Benchmarking of Computational Fluid Methodologies in Resolving Shear-Driven Flow Fields

Abstract

Despite recent interests in complex fluid–structure interaction (FSI) problems, little work has been conducted to establish baseline multidisciplinary FSI modeling capabilities for research and commercial activities across computational platforms. The current work investigates the fluid modules of contemporary FSI methodologies by solving a purely fluid problem at low Reynolds numbers to improve understanding of the fluid dynamic capabilities of each solver. By incorporating both monolithic and partitioned solvers, a holistic comparison of computational accuracy and time-expense is presented between lattice-Boltzmann methods (LBM), coupled Lagrangian–Eulerian (CLE), and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH). These explicit methodologies are assessed using the classical square lid-driven cavity for low Reynolds numbers (100–3200) and are validated against an implicit Navier–Stokes solution in addition to established literature. From an investigation of numerical error associated with grid resolution, the Navier–Stokes solution, LBM, and CLE were all relatively mesh independent. However, SPH displayed a significant dependence on grid resolution and required the greatest computational expense. Throughout the range of Reynolds numbers investigated, both LBM and CLE closely matched the Navier–Stokes solution and literature, with the average velocity profile error along the generated cavity centerlines at 1% and 4%, respectively, at Re = 3200. SPH did not provide accurate results whereby the average error for the centerline velocity profiles was 31% for Re = 3200, and the methodology was unable to represent vorticity in the cavity corners. Results indicate that while both LBM and CLE show promise for modeling complex fluid flows, commercial implementations of SPH demand further development.

Verified fuselage section water impact modelling

“…The plots show U and V velocities at the centre of the cavity along the vertical and horizontal direction, respectively. The velocity plots show the quantitative accuracy of the fluid approximation using CLE and SPH by comparing the reported data from the preceding work (22) and CFD results (11) . As indicated by the velocity results in each direction, the computational accuracy of CLE is superior to that of the SPH formulation with several orders of magnitude less computational effort.…”

“…The problem is a well-known fluid mechanics benchmark that has been used in many previous studies to evaluate different fluid modelling methods. Once the model was successfully developed using CLE and SPH, the results computed based on each monolithic solver were compared against the existing literature (22) as well as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results using FLUENT (11) . As shown in Fig.…”

“…The modelling approach and assessment analysis developed for this study are thoroughly discussed in Ref. (11).…”

“…Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to model fluid-structure interactive (FSI) events, using two of the most popular monolithic finite element formulations; Coupled Lagrangian-Eulerian (CLE) (6)(7)(8) and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) (9,10) . Considering several shortcomings of the commercial implementation of SPH, however, found in a previous investigation (11) , CLE is used for the current investigation. This paper consists of two phases; (1) verification and validation of the fluid modelling using a finite element analysis (FEA) tool and (2) determination of the dynamic response of a fuselage structure ditching into water to predict the dynamic behaviour of a deformable, ground-impact-verified fuselage section (Boeing 737-200) ditching into water.…”

Numerical simulation of three‐sided lid‐driven square cavity

“…However, they will be solved numerically in stream function-vorticity formulation ( -) for incompressible, unsteady, 2D fluid flow using FDM, and an implicit technique known as alternating direction implicit (ADI) scheme as stated by Peaceman and Rachford. 29 One-sided, two-side, and four-sided lid-driven cavity flows have been studied widely in these outstanding articles [30][31][32][33][34][35] and because of the rapid evolution of cavity flows. The aim of this article is to investigate the three-sided lid-driven cavity since it was not studied previously besides its academic value for the study of vortices dynamics at corners.…”