• DOI:10.1002/fld.4763
• Corpus ID: 141466703

High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L2 and H(div) methods

@article{Fehn2019HighorderDS,
  title={High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L2 and H(div) methods},
  author={Niklas Fehn and Martin Kronbichler and Christoph Lehrenfeld and Gert Lube and Philipp W. Schroeder},
  journal={International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids},
  year={2019},
  volume={91},
  pages={533 - 556}
}

• Niklas Fehn, M. Kronbichler, +2 authors Philipp W. Schroeder
• Published 29 April 2019
• Computer Science
• International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids

The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the underresolved regime, mass conservation and energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high‐order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard L2‐based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence‐free H(div)‐conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. This work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to underresolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for underresolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms.