Carbuncle Phenomena and Other Shock Anomalies in Three Dimensions

Keiichi Kitamura * and Eiji Shima † Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-5210, Japan and Philip L. Roe ‡ University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Hypersonic flow computations have proved to be very troublesome due to the appearance of shock anomalies (instabilities and oscillations), such as carbuncle phenomenon. These anomalies are categorized into one-dimensional (1D) and multidimensional (MD) modes, and these modes both arise from many factors and their combinations. Accurate prediction of hypersonic heating, a key issue in hypersonic flow computations, is therefore challenging especially for three dimensions (3D). In the present study, we focus on 3D shock anomalies and heating motivated by the following reasons: 1) Intuitively, MD shock anomalies are considered to develop more likely in 3D than in two dimensions (2D), but it cannot be proved mathematically, nor has it been numerically demonstrated; specifically, it is not clear yet whether the third dimension plays another role which is absent in 2D. 2) Most of proposed remedies for MD anomalies had been tested in 1D or 2D setups in the literature, but it is not guaranteed whether such MD dissipations actually work well in 3D. 3) It is already known to be troublesome to extend some of MD methods developed in 2D considerations to 3D. The numerical results show that 3D anomalies are too complicated to be predicted from their 2D counterparts, and that they can either be partly removed or (even worse) enhanced by MD dissipations. Therefore, robustness of a numerical method which worked well in 2D may not be preserved in 3D.

[1]  Sutthisak Phongthanapanich,et al.  Healing of shock instability for Roe's flux‐difference splitting scheme on triangular meshes , 2009 .

[2]  Peter A. Gnoffo,et al.  Updates to Multi-Dimensional Flux Reconstruction for Hypersonic Simulations on Tetrahedral Grids , 2010 .

[3]  B. Leer,et al.  Flux-vector splitting for the Euler equations , 1997 .

[4]  Jean-Marc Moschetta,et al.  Shock wave instability and the carbuncle phenomenon: same intrinsic origin? , 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[5]  B. V. Leer,et al.  Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme V. A second-order sequel to Godunov's method , 1979 .

[6]  Sylvie Benzoni-Gavage,et al.  Note on a paper by Robinet, Gressier, Casalis & Moschetta , 2002, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[7]  Yoshiaki Nakamura,et al.  Numerical simulations and experimental comparisons for high-speed nonequilibrium air flows , 2000 .

[8]  Oh-Hyun Rho,et al.  Methods for the accurate computations of hypersonic flows: I. AUSMPW + scheme , 2001 .

[9]  Eiji Shima,et al.  Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Heating Computations , 2010 .

[10]  Marcus V. C. Ramalho,et al.  A Possible Mechanism for the Appearance of the Carbuncle Phenomenon in Aerodynamic Simulations , 2010 .

[11]  Philip C. E. Jorgenson,et al.  Multi-dimensional dissipation for cure of pathological behaviors of upwind scheme , 2009, J. Comput. Phys..

[12]  Dong Yan,et al.  Cures for numerical shock instability in HLLC solver , 2011 .

[13]  G. D. van Albada,et al.  A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics , 1982 .

[14]  F. R. Riddell,et al.  Theory of Stagnation Point Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air , 1958 .

[15]  Meng-Sing Liou,et al.  A Sequel to AUSM : AUSM 1 , 1996 .

[16]  M. Liou A Sequel to AUSM , 1996 .

[17]  Timothy J. Barth Some notes on shock resolving flux functions. Part 1: Stationary characteristics , 1989 .

[18]  Chongam Kim,et al.  Multi-dimensional limiting process for three-dimensional flow physics analyses , 2008, J. Comput. Phys..

[19]  S. Imlay,et al.  Blunt-body flow simulations , 1988 .

[20]  Pramod K. Subbareddy,et al.  Unstructured grid approaches for accurate aeroheating simulations , 2007 .

[21]  Volker Elling,et al.  The carbuncle phenomenon is incurable , 2009 .

[22]  Peter A. Gnoffo,et al.  Computational Aerothermodynamic Simulation Issues on Unstructured Grids , 2004 .

[23]  Eiji Shima,et al.  Parameter-Free Simple Low-Dissipation AUSM-Family Scheme for All Speeds , 2011 .

[24]  Dimitri J. Mavriplis,et al.  Current Status and Future Prospects for the Numerical Simulation of Hypersonic Flows , 2009 .

[25]  Keiichi Kitamura,et al.  Evaluation of Euler Fluxes for Hypersonic Flow Computations , 2009 .

[26]  P. Roe Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[27]  Dinshaw S. Balsara Multidimensional HLLE Riemann solver: Application to Euler and magnetohydrodynamic flows , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[28]  R. Schwane,et al.  ON THE ACCURACY OF UPWIND SCHEMES FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS , 1987 .

[29]  Keiichi Kitamura,et al.  Artificial Surface Tension to Stabilize Captured Shockwaves , 2008 .

[30]  Domenic D'Ambrosio,et al.  Upwind methods and carbuncle phenomenon , 1998 .

[31]  C. Angelopoulos High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws , 1992 .

[32]  Peter A. Gnoffo,et al.  Multi-Dimensional, Inviscid Flux Reconstruction for Simulation of Hypersonic Heating on Tetrahedral Grids , 2009 .

[33]  Chongam Kim,et al.  Cures for the shock instability: development of a shock-stable Roe scheme , 2003 .

[34]  Keiichi Kitamura,et al.  Very simple, carbuncle-free, boundary-layer-resolving, rotated-hybrid Riemann solvers , 2008, J. Comput. Phys..