See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/253992215

Closed-Form Solutions to the Transient/Steady-State Navier-Stokes Fluid

Dynamic Equations

Article · January 2006

DOI: 10.1063/1.2169310

CITATIONS READS
3 60

1 author:

P. A. Murad

56 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Celestial mechanics: Fresh solutions to the four-body problem View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P. A. Murad on 01 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Navier-Stokes Steady-State Closed-Form Solutions
Paul Murad*

Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC, Vienna, Va. 22182

Abstract: Significant computer resources are consumed by CFD calculations to provide

meaningful engineering answers. An approach by the author was identified several years ago
where the finite difference equations were integrated to provide an algorithm that would allow
less time to go from initial conditions to a reasonable approximation of the final answers.
Subsequent solutions were a consequence of the nonlinearities induced by the velocity
components. This approach is complicated because of inclusion of the Jacobian and its
derivatives as well as the choice for the trace used to approximate the physical variable
derivatives. Another approach, using a similar rationale, is used to integrate these equations prior
to the finite difference descretization. The resulting algorithms directly solve for the velocity
components, based upon some restrictive assumptions, and these equations are later broken down
using finite differences to solve problems specified over a computational mesh.

Nomenclature
f, Ex, Fy, Gz = transient flux and flux x, y, z = coordinate directions
terms in the x, y, z directions v = volume increment
Hx, Hy, Hz= dissipative flux fluid in
the x, y, and z directions Greek Symbols
k = thermal conductivity coefficient
n = normal vector direction ξ, η = transformed 2-D coordinate system
R = residual conservation terms φ = potential
T = temperature ρ = density
t = time μ = integration factor vector or viscosity
u, v, w = velocity in the x, y, z directions τ = shear stress
ζ = vorticity vector or components

I. Introduction

Fluid dynamic processes drive many engineering problems from internal flows that have value in solving
propulsion problems to external flows that solve aerodynamic design problems. With the need for alternative energy,
the interaction of fluid dynamics with electric and magnetic fields with disciplines such as Magnetohydrodynamics
(MHD) will also gain critical importance. The problem with these issues is that fluid phenomenon such as
compressibility, heat transfer, and turbulence make the already nonlinear governing equations more complicated
necessitating the use of large memory and high-speed computers. Moreover, subsequent interaction of various
physical variables considering complex coupling effects as well as the individual conservation equations would
usually stress modeling assumptions.
These modeling assumptions include incorporating finite differences to numerically estimate the value of
derivatives1,2. The trace within the finite difference meshes to predict derivatives is used to break-up the fluid
flowfield. Moreover, these approximations are chosen such that the numerical approximations of derivatives are
within some margin of error to the actual value of the derivatives. This immediately adds a degree of uncertainty to
the answers and the exact characterization of a physical process.


CEO, AIAA Senior member.
 Very few closed-form solutions3,10 exist for meaningful one-on-one comparisons with numerical results. Most
of these are based upon very restrictive assumptions such as laminar flow, incompressible flow, or steady-stare
conditions employing very simple geometries. In some cases the solutions have limited usefulness. When dealing
with finite difference descretizations, approximations used in numerical algorithms are part of this process assuming
that the value of the variables could be treated as constants within a certain span and did not vary in the same
fashion as the principle variables of interest. This implied assumption also increases the uncertainties embedded
within a numerical solution.
In the Apollo days, a thermal analyzer program, originally CINDA and later renamed SINDA, possessed a very
interesting algorithm to solve thermal network problems. The algorithm assumed that only the temperature at a node
would vary as a function of time while all surrounding nodal temperatures would be treated as constants. This
produced a nodal temperature history as an exponential function dependent upon the node’s thermal capacity and
time. The approach had utility for investigating long time duration problems while minimizing computer resources
required to solve a particular problem. Although the results were not very accurate, they clearly demonstrated trends
to support an engineer’s needs to evaluate hardware thermal behavior and what occurs during a particular process.
A similar approach was used by the author11,12 in examining finite difference solutions to fluid dynamic
problems defined by the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. Interestingly trends in velocity, density and
subsequent changes in pressure that forced changes in temperature throughout the mesh were surprising. These
results were generally obtained with a relative small number of iterations; however, more established or accepted
approaches were recommended to drive the numerical solution to final convergence.
The objective here is to examine the basic form of the Navier-Stokes equations to see if there are mathematical
approaches to simplify these equations. Ideally, it would be desired to solve these equations principally based upon
the process and boundary conditions. However, because of nonlinearities and in some cases moving or changing
boundary conditions may be part of the problem, developing closed-form solutions is really questionable from an
intellectual perspective. However, such solutions may provide insights into how to better define initial conditions to
reduce the computation burden or to find a particular solution within a particular flow domain where the flow is
relatively smooth and continuous, required to solve a problem.

