See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23623656

Flux Vector Splitting for the Euler Equations

Conference Paper in Lecture Notes in Physics January 1982

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-11948-5_66 Source: NTRS

CITATIONS READS

1,146 3,004

1 author:

Bram van Leer

University of Michigan
186 PUBLICATIONS 13,160 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

For my final incomplete project, please see my wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_van_Leer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bram van Leer on 07 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FLUX-VECTOR SPLITTING FOR THE EULER EQUATIONS

Bram van Leer

Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering

and

Leiden State University, Leiden, The Netherlands

Abstract

The flux vector in the Euler equations of compressible flow, with the

ideal-gas law inserted, is split, in the simplest possible way, in a

continuously differentiable forward-flux vector and backward~flux vector. The

first-order upwind scheme based on these fluxes produces steady shock profiles

wi th a t mos t two zones. A comparison with th split fluxes of Steger and

Warming, which are not differentiable in aonlc and stagnation points, shows

the advantage of the present fluxes.

Research was supported under NASA Contract No. NASl-15810 while the author was
in residence at IeASE, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665.
Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Fluid Dynamics, Aachen, Germany, June 28 - July 2, 1982.
 Introduction

To approximate a hyperbolic system of conservation laws wt + {f(w)}x = O

I
with so-called upwind differences, we must first establish which way the wind

blows. More precisely, we must determine in which direction each of a variety

of signals moves through the computational grid. For this purpose, a physlcal

model of the interaction between computational cells is needed; at present two

such models are in use.

In one model neighboring cells interact through discrete, finite-

amplitude waves. The nature, propagation speed and amplitude oE these waves

are found by solving, exactly or approximately, Riemann's initial-value

problem for the discontinuity at the cell interface. We may call this th.e

Riemann approach (Fig. 1 (a)). The numerical technique of distinguishing

between the influence of the forward- and the backward-moving waves ls called

flux-difference splitting; examples are the methods of Roe [l] and of Osher

[2 J

In the other model, the interaction of neighboring cells is accomplished

through mixing of pseudo-particles that move in and out oE each cel1 according

to a given velocity distribution. l-/emay call this the Boltzmann approach

(Fig. 1 (b)). The numerical technique of distinguishing between the inEluence

of the forward- and the backward-moving particles is called flux-vector

splitting or simply flux-splitting; an example is the "beam scheme" of

Prendergast [3], rediscovered by Steger and Warming [4].

80th kinds of splitting are discussed by Harten, Lax snd Van Leer [5J.

The present paper is restricted to flux-vector splitting for the Euler

equations of compressible flow, with the ideal-gas law used as equation of

state.
 (a)

o x

u -c o u U +c q

Figure 1. Two physical models for upwind differencing. (a) Space-time

diagram showing waves in the solution of a Riemann problem: forward shock
s and contact discontinuity c, backward rarefaction r. (b) Velocity-
distribution function used in the Boltzmann modela The densities of the
forward-moving and backward-moving par tic les are represented by the
differently shaded areas.

Goal

=
have
f+(w)
wish
all
dE+/dw the
must tflux in a fotward flux f+(w) and a backward
+C(w),
f(w)
We
to f (w)
spli
that
eigenvalues
must is,
f-(w),

1)

;> O,

<: O,

under the following restrictions:

(3) f(w) must be continuous, with

f+(w) - f(w) for Hach-numbers M ;> 1,

f- (w) - f (w) for H <: -1,

(4) the componen ts oE together must mimic the symmetry of f

with respect to tI (all other state quantities held constant), that is

fk (-M),

2
 (5) df/dw must be continuous,

1//
/ (6) df/dw mutilt hay! one eigenvalue vaniah for 'MI <: 1,

(7) f no t like f (M), must be a polynomial in M, and of the lowes t possible

degree.

Restriction (3) ensures that in supersonic regions flux-vector splitting

leads to standard upwind differendng. . Restrittions (4) and (5) are self-

evident, although (5) was not satisfied in [4], with negative consequences for

the smoothness of numerical results. Restriction (6) is crudal, greatly

narrowing down the choice of functions. The degeneracy of f(w) in subsonic

cells makes it possible to build stationary shock structures with no more than

two interior zones, just as does the flux-difference splitting technique in

[2]. Final1Yt requirement (7) makes the splitting unique.

