0
research-article

Benchmarking of Computational Fluid Methodologies in Resolving Shear Driven Flow Fields

[+] Author and Article Information
Brandon Horton

CRashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
bahorton@vt.edu

Yangkun Song

CRashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
syangk@vt.edu

Jeffrey Feaster

CRashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
jfeaster@vt.edu

Javid Bayandor

CRashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
bayandor@vt.edu

1Corresponding author.

ASME doi:10.1115/1.4036590 History: Received September 22, 2016; Revised March 09, 2017

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 provides a stepping stone toward identifying accurate solution options for comprehensive FSI. 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 quantitatively assessed using the 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 grid resolution error, the Navier-Stokes solution, LBM, and CLE were all relatively mesh independent for modeling cavity flow. However, SPH displayed a significant dependence on grid resolution and required the greatest computational expense by far. 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 cavity centerlines at 1% and 4% respectively for 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.

Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In