Vasileiou Thomas

Vorticity ux measurement with Brinkman penalization technique

Semester Project
Institute for Computational Science Eidgenssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zrich o u

Supervision Mattia Gazzola Prof. Koumoutsakos Petros

August 8, 2011

Contents
1 Introduction 2 Methodology 2.1 Mathematical formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Vorticity ux and Brinkman penalization method 2.1.2 Mollication band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Numerical solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Results 3.1 Test case . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Previous studies . . . . 3.2.2 Solver diagnostics . . . 3.2.3 Pressure eld properties 3.2.4 Simulations . . . . . . . 3.3 Convergence study . . . . . . . 3.4 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 14 19

A Appendix 21 A.1 Mathematical proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.2 Simulation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Bibliography 25

Chapter 1

Introduction
The ability to control the characteristics of a ow has numerous application in real life such as drag reduction or alternative propulsion systems. Passive ow control, which is mainly achieved by the means of shape optimization, seems to approach its limits nowdays. On the other hand active ow control, which is feasible by means of actuation (e.g. mass transpiration or moving parts) and sensing on the surface of the body is a promising alternative. Active control schemes for vortex-wall interactions [6] and for turbulent channel ow [7] have already been proposed. In the case of the turbulent channel ow, simulations showed that great reduction in the friction may be achieved. Both of the previously mentioned schemes using as sensed quantity and base their control strategy on the vorticity ux on the wall. Vorticity ux is ideal for control applications because it localized. Although in practice vorticity ux cannot be directly measured from the uid, it is possible to be calculated by the instantaneous pressure distribution on the boundary of the body [1]. Moreover other kind of information may be extracted from the vorticity ux such as the local forces acting on the body. Eective active control systems are based on sophisticated control strategies, making the control strategy design an important task. Classic control theory design procedures (state space techniques, transfer function techniques) cannot be used in ow control problems due to the high complexity. Designers usually resort in a combination of simulations and optimization algorithms [10, 11]. Since we are interested in using as a sensed quantity the vorticity ux, we must be able to measure this quantity. There are ways to simulate the ow which provide the vorticity ux at each time step. Koumoutsakos [5] proposed a way of enforcing the no-slip boundary condition by calculating the vorticity ux on the wall (see also [9]). The drawback of these techniques is the use of body tted coordinates which limits its use in specic non-deforming geometries. We use the Brinkman penalization technique to simulate the ow [2], which allows the use of normal grids and is able to handle deforming geometries. In Brinkman penalization method the vorticity ux is not directly available. In this paper we present a way to measure the vorticity ux produced by an obstacle in a two-dimensional viscous incompressible ow, using the Brinkman penalized Navier-Stokes equations. The ability to measure this quantity may extend the way of using this already successful method in control optimization problems.

Chapter 2

Methodology
2.1 Mathematical formulation

Consider the two-dimensional obstacle that covers region s , immersed in a viscous incompressible uid with domain f . The obstacle is moving with velocity Us and the free-stream velocity of the ow is U . The surface of the body is dened by the tangential s and the normal n unit vectors. e e

2.1.1

Vorticity ux and Brinkman penalization method

The vorticity ux on the surface of the obstacle is function of the pressure gradient and the tangential acceleration of the solid surface. s e du 1 p = + dt s n (2.1)

Equation 2.1 is derived from Navier-Stokes equations under the assumption that the no-slip and the no-through boundary conditions have been enforced. One approach of enforcing these conditions is the Brinkman penalization technique. The obstacle is modeled as a porous medium with vanishing porosity. One extra term that account for the penalization is added in the Navier-Stokes equation, resulting in the following vorticity-velocity formulation for the twodimensional case. + u = + (Us u )Hs t u = (2.2) (2.3)

The function Hs is the characteristic function (Heaviside) which localizes the obstacle and is a factor that is inversely proportional to the porosity of the obstacle. The characteristic function takes the value 1 inside the body and the value 0 outside. We rewrite the Brinkman penalized equations in the velocity-pressure formulation for the incompressible uid: 1 u + (u )u = p + u + Hs (Us u ) t u = 0 3 (2.4) (2.5)

2.1. Mathematical formulation

1 As discussed by Angot et al. [2], substituting the velocity u = u + u and 1 pressure p = p + p in equation 2.4 and identifying the terms of the same order results in:

Hs (Us u) = 0 u 1 + (u )u + p u + Hs u = 0 t 1 u + (u )u + (u )u + p u = 0 t (u )u = 0

(2.6) (2.7) (2.8) (2.9)

Outside the obstacle (domain f ) where Hs = 0, equation 2.7 is identical to the original unpenalized Navier-Stokes equation. Inside the obstacle (domain s and Hs = 1) the velocity u is equal to the velocity of the obstacle (equation 2.6) and the boundary conditions are enforced. Consequently the velocity u and the pressure eld p correspond to the exact solution. In the case of a xed obstacle (Us = 0), the scaled error velocity u and the pressure gradient are coupled by the following relation: 1 u + p = 0 u = 0 in s in s (2.10) (2.11)

The fact that the error velocity is divergence free is derived by using the previously described approach in equation 2.5. The functions uf , up , pf and pp are continuous in the whole domain. The pressure gradient on the surface of the obstacle may be measured if the velocity eld inside the body is known. The way the penalized equations are solved does not distinguish between obstacle and uid and the velocity eld in the whole domain is available at each time step. For the xed obstacle, the vorticity ux is calculated from the scaled error velocity as: 1 p e = = u s n s at s (2.12)

2.1.2

Mollication band

In practice a mollied Heaviside s is used as characteristic function and not a Heaviside Hs , so as to avoid discontinuities. In the interface between the obstacle and the uid a band of width is introduced, where the characteristic function takes values between 0 and 1 according to equation 2.13. 0 d> 2 d+ 2 1 s = 1 + cos |d| 2 (2.13) 2 1 d < 2

Parameter d is the signed distance from the surface of the body (positive inside and negative outside). Note that equation 2.1 cannot be applied in this case, not only because the no-slip and the no-throught conditions are not completely enforced but mainly because of the absence of a well dened interface. The

Chapter 2. Methodology

same applies for equation 2.12 since the mollication band introduces gradients in the velocity eld. Simulations showed that the velocity eld inside the mollication band changes for varying width of the band, but the velocity prole on the inner and outer boundary remains the same. The measure of the vorticity ux seems to be possible in the inner boundary of the band. On the other hand if the quantity of interest is the vorticity on the boundary, the measurements have to be performed on the outer boundary. This paper lacks a mathematical proof for the previous statements, but simulations strongly suggest so. Elimination of the mollication band does not provide any advantage. The absence of a body-tted coordinate system and the point wise penalization introduce frequencies in the velocity eld. The mollication band has a smoothing eect on these frequencies, which is greater for bigger band widths. Results obtained without the mollied region were noisy to such an extend that were not usable. On the other hand simulations where the width of the mollied region was set up to 4 grid spacings showed that it possible to acquire reasonable results even for the coarsest of the resolutions.

2.2

Numerical solver

The ow solver (computer software) used for the simulations, Fluids 2D, has been developed by the CSElab at the ETH Zrich. It has a lot of high end u features. The boundary conditions are enforced by the Brinkman penalization method, which allows for the use of normal grid that it is independent of the geometry of the obstacles. It uses particle-grid remesh vortex methods and a fast multipole Poisson solver. It is based on the MRAG framework which makes use of wavelet adaptive grids [4, 13]. If one add the fact that the software is parallelized, there is a great speed up in computations. Fluids 2D has successfully been used for various uid dynamic simulations, varying from the impulsively started cylinder [12] to self-propelled sh-like swimmers [3] and shape optimization problems.

2.3

Implementation

The fact that the numerical solver does not use body tted coordinates has numerous advantages but also poses problems when measuring quantities in the boundary of obstacle. The solver provides at each time step the velocity and the vorticity eld on the whole domain. So as to measure the vorticity ux, the velocity has to be interpolated on the points of interest. A contour is placed at the boundary of the obstacle consisting of straight oriented segments (panels). Each of these panels contains a specic number of points, where the interpolation is performed. The vorticity ux of the panel is then computed as the mean value of the points uxes. The panels are not placed exactly on the real boundary of the obstacle, since these points belongs to the mollied region. Actually the panels are placed 1 - 2 grid spacing lengths inwards of the mollied region. Simulation showed that when interpolation uses points of the mollied region, results tends to be erroneous, especially for small band widths. So as to validate our results we used

2.3. Implementation

s = 0.5

Figure 2.1: Detail of mollication band and measuring points. the vorticity on the surface of the obstacle (see chapter 3). The same approach is used in that case, with the measuring points lying outwards of the mollied region. In this case correct results were obtained by placing the measuring points exactly on the outer boundary of the mollied region.

1 x = u t s y n cit me r ti r e vo asu me
f R

= 0

ity tic ent vor urem as me

s

Chapter 3

Results
3.1 Test case

The simulations were performed on a stationary cylinder surrounded by a viscous incompressible uid. In the beginning the uid is at rest and at time t = 0 starts moving with uniform velocity U . This test case is equivalent to the impulsively started cylinder and although it is relatively simple, it is well studied. More appealing is the fact that informations regarding the vorticity ux on the surface of the cylinder are available for this test case [8]. y U s R x f

Figure 3.1: Denition sketch for the test case.

3.2

Validation

To validate the results obtained from the simulations, three dierent approaches were used. Results from previous studies. Diagnostics provided by the solver. Properties of the pressure eld. 7

3.2. Validation

3.2.1

Previous studies

The vorticity ux produced by an impulsively started cylinder has been studied by Koumoutsakos and Leonard [8] (for the following referred as KL95). KL95 have calculated and provide plots of the vorticity ux and the vorticity on the surface for the cylinder for various Reynolds numbers and for various time instances. From these quantities [14] the drag force that accounts for the pressure Fp and the drag force that accounts for the friction Ff are calculated according equations 3.1. Fp =
s

x z e

ds n

Ff =
s

n ds e

(3.1)

In the case of the two dimentional cylinder, the equations may rewritten as:
2

Fp = R2

s d e n

Ff = R
0

s d e

(3.2)

The total drag force Fd acting on the body is the sum of these two forces. The drag coecient and the lift coecient are dened as below. cD = 2Fd x e 2 D U cL = 2Fd y e 2 D U (3.3)

These coecients can be accordingly extended to account for the pressure or the friction drag only.

3.2.2

Solver diagnostics

In the penalization method one may calculate the total drag by integrating the penalized velocity [12] inside the body, according to equation 3.4. Fd =
s

s u dx

(3.4)

The total drag may also be calculated from the vorticity eld of the uid, as proposed in [8, 3]. d (z x) dx e (3.5) Fd = dt f These diagnostics are provided by the numerical solver (for the following referred as IF2D) and are compared to the total drag coecient obtained by adding the two terms of equation 3.2.

3.2.3

Pressure eld properties

The properties used for validation are summarized below. For the mathematical derivation one may refer to the Appendix A. p ds = s p ds = 0 n p n ds e n (3.6) (3.7)

p s ds = e s

Chapter 3. Results

The rst part of equation 3.6 is in accordance with Kelvins theorem of circulation which states that the total vorticity ux is equal to the rate of change of the angular velocity of the body. Note that the equation 3.7 suggests that the measurement of the pressure drag acting on the obstacle may be performed either from the normal or the tangential component of the pressure gradient. 150 body vorticity [ 1 ] s 75 0 75 150 1.2
m vorticity ux [ s2 ] T =0.4 1.0 2.0 T =3.0 5.0 7.0

current KL95

current KL95

current KL95

current KL95

0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5 1 angle/

T =0.4 1.0 2.0 T =3.0 5.0 7.0

1.5

20

0.5

1 angle/

1.5

Figure 3.2: Vorticity and vorticity ux (/t) at the surface of the obstacle for Re = 550.

3.2.4

Simulations

For all simulations the diameter of the cylinder was xed to D = 0.08 m and the free-stream velocity U = 0.1 m/s with direction +x. The Reynolds number of the ow is dened on the diameter D, while the dimensionless time T is based on the radius R of the cylinder. Re = UD T = Ut R

The cylinder angle is measured counter-clockwise from the back of the cylinder, as shown in gure 3.1. Simulation were performed for three dierent Reynolds number, Re = 550, 1000 and 3000. For more details on the parameters used in the simulations one may refer to Appendix A. So as to compare our results with the ones provided by KL95 we had to scale them in our case. All the measurements from KL95 presented in this report have been scaled by: U D
2 1 U n Re D

10 2

3.3. Convergence study

current KL95 IF2D total drag

1.5

cD

pressure drag

0.5 friction drag 0 0 1 2 3 T 4 5 6

Figure 3.3: Pressure, friction and total drag coecients for Re = 550. The vorticity and the vorticity ux at the surface of the cylinder are shown in gures 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 for the three Reynolds numbers. In the same gures the results from KL95 are plotted. The results are in good accordance. The greatest deviation is observed for the Reynolds number 3000. The drag coecients, as shown in gures 3.3, 3.5 and 3.7. Compared to KL95, the friction drag coecients calculated by the current method have lower values for all Reynolds numbers. On the other hand the pressure drag coecients are higher. The total drag coecient calculated by the solver diagnostics and the one from the current method are almost identical with maximum relative error smaller than 0.5% for all cases at all times. The pressure drag coecient calculated from the normal and the tangential component is shown in gure 3.11. The results are identical for all Reynolds numbers. The normal pressure components on the surface of the cylinder are shown in gure 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10.

3.3

Convergence study

Convergence analysis was performed to investigate how our method behaves for dierent resolutions in space and time. The variable that was chosen for this analysis is the pressure drag coecient. During the simulations it was observed that even the smallest deviations in the vorticity ux measurements gave big dierences in the pressure drag coecients. Moreover since this coecient is calculated from the tangential and the normal component, one may make a direct comparison between the two measurements. The order of the convergence is determined by computing the L1 , L2 and

Chapter 3. Results

11

200 body vorticity [ 1 ] s 100 0 100 200 1.2

m vorticity ux [ s2 ]

current KL95

current KL95

T =0.4 1.0 1.4

T =2.0 3.0 5.0

current KL95

current KL95

0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5 1 angle/

T =0.4 1.0 1.4 T =2.0 3.0 5.0

1.5

20

0.5

1 angle/

1.5

Figure 3.4: Vorticity and vorticity ux (/t) at the surface of the obstacle for Re = 1000. 2

current KL95 IF2D total drag

1.5

cD

pressure drag

0.5 friction drag 0 0 1 2 T Figure 3.5: Pressure, friction and total drag coecients for Re = 1000. 3 4 5

12

3.3. Convergence study

300 body vorticity [ 1 ] s 150 0 150 300 1.2

m vorticity ux [ s2 ]

current KL95

current KL95

T =0.4 1.0 1.4

T =2.0 4.0 6.0

current KL95

current KL95

0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5 1 angle/

T =0.4 1.0 1.4 T =2.0 4.0 6.0

1.5

20

0.5

1 angle/

1.5

Figure 3.6: Vorticity and vorticity ux (/t) at the surface of the obstacle for Re = 3000. 2

current KL95 IF2D

1.5 total drag cD 1 pressure drag

0.5

friction drag 0 0 1 2 3 T 4 5 6

Figure 3.7: Pressure, friction and total drag coecients for Re = 3000.

Chapter 3. Results

13

1.2 normal pressure m gradient [ s2 ] 0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5

T =0.4 1.0 2.0 T =3.0 5.0 7.0

0.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 20 angle/ angle/ Figure 3.8: Normal pressure component (p/n) for Re = 550.

1.2 normal pressure m gradient [ s2 ] 0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5

T =0.4 1.0 1.4 T =2.0 3.0 5.0

0.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 20 angle/ angle/ Figure 3.9: Normal pressure component (p/n) for Re = 1000.

1.2 normal pressure m gradient [ s2 ] 0.6 0 0.6 1.2 0 0.5

T =0.4 1.0 1.4 T =2.0 4.0 6.0

1 1.5 20 0.5 1 1.5 angle/ angle/ Figure 3.10: Normal pressure component (p/n) for Re = 3000.

14 2

3.4. Remarks

normal tangential Re = 3000

1.5

cDP

1 Re = 550

0.5 Re = 1000 0 0 1 2 3 T 4 5 6

Figure 3.11: Pressure drag coecients calculated from the normal and tangential pressure components. L norms of the relative error signal e(t). et (t) = cDP t,ref (t) cDP t (t) cDP t,ref (t) en (t) = cDP n,ref (t) cDP n (t) cDP n,ref (t)

The subscript t is referred to the coecients computed by the tangential components and the subscript n to the ones computed from the normal component. In the absence of theoretical results we used as reference the best resolved case. The comparison was performed for Re = 1000 and mollication factor 4. For the space convergence the parameter LCFL was set to 0.01. The spacial convergence is higher than 1st order but a bit lower than 2nd order (gure 3.12). Too coarse grids are practically visible in the velocity eld and introduce noise to the results. Moreover the width of the mollication band is proportional to the minimum grid spacing, so ne grids allow smaller band widths where one is able to measure closer to interface between obstacle and uid. The time convergence is of 2nd order. Also note that the pressure drag measurement from the normal component is in general more stable and gives smaller relative error than the one from the tangential component.

3.4

Remarks

Except the time and space resolution discussed in the previous section there are other parameters that aect the quality of the results. These are the width of the mollication band, the placement of the measuring points and the value

Chapter 3. Results 102

15

relative error

100

102

104 103 Resolution 104 102 LCFL 101

Figure 3.12: Norms of the relative error of the pressure drag coecient calculated from the tangential (circle) and the normal (square) component. Black for L1 , red for L2 and blue for L norm. Dashed lines for order comparison. Black for 1st and red for 2nd order. (Re = 1000, ML = 4, LCFL = 0.01).

of the penalization parameter . The eect of the mollication bands width has been already been discussed in section 2.1.2 and is not analyzed further here. Simulations showed that the placement of the measuring points is an important parameter. Figure 3.13 shows the pressure drag coecient obtained from dierent placements of the measuring points while keeping all the other parameter constant. For these results the width of the mollied region was set to 2 grid spacings (MF=2). As may be seen the results are aected even for small displacements. The correct results in this case are obtained for placing the measuring points 1.5 grid spacings inwards of the mollied region. Higher width of the mollication band helps to alleviate this problem. The eect of the penalization parameter on the relative error of the pressure and the friction drag coecient is shown in gure 3.14. As a reference for the error calculation we took the case where the dierence of the total drag calculated from the solver (IF2D) and the sum of the pressure and the friction drag coecients calculated from the current method is minimum. After the value 104 1/s the parameter has no eect on the error of the pressure drag coecient calculated either from the normal or the tangential component. But as parameters takes grater values the error in the friction drag coecient becomes larger and larger. The vorticity measurements on the wall start to diverge, especially in early times where the error took values of 500%. Good results for both quantities may be achieved for values around 104 1/s. Interesting is the fact that the measurement of the drag coecient from the normal component is considerably more stable than the tangential component. Not only give smaller error for the same spatial and time resolutions but it is also aected less from both the placement of the measuring points and the width of the mollication band. The drawback is that one is not able to directly calculate the vorticity uxes from it. The reconstruction of the tangential component having knowledge of the normal is possible by integrating the Poisson equation

16

3.4. Remarks

1.5

INMR INMR0.5h INMR1.0h INMR1.5h

cDP

0.5

0 0 1 2 T Figure 3.13: Pressure coecient calculated from the tangential component for dierent placements of the measuring points. (INMR denotes the inner boundary of the mollied region and h the grid spacing, Re = 1000, MF = 2, LCFL = 0.05). 3 4 5

104 102 100 102 104 102 cDP t cDP n cDF L1 L2 L

relative error

103

104

105 [1] s

106

107

108

Figure 3.14: Norms of the relative error for dierent values of the penalization parameter . Circle and square markers refer to the relative error of the pressure drag coecient calculated from the tangential and the normal component respectively. Triangle marker refers to the relative error of the friction drag coecient. (Re = 1000, MF = 4, LCFL = 0.05).

Chapter 3. Results

17

for the pressure. p = 0 2p p 2p = 2 = 2 s n s 2p ds n2 (3.8)

In practice this proved quite challenging since the dierentiation of the normal component introduced additional errors.

Chapter 4

Conclusions
In this paper we present a way to measure the local vorticity ux using the Brinkman penalization technique. The proposed method couples the pressure eld on the surface of the body with the error in the velocity eld. It is simple because it is uses only already calculated quantities without the need of any further dierentiation. In the implementation of the method, challenging was the fact that there was no sharp interface between the uid and the obstacle. All the measurements were compared and validate with good accordance using previous studies, already validated diagnostics and mathematical properties. In the present study we only performed simulations on a stationary cylinder. As a future work, simulations using other geometries or moving obstacles would help to investigate the performance of the method. Possible is the need of modication so as to handle very thin regions of the obstacle (e.g. airfoil edges). Flow control simulations may also use this method for control strategy optimization. Finally a scheme that performs a correction between the normal and the tangential component would be an interesting alternative.

19

Appendix A

A.1

Mathematical proofs
1 1 u + p = 0 u = p u = 0 u = 0 in s in s (A.1) (A.2)

Revisit equations 2.10 and 2.11 from chapter 2:

In the following analysis we suppose that all the manipulation are performed inside the obstacle (domain s ) and that and are constants. Let the closed domain B, subset of s with boundary B = S. Substituting the velocity in equation A.2 and applying the Gauss theorem yields: u = 0 p = 0 p = 0
B

(A.3)

p dE = p ds = n
S

p n ds e (A.4)

u n ds = 0 e

In same way taking the curl of equation A.1 and applying Stokes theorem: p = 0 u = 0
B

(A.5)

p z dE = e p ds = s
S

p ds (A.6)

u s ds = 0 e

We introduce the polar coordinates (r, ), with the same center as the cylinder. The unit vectors in the cartesian coordinates are given as: r = (cos , sin ) e Let the tensor A = ( sin , cos ) e

p 1 p r r A= 1 p p r r which may also be written in the following form A= p 1 p I+ R r r 21

(A.7)

(A.8)

22

A.2. Simulation parameters

where I is the identity matrix and R is the rotation matrix mapping the normal direction to the tangential. I= 1 0 0 1 R= 0 1 1 0

The multiplication of A by the normal unit vector r results in: e p 1 p sin cos r r 1 p p e = e A r = r + e r r 1 p p cos sin r r

(A.9)

The last term of the previous relation is written in the cartesian coordinate system. Moreover AT is divergence free r r r p r 1 p r p r

AT =

1 r

=0

(A.10)

The rst element of the vector is the laplacian of the pressure written in the polar coordinates. By applying the Gauss theorem: AT dE =
S

A r ds e ds ds =0

p 1 p cos sin r r

1 p p cos sin r r

(A.11)

Transforming back to cartesian coordinates: p n d = e n p s d e s (A.12)

A.2

Simulation parameters

If it is not stated otherwise, the results presented used the following parameters for the simulations: 5th -order average interpolating wavelets 4th -order spacial dierentiation schemes CFL particles Resolution: 8192 8192 LCFL: 0.05 Mollication factor: MF = 4

Appendix A. Appendix

23

Penalization parameter: = 104 Placement of the vorticity ux measuring points: 1 grid spacing inwards of the mollied region Placement of the vorticity measuring points: on the outer boundary of the mollied region Number of panel : 180 equally spaced Number of measuring points per panel : 40 equally spaced Bi-linear interpolation from grid points to measuring points The mollication factor MF control the width of the mollication band and is dened as: (A.13) = MF 2hmin where hmin is the minimum grid spacing. In other words the width of mollication band is at least MF grid points.

Bibliography
[1] J. Andreopoulos and J. H. Agui. Wall-vorticity ux dynamics in a twodimensional turbulent boundary layer. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 309: 4584, 1996. [2] P. Angot, C.-H. Bruneau, and P. Fabrie. A penalization method to take into account obstacles in incompressible viscous ows. Numerische Mathematik, 81(4):497520, Feb. 1999. [3] M. Gazzola, P. Chatelain, W. M. van Rees, and P. Koumoutsakos. Simulations of single and multiple swimmers with non-divergence free deforming geometries. Journal of Computational Physics, 230(19):70937114, 2011. [4] B. Hejazialhosseini, D. Rossinelli, M. Bergdorf, and P. Koumoutsakos. High order nite volume methods on wavelet-adapted grids with local timestepping on multicore architectures for the simulation of shock-bubble interactions. Journal of Computational Physics, 229:83648383, Nov. 2010. [5] P. Koumoutsakos. Direct numerical simulations of unsteady separated ows using vortex methods. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1993. [6] P. Koumoutsakos. Active control of vortex-wall interactions. Physics of Fluids, 9:38083816, December 1997. [7] P. Koumoutsakos. Vorticity ux control for a turbulent channel ow. Physics of Fluids, Feb. 1999. [8] P. Koumoutsakos and A. Leonard. High-resolution simulations of the ow around an impulsively started cylinder using vortex methods. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 296(-1):138, 1995. [9] P. Koumoutsakos, A. Leonard, and F. Ppin. Boundary conditions for e viscous vortex methods. Journal of Computational Physics, 113(1):5261, 1994. [10] P. Poncet, G.-H. Cottet, and P. Koumoutsakos. Control of threedimensional wakes using evolution strategies. International Journal of Oshore and Polar Engineering, 2005. [11] P. Poncet, R. Hildebrand, G.-H. Cottet, and P. Koumoutsakos. Spatially distributed control for optimal drag reduction of the ow past a circular cylinder. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 599(1991):111120, 2008. 25

26

Bibliography

[12] D. Rossinelli, M. Bergdorf, G.-H. Cottet, and P. Koumoutsakos. Gpu accelerated simulations of blu body ows using vortex particle methods. Journal of Computational Physics, 229(9):33163333, 2010. [13] D. Rossinelli, B. Hejazialhosseini, M. Bergdorf, and P. Koumoutsakos. Wavelet-adaptive solvers on multi-core architectures for the simulation of complex systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 23:172186, Feb. 2011. [14] J.-Z. Wu, X.-Y. Lu, and L.-Y. Zhuang. Integral force acting on a body due to local ow structures. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 576:265286, 2007.