II. Discussion

The approach used by Murad11,12 essentially recast the conservation equations depending if the flow was
subsonic or supersonic. A potential surface and integration factor are defined for each separate conservation
equation. After substitution into the conservation equation, the integration factor is redefined as a function of the
potential surface. The resulting equation was either an inhomogeneous Laplace equation for subsonic flow or an
inhomogeneous wave equation for supersonic flow. Some attempts were made at using a direct analytical
representation within the solution algorithm to account for this behavior. Once derivatives of the integration factor
were found, they were used to define solutions to particular conservation state vectors to solve directly for the
velocity components. Basically the velocity vector components are the nonlinear drivers in the problem. Although
the relationship of all variables in the flow is symbiotic, other variables such as density, pressure and temperature
obviously would follow suit and would change based predominantly upon these velocity component trends.
With these considerations for steady state, the density and temperature at a mesh point were found based upon
the corresponding integration factors. Velocity, however, was a major function warranted from the discretization
process and the integration factors. This resulted in a quadratic equation for the derivative of velocity with respect to
a spatial dimension, a source term, a function of velocity and a velocity-squared term. It was assumed that only
velocity at a mesh point varied and the other terms, which represented forcing functions that were constant during
the integration interval. This was a function of the mesh spacing and time steps used in the integration limit. The
subsequent integrated solution involved geometric and hyperbolic tangent functions that depended upon coordinate
dimensions for a steady-state algorithm. These details are described in the reference.
When you used this procedure, the finite difference process was quite involved considering Jacobian elements
and mesh spacing requirements. Moreover, the equation that led to an analytical solution was also complex because
of the appearance of the velocity component within the trace of the derivative. Furthermore, the possibility of
making an error in the analytical calculation was increased because of the numerous terms involved to include
Jacobian derivatives and elements required to define the derivative trace. The surprise is that if one examined the
basic analytical form of the equations prior to applying finite differences, the nonlinear velocity equation may
actually be simpler and easier to solve. This is the motivation for this particular effort.
 III. Analysis

The basic Navier-Stokes equations for a compressible, viscous, heat conducting fluid can be specified in vector
form as:
d x y z x y z
 f d  = -  [ E + F  G ]  nˆ ds +  [ H + H + H ]  nˆ ds   R d v . (1)
d t s s v
This mathematical vector equation includes continuity, momentum, and energy conservation to accurately define
fluid or plasma behavior. Vectors H x, H y and H z vanish for inviscid Euler and non-heat-conducting flows greatly
simplifying these equations although nonlinearities still remain due to the coupling between the velocity
components. As mentioned, R and boundary conditions primarily act as ‘forcing’ terms that drive the solution. The
individual vectors are defined for a transient three-dimensional laminar flow problem as:

   u   v   w 
 u   2   u v   
    u  p    u w 
f   v  , E   u v  , F   v  p  , G   v w
x y 2 z
, (2)
       
  w  u w   w v   w  p 
2

  e   u e   v e   w e 
     
  T  
 0.   0.   0.   q x     k  
       x  x 
  xx  
 xy  
 xy   
, H y     , H z    
 . And ...   2   2  u   v  
H x    xy
   yy   yy   xx 3   x  y  
  xz    zy    zy   
        u v  
 u  xy  q x   v xy  q y   w xz  q z   xy      
   y x 

The last three vectors can be modified to deal with turbulent boundary layers or include electromagnetic elements
when dealing with Magnetohydrodynamic interactions with the flowfield. The vectors can also be extended to
include chemical species conservation equations as well. Basically even in these latter equations, the velocity
components will be the primary factors that will shape the nature of the results and these equations may also be cast
in elliptical or hyperbolic form as well. These conservation equations can be defined as a partial differential vector
equation at a particular mesh point or control volume:

 f E x F y G z H x H y H z
+ + + = + + + R. (3)
t x y z x y z

A. Functional Form for A 3-D Subsonic Flow Potential

Thus, with these considerations, the basic premise is to define both a potential surface and an integration factor
based upon the problem’s physics. If an integration factor is " and Φ represents a potential, substitution yields:
1
 " x
 1

 1
 
= E x - H x ; "  y = F y - H y ; " z = G z - H z .

  (4)

In this representation, " is an integration factor yet to be defined. Again, both integration factor and flux potential
Φ are mathematical vectors similar to their predecessors spanning as many spaces as the vectors that appear in the
original vector conservation equation. The only difference is that with the conventional wisdom, only one space is
used for a hydrodynamics problem whereas here, each vector space represents any conservation equation. This
expanded potential in each vector space is a perfect differential defined by:
d  = x d x +  y d y   z dz ; where :  x y   y x ,  x z   z x , and  z y   y z . (5)
 Being a perfect differential implies that the integral of such a function will not depend upon the integration path
but only upon the initial and final endpoint state of the integral. This also requires satisfying several cross-
differentiation requirements as shown. Because of differences in definitions of the potentials due to the additional
dissipation vector terms, these factors differ from efforts presented in other references9,10.
The integration factor placed in the denominator implies that it never vanishes or if it did, this would create a
mathematical singularity within the flowfield, which is something that is not desirable. Thus both the integration
factor and the potentials spanning all of the conservation equations are considered as continuous functions. This is
not to say that such singularities may or may not physically exist but for flows with turbulence, shocks, or vortices.
Such restrictions are unnecessary. The definition of the integration factor satisfies the cross-differential conditions:
 
 xy   yx ;
y

[ " E x H x ] = 
x
 
[" F y  H y ] . (6)

Similar conditions exist for the z directions and several equations can be derived to define the integration factor as
a function of the potential9. However, these are highly nonlinear equations and there is really no need to pursue this
direction or accept these additional complications. When examining continuity, the hydrodynamicist introduces
vorticity as the product of cross-derivatives or the curl of the velocity vector in 2-D flows. When extended to all of
these equations, vorticity becomes a component in all conservation equations influencing velocity components and
temperature profiles. Vorticity does not only affect one but all of the equations. Thus the conventional wisdom suggests
that current formulations for defining a potential are inadequate for compressible flow, hence we have included both
the potentials and integration factors to satisfy this philosophic argument. Substituting the definitions of the potential
derivatives into the original equation yields:
 f 1
"  [  xx +  yy +  zz ] = " [  "x  x +  "y  y +  "z  z ]   " R . (7)
t 
And for subsonic steady-state flow, this reduces to:
1
 [ xx +  yy +  zz ] = [  "x  x +  "y  y +  "z  z ]   " R . (8)
"
This is a Poisson equation. Velocity components dominate variables in the spatial directions and disturbances
propagate across a computational mesh consistent with sound propagation. Obviously an infinite integration factor
with no R terms reduces the steady-state equations to a set of Laplace equations reminiscent of incompressible flow.
Nevertheless solutions to Laplace equations may represent a starter solution as the integration factors and potentials
evolve in an iterative process. Admittedly, these equations are extremely difficult to solve and any sane effort would
require reducing these equations by redefining the integration factor. The desire is to reduce the gradient of the
integration factor multiplied by the gradient of the potential terms. Since there is no restrictions previously placed
upon either the potential or the factor, let the potential be a function of the integration factor or:
1
  " 2
. (9)
2
This is surprisingly a key finding that greatly simplifies the mathematics. Thus, using this substitution reduces the
above transient vector equation to:
 f
 [ " xx + " yy + " zz ] =  R . ( 10 )
t
If we go further and allow f = - μ”t and perform similar manipulations, then the results are:
 "tt  [ " xx + " yy + ' zz ] =  R . ( 11 )
Where t is time. This is a wave equation representation of the conservation equations that allows a spatial
solution to propagate within the time domain in a similar fashion as a wave propagates through a space-time domain.
Moreover, if a positive sign is used for the f term, the solution behavior will depend more upon spatial and time
boundary/initial conditions requiring more computations to produce asymptotic converged results. Note that for
steady-state, the first term disappears and this reduces to the commonly accepted equations considering only inviscid
flow in the context of classical hydrodynamic solutions. Surprisingly, the integration factor itself appears to be the
desired potential. By formalizing the approach, it is unnecessary to define a potential and that indeed all of the
currently developed closed-form solutions for, say the steady two-dimensional incompressible flows actually
represent a solution to a class of problems represented by the compressible flow Navier-Stokes equations. A closed-
form solution for each transient or steady-state equation is:

" 

  R  ,  
f 
 t 
log   x   2
  y  
2
 dx dy  " o  x,y  , or
"   R  ,  log   x     y    dx dy  "  x , y  .
2 2
o ( 12 )

The  " o term accounts for boundary conditions whereas the integral term accounts for the inhomogeneous
solution with conditions that disappear along the boundaries. The first expression may represent a transient solution
if the transient term was known a priori and suggests that the transient term accounts for differences between the
current state of flowfield variables within a computational grid and the steady-state solution. The transient difference
may drive a steady-state problem. In other words, disturbances can drive solutions away from steady-state
conditions. Before continuing with the solution procedure, let us examine a supersonic flow to see if a similar
rationale exists.

B. A 3-D Supersonic Axisymmetric Representation

The governing cylindrical flowfield equation for transient flows with viscous and heat transfer effects are:

f Ex 1  1 G Hx 1  1  H

+ + (r F r ) + = + (r H r )  + R. ( 13 )
t x r r r  x r r r 
Radial effects are about the symmetric x-axis or along the u velocity component in an x, r, and θ cylindrical
coordinate system. Definitions for the flow vectors have changed to consider differences in defining the potential
derivatives, shear stress and heat transfer components. Basically the objective will be to reduce the family of
differential equations to a partial differential equation canonical form. Define the potential and integration factor as:
" 
x = " ( E x H x ) , r = - " ( F r  H r ) ,  z = - (G  H  ). 14
r
Note the appearance of minus signs in these definitions by virtue of supersonic flow. Continuing the methodology,
the governing steady-state equations have the form:
1  1 1
[  xx  ( r  r )  2   ]  [ " x  x - " r  r  "   ]  " R . ( 15 )
rr r "
Likewise, assuming that the potential is a function of the integration factor as previously defined, the steady-
state three-dimensional equations for supersonic flow will now have the form:
1  1
[ " xx  ( r " r )  2 " ]   R . ( 16 )
r r r
Since the subsonic set of equations represents elliptical partial differential equations, these equations are wave
equations representative of supersonic flow. Each in their finite difference form requires different smoothing
approaches whereas subsonic flow takes into account all of the surrounding mesh points about a region of concern,
supersonic flow only treats those points in the flowfield along specific downstream characteristics directions
governed by the local Mach number. These are similar to treating boundary conditions representative of each
canonical form. This is not for just the conservation of momentum equations but for all the conservation equations
from continuity, momentum, and energy because of the influence of the velocity components on these other
conservation equations. All have either an elliptical-like character for subsonic flows or a wave-like character for
portions with supersonic flows and are highly dependent upon boundary conditions on a computational grid. A
typical family of solutions for the wave equation in two dimensions (x and r) where the RHS or R is zero is:
g   d 
x r
"  x , r     x    ( 17 )
0
2
 r2 
The integration limit considers an endpoint defined by a downstream characteristic of the partial differential
equation. Moreover, the function within the integral accounts for boundary conditions. If the RHS is finite, a double
integral is required and the RHS acts as a forcing function driving the integral equation solution. Interestingly, several
publications13,14 exist where this methodology examined interesting problems to include a spacecraft flying in a
relativistic environment. Surprisingly, concerns such as turbulence have no bearing on the problem due to the high
relativistic speeds involved considering the lack of time required to create vortices within the attached boundary layer.
If the vectors were expanded to treat chemical species conservation or a turbulent law formulation, these equations
would also have no effect at relativistic speeds. Here, speeds are so great that reaction times are inconsequential and
you will not see anything other than laminar flows.
At this point it is obvious that the integration factor can greatly reduce the complexities of these problems and
that the nonlinear terms remain imbedded within the derivatives of the final potential function. This proves our
original premise to simplify these problems. Clearly, the solution to these primitive variables will incorporate the
influence of the integration factor or its derivatives.

IV. Results

Let us simplify the approach by treating a steady-state asymmetric geometry in the x and r coordinate system. It
is assumed that these equations are non-dimensionalized as a function of free-stream properties to include density,
free-stream velocity, temperature and internal energy. Let us examine finding the velocity components based upon
the factor gradients. These momentum equations reveal:
  p 2 v r  
 H 2x  H 2r  " x 2      u 2      u v ,
   M 2 3r 
 
  p 
2 ux 
 H 3x  H 3r  "r 3     v 2      u v , ( 22 )
   M 2 3r
 
  u u v  v 
where : H 3x  H 2r         .
  x r x  r 

The variable μ is kinematic viscosity for defining the shear stress terms for laminar flow and γ is the specific heat
ratio based upon the nondimensionallization process. Subscripts on the integration factor, ", represent derivatives
that are in either the x direction momentum equation (2) or the r momentum equation (3). The expression for the
other terms is longer especially when turbulence is included. The other terms are considered as constants at each
location in the flowfield once determined due to coordinate curvature effects. When these equations are combined,
each are functions of four derivatives that involve u, v and the spatial coordinates x and r. Using these substitutions
and assuming pseudo-constant coefficients for most terms results in:

 4  u  4  u  2  v  2 2 2  v
   r  x   r x      x x  r x     x  x   r  r    r x  
 3  x  3 r  3  x  3 r
1  p 2 u x  v r   
  " x 2      u 2     u v ,
   M 2
3r 
 
 2  u  2  u  4  v  4  v
   x  x   r  r      x  x  r r      x  r   x  r      x  r   x r  
 3  x  3 r  3  x  3 r
1   u  p  2 u x  v r     u v .
 2  
  " r 3    ( 23 )
   M
2
3r  
 

Moreover, each equation also includes velocity as well as velocity squared making these equations highly
nonlinear. When you resolve these equations and substitute expressions for shear stress, these terms have the
simplified form of:
 U U
   AU 2  BU  C . ( 18 )
 

Consider U as a mathematical vector that contains the two-velocity components u and v since both equations for
the velocity components have similar partial derivatives. Based upon the fineness of the computational grid, variables
in adjacent mesh points can be assumed constants as a function of the coordinate variables. For subsonic flow, the
boundary conditions that affect the given mesh point are those that surround it while for supersonic flow, the mesh
points again are within a Mach cone or characteristic cone as the only points that affect the variables in the given mesh
point. The solution to this equation has the form of:
1 1  
UA   B  B 2  4 A C tanh  
 1

B 2  4 A C  1      1    
( 19 )
2   4 
It is assumed, and most likely so, that the terms within the square root sign are positive. If not, these equations
would involve logarithm expressions. Note that this expression 3 also resembles the pressure distribution in a shock
layer. There are considerable matrix manipulations in this formula and the issue is one of defining the two
coordinate variables ξ and η. These are based upon the initial values or the lower integration limits when the initial
matrix equation is integrated or:

   B 2
4 A C 1 


B 2
 4 A C    tanh 1  B 2
4 A C 1
  
 2 A U o  B  ,
 

 4 A C  4 A C
1 
1
  
  B 2
 B 2
 4 A C    tanh 1 B 2
 2 A U o  B  . ( 20 )
  

