|
[Sponsors] |
Doubt regarding MUSCL scheme implementation and associated limiters |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
October 7, 2017, 10:00 |
Doubt regarding MUSCL scheme implementation and associated limiters
|
#1 |
New Member
Sangeeth
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 11 |
Dear all,
My objective is to simulate heating profiles over a blunt body in viscous supersonic/hypersonic ideal gas flow. Presently in the first order version of my code, I am using a Finite Volume based Approximate Riemann solver code. For better accuracy I would like to make the spatial order of accuracy of the code second order. In this regard, I tried implementing van Leer's MUSCL reconstruction procedure and used certain limiters to make the reconstruction monotone. I used Strong Stability Preserving Runge Kutta method of Gottlieb et al [1] to get second order time accuracy. This is where I am facing problems. Doubt regarding MUSCL interpolation formula: Firstly, in literature, MUSCL scheme is expressed in two forms ( consider only left values specified at an interface i-1/2 between Ui-1 and Ui): Form1: UL = Ui-1 + 1/4 * phi_L* [(1+k)*(Ui-Ui-1) + (1-k)*(Ui-1-Ui-2) ] Form2: UL = Ui-1 + 1/4 * phi_L* [(1+k*phi_L)*(Ui-Ui-1) + (1-k*phi_L)*(Ui-1-Ui-2) ] For k=0; these forms are equivalent. While for k=-1, these are clearly not. Most books discuss form 1. While most papers (ex 2563 of ref [2] or pg 1392 of ref [3] ) use form2 usually with k=1/3. Lohner in his book [4] also uses form 2 ( sec 10.4.2 ). Are they equivalent in all cases or are these forms applicable only to specific situations? Doubt regarding associated limiter: Secondly, the doubt is regarding the form of limiters used in conjunction with these forms. Consider two famous limiters: van Albada form 1: 2R/(R^2+1) van Albada form 2: R^2 + R/ R^2 + 1 min-mod form 1: min(2/1+R, 2R/1+R) min-mod form 2: min(1,R) Berger et al [5] refers to form1 as slope limiter while form 2 as flux limiter. My understanding is that flux limiters are used directly on flux reconstruction while it is the slope limiters which are employed on the reconstructed solution values. I am aware that flux limiters can be converted into slope limiters if they have the symmetric property. If that is so, in my particular case, I should be using only form 1 of these limiters for reconstruction of my state variables at a given interface? Will it be wrong if I use flux limiters instead? Also, for specific value of k (kappa parameter in MUSCL scheme) are there prescribed limiters or can I use any limiter for any k value? Specifically, if I want to use MUSCL scheme with k=-1 and min-mod limiter and k=1/3 with van Albada limiter, which MUSCL form and which limiter form should I use? I would really appreciate any help from any kind soul on this doubt. Thanks in advance. Regards, [1] S. Gottlieb, C W Shu, E Tadmor, Strong stability preserving higher order time discretization methods, SIAM review, vol 43, 2001. [2] H. NIshikawa, K. Kitamura, A Very simple, carbuncle free, boundary layer resolving, Rotated hybrid Riemann solver, JCP, 2008. [3] Y X Ren, A robust shock capturing schemes based on rotated Riemann solvers, Comput and Fluids, 2003. [4] 'Applied computational fluid dynamics techniques', R. Lohner, 2nd edition, Wiley, 2008. [5] M Berger, M J Aftosmis, S M Murman, Analysis of slope limiters on unstructured grids, 43rd AIAA Aerospace meetings, 2005. Last edited by SangeethCFD; October 7, 2017 at 10:05. Reason: added information about time accuracy |
|
Tags |
carbuncle, min-mod, muscl, van albada |
|
|