Outline Statement Approaches Test-cases Results Conclusions Reacting flows and vortices Sanaz Arabzade, (University of Toronto) Anne Bourlioux(Universite de Montreal) Alexandre Desfosses Foucault (Universite de Montreal) Pierre Gauthier (Rolls-Royce Canada) Apala Majumdar (Oxford) Catherine Mavriplis (University of Ottawa) Mario Morfin Ramirez (University of Toronto) Stephen Peppin(Oxford) Mary Pugh (University of Toronto) Louis-Xavier Proulx (Universite de Montreal) Tim Reis (Oxford) Nasim Shahbazian (University of Toronto)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1 Use CFD package for large eddy simulation of the reactiveNavier-Stokes model with simplified chemistry,
2 Time-average CFD output to create spatially-dependent buttime–independent values for the velocity (u, v ,w),temperature T , pressure p, carbon monoxide CO, nitric oxideNO, carbon dioxide CO2, water H20, and oxygen O2,
3 Post–proces time-averaged data to identify so called“vortices” (regions of space in which a fluid particle wouldspend a good chunk of time before leaving the region),
4 Compute in each region a “residence time”, the spatialaverages of CO, NO, CO2, H20, O2, the temperature, and thepressure, and the fluxes of these quantities between regions.
5 Pass these quantities, along with the geometry of thedecomposition (which region abuts which) to a chemistrysoftware Chemkin (detailed chemistry).
The working group has been asked to help with step 3: thesegmenting of the fluid domain into subdomains that, in some way,correspond to largely-separate reaction chambers.
A quick literature survey indicates a variety of existing methods forvarious applications. The group focussed on understanding andtesting some of those existing classical or not-so-classicalapproaches.
1 Greek methods: Q-criterion, δ,λ2, eigen helicity
2 critical points method
3 symbolic dynamic method
4 geometric methods
5 Haller’s method (reference suggested by industrial partner)
The Q criterion segments the domain by identifying the points atwhich Ω is “bigger” than S as being points within a vortex and thepoints at which Ω is “smaller” than S as being points outside avortex. Hunt et al. use the matrix norm
‖Ω‖2 := Tr(
Ω ΩT)
= Ω211 + Ω2
12 + Ω221 + Ω2
22.
That is, ∇~u is viewed as a vector in R4 with the usual dot product.In this context, S and Ω are orthogonal.
S ∈ span
1001
,
100−1
,
0110
Ω ∈ span
01−1
0
The Q criterion is then
‖S(x , y)‖2 < ‖Ω(x , y)‖2 =⇒ (x , y) is in a vortex
Jeong and Hussain proposed seeking minima of the pressure as amethod for identifying vortices. Taking the gradient of theNavier–Stokes equations and writing it in terms of the matrices Sand Ω yields
DSij
Dt− νSij ,kk + Ωik Ωkj + Sik Skj = −1
ρp ,ij . (6)
A local pressure minimum requires that the Hessian of p have twopositive eigenvalues. If the flow is steady and the viscosity is zerothen the Hessian of the pressure is simply Ω2 + S2 and
Ω2+S2 has two negative eigenvalues =⇒ (x , y) is in a vortex(7)
If the flow is incompressible then the eigenvalues of Ω2 + S2 are−Det(∇~u) with multiplicity two and so
incompressible flow and Det(∇~u) > 0 =⇒ (x , y) is in a vortex(8)
Hence the Q method, the ∆ criterion, and the λ2 method areidentical for 2-d incompressible flows but could have differentresults for compressible flows.
The Q, ∆, and λ2 methods relied fully on the vorticity tensor Ωand the strain rate tensor S . However, eigenvectors of the strainrate tensor S do not necessarily align with the vortex tubes. Thiscan lead to spurious predictions of the location of vortexboundaries.Levy et al. introduced the Helicity method which uses thenormalized helicity Hn to extract vortex core lines. Hn is the cosineof the angle between v and ω = ∇× u
Hn =v · ω|v||ω|
. (9)
The sign of Hn indicates the direction of swirl (clockwise oranticlockwise) and the sign changes whenever there is a transitionbetween primary and secondary vortices.
Zhang et al. propose a new scheme that presents a differentalignment of the vorticity vector with the full eigen system of thevelocity gradient tensor.The quantity He is defined as follows.
He =nswirl · ω|nswirl ||ω|
(10)
where nswirl = −(e1 × e2)i/2, and e1 and e2 are the twoeigenvectors corresponding to the complex conjugate eigenvaluesof ∇u. By analogy with the Helicity method, the vortex corecorresponds to regions where the magnitude of He is maximum.
We can see a cycle in the entries M(1, 1) and M(1, 4) This cycleindicate the presence of a vortex.The Algorithm:First, locate the regions that are receiving more mass. We do thisdetection, we add up all the columns of the powers of the matrix.This will give us a function on the domain: for each element of thepartition, the number of ways there are to send mass to thatelement in the number of iterations that we pick for ourexperiment. Call this function F
Second, having located these regions, we can build level sets in thefollowing way:
1 Take the domain and color the local maximums of F with adark shade.
2 Using M, look at the elements around that gave mass to thiselement of the partition and color them with a lighter shade.
3 Do the same for M2 with a lighter shade.
4 Repeat this process for regions that were colored already.
5 If we find an element of the partition that is darker than theone we want to color, this means that this element gives moremass to another local maximum. So we have found a borderbetween two vortexes.
Vector fields with and without divergence can be handledalike.
The method is grid-independent.
inputs: streamline tracing and critical points. Vortex regions aredefined in the case of a divergence-free vector field as a union ofclosed streamlines winding around a common center.
The method applies a rotation matrix on the vector field. It thenuses a loop which is a positively oriented closed streamline in therotated vector field. Such a loop intersects the original vector fieldat a constant angle since rotating the vectors around that angleyields a vector field tangential to the loop.Vortex region candidates which are extracted are bounded by loopsthat start and end at saddle points. Due to continuity, at least onesaddle is included in the closure of a bounded region Ri . Thevortex region candidates Ri are disjunct but may be nested.
Provides an “objective” definition of a vortex: one that doesnot depends on the frame of reference. A region that islabelled a “vortex” will still be labelled as such even if there’sa change of coordinates: x = Q(t)x + b(t)
Although based on ”Normal Hyperbolicity”, it’s not hard tocode up.
The method is defined for 3-d flows and reduces to 2-d flowsin a natural manner.
Unfortunately, the method does not generalise to compressibleflows.
We see that the Q-method and the He method qualitativelyidentify the vortex regions. They also omit parts of the vortexregions and also identify certain vortex-free regions as beingvortices in some cases. It is disappointing to find that we do notget better results with the He-method. One possible improvementis to use a normalized version of the Eigen Helicity as shown below-
H∗e =
|He |2
max|He |2
(13)
which takes values in the range [0, 1]. The vortices correspond tothe points H∗
e = 1 and one could use the threshold valueH∗
e = 0.95 to trace the boundaries of the vortex regions
The method is applied to a 2D cavity driven flow. Thezero-contour lines of u and v intersect within the potential cellshowing the critical point is located inside the cell (Figure 1).
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.57 0.575 0.58 0.585 0.59 0.595 0.6
y
x
u=0v=0
Figure: Critical point’s location in the potential cell.
(Note: Published results, not implemented by working group.)Here are two figures using the boundary loop and the λ2 methodsto detect vortrices for time-dependent simulation of the Karmanvortex behind a cylinder.
Figure: Boundary Loop method
Figure: λ2 method
From the pictures, it is interesting to see how the extracted vortexregions with the boundary loop method coincide better with theintuitive idea of a vortex region than the results obtained with theλ2 method. This might be explained by the fact that the Boundaryloop method try to extract the maximum region of swirling flowwhile the λ2 method is better at defining the core region of thevortex region.Note that this method can be apply to 2D slices through a 3D field.
either implement the Haller method (if easily tractable)
or combine these methods with a technique to separate therecirculation regions based on:
a crude expansion of the identified regions perhaps using somediagnostic based on local velocitiesa technique to find the ”dividing” streamline between theregions by - identifying either a no or low normal flux line(streamline) - or identifying a line along which the curl ofneighbouring velocities is zero (parallel) and the scalar productis negative (opposite directions) [This would only cover casesof abutting recirculation zones of opposite direction - whichhappens often but not exclusively].some existing method (that we could not find but think mustexist) to find a trough on a topological map. Basically thisoperation would be to calculate the path of lowest flux (orequivalently the locus of local minima).
fluxes between the regions would be easy with the CFDsoftware if it is indeed flux-based
Residence times are also assumed to be calculated as in theprevious Rolls Royce work.
it would be interesting to check the impact of switching theorder of the zone-extraction post-processing and thetime-averaging of the CFD data - due to reactionnonlinearities, output from Chemkin might be very sensitive tothe ordering.