Here, ξ and η are coordinate variables and the subscript ‘o’ denotes an initial value as an integration limit. If one
looks at all of the numerical operations performed to include defining hyperbolic-tangent, inverse hyperbolic-
tangent functions and finding inverse variables (or matrices) at each mesh point or interior of a computational
domain, the problem becomes intractable without customized hardwired hardware or software. Moreover, boundary
conditions for a serious problem will also depend upon changes in local conditions. Here, this would be the Uo
variable in the above equations. For example, fluid viscosity as well as pressure is a function of temperature for
supersonic flows. Once the temperature distribution or its derivatives at the computational boundaries are defined,
these temperature dependent effects permeate into the flowfield and influence other variables. The above solutions
would indeed find the actual answer only after these variables degenerate to steady-state values. This approach is
viable if the algorithm is driven toward a steady-state solution.
Clearly, for steady-state methods the above equations can predict velocity distribution within an algorithmic
procedure. Recognizing the issue about changing boundary conditions, the algorithm will not converge to the answer
immediately but requires an iterative process allowing the boundary conditions and variables at adjacent locations
within a computational mesh to adjust and catch up with the physics of the flow. It may initially appear as
problematic for supersonic boundary layer flows where the canonical form changes from an elliptical or subsonic
portion of the boundary layer near the wall to a set of wave equations that extends out into the supersonic flowfield.
This is not an issue because the primitive variable profiles are generally very smooth.
Currently, one of the significant challenges within CFD that represents the long pole in the tent is to mature the
science of MHD and develop a successful algorithm that couples the Navier-Stokes equations with Maxwell’s
equations. As mentioned earlier, Maxwell’s equations within the methodology would be treated in a similar
algorithm required for convergence of fluid dynamic variables to drive a solution for the electric and magnetic fields
but at a considerably smaller time step. This is an interesting mitigating and promising development that may couple
electric and magnetic force terms with fluid dynamic conservation equations in contrast to initially solving for the
fluid variables and then patch these initial results into Maxwell’s equations to find the subsequent fields. These
fields are in turn substituted into the fluid equations back and forth in an iterative fashion to establish convergence.
This is time consuming and we need to solve both sets of equations simultaneously. Furthermore, for transient or
MHD problems, one may select the velocity or electric/magnetic fields as an exponential function of time that either
adds terms to the velocity components or uses additional partial derivatives or source terms.
More importantly, the issue is if a certain term in the initial equation stays positive. Since these coefficients are
dynamic functions of the fluid flow process, they are driven by pressure gradients, body curvature and if the flow
undergoes a compression or expansion. Thus these terms may change signs or they may vanish. To account for this,
additional considerations are required in the numerics to handle these situations as they arise. Moreover, unexpected
changes can occur during a steady-state calculation where it may have been assumed that the final coefficients
would have specific values; however, as the calculation evolves, this may not be obvious especially since you are
calculating the value of the potential along the way and this can change as it adjust to the different conservation
equations within the flowfield. These additional considerations are:
dU
 AU 2  B U  C . ( 21 )
dx
2  2 Ax B
q  B 2  4 A C p o s i t i ve , U t a n h 1    ...
q  q 
2 2 A x  B
i f q i s ne g at ive, t hen U  t a n 1    ...
q   q 

Likewise, the methodology will have to include provisions to treat solutions of the following equations at each
mesh point:
dU dU dU
 AU 2  BU ,  AU 2  C , a n d  BU  C ( 22 )
dx dx dx
The solution to these equations will have logarithmic and geometric function solutions, which implies that such
expressions are necessary to predict these variables at each mesh point.
Finally, numerical results tend to speak louder than words. A case was run at hypersonic speeds using the
algorithm where there is a change in the integration factor in the boundary layer going from subsonic to supersonic
flow. No problem occurred to the results due to smoothing effects. Initial calculations used the conservation
equation as a transient wave equation similar to those for Maxwell’s equations. This did not provide a smooth
change in variables as the flowfield moved from initial values defined by a subsonic starter solution. From there, the
calculation proceeded using the steady-state algorithms for a majority of the integration procedure. This was then
followed for several iterations using the initial transient wave equation, which now produced relatively smooth
results. The calculation was finished with using two different steady-state methods where the variables were
summed to predict new values of the integration factor compared to an approach using matrix integration.