Derivation

Consider the' one-dimensional Euler equations. We shall regard the full,

forward, and backward fluxes as functions of density p, sound speed c and

Mach number M. The full flux reads

(8)
f(p,c,M) = pc2(M2 +~)
( pc
pcM3(1 2 1) )
Md2M + y-1
where y is the specific-heat ratio.
+
From coriditions (3) and (5) it follows that f (p,c,M) as well as

must vanish for M t 1. Condition (7) then leads to the restriction that

f+ includes a factor (M+1)2 and f a factor (_H+1)2, for IMI < 1.

Without introducing further factors depending on M we can now achieve the

splitting f the mass flux:

3
 (9 )

satisEying (1), (3), (4), (5) and (7). In order to split the momentum flux in

agreement with (3) and (5) we need eubie polynomials In M:

pe 2 { 1/2 (M+1)} 2 (-----r1

y-1.. + -)
2 +. pc 2 { 1/2 (-H+1)} 2 (- -'--11
y-1. + -),
2 1M I < 1;
y y y y

again, (1), (3), (4), (5) and (7) are satisHed.

The splitting of the energy flux can now be aehieved by eombining the

split mass- and momentum-fluxes:

2
(11 ) f
energy
Y
2 IMI < 1.
2(y-l)

The acale factor ls needed to satisfy (3). The relation (11) between the

components of f makes these fluxes degenerate: df(w)/dw has a zero

,
eigenvalue for IMI < 1. Thus condition (6) i9 fulfilled. l1oreover, since

the vanishing elgenvalue i8 eontinuou8 for M = 1, we have sufEieient

informatlon about the smoothness of f to conc1ude that condition (5) i8

fully sati8fied. Testing, the fulfillment of (7), (4) and (1) by (11) 18
trivial.

We still must determine if condiUon (Z) ls satisfied by the splitting

(9), (10), (11). There ls a good reason to believe thls ls lndeed the case:
of
the eigenvalue 111
tht 18 most likely to violate eondition (2),

i.e. to have the wrong sign, has been forced te vanish fer IMI < 1. We find
+
that the non-zero eigenvalues IlZ 3, dE df+/dw are the roots of the

quadratic equation:

4
 (12) (1'+) 2 _ + y-1 ( ) {( )2
~ cll 23 ()1+1'1 [1 - 12y(y+1) 1'1-1 Y M-1 + 2y M-1
()
- 2(y+3)
}
]

1'1-1
8y(y+l) {4y(y-1 )(1'1-1) + (y+1) (3-y)} J
o, 11'11 < 1.

In the relevant range 1 ( Y 3, the roots of (12) are positive. The

negativity of 112 ,3 follows by symmetry.

This completes the derivation of the split fluxes for the one-dimensional

Euler equations. The formulas for the three-dimens10nal equat10ns are given

in Table 1 (full eguat1ons) and TabIe 11 (constant enthaIpy assumed).

Stability .

The stability anaIysis for the first-order upwind scheme based on the

above split fluxes 1s complicated' by the fact that and dC/dw

commute neither with each other nor with df/dw, for 11'11 < l. This leads to a

reduction of the eFL limit; in the worst case, M = O, we find for the

shortest waves:

(13) 1.~ < 2y!(y+3).

A practical local stability criterion is

M
(14 )
M(lul+c) {2y + IHI(3-y)}/(y+3), 11'11 < l.

shock structures that satisfy the steady upwind-dlfference equations using

only two interior zones.

5
 Table 1. Flux-splitting for the Euler equations. M = u/c.

+
f , < 1 f
mass mass
IMI
'w
'v + 2+ { c12/(u
f pu
. pu puw
x-flux
p(u
+v
(y-l) puv
}
. o[{(y-l)u+2c}
/y)+ pc{
+c2 )
+w /{2(y
f+
f 2 1/2(M+1)}2
'{(y-1)u+2c}/y
-l)}1 + /2
2'(v2 +w)]
conserved

mass

Table 11. Flux-splitting for the isenthalpic Euler equations.

H :::'enthalpy,c* = ![{2(y-l)/(y+1)}{H _1/2 (v2+w2)}J, M~ = u/c*.

, < 1f
mass massIM*I
'w
'v
f+
x-flux + puw
forward
pu
x-flux f+
puv pc*{+c*)
p{(y+1)/(2y)}(u 1/2(M*+1)}2
f '{(y+1)/y}c*
quantity
conserved

6
 M

o
III L p Q R (R) )(

Figure 2. Steady shock profile from a fiux-split upwind scheme.

Consider the one-dimensional Euler equations. '.J'e

denote the supersonic

pre-shock state by Lt the subsonic post-shock state by R and the interior

states by P and Qt as in Fig. 2. To require stationarity means to require

constancy of net flux:

(15 ) fR = fL
f+ + f
L P
f+ + f
P Q
+
fQ + fR'

Assume that the first equalltYt 1.e't the jump condition across the full shock

structure, holds. The second equality ts automatically satisfied H zone Pt

- +
like Lt ls supersonict with fp = O, fL = fL The fourth equality boils down

to

7
 (16 )

which, if zone Q is subsonic, implies on1y 2 independent equations. The third

equality stands for 3 equations, so that we end up with 5 equations for 6

unknowns, the components of and The solutions form a one-parameter

family of steady shock profi1es, the parameter re1ating to the sub-grid shock

position. There exists one profile with on1y one interior zone that is

precisely sonic. In constrast, Goc;iunov~s and Roe's schemes yield steady

shocks with one or no interior zone.

Another scheme that yields steady shock structures with two interior

states is Osher' s flux-difference scheme [2]. For a acalar conservation law

it boils down to a f1ux-splitting method.

Unlike Osher's scheme, the present flux-vector splitting can not preserve

a stationary contact discontinuity; in fact, no flux-vector splitting scheme

can (see [5]). This is readi1y understood from the underlying pbysical

model: cell-interactions are achieved through mixing, a diffusive process.

Present research is aimed at the development of a computationally simple

"collision term" that could prevent the diffusion across a steady contact

discontinuity.

A comparison

For one-dimensional isothermal flow (y=l, constant e) the flux-vector

splitting of Steger and Warming, alias the beam scheme, can be derived from

the assumption that there are two kinds of gas particles, equally abundant but

moving at different r~tes: the beams. Per unit volume, 1/2p moves with

velocity u-e and V2 p with velocity u+c, yielding the correct average flow

speed u. For IMI < 1 there is a forward and a backward beam, with

associated fluxes satisfying (1), (3) and (4):

8

(17) f 1 2, lul < c.
B/SW 12 p(uc) )
(ljzp(UC)

In Fig. 3 (a) the dependence of the component8 of fB/SW on M 18 shown.

The momentum flux la continuously dtfferntiable at M = tI; the mass flux ls

noto The splitting given by Eqs. (9) and (10) for y = 1 reads

(l8 ) , lul < c,

1/4 p(uc)
( 112 p(uc) / c)

with the same momentum-flux splitting but improved mass-flux splitting. The

dependence on M is shown in Fig. 3 (b). The Figs. 4 (a) and 4 (b) are graphs

f f
2

fi .
'.
'
. ..'. . 1
.....
'.

' .'.
......
...... " .
-1 .'..' -1 1 M
.......
,.' ..'
..' .......f;
.' .'
.'.'
Y=1 Y=1
-1 -1 VL
B/SW

Figure 3. Flux-splitting for the isothermal Euler equations (y=l).

Platted against Hach number are mass fluxes (subscript 1) and momentum fluxes
(subseript 2), normalized by pe and pe2, respectively. (a) Beam seheme/
Steger andWarming; (b) Van Leer.

9
 of the eigenvalues of /'dw and Their values are given by
dfB/SW

+ I(S+4H)},

= O, IMI < 1,
(19)
= 1/4 c( S-M) (1 +M) ,

11+
t-'"2 / ,/

/ / 1

/ /
//
I

-- -
-
-- II+~J
t-'"1\ -

_._~~ ::::._ _.. '; _ _ _:.:,..... oo.

(-1
~.t1 , g. 1 M
..'
-1 -1 ,.'
........t;
.'
.'

..'

-2 y=1 -2 y=1
B/SW VL

Figure 4. Eigenvalues of split-flu~ derivatives_ (y=1). Plotted against

Hach number are the eigenvalues of df /dw and df /dw, normalized by c.
(a) Beam scheme/Steger and Warming; (b) Van Leer.

10

<. __ -.-- ----,..-,-.~'Pr...

,
"""'~.:
 and the sYlllmetry condition (4). The e1genvalues shown in Fig. 4 (a) whlle

satisfying (2), have a discontinuity at M = +1 or -l. In a stationary

numerical solution this causes a diseontinuity in the gradient at the sonie

point, as seen in Fig. S, curve BIs,,,. Correcting the mass-flux splitting

performs a filmal1 mirada. as aeen from curva VL. The gradient-discontinuity

disappears, and . the numerical diffusion in the subsonic region i9

substantially reduced. This reduction corresponds to the reduction of the

eigenvalues I-ll
to zero.

20

15

10

5
180" 2700 ~ 3600

Figure 5. Numerical solutions of the periodic, nozzle-type, cosmic flow

problem (y=l) from [7] by flux-split upwind schemes, on a l28-zone grid.
Plotted is velocity against coordinate angle. B/sw = steady solution by Beam
scheme/Steger and lvarming; VL = steady solution by Van Leer.

11
Conclusions

For the full or isenthalpic Euler equations combinedwith the ideal-gas

law, the flux-vector splitting presented here is, by a great margin, the

simplest means to implement upwind differencing. For a polytropic gas law,

with y > 1, closed formulas have not yt been derived.

The scheme produces steady. shock proEiles with two interior zones. 1t
has been conjectured by Engquist and Oshr [10] that, among implicit versions

of upwind methods, those with a two-zone steady-shock representation may give

faster convergence to a steady solution than those with a one-zone

representation. This has not yet been demonstrated in practice.

A disadvantage in using any flux-vector splitting is that it leads to

numerical diffusion oE a contact discontinuity at resto This diffusion can be

removed; present research i8 aimed at achieving this with minimal

computational effort. Numerical solutions obtained with first- and ~econd-

order schemes including the above split fluxes can be found in Refs. [6], [7]

(one-dimensional) and [8], [9] (two-dimensional).

12

~~W~77J,.:Ro.~W;:'&(;'
y
 References

l. P. L. Roe, J. Computational Phys. 43 (19Bl), 357.

2. S. Osher, "Numerical soludon of singular perturbation problema and

hyperbolic systems of conservation laws", North-Holland Hathematical

Studies!!L (1981), 179.

3. R. H. Sanders snd K. H. Prendergast, Astrophys. J. 188 (1974), 489.

4. J. L. Steger and R. F. Warming, J. ComRutational Phys. 40 (1981), 263.

5. A. Harten, P. D. Lax and B. van Leer, '~pstream differencing and Godunov-

type schemes," TCASE Report No. 82-5; to appear in SIAM Review.

6. J. L. Steger, "A preliminary study of relaxation methods for the inviscid

conservative gasdynamics equations using flux-vector splitting,"

Repart No. 80-4, August 1980, Flow Simulations, lne.

7. G. D. van Albada, '8. van Leer and W. W. Roberts, Jr., "A comparative

study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics," Astron.

AstroRhys. 108 (1982), 76.

8. G. D. van Alhada and W. W. Roberts, Jr., AR' J. 246 (1981), 740.

9. M. D. Salas, "Recent developments in transonic flow over a circular

cylinder," NASA Technical Memorandum 83282 (April, 1982).

la. B. Engquist and S. Osher, Math. Comp .1i (1980), 45.

13

View publication stats