Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:38:40.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the Performance of Limiters for Runge-Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2015

Hongqiang Zhu ,
Yue Cheng  and
Jianxian Qiu
Hongqiang Zhu*
Affiliation:
School of Natural Science, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
Yue Cheng*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210093, China Baidu, Inc. Baidu Campus, No. 10, Shangdi 10th Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100085, China
Jianxian Qiu*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China
*
URL: http://ccam.xmu.edu.cn/teacher/jxqiu, Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Discontinuities usually appear in solutions of nonlinear conservation laws even though the initial condition is smooth, which leads to great difficulty in computing these solutions numerically. The Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin (RKDG) methods are efficient methods for solving nonlinear conservation laws, which are high-order accurate and highly parallelizable, and can be easily used to handle complicated geometries and boundary conditions. An important component of RKDG methods for solving nonlinear conservation laws with strong discontinuities in the solution is a nonlinear limiter, which is applied to detect discontinuities and control spurious oscillations near such discontinuities. Many such limiters have been used in the literature on RKDG methods. A limiter contains two parts, first to identify the “troubled cells”, namely, those cells which might need the limiting procedure, then to replace the solution polynomials in those troubled cells by reconstructed polynomials which maintain the original cell averages (conservation). [SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 26 (2005), pp. 995–1013.] focused on discussing the first part of limiters. In this paper, focused on the second part, we will systematically investigate and compare a few different reconstruction strategies with an objective of obtaining the most efficient and reliable reconstruction strategy. This work can help with the choosing of right limiters so one can resolve sharper discontinuities, get better numerical solutions and save the computational cost.

Keywords

65M6065M9935L65Limiterdiscontinuous Galerkin methodhyperbolic conservation laws
Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 365 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Global-Science Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Biswas, R., Devine, K. and Flaherty, J., Parallel, adaptive finite element methods for conservation laws, Appl. Numer. Math., 14 (1994), pp. 255–283.Google Scholar
[2]Burbeau, A., Sagaut, P. and Bruneau, C., A problem-independent limiter for high-order Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods, J. Comput. Phys., 169 (2001), pp. 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Cockburn, B., Hou, S. and Shu, C.-W., The Runge-Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws IV: The multidimensional case, Math. Comput., 54 (1990), pp. 545–581.Google Scholar
[4]Cockburn, B., Lin, S.-Y. and Shu, C.-W., TVB Runge-Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws III: One dimensional systems, J. Comput. Phys., 84 (1989), pp. 90–113.Google Scholar
[5]Cockburn, B. and Shu, C.-W., TVB Runge-Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws II: General framework, Math. Comput., 52 (1989), pp. 411– 435.Google Scholar
[6]Cockburn, B. and Shu, C.-W., The Runge-Kutta local projection P1-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for scalar conservation laws, Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 25 (1991), pp. 337–361.Google Scholar
[7]Cockburn, B. and Shu, C.-W., The Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin method for conservation laws V: Multidimensional systems, J. Comput. Phys., 141 (1998), pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
[8]Cockburn, B. and Shu, C.-W., Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods for convection-dominated problems, J. Sci. Comput., 16 (2001), pp. 173–261.Google Scholar
[9]Jiang, G. and Shu, C.-W., Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 126 (1996), pp. 202–228.Google Scholar
[10]Krivodonova, L., Limiters for high-order discontinuous Galerkin methods, J. Comput. Phys., 226 (2007), pp. 879–896.Google Scholar
[11]Krivodonova, L., Xin, J., Remacle, J.-F., Chevaugeon, N. and Flaherty, J., Shock detection and limiting with discontinuous Galerkin methods for hyperbolic conservation laws, Appl. Numer. Math., 48 (2004), pp. 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Lax, P., Weak solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic equations and their numerical computation, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 7 (1954), pp. 159–193.Google Scholar
[13]Qiu, J. and Shu, C.-W., A comparison of troubled-cell indicators for Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods using weighted essentially nonosillatory limiters, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 27 (2005), pp. 995–1013.Google Scholar
[14]Qiu, J. and Shu, C.-W., Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin method using WENO limiters, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 26 (2005), pp. 907–929.Google Scholar
[15]Reed, W. and Hill, T., Triangular mesh methods for neutron transport equation, Technical report LA-UR-73-479, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 1973.Google Scholar
[16]Rider, W. and Margolin, L., Simple modifications of monotonicity-preserving limiters, J. Comput. Phys., 174 (2001), pp. 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Shu, C.-W., TVB uniformly high-order schemes for conservation laws, Math. Comput., 49 (1987), pp. 105–121.Google Scholar
[18]Shu, C.-W. and Osher, S., Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 77 (1988), pp. 439–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Shu, C.-W. and Osher, S., Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes II, J. Comput. Phys., 83 (1989), pp. 32–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Suresh, A. and Huynh, H., Accurate monotonicity-preserving schemes with Runge-Kutta time stepping, J. Comput. Phys., 136 (1997), pp. 83–99.Google Scholar
[21]Sweby, P. K., High resolution schemes using flux limiters for hyperbolic conservation laws, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 21 (1984), pp. 995–1011.Google Scholar
[22]Wang, C., Zhang, X., Shu, C.-W. and Ning, J., Robust high order discontinuous Galerkin schemes for two-dimensional gaseous detonations, J. Comput. Phys., 231 (2012), pp. 653–665.Google Scholar
[23]Woodward, P. and Colella, P., The numerical simulation of two-dimensional fluid flow with strong shocks, J. Comput. Phys., 54 (1984), pp. 115–173.Google Scholar
[24]Zhong, X. and Shu, C.-W., A simple weighted essentially nonoscillatory limiter for Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods, J. Comput. Phys., 232 (2013), pp. 397–415.Google Scholar
[25]Zhu, H. and Qiu, J., Adaptive Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods using different indicators: One-dimensional case, J. Comput. Phys., 228 (2009), pp. 6957–6976.Google Scholar