FVM

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/320076983
Short Course on Finite Volume Methods (FVM)
Presentation · September 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33795.40483
CITATIONS READS
0 244
1 author:
Florian De Vuyst
Université de Technologie de Compiègne
119 PUBLICATIONS 533 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Lagrange-Flux schemes View project
Reduced-order modeling View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Florian De Vuyst on 28 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Discretization Methods in CFD
Florian De Vuyst1
email: fdevuyst@utc.fr
1 LMAC, UTC, Compiègne, France
Short Course at ECCOMAS MSF 2017, UL FGG Ljubljana – 17-19 Sep 2017
F. De Vuyst – Short Course ECCOMAS MSF 2017 HPC Discretization Methodes in CFD – Intro 1/10
Scope of the Short Course
I This short course will address more Finite Volume Methods

(FVM) than Finite Element Methods (FEM)
but ...
I There are connections between FVM and FEM. Discontinuous
Galerkin (DG) methods for example can be seen as FVM or
FEM methods.
I Today, FVM and FEM share most of the same approximation
tools.
Equations of interest, FEM
System of conservation laws :
∂t u + ∇ · f (u, ∇u) = g, t ∈ [0, T ], x ∈ Ωh .
Finite Element Method (FEM) :

I Triangulation T h of Ωh (triangles K for example)
I FE = (K, P k , Σ), Σ set of d.o.f.
I Space of test functions V h , for example
V h = {v h ∈ C 0 (Ω), v|K
h
∈ P 1 (K)}.
I Space of trial functions U h , unknown function uh ∈ U h

I Discrete problem (VF) : find uh ∈ U h such that
d
Z Z Z Z
h h h h h h h h h h h
u v dx+ f (u , ∇u )·ν v dσ− f (u , ∇u )·∇v dx = gv dx ∀v ∈V .
dt Ωh ∂Ωh Ωh Ωh
Finite Volume Method (FVM)
I At the beginning, this is a FEM using the FE (K, P 0 , Σ),

Σ={Center of gravity of K}.
I Using the “test function” v h = 1(x∈K) (x) + integration by
parts, we get
Z Z Z
d h h h
u (., t) dx + f (u (., t), ∇u (., t)) · ν dσ = g dx.
dt K ∂K K
I We use the space U h of trial functions uh that are piecewise

constant per cell K, and then define the unknown
Z
h 1
uK (t) = uh (., t) dx.
|K| K
duhK (t)
Z Z
1 h h 1
+ f (u (., t), ∇u (., t)) · ν dσ = g dx.
dt |K| ∂K |K| K
Finite Volume Methods (2)
Introducing the edges A of the mesh T h , we can write
duhK (t)
Z Z
1 X 1
+ f (uh (., t), ∇uh (., t)) · νA dσ = g dx.
dt |K| A |K| K
A∈∂K
The main object of FVM is the numerical flux

Z
Φ(K, L) = f (uh (., t), ∇uh (., t)) · νA dσ.
A:=K∩L
I It is expected to have continuous numerical fluxes through

edges
I Φ(K, L) = −Φ(L, K) ⇒ FVM are conservative methods.
Higher order FVM
I Reconstruction techniques : MUSCL reconstruction [van Leer

70’] : use of a local stencil to reconstruct piecewise-polynomial
solutions ;
I Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods : higher order test
functions, use of P n polynomials on each K, still numerical
fluxes to compute
I NB : one can mix (reconstruction+DG) (P n -P m ) techniques
([K.D. Munz, M. Dumbser])
A remark on FEM
Let’s start again with the conservation law
∂t u + ∇ · f (u) = 0, x ∈ Ω, t ∈ [0, T ].
Consider a spatial partition-of-unity (PU) {ωk (x)}k=1,...,N on Ω

s.t. :
1. ωk ≥ 0 ;
2. each ωk is compactly supported ;
3. each ωk is a rather smooth function (at least ∇ωk exists)
A remark on FEM (2)
Let us consider ωk as a test function :

Z Z Z
d
uωk dx+ f (u)·ν ωk dσ− f (u)·∇ωk dx = 0.
dt supp(ωk ) ∂supp(ωk ) |{z} supp(ωk )
=0
Remember that {ωk }k is a partition of unity :

N
X N
X
ω` = 1, ∇ω` = 0,
`=1 `=1
then we can write

Z XZ
d
uωk dx + f (u) · (ωk ∇ω` − ω` ∇ωk ) dx = 0.
dt ωk supp(ωk )∩supp(ω` ) | {z }
`6=k
:=Akl
[Kunish et al., FVPM Finite-Volume Particle Method]
A remark on FEM (3)
I P1 hat Lagrange FE functions are a natural partition-of-unity ;

I We have achieved a conservative variational formulation
Z
d X
uωk dx + Φk` = 0
dt ωk
`6=k
with
Z
Φk` = f (u) · (∇ω` ωk − ω` ∇ωk ) dx
supp(ωk )∩supp(ω` )
such that
Φk` = −Φ`k .
As a conclusion, some FEM can be set up as (generalized,
diffuse) FVM.
There is room for innovative computational methods about this ...
I: various (conservative) remapping strategies
II: Lagrange-flux schemes
III: entropy property (1D analysis)
IV: Stable and low-diffusive advection schemes for interface capturing
Lagrange-flux Eulerian schemes

and the entropy property for compressible hydrodynamics
Florian De Vuyst
LMAC Laboratory,
Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), France
Joint work with Thibault Gasc, Renaud Motte,
Mathieu Peybernes and Raphaël Poncet (CEA, CGG, Maison de la Simulation)
ECCOMAS MSF 2017 short courses – September 17-19, 2017
F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 1/65

Outline
1. Lagrangian remapping schemes: different remapping variants
2. Lagrange-Flux schemes
3. The entropy property (1D analysis)
4. Stable and low-diffusive advection schemes for interface

capturing

Origin of work
Improve the computation performance of legacy Lagrange-remap schemes
vs
Figure: Dataflow diagram: Lagrange-remap scheme (left) vs
Lagrange-flux scheme (right) [Poncet et al. 2016, Thibault Gasc PhD
Thesis 2016]

Material hydrodynamics, Legacy Lagrange+remap solvers,

staggered variables (Raviart-Thomas-like FE)
Figure: Lagrange evolution, then remap on the Eulerian grid

Requirements
Design a Finite Volume (FV) Eulerian scheme:
I close to regular Lagrange-remap schemes

I locally conservative (for mass, momentum and total energy)
I physically compatible (entropy, geometric conservation law
GCL)
I based on a Lagrangian solver (for easier multiphysics
coupling)
I at least second-order accurate
I that does not involve heavy geometric computations
I suitable for multicore processors (SIMD)
I extensible to compressible multimaterial flows
I reasonably easily extensible to 3D computations

Notations
K=K Generic cell on the Eulerian mesh M h
K n+1,L = K Deformed cell K on the Lagrangian mesh M h,n+1,L
K n+1/2,L = K Deformed cell K on the Lagrangian mesh M h,n+1/2,L
A=A Generic edge on the Eulerian mesh M h

An+1,L = A Edge on Lagrangian mesh M h,n+1,L
An+1/2,L = A Edge on Lagrangian mesh M h,n+1/2,L
n
UK = UK Value of UK at time n on the Eulerian mesh M h
n+1,L
UK = UK Value of UK at time (n + 1) on M h,n+1,L
n+1/2,L
UK = UK Value of UK at time (n + /2) on M h,n+1/2,L

UK = (U` )K `
= (ρ, ρu, ρE)K
Two-dimensional compressible Euler equations
System of nonlinear equations:
∂t U` + ∇ · (uU` ) + ∇ · π` = 0, ` = ρ, ρu1 , ρu2 , ρE,
U = (ρ, ρu, ρE)T , u = (ui )i ,

πρ = ~0,
πρu1 = (p, 0),
πρu2 = (0, p),
πρE = pu,
|u|2
p = (γ − 1)ρe, E =e+ .
2

Starting point: Lagrange step

Integrating the equations over a moving Lagrangian cell:
Z Z
d
U` dx = {∂t U` + ∇ · (u U` )} dx
dt Vt ∂Vt
Z
= − π` · ν dσ.
∂Vt
At discrete level:
X
|K| (U` )K = |K| (U` )K − ∆t |A| πA · νA .
A⊂∂K
Rem: requires velocity values defined at mesh nodes for a well-posed Lagrangian
transformation (cf GLACE [Després-Mazeran] or EUCCHLYD [Maire et al.]
cell-centered Lagrangian solvers)

Remapping step
= conservative projection of conservative quantities on piecewise

constant functions, in the L2 sense:
Z
1
UK = I U (x) dx
|K| K
1 1(x)
= I U (x), p p .
|K| L2
|K|
Requires:
I MUSCL reconstruction on the Lagrangian mesh (.)
I mesh intersection betweenM h and M h,n+1,L .
NB: ∂t U = 0 in this step!

Historical geometric remapping
Cumulated flux through each edge:

Geometric remapping: different cases
=⇒ Non-SIMD algorithm, requires synchronization for parallel

computing, hard in 3D, especially for dual staggered cells...

Remapping: variant approach nb 1
Remapping: solution of ∂t U = 0 on a backward Lagrangian mesh

(at velocity −u):
∂t U = ∂t U +∇ · (−uU ) + ∇ · (uU ) = 0.

Remapping: backward Lagrangian evolution
Z Z
d
U dx = ∂t U +∇ · (−uU ) dx
dt Vt Vt |{z}
=0
Z Z
= − ∇ · (uU ) dx = − u · νt U dσ
Vt ∂Vt
over a time step ∆t.

Second-order accurate time discretization:
X
|K|UK = |K| UK − ∆t |A| uA · νA UA .
A∈∂K
⇒ we get convective fluxes on the intermediate mesh M h,n+1/2,L .

Remapping algorithm: variant approach nb 1
1. MUSCL gradient reconstructions on Lagrangian cells K

2. Edge intersections A with cells K
3. Quadrature formulas
NB: still requires geometric intersection computations

Checking: order of consistency of the fluxes in 1D
Mass flux:
n+1/2 n+1/2,L n+1/2,L
(Φρ )j+1/2 = [ρ(xj+1/2 )]n+1,L uj+1/2 ,
n+1/2,L ∆t n+1/2,L
where xj+1/2 = xj+1/2 + 2 uj+1/2 .
n+1 n+1/2
ρ(x + ∆t/2u, t )u(x + ∆t/2, t )=
∆t ∆t ∆t ∆t

n+1/2 n+1/2 2 n+1/2
= ρ(x + u, t )+ u∂t ρ(x + u, t ) + O(∆t ) u(x + u, t )
2 2 2 2
n+1/2 ∆t n+1/2 ∆t n+1/2 2
= ρu(x, t )+ u∂x (ρu)(x, t )− u∂x (ρu)(x, t ) + O(∆t )
2 2
n+1/2 2
= ρu(x, t ) + O(∆t ).
⇒ Second-order accuracy for the mass flux.

Checking: order of consistency of the fluxes (2)
Momentum flux:
n+1/2 n+1/2,L n+1/2,L n+1/2,L
(Φρu )j+1/2 = [(ρu)(xj+1/2 )]n+1,L uj+1/2 + pj+1/2 .
n+1 n+1/2 n+1/2

(ρu)(x + ∆t/2u, t )u(x + ∆t/2, t ) + p(x + ∆t/2, t ) =
∆t ∆t ∆t ∆t

n+1/2 n+1/2 2 n+1/2
= (ρu)(x + u, t )+ u∂t (ρu)(x + u, t ) + O(∆t ) u(x + u, t )
2 2 2 2
∆t n+1/2
+ p(x + u, t )
2
2 n+1/2 ∆t 2 n+1/2 ∆t 2 n+1/2 2
= (ρu + p)(x, t )+ u∂x (ρu + p)(x, t )− u∂x (ρu + p)(x, t ) + O(∆t )
2 2
2 n+1/2 2
= (ρu + p)(x, t ) + O(∆t ).
Ok’kay !

Variant approach nb 2 (algebraic remapping)
Reminder on variant nb 1: backward Lagrangian evolution
∂t U = ∂t U +∇ · (−uU ) + ∇ · (uU ) = 0.
By an operator splitting approach, one successively solves:

i) ∂t U +∇ · (−uU ) = 0 (backward, Lagrange description);
ii) ∂t U +∇ · (+uU ) = 0 (forward, Euler description).
Simplified notation: in what follows,
v(x, t) = u(x, t)
denotes the velocity field of the mesh deformation between tn and

tn+1
Variant algorithm nb 2, algebraic remapping (2)
i) Step ∂t U +∇ · (−vU ) = 0 in Lagrange description:
|K|UK = |K|UK .
ii) Step ∂t U +∇ · (vU ) = 0 in Euler description:
d X
|K| UK = − |A|v A · νA UA on (tn , tn+1 ].
dt
A⊂∂K
I creates convective fluxes on the Eulerian mesh!

I no geometric intersections

Summary of Lagrange+remap, variant remapping nb 2

i) Lagrangian step
X
|K| (U` )K = |K| (U` )K − ∆t |A| (π` )A · νA .
A⊂∂K
ii) Lagrange step ∂t U +∇ · (−vU ) = 0 |K|UK = |K|UK .

iii) Euler step ∂t U +∇ · (+vU ) = 0:
X
|K|UK ← |K|UK − ∆t |A|vA · νA UA .
A⊂∂K
⇒ Finite volume scheme

∆t X ∆t X
(U` )K ← (U` )K − |A|vA · νA (U` )A − |A| (π` )A · νA .
|K| A⊂∂K
|K|
A⊂∂K
| {z } | {z }
Eulerian convective fluxes pressure-type terms on the mesh (n+1/2,L)

Finite Volume Formulation
∆tn X
(U` )n+1
K = (U` )nK − |A| Φn,n+1
`,A
|K|
A⊂∂K
with Φn,n+1
`,A in the form
|A|
Φn,n+1
`,A = (U` )A (v · ν)A + (π` )A · νA .
|A|

Different options for computing the convective fluxes

i) Direct computation (one-pass)
I second-order accurate numerical fluxes
I requires corner fluxes [Leveque 1996], [Braeunig 2015].
ii) Multi-step scheme, e.g. Runge-Kutta 2 (RK2)
I Predictor step
X
UK ? = UK − ∆tn n
|A|vA · νA UA .
A ⊂∂K
I Corrector step
∆tn X
UK n+1 = UK − n n+1
UA ? · νA

|A| vA UA + vA
2
A ⊂∂K
(does not require corner fluxes).

Convective step approach by alternating directions (AD)
i) ∂t U +∇ · (−vU ) = 0 (Lagrange description) ;

ii) ∂t U +∇ · ((v · e1 )e1 U ) = 0 (Euler description) ;
iii) ∂t U +∇ · ((v · e2 )e2 U ) = 0 (Euler description) ;
Similar to corrective “enlargement techniques’ in the codes for AD

splitting remapping.

Reminder: Lagrange-remap schemes with algebraic

remapping
∆t X ∆t X
(U` )K ← (U` )K − |A| vA · νA (U` )A − |A| (π` )A · νA
|K| |K|
A⊂∂K A⊂∂K
| {z } | {z }
Convective Eulerian fluxes Pressure-type fluxes
on Lagrangian edges

Achieving a semi-discretized in space scheme
By making ∆t → 0, we get the method of lines
d(U` )K 1 X 1 X
=− |A| uA · νA (U` )A − |A| (π` )A · νA .
dt |K| |K|
A⊂∂K A⊂∂K
NB: geometric elements of the Eulerian mesh only
⇒ We now have freedom for applying any time discretization

schemes
⇒ Family of Lagrange-flux schemes

Lagrange-flux schemes
= Finite Volumes schemes in the form

dUK 1 X
=− |A| ΦA
dt |K|
A⊂∂K
with a numerical flux ΦA in the form
(Φ` )A = (U` )upw

A (uA · νA ) + (π` )A · νA . (1)
[De Vuyst et al., OGST, 2016]

Example in 1D, pure explicit first-order scheme
1. Use of a Riemann Lagrangian solver (acoustic, HLL ...)

ρR pL + ρL pR ρL ρR
p? = − max(cL , cR ) (uR − uL ),
ρL + ρR ρL + ρR
ρL uL + ρR uR 1 pR − pL
u? = − .
ρL + ρR ρL + ρR max(cL , cR )
2. Numerical flux:
(Φnj+1/2 )` = (U` )upw u?j+1/2 + (π` )?j+1/2
((πρu )j+1/2 = p?j+1/2 , (πρu )j+1/2 = (p? u? )j+1/2 ).

NB: similarity with AUSM+, VFRoe fluxes, also recent works by [Llor,
Vazquez-Gonzalez 2016]

Comparison of results between Lagrange-flux and

staggered Lagrange-remap
Triple point reference test case (monofluid)

Comparison of results between Lagrange-flux ans staggered

Lagrange-remap
Case with high density ratios (dense plate)
Figure: Comparisons of results between Lagrange-flux (L) vs MYR

staggered Lagrange+remap (R). Density field, colored log-scale.

“Well-balanced” extension of Lagrange-flux schemes for systems with

source terms. Example on Saint-Venant equations with dry-wet transition
management (see Youtube video)


Entropy property
Study framework: one-dimensional problem, time-continuous

semi-discrete scheme
dUj 1
=− Φj+1/2 − Φj−1/2
dt |Ij |
with
upw
Φj+1/2 = Uj+1/2 u?j+1/2 + (0, p?j+1/2 , qj+1/2
?
)T .
We look for interface states in the form
upw
Uj+1/2 = Uj,+ 1(u?j+1/2 ≥0) + Uj+1,− 1(u?j+1/2 <0) .

Entropy property
Law of Thermodynamics:
T ds = de + pdτ,
expected for a reversible process, means expected for smooth

solution.
→ we have to fulfil a new conservation law
∂t (ρs) + ∇ · (ρus) = 0
for smooth solutions. More generally, we expect that
∂t (ρs) + ∇ · (ρus) ≤ 0
in a weak sense (in the sense of distributions D 0 ).

Construction
Half-cell entropy balances (similar approach in [Braeunig, JCP

2016]).
Figure: Half-cell entropy balances

Lagrangian evolution
For the half-cell (j, +):
dhj,+ dmj,+ d(hj,+ ρj,+ )

= u?j+1/2 − uj , = = 0,
dt dt dt
duj,+ dEj,+
mj,+ = − p?j+1/2 − pj , mj,+ ?
= − qj+1/2 − qj
dt dt
with qj = (pu)j . Balance of kinetic energy:
d(uj,+ )2 /2
mj,+ = −uj,+ p?j+1/2 − pj
dt

Lagrangian evolution (2)
⇒ Balance of internal energy:

dej,+ ?
mj,+ + qj+1/2 − qj − uj,+ p?j+1/2 − pj = 0.
dt
We would like an equation in the form
dej,+
mj,+ + p̃j,+ u?j+1/2 − uj = 0,
dt
so we have the compatibility relation

p̃j,+ u?j+1/2 − uj + uj,+ p?j+1/2 − pj = qj+1/2
?
− qj .

Lagrangian evolution (3)
Compatibility relations of the two half-cells (j, +) and (j + 1, −) :

p̃j,+ u?j+1/2 − uj + uj p?j+1/2 − pj = qj+1/2 ?
− qj ,

p̃j+1,− uj+1 − u?j+1/2 + uj+1 pj+1 − p?j+1/2 = qj+1 − qj+1/2 ?
.
?
By eliminating qj+1/2 , one finds the new compatibility relation (?)

p̃j,+ u?j+1/2 − uj + p̃j+1,− uj+1 − u?j+1/2 = p?j+1/2 (uj+1 − uj )
NB: interpret it in “p dV ” terms! , i.e. compatibility of summation of

pressure force work.

Theoretical result
Theorem - Let us consider the centered interface velocity
1
u?j+1/2 = (uj + uj+1 )
2
and the half-cell pressure
pj + p?j+1/2
−α (ρc)j u?j+1/2 − uj − −β ρj |u?j+1/2 −uj | u?j+1/2 − uj −

p̃j,+ =
2
(α, β > 0). Then the compatiblity relation (?) gives
1
p?j+1/2 = (p̃j,+ + p̃j+1,− ) . (2)
2
We get the half-cell entropy production
dej,+ pj + p?j+1/2 ?
mj,+ + (uj+1/2 − uj ) = πj,+ ,
dt 2
πj,+ = α (ρc)j [(u?j+1/2 − uj )− ]2 + β ρj |u?j+1/2 − uj | [(u?j+1/2 − uj )− ]2 ≥ 0.

Semi-discrete entropy inequality and associated numerical

entropy flux
For a convex mathematical entropy function η = η(U ), we have
d 1
η(Uj ) + Ψj+1/2 − Ψj−1/2 ≤ 0
dt |Ij |
with
Ψj+1/2 = η(Uj,+ ) (u?j+1/2 )+ + η(Uj+1,− ) (u?j+1/2 )− .

p
Ex: perfect gas: η = −ρ log ργ .

Numerical example on the Sod shock tube problem
Figure: Sod’s 1D shock tube problem discrete solution at time T = 0.23.

Number of cells: 400.
Computation of numerical entropy dissipation (here full

discretized):
∆tn n
Πn,n+1
j = η(Ujn+1 ) − η(Ujn ) + Ψj+1/2 − Ψnj−1/2
h

Numerical example of Sod’s shock tube problem (2)
Figure: Sod’s 1D shock tube problem discrete solution at time T = 0.23.

Number of cells: 4000.
Observation: the “entropy dissipation” is observe be negative,

except at the top of the rarefaction fan, with a very slight defect
(positive).
[De Vuyst, Proc. of FVCA 8, Lille France, June 2017]

IV: Stable and low-diffusive advection schemes

for interface capturing

Equations
Scope: multimaterial flows, immiscible material.

Ex: Two-fluid immiscible fluid compressible Euler equations:
∂t ρ + ∇ · (ρu) = 0,
∂t (ρu) + ∇ · (ρu ⊗ u) + ∇p = 0,
∂t (ρE) + ∇ · ((ρE + p)u) = 0,
∂t (ρy) + ∇ · (ρyu) = 0 → ∂t y + u · ∇y = 0.
with y(x, t) ∈ {0, 1} a mass fraction.
Goal: find a low-diffusive advection scheme for solving Dt y = 0,

while guaranteeing partial masses conservation.
Very short review of slope-limitig approaches

Ex: 1D pure advection pure with the superbee slope limiter:
I smearing over about 10 points (at 10−10 numerical precision);

I the smearing the stronger for lower Courant numbers;
I but smearing bounded in time
Improvements: limited downwind [Després-Lagoutière] and
Ultrabee [Roe]: one-point smearing.
State of the art
I [Després-Lagoutière et co-authors] : one-point smearing in 1D

I [Labourasse et al.] VOFIRE, limited downwind extension to
unstructured meshes.
I VOFIRE improvements: [Tran], [Hoch et al, Xavier Roynard report].
I [Dellacherie et al.] AMR-extension to VOFIRE approach
NB: some interface artifacts are reported in some cases (zigzag
instability, corner effects, ...).

Examples of artifacts in 2D (cartesian mesh, direction by

direction superbee limiter)
Figure: Pure translation, periodic BC, u = (1, 1). Initial data (L) vs
discrete solution after 3 rounds
(already observed in [Després, Lagoutière 2001] using limited
downwind by splitted AD)
Example of artifact in 2D (superbee limiter direction by

direction)
Figure: Initial disk subject to a rigid body rotation after few revolutions.

Example of artifact in 2D (superbee limiter, direction by

direction)
Figure: Theoretically steady linear interface (L) with uniform transport at

constant velocity u = (2, 1). Numerical steady solution (R)

Explanation of the origin of the instabilities
(a) (b)
Figure: Compressive direction-by-direction limiters create a bias in the
evaluation of the discrete gradient direction, due to 1D nonlinearities

Requirements for a low-diffusive advection solver
I has to be compressive in the normal direction to the interface

I has to be second-order accurate in longitudinal directions
I has to accurate for the estimation of the gradient direction
→ Second-order approach using Multidimensional Limiting Process
(MLP).
MLP : [Kuzmin and Turek 2003], [Yoon and Kim 2006], [Park and Kim 2010], ...

Low diffusive approach

Study on the pure transport equation
∂t y + ∇ · (uy) = 0,
with u smooth velocity field, ∇ · u = 0. Cartesian mesh.
Figure: Geometric elements for MLP on a cartesian grid

Low diffusive approach (2)

i) Predictor step for gradient direction evaluation
Z Z
1 1
(∇y)ij ≈ ∇y(x, y)dx dy = y ν dσ.
|Kij | Kij |Kij | ∂Kij
Simpson’s formula:
Z
h 2h h
y dy ≈ yi+1/2,j+1 + yi+1/2,j + yi+1/2,j−1
Ai+1/2,j 6 3 6
where
yij + yi+1,j
yi+1/2,j =
.
2
⇒ We get the 8-point FD/FV formula:
1 (y − yi−1,j+1 ) + 1 1 (y
!
h 1 12 i+1,j+1 3
(yi+1,j − yi−1,j ) + 12 i+1,j−1 − yi−1,j−1 )
(∇ y)i,j ≈ 1 (y
h 12 i+1,j+1 − yi+1,j−1 ) + 1
3
1 (y
(yi,j+1 − yi,j−1 ) + 12 i−1,j+1 − yi−1,j−1 )

Low-diffusive approach (3)

ii) Corrector step of gradient limitation
For each cell Ki,j , we consider a linear approximation:

I h y(x) = yi,j + φi,j (∇h y)i,j (x − xi,j ), φi,j ≥ 0.
Corner values are computed
ŷi+1/2,j+1/2 = yi,j + (∇h y)i,j (xi+1/2,j+1/2 − xi,j )
Local extrema are computed at location xi+1/2,j+1/2 :
ȳi+1/2,j+1/2 = max(yi,j , yi+1,j , yi,j+1 , yi+1,j+1 ),
y i+1/2,j+1/2 = min(yi,j , yi+1,j , yi,j+1 , yi+1,j+1 ).
We ask
y i+1/2,j+1/2 ≤ I h y(xi+1/2,j+1/2 ) ≤ ȳi+1/2,j+1/2 ,
One finds φi+1/2,j+1/2 . Considering all corners, we get the limitation coefficient
φi,j = min(φi+1/2,j+1/2 , φi+1/2,j−1/2 , φi−1/2,j+1/2 , φi−1/2,j−1/2 ) ∈ [0, 1].

Application in 2D using hyperbee-type + MLP limiting

process
The MLP approach is observed to erase most of the artifacts.
Figure: Former steady interface case, uniform transport aat velocity

u = (2, 1). Convergence on respective grids 322 , 642 and 5122 .

Validation on the reference advection case by Kothe-Rider

Grid 3002
(t=0) (t=3)
(t=6) (t=9)
(t=12)

Validation on the reference advection case by Kothe-Rider

Grid 5002
(t=0) (t=3)
(t=6) (t=9)
(t=12)

Extension to multimaterial hydrodynamics: POC

I Isobaric-isthermal closure for mixed cells
I MUSCL + usual slope limiters on variables p, T , u, yk
I Computation of interface pressure pA and temperature TA at
edge A (upwind)
I Computation of (ρk )A = ρk (pA , TA )
I Computation of (yk )A by MLP
P
I τA = k (yk )A (τk )A
I eA = eA (((yk )A )k , TA )
I Computation of mass flux and other convective fluxes
(Φρ )A = ρA (v · ν)A
(Φρyk )A = (yk )A (Φρ )A .

Some recent numerical results
Figure: Computation on the reference triple point case + low-diffusive

MLP approach

Figure: Triple point case, mesh 2048x878, zoom-in of the vortex zone

Concluding remarks on the low-diffusive approach
I Advection scheme (reasonably) low-diffusive, without artifact

using RK2 scheme
I Numerical evidence of the accuracy on the Kothe-Rider case
I Idea: gradient prediction + multidimensional MUSCL gradient
reconstruction + MLP
I Extension to multimaterial: proof of concept OK
I Should be applicable to an arbitrary number of materials

General conclusions. As a summary:
I Derivation of variants conservative remapping approaches

I Derivation of the so-called Lagrange-flux schemes
I A first result of entropy property
I Lot of flexibility in the Lagrange-flux schemes
I Proof of concept for multimaterial flows
I A proposal of artifact-free low-diffusive interface capturing
advection scheme

Available articles on Lagrange-flux schemes
F. De Vuyst, T. Gasc, R. Motte, M. Peybernes, R. Poncet, Lagrange-Flux

Schemes : Reformulating Second-Order Accurate Lagrange-Remap Schemes for
Better Node-Based HPC Performance, Oil and Gas Science and Technology
journal (OGST), Special issue for the SIMRACE 2015 Conference, vol 71, num
6, online (2016).
R. Poncet, M. Peybernes, T. Gasc and F. De Vuyst, Performance modeling of a
compressible hydrodnamics solver on multicore CPUs, in IOS Press Ebook :
Volume 27 : Parallel Computing : on the road to Exascale, Series Advances in
parallel computing, G.R. Joubert et al. Eds, pp. 449458 (2016). ISBN:
978-1-61499-620-0
T. Gasc, F. De Vuyst, M. Peybernes, R. Poncet, R. Motte, Building a more
efficient Lagrange-remap scheme thanks to performance modeling, Proc. of the
ECCOMAS Congress 2016, VII Eur. Congress on Comp. Meth. in Appl. Sci. and
Eng., Crete, 1191–1204 (2016). ISBN: 978-618-82844-0-1

Available articles on Lagrange-flux schemes
F. De Vuyst, T. Gasc, R. Motte, M. Peybernes, R. Poncet, Lagrange-Flux

Eulerian schemes for compressible multimaterial flows, Proc. of the ECCOMAS
Congress 2016, VII Eur. Congress on Comp. Meth. in Appl. Sci. and Eng., Crete,
1165–1178 (2016). ISBN: 978-618-82844-0-1
F. De Vuyst, M. Béchereau, T. Gasc, R. Motte, M. Peybernes, R. Poncet, Stable
and accurate low-diffusive interface capturing advection schemes, Preprint ArXiv
arXiv:1605.07091 (2016).
F. De Vuyst, Lagrange-flux schemes and the entropy property, to appear in Proc.
of to FVCA 8 Conference, Lille, France, June 2017 (2017).

Question break
View publication stats F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 65/65

FVM

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FVM

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Short Course on Finite Volume Methods (FVM)

Presentation · September 2017

Lagrange-Flux schemes View project

Reduced-order modeling View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 LMAC, UTC, Compiègne, France

I This short course will address more Finite Volume Methods

∂t u + ∇ · f (u, ∇u) = g, t ∈ [0, T ], x ∈ Ωh .

Finite Element Method (FEM) :

I Space of trial functions U h , unknown function uh ∈ U h

I At the beginning, this is a FEM using the FE (K, P 0 , Σ),

I We use the space U h of trial functions uh that are piecewise

Introducing the edges A of the mesh T h , we can write

The main object of FVM is the numerical flux

I It is expected to have continuous numerical fluxes through

I Reconstruction techniques : MUSCL reconstruction [van Leer

Let’s start again with the conservation law

Consider a spatial partition-of-unity (PU) {ωk (x)}k=1,...,N on Ω

Let us consider ωk as a test function :

Remember that {ωk }k is a partition of unity :

then we can write

[Kunish et al., FVPM Finite-Volume Particle Method]

I P1 hat Lagrange FE functions are a natural partition-of-unity ;

Lagrange-flux Eulerian schemes

ECCOMAS MSF 2017 short courses – September 17-19, 2017

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 1/65

1. Lagrangian remapping schemes: different remapping variants

3. The entropy property (1D analysis)

4. Stable and low-diffusive advection schemes for interface

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 2/65

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 3/65

Material hydrodynamics, Legacy Lagrange+remap solvers,

Figure: Lagrange evolution, then remap on the Eulerian grid

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 4/65

I close to regular Lagrange-remap schemes

I: various (conservative) remapping strategies

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 6/65

A=A Generic edge on the Eulerian mesh M h

Two-dimensional compressible Euler equations

System of nonlinear equations:

∂t U` + ∇ · (uU` ) + ∇ · π` = 0, ` = ρ, ρu1 , ρu2 , ρE,

U = (ρ, ρu, ρE)T , u = (ui )i ,

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 8/65

Starting point: Lagrange step

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 9/65

= conservative projection of conservative quantities on piecewise

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 10/65

Historical geometric remapping

Cumulated flux through each edge:

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 11/65

Geometric remapping: different cases

=⇒ Non-SIMD algorithm, requires synchronization for parallel

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 12/65

Remapping: variant approach nb 1

Remapping: solution of ∂t U = 0 on a backward Lagrangian mesh

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 13/65

Remapping: backward Lagrangian evolution

over a time step ∆t.

⇒ we get convective fluxes on the intermediate mesh M h,n+1/2,L .

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 14/65

Remapping algorithm: variant approach nb 1

1. MUSCL gradient reconstructions on Lagrangian cells K

F. De Vuyst Lagrange-flux schemes 15/65