|
[Sponsors] |
Flux limiter and explicit method CFL restriction |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
July 15, 2012, 13:12 |
Flux limiter and explicit method CFL restriction
|
#1 |
New Member
Christine Darcoux
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 15 |
A class of TVD scheme was developed by Sweby[1] where a flux limiter is added to the Second Order Upwind (SOU) schemes differencing scheme to prevent the formation of oscillations in the scalar field.
I am interested by the CFL restriction of these scheme in the context of the explicit forward euler time integration. One important property of the SOU discussed by Leonard [2] is that even-order upwind schemes have a two times wider stability interval than odd-order ones. Thus, SOU is stable at the extended interval 0 < CFL < 2. Question : Are there any TVD scheme based on SOU that also preserve stability for CFL < 2 or more ? Thanks for your help ! Christine [1] P. K. Sweby. High resolution schemes using flux limiters for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis, 21(5):995–1011, 1984. [2] Leonard, B. P. Stability of explicit advection schemes. The balance point location rule. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 38, 471 –514, 2002. |
|
July 17, 2012, 13:06 |
|
#2 |
New Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 14 |
The minmod limiter is just a simple switch between the Beam-Warming and the Lax-Wendroff method. Both schemes are stable for clf < 2.
|
|
July 17, 2012, 15:00 |
|
#3 | |
New Member
Christine Darcoux
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 15 |
Quote:
Isn't this Lax-Wendroff equivalent to the central difference scheme (phi=1 in the Sewby diagram) ? It is only stable for clf<=1 as far as I know. As the SOU (Beam-Warming ?) is given by phi=r in the diagram and is TVD up to phi=2, I think that a limiter of the form min(r, something smaller or equal to 2) should be a good candidate. |
||
July 17, 2012, 16:03 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,897
Rep Power: 73 |
I remember something concerning third-order upwind in this old paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...45793091900116 maybe can help you |
|
July 19, 2012, 13:16 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 14 |
This is slightly off-topic :
I am trying to do a Von Neumann analysis to show that the Beam-Warming (yes, this is another name for the SOU) is stable for μ < 2. Maybe I am wrong, but I only get the classical CFL criterion μ < 1. Could someone point me a reference where I could find the details of the analysis for μ < 2 ? |
|
July 19, 2012, 14:30 |
|
#6 | |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,897
Rep Power: 73 |
Quote:
J. C. Tannehill, Hyperbolic and hyperbolic-parabolic systems, in Handbook of Numerical Heat Transfer, W. J. Minkowycz, E. M. Sparrow, G. E. Scheider |
||
Tags |
flux correction, stabilty, upwind diffrence |
|
|