numericd algorithm this d o w s the velocity components on the surface of the
airfoil to be set to zero. By defining the velocities on the airfoil surface to rigid values,
the momentum equations are not required to be solved over control volumes centered
about surface nodes, saving computational resources. The turbulent eddy viscosity B is
also constrained by the efkcts of the d.
On the airfoil s d a c e damping effects due to
viscosity and the presence of the wall are so strong that fluctuations due to turbulence
are reduced to an insignScant value and the eddy viscosity can be set to 6 = O [33].
Although the boundary conditions that allow the cdculation of u,v, and i can
be easily implemented, the method of detennining p, E, and p is less trivial. Each of
these variables has a non-trivial value on the surface of the airfoil that must be computed
through some relation with the surface geometry of the ahfoi1 and the surroundhg flow
field. Boundary conditions must a h be provided that permit the solution of the continuity
and energy equations. The continuity equation expresses mass conservation over the
computational domain and for solid wall boundaries the appropriate condition must state
This condition is automaticdy assurecl by the

that no m a s may pass through the d.
The continuiw equation will a h permit the determination
no-slip conditions at the d.
of the demi@ of the fluid at the surface of the airfoil. This can be achieved by solving
the m a s co~~~ervation
relation over control volumes centered about nodes on the airfoil
surface, and rnaxching these nodes in time with the others in the computational domain.
The energy equation can be solved in the same manner to provide the total energy.
43
However, two possibilities exist as to the themal state of the airf0i.i surface. The d a c e
termperature can be imposed by specifjhg a Dirichlet boundsry condition creating an
isothemd condition at each boundary point. The alternative is to specify the rate of
heat flux through the w d in a Neumann condition. Since the objective of this numerical
algorithm is to determine steady state solutions, the condition most consistent with the
objective is to impose an adiabatic thermal boundary condition. This condition specifies
that no thermal energy passes through the wd. It is imposed by defining the temperature
gradient normal to the das being zero. In using the no-slip conditions, the only energy
flux that c m pass through the wall is thermal. Therefore, to impose the adiabatic wall
condition in the h i t e volume context, the heat flux terms in the energy equation along
the walls are neglected. Along waM boundaries this states
where n is the direction normal to the w d and ds is the waU edge length. Figure 2.3 shows
an example of a control volume adjacent to the airfoi1 surface. The adiabatic conditions
according to equation (2.79) will be imposed by neglecting the heat flux components
through eges j = 4 and j = 5. Once p and E are obtained on the w d , the equation of
state (2.12) can be used to find p.
An example of the flow field near an airfoil d a c e provided by the no-slip adiabatic boundary conditions is shown in Figures 2.4 to 2.9. The flow is about a NACA 0012
airfoil at a free stream Mach number of 0.5 et 0.0 degrees angle of attack with a Reynolds
number of 5000. Figure 2.4 shows the Mach number field about the airfoil surface. A plot
of the Mach number profde with distance from the airfoil &&ce
taken at x=0.70 along
the upper surf' is given in Figure 2.5. Figures 2.6 provides the temperature profile
at the same point, while 2.7 gives
an enlargement of this profile near the airfoil surface.
The profile dearly shows that implementation of the adiabatic boundary conditions as
describeci produces the desired zero n o d gradient at the airfoil surface. The zero nor-
mal gradient also appears in the densi@ profile in Figure 2.8 and the pressure profile
2.5
Boundary Conditions
44
Figure 2.3: Example of a control volume adjacent to the airfoil surface centered about
node k
in Figure 2.9. Rom these images it can be concluded that the boundary conditions for
viscous adiabatic flow at an aufoil surface are correctly obtained.
2.5
Boundary Conditions
45
Figure 2.4: Mach number contours about a NACA 0012 at M,=0.5, a=O.O, R%, = 5000
2.5
Boundariv Conditions
46
Mach Number
Figure 2.5: Mach number profile at z=0.70 on the upper airfoil surface
Figure 2.6: Temperature profile at x=0.70 on the upper airfoil sudace
Figure 2.7: Enlargement of the temperature profile near the airfoil surface
Figure 2.8: Density profile at ~ 0 . 7 on

0 the upper airfoil surface
47
2.6
Convergence Enhancement
48
.
9
C
0.1 5
.d
C
k
Figure 2.9: Pressure profile at z=0.70 on the upper airfoil surface
2.6
In section 2.4 it was seen that the explicit Runge-Kutta time m a c h method was con-
strained in the size of the largest allowable t h e step. In practical terms, information
propagating across a computational domain must do so over numerous thne steps in
order to maintain stability. For large grids with a high nodal density the amount of cornputation t h e to obtain a convergecl solution will be great. In cases such as high Reynolds
number flows where the off wall spacing near an airfoil body will be extremely s m d this
problem will be particularly acute. To address this diflicdm a nwnber of convergence

acceleration methods have been implemented.
2.6.1
Local Time Stepping
The maximum dowable t h e step size over an arbitrary control volume is speciiied in
equation (2.58). Each control volume will have a unique time step size limit based on the
2.6
49
control volume geometry and local 00w conditions. If the desireci outcome of the algorithm
was a t h e accurate evolution of a flow field, the entire computational domain must then
be advanceci at the smaest time step found within its bounds in order to maintain a
d o m time development at each node. Since the objective of this algorithm is the
steady state solution, a uniform tirne development at each node is not required. Every
control volume is marched in time at the rate specified by its own t h e step b i t . This
permits every region of the domain to approach convergence at the maximum possible
rate based on the local grid and flow field constraints.
2.6.2
Residual Smoothing
The convergence rates of explicit tirne march schemes are restricted by the limiteci range
that disturbances may travel within a given tirne step. Increasing the distance over which
information is provided prior to any time march will permit a larger maximum time step
size. The residual smoothing method enhances the support of the algorithm by providing
each node with a residual correction based on an averaging procedure of the surroundhg
residuals [IO]. The residual used in the convergence enhancement methods is defined in
equation (2.55) with the artificial dissipation term included,
The total residual at node k is corrected based on the following implicit equation,
The total residuals designated as 'old' are the uncorrectecl values and those with 'new' are
the co~espondingcorrected ones. The equation can be written in the following format,
This system of equations produces a sparse coefficient matrix which must be inverted to
cdculate
&-).
However, an algorithm to exactly invert this rnatrix w i l l signincantly
2.6
50
increase the cornputationd d o r t required for each time step. As an aitemative, restricting
the constant c to the range O < c < 1, will assure that the matrix is diagondy dominant
and the inexpensive approximate Point-Jacobi method can be used,
The residual smoothing method is applied to the newly calculated total rmidual term be-
fore t h e marchhg is conducted. The most effective configuration of the residual smoothh g occurs when two Point-Jacobi iterations are done, and the constant a is set to 0.175,
as determineci by Jarneson et al. [IO] and Predovic [68]. Residual smoothing was found
to approximately double the maximum time step size Limit with approxixnately a 25%
increase in computational expense.
2.6.3
The Multigrid Method
Both local time stepping and residual smoothing are effective means of enhancing convergence. However, their success is limitecl by the local nature of their domain of a u e n c e .
Local time stepping influences the convergence rate of the control volume over which it
is applied. Residud smoothing uses information provided by the nearest neighbours of
a given node. Any disturbance extending over an area with a large population of nodes
will not be detected, and under such circitmstrnces the local methods will be completely
ineffective at enhmcing convergence. In this instance, only a convergence acceleration

method whose influence extends well beyond the nearest neighbours of a given node will
be effective.
The multigrid method was constructed to extend its domain of Muence to cover
the e n t h grid. This pefmits disturbances that extend over a large number of nodes,
oRen calied low frequency mors, to be resolved in a small number of time steps. While
this leaves the disturbances that cover only a small number of nodes, usually identifid
as high frequency error, to be reduced by the local convergence enhancement techniques.

The multigrid method recognizes the faet that mors which cover a large part of the
2.6
51
computational domain can best be reduced by coarse grids. The s m d nurnber of nodes
and the large tirne step sizes due to the greater node spacing allows the corne grid to
rapidly resdve such errors. Residuals and flow field information including the errors are
initidy tranderred fiom a fine mesh to a coarser one. A time step is taken on the coarse
mesh and a correction is created that is tranderred back and apped to the fine grid.
With a series of grds of increasing coarseness, various error fkequencies present on the
finest grid can be reduced rapidly. This is the essence of the multigrid method. On the
finest grid, high frequency errors are reduced quickly by the local convergence methods,
while the lower fiequency errors are reduced by the coarse meshes of the multigxid routine.
On a series of grids with a four-fold decrease in the number of nodes between successively
coarser meshes, the increase in cornputational efFort in multigridding is approximately
50% over the single grid solver on the hest grid per time step. However, the benefit of
this additional computational effort is an order of magnitude increase in the convergence

rate [64,10].Figure 2.10 displays the appearsnce of both high and low frequency errors on
a one-dimensional grid segment. The appearance of the low frequency error after transfer
fiom the fine to the corne grid is also shown.
The full multigrid method begins with a solution obtained on the coarsest grid
of a series @ds
that have a successive increase in node density. The convergence rate on
this grid is rapid due to the small number of nodes. The solution is then transferred to
the next h e s t grid and used as an initiai guess of the solution on this grid. The proces
of moving information fkom a coarse mesh to a finer one is referred to as 'prolongation'.
The process of prolonghg the coarse grid solution on to the fine grid is represented by
the expression
Qh
=1
: Qu&*
Here, Q refers to the solution vector of dependent variables Q = [p, pu, pu, pE,
(2-w
and
h,2h indicate the node spacing present on the grid. Thus, a grid with '2h' spacing will have
a greater distance between nodes than one with h spacing. The operator Ii represents the
2.6
52
High frequency error, 1-D fhe grid
Low fkequency error, 1-D 5 e grid
Low fiequency error restricted to coarse grid fkom fine grid
Figure 2.10: Example of a high and low frequency error on a 1-D grid showing the
appearance of the low frequency error after trader to the coarse grid
2.6 Convergence Enhancement
53
linear interpolation of information fiom the coarse grid to the finer. Once the prolongation
hom 2h to h is complete, a time step is taken on h to reduce high fiequency error. Any low
frequency error that persists is transferred back to the coarse grid dong with the solution
vector and the residuals in a process referred to as 'restriction', which is represented by
Qui
r: ~h
It should be observed that the restriction operator on the solution vector

same as the operator on the residuals
is not the
c. The low fiequency error is reduced quickly by
a time step on the coarser mesh.

However, since the objective of the multigrid routine is to reduce low frequency
errors on the finest grid only, the tirne step on the coarser grids should be driven by the
residuals of the finest grid. This is achieved by adding a forcing function P to the residual
on the coarse grid based on the finest grid residud,
The residual Ryi of the forcing function is computed on the coarse grid based on the
restricted fine grid solution. The forcing function is determined before any Runge-Kutta
stages are made and held fixed for the entire coarse grid time step. The Runge-Kutta
relaxation routines for stage b on the coarse grid are now,
Changes to the coarse grid solution field are a function of the fine grid residual only due to
residual cancellation of Ra in the i h t Runge-Kutta stage. In the event that the restricted
residual nom the fine grid vanishes, no changes will be made on the coarse grid solution.
If some adjustment of the coarse grid solution has been made, a correction (AQ), csn be
prolongated to the fine grid solution by
2.6
54
Fine Grid
Figure 2.11: The saw-tooth mdtigrid cycle development on a series of three @ds.
Qh
=~
f+ Ii(AQ).
)
The solution vector on the fine grid at stage five of the Runge-Kutta routine Q(5)
(2.90)
W ~ Sthe
one origindy restricted to the corne grids for correction. Once a solution is found on
the finest grid a new fmer grid can be added to the process.
Following the procedure just outlined, a series of grids can be used in the multi-
grid process to rapidly correct disturbances over a range of frequencies. The system of
restricting the fine grid residual and solution vector through a series of corne meshes and
prolonghg a correction back to the fine grid is referred to as a 'saw-tooth' multigrid cycle,
which is illustratecl in figure 2.11. At each coarse grid a RungeKutta t h e step is taken
using residual and flow field information provided fkom the previous ber grid. Once the
coar~estgrid is complete a correction is prolonged back to the h e s t grid without any
further tirne steps taken.

Before the multigrid scheme can be implemented the prolongation and restriction
trander operators must be determinecl. On a structureci grid a coarse mesh can be easily
created by removing every second node in each coordinate direction on a fine grid. In
2.6
55
Figure 2.12: Portion of a sample coarse and fine grid showing overlapping triangles
this case the two grids are related to one another and the transfer coefficients are easily
determined. In the present algorithm the transfer coefficients are calculateci assuming
the grids are unrelatecl. Allowing the algorithm to use unrelated grids maintains a high
degree of flexibility in t e m of the complexity of the cases that can be accomodated and in
terms of adaptive gridding. In addition, the possibility of adaptive gridding is precluded by
requiring the unstructured grids to be related since effective adaptivity requires fkeedom
of node placement.
The development of the t r a d e r coefficients is demonstrated with the aid of figure

2.12, which shows several overlapping cells of both a coarse and a fme grid. The restriction
operator
is calculated for a coame node P by considering the solution on the overlapping
fine grid triangle ABC. The solution over individual fine grid celle is linear, therefore the
value passecl to node P is based on a hear interpolation of the solution on ABC. The
interpolation uses the solution fiom each vertex of triangle ABC with a weighting factor
based on the areas of the triangles formed with P, namely APBA, APBC,M A C , and
2.7 Grid Generation
56
normalized with the area of ABC, M C . The value at node P is then a function of the
values at each vertex of ABC with its respective weighting factor,
APBC
QP = Q A - ~
+QB
APAC
AABC
APBA
+ QcMC.
(2.91)
The restriction operator that movg the fine grid residual to the coarse mesh
(c)
performs a dinerent function than the flow field restriction operator. The entire residual
field of the fine grid must be precisely t r d e r r e d to the c a m e grid so that the proper
error will be reduced. AU of the residual at a fine grid node a must be distributed to
the nodes of the coarse grid triangle that encloses it (123), seen in figure 2.12. A h e a r
interpolation using weighting functions similar to that of the solution vector restriction
is used to distribute the fine grid residud. For the fine grid node a the residual will be
distributed according to,
The solutions and corrections that are prolonged fiom the coarse grid to a finer me&
are done so with the same operator 1'. This is accomplished using a linear interpolation
similm to that of the restriction operator. The fine grid node a is assigned the values of
the surrounding coarse grid nodes according to
The transfer coefncients are all a function of the grid geometry only. They only need
be calculateci before the solution process begins and recalled as necessary. This leads to
a computationdy efficient routine which makes multigrid a very effective convergence
enhancement method.
2.7
Grid Generation
Before any numerical flow field models can be attempted, the region about an aerodynamic
body must be reduced to a grid of control volumes over which the discretized equations
2.7 Grid Generation
57
can be solved. The grid generation process is independent of, and precedes the solution
algorithm. It begins with a representation of the airfoil cross-section profile as a set of
discrete points. Profles are obtained from continuous representations of airfoil shape
through a series of spline funetions between a fked set of points [69]. The outer boundary
of the computational dornain is also represented by a series of points, which are added to
the airfoi1 data set. With both inner and outer boundaries specified the dornain can be
Wed 6 t h non-overlapping elements fiom which the control volumes can be constnicted.
The most commonly used elements to W two-dimensional cornputational domains
are triangles and quadrilatersls. The triangle is selected as the basic grid element based on
its Qmplicityand the large number of algorithms available which use it for grid generation
and postprocessing. A detailed description of a number of these methods is given by
Barth (591. Invariably these methods generate grids by trianpuiating a predetennined

set of interior points or by an advancing front method. In a given set of mesh points
a triangulation routine creates a field of non-overlapping triangles within a prescribed
geometric constraint. A triangulation that maximizes the smaLlest interior angle of a pair
of adjacent triangles that share a cornmon edge is known as a Delaunay or equilangular
triangulation. If the geometric constraint is to minimire the largest angle of the triangle
pair, the triangulation is d e d a Minmax routine. Numencal models of viscous flows
comrnonly use the Minmax routine in grid generation to avoid the possibility of creating
near quilaterd triangles in boundary layer regions that might otherwise be created with
the Delaunay method. The advancing &ont method assumes that a set of intenor points
is not a d a b l e and creates the interior grid in a series of steps. An active set of edges
forming a closed loop is definecl as the 'front'. The &ont is advancd by introducing a
new layer of points adjacent to the fiont which will serve as the new active front. With
the airfoil body and the outer boundary as the initial fronts, the entire domain is fillecl
as the imo fronts advance and ultimately rnerge.
The grid genemtion algorithm used in this numerid mode1 is a combined admc-
2.7
Grid Generation
58
ing front method and Minmax triangulation. The advancing nont is used to progressively
fill the interior portions of the grid, with the Minmax triangulation
used to specify the
comectivity. One of the advantages of the advancing fiont method is the ability to
specify the location of the next level of nodes according to any desired criterion. The
option is available to generate triangles that are nearly equilateral in shape or ones that
are stretched. This abiliw is critical if fi&are to be generated for use in modelling
viscous flows. The boundary layers adjacent to airfoil sUTfaces in viscous flows will con-
tain gradients in the cross-Stream direction several orders of magnitude larger than the
strearnwise direction. Efficient modelling of such flows requires high nodal density in the
cross-stream direction with sparse nodal spacing in the streamwise direction, leading to
highly stretched, high aspect ratio triangles adjacent to the airfoil surface. The advancing nont method anticipates the presence of the boundary layers by starting the node
addition process with nodes placed very near the airfoil surface. As the front moves away
fiom the airfoil, the node spacing gradually increases to the point where the triangles are
nearly equilaterd. Node placement is directed by a vector that emanates fiom the airfoil
surfsce in what is known as a stretched Steiner methodology [59]. A portion of an airfoil
surface is shown in Figure 2.13 with the direction vectors and the specified node spacing
indicated. The initial node spacing normal to the airfoil d a c e and the expansion raze
of the node spacing is set by the user prior to grid generation. Once the triangles become
nearly equilateral, the Steiner methodology is tenninated, and the advancing fkont continues with the creation of generally equilateral triangles based on the average local node
spacing dong the fiont [70].
The boundary layers on the sUTf8ce of the airfoil extend into the interior of the
computationd domain to form the wake at the traing edge. For this reason the highaspect-ratio region extends downstream into the domain at the trailing edge of each airfoil
element. Figure 2.14 shows the trailing edge region of a partially completed grid. The
advancing fkont has progressed to the point where the rernaining domain is to be filled with
2.7 Grid Generation

