# Verification of the Calculation of Stationary Subsonic Flows and Presentation of Results

## Abstract

In some regions located far from the streamlined body’s boundary, the flow can be vortex and non-barotropic but the Euler equations model the flow of a viscous gas to high precision. It was assumed that in such regions the consequences of the Euler equations must also be satisfied to high precision. One of these consequences is maximum principle for pressure for subsonic stationary three-dimensional vortex flows of an ideal gas. This maximum principle for pressure includes the *Q* parameter, the image of the level surfaces of which is currently widely used to visualize the flow pattern. The maximum principle reveals the meaning of the surface *Q* = 0. It separates the flow regions *Q* > 0, in which there can be no local pressure maximum points, from the regions *Q* < 0, where there can be no local pressure minimum points. A similar meaning of the *Q* parameter was known earlier only for an incompressible fluid. The expression for the *Q* parameter contains only the first derivatives of the velocity components, which allows determining the sign of the *Q* parameter even for numerical solutions obtained by low-order approximation methods. The chapter gives examples of the use of this principle for verification of Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulation results.

## Keywords

Euler equations Navier-Stokes equations Subsonic vortex flows Subsonic maximum principle for pressure Forms of calculated results presentation Verification of calculation results## References

- 1.Vyshinsky, V.V.: Development of exact solutions of the shock-free flow around a symmetric profile with a local supersonic zone. Scientific notes of TsAGI VI (3), 1–8 (1075). (in Russian)Google Scholar
- 2.Vyshinsky, V.V., Sizykh, G.B.: On verification of calculations of stationary subsonic flows and representation of results. Matematicheskoe Modelirovanie
**30**(6), 21–38 (2018). (in Russian)Google Scholar - 3.Rowland, H.: On the motion of a perfect incompressible fluid when no bodies are present. Am. J. Math.
**3**, 226–268 (1880)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Lamb, H.: Hydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press (1895)Google Scholar
- 5.Hamel, G.: Ein allgemeiner Satz uber den Druck bei der Bewegung volumbestandiger Flussigkeiten. Monatshefte Math. Phys.
**43**, 345–363 (1936)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.Serrin, J.: Mathematical principles of classical fluid mechanics. Springer, Berlin (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Truesdell, C.: Two measures of vorticity. J. Rational Mech. Anal.
**2**, 173–217 (1953)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 8.Shiffman, M.: On the existence of subsonic flows of a compressible fluid. J. Rational Mech. Anal.
**1**, 605–652 (1952)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 9.Bers L.: Mathematical aspects of subsonic and transonic gas dynamics. Wiley, New York (1958)Google Scholar
- 10.Vyshinskiy V.V., Ivanov V.K., Terpugov A.V.: Simulation of complex flight regimes on aerobatic stands with considering atmospheric turbulence. Trudy MFTI
**7**(1), 36–42 (2015). (in Russian)Google Scholar - 11.Jeong, J., Hussain, F.: On the identification of a vortex. J. Fluid Mech.
**285**, 69–94 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.Dubief, Y., Delcayre, F.: On coherent-vortex identification in turbulence. J. Turbulence
**1**(1), 1–22 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 13.Lesieur, M., Begou, P., Briand, E., Danet, A., Delcayre, F., Aider, J.L.: Coherent-vortex dynamics in large-eddy simulations of turbulence. J. Turbul.
**4**(1), 1–16 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 14.Cala, C.E., Fernandes, E.C., Heitor, M.V., Shtork, S.I.: Coherent structures in unsteady swirling jet flow. Exp. Fluids
**40**(2), 267–276 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar