## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

–)

COMPRESSIBLE FLOW SUPG STABILIZATION

PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM ELEMENT-EDGE

MATRICES

L. Catabriga

∗

A.L.G.A. Coutinho

†

T.E. Tezduyar

‡

Abstract

For the streamline-upwind/Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) formulation of inviscid compressible ﬂows,

we present stabilization parameters calculated based on the element-edge matrices and degree-of-

freedom submatrices of those element-edge matrices. In performance tests involving supersonic

ﬂows and shocks, we compare these stabilization parameters with the ones deﬁned based on the

element matrices. In both approaches the formulation includes a shock-capturing parameter. We

investigate the diﬀerence between updating the stabilization and shock-capturing parameters at

the end of every time step and at the end of every nonlinear iteration within a time step. The

formulation also involves an algorithmic feature that is based on freezing the shock-capturing

parameter at its current value when a convergence stagnation is detected.

Key Words: Euler equations, compressible ﬂow, ﬁnite elements, edge-based data

structures, stabilization parameter

1 INTRODUCTION

In ﬁnite element computation of compressible ﬂows,

the streamline-upwind/Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) for-

mulation [19, 20, 11] is now one of the most estab-

lished and preferred stabilized formulations. Stabi-

lized formulations such as the SUPG formulation of

compressible ﬂows, SUPG formulation of incompress-

ible ﬂows [8, 1], and the pressure-stabilizing/Petrov-

Galerkin (PSPG) [14] formulation have some well-

pronounced advantages. They prevent numerical in-

stabilities in solving problems with high Reynolds or

Mach numbers and shocks or thin boundary layers,

as well as when using equal-order interpolation func-

tions for velocity and pressure. The SUPG and PSPG

Received on.

∗ Department of Computer Science - Federal University of

Esp´ırito Santo

† Department of Civil Engineering - COPPE - Federal Uni-

versity of Rio de Janeiro

‡ Mechanical Engineering, Rice University

c Copyright: Computational Fluid Dynamics JOUR-

NAL 2002

formulations are among the stabilized methods that

achieve these objectives without introducing excessive

numerical dissipation.

The SUPG formulation for incompressible ﬂows was

ﬁrst introduced in an ASME paper [8], with further

studies and examples in [1]. The SUPG formulation

for compressible ﬂows was ﬁrst introduced, in the con-

text of conservation variables, in a NASA technical re-

port [19]. A concise version of the technical report was

published as an AIAA paper [20], and a more thor-

ough version with additional examples as a journal

paper [11]. After that, several SUPG-like methods for

compressible ﬂows were developed. Taylor–Galerkin

method [7], for example, is very similar, and under cer-

tain conditions is identical, to one of the SUPG meth-

ods introduced in [19, 20, 11]. Another example of the

subsequent SUPG-like methods for compressible ﬂows

in conservation variables is the streamline-diﬀusion

method described in [12]. Later, following [19, 20, 11],

the SUPG formulation for compressible ﬂows was re-

cast in entropy variables and supplemented with a

shock-capturing term [10]. It was shown in [13] that

2 L. CATABRIGA, A.L.G.A. COUTINHO, T.E. TEZDUYAR

the SUPG formulation introduced in [19, 20, 11], when

supplemented with a similar shock-capturing term, is

very comparable in accuracy to the one that was re-

cast in entropy variables. The PSPG formulation for

the Navier–Stokes equations of incompressible ﬂows,

introduced in [14], assures numerical stability while

allowing us to use equal-order interpolation functions

for velocity and pressure. An earlier version of this

stabilized formulation for Stokes ﬂow was introduced

in [9].

A stabilization parameter that is mostly known as

“τ” is embedded in the SUPG and PSPG formula-

tions. It involves a measure of the local length scale

(also known as “element length”) and other parame-

ters such as the element Reynolds and Courant num-

bers. Various element lengths and τs were proposed

starting with those in [8, 1] and [19, 20, 11], followed

by the one introduced in [22], and those proposed in

the subsequently reported SUPG and PSPG methods.

Here we will call the SUPG formulation introduced

in [19, 20, 11] for compressible ﬂows “(SUPG)

82

”,

and the set of τs introduced in conjunction with that

formulation “τ

82

”. The stabilized formulation intro-

duced in [22] for advection–diﬀusion–reaction equa-

tions included a shock-capturing term and a τ def-

inition that takes into account the interaction be-

tween the shock-capturing and SUPG terms. That

τ deﬁnition precludes “compounding” (i.e. augmen-

tation of the SUPG eﬀect by the shock-capturing ef-

fect when the advection and shock directions coin-

cide). The τ used in [13] with (SUPG)

82

is a slightly

modiﬁed version of τ

82

. A shock-capturing parameter,

which we will call here “δ

91

”, was embedded in the

shock-capturing term used in [13]. Subsequent mi-

nor modiﬁcations of τ

82

took into account the interac-

tion between the shock-capturing and the (SUPG)

82

terms in a fashion similar to how it was done in [22]

for advection–diﬀusion–reaction equations. All these

slightly modiﬁed versions of τ

82

have always been used

with the same δ

91

, and we will categorize them here

all under the label “τ

82-MOD

”.

New ways of computing the τs based on the ele-

ment matrices and vectors were introduced in [21] in

the context of the advection–diﬀusion equation and

the Navier–Stokes equations of incompressible ﬂows.

These new deﬁnitions are expressed in terms of the

ratios of the norms of the matrices or vectors. They

automatically take into account the local length scales,

advection ﬁeld and the element Reynolds number.

Based on these deﬁnitions, a τ can be calculated for

each element or for each degree-of-freedom of each el-

ement, or, as it was proposed in [16, 17], for each

integration point of each element. It was proposed

in [21, 15, 18] that the stabilization parameters to

be used in advancing the solution from time level

n to n + 1 (including the parameter embedded in

a stabilization terms that resembles a discontinuity-

capturing term) should be evaluated at time level n

(i.e. based on the ﬂow ﬁeld already computed for time

level n), so that we are spared from another level of

nonlinearity.

In [4], the τ deﬁnitions based on the element matri-

ces were used in conjunction with the (SUPG)

82

for-

mulation supplemented with the shock-capturing term

involving δ

91

. In conjunction with the same formula-

tion, in [5], we investigated the performances of the

τ deﬁnitions based on the element matrices, where a

τ is calculated for each degree-of-freedom of each el-

ement. These concepts are extended in this paper to

the edge-based implementation that was introduced

in [2]. We reported this eﬀort ﬁrst in a conference pa-

per [6]. Our studies include comparisons between the

τs calculated for each element and for each degree-

of-freedom of each element. We also investigate the

performance diﬀerences between calculating the stabi-

lization and shock-capturing parameters at time level

n and at (every nonlinear iteration of) time level n+1.

The performance comparisons are based on test com-

putations involving supersonic ﬂows and shocks. In

all test computations the shock-capturing parameter

is frozen when a convergence stagnation is detected.

2 EULER EQUATIONS

The system of conservation laws governing inviscid,

compressible ﬂows are the Euler equations. In two

SUPG PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM LOCAL MATRICES 3

dimensions these equations can be written in terms of

the conservation variables, U = (ρ, ρu, ρv, ρe), as

∂U

∂t

+

∂F

x

∂x

+

∂F

y

∂y

= 0 on Ω × [0, T]. (1)

Here ρ is the ﬂuid density, u = (u, v) is the velocity

vector, e is the total energy per unit mass, F

x

and

F

y

are the Euler ﬂuxes, Ω is a domain in IR

2

, and T

is a positive real number. We denote the spatial and

temporal coordinates respectively by x = (x, y) ∈ Ω

and t ∈ [0, T], where the superimposed bar indicates

set closure, and Γ is the boundary of domain Ω. We

consider ideal gases. Alternatively, Equation (1) can

be written as

∂U

∂t

+A

x

∂U

∂x

+A

y

∂U

∂y

= 0 on Ω × [0, T], (2)

where A

x

=

∂Fx

∂U

and A

y

=

∂Fy

∂U

. We assume that

we have an appropriate set of boundary and initial

conditions associated with Equation (2).

3 STABILIZED FORMULATION AND

STABILIZATION PARAMETERS

Considering a standard discretization of Ω into ﬁ-

nite elements, the (SUPG)

82

formulation for the Eu-

ler equations in conservation variables introduced in

[19, 20, 11], supplemented with a shock-capturing

term [13], is written as

_

Ω

W

h

.

_

∂U

h

∂t

+A

h

x

∂U

h

∂x

+A

h

y

∂U

h

∂y

_

dΩ +

n

el

e=1

_

Ω

e

τ

_

∂W

h

∂x

A

h

x

+

∂W

h

∂y

A

h

y

_

.

_

∂U

h

∂t

+A

h

x

∂U

h

∂x

+A

h

y

∂U

h

∂y

_

dΩ +

n

el

e=1

_

Ω

e

δ

91

_

∂W

h

∂x

.

∂U

h

∂x

+

∂W

h

∂y

.

∂U

h

∂y

_

dΩ = 0. (3)

Here W

h

and U

h

are the ﬁnite-dimensional test and

trial functions that are deﬁned on standard ﬁnite el-

ement spaces. In Equation (3), the ﬁrst integral cor-

responds to the Galerkin formulation, the ﬁrst series

of element-level integrals are the SUPG stabilization

terms, and the second series of element-level integrals

are the shock-capturing terms added to the variational

formulation to prevent spurious oscillations around

shocks. The shock-capturing parameter, δ

91

, is eval-

uated here using the approach proposed in [13]. We

deﬁne the following element-level matrices:

m :

_

Ω

e

W

h

.

∂U

h

∂t

dΩ (4)

¯

k :

_

Ω

e

_

∂W

h

∂x

.A

h

x

A

h

x

∂U

h

∂x

+

∂W

h

∂x

.A

h

x

A

h

y

∂U

h

∂y

+

∂W

h

∂y

.A

h

y

A

h

x

∂U

h

∂x

+

∂W

h

∂y

.A

h

y

A

h

y

∂U

h

∂y

_

dΩ

(5)

¯c :

_

Ω

e

_

∂W

h

∂x

.A

h

x

∂U

h

∂t

+

∂W

h

∂y

.A

h

y

∂U

h

∂t

_

dΩ (6)

c :

_

Ω

e

_

W

h

.A

h

x

∂U

h

∂x

+W

h

.A

h

y

∂U

h

∂y

_

dΩ (7)

The conventional ﬁnite element data structure as-

sociates to each triangle e its connectivity, that is, the

mesh nodes I, J and K (see Fig. 1). In the edge-

s

I

J

K

L

f

e

Fig.1: Elements adjacent to edge s formed by nodes I

and J.

based data structure, each edge s is associated to the

adjacent elements e and f, thus to the nodes I, J, K

and L. Moreover, each element matrix can be disas-

sembled into its contributions to three edges, s, s + 1

and s + 2, with connectivities IJ, JK and KI, that

4 L. CATABRIGA, A.L.G.A. COUTINHO, T.E. TEZDUYAR

is,

_

¸

_

• • •

• • •

• • •

_

¸

_

. ¸¸ .

element e

=

_

¸

_

××0

××0

0 0 0

_

¸

_

. ¸¸ .

edge s

+

_

¸

_

0 0 0

0 × ×

0 × ×

_

¸

_

. ¸¸ .

edge s + 1

+

_

¸

_

×0 ×

0 0 0

×0 ×

_

¸

_

. ¸¸ .

edge s + 2

, (8)

where • and × are 4 × 4 submatrices, and 0 repre-

sents a 4 × 4 null matrix. Thus, all the contributions

pertaining to edge s will be present in the adjacent el-

ements e and f. The resulting edge matrix is the sum

of the corresponding sub-element matrices containing

all the contributions to nodes I and J, that is,

_

◦ ◦

◦ ◦

_

. ¸¸ .

edge s

=

_

××

××

_

. ¸¸ .

element e

+

_

××

××

_

. ¸¸ .

element f

, (9)

where ◦ and × also represent 4 × 4 blocks. Consider-

ing a conventional elementwise description of a given

ﬁnite element mesh, the topological informations are

manipulated, generating a new edge-based mesh de-

scription. Instead of the element-level matrices de-

ﬁned in Equations (4)-(7), we will use the edge-based

matrices deﬁned as

m =

(A

e

+ A

f

)

12

_

I I

I I

_

(10)

¯

k =

_

−scpg

1

scpg

1

scpg

2

−scpg

2

_

(11)

¯c =

_

−sm

1

sm

2

sm

1

−sm

2

_

(12)

c =

_

−scg

1

scg

1

scg

2

−scg

2

_

, (13)

where A

e

and A

f

are the areas of elements e and f,

and I is the identity matrix of order 4. The submatri-

ces are deﬁned as,

scpg

1

= A

h

x

(s1A

h

x

+ s2A

h

y

) +A

h

y

(s3A

h

x

+ s4A

h

y

) (14)

scpg

2

= A

h

x

(s1A

h

x

+ s3A

h

y

) +A

h

y

(s2A

h

x

+ s4A

h

y

) (15)

sm1 =

1

6

(yKI + yIL)A

h

x

+ (xIK + xLI)A

h

y

)

(16)

sm2 =

1

6

(yJK + yLJ)A

h

x

+ (xKJ + xJL)A

h

y

(17)

scg

1

= sm1 (18)

scg

2

= sm2, (19)

where

s

1

=

1

4A

e

y

JK

y

KJ

+

1

4A

f

y

LJ

y

IL

(20)

s

2

=

1

4A

e

y

JK

x

IL

+

1

4A

f

y

LJ

x

LI

(21)

s

3

=

1

4A

e

x

KJ

y

KI

+

1

4A

f

x

JL

y

IL

(22)

s

4

=

1

4A

e

x

KJ

x

IK

+

1

4A

f

x

JL

x

LI

. (23)

In the equations above, x

ij

= x

i

− x

j

, y

ij

= y

i

− y

j

,

i, j = I, J, K, L.

We deﬁne the SUPG parameters from the edge ma-

trices, as given in [21]:

τ

g

=

_

1

τ

r

S1

+

1

τ

r

S2

_

−1/r

, (24)

where

τ

S1

=

c

¯

k

τ

S2

=

∆t

2

c

¯c

. (25)

Here ∆t is the time step, b = max

1≤j≤nee

{|b

1j

| +

|b

2j

| + . . . + |b

nee,j

|}, n

ee

is the number of edge equa-

tions (number of edge nodes times the number of

degrees-of-freedom per node), and r is an integer pa-

rameter.

We can calculate a separate τ for each edge matrix

degree of freedom. The resulting stabilization param-

eter matrix is written as

τ

dof

=

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

τ

ρ

τ

u

τ

v

τ

e

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

, (26)

where the subindexes (ρ, u, v, e) are the primitive vari-

ables. Each τ

i

can be calculated by using the expres-

sion

τ

i

=

_

1

τ

r

S1i

+

1

τ

r

S2i

_

−1/r

, (27)

SUPG PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM LOCAL MATRICES 5

where

τ

S1i

=

c

i

¯

k

i

τ

S2i

=

∆t

2

c

i

¯c

i

. (28)

Here c

i

,

¯

k

i

and ¯c

i

are the submatrices of the edge ma-

trices for each degree-of-freedom i = ρ, u, v, e. Theses

submatrices are deﬁned by edge matrix coeﬃcients.

Let a general degree-of-freedom be denoted by i. The

corresponding edge submatrix b

i

can be expressed as

b

i

=

_

b

p1,1

b

p1,2

. . . b

p1,8

b

p2,1

b

p2,2

. . . b

p2,8

_

, (29)

where

if i = ρ then (p1, p2) ≡ (1, 5)

if i = u then (p1, p2) ≡ (2, 6)

if i = v then (p1, p2) ≡ (3, 7)

if i = e then (p1, p2) ≡ (4, 8)

. (30)

The norms of these submatrices, used in Equation

(28), are computed by b

i

= max

1≤j≤nee

{|b

p1,j

| +

|b

p2,j

|}.

The solution is advanced in time by the implicit

predictor-multicorrector algorithm given in [11]. The

resulting linear systems of equations are solved by

a nodal-block diagonal element-by-element precon-

ditioned GMRES method. Although local time-

stepping can be used as shown in [3], all solutions

in this work are obtained using a ﬁxed time-step size

with CFL = 1.

4 NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section we describe the test computations car-

ried out for two steady-state problems using the ele-

ment and edge data structures. The tolerance of the

preconditioned GMRES algorithm is 0.1, the dimen-

sion of the Krylov subspace is 5, and the number of

multicorrections is 3. All computations are initialized

with the inﬂow values. The shock-capturing param-

eter is frozen when a convergence stagnation is de-

tected. The symbol τ

g

represents τs calculated based

on element-level and edge-level matrices. The symbol

τ

dof

represents τs calculated based on the degree-of-

freedom sub-matrices of the element-level and edge-

level matrices.

4.1 Oblique Shock

The ﬁrst problem is a Mach 2 uniform ﬂow over a

wedge, at an angle of −10

◦

with respect to a horizontal

wall. The solution involves an oblique shock at an

angle of 29.3

◦

emanating from the leading edge of the

wedge, as shown in Fig. (2).

x = 0.9

29.3

ο

x

y

M = 2.0

M = 1.64052

Fig.2: Oblique shock – problem description.