2012

Validation Guide

2012 Next Limit Technologies

Contents

1 Theory

2 Lid-driven cavity flow

3 Natural convection in a cavity

13

4 NACA-0012 airfoil at Re = 500

19

5 S825 airfoil

27

6 Vortex cell

35

7 Automotive aerodynamics

39

8 Multi-phase flows

45

ii

1
Theory

In the literature there are several particle-based numerical approaches to solve the
computational fluid dynamics. They can be classified in three main categories:
(i) algorithms modeling the behavior of the fluid at molecular level (e.g. Direct
Simulation Montecarlo); (ii) algorithms which solve the equations at a macroscopic
level, such as Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) or Vortex Particle Method
(VPM), and finally, (iii) methods based on a mesoscopic framework, such as the
Lattice Gas Automata (LGA) and Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM).
The algorithms that work at molecular level have a limited application, and they
are used in theoretical analysis. The methods that solve macroscopic continuum
equations are employed most frequently, but they also present several problems.
SPH-like schemes are computationally expensive and in their less sophisticated
implementations show lack of consistency and have problems imposing accurate
boundary conditions. VPM schemes have also a high computational cost and
besides, they require additional solvers (e.g. schemes based on boundary element
method) to solve the pressure field, since they only model the rotational part of the
flow.
Finally, LGA and LBM schemes have been intensively studied in the last years
being their affinity to the computational calculation their main advantage. Their
main disadvantage is the complexity to analyze theoretically the emergent behavior
of the system at macroscopic level from the laws imposed at mesoscopic level.
XFlows approach to the fluid physics takes the main ideas behind these schemes
and extends them to overcome most of the limitations present on these schemes.

1.1

Lattice Gas Automata

LGA schemes are simple models that allow to solve the behavior of gases. The
main idea is that the particles move discretely in a d-dimensional lattice in one of

Theory

Figure 1.1: HPP model.

the predetermined direction at discrete times t = 0, 1, 2, ... and with velocity ci ,

i = 0, ..., b, also predetermined.
The simplest model is the HPP, introduced by Hardy, Pomeau and de Pazzis,
in which the particles move in a two-dimensional square grid and in four directions,
as shown in Figure 1.1. The state of an element of the lattice at instant t is given by
the occupation number ni (r, t), with i = 0, ..., b, being ni = 1 presence and ni = 0
absence of particles moving in direction i.
The equation that governs the evolution of the system is as follows:
ni (r + ci t, t + t) = ni (r, t) + i (n1 , ..., nb )

(1.1)

where i is the collision operator, which for each previous state (n1 , ..., nb ) computes
C
a post-collision state (nC
1 , ..., nb ) conserving the mass, linear momentum and energy;
r is a position in the lattice and ci a velocity.
From a statistical point of view, a system is constituted by a large number
of elements which are macroscopically equivalent to the system under study. The
macroscopic density and linear momentum are:
b

1X
ni ,
b
i=1

1.2

v =

1X
n i ci
b

(1.2)

i=1

Boltzmanns transport equation

Boltzmanns transport equation is defined as follows:

fi (r + ci t, t + t) = fi (r, t) + B
i (f1 , .., fb )

(1.3)

where fi is the distribution function in the direction i and B

i the collision operator.
From this equation and by means of the Chapman-Enskog expansion, the
compressible Navier-Stokes equations can be recovered [1]. The Chapman-Enskog

1.3 Lattice Boltzmann Method

expansion shows that it is possible to design LGA schemes that recover the
hydrodynamic macroscopic behavior at low Mach numbers.
The main advantage of these methods is their great affinity with computers.
They are easily programmed and very efficient. Some schemes have isotropy
problems (do not satisfy Galilean invariance) and produce very noisy results.
The main contribution of LGA schemes is that they are precursor of the Lattice
Boltzmann method.

1.3

Lattice Boltzmann Method

The origins of the Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM) ([2, 3, 4]) lie in the LGA
schemes. While the LGA schemes use discrete numbers to represent the state of the
molecules, the LBM method makes use of statistical distribution functions with real
variables, preserving by construction the conservation of mass, linear momentum
and energy. It can be shown that if the collision operator is simplified under the
Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) approximation [5], the resulting scheme reproduces
the hydrodynamic regime also for low Mach numbers. This operator is defined as
follows:
1
(1.4)
BGK
= (fieq fi )
i

eq
where fi is the local equilibrium function and is the relaxation characteristic time
(which is related to the macroscopic viscosity).
Usually, the equilibrium distribution function adopts the following expression:


ci v v v ci ci
eq
( 2 )
(1.5)
fi (r, t) = ti 1 + 2 +
cs
2c2s
cs
where cs is the sound speed, v the macroscopic velocity, the Kronecker delta, and
ti are built preserving the isotropy in space.

(a) D2Q7

(b) D2Q9

Figure 1.2: Most common LBM schemes in two-dimensions.

