Ethier Flow
This case is adopted from the nontrivial exact solution of the three-dimensional incompressible Navier–Stokes equations developed by Ethier and Steinman (Ethier and Steinman, 1994) for benchmarking incompressible CFD solvers. The Ethier solution is also used to verify the passive scalar solvers in NekRS. This is accomplished by selecting the -component of the velocity field as the transported passive scalar and using the pressure term from the momentum equation as its source term, making the passive scalar transport equation identical to the -momentum equation. Because the analytical solution is known throughout the domain and for all times, both the incompressible flow and passive scalar solvers can be verified using only a few time steps, minimizing the computational cost of the tests. Consequently, the ethier case verifies several NekRS capabilities through multiple different tests and solver modes.
Computational domain
The problem is solved in the cubic domain
(1)Dirichlet boundary conditions obtained from the analytical solution are imposed for the velocity field. Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions are imposed for the passive scalars and , respectively.
Analytical solution
The analytical velocity and pressure fields of Ethier and Steinman (Ethier and Steinman, 1994) are
(2)where and are user-specified parameters, are the spatial coordinates, are the velocity components, is the pressure, and is time. For the passive scalar verification tests, the transported analytical variable is the -component of velocity, .
Verification criteria
The solution fields evaluated are
(3)corresponding to the -velocity, pressure, and two passive scalar fields. For each evaluated field, the volume-integrated error norm is
(4)The routine regression tests use polynomial order for every qualifying solver mode. The figures below are generated from separate -refinement studies and are not part of the routine regression tests; they demonstrate spectral convergence as the polynomial order increases and provide additional evidence of the accuracy and consistency of the flow and passive scalar solvers. The tests also monitor the numbers of iterations required for convergence of the velocity, pressure, and passive scalar solvers. The specific NekRS capabilities verified by each test are described below. The tests are organized into different solver modes as follows:
The qualifying postprocessor is evaluated at the final time and requires every enabled error norm to be below its mode-specific tolerance, or below when that fallback criterion is satisfied. The tolerances for the tested solver modes are summarized in Table 1. Solver mode 13 is the scalar-only case, and solver mode 12 intentionally disables the temperature solve.
Table 1: Pass criteria for the tested Ethier solver modes.
| Solver mode | Velocity error | Pressure error | Temperature error | Passive-scalar error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2, 3, 11, 14 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 9, 10 | ||||
| 12 | – | |||
| 13 | – | – | – |
Mode 2
This solver mode verifies:
Incompressible Navier–Stokes and passive scalar solvers.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 1 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 1: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 2; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 3
This solver mode verifies:
Velocity and pressure projection.
SEMFEM (low-order finite element) pressure preconditioner.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 2 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 2: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 3; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 4
This solver mode verifies:
Incompressible Navier–Stokes and passive scalar solvers.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
Velocity and pressure projection.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 3 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 3: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 4; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 5
This solver mode verifies:
Moving-mesh formulation.
Block velocity solver.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 4 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 4: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 5; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 6
This solver mode verifies:
Moving-mesh formulation.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 5 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 5: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 6; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 7
This solver mode verifies:
Velocity and pressure projection.
Jacobi pressure preconditioner.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 6 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 6: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 7; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 8
This solver mode verifies:
Pressure projection.
Adaptive time stepping.
Compliance of the final CFL number with its specified target.
The expected number of time steps.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 7 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 7: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 8; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 9
This solver mode verifies:
Convective advection formulation without dealiasing.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
Velocity and pressure projection.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 8 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 8: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 9; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 10
This solver mode verifies:
Convective advection formulation without dealiasing.
Block velocity solver.
Velocity and pressure projection.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 9 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 9: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 10; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 11
This solver mode verifies:
Chebyshev-accelerated damped-Jacobi pressure multigrid smoother.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
Pressure projection.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 10 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 10: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 11; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 12
This solver mode verifies that passive scalar 0 is disabled while passive scalar 1 continues to be solved correctly. The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 11 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 11: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 12; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
Mode 14
This solver mode verifies:
Additive overlapping Schwarz pressure multigrid smoother.
Block velocity solver.
Characteristic subcycling.
Pressure projection.
The regression error is evaluated at . Figure 12 shows the corresponding -refinement study.

Figure 12: Spectral convergence under p refinement for the ethier case using solver mode 14; the routine regression test uses polynomial order nine.
References
- C Ross Ethier and DA Steinman.
Exact fully 3d navier–stokes solutions for benchmarking.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 19(5):369–375, 1994.[Export]