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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Summary  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  L  2 ‐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.

High‐order DG solvers for underresolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of L 2 and H (div) methods