Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Accuracy of Bicompact Schemes as Applied to Computation of Unsteady Shock Waves

  • Published:
Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bicompact schemes that have the fourth order of classical approximation in space and a higher order (at least the second) in time are considered. Their accuracy is studied as applied to a quasilinear hyperbolic system of conservation laws with discontinuous solutions involving shock waves with variable propagation velocities. The shallow water equations are used as an example of such a system. It is shown that a nonmonotone bicompact scheme has a higher order of convergence in domains of influence of unsteady shock waves. If spurious oscillations are suppressed by applying a conservative limiting procedure, then the bicompact scheme, though being high-order accurate on smooth solutions, has a reduced (first) order of convergence in the domains of influence of shock waves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.
Fig. 18.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. S. K. Godunov, “Difference method for computing discontinuous solutions of fluid dynamics equations,” Mat. Sb. 47 (3), 271–306 (1959).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. B. Van Leer, “Toward the ultimate conservative difference scheme: V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method,” J. Comput. Phys. 32 (1), 101–136 (1979).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. A. Harten, “High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws,” J. Comput. Phys. 49 (3), 357–393 (1983).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. G. S. Jiang and C. W. Shu, “Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes,” J. Comput. Phys. 126 (1), 202–228 (1996).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. X. Liu and E. Tadmor, “Third order nonoscillatory central scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws,” Numer. Math. 79 (3), 397–425 (1998).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. B. Cockburn, “An introduction to the discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-dominated problems, advanced numerical approximation of nonlinear hyperbolic equations,” Lect. Notes Math. 1697, 151–268 (1998).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. S. A. Karabasov and V. M. Goloviznin, “Compact accurately boundary-adjusting high-resolution technique for fluid dynamics,” J. Comput. Phys. 228 (19), 7426–7451 (2009).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. V. V. Ostapenko, “Symmetric compact schemes with higher order conservative artificial viscosities,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 42 (7), 980–999 (2002).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. B. Fiorina and S. K. Lele, “An artificial nonlinear diffusivity method for supersonic reacting flows with shocks,” J. Comput. Phys. 222 (1), 246–264 (2006).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. S. Kawai and S. K. Lele, “Localized artificial diffusivity scheme for discontinuity capturing on curvilinear meshes,” J. Comput. Phys. 227 (22), 9498–9526 (2008).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Kurganov and Y. Liu, “New adaptive artificial viscosity method for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws,” J. Comput. Phys. 231 (24), 8114–8132 (2012).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. J. A. Ekaterinaris, “Implicit, high-resolution, compact schemes for gas dynamics and aeroacoustics,” J. Comput. Phys. 156 (2), 272–299 (1999).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. H. C. Yee, N. D. Sandham, and M. J. Djomehri, “Low-dissipative high-order shock-capturing methods using characteristic-based filters,” J. Comput. Phys. 150 (1), 199–238 (1999).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. H. C. Yee and B. Sjogreen, “Adaptive filtering and limiting in compact high order methods for multiscale gas dynamics and MHD systems,” Comput. Fluids 37 (5), 593–619 (2008).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. H. M. Darian, V. Esfahanian, and K. Hejranfar, “A shock-detecting sensor for filtering of high-order compact finite difference schemes,” J. Comput. Phys. 230 (3), 494–514 (2011).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. N. A. Adams and K. Shariff, “A high-resolution hybrid compact-ENO scheme for shock-turbulence interaction problems,” J. Comput. Phys. 127 (1), 27–51 (1996).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Pirozzoli, “Conservative hybrid compact-WENO schemes for shock-turbulence interaction,” J. Comput. Phys. 178 (1), 81–117 (2002).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Y.-X. Ren, M. Liu, and H. Zhang, “A characteristicwise hybrid compact-WENO scheme for solving hyperbolic conservation laws,” J. Comput. Phys. 192 (2), 365–386 (2003).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Y. Shen and G. Yang, “Hybrid finite compact-WENO schemes for shock calculation,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 53 (4), 531–560 (2007).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. M. D. Bragin and B. V. Rogov, “Minimal dissipation hybrid bicompact schemes for hyperbolic equations,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 56 (6), 947–961 (2016).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. V. V. Ostapenko, “Convergence of finite-difference schemes behind a shock front,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 37 (10), 1161–1172 (1997).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Casper and M. H. Carpenter, “Computational consideration for the simulation of shock-induced sound,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 19 (1), 813–828 (1998).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. V. V. Ostapenko, “Construction of high-order accurate shock-capturing finite-difference schemes for unsteady shock waves,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 40 (12), 1784–1800 (2000).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. O. A. Kovyrkina and V. V. Ostapenko, “On the convergence of shock-capturing difference schemes,” Dokl. Math. 82 (1), 599–603 (2010).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. O. A. Kovyrkina and V. V. Ostapenko, “On the practical accuracy of shock-capturing schemes,” Math. Models Comput. Simul. 6 (2), 183–191 (2014).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. N. A. Mikhailov, “On the order of convergence of WENO schemes behind the shock front,” Mat. Model. 27 (2), 129–138 (2015).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. O. A. Kovyrkina and V. V. Ostapenko, “On the construction of combined finite-difference schemes of high accuracy,” Dokl. Math. 97 (1), 77–81 (2018).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. M. E. Ladonkina, O. A. Neklyudova, V. V. Ostapenko, and V. F. Tishkin, “On the accuracy of the discontinuous Galerkin method in calculation of shock waves,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 58 (8), 1344–1353 (2018).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. O. A. Kovyrkina and V. V. Ostapenko, “Monotonicity and accuracy of the KABARE scheme as applied to computation of generalized solutions with shock waves,” Vychisl. Tekhnol. 23 (2), 37–54 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  30. V. V. Ostapenko, “Finite-difference approximation of the Hugoniot conditions on a shock front propagating with variable velocity,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 38 (8), 1299–1311 (1998).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. V. V. Rusanov, “Third-order accurate shock-capturing schemes for computing discontinuous solutions,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 180 (6), 1303–1305 (1968).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. B. V. Rogov and M. N. Mikhailovskaya, “Monotone high-order accurate compact scheme for quasilinear hyperbolic equations,” Dokl. Math. 84 (2), 747–752 (2011).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. B. V. Rogov and M. N. Mikhailovskaya, “Monotone high-accuracy compact running scheme for quasi-linear hyperbolic equations,” Math. Model. Comput. Simul. 4 (4), 375–384 (2012).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. M. N. Mikhailovskaya and B. V. Rogov, “Monotone compact running schemes for systems of hyperbolic equations,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 52 (4), 578–600 (2012).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. B. V. Rogov, “Dispersive and dissipative properties of the fully discrete bicompact schemes of the fourth order of spatial approximation for hyperbolic equations,” Appl. Numer. Math. 139, 136–155 (2019).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. C. A. Kennedy and M. H. Carpenter, “Diagonally implicit Runge–Kutta methods for stiff ODEs,” Appl. Numer. Math. 146, 221–244 (2019).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. B. V. Rogov, “High-order accurate monotone compact running scheme for multidimensional hyperbolic equations,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 53 (2), 205–214 (2013).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. A. V. Chikitkin, B. V. Rogov, and S. V. Utyuzhnikov, “High-order accurate monotone compact running scheme for multidimensional hyperbolic equations,” Appl. Numer. Math. 93, 150–163 (2015).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. A. V. Chikitkin and B. V. Rogov, “Family of central bicompact schemes with spectral resolution property for hyperbolic equations,” Appl. Numer. Math. 142, 151–170 (2019).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. A. A. Samarskii, The Theory of Difference Schemes (Nauka, Moscow, 1989; Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001).

  41. B. V. Rogov and M. D. Bragin, “On spectral-like resolution properties of fourth-order accurate symmetric bicompact schemes,” Dokl. Math. 96 (1), 140–144 (2017).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. V. P. Demidovich and I. A. Maron, Foundations of Numerical Methods (Fizmatgiz, Moscow, 1960) [in Russian].

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Z. Zlatev, I. Dimov, I. Farago, and A. Havasi, Richardson Extrapolation (De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. J. J. Stoker, Water Waves (Wiley, New York, 1957).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. R. Alexander, “Diagonally implicit Runge–Kutta methods for stiff ODE’s,” SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 14 (6), 1006–1021 (1977).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. M. D. Bragin and B. V. Rogov, Preprint No. 8, IPM RAN (Keldysh Inst. of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2019).

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to N.A. Khandeeva, who kindly placed numerical results based on Rusanov’s scheme at our disposal.

Funding

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant no. 16-11-10033.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Research Center Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 125047, Moscow, Russia

    M. D. Bragin & B. V. Rogov

  2. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (National Research University), 141700, Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow oblast, Russia

    M. D. Bragin & B. V. Rogov

  3. Lavrentyev Institute of Hydrodynamics, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia

    M. D. Bragin

Authors
  1. M. D. Bragin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. V. Rogov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to M. D. Bragin or B. V. Rogov.

Additional information

Translated by I. Ruzanova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bragin, M.D., Rogov, B.V. On the Accuracy of Bicompact Schemes as Applied to Computation of Unsteady Shock Waves. Comput. Math. and Math. Phys. 60, 864–878 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542520050061

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542520050061

Keywords:

Search

Navigation