TY - GEN
T1 - Quantifying the fluid modeling capability of SPH and CLE through the study of the LID-driven cavity problem
AU - Horton, Brandon
AU - Bayandor, Javid
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright 2016 by ASME.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Despite recent interest in complex fluid-structure interaction problems, the baseline fluid modeling capability for commercially available numerical methodologies used for multidisciplinary analysis is yet to be established. The current work is among those to first underline such a reference for coupled Lagrangian-Eulerian (CLE) and smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH). These methodologies are quantitatively assessed using the classical 2-D lid-driven cavity and compared against an implicit Navier-Stokes solution in addition to other benchmarks from the literature. Qualitative comparison is made through the use of velocity magnitude contour plots with accompanying streamlines, whereas quantitative analysis is made using centerline velocity profiles for both U and V flows. Throughout the investigated Reynolds numbers (1000-20, 000), SPH provides inaccurate results and is unable to represent vorticity in the cavity corners. Alternatively, CLE retains a high level of accuracy up to Re = 10, 000, before deviating from published literature at Re = 20, 000. In addition to being qualitatively similar, the centerline profiles consistently display ≤ 10% error when compared to the Navier-Stokes solutions. By establishing the limits of closed-system fluid modeling capability for SPH and CLE, this work can be extended to full fluid-scenarios.
AB - Despite recent interest in complex fluid-structure interaction problems, the baseline fluid modeling capability for commercially available numerical methodologies used for multidisciplinary analysis is yet to be established. The current work is among those to first underline such a reference for coupled Lagrangian-Eulerian (CLE) and smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH). These methodologies are quantitatively assessed using the classical 2-D lid-driven cavity and compared against an implicit Navier-Stokes solution in addition to other benchmarks from the literature. Qualitative comparison is made through the use of velocity magnitude contour plots with accompanying streamlines, whereas quantitative analysis is made using centerline velocity profiles for both U and V flows. Throughout the investigated Reynolds numbers (1000-20, 000), SPH provides inaccurate results and is unable to represent vorticity in the cavity corners. Alternatively, CLE retains a high level of accuracy up to Re = 10, 000, before deviating from published literature at Re = 20, 000. In addition to being qualitatively similar, the centerline profiles consistently display ≤ 10% error when compared to the Navier-Stokes solutions. By establishing the limits of closed-system fluid modeling capability for SPH and CLE, this work can be extended to full fluid-scenarios.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85022048778
U2 - 10.1115/FEDSM2016-7808
DO - 10.1115/FEDSM2016-7808
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85022048778
T3 - American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) FEDSM
BT - Symposia
PB - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
T2 - ASME 2016 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, FEDSM 2016, collocated with the ASME 2016 Heat Transfer Summer Conference and the ASME 2016 14th International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels, and Minichannels
Y2 - 10 July 2016 through 14 July 2016
ER -