arxiv: v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 3 Jun 2015

Transcription

1 A Convective-like Energy-Stable Open Boundary Condition for Simulations of Incompressible Flows arxiv: v1 [pysics.flu-dyn] 3 Jun 215 S. Dong Center for Computational & Applied Matematics Department of Matematics Purdue University, USA Abstract We present a new energy-stable open boundary condition, and an associated numerical algoritm, for simulating incompressible flows wit outflow/open boundaries. Tis open boundary condition ensures te energy stability of te system, even wen strong vortices or backflows occur at te outflow boundary. Under certain situations it can be reduced to a form tat can be analogized to te usual convective boundary condition. One prominent feature of tis boundary condition is tat it provides a control over te velocity on te outflow/open boundary. Tis is not available wit te oter energy-stable open boundary conditions from previous works. Our numerical algoritm treats te proposed open boundary condition based on a rotational velocity-correction type strategy. It gives rise to a Robintype condition for te discrete pressure and a Robin-type condition for te discrete velocity on te outflow/open boundary, respectively at te pressure and te velocity sub-steps. We present extensive numerical experiments on a canonical wake flow and a jet flow in open domain to test te effectiveness and performance of te metod developed erein. Simulation results are compared wit te experimental data as well as wit oter previous simulations to demonstrate te accuracy of te current metod. Longtime simulations are performed for a range of Reynolds numbers, at wic strong vortices and backflows occur at te outflow/open boundaries. Te results sow tat our metod is effective in overcoming te backflow instability, and tat it allows for te vortices to discarge from te domain in a fairly natural fasion even at ig Reynolds numbers. Keywords: backflow instability; energy stability; outflow; open boundary condition; outflow boundary condition; velocity correction 1 Introduction Te current work focuses on te outflow/open boundary in incompressible flow simulations and te issue of backflow instability, wic refers to te commonly-encountered numerical instability associated wit strong vortices or backflows at te outflow or open boundaries. Extending our efforts on tis problem [14, 12, 18], we strive to develop effective and efficient tecniques to overcome te backflow instability. A large class of flow problems involve pysically-unbounded domains, suc as jets, wakes, boundary layers, and oter spatially-developing flows. Wen numerically simulating suc problems, one will need to truncate te domain artificially to a finite size and impose some open (or outflow) boundary condition (OBC) on te artificial boundary. Open boundary conditions are among te most difficult and least understood issues sdong@purdue.edu 1

2 in incompressible flow simulations [28, 63], and ave commanded a sustained interest of te community for decades. Among te large volume of works accumulated so far on tis problem, te traction-free condition[67, 25, 19, 45, 3, 63, 3, 46] and te convective (or radiation) boundary condition [65, 56, 28, 42, 55, 22, 62, 8] are two of te more commonly used. We refer te reader to [63] for a review of tis field up to te mid-199s, and to [57, 37, 38, 34, 23, 33, 54, 29, 6] for a number of oter metods developed by different researcers. Backflow instability is a commonly encountered issue wit outflows or open boundaries at moderate and ig Reynolds numbers. Simulations ave been observed to instantly blow up wen strong vortices or backflows occur at te outflow/open boundary [13, 15, 7, 26]. As pointed out in [18], a certain amount of backflow at te outflow boundary appears armless at low Reynolds numbers, but wen te Reynolds number increases beyond some moderate value, typically several undred to a tousand depending on te geometry (e.g. between Re = 3 4 for te flow past a square cylinder in two dimensions), tis instability becomes a severe issue to numerical simulations. Commonly-used tricks for flow simulations suc as increasing te grid resolution or decreasing te time step size are observed to not elp wit tis instability [15, 18]. For certain flow problems (e.g. bluff-body wakes) one way to circumvent tis difficulty is to employ a large computational domain and to place te outflow/open boundary far downstream. Te idea is to allow for te vortices generated upstream to sufficiently dissipate before reacing te outflow boundary. Tis is feasible and computationally manageable at moderate Reynolds numbers. But tis strategy does not scale wit te Reynolds number [14, 18], because te domain size essential for numerical stability grows wit increasing Reynolds number. As te Reynolds number becomes large, te needed domain size for stability can become very substantial. For example, in te tree-dimensional direct numerical simulation of te flow past a circular cylinder at Reynolds number Re = 1 [15], a domain size wit a wake region 5 times te cylinder diameter in lengt as been used. Suc a large wake region is essential for numerical stability for tat Reynolds number, even toug te far wake (beyond about 1 times te cylinder diameter) is of little or no pysical interest and te meses/computations in tat far region are essentially wasted. A far more attractive approac is to devise effective open/outflow boundary conditions to overcome te backflow instability. Several suc boundary conditions ave been studied in te literature. By considering te weak form of te Navier-Stokes equation and symmetrization of te nonlinear term, Bruneau & Fabrie [6, 7] proposed to modify te traction condition by a term 1 2 (n u) u, were u and n are respectively te velocity and te outward-pointing unit vector normal to te outflow boundary, and (n u) is defined as n u if n u < and is set to zero oterwise. We refer to e.g. [44, 2] for applications of tis boundary condition in later works. A traction condition containing a term (n u) u, wic is very similar to tat of [6, 7] but witout te 1 2 factor, as been employed in [1, 5, 59, 27, 36]. Note tat a form β(n u) u were < β < 1 as also been considered in [5]. By considering te energy balance of te system, we ave proposed in [14] 2

3 a boundary condition involving a term 1 2 u 2 nθ (n,u), were u is te velocity magnitude and Θ (n,u) is a smooted step function about n u (see Section 2 for definition). Wile te role of te term Θ (n,u) can be compared to tat of (n u) discussed above, te form 1 2 u 2 n of te OBC in [14] is very different from tose involving (n u)u of te previous works [6, 7, 1, 5, 59, 27, 36]. Anoter boundary condition developed in [4] employs a penalization of te tangential velocity derivative to allow for improved energy balance. Very recently we ave proposed in [18] a family of open boundary conditions, aving te caracteristic tat tey all ensure te energy stability of te system even in situations were strong vortices of backflows occur at te outflow/open boundary. Tis family of boundary conditions contains tose of [6, 1, 27, 36, 14] as particular cases, and more importantly provides oter new forms of open boundary conditions. Several of tose forms ave been investigated in relative detail in [18]. It is observed tat, wile some of te above open boundary conditions ave existed in te literature for some time, teir adoption in production flow simulations appears still quite limited. Tis is peraps in part owing to te callenge associated wit te numerical implementation of tese boundary conditions. All te aforementioned boundary conditions for tackling te backflow instability couple togeter te velocity and te pressure, and it is not immediately clear ow to implement tem in numerical simulations. Tis seems to be exacerbated by te fact tat, wen tese boundary conditions are originally proposed, for most of tem teir numerical treatments are not discussed or not adequately discussed, especially in te context of te commonly-used splitting or fractional-step type scemes for incompressible flow simulations. It is noted tat in te more recent works [14, 18] two splitting-type scemes, respectively based on a velocity-correction type strategy [14] and a pressure-correction type strategy [18], are presented to deal wit te energy-stable open boundary conditions developed terein. Tese algoritms de-couple te computations for te pressure and te velocity in te presence of open/outflow boundaries. Te objective of te current paper is twofold. First, we present a new energy-stable open boundary condition tat is effective in overcoming te backflow instability for incompressible flow simulations. Tis boundary condition involves an inertia(velocity time-derivative) term, and can be sown to ensure te energy stability of te system even in te presence of backflows or vortices at te open/outflow boundary. It does not belong to te family of open boundary conditions discussed in [18]. If no backflow occurs at te outflow boundary, tis boundary condition can be reduced to a form tat can be analogized to te usual convective boundary condition. Hence, we refer to it as te convective-like energy-stable open boundary condition. Te current open boundary condition as a prominent feature: it provides a control over te velocity at te open/outflow boundary. In contrast, te family of energy-stable open boundary conditions from [18] and te oter aforementioned boundary conditions to address te backflow instability do not provide any control over te velocity at te open/outflow boundary. Terefore, as te vortices pass troug te outflow/open 3

4 boundary, te current boundary condition can lead to smooter velocity patterns in regions at or near te outflow boundary wen compared to tat of [18]. Second, we present an efficient numerical algoritm for treating te proposed open boundary condition. Our algoritm overall is based on a rotational velocity-correction type splitting approac, and te key issue lies in te numerical treatment of te inertia term in te open boundary condition. At te pressure sub-step our sceme leads to a Robin-type condition for te discrete pressure on te outflow boundary, and at te velocity sub-step it leads to a Robin-type condition for te discrete velocity on te outflow boundary. In contrast, te algoritms of [14, 18] bot impose a pressure Diriclet type condition on te outflow boundary at te pressure sub-step and a velocity Neumann type condition on te outflow boundary at te velocity sub-step. Te current algoritm is simpler to implement wit spectral-element (and also finite-element) type spatial discretizations, because tere is no need for te projection of pressure Diriclet data on te outflow boundary as required by te algoritms of [14, 18]. We would like to point out tat, by using an idea analogous to tat of [18], one can generalize te current open boundary condition to a family of convective-like energy-stable open boundary conditions, wic will provide oter new forms of OBCs; see te discussions in Section 2.1 in tis regard. Te numerical algoritm presented erein wit no cange can be applied togeter wit tis family of convective-like energy-stable OBCs. Te novelties of tis work lie in two aspects: (i) te convective-like energy-stable open boundary condition, and (ii) te numerical algoritm for treating te proposed open boundary condition. Te rotational velocitycorrection sceme for discretizing te Navier-Stokes equations employed ere as also subtle differences tan tat of [14] in te numerical approximations of various terms, altoug bot can be classified as velocitycorrection type scemes. Te open boundary condition and te numerical algoritm developed erein ave been implemented and tested using ig-order C spectral elements for spatial discretizations [64, 41, 75]. Te implementations discussed in te paper witout cange can also be used for finite element discretizations. It sould be noted tat te open boundary condition and te numerical algoritm are very general and are not confined to a particular spatial discretization tecnique. Tey can also be implemented using oter spatial discretization metods. 4

5 2 Convective-Like Energy-Stable OBC and Algoritm 2.1 Convective-Like Energy-Stable Open Boundary Condition Consider a domain Ω in two or tree dimensions, and an incompressible flow contained witin tis domain. Let Ω denote te boundary of te domain Ω. Tis flow problem is ten described by te following incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in non-dimensional form: u t +u u+ p ν 2 u = f, u =, (1a) (1b) were u(x,t) and p(x,t) are respectively te normalized velocity and pressure fields, f(x,t) is an external body force, and x and t are te spatial coordinate and time. Te constant ν denotes te normalized viscosity, ν = 1 Re, were Re is te Reynolds number defined by appropriately coosing a lengt scale and a velocity scale. We assume tat te domain boundary Ω consists of two types: Ω = Ω d Ω o, Ω d Ω o =. (2) In te above Ω d denotes te Diriclet boundary, on wic te velocity is given u = w(x,t), on Ω d (3) were w is te boundary velocity. On te oter and, on Ω o neiter te velocity u nor te pressure p is known. We refer to Ω o as te open (or outflow) boundary. How to deal wit Ω o in numerical simulations is te focus of te current work. We propose te following boundary condition for te open boundary: u νd t pn+νn u 1 [ ] u 2 n+(n u)u Θ (n,u) = f b (x,t), on Ω o. (4) 2 In te above equation, n is te outward-pointing unit vector normal to te boundary Ω o. D is a cosen non-negative constant (D ), wic as been normalized by 1 U (U denoting te caracteristic velocity scale) and is non-dimensional. f b is a prescribed vector function on Ω o for te purpose of numerical testing only, and it is set to f b = in actual simulations. Θ (n,u) is a smooted step function about (n u) given by [14], Θ (n,u) = 1 2 ( 1 tan n u ) δu (5) were δ > is a non-dimensional positive constant tat is sufficiently small. As discussed in [14], δ controls te sarpness of te smooted step function, and it is sarper if δ is smaller, and tat te simulation result 5

6 is not sensitive to δ wen it is sufficiently small. As δ, Θ (n,u) approaces te step function, tat is, { 1, if n u <, lim Θ (n,u) = Θ s (n,u) = δ, oterwise. (6) A prominent caracteristic of te open boundary condition (4) is te inertia term u t involved terein. One can note tat for D = te inertia term vanises and te boundary condition (4) will be reduced to te so-called boundary condition OBC-C tat as been studied in [18]. In te current work we concentrate on te cases wit D >. Te open boundary condition(4), wit f b = and wen δ is sufficiently small, ensureste energystability of te system. To illustrate tis point, we look into te energy balance equation for te system consisting of (1a) and (1b): 1 t Ω 2 u 2 = ν + Ω Ω o u 2 + Ω f u+ Ω d ( n T u 1 ) 2 u 2 n u, ( n T u 1 ) 2 u 2 n u (7) were T = pi + ν u and I denotes te identity tensor. We assume tat f b = in (4) and δ in Θ (n,u). Ten by employing te condition (4) on Ω o, te last surface integral on te rigt and side of (7) becomes ( n T u 1 ) Ω o 2 u 2 n u = 1 1 νd t Ω o 2 u 2 + Ω o 2 u 2 (n u)[2θ s (n,u) 1] = 1 1 νd t Ω o 2 u 2 Ω o 2 u 2 n u, as δ. It ten follows tat te energy balance equation can be transformed into ( ) 1 1 t Ω 2 u 2 +νd Ω o 2 u 2 ( = ν u 2 + f u+ n T u 1 ) 1 2 u 2 n u Ω o 2 u 2 n u, as δ. Ω Ω Ω d (8) (9) Terefore, te open boundary condition given by (4), wen f b = and δ is sufficiently small, ensures te energy stability of te system (in te absence of external forces), even if strong vortices or backflows occur (i.e. n u < ) on te open boundary Ω o. Note tat, because te velocity u is given on Ω d, te surface integral term on Ω d in equation (9) will not pose a numerical instability issue. It is instructive to compare te energy balance equations for te current open boundary condition and for te open boundary conditions introduced in [18]. Let us assume for now tat tere is no external body force f and tat u = on te Diriclet boundary Ω d. Ten equation (9) implies tat te sum ( 1 Ω 2 u 2 1 +νd Ω o 2 u 2) will not increase over time. For D >, te energy balance relation provides 6

7 anupper bound forte total energy 1 Ω 2 u 2 and forte quantity 1 Ω o 2 u 2 wit te currentopen boundary condition. Tis provides a control over te velocity u on te outflow boundary Ω o. On te oter and, wit te open boundary conditions from [18], te energy balance equation involves only te total energy, and tere is no control over te velocity on te outflow boundary. Tis is a key difference between te current open boundary condition and tose from [18]. Tanks to tis caracteristic, te current open boundary condition can lead to qualitatively smooter velocity patterns at/near te outflow boundary as vortices pass troug. Tis point will be illustrated in Section 3 using numerical simulations. In addition to te open boundary condition (4), we will also consider te following boundary condition, νd u t pn+νn u =, on Ω o, (1) or equivalently for D > u t + 1 D u n = 1 νd pn, on Ω o. (11) Te difference between tis boundary condition and (4) lies in tat tis boundary condition does not ensure te energy stability wen backflow occurs on te open boundary Ω o. In contrast, te condition (4) ensures te energy stability even in te presence of backflows at te open boundary. Note tat for D = te condition (1) will be reduced to te traction-free boundary condition. One also notes tat Equation (11) is reminiscent of te usual convective boundary condition (togeter wit p = ), u t +U u c n =, on Ω o p =, on Ω o (12) were U c denotes a convection velocity. Because of tis resemblance to te convective boundary condition we will refer to te boundary condition (4) as a convective-like energy-stable open boundary condition. Te analogy between te current boundary condition and te usual convective boundary condition suggests tat in te boundary condition (4) te parameter 1 D plays te role of a convection velocity scale at te outflow boundary. Different coices for te convection velocity in te usual convective boundary condition ave been considered in a number of studies (see e.g. [63, 8]), wic can provide a guide for te coice of D in te boundary condition (4). For a given flow problem, one can first perform a preliminary simulation using te boundary condition (4) wit D = to obtain an estimate of te convection velocity scale U c > at te outflow boundary, and ten carry out te actual simulation by setting D = 1 U c in (4). Our numerical experiments in Section 3 indicate tat te difference in te D values as very little or no effect on te computed global flow quantities suc as te force coefficients. Te main effect of D appears to be on te qualitative flow caracteristics local to te outflow boundary. An improved estimate of te convection velocity (and ence an improved D value in (4)) will allow te vortices or oter flow features to discarge 7

8 from te domain more smootly and in a more natural fasion. We will look into te effects of D value in te open boundary condition (4) in more detail in Section 3. Remarks By employing an idea similar to tat of [18], we can come up wit oter forms of convectivelike energy-stable open boundary conditions. We briefly mention several of tem below: νd u t pn+νn u [(n u)u]θ (n,u) =, on Ω o ; (13a) u [ ] νd t pn+νn u u 2 n Θ (n,u) =, on Ω o ; (13b) [ ] u 1 νd t pn+νn u 2 (n u)u Θ (n,u) =, on Ω o ; (13c) [ ] u 1 νd t pn+νn u 2 u 2 n Θ (n,u) =, on Ω o ; (13d) u νd t pn+νn u 1 [ ] u 2 n+(n u)u Θ (n,u) =, on Ω o. (13e) 4 We would also like to mention te following more general form (analogous to [18]), wic contains te boundary condition (4) and tose represented by (13a) (13e) as particular cases, νd u t pn+νn u were θ, α 1 and α 2 are constants satisfying te conditions [(θ +α 2 ) 12 u 2 n+(1 θ +α 1 ) 12 (n u)u ] Θ (n,u) =, on Ω o, (14) θ 1, α 1, α 2. (15) Note tat te general form (14) ensures te energy stability of te system as δ. In tis case te energy balance relation is given by te following expression, ( ) 1 1 t Ω 2 u 2 +νd Ω o 2 u 2 ( = ν u 2 + f u+ n T u 1 ) Ω Ω Ω d 2 u 2 n u 1 + Ω o 2 u 2 (n u)[(1+α 1 +α 2 )Θ s (n u) 1] ( ν u 2 + f u+ n T u 1 ) 2 u 2 n u, as δ. Ω Ω Ω d (16) Apart from te boundary conditions discussed above, we impose te following initial condition for te velocity, u(x,t = ) = u in (x), (17) 8

9 were u in is te initial velocity field satisfying equation (1b) and compatible wit te boundary condition (3) on Ω d at t =. 2.2 Algoritm Formulation Te equations (1a) and (1b), te boundary condition (3) on Ω d, and te boundary condition (4) on Ω o, as well as te initial condition (17), togeter constitute te system tat need to be solved in numerical simulations. We next present an algoritm for numerically simulating tis system, wit empasis on te numerical treatment of te open boundary condition (4). Let E(n,u) = 1 2 [ ] u 2 n+(n u)u Θ (n,u), (18) and we re-write equation (4) into a more compact form, νd u t pn+νn u E(n,u) = f b. (19) We will concentrateon te algoritmand implementation for D > in (19) in tis and te next subsections. In section 2.4 we will briefly discuss ow to deal wit te case D =, wen te current open boundary condition is reduced to a form already studied in [18]. Let n denote te time step index, and ( ) n denote ( ) at time step n. Define u = u in. Ten, given u n we compute (p n+1, u n+1 ) in a de-coupled fasion as follows: For p n+1 : γ ũ n+1 û t +u,n+1 u,n+1 + p n+1 +ν u,n+1 = f n+1 (2a) ũ n+1 = (2b) n ũ n+1 = n w n+1, on Ω d (2c) For u n+1 : νd γ ũ n+1 û t n p n+1 +νn u,n+1 n n E(n,u,n+1 ) = f n+1 b n, on Ω o (2d) γ u n+1 γ ũ n+1 ν 2 u n+1 = ν u,n+1 t (21a) u n+1 = w n+1, on Ω d (21b) 9

10 γ u n+1 û νd p n+1 n+νn u n+1 E(n,u,n+1 )+ν ( u,n+1) n = f n+1 b, on Ω o. (21c) t Inteaboveequations, tistetimestepsize, niste outward-pointingunit vectornormaltote boundary, and ũ n+1 is an auxiliary variable approximating u n+1. Let J (J = 1 or 2) denote te temporal order of accuracy of te algoritm. Ten u,n+1 is a J-t order explicit approximation of u n+1 given by { u,n+1 u = n, J = 1, 2u n u n 1, J = 2. Te expressions 1 t (γ u n+1 û) and 1 t (γ ũ n+1 û) areapproximationsof u n+1 by aj-t orderbackward differentiation formula, and û and γ are given by t (22) û = { u n, J = 1, 2u n 1 2 un 1, J = 2, { 1, J = 1, γ = 3 2, J = 2. (23) Note tat E(n,u) is given by (18). One can observe tat te overall structure of te above algoritm represents a rotational velocitycorrection type strategy (see [32, 16, 17, 14]) for de-coupling te computations of te pressure and velocity. Wile bot belong to velocity correction-type scemes, te sceme ere is somewat different from te one of [14]. Note tat in te pressure sub-step we ave approximated all terms at time step (n+1) wit te current sceme (see equation (2a)). In contrast, in [14] te viscous and te nonlinear terms are approximated at time step n rater tan at (n+1) in te pressure sub-step, and correspondingly some correction terms are incorporated in te subsequent velocity sub-step. Te current treatment of various terms is observed to yield smaller pressure errors and comparable velocity errors compared to tat of [14]. TeinertiatermνD u t inteboundarycondition(19)demandssomecareintetemporaldiscretization. Te discrete equation (2d) in te pressure sub-step stems from an inner product between te directional vector n and te open boundary condition (19) on te outflow boundary Ω o. Note tat te u t term and te pressure term ave been treated implicitly in (2d), and in particular tat u t is approximated using ũ n+1 (instead of u n+1 ) ere in tis discrete equation. Tis point is crucial, and it effectively leads to a Robin-type condition for te pressure p n+1 on Ω o because of te equation (2a). An explicit treatment of te u t term in (2d) would seem more attractive and would result in a Diriclet type condition for p n+1 on Ω o, just like in te sceme of [14]. Tis treatment owever does not work, and is unstable unless D is very small. At te velocity sub-step, in te discrete equation (21c) on Ω o we ave treated te terms u t and n u implicitly, and note tat u t is approximated using un+1 ere. Tese numerical treatments give rise to a Robin-type condition for te discrete velocity u n+1 on Ω o, noting tat in (21c) p n+1 is already explicitly known from te pressure sub-step. Note also tat in te discrete equation (21c) an extra term ν( u)n as been incorporated in te formulation. 1

11 We would like to point out tat te algoritmic formulation given by (2a) (21c) can be used togeter wit te general form of convective-like energy-stable open boundary condition (14), by setting E(n, u) in te algoritm as follows E(n,u) = [(θ+α 2 ) 12 u 2 n+(1 θ +α 1 ) 12 (n u)u ] Θ (n,u). (24) 2.3 Implementation wit C Spectral Elements We employ C -continuous ig-order spectral elements [64, 41, 75] for spatial discretizations in te current work. Letusnextlookintoowtoimplementtealgoritm,givenby(2a) (21c),usingC spectralelements. Te discussions in tis subsection wit no cange also apply to C finite element implementations. As noted in several previous works [16, 17, 1, 14, 11], te complication in te implementation wit C elements stems from te ig-order derivative terms suc as u involved in tis type of algoritm, because suc terms cannot be directly computed in te discrete function space of C elements. We can eliminate suc complications by looking into te weak forms of te algoritm. In addition, we will eliminate te auxiliary velocity ũ n+1 from te final form of te algoritm. We first formulate te weak forms of te algoritm in te spatially continuous space. Let q(x) denote a test function. By taking te L 2 inner product between q and equation (2a) and integrating by part, we ave Ω p n+1 q + γ n ũ n+1 q = G n+1 q ν n ω,n+1 q t Ω o Ω Ω d Ω o γ n w n+1 q, q, t Ω d (25) were ω = u is te vorticity, G n+1 = f n+1 + û t u,n+1 u,n+1, (26) and we ave used equations (2b) and (2c), te divergence teorem, and te identify Ω ω q = Ω (ω q) = Ω n ω q. (27) According to equation (2d), n ũ n+1 can be expressed in terms of p n+1 and oter explicit quantities on Ω o. We terefore can transform equation (25) into te final weak form for te pressure p n+1, p n+1 q + 1 p n+1 q = G n+1 q ν n ω,n+1 q Ω νd Ω o Ω Ω d Ω { o + 1 Ω o t n û+ 1 [ νn u,n+1 n n E(n,u,n+1 ) f n+1 b n ]} q νd γ n w n+1 q, q. t Ω d (28) 11

12 We next sum up equations (21a) and (2a) to obtain γ ν t un+1 2 u n+1 = 1 ( G n+1 p n+1). (29) ν Let ϕ(x) denote a test function tat vanises on Ω d. Taking te L 2 inner product between ϕ and equation (29) and integrating by part lead to γ u n+1 ϕ+ ϕ u n+1 n u n+1 ϕ = 1 ( G n+1 p n+1) ϕ, ϕ, (3) ν t Ω Ω Ω o ν Ω were we ave used te divergenceteorem, and te fact tat Ω d n u n+1 ϕ = tanks to te requirement tat ϕ = on Ω d. According to equation (21c), n u n+1 can be expressed in terms of u n+1 and oter explicit quantities on Ω o. We terefore can transform (3) into te final weak form for u n+1, γ u n+1 ϕ+ ϕ u n+1 + γ D u n+1 ϕ = 1 ( G n+1 p n+1) ϕ ν t Ω Ω t Ω o ν Ω { D + 1 [ p n+1 tû+ n+e(n,u,n+1 )+f n+1 b ν ( u,n+1) n ]} ϕ, ϕ. ν Ω o Te weak forms of te algoritm in te continuum space consist of equations (28) and (31), togeter wit te velocity Diriclet condition (21b) on Ω d. Te auxiliary variable ũ n+1 does not appear in te weak form and is not explicitly computed. Tese equations in weak forms can be discretized using C spectral elements (or finite elements) in a straigtforward fasion. Let Ω denote te domain Ω discretized using a spectral element mes, and Ω = Ω d Ω o denote te boundary of Ω, were Ω d and Ω o respectively represent te discretized Ω d and Ω o. Let X [H 1 (Ω )] d (were d = 2 or 3 is te spatial dimension) denote te approximation space of te discretized velocityu n+1, anddefinex = { v H 1 (Ω ) : v Ωd = }.LetM H 1 (Ω )denoteteapproximation space of te discretized pressure p n+1. We take te test function q of equation (28) from M, and take te test function ϕ of equation (31) from X. In te following let ( ) denote te discretized version of te (31) variable ( ). Ten te discretized version of equation (28) is: Find p n+1 M suc tat p n+1 q + 1 p n+1 q = G n+1 q ν n ω,n+1 q Ω νd Ω o Ω Ω d Ω { o + 1 Ω o t n û + 1 [ ] } νn u,n+1 n n E(n,u,n+1 ) f n+1 b n q νd γ n w n+1 q, q M. t Ω d Te discretized version of equations (31) and (21b) is: Find u n+1 γ ν t ϕ + { D [ tû ν Ω u n+1 Ω o ϕ X, ϕ u n+1 + γ D Ω t p n+1 u n+1 Ω o n +E(n,u,n+1 X suc tat ϕ = 1 ν )+f n+1 b ν ( G n+1 p n+1 Ω ( ) u,n+1 ) ϕ n ] } ϕ, (32) (33) 12

13 togeter wit u n+1 = w n+1, on Ω d. (34) Our final algoritm terefore consists of te following operations witin a time step: (i) Solve equation (32) for p n+1 ; (ii) Solve equation (33), togeter wit te Diriclet condition (34) on Ω d, for u n+1. Te computations for te pressure and te velocity are de-coupled, and te computations for te tree components of te velocity are also de-coupled. All te terms on te rigt and sides of equations (32) and (33) can be computed directly using C spectral elements. Note tat te auxiliary velocity ũ n+1 is not explicitly computed. We employ equal orders of expansion polynomials to approximate te pressure and te velocity in te current spectral-element implementation, similar to our previous works [16, 17, 1, 12, 14, 18]. Note tat in all te numerical simulations and flow tests of Section 3 we ave used te same polynomial orders for te pressure and te velocity. We refer te reader to te equal-order approximations for te pressure/velocity by oter researcers in te literature [4, 68, 31, 41, 47, 46, 1, 5]. 2.4 Te Case of D = in Open Boundary Condition So far we ave focused on te case D > in te open boundary condition (19). In tis subsection we briefly discuss te case D = in te boundary condition. As noted in Section 2.1, wit D = te boundary condition (4) is reduced to a form (so-called OBC- C ) tat is already studied in [18]. One can terefore employ te algoritms from [18] or [14] to treat tis case. Note tat te algoritm presented in [14] is wit respect to te open boundary condition aving a form corresponding to te so-called OBC-E in [18]. But te algoritm of [14] also applies to oter forms of open boundary conditions given in [18]. Wit D = te essential difference wen compared wit te sceme presented in Section 2.2 lies in tat, in te pressure sub-step te pressure condition on te open boundary will now become of Diriclet type rater tan Robin type, and in te velocity sub-step te velocity condition on te open boundary will become of Neumann type rater tan Robin type. We now briefly mention an algoritm for D =, as an alternative to te one presented in [14]. We discretize te governing equations and te boundary conditions as follows: For p n+1 : Use equations (2a), (2b), and (2c); p n+1 = νn u,n+1 n n E(n,u,n+1 ) f n+1 b n, on Ω o. (35a) 13

14 For u n+1 : Use equations (21a) and (21b); n u n+1 = 1 ν [ p n+1 n+e(n,u,n+1 ) ν ( u,n+1) n+f n+1 ] b, on Ωo. (36a) Te difference between tis algoritm and tat of [14] lies in tat, in te pressure sub-step of tis algoritm we ave approximated all terms at te time step (n + 1) and in te velocity sub-step no correction terms are involved. On te oter and, in [14] certain terms are approximated at time step (n+1) and te oter terms are approximated at step n in te pressure sub-step, and in te velocity sub-step several correction terms are involved as a result. Te weak forms of tis algoritm can be obtained using a procedure similar to tat of [14]. Let H 1 p(ω) = { v H 1 (Ω) : v Ωo = }, and q H p (Ω) denote te test function. Ten te weak form for p n+1 is Ω p n+1 q = G n+1 q ν n ω,n+1 q Ω Ω d Ω o γ n w n+1 q, q H t p(ω), 1 Ω d (37) were G n+1 is given by (26). Let Hu 1 (Ω) = { v H 1 (Ω) : v Ωd = }, and ϕ Hu 1 (Ω) denote te test function. Ten te weak form for u n+1 is γ u n+1 ϕ+ ν t Ω Ω ϕ u n+1 = 1 ( G n+1 p n+1) ϕ ν Ω + 1 [ p n+1 n+e(n,u,n+1 )+f n+1 b ν ( u,n+1) n ] (38) ϕ, ϕ Hu 1 ν (Ω). Ω o Te algoritm involves te following operations witin a time step: (i) Solve equation (37), togeter wit te pressure Diriclet condition (35a) on Ω o, for p n+1 ; (ii) Solve equation (38), togeter wit te velocity Diriclet condition (21b) on Ω d, for u n+1. Wen imposing te pressure Diriclet condition (35a) on Ω o using C spectral elements (or finite elements), a projection of te pressure Diriclet data to te H 1 ( Ω o ) space is required because of te velocity gradient term involved in te equation; see [14] for more detailed discussions in tis regard. We ave implemented te above algoritm, and te numerical experiments reported in Section 3 corresponding to D = are performed using tis algoritm. 3 Representative Numerical Tests In tis section we consider several flow problems wit open/outflow boundaries and employ two-dimensional simulations to demonstrate te effectiveness and performance of te open boundary condition and te numerical algoritm developed in te previous section. At large Reynolds numbers te presence of vortices and 14

15 A Diriclet boundary E Open boundary C Diriclet boundary Open boundary B Diriclet boundary F Diriclet boundary D (a) 1 1 Errors L -u L 2 -u L -v L 2 -v L -p L 2 -p Errors L -u L 2 -u L -v L 2 -v L -p L 2 -p Reference Element order (b) t (c) Figure 1: Spatial/temporal convergence rates: Flow configuration and boundary conditions (a), and L and L 2 errors as a function of te element order wit fixed t =.1 (b) and as a function of t wit a fixed element order 16 (c). backflows at te open/outflow boundary makes tese problems very callenging to simulate. We will look into te spatial and temporal convergence rates of te algoritm, and compare current simulation results wit te experimental data as well as oter simulations from te literature. Te results sow te effectiveness of te proposed metod for dealing wit te backflow instability. 3.1 Convergence Rates In tis subsection we study te spatial and temporal convergence rates of te algoritm presented in Section 2.2 by considering an analytic solution to te Navier-Stokes equation togeter wit te open boundary condition proposed in Section 2.1. Figure 1(a) sows te problem setting. Consider te rectangular domain ABDC defined by x 2 15

16 and 1 y 1, and te following analytic solution to te Navier-Stokes equations, (1a) and (1b), u = 2cosπysinπxsint v = 2sinπycosπxsint (39) p = 2sinπysinπxcost were u = (u,v). We use a caracteristic velocity scale U = 1 and a non-dimensional viscosity ν =.1 for tis problem. Te external body force f(x,t) in (1a) is cosen suc tat te expressions given by (39) satisfy te equation (1a). It is noted tat te analytical solution (39) employed ere as been used for te convergence tests in previous works [14, 18]. To simulate te problem we discretize te domain using two equal-sized quadrilateral elements (ABF E and EFDC) along te x direction. On te sides BD, AB and AE we impose te Diriclet condition (3), were te boundary velocity w(x, t) is cosen according to te analytic expressions given in (39). On te sides EC and CD we impose te open boundary condition (4), in wic we set D = 1. and δ = 1 2 and f b (x,t) is cosen suc tat te velocity and pressure expressions given by (39) satisfy te condition (4) at tese boundaries. We integrate te Navier-Stokes equations (1a) (1b) using te sceme presented in 2.2 in time from t = to t = t f (t f to be specified below). Ten we compute te errors of te numerical solution at t = t f against te analytic expression given in (39). Te element order or te time step size t as been varied systematically, and te errors are collected and monitored to study te convergence beavior of te metod. Let us first look into te spatial convergence beavior. In tis group of tests we fix te time step size at t =.1 and te integration time at t f =.1 (1 time steps), and ten vary te element order systematically between 2 and 2. Te numerical errors corresponding to eac element order ave been computed and monitored. Figure 1(b) sows te L and L 2 errors of te velocity and te pressure as a function of te element order from tese tests. As te element order increases but witin order 12, all te numerical errors are observed to decrease exponentially. Wen te element order increases to 12 and beyond, te error curves are observed to level off at a level 1 7 for tis problem. Te saturation of te total numerical error is because te temporal truncation error becomes dominant wen te element order becomes large. Tese results demonstrate te spatial exponential convergence rate of our metod. Te temporal convergence beavior of te metod is demonstrated by Figure 1(c), in wic we plot te L and L 2 errors of te flow variables as a function of te time step size t. In tis group of tests te integration time is fixed at t f =.5, te element order is fixed at 16, and t is varied systematically between t =.1 and t = Te convergence appears somewat not very regular wen t is above.25, especially in terms of te L error norms. As t decreases below.25, one can observe a second-order convergence rate in time for all te flow variables. 16

17 y y x (a) x (b) Figure 2: Contours of vorticity at Reynolds numbers Re = 3 (a) and Re = 2 (b). Dased curves indicate negative vorticity values. Te results of tis section suggest tat for problems involving open boundaries te metod presented in Section 2 exibits an exponential convergence rate in space and a second-order convergence rate in time. 3.2 Flow Past a Circular Cylinder In tis subsection we consider a canonical wake problem, te flow past a circular cylinder, in two dimensions to test te performanceofourmetod. Te goalisto demonstratete accuracyofte metod by comparison wit te experimental data, and to demonstrate its effectiveness in dealing wit te backflow instability as te Reynolds number becomes large. Tis flow problem as been used in [18] to test a different set of open boundary conditions and an associated pressure correction-based numerical algoritm. Te flow configurations employed in te current work largely follow tose of [18]. It sould be noted tat te open boundary condition and te algoritm being tested ere are very different from tose of [18]. Specifically, we consider a circular cylinder of diameter d, and a rectangular domain containing te cylinder, 5d x L and 1d y 1d, were x = L is te rigt domain boundary to be specified below. Te center of te cylinder coincides wit te origin of te coordinate system. Four flow domains ave been considered wit different wake-region sizes. Tey respectively correspond to L/d = 5, 1, 15 and 2, and are cosen in accordance wit [18]. Te flow domain wit L/d = 1 is illustrated in Figure 2(a). On te top and bottom domain boundaries (y = ±1d) we assume tat te flow is periodic. So te configuration in actuality corresponds to te flow past an infinite array of cylinders aligned in te y direction. On te left boundary (x = 5d) a uniform flow comes into te domain wit a velocity u = (u,v) = (U,), were U = 1 is te caracteristic velocity scale. Te rigt domain boundary (x = L) is assumed to be open, 17

18 were te fluid can freely move out of te domain and backflow may occur depending on te flow regime and te domain size. In order to simulate te problem, we discretize te domain using a mes of quadrilateral spectral elements. Te meses for tese four domains respectively contain 968, 1228, 1488 and 1748 quadrilateral elements. In simulations we impose te periodic condition at y/d = ±1, and te velocity Diriclet condition (3) at te inflow boundary x = 5d wit a boundary velocity w = (U,). On te cylinder surface a velocity no-slip condition is imposed, i.e. te Diriclet condition (3) wit w =. At te open (outflow) boundary x = L we impose te open boundary condition (4) wit f b = and δ = 1 1. We employ te algoritm developed in Section 2 to solve te incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. All te lengt variables are normalized by te cylinder diameter d and te velocity is normalized by U. So te Reynolds number for tis problem is defined by Re = 1 ν = U d ν f (4) were ν f is te kinematic viscosity of te fluid. A range of Reynolds numbers (up to Re = 1) as been considered. We use an element order 6 for Reynolds numbers below 1, and an element order 8 for iger Reynolds numbers. For selected Reynolds numbers we ave also performed simulations wit even larger element orders (up to 12), and we observe tat te difference in te results wen compared wit te element order 8 is small. Te non-dimensional time step size is U t/d = 1 3 for Reynolds numbers below 1 and U t/d = for iger Reynolds numbers in te simulations. As discussed in Section 2, te analogy between te open boundary condition (11) and te convective boundary condition (12) suggests tat 1 D represents a convection velocity. For te majority of simulations in tis section we employ te average velocity at te outflow boundary, U, as tis convection velocity and set D = 1 U in te open boundary condition (4). Tis is te default D value for te results reported in tis section. For several selected Reynolds numbers we ave also investigated te effects of D on te simulation results. Results corresponding to te oter D values will be explicitly specified. Te cylinder wake can be classified into several regimes, exibiting a variety of flow features. Tese ave been expounded in te review paper [72]. For Reynolds numbers below about Re = 47 te cylinder flow is two-dimensional and at a steady state. As te Reynolds number increases beyond tis value, te cylinder wake becomes unsteady and is caracterized by vortex seddings. It remains two-dimensional for Reynolds numbers up to about Re = 18. As te Reynolds number increases beyond Re 18, te cylinder wake develops an instability and te pysical flow becomes tree-dimensional. More complicated flow features and turbulence develop in te cylinder wake wen te Reynolds number increases furter. In Figures 2(a) and (b) we plot contours of te instantaneous vorticity obtained on te domain L/d = 1 at Reynolds numbers 18

19 .2.1 Lift Time (a) 1.5 Lift Time (b) Figure 3: Cylinder flow: time istories of te lift force on te cylinder at Reynolds numbers (a) Re = 6 and (b) Re = 5. Results are obtained wit D = 1 U in te open boundary condition. Reynolds number Domain C d C d C L 2 L/d = L/d = L/d = L/d = L/d = E L/d = E L/d = E L/d = E Table 1: Cylinder flow: effect of te domain size on te global flow parameters. C d : drag coefficient or time-averaged mean drag coefficient; C d : rms drag coefficient; C L: rms lift coefficient. Re = 3 and Re = 2, respectively. Te results sow a steady-state flow at Re = 3 and regular vortex seddings at Re = 2. We ave computed and monitored te forces acting on te circular cylinder. In Figure 3 we sow a window of te time istories of te lift (i.e. te force component in te cross-flow y direction) at Reynolds numbers Re = 6 and 5. Te force signals exibit quite regular fluctuations about a zero mean value at tese Reynolds numbers. Global flow parameters can be determined based on tese force data. In Table 1 we ave listed several 19

20 4 3 Experiment (Rosko, Tritton, etc) Dong & Karniadakis (25), 3D, Re=1, Ma et al. (2), 3D, Re=3,9 Dong & Sen (215), 2D Current simulations, 2D 1 Dong & Sen (215), 2D Empirical relations, Norberg (23) Current simulations, 2D.8.6 Cd 2 C L Re for 3D flow onset Re for 3D flow onset Re (a) Re (b) Figure 4: Cylinder flow: Comparison of (a) drag coefficient and (b) rms lift coefficient versus Reynolds number between te current simulations, te experimental data, and te simulation results of [18]. flow parameters for two Reynolds numbers Re = 2 and 1 obtained on different flow domains. Tey include: te drag coefficient C d = f x 1, were f x is te time averaged drag (i.e. force component in x 2 ρu2 direction) and ρ = 1 is te fluid density; te root-mean-square (rms) drag coefficient C d = f x 1, were f 2 ρu2 x is te rms drag; and te rms lift coefficient C L = f y 1, were f 2 ρu2 y is te rms lift. Tese data indicate tat te size of te wake region as an influence on te simulation results, and tat as te wake region becomes sufficiently large te flow parameters computed from te simulations remain essentially uncanged as te domain size furter increases. It can be observed tat te flow domain L/d = 1 is very close to te point were furter increase in te domain size no longer results in significant canges in te results. In ligt of tis observation, our subsequent discussions will be mainly based on te results obtained on te domain L/d = 1. To demonstrate te accuracy of te metod, we compare te force parameters computed from te current simulations wit tose from te experimental measurements and from oter simulations in te literature. In Figure 4(a) we plot te drag coefficient (C d ) as a function of Reynolds number from te current simulations, from a number of experiments [71, 9, 21, 69, 61], and from te simulations of [48, 13, 18]. Note tat te simulations in [18] and in te current work are bot two-dimensional, wile tose of [48, 13, 15] are treedimensional. Te current results correspondto te domain size L/d = 1 and D = 1 U in te open boundary condition (4). Tey agree wit tose of [18] very well. Note tat bot te numerical algoritm and te outflow boundary condition in te current work are different from tose of [18]. In te two-dimensional regime te current results also agree well wit te experimental data. But for Reynolds numbers were te pysical flow as become tree-dimensional (beyond about Re = 18), te current two-dimensional 2

21 Reference Re = 1 Re = 2 Braza et al. (1986) [5] Engelman & Jamnia (199) [19].26 Menegini & Bearman (1993) [49].54 Beaudan & Moin (1994) [2].24 Zang et al. (1995) [73] Tang & Audry (1997) [66] Persillon & Braza (1998) [58] Zang & Dalton (1998) [74].48 Kravcenko et al. (1999) [43].22 Hwang & Lin (1992) [35] Franke et al. (199) [24].46 Karniadakis (1988) [39].48 Newman & Karniadakis (1995) [51].51 Newman & Karniadakis (1996) [52].24 Dong & Sen (21) [16].51 Dong & Sen (215) [18] Current simulation (domain L/d = 1) Current simulation (domain L/d = 2).253 Table 2: Cylinder flow: Comparison of rms lift coefficients at Re = 1 and Re = 2 between current simulations and oter simulations from literature. simulations result in overly large drag coefficients compared to te experiments, and te discrepancy grows wit increasing Reynolds number. Figure 4(b) is a comparison of te rms lift coefficient C L as a function of te Reynolds number between current simulations, te experiment of [53], and te simulations of [18]. Te curves sow te empirical relation given by [53] based on several experimental sources, wic exibits a ysteresis around te Reynolds numbers were te two-dimensional to tree-dimensional flow transition occurs. Te lift coefficients from te current simulations and from [18] agree wit eac oter almost exactly. In te two-dimensional regime te current results agree wit te empirical relation from [53] reasonably well. In te tree-dimensional regime, owever, te current two-dimensional simulations grossly over-predict te lift coefficient, wic is a well-known penomenon about two-dimensional simulations (see e.g. [13, 15]). In Table 2 we ave summarized te rms lift coefficients (C L ) for Reynolds numbers Re = 1 and 2 from a number of two-dimensional simulations in te literature. We ave also listed te C L values on flow domains wit L/d = 1 and 2 from te current simulations for comparison; see Table 1 for C L values on te oter domains at Re = 1. One can observe a spread in te C L values from different simulations. Te lift coefficients from te current work are well witin te range of values from te literature. Let us next look into te effectiveness of te open boundary condition and te algoritm from Section 2 for dealing wit te backflow instability. We will consider te cylinder flow at iger Reynolds numbers, ranging from Re = 2 to Re = 1. At tese Reynolds numbers energetic vortices are observed to pass 21

22 2 y -2 x (a) 2 y -2 x (b) 2 y -2 x (c) Figure 5: Cylinder flow: snapsots of instantaneous velocity fields at Reynolds numbers (a) Re = 2, (b) Re = 5, and (c) Re = 1. Velocity vectors are plotted on every fift quadrature points in eac direction witin eac element. 22

23 2 1 Fy Time (a) 2 1 Fy Time (b) Figure 6: Time istories of te lift force on te cylinder at Reynolds numbers (a) Re = 2, and (b) Re = 1. troug te outflow boundary and induce strong backflows in tat region. Tis creates a severe instability issue, and makes te simulation immensely callenging. Tanks to te energy stability, te current open boundary condition provides an effective way for overcoming tis instability. In Figure 5 we sow distributions of te instantaneous velocity at tree Reynolds numbers Re = 2, 5 and 1. Te results are obtained on te domain L/d = 1, wit D = 1 U in te open boundary condition (4). Energetic vortices can be clearly observed at te open boundary (see e.g. Figure 5(c)). We ave performed long-time simulations at tese Reynolds numbers using te current metod. Te long-term stability of te simulations is demonstrated by Figure 6, in wic we sow a window of te time istories (over 3 flow-troug time) of te lift force on te cylinder at Reynolds numbers Re = 2 and Re = 1 obtained on te domain L/d = 1. At Re = 2 te lift signal exibits a modulation in its amplitude. At Re = 1 te fluctuation becomes quite caotic and te vortex-sedding frequency appears to vary over time. Tese results sow tat simulations using te current metod are long-term stable in te presence of strong vortices and backflows at te outflow/open boundaries. In contrast, te boundary condition (1) is observed to be unstable at tese Reynolds numbers considered 23

24 2 1 Fx Time (a) 1 Fx Time (b) Figure 7: Time istories of te drag on te cylinder at Re = 1 obtained using different D values in OBC: (a) D =, and (b) D = 1 U. ere. Te computation instantly blows up as te vortices it te outflow/open boundary. Let us next look into te effects of te D value in te open boundary condition (4) on te simulation results. By an analogy between te current open boundary condition and te usual convective boundary condition (12), we observe tat 1 D sould correspond to a convection velocity scale U c at te outflow boundary, i.e. 1 D = U c, as is discussed in Section 2. Te simulation results for te cylinder flow presented so far are obtained wit a value 1 D = U c = U, were U is te average velocity at te outflow boundary. We ave observed tat te variation in te D value in te open boundary condition (4) as little or essentially no effect on te global pysical quantities suc as te forces on te cylinder. Tis is illustrated in Figure 7 wit te time istories of te drag at Reynolds number Re = 1 corresponding to two values D U = (or U c = ) and D U = 1 (or U c = U ) in te open boundary condition (4). Te two drag signals exibit qualitatively similar caracteristics. A quantitative comparison of te global pysical quantities corresponding to several D values is given in Table 3. Te table includes te data for te mean drag coefficient (C d ), rms drag coefficient (C d ), and te rms lift coefficient (C L) for Reynolds numbers Re = 2, 1 and 1 on te flow domain wit L = 1d. We ave considered several D values in tese tests, corresponding to D U =,.5, 1, 2 and 5, or equivalently U c =, 2U, U, U 2 U and 5. One can 24