Premium
Convergence issues in using high‐resolution schemes and lower–upper symmetric Gauss–Seidel method for steady shock‐induced combustion problems
Author(s) -
Li Bin,
Yuan Li
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in fluids
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.938
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1097-0363
pISSN - 0271-2091
DOI - 10.1002/fld.3718
Subject(s) - polygon mesh , total variation diminishing , upwind scheme , discretization , mathematics , convergence (economics) , shock (circulatory) , geometry , mathematical analysis , medicine , economics , economic growth
SUMMARY This paper reports numerical convergence study for simulations of steady shock‐induced combustion problems with high‐resolution shock‐capturing schemes. Five typical schemes are used: the Roe flux‐based monotone upstream‐centered scheme for conservation laws (MUSCL) and weighted essentially non‐oscillatory (WENO) schemes, the Lax–Friedrichs splitting‐based non‐oscillatory no‐free parameter dissipative (NND) and WENO schemes, and the Harten–Yee upwind total variation diminishing (TVD) scheme. These schemes are implemented with the finite volume discretization on structured quadrilateral meshes in dimension‐by‐dimension way and the lower–upper symmetric Gauss–Seidel (LU–SGS) relaxation method for solving the axisymmetric multispecies reactive Navier–Stokes equations. Comparison of iterative convergence between different schemes has been made using supersonic combustion flows around a spherical projectile with Mach numbers M = 3.55 and 6.46 and a ram accelerator with M = 6.7. These test cases were regarded as steady combustion problems in literature. Calculations on gradually refined meshes show that the second‐order NND, MUSCL, and TVD schemes can converge well to steady states from coarse through fine meshes for M = 3.55 case in which shock and combustion fronts are separate, whereas the (nominally) fifth‐order WENO schemes can only converge to some residual level. More interestingly, the numerical results show that all the schemes do not converge to steady‐state solutions for M = 6.46 in the spherical projectile and M = 6.7 in the ram accelerator cases on fine meshes although they all converge on coarser meshes or on fine meshes without chemical reactions. The result is based on the particular preconditioner of LU–SGS scheme. Possible reasons for the nonconvergence in reactive flow simulation are discussed.Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.