2
3
( u) I
dd
_
(3)
and the heat ux q obeys Fouriers law for the conductive
heat ux:
q =
_
Pr
_
h. (4)
The dimensionless molecular viscosity
(T ) = T
3/2
1 +S/T
ref
T +S/T
ref
S = 110K (5)
which appears in both Equations (3) and (4) is the non
dimensional form of Sutherlands law. Equation (4) follows
fromFouriers lawand Pr denotes the Prandtl number, which
has been set to 0.72 in all analyses presented in this paper.
The compressible NS equations are closed using the
dimensionless equation of state for an ideal gas:
p = R
T, (6)
where the dimensionless specic gas constant R
depends
on the chosen set of reference variables.
3. Fluctuation splitting discretisation
Despite the fact that the FS approach has been around for
more than two decades, see e.g. Deconinck et al. (1993),
van der Weide et al. (1999) and Abgrall (2006), it has not
gained widespread popularity among CFD practitioners, so
that a concise description of its key ingredients is deemed
necessary.
Let R
d
denote the computational domain which
is tessellated into triangles in the 2D space (see Fig
ure 1(a)) and tetrahedra in 3D space. In addition to this
primary tessellation into simplicial elements T
e
, a dual tes
sellation is made up of the socalled median dual cells C
i
(cells bounded by green lines in Figure 1(b)); in two space
dimensions these are polygonal cells that are obtained by
joining the centres of gravity of all triangles that share a
given grid point with the midpoints of all the edges that
connect that grid point with its nearest neighbours.
The dependent variables are stored at the vertices of the
computational mesh and are assumed to vary linearly and
continuously in space. Using standard FE notation, this can
be stated as:
Z(x, t ) =
i
Z
i
(t ) N
i
(x) , (7)
where Z
i
denotes the nodal value of Roes parameter vector
Z =
_
h
0
,
u
_
t
(8)
at point i, and N
i
is the FE linear shape function which
takes the value of 1 at grid point i and 0 within its distance
1 neighbours. The summation in Equation (7) ranges over
all grid points in the mesh. The reason for choosing the
parameter vector as the set of dependent variables is further
addressed in Section 3.1.
Since the unknowns are stored at the vertices of the
mesh, the conservation law (1) has to be discretised over
the median dual control volumes C
i
built around each grid
point. Using an FVtype approach, the discretisation of the
viscous term of Equation (1) is obtained by integration of
the corresponding ux Gover the boundary C
i
of the me
dian dual CV. However, a different approach is used for dis
cretising the unsteady and convective terms in Equation (1)
which are written as weighted averages of the correspond
ing integrals evaluated over all the triangles/tetrahedra that
meet at mesh point i.
In the following sections, we shall describe the discreti
sation of the convective and unsteady terms of the governing
Equation (1). The discretisation of the viscous terms will
not be given here, but the reader is referred to Bonglioli
(2000) for details.
3.1. Convective term
With FS schemes, rather than calculating the inviscid uxes
by numerical quadrature along the boundary C
i
of the me
dian dual cell, as would be done with conventional FV
schemes, the net inviscid ux (also known as cell resid
ual or uctuation)
e,inv
is computed over each triangu
lar/tetrahedral element T
e
:
e,inv
=
_
T
e
F n dS. (9)
As shown in Deconinck, Roe, and Struijs (1993), using
the piecewise linear representation (7) for Roes parameter
vector, the inviscid ux balance can be computed using the
quasilinear form of the Euler equation, rather than using
numerical quadrature along the boundary T
e
of cell T
e
.
Indeed, since both the conservative variables U and the
Cartesian components F
i
of the inviscid ux vector F are
quadratic functions of the components of the vector Z, the
cell uctuation can be computed without approximations as
follows:
e,inv
=
_
T
e
F n dS =
_
T
e
_
F
i
x
i
_
dV
=
_
T
e
_
F
i
Z
__
Z
x
i
_
dV
= T
e

_
F
i
Z
_
Z=Z
_
Z
x
i
_
, (10)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 213
Figure 1. Primary and dual tessellations and uctuation splitting concept. (a) The ux balance of cell T is scattered among its vertices.
(b) Grid point i gathers the signals scattered from the surrounding cells.
where T
e
 is the area/volume of cell e. In Equation (10),
we have made use of the fact that Z is cellwise constant
since Z varies piecewise linearly in space and the mean
value of F
i
/Z over a cell equals its analytical expression
evaluated in the arithmetic average of Z over that cell:
Z =
1
d +1
_
_
je
Z
j
_
_
, (11)
since F
i
/Z is also linear in the components of Z.
Once the cell uctuation has been computed using
Equation (10), it is scattered among the vertices of the cell
by sending signals
e,inv
i
which must full the following
conservation constraint:
je
e,inv
j
=
je
B
e
j
e,inv
=
e,inv
. (12)
Different criteria can be devised to split the cell uctua
tion into signals, giving rise to a variety of discretisation
schemes. Each scheme is characterised by a different choice
of the distribution matrix B
e
j
, associated with the jth vertex
of cell e. Except where otherwise stated, all calculations pre
sented in Section 5 make use of the LowDiffusion A(LDA)
scheme; see e.g. Abgrall (2001) or Bonglioli (2000).
3.1.1. Invariance under similarity transformations
In order to guarantee that the discrete solution conserves
mass, momentum and energy, the signals sent by cell e to
its vertices have to sum up to the inviscid ux balance, as
stated in Equation (12). However, it is possible to discre
tise a nonconservative version of the governing PDEs and
then recover the ux balance via a change of variables. It
has been observed by van der Weide and Deconinck (1996)
that the discrete equations are independent of the set of vari
ables used to rewrite the Euler system in nonconservation
form. This property, which relies upon the Roetype lin
earisation and is referred to as invariance under similarity
transformations, is a nice design principle that relieves FS
schemes from one of the uncertainties encountered when
using FV discretisations, i.e. the choice of the most appro
priate set of variables to be interpolated at a CV boundary
to compute the interface ux.
To be more precise, consider the quasilinear formof the
Euler system rewritten using a set of variables
U, different
from the conservative ones,
U
t
+
A
j
U
x
j
= 0, (13)
where:
A
j
=
_
U
U
_
_
F
j
U
__
U
U
_ _
U
U
_
=
_
U
U
_
1
.
(14)
The cell uctuation associated with Equation (13)
e,inv
=
_
A
j
_
Z=Z
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
_
Z
x
j
_
T
e
 (15)
is not the inviscid ux balance. However, it is not difcult
to show that the latter can be recovered via the following
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
214 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
transformation:
e,inv
=
_
U
U
_
Z=Z
e,inv
, (16)
and the same expression holds for the individual signals
sent to the cell vertices. Similarly, the distribution matrices
can be transformed between the two sets of variables as
follows:
B
e
i
=
_
U
U
_
Z=Z
B
e
i
_
U
U
_
Z=Z
. (17)
Since it is possible to show that the discrete solution does
not depend upon the particular set of primitive variables
being used, their choice is motivated by reasons of com
putational efciency. For instance, the set of the socalled
Eulersymmetrising variables (Turkel 1973) makes the
A
j
matrices symmetric and block diagonal. The block diago
nal structure allows us to uncouple (at the linearised state)
the entropy transport equation from the remaining hyper
bolic system of order m 1. Since the calculation of the
distribution matrices requires, within each cell, the solu
tion of d + 1 small dense linear systems of order equal
to m, the decoupling of a scalar transport equation low
ers the order by 1, thus making the discretisation cheaper.
When dealing with multispecies ows, the saving is even
larger, since all the transport equations for the species can
be decoupled (Degrez and van der Weide 1999), thus al
lowing a considerable gain in terms of computational cost.
Further savings in terms of oating point operations can
be achieved by taking advantage of the symmetry of the
A
j
matrices. Clearly, these advantages are partly offset by
the need to back transform into conserved variables using
Equations (16) and (17).
The possibility of retaining the invariance under sim
ilarity transformation also in the case of unsteady ows
prompted us to develop the massmatrix formulation based
on parameter vector that is described in the following
section.
3.2. Unsteady term
The cell uctuation associated with the unsteady term is
given by:
e,t
=
_
T
e
U
t
dV =
_
T
e
_
U
Z
Z
t
_
dV. (18)
Note that in Equation (18) we have made use of the chain
rule to make the dependent variable Z appear. This is an
aspect that has apparently been overlooked in the literature
and represents the main contribution of the present paper.
Indeed, since the conservative variables U are quadratic
functions of the parameter vector Z, the transformation ma
trix U/Z is linear in Z and can thus be expanded using
the linear shape functions N
j
, just as in Equation (7). A
similar expansion applies to the time derivative Z/t. Re
placing both expansions in the r.h.s. of Equation (18) and
performing the required integration, we obtain:
e,t
=
ie
je
__
T
e
N
e
i
N
e
j
dV
__
U
Z
_
Z=Z
i
_
Z
j
t
_
(19a)
=
je
T
e

(d +2)
_
1
(d +1)
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j
+
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
_ _
Z
j
t
_
(19b)
=
je
C
e
j
_
Z
j
t
_
. (19c)
Further details concerning the derivation of the C
e
j
matrix can be found in Appendix A.
Similarly to what has been done with the convective
term, the unsteady uctuation,
e, t
, has to be split into
signals which are then sent to the d + 1 vertices of cell e.
A general strategy to accomplish this task is discussed in
De Palma et al. (2005). Here we follow the approach that
had been used in M arz and Degrez (1996), which consists
of formulating the FS schemes as a particular class of PG
FE methods. In PG FE methods, the weighting function is
different from the shape function: in streamline upwind PG
(SUPG) schemes, for instance, an upstream bias is given to
the weighting function which results in a similar effect to
that of upwinding in the context of FV methods.
Letting
i
denote the PG weighting function, it can
be shown, see e.g. Abgrall and Mezine (2003a) or Decon
inck, Ricchiuto, and Sermeus (2003), that for an FS scheme
characterised by distribution matrices B
e
i
, the PGweighting
function within element e is:
e
i
=
_
N
e
i
1
d +1
_
I
mm
B
e
i
. (20)
The signal sent from element e to its vertex i amounts
to compute the contribution of element e to the weighted
residual equation for grid point i, i.e.
e,t
i
=
_
T
e
_
e
i
U
t
_
dV =
_
T
e
_
e
i
U
Z
Z
t
_
dV
=
je
M
e
ij
_
Z
j
t
_
, (21)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 215
where:
M
e
ij
=
ij
_
C
e
i
+C
e
j
_
+
ij
T
e

_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
+
_
B
e
i
1
d +1
I
mm
_
C
e
j
. (22)
Details concerning the matrix M
e
ij
dened in Equation (22)
are also given in Appendix A. It is readily veried that
summing up all signals within cell e, one recovers the
cell uctuation associated with the unsteady term of the
equations:
e,t
=
ie
e,t
i
=
je
_
ie
M
e
ij
_
_
Z
j
t
_
j
(23a)
=
je
C
e
j
_
Z
j
t
_
. (23b)
Equation (23b) follows from(23a) since it is not difcult
to verify that if we row sum the mass matrices, we obtain:
ie
M
e
ij
= C
e
j
. (24)
The time derivative of the parameter vector in Equation (21)
is approximated at time level n + 1 using the following
backward nite difference (FD) formula:
Z
j
t
n+1
=
(2 +
t
) Z
n+1
j
2 (1 +
t
) Z
n
j
+
t
Z
n1
j
2t
+(1
t
) O (t ) +O
_
t
2
_
. (25)
Choosing
t
= 1 in (25) gives a threetimelevel, FD for
mula which is secondorder accurate in time; at the rst time
step, when only the initial condition is known, Equation (25)
is used with
t
=0 thus providing a twotimelevel, though
only rstorder accurate, scheme.
Making the time derivative of the parameter vector ap
pear in the unsteady term of the governing equations pro
vides a clean way, though possibly not the only one, to
extend to unsteady ows the invariance property that ap
plies to the discretisation of the inviscid uxes, as described
in Section 3.1.1. Suppose that a set of variables different
from the conservative ones has been used to discretise the
convective terms of the Euler system. For instance, when
dealing with low Mach number ows, which require ap
propriate preconditioning techniques to preserve the accu
racy of the spatial discretisation in the zero Mach number
limit, we prefer to work with Merkles primitive variables
(Venkateswaran and Merkle 1999), rather than the conser
vative ones, since the former choice simplies the alge
bra. All that is needed in order to guarantee that the mass
matrix (22) is independent of the set of variables used to
discretise the quasilinear form of the Euler system is to
transform the distribution matrices from primitive to con
servative variables via Equation (17) before they are used
in the assembly of the mass matrix (22).
4. Solution of the discretised equations
The governing conservation Equation (1), once discretised
over the control volume C
i
, provides the nodal residual R
i
:
R
i
_
U
n1
, U
n
, U
n+1
_
=
_
C
i
_
U
t
_
dV
_
C
i
(F G) n dS (26a)
=
ie
_
e,t
i
e,inv
i
e,vis
i
_
= 0. (26b)
As indicated in Equation (26) and also sketched in
Figure 1, the nodal residual is obtained by collecting all
signals scattered to grid point i from the neighbouring ele
ments. The inviscid and viscous contributions to the nodal
residual in (26) are both evaluated at the unknown time level
n + 1 and Equation (21), along with the FD formula (25),
is used for the contribution of the unsteady residual. Using
t
= 1 in Equation (25), we recover the threetimelevel
backward differentiation scheme, which is expected to be
secondorder accurate in both space and time. The mass
matrix (22), which depends upon the solution, is evaluated
at time level n + 1, since other choices would signi
cantly increase either the storage or the CPU cost. The
numerical experiments presented in Section 5 conrm that
the scheme is indeed secondorder accurate in both space
and time.
Writing Equation (26) within all grid points of the mesh,
one obtains the following large, sparse systemof nonlinear
algebraic equations:
R
_
U
n+1
, U
n
, U
n1
_
= 0 (27)
to be solved at time level n + 1 to obtain the unknown vec
tor of conservative variables U
n+1
. Once U
n+1
is obtained,
it is transformed into parameter vector at every grid point i
of the mesh using the exact relation (Masatsuka 2009):
Z
i
= 2
_
Z
U
_
U=U
i
U
i
.
The numerical solution of Equation (27) is obtained
by means of an implicit approach based on the use of a
ctitious time derivative: the dual timestepping strategy
of Jameson (1991). This approach amounts to solving the
following evolutionary problem:
dU
d
V = R
_
U
n+1
, U
n
, U
n1
_
(28)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
216 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
in pseudotime until steady state is reached. Since ac
curacy in pseudotime is irrelevant, the mass matrix has
been lumped into the diagonal matrix V whose entries are
the areas/volumes of the median dual cells and a rstorder
accurate, twotimelevel FD formula:
dU
d
=
U
+O () U = U
n+1,k+1
U
n+1,k
(29)
is used to approximate the pseudotime derivative in the
l.h.s. of Equation (28). The inner iteration counter k has
been introduced in Equation (29) to label the pseudotime
levels. Once Equation (29) is replaced in Equation (28), an
implicit scheme is obtained if the residual R is evaluated
at the unknown pseudotime level k + 1. Performing a
Taylorseries expansion of R about pseudotime level k one
obtains the following sparse system of linear equations:
_
1
k
V J
_
U
n+1,k
_
_
U = R
_
U
n+1,k
, U
n
, U
n1
_
,
J =
R
U
(30)
to be solved at each inner iteration until the required con
vergence of R is obtained. Note that a variable pseudo time
step
k
is used in Equation (30), so that in the limit of
innite
k
Equation (30) recovers Newtons rootnding
algorithm, which is known to yield quadratic convergence
when the initial guess U
n +1, 0
= U
n
is sufciently close to
the sought solution U
n +1
. The availability of a good initial
guess is likely to occur when dealing with unsteady ow
problems, because the solution of the ow eld at a given
physical time starts from the converged solution at the pre
ceding time, and this latter constitutes a very convenient
initial state. Indeed, as is shown in Section 5.4, only a very
limited number of inner iterations are needed in order to
drive to steady state the solution of Equation (28). Further
details regarding the NewtonKrylov algorithm are given
in Section 5.4.
Concerning boundary conditions: noslip and isother
mal wall boundary conditions are enforced strongly by
modifying the relevant entries in the momentum, resp. en
ergy, equations in the matrix on the l.h.s. of Equation (30);
subsonic inow/outow and freestream boundary condi
tions are enforced weakly by means of a ghost cell approach
similar to that described in Paill` ere (1995).
5. Numerical results
Secondorder time accuracy of the consistent massmatrix
formulation presented in Section 3.2 will now be demon
strated in two space dimensions for both inviscid and lam
inar viscous ows. In Section 5.4, the methodology is ap
plied to the simulation of a relatively complex 3D ow
eld.
5.1. Inviscid vortex in a supersonic stream
We consider an unsteady solution of the Euler equations
obtained by the superposition of a uniform stream of mag
nitude u
/u
 = e
(1
2
)
(31a)
u
r
= 0. (31b)
In Equation (31), = r/r
c
is the nondimensional ra
dial distance from the pole of the moving reference frame
and , and r
c
are free parameters that control the shape
and magnitude (relative to the free stream) of the pertur
bation. Other kinematic features of this particular solution
of the Euler equations are a divergencefree velocity eld,
which implies that density is constant along the circular
(in the moving reference frame) streamlines and a nonzero
vorticity eld:
z
r
c
u

= 2 e
(1
2
)
_
1
2
_
. (32)
Since the freestreamowis isentropic, the thermodynamic
variables are easily obtained from the linear momentum
equation; in particular, the perturbation temperature eld is
given in dimensionless form by:
T
T
() =
T
T
1 = ( 1)
2
M
2
4
e
2(1
2
)
.
Moreover, Croccos formof the steady momentumequation
implies that there must be a gradient of the perturbation total
enthalpy in the radial direction, so that total enthalpy also
changes across the streamlines:
h
0
/u

2
=
2
2
e
2(1
2
)
_
1
2
_
.
In order to be able to draw a quantitative comparison
with different massmatrix formulations of the unsteady FS
schemes, we have chosen the same parameter setting also
used in De Palma et al. (2005). For the following choice
of constants in (31): = 0.3/
, = 0.204 and r
c
/L =
0.05, the radius of the vortex is about 0.625L, with L be
ing the reference length scale. The computational domain
is the rectangle = [0.5 L, 1.5 L] [0.5 L, 0.5 L];
the vortex is initially at the origin of the Cartesian refer
ence frame and the uniform, background owis supersonic:
M
= 1.1.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 217
Figure 2. Unsteady vortex in a supersonic stream: detail of the two kinds of triangulations; solid line: grid level 1; dashed line: grid
level 2. (a) Regular triangulation. (b) Delaunay triangulation.
Numerical simulations have been performed using two
different kinds of triangulations and, for each of the two, a
sequence of ve nested grid levels. Figure 2 shows a detail
of the coarsest two grid levels for both types of triangula
tions. The rst set of grids (which exactly matches the one
used in De Palma et al. 2005 and is hereafter referred to as
the regular triangulation) has been generated by cutting
with the right running diagonal a structured Cartesian grid
made of square cells; see Figure 2(a). The coarsest grid
level features 41 equally spaced grid points in the stream
wise direction and 21 crosswise. The second set of grids has
been obtained using a Delaunay grid generator developed
by Shewchuk (1996). First, a coarse triangulation, shown in
Figure 2(b), has been generated which features roughly the
same number of grid points and cells as the coarsest regu
lar mesh. Then, all ner grid levels have been obtained by
recursive subdivision of each triangle of the parent coarser
mesh into 4 subtriangles. This procedure ensures that the
grid points of the coarsest triangulation also belong to all
ner grid levels.
On the two coarsest grids (level 1 in Table 1), the non
dimensional time step has been set equal to t u
/L =
0.0125
h
(i.e. the difference between the solution Z
h
to the discre
tised equations and the exact solution Z
0
to the continuum
PDEs) for all components of the parameter vector Z. Table 1
also reports a global measure of the observed order of con
vergence p: for each pair of solutions computed on two
grids of mesh spacing h and 2h, this is computed as:
p =
log (L
1
(
2h
) /L
1
(
h
))
log (2)
.
Table 1 reveals that for a given grid level, the discretisation
errors obtained on the two types of triangulation are com
parable; concerning the measured order of convergence, it
is close to design order for both types of triangulations and
slightly larger on the regular grid.
Figure 3, where the L
1
norm of the discretisation error
for density is plotted in loglog scale against the spatial
grid size, allows us to quantitatively compare the proposed
massmatrix formulation with the MMPG and MMCU
formulations tested in De Palma et al. (2005): the corre
sponding curves shown in Figure 3 have been taken from
Figure 36 of De Palma et al. (2005). MMPG is a PG mass
matrix formulation similar to ours, except for the fact that
it does not account for linear variation of the parameter
vector in the construction of the mass matrix; the MMPG
formulation is built upon the LDA distribution scheme.
MMCU is a massmatrix formulation, different from the
PG one, that has been proposed in De Palma et al. (2005)
where it is called consistent upwind; it is built upon the
FS version (Paill` ere 1995) of the upwind control volume
(UCV) scheme of Giles, Anderson, and Roberts (1990),
rather than the LDA. Our results, also shown in Figure 3,
have both been obtained using our PG formulation, based
on parameter vector, coupled with the two different
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
218 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
Table 1. Unsteady vortex in a supersonic stream: L
1
norms of the discretisation error.
h
0
u
v
Grid level t L
1
p L
1
p L
1
p L
1
p
(a) Regular triangulation.
1 0.0147902 0.4485E03 0.2889E02 0.2077E02 0.2349E02
2 0.0073951 0.1260E03 1.83 0.7924E03 1.87 0.5387E03 1.95 0.5874E03 2.00
3 0.0036975 0.3171E04 1.99 0.1949E03 2.02 0.1303E03 2.05 0.1314E03 2.16
4 0.0018488 0.7794E05 2.02 0.4755E04 2.04 0.3176E04 2.04 0.3042E04 2.11
5 0.0009244 0.1929E05 2.01 0.1171E04 2.02 0.7829E05 2.02 0.7315E05 2.06
(b) Delaunay triangulation
1 0.0147902 0.4060E03 0.2051E02 0.1345E02 0.1654E02
2 0.0073951 0.1229E03 1.72 0.6012E03 1.77 0.3566E03 1.91 0.3857E03 2.10
3 0.0036975 0.3381E04 1.86 0.1581E03 1.93 0.8873E04 2.01 0.8690E04 2.15
4 0.0018488 0.9285E05 1.86 0.4142E04 1.93 0.2243E04 1.98 0.2047E04 2.09
5 0.0009244 0.2492E05 1.90 0.1082E04 1.94 0.5746E05 1.96 0.5021E05 2.03
distribution schemes. When used with the LDA scheme,
the two different PG formulations deliver nearly identical
results: compare the open and lled circles in Figure 3.
When comparing the present PG with the MMCU mass
matrix of De Palma et al. (2005), both built upon the same
UCVscheme for the spatial discretisation, the MMCUfor
mulation is seen to incur a slightly lower discretisation error
than the PG one.
Although not done here, also the MMCU formulation
proposed in De Palma et al. (2005) can be rewritten to
properly account for linear variation of the parameter vector,
as we have done for the PG formulation.
5.2. Inviscid vortex in a subsonic stream
Following the suggestion of one of the reviewers, we
have investigated the global conservation properties of the
Figure 3. Unsteady vortex in a supersonic stream: density discretisation error plotted against the spatial mesh spacing h.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 219
massmatrix formulation we propose, i.e. whether mass,
energy and momentum are conserved, not only in space,
but also in time.
The use of the Roetype linearisation (10) makes the
scheme conservative in space, in the sense that summing
up the ux balance of all the NE elements in the mesh
at a given time level, the interior uxes cancel out and
one recovers, to machine accuracy, the net ux through the
boundary of the computational domain :
NE
e=1
e,inv
=
_
F n dS. (33)
Choosing a ow conguration such that the net ux
through the boundary is identically zero at all times, the
integration of Equation (1) over an arbitrary time interval
[t
n
, t
n + 1
] gives the following condition to be satised at
the continuous level:
_
U
n+1
dV =
_
U
n
dV. (34)
We are interested to establish whether condition (34) also
holds at the discrete level, i.e. whether the scheme is also
conservative in time.
In order to be consistent with the use of parameter vector
as the set of dependent variables, the discretised counter
part of either of the two terms in Equation (34) should be
computed as follows:
<U>  =
_
U dV (35a)
=
1
2
NE
e=1
_
T
e
_
U
Z
_
ZdV
=
1
2
NE
e=1
je
ke
e
jk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j
Z
k
, (35b)
where the coefcients
e
jk
that appear in (35b) are given
in Appendix A. In deriving Equation (35), we have used
the fact that the following relation holds (see Masatsuka
2009):
U =
1
2
_
U
Z
_
Z, (36)
where both matrix U/Z and vector Z are linear functions
of the independent variable x.
In Appendix B, we have derived the temporal conser
vation error of the proposed timeintegration scheme under
some simplifying assumptions. In this paragraph, the con
servation properties of the timeintegration scheme have
been numerically investigated by measuring the temporal
evolution of the mean conserved quantities, computed ac
cording to Equation (35).
The chosen test case consists of an isentropic vortical
structure, similar to that already considered in Section 5.1,
except that the background ow is subsonic. The perturba
tion velocity eld, u, consists of a counterclockwise vortex
characterised by a purely tangential velocity component:
u
/a
T
=
2
e
(1
2
)/2
(37a)
u
r
= 0, (37b)
where a
T
=
T
T
() =
T
T
1 =
( 1)
2
_
2
_
2
e
(1
2
)
,
(37c)
and pressure and density are obtained from temperature us
ing the isentropic relation. The strength of the vortex is
determined by the dimensionless constant which is
set equal to 5, as in Lerat, Falissard, and Sid` es (2007).
Equations (37) dene an exact solution of the steady
Euler equations. A uniform, horizontal stream of veloc
ity magnitude equal to u
/a
T
= 0.5 is superimposed
to the vortical structure dened by Equation (37), giv
ing a free stream Mach number equal to 0.5/
. We
solve the Euler equations in a timeaccurate manner over
the square computational domain = [5 L, 5 L]
[5 L, 5 L] using periodic boundary conditions in both
the x and y coordinate directions. The use of periodic
boundary conditions ensure that the inviscid ux inte
gral along the boundary of the computational domain is
zero, to machine accuracy, at all times. Therefore, the
mean value of all four conservative variables should not
change in time. The calculation is advanced in time un
til Ta
T
/L = 20 which corresponds to one crossing of the
domain.
We have constructed a set of Delaunay triangulations,
similar to those shown in Figure 2(b). The coarsest mesh
features a mesh spacing h/L = 5/16, where h is the length
of the edges into which the boundary has been split; on
the coarsest mesh the dimensionless time step has been set
equal to t a
T
/L =0.5 and progressively halved on the ner
meshes.
Table 2 shows, for the four pairs of space and time mesh
spacings, the loss experienced by each of the conserved
quantities between the nal and initial time. The follow
ing notation has been used <u
i
>=<u
i
>
T
<u
i
>
0
,
where u
i
is one of the conservative variables and the av
erages have been computed according to Equation (35).
Table 2 shows that the scheme does not globally preserve
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
220 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
Table 2. Unsteady vortex in a subsonic stream: behaviour of the conservation error with decreasing mesh size.
h/L t <> p <E> p <u> p <v> p
0.3125 0.5 0.2476E03 0.2170E02 0.1373E03 0.2596E04
0.15625 0.25 0.6493E04 1.93 0.5427E03 2.00 0.3311E04 2.05 0.1847E05 3.81
0.078125 0.125 0.1293E04 2.33 0.1093E03 2.31 0.6440E05 2.36 0.9429E07 4.29
0.0390625 0.0625 0.2665E05 2.28 0.2274E04 2.26 0.1331E05 2.27 0.3988E10 11.21
in time mass, energy and momentum to machine accuracy
as it does in space. Nevertheless, the conservation error de
creases with the mesh spacing (at a constant CFL number)
at a rate which is slightly above 2. Super convergence in the
ymomentum error is due to the fact that the ymomentum
integral is zero at the initial time.
For smooth ow cases, such as the ones considered
in this paper, the temporal conservation error may not be
particularly detrimental; it is also not obvious that the other
massmatrix formulations proposed to date are conservative
in time. In the presence of discontinuities, conservation
in time might prove essential and, therefore, a spacetime
formulation could be better suited.
5.3. Laminar ow past a 2D circular cylinder
In order to demonstrate secondorder time accuracy for vis
cous ow problems, we consider the 2D laminar ow past a
circular cylinder. The free stream Mach number M
= 0.2
and Reynolds number Re
D
= 1200 based on the cylinders
diameter, D, match those used by Jothiprasad, Mavriplis,
and Caughey (2003). Noslip, adiabatic wall boundary con
ditions are specied along the cylinders surface and the free
stream temperature has been set to T
= 287 K.
The computational mesh, which is derived froma struc
tured quadrilateral one, is made of 18,624 grid points and
36,864 triangular cells; 192 equally spaced segments are
used to discretise the perimeter of the circle. The height
of the rst cell off the wall is set equal to /D = 10
3
and
the fareld boundary is a circle with a diameter equal to
40D, concentric with the cylinder. Figure 4 shows a detail
of the grid in the neighbourhood of the cylinder.
The test problem is initially solved until a periodic
shedding cycle develops: different sets of calculations have
been performed up to a nal nondimensional time equal
to T u
/D = 5,
approximately equal to 1.25 shedding cycles. Integral mea
sures such as the lift and drag coefcients computed at this
nal time using the various timestep lengths can be used
Figure 4. 2D laminar unsteady cylinder ow: details of the tri
angular mesh in the vicinity of the circular cylinder.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 221
Figure 5. 2D laminar unsteady cylinder ow: time accuracy study. (a) Time evolution of the aerodynamic coefcients. (b) Temporal grid
convergence study.
to establish the temporal order of accuracy. Indeed, using
a Taylor series expansion in time and neglecting terms of
order higher than the design order p =2 of the scheme, one
can show that:
G
t
G
t /2
= C (t )
p
, (38)
where C is a constant and G indicates either the lift or drag
coefcient. The l.h.s. of Equation (38) is plotted in loglog
scale against the timestep length in Figure 5(b) where it is
compared with the straight line of slope p = 2.
Figure 5(b) shows that the measured order of time ac
curacy matches the design order when the timestep length
is sufciently small so that higher order terms become neg
ligibly small.
It is worth mentioning that the coupling between a
Galerkin discretisation of the viscous terms and an up
wind FS discretisation of the convective terms is known,
see Nishikawa and Roe (2009) and Ricchiuto et al. (2008),
to incur into accuracy degradation when the cell Reynolds
number is lower than a threshold value close to 2 and that
secondorder convergence can only be recovered if the up
wind bias in the distribution matrices is replaced by a cen
tred discretisation in the diffusiondominated regime. This
lowRe treatment is not currently implemented in our code.
This is not a major concern in the context of the present work
for two reasons. First, in the present viscous test case we are
measuring the order of convergence in time, using a xed
mesh. Second, even for the relatively low Reynolds num
ber ow that is examined in Section 5.4, we have veried
that the cell Reynolds number is above the aforementioned
threshold value within most of the ow eld.
5.4. 3D laminar ow past a conned
square cylinder
In this section, we analyse the 3D unsteady, compressible,
low Reynolds and low Mach number ow past a square
cylinder which is symmetrically placed between two innite
straight walls. This ow conguration has been studied in
Camarri et al. (2005) and Buffoni et al. (2006) and the
computational grid has been made available through the
iCFD database (Toschi 2010).
Figure 6 shows a sketch of the 3Dgeometry: the various
geometric parameters are reported in Table 3, along with
the characteristics of the mesh being used.
Concerning boundary conditions, a fully developed
Poiseuille ow is imposed at the inlet of the domain, as
also sketched in Figure 6. This is achieved by prescrib
ing the ow direction and the appropriate total temperature
and total pressure proles at the inlet boundary. These two
proles are computed by assuming uniform static pres
sure and the analytical static temperature distribution that
is given in Schlichting (1979, Equation (12.44)) for a fully
developed, incompressible Poiseuille ow. Due to the low
Mach number ow under study, the incompressible ap
proximation turns out to be reasonably accurate to provide
an appropriate inow condition. At the outow boundary,
static pressure is imposed and adjusted until the maximum
(centre line) Mach number of the inlet prole equals
M
in
= 0.1. Isothermal boundary conditions are prescribed
at all solid boundaries by setting T
w
= 300 K and periodic
boundary conditions are used in the transverse ow direc
tion. The Reynolds number, based on the length scale D
and the maximum streamwise velocity component U
in
at
the inlet, has been set equal to Re
D
= 200.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
222 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
Figure 6. 3D channel ow past a square obstacle: sketch of the computational domain.
In order to avoid the loss of accuracy that is incurred by
compressible ow codes at low Mach number, the FS dis
cretisation has been applied to a preconditioned version of
the governing equations which relies on the preconditioning
matrix proposed by Venkateswaran and Merkle (1999).
As initial condition for the present calculation we have
used an arbitrary snapshot of a 2D simulation conducted
on a triangular grid which coincides with that of the lat
eral planes of the 3D GR4 mesh. This 2D ow eld has
been interpolated onto the 3D grid and the transverse ve
locity component has initially been set to zero. The calcu
lation has then been advanced in time for approximately
6000 physical time steps, using a physical timestep length
tU
in
/Dranging between 0.35 and 1.5, until a fully 3Dow
is established.
Even though a detailed analysis of this relatively com
plex oweld is well beyond the limits of the current study,
we will try to highlight some of its key features.
Monitoring the growth of the transverse velocity com
ponent at selected locations downstream of the obstacle
reveals that it takes more than 200 nondimensional time
units (t U
in
/D) before the owdevelops into a fully 3Dstate.
This is reported in Figure 7(a), which shows the time evo
lution of the transverse velocity component, normalised by
the maximum inlet horizontal velocity component, within
the point of coordinates: (x/D, y/D, z/D) =(0.75, 0.5, 1.5).
The time evolution of the lift and drag coefcients (the
black, resp. red curves of Figure 7(b)) is initially charac
terised by a strictly periodic behaviour, which is typical of
a 2D shedding. Later, when the ow becomes truly 3D, the
aerodynamic coefcients show a less regular and periodic
behaviour.
Figure 8 shows how the ow eld changes its struc
ture during time integration: pairs of streamwise (
x
) and
crossow (
z
) vorticity isosurfaces are displayed at two
different time instants. More specically, Figure 8(a) has
been obtained from a snapshot of the solution taken dur
ing the early timeintegration phase when the ow is 2D:
the only visible structures are the crossow vorticity iso
surfaces that reveal the presence of the vonKarm` an vortex
street. At a later time, this simple, 2D ow structure is
replaced by a more complex, 3D one: Figure 8(b) clearly
reveals the presence of streamwise vortices that are rem
iniscent of the modeA crossow instabilities that have
been observed by Sheard, Fitzgerald, and Ryan (2009) in
the simulation of the unbounded owpast a square cylinder.
Finally, we rely on the present 3D test case to highlight
the excellent convergence properties of the NewtonKrylov
algorithm, described in Section 4, which is used to solve
the pseudoevolutionary problem dened by Equation (28).
All data presented hereafter refer to a calculation run on
128 cores.
Figure 9 shows (in linearlog scale) the L
2
normof the m
components of the residual vector R, Equation (27), versus
the inner iterations counter k. Each peak in the residual
history corresponds to the beginning of a newphysical time
(only 10 physical time steps have been shown, to improve
readability), whereas the symbols correspond to an inner
Table 3. 3D channel ow past a square cylinder (Re = 200): characteristics of the mesh.
Total # Total # Edges along Nearwall
Mesh tetrahedra mesh points the square spacing l/D L/D H/D t/D
GR4 37,539,840 6,505,397 250 1.5 10
2
12 32 8 6
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 223
Figure 7. 3D channel ow past a square cylinder (Re = 200): time evolution of the transverse velocity component and aerodynamic
coefcients. (a) Transverse velocity component. (b) Aerodynamic coefcients.
iteration. It may be seen that only six inner iterations are
required in order to drive the residual R to machine zero
at each physical time step; the quadratic convergence of
Newtons algorithm is also recognisable.
The pseudotimestep length
k
in (30) is selected ac
cording to the switched evolution relaxation (SER) strategy
proposed by Mulder and van Leer (1985) as:
k
= C
k
C
k
= min
_
C
max
, C
0
R(U
n+1,0
)
2
R(U
n+1,k
)
2
_
,
(39)
where is the pseudo time step computed using the sta
bility criterion of the explicit timeintegration scheme. C
0
and C
max
are user dened constants that control the initial
and maximum pseudo time steps used in the actual calcula
tion. We have used C
0
= 35, whereas C
max
has been given
a very large value, so that Newtons algorithm is recovered
during the last inner iterations of each physical time step.
We use the iterative linear solvers available in the PETSc
library (Balay et al. 2012) to solve the linear system (30) at
each inner iteration (or Newton step). The use of an iterative
linear solver introduces a third, nested level of iterations,
which we call linear and label using the counter l.
Figure 8. 3D channel ow past a square cylinder (Re =200): isosurfaces of the transverse
z
and streamwise
x
vorticity components:
isosurfaces are shown for
z
D/U
in
= 0.118 and
x
D/U
in
= 0.024. (a) 2D shedding mode. (b) 3D shedding mode.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
224 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
Figure 9. 3D channel ow past a square cylinder (Re = 200): convergence history of the dual timestepping strategy.
The parallel linear solver is PETScs default, i.e.
GMRES (Saad and Schultz 1986) restarted every 30 lin
ear iterations. The parallel preconditioner is the additive
Schwarz method (ASM) with one level of overlapping and,
within each block, an incomplete lowerupper (ILU(1)) fac
torisation with 1 level of ll. Using 1 level of ll, the ILU
preconditioner requires twice the memory needed to store
the Jacobian matrix. Thanks to the compactness of the FS
schemes, the average number of nonzero entries (each en
try being a small dense block of order m) per row of the
Jacobian matrix is not too large, as it equals 7 in 2D and 14
in 3D.
The iterative linear solver is terminated when the fol
lowing convergence criterion (which is PETScs default) is
met:
R
_
U
n+1,k
_
AU
l

2
< 10
5
R
_
U
n+1,k
_

2
,
(40)
where A in (40) is a shorthand notation for the matrix in
square parenthesis in (30). Statistics concerning the iter
Table 4. 3D channel ow past a square cylinder (Re = 200):
linear system statistics.
k L CPU ratio C
k
1 30 11.7% 0.35 10
2
2 39 14.4% 0.11 10
3
3 48 17.1% 0.87 10
3
4 50 17.9% 0.40 10
5
5 55 19.5% 0.75 10
8
6 71 24.8% 0.27 10
13
ative linear solver are presented in Table 4, which shows
data averaged over 300 physical time steps once the owhas
entered a fully 3D state. For each of the six inner iterations
that are needed to step from one physical time level to the
next, Table 4 shows (i) the number L of linear iterations
that are needed to meet the convergence criterion (40), (ii)
the ratio between the CPU time spent solving the linear
system over the total CPU time spent for that inner iteration
and (iii) the value of the C
k
constant in the SER formula
(39). Table 4 reveals that the number of linear iterations
needed by GMRES to converge increases as the steady so
lution of (28) is approached. There are two possible causes
of this phenomenon. Since the convergence criterion (40)
is proportional to the magnitude of the nonlinear resid
ual R(U
n +1, k
), it tightens as soon as the steady solution of
(28) is approached. Also, using very large steps
k
, the
pseudotime term in Equation (30) vanishes and the diago
nal dominance of the linear system being solved decreases,
making the construction of a numerically stable ILU fac
torisation more problematic. The relative cost of solving the
linear system increases with the number of linear iterations
to convergence and ranges between 12% and 25% of the
total CPU time; the remainder, which is constant, is spent
in the construction of the residual vector and (mostly) of
the Jacobian matrix.
6. Conclusions
This article describes a massmatrix formulation of the un
steady FS schemes which is consistent with the conser
vative linearisation based on the parameter vector. Even
though the mass matrices have been derived using a partic
ular formulation of the unsteady FS schemes, which relies
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 225
on the analogy with PG FE discretisations, the approach
outlined in this study should be readily applicable to all
other unsteady FS formulations that have been proposed to
date. Secondorder time accuracy has been demonstrated
for both inviscid and laminar viscous ows; moreover, the
technique has been applied to the simulation of a rather
complex 3D conguration.
Acknowledgements
Computational resources on the matrix cluster have been
made available by CASPUR (Consorzio Interuniversitario per
le Applicazioni di Supercalcolo per Universit` a e Ricerca,
http:www.caspur.it) under grants Standard HPC 2010 and Stan
dard HPC 2011.
Note
1. The use of inward normals is a convention in use since the
early developments of this class of schemes.
References
Abgrall, R. 2001. Towards the Ultimate Conservative Scheme:
Following the Quest. Journal of Computational Physics 167
(2): 277315.
Abgrall, R. 2006. Residual Distribution Schemes: Current Sta
tus and Future Trends. Computers & Fluids 35 (7): 641
669. Special Issue Dedicated to Professor Stanley G. Ru
bin on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00457930050 01738.
Abgrall, R., and M. Mezine. 2003. Construction of Second
Order Accurate Monotone and Stable Residual Distribution
Schemes for Unsteady Flow Problems. Journal of Computa
tional Physics 188 (1): 1655.
Abgrall, R., and P.L. Roe. 2003. High Order Fluctuation Schemes
on Triangular Meshes. Journal of Scientic Computing
19 (13): 336.
Balay, S., J. Brown, K. Buschelman, W.D. Gropp, D. Kaushik, M.
G. Knepley, L. Curfman McInnes, B.F. Smith, and H. Zhang.
2012. PETSc Web page. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc.
Bastin, J erme, and Gilbert Rog e. 1999. AMultidimensional Fluc
tuation Splitting Scheme for the ThreeDimensional Euler
Equations. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical
Analysis 33 (06): 12411259.
Bonglioli, A. 2000. Fluctuation Splitting Schemes for the Com
pressible and Incompressible Euler and NavierStokes Equa
tions. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynam
ics 14 (1): 2139.
Buffoni, M., S. Camarri, A. Iollo, and M.V. Salvetti. 2006. Analysis
and LowOrder Modeling of the ThreeDimensional FlowPast
a Conned Square Cylinder. Rapport de recherche n
6004
Octobre 2006 18 Pages. INRIA. Domaine de Voluceau
Rocquencourt, BP 10578153 Le Chesnay Cedex (France).
http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/11/01/24/PS/RR6004.ps.
Camarri, S., M.V. Salvetti, M. Buffoni, and A. Iollo. 2005. Simu
lation of the ThreeDimensional FlowAround a Square Cylin
der Between Parallel Walls at Moderate Reynolds Numbers.
In Atti del XVII Congresso di Meccanica Teorica ed Applicata,
edited by C. Borri, L. Facchini, G. Federici, and M. Primice
rio, Firenze, IT: Associazione italiana di meccanica teorica e
applicata, Firenze University Press. 1115 September 2005.
Caraeni, D., and L. Fuchs. 2005. Compact ThirdOrder Multi
dimensional Upwind Discretization for Steady and Unsteady
Flow Simulations. Computers & Fluids 34 (45): 419441.
Csk,
A., and H. Deconinck. 2002. SpaceTime Residual Distri
bution Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws on Un
structured Linear Finite Elements. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids 40 (34): 573581.
De Palma, P., G. Pascazio, G. Rossiello, and M. Napolitano.
2005. A SecondOrderAccurate Monotone Implicit Fluc
tuation Splitting Scheme for Unsteady Problems. Journal of
Computational Physics 208 (1): 133.
Deconinck, H., H. Paill` ere, R. Struijs, and P.L. Roe. 1993. Multi
dimensional Upwind Schemes Based on FluctuationSplitting
for Systems of Conservation Laws. Computational Mechan
ics 11: 323340.
Deconinck, H., M. Ricchiuto, and K. Sermeus. 2003. Introduc
tion to Residual Distribution Schemes and Comparison With
Stabilized Finite Elements. In 33rd Computational Fluid
DynamicsNovels Methods for solving convection dominated
systems. SintGenesiusRode, Belgium: von Karman Institute
for Fluid Dynamics.
Deconinck, H., P.L. Roe, and R. Struijs. 1993. A Multi
Dimensional Generalization of Roes Flux Difference Splitter
for the Euler Equations. Computers and Fluids 22 (2/3):
215222.
Degrez, G., and E. van der Weide. 1999. Upwind Residual Dis
tribution Schemes for Chemical NonEquilibrium Flows. In
Fluid Dynamics and Colocated Conferences, AIAA993366.
Giles, Michael, W. Anderson, and Thomas Roberts. 1990. Up
wind Control Columes A New Upwind Approach. In
Aerospace Sciences Meetings, AIAA 900104.
Guzik, S.M.J., and C.P.T. Groth. 2008. Comparison of Solu
tion Accuracy of Multidimensional Residual Distribution and
GodunovType FiniteVolume Methods. International Jour
nal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 22 (12): 6183.
Hubbard, M.E., and A.L. Laird. 2005. Achieving HighOrder
Fluctuation Splitting Schemes by Extending the Stencil.
Computers & Fluids 34 (45): 443459.
Jameson, A. 1991. TimeDependent Calculations Using Multi
grid With Applications to Unsteady Flows Past Airfoils and
Wings. In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference, No. 1596. AIAA. June, 2426, Honolulu, HI.
Jothiprasad, G., D.J. Mavriplis, and D.A. Caughey. 2003. Higher
Order Time Integration Schemes for the Unsteady Navier
Stokes Equations on Unstructured Meshes. Journal of Com
putational Physics 191 (2): 542566.
Lerat, A., F. Falissard, and J. Sid` es. 2007. VorticityPreserving
Schemes for the Compressible Euler Equations. Journal of
Computational Physics 225 (1): 635651.
M arz, J., and G. Degrez. 1996. Improving Time Accuracy for Resid
ual Distribution Schemes. Project report. RhodeStGen ese,
Belgium: Von Karman Institute.
Masatsuka, Katate. 2009. I do Like CFD. Vol. 1. 1st ed. Lulu.com.
http://cdfbooks.com.
Mohammadi, Bijan. 1994. Fluid Dynamics Computation with
NSC2KE : An UserGuide: Release 1.0. Tech. Rep. RT0164.
INRIA. Projet MENUSIN. http://hal.inria.fr/inria00070005.
Mulder, Wim A., and Bram van Leer. 1985. Experiments With
Implicit Upwind Methods for the Euler Equations. Journal
of Computational Physics 59 (2): 232246.
Nishikawa, Hiroaki, and Philip Roe. 2009. HighOrder
FluctuationSplitting Schemes for AdvectionDiffusion
Equations. In Computational Fluid Dynamics 2006, edited
by Herman Deconinck and E. Dick. 7782. Berlin: Springer.
Paill` ere, H. 1995. Multidimensional Upwind Residual Distri
bution Schemes for the Euler and NavierStokes Equations
on Unstructured Grids. PhD thesis. Universit e Libre de
Bruxelles.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
226 A. Bonglioli and R. Paciorri
Ricchiuto, M., and R. Abgrall. 2010. Explicit RungeKutta
Residual Distribution Schemes for Time Dependent Prob
lems: Second Order Case. Journal of Computational Physics
229 (16): 56535691.
Ricchiuto, M., N. Villedieu, R. Abgrall, and H. Deconinck. 2008.
On Uniformly HighOrder Accurate Residual Distribution
Schemes for AdvectionDiffusion. Journal of Computational
and Applied Mathematics 215 (2): 547556.
Roe, P.L. 1981. Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vec
tors, and Difference Schemes. Journal of Computational
Physics 43 (2): 357372.
Roe, P. L. 1987. Linear Advection Schemes on Triangular Meshes.
Tech. Rep. CoA Report No. 8720. Craneld Institute of
Technology.
Rossiello, G., P. De Palma, G. Pascazio, and M. Napolitano.
2010. Analysis of HighOrderAccurate Fluctuation Split
ting Schemes for Steady Advection. International Journal
of Computational Fluid Dynamics 24 (6): 217225.
Rossiello, G., P. De Palma, G. Pascazio, and M. Napolitano.
2009. SecondOrderAccurate Explicit Fluctuation Splitting
Schemes for Unsteady Problems. Computers & Fluids 38
(7): 13841393. Special Issue Dedicated to Professor Alain
Lerat on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday.
Saad, Y., and M.H. Schultz. 1986. GMRES: A Generalized Min
imal Residual Algorithm for Solving Nonsymmetric Lin
ear Systems. SIAM Journal on Scientic and Statistical
Computing 7: 856869.
Schlichting, H. 1979. BoundaryLayer Theory. New York:
McGrawHill.
Sheard, Gregory J., Matthew J. Fitzgerald, and Kris Ryan. 2009.
Cylinders With Square CrossSection: Wake Instabilities
With Incidence Angle Variation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics
630: 4369.
Shewchuk, Jonathan Richard. 1996. Triangle: Engineering a 2D
Quality Mesh Generator and Delaunay Triangulator. In Ap
plied Computational Geometry: Towards Geometric Engi
neering, Vol. 1148 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
edited by Ming C. Lin and Dinesh Manocha. 203222. Berlin:
SpringerVerlag.
Toschi, Federico. 2010. iCFD Database Repository. http://
mp0806.cineca.it/icfd.php.
Turkel, Eli. 1973. Symmetrization of the Fluid Dynamic Matrices
With Applications. Mathematics of Computation 27: 729
736.
van der Weide, E., and H. Deconinck. 1996. Positive Matrix Dis
tribution Schemes for Hyperbolic Systems, With Application
to the Euler Equations. In Proceedings of the ECCOMAS 96.
van der Weide, E., H. Deconinck, E. Issman, and G. Degrez. 1999.
A Parallel, Implicit, MultiDimensional Upwind, Residual
Distribution Method for the NavierStokes Equations on Un
structured Grids. Computational Mechanics 23: 199208.
Venkateswaran, S., and L. Merkle. 1999. Analysis of Precondi
tioning Methods for the Euler and NavierStokes Equations.
In VKI LS 199903, Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Wang, Z.J. 2007. HighOrder Methods for the Euler and
NavierStokes Equations on Unstructured Grids. Progress in
Aerospace Sciences 43 (13): 141. http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S03760421070 00450.
Wood, William A, and William L Kleb. 1999. Diffusion Charac
teristics of Finite Volume and Fluctuation Splitting Schemes.
Journal of Computational Physics 153 (2): 353377.
Appendix A. PetrovGalerkin mass matrices for
compressible ows
In this section, we provide further details about the derivation of
the consistent mass matrix previously described in Section 3.2. We
replace the expansion (7) for both U/Z and Z/t in the weighted
residual formulation (21). In doing so, element e contributes to
the nodal equation of grid point i with the following term:
e,t
i
=
_
Te
e
i
U
Z
Z
t
dV
=
je
_
ke
__
Te
__
N
e
i
1
d +1
_
I
mm
+B
e
i
_
N
e
k
N
e
j
dV
_
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
_
Z
j
t
(A.1a)
=
je
M
e
ij
Z
j
t
. (A.1b)
Observe that in Equation (A.1a) the shape functions depend upon
the spatial variable x and thus need to be integrated over the
triangular area (tetrahedral volume), while the distribution matrix
B
e
i
is constant. The j and k indices in Equation (A.1a) span all
vertices of cell e. Performing the required integration, we obtain:
M
e
ij
=
ke
__
T
e
_
N
e
i
N
e
k
N
e
j
N
e
k
N
e
j
d +1
_
dV
_ _
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
+B
e
i
ke
__
T
e
N
e
k
N
e
j
dV
_ _
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
=
ke
_
e
ijk
I
mm
+
e
jk
B
e
i
_
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
(A.2a)
=
ke
M
e
ijk
, (A.2b)
where
M
e
ijk
=
e
ijk
_
U
Z
_
k
+
e
jk
B
e
i
_
U
Z
_
k
and
e
ijk
=
e
ijk
1
d +1
e
jk
.
The scalars
e
jk
and
e
ijk
are integrals over the cell of products of
the shape function:
e
jk
=
_
Te
N
e
j
N
e
k
dV = T
e

_
_
1
(d +1) (d +2)
j = k
2
(d +1) (d +2)
j = k
,
e
ijk
=
_
Te
N
e
i
N
e
j
N
e
k
dV = T
e

_
_
1
10
1
(d 1)
i = j = k
1
30
1
(d 1)
two indices are equal
1
60
1
(d 1)
i = j = k
.
It is computationally more convenient to compute matrix M
e
ij
as
follows:
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 227
M
e
ij
=
ke
e
ijk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
+B
e
i
ke
_
e
jk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
_
(A.3a)
=
ke
e
ijk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
+B
e
i
C
e
j
(A.3b)
=
ke
e
ijk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
+
_
B
e
i
1
d +1
I
mm
_
C
e
j
,
(A.3c)
where we have set:
C
e
j
=
ke
e
jk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
(A.4a)
=
T
e

(d +1) (d +2)
_
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j
+(d +1)
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
_
.
(A.4b)
Note that:
je
C
e
j
=
T
e

(d +1) (d +2)
_
(d +1)
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
+(d +1)
2
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
_
= T
e

_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
.
The rst term in Equation (A.3c) can also be expressed as a
function of the C
e
j
matrices in Equation (A.4b); indeed, it turns
out that:
ke
e
ijk
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
k
=
ij
_
C
e
i
+C
e
j
_
+
ij
T
e

_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
,
(A.5)
where:
ij
=
1 +
ij
d +3
ij
=
1 +
ij
10 d
.
Finally, replacing Equation (A.5) into (A.3c) we recover the M
e
ij
matrix of Equation (22).
Appendix B. 1D analysis of time conservation
In this section, we establish the temporal conservation error that
is incurred by the proposed massmatrix formulation. To simplify
the algebra, the derivation has been made in one space dimension
and using the rstorder accurate, twotimelevel scheme obtained
from the FD formula (25) by setting
t
= 0.
Consider a 1D computational domain [x
0
, x
N
] of length L
which is uniformly partitioned into N segments of size h = L/N.
N + 1 grid points are located along the spatial xaxis in x
j
with
j = 0, . . ., N; the element (segment) bounded by grid points x
j 1
and x
j
will be denoted as j
1
2
. Periodic boundary conditions
are specied at the endpoints x
0
and x
N
. Integrating Equation
(1) over the entire computational, i.e. summing up the temporal
and inviscid uctuations of all the N elements in the mesh, one
obtains:
N
j=1
_
j
1
2
,t
j
1
2
,inv
_
=
N
j=1
P
n+
j
Z
n+1
j
Z
n
j
t
+F
N
F
0
= 0.
(B.1)
To be general, in writing Equation (B.1), we have denoted by P
n+
j
a weighted average of the matrix evaluated at the two time levels
n and n + 1:
P
n+
j
= P
n+1
j
+(1 ) P
n
j
. (B.2)
The choice = 1 in (B.2) corresponds to the actual implementa
tion in the code.
Matrix P
j
which appears in Equation (B.1) is obtained by
collecting the contributions in grid point j of the C
e
j
matrices, given
in Equation (A.4), associated with the two surrounding elements:
P
j
= C
j
1
2
j
+C
j+
1
2
j
(B.3a)
=
h
6
_
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j1
+4
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j
+
_
U
Z
_
Z=Z
j+1
_
.
(B.3b)
Note that matrix P
j
is linear in the components of Z since matrix
U/Z is also linear in Z.
Due to the use of periodic boundary conditions in space, Z
0
=
Z
N
implies that F
N
= F
0
so that Equation (B.1) translates into the
following constraint that is satised by the numerical scheme:
N
j=1
P
n+
j
Z
n+1
j
=
N
j=1
P
n+
j
Z
n
j
. (B.4)
It is not difcult to verify that the global constraint (B.4) can be
rewritten as
N
j=1
P
n+1
j
Z
n+1
j
=
N
j=1
P
n
j
Z
n
j
+
N
j=1
P
j
_
Z
n+1
j
_
Z
n+1
j
Z
n
j
__
,
(B.5)
where P
j
= P
n+1
j
P
n
j
. Since matrix P
j
is linear in Z and
Z
n+1
j
Z
n
j
is of order t, we expect P
j
to be of order ht.
In one space dimension, the mean value of U, computed
according to Equation (35), is
<U> L =
1
2
N
j=1
P
j
Z
j
(B.6)
which allows to rewrite Equation (B.5) as follows:
<U
n+1
> <U
n
>=
1
2L
N
j=1
P
j
_
Z
n+1
j
_
Z
n+1
j
Z
n
j
__
.
(B.7)
The r.h.s. of Equation (B.7) is the time conservation error that is
incurred by our massmatrix formulation over a single time step.
Its leading order term can be estimated to be
<U
n+1
> <U
n
> O (ht ) . (B.8)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
I
I
T
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

M
u
m
b
a
i
]
a
t
1
0
:
0
6
2
2
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.