(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

A01-16063

AIAA2001-0136
Some Recent Progress in Practical
Computational Fluid Dynamics

S. Chakravarthy, U. Goldberg, P. Batten

S. Palaniswamy and O. Peroomian
Metacomp Technologies, Inc.
Westlake Village, CA

39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting and Exhibit
8-11 January 2001
Reno, Nevada

For permission to copy or to republish, contact the copyright owner named on the first page.
For AIAA-held copyright, write to AIAA Permissions Department,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA, 20191-4344.
(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136

Some Recent Progress in Practical Computational Fluid Dynamics1

S. Chakravarthy, U. Goldberg, P. Batten, S. Palaniswamy and O. Peroomian
Metacomp Technologies, Inc., West lake Village, CA 91361

Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) continues to
make steady progress through improvements in
modeling fidelity, robustness, efficiency and generality.
Here we outline certain elements of this progress with a
focus on practical CFD wherein varied simulations
must routinely be carried out quickly with reasonable
accuracy. We identify specific algorithmic and
discretization features that we believe contribute to this
progress. Following a general discussion with
examples, we present some ideas on three specific
topics: turbulence modeling, Riemann solvers and
aeroacoustics.
Introduction
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has evolved
much over the last three decades. In years past,
aerospace applications were the primary driver for, and
client of, CFD technology. Aerospace continues to be a
significant focus, but the application areas have now
expanded into automotive, marine, environmental,
biomedical and industrial processing. This places a
strenuous demand on contemporary CFD tools. Various
physical phenomena must be accurately and efficiently
predicted, including boundary and interior layers, other
high gradient regions, discontinuities (e.g. shock
waves), chemical reactions, presence of multiple
species and phases and their interactions, very high
speed and very low speed flows and everything in
between. Very complex geometries must be treated,
including movement of objects and meshes around
multiple objects. The computational power that was
only available to a few and which required specially
constructed rooms and buildings is now available at an
individual engineer's desk and is at the disposal of
groups, large and small. Multi-CPU machines and
networked computers are the norm, not the exception.
Contemporary CFD tools must fit this computational
environment.
In the early decades of CFD development, the
developer of the algorithm and code was also the user.
Today, there is an expectation that a myriad of practical
fluid dynamics problems be simulatable by engineers
who are not CFD experts. Often CFD is expected to be
part of early design and not just a tool to help trouble-
shoot undesirable fluid dynamic effects observed on an
existing design. Practical CFD must deliver value in
this tough environment.
Algorithmic Elements of Practical CFD
In the early nineteen eighties, the evolution of the
upwind scheme resulted in a step forward in being able
to compute more problems more routinely. In today's
environment, we find that the following algorithmic and
discretization elements are conducive to high fidelity,
robust and efficient simulations in a variety of
situations:
1) Unstructured grid treatment for full flexibility in
dealing with complex topologies and physics,
including various types of adaptation.
2) Ability to deal with multi-block meshes with
various types of inter-block connectivities
3) Multidimensional interpolation that more
accurately represents local behavior of flow-
dependent variables. While formal order of
accuracy need not be any higher, this approach
leads to practically higher accuracy on relatively
coarse meshes. The multidimensional interpolation
framework helps deal easily with inter-block
connectivities also.
4) The preconditioning approach to dealing with low
speed and incompressible fluid flows. We have
extended the formulations to include the treatment
of both single species and multi-species flows. In
the case of single species flows, we have also
extended the formulation to successfully treat
multi-speed flows (where low and high speed flows
may coexist within the same problem).

1
Copyright ©, 2001 by Metacomp Technologies, Inc. Published by the American Instititue of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. with permission.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
5) The use of implicit relaxation approaches to avoid found in [1] and [2], Some of the turbulence models we
factorization errors and time step restrictions often have developed and used are discussed in [3-7]
seen in approximate factorization methods.
6) The use of algebraic multigrid approach for Some General Examples
achieving good convergence acceleration for
We now present results for problems that were
implicit schemes even on dense meshes. There is
somewhat difficult to simulate in past years but which
disadvantage in this approach of being relatively
are amenable to routine treatment today: this is what we
memory intensive for coupled treatment of
mean by practical CFD.
equations.
7) The use of dual-time stepping to achieve accuracy Swept ramp injection into a supersonic flow
in simulating transient (not asymptotically steady
state) flows. The dual time stepping is particularly Donahue et al [8] performed extensive experimental
helpful in mitigating one side-effect of using measurements on a Mach 2 flow over a swept ramp
preconditioners which is to alter the characteristic from which Iodine was injected into the surrounding
speeds of solution evolution. Dual time stepping is air. To predict this complex flowfield, the CFD++
similarly effective with other convergence Navier Stokes solver was used on a mesh consisting of
acceleration techniques, such as spatially varying an approximately one million cells. A cubic A>e model
time step. In conjunction with the multigrid presented in references [6,15] was invoked, in
approach and relaxation, dual time stepping conjunction with a wall function which takes into
provides the ability to compute transient periodic account compressibility and heat transfer effects.
behavior with very few physical time steps Symmetry conditions were assumed at the ramp
representing each period of oscillation (on the midplane.
order of one or two hundred time steps). Figures la-b show contours of injectant concentration,
8) The use of pointwise implicit relaxation and streamwise vorticity. The contour plots clearly
methodology helps deal with implementations that demonstrate the ability of the calculation to predict all
must exploit parallel computing. flow features, with no loss of detail, within the entire
9) The use of implicit boundary condition treatment computational domain. Note, in particular, that the core
whenever possible. This is fundamental to vortex does not diffuse prematurely, in contrast with
improving robustness as well as convergence previously reported calculations [8].
(especially for Neumann boundary conditions).
SWEPT RAMP INJECTION
10) The use of upwind formulations including a
"Riemann solver" that is not yet very popular.
Concentration
While necessitating a larger effort when
developing a computer code, it leads to less
uncertainty about the level of numerical dissipation
that is practical for robustness and accuracy. The
use of the upwind formulation also makes the
development of codes based on preconditioners
more straightforward. More thoughts on Riemann
solvers are presented in a later section.
11) Good turbulence models and modeling approaches.
More on this is discussed later.
Figure la
While none of these elements is, by any means,
revolutionary, a survey of the present state of the art
will find that these elements are not often present, in
combination, in any one software. We have built these
features into the CFD++ software package. As a result
of struggling hard with many varieties of fluid dynamic
problems over a long period of time, and learning from
each experience, we believe it is not just one thing that
represents progress in practical CFD, but rather a
combination of those items presented above that leads
to satisfactory results. We are not denying the validity
of any other approach or algorithmic choice. Early
discussions of our ideas and implementations can be Figure Ib

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
Figures 2a-c are comparisons of injectant concentration
contours, at three streamwise locations, between
computation and experimental measurements. The
figures display very good agreement between
predictions and data. In particular, the predicted static
pressure at the exit plane is only 10% off the measured
level (180 vs. 160 torr), pointing to the fact that the
vortex core has not been dissipated by the numerics.
I*
|5
:f
Figure 2a. Concentration at x/H-0.5
Figure 2b. Concentration at x/H=2.0
Figure 2c. Concentration at x/H=8.0
Two Hole Injector
This case corresponds to the UVA two-hole transverse
injector topology. The table given below, taken from
McDaniel et. al, [9] shows the geometry characteristics.
Test section height 11.03D
Test section width 15.79D
Length of measurement domain X/D=26.6
End of nozzle contour X/D=- 10.65
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA-2001-0136
Step location X/D=-4.94
Step height H=1.65D
1st injector location X/D=0.0
2nd injector location X/D=6.58
Diameter D 1.93
Figure 3 is a sketch of the UVA two-hole transverse
injector. The topology consists of an inflow region
followed by a backward-facing step after which two
transverse injectors are located. The computational grid
used to simulate the flowfield is derived from a fine
grid (400K cells, Sekar[10]). This mesh is coarsened
everywhere except near the hole regions and a grid with
only 70K cells is obtained. The coarser grid uses half
the number of cells in the fine mesh except in the rows
of cells along the two holes in the spanwise direction.
The Mach number of the primary flow is 2.089 and that
of the jets is 1.183. The boundary conditions applied
for the simulations are: supersonic inflow and outflow
in the streamwise direction; viscous wall (no-slip) and
supersonic inflow (jets) on the lower wall; inviscid
(slip) wall for the upper wall and on one side wall; and
symmetry conditions on the remaining boundary in the
spanwise direction. The turbulence model invoked for
this calculation is a one-equation pointwise eddy
viscosity model given in Goldberg [3,15]. A color
tracer was added to the flow-field in order to track the
injection concentration. A value of 1.0 was assigned to
the injected flow and 0.0 to the primary flow. The
diffusion coefficient in the tracer equation was set to
that in the momentum equations (i.e. Schmidt Number
of unity).
Figure 4 shows pressure contours in the vicinity of the
two holes in the symmetry plane. The upper half of the
figure represents the experimental data from [9] and the
lower half the numerical results obtained using CFD++.
The pressure contours clearly show the initial
expansion due to the backward-facing step followed by
the two oblique shocks due to the transverse injection.
Figures 5a, b show streamwise velocity and vertical
velocity along the centerline of the first injection hole
on the symmetry plane. Solid lines indicate the
numerical solution on the coarse grid and the symbols
are experimental data from [9]. Following the
convention used in [9], hollow circles indicate data
from Laser-Induced-Iodine Fluorescence (LIIF), and
filled triangles indicate data from Laser-Doppler
Anemometry (LDA). The results show very good
agreement with the experimental data even with a one-
equation turbulence model and a calculation on a very
coarse grid. Note the large gradients in the pressure
along the z-axis. They are much larger than that along
the x-direction which, as pointed out by McDaniel [9],
is the reason behind the vertical streamlines along the
centerlines of the jets.
(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
Below is a table of computational times using various
computing platforms on the fine-grid two-hole injector
problem, consisting of 400K cells. This table, along X/D = 0.0
Y/D = 0.0
with the one presented earlier, is included to illustrate
the potential of multi-CPU computing. The actual
results presented for the two-hole injector problem McDaniel et. al (LIIF)
utilized a cruder grid. A research version of the CFD++ o
McDaniel et. al (LDA)
code was used (1998) in many of the results presented Z/D

in this paper and the code has since been optimized

further. The times reported are in seconds for each
CPU.

Computing Platform CPUs Time per

Step
u/u
SGI Power Challenge 1 334.7
Figure 5a. Streamwise velocity along the centerline of
75 MHz R8000 3 107.5
first injector.
5 63.7
7 54.0
SGI Power Challenge 1 268.7
90 MHz R8000 3 94.0
5 54.1 X/D = 0.0
Y/D = 0.0
7 43.1
IBM SP2 1 212.6
/-•pp. , ,

* McDaniel et. al (LDA)

2/D

Figure 5b. Vertical velocity along the centerline of first

Figure 3. UVA two-hole injector geometry (Courtesy
D.R. Eklund, NASA LaRC)
Figure 4. Static pressure contours in symmetry plane.
injector.
GA(W)-1 Airfoil
Turbulent flow past the GA(W)-1[11] airfoil, at several
angles of attack, was computed using the CFD++
Navier-Stokes solver. A 52,000 node mesh was
employed, consisting of a rotatable grid around the
airfoil and a stationary grid for the rest of the flowfield,
which included the tunnel walls. Figure 6 shows the
grid, with 350 cells surrounding the airfoil. The grid
spacing adjacent to the airfoil corresponded to y+ = 0.1.
Figures 7a-e compare predicted and measured Cp
distributions around the airfoil at AOA=-4,0,4,8, and 20
deg. The flows exhibit some unsteadiness, thus the
predictions shown are snapshots within the time cycle.
This case illustrates flexible mesh capability (notice the
disparity in the mesh sizes in the two blocks at the
inter-block boundary) as well as the ability to
accurately predict high-angle-of-attack flows.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
GA(W)-1 AIRFOIL A.O.A. = 0 deg
GA(W)-1 Airfoil M=Q.2B F.S.Turb=2.Q% CFD++
Two block m«sh 1.500
Irmr block meih rotated by 20 degrees

0.500
^n o n 0 n n m;

-0.500

— nonlinear k-e
Figure 6a Two block mesh for GA(W) -1 airfoil in Qexp. data
windtunnel -1.500
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/c

Figure 7b Cp profile for a = 0 deg.

GA(W)-1 AIRFOIL A.O.A. = 4 deg

M=0.28 F.S.Turb.=2.0% CFD++

1.500

CL
0.500
O
I
Figure 6b Close up of Figure 6a
-0.500
GA(W)-1 AIRFOIL A.O.A. = -4 deg
M=0.28 F.S.Turb.=2.0% CFD++
1.500
-1.500
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/c
Figure 7c Cp profile for a = +4 deg.
0.500

_
o
I GA(W)-1 AIRFOIL A.O.A. = 8 deg
-0.500 M=0.28 F.S.Turb.=2.Q% CFD++
3.500

2.500
-1.500
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/c 1.500
a_
O
0.500
Figure 7a Cp profile for a = -4 deg.
-0.500

-1.500
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/C
Figure 7d Cp profile for a = +8 deg.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
GA(W)-1 AIRFOIL A.O.A. = 20 deg Concentration at the exit plane
M=0.28 F.S.Turb.=2.0% CFD++
8.000

6.000
0.03

GFD++
4.000
Q.
D data
o
2.000

0.000

-2.000
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 o.g 1.1
x-^LJ I
X/c "0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
H2O Mole fraction I
Figure 7e Cp profile for a = +20 deg. Figure 8b. Water concentration at exit plane
Reacting Flow Case
The next problem corresponds to a case taken from the
experiments carried out by Burrows and Kurkov [12].
A stream of vitiated air comes into contact with
hydrogen across a shear layer. Arrhenius kinetics, with
18 reactions and 9 species [13], is used to model the
chemical reactions in the ilowfield. The eddy viscosity
is modeled using Goldberg's one-equation model.
Figure 8a shows water vapor concentration. The
ignition delay is apparent from the figure. Figure 8b
compares predicted water concentration at the exit
plane with experimental data. Figure 8c shows the
convergence history. 8000 cells were used and
computations took less than an hour on a Pentium II
PC. Researchers who, in the late 1980's, struggled to
compute such cases should react positively to this
progress. Figure 8c. Residual for Burrows and Kurkov
Afterbody flow
This case is the AGARD-A1 nozzle/afterbody
configuration[14] at Mach 0.7, nozzle pressure ratio of
3. The figures show geometry and Mach contours,
boattail pressure, streamwise velocity and total pressure
profiles at the nozzle exit and at two locations
Figure 8a. Burrows and Kurkov with 18 reactions and 9 downstream of it. Predictions by the cubic k-e
species. H2O concentrations shown. model[15] are compared to those by the Reynolds stress
closure of Hanjalic and Jakirlic[16] and to experimental
data. The cubic model outperforms the RS closure in
predicting the jet spreading rate.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
AGARD-A1 NOZZLE/AFTERBODY Deposition) reactor is shown. The outer walls are
M = 0.7 PR = 3 heated, and a fluid is injected through a tiny hole at the
bottom of the chamber. Most of the flowfield in this
„ 0.2
problem is at extremely low Mach number. CFD++
utilizes the preconditioning approach on top of the
multigrid implicit relaxation in order to overcome any
numerical issues associated with low speed flows.
Figure 13a shows the geometry of the reactor, and
X[rn] Figure 13b shows the convergence history. The grid in
Fig. 9: Geometry and Mach contours this problem consisted of 72,000 hexahedral elements.
AGARD-A1 NOZZLE/AFTERBODY It took less than 3 hours on a Pentium II single-CPU
boattail pressure
machine (1997). Current performance is expected to be
significantly better than that.
OExp.
— JH
— cubic k-e

o -010

-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

x/Dm

Fig. 10: boattail pressure

AGARD-A1 NOZZLE/AFTERBODY
x/Dm = 0 x/Drn - 1.66 x/Dm = 3.30

oExp.
— JH
— cubic k-t

Figure 13a. Generic CVD Reactor Geometry

0.0 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.0 08 1.6

u/uO u/uO u/uO

Fig. 11 :wake velocity profiles

AGARD-A1 NOZZLE/AFTERBODY
x/Dm = 0 x/Dm = 1.66 x/Dm=3.30

OExp.
— JH
'
— cubic k-e
0.4 0.4

<

0.2 0.2
^.
c

<
0.0
0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.6
pt/ptO pt/ptO Figure 13b. Residual Plot for CVD Reactor
Fig. 12: wake total pressure profiles
Progress In Turbulence Modeling
Generic CVD Reactor
_, ^ . . ^ ~ u r- i , We now turn our attention to more specific information
The next example is r from the field of electronic 1 . ^ 1 1 i 1 - 1 - .-n -j j
« . A • r.x 7^ /^i • i Ar about turbulence closure, which is still considered a
manufacturing. A generic CVD (Chemical Vapor

