Statistics – Computation
Scientific paper
Jan 1983
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1983aiaaj..21..145g&link_type=abstract
AIAA Journal, vol. 21, Jan. 1983, p. 145-147.
Statistics
Computation
Computational Fluid Dynamics, Flow Distribution, Spatial Marching, Time Marching, Aerodynamic Drag, Atmospheric Entry, Blowing, Comparison, Pressure Distribution
Scientific paper
Menees (1981) has conducted an evaluation of three different flowfield codes for the Jupiter entry conditions. However, a comparison of the codes has been made difficult by the fact that the three codes use different solution procedures, different computational mesh sizes, and a different convergence criterion. There are also other differences. For an objective evaluation of the different numerical solution methods employed by the codes, it would be desirable to select a simple no-blowing perfect-gas flowfield case for which the turbulent models are well established. The present investigation is concerned with the results of such a study. It is found that the choice of the numerical method is rather problem dependent. The time-marching and the space-marching method provide both comparable results if care is taken in selecting the appropriate mesh size near the body surface.
Gupta Roop N.
Moss James N.
Simmonds A. L.
No associations
LandOfFree
A comparative study of time-marching and space-marching numerical methods does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with A comparative study of time-marching and space-marching numerical methods, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and A comparative study of time-marching and space-marching numerical methods will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1195388