Verification of a mixed high‐order accurate DNS code for laminar turbulent transition by the method of manufactured solutions

This paper presents results on a verification test of a Direct Numerical Simulation code of mixed high-order of accuracy using the method of manufactured solutions (MMS). This test is based on the formulation of an analytical solution for the Navier–Stokes equations modified by the addition of a source term. The present numerical code was aimed at simulating the temporal evolution of instability waves in a plane Poiseuille flow. The governing equations were solved in a vorticity–velocity formulation for a two-dimensional incompressible flow. The code employed two different numerical schemes. One used mixed high-order compact and non-compact finite-differences from fourth-order to sixth-order of accuracy. The other scheme used spectral methods instead of finite-difference methods for the streamwise direction, which was periodic. In the present test, particular attention was paid to the boundary conditions of the physical problem of interest. Indeed, the verification procedure using MMS can be more demanding than the often used comparison with Linear Stability Theory. That is particularly because in the latter test no attention is paid to the nonlinear terms. For the present verification test, it was possible to manufacture an analytical solution that reproduced some aspects of an instability wave in a nonlinear stage. Although the results of the verification by MMS for this mixed-order numerical scheme had to be interpreted with care, the test was very useful as it gave confidence that the code was free of programming errors. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  P. Schmid,et al.  Stability and Transition in Shear Flows. By P. J. SCHMID & D. S. HENNINGSON. Springer, 2001. 556 pp. ISBN 0-387-98985-4. £ 59.50 or $79.95 , 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[2]  Patrick J. Roache,et al.  Symbolic manipulation and computational fluid dynamics , 1985 .

[3]  William L. Oberkampf,et al.  Methodology for computational fluid dynamics code verification/validation , 1995 .

[4]  T. Trucano,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computational Engineering and Physics , 2004 .

[5]  Patrick J. Roache,et al.  Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering , 1998 .

[6]  P. Roache.  Code Verification by the Method of Manufactured Solutions , 2002 .

[7]  S. Lele.  Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution , 1992 .

[8]  P. Roache.  QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS , 1997 .

[9]  B. Gustafsson.  The convergence rate for difference approximations to mixed initial boundary value problems , 1975 .

[10]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  On the role of code comparisons in verification and validation. , 2003 .

[11]  H. Fasel,et al.  A Compact-Difference Scheme for the Navier—Stokes Equations in Vorticity—Velocity Formulation , 2000 .

[12]  D. Pelletier,et al.  A continuous sensitivity equation method for time‐dependent incompressible laminar flows , 2004 .

[13]  Foluso Ladeinde,et al.  Comparative advantages of high-order schemes for subsonic, transonic, and supersonic flows , 2006 .

[14]  L. Souza,et al.  The advantages of using high‐order finite differences schemes in laminar–turbulent transition studies , 2005 .

[15]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Grid Convergence Error Analysis for Mixed-Order Numerical Schemes , 2001 .

[16]  Joel H. Ferziger,et al.  Computational methods for fluid dynamics , 1996 .

[17]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Verification of Euler/Navier–Stokes codes using the method of manufactured solutions , 2004 .

[18]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Review of code and solution verification procedures for computational simulation , 2005 .