LBM schemes are classified as a function of the spatial dimensions d and the
number of distribution functions b, resulting the notation DdQb. The most common

Theory

(a) D3Q19

(b) D3Q27

Figure 1.3: Most common LBM schemes in three-dimensions.

schemes in two dimensions are the D2Q7 and D2Q9 represented in Figure 1.2,
while in three dimensions the most used schemes are the D3Q13, D3Q15, D3Q19
and D3Q27 plotted in Figure 1.3.
Finally, the multiscale Chapman-Enskog expansion gives us the relation between
the macroscopic viscosity and the relaxation parameter:
1
= c2s ( )
2

(1.6)

For a positive viscosity, the relaxation time must be greater than 0.5. The most
interesting aspect is that these schemes are able to model a wide range of viscosities
(0, ) in an efficient way even using explicit formulations.
General references are the review by Chen and Doolen (1998) [6] and the book
by Succi (2001) [7].

1.4

Turbulence modeling

Following the dimensional analysis proposed by Kolmogorov at high Reynolds

numbers, the flow tends to break in smaller eddies to transform the kinetic energy
into internal energy. This process is known as Kolmogorov cascade and it explains
the turbulence phenomenon.
The time necessary to break an eddy in the flow is in the order of
Tbreak

Leddy
eddy

(1.7)

and the time to dissipate the kinetic energy through viscosity is expressed as
Tdissip,visc

L2eddy

(1.8)

1.4 Turbulence modeling

Problem

Re
Nelements

Blood flow
Bioengineering

Vehicle airflow
at low speed

Vehicle airflow

Plane airflow

103 - 104
106 - 109

105 - 106
1011 - 1013

107 - 108
1015 - 1018

> 109
> 1020

Table 1.1: Number of elements required for DNS.

For large eddies and high Reynolds numbers, the break time is smaller than time
employed to dissipate the energy and this produces the Kolmogorov cascade.
The kinetic energy of a turbulent structure can be estimated by
2
Ec eddy Veddy

The specific kinetic energy dissipation ratio is as follows

break

2
Veddy

Tbreak

3
Veddy

Leddy

The smallest eddies present in the flow (of size Lcritical ) have a break
time equal to time necessary to transform their kinetic energy to viscous energy
(Tbreak Tdissip,visc ). Then the kinetic energy dissipation ratio can be estimated by
3
3
Veddy
Vcritical
3

4
break
Lcritical
Leddy
Lcritical

(1.9)

3 L3
3
Veddy
Leddy
L3critical 3
eddy Lcritical

=
Reeddy
3
Lcritical
3 Leddy
L3eddy

(1.10)

Lcritical
3/4
Reeddy
Leddy

(1.11)

viscous
and thus,

Finally,

Taking into account this relation, if we want to solve explicitly every eddy in a
three-dimensional flow, the number of elements are in the order of

Nelements

Leddy
Lcritical

3

9/4

Reeddy

(1.12)

Table 1.1 summarizes the number of elements necessary to solve in a direct way
the turbulence at different Reynolds numbers. Direct numerical simulation (DNS)
of turbulence is currently possible only for low Reynolds numbers, while for typical
industrial Reynolds numbers some modeling for the unresolved scales is required.
Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach models the turbulence in
a global way. This approach is nowadays the most widely adopted and calculates

Theory

Figure 1.4: Turbulence modeling.

values averaged in time, removing the time dependence of the solution. Although
calculating averaged results is computationally less expensive, new terms appear in
the Navier-Stokes equations that have to be modeled by new transport equations.
Moreover there are several RANS models, each one suitable for a specific problem,
and the parameters of each model need to be adjusted empirically.
Another approach to the turbulence problem is the Large Eddy Simulation
(LES). These schemes solve the turbulence in a local way, modeling only the smallest
scales, and are closer to the physics (see Figure 1.4). The turbulence at smallest
scales has been extensively studied and its behavior can be reproduced without using
arbitrary parameters. These are the type of schemes employed in XFlow.
The LES scheme adopted by default by XFlow is the Wall-Adapting Local Eddyviscosity (WALE), which has good properties both near and far of the wall and with
laminar and turbulent flows. This model is formulated as follows:
ef f ective = molecular + turbulent
turbulent =

2f ilterscale

(Gd Gd )3/2

(S S )5/2 + (Gd Gd )5/4



1 v v
=
+
2 r
r

1 2
1
2
2
Gd = (g
+ g
) g
2
3
g =

v
r

(1.13)
(1.14)

(1.15)
(1.16)
(1.17)

REFERENCES

References
[1] Y.H. Qian, D. DHumieres, and P. Lallemand. Lattice BGK models for NavierStokes equation. Europhysics Letters, 17:479, 1992.
[2] G. McNamara and G. Zanetti. Use of the Boltzmann equation to simulate latticegas automata. Physical Review Letters, 61:23322335, 1988.
[3] F.J. Higuera and J. Jimenez. Boltzmann approach to lattice gas simulations.
Europhysics Letters, 9:663668, 1989.
[4] H. Chen, S. Chen, and W. Matthaeus. Recovery of the Navier-Stokes equations
using a lattice-gas Boltzmann method. Physical Review A, 45:5339, 1992.
[5] P.L. Bhatnagar, E.P. Gross, and M. Krook. A model for collision processes in
gases. Phys. Rev., 94:511, 1954.
[6] S. Chen and G. Doolen. Lattice Bolzmann method for fluid flows. Annual
Reviews of Fluid Mechanics, 30:32964, 1998.
[7] S. Succi. The Lattice Boltzmann Equation for Fluid Dynamics and Beyond.
Clarendon Press, 2001.

REFERENCES

2
Lid-driven cavity flow

The lid-driven cavity is a classical benchmark problem for viscous incompressible

fluid flow. It consists in a cavity where the upper boundary moves to the right, and
causes a rotation in the cavity. Side and bottom walls of the cavity are considered
no-slip, while the velocity at the upper wall is imposed to vx = 1 m s1 (see Figure
2.1). Although there is a discontinuity of the boundary conditions at the two top
corners where the side wall meet the lid, this corner singularity plays a minor role
in the overall solution field.

Figure 2.1: Geometry and boundary conditions.

The solution field will depend on the Reynolds number
Re =

vx L

(2.1)

This validation case computes the laminar incompressible flow for a 2D driven cavity
at Re = 1000 and compares XFlows results with the ones presented in [1] and [2].
Fluid properties are = 1 kg m3 and = 0.001 Pa s, in a L = 1 m square cavity
discretized with 128x128, 256x256 and 512x512 cells lattices.

10

Lid-driven cavity flow

128x128

256x256

512x512

Ref. [1]

Ref. [2]

0.9688
0.9531
0.7344
0.5
0.2813
0.1016
0.0625

0.58578
0.476
0.18963
-0.06255
-0.28175
-0.29968
-0.20118

0.57217
0.46869
0.18866
-0.06218
-0.28020
-0.30286
-0.20493

0.57970
0.47213
0.18908
-0.06216
-0.28064
-0.30078
-0.20248

0.57492
0.46604
0.18719
-0.0608
-0.27805
-0.2973
-0.20196

0.58031
0.47239
0.18861
-0.06205
-0.2804
-0.30029
-0.20227

Table 2.1: Horizontal velocity vx along the vertical centerline. Comparison of

XFlows results for different resolutions with the reference solutions.

The solution computed with XFlow is plotted in Figure 2.2. The vx velocity

Figure 2.2: Velocity field.

distribution along vertical centerline is shown in Figure 2.3 and Table 2.1. Additional
quantitative comparisons of pressure and vorticity are presented in Tables 2.2 and
2.3.
For this problem it is essential to activate the high order boundary conditions
(Project Tree > Engine > Advanced Options > High order boundary
conditions). This imposes the velocity at the lid through a high order scheme.
While using high order BC the velocity relative error is O(103 ), with the default
BC the relative error is O(102 ).

11

Figure 2.3: Horizontal velocity vx distribution along the vertical centerline.

y

128x128

256x256

512x512

Ref. [1]

0.9688
0.9531
0.7344
0.5
0.2813
0.1016
0.0625

0.055238
0.053995
0.013019
0.0
0.043511
0.112102
0.117450

0.054295
0.053059
0.012739
0.0
0.042518
0.110042
0.115454

0.054077
0.052855
0.012738
0.0
0.042447
0.109613
0.114904

0.051514
0.050329
0.012122
0.0
0.040377
0.104187
0.109200

Table 2.2: Pressure p along the vertical centerline for Re = 1000. Comparison of
XFlows results for different resolutions with a reference solution.
y

128x128

256x256

512x512

Ref. [2]

0.9688
0.9531
0.7344
0.5
0.2813
0.1016
0.0625

9.51527
5.04854
2.10078
2.07863
2.27638
1.64462
2.32787

9.11829
4.63587
2.09089
2.06865
2.26145
1.61598
2.30427

9.43159
4.81708
2.09418
2.07152
2.26792
1.63825
2.31797

9.47810
4.86280
2.09090
2.06690
2.26780
-1.63520
-2.31740

Table 2.3: Vorticity along the vertical centerline. Comparison of XFlows results
for different resolutions with a reference solution.

12

REFERENCES

References
[1] U. Ghia, K.N. Ghia, and C.T. Shin. High-Re solutions for incompressible
flow using the Navier-Stokes equations and a multigrid method. Journal of
Computational Physics, 48:387411, 1982.
[2] C.-H. Bruneau and M. Saad. The 2d lid-driven cavity problem revisited.
Computers & Fluids, 35:326348, 2006.

3
Natural convection in a cavity

Buoyancy-driven flow in a square cavity with vertical sides which are differentially
heated allows to test XFlow in thermal problems where the buoyancy forces are
modeled using the Boussinesq approximation. The aim is to calculate the flow and
thermal field for Rayleigh numbers of 103 and 106 , and compare the results with the
benchmark solutions published by De Vahl et al. [1].

Figure 3.1: Geometry and boundary conditions.

The boundary conditions for the problem (see Figure 3.1) involve two vertical
walls at different temperatures, leading to a thermal gradient across the domain.
This thermal gradient produces varying buoyancy forces between the walls that
drive the flow. Horizontal walls are considered adiabatic.
The Boussinesq approximation assumes the linear variation of the density as a
function of the temperature ,
= 0 [1 ( 0 )]
and that the thermodynamic properties of incompressible fluids are constant except

14

Natural convection in a cavity

when considering the body force g in the momentum equation:

v =0

(3.1)

dv
= + 0 [1 ( 0 )]g
dt
d
0 cp
= k () +
dt
0

(3.2)
(3.3)

where is the thermal expansion coefficient, cp the specific heat at constant pressure,
k the thermal diffusion coefficient, 0 a reference temperature, 0 = (0 ), and is
the viscous heat dissipation.
Benchmark solutions for the natural convection problem were published by [1].
These solutions are compared against the numerical results obtained with XFlow.
The non-dimensional distances and velocities used in the results are
X=
with =

x
,
L

Y =

y
,
L

Vx =

vx L
,

and Vy =

vy L

k
the thermal diffusivity. The Rayleigh number is defined as
cp
Ra =

g L3

(3.4)

= |1 2 | is the temperature difference between the two vertical walls.

For the simulations presented here, the solution domain consists of a L = 1 m
square, using 20x20, 40x40, 80x80, and 160x160 cell lattices. The fluid properties
for the Ra = 103 case are:
0 = 1 kg m3 ,
g = 10 m s2 ,
= 0.1 K1 ,
= 1 K (e.g. 1 = 293.65 K, 2 = 292.65 K),
= 0.0266458 Pa s,
k = 0.0375293 kg m s3 K1 ,
cp = 1 m2 s2 K1
cp
=
The last three values are chosen to match the Prantl number of air, P r =
k
6
0.71. For the Ra = 10 case, only change = 0.0008426 Pa s and k = 0.0011868
kg m s3 K1 . The viscous heat dissipation has been neglected as in [1].
The following quantities will be analyzed at the steady state:
N u0 , average heat flux in the hot vertical wall

Z
N u0 =
0


dy 
x
X=0

15

max Vx , maximum value of the non-dimensional horizontal velocity on the

vertical centerline and its location Ymax
max Vy , maximum value of the non-dimensional vertical velocity on the
horizontal centerline and its location Xmax

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show the comparison of XFlows results with the benchmark
solution published in [1] for Ra = 103 and Ra = 106 . There is a good agreement in
both cases although the accuracy decreases for the highest Rayleigh number. This
deterioration is consistent with the findings of most contributors reported in [1].
In this test, the maximum and minimum locations are cell centered, none of the
interpolation techniques suggested by [2] have been employed.

max Vx
at Ymax
max Vy
at Xmax
N u0

20x20

40x40

80x80

160x160

Ref.[1]

3.5428
0.825
3.6359
0.175
1.0916

3.6325
0.8125
3.6941
0.1875
1.1072

3.6422
0.8187
3.7023
0.1812
1.1129

3.6468
0.8156
3.7012
0.1781
1.1155

3.649
0.813
3.697
0.178
1.117

Table 3.1: Case Ra = 103 . Comparison of XFlows results for different resolutions
with the benchmark solution.

max Vx
at Ymax
max Vy
at Xmax
N u0

20x20

40x40

80x80

160x160

Ref.[1]

54.448
0.875
127.259
0.075
5.924

57.750
0.863
193.479
0.038
7.975

63.805
0.856
215.178
0.044
8.688

64.902
0.847
219.817
0.041
8.823

64.630
0.850
219.360
0.038
8.817

Table 3.2: Case Ra = 106 . Comparison of XFlows results for different resolutions
with the benchmark solution.
For this case it is essential to deactivate the viscous heat dissipation
(in Project Tree > Engine > Advanced Options > Enable viscous term in
Energy equation: Off), set a Courant 1, and do not use turbulence model
neither wall models (Off-resolved). Too large Courant values introduce an
excessive compressibility in the flow and the results do not correspond to the
Boussinesq incompressible reference solution.

16

Natural convection in a cavity

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3.2: Result fields for Ra = 103 : (a) temperature, (b) horizontal velocity, (c)
vertical velocity, and (d) vorticity.

17

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3.3: Result fields for Ra = 106 : (a) temperature, (b) horizontal velocity, (c)
vertical velocity, and (d) vorticity.

18

REFERENCES

References
[1] G. DeVahl Davis and I.P. Jones. Natural convection in a square cavity: a
comparison exercise. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
3:227248, 1983.
[2] G. DeVahl Davis. Natural convection of air in a square cavity: a benchmark
numerical solution. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
3:249264, 1983.

4
NACA-0012 airfoil at Re = 500

The NACA-0012 airfoil is a widely-used wing section that has zero camber and
a maximum thickness to chord ratio of 12 percent. Its two-dimensional profile is
symmetric and has very smooth aerodynamic shape, as shows Figure 4.1. This
validation case presents the results for the flow past a NACA-0012 at zero angleof-attack and Reynolds number 500 using XFlow, and compares the results with
reference data. Due to lack of experimental data for such a low Reynolds number,
the comparison will be based on the CFL3D code from the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) [1, 2].

Figure 4.1: NACA-0012 profile.

This two-dimensional single phase external aerodynamics analysis has been run
using a virtual wind tunnel of dimensions 60 40 m and a NACA-0012 profile of
chord length L = 1 m. In order to reach a Reynolds number equal to 500 based on
the chord length, the simulation parameters have been set according to Table 4.1.
The spatial resolution chosen is 2.56 m for the far field, and 0.005 m around
the airfoil profile and within the wake area, as shown in Figure 4.2. The spatial
discretization has been defined through a region of refinement instead of using an
adaptive refinement in order to ensure that the symmetry of the NACA-0012 is
respected. The discretization ended up with 1.3 million elements in 9 levels of
refinement. Since the flow is laminar, no wall functions have been used to model the
boundary layer.
Due to the fact that XFlow solver is inherently transient, the analysis has been

20

NACA-0012 airfoil at Re = 500

Free-stream velocity
Density
Dynamic viscosity
Chord length
Reynolds number
Angle-of-attack

vref

L
Re

50 m s1
1 kg m3
0.1 Pa s
1m
500
0 degree

Table 4.1: Simulation conditions.

run until the aerodynamic coefficients stabilize in time. The time step used was
0.004 s, which corresponds to a Courant number of 1 with respect to the lattice size
and the free-stream velocity.

Figure 4.2: Spatial resolution in XFlow.

Profiles of normalized X and Y velocity components, as well as pressure
coefficients, have been analyzed at five vertical sections: x/L = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
and 1 (see Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.4 shows the X-component of the velocity field normalized by the
reference velocity vref = 50 m s1 . The results of XFlow and CFL3D are perfectly
matching for the five sections. The profiles are as expected in both codes: they tend
to zero in the airfoil thickness and to one (or slightly more) on the sides where the
boundary layer is fully developed.

21

Figure 4.3: Data plot lines.

Cd
Cl

XFlow

CFL3D

Objective

0.1705
1013

0.1741
0.538 105

0.1741
0

Table 4.2: Aerodynamic coefficients comparison.

For the Y-component of the velocity field (normalized by vref ), again

XFlow results are almost perfectly matching with those of CFL3D, as shown in
Figure 4.5. Nevertheless, one can observe some differences close to the airfoil wall,
specially for section x/L = 0.5. This might be due to the size of the first element
within the boundary layer which is not fine enough. However, the differences between
the two codes are small.
pstatic
, where pstatic is the
The pressure coefficient Cp is defined as Cp = 1
2
2 vref
gauge static pressure. Figure 4.6 shows the pressure coefficient distribution at the
five sections. More differences are now noticeable, especially at x/L = 0.5, 0.75 and
1.0. In general, the Cp tends to be slightly over-estimated.
The aerodynamic coefficients predicted by XFlow are quite similar to the ones
from CFL3D, see Table 4.2. The drag coefficient has a relative error of -2.0678%
with respect to CFL3D results, whereas the lift coefficient is actually even more
accurate since it should be equal to zero due to the symmetry of the NACA profile
at zero angle-of-attack.
Aknowledgements: Validation data have been kindly provided by courtesy of
NASA Langley Research Center and David P. Lockard.

22

NACA-0012 airfoil at Re = 500

Figure 4.4: X-component of velocity u(x, y) at x/L = 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0.

23

Figure 4.5: Y-component of velocity v(x, y) at x/L = 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0.

24

NACA-0012 airfoil at Re = 500

Figure 4.6: Pressure coefficient at x/L = 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0.

REFERENCES

25

References
[1] C. Rumsey, R. Biedron, and J. Thomas. CFL3D: Its history and some recent
applications. Technical report, NASA TM-112861, 1997.
[2] D.P. Lockard, L.-S. Luo, S.D. Milder, and B.A. Singer. Evaluation of
PowerFLOW for Aerodynamic Applications. Journal of Statistical Physics,
107(1/2):423478, 2002.

26

REFERENCES

5
S825 airfoil

The S825 airfoil has been designed for horizontal-axis wind turbine applications by
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Colorado, USA). The report of the
design and experimentation of the S825 airfoil [1] exposes the different objectives
and constraints set for the design, as well as the methodology of measurements
which have been conducted in the NASA Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel
(LTPT) [2]. As explained in [1], the main objectives were, first, to reach a maximum
lift coefficient of at least 1.40 at a Reynolds number of 2 106 . Second, a low profiledrag coefficients should be obtained between 0.40 and 1.20 of the lift coefficient. Two
main constraints were to keep the zero-lift pitching-moment coefficient greater than
-0.15, and also to have an airfoil thickness equal to 17% of the chord. The final twodimensional design is as shown in Figure 5.1, with a chord length equal to 0.45715
m.