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
pacing item in CFD. We have achieved progress in two becoming a design tool, a hybrid RANS/LES approach
sub-fields: has been recently developed by us [19]. With this
method a regular RANS-type grid is used except in
(1) Improvements to classical models isolated flow regions where denser, LES-type mesh is
(2) Hybrid RANS/LES methods used to resolve critical unsteady flow features. The
hybrid model transitions smoothly between an LES
Improvements to classical models calculation and a cubic k-e model, depending on grid
fineness. It reverts to RANS in the vicinity of
From the outset, our approach to turbulence closure has elongated near-wall cells (those typically used in RANS
been based on topology-parameter-free formulations. calculations), thus avoiding the near-wall modeling
These models are ideally suited to unstructured book- problems associated with LES. Fig. 15 shows a 2D cut
keeping and massively parallel processing thanks to of a square cylinder in cross flow, where a fine grid was
their independence from constraints related to the placed around the body and in the near-wake; the rest of
placement of boundaries and/or zonal interfaces. Recent the flowfield being occupied by a coarser, RANS-like
contributions to these models include: mesh.
(a) improved behavior of the dissipation-rate
transport equation by explicit sensitization to non-
equilibrium flow regions;
(b) enhanced near-wall characteristics and
elimination of ad-hoc formulations through introduction
of time-scale realizability;
(c) improved heat-transfer prediction capability in Figure 15
high-speed flow by adopting a dual-dissipation A recent application of the hybrid RANS/LES method
approach [17]. Fig.. 14 compares heat-transfer was to predict flow over an airfoil at a high angle-of-
prediction capability using single- and dual-dissipation- attack, where synthetic jets near the leading edge
based models. This case is a Mach 9 flow over a 38 prevent the massive flow separation that would
deg. ramp, with experimental data from [18]. The otherwise occur, as seen in Fig. 16. Fig. 17 shows flow
advantage of the dual-dissipation approach is clearly topology and streamlines, indicating attached flow
observed. when the jets are active. A fine grid was concentrated
in the vicinity of the jets, while a coarser grid was used
38 DEG. RAMP M=9.22 in the rest of the flowfield. Fig. 18 compares predicted
surface pres^ure_with_cqrjesppnding^lata. _ _ _
wall heat transfer Aerodynamic Control Using Synthetic Jets
U.U '
I
Oexp. data F - 0 (hybrid RANS/LES model)
0.15
——— dual-dissipation
——— single dissipation
A1 1
i \
1 \
5.0 i \
1 V
/ ^-•**_,

0.0 """""""Ty^^^^ lUJAnHHWVP

jpff&toD ——
0.425 0.675
X[m]
Figure 14

Hybrid RANS/LES methods

While LES is an increasingly powerful tool for
unsteady turbulent flow prediction, it is still
prohibitively expensive. To bring LES closer to

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
| Aerodynamic Control Using Synthetic Jets based on the exact solution to a two-state wave
F= !
<L (hybrid RANS/LES model) interaction, or Riemann, problem. Godunov's
o.i 5 P pioneering work enabled these new upwind schemes to
be applied directly to hyperbolic systems such as the
Euler equations. A flurry of activity led to the
development of approximate upwind fluxes, for
example, the well-known flux-vector split methods of
Steger-Warming[23] and van Leer[22] and the well-
known flux-difference-splitting methods of Osher-
Solomon[25] and Roe[26]. The original justification
for these approximations was the premise that only
limited information from the exact solution was needed
by most numerical schemes and the observation that, in
practice, approximate solutions appeared to give similar
predictions, at least in simple test cases.

X[m] Ironically, much of the work in the late 1980's and early
Figure 17 1990's (for example, Einfeldt et al.[27], Toro et al.[32],
Batten et al.[29], Moschetta and Pullin[30], Liou[31])
was then spent attempting to remedy the host of
AVIA Airfoil problems that were subsequently discovered with these
hybrid RANS/LES early approximate upwind-flux methods. Common
problems encountered were a loss of positivity, large
glitches near sonic points in expansion waves, kinked
Mach stems, excessive growth of disturbances at grid-
oblique shear layers or the introduction of strong
artificial smoothing in the direction normal to shear or
boundary layers. Many of these problems were hard to
detect and were often incorrectly attributed to coding
errors. Even now, the various known failings of Roe's
solver[26] have done little to diminish its popularity.

