Flux limiter and explicit method CFL restriction

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 July 15, 2012, 12:12 Flux limiter and explicit method CFL restriction #1 New Member   Christine Darcoux Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 7 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, 12:06 #2 New Member   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 6 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, 14:00
#3
New Member

Christine Darcoux
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 7
Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigorneault The minmod limiter is just a simple switch between the Beam-Warming and the Lax-Wendroff method. Both schemes are stable for clf < 2.

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, 15:03 #4 Senior Member   Filippo Maria Denaro Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,498 Rep Power: 31 I remember something concerning third-order upwind in this old paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...45793091900116 maybe can help you

 July 19, 2012, 12:16 #5 New Member   Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 6 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, 13:30
#6
Senior Member

Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,498
Rep Power: 31
Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigorneault 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 ?
I remember Von Neumann stability analysis of several schemes on
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

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:28.