V. Conclusions

In summary, there are various advantages to this approach. Primitive variables within the flow, as previously
mentioned, can be obtained directly by decomposing the various gradients of each integration factor when sufficient
convergence is obtained. Moreover, the integration factor can be readily obtained in a standard algorithm that uses
block iterations or other conventional means. For a direct solution for the velocity components, equation (22) can
provide this; however, computations can be faster if the various functions are ‘hard-wired’ as macros. The use of
incorporating analytical solutions to either Poisson’s or the wave equations or velocity components in an algorithm
will also be the key to solving large-scale computational problems that will be demanded by future propulsion
schemes.

References
1
C. Hirsch: Numerical Computational of Internal and External Flows, Volume 1- Fundamentals of
Numerical Discretization, Wiley Series in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1992.
2
C. Hirsch: Numerical Computational of Internal and External Flows, Volume 2- Computational Methods
for Inviscid and Viscous Flows, Wiley Series in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1992.
3 L. D.
Landau, E. M. Lifshitz: Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics Volume 6, Pergamon Press, 1959.
4
H. T. Davis: Introduction to Nonlinear Differential and Integral Equations, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1962.
5
H. Lamb: Hydrodynamics, Dover Publishing, Inc., 1932.
6
N. E. Kochin, I. A. Kibel, N. V. Roze: Theoretical Hydrodynamics, Interscience Publishers, 1964.
7
H. W. Liepmann, and A. Roshko: Elements of Gasdynamics, Galcit Aeronautical Series, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 1957.
8
W. R. Sears: General Theory of High Speed Aerodynamics, High Speed Aerodynamics and Jet
Propulsion Volume VI, Princeton Series, 1954.
 9
P. A. Murad: "A Framework for Developing Navier-Stokes Closed-Form Solutions", AIAA Paper No. 95-
0479 presented at the 33 rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 9-12, 1995.
10
P. A. Murad: "An Extended Navier-Stokes Algorithm and The Challenges of Relativistic Fluid
Dynamics", AIAA Paper No. 99-0562, presented at the 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan 11-14, 1999, Reno,
Nevada.
11
P. A. Murad: “Closed-Form Navier-Stokes Solutions to Fluid Dynamic Equations Related to Magneto-
hydrodynamics”, Paper No. AIAA-2006-4507 presented at the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, 9-12 July 2006, Sacramento, California.
12
P. A. Murad: “Closed-Form Solutions to the Transient/Steady-State Navier-Stokes Fluid Dynamic
Equations”, STAIF-2006, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 2006.
13
P. A. Murad: “An Electromagnetic Rocket Hyper-Light Stellar Drive,” IAF Paper No. IAA-96-IAA.4.1.07
in the Proceedings of the 47th IAF Congress, Beijing, China, 1996.
14
P. A. Murad: “Challenges Posed By Hyper-Light Trajectories”, AAS Paper No. 98-138 presented at the
AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting in Monterey, Calif. 9-11 February 1998.
References
1
Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M., Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics Volume 6, Pergamon Press, 1959.
2
Davis, H. T.: Introduction to Nonlinear Differential and Integral Equations, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1962.
3
Lamb, H., Hydrodynamics, Dover Publishing, Inc., 1932.
4
Kochin, N. E., Kibel, I. A., Roze, N. V., Theoretical Hydrodynamics, Interscience Publishers, 1964.
5
Liepmann, H. W. and Roshko, A., Elements of Gasdynamics, Galcit Aeronautical Series, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
NJ, 1957.
6
Sears, W. R.: General Theory of High Speed Aerodynamics, High Speed Aerodynamics and Jet Propulsion Volume VI,
Princeton Series, 1954.
20
Murad, P.A., “A Framework for Developing Navier-Stokes Closed-Form Solutions,” AIAA Paper No. 95-0479, 33rd
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 1995.
21
Murad, P.A., “An Extended Navier-Stokes Algorithm and The Challenges of Relativistic Fluid Dynamics,” AIAA Paper No.
99-0562, 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, 1999.
22
Murad, P.A., “An Electromagnetic Rocket Hyper-Light Stellar Drive,” IAF Paper No. IAA-96-IAA.4.1.07 in the Proceedings
of the 47th IAF Congress, Beijing, China, 1996.
23
Murad, P.A., “Challenges Posed By Hyper-Light Trajectories”, AAS Paper No. 98-138 presented at the AAS/AIAA Space
Flight Mechanics Meeting in Monterey, Calif. 9-11 February 1998.
7
Ehlers, J., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics, University of
California, Berkeley, 1970, Springer-Verlag, 1971.
8
Roache, Patrick J.: Computational Fluid Dynamics, Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque, N. M., 1972.
9
Kutler, P., A Collection of Technical Papers, AIAA 5th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Palo Alto, CA, 1981
10
Guezengar, D., Guillard, H., Dusssauge, J., “Modeling Dissipation Equation in Supersonic Turbulent Mixing Layers with High-
Density Gradients,” AIAA Journal 38 (9), (2000).
11
Barakos, G., Drikakis, D., “Investigation of Nonlinear Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models in Shock/Boundary Layer
Interaction,” AIAA Journal 38 (3), 2000.
12
Pollet, M., Gailliegue, K., “An Intermediate Way to Predict Ignition in a Solid Propulsion Chamber with Water,” AIAA
Paper 2000-03.08, 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, 2000.
13
Hirsch, C., Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows, Volume 1- Fundamentals of Numerical Descretization,
1988; Volume 2- Computational Methods for inviscid and viscous flows, 1992.
14
Linde, T.: “Flash & MHD”, a Flash Code Tutorial, May 14, 2004.
15
Hideaki, M., Takaya, H.: “Low m/n Mode Behavior of MHD Plasma in LHD”, J. Plasma Fusion Res. SERIES, Vol. 6 (2004)
349-352.
16
Huang, H, L., Ying, A., Abdou, M. A.: “3-D MHD Free Surface Fluid Flow Simulation Based on Magnetic-Field Induction
Equations”, 2001.
17
Cheng, C. Z.: “Energetic Particle Physics with Applications in Fusion and Space Plasma”, 1997.
18
Hammett, G., Quataert, E.: “Some Properties of Landau-Fluid Models of Kinetic MHD”, Princeton-Maryland Workshop:
Numerical Methods for Plasma Astrophysics, Oct. 25-27, 2004.
19
Liu, Y., et al: “Plasma Depletion and Mirror Waves Ahead of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections,” Journal of Geophysical
Research, 10/29/2005, arXiv physics/0602164 v2, 3 Mar 2006.