o.o - One could legitimately ask what was gained by

abandoning the exact Riemann solver. Its' introduction
in a large CFD-code calculation today would likely
-1.1 have only a minor impact on CPU time, given the other
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
x/c
complexities that are now handled on a routine basis.
The most practical use of approximate Riemann solvers
Figure 18
now appears to lie in the implementation of implicit
This simulation was performed under the guidance of
schemes, where Jacobians need to be obtained rapidly,
and in collaboration with Dr. D. Parekh of GTRI.
or in the modeling of more complex physics, where
exact solutions are currently unknown. In these
situations, there appear to be considerable advantages in
A Brief History of the Riemann Soiver
the (less well-known) approximate Riemann solver
framework introducted by Harten, Lax and van
We felt it relevant to present a perspective on the
Leer[28]. In their inspirational 1983 paper, Harten et
"Riemann solver" which has become a mainstay of
al.[28] put forward an approach based on the generation
CFD. Much of our modern upwind technology arose
of integral-average states. These integral averages
from developments in the early 1980's. With the
would be exact if the signal velocities in the Riemann
advent of these new, parameter-free, scalar transport
problem were known in advance. Based on the work of
schemes based on hybridized first- and higher-order
Roe[26], Einfeldt[27] and Toro[32], Batten et al.[29]
upwind schemes (for example, TVD[20],
devised a set of wave-speeds that ensured a positivity-
UNO/ENO[21]), the significance of the underlying
preserving version of the Toro et al.[32], "HLLC
first-order method became apparent, generating
solver. This appears to have been the first and only
renewed interest in the work of Godunov[24] who,
approximate Riemann solver to simultaneously
decades earlier, had devised a first-order approach
guarantee positivity and entropy conditions, whilst

