Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Michael J. Abbett
Mgr. Fluid and Aerodynamics Department
Acurex Corporation/Aerotherm Division
Mountain View, California
This research was supported by NASA under Private communications from G. Moretti and
Contract NAS2-6341. C.P. Kentzer.
153
correct to differentiate across the result- equations are used at interior points.
ing interior region gradient discontinuity
any more than across a shock wave or Non Conservative Form
contact discontinuity.^ Unfortunately, the
user of computer.codes for calculating flow For steady isentropic flow,
fields of interest usually does not know
the data (surface geometry) with enough up^ + vpy = ^ (up^ + vp^) (6)
precision to be able to identify such
curvature discontinuities. Furthermore, with a^ = Yp/p. Combining (6) and (1)
if he did, they are often so numerous that gives the continuity equation in terms of
to treat them rigorously would result in derivatives of pressure and velocity com-
an unacceptably complicated and expensive ponents.
book keeping task as far as computer code
development and application are concerned. pu. + pv + ^ (up + vp ) = 0 (7)
Such a user is justified in requesting
calculations which ignore such effects, Transforming to (^^n) space, the equations
but he needs a data base on which to of motion become
evaluate the results he will obtain. The
results and discussions reported herein are
intended to serve as a small but useful P^<+ cP + Y(uv^ - vu^)
part of such a data base.
uS + vS =0 (4)
X y = tane
state:
q^ = u^ + v^
S = Inp/p^ - ylnp/p^ = P - yR (5)
(13)
The actual calculations are performed in a
h = ^ , P
computational space, illustrated in Figure y - 1 p
2 for problem IV. For problems I and II
the upper boundary in the computational
space corresponds to a line y = constant in H = h. V
physical space, the constant chosen large
enough so that the upper boundary does not Conservative Form
influence the lower surface calculations
Equations 1) - 4) are rewritten in the
in the region of interest. The transfor-
mation from physical to computational space form
is given by
(pu)^ + (pv)^ = 0
(p + p u ^ ) ^ + (puv)^ = 0
_ y y - B (14)
T - B 6
(puv)^ + (p + p v ^ ) ^ = 0
where the lower and upper boundaries are
described by y = B(x) and y = T(x) respec-
tively and where 6(x) = T(x) - B(x). (Eu + p u ) ^ + (Ev + pv) = 0
154
where index j=J, the problem is to obtain the
solution for all j , 2 _< j _< j , at station
E = + P u'' + v^ is the energy per i+1 assuming that the solution is known
unit volume. Transforming to the computa- for all j , 2 < j £ J, at station i. To
tional space while retaining the conserva- accomplish this, the mesh is divided into
tive form of the equations gives interior points (3 < j £ J-1), lower
boundary points (j='^) , and upper boundary
points (j=J). In test problems III and IV
(pu6) ^ + (puc + pv) = 0
j=J corresponds to the shock wave (leading
shock in case III).
[(p + p u M 6 ] ^ + [(p + pu2)c
At interior points, the equations are
integrated following the scheme of
+ puv] (15) MacCormack, a predictor corrector scheme
which is easily described by looking at
( p u v 6 ) ^ + (puvc + p + pv^) = 0 the equation
f^ + f (19)
[ (Eu + p u ) 6 ] ^ + [(Eu + p u ) c
Letting i be the E, index and j the n index,
to obtain the solution at a point ( i + 1 , j)
+ Ev + pv] 0
using data known at a preceding ^ station
(i, all j) we proceed:
These equations are written vector form as
predictor:
(F6), + G^ = 0 (16)
f(i + l,j) = f (i, j)
where
F = F^ = pu f(i, j + 1) ~ f(i.j)
(20a)
An
F9 = p + pu^
(17) corrector:
F^ = puv
1
f(i + l,j) 7 f(i, j) + f(i + l,j)
F^ = u(E + p)
155
We could integrate all four differential Solid Wall Calculation Procedures
equations: continuity, x and y momentiim,
and entropy. Or we could integrate one The schemes tested are categorized into
equation, say for pressure, and use the the following groups
three relations for entropy, total enthalpy,
and wall slope to calculate the density • Reflection
and two velocity components. If the dif-
ferential equation to be integrated is • Explicit - One sided derivatives
chosen optimally, we expect the second
approach to yield better results since we • Standard Predictor/Corrector - one
are solving three of the four equations sided derivatives
exactly.
• Implicit - One sided derivatives
Full Method of Characteristic Calculations
• Extrapolation
For problems III and IV, Figure 1, and
occassionally for problem II, solutions • Method of characteristics (at bound-
were generated using the full method of ary point only)
characteristics. Those solutions serve as
a standard against which the calculations • Kentzer's scheme
using finite differences at interior points
and various boundary point calculation • Combined Equations
procedures at upper and lower boundary
points are evaluated. The computer code • Euler predictor/Simple Wave Corrector
used to generate the full method of charac-
teristics solutions is the BOWSHK version In this Section we outline the basic
of Aerotherm's two-dimensional/axisym- approach used in each category, and we
metric Method of Characteristics (MOC) flow focus attention on how schemes in each
field code. That code is a derivative of category account for the basic gas dynamic
the code described in Reference 4 and interactions which occur at solid wall
commonly referred to as Frankenstein. It boundaries.
has the following characteristics and
capabilities. In many of the schemes, we simply in-
tegrate Equation 8 to obtain the change
• Calculation of complete two-dimen- in surface pressure between stations i and
sional or axisymmetric supersonic i + 1. In such cases, we have
internal or external flow fields by
the method of characteristics Pi+1,2 = Pi,2 + (^S) (21)
• Ideal gas
where RHS is some representation of the
• Uniform or nonuniform initial condi- term
tions
and, if necessary.
156
ii) The complete solution of the pre- flow field about the solid wall. All
dictor and corrector steps at all quantities are reflected evenly, except
interior points at station i + 1 the normal velocity component, which suf-
[i.e., for all (i + 1,j) , j >_ 3] fers odd reflection in order to impose the
requirement that it vanish at the solid
Reflection - The use of this procedure is wall.
basically physically motivated. The wall
boundary of an inviscid flow is essentially To carry this idea further, to flows
a slip stream, and in this sense there is with curved walls or to three-dimensional
no basic difference between a streamline flows, leads to a real quagmire. Though
along a solid wall and the same streamline there can be no argument in any particular
which is located within a fluid on one case about the concept of an extended flow
side of a slip stream. On this basis, one field, except in special cases, the
reasons that, for computational convenience, difficulty of constructing one which will
he can replace his original problem with yield an accurate solution to the posed
its solid boundary with another problem problem is at least as difficult as it is
having an extended flow field which to obtain more directly a solution of com-
(hopefully) will include a slip stream parable accuracy.
where there was originally a solid wall
(sketch). It is evident from this discussion that
the biggest shortcoming of reflection pro-
cedures is that their accuracy depends so
strongly on the local characteristics of
the flow and on the coordinate system used
in the computation, and no one has utilized
procedures reflecting this fact with enough
slip stream precision. However, it should be recognized
wall that the use of body oriented coordinate
systems is an attempt to accomplish this.
158
is somewhere between the mesh points A and The hope is that by combining the equations
B. Since the bounding geometry is speci- in this special way but still retaining their
fied, TQ is known. With T Q and p^ partial differential character, the solu-
obtained by interpolating between points tion will be obtained with accuracies
A and B, we have typical of method of characteristics cal-
culations while retaining the simplicity
Pc = PD + ^("^c - ^D> of standard explicit partial derivative
calculations.
t-*' 3p
3y + b (ij*»w) (28) the velocity changes by integrating the
streamwise momentum equation. No use is
made of the known variation of 0(x) in in-
with tegrating the equation for pressure, nor
/^ is there any direct coupling between the
A = (29) continuity equation and one or both of the
a2
momentum equations. We know that the pri-
mary physical force determining surface
and the rest of the right-hand evaluated
pressure variation is momentum exchange
at A. The interesting point is that,
while Equation (28) holds generally, in the
method of characteristics the derivatives
in Equation (27) are treated as directional Actually, Kentzer's scheme is one of this
total derivatives in the directions having group, but we consider it somewhat separa-
tely because of its unique features.
159
away from the wall, and it is natural to the continuity equation are combined, and
consider combining the pressure equation the specified variation of 6(x) is used to
(Equation 8} with one or more of the simplify the resulting equation and to give
momentum equations and with the specified the direct coupling between changes in wall
variation of 6(x). This is, of course, inclination and the streamwise pressure
what is done in the method of character- gradient. Equation 7 is multiplied by -u
istics and Kentzer's method. We have in- and added Equation 2 to get
vestigated two such additional combinations
of the differential equations and surface
boundary conditions. Inspection of 2 uv 1 - ^ (38)
Equations (3) and (7) leads to one obvious •y y^ a.^
a2 I ^x
possibility. Multiply (7) by -v and add
to (3) to get Equations 38 and 36 are added to yield
p(uv - vu ) + I 1 -
3L^ r-y
( 1 u^ + uv \ ^ .A v^ + u v \
Noting that the streamline slope is given Converting to (^,n) and P we get
by
(34)
6^ n a2
and + uv
+
1 -
(35) (40)
160
in calculating the solution at (i+1,j), derivatives, along the shock, of dependent
if the derivatives in the predictor are variables. In the case of two-dimensional
evaluated between (i, j+1) and (i, j) steady flow, consider the jump conditions
and in the corrector between (i+1, j) in the form^^
and (i+1, j-1)/ then one can think of the
predictor as contributing the effect of
the signals in the interval (i, j ) , 2Y
(i, j-1) and the interaction of the sig- P - y + 1 Mrsin^e - Y + 1 = 0 (41)
nals from the two intervals. At the
wall, it is not possible to do a regular
predictor-corrector, since there is no [2 + M^ (Y + 1 - 2 sin^e)]T
flow on one side of the wall. The wall
boundary condition replaces "the in-
formation feeding in from the other - 2 cot eCM^sin^e - 1) = 0 (42)
side."
This qualitative view of MacCormack's where p = p^/Pnf T is the streamline slope
scheme leads to a predictor/corrector behind the shock, and t-^ = streamline slope
calculation procedure for solid boundaries. upstream of the shock H 0. Differentiating
The predictor step, the standard Equations (41) and (42) along the shock
MacCormack predictor with two point one we have
sided derivatives, conveys the effect of
the flow near the wall on the solution at
the wall boundary point. In general, the cos 0 p + sm 6 p
X y
surface tangency condition will not be
satisfied by the results of the predictor
calculation. The corrector must account —iXr-M?sin 9 cos 9de^ = 0 (43)
Y + 1 1 OS
for the influence of changes in the sur-
face slope and their interaction with the
interior flow. Locally those changes can
be considered to be a sequence of in- [2 + M^(Y + 1 - 2 sin^9)](COS9T^ + sin9T )
finitesimal simple expansion or compression
waves. Thus, for the corrector we take +[2csc^0(M^sin^9 - 1)
a simple wave, expansion or compression,
which is used to modify the predictor
solution to satisfy the surface tangency - 4M?(T sin 9 cos 9 + cos^9)] 1 ^ = 0
1 ds
condition. (44)
Sharp Shock Calculation Procedures where d/ds means differentiation along the
Basic calculation procedures at shock shock. The compatibility equation can be
boundary points are often similar to tech- written as
niques used at solid walls except that the
surface tangency boundary condition is re-
placed by the jump conditions at the shock. p + Xp + b(T + XT ) = 0 (45)
^x ^y 'X y'
The main difference is that, in advancing
from station i to i+1, the shock inclina- Converting Equations (43), (44), and (45)
tion at i+1 is unknown, whereas the surface to (^,ri) space yields a system of three
slope at that station is known. Sharp linear algebraic equations for pr, Xr,
Shock calculation schemes tested include: d9/ds in terms of data known on an initial
data line (station i) , including such r\
• Method of characteristics derivatives as p^ and T . The result is
• Kentzer's scheme
d9 ^ CD cos^6
• Barnwell's scheme (46)
ai" " Bb - AC
• Thomas scheme where
Kentzer's Scheme - The jump conditions are D = -[(X - tan 9)p + b(X - tan e)T ]
differentiated along the shock, and the
resulting partial differential equations Barnwell's Scheme 12 - As in the method of
are combined with the characteristic characteristics calculation, the compati-
compatability equation, resulting in a bility equation is solved simultaneously
system of linear algebraic equations for with the usual form of the jump conditions.
161
However, the characteristic compatibility Victoria's Scheme - K. Victoria has sug-
equation is written in difference form gested an approach, the basic idea of which
along the shock wave, not along a charac- he credits to T. Kubota*. Again, the jump
teristic. Thus, one obtains a system of equations are differentiated along the
simultaneous nonlinear algebraic equations shock. Each differentiated jump equation
for the unknown dependent variables, in- is then combined with the corresponding
cluding shock angle, at point (i+l,J). field equation, eliminating the ^ deriva-
tives of PfU, and v to form a system of
Thomas' Scheme ' - Thomas' idea is to three inhomogeneous linear algebraic equa-
combine the jximp conditions with one of tions of the form
the partial differential equations from
the interior. Thus, Thomas' method is de_
similar to Barnwell's except that the ^1 ds ^ ^ 1 % + d.
compatibility equation used by Barnwell is
replaced by one of the equations in the de
basic set of governing partial differential d^ «3-- = bo P„ + c^v^ + d^u (49)
equations (Equations (1)). The advantage 2 as 2 ^n 2 n 2n
of Thomas' approach is that one can mani-
pulate the equations so that they can be a-, 3— = b^ p + c-,v . n
solved sequentially rather than simul- 3 ds 3 ^n 3 n + d^u
taneously. For example, the jump condi- where, of course, p ,v , and u are known
tions can be put in the following form at station i. Thes8 e§uations^can be com-
bined to form the three equations:
Y + 1 2. + Y - (47) de
2 BTP
Pi Y + 1 ^1 a^ i^n
163
Accuracy of the Solution at Interior Points Further downstream, there will be more
Simple Compression — The Envelope Shock - points between the shock and the lower
For the compression problem it is important wall (see Figure 5 ) .
to consider the influence that the envelope
shock which will form may have on the re- In a study of one-dimensional time-
sults. No provision was taken to treat dependent flows with shock waves computed
that shock as a sharp discontinuity, so it by shock smearing, Gary^^ compared shock
is possible that, particularly with those speeds predicted by Lax-Wendroff differen-
schemes using three-point one-sided dif- cing of the Euler equations in divergence
ferences, the solution at the lower wall is form with predictions using the equations
is affected by numerical inaccuracies re- in non-divergence form (as done in this
sulting from the shock smearing. study). Gary obtained much greater errors
in computed shock speed utilizing non-
As a first step to evaluate this effect, divergence form than when the divergence
a full method of characteristics calcula- form was used. Kutler anticipated*
tion was generated with a code which com- similar behavior in the present case, ex-
putes shock waves as sharp discontinuities. pecting the smeared shock location to dif-
The code (referred to as SUPER), detects f^.r significantly from the correct value.