-
near equilateral triangles. Edges rdiating fiom the grid surface connect the advancing
front at the airfoil surface to the front approaching rom the outer boundary. This is done
to ensure a smooth transition at the confluence of the two fronts. As the wake region of
the grid extends into the coniputational domain, the normal node spacing imposed at the
airfoil sudace is gradually equalized. At the end of the wake region the node spacing is
uniform, permitting a smooth transition between the hi&-aspect-ratio wake region and
the equilateral interior domain. Figure 2.15 shows the completed grid at the trailing edge.
Abrupt changes in triangle aspect ratio and control volume irregularity can cause
inflated local tnincation errors. Although every effort has been made in the construction
of the grid generation process to ensure that smooth grids are consistently produced,
some irregularity may still remain. A smoothing filter based on the undivided first-order
approximation to the Laplacian operator is applied to the x,y location of each interior
node according to
Here, the smoothing factor w is less than UXUty and n represents the number of nearest
neighbour nodes i to the central node of the control volume k. The parameter
is the
control volume stretching factor, which is the ratio of the largest to the srnailest distance
fiom node k to a node i. This factor is included to prevent undesirable reductions in
normal node spacing in high-aspect-ratio regions that contain control volumes of a concave
nature. The trailing edge region of Figure 2.15 is shown after 10 sweeps of the smoothing
filter in Figure 2.16.
A complete grid showing both the b e r gnd and the outer boundary is presented
in Figure 2.17.
This figure clearly demonstrates the disparity in node density between the
inner regions of the @d near the airfoil and the outer regions An enlargement of this
figure showing the details of the grid near the airfoil is given in Figure 2.18 . The triangles
of the grid remain near equilateral over most of the computational domain. Figure 2.19
shows a further enlargement of the grid to reveal the details very close to the airfoil
surface. T h e transition from the near equilateral region to the high-aspect-ratio region is
done more gradually aRer the smoothhg filter is used.
Figure 2.13: Airfoi1 surface nodes showing Steiner vectors and gradations of off-wall spac-
Figure 2.14: PartialIy completed grid at the trailing edge of an aidoil showing the advancing fiont after having completed the hi&-aspect-ratio region
Figure 2.15: The complete grid near the traing edge of an airfoil before smoothing
Figure 2.16: The complete grid near the trailing edge of an airfoil after smoothing
2.7
Grid Generation
Figure 2.17: Exarnple of a complete unstmctured grid
64
2.7 Grid Generation
Figure 2.18: UIlStTUctured grid near an aufoil surface
65
2.7 Grid Generation
66
Figure 2.19: Thmition fiom near equilateral triangles to high-aspect-ratio at the leading
edge of an Moi1
Chapter 3
Art ificial Dissipation

Motivation
3.1
The numerical algorithm outlined in the previous chapter describeci a method which computes the temporal change of the dependent flow variables inside a control volume. The
value of each flow field parameter was shown to be a function of the flux through the
outer boundary of each control volume. The implications of this method is that the value
of each flow field variable is dependent on the values of its nearest nodal neighbours only,
and not on its own value. This characteristic is analogous to a central differencing approximation of a fi& derivative term often used in the finite difference discretization method.
On stmctured grids central differences a p p r h a t e fi&
derivatives by computing the
difference between the variables (4) on either side of a aven node and dividing by twice
the node spacing (Az),
Central Merencing achemes on u n i f o d y spaced e d s maintain second order spatial

accuracy.
scaled by
This meam that the first tnincation error term of this difference method is
e,
and contains the third derivatives of the field variables.
Due to the similari@ in construction, tmcation error, and stability, the finite
volume method ontlined in section 2.3 is commonly referred to as a centrd dinerencing
type fordation. The truncation error of the h i t e volume method which was used to
3.1 Motivation
68
discretize the conservation equations, is denved in Appendc B. On smooth grids the truncation error is similar to the centrai dineremhg scheme in the order of the error terms
present. Second derivative t e m are again completely absent and third derivative t e m
are the first tnuication error terms seen. Second derivative terms appear in the conservation equations as difFusive phenornena, which has the effect of reducing high gradients
and dispersing any local extrema of the field variables. The absence of such damping
effects in the truncation te-
leads to numerical instsbility, where s m d fluctuations in
the solution c m grow without bound as the scheme is rnarched in tirne [58].One of the
possible instabiliw modes of an unstructured centml differencing finite volume method is
shown in Figure 3.1. Here, the values A and B represent two separate extreme values of
the field variables. The net Bux through each control volume is zero based on the linear
average of the control vohme boundary values. The field variables in each control volume
will not be altered and this osciuating field will be preserved. Additional smoothing in
the fonn of an artificial viscosity must be included to dissipate such error modes.
The purpose of artificid viscosity, or artificial dissipation as it is otherwise known,
is to simulate the error damping effcts of the d.Bsive terms present in the consemation
equations. Once numerical stability is impsrted to the central differencing method, its second order spatial accuracy can be used, as opposed to methods with inherent dissipation
but with lowa spatial accuracy. The diffusive effects of viscosity and thermal conductivity
create natural error damping in ail equations except the continuity equation. However,
this natural damping is confined to regions where viscous effects are well resolved and
sipnincant in value, such as in boundary layers and wakes. The majority of the computational domain is not influenced by the fluid viscosi@ and numerical instabilities remain
unchecked. An &&ive artificial dissipation method must therefore be effective over the
entire domain. The m o r mode shown in Figure 3.1 is of a high fiequency, mmeaning an
artificial dissipation scheme must also be of a local nature to control these high fkquency
components. In addition to such pmperties, an artincial dissipation method must also
3.1 Motivation
69
Figure 3.1: One error mode possible on an unstructureci grid; A and B are dinerent values
of the local solution
remain dXbive with a low magnitude relative to the control volume flux. A dissipation
scheme with a large magnitude or one that introduces a convective component will not
preserve the original accuracy of the discretization method. Fhthermore, a dissipation
scheme must retain the conservative nature of the original governing equations. This is
achieved if the dissipation contribution made at a node by a neighbour i s equal in mag-
nitude and of oppusite sign to a sirnilm contribution made at a neighbouring node. In

so doing, the net flux created by the dissipation will sum to zero over the computational
domain. Not enforcing a conservative damping scheme may lead to the creation of spurious mas, momentwn, energy, or eddy viscosity. One final characteristic of concern in the
development of an artificial dissipation scheme is compntational &ciency. The dissipation parameter d l be evsluated repeatedly in the tirne marching process. Therefore, it
must be fairly simple in construction so as not to add signincantly to the computational

overhead of the complete algorithm.
3.2 Jarneson's Artificial Dissipation

--
3.2
70
- -
Jameson's Art ificial Dissipation
One of the fkst dissipation methods on unstructured
grids wss proposed by Jarneson
[9, IO]. His dissipation method relies on a simple first order undividecl approximation to
the Laplacian of the field variables. The operator that he developed is easy to constmct
and accomodates the irregular nature of unstructured grids without Mculty. The Jameson dissipation operator is derived in a manner similar to h i t e diaerence derivations of
derivative t erms through judicious application of a two dimensional Taylor series.
An estimate of a field variable at node i (di), obtained nom knowledge available

at node k, is determined through the Taylor series,
Figure 3.2: Arbitrary control volume about a centrai node k, with neighbour nodes i from
1 to n, and boundary edges j numbered 1 to m
3.2 JarnesonYsArtifkW Dissipation
71
The distances hi and Agc are defhed as (xi - xk) and (yi - W) respectively. The
parameter p is evaluated h m 3 to
W.
Figure 3.2 shows a typical control volume on a
grid formed of equilateral triangles. An estimate of the field variables at each neighbour
node i can be obtained through application of equation (3.2) to each node. Siimming
these equations yields an approximation to the undivided Laplacian of the field variables
which has the form,
The length term 2 is the edge length of the smooth grid shown in Figure 3.2 . The presence
of a length parameter which is proportional to the control volume area ensures that the
damping operator scales with the control voLume size. This Laplacian estimate is referred
to as undivided when the dinerence summation, C(& - &), is not divided by a length
parameter to form a true Laplacian. The fourth order accuracy implied in equation (3.3)
is only a r d t of the regulari~of a grid composed of quilateral triangles. If the grid is
irregular in nature, the dissipation operator is only first order accurate.
Jameson used the undivided Laplacian operator to dampen erroneous oscillations

that occurred near shock waves in transonic flow. Such flow discontinuities are highly non-
linear in nature and can generate substantial high frequency oscillations in the local flow
field. Jameson used the strong local darnpuig character of the undivided Laplacian at
the expense of the local order of accuacy of his model. The lower order nature of the
undivideci Laplscian reduces the local order of accuracy of the algorithm from second to
first order. For this reason the undivided Laplacian operator is used only in regions of
strong non-lineariw and a legs forceful, higher order biharmonic (V49)approximation is
used in fiee stream areas.
The bihannonic operator is constructed as a double application
of the undivided Laplacian on local control volumes and theh neighbours according to
The undivided Laplacian and biharmonic operators are often referred to as second and
fourth dinerences, as a r e d t of their method of const~ction.
3.2 Jameson's Artficial Dissipation
72
A switching operator based on the locd flow field conditions must be present to
discriminate between the levels of damping required. This operator must be able to detect
the presence of fiow discontinuities and initiate the lower order damping in these regions
ody. The normalized udivided Laplacian oC
i pressure is used to form this operator,
In regions of discontinuity this operator is of order 1, while in smooth regions it has a
small value. The constant k(*) is a user defineci parameter which controls the strength of
dissipation.
In subsonic flow it is given a value of O, while in transonic flow a common
d u e is 0.5 [71,72, 731. The fourth Merence damping term dZ ( ~ J Jhas

, its own switching
operator to impose the higher order damping when the lower order second Merence
damping is not active,
The term k(4) is a user defineci parameter, which is set to a value of 0.01 for all cases
presented in this thesis unless otherwise stated.
The complete dissipation operator must be dimemiondy consistent with the
flux term of each equation before it can be included. The spectral radius &, introduced
in equation (2.60) is used to scale the dissipation operator and make it dimensionally
consistent to the residual in equation (2.55). The complete artincial dissipation operator
can be written as
The spectral radius and the pressure switclhing tenns are averaged betweeo the central
node k and its nearest neighbour nodes i to ensure that the dissipation operator is consemative.
3.3 Stretched Artificial Dissipation
3.3
73
Stretched Artificial Dissipation
Jarneson's artScid dissipation method provides effective damping on isotropie gnds of

near equilateral triangles which are used for inviscid flow modeiling. In viscous flows, the
grid will contain high-aspect-ratio anisotropic triangles near the airfoil d a c e in order to
accomodate the directional nature of the flow field in this region. An artficial dissipation
method that does not account for this possibility risks creating a damping tenn of the same
order of magnitude as the local flux t e m , resulting in contamination of the local so!ution
[74]. On structured grids an artificial dissipation method was developed that adjusted the
magnitude of the damping term in the viscous regions based on the orientation of the grid
in the flow field [75,76]. This was acheived through the calculation of two different spectral
radii, one in each coordinate direction. If the coordinate directions in the structured @d
are
and
r),
the velocities in these coordinate directions are respectively u and v . The
convective spectral radius in each stmctured coordinate direction is
where a is the local speed of sound. An additional scaIing function is added to providecl
an even distribution of the dissipation, preserving the efEciency of the multigrid routine
[75]. The spectrai radii become,
where
a(,) = 1 + rai3.
The ratio of spectral radii r is d&ed
as,
The artificial dissipation components in the
< and q directions of the ~ t ~ C t grid

~ e d
can be d e d with the spectral radii as defined in (3.9), dowing the magnitude of the
dissipation to be d e d according to the local flow field character.
3.3 Stretched Artificial Dissipation
74
'I1ansIating the directional scaluig of the dissipation term fiom a tmctured context to an unstmctured one is not easily performed. Mavriplis found that a number of
sssumptions must be made about the relation between the spectral radius and the grid
orientation before a stretched dissipation operator could be applied to an unstructured
grid [26]. He obsewed that the spectral radius formulation used on the unstructurecl
grid shown in equation (2.60) when applied to a structureci grid gave a value that was
approximately equal to the sum of spectral radii of the structured grid,
Mavriplis also reasoned that if the velocity components of the structurecl spectral radii
Ac and
4 were s m d in relation to the speed of sound, the ratio of spectral radii r of
equation (3.11) is approximately qua1 to the local grid aspect ratio AR,
The local aspect ratio on the strnctured grid is equated to a local stretching vector on the
unstructured mesh. The stretching vector S is defined by a point on the outer boundary
of the control volume that has the largest distance between it and the central node of the
control volume k. The magnitude of the stretching vector, s, is the ratio of the distance
between the furthest control volume boundary point and the closest. The stretching
vector is then related to the structureci grid aspect ratio by
The dissipation magnitude in the unstructured grid is scaled through the spectral radius
term. An dtered spectral radius is defined by Mavriplis to sccount for the variable control
volume shape according to
where
3.4 Higher Order Artaciai Dissipation
15
Figure 3.3: Typicd stretched control volume with stretching vector and reference angle
4
The spectral radius A, is defined in equation (2.60). The angle Bi is the angle
between the stretching vector S, and the edge joining k and its neighbour vector i, shown
in Figure 3.3. The stretched spectral radius 4 is then substituted into the artificial
dissipation operator in equation (3.7) to produce the stretched dissipation scheme,
It can be seen that on isotropie unstretched grids this dissipation operator reverts back
to the unstretched configuration of equation (3.7). For stretched grids the contributions
to the dissipation in the direction of the greatest eiongation is limited, as it is for the
structured high-aspect-ratio mesh.
3.4
Higher Order Artificial Dissipation
The second and fourth dineremes of the Jarneson dissipation method presented in section
3.2 give higher order approximations on grids c o m p d of near equilateral triangles.
The undivided Laplacian apprcnrimation of equation (3.3) yields
a fourth order error
term on such grids. However, on gnds with irregularly shaped control volumes the e m r
3.4
Higher Order Artificial Dissipation
76
cancellation of the lower order terms in the Taylor series, which gives the higher order
approximation on the regular mesh, does not occur. The undivided Laplacian operator
will then approxhate not only the desirecl disapative terms, but also a number of first
order convective ones. The presence of these terms can create a significant contamination
of the local solution on irreguiar grids. Ideally, the dissipation operator should have a
negligible magnitude when the solution is smooth. In most cases the converged solution
wiII be a p p r h a t e l y linear over each control volume, and the dissipation should be s m d .
In the extreme case where the local solution is entirely h e a r , a dissipation method based
on a higher order Laplacian approximation will have a zero magnitude regardless of the
control volume shape. A dissipation method that approximates first order convective
tenns will have a non-zero magnitude in most such circumstances. The local solution
will be erroneously altered to compensate for the spurious flux created by lower order
dissipation methods which approximate these terms.

The potential for solution contamination by lower order dissipation has been investigated by Wilkinson [62] on a nurnber of irregular control volume shapes. An example
of which is shown in Figure 3.4. A two-dimemional Taylor series approximation can be
written for the solution at each neighbour node i in the same manner as was used for the
derivation of the difference expression of (3.3). Writing the resulting terms of the second
ciifference approximation yields the expression,
The fust term approximated by this difference expression on this control volume
is imt order and convective in nature. A linear solution applied over such a control
volume can cause this dissipation operator to corrupt the local solution.
As the gradient
on the linear solution inmeases, the magnitude of the dissipation operator will grow, even
through the local solution is linear. Near airfoi1 surfaces where gradients are relatively
high, irreguiar control volumes can reduce the 8ccuracy of the solution when a simple
clifference methad is used to a p p r h a t e diffusive terms.
3.4 Higher Order Artifidal Dissipation
77
Figure 3.4: Example of an irregular control volume
A natural approach at attempting to rectify th% difliculty is with a weighting

scheme applied to each clifference in the approximation. The Jarneson's second difference
operator gave a high degree of accwacy on grids of equilateral triangles due to error term
cancellation on the smooth grid. A weighting factor may be applied to each Taylor series
to create the same error cancellation when the grid is not equilateral in nature. The
weighting factors can be determined with a Taylor table which yields a matrix of grid
dependent parameters that must be inverted. Control volumes on any grid usually have
a wide range of shapes and the matrix produced by the Taylor table will be singular for
some of these [35]. A weighting scheme based on the solution of a Taylor table of grid
parameters will prove difficutt to formulate effectively for all cases.
An alternative undivided Laplacian apprdmation that rem-
second order
accurate and dissipative over irreguiar geornetries c m be constructeci using the finite
volume discretization method. Lindquist [27] creates such an approximation by initially
3.5
Higher Order Stretched Dissipation
reducing the Laplacian using,
The higher order second dinerence operator can be con~tnictedby discretization of the
right hand side,
This difference operator is determined through an integration of the first derivative convective terms about a control volume boundary, similar to the f i t e volume discretization
method. The operator is not divided by the control volume area, yielding an undivided
Laplacian approximation. The convective terms on each boundary edge are evduated
over the triangular c d of the control volume that contains the edge. The derivative formulations of equations (2.53) and (2.54) are used on each triangle of the control volume
with integration conducted over each t n ~ g l boundary.
e
Derivatives are e d u a t e d on each
control volume triangle as opposed to the control volume of each boundary node for two
reasom. First, integration about the three edges of each triangle is less computationdy
intensive than integration about the approximately six edges that form an average control volume boundary. Second, determinhg the second difference expression using only
information fiom the control volume maintains the local nature of the operator. This
differencing method creates an operator that is second order accurate and entirely dissi-
pative. This can clearly be seen by considering an irrepuiar control volume over which an
entirely linear solution is imposed. The convective terms will be constant over the control
volume and integration will yield a zero value of the diffaence operator, regardless of
the control volume shape. The fourth Merence free stream smoothing operator can be
constructed by using the higher order second Merence formulation with equation (3.4).
3.5
The undivided LaplaQan approximation presented in the previous section was shown to
give second order sccuracy on irregularly shaped control volumes. This has the potential
3.5
79
to provided smooth, highly accurate solutions on complex unstructured grids that contain
considerable irregularity. Adapted grids can be expected to be more irregular than an
unadapted mesh as a result of the adapted node placement. An effective higher order
artificial dissipation will be a complement to an adaptive solver. It has been shown that
the higher order dissipation method provided in the previous section was able to maintain
the second order spatial accwacy of an unstmctured central Werencing type scheme on
an irregular mesh with inviscid flow [27].
This artificial dissipation method can however encounter instabilities on vicous

problems. The high-aspect-ratio control volumes near the surface of aVfoils can cause the
magnitude of the dissipation term to be exaggerated, even when the grid is smooth. This
can be demonstrated by considering an arbitrary control vohme over which is imposed an
entirely linear solution; #(x,y) = az + by + c. At the central node of this control volume
an error of magnitude is added (see Figure 3.5). Following the numbering scheme shown
in Figure 3.2, the first derivative terms at ceil A are cornputeci,
where AA is the area of triangle A. Simar expressions are denved for each of the other
edges about the control volume. The higher order second Merence expression can be
created using equation (3.20). The contribution to the second ciifference from edge 1-2 is,
Summing all of the contributions fkom each edge leads to the final second difference
expression,
3.5
80
Figure 3.5: Error imposed on an arbitrary control volume

where 112 is the length of the edge fkom node 1 to node 2. This second difference expression
appears as would be expected, with the magnitude of the expression proportional to the
error magnitude. However, there is an additional grid geometry dependent term. This
term has the effect of amphfjhg the dissipation magnitude as the control volume aspect
ratio increases. If the arbitrary control volume of Figure 3.2 is compresseci in the vertical
direction, the triangle areas will decrease. In the Mt as the aspect ratio approaches
infini@,this amplification term will also approach infini@ as the triangle areas go to zero
and the edge lengths near a constant value. Rom this it is clear that in viscous regions
of the flow fidd that contain high aspect ratio ce& the higher order dissipation of the
previous section will be very dissipative.
It should be noted hocRever, that the amplification effect of this method is entirely
a function of the grid geometry.
This permits an opportunity to develop a correction factor
based on this term that csn be applied to this dissipation method, allowing it to be used
in viscous flows. The ampUcation term can be calculated once when the algorithm is
initialized and applied to esch subsequent dissipation calculation. The final corrected
3.5
Higher Order Stretched Dissi~afion
81
higher order undivided Laplacian approximation can be written as,
The higher order nature of this artincial dissipation method with the amplification
correction c m be demonstrated with the calculation of a flow field problern. The pressure
field is computed near the trailing edge of a NACA 0012 aidoil using both the stretched
iower order dissipation and the higher order method. The free stream Mach number is
0.5 at 0.0 degrees angle of attack with a Reynolds number of 5000. Figure 3.6 shows the
tail region of the unsmoothed grid which contains numerous irregular control volumes.
The pressure field determineci using the stretched artificial dissipation method of section
3.3 is given in Figure 3.7. The corresponding pressure field computed with the higher
order corrected method is shown in Figure 3.8. The flow field about this airfoil is fkee of
shockwaves and should have a smoothly varying pressure field. The higher order corrected
dissipation produces a smoother pressure field than its lower order counterpart. This
suggests that the higher order method is less sensitive to the irregular control volumes
and high gradients present near the trading edge of this case.
3.5 Higher Order Stretched Dissipation
83
Figure 3.7: Pressure field produced with lower order stretched artificiai dissipation, M, =
0.5, ai = 0.0, Rel = 5000
Figure 3.8: Pressure field produced with higher order correctecl artificial dissipation,
M .= 0.5, O = 0.0, Rer = 5000
Chapter 4
Solution Adaptation
4.1
Motivation
The local truncation error in a numerical mode1 based on a central Merence f i t e volume
scherne is presented in Appendix B. The leading error terms are proportional to the second
and third derivatives of the total flux components in the x and y directions, and to the grid
conguration expresseci through local edge length parameters. Reducing the local error for
a given problem has traditionally been accomplished through either a local Unprovernent
in the order of accuracy of the discretkation method itself or with some alteration of the
local grid characteristics. In this research, error reduction is achieved through refinement
of the grid using local node addition. Inserting an additionai node at the midpoint of each
edge in the grid will reduce each grid length parameter appearing in the truncation error
by half. In this manner the local t ~ n c a t i o nerror can be reduced uniformly over the entire
grid in a 'global refinement' process. Although a global rehement is assureci of improving

the solution accuracy, renning each edge of an unstructured grid will inctease the number
of nodes by a factor of four, and substantidy increase the computational effort needed
for a solution. Repeated global refinements will only compound this increase in effort.
When it is considered that the laxgest truncation errors are predominantly located in or
nesr boundary layers, d e s , shock waves, and stagnation points, the wastefulness of a
global refinement becornes apparent. Additional nodes placed in free stream or smooth
regions of fiow have little influence on the global solution accuracy. If the edge refinement
4.2
Adaptation parameters
85
process is directed to occur in regions expected to contain a relativeiy high degree of

error only, the number of nodes needed for a global increase in accuracy will be less than
that of the global refhement. The process of detecting the error and locally refining and
restructuring the grid is the essence of the adaptive gridding process presented in this
t hesis.
Adaptive gridding in a h i t e volume soIver can be conducted using either a nodeadditive (h-adaptive) method, or in a node-redistibutive (r-adaptive) manner [24]. The
node-redistribution method does not insert additional nodes into the mesh but simply
rnoves the preemsting ones in an attempt at local error reduction. The improvement in
solution accuracy in one region may corne at the expense of another region as nodes are
removed fiom it. One common method of implementation of such schemes is with the
spring analogy formulation, where the edges that join a node to its nearest neighbours
are considered to act as springs. The spring constants are proportional to the local error
estimate on the edge, causing the edge iength to be shortened as an equilibriurn position
is found [53, 51, 781. The nodeadditive method introduces new nodes into the grid at
points specified by a local error indicator. New nodes are located at the midpoint of each
edge that is found to have a high levei error associated with it. Once all of the designated
edges have been rehed, the grid edges are reoriented to recover a smooth configuration
in a process referred to as retriangulation. The details of the adaptive gridding routine
used in this algorithm are presented in the following sections.
4.2
The primary adaptation tool of this algorithm is a node-additive scheme. The adaptation
procers begins with the partidy convergeci solution on the finest grid. Convergence is
indicated by the summation over all control volumes in the computational domain of the
residuals of the mass conservation equation. Typically, when this total residual &op 1.5
orders of magnitude kom its initial value, adaptation is initiated. Critical features of the
4.2
86
solution, such as boundary layers, wakes, and shock waves, will be well developed by this
point. Convergence hom the start d o m to this level of residual is usuaily quite rapid
as the low fiequency errors are removed quickly by the multigrid routine. Any further
time marching beyond this IeveI will not contribute to the effectiveness of the adaptation
routine and will only consume computational resources. Fiirthermore, the final solution
will be obtained on the adapted grid, therefore, as Little effort as possible should be spent
on any intermediate grid.

The adaptation routine begins with the complete reproduction of the grid and
solution in the cornputer memory. The new adapted grid will be generated nom the
copied version. A completely new grid is created since the adapted grid wiil become the
new finest grid in the multigrid sequence. After the grid and solution are copied, the
adaptation proceeds with the selection of edges for rehernent. The edges selected are
determined by the dculation of an adaptation panuneter on each edge. The value of
the parameter gives an indication of the prionty assignecl to this edge in the adaptation
hierarchy. The adaptation parameter of each edge is then placed in descending numerical
order. A specific number of edga are selected by the user for adaptation. The multigrid
routine has providecl effective convergence acceleration when unadapted gnds have had an
appraimate four-fold increase in the number of nodes fkom coaRest to finest. In general,
this rate of increase in node density is maintained as new adapted @ds
are generated.
Creating a factor of four increase in the number of nodes as a new adapted grid is created
would require that every edge in the parent grid be selected for adaptation. Since this will
defeat the purpose of adaptive gridding, adaptation is conducted in two passes. The user
WU specify the percentage of nodes to be selected in each pass as a &action of the total
number of edges in the parent grid. The adaptation passes are conducted consecutively
without using the solver between. Any particular triangle in the parent grid then has the
pmibility of being divided into 16 finer triangles with the two p a s method, as seen in
Figure 4.1. The proportion of nodes selected in each pass is one parameter that is studied
4.2 Adaptation parameters
87
for its effect on solution iu:curacy in Chapter 5.

Once an edge is selected for adaptation, the two triangles that have this edge in
common are found, and the other four edges that make up this pair of triangles are also
selected. This is done to ensure that the grid remains smooth and that no directional
biasing occurs. It also maintains the aspect ratio of the grid in viscous regions, and
prevents it fkom growing uncontroIlably. New nodes are inserted at the midpoint of a
selected edge, with the soiution at these points assigned a value based on the h e a r
interpolation of the solution dong the edge. When an edge is refined, three more edges
and two additional triangles are created, as shown in Figure 4.2.
Unadapted
triangle
First adaptation
P*S
Second adaptation
P=s
Figure 4.1: The possible rehernent with a two-pass adaptation
Figure 4.2: The refineement of an edge creetes two new triangles and three new edges.
4.2
88
The adaptation parameter can be calculated using any one of a number of philosophies. The parameter is intended as an estimate of the error in the solution resulting hom
the local grid contiguration. The direct approach to the creation of an adaptation parameter wodd be a calculation of the local tnincation error of the spatial discretization.
Appendr B gives an estimate of such an error term. The truncation error contains second
and third derivatives of the flux temm scaled with terms dependent on the local grid configuration. The tmcation error is not a practical choice for the adaptation parameter in
this algorithm for several reasons. First, calculation of both the second and third deriva-
tive flux terms wilI be necessary since the grid dependent scaling terms on the second
derivatives will vanish in the presence of grids composed of near quilaterd triangles. On
inviscid portions of the flow field the grid will be c o m p d entirely of near equilateral
triangles. Secondly, a significant amount of computational effort will be needed to determine second and third derivatives of the flux components at each node. A least squares
polynomial approximation using the solution obtained from the surrounding grid c m be
created that will permit the evaluation of second and third order derivatives However,
such rnethods may s d e r fiom inaccuracies, especially near flow discontinuities like shoek
mves. The third difEculty encolmtered when using the truncation error as an adaptation
parameter results fkom increased sensitivity. Since the adaptation routine uses a partially
converged solution as a staxting point, some high frequency error d still rernain. For
an error of hed magnitude the second and third derivatives of the solution will give increasingly larger values. This can be demonstrated by considering a one-dimensional gid
with sn erroneous solution imposed on it of the fom,
where A is the amplitude and 1 the wave length. Second and third derivatives of this
solution will yield the following values,
4.2
89
As the wavelength shrinks, the amplitude of the second and third derivatives of the
solution will grow considerably. An adaptation parameter using such terms will have
an exaggerated magnitude compared to the amplitude of the error. In this instance,

adaptation will be driven by the high frequency error and less by the flow field features.
Additional nodes may well be placed in regions that in fact are found to be well resolved
without them, thereby wasting computational effort. Frthermore, a greater degree of
convergence prior to adaptation is not always successful at removing difEculties of this
nature. The caldation of the second and third derivative components of the leading
truncation error terms assumes that the continuous solution of the flow field is known.
If this known continuous solution is apprcarllnated with the numerical solution, as would
be the case, any discontinuities in the numerical result may lead to inflated estimates of
truncation error. This algorithm produces piecewise linear continuie between triangles,
but not continuity of slope. On a coarse grid a M y converged solution may have slight
discontinuities in slope between triangles sufficient to cause erroneous estimates of the
second and third derivative tnuication error components.

Another possible adaptation parameter assumes that bcal error is associated with
the rate of change of the flow variables, and uses the field gradients dong each edge of
the domain. These are easily computed dong each edge by differencing the field variable
(q) between the two nodes that d e h e an edge (ij)and nomaliPng by the edge length 2
Unlike second and third derivative approximations which can contain some error, terms
computed in this rnanner are an exact representation of the derivative of the field variables
dong an edge since the numerid solution given on each edge is linear. However, an adap
tation parameter based on first derivatives wiU suffer fiom the same error exaggeration as
the tnuication term parameter, although to a lesser extent. One critical dificul@ experienced when using flow gradients as adaptation parameters was investigated by Warren
et al. [43]. They found that repeated adaptations would place new nodes at the same
4.2 Adaptation parameters
90
location in the %owfield, regardless of the local level of refinement. Once an edge was
selected for adaptation, the new node placed at its midpoint would be given field variables
based on the linear average of the values at the edge endpoints. The two new edges will
then have exactly the same field gradients as the original edge. Consecutive adaptations
using gradients to dwct refinement wiU then be confined to the same features in the
flow field. Idedy, an adaptation parameter should be rdective of the local level of error
reduction with repeated refinement. As additional nodes are placed in a region, the local
truncation error w i l l be reduced. An adaptation parameter that reduces its value to reflect
the improved local resolution will permit repeated adaptations to redirect refinement to
regions that then become the most under resolved.
The difEculty ansociated with the edge gradient as an adaptation parameter stems
from the fact it is divided by the edge length. Under repeated adaptations the edge length
will be reduced by the same factor as the fieId variable clifference, thereby preserving the
value of the gradient. An alternative formulation is to omit the edge length and adapt
on an undivideci dinerence. An adaptation parameter based on undivided differences will
require very little computational expense. It will also maintain a fixeci magnitude in
the presence of an osclating error of constant amplitude, regardless of the wavelength.
F'urthermore, the undivided difference will drop in magnitude after repeated adaptations
on a given solution, similar to the expected behaviour of the actuai tnincation error after
such rehernents.
An adaptation parameter based on undivided Merences can use any of the a d able flow field variables. Numerical experiments on inviscid aerodynamic problems have
been conducted by Dannenhoffer [42] to determine the the most effective adaptation variable. It was found that undivided differences of density were able to provide smooth
adapted regions and the m a t rapid convergence for a giwn level of arxuracy. In addi-
tion, it was also found that adaptation on second differences, similar to the Laplscian
approximation in artificial dissipation, created irregularly shaped adapted regions which
4.3
M o i l Boundary Adaptation
91
adversely effected the convergence rate. In the present algorith, a number of variables,
including densi@, pressure, Mach number, and vorticity, will be studied as adaptation parameters for their influence on solution accuracy for a given level of computational effort.
The undividecl clifference used as an adaptation panuneter (O) in this study, computed
between the two nodes ( i j ) that define an edge, will have the form
In this instance the parameter is calculateci as the combined dinerences of density ( p )

and Mach number (M) nomalized by the extreme Merence value over the grid. The
merences are normalized to d o w combinations of severd variables in the formation of
the adaptation parameter.
Airfoil Boundary Adaptation

Far fiom an airfoil surfice, a new node added through adaptation is simply placed at
the midpoint of an edge. On airfoil surfaces new nodes must proceed through a more
complex procedure. The edges that form the airfoil swface are an approximation to the
tme aidoil shape. The sctud shape of the aidoil is represented by a series of spline c w e s
that span the distance between the nodes that form the airfoil body 1791. If a new node is
added to the midpoint of an edge that forms the airfoi1 body, the original approximation
is preserved and not refined. Zn order to improve the aVfoil shape appromation, the
new nodes added to the Moi1 edges must be moved into the midspan locations suggested
by the spline curves. However, this may create difEculties on high-Reynolds-number
spacing of nodes is very s m d . The movement of the new

flows where the normal OW
boundary node into the interior of the domain may cross pre-e)Listing edges. This problem
is graphically presented in Figure 4.3, where a section of the grid at an airfoil boundary is
shown. The spline representation of the M o i 1 is shown as a broken line. The edges that
approurimate the airfoil surface are the heavy lines at the base of the grid. The location of
a new boundary point specined by the spline curve is indicated. Clearly, if a new node is
4.3
92
plsced at the midpoint of the boundary edge show, and moved to the location indicated
by the spline curve, a number of edges will be crossed over and the grid will be defective.
To overcome this difliculty, Mavriplis [50]developed a method of displacing ail

of the edges above these problematic boundary nodes. A line is & a m from the new
midpoint node in Figure 4.4, normal to the original edge into the interior of the cornputational domain. The edges that are crossed and the points of intersection on these
edges are recorded. The distance between the new midpoint node and its ha1 location
specified by the spline curve is caUed the reference length. The distance between the
new midpoint node and the h t intersection point of a crossed edge is compute. If this
distance is greater than twice the reference length, then the routine is terminated and the
new point is simply inserted at the boundary edge midpoint and moved into its proper
location. However, if this distance is l e s than twice the reference length then there is a
possibility of creating crossed edges or triangles with areas near zero. In this instance,
the distance between the next pair of intersection points dong the normal h e is deter-
mined. Consecutive pairs of intersecting points are checked until their spacing is twice
the refewice distance. At th.& point the process is stopped snd ail edges crossed have
new nodes inserted at their intersection points. This column of nodes is moved with the
new boundary node as it is placed in its proper location. The new grid configuration will
then be the defect fiee mesh shown in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.3: The portion of the grid forming the d o i l boundary. A new node is to be
inserted at the body edge midpoint.
4.3
- New boundary point

- Airfofl body approximation
94
--
- Normal Une intersedon point

- Splhe curve
Figure 4.4: A line normal to the boundary edge is drawn through the interior grid, marking
points of intersection.
Figure 4.5: The new boundary node is moved to the location specsed by the sphe
routine, the column of nodes above it moves in conjunction.
4.4
4.4
Solution Adaptive Retriangulation
95
Once additional nodes have been introduced into the grid in an adaptation procedure,
the srnoothness of the original grid is usually lost. The @cl edge orientation that resulted
in control volumes of approximately six near equilaterd triangles will most certainly be
dismpted. It was shom in Appendix B that control volumes composed of six nearequilateral triangles attain a second order spatial accuracy. In order to preseme this
spatial accwacy on inviscid portions of the flow field, the edges of the adapted grid must
be re-oriented in a retriangulation process to recover an equilateral configuration. The
Minmax triangulation procedure described in section 2.7 was used to generate grids of
near e q d a t e r d triangles. This routine is used again in the adaptive gridding procedure
to recover the e q d a t e r d configuration.
The Minmax retriangulation is imposed tbough a global edge swapping routine.
Every non-boundary edge is assessed to determine if it meets the Minmax criterion. This
is done by considering the pair of triangles that have a given edge in C O ~ as

O shown
~ ,
in Figure 4.6. The common edge is in one of two possible configurations, the second
configuration in the figure is represented by the broken %e. The largest of the six intenor
angles of both configurations is determined, and the orientation that minimizes this angle
conforms to the Minmax criterion. Every interior edge in the computational domain is
assessecl in this manner until no more edges need to be reconfigured.
On inviscid regions of the flow field the Minmax retriangdation will easily recover
a near-equilangular grid. In regions of the grid expected to be dominated by viscous effects, the grd is characterized by stretched high-aspect-ratio triangles. The sdaptive
gridding routine can disrupt the structured node placement of this region in such a man-
ner that the Minmax retriangulation procedure creates near-equilateral triangles as it

does in the inviscid regions. For example, Figure 4.7 shows a high-aspect-ratio portion of
a grid near an airfoil. A new node is added which introduces a degree of irrepuiarity into
the local node placement. The Minmax retriangulation, shown in Figure 4.8, generates
4.4
Solution Adaptive RetrianRulation
96
Figure 4.6: The angles considered in the Minmax edge-swapping triangulation. The
broken line indicates the other possible edge configuration.
near-equilateral triangles in regions where the grid is expected to be highly stretched.
The presence of such triangles within boundary layer regions will introduce severe tmcation error. To prevent the possibili3 of such undesirable retriangulations, the grid is
stretched in the direction of the local Mach number gradient before the retrianguiation is
implemented. Once the Minmax criterion is imposed, the grid nodes are returned to their
previous location. Initially, the gradient of the Mach number is found on the four nodes
of the pair of tnmgles that shsse a common edge. These values are averaged to give one
pair of derivatives valid on the edge itself (M,,M,). The stretching parameter Si is used
to temporarily place the four nodes in their stretched locations (X,',Y;.'),
The lengths Axi and Ayi are the distaces in the z,y coordinate directions fiom the
midpoint of the edge to each of the four surrounding nodes. The location X,O,y,O is the
original location of the node. The term 1 is the length of the edge, and ( is a small positive
value used to avoid singularities. The factor C is used to s a l e the stretching effect and
is set at a value of 2.0. The resulting grid &ter the stretched Minmax retriangdation is
shown in Figure 4.9. The grid retaim the stretched nature desired in the viscous regions.
4.4
-

--
97
The modified retriangulation method is now solution adaptive in nature since it now
reconfigures the grid based on the local flow field conditions.
The eff'tiveness of the stretched Minmm retrimgulation in maintaining a smooth
grid configuration can be demonstrated through the folIowing example. An adapted grid
is generated fkom the solution about an airfoil at a Reynolds number of 500, and 0.0
degrees angle of attack. The adapted grid without retriangulation displays a significant
level of irreguiarity as seen in Figure 4.11. The retriangulated version, seen in Figure 4.10,
clearly demonstrates the improvement afforded by such a process. Near the airfoil body,
Figure 4.12 shows the adapted grid d t e r retriangulation using the undterd Minmax
routine, while Figure 4.13 shows the r d t s of the stretched retriangulation. The regular
Minmax routine fkequently creates the near equilateral triangles that can be detrimental
to accurate boundary layer resolution. The stretched retriangulation is completely free of
such triangles.
Cg
- New Node
Figure 4.7: A new node is introduced into a high-aspect-ratio region of the grid near an
airfol d i t c e .
4.4 Solution Adaptive Retriangulation
@t
98
- New Node
Figure 4.8: The Minmax retriangulation can generate near equilateral triangles in highaspect-ratio regions of adapted grids.
- New Node
Figure 4.9: The stretched Minmax retrimgdation ami& creating near equilateral triang1es in high-aspect-ratioregions of adapted grids.
4.4
Solution Adaptive Retriandtion
Figure 4.10: Adapted grid, with retriangulation
Figure 4.11: Adapted grid, no retrianpuiation
4.4
Solution Adaptive Retrianguiation
100
Figure 4.12: Adapted grid, stretched Minmax retriangulation
0.2
0.1
WC
Figure 4.13: Adapted grid, reguiar Minmax retriangulation showing inappropriate triangles in the high-aspect-ratio regions
Chapter 5
5.1
Test Cases
Previous chapters have presented the details of the adaptive finite-volume solution algorithm. This chapter presents the results of six test cases based on aerodynamic problems
which will permit an assessrnent of the performance of the algorithm. TWOtest cases will
be used to optimize the solution adaptive gridding routine such that the lift and drag
coefkients predicted by the algorithm will be as close a s possible to the grid independent
result for a given number of grid nodes. The test cases were selected to provide a wide
range of flow field conditions over whkh the algorithm would be expected to perform.
Two laminar cases are included that contain both attached and separated boundary layers in addition to well developed wake regions. Four turbulent cases are presented which
provide a range of p h y s i d y reaiistic fight conditions. The foilowing table summarizes
the details of each test case.

Test Case
Moi1
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
NACA 0012
NACA 0012
NACA 0012
NACA 0012
RAE 2822
AGARD AR 303 A2
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Angle
Free Stream
Mach Number of Attack
10-0"
0.0"
6.0"
0.0"
2-70"
4.0"
Table 5.1: Test Case Summary

101
Reyno1ds
Number
500
5000
2.88x106
9.Ox1O6
6.50 x 106
3.52x106
Reference
[84
PSI
[81]
[82,83]
[84]
185,861
5.1 Test Cases
102
The multigrid convergence acceleration method requires a series of grids with

increasing rehement to perform properly. Grid refinement is imposed through successive
reductions in the off-wali spacing and node spacing on the aidoil body, in addition to
increases in the number of nodes that form the body. A grid series provides an ideal
opportunity to calibrate and assess the pedormance of the adaptive gridding routines. In
cases 1 and 3, the undivideci clifference of various flow variables and their combinations
are tested as adaptation parameters, dong with several variations on the number of
nodes adapted in each p a s . Solutions are obtahed on a series of grids generated through
series of unadapted grids
adaptation and compared to results obtained on a co~~esponding
with an equident number of nodes. Given that the adaptive gridding scheme incurs only
an additional 3% to 5% in total computation t h e , grids with equivalent numbers of nodes

will incur approximately the same computational expense to achieve a solution. Therefore,
the mod effective adaptation configuration is the one which attains the smallest error in
lift and drag prediction for a given number of nodes. Fhrther evidence of the solution
improvement provided by the higher order artificial dissipation presented in section 3.4 is
examined in case 2. In each of the test cases the higher order artificial dissipation is used
d e s s otherwise stated. High speed flow is considemi in case 4 where a weli developed
sbock wave pattern emerges behind a NACA 0012 airfoil, presenting a good test for the
adaptive gridding routine. A cornparison is made in case 5 between the predicted surface
pressure and experimentally determineci values on a co~ll~llonly
used test case using the
RAE 2822 airfoil. The final test case examines the results on a complex multi-dement
aidoil in a hi& lift configuration. T h e 1st four cases contain high-Reynollds-number flows
which require highly stretched grids in the viscous regions, providing challenging problems
for not only the Navier-Stokes solution routine but for the adaptation procedures as wd.
5.2 Casel: NACA 0012
5.2
103
Casel: NACA 0012
The first case is taken from the GAMM Workshop on Numerical Simulation on Compressible Navier-Stokes flows [80]. It uses a NACA 0012 airfoi1 in a free stream flow of Mach
number 0.8 at an angle of attack of 10 degrees with a chord-based Reynolds number of
500. This case was selected since it exhibits an extensive solution field with a number of
flow features that are commonly encountered in viscous aerodynamic problems. The lower
surface of the airfoi1 experiences an attachecl boundary layer all dong its length, while
the upper airfoil surface encounters boundary layer separation very near the leading edge.
With a low Reynolds number of 500, viscous effects will dominate the flow field giving rise
to thick boundary layers and a well developed wake region extending far downstrearn of
the airfoil. Flow field variables such as the local Mach number, the density, the pressure
and vorticity will show large vaxiations extendhg far fkom the airfoil d a c e , providing an
ideal environment for testing and calibration of nurnerous possible adaptation parameten.
Grid
Name
nacaal
Far Field
Angular Node
Separation
20.0"
Airfoil Body
Node Spacing
Tai1
Nose
0.02
0.004
'
Airfoi1
Body
Nodes
60
Off-wall
Totd
Node
Spaci~g Nodes
0.01
752
Tsble 5.2: Grid specifications for Case 1

The analpis begins with a series of five grids, starting with a corne me& of 752
nodes and ending with a fine g15d of 78,459 nodes. The outer far field boundary of each
@d is 60 chords fiom the airfoil d m with an 'O' shape identical to that shown in
Figure 2.16. The specifications for each grid are shown in Table 5.2 above.
The far field
angular node separation is the distance between each outer b o u n d q node in degrees of
arc. This parameter is used to control the node density in the outlying regions of the
computational domain. The airfoil body node spacing is the initial body node separation
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
104
mea~u~ed
dong the camber line of the airfoil starting at both the leading and trailing
edges. Rekement is conducted by dividing in haIf each of the airfoil grid specifications
and doubling the number of nodes on the airfoil, yielding a global refinement.
As the node spacing is reduced through global refinement, the numerical error
in the solution is also diminished. After numerous consecutive refinements, the predicted
lift and drag of a particular problern will approach specific values. At this point the grid
independent values of Li2 and drag are obtained since any further rehements will yield
only insignificant changes. These values are of importance in determinhg the effectiveness
of an adaptive gridding method since they represent a solution with very Iow global
numerical error. An effective adaptive gridding strateg, will refine the regions of highest
local error initiaDy, rapidly reducing the global error. The lift and drag predicted by
adaptation can be compared to the grid independent values to meanire the progress
towards a low error state. The ultimate success of an adaptive gridding method is revealed
when, in cornparison to the unadapted global refinement, the adaptive method achieves
the low error state with far fewer nodes.
Grd
Name
Total Drag Pressure Drag fiction Drag

Total 1
Lift
Coefficient
Coefficient
Nodes 1 Coefficient Coefficient
0.5965
0.1709
0.1131
O.2840
0.5208
0.1589
0.1106
0.2695
0.1537
0.1092
0.2629
O.1527
0.1090
0.2617
Table 5.3: Unadapted liR and drag results for Case 1
Table 5.3 provides the predicted lift coefficient (C,),total drag coefficient (Cd),
fnction drag coeflicient (Cg),
and pressure drag coefncient ( C ,for
) the unadapted grids.
Comparing the d u e s of the two finest grids indicates that signifiant changes axe still
occurring with dnement, and therefore the grid independent solution has not yet been
reached. An dtemative to h d h g the solution on grids with extremely large numbers

of nodes is to extrapolate the grid independent solution from the known data. Since
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
105
the corne grid resuits are expected to contain a high level of e m r , only the data fiom
the hest three grids are used. After performing a linear regression on the data, the
grid independent solutions are obtained when the number of grid nodes is brought to
infinity. Figures (5.2-5.5) graphically show the data for the finest three grids and the
linear approximation to the results. The grid independent solution was found to be,
The optimal adaptation parameter is one that can direct grid refinement to regions that contain si&cant
error. Flow features that are expected to be regions of
numericd error such as shock waves and boundary layers require a high degree of resolution. However, Warren et al. [43] found that regions adjacent to such features also
contain significant error and must also be adequately resolved to obtain an accurate s*
lution. Therefore, the search for the most effective adaptation parameter focusses on
variables that offer the a b i l i ~to detect critical features but also d o w adaptation of regiom near those fatures. The variables considered for the adaptation parameter are: the
flow field Mach number, densi@, pressure, and vorticity. These variables w i l l be denoted
by 'M','d', 'p', and 'v' respectively in subsequent data tables. The solution field for each
of these variables obtained on grid nacaa2 is presented in Figures 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12. The
correspondhg series of adapted grids, generated using each of these variables as adaptation parameters, is presented in Figures 5.7, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13. The adaptation is conducted
in two passes as outlined in section 4.2, with 55% of the nodes added in the first pass and
45% in the second. The unadapted grid nacaa2 is provided in Figure 5.1 as a reference.
The Mach number field shown in Figure 5.6 dehes the location of the boundary layer
and wake regions, but has a small variation in the regions surrounding these features. The
resulting adapted grid, shown in Figure 5.7, concentrates nodes primarily on the viscous
f a t u m at the expense of the surroundhg grid. The densi@ field shown in Figure 5.8 also
follows the viscous fatmes, but without the high level of variation as the Mach nurnber.
However, the density contains signinmt gradients in regions adjacent to these features
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
106
where the Mach number does not. The adapted grid based on density in Figure 5.9 shows
that this feature leads the adaptation routine to refhe the grid over a more general area
at the expense of the viscous regions. This raises the possibility that a combination of
variables will provide the most effective adaptation parameter. The pressure field shom
in Figure 5.10, gives no indication of the viscous flow features, but contains strong variations near the Ieading edge of the airfoil, similar to the density. The correspondhg
adapted grid shows none of the viscous regions of the previous variables, but does give a
general refinement over the entire region surromding the airfoil. The absolute value of the
vorticiw, shown in Figure 5.12, contains strong gradients in the attached regions of the
boundary layer but nowhere else. Its adaptation places nodes in the attached boundary
layers exclusive1y.
Assessrnent of the various possible adaptation parameters is conducted with a
series of adapted solutions. The first three coarsest grids in Table 5.2 are adapted to create
grids with the sarne number of nodes as the next finest grid. For instance, grid nacaal
WU be adapted to create a grid with the sarne number of nodes as nacaa2. In this manner
a direct cornparison c m be made between the results of the unadapted grids and their
adapted counterparts. The four variables under consideration are used to adapt each grid,
dong with combineci Mach number/pressure and Mach number/density formulations.
Three different node allocation schemes for each adaptation pass are considered as weU.
The k t allocation places 70% of the refinement nodes in the first pass and 30% in the
second. The next allocation uses 55% in the first and 45% in the second, while the last
method uses three passes each docated 33% of the refinement nodes. Tables 5.5, 5.7,
and 5.9 provide the Lift and drag coefcients for each of the adapted grids. Tables 5.6,
5.8, and 5.10 give the percentage error of each of these results in cornparison to the grid
independent dues. The percentage error of the unadapted results are listed in table 5.4.
Rom the results it is ckar that certain variable and allocation combinations
perform better that others. Comparing the unadapted error for the grid nacaa2 with the
5.2 Casel:
NACA 0012
107
adapted error for pressure and vorticity adaptation, it is clear that these variables perform
poorly in general. The error for each lift and drag performance characteristic using these
two variables is comparable to the error level for the unadapted results at each grid size.
The inability of these variables to detect and adequately resolve all the regions that contain
a high level of error, compromises their capabiiity as adaptation parameters. Adaptation
parameters based on Mach number and density appear to fair better. At every adapted
grid level and for each node docation method the Mach number and density adaptation
had a lower error than the unadapted results for each performance characteristic. In fact
the error produced by these two adaptation variables is very similar, even though they
emphasize slightly different regions of the grid. For Instance, at the 2800 node level with
55%/45% allocation the lift error is 12.45% for the Mach number and 13.73% for the
density. The total drag error is similar with 5.07% for the Mach nurnber and 5.22% for
the density. Considering that the error for the unadapted grid is 17.4346 for lift and 9.06%
for total drag, these two variables have achieved a significant reduction in global error over
the unadapted grid. At the 10500 node level the results are similar, with lift and total
drag error at 4.74% and 2.42% respectively for Mach number and 4.76% and 2.15% fgr the
density. Since the Mach number and density r e h e somewhat different regions of the @d
and stiU obtain the ssme error reduction, it must be concluded that the regions that these
two variables refine are equally important to global error reduction. The effects of a linear
combination of these adaptation parameters was investigated. The results show that a
combined Mach number and density adaptation parameter with 5596145% allocation gives
the iowest error of any configuration. At the 2800 node level, the improvement in Mt error
over the unadapted results is appraximately 30%, while for total drag it is 44% with the
combined adaptation parameter. At the 10500 level, the rermlts are similar with a 30%
improvement in lift error and 34% for total drag.
Of the three node docation schemes for each adaptive pas, the methods that
use a 55%/45% distribution generally tend to produce less error. Comparing the error

- .-
. --
--
..-
--
.- .
-. .
108
for the Mach number or density adaptive parameters, the error in lift and drag is lower
for 55%/45% than 70%/30% at both 2850 nodes and 10500. This trend is l e s apparent
for the combined Mach number/density or Mach number/pres~ureadaptive parameten.
In the Mach number/density case the 5596145% docation remain superior. However, for
the Mach number/pressure case 70%/30% is best at 10500 nodes. The allocation method
with the poorest overd performance is the three p a s method. The lift and drag error
using this allocation is generdy larger than the other methods. For instance, the 1%
and total drag error at 2850 nodes for Mach number 55%/45% adaptation is 12.45% and
5.O?%respectively. Using the three pass 33%/33%/33% method yields the values 15.06%
and 6.61% for lift and total drag error.

For the largest grid size, the adaptation results using either Mach number, density,
or both produce errors that are almost entirely below 0.5% of the grid independent value.
The fact that the results on this grid size are nearly identical to the grid independent
values inclkates that adaptation methods ushg these variables are capable of obtaining
the grid independent values of lift and drag with far fewer nodes than the unadaptecl global
refmement. Clearly, adaptation directed by edge clifferences is successful at detecting the
local error in a solution and reducing such error to produce a reduction in global error.
Further experirnents were conducted with multiple adaptation using combined
Mach nurnber/density and Mach nurnber/pressure parameters with both the 70%/30%
and 55%/45% node allocations. The coarsest grid, nacaal with 752 nodes was adapted
once to produce a grid of apprcarimately 2850 nodes and then again to yield a @d of
nearly 10700 nodes. Tables 5.11 and 5.12 give the Iift and drag results dong with the
e m r for the multiple adaptations. The results indiate that even further error reduction
is possible with multip1e adaptation. The best multiple adaptation liR and total drag
error is 3.27% and 1.46% respectively using the Mach number/densi@ 70%/30%. The
best results using one adaptation for an eqUiwent grid size yiels values of 4.42% and
2.30%. The unadaptecl 1 3 and total drag error for this grid size is 6.27% and 3.49%.
109
The double adaptation method therefore provides an approlcimate error reduction on the
order of 50% for both liR and drag over the unadapted grids. It shouid be noted that
the dinerence in error between the double adaptation Mach number/density 55%/45%
method and the 70%/30% version was sght.
The trends expresseci in this study of various adaptive methods are portrayed
graphically in Figures 5.145.17. The results of the unadapted grids are shown with
those of the two most effective adaptation methods dong with one of intermediate performance. The magnitude of the error for each performance characteristic is plotted in
relation to the inverse of the number of nodes in the grid. It is clear fkom these plots
that the most effective adaptation stnrtegies, Mach numberldensity adaptation at either
55%/45% or 70%/30%, are consistently superior to the unadapted grids. For each per-
formance characteristic the Mach number/density adaptation demonstrated an ability to

provide results with less error. Overall, the Mach number/density 55%/45% configuration
produces slightly better results that the 70%/30% allocation for single adaptation, whiie
both methods are appmxirnately quivalent in performance with double adaptation.
Figure 5.1: Unadapted grid nacaaj! with 2736 nodes
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
110
Figure 5.2: Extrapolation of the grid independent lift for case 1, N= total number of grid
nodes
Figure 5.3: Extrapolation of the grid independent total drag for case 1, N= total number
of grid nodes
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
111
Figure 5.4: Extrapolation of the grid independent fiction drag for case 1, N= total
Figure 5.5: Extrapolation of the grid independent pressure drag for case 1, N= total
112
Figure 5.6: Mach number field using grid nacaa2 for case 1
Figure 5.7: Adapted grid using Mach number as adaptation panuneter, 2887 nodes
Figure 5.8: Density field using grid nacaa2 for case 1
Figure 5.9: Adapted grid using density as adaptation parameter, 2884 nodes
113
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
Figure 5.10: Pressure field using grid nacaa2 for case 1
Figure 5.11: Adapted grid using pressure as adaptation parameter, 2882 nodes
114
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
115
Figure 5.12: Vorticity field using grid n a d for case 1
WC
Figure 5.13: Adapted grid using vorticity as adaptation parameter, 2891 nodes
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
116
1 Total 1 % Lift 1
Grid
Name Nodes
nacaal
752
% Total 1 % fiction 1 % Pressure

Error Drag Error Drag Error Drag Error
4.51
20.04
13.56
34-50
Table 5.4: Percent error for unadapted grid results
Node
Pressure Adaptation
Fnction
Total
Nodes (CL) Drag (CD) Drag (Gf Drag (CDP) Variable(s) Allocation
70130
0.1663
M
0.1102
2887 0.5025
0.2765
70130
0.1696
0.1106
2882 0.5146
0.2802
P
d
70/30
0.1664
O.1093
2884 0.5063
0.2757
v
70130
0.1723
0.1104
2891 0.5346
0.2827
33/33/33
O. 1659
M
0-1117
2863 0.5103
0.2776
33/33/33
0.1777
0-1112
2857 0.5633
0.2889
P
33/33/33
d
O
.
1669
O.
1072
2857 0.5170
0.2741
33/33/33
v
0.1781
0.1121
2859 0.5695
0.2902
55/45
M
0.1639
O. 1097
2834 0.4987
0.2736
55/45
0.1719
2832 0.5254
0-1087
0.2806
P
55/45
d
0.1657
2833 0.5044
O.1083
0.2740
55/45
v
1771
0
.
2857 0.5622
O.
1118
0.2889
55/45
2834 0.4990
0.1111
0.1643
0.2754
M/P
55/45
2834 0.4977
O. 1636
0.1100
0.2736
M/d
70130
2885 0.4987
0.1653
0.1104
0.2757
Mid
70130
0.1668
0.1108
2885 0.5047
0.2776
Total
Lift
Table 5.5: Lift and drag r d t s after adaptation of grid nscsal
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
117
Node
Total % Lift
% Total
% Wction % Pressure Adaptation
Nodes Error Drag Error Drag Error Drag Error Variable(s) AUocation
2736 17.43
Unadapted
9.06
4-05
12.66
M
2887 13.30
1.38
9.62
6.18
2882 16.03
1.75
11.80
7.60
P
d
2884 14.16
9.69
0
.
5
5
5.88
v
2891 20.54
1.56
13.57
8.56
M
2863 15.06
2.76
9.36
6.61
2857 27.01
27.14
2.30
10.94
P
d
2857 16.57
-1-38
10.01
5.26
v
2859 28.41
3.13
17.40
11.44
2834 12.45
M
0.92
5.07
8.04
2832 18.47
13.32
0.00
7.76
P
d
2833 13.73
9.23
-0.37
5.22
v
2857 26.76
16.74
2.85
10.94
2834 12.51
2
.
2
1
8.31
5.76
M/P
2834 12.22
7.84
1.20
5.07
MId
2885 12.45
1.56
8.97
5.88
M/d
9.95
2885 13.80
1.93
6.61
MIP
Table 5.6: Percent error of lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaal
Totd
Nodes
10491
10488
10492
10504
10674
10670
10670
10675
10558
10555
10557
10584
10557
10555
10494
10489
Lift
(CL)
0.4661
0.4727
0.4669
0.4792
0.4664
O A948
0.4696
0.4935
0.4645
0.4767
0.4646
0.4796
0.4657
0.4631
O.4647
0.4642
Friction
Pressure Adaptation
Totd
)
Drag (CD) Drag ( C D ~ Drag
(Cm) Variable(s)
M
O. 1579
0.2675
0.1096
0.1597
0.2695
0.1098
P
d
0.1091
0-1575
0.2666
v
0.1611
0.1102
0.2713
M
0.1573
0.1098
0.2671
O.
1108
0.1646
O.2754
P
d
0.1587
O.1084
0.2671
v
0.1644
0.1111
0.2755
M
0.1572
0.2667
0.1095
0.1613
0.2711
0.1098
P
d
O.1573
0.2660
0.1087
v
O.1609
0.1100
0.2709
0.1577
0.2676
0.1099
M/P
0.1570
0.1094
0.2664
Mid
0.1576
0.2673
0.1097
M/P
0.1574
0.2668
0.1094
M/d
Table 5.7: Lift and drag d t s aRer adaptation of grid n a d
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
118
Node
% Friction % Pressure Adaptation
Total % Lift
% Total
Nodes Error Drag Error Drag Error Drag E m r Variabie(s) Allocation
4.75
Unadapted
1.75
3.49
10769 6.27
M
4.09
2.73
0.83
10491 5.10
5.27
3.49
1.01
10488 6.58
P
3.82
d
2.38
10492 4.83
0.37
v
6.20
4.19
10504 8.05
1.38
3.69
M
2.57
10674 5.16
1.01
8.50
10670 11.57
1.93
5.76
P
4.6
1
d
2.57
-0.28
5.89
10670
v
8.37
2.21
10675 11.27
5.80
M
3.63
2.42
10558 4.74
0.74
6.33
4.11
1.01
10555 7.49
P
d
3.69
2.15
10557 4.76
0.00
v
6.06
1.20
4.03
10584 8.14
3.96
1.10
2.76
10557 5.01
M/P
3.49
2.30
10555 4.42
0.64
M/d
3.89
2.65
10494 4.78
0.92
M/P
3.76
2.46
10489 4.67
0.64
Mid
Table 5.8: Percent error for lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa2
Total
(CL) Drag (CD)
0.4429
0.2596
0.2621
0.4489
0.2599
0.4442
0.2616
0.4481
0.2596
0.4428
0.2653
0.4576
0.2601
0.4451
0.2634
0.4527
0.2594
0.4422
0.2636
0.4511
0.4-432
0.2596
0.4470
0.2611
0.2594
0.4424
0.2599
0.4431
0.2595
0.4427
0.2600
0.4438
Lift
Friction
Pressure
Node
Adaptation
Variable(s) Allocation
M
70130
70130
P
70130
d
v
70/30
33/33/33
M
33/33/33
P
33/33/33
d
V
33/33/33
M
55/45
55/45
P
55/45
d
V
55/45
55/45
M/d
55/45
M/P
70130
M/d
70/30
M/P
Table 5.9: Lift and drag results aRer adaptation of grid nacaa3
Total
Nodes
39635
41286
41282
41284
41313
42000
41998
40921
40936
41550
41548
41548
41572
41549
41550
41284
41283
% Total
&or
Drag &or
1.78
0.96
-0.14
-0.31
1.22
0.65
0.16
-0.19
1.O4
0.46
-0.16
-0.31
3.18
1.88
-0.12
0.36
2.O7
1.15
-0.29
-0.38
1.7l
1.23
-0.07
-0.31
0.79
0.27
-0.25
-0.38
-0.09
-0.19
-0.18
-0.35
0.07
-0.15
% Lift
119
% Friction % Pressure Adaptation

Drag Error Drag Error Variable(s)
1.32
Unadapted
0.46
M
-0.13
-0.55
1.12
0.00
P
0.13
d
-0.64
v
0.92
-0.18
M
-0.20
-0.46
0.64
2.77
P
-0.74
d
0.33
v
1-18
0.28
M
-0.55
-0.26
1-91
0.27
P
0.00
d
-0.74
v
-0.28
0-66
-0.26
-0.55
M/d
0.00
0-46
M/P
-0.13
-0.64
M/d
0.06
-0.46
M/P
Table 5.10: Percent error for lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa3
Total 1 LiR 1 Total 1 fiction 1 Pressure 1 Adaptation 1 Node 1

Nodes (CL) Drag (CD)Drag ( C D f ) Drag (Cm) Variable(s) Allocation
2x55145
0.1546
10693 0.4388
O.1088
0.2634
M/d
Table 5.11: Lift and drag results after two adaptations of grid nacaal
% Lifk
Enor
6.27
1 % Total 1 % Ftiction 1 % Pressure 1 Adaptation 1
Node
Drag Error Drag Error Drag Error VariabIe(s) Allocation
4.75
Unadapted
3.49
1.75
Table 5.12: Percent error for lift and drag results after two adaptations of grid namal
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
120
Figure 5.14: Cornparbon of lift results using adapted and unadapted grids, N=number of
Figure 5.15: Cornparison of totai drag r d t s using adapted and unadapted grids,
5.2
Casel: NACA 0012
121
Figure 5.16: Cornparison of friction drag results using adapted and unadapted grids,
Figure 5.17: Cornparison of pressure drag resuits using adapted and unadapted grids,
5.3
Case 2:
NACA 0012
122
Case 2: NACA 0012
5.3
The next test case uses the NACA 0012 airfoil with a kee stream Mach number of 0.5
and a Reynolds number of 5000, with an angle of attack of 0.0 degrees. This case pro-
vides an environment in which viscous d e c t s are not as strong as in the f i t test case.
The boundary layers are attached to the airfoil and are thinner with stronger gradients
within them. These conditions will require high-aspect-ratio triangles in the boundary
layer regions for effective resolution. This test case is used primarily to investigate any
advantages in solution accuracy provided by the higher order artificial dissipation method
presented in section 3.4. This case follows a simar format to the previous test case. A
series of grids of increasing refinement are used to obtain solutions using both the scaled
method of section 3.3 and the higher order method. A summary of the grid specifications
is presented in the following table.
1 Far Field 1 Airfoil Body 1 Airfoil 1 Off-wall 1

Node
Total
Body
Grid Angular Node
Node Spacing
Name
Tail
Nodes Spacing Nodes
Nose
Separation
736
0.0008
nacabl
0.004
36
20.0"
0.004
2733
0.0004
72
0.002
nacab2
0.002
9.0"
0.0002
9682
nacab3
144
4. O"
0.001
0.001
0.0001 38541
nacab4
1.8"
288
0.0005 0.0005
nacab5
1.5"
580 0.00005 50400
0.00025 0.00025
Table 5.13: Grid specifications for Case 2

The drag coefficient r d t s using the d e d artSual dissipation method of section
3.3 are presented in table 5.14. The same calculation is made using the higher order
dissipation method, producing the results shown in table 5.16. In this case the viscous
regions, which are shown cleariy in Figure 5.18 by the smaller and thinner boundary layer
and wake, are not nearly as large or extensive as in the previous test case. Lt is not
unexpected then that a grid independent solution can be obtained with fewer nodes than
the previous case. The results of the h e s t grids using both dissipation methods show a
convergence to a particular set of drag d u e s . The results of the finest me& are therefore
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012

-
used for cornparison to obtain the error of the results of the coarser gr&.
Tables 5-15
and 5.17 give the absolute value of the percentage error of each drag coefficient for both
the scaled lower order and higher order dissipation methods respectively. AIso included
in the analysis are two adapted results. G d s nacabl and nacab2 were adapted using the
combined Mach number/density adaptation with the 55%/45% node allocation together
with the higher order dissipation. The drag results of the adaptation are presented in
table 5.18 with the error shown in table 5.19. The total drag error for the results of case
2 are presented graphicaily in Figure 5.19, in addition to the pressure drag error plot in
Figure 5.20, and the friction drag error plot in Figure 5.21.
The results show a general trend towards a greater degree of accuracy with the
higher order dissipation. At appraximately 10,000 nodes the lower order dissipation produces a total drag coefficient error of 2.14%, with pressure drag error at 0.87% and friction
drag error at 4.23%. The results for the higher order dissipation at the sarne grid size
show total drag error of 0.5396, with pressure drag error at 0.43% and friction drag error
at 1.21%. With grid adaptation, the solution accuracy is improved further still. At the
10,000 node level, the adapted results show a total drag error of 0.18%, with a pressure
drag error of 0.43% and a fiction drag error of 0.0%.

The improvement in the results offered by the higher order dissipation is reflected
in the appearance of the surface pressmes. Figure 5.22 shows the surface pressure coef
ficient on the upper surface of the airfoil obtained on the grid nacab2 using the higher
order dissipation.
In Figure 5.23, similar r d t s are presented using the lower order dis-
sipation. The higher order method provides a smoath pressure profile, while the lower
order dissipation produces some abrupt changes in SUrfiwe pressure near the leading edge.
The greater accuracy provided by the higher order method is evident when the surface
pressure using the lower order method is computed on the b e r grid nacab3, which is
shown in Figure 5.24 . The lower order dampiilg method requires a greater nodal density
to produce the same .mooth solution that the higher order method can provide with a
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012
124
relatively coarse mesh.
Grid Total Drag Pressure Drag Fnction Drag

Name Coefficient
Coefficient
Coacient
nacabl
0.0668
0.0285
0.0383
nacab2
0.0545
0.0299
0.0246
nacab3
0.0550
0.0317
0.0233
nacab4
0.0557
0.0325
0.0232
nacab5
0.0231
0.0562
0.0331
Table 5.14: Drag r d t s using lower order damping
Grid 1 % Total Drag % Pressure Drag % Ftiction Drag

Error
Name 1
Error
Error
13.90
nacab1
18.86
65.80
9.67
nacab2
6.49
4.23
nacab3
0.87
1.81
nacab4
O .43
0.00
nacab5
0.O0
0.00
Table 5.15: Absolute value of the percent error of drag results using lower order damping
Grid 1 Total Drag 1 Pressure Drag 1 Fnction Drag

Coefficient
Coefficient
Name Coefficient
0.0334
nacaal
0.0699
0.0365
0.0336
0.0241
n a d
0.0577
Table 5.16: Drag r d t s using higher order damping
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012
Grid
Name
nacabl
nacab2
nacab3
nacab4
nacab5
125
% Total Drag % Pressure Drag % F'riction Drag

Error
24.38
2-67
0.53
0.36
0.00
Error
58.00
4.33
0.43
0.43
0.00
'
Error
0.91
1.51
1.21
0.30
0.00
Table 5.17: Absolute value of the percent error of drag results using higher order darnping
Grid Totd Drag Pressure Drag Friction Drag

Coefficient
Coefficjet
Nodes Coefficient
0.0234
2944
0.0569
0.0232
0.0331
10932
0.0563
Table 5.18: Drag results after adaptive gridding and higher order damping
Grid % Total Drag % Pressure Drag % Nction Drag

Error
Error
Nodes
Error
2944
10932
1.25
0.18
1.30
0.43
1.21
0-00
Table 5.19: Absolute value of the drag error after adaptive gridding and higher order
damping
5.3 Case 2: NACA 0012
126
Figure 5.18: Mach number field about the NACA 0012 airfoil using grid nacab3
Figure 5.19: Cornparison of absolute total drag between lower and higher order artifkial
dissipation and adaptive gridding, N = number of grid nodes
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012
127
Figure 5.20: Comparison of absolute pressure drag between lower and higher order artificid dissipation and adaptive gridding, N = number of grid nodes
Figure 5.21: Comparison of absolute friction drag between lower and higher order artScia.1
dissipation and adaptive gridding, N = nnmber of grid nodes
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012
128
Figure 5.22: Surface pressure coefficient using the higher order artificial dissipation on
grid nacab2
Figure 5.23: Surface pressure co&cient using the lower order artificial dissipation on grid
nacab2
5.3
Case 2: NACA 0012
129
Figure 5.24: Surface pressure coefficient ushg the lower order artificial dissipation on grid
nacab3
5.4
Case 3:
NACA 0012
130
Case 3: NACA 0012
5.4
The third test case ciiffers iom the previous two test cases in that the flow field modelled
in this case is a realistic aerodynamic problem. The Reynolds number is set at a value of
2.88 million, which is consistent with levels that would be expected about actual airfoils
in flight. This case uses the NACA 0012 airfoil at an angle of attack of 6.0 degrees. In
such realistic flows, the boundary layer surroundhg the airfoiI is expected to be turbulent
and very thin relative to the previous two test cases. The initial node spacing off the wail
must be small, leading to highly stretched triangles in the boundary layers. The aspect
ratio of these triangles is on the order of 200:l at the mid-chord point. With stretching of
this magnitude, the adaptive gridding routines and the solution dependent retriangulation
will be severely tested when adaptation of the viscous regions is conducted.
Grid
Name
nacacl
nacac2
nacac3
nacac4
nacac5
nacac6
Airfoil Body
Angular Node
Node Spacing
Tai1
Separation
Nose
0.005
0.00125
30.0"
0.0037
15.0"
0.00093
12.0"
0.0025
0.000625
0.0019
6.0"
0.00046
0.0003125 0.00125
5.0"
2.1"
0.00015 0.000625
Far Field
1 Airfoil 1
Off-wd
Body
Node
Nodes Spacing
0.00015
120
180
0.0001
240
0.00005
360 0.000032
480 0.000015
960 0.000005
Table 5.20: Grid specifications for Case 3

The procedure for this case will be Qmilar the previous two in which a series
of grids of increasing refinement were used. Unadapted solutions are then obtained on
each grid and compared to an adapted r d t . The fkst three grids listed in the grid
specifications of Table 5.20 are adapted to yield grds wth a four-fold increase in the
number of nodes. Typid y+ d u e s at the first grid point fkom the sudace for the finest
grid are on the order of 1. The r d t s produced by these Bdapted grids are compared
to the values obtained fom grids nacac3, nacac4, and nacac5 which contain roughly the
same number of nodes as the adapted grids. Cornparison of the two sets of r d t s will
5.4
Case 3:
NACA 0012
131
be made in relation to a benchmark solution obtained on the h e s t unadapted grid (

nacac6 ). A grid independent solution is not aailable due to the excessive computational
requirements of grids with an extremely large number of nodes.
Three parameters are used to assess any improvement in solution accuracy; the
lift coefficient, the pressure drag coefficient, and the fiction drag coefficient. The unadapted results shown in Table 5.21 indicate that the coarser grids tend to overestimate
the pressure drag while underestimating the frictional drag. Combining the two results
to yield a total drag coefficient w i l l produce sigdicant error cancellation, creating a mis-
leadingly accurate estimate. For this reason the total drag coefficient was not used as a
indicator of improved remlution in this case.
The results presented in case 1 indicated that the greatest error reduction was
produced by an adaptation parameter formed fiom a combineci Mach number
/ density
edge difference with 55% of the adaptive nodes inserted in the k t adaptive pass and
45% in the second. A study using numerom possible adaptation parameters and node
allocation configurations similar to case 1 was conducted in case 3. The results of this
study in case 3 did not d8er fkom the optimal configuration learned in case 1. Therefore,
in this case only the results of the optimal configuration are presented. The error relative
to the benchmark solution produced by the unadapted grids is given in Table 5.22, while
the corresponding error for the adapted grids is given in Table 5.23. The results comparing
lift, pressure drag, and fiction drag error are presented in Figures 5.25, 5.26, and 5.27
respectively. The reduction in lift and pressure drag error is substantial. For a M d size
of approximately 14,000 nodes, the LiR coefficient benchmark was underestimated by the
unadapted grid by 6.72%, while the corresponding figure for the adapted grid was 0.04%.
In terms of pressure drag the error on the unadapted grid was 91.?O%, with the adapted
grid yielding 50.71%. This represents an improvement in accwacy of apprcocimately 40%
in the case of pressure drag. The r d t s are nearly the same when the large 24,000 node
grid is considered. However, in each grid size considered there is no indication that the
5.4 Case 3: NACA 0012
132
adaptive gridclhg routines improve the estimate of Ection drag.

The adapted and unadapted results of the 24,000 node grid were also compared to
the r e d t s produced by a stmctured grid solver developed by the NASA Ames Research
Center called ARC2D. The ~ t ~ c t ~grid
r e dused in ARC2D contained 40,000 nodes and
had an initial off-wall spacing of 1x IO-^. The pressure coefficient dong the airfoil suface
produced by ARC2D is compared to that predicted by the adapted grid in Figure 5.28.
The same cornparison is made in Figure 5.29 only in this case the unadapted resdts are
compared to the structurecl grid. The d a c e pressure promes of both the adapted and
unadapted grids compare well to the structured r d t s . However, in the adapted case
the suction peak value is closer to the stmctured result than the unadapted profile. The
pressure values produced by the adapted grid coincide more closely with the stmctured
result than the unadapted case over the entire airfoil. At the t r a i h g edge of the airfoil
the result is the same, the adapted grid reproduces the structurecl result more closely.
Grid
Name
Pressure Drag Fnction Drag

Lift
Total
Coefficient
Coefficient
Nodes Coefficient
0.02775
0.0007523
0.01378
0.008586
0.0008122
0.006192
0.004528
0.003230
0.001128
0.001339
0.001861
0.003639
Table 5.21: Unadapted lift and h g results for Case 3
5.4 Case 3: NACA 0012
Grid
Name
nacacl
nacac2
nacac3
nacac4
nacac5
133
Total % Lift % Pressure % Friction

Nodes Error Drag Error Drag Error
759.13
-79.33
1450 -14.77
-77.68
326.62
3415 -10.10
165.8
-69.00
5768 -7.31
-63.18
-6.72
91.70
13751
-48.90
40.25
22062 -4.68
Table 5.22: Percent error for unadspted grid results
% Lift 1 % Pressure 1 % Ection

Error Drag Error Drag Error
-73.32
-6-34
61.75
Table 5.23: Percent error for adapted grid results
Figure 5.25: Cornparison of lift coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted grids, N
= number of grid nodes
5.4
Case 3: NACA 0012
134
Figure 5.26: Comparison of pressure drag coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted
N = number of grid nodes
grids,
Figure 5.27: Comparison of fiction drag coefficient produced by adapted and unadapteci
grids, N = number of grid nodes
5.4
Case 3: NACA 0012
135
Figure 5.28: Cornparison of pressure coefficient produced by adapted grid and ARC2D
Figure 5.29: Cornparison of pressure coefficient produced by unadaptecl grid and ARCZD
5.5
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
136
Case 4: NACA 0012
The first three test cases were concemed with the effective operation of the adaptive gridding routines and with demonstrating the accuracy of the solution algorithm. Test case
4 and the last two test cases will not be coocerned so much with the operations of the
adaptive gridding methodology, but will focus on a range of realistic aerodynamic prob
lems designed to highlight the ut*
of the overall algorithm. The format for these cases
will be to present the resuits of an adapted solution in cornparison to unadapted resdts

and to other available solutions, either from other algorithms or through experiment.
Test case 4 uses the NACA 0012 airfoil with a free stream Mach number of 0.95
and an angle of a t t d of 0.0 degrees. The free stream Mach number of this case is close to
sonic speed; therefore the effects of compressibity are very pronounced.
This particular
case maintains a complex shock wave systern emanating from its trailing edge. The wave
pattern consists of two oblique shock waves on either side of the trailing edge with a weak
normal shock joining them several chords downstream. The shock wave systern of this
case is extensive and presents a considerable challenge to the adaptive gridding routines,
especidy in Light of the difEculty in capturing the nomal shock due to its weakness.
This case was taken fiom the AGARD Advisory Report no. 211, which outlined several
problems analyzed on inviscid flow solvers. The Reynolds number for this case was set
to a high value in order to localize the viscous effects to the thin boundary layer and
. . ..
the short wake. Muiimizmg viscous effects WU d o w the cornparison of results from
the present solver to those obtained by other researchers with inviscid algorithms. The
location and strength of the shock waves should remain unchmged between the inviscid
and high Reynolds number results.

The Mach number field for this case is shown in Figure 5.30, with the corre-
sponding pressure field presented in Figure 5.31. These r d t s were obtained after two
applications of the adaptive gridding mutine using the 5596145% Mach number/density
f o d t a t i o n , generating a final grid of 81412 nodes. The adapted grid is shown in Figure
5.5
Case 4=
NACA 0012
.
.-
- --
---
5.32. The same case was nin on an unadapted grid with approximately the same number
of nodes. The unadapted Mach number field is shown in Figure 5.33, with the pressure
field in Figure 5.34, and the grid shown in Figure 5.35. The adaptive gridding method was
clearly successful at capturing both oblique shocks and the weak normal shock. The contours of pressure and Mach number are smooth and the shock waves are captured sharply.
The unadapted resdts however, are not nearly as precise. The contours of pressure and
Mach number are l e s smooth in this case, and the shock waves are smeared over a large
area.
An enlargement of the adapted grid is presented in Figure 5.38, with the corresponding Mach number and pressure fields shown in Figures 5.36, 5.37 respectively. The
enlarged unadapted Mach number field is given in Figure 5.39, with the pressure field
given in Figure 5.40. The improvement in shock capturing abilities with the adapted grid
becornes even more apparent with the enlarged figures. The adapted shock waves remain
fairIy sharp, with the unadapted shock waves appearing very diffuse. Fkom Figures 5.36
and 5.37, it appears that the n o d shock wave is located approximately 3.20 chords
downstream fkom the traing edge. This compares w d with Mavriplis [82] who obtained
3.06 chords using an inviscid solver on an adapted grid of 16,000nodes and with Richter
and Leyland [52] who found the normal shock location at 3.23 chords from the trading
edge using an adapted grid of 108,000 nodes again using an inviscid solver.
5.5
Case 4 NACA 0012
138
Level Mach no,
Figure 5.30: Mach number field for the adapted grid, case 4
5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.31: Pressure field for the adapted grid, case 4
139
5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.32: Adapted grid, case 4
140
5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012
141
Mach no
1.300
1.267
1.233
1.200
l.167
1.133
1.100
1.067
1.033
1.000
0,967
0.933
0.900
0.867
0.833
Figure 5.33: Mach number fieid for the unadapted grid, case 4
5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.34: Pressure field for the uuadapted grid, case 4
142
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.35: Unadaptecl grid, case 4
143
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.36: Mach number field for the enlarged adapted grid, case 4
144
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.37: Pressure field for the enlarged adapted grid, case 4
145
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.38: Enlarged adapted grid, case 4
146
5.5
Case 4=
NACA 0012
147
Mach
1300
1.255
1.21 1
1.166
1.121
1.O76
1.032
0.987
0.942
0.897
Figure 5.39: Mach number field for the enlarged unadapted grid, case 4
5.5
Case 4: NACA 0012
Figure 5.40: Presnire field for the enlmged unadapted grid, case 4
148
5.6 Case 5: RAE 2822
149
Case 5: RAE 2822
5.6
This test
case is found in the AGARD Advisory Report no. 138, and is classifieci in that
report as case 6. It uses an RAE 2822 airfoil at a Reynolds number of 6.5 million with a
corrected fkee stream Mach number of 0.729 and corrected angle of attack of 2.70 degrees.
This case was selected for andysis since it is a commonly used test case for validation of
numerical algorithm. Experimentally obtained surface pressure profiles over the airfoi1
make this case particdarly useful in assessing the performance of the algorithm.
The format for this test case wiU be altered fiom the other cases in terms of
the node docation per adaptation p a s . In the other test cases multiple passes per
adaptation have been investigated, providing an approximate four-fold increase in the
number of nodes. This test case will study the potential improvement in resolution using
a single adaptation pass with an approximate two-fold increase in the number of nodes.
The adaptation begins with the solution on a grid of 8198 nodes, and is adapted once
with only one pass to yield a grid of 17171 nodes. The Mach number field produced
by the adapted grid is shown in Figure 5.41. One prominent feature of the solution is
a small wesk shock wave located near the midpoint of the upper surface of the airfoil.
Effectively capturing the location and strength of this shock wave will be critical to
determining the proper lift coefficient of this problem. Figure 5.42 shows the adapte
grid for this case. Near the location of the shock wave the adaptation routine has clearly
refined the region about the shock wave. This results in a general improvernent in the
prediction of the shock wave location when compared to the solution on an unadapted grid
of approximately equal node density. Figure 5.43 shows the pressure coefficient along the
&oil surface obtained from the adapted grid cornpared to r d t s from the unadapted grid
and to experimentally obtained values. The location of the shock wave is clearly evident
in the experimental r d t s by the sudden jump in pressure along the upper surface of
the aidoil. The unadapted pressure profile follows the experimental d u e s over the lower
half of the airfoil, but deviates QgniIicantly over the upper surface. The adapted resulta
5.6 Case 5: RAE 2822
150
follows the experimentai results over most of the airfoil, includhg the upper s d a c e . The
only significant deviation occurs nesr the shock wave where the grid does not accurately
capture the location and strength of the suction peak. The general improvement in
surface pressure values is reflected in the predicted lift coefficients. Ekperimentally the
lift coefficient was 0.743, compared to an adapted value of 0.738 and an unadapted value
of 0.650.
Generally, it can be seen that the adaptation routines with only one adaptive
pass are still capable of providing significant gains in solution accuracy. The prediction
of details such as the location of shock waves and airfoil surface pressure benefit greatly
from even lllnited adaptive rehement.
Figure 5.41: Mach number field about an RAE 2822 aidoil on adapted grid, case 5
5.6
Case 5:
RAE 2822
151
Figure 5.42: Adapted grid of RAE 2822 airfoil, 17171 nodes, case 5
Figure 5.43: Compazison of surface pressure coefficient using adaptive gridding, unadapted grids, and experimentd methods, case 5
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
5.7
AR 303 A2
152
Case 6: AGAFLD AR 303 A2
The last case presents the most complex flow field encountered in this research. Instead
of using a single airfoil as in the previous test cases, this case uses a three element airfoi1
in a high-lift configuration. It is taken fkom the AGARD Advisory Report no. 303 and
designatecl as case A2. It consists of a main airfoil element with a slat element ahead of
it, and a flap element in its wake. The free stream Mach number is 0.197 with a Reynolds
number of 3.52 million at an angle of attack of 4.0 degrees. The flow field is characterized
by a number of complex flow features. Boundary layers are generated on the surfaces of
the slat and the main airfoil element which subsequently become separatecl and disturb
the 0ow patterns about elements further down stream. Strong recirculation regions form
behind the slat and under the trading edge of the main airfoil. The wakes emanating fkom
the slat and the main airfoil influence the flow field surrounding the elements downstream.
AU such features present a formidable problem for both the adaptive gridding routine and
also the Navier-Stokes solution algorithm. Accuracy is mwured by comparing the results
obtained fiom an adapted solution to that of an unadapted solution and to experimentaily
determineci values. The surface pressure coefficients over dl three elements are available
along with transverse total p r m e coefficient profiles acrm the flow at three stations
on the airfoils. The total pressure coefficient (Cp,) is defined in terms of the stagnation
where
(5-3)
The three profiles of C p , are taken normal to the airfoil d 8 c e s along the lines specified
in Figure 5.44. The airfoil elements are also d&ed
in relation to each other in this figure.
The test case begins with an unadapted grid containing 21,125 nodes typified by
an even node distribution about the airfoil, as seen in Figures 5.45, 5.46, and 5.47. The
adaptation is conducted with a Mach number/density formulation using 55%/45% node
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
153
ailocation to yield a grid of 84,385 nodes. The Mach number field over the entire airfoi1
generated with the adapted grid is presented in Figure 5.48. The difiiculty associated with
this test case is expresseci by the complexity of the Mach number field about the airfoil.
The confluent wake and boundary layer at the trailing edge of the main airfoi1 create au
elaborate wake systern that the adaptive gridding routine must detect and r e h e if an
accurate solution is to be obtained.
The N1adapted grid presented in Figure 5.49 shows that the adaptive routines
are able to detect such features on a large scale. The wake region generated by the
three elements has been clearly refhed along with the upper surface of the main element.
Further detas of the adaptation are made clear only with enlargement of the leading
and t r a i h g edge regions. Figures 5.50 and 5.51 show an enhanced view of the adapted
grid and Mach number field about the slat element. The mail wake trailing from the top
surface of the slat over the leading edge of the main element has been heavily refined. The
separated boundary layer at the cusp point on the lower edge of the slat has been refined
as it moves between the main element and the slat. The recrculation region behind the
slat and the stagnation region on its leading edge have also been addressed. The adaptive
algorithm shows the same ability at capturing significant flow features in the flap region
as it does near the slat, as seen in Figures 5.52 and 5.51. The gap between the trailing
edge of the main aufoil element and the leading edge of the flap is the site of interactions
between several conjoining features of the flow field. The separated boundary layer fiom
the cusp point on the lower half of the main moi1 joins the wake of trailing edge of the
main elernent and the leading edge boundary layer of the flap. These features and their
confluence have all been detected and r e h e d by the adaptive routines. Although the
adaptive gridding routines have been effective at detecting and refining aU of the criticsl
features of this problem, the ultimate indication of success is through cornparison to the
actud fiow solution.
The next series of results compares the numerically determinecl SUTface pressure
5.7
Case 6:
AGARD AR 303 A2
154
coefficient with values provided through experiment. In Figures 5.54, 5.55, and 5.56,
the d a c e pressure coefficient produced through the adapted grid is compared to values
produced by experiment and to r d t s obtained from an unadapted grid with appraximately the same number of nodes as the adapted grid. The surface pressure profiles
on the main airfoi1 produced through these methods give very similar results, as shown
in Figure 5.54. However, on the upper surfsce there is a visible ciifFerence between the
unadapted results and the others. Generally, the unadapted surface pressure is slightly
greater on this surface than both the experimental and adapted d u e s . The level of
error in the experimental values is expected to be small in relation to the pressure differences between the experiment and the unadapted values. Therefore, the improvement
in surface pressure prediction indicated on the main airfoil element through the adaptive
algorithm is expected to be reastic. Overail, the adapted results compare very welI with
the experimentd d u e s ail almg the main airfoil surface. This trend continues with the
surface pressures dong the SUllf'es of the 0ap shown in Figure 5.55. Both adapted and
unadapted resdts compare well with the experimental values, although in this instance
there is no clear improvement in d x e pressure prediction between the adapted and
unadapted grids. On the upper surface the pressure predicted by the adapted grid is
slightly less that the experimental d u e s , while for the unadapted grid it is slightly more.
The largest Merence in sudace pressures occurs on the slat, as seen in Figure 5.56. The
adapted grid produces values that foIIow the experimental values reasonable weU, while
the unadapted grid shows less agreement. The adapted results also produce a more irregular pressure profile than on the other airfoi1 bodies. On close inspection of the grid,
the small pressure fluctuations correspond to portions of the grid with highly stretched
triangles that form irregulsr control volumes. Fortunately, these fluctuations are smaU
and WUdiminish with further refhement based on the fact that the truncation error on
even the most irregular grids will decrease with grid spacing, according to Appendix B.
The next series of r d t s presents the three total pressure coefficient profiles
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
155
obtained fiom the adapted and unadapted grids in cornparison to experimentai dues.
The profiles are taken dong paths emanating at right angles from the surfaces of the
airfoils. The profiles nit across the flow field through the boundary layers into regions
of inviscid flow. At the trailing edge of the main aidoil, the profile moves from the
leading edge of the flap past the traing edge of the main airfoil into the interior of the
domain. The profile taken at the 35% chord point on the main airfoil is presented in
Figure 5.57. The adapted values compare reasonably weU to the experimentd results.
The portion through the boundary layer at the bottom of the profile is captured very
accurately. The abrupt change in dope of the profile occurs at the same point above
the airfoil d a c e in the adapted results as it does in the experimental results. The
unadapted results fair more poorly through the lower half of the profile. The abrupt
change in slope of the profile is not captured at all, reflecting a lack of resolution. The
t o t d pressure profile at the trailing edge of the main airfoil, shown in Figure 5.58, gives
a similar result. The adapted profile captures the experimentai results very accurately.
The region above the flap is resolved very well, capturing the shape of the profile with
precision. The value of the total pressure at the traing edge of the main airfoil predicted
by the adapted result compares very closely to the experimental value. Between the flap
and the main airfoil the unadapted grid a h produces a reasonable estimate of the total
pressure profile. However, above the main airfoi1 the unadapted profile maintains the
shape of the experimentd result but with somewhat lower values. The total pressure
coefficient profile above the midpoint of the flap is given in Figure 5.59. The adapted grid
produces a profde that captures the variation of the experimental values. The adapted
solution sghtly overestimates the value of the fkst peak of total pressure above the 0ap
but correctly predicts its location. It somewhat underestimates the d u e at the lowest
point in the trough in total pressure above the first peak and slightly overestimates its
location. The unadapted solution underestimates the value of both the first peak and the
subsequent trough. The lower portion of the unadapted solution compares favorably with
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
156
the adapted result but degracies in the upper portion. Generally, the adapted solution
produces a closer approximation to the experimental results in both profile shape and
magnitude.
In summary, the adapted solution was more successful at reproducing the experimental results. The d h c e pressures were very well predicted at all points along the
airfoils. The total pressure coacient profiles compared well with the experimental values
and only began to show some error at the mid-chord point above the Bap. For generd application to andysis of aerodynarnic problems, it is clear that the use of adaptive gridding
can serve to enhance the resolution capabilities of the present solver for a given number
slat etement
main airfoit element
Figure 5.44: The location and direction of the total pressure profiles in relation to the
three element airfoi1
5.7 Case 6:
AGARD AR 303 A2
0.7
0.8
0.9
157
WC
1.1
13
13
1.4
Figure 5.45: Initial grid about the flap, three element case 6
Figure 5.46: Initial grid about the slat, three element case 6
5.7 Case 6: AGARD AR 303 A.2
Figure 5.47: Initial grid of the three element airfoi1 of case 6,21,125 nodes
158
5.7 Case 6: AGARD AR 303 A2
159
Figure 5.48: Mach number field over the N1 aidoil of case 6, obtained on the adapted
pnd
5.7
Case 6:
AGARD AR 303 A2
Figure 5.49: Full adapted grid of the three element airfoil of case 6, 84,385 nodes
160
5.7 Case 6:
AGARD AR303 A2
161
Figure 5.50: Adapted grid about the slat of the three element sirfoi1 of case 6
Figure 5.51: Mach number field about the slat obtained on the adapted grid of the three
elernent airfoil of case 6
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
162
Figure 5.52: Adapted grid about the flap of the three element d o i l of case 6
Figure 5.53: Mach number field about the 0ap obtained on the adapted grid of the three
5.7 Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
163
WC
Figure 5.54: Comparison of pressure coefficients over the d a c e of the main airfoil obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
Figure 5.55: Comparison of pressure coefficients over the surface of the flap obtained with
the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
5.7
Case 6: AGARD
AR 303 A2
164
Figure 5.56: Cornparison of pressure coefficients over the surface of the slat obtained with
the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
Figure 5.57: Cornparison of total pressure coefficient profiles 8t 35% chord on the main
airfoil obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
5.7
Case 6:
A G A R D AR 303 A2
165
Figure 5.58: Comparison of total pressure coacient profles at the trailing edge of the
main aufoil obtained with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through experiment
Figure 5.59: Comparison of total pressure coefficient profiles at 50% chord on the 0ap
obtained with the adapted grid, unadapteci grid, and through experiment
Chapter 6
Conclusions, Contributions, and

Recommendations
6.1
Conclusions
The previous chapters have presented the details of a solution-adaptive unstructureci solver
appropriate for aerodynamic problems. The results have demonstrated that the solver and
adaptive gridding methodology are effective at producing well resolved solutions over a
range of Reynolds numbers and aerodynamic configurations. GeneraJly, the six test cases
have shown that the research objectives sted in the introduction of the thesis have been
accomplished.
The fht objective of this study was to create an algorithm using unstructureci
gnds to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for both laminar and turbulent flows appro-
priate for application to aerodynamic problems. Esch of the six test cases presented the
results of an analysis performed on a specinc problem. The second test case demonstrated
that the improved higher order artificid dissipation method allows greater insensitivity to
irregulax grid geometries than more traditional methods, and produces accurate, srnooth
solutions. However, the most convincing evidence of the success of this algorithm is r e
vealed in cases 5 and 6 in which cornparisons are made directly to experimental evidence.
In these cases the surface pressures obtained through the algorithm are shown to be extrernely clme to d u e s determined through experiment. The total pressure coefficient
6.1
Conclusions
167
profles shown in case 6 a h compare w d with the experimental values. Rom these
cornparisons it can be concluded that the algonthm developed c m succesduly produce
solutions to aerodynamic problems that are consistent with reality.
The second objective of this research was to develop a solution-adaptive gridding
routine applicable over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. In chapter 4 the adaptive grid-
ding methodology was developed using an adaptation parameter based on a normaked

Merence dong grid edges of the flow field variables. It was shown that solution-dependent
retriangulation is necessary to presewe the stretched nature of the grid in viscous regions
following adaptation. The first test case indicated that the adaptive gridding configuration that produces the greatest error reduction consists of an adaptation parameter of
Mach number and density Merences piacing 55% of the adapted nodes in the first pass
and rest in the second pas.
The final objective of this study was to demonstrate that the solution-adaptive
gridding routine produces an increase in solution accuracy over unadapted grids with an
equivaient nurnber of nodes, in addition to demonstrating its effectiveness in applications
to realistic problems. In the nrst case it was shown that with two applications of adaptation it was possible to reduce the error in the calculation of lift, pressure drag, and friction
drag coefficients by at least 50% over an unadapted grid with the same number of nodes.
In case 3 the turbulent flow produced a similsr result. In this case a single adaptation was
able to achieve approximately a 40% reduction in pressure drag coefficient error and an
even greater reduction in lift error. This case also demonstrated that the adapted &il
surf'e pressure compared very favorably to that produced by a stnictured grid solver.
Case 4 showed that the adaptive methodology was able to detect and substantially refine
the shock waves that developed in this problem. The shockwaves were sharply de-
and
correctly located unlike the unadapted grid which gave poorer shock wave resolution. In
cases 5 and 6 the predicted surface pressures of the adapted grids were shown to be doser
to the experimental d u e s than the unadapted grids with the same number of nodes. In
6.2
Contributions
168
case 6 the total pressure coefficient profiles produced through adaptation were shown to
have superior resolution over profiles obtained on unadapted grids. In the last two cases
the performance of the adapted grdding methods vindicate the algorithm as an eff'tive
analytical tool for realistic aerodynamic problerns. Generally, from the error reductions
in the Lift and drag and with the surface pressures and total pressure profiles, it can be
concluded that the adaptive methodology is s u c c d at defining regions of the grid that
Iack resolution and capable of providing a reduction in global error.
Contributions
The conclusions have shown that the work presented in thi thesis has achieved the objectives specified in the introduction. A number of these accomplishments represent significant contributions to the body of knowledge associated with solution-adaptive gridding
on unstructureci grids in viscous flows. A brief summary of these contributions is now
provided.
The primary contributions of this work occur in regards to the solution-adaptive
gridding strategy. A number of developments are required in the solver and in the adaptive
gridding routines in order to attain the thesis objectives. The adaptive gridding process
introduces an increased level of irregulanty into the grid as new nodes are added. The
high-aspect-ratio scaling factor used with the higher order artificial dissipation method
was created to d u c e the sensitivity of the dissipation to irregular and highly stretched
triangles. This perrnitted the algorithm to maintsin smooth solutions in the presence of
increased grid irregulanty due to adaptation. Further developments are required in postprocessing the grid afker adaptation. The retriangulation procedure is shown to generate
inappropriate @ds
in the viscous regions about the aixfoil profiles following adaptation.
Stretching the grid in the direction of the Mach number gradient prior to retriangulation
d o w s the recovery of the high-aspect-ratio nature of the grd in the viscous regions.
The most signinmt contributions of this work are seen in the applications of
6.3 Recommendations
169
the adaptive gridding routine. An investigation of its performance on both low and high
Reynolds number flowsusing numerous possible adaptation parameters was conducted.
Although similar studies on inviscid flows using undivided ciifferences indicated that an
adaptation parameter based on density provideci the greatest e m r reduction, it was not
clear if this also applied to viscous flow problems. This study demonstrated that an adap
tation parameter formed fiom undivided ciifferences of Mach number and density achieves
optimal performance in viscous flows. Within the constraint of a four-fold increase in the
number of nodes with each adaptation, it was demonstrated that adaptation conducted
in two passes with 55% of the nodes introduced in the h t pass and 45% in the second
achieved the greatest error reduction. It is these two developments that form the most
signicant contributions of this work.
6.3
Recommendations
The numerical algorithm presented in this thesis was developed to obtain well resolved s e
lutions over a range of aerodynamic flight problems. The test cases demonstrated that the
adaptive methods used, in particular the edge difference adaptation parameter combined
with the solution dependent retriangulation, achieved these goals. Although the creation
of an adaptive gridding algorithm for the solution of high-Reynolds-number aerodynamic

problems using unstmctured grids is a significant accomplishment, it r e m a h as o d y one
step in the development of a u n i v e d y functional design tool. Ultimately, the lessons
leatned here wilI be used to guide the creation of a three-dimensional adaptive unstmctured algorithm for use in the aerospace industry. This section of the thesis is intended
to serve as a suggestion for further development in the pursuit of such an algorithm.
The ~ r u c t u r e dgrids which form the foundation of this research work are d e
fineci using a memory intensive format. Each grid is specified by several data arrays; the
x and y cartesian coorinates of each node, a list of neighbour nodes surrounding a given
node, a list of the triangles that form a control d u m e ntered about a node, a list of
nodes that form each triangle, and a pointer array to direct the partitioning of neighbour
node and triangle control volume lists. Through experience it was found that for grids
under 50,000 nodes in size this format presents no diffidty in terms of cornputer rnemory
for either storage of the grid or for use in the algorithm. However, above 50,000 nodes
this format became increasingly cumbersome. One format that is often used for defining
an unstructureci grid is the edge based configuration. In this format the grid is defined
by the edges that connect the nodes. Therefore, to d e h e a grid the only information
r e q M is a list of the two nodes that defme each edge and the x and y coordinates of
each node. This format simplifies the storage requirements and provides an opportunity
for more efficient flux calculations. It is recommended that any future development on
two-dimensional unstmctured grids take advantage of this format.
On several adapted solutions on high-Reynolds-number flows it was observed that
small pressure fluctuations were present on portions of the airfoil surfaces. The regions
where these oscillations occur correspond to portions of the gxid that contain irregular
control volumes. Although these fluctuations were too small to alter the generd solution, they are nevertheless physically unrealistic. The condition diminishes considerably
depending on the local level of grid refinement or on the magnitude of the artiiicial dissipation operator. The solution to this diffidty is either a repeated use of the adaptive
gridding routine to the point where the local refinement is such that the problem is alleviated, or through improvements in the spatial resolution of the soiver. Additional
rehements entail added computational expense, hindering the algorithm in achieving an
eEcient solution process. Therefore, to preserve the gains brought about in computational
efficiency through the adaptive gridding process, the difiEiculties in the solution algorithm
must be addressed. The behaviour of the pressure fluctuations with respect to artificial
dissipation indicates that although the higher order artificid dissipation method makes
some progress towards grid insensitivity, there remains room for improvement. A more
sophisticated Laplacian operator approximation through a least-squares approach may be
effective in improving the performance of the dissipation scheme. Using such an operator over the entire grid will be computationally expensive. mus, using the least-squares
approximation only in the viscous regions where they are needed may be more efficient.
One other means of addressing this difEculty may also be through an Mprovement in
the flux approximations through the control volume surfaces. At present, the integration
about each control volume boundary assumes a linear flux profile on each bounding edge.
Using a higher order method to reconstruct the flux profile may address the loss of accuraey in the presence of irrepuiar grids as shown in Appendix B, and may alleviate the
surface pressure fluctuations to some extent. A review of several reconstruction methods

including quadratic algorithms has been documented by Barth [35].
The solution-adapt ive gridding methodology presented in this thesis has been
shown to be effective at reducing the global error over a range of aerodynarnic problems.
However, in certain areas such as the prediction of d a c e skin friction in high-Reynoldsnumber flows, the algorithm remains ineffective, as demonstrated in case 3. A number of
developments caa be introduced to the adaptive algorithm in order to address such conc e m and possibly gain further error reduction. The normalized undivided edge Merences
that form the adaptation parameter give only an indirect estirnate of the magnitude of
the local error. A more aggressive approach through a direct truncation enor estimate
will enhance the ability of an adaptive algorithm in identifying regions that la& resolution. An adaptive gridding scheme that uses such an e m r estimate will require a number
of fatures beyond those of the present algorithm. In Chapter 4 it was indicated that
such an approach, within the context of a purely node-additive adaptation, &ers
kom
exaggerated error estimates due to fluctuations in the solution. This causes excessive grid
rehement in regions where the solution variability does not warrant such heavy adaptation. To overcome this difficul~a grid coarsening algorithm must be adopted, which
detects over-refined regions of the grid and removes S U ~ ~ U O I Inodes.
S
A strategy such
as this will require an alternative approach to adaptive gridding than the method used in
6.3 Recommendations
172
this thesis. At present, the adaptive gridding routine generates a four-fold increase in the
number of grid nodes with each adaptation. This process must be abandoned in favour of
repeated applications of the refhement/coarsE?ning method, where the number of nodes
added or removed in one application is governeci by the error estimate only and not by
limits imposed by the multigrid routine. AR error cut-off point must then be imposed
on the t m c a t i o n error estimate, below which a grid edge will not trigger the adaptation
routine. The cut-off point will need to be s p d e d by the algorithm user or through limits
determineci heuristically.
Another adaptive methodology that can be directly applied to the algorithm in
this work is the r-adaptive or node movement adaptation approach. This method differs
kom the refinement techniques in that no additional nodes are added. Node movement
methods h p l y re-orient the d i n g nodes such that some enor measure is minimized.
The error detection methods that apply to node addition adaptation can also be used for
the node movement approach. One common technique for implementing node movement
is with the spring equibrium anaiogy approach where the 'spring constants' of the edges
c o ~ e c t e dto a node are proportional to the local error measure. siionilar to the node
addition methods, the node movement technique can be applied repeatedly with the
unstmctured solver used between each application. This method can be applied dVectly to
the present solver or can be used in conjunction with the rehement/coarsening technique
described previously. Recently, Habashi et al. [53] have had success with this method on
subsonic and supersonic laminar airfoi1 problems.
References
[l]Huebner, K.H., Thornton, E.A., Byrom, T.G., The FiBite Element Method for
En-
ginews 9rnl ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1995, pp. 812.
[Z] Greenstadt, J., "On the Reduction of Continuous Problems to Discrete Formn,IBM
Jour. R a . Dev. Vol. 3, 1959, pp. 355363.
[3] Lewis, P.E., Ward, J.P., T h e Finite Element Method, Penciples and Applications,
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., New York, 1991, pp. 1-3.
J.L., Smith, A.M.O.,"Calculation of Non-Lifting Potential Flow about h b i trary Three-Dimensiond Bodies" , Douglas Aircraft Report, ES 40622, 1962.
[4] Hess,
[5] Rubbert, P.E., Saaris, G.R, "A General Three-Dimensional Potential Flow Method
Applied to V/STOL Aerodyn81L1icsn,SAE paper 680304, 1968.

[6] Murman, E.M.,Cole, J.D., "Calcuiation of Plane Steady Transonic Flows", AIAA
Jour. Vol. 9, 1971, pp. 114121.
[7] BaIlhaus, W.F.,Bailey, F-R., "Numerid Calculation of Tkansonic Flow about Swept
Wings", AIAA paper, 72-67'?, 1972.
[8] Anderson, J., Etrndamentuls of Aemdgnamics, McGraw-H1Inc., New York, 1991,

pp. 218-228.
REFERENCES
174
[9] Jameson, A., Schmidt, D., and 'Irkel, E., "Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equa-
tions by Finite Volume Method Using Runge-Kutta The-Stepping Schemes", AIAA

14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, AIAA-81-1259, June 23 -25, 1981.
[IO] Jameson, A., and Mavriplis D., "Finite Volume Solution of the Two-Dimensional
Euler EQuations on a Regular Tkiangu1a.r Mesh", AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, AIAA-85-0435,January 1417, 1985.
[Il] Jameson, A., "Solution of The Euler Equations by a Multigrid Method" , Applzed
Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 327-356.
[12] Mavriplis, D., and Jameson, A.? "Multigrid Solution of the Euler Equations on Unstmctured and Adaptive Meshes" , NASA Langley Research Center, Contractor Report 178346, July 1987.
[13] Mavriplis, D., Jameson, A., "Multigrid Solution of the Two-Dimensional Euler Equations on Unstructureci ?tiangular Meshes", AIAA paper, 87-0353, Jsnuary, 1987.
[14] Anderson, W .K.,Bonhaus, D.L., "Navier-Stokes Computations and Experimental
Cornparisons for Multielement Airfoil Configurations", AIAA paper, 93-0645, Janu a q , 1993.
[15] Barth, T.J., "NumericalAspects of Computing Viscous High Reynolds Number Flows
on Unstructured Meshesn, AIAA paper, 91-0721,1991.
[16] Swanson, RC., Turkel, E., "Aspects of a High Resolution Scheme for the NavierStokes Equations" , AIAA paper, 93-3372-CP,1993.
[17]Thareja, RR., Prabhu, R.K., Morgan, K., PersVe, J., Peiro, J., Soltani, S., "Ap
plications of an Adaptive Unstructured Solution Algorithm to the Analysis of High
Speed Flows", AIAA paper, 90-0395, 1990.
REFERENCES
175
[18]Luo, H., Baum, J.D., Lohner, R, "An Improved Finite Volume Scheme for Cornpressible Flows on Unstmctured Gridsn,AIAA puper, 9.54348, January, 1995.
(191 Lohner, R., Morgan, K., Peraire, J., V ' d a t i M., "Finite Element Flux-Corrected
Tkansport ( F m )for the Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations", Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 7, 1987, pp. 1093.1109.

[20] Desideri, J.A., Dervieux, A., "Compressible Flow Solvers Using Unstmctured Grids",
VKI Lec. Set., 198805, pp. 1-115.

[21]Peraire, J., Vahdati M., Peiro, J., "The Construction au Behaviour of some Unstmctured Grid Algorithms for Compressible Flows", unstructud Gnd Algo~thmsfor
Compressible Flows, John Wiley & son, New York, 1993, pp. 221-239.
[22] Harten, A., "On a Class of High Resolution Total-Variation-Stable Finite DSerence
Schernes", SIAM Jour. Numer. Anal., Vol. 21, 1984, pp. 1-23.
[23] Van Leer, B., Towards the Ultimate Consemative Difference Scheme V. A second
Order Sequel to Godunov's Method", Jour, Comp. Phys. , Vol. 32, 1979, pp. 101-136.
[24] Venkatakrishnan, V., "A Perspective on Unstructured Grid Flow Solvers", AIAA
33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA 95-0667, Reno, Nevada, January
9-12, 1995.
[25] Mavriplis, D., uUnstructured Grid Techniques", Annu. Rev. Fluzd Medi., Vol. 29,
1997, pp. 473-514.
[26] Mavripiis, D., Jarneson, A., and Martinelli, L., "Multigrid Solution of the Navier-
Stokes Equations on Tnangular Meshesn, NASA Langley Research Center, Contrac-
ter Report 181786, Febmary 1989.
[27] Lindquist, D.R, "A Cornparison of Numerical Schemes on Trianguiar and Quadrilateral Meshes" , Computation Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, CFDLTR-88-6,
May 1988.
[28]Baldwin, B.S., Lomax, H.J., T h i n Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for
Separated nirbdent Flows",AIAA paper, 78-257, 1978.
[29]MaMiplis, D., '%bulent
Flow Calculation Using Unstmctured and Adaptive
Meshes", NASA Langley Research Center, Contractor &port 182102, September

1990.
[30] MavripIis D., "Trblent Flow Calculations Using Unstmctured and Adaptive
Meshes",NASA Contractor Report 182102, ICASE Report No. 9-61,September,

1990.
[31]Mavripiis D., "Algebraic Turbulent Modelhg for U n S t ~ c t ~ eand

d Adaptive
Meshes", NASA Contractor Report 182035, ICASE Report No. 90-30, May, 1990.
[32]Baldwin, B.S., Barth,T. J., "A One-Equation Turbulence Tkas1sport Model for High
Reynolds Wall-Bounded Flows" , AIAA paper, 91-0610, January, 1991.
1331 Spdart, P.R.,and Allmaras, S.R., "A One-Equation Thbuleme Model For Aerodynarnic Flows", Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington, 1992.
[34] Godin, P., Zingg, D.W., and Nelson,
T.E., "High-Lift Aerodynamic Computations
with One- and Two-Equation Turbulence Models", AIAA J., Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.237243.
[35] Barth, T.J.,"Aspects of Unstructureci Grids and Finite-Volume Solvers for the Euler
and Navier-Stokes Equationsn, Von Karmen Inst. for Fluid Dynamics, Lecture Series
1994-05.
REFERENCES
177
[36] P e n h , J., Morgan, K., Peiro, J., "Unstructureci Mesh Methods for CFD" , Imperid
Coilege of Science Technology and Medicine, London, U.K.,I.C.Aero Report 90-04,
June, 1990.
[37]10, S.H.,"A New Mesh Generation Scheme for Arbitrary Planar Domains", Int. Jour.
Numer. Methods Eng., Vol. 21, 1985, pp. 1403-1426.
[38] Bowyer, A, "Cornputhg Dirichlet Tessalationsn, Comput. Jour., Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.
162-166,1981.
[39]Chew, L.P., "Guaranteed-Quality Mesh Generation for Curved Surfaces'', ACM
Press, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, San
Diego, CA, 1993.
[40] Hawken, D.F.,"Review of some Adaptive Node Movement Techniques in Finite
Element and Finite DifEerence Solutions of Partial DifTerential Equations" , Jour.
C O ~ P h. v ~ .VOL
,
95, 1991,pp. 254-302.
[41] Powell, KG.,Roe, P.L., Quirk, J.J., "Adaptive Mesh Algorithms for Computational
Fluid Dynarnicsn, Algorithmic %nds in Computational Fluid Dyramics, Springer
Verlag Co., New York, 1992, pp.301-337.

[42] Dannenhoffer,
J.F., Baron, J.R, "Grid Adaptation for the 2-D Euler Equations" ,
AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-85-0484, Reno, Nevada, January 14

17, 1985.
[43] Warren, G.P.,Anderson, W.K., Thomas, J.L.,and Krist, S.L., "Grid Convergence for
Adaptive Methods", IGFD Conference on Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics,
A p d 7-10, 1992.
[44] Rausch,
RD.,Batina, T.J.,Yang, H.T.Y., "Spatial Adaption Procedures on Un-
structured Meshes for Accurate Unsteady Aerodynamic Flow Computationn,AIAA
poper, 91-1106,1991.
REFERENCES
178
-
[45] Zakeri, G., "Resolution h c t i o n and Adaptive Refhement Method for a System
of Conservations Laws", Fifth Coppet Mountan t h f m n c e on Mukagrid Metho&,
March, 1991.
[46] Holmes, D.G., and Connell,
S.D.,"Solution of the 2D Navier-Stokes Eguations on
Unstmctured Adaptive Grids", AIAA 9th CFD Conference, Buffalo, New York, June
13-15, 1989.
[47] Comeli, S.D., Holmes,
D.G.,"A 3D Unstructurecl Adaptive Multigrid Scheme for
the Euler Equations", AIAA Jour., Vol. 32, 1994, pp. 16281632.
[48] Mavriplis, D., "Accurate Mdtigrid Solution of the Euler Equations on Unstructured
and Adaptive Meshes" , AIAA Jour., Vol. 28, No. 2, 1990, pp. 213-221.
[49] Mavriplis, D., Jamgon, A., YMultigridSolution of the Euler Equations on Unstruc-
tured and Adaptive Meshes", NASA Contractor Report 178346, ICASE Report No.
87-53, J*dy, 1987.
(501 Mavriplis, D., "Unstmctured and Adaptive Mesh Generation for High Reynolds
Number Viscous Floias", NASA Langley Research Center, Contractor Report 187534,
February, 1991.
(511 Trepanier, J.Y., Camarero, R., "Moving and Adaptive Grid Methods for Compressible Flows", ICASE/LaRC Workshop on Adoptive Grid Methods NASA Conference
Publication 3316, pp. 111-126 Hampton, Virginia, October, 1995.
[52] Richter,
R., Leyland, P., "Auto- Adaptive Finite Element Meshes" , ICASE'LcrRC
Workshop on Adoptive Grid Methoh NASA Conference Publication 3316, pp. 219232, Hampton, Viginia, October, 1995.
[53] Habashi, W.G., Fortin, M., UAnisotropicMesh Optimization: Towards a SolverIndependent and Mesh-Independent
CFD",Von Karman Inst. for Fluid dynamics,
Lecture series 1996-06, August, 1996.
REFERENCES
179
[54] Anderson, D. A., TannehiIl, J.C., and Plet cher,
R-Ha,
Computotion Fluid Mechanics
and Heat Zhzwfer, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1984, pp.197-235.
[55] Nelson, T.E., Godin, P.,and Zingg, D.W., uMulti-Element Airfoil Computations
with On+Equation Wbulence Models",
AIAA 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, AIAA 95-0357, Reno, Nevada, Januaxy 9-12, 1995.
[56]Schlichting, H.,Boundary Loyer Theory, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
1979,pp. 70-72.
(571 Kundu, P.K.,Flutd Mechnzcs, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 1990,pp. 75-76.
[58]Hirsch, C., Numerid Computatton of Interna1 and Externui Flows, Vol. 1, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1988,pp. 237-264.
[59]Barth, T.J.,"Aspects of Unstnictured Grids and Finite-Volume Solvers for the Euler
and Navier-Stokes Equations", -4dvisory Group for Aerospace Research & Develop
ment AGARD-R-787, von Karman Institute, Rhode-St-Genese, Belgium, March 2-6,
1992.
[60]Johnston, L.J., and Stoleis, L., "Prediction of the High-Lift Performance of MultiElement Aerofoils Using an Unstmctured Navier-Stokes Solver", 71st Fluid Dynamics
Panel Meeting, AGARD-CP-515, B a d , Alberta, October 5-8, 1992.
[61]Barth, T.J.,"On Unstructured Grids and Solvers", NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, CA.
[62]Wilkinson, A.R, "Numerical Solution of the Euler Equations for Th.sonic Airfoii
Flows Using Unstructured Gridsn, Univ. of Toronto, M.A.Sc. thesis, January, 1992.
[63] Swan, RC., and Radespiel, R*,"CeIl Centered and Cell Vertex Multigrid Schemes
for the Navier-Stokes Equationsn, AIAA J., Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 697-703.
REFERENCES
[64] Maniplis,
180
D.,"Solution of the Sw+Dimensionai Euler Equations on Unstmctured
Trimgular Meshed', Princeton Universi@, Ph.D. thesis, 1987.
[65]Pulliam, T.H., "Efficient Solution Methods for Navier-Stokes Equations, Lecture

Notes for the von Karman Institute For Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series: Numerical Techniques for Viicous Flow Computation In Turbomachinery Bladings", von
Kannaa Institute, Rhode-St-Genese, Belgium, 1985.
[66]Thomas, J .La,
and Salas, M.D.,"Far-Field Boundary Conditions for Transonic Lifting
Solutions to the Euler Equations", AIAA J., Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 10741080.
[67] Salas, M., Jarneson, A., Melnik, R., "A Comparitive Study of the Nonuniqueness
Problem of the Potential Equations" , AIAA paper 83-1888.
[68] Predovic, D.T.,"Multigrid Solution of the Euler Equations Using Unstructured
Adaptive Meshes", Univ. of Toronto, M. A.Sc. thesis, April 1994.
[69] Abbott, I.H., and Von Doenhoff, A.E., Thwry of Wing Sections, Dover Publications,
Inc., New York, 1959.
[7O]Weatherill, N.P., "A Method for Generating Irreguiar Computationd Grids in M d tiply Connected Planar Domains", International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, Vol. 8, p.181-197, 1988.
[71]Mamiplis, D.J.,"Mdtigrid Solution of the Two-Dimensional Euler Equations on

Unstructured Triangular Meshes", AIAA J., Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.824-831, July 1988.
(721 Swanson, R.C., and Turkel, E., "Aspects of a Hi&-Resolution Scheme for the Navier-
Stokes Equations", AIAA 11th CFD Conference, AIAA paper 93-3372-CP, Orlando,
Florida, July 6-9, 1993.
[73]Turkel, E., and Vatsa, V.N., "Effkct of Artificial Viscosity on Three Dimeasional
Flow Solutions", AIAA J., Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.3945, Janusry 1994.
REFERENCES
181
[74] Allmaras, S.R., "Contamination of Laminar Boundary Layers of Artificial Dissipation
in Navier-Stokes Solutions", Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics,
Reading, UK,April 7-10,1992.
[75]Martinelli, L., "Calcdations of Viscous Flows with a Mdtigrid Method", Ph.D.

thesis, Department of Mechanicd and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University,
October 1987.
[76]Radespiel, R., and Swanson, R., "An Investigation of Cell Centered and Cell Vertex
Mdtigrid Schemes for the Navier-Stokes Equations", ALAA 27th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, AIAA 89-0548, Reno, Nevada, January 9-12, 1989.
[77]Lomax, H., Pulliam, T.P.,Zingg, D.W.,findamentals of Computational Fluzd Dynamics, Course notes, Computational Fluid Dynamics, University of TorontO Insti-
tute for Aerospace Studies, September, 1996.
[78]Thompson, J.R., "Review on the State of the Art of Adaptive Grids" , AIAA-841606,
June 1984.
[79]Spath, H.,SpliBe Algorithrnsfor Curves and SurfBees, UTILITAS Mathematica Publishing Inc., Winnipeg, 1974.
[80] Bristeau, M.O.,Glowinski,R., Periaux, J., Viviand, H . Numericul Simulation of Compressible NaGer-Stokes Flows: A GAMM Wotkshop, F'riedr. Vieweg & Sohn Publishing, Braunschweig, Germany, 1985.
[81]Hall,D.J., Zingg, D.W., Viscous Airfoil Computations Using Adaptive Gnd Redistribution", AIAA Journal Vol. 33 No. 7 pp. 1205-1210.
[82] Maniplis, D. J., "Multigrid Solution Strategies for Adaptive Meshing Problems" ,
ICASE/IWRC Workshop on Adaptive Grid Methods NASA Conference Publication

3316, Hampton, Virginia, October, 1995.
[83] Viviand, H., "Test Cases for Inviscid Flow Field Methods" ,AGARD Advisory Report
NO.211, May, 1985, pp. (6-29)-(6-35).
[84] Cook,
P.H.,Mcdondd, M.A., Firmin, M.C.P., '"Fest Cases for Inviscid Flow Field
Methods", AGARD Advisory Report No. 138, May, 1985,pp. (A&l)-(A6-77).
[85] Burt, M., "A Selection of Experimental Test Cases for the Validation of CFD Codesn,
AGARD Advisory Report No. 303, Vol. 1,2, A U ~ U S1994,
~ , pp. 5859.
[86] Fejtek, I.G., Pmceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the
CFD
Society of
Canada, CFD Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, June 2-6 1996, pp. 733-735.
Appendix A
Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Mode1
The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence mode1 was presented in consemative form in Chapter
2. Originally, the turbulence equation was presented by Spalart and A b a r a s [33] in a

non-conservative format, shown below
The continuity equation is used for the conversion.
Scaling the turbulence equation by p, continuity by fi, and summing these expressions
yields
APPENDIX A. SPALAFU'-AUMARAS TURBULENCE MODEL
184
Combining terms and rewriting the diausion term yidds
The turbulence variable is rendered non-dimensionalusing the freestrearn kinernatic laminar viscosity
E;' = -.
V
(A-6)
Using this and the non-dimensional variables given in equations (2.18-2.19)the final nondimensionalized consenative turbulence equation becomes
Appendix B
Truncation Error of Discretization
An estimate of the truncation error due to the spatial discretization of the flux terms of
the generd conservation equation begins with the differential form
The total flux terms Ftand Gt are d e h e d in equation (2.48). The equations are dis
cretized over an arbitrary control volume Cl centered about a central node k. The node
centered control volume figure is repeated here, with neighbour nodes denoted as i and
boundary edges denoted as j.

Discretization begins with the integrd form of the conservation equation over the
arbitrary control volume
In discrete form this equation is
The overline indicates a controi volume sveraged term. The lux terms dong an edge are
determinecl through a linear interpolation
APPENDLX B. TRUNCATION ERROR OF DISCRETIZATION
186
Figure B. 1: Arbitrary control volume
where i and i
+ 1 are the nodes that define edge j. The edge length components Axj and
Agj are dehed asaZj = X ~ + I - x i
4 y j = yi+l
- yi.
(B-5)
The discrete equation can now be written in the form,
Error is introduced into the discrete equation through the linear approximation
of the fluxes through the control volume boundaries. The tmcation error terms can be
determined through substitution of a Taylor series for each flux component,
APPENDIX B. TRUNCATION ERROR OF DISCRETIZATION
187
Tho parameter p is specified in the range of p = 3 to p = m. The lengths Axi and Ayi
are defmed as
Once the Taylor series are introduced into the discrete flux term, the subsequent expression
can be simpMed by recognizing that the area of the control volume can be computed from
and that
The flux term is determinecl to be
c" 1 (F~,(Y.+I-
i=1
~i-1)
where the tmcation error T.E.is
T.E.= -4
m ~+ A&%
aGt + T.E.
- ~~(zi+i
- zi-1)) = ~ tx
- 1
Ik
(13.
12)
APPENDIX B. TRUNCATION ERROR OF DBCRETIZATION
188
Inserting equation B.12 into equation B.6 and dividing by the control volume area Ar,
the equation modelled by the discretization at a node k is shown to be
(B.14)
The order of accwacy of the scheme is obtained once the control volume area is included
into the truncation error terms. On regular grids, the grid dependent components of the
first six terms of the truncation error in equation B.13 are zero, and the discretization
method achieves second order accuracy.
lMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (QA-3)
APPLIED L I W G E , lnc
=
=
----
1653 fast Main See!

Rochester. NY 14609 USA
Phone: 716/482-00
Fax. 71R8-5989

NQ 35361

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NQ 35361

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Adaptive Solution of Viscous Aerodynamic Flows

Using Unstructured Grids

Paul Charles Walsh

A thesis submitted in conformi@ with the requirements

@Copyright by Paul Chsrles Walsh 1998

395 WeUingbDn Street

395. rue Wellington

The author has granted a nonexclusive licence allowing the

L'auteur a accord une licence non

The author retains ownership of the

L'auteur conserve la proprit du

Adaptive Solution of Viscous Aerodynamic Flows

cornplex three-element airfoil configuration.

During my studies at the Universi@ of Toronto my family and &ends provided

2.1 Governing Equations

2.2 Turbulence Modelling .

2.4 Temporal Discretization

2.5 Boundary Conditions

Free Stream Conditions

5.5 Case 4: NACA 0012

6 Conclusions, Contributions, and Recommendations

A Spalart-niimnras Turbulence Mode1

Non-reflecting far-field boundary specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.7 Lift and drag results after adaptation of @d nacaa2 .

Lift and drag results after adaptation of grid nacaa3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.13 Grid specifications for Case 2

5.16 Drag results using higher order dsmping

1.2 Details of structured grid connectivity

1.5 Adapted grid for NACA 0012 airfoil

2.1 m p l e of a cell centered control volume about node k

2.4 Mach number contours about a NACA 0012 at M,=O.S,

2.9 Pressure profile at x=0.70 on the upper aidoil surface

2.11 T h e saw-tooth multigrid cycle development on a series of three gr&.

2.13 Airfoil d a c e nodes showing Steiner vectors and gradations of off-wall

2.19 'Eansition fiom near quilateral triangles to high-aspect-ratio at the leading

..... ..... . . .. ........ .... ... .. .

One error mode possible on an unstructured grid; A and B are different

Arbitrary control volume about a central node k, with neighbour nodes i

Pressure field produced with lower order stretched artificial dissipation,

Pressure field produced with higher order corrected artificial dissipation,

...... ..... ........ ... . .

The possible refinement with a twwpass adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

A new node is introduced into a high-aspect-ratio region of the grid near

angles in the high-aspect-ratio regions .

5.1 Unadapted grid nacaa2 with 2736 nodes

Extrapolation of the grid independent liR for case 1. N= total number of

5.4 Extrapolation of the grid independent m i o n drag for case 1. N= total

5.13 Adapted grid using vorticity as adaptation parameter. 2891 nodes .

5.16 Cornparison of fiction drag r d t s using adapted and unadapted grids.

N=number of grid nodes

grid nacab3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

5.25 Comparison of lift coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted grids.

N = number of grid nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

adapted grids. N = number of grid nodes

5.27 Comparison of fiction drag coefficient produced by adapted and unadapted

5.28 Comparison of pressure coefficient produced by adapted grid and ARC2D

5.29 Comparison of pressure coeflicient produced by unadapted grid and ARC2D

5.30 Mach number field for the adapted grid. case 4

5.37 Pressure field for the enlarged adapted grid. case 4

5.48 Mach number field over the f

5.54 Cornparison of pressure coefficients o w the sudace of the main airfoil

with the adapted grid, unadapted grid, and through expriment

5.57 Comparison of total pressure coefficient profiles at 35%chord on the main