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
recognizing all isolated discontinuities. The latter
property is now widely regarded as significant for
viscous flows (see Allmaras[33], Batten[34] and
McNeil[35]).
The strategy of ensuring realizability in the numerics
complements recent efforts to achieve realizability in
the mathematics, for example in the modeling of other
physical phenomena, such as turbulence. Modern
turbulence closures which ensure non-negative normal
stresses and Schwartz inequalities on shear stresses tend
to improve both robustness and the quality of
predictions. Mathematically, an interesting aspect of
these improvements in realizaility (both numerical and
mathematical) is the prospect of an absolute guarantee
of robustness, at least within some local time-step limit.
For example, Perthame and Shu[36] recently
demonstrated how positivity-preserving schemes, such
as HLLC, can be extended to arbitrary orders of spatial
accuracy using an additional gradient constraint.
Certain issues inevitably remain unanswered and
continue to spark new ideas. One curious phenomenon
is an instability sometimes seen polluting the bow
shock upstream of blunt bodies in hypersonic flows.
This has a myriad of other manifestations, but is most
commonly known as the "carbuncle phenomenon'.
Depending on grid resolution and orientation, the
carbuncle may or may not appear, but one important
point which is often ignored, is that the exact Riemann
solver also suffers from this "deficiency'. What is truly
at fault is the way in which these exact solutions are
defined and used. There have been claims in the
literature that certain schemes do not give this effect
(HLLC gives carbuncles identical to those of an exact
Riemann solver). Some of these claims subsequently
proved false, with the carbuncle reappearing using a
different grid or flow speed and there remains the
curious question of how one can improve upon an exact
solution. Nonetheless, new schemes tend to provide
new insight and often this is a valuable contribution in
itself.
Some thoughts on CFD in Acoustics
Unsteady flows and aerodynamic noise are very
important current areas of research and engineering.
Ever since the earliest work on acoustics, the problem
of noise prediction has largely been segregated into two
parts; that of noise generation and noise propagation.
The huge distances over which weak-amplitude
pressure waves must travel has forced the wave
propagation problem into the limelight. Only recently
have high-order numerical methods been gaining
acceptance for use in certain acoustics problems.
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA-2001-0136
A more major challenge facing modern aeroacoustic
prediction methods is that of noise generation and
specifically the resolution needed to directly simulate
all sources of sound. At realistic Reynolds numbers,
limited computer resources will dictate, at least for the
foreseeable future, that sound generation by fine-scale
turbulence will require some degree of empirical
modeling.
Current acoustics methodologies vary widely according
to the target application, but the area is still dominated
by the early influences of people such as Lighthill[38],
Ribner[40] and Ffowcs-Williams[37]. In the earliest
proposals, semi-analytical methods based on acoustic
analogies, simplified wave equations and solutions
using Green's or adjoint Green's functions abounded,
with the early numerical methods and computer
hardware of the day justifiably considered as too
inaccurate and too slow, respectively. However, the
result is that today no proven, economical methodology
exists for the prediction of flow-induced noise in
general configurations. In order to address this
problem there appears to have been a continuing trend
towards an elaboration of the earlier models, in order to
account for an increasing level of physical detail in both
the noise generation and radiation problems. Whilst
earlier methods were based on approximate analytical
solutions to a scalar wave equation for the acoustic
pressure, recent efforts have been directed towards the
numerical solution of more comprehensive equation
sets, such as the linearized Euler equations. Research
has also been conducted on the solution of non-linear
(inviscid) perturbation equations [39]. Metacomp
Technologies Inc., has been pursuing methods for the
solution of the systems of equations resulting from
small perturbations to the Navier-Stokes equations. All
these approaches model the sound radiation, but the
prediction of the flow-induced noise generation can be
a more difficult problem.
Noise is typically induced either through forced
oscillations (moving walls), coherent motions (large
scale flow features, which may include resonance) and
high frequency, incoherent motions due to fine-scale
turbulence. Direct simulation of the latter requires a
temporal and spatial resolution beyond what is
currently feasible for engineering application. Whilst
computer hardware may be reaching the point at which
hybrid LES/RANS is becoming feasible, for most
routine applications, even unsteady RANS calculations
can present a challenge to existing computing resources
in complex 3D geometries. A more practical approach,
being pursued at Metacomp, involves extracting noise
sources directly from steady RANS results. Initial
RANS calculations can provide information on the
local length- and time-scales of the turbulence, in
(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
addition to auto-correlations corresponding to the
covariance matrix of the velocity fluctuations. With
certain modeling assumptions, this enables a plausible
reconstruction of the unsteady turbulent field, from
which the noise sources can then be extracted and/or
propagated using an acoustics solver.
References
1. S. Chakravarthy, O. Peroomian, and B. Sekar,
"Some Internal Flow Applications of a Unified-
Grid CFD Methodology", AIAA Paper 96-2926,
July 1996, Lake Buena Vista Florida.
2. O. Peroomian and S. Chakravarthy, "A Grid-
Transparent" Methodology for CFD", AIAA Paper
97-0724, Jan. 1997, Reno Nevada.
3. U.C. Goldberg. "A Pointwise One-Equation
Turbulence Model for Wall-Bounded and Free
Shear Flows", Turbulence, Heat and Mass
Transfer, Begell House Inc., Pub. Jan. 1996.
4. U. Goldberg, O. Peroomian. and S. Chakravarthy.
"A Wall-distance-free k-e model with enhanced
near-wall treatment", ASME JFE 120, pp. 457-462,
1998.
5. U.C. Goldberg. "Exploring a Three-Equation R-k-e
Turbulence Model," ASME J. Fluids Engrg. 118,
pp. 795-799, 1996.
6. U. Goldberg, O. Peroomian, S. Palaniswamy and S.
Chakravarthy, "Anisotropic k-e model for adverse
pressure gradient flow", AIAA 99-0152, 1999.
7. U. Goldberg, "A topology-free single equation
turbulence model", to be published in Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.
8. J.M. Donohue, J.C. McDaniel and H. Haj-Hariri,
"Experimental and numerical study of swept ramp
injection into a supersonic flowfield", AIAA Paper
93-2445, 1993.
9. J. McDaniel, D. Fletcher, R. Hartfield Jr., and S.
Hollo, "Staged Transverse Injection Into Mach 2
Flow Behind a Rearward-Facing Step: A 3-D
Compressible Test Case for Hypersonic Combustor
Code Validation", AIAA Paper 91-5071, Dec.
199l,Orlando, Florida.
10. B. Sekar. "Three Dimensional Computation of
Parallel and Non-Parallel Injection in Supersonic
Flow," AIAA Paper 95-0886.
11. R.J. McGhee and W.D. Beasley. "Low-Speed
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 17%-Thick
Airfoil Section Designed for General Aviation
Applications",, NASA TN D-7428, Dec. 1973.
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA-2001-0136
12. M.C. Burrows and A.P. Kurkov, "Analytical and
experimental study of supersonic combustion of
hydrogen in a vitiated air stream", NASA TM X-
2828, 1973.
13. J.P. Drummond, R.C. Rogers and M.Y. Hussaini,,
"A Numerical Model for Supersonic Reacting
Mixing Layer", Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.64, 1987.
14. AGARD AR-266, 1986, Report of the Working
Group on Aerodynamics of Aircraft Afterbody.
15. U. Goldberg, P. Batten, Palaniswamy, S.,
Chakravarthy, S., and Peroomian, O., "Hypersonic
Flow Predictions Using Linear and Nonlinear
Turbulence Closures", AIAA Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 671-675, 2000.
16. S. Jakirlic, and K. Hanjalic, "A Second-Moment
Closure for Non-Equilibrium and Separating High-
and Low-Re-Number Flows", 10th Symposium on
Turbulent Shear Flows, Penn. State Univ., Vol. 3,
1995.
17. U. Goldberg and P. Batten, "Heat Transfer
Predictions Using a Dual-Dissipation k-e
Turblence Closure", AIAA Paper 01-0726, 39th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV,
January 2001. Also to be published in Journal of
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 15. No. 3,
July 2001.
18. G.T. Coleman and J.L. Stollery, "Heat Transfer
from Hypersonic Turbulent Flow at a Wedge
Compression Corner", Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 56, No. IV, pp. 741-752, 1972.
19. P. Batten, U. Goldberg and S. Chakravarthy, "Sub-
grid Turbulence Modeling for Unsteady Flow with
Acoustic Resonance", AIAA Paper 00-0473, 38th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV,
January 2000.
20. A.Harten, "High Resolution Schemes for
Hyperbolic Conservation Laws", JCP, vol 49, 1983.
21. A.Harten, Recent Developments in Shock
Capturing Schemes, NASA CR 187502, 1991.
22. B. van Leer, J.L.Thomas, P.L.Roe and
R.W.Newsome, "A Comparison of Numerical Flux
Formulas for the Euler and Navier-Stokes
Equations", AIAA 87-1184, 1987.
23. J.L.Steger and R.F.Warming, "Flux Vector
Splitting of the In viscid Gasdynamic Equations with
Applications to Finite-Difference Methods", JCP,
vol 40, pp 263-293, 1981.
24. S.K.Godunov, "A Difference Method for the
Numerical Calculation of Discontinuous Solutions
of Hydrodynamic Equations", Mat. Sbornik vol 47,
1959.
(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

AIAA-2001-0136
25. S.Osher and F.Solomon, "Upwind Schemes for 40. H.Ribner, "Effects of Jet Flow on Jet Noise via an
Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws", Math. Extension to the Lighthill Model", Journal of Fluid
Comp., pp 339-377, vol 38, 1981. Mechanics, vol 321, pp 1-24, 1996.
26. P.L.Roe, "Approximate Riemann Solvers,
Parameter Vectors and Difference Schemes", JCP,
vol 43, pp 357-372, 1981.
27. B.Einfeldt, C.D.Munz, P.L.Roe and B.Sjogreen,
"On Godunov-Type Methods Near Low Densities",
JCP, vol 92, pp 273-295, 1991.
28. A.Harten, P.D.Lax and B.Van Leer, "On Upstream
Differencing and Godunov-Type Schemes for
Hyperbolic Conservation Laws", SIAM Review, vol
25, no l,pp 35-61, 1983.
29. P.Batten, N.Clarke, C.Lambert and D.M.Causon,
"On the Choice of Wave Speeds for the HLLC
Riemann Solver". SIAM J. Sci. & Stat. Comp.,
18(6), 1553-1570, 1997.
30. J-M.Moschetta and D.Pullin, "A Robust Low
Diffusive Kinetic Scheme for the Navier-
Stokes/Euler Equations", JCP, vol 133, pp 193-204,
1997.
31. M-S.Liou and CJ.Steffen Jr., "A New Flux
Splitting Scheme", JCP, vol 107, pp 23-39, 1993.
32. E.F.Toro, M.Spruce and W.Speares, "Restoration
of the Contact Surface in the HLL Riemann Solver",
Shock Waves, vol 4, Springer-Verlag, pp 25-34,
1994.
33. S.R.Allmaras, "Contamination of Laminar
Boundary Layers by Artificial Dissipation in
Navier-Stokes Solutions", Proceedings of the ICFD
Conference, University of Reading, 1992.
34. P.Batten, M.A.Leschziner and U.C.Goldberg,
"Average state Jacobians and implicit methods for
compressible viscous and turbulent flows". JCP vol
137, pp 38-78, 1997.
35. C.Y.McNeil, "The Effect of Numerical Dissipation
on High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flow
Solutions", AIAA Paper 96-0891, 34th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 1996.
36. B.Perthame and C-W.Shu, "On Positivity
Preserving Finite Volume Schemes for the Euler
Equations." Numer. Math., vol 73, pp 119-130,
1996.
37. J.E.Ffowcs-Williams and D.L.Hawkings, "Sound
Generated by Turbulence and Surfaces in Arbitrary
Motion", Phil. Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, vol 264, pp 321-342, 1969.
38. M.J.Lighthill, "On Sound Generated
Aerodynamically - 1. General Theory", Proc. Royal
Society of London, Series A, vol 211, pp 564-587,
1952.
39. PJ.Morris, L.N.Long, A.Bangalore and Q.Wang,
"A Parallel Three-Dimensional Computational
Aeroacoustics Method Using Non-Linear
Disturbance Equations", JCP, vol 133, pp 56-74,
1997.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics