Advertisement

On The Relation Between The Upwind-Differencing Schemes Of Godunov, Engquist—Osher and Roe

  • Bram Van Leer

Abstract

The upwind-differencing first-order schemes of Godunov, Engquist—Osher and Roe are discussed on the basis of the inviscid Burgers equations. The differences between the schemes are interpreted as differences between the approximate Riemann solutions on which their numerical flux-functions are based. Special attention is given to the proper formulation of these schemes when a source term is present. Second-order two-step schemes, based on the numerical flux-functions of the first-order schemes are also described. The schemes are compared in a numerical experiment and recommendations on their use are included.

Key words

upwind differencing approximate Riemann solution conservation laws 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. K. Godunov,Finite-difference method for numerical computation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of fluid dynamics, Mat. Sbornik, 47 (1959), pp. 271–306. (In Russian.)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. K. Godunov, A. W. Zabrodyn and G. P. Prokopov, A difference scheme for two-dimensional unsteady problems of gas dynamics and computation of flow with a detached shock wave, Z. Vycisl. Matem. Mat. Fiz., 1 (1961), pp. 1020–1050. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Harten, P. D. Lax and B. van Leer, On upstream differencing and Godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, ICASE Report No. 82-5,1982; SIAM Rev., 25 (1983), pp. 35–62.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Engquist and S. Osher,Stable and entropy satisfying approximations for transonic flow calculations, Math. Comp., 34 (1980), pp. 45–75.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Osher and F. Solomon,Upwind difference schemes for hyperbolic systems of conservation lawsMath. Comp. (1983), to appear.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. L. Roe, The use of the Riemann problem in finite-difference schemes Lecture Notes in Physics,141, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, pp. 354–559.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. L. Roe, Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors and difference schemes J. Comp. Phys., 43 (1981), pp. 357–372.MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. M. Murman, Analysis of embedded shock waves calculated by relaxation methods AIAA J., 12(1974), pp. 626–633.ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. L. Hancock, private communication (1980).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme V.A second order sequel to Godunov’s method J. Comp. Phys., 32 (1979), pp. 101–136.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme IV.A new approach to numerical convection J. Comp. Phys. 23 (1977), pp. 276–299.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. D. van Albada, private communication (1981).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. D. van Albada, B. van Leer and W. W. Roberts, Jr., A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics Astron. Astrophys., 108 (1982), pp. 76–84.ADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. L. Roe, private communication (1981).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Harten and P. D. Lax, A random-choice finite-difference scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 18 (1981), pp. 289–315.MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Colella Glimm’s method for gas dynamics this Journal, 3 (1982), pp. 76–110.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    T.-P. Liu, Quasilinear hyperbolic systems, Comm. Math. Phys., 68 (1979), pp. 141 – 172.MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bram Van Leer
    • 1
  1. 1.Leiden State UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations