![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
Abstract
In this article, a comparison is made between the robustness and efficiency of the CLEAR algorithm and the SIMPLE algorithm on nonorthogonal curvilinear coordinates for compressible flows. Thirteen different high-order convection schemes are employed in the calculations. Subsonic flow, transsonic flow, and supersonic flow in a channel with a circular arc bump and compressible flow in a Laval nozzle are used as test cases. The CLEAR algorithm shows huge potential to compute the transsonic flow in the Laval nozzle and high-speed compressible flows. Results with the ADBQUICKEST scheme, the HLPA scheme, and the MUSCL scheme are stable for both the compressible SIMPLE and CLEAR algorithms for all the mentioned cases.
Notes
Results before “/” are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind “/” are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm.
“—”, solution is not convergent; “O,” result is oscillating; “S,” result is stable.
Results before “/” are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind “/” are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm.
“—”, solution is not convergent; “O,” result is oscillating; “S,” result is stable.
Results before “/” are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind “/” are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm.
“—”, solution is not convergent; “O,” result is oscillating; “S,” result is stable.
Results before “/” are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind “/” are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm.
“—”, solution is not convergent; “O,” result is oscillating; “S,” result is stable.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/unhb.