High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods
The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. R...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal for numerical methods in fluids 2019-12, Vol.91 (11), p.533-556 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 556 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 533 |
container_title | International journal for numerical methods in fluids |
container_volume | 91 |
creator | Fehn, Niklas Kronbichler, Martin Lehrenfeld, Christoph Lube, Gert Schroeder, Philipp W. |
description | The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high‐order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard
L
2
‐based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence‐free
H
(div)‐conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. This work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to underresolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for underresolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/fld.4763 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_fld_4763</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1002_fld_4763</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-33e3fe4d882f0559245dfdbae783749b67e2a1dcf8c64efe52a3bf988ec8863f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkM1Kw0AURgdRsFbBR7jLukidnyQzcVeqtkLBja7DJHOvjaSZOpNU3PkIPqNPYquuPjgfnMVh7FLwqeBcXlPrpqnO1REbCV7ohKtcHbMRl1okkhfilJ3F-Mo5L6RRI_a2bF7W359fPjgMcLuA6NsdhgjkAwzdHgb8RQ76IVRDi10PTVf7zXZ_xKZqEaj17_EGZnCgNjTRd-AJViDBdg6WMHHN7go22K-9i-fshGwb8eJ_x-z5_u5pvkxWj4uH-WyV1CLTfaIUKsLUGSOJZ1kh08yRqyxqo3RaVLlGaYWrydR5ioSZtKqiwhisjckVqTGb_Hnr4GMMSOU2NBsbPkrBy0Oqcp-qPKRSP3t_Xnk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Fehn, Niklas ; Kronbichler, Martin ; Lehrenfeld, Christoph ; Lube, Gert ; Schroeder, Philipp W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fehn, Niklas ; Kronbichler, Martin ; Lehrenfeld, Christoph ; Lube, Gert ; Schroeder, Philipp W.</creatorcontrib><description>The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high‐order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard
L
2
‐based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence‐free
H
(div)‐conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. This work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to underresolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for underresolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0271-2091</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0363</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/fld.4763</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>International journal for numerical methods in fluids, 2019-12, Vol.91 (11), p.533-556</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-33e3fe4d882f0559245dfdbae783749b67e2a1dcf8c64efe52a3bf988ec8863f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-33e3fe4d882f0559245dfdbae783749b67e2a1dcf8c64efe52a3bf988ec8863f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0170-8468 ; 0000-0001-7644-4693 ; 0000-0001-8406-835X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fehn, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kronbichler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehrenfeld, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lube, Gert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Philipp W.</creatorcontrib><title>High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods</title><title>International journal for numerical methods in fluids</title><description>The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high‐order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard
L
2
‐based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence‐free
H
(div)‐conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. This work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to underresolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for underresolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms.</description><issn>0271-2091</issn><issn>1097-0363</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkM1Kw0AURgdRsFbBR7jLukidnyQzcVeqtkLBja7DJHOvjaSZOpNU3PkIPqNPYquuPjgfnMVh7FLwqeBcXlPrpqnO1REbCV7ohKtcHbMRl1okkhfilJ3F-Mo5L6RRI_a2bF7W359fPjgMcLuA6NsdhgjkAwzdHgb8RQ76IVRDi10PTVf7zXZ_xKZqEaj17_EGZnCgNjTRd-AJViDBdg6WMHHN7go22K-9i-fshGwb8eJ_x-z5_u5pvkxWj4uH-WyV1CLTfaIUKsLUGSOJZ1kh08yRqyxqo3RaVLlGaYWrydR5ioSZtKqiwhisjckVqTGb_Hnr4GMMSOU2NBsbPkrBy0Oqcp-qPKRSP3t_Xnk</recordid><startdate>20191220</startdate><enddate>20191220</enddate><creator>Fehn, Niklas</creator><creator>Kronbichler, Martin</creator><creator>Lehrenfeld, Christoph</creator><creator>Lube, Gert</creator><creator>Schroeder, Philipp W.</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0170-8468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7644-4693</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8406-835X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191220</creationdate><title>High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods</title><author>Fehn, Niklas ; Kronbichler, Martin ; Lehrenfeld, Christoph ; Lube, Gert ; Schroeder, Philipp W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c157t-33e3fe4d882f0559245dfdbae783749b67e2a1dcf8c64efe52a3bf988ec8863f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fehn, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kronbichler, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehrenfeld, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lube, Gert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Philipp W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>International journal for numerical methods in fluids</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fehn, Niklas</au><au>Kronbichler, Martin</au><au>Lehrenfeld, Christoph</au><au>Lube, Gert</au><au>Schroeder, Philipp W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods</atitle><jtitle>International journal for numerical methods in fluids</jtitle><date>2019-12-20</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>533</spage><epage>556</epage><pages>533-556</pages><issn>0271-2091</issn><eissn>1097-0363</eissn><abstract>The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high‐order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard
L
2
‐based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence‐free
H
(div)‐conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. This work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to underresolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for underresolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms.</abstract><doi>10.1002/fld.4763</doi><tpages>24</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0170-8468</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7644-4693</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8406-835X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0271-2091 |
ispartof | International journal for numerical methods in fluids, 2019-12, Vol.91 (11), p.533-556 |
issn | 0271-2091 1097-0363 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_fld_4763 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
title | High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T05%3A32%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=High%E2%80%90order%20DG%20solvers%20for%20underresolved%20turbulent%20incompressible%20flows:%20A%20comparison%20of%20L%202%20and%20H%20(div)%20methods&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20for%20numerical%20methods%20in%20fluids&rft.au=Fehn,%20Niklas&rft.date=2019-12-20&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=533&rft.epage=556&rft.pages=533-556&rft.issn=0271-2091&rft.eissn=1097-0363&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/fld.4763&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1002_fld_4763%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |