1 / 6

Summary of Test Case C1.5 Radial expansion wave (2D/3D)

1 st International High-Order CFD Workshop Jan, 7-8, 2012, Nashville, TN . Summary of Test Case C1.5 Radial expansion wave (2D/3D). Contributing groups: Fidkowski , Galbraith, Gassner , Mavriplis , Van Leer, Z.J. Wang . 2D: Error vs. DOF. P =2.

ellery
Télécharger la présentation

Summary of Test Case C1.5 Radial expansion wave (2D/3D)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1st International High-Order CFD Workshop Jan, 7-8, 2012, Nashville, TN Summary of Test Case C1.5Radial expansion wave (2D/3D) Contributing groups: Fidkowski, Galbraith, Gassner, Mavriplis, Van Leer, Z.J. Wang

  2. 2D: Error vs. DOF P =2 • Expected order: 2P+1 on rectangles, P+1 on triangles. • Order short of 2P +1 on rectangles. • Cause: unexpected lack of solution smoothness at larger times. • All results for t=2, γ=3, for greatest smoothness. • Van Leer has lowest error. P = 3 P =4

  3. 2D: Error vs. Work P =2 P =2 • Galbraith most efficient owing to use of analytical integration rather than Gaussian quadrature. • Van Leer second best. P = 3 P =4 P = 3 P =4

  4. 3D: Error vs. DOF • Only regular hexahedral elements used. • Results even further below expected order due to lack of solution smoothness. • All results for t=2, γ=3. • Van Leer has lowest error. P =2 P = 3 P =4

  5. 3D: Error vs. Work • Only regular hexahedral elements used • Van Leer most efficient. P =2 P = 3 P =4

  6. Conclusions • Before order of accuracy 2P+1 can be reached with any DG method, the problem of the non-smoothness of the solution must be fixed, possibly by adding a manufactured source term. • The consistently low errors of Van Leer et al. may be owing to high-order Gaussian quadrature used in anticipation of order of accuracy 2P+1.

More Related