approximate riemann solvers for multi-component flows ben thornber academic supervisor: d.drikakis...
TRANSCRIPT
Approximate Riemann Solvers for Approximate Riemann Solvers for Multi-component flowsMulti-component flows
Ben ThornberAcademic Supervisor: D.Drikakis
Industrial Mentor: D. Youngs (AWE)
Aerospace SciencesFluid Mechanics & Computational Science
Aims
Describe the derivation of a new approximate Riemann solver for multi-component flows
Present a series of test cases illustrating the performance of the scheme for two different model equations
Compare and contrast the Mass Fraction and Total Enthalpy Conservation of the Mixture models.
Outline
Introduction
– Governing equations
– Godunov method
– Higher Order Extensions
Characteristics-Based Solver
Test Cases and Validation
Conclusions
Governing equations
Begin with the Euler equations in primitive variables:
Governing Equations
Augment them with two multicomponent models:
1) Mass Fraction*:
* See, for example, Abgrall (1988) or Larrouturou (1989)
Governing Equations
2) Total Enthalpy Conservation of the Mixture (ThCM)*:
* See Wang, S.P. et al (2004)
Method of Solution
Godunov finite volume method:
Dual time stepping method:
Jameson (1991)
Godunov (1959)
Higher Order Accuracy
Utilise the MUSCL method (Van Leer, 1977):
With 2nd order Superbee, Minmod, Van Leer, Van Albada and 3rd order Van Albada limiters (See Toro, 1997)
Characteristics Based Approximate Riemann Solver
An extension of Eberle’s scheme (Eberle, 1987)
As the governing equations are identical then the derivation holds for both models
Considering the Euler equations split directionally, thus solving:
The time derivative is replaced by the Characteristic Derivative:
Non-Conservative Invariants
After some manipulation this gives six characteristic equations for six unknown flow variables:
Converting to conservative form
Now we convert the equations to conservative form using the chain rule of differentiation:
Converting to Conservative Form
For pressure this is a little more complex:
Giving:
Where:
Compact form
After considerable manipulation the characteristics based variables with which the Godunov fluxes are calculated are:
Compact form
Where:
Numerical Tests Used 5 test cases to examine the performance of the new scheme
and the multi-component models employed:
– A ) Weak Post-shock Contact Discontinuity
• See Wang et al (2004)
– B ) Shock-Contact surface interaction
• See Karni (1994), Abgrall (1996), Shyue (2001), Wang et al (2004)
– C ) Modified Sod shock tube
• See Abgrall and Karni (2000), Chargy et al (1990), Karni (1996) and Larroururou (1989)
– D ) Shock interaction with a Helium Slab
• See Abgrall (1996), Wang et al (2004)
– E ) Convection of an SF6 Slab
All cases are run with the 3-D code on a mesh 400x4x4
Test A : Weak Post-shock Contact Discontinuity
0.25 0.5 1.0
Mach 3.352 shock
Argon Nitrogen
0.0
Test A
2nd order accuracy with Minbee – characteristic ‘bump’ in the MF density profile
Test A : Limiters
Density profile at the contact surface a) 1st order, b) Superbee, c) Van Albada, d) Van Leer, e) 3rd order Van Albada
Test B: Shock-Contact surface interaction
0.5 1.00.0
Test B
Oscillation – free results for all limiters
Mass fraction model captures the contact surface over fewer points
Test C : Modified Sod shock tube
0.5 1.00.0
Test C
All profiles are captured reasonably well
Test C – Density and velocity profiles
Mass fraction model has a typical density undershoot and a velocity jump at the contact surface
Slight oscillations in the ThCM model
Test D : Shock interaction with a Helium Slab
0.25 0.4 1.0
Air Helium
0.0
Air
0.6
Mach 1.22 shock
Test D
Very complex problem – oscillatory results for the Mass Fraction model
Dissipative solution for the ThCM model
Test D - Convergence
Dissipative solution for the ThCM model, with 2000 points it is more dissipative than the mass fraction model with 400 points
Test E: Convection of an SF6 slab
0.4 1.0
Air SF6
0.0
Air
0.6
Constant velocity u = 0.1
Test E: Results after 1 time step
Pressure equilibrium is not maintained for the ThCM model or the Mass Fraction model
Test E: Results after 1 time step
Considering a convected contact surface computed using finite volume upwind method:
Where this fraction = 0.6 in the case of SF6 to air
Conclusions
A new multi-component approximate Riemann solver has been developed and validated
The Total Enthalpy Conservation of the Mixture model is better for flows where is not close to 1, and the difference in gas densities is low.
The Mass Fraction model captures discontinuities in fewer points
Neither model preserves pressure equilibrium exactly in the case of a convected contact surface, however the extent of the error depends on the gases simulated.
References
References
References
References