Editing Computational fluid dynamics (section)

==Methodology==
In all of these approaches the same basic procedure is followed.
* During [[preprocessor (CAE)|preprocessing]]
** The [[geometry]] and physical bounds of the problem can be defined using [[Computer-aided design|computer aided design]] (CAD). From there, data can be suitably processed (cleaned-up) and the fluid volume (or fluid domain) is extracted.
** The [[volume]] occupied by the fluid is divided into discrete cells (the mesh). The mesh may be uniform or non-uniform, structured or unstructured, consisting of a combination of hexahedral, tetrahedral, prismatic, pyramidal or polyhedral elements.
** The physical modeling is defined – for example, the equations of fluid motion + [[enthalpy]] + radiation + species conservation
** Boundary conditions are defined. This involves specifying the fluid behaviour and properties at all bounding surfaces of the fluid domain. For transient problems, the initial conditions are also defined.
* The [[computer simulation|simulation]] is started and the equations are solved iteratively as a steady-state or transient.
* Finally a postprocessor is used for the analysis and visualization of the resulting solution.

===Discretization methods===
{{further|Discretization of Navier–Stokes equations}}

The stability of the selected discretisation is generally established numerically rather than analytically as with simple linear problems.  Special care must also be taken to ensure that the discretisation handles discontinuous solutions gracefully.  The [[Euler equations (fluid dynamics)|Euler equations]] and [[Navier–Stokes equations]] both admit shocks and contact surfaces.

Some of the discretization methods being used are:

==== Finite volume method ====

{{Main|Finite volume method}}

The finite volume method (FVM) is a common approach used in CFD codes, as it has an advantage in [[Random-access memory|memory]] usage and solution speed, especially for large problems, high [[Reynolds number]] turbulent flows, and source term dominated flows (like combustion).<ref>{{cite book|last=Patankar|first=Suhas V.|author-link=Suhas Patankar|title=Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid FLow|year=1980|publisher=Hemisphere Publishing Corporation
|isbn=978-0891165224}}</ref>

In the finite volume method, the governing partial differential equations (typically the Navier-Stokes equations, the mass and energy conservation equations, and the turbulence equations) are recast in a conservative form, and then solved over discrete control volumes. This [[discretization]] guarantees the conservation of fluxes through a particular control volume. The finite volume equation yields governing equations in the form,
:<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\iiint Q\, dV + \iint F\, d\mathbf{A} = 0,</math>
where <math>Q</math> is the vector of conserved variables, <math>F</math> is the vector of fluxes (see [[Euler equations (fluid dynamics)|Euler equations]] or [[Navier–Stokes equations]]), <math>V</math> is the volume of the control volume element, and <math>\mathbf{A}</math> is the surface area of the control volume element.

==== Finite element method ====

{{Main|Finite element method}}

The finite element method (FEM) is used in structural analysis of solids, but is also applicable to fluids.  However, the FEM formulation requires special care to ensure a conservative solution. The FEM formulation has been adapted for use with fluid dynamics governing equations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Detailed Explanation of the Finite Element Method (FEM) |url=https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/finite-element-method |access-date=2022-07-15 |website=www.comsol.com}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Anderson |first=John David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=phG_QgAACAAJ |title=Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications |date=1995 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=978-0-07-113210-7 |language=en}}</ref> Although FEM must be carefully formulated to be conservative, it is much more stable than the finite volume approach.<ref>{{cite journal| title=k-version of finite element method in gas dynamics: higher-order global differentiability numerical solutions| last1=Surana| first1=K.A.| last2=Allu| first2=S.| last3=Tenpas| first3=P.W.| last4=Reddy| first4=J.N.| journal=International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering| volume=69| issue=6| pages=1109–1157|date=February 2007| doi=10.1002/nme.1801|bibcode = 2007IJNME..69.1109S | s2cid=122551159}}</ref> FEM also provides more accurate solutions for smooth problems comparing to FVM. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Surana |first1=KS |last2=Allu |first2=S |last3=Tenpas |first3=PW |last4=Reddy |first4=JN |title=k-version of finite element method in gas dynamics: higher-order global differentiability numerical solutions |journal=International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering |volume=69 |issue=6 |pages=1109–1157 |year=2007 |publisher=Wiley Online Library|doi=10.1002/nme.1801 |bibcode=2007IJNME..69.1109S }}</ref> Another advantage of FEM is that it can handle complex geometries and boundary conditions. However, FEM can require more memory and has slower solution times than the FVM.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Surana |first1=KS |last2=Allu |first2=S |last3=Tenpas |first3=PW |last4=Reddy |first4=JN |title=k-version of finite element method in gas dynamics: higher-order global differentiability numerical solutions |journal=International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering |volume=69 |issue=6 |pages=1109–1157 |year=2007 |publisher=Wiley Online Library|doi=10.1002/nme.1801 |bibcode=2007IJNME..69.1109S }}</ref>

In this method, a weighted residual equation is formed:

:<math>R_i = \iiint W_i Q \, dV^e</math>

where <math>R_i</math> is the equation residual at an element vertex <math>i</math>, <math>Q</math> is the conservation equation expressed on an element basis, <math>W_i</math> is the weight factor, and <math>V^{e}</math> is the volume of the element.

==== Finite difference method ====

{{Main|Finite difference method}}

The finite difference method (FDM) has historical importance<ref name=":0" /> and is simple to program.  It is currently only used in few specialized codes, which handle complex geometry with high accuracy and efficiency by using embedded boundaries or overlapping grids (with the solution interpolated across each grid).{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}} 
:<math> 
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial t}+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}+
\frac{\partial G}{\partial y}+
\frac{\partial H}{\partial z}=0
</math>
where <math>Q</math> is the vector of conserved variables, and <math>F</math>, <math>G</math>, and <math>H</math> are the fluxes in the <math>x</math>, <math>y</math>, and <math>z</math> directions respectively.

==== Spectral element method ====

{{Main|Spectral element method}}

Spectral element method is a finite element type method. It requires the mathematical problem (the partial differential equation) to be cast in a weak formulation. This is typically done by multiplying the differential equation by an arbitrary test function and integrating over the whole domain. Purely mathematically, the test functions are completely arbitrary - they belong to an infinite-dimensional function space. Clearly an infinite-dimensional function space cannot be represented on a discrete spectral element mesh; this is where the spectral element discretization begins. The most crucial thing is the choice of interpolating and testing functions. In a standard, low order FEM in 2D, for quadrilateral elements the most typical choice is the bilinear test or interpolating function of the form <math>v(x,y) = ax+by+cxy+d</math>. In a spectral element method however, the interpolating and test functions are chosen to be polynomials of a very high order (typically e.g. of the 10th order in CFD applications). This guarantees the rapid convergence of the method. Furthermore, very efficient integration procedures must be used, since the number of integrations to be performed in numerical codes is big. Thus, high order Gauss integration quadratures are employed, since they achieve the highest accuracy with the smallest number of computations to be carried out.
At the time there are some academic CFD codes based on the spectral element method and some more are currently under development, since the new time-stepping schemes arise in the scientific world.

==== Lattice Boltzmann method ====

{{Main|Lattice Boltzmann methods}}

The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) with its simplified kinetic picture on a lattice provides a computationally efficient description of hydrodynamics.
Unlike the traditional CFD methods, which solve the conservation equations of macroscopic properties (i.e., mass, momentum, and energy) numerically, LBM models the fluid consisting of fictive particles, and such particles perform consecutive propagation and collision processes over a discrete lattice mesh. In this method, one works with the discrete in space and time version of the kinetic evolution equation in the Boltzmann [[Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook operator|Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK)]] form.

==== Vortex method ====

The vortex method, also Lagrangian Vortex Particle Method, is a [[Meshfree methods|meshfree]] technique for the simulation of incompressible turbulent flows. In it, [[vorticity]] is discretized onto [[Lagrangian and Eulerian specification of the flow field|Lagrangian]] particles, these computational elements being called vortices, vortons, or vortex particles.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cottet |first1=Georges-Henri |last2=Koumoutsakos |first2=Petros D. |date=2000 |title=Vortex Methods: Theory and Practice |location=Cambridge, UK |publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press |isbn=0-521-62186-0
}}</ref> Vortex methods were developed as a grid-free methodology that would not be limited by the fundamental smoothing effects associated with grid-based methods. To be practical, however, vortex methods require means for rapidly computing velocities from the vortex elements – in other words they require the solution to a particular form of the [[N-body problem]] (in which the motion of N objects is tied to their mutual influences). This breakthrough came in the 1980s with the development of the [[Barnes–Hut simulation|Barnes-Hut]] and [[fast multipole method]] (FMM) algorithms. These paved the way to practical computation of the velocities from the vortex elements.

Software based on the vortex method offer a new means for solving tough fluid dynamics problems with minimal user intervention.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}  All that is required is specification of problem geometry and setting of boundary and initial conditions. Among the significant advantages of this modern technology;
* It is practically grid-free, thus eliminating numerous iterations associated with RANS and LES.
* All problems are treated identically. No modeling or calibration inputs are required.
* Time-series simulations, which are crucial for correct analysis of acoustics, are possible.
* The small scale and large scale are accurately simulated at the same time.

==== Boundary element method ====

{{Main|Boundary element method}}

In the boundary element method, the boundary occupied by the fluid is divided into a surface mesh.

==== High-resolution discretization schemes ====

{{Main|High-resolution scheme}}

High-resolution schemes are used where shocks or discontinuities are present. Capturing sharp changes in the solution requires the use of second or higher-order numerical schemes that do not introduce spurious oscillations. This usually necessitates the application of [[flux limiters]] to ensure that the solution is [[total variation diminishing]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

===Turbulence models===

In computational modeling of turbulent flows, one common objective is to obtain a model that can predict quantities of interest, such as fluid velocity, for use in engineering designs of the system being modeled.  For turbulent flows, the range of length scales and complexity of phenomena involved in turbulence make most modeling approaches prohibitively expensive; the resolution required to resolve all scales involved in turbulence is beyond what is computationally possible.  The primary approach in such cases is to create numerical models to approximate unresolved phenomena.  This section lists some commonly used computational models for turbulent flows.

Turbulence models can be classified based on computational expense, which corresponds to the range of scales that are modeled versus resolved (the more turbulent scales that are resolved, the finer the resolution of the simulation, and therefore the higher the computational cost). If a majority or all of the turbulent scales are not modeled, the computational cost is very low, but the tradeoff comes in the form of decreased accuracy.

In addition to the wide range of length and time scales and the associated computational cost, the governing equations of fluid dynamics contain a [[Nonlinear system|non-linear]] convection term and a non-linear and non-local pressure gradient term.  These nonlinear equations must be solved numerically with the appropriate boundary and initial conditions.

==== Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes ====
{{main|Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations}}
[[File:DrivAer SST-URANS-DDES Comparison.png|thumb|258x258px|External aerodynamics of the [https://www.mw.tum.de/en/aer/research-groups/automotive/drivaer/ DrivAer] model, computed using [[Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations|URANS]] (top) and [[Detached eddy simulation|DDES]] (bottom)]]

[[File:Verus Engineering Porsche 987.2 Ventus 2 Package.png|thumb|A simulation of aerodynamic package of a [[Porsche Cayman|Porsche Cayman (987.2)]]]]

[[Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations|Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes]] (RANS) equations are the oldest approach to turbulence modeling. An ensemble version of the governing equations is solved, which introduces new ''apparent stresses'' known as [[Reynolds stresses]]. This adds a second-order tensor of unknowns for which various models can provide different levels of closure. It is a common misconception that the RANS equations do not apply to flows with a time-varying mean flow because these equations are 'time-averaged'. In fact, statistically unsteady (or non-stationary) flows can equally be treated. This is sometimes referred to as URANS. There is nothing inherent in Reynolds averaging to preclude this, but the turbulence models used to close the equations are valid only as long as the time over which these changes in the mean occur is large compared to the time scales of the turbulent motion containing most of the energy.

RANS models can be divided into two broad approaches:

; [[Turbulence modeling|Boussinesq hypothesis]]: This method involves using an algebraic equation for the Reynolds stresses which include determining the turbulent viscosity, and depending on the level of sophistication of the model, solving transport equations for determining the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation. Models include k-ε ([[Brian Launder|Launder]] and [[Brian Spalding|Spalding]]),<ref>{{cite journal|last=Launder|first=B.E.|author2=D.B. Spalding|year=1974|title= The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows|journal=Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering|pages=269–289|doi = 10.1016/0045-7825(74)90029-2|bibcode = 1974CMAME...3..269L|volume=3|issue=2 }}</ref> Mixing Length Model ([[Ludwig Prandtl|Prandtl]]),<ref name=wilcox>{{cite book|last=Wilcox|first=David C.|title=Turbulence Modeling for CFD|year=2006|publisher=DCW Industries, Inc.|isbn=978-1-928729-08-2|edition=3}}</ref> and Zero Equation Model (Cebeci and [[Apollo M. O. Smith|Smith]]).<ref name=wilcox /> The models available in this approach are often referred to by the number of transport equations associated with the method. For example, the Mixing Length model is a "Zero Equation" model because no transport equations are solved; the <math>k-\epsilon</math> is a "Two Equation" model because two transport equations (one for <math>k</math> and one for <math>\epsilon</math>) are solved.
; [[Reynolds stress model]] (RSM): This approach attempts to actually solve transport equations for the Reynolds stresses. This means introduction of several transport equations for all the Reynolds stresses and hence this approach is much more costly in CPU effort.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

====Large eddy simulation====
{{main|Large eddy simulation}}

[[Image:LESPremixedFlame.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Volume rendering of a non-premixed swirl flame as simulated by LES]]
[[Large eddy simulation]] (LES) is a technique in which the smallest scales of the flow are removed through a filtering operation, and their effect modeled using subgrid scale models.  This allows the largest and most important scales of the turbulence to be resolved, while greatly reducing the computational cost incurred by the smallest scales. This method requires greater computational resources than RANS methods, but is far cheaper than DNS.

====Detached eddy simulation====
{{main|Detached eddy simulation}}

[[Detached eddy simulation]]s (DES) is a modification of a RANS model in which the model switches to a subgrid scale formulation in regions fine enough for LES calculations. Regions near solid boundaries and where the turbulent length scale is less than the maximum grid dimension are assigned the RANS mode of solution. As the turbulent length scale exceeds the grid dimension, the regions are solved using the LES mode. Therefore, the grid resolution for DES is not as demanding as pure LES, thereby considerably cutting down the cost of the computation. Though DES was initially formulated for the Spalart-Allmaras model (Philippe R. Spalart et al., 1997), it can be implemented with other RANS models (Strelets, 2001), by appropriately modifying the length scale which is explicitly or implicitly involved in the RANS model. So while Spalart–Allmaras model based DES acts as LES with a wall model, DES based on other models (like two equation models) behave as a hybrid RANS-LES model. Grid generation is more complicated than for a simple RANS or LES case due to the RANS-LES switch. DES is a non-zonal approach and provides a single smooth velocity field across the RANS and the LES regions of the solutions.
[[File:Cp IDDES.gif|thumb|IDDES Simulation of the Karel Motorsports BMW. This is a type of DES simulation completed in OpenFOAM. The plot is coefficient of pressure.]]

====Direct numerical simulation====
{{main|Direct numerical simulation}}

[[Direct numerical simulation]] (DNS) resolves the entire range of turbulent length scales.  This marginalizes the effect of models, but is extremely expensive.  The computational cost is proportional to <math>Re^{3}</math>.<ref name="Pope_2000">{{cite book|title=Turbulent Flows|author=Pope, S.B.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-521-59886-6}}</ref> DNS is intractable for flows with complex geometries or flow configurations.