24
Miller, A. I.: Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretations (1905-1911), ISBN O-387-
94870-8 Springer-Verlag, 1998.
25
Murad, P.A., "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian Trajectories", Paper No. 91-0678 at the AIAA 29th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 1991.
26
Murad, P.A., "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian Trajectories; Part II- The Question of Thrust to Orbit a Sphere
and the Restricted Three-Body Problem", AAS Paper 93-112 presented at the AAS/AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting,
Pasadena, Cal., Feb. 22-24, 1993. Paper was also given at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 1992 Flight
Mechanics/Estimation Theory Symposium, Greenbelt, Md., 5-7 May 1992.
27
Barrett, T. W., Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations, 2003, pp. 5, 26.
28
Dyatlov, V. L., Electrogravimetric Energy Transformation, Moscow, NT-Center, 1995, p. 29.
29
Murad, P.A., “Its All Gravity,” in the proceedings of Space Technology and Applications Technology Forum (STAIF-02),
edited by M.S. El-Genk, AIP Conference Proceedings 654, American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York, 2003, pp. 932-939.
30
Murad, P.A., Baker, Jr., R. M. L., “Gravity with a Spin: Angular Momentum in a Gravitational-Wave Field,” First
International High Frequency Gravity Wave Conference, Mitre Corporation, 2003.
 Log 10

A.01 or A.02 Advanced technologies, concepts and techniques for space applications.

Closed-Form Navier Stokes Solutions to Steady-State and

Transient Fluid Future Propulsion Problems
P. A. Murad
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Ufoguypaul@yahoo.com

View publication stats