Figure 5.1: S825 airfoil shape.

Experiments have been conducted at different Reynolds numbers based on the

chord length, however this validation case will only treat the Reynolds number 2106
since it has been used for most of the data provided by [1]. The Mach number is
0.1 and the experimentation has been done with transition free (smooth) and with
transition fixed by roughness at specific locations.
The objective of this case is to validate the pressure distribution and
aerodynamic forces predicted by XFlow at low Mach number and different angles of
attack (AoA).
The calculations have been performed with XFlow for a range of angles of attack

28

S825 airfoil

between -4 and 10 degrees every two degrees. All the calculations are transient due
to the nature of the XFlow solver and use the Wall-Adapting Local-Eddy turbulence
model, which belongs to the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) approach. Wall function
models in XFlow assume that the boundary layer is fully turbulent, therefore it is
not possible to model transition or prescribe a transition location.
Two-dimensional single phase analyses have been performed using a virtual wind
tunnel of 60 m 40 m and a velocity at the inlet of 43.7493 m s1 . The angle of
attack is varying by rotating the geometry instead of projecting the inlet velocity
vector, since XFlow allows easy manipulation of the geometry.
The fluid has a density of 1 kg m3 and a dynamic viscosity of 105 Pa s
accordingly to the Reynolds number based on the airfoil chord length (Re = 2106 ).
The simulations have been run for 1 second of physical time, with a time step of
0.002 s. The resolution scale at the far field is 1.28 m, using the refinement near
walls and dynamically adapting to the wake available in XFlow. The walls and the
wake are resolved with a scale of 0.0025 m, as shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Resolution refinement near the airfoil and the wake.
The solution for the static pressure and velocity flow variables at final time for
zero angle of attack can be observed in Figure 5.3.
For each angle of attack, the curve of pressure coefficients (Cp ) has been
extracted in XFlow using a cutting plane field distribution which projects the selected
field on the upper and lower sides of the airfoil. The Cp has been computed as
following, being Vref equal to 43.7493 m s1 :
pstatic
Cp = 1
(5.1)
2
2 Vref

29

(a) Static pressure

(b) Velocity
Figure 5.3: Static pressure and velocity flow fields at final time for AoA = 0 degrees.

For the angles of attack -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 degrees, the pressure coefficient
distribution along the airfoil has been compared with the transition free experimental
data presented in [1]. The results for angle of attack between 0 and 6 degrees are
in good agreement with the experiments, as shows Figure 5.4. On the upper side
of the airfoil, the pressure coefficients are slightly under-estimated when the angle
increases but still match reasonably with the experimental data.
However, when angles are increased to 8 and 10 degrees of AoA then results
are getting less accurate, as shown in Figure 5.5. The pressure coefficient tends
to be more under-estimated near the leading edge of the upper part. This could
be explained by the lack of transition model or the LES model, which is not fully
consistent for 2D simulations.
Another last series of angles of attack have been studied, this time for negative
incidence. Again, XFlow predicts with accuracy the pressure coefficient distribution
for -2 and -4 degrees, as shown in Figure 5.6.
Finally, Figure 5.7 compares the angle of attack vs. lift coefficient for theoretical
[1], experimental [1] and XFlow results. For positive angles, the lift coefficient is
slightly over-predicted by XFlow but in good agreement with the theoretical results.

30

S825 airfoil

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 5.4: Airfoil pressure coefficient distribution for different AoA: a) 0 degrees,
b) 2 degrees, c) 4 degrees, d) 6 degrees.

31

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.5: Airfoil pressure coefficient distribution for different AoA: a) 8 degrees,
b) 10 degrees.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.6: Airfoil pressure coefficient distribution for different AoA: a) -2 degrees,
b) -4 degrees.

32

S825 airfoil

Figure 5.7: AoA () vs. lift coefficient (Cl ) for theoretical, experimental and
XFlow results.

REFERENCES

33

References
[1] D. Somers. Design and experimental results for the s825 airfoil. Technical report,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2005.
[2] R. J. McGhee, W. D. Beasley, and J. M. Foster. Recent modifications and
calibration of the langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel. Technical report,
NASA TP-2328, 1984.

34

REFERENCES

6
Vortex cell

Trapping vortices is a technique that prevents vortex shedding in flows past bluff
bodies. Vortices forming near bluff bodies tend to be shed downstream but, if the
vortex is kept near the body at all times, it is called trapped.
This validation case compares XFlow results with experimental data for the flow
inside a vortex trapping cavity (vortex cell). The geometry consists in a rectangular
channel of section 520 52 mm with a spherical vortex cell of 45 mm depth located
at mid-length as shown in Figure 6.1. The boundary condition at the inlet is set
to a constant fluid velocity of UL = 36 m/s and the gauge pressure to 0 Pa at the
outlet. The fluid has been initialized to UL in the whole domain except inside the
vortex cell where it is 0 m/s in order to reach quicker the pseudo-steady state.

Figure 6.1: Vortex cell geometry.

The experimental data from [1, 2] provide the normalized X-component of the
velocity measured along a vertical line going from the bottom of the sphere up to
the upper wall of the channel (see Figure 6.2). The vertical coordinate along the
line is normalized by the line length L = 52 mm.
The two-dimensional studies led by [3] based on steady RANS turbulence models
show how sensitive are the numerical results for the vortex cell flow depending
on the turbulence model and the choice of the numerical scheme. XFlow uses

36

Vortex cell

Figure 6.2: Line for measurement.

Large Eddy Simulation turbulence models, which are inherently three-dimensional.

Furthermore, although the vortex cell seems a two-dimensional flow, turbulence
effects (important near and inside the cavity) need a three-dimensional analysis to
be accurately modeled.
Unfortunately three-dimensional analyses may involve a large number of
elements and long simulation times. The refinement algorithms available in
XFlow (near the walls and adaptive wake) allow to minimize the number of elements,
but tend to introduce numerical dissipation when passing from one element size to
another and has been found to be inaccurate especially in the boundary layer that
detaches from the leading edge of the vortex cell.
The following results were obtained using a uniform resolution of 1 mm in the
whole domain and a time step of 106 s. This resolution leads to a total of 1.1
million elements. The total simulation time solved is 0.9 s at a frequency of 500
Hz. Averaged results are required in order to analyze the pseudo-steady state of the
solution.
Figure 6.3 shows that XFlow 3D results are globally in good agreement with
the experimental data. The areas of less accuracy are at y/L around -0.7 and the
peak around 0.1. Nevertheless XFlow is able to predict the experimental velocity
profile at the cavity entry (0.4 < y/L < 0) better than the RANS calculations and
correctly predicts the vortex speed at y/L = 0.8.
Finally, Figure 6.4 shows the averaged velocity field computed by XFlow. It is
possible to observe the creation of vortices at the leading edge of the cavity, what is
not evident in steady calculations.

37

Figure 6.3: Comparison of XFlow 3D results with experimental data and RANS
results from [3].

Figure 6.4: XFlow averaged velocity field.

38

REFERENCES

References
[1] P. A. Baranov, S. V. Guvernyuk, M. A. Zubin, and S. A. Isaev. Numerical and
physical modeling of the circulation in a vortex cell in the wall of a rectilinear
channel. Fluid Dynamics, 35:663673, 2000.
[2] S.A. Isaev, S.V. Guvernyuk, M.A. Zubin, and Y.S. Prigorodov. Numerical and
physical modeling of a low-velocity air flow in a channel with a circular vortex
cell. Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, 73:337344, 2000.
[3] R. Donelli, P. Iannelli, S. Chernyshenko, A. Iollo, and L. Zannetti. Flow models
for a vortex cell. AIAA Journal, 47:451467, 2009.

7
Automotive aerodynamics

In automotive aerodynamics it is usual to use reference geometries to validate CFD

codes [1]. This section uses the well known ASMO model, which comprises a squareback rear, smooth surfaces, boat tailing, underbody diffuser and no pressure induced
boundary layer separation. The geometry does not have a well defined separation
line and is characterized by a low drag shape. For this model, experimental data
from Daimler Benz and Volvo model scale wind tunnel are available.
Mesh is one of the major issues in classic CFD approaches for aerodynamical
problems. Mesh quality may be as important as mesh resolution when high accuracy
in the calculations is aimed for. The particle-based approach of XFlow avoids the
costly generation of a good mesh.
For this validation the 1/5 wind tunnel test model has been adopted. Vehicles
length, width and height are 0.81 m, 0.29 m and 0.27 m respectively, while wind
tunnel dimensions are 9 x 1.5 x 3 m (see Figure 7.1). This corresponds to a blockage
ratio of 1.38%. The wind tunnel domain type available in XFlow is used, with an
inlet uniform velocity of 50 m/s. The fluid properties are density = 1 kg m3 and
dynamic viscosity = 1.5 105 Pa s.

Figure 7.1: ASMO body and wind tunnel geometries.

40

Automotive aerodynamics

The Reynolds number for this case is 2.7 106 , taking the length of the vehicle
as reference. In this problem it is essential to resolve the turbulent wake properly.
Particle resolution in the far field is 0.1 m, while in the wake and on the model
surface scales up to 2.5 mm are resolved. Dynamic wake refinement is applied, so
that the specified particle resolution is automatically adopted in regions with high
turbulence, while less turbulent regions are treated with fewer particles. In addition,
XFlow uses a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) approach for modeling the turbulence,
in particular the Wall-Adapting Local Eddy-viscosity (WALE) model (see Section
1).
The turbulent wake structure can be observed in Figures 7.2 and 7.3, together
with the instantaneous pressure field and the skin friction distribution in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.2: Snapshot of isosurface of vorticity.

41

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 7.3: Instantaneous velocity field: (a) on the vehicle surface, (b) in the
Y = 0.07 m plane, and (c) in the symmetry plane.

