# ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher).

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
 September 3, 2002, 09:44 ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher). #1 J. K. Guest   Posts: n/a HI all, I have a question regarding the ENO scheme. I have been trying to implement an ENO's scheme based on Shu and Osher's paper "ENO and WENO shock capturing schemes II" , Journal of Computational Physics, 83, 32-78 (1989). Now, it seems that this method is used when operating on cell centre values. I want to use cell averages. When I look at Laney's book, "Computational GasDynamics", on page 524 he states that "...in one interpretation, f(u(subscript i, superscript n)) is a cell-integral average of f(x)", where f(x) is the f^hat numerical flux. Laney's scheme in his book is Shu and Osher's scheme. This suggests that cell averages can be used. Can someone explain the apparent paradox between the use of cell averages and cell- centred values? I am missing something here!! I hope! Regards, J.

 September 3, 2002, 17:04 Re: ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher). #2 Bert Laney Guest   Posts: n/a I'm not sure I understand your question. The Shu-Osher ENO method is a finite-difference method, i.e., it approximates cell-centered values of the solution. The derivation given in my book, which involves cell-averages of the flux function, doesn't imply that the Shu-Osher ENO method is finite-volume. If you want a finite-volume method, you'll have to use the original ENO method. In one dimension, the cell-centered value of the solution is a second-order approximation to the cell-integral average. Thus, if you can be content with second order accuracy, you can consider any finite-difference method to be finite-volume if you like (in one dimension). Hope this helps. Bert Laney

 September 4, 2002, 06:01 Re: ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher). #3 J. K. Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Bert. Thanks for your reply. I am aware that a cell-centered value of a solution is a 2nd order approximation to a cell-integral (=finite volume?) average. However, I was hoping to achieve 3rd order accuracy. I would also like to extend the method to 3D. I was under the impression that a cell-average was the same as finite volume, I take it I was wrong?! Finite volume, cell-integral and cell-average all seem pretty similar to me? Why are there problems when extending to more than 1-dimension? Will the original ENO scheme will work well in 3 dimensions? Thanks again, Regards. J.

 September 14, 2002, 02:32 Re: ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher). #4 gmreszhao@163.com Guest   Posts: n/a Dear J.K: There is a paper of Chi-Wang Shu, "Essentially Non-Oscillatory and Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws", NASA CR-97-206253 ICASE Report No. 97-65. It can tell you how to implement three or more oder of accuracy of ENO or WENO in FV for a 3d problem. You can download it from http://www.icase.edu/library/reports/rdp/1997.html. Good luck to you! Zhao

 September 17, 2002, 07:15 Re: ENO scheme (ENO-Roe) (Shu and Osher). #5 autofly Guest   Posts: n/a I have finished the ENO scheme FV in two dimensions.very difficult. if you want to get higher order than 2nd,you must do some effort to understand the reconstruction for two varriables.not simple dimension splitting technology,you must consider the cross-term.welcome to disscuss with me.

 February 19, 2013, 18:00 Eno #6 New Member   rachna Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 3 Rep Power: 4 I am trying to write the matlab code for eno but I am unable to do for i=2:nx-2 k=i-1; p1(i)=D1(k); if abs(D2(k+1))<= abs(D2(k+2)) p2(i)=(2*(k-i)+1)*D2(k+1); else p2(i)=(2*(k-i)+1)*D2(k+2); end Q=p1+p2; end for i=2:nx-2 l=i; p11(i)=D1(l); if abs(D2(l+1))<= abs(D2(l+2)) p22(i)=(2*(l-i)+1)*D2(l+1); else p22(i)=(2*(l-i)+1)*D2(l+2); end P=p11+p22; end for i=1:nx-2 V1(i+1)=Q(i); end for n=1:nt for i=2:nx-2 V(n+1,j)=V(n,j)-Dt*V1(n,j) i dont know what is wrong here I tried can u please suggest me something

 February 21, 2013, 15:55 #7 Member   Jonny Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 60 Rep Power: 7 I am curious as to the difficulties that you talk of "autofly" when using the ENO scheme. It is a straight-forward scheme. I would certainly opt for WENO schemes if you can deal with the increase in solver time. Regarding the original post, the question entirely depends on your interpretation of the terms. The ENO scheme simply selects the smoothest polynomial to calculate the inter-cell flux values when it comes to FV methods.

March 28, 2013, 09:08
Eno
#8
New Member

rachna
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 4
for example I am solving advection equation u_t+ au_x=0
and with initial data u(x,0)= 0.5-|x| if |x|<= 0.5
= 0 else

okay so I am using ENO via primitive function so I have calulated the average
1) for j=1:nx+3
x(j)=-1-dx+(j-1)*dx;
u0(j)=(u_0(x(j)+(dx/2))+u_0(x(j)) + u_0(x(j)-(dx/2)))/3;
end%

2) the scheme becomes u_{j}^{n+1} = u_{j}^{n}- (f_{j+1/2}- f_{j-1/2}).

3) f_{j+1/2} i sthe numercial flux and now I am calculating numerical flux by Lax- friendrich (as u can see in the article of shu page number 355)
f_{j+1/2}= h(u-_{j+1/2}, u+_{j-1/2}).

h(a,b)= (1/2)(f(a)+f(b)-alpha(b-a)).
[since this is for u_t+ (f(u(x,t)))_x=0 ]

so my f(u)= au.

so my f_{j+1/2}=a u-_j+1/2.

so for calculating f_{j-1/2 } i put j=j-1 so f_{j+1/2}= au-_j-1/2.

and as in the shu article

u-_j+1/2= p_(i)(x_{i+1/2})
so for calculating u-_j-1/2= p_(i-1)(x_{i-1/2})
I mean polynomail changes, and I am using the code for calculating this polynomail

function y = back(u,nx,x,dx)
y(1)=0;
y(nx+3)=0;
for i=1:nx+3
a(i,1)=u(i)
end
for i=2:nx+2
a(i,2)=(a(i,1)-a(i-1,1))/(x(i)-x(i-1))
end
for i=2:nx+2
if abs(a(i,2)) < abs(a(i+1,2))
a1(i)=a(i,2)/2
else
a1(i)=a(i+1,2)/2
end
y(i)=u(i)+a1(i)*(x-x(i));
end
end

so in above function when i put x=x(i)+(dx/2)
for claulating the polynomial p(i-1) I ahev tried many things but my scheme is not correct I can see very bad behaviour near the kink.

I am really tired with this.

Please suggets me something where I am wrong

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jonny6001 I am curious as to the difficulties that you talk of "autofly" when using the ENO scheme. It is a straight-forward scheme. I would certainly opt for WENO schemes if you can deal with the increase in solver time. Regarding the original post, the question entirely depends on your interpretation of the terms. The ENO scheme simply selects the smoothest polynomial to calculate the inter-cell flux values when it comes to FV methods.

March 28, 2013, 09:09
#9
New Member

rachna
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 4
Please soemone try to answer me and if possible please answer em soon

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kika for example I am solving advection equation u_t+ au_x=0 and with initial data u(x,0)= 0.5-|x| if |x|<= 0.5 = 0 else okay so I am using ENO via primitive function so I have calulated the average 1) for j=1:nx+3 x(j)=-1-dx+(j-1)*dx; u0(j)=(u_0(x(j)+(dx/2))+u_0(x(j)) + u_0(x(j)-(dx/2)))/3; end% 2) the scheme becomes u_{j}^{n+1} = u_{j}^{n}- (f_{j+1/2}- f_{j-1/2}). 3) f_{j+1/2} i sthe numercial flux and now I am calculating numerical flux by Lax- friendrich (as u can see in the article of shu page number 355) f_{j+1/2}= h(u-_{j+1/2}, u+_{j-1/2}). h(a,b)= (1/2)(f(a)+f(b)-alpha(b-a)). [since this is for u_t+ (f(u(x,t)))_x=0 ] so my f(u)= au. so my f_{j+1/2}=a u-_j+1/2. so for calculating f_{j-1/2 } i put j=j-1 so f_{j+1/2}= au-_j-1/2. and as in the shu article u-_j+1/2= p_(i)(x_{i+1/2}) so for calculating u-_j-1/2= p_(i-1)(x_{i-1/2}) I mean polynomail changes, and I am using the code for calculating this polynomail function y = back(u,nx,x,dx) y(1)=0; y(nx+3)=0; for i=1:nx+3 a(i,1)=u(i) end for i=2:nx+2 a(i,2)=(a(i,1)-a(i-1,1))/(x(i)-x(i-1)) end for i=2:nx+2 if abs(a(i,2)) < abs(a(i+1,2)) a1(i)=a(i,2)/2 else a1(i)=a(i+1,2)/2 end y(i)=u(i)+a1(i)*(x-x(i)); end end so in above function when i put x=x(i)+(dx/2) for claulating the polynomial p(i-1) I ahev tried many things but my scheme is not correct I can see very bad behaviour near the kink. I am really tired with this. Please suggets me something where I am wrong

 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

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post J. K Main CFD Forum 3 July 18, 2002 12:51

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top