The impact of the form of the Euler equations for radial flow in cylindrical and spherical coordinates on numerical conservation and accuracy

The impact of the form of the Euler equations for radial flow in cylindrical and spherical... The radial one-dimensional Euler equations are often rewritten in what is known as the geometric source form. The differential operator is identical to the Cartesian case, but source terms result. Since the theory and numerical methods for the Cartesian case are well-developed, they are often applied without modification to cylindrical and spherical geometries. However, numerical conservation is lost. In this article, AUSM $$^+$$ + -up is applied to a numerically conservative (discrete) form of the Euler equations labeled the geometric form, a nearly conservative variation termed the geometric flux form, and the geometric source form. The resulting numerical methods are compared analytically and numerically through three types of test problems: subsonic, smooth, steady-state solutions, Sedov’s similarity solution for point or line-source explosions, and shock tube problems. Numerical conservation is analyzed for all three forms in both spherical and cylindrical coordinates. All three forms result in constant enthalpy for steady flows. The spatial truncation errors have essentially the same order of convergence, but the rate constants are superior for the geometric and geometric flux forms for the steady-state solutions. Only the geometric form produces the correct shock location for Sedov’s solution, and a direct connection between the errors in the shock locations and energy conservation is found. The shock tube problems are evaluated with respect to feature location using an approximation with a very fine discretization as the benchmark. Extensions to second order appropriate for cylindrical and spherical coordinates are also presented and analyzed numerically. Conclusions are drawn, and recommendations are made. A derivation of the steady-state solution is given in the Appendix. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Shock Waves Springer Journals

The impact of the form of the Euler equations for radial flow in cylindrical and spherical coordinates on numerical conservation and accuracy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/the-impact-of-the-form-of-the-euler-equations-for-radial-flow-in-aIEnUKVP20
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
Subject
Engineering; Engineering Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer; Fluid- and Aerodynamics; Engineering Fluid Dynamics; Thermodynamics; Acoustics; Condensed Matter Physics
ISSN
0938-1287
eISSN
1432-2153
D.O.I.
10.1007/s00193-017-0784-y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The radial one-dimensional Euler equations are often rewritten in what is known as the geometric source form. The differential operator is identical to the Cartesian case, but source terms result. Since the theory and numerical methods for the Cartesian case are well-developed, they are often applied without modification to cylindrical and spherical geometries. However, numerical conservation is lost. In this article, AUSM $$^+$$ + -up is applied to a numerically conservative (discrete) form of the Euler equations labeled the geometric form, a nearly conservative variation termed the geometric flux form, and the geometric source form. The resulting numerical methods are compared analytically and numerically through three types of test problems: subsonic, smooth, steady-state solutions, Sedov’s similarity solution for point or line-source explosions, and shock tube problems. Numerical conservation is analyzed for all three forms in both spherical and cylindrical coordinates. All three forms result in constant enthalpy for steady flows. The spatial truncation errors have essentially the same order of convergence, but the rate constants are superior for the geometric and geometric flux forms for the steady-state solutions. Only the geometric form produces the correct shock location for Sedov’s solution, and a direct connection between the errors in the shock locations and energy conservation is found. The shock tube problems are evaluated with respect to feature location using an approximation with a very fine discretization as the benchmark. Extensions to second order appropriate for cylindrical and spherical coordinates are also presented and analyzed numerically. Conclusions are drawn, and recommendations are made. A derivation of the steady-state solution is given in the Appendix.

Journal

Shock WavesSpringer Journals

Published: Mar 3, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off