A comparative computational study of different formulations of the compressible Euler equations for mesoscale atmospheric flows in a finite volume framework

IF 2.5 3区 工程技术 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
M. Girfoglio , A. Quaini , G. Rozza
{"title":"A comparative computational study of different formulations of the compressible Euler equations for mesoscale atmospheric flows in a finite volume framework","authors":"M. Girfoglio ,&nbsp;A. Quaini ,&nbsp;G. Rozza","doi":"10.1016/j.compfluid.2024.106510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We consider three conservative forms of the weakly compressible Euler equations, called CE1, CE2 and CE3, with the goal of understanding which leads to the most accurate and robust pressure-based solver in a finite volume environment. Forms CE1 and CE2 are both written in density, momentum, and specific enthalpy, but employ two different treatments of the buoyancy and pressure gradient terms: for CE1 it is the standard pressure splitting implemented in open-source finite volume solvers (e.g., OpenFOAM®), while for CE2 it is the typical pressure splitting found in computational atmospheric studies. Form CE3 is written in density, momentum, and potential temperature, with the buoyancy and pressure terms addressed as in CE2. For each formulation, we adopt a computationally efficient splitting approach. The three formulations are thoroughly assessed and compared through six benchmark tests involving dry air flow over a flat terrain or orography. We found that all three models are able to provide accurate results for the tests with a flat terrain, although the solvers based on the CE2 and CE3 forms are more robust. As for the mountain tests, CE1 solutions become unstable, while the CE2 and CE3 models provide results in very good agreement with data in the literature, the CE3 model being the most accurate. Hence, even when using a pressure-based approach and space discretization by a finite volume method, the CE3 model is the most accurate, reliable, and robust for the simulation of mesoscale atmospheric flows.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":287,"journal":{"name":"Computers & Fluids","volume":"288 ","pages":"Article 106510"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers & Fluids","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045793024003414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We consider three conservative forms of the weakly compressible Euler equations, called CE1, CE2 and CE3, with the goal of understanding which leads to the most accurate and robust pressure-based solver in a finite volume environment. Forms CE1 and CE2 are both written in density, momentum, and specific enthalpy, but employ two different treatments of the buoyancy and pressure gradient terms: for CE1 it is the standard pressure splitting implemented in open-source finite volume solvers (e.g., OpenFOAM®), while for CE2 it is the typical pressure splitting found in computational atmospheric studies. Form CE3 is written in density, momentum, and potential temperature, with the buoyancy and pressure terms addressed as in CE2. For each formulation, we adopt a computationally efficient splitting approach. The three formulations are thoroughly assessed and compared through six benchmark tests involving dry air flow over a flat terrain or orography. We found that all three models are able to provide accurate results for the tests with a flat terrain, although the solvers based on the CE2 and CE3 forms are more robust. As for the mountain tests, CE1 solutions become unstable, while the CE2 and CE3 models provide results in very good agreement with data in the literature, the CE3 model being the most accurate. Hence, even when using a pressure-based approach and space discretization by a finite volume method, the CE3 model is the most accurate, reliable, and robust for the simulation of mesoscale atmospheric flows.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computers & Fluids
Computers & Fluids 物理-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
10.8 months
期刊介绍: Computers & Fluids is multidisciplinary. The term ''fluid'' is interpreted in the broadest sense. Hydro- and aerodynamics, high-speed and physical gas dynamics, turbulence and flow stability, multiphase flow, rheology, tribology and fluid-structure interaction are all of interest, provided that computer technique plays a significant role in the associated studies or design methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信