Fourier analysis and evaluation of DG, FD and compact difference methods for conservation laws

Abstract Large eddy simulation (LES) has been increasingly used to tackle vortex-dominated turbulent flows. In LES, the quality of the simulation results hinges upon the quality of the numerical discretizations in both space and time. It is in this context we perform a Fourier analysis of several popular methods in LES including the discontinuous Galerkin (DG), finite difference (FD), and compact difference (CD) methods. We begin by reviewing the semi-discrete versions of all methods under consideration, followed by a fully-discrete analysis with explicit Runge–Kutta (RK) time integration schemes. In this regard, we are able to unravel the true dispersion/dissipation behavior of DG and Runge–Kutta DG (RKDG) schemes for the entire wavenumber range using a combined-mode analysis. In this approach, we take into account all eigenmodes in DG and RKDG schemes. The physical-mode is verified to be a good approximation for the asymptotic behavior of these DG schemes in the low wavenumber range. After that, we proceed to compare the DG, FD, and CD methods in dispersion and dissipation properties. Numerical tests are conducted using the linear advection equation to verify the analysis. In comparing different methods, it is found that the overall numerical dissipation strongly depends on the time step. Compact difference (CD) and central FD schemes, in some particular settings, can have more numerical dissipation than the DG scheme with an upwind flux. This claim is then verified through a numerical test using the Burgers' equation.

[1]  J. Hesthaven,et al.  Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Algorithms, Analysis, and Applications , 2007 .

[2]  Gregor Gassner,et al.  A Comparison of the Dispersion and Dissipation Errors of Gauss and Gauss-Lobatto Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Methods , 2011, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[3]  Stephane Redonnet,et al.  On the effective accuracy of spectral-like optimized finite-difference schemes for computational aeroacoustics , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[4]  Rémi Abgrall,et al.  High‐order CFD methods: current status and perspective , 2013 .

[5]  P. Roe.  Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[6]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  High-Order-Accurate Methods for Complex Unsteady Subsonic Flows , 1999 .

[7]  Marcel Vinokur,et al.  Spectral difference method for unstructured grids I: Basic formulation , 2006, J. Comput. Phys..

[8]  P. Moin,et al.  Effect of numerical dissipation on the predicted spectra for compressible turbulence , 2022 .

[9]  Soshi Kawai,et al.  Assessment of localized artificial diffusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[10]  Brian C. Vermeire,et al.  On the behaviour of fully-discrete flux reconstruction schemes , 2017 .

[11]  Steven J. Ruuth,et al.  A New Class of Optimal High-Order Strong-Stability-Preserving Time Discretization Methods , 2002, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[12]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Insights from von Neumann analysis of high-order flux reconstruction schemes , 2011, J. Comput. Phys..

[13]  Omer San,et al.  Analysis of low-pass filters for approximate deconvolution closure modelling in one-dimensional decaying Burgers turbulence , 2016 .

[14]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulation on Curvilinear Grids Using Compact Differencing and Filtering Schemes , 2002 .

[15]  Z. Wang.  High-order methods for the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations on unstructured grids , 2007 .

[16]  J. Butcher.  The numerical analysis of ordinary differential equations: Runge-Kutta and general linear methods , 1987 .

[17]  Magnus Svärd,et al.  Review of summation-by-parts schemes for initial-boundary-value problems , 2013, J. Comput. Phys..

[18]  P. Moin,et al.  Suitability of upwind-biased finite difference schemes for large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows , 1997 .

[19]  He Yang,et al.  Dispersion and Dissipation Errors of Two Fully Discrete Discontinuous Galerkin Methods , 2012, Journal of Scientific Computing.

[20]  Z. J. Wang,et al.  A perspective on high-order methods in computational fluid dynamics , 2015 .

[21]  Philipp Öffner,et al.  Summation-by-parts operators for correction procedure via reconstruction , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[22]  Prabhu Ramachandran,et al.  Approximate Riemann solvers for the Godunov SPH (GSPH) , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[23]  P. Raviart,et al.  On a Finite Element Method for Solving the Neutron Transport Equation , 1974 .

[24]  Z. J. Wang,et al.  A priori and a posteriori evaluations of sub-grid scale models for the Burgers’ equation , 2016 .

[25]  J. Bowles,et al.  Fourier Analysis of Numerical Approximations of Hyperbolic Equations , 1987 .

[26]  H. T. Huynh,et al.  High-Order Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Brief Review of Compact Differential Formulations on Unstructured Grids , 2013 .

[27]  Sigrun Ortleb.  A Kinetic Energy Preserving DG Scheme Based on Gauss–Legendre Points , 2017, J. Sci. Comput..

[28]  Zhi J. Wang,et al.  Towards industrial large eddy simulation using the FR/CPR method , 2017 .

[29]  A. Iserles.  Order Stars and a Saturation Theorem for First-order Hyperbolics , 1982 .

[30]  Giuliano De Stefano,et al.  Sharp cutoff versus smooth filtering in large eddy simulation , 2002 .

[31]  ShuChi-Wang.  High order WENO and DG methods for time-dependent convection-dominated PDEs , 2016 .

[32]  M. Y. Hussaini,et al.  An Analysis of the Discontinuous Galerkin Method for Wave Propagation Problems , 1999 .

[33]  D. Gottlieb,et al.  The Stability of Numerical Boundary Treatments for Compact High-Order Finite-Difference Schemes , 1993 .

[34]  W. H. Reed,et al.  Triangular mesh methods for the neutron transport equation , 1973 .

[35]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  On the use of higher-order finite-difference schemes on curvilinear and deforming meshes , 2002 .

[36]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Convection-Dominated Problems , 2001, J. Sci. Comput..

[37]  Konstantin Khanin,et al.  Burgers Turbulence , 2007, Energy Transfers in Fluid Flows.

[38]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  Comparative study of implicit and subgrid‐scale model large‐eddy simulation techniques for low‐Reynolds number airfoil applications , 2013 .

[39]  Chris Lacor,et al.  Dispersion and dissipation properties of the 1D spectral volume method and application to a p-multigrid algorithm , 2007, J. Comput. Phys..

[40]  Christophe Bailly,et al.  LARGE EDDY SIMULATIONS OF ROUND FREE JETS USING EXPLICIT FILTERING WITH/WITHOUT DYNAMIC SMAGORINSKY MODEL , 2006, Proceeding of Fourth International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena.

[41]  William Gropp,et al.  CFD Vision 2030 Study: A Path to Revolutionary Computational Aerosciences , 2014 .

[42]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  Strong Stability-Preserving High-Order Time Discretization Methods , 2001, SIAM Rev..

[43]  Jan Nordström,et al.  Uniformly best wavenumber approximations by spatial central difference operators , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[44]  S. Rebay,et al.  A High-Order Accurate Discontinuous Finite Element Method for the Numerical Solution of the Compressible Navier-Stokes Equations , 1997 .

[45]  Parviz Moin,et al.  Assessment of high-resolution methods for numerical simulations of compressible turbulence with shock waves , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[46]  S. Rebay,et al.  High-Order Accurate Discontinuous Finite Element Solution of the 2D Euler Equations , 1997 .

[47]  E. J. Brambley,et al.  Optimized finite-difference (DRP) schemes perform poorly for decaying or growing oscillations , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[48]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  Further development of a Navier-Stokes solution procedure based on higher-order formulas , 1999 .

[49]  H. T. Huynh,et al.  A Flux Reconstruction Approach to High-Order Schemes Including Discontinuous Galerkin Methods , 2007 .

[50]  Spencer J. Sherwin,et al.  Eigensolution analysis of spectral/hp continuous Galerkin approximations to advection-diffusion problems: Insights into spectral vanishing viscosity , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[51]  Antony Jameson,et al.  High-Order Flux Reconstruction Schemes with Minimal Dispersion and Dissipation , 2015, J. Sci. Comput..

[52]  Paul G. Tucker,et al.  Implicit large eddy simulation using the high‐order correction procedure via reconstruction scheme , 2016 .

[53]  Song Fu,et al.  Implicit Large-Eddy Simulation for the High-Order Flux Reconstruction Method , 2016 .

[54]  H. T. Huynh,et al.  A review of flux reconstruction or correction procedure via reconstruction method for the Navier-Stokes equations , 2016 .

[55]  Björn Sjögreen,et al.  Accuracy consideration by DRP schemes for DNS and LES of compressible flow computations , 2017 .

[56]  Spencer J. Sherwin,et al.  Linear dispersion-diffusion analysis and its application to under-resolved turbulence simulations using discontinuous Galerkin spectral/hp methods , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[57]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  High order WENO and DG methods for time-dependent convection-dominated PDEs: A brief survey of several recent developments , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[58]  C. Bogey,et al.  A family of low dispersive and low dissipative explicit schemes for flow and noise computations , 2004 .

[59]  Philip E. Morgan,et al.  A High-Order Compact Finite-Difference Scheme for Large-Eddy Simulation of Active Flow Control , 2008 .

[60]  Jean-François Boussuge,et al.  Revisiting the spectral analysis for high-order spectral discontinuous methods , 2017, J. Comput. Phys..

[61]  Chris Lacor,et al.  On the Stability and Accuracy of the Spectral Difference Method , 2008, J. Sci. Comput..

[62]  David C. Del Rey Fernández,et al.  Review of summation-by-parts operators with simultaneous approximation terms for the numerical solution of partial differential equations , 2014 .

[63]  Per-Olof Persson,et al.  Implicit Large Eddy Simulation of transition to turbulence at low Reynolds numbers using a Discontinuous Galerkin method , 2011 .

[64]  S. Lele.  Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution , 1992 .

[65]  P. Moin.  Fundamentals of Engineering Numerical Analysis , 2001 .

[66]  Stephane Redonnet,et al.  A novel optimization technique for explicit finite‐difference schemes with application to AeroAcoustics , 2015 .

[67]  David W. Zingg,et al.  Comparison of High-Accuracy Finite-Difference Methods for Linear Wave Propagation , 2000, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..