42

Automotive aerodynamics

Figure 7.4: Instantaneous pressure field in the symmetry plane and skin friction
distribution.

Figures 7.5 to 7.8 show validation results of surface pressure measurements.

XFlow results are compared with experimental data obtained from Volvo and
Daimler Benz. Data are available in the symmetry plane and are shown for roof,
underbody, front and base region of the vehicle. It can be seen that the comparison
with the measurements is good, although some deviations can be observed especially
in the base pressure, which is slightly underpredicted. However the proper level of
the base pressure is not known exactly, as there is a large difference between both
experiments.

Figure 7.5: Front pressure distribution along the symmetry plane.

43

Figure 7.6: Roof pressure distribution along the symmetry plane.

Figure 7.7: Base pressure distribution along the symmetry plane.

Figure 7.8: Underbody pressure distribution along the symmetry plane.

44

REFERENCES

Typically, drag stabilizes in a characteristic time of the order of the flow traveling
the vehicle length. In 0.1 seconds, the flow has traveled more than six times the
whole body. The time averaged drag between 0.05 and 0.1 seconds of physical
simulation is Cd = 0.151 (see Figure 7.9), in good agreement with the values
measured in the experiments shown in Table 7.1. [2] showed that using transient
CFD simulations, surface pressure values can be computed fairly accurate. The
overall drag coefficient however, is not predicted satisfactorily. RANS turbulence
models tend to overestimate the drag. LES transient calculations are becoming an
integral part of the aerodynamic development process and affordable using XFlow.

Figure 7.9: Overall drag history.

XFlow
Experiments Volvo
Experiments Daimler Benz

0.151
0.158
0.153

Table 7.1: Drag values for ASMO model.

References
[1] G. Le Good and K. Garry. On the use of reference models in automotive
aerodynamics. SAE paper, 2004-01-1308.
[2] S. Perzon and L. Davidson. On transient modeling of the flow around vehicles
using the reynolds equations. In ACFD 2000 Beijing, pages 720727, 2000.

8
Multi-phase flows

When heavy fluid lies above lighter, the equilibrium in unstable and a small
perturbation of the interface from the horizontal will grow with time, producing the
phenomenon known as Rayleigh-Taylor instability [1]. This instability is a prototype
problem for computational studies of multi-phase flows.
The problem consists of two layers of fluid initially at rest in the rectangular
domain = (d/2, d/2) (2d, 2d), see Figure 8.1. The flow is characterized by
the density difference between the two fluids and their effective viscosity.

Figure 8.1: Initial configuration and physical properties of the fluids.

The density difference is represented by the Atwood number At = (A
B )/(A + B ). The Reynolds number is defined as Re = A d3/2 g 1/2 /, where
d is the reference length, g the gravity acceleration and the dynamic viscosity of
the fluids (assumed uniform).
The growth and evolution of RayleighTaylor instability has been investigated
among others by Tryggvason [2] for inviscid incompressible flows, and by Guermond
& Quartapelle [3] and Ding et al. [4] for viscous flows. None of these studies has
taken into account surface tension.
We compare the XFlow results with those of [3] and [4] at At = 0.5 and Re =
3000. The initial position of the perturbed interface is y(x) = 0.1 d cos(2x/d).

46

Figure 8.2: Vertical position of spike and bubble vs. time.

XFlow solution with reference ones.

Multi-phase flows

Comparison of

Computations are carried out on a 200 800 grid and the time step is automatically
set to 0.000144 s. Free-slip condition is enforced at all walls. The tracking of the
interface is done using the marker-and-cell method.
Results on the vertical position of the tip of the falling and rising fluid (spike and
bubble, respectively) are shown in Figure 8.2. XFlow solution is in good agreement
with the reference results [3, 4].
The evolution of the instability is shown in Figure 8.3 at dimensionless times

t =0, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, where t = t g At. Around t = 1.5 the heavy
fluid begins to roll up into two counter-rotating vortices (see also Figure 8.4). Later,
around t = 2, these two vortices become unstable and a pair of secondary vortices
appear at the tails of the roll-ups. The roll-ups and vortices in the heavy fluid
spike are due to the KelvinHelmholtz instability. The shapes of the fluid interface
obtained with XFlow compare well with those of the reference results [3, 4].

47

t = 0

t = 1

t = 1.25

t = 1.5

t = 1.75

t = 2

t = 2.25

t = 2.5

Figure 8.3: Rayleigh-Taylor instability evolution.

48

REFERENCES

Figure 8.4: Velocity field at t = 1.5 s.

References
[1] D.H. Sharp. An overview of Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Physica D, 12:318,
1984.
[2] G. Tryggvason. Numerical simulations of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Journal
of Computational Physics, 75:253282, 1988.
[3] J.-L. Guermond and L. Quartapelle. A projection FEM for variable density
incompressible flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 165:167188, 2000.
[4] H. Ding, P. Spelt, and C. Shu. Diffuse interface model for incompressible
two-phase flows with large density ratios. Journal of Computational Physics,
226:20782095, 2007.