====Coherent vortex simulation====

The coherent vortex simulation approach decomposes the turbulent flow field into a coherent part, consisting of organized vortical motion, and the incoherent part, which is the random background flow.<ref name="Farge_2001">{{cite journal|title=Coherent Vortex Simulation (CVS), A Semi-Deterministic Turbulence Model Using Wavelets|last1=Farge | first1= Marie | author1-link = Marie Farge|author2=Schneider, Kai|journal=Flow, Turbulence and Combustion|volume=66|issue=4|pages=393–426|doi=10.1023/A:1013512726409|year=2001|bibcode=2001FTC....66..393F |s2cid=53464243 }}</ref>  This decomposition is done using [[wavelet]] filtering.  The approach has much in common with LES, since it uses decomposition and resolves only the filtered portion, but different in that it does not use a linear, low-pass filter.  Instead, the filtering operation is based on wavelets, and the filter can be adapted as the flow field evolves. [[Marie Farge|Farge]] and Schneider tested the CVS method with two flow configurations and showed that the coherent portion of the flow exhibited the <math>-\frac{40}{39}</math> energy spectrum exhibited by the total flow, and corresponded to coherent structures ([[vortex stretching|vortex tubes]]), while the incoherent parts of the flow composed homogeneous background noise, which exhibited no organized structures.  Goldstein and Vasilyev<ref name="Goldstein_2004">{{cite journal|author1=Goldstein, Daniel|author2=Vasilyev, Oleg|title=Stochastic coherent adaptive large eddy simulation method|journal=Physics of Fluids A|year=1995|volume=24|page=2497|doi=10.1063/1.1736671|bibcode = 2004PhFl...16.2497G|issue=7 |citeseerx=10.1.1.415.6540}}</ref> applied the FDV model to large eddy simulation, but did not assume that the wavelet filter eliminated all coherent motions from the subfilter scales.  By employing both LES and CVS filtering, they showed that the SFS dissipation was dominated by the SFS flow field's coherent portion.

====PDF methods====

[[Probability density function]] (PDF) methods for turbulence, first introduced by [[Thomas S. Lundgren|Lundgren]],<ref name="Lundgren_1969">{{cite journal|title=Model equation for nonhomogeneous turbulence|author=Lundgren, T.S.|journal=Physics of Fluids A|volume=12|issue=3|year=1969|pages=485–497|doi=10.1063/1.1692511|bibcode = 1969PhFl...12..485L }}</ref> are based on tracking the one-point PDF of the velocity, <math>f_{V}(\boldsymbol{v};\boldsymbol{x},t) d\boldsymbol{v}</math>, which gives the probability of the velocity at point <math>\boldsymbol{x}</math> being between <math>\boldsymbol{v}</math> and <math>\boldsymbol{v}+d\boldsymbol{v}</math>.  This approach is analogous to the [[kinetic theory of gases]], in which the macroscopic properties of a gas are described by a large number of particles.  PDF methods are unique in that they can be applied in the framework of a number of different turbulence models; the main differences occur in the form of the PDF transport equation.  For example, in the context of [[large eddy simulation]], the PDF becomes the filtered PDF.<ref name="Colucci_1998">{{cite journal|title=Filtered density function for large eddy simulation of turbulent reacting flows|author1=Colucci, P.J.|author2=Jaberi, F.A|author3=Givi, P.|author4=Pope, S.B.|journal=Physics of Fluids A|year=1998|volume=10|issue=2|pages=499–515|doi=10.1063/1.869537|bibcode = 1998PhFl...10..499C }}</ref>  PDF methods can also be used to describe chemical reactions,<ref name="Fox_2003">{{cite book|author=Fox, Rodney|title=Computational models for turbulent reacting flows|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-65049-6}}</ref><ref name="Pope_1985">{{cite journal|title=PDF methods for turbulent reactive flows|author=Pope, S.B.|journal=Progress in Energy and Combustion Science|year=1985|volume=11|pages=119–192|bibcode = 1985PrECS..11..119P|doi=10.1016/0360-1285(85)90002-4|issue=2 }}</ref> and are particularly useful for simulating chemically reacting flows because the chemical source term is closed and does not require a model.  The PDF is commonly tracked by using Lagrangian particle methods; when combined with large eddy simulation, this leads to a [[Langevin equation]] for subfilter particle evolution.

====Vorticity confinement method====

{{Main|Vorticity confinement}}

The [[vorticity confinement]] (VC) method is an Eulerian technique used in the simulation of turbulent wakes. It uses a solitary-wave like approach to produce a stable solution with no numerical spreading. VC can capture the small-scale features to within as few as 2 grid cells. Within these features, a nonlinear difference equation is solved as opposed to the [[finite difference equation]]. VC is similar to [[shock capturing methods]], where conservation laws are satisfied, so that the essential integral quantities are accurately computed.

====Linear eddy model====

The Linear eddy model is a technique used to simulate the convective mixing that takes place in turbulent flow.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Krueger|first=Steven K.|title=Linear Eddy Simulations Of Mixing In A Homogeneous Turbulent Flow|journal=Physics of Fluids|year=1993|volume=5|issue=4|pages=1023–1034|bibcode = 1993PhFlA...5.1023M |doi = 10.1063/1.858667 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1232081}}</ref> Specifically, it provides a mathematical way to describe the interactions of a scalar variable within the vector flow field. It is primarily used in one-dimensional representations of turbulent flow, since it can be applied across a wide range of length scales and Reynolds numbers. This model is generally used as a building block for more complicated flow representations, as it provides high resolution predictions that hold across a large range of flow conditions.

===Two-phase flow===

[[File:Bubble-rising.jpg|thumb|right|Simulation of bubble horde using [[volume of fluid method]]]]

The modeling of [[two-phase flow]] is still under development. Different methods have been proposed, including the [[Volume of fluid method]], the [[level-set method]] and [[front tracking]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hirt |first1=C.W |last2=Nichols |first2=B.D |title=Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries |journal=Journal of Computational Physics |date=January 1981 |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=201–225 |doi=10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5 |bibcode=1981JCoPh..39..201H }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Unverdi |first1=Salih Ozen |last2=Tryggvason |first2=Grétar |title=A front-tracking method for viscous, incompressible, multi-fluid flows |journal=Journal of Computational Physics |date=May 1992 |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=25–37 |doi=10.1016/0021-9991(92)90307-K |bibcode=1992JCoPh.100...25U |hdl=2027.42/30059 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>  These methods often involve a tradeoff between maintaining a sharp interface or conserving mass {{According to whom|date=November 2010}}.  This is crucial since the evaluation of the density, viscosity and surface tension is based on the values averaged over the interface.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

===Solution algorithms===

Discretization in the space produces a system of [[ordinary differential equations]] for unsteady problems and algebraic equations for steady problems. Implicit or semi-implicit methods are generally used to integrate the ordinary differential equations, producing a system of (usually) nonlinear algebraic equations.  Applying a [[Newton's method#Nonlinear systems of equations|Newton]] or [[Fixed point iteration|Picard]] iteration produces a system of linear equations which is nonsymmetric in the presence of advection and indefinite in the presence of incompressibility. Such systems, particularly in 3D, are frequently too large for direct solvers, so iterative methods are used, either stationary methods such as [[Successive over-relaxation|successive overrelaxation]] or [[Krylov subspace]] methods. Krylov methods such as [[Generalized minimal residual method|GMRES]], typically used with [[Preconditioner|preconditioning]], operate by minimizing the residual over successive subspaces generated by the preconditioned operator.

[[Multigrid method|Multigrid]] has the advantage of asymptotically optimal performance on a number of problems. Traditional{{According to whom|date=November 2010}} solvers and preconditioners are effective at reducing high-frequency components of the residual, but low-frequency components typically require a number of iterations to reduce. By operating on multiple scales, multigrid reduces all components of the residual by similar factors, leading to a mesh-independent number of iterations.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

For indefinite systems, preconditioners such as [[incomplete LU factorization]], [[Additive Schwarz method|additive Schwarz]], and [[Multigrid method|multigrid]] perform poorly or fail entirely, so the problem structure must be used for effective preconditioning.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Benzi |first1=Michele |last2=Golub |first2=Gene H. |last3=Liesen |first3=Jörg |title=Numerical solution of saddle point problems |journal=Acta Numerica |date=May 2005 |volume=14 |pages=1–137 |doi=10.1017/S0962492904000212 |bibcode=2005AcNum..14....1B |s2cid=122717775 |citeseerx=10.1.1.409.4160 }}</ref> Methods commonly used in CFD are the [[SIMPLE algorithm|SIMPLE]] and [[Uzawa iteration|Uzawa algorithms]] which exhibit mesh-dependent convergence rates, but recent advances based on block LU factorization combined with multigrid for the resulting definite systems have led to preconditioners that deliver mesh-independent convergence rates.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Elman |first1=Howard |last2=Howle |first2=V.E. |last3=Shadid |first3=John |last4=Shuttleworth |first4=Robert |last5=Tuminaro |first5=Ray |title=A taxonomy and comparison of parallel block multi-level preconditioners for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations |journal=Journal of Computational Physics |date=January 2008 |volume=227 |issue=3 |pages=1790–1808 |doi=10.1016/j.jcp.2007.09.026 |bibcode=2008JCoPh.227.1790E |osti=920807 |s2cid=16365489 |url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc902332/ }}</ref>

