Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Presentation

899 views
777 views

Published on

A Higher-Order Accurate Unstructured Finite Volume Newton-Krylov Algorithm for Inviscid Compressible Flows

0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
899
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26
Actions
Shares
0
0
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### Presentation

1. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of British Columbia A Higher Order Accurate Unstructured Finite Volume Higher-Order Finite-Volume Newton-Krylov Algorithm for Inviscid Compressible Flows Amir Nejat Knowledge Diffusion Network ١٣٨۶ ‫داﻧﺸﮑﺪﻩ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﯽ هﻮاﻓﻀﺎ، داﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﯽ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ، ٩٢ﻣﻬﺮﻣﺎﻩ‬
2. 2. Aircraft Design & Fuel Efficiency η : Fuel consumption per seat per mile η 777 < η 767 15% η 787 < η 777 20%
3. 3. Design Process Mission Specification Experience Initial Design Multi-Physics Numerical Multi-Disciplinary PDE S l Solvers Optimization Optimized Design Opening: Design Process CFD
4. 4. CFD 1-Mesh Complex Geometry Adaptation and Refinement 2-Accuracy Discretization (Truncation) error Modeling error 3-Convergence 3C Stability Residual dropping order Time & Cost Background: CFD CFD Algorithm
5. 5. CFD - Overall Algorithm Geometry & Solution domain Mesh generation package Physics & Fluid flow equations Meshed domain Residual Boundary & Initial conditions Discretization of the fluid flow equations & Flux Computation and Integration Implicit method L Large system of li t f linear equations ti Jacobian matrix Sparse Fluid flow Preconditioning matrix solver simulation Background: CFD Algorithm Motivation
6. 6. Motivation ∂U ∂U Second-order methods: U 2 nd −order= U ( xc , yc ) + Δx + Δy + O( Δ )2 ∂x ∂y ∂ 2U Δx 2 ∂ 2U ∂ 2U Δy 2 Truncation error: O( Δ ) = 22 + ΔxΔy + 2 ∂x 2 ∂x∂y ∂y 2 The 2nd-order truncation error acts like a diffusive term and causes two significant numerical problems: 1-It smears sharp gradients and spoils total pressure conservation (isentropic flows). 2-It produces parasitic error by adding extra diffusion to viscous regions. Higher-order: More accurate simulation Existing research shows higher-order structured discretization technique for a given level of accuracy is more efficient. Higher-order: Higher order: Can be more efficient !? Background: Motivation Literature Review
7. 7. Literature Review Qualitative Illustration of Research on Solver Development Structured Structured-Implicit Unstructured Unstructured-Implicit Second-order ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣ Higher-order ♣♣♣ ♣♣ ♣ ? Trend: 1- Increasing the efficiency using convergence acceleration techniques such as implicit methods (Newton-Krylov). 2- Enhancing the accuracy using higher-order discretization scheme. Background: Literature Review Contribution
8. 8. Objective • Developing an Efficient Higher-Order Accurate Unstructured Finite Volume Algorithm for Inviscid Compressible Fluid Flow. Objective: Contribution Model Problem
9. 9. Model Problem The unsteady (2D) Euler equations which model compressible inviscid fluid flows, are conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy. Aerodynamic application: lift, wave drag and induced drag d ∫ Udv + ∫ FdA = 0 dt cv (1) cs ⎡ρ⎤ ⎡ ρun ⎤ ⎢ ρu ⎥ ⎢ ρuu + Pn ⎥ˆx U =⎢ ⎥ , F =⎢ n ⎥ (2) ⎢ ρv ⎥ ⎢ ρvun + Pn y ⎥ ˆ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣E⎦ ⎣ ( E + P )un ⎦ u n = un x + vn y , E = P /( γ − 1 ) + ρ (u 2 + v 2 ) / 2 ˆ ˆ Theory: Model Problem Implicit Time Advance
10. 10. Implicit Time Advance Applying implicit time integration and linearization of the governing equations in time leads to implicit time advance formula: dU U n +1 − U n ( + R( U ) ) = 0 ⇒ ( + R n +1 ) = 0 (3) dt Δt n +1 ∂R n n+1 R = Rn + ( ) (U −U n ) (4) ∂U I ∂R ( + )δU = − R , δU = U n+1 − U n n (5) Δt ∂U U: Solution Vector R: Residual Vector ∂R/∂U: Jacobian matrix Eq. 5 is a system of linear equations arising from discretization of governing equations over unstructured domain. Theory: Implicit Time Advance Linear System Solver
11. 11. Linear System Solver GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual, Saad 1986) *GMRES algorithm, among other Krylov techniques, only needs matrix vector d t ( t i f products (matrix-free i limplementation). t ti ) *It is developed for non-symmetric matrices. *It predicts the best solution update if the linearization is carried out accurately. To enhance the convergence performance of the GMRES solver, it is necessary to apply preconditioning: −1 Ax = b − > ( AM ) Mx = b , A ≈ M M = LU M ≅ ILU ( n ) M is an approximation to matrix A which has simpler structure. ILU: Incomplete Lower-Upper factorization p pp Technique: Linear System Solver Reconstruction
12. 12. Reconstruction • Defining the Kth-order polynomial for each control volume. • Finding the polynomial coefficients using the averages of the neighboring control volumes. • This polynomial is constructed based on some constraints such as mean constraint. h t i t ∂U ∂U = U ( xc , yc ) + Δx + Δy + (K) UR ∂x ∂y ∂ 2U Δx 2 ∂ 2U ∂ 2U Δy 2 + ΔxΔy + 2 + ∂x 2 2 ∂x∂y ∂y 2 ∂ 3U Δx 3 ∂ 3U Δx 2 Δy ∂ 3U ΔxΔy 2 ∂ 3U Δy 3 + 2 + + 3 + ... (6) ∫U R (K) ( x , y ) = U CV (7) ∂x 63 ∂x ∂y 2 ∂x∂y 2 2 ∂y 6 CV Technique: Reconstruction Monotonicity
13. 13. Monotonicity Limiting Limiting g Technique: Monotonicity Higher-Order Limiter
14. 14. Higher-Order Limiter PHi h -O d = Const + [(1 − σ)φ + σ][Linear part] + σ[Higher - Order part] High Order Const. (8) σ = [ 1 − tanh( ( φ0 − φ )S ) ] / 2, φ0 = 0.8, S = 20. (9) φ < φ0 : σ → 0.0 φ ≥ φ0 : σ = 1.0 Technique: Higher-Order Limiter Flux Evaluation
15. 15. Flux Evaluation • Discretization scheme : Solution reconstruction: Kth-order accurate least-square reconstruction procedure (Ollivier-Gooch 1997) t ti d (Olli i G h 1997). Flux formulation: Roe’s flux difference splitting (1981). 1 1 ~ F (U L ,U R ) = ( F (U L ) + F (U R )) − A (U R − U L ) (10) 2 2 ( L, R ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A = X −1 Λ X , Λ = Diag λ • Integration scheme : Gauss quadrature integration technique with the proper number of p p p points. Ri = ∫ F .nds CVi (11) Gauss quadrature for interior control volumes. Technique: Flux Evaluation 1st-Order Jacobian Matrix
16. 16. 1st-Order Jacobian Matrix Ri = ∑ F nds = ∑ F ( U ,U ˆ faces i i Nk ˆ )( nl )i ,N k (12) ∂Ri ∂F ( U i ,U N k ) J ( i, Nk ) = = ˆ ( nl )i ,N k (13-1) ∂U N k ∂U N k ∂Ri ∂F ( U i ,U N k ) J ( i ,i ) = =∑ ˆ ( nl )i ,N k (13-2) ∂U i ∂U i Technique: 1st-Order Jacobian Matrix Solution Strategy
17. 17. Solution Strategy Strategy: Solution Strategy Solution Procedure
18. 18. Solution Procedure • Start up Process : Before switching to Newton-GMERS Iteration, several pre-implicit iterations have been performed in the form of defect correction, using Eq. (5). I ∂R ( + )δU = − R (5) Δt ∂U ∂R (First Order) ∂U Resultant system is solved by GMRES - ILU(1) linear solver. • Newton-GMRES (matrix-free) iteration : At this stage, infinite time step is taken, and GMRES-ILU(4) is used to g , p , ( ) solve the linear system at each Newton iteration. ∂R ∂R R( U + εv ) − R( U ) ( )δU = − R (12) .v ≅ (13) ∂U ∂U ε Procedure: Solution Procedure Results
19. 19. Results Supersonic Vortex, Annulus-Meshes p , 427 CVs 1703 CVs 108 CV CVs 6811 CVs 27389 CVs Results: Supersonic Vortex Mach Contours Density Error Error Convergence Error versus CPU Time
20. 20. Mach Contours-Supersonic Vortex, M=2.0
21. 21. Density Error-Supersonic Vortex, M=2.0
22. 22. Error Convergence-Supersonic Vortex, M=2.0
23. 23. Density Error versus CPU Time / Supersonic Vortex, M 2.0 M=2.0 Results: Error versus CPU Time Subsonic flow over NACA 0012 Airfoil Subsonic Convergence
24. 24. Subsonic Flow over NACA 0012, M=0.63, AoA=2.0 deg. 4958CV 2nd-Order 3rd-Order Order 4th-Order Order
25. 25. Convergence history-Subsonic Case Order Resid. Eval. Time (Sec) Work Units Newton Itr. Newton Work Units 2nd 126 26.88 349.1 3 136.1-39% 3rd 147 36.03 248.5 4 141.2-57% 4th 247 90.54 90 54 289.3 289 3 7 239.2-83% 239 2-83% Results: Subsonic Convergence Transonic flow over NACA 0012 Airfoil Transonic Convergence
26. 26. Transonic Flow over NACA 0012, M=0.80, AoA=1.25 deg. 4958CV 3rd-Order φ Limiter σ Limiter
27. 27. Convergence history-Transonic Case Order Resid. Eval. Time (Sec) Work Units Newton Itr. Newton Work Units 2nd 197 65.6 279 4 91-33% 3rd 241 106.7 281 5 119-42% 4th 450 311 4 311.4 590 10 221-37% Results: Transonic Convergence Transonic Mach Profile
28. 28. Mach Profile-Transonic case Order CL CD 2nd 0.337593 0.0220572 3rd 0.339392 0.0222634 4th 0.345111 0.0224720 AGARD / Structured (7488:192*39) 0.3474 0.0221 Results: Transonic Mach Profile Research Summary and Conclusion
29. 29. Research Summary and Conclusion • An ILU preconditioned GMRES algorithm (matrix-free) has been used for efficient higher-order computation of solution of Euler equations. • A start-up procedure is implemented using defect correction pre-iterations before switching to Newton iterations. • As an over all performance assessment (including the start up phase) the third start-up order solution is about 1.3 to 1.5 times, and the fourth order solution is about 3.5-5 times, more expensive than the second order solution with the developed gy solver technology. • A modified Venkatakrishnan Limiter was implemented to address the convergence hampering issue, and to improve the accuracy of the limited eco s uc o . reconstruction. • Using a good initial solution state, start up process and effective preconditioning are determining factors in Newton-GMRES solver performance performance. • The possibility of benefits of higher-order discretization has been shown. Closing: Research Summary and Conclusion Recommended Future Work
30. 30. Recommended Future Work • Improving the start-up procedure. • Applying a more accurate preconditioning. pp y g p g • Enhancing th b t E h i the robustness of the reconstruction f di f th t ti for discontinuities (limiting). ti iti (li iti ) • Extension to 3D. • Extension to viscous flows. Closing: Recommended Future Work End
31. 31. End Thank You for Your Attention