CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Main CFD Forum

Euler equations vs NS equations

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   June 7, 2018, 19:10
Default Euler equations vs NS equations
  #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Hello,

It has been bothering me for a long time that, for high-speed flow, since NS equations can clearly describe full flow field, why people still want to study Euler equations? I mean without viscous terms, Euler equations can only capture shock waves, but unable to generate turbulence; it's kind of "unphysical".

So, the reason for studying Euler equations, is it because the Euler equations can capture shocks better than NS? Or some other reasons?

TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 04:47
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,246
Rep Power: 67
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
On the contrary, Euler equations are quite more difficult due to the mathematical singularity in the solution...but often they are used for external flow where the viscosity has almost no relevance.
It is worthwhile to consider that we cannot solve the viscous structure of a shock while considering also problems at large scales, like the flow over an airfoil. Consider that you need to describe a shock layer width that is much smaller than the turbulence Kolmogorov lenght scale. In other words, also using NS equations, the shock is described on a grid as a discontinuity in the Euler equations.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 05:10
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Ashwani
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 150
Rep Power: 11
AshwaniAssam is on a distinguished road
One reason to do so is to understand convective scheme better. Mathematically, Euler equations help to understand the hyperbolic nature of PDE's.

Also, implementation of boundary condition which requires taking into the consideration the direction of flow and the Mach numbers at the boundary.

It is a necessary step before one code for full NS.
AshwaniAssam is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 06:43
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
sbaffini's Avatar
 
Paolo Lampitella
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,977
Blog Entries: 29
Rep Power: 36
sbaffini will become famous soon enoughsbaffini will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to sbaffini
Also, do not forget that, for the practical cases where Euler equations are still usually applied (external compressible aerodynamics), using the full Navier-Stokes would either require a full boundary layer resolution (which more often than not is out of question) or the use of wall functions.

In the latter case, even if you have a code with wall functions (which is not necessarily true in general), they are far from reliable in several cases, and also quite wrong in relation to the computed drag on your body.

When you put all these things together, I guess, you start seeing how more attractive Euler equations are in such cases.
sbaffini is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 09:21
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,246
Rep Power: 67
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
I agree, Euler equations are quite suitable for computing pressure distribution and shock location
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 15:25
Default NS vs Euler equations
  #6
Senior Member
 
Selig
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 9
selig5576 is on a distinguished road
This question has different answers depending on where you come from. As someone who comes from a *very* pure math background. We look at the compressible Navier-Stokes equations as the next term in the Chapman-Enskog expanion. If you perform the Chapman-Enskog expansion on the Boltzmann equation and retain only first-order terms, you get the compressible Euler equations. If you retain higher order you get the Compressible Navier-Stokes in the hydrodynamic limit. If we retain only first-order terms, taking the hydrodynamic limit we get a purely inviscid system. In fact, its hyperbolic, i.e. its eigenvalues are real and distinct. It is still a valid description where vicous effects are negligible.

In terms of not being able to generate turbulence , I dont know if that is true. If we look at Kelvin-Helmholtz or the Meshkov instablity we do get transitional instabilities.
selig5576 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2018, 15:35
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,246
Rep Power: 67
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by selig5576 View Post
In terms of not being able to generate turbulence , I dont know if that is true. If we look at Kelvin-Helmholtz or the Meshkov instablity we do get transitional instabilities.



The inviscid flow assumption is valid when we consider the mechanism of the energy cascade that acts only by means of the non-linear interaction. A real turbulence will be characterized by the fact that a physical dissipation is present at small scales, a fact that terminates the inertial energy cascade.
selig5576 likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 05:57
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaffini View Post
Also, do not forget that, for the practical cases where Euler equations are still usually applied (external compressible aerodynamics), using the full Navier-Stokes would either require a full boundary layer resolution (which more often than not is out of question) or the use of wall functions.

In the latter case, even if you have a code with wall functions (which is not necessarily true in general), they are far from reliable in several cases, and also quite wrong in relation to the computed drag on your body.

When you put all these things together, I guess, you start seeing how more attractive Euler equations are in such cases.
Thanks for your reply, and it's inspiring. However, I have never worked on solving Euler equation, but one question: if apply Euler to study external flow, due to it's inviscid, would it results in no dray force on, let's say an airfoil (like D'Alembert paradox)?
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 05:58
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
I agree, Euler equations are quite suitable for computing pressure distribution and shock location
I can see it's good for shock capturing, but I don't see why it's good for computing pressure field?
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 06:01
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by selig5576 View Post
This question has different answers depending on where you come from. As someone who comes from a *very* pure math background. We look at the compressible Navier-Stokes equations as the next term in the Chapman-Enskog expanion. If you perform the Chapman-Enskog expansion on the Boltzmann equation and retain only first-order terms, you get the compressible Euler equations. If you retain higher order you get the Compressible Navier-Stokes in the hydrodynamic limit. If we retain only first-order terms, taking the hydrodynamic limit we get a purely inviscid system. In fact, its hyperbolic, i.e. its eigenvalues are real and distinct. It is still a valid description where vicous effects are negligible.

In terms of not being able to generate turbulence , I dont know if that is true. If we look at Kelvin-Helmholtz or the Meshkov instablity we do get transitional instabilities.
Seems you are from math background? I can see Euler can generate instability due to its nonlinearity; but without viscous force, the turbulent energy cascade will go to infinitesimal small, which obvious breaks the continuum assumption.
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 06:07
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
On the contrary, Euler equations are quite more difficult due to the mathematical singularity in the solution...but often they are used for external flow where the viscosity has almost no relevance.
It is worthwhile to consider that we cannot solve the viscous structure of a shock while considering also problems at large scales, like the flow over an airfoil. Consider that you need to describe a shock layer width that is much smaller than the turbulence Kolmogorov lenght scale. In other words, also using NS equations, the shock is described on a grid as a discontinuity in the Euler equations.
So, does this mean that Euler equation kind of like a "zoom-in" on certain spatial range so that we can focus on the shocks only?
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 06:39
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
sbaffini's Avatar
 
Paolo Lampitella
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,977
Blog Entries: 29
Rep Power: 36
sbaffini will become famous soon enoughsbaffini will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to sbaffini
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbJet View Post
Thanks for your reply, and it's inspiring. However, I have never worked on solving Euler equation, but one question: if apply Euler to study external flow, due to it's inviscid, would it results in no dray force on, let's say an airfoil (like D'Alembert paradox)?
Euler equations, in general, admit drag in the form of wave drag. The D'Alembert paradox, instead, only applies for potential flows.

This is in theory. In practice, the drag you will see in your computation will depend on the method you use.

When it is possible (e.g., incompressible and inviscid flows), if you solve the potential equation directly, you will see no drag at all. If instead you solve the Euler equations directly, your discretization is likely to introduce numerical viscosity. This, in turn, will make your simulation a viscous like, experiencing separations (thus pressure drag) and entropy production in general (yet, no friction drag).

Note that Euler equations are typically solved directly for this very reason, otherwise you would not see any lift at all as well. For airfoils, that small numerical viscosity will play similarly to a Kutta condition, while still not requiring the resolution of the boundary layers. This also means that, in 3D, you can compute the lift drag.

Note that, especially at high speeds, the pressure-wave drag that you can compute with such a method is much higher than the friction drag you are not computing (and even more so at high Mach numbers). Thus, if the flow is attached, it really is a good approximation.
sbaffini is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 07:00
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
sbaffini's Avatar
 
Paolo Lampitella
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,977
Blog Entries: 29
Rep Power: 36
sbaffini will become famous soon enoughsbaffini will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to sbaffini
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbJet View Post
So, does this mean that Euler equation kind of like a "zoom-in" on certain spatial range so that we can focus on the shocks only?
For Euler equations the shock has zero thickness. For full Navier-Stokes equations the shock has a finite thickness.

In theory you can solve NS equations on a sufficiently fine grid to capture the shock structure (i.e., jumps across the shock become continuous variations over a very small length, function of the mean free path).

In practice, this won't happen and doesn't make much sense, because the length over which this happens is so small that the continuum hypothesis underlying the NS equations is questionable at those scales.

But experts on Boltzmann equations can probably shed more light on this.

In conclusion, yes, if by zoom in you intend that you get a discontinuous shock, no matter at what scale you look at it. That's what you get with Euler equations, but not with NS.
selig5576 likes this.
sbaffini is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 11:39
Default Euler vs NS
  #14
Senior Member
 
Selig
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 213
Rep Power: 9
selig5576 is on a distinguished road
From a point of view of scales. This is how it is looked at:

Quantum Mechanics -> Kinetic Theory -> Hydrodynamics.
Schrodinger Boltzmann Euler/NS

So to answer the question, yes in the hydrodynamic limit, Euler equations are a zoom in. Something I find interesting is that in very high Mach numbers, Euler's equations become a less adequate description, and in fact the Boltzmann equation becomes more accurate. If you would like to know more about this, I can give you some references. A professor at my university works on multiscale methods (finite volume, finite difference.)

References on limits:
1 .Hydrodynamic Limits of the Boltzmann Equation, Laure Saint-Raymond
2. The Cauchy Problem in Kinetic Theory, Robert Glassey
3. The Boltzmann Equation and its Applications, C. Cercignani (Quite frankly the best book on the Boltzmann equation)
4. Kinetic Equations and Aymptotic Theory, Francois Bouchut, Francois Golse and Mario Pulvirenti
selig5576 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 13:05
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,246
Rep Power: 67
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Just some hints:


1) the Prandtl theory about the BL says that the normal derivative of the pressure vanishes as the viscosity goes to zero. That means Euler solution can provide an acceptable pressure field at the wall.


2) Euler equations can generate singularity in the solution but this singularity can be only mathematical and not physical. Jump relation must be satisfied across the singularity. More specifically, the shock must be only compressive.



3) Energy cascade theoretically extends up to infinitesimal lengh scale for invisci flows. Of course, this is a mathematical consequence of the used inviscid approximation. No matter about the continuum description.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 21:26
Default
  #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaffini View Post
Euler equations, in general, admit drag in the form of wave drag. The D'Alembert paradox, instead, only applies for potential flows.

This is in theory. In practice, the drag you will see in your computation will depend on the method you use.

When it is possible (e.g., incompressible and inviscid flows), if you solve the potential equation directly, you will see no drag at all. If instead you solve the Euler equations directly, your discretization is likely to introduce numerical viscosity. This, in turn, will make your simulation a viscous like, experiencing separations (thus pressure drag) and entropy production in general (yet, no friction drag).

Note that Euler equations are typically solved directly for this very reason, otherwise you would not see any lift at all as well. For airfoils, that small numerical viscosity will play similarly to a Kutta condition, while still not requiring the resolution of the boundary layers. This also means that, in 3D, you can compute the lift drag.

Note that, especially at high speeds, the pressure-wave drag that you can compute with such a method is much higher than the friction drag you are not computing (and even more so at high Mach numbers). Thus, if the flow is attached, it really is a good approximation.
Correct me if I am wrong: so you mean, with high-speed flow, the physical drag force will be small, and so lacking of viscous terms (not artificial viscosity) will not cause too much of problem for Euler equations; instead, pressure drag is important, and Euler can compute it well. Am I right?
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 21:32
Default
  #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaffini View Post
For Euler equations the shock has zero thickness. For full Navier-Stokes equations the shock has a finite thickness.

In theory you can solve NS equations on a sufficiently fine grid to capture the shock structure (i.e., jumps across the shock become continuous variations over a very small length, function of the mean free path).

In practice, this won't happen and doesn't make much sense, because the length over which this happens is so small that the continuum hypothesis underlying the NS equations is questionable at those scales.

But experts on Boltzmann equations can probably shed more light on this.

In conclusion, yes, if by zoom in you intend that you get a discontinuous shock, no matter at what scale you look at it. That's what you get with Euler equations, but not with NS.
hm. So you are talking about extremely high-speed flow. I was thinking about in the regime of regular supersonic flight.
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 21:33
Default
  #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by selig5576 View Post
From a point of view of scales. This is how it is looked at:

Quantum Mechanics -> Kinetic Theory -> Hydrodynamics.
Schrodinger Boltzmann Euler/NS

So to answer the question, yes in the hydrodynamic limit, Euler equations are a zoom in. Something I find interesting is that in very high Mach numbers, Euler's equations become a less adequate description, and in fact the Boltzmann equation becomes more accurate. If you would like to know more about this, I can give you some references. A professor at my university works on multiscale methods (finite volume, finite difference.)

References on limits:
1 .Hydrodynamic Limits of the Boltzmann Equation, Laure Saint-Raymond
2. The Cauchy Problem in Kinetic Theory, Robert Glassey
3. The Boltzmann Equation and its Applications, C. Cercignani (Quite frankly the best book on the Boltzmann equation)
4. Kinetic Equations and Aymptotic Theory, Francois Bouchut, Francois Golse and Mario Pulvirenti
Thanks for the recommends ! I'll take a look.
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2018, 21:36
Default
  #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 229
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
TurbJet is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
Just some hints:


1) the Prandtl theory about the BL says that the normal derivative of the pressure vanishes as the viscosity goes to zero. That means Euler solution can provide an acceptable pressure field at the wall.


2) Euler equations can generate singularity in the solution but this singularity can be only mathematical and not physical. Jump relation must be satisfied across the singularity. More specifically, the shock must be only compressive.



3) Energy cascade theoretically extends up to infinitesimal lengh scale for invisci flows. Of course, this is a mathematical consequence of the used inviscid approximation. No matter about the continuum description.
I understand the first two. But for the 3rd, it doesn't seem physical; it appears to me more like a mathematical point of view.
TurbJet is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 10, 2018, 03:14
Default
  #20
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,246
Rep Power: 67
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbJet View Post
I understand the first two. But for the 3rd, it doesn't seem physical; it appears to me more like a mathematical point of view.
Euler approximation is a mathematical model...the solutions you get can or cannot be an acceptable approximation of the physics, depending on what you want to describe.
The singularity is mathematic, shock Waves are not a discontinuiy in a small scale
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
euler equations, navier stokes equations, shock wave, turbulence

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incompressible Euler Equations with SIMPLE method yfjok22 OpenFOAM Programming & Development 1 September 22, 2016 09:11
Normalization of eigenvectors of the Euler equations bubble45 Main CFD Forum 9 March 16, 2015 18:09
Exact solution - Euler equations jakubstary Main CFD Forum 9 May 6, 2013 19:14
Euler equations with heat conduction! salem Main CFD Forum 10 August 2, 2004 04:16
Euler equations? Jan Ramboer Main CFD Forum 2 August 19, 1999 02:58


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03.