Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T01:35:45.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spurious entropy production and very accurate solutions to the Euler equations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Arthur Rizzi
Arthur Rizzi*
Affiliation:
FFA, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden Bromma, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since it is not assumed a priorito be constant, entropy can vary along streamlines in the numerical solution of the Euler equations, depending upon its accuracy, even if the flow is isentropic. The level of this spurious entropy (or equivalently loss in total pressure) produced in the solution has become a common measure for the accuracy of the solution. It was used in a recent exercise by the AGARD Working Group 07 as one of the primary criteria to judge the most accurate solutions of the Euler equations for a variety of different test problems. Of the four possible sources of this error: mesh spacing, convective difference scheme, artificial viscosity model, and boundary conditions, the latter two are found to contribute the most. The steps taken to limit the errors coming from each of these four areas are described in detail in the context of two AGARD test cases: NACA 0012 M∞, = 0·85 α= 1 deg, and NLR 7301 M∞ = 0·721 α=-0·194 deg. An accurate shock-free supercritical solution is presented for the latter case.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 89 , Issue 882 , February 1985 , pp. 59 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1985 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

also adjunct professor of CFD, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

References

1. Fluid Dynamics Panel Working Group 07. Test Cases for Steady Inviscid Transonic and Supersonic Flows, AGARD Pub, in preparation, 1984.Google Scholar
2. Rizzi, A. W. and Inouye, M. Time-Split Finite-Volume Method forThree-Dimensional Blunt-Body Flow.AIAA Journal, November 1973. 11, No 11. 1478–85.Google Scholar
3. Rizzi, A. W. and Bailey, H. E. Finite Volume Solution of the Euler Equations for Steady Three-dimensional Transonic Flow. Proc Fifth Internal Conf on Numer Methods in Fluid Dynamics, eds vander Vooren, A.I and Zandbergen, P. J, Lecture Notes in Physics, 59, Springer-Verlag, 1976,347–357.Google Scholar
4. Rizzi, A. W. and Eriksson, L. E. Computation of Flow Around Wings Based on the Euler Equations, J. Fluid Mech. November 1984.148,45–71.Google Scholar
5. Jameson, A. and Bu, R., Multigrid Solution of the Euler Equations for Aircraft Configurations. AIAA Paper No84-0093, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
6. Eriksson, L. E. and Rizzi, A. Computer-Aided Analysis of the Convergence to Steady State of a Discrete Approximation to the Euler Equations. Journal of Computational Physics, January 1985,57, No 1,90–128.Google Scholar
7. Ludford, B. The Behaviour at Infinity of the Potential Function of a Two Dimensional Subsonic Compressible Flow, J. Math Phys, 1951,30,117–130.Google Scholar