English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Riemann-solver based schemes are difficult and sometimes impossible to be applied for complex flows due to the required average state. Other methods that do not use Riemann-solvers are best suited for such cases. Among them, AUSM+, AUSMDV and the recently proposed Hybrid Lax-Friedrichs-Lax-Wendroff (HLFW) have been extended to two-phase flows. The eigenstructure of the two-fluid model is complex due to the phase interactions, leading to numerous numerical difficulties. One of them is the well-posedness of the equation system because it may lose hyperbolicity. Therefore, the methods that are not based on the wave structure and that are not TVNI could lead to strong oscillations. The common strategy to handle this problem is the adoption of a pressure correction due to interfacial effects. In this work, this procedure was applied to HLFW and AUSM-type methods and their results analyzed. The AUSM+ and AUSMDV were extended to achieve second-order using the MUSCL strategy for which a conservative and a non-conservative formulation were tested. Additionally, several AUSMDV weighting functions were compared. The first and second-order AUSM-type and HLFW methods were compared for the solution of the water faucet and the shock tube benchmark problems. The pressure correction strategy was efficient to ensure hyperbolicity, but numerical diffusion increased. The MUSCL AUSMDV and HLFW methods with pressure correction strategy were, on average, the best of the analyzed methods for these test problems. The HLFW was more stable than the other methods when the pressure correction was considered

A comparison of hyperbolic solvers II: ausm-type and Hybrid Lax-Wendroff-Lax-Friedrichs methods for two-phase flows