envelope shocks by the crossing of charac- To investigate this behavior as well as to
teristic slopes^ and coefficients in the study the effect of the shock smearing on
equations are averaged in a solution which the present results, the computed pressure
iterates each step. In order to obtain profiles at two sections are plotted for
mesh point spacing on the lower wall at Case EP-SWC in Figure 6. In Figure 6 we
about the same interval as in the "finite see that when the shock is just beginning
difference" calculation, the mesh points to form (x/R ~ .25) the region of strong
on the initial data line were spaced at pressure gradients as predicted by the
distance Ay/R = 0.01 apart. The calcula- finite difference grid somewhat lags that
tion proceeds from mesh points on the ini- predicted by the full method of character-
tial data line (x = 0.0) along right-run- istics calculation. The finite difference
ning characteristics, and it was continued solution overshoots by about 9 percent the
until the code halted because the number pressure profile on the compression side.
of points on the characteristic line ex-
ceeded 50, the maximum allowed. The last Because of the mesh point limitation,
computed right-running characteristic we have no complete method of character-
originated at x/R = 0.0, y/R = 1.28. The istics solution for all y beyond x/R = 0.37.
surface pressure computed with the full However, since the computed shock angle is
method of characteristics calculation very close to the asymptotic value, we can
agrees very well with the exact isentropic extrapolate it to obtain the shock loca-
compression solution. The resulting flow tion at another abscissa, for example for
field and some interesting additional in- x/R = 0.5264 (Figure 6 ) . Then it is easy
formation are shown in Figure 5. The shock to construct the exact pressure profile
was first detected at x/R = 0.254, at which and to compare it with the prediction using
the finite difference formulation with shock
point a sharp shock solution yielded a
smearing (Figure 6 ) . Again, we see the
pressure ratio of p> = P2/Pi = 1.129. In displaced shock location and pressure over-
order to determine as closely as possible shoot (27 percent) predicted with shock
the actual abscissa of the beginning of the smearing.
shock, the pressure ratio across the shock
was plotted as a function of x/R and the
plot was extrapolated back to the abscissa Now, what is the importance of these
where p" = P2/Pi = 1-0 yielding the initia- results vis a vis this study? One might
tion of the shock at x/R = 0.24. The right remark, for instance, that if the envelope
running characteristic passing through the shock were treated as a sharp discontinuity,
that point hits the lower wall at x/R = the problem of inaccuracies due to displaced
0.38. On the last computed right running shocks and pressure overshoots would dis-
characteristic, the shock was located at appear. However, that is misleading, for
x/R = 0.379, y/R = 1.146, and the shock the inaccuracies in boundary point calcula-
slope has alm.ost reached its asymptotic tions do not primarily originate with the
value (see Figure 5 ) . Also shown on poor shock description. Also, no matter
Figure 5 are the initial finite difference how the shock is treated, we must always
grid for the calculations reported herein, live with some errors which will result
the finite difference grid at x/R = 0.255,* in the interior calculation even if the
the left running Mach Line which originates boundary solutions are exact. Furthermore,
at the beginning of the compression turn, we must face the situation depicted in
and the asymptotic shock angle. Note that, Figure 6, where the shock, as a shock, con-
including the lower wall point, there are tributes a negligible part of the compres-
four mesh points between the lower wall sion, but where there still is the usual
and the shock in the region x/R = 0.25. pressure overshoot which occurs even when
the equations are cast in divergence form.
Thus, it is just as erroneous to replace
164
that smooth compression with a shock as interior equations in both conservative and
it is to represent the compression through non-conservative form, with the method of
a shock with shock smearing. Even if we characteristics and EP/SWC schemes at the
attempt to devise a code in which shocks lower wall, and with MOC, Thomas, and
are essentially always treated as sharp Kentzer's schemes at the sharp shock. The
discontinuities, we must realize that if calculations are summarized in Table 3.
the flow is at all complicated, weak
secondary compressions and shocks may exist
which are not accounted for within the code Run Lower
Shock Interior
logic. Our task is to insure that in such No. Wall
situations relatively minor inaccuracies
in the interior do not lead to large in- 1 MOC MOC Conservative
accuracies at boundaries. 2 EP/SWC MOC Conservative
3 EP/SWC Thomas Conservative
Finally the purpose of this study is 4 EP/SWC Thomas Non-conservative
to evaluate various computation procedures 5 EP/SWC Kentzer Conservative
in situations they are expected to handle +
as a matter of course. All the c3omputa-
tions are identical except for the boundary
point computations, and the tests have been TABLE 3. PROBLEM III CALCULATION MATRIX
of situations typical of those faced by
everyday working codes. As a standard, the flow field was calculated
with the full method of characteristics
Simple Expansion ~ To further clarify some code. The calculated flow field is shown
aspects of the interaction between solu- in Figure 8 and the calculated surface pres-
tions at boundary points with those at sure distributions in Figures 9 and 10 (Run
interior points, we consider the simple 5 gave results identical with Run 3, both
expansion problem. Since the solution is agreeing quite closely with Run 2 ) . In
just a simple Prandtl-Meyer turn, we can Runs 1-5, there were 15 intervals between
calculate the exact solution at any point the lower wall and the bow shock. There
in the flow field. First we consider one were 12 such intervals on the initial data
of the better schemes for computing bound- line of the full method of characteristics
ary points. calculation. Examination of Figures 8-10
indicates that in this case:
The results of the EP-SWC calculation
are compared with the exact solution at • EP/SWC is as accurate as MOC on solid
x/R = 0.5095, in Figure 7. walls.
Note that the agreement in the expansion
region is quite good, but that there is a • There are negligible differences bet-
tendency to develop small wiggles near the ween MOC, Kentzer, and Thomas at the
discontinuity in profile slope. However, shock.
as was demonstrated above this is a scheme
for computing boundary points which is in- • '^^ all shocks are not treated as
sensitive to these small wiggles, and the sharp shocks, conservative differencing
wiggles do not have a deleterious affect should be used at interior points to
on the boundary calculations. minimize errors in calculated surface
pressure.
It is also interesting to compare the
pressure profile for one of the poorer • The largest source of error in Runs
schemes with the exact solution. The re- 1-3, 5 is the truncation error at
sults for Thomas' scheme at x/R = .43 are interior points which tends to smooth
shown in Figure 13. Note that the large the pressure profile where it should
errors in computed surface pressure do not have a discontinuous slope.
really have much effect on the interior
flow, at least in this case. However, it Shock Boundary Points - The basic studies of
is important to remember that surface sharp shock calculation procedures were per-
pressure is generally the single most im- formed with problem IV, Figure 1. Again,
portant result of these calculations! space limitations prohibit presentation
and discussion of all the results, most of
The first two test problems contain the which can be found in Ref. 6. Full method
most important ingredients of flow field of characteristics calculations were genera-
calculations, expansions and compressions. ted with three different mesh sizes to
However, their simplicity might possibly establish the standard. Those calculations
result in misleading conclusions, par- had 7, 13, and 25 points on the initial data
ticularly with respect to the EP/SWC scheme .line between the shock and the lower surface.
Problem III, the 20° v/edge/circular arc/30° Calculations with finite differences at
wedge was selected to further test that interior points (conservative differencing),
scheme. In addition, since only the lead- MOC at the shock, and EP/SWC at the lower
ing shock is calculated as a sharp shock, surface with 6, 11, and 26 points between
this problem affords us with a means to shock and lower surface were generated. The
further evaluate the effect on surface pres- calculated flow fields and pressure distri-
sure calculations of smearing very weak butions behind the shock and on the lower
shocks. Calculations were done with the surface for these six calculations are given
165
in Figures 11, 12, and 13. It is interes- for the sharp shock calculation. The pro-
ting that, except for the knee of the curve blem is one of violating the law of for-
for pressure behind the shock, the dif- bidden signals when the three-point one-
ference between different mesh sizes is sided derivative is used (see the Ref. 5
much less for the finite difference than for further results in this vein).
for the full MOC calculation^ and the
agreement between the rough mesh FD-MOC 6. Extension of the EP/SWC Scheme
calculation and the fine mesh full MOC to the Three Dimensions*
calculation is significantly better for
large x/R than it was for the rough mesh In Section 4 we related the components
full MOC calculation. (2.3 percent vs 6.5 of the Euler Predictor/Simple Wave Corrector
percent and 2.0 percent vs 4.5 percent res- scheme to the gas dynamic interactions
pectively behind the shock and on the occuring near and at solid walls. The dis-
lower wall). At first this seems rather cussion depended heavily on two dimensional
unusual since one generally considers considerations. Results to date indicate
method of characteristics calculations to that this scheme is quite powerful, yield-
be more accurate than finite difference ing predictions of accuracy comparable to
calculations for a given mesh size. How- the method of characteristics. Because
ever, for the rough characteristic mesh, MOC is quite inconvenient in three
along the right running characteristic dirensions, we are interested in extending
originating on the shock at x = 1.107, y = the EP/SWC scheme to three dimensional
1.774 and terminating on the lower wall at steady flow. An attempt to do so was re-
X = 4.939, the coefficient b in the com ported earlier,^ and comparisons with full
patibility equation (b = pu^//M^ - 1) 3-D method of characteristics calculations
varies by 70 percent between mesh points are quite faborable.15 However, that
in the center of the expansion! Since initial extension to three dimensions
the finite difference equations are possesses a certain degree of arbitrariness
written in conservative form, there is no which is undesireable, and an improved
coefficient multiplying the partial deri- procedure has recently been constructed,
vative terms. It is probable that the though it has not yet been tested.
apparent superiority, at least in this
problem, of the finite difference cal- The improved procedure rests heavily on
culation at interior points for rough mesh the concept of MacCormack's predictor-
can be explained in this manner. corrector scheme outlined in Section 4 in
the discussion of the EP/SWC scheme, namely
The results of the prediction using that the predictor conveys information frpm
Kentzer's scheme are comparable to those one side and the corrector conveys informa-
obtained with the method of characteristics tion from the other side as well as accoun-
at the shock (compare Figures 13 and 14). ting for the interaction between the signals
Similar results were obtained with from the two sides. The extension to three
Barnwell's, Thomas', and Victoria's schemes dimensions can be briefly outlined using
as well as with the approach using the MacCormack's operator notation. Consider
shock jump equations solved simultaneously a cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z)
with a field equation for pressure. with indices (i, j , k) respectively and
with the flow in the general x direction.
All the calculations used two-point one- Then for the equation
sided backward derivatives at the shock.
As already noted, a common misconception
is that three-point, second-order-accurate, "x + ^y + <^z = 0 (51)
one-sided derivatives should lead to more
accurate solutions. To investigate this
matter a little further, two additional MacCormack's- scheme can be written as"
calculations were done using Thomas' scheme.
In the first (referred to as Thomas 3-2),
three-point one-sided derivatives were used
in the predictor step [e.g. , pr, = (-3p-L j _j.
^i:i = L L L L Ut ,
y z z y 3,k (52)
^Pi J-1 ••" Pi J-2)/2An] and two-point one- where L^ and L are two dimensional operators
sided derivatives were used in the cor- of the nature of Equations 20, each con-
rector. In the second case (Thomas 3-3), sisting of two components, a predictor and
three-point derivatives were used in both a corrector. Applying the EP/SWC technique
predictor and corrector steps. The results in three dimensions involves replacing the
are shown in Figure 15 along with the corrector component of the Ly operator with
standard calculation using two-point de- a two dimensional simple wave. In so doing,
rivatives in both the predictor and cor- note that the solution of the predictor
rector steps (Thomas 2-2). Both schemes component of Ly involves all three velocity
Thomas 3-2 and Thomas 3-3, gave unaccep- components. Therefore, for this approach
table results; the latter calculation to yield accuracy comparable to that
"blew up" after x/R = 2.4. Thomas earlier achieved in two dimensions, it is probable
alluded to instability problems with three- that the coordinate system should be
point one-sided derivatives.H It should
be noted that these results are not
characteristic of Thomas' scheme. That
basic approach appears to give good results It is assumed that the reader of this Sec-
tion is familiar with MacCormack's work,
particularly Ref. 3.
166
oriented so that the y derivative term Sharp Shock Boundary Point Calculations
in the z momentum equation is small com-
pared to the z derivative terms, for that • Truncation error at interior points
equation is omitted entirely from the is greater than the differences bet-
simple wave corrector. ween shock calculation procedures.
167
References 11. Thomas, P. D., "On the Computation of
Boundary Conditions in Finite Differ-
1. Moretti, Gino, Complicated One-Dimen- ence Solutions for Multidimensional
sional Flows, Polytechnic Institute Inviscid Flow Fields," Lockheed Palo
of Brooklyn, Farmingdale, New York, Alto Research Laboratory, Palo Alto,
PIBAL Report No. 71-25, September, California, LMSC 6-82-71-3, March 2,
1971. 1971, Revision A, September 13, 1971.
168
Lower Surface
i—>-?
FIGURE 2 . Physical and Computational Spaces
.10 .>0|
.(»
tA-
.081
.07 .01 7:
^5 ^^arr
P/l=^
M
P/Po
.Of
v-/
.03 eePLecTioN .03
IMPLICIT
EXPCICIT peeDtcToe-coiZKecTop.
THOMA?>
.OZj
.-2
X/t2 y/(2
.040,
P/Po P/Po
169
-2-7.3°- ASYMPTOTIC
y/s
E N i P OF ^ u J e v / E ^ E 6 T l
.©o . 1 1 1_
EXACT -^OuUTiON
<.oi-u~riON .Uo - Q THOMAS-Z
O E P - -SNAJC
o .40
o
^ O ^—^wocjc i-CiC-fcnohi
^^TlMATETD FeOKA
Wf^ <i:i^^eA^lx£ ei«^-riii<. .7.D
<::AL<iuLA,T(<:iNj
Z LOWER •^HOWM I N F^l^. ©
WM-I_
P/Po
. lO
UPPER - /
WALL 08
I
\.'Z
04
•
j
_.__] •" I n
«CHAP^cTee\6.Tic-e>
5") -SCHEME -THoMA-S-2
C-AL<CULA,TlCM 1
Q EP-'SWd \(sjTe(2ioe
FLQNAJ FIFLO 1
.1? l.U
--.OLun~ I O M ; ^ — i—
- EXACT -SOLUTION
.4f
- LOWE P W^UL
Flfl
,oe\—
L/ n I
\
\
\ V
r»
,oe
170
t 1 1 1 1 1
-4
. ^
5^ 2
(jl^
- ^
/ y / / / J,
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\
/=^/30!eS^ II C^/^/='/P/^/S<^A/^^T^^^^A/y^C?C/PA//P/='/?-Af(^C
3?
F - P i N r e E l O R , MOC AT ^ H O C K AMD ^ ^ U L
fw/P^. F-c> i N ) T £ E i o e T N\oc AT ^ H o c k : , epZ-s^Nii
AT NAJALL
c o M 6 > e e v A T i v ; £ Q\FpeeesiCiN<2» AT
- INSTe!2lO(2 PO(MTt>
Ife
1
14 \\
K
12
^1 " 1 1
-FULL METMOP OF ^ H A2/\OT£El'STl(lf>
FiN\TE . P i F F . coNiseevjATive F O f ^ M - r w o M A s
Kj/P« AT -&M OCK, EPSWC AT 'SUeFACe .
— F i N i r e C?lFF. NON dCN'^.EKvATlVe F O ^ M -
THOM ^6 AvT ^MOCK , EPSNAJC AT 'SU'^P^ACE.
171
/f.) /^^€'SS4//?^€^ ^£///A/0 SA^iPc/er
^ /.a