===Unsteady aerodynamics===
CFD made a major break through in late 70s with the introduction of LTRAN2, a 2-D code to model oscillating airfoils based on [[transonic]] small perturbation theory by Ballhaus and associates.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Adamson |first1=M.R. |title=Biographies |journal=IEEE Annals of the History of Computing |date=January 2006 |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=99–103 |doi=10.1109/MAHC.2006.5 }}</ref> It uses a Murman-Cole switch algorithm for modeling the moving shock-waves.<ref name="Murman Cole 1971">{{cite journal |last1=Murman |first1=Earll M. |last2=Cole |first2=Julian D. |title=Calculation of plane steady transonic flows |journal=AIAA Journal |date=January 1971 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=114–121 |doi=10.2514/3.6131 |bibcode=1971AIAAJ...9..114C }}</ref> Later it was extended to 3-D with use of a rotated difference scheme by AFWAL/Boeing that resulted in LTRAN3.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jameson |first1=Antony |title=Iterative solution of transonic flows over airfoils and wings, including flows at mach 1 |journal=Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics |date=May 1974 |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=283–309 |doi=10.1002/cpa.3160270302 }}</ref><ref>Borland, C.J., "XTRAN3S - Transonic Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamics for Aeroelastic Applications,"AFWAL-TR-85-3214, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, January, 1986</ref>

===Biomedical engineering===

[[File:Vel-Streamline-FC.jpg|thumb|right|Simulation of blood flow in a human [[aorta]]]]
CFD investigations are used to clarify the characteristics of aortic flow in details that are beyond the capabilities of experimental measurements. To analyze these conditions, CAD models of the human vascular system are extracted employing modern imaging techniques such as [[MRI]] or [[Computed Tomography]]. A 3D model is reconstructed from this data and the fluid flow can be computed. Blood properties such as density and viscosity, and realistic boundary conditions (e.g.  systemic pressure) have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, making it possible to analyze and optimize the flow in the cardiovascular system for different applications.<ref>Kaufmann, T.A.S., Graefe, R., Hormes, M., Schmitz-Rode, T. and Steinseiferand, U., "Computational Fluid Dynamics in Biomedical Engineering", Computational Fluid Dynamics: Theory, Analysis and Applications, pp. 109–136</ref>

=== CPU versus GPU ===
Traditionally, CFD simulations are performed on CPUs.<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Lao |first1=Shandong |last2=Holt |first2=Aaron |last3=Vaidhynathan |first3=Deepthi |last4=Sitaraman |first4=Hariswaran |last5=Hrenya |first5=Christine M. |last6=Hauser |first6=Thomas |title=Performance comparison of CFD-DEM solver MFiX-Exa, on GPUs and CPUs |date=2021 |class=cs.DC |eprint=2108.08821 }}</ref>

In a more recent trend, simulations are also performed on GPUs. These typically contain slower but more processors. For CFD algorithms that feature good parallelism performance (i.e. good speed-up by adding more cores) this can greatly reduce simulation times. Fluid-implicit particle<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wu |first1=Kui |last2=Truong |first2=Nghia |last3=Yuksel |first3=Cem |last4=Hoetzlein |first4=Rama |title=Fast Fluid Simulations with Sparse Volumes on the GPU |journal=Computer Graphics Forum |date=May 2018 |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=157–167 |doi=10.1111/cgf.13350 |s2cid=43945038 }}</ref> and lattice-Boltzmann methods<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nvidia.com/content/intersect-360-HPC-application-support.pdf|title=Intersect 360 HPC application Support}}</ref> are typical examples of codes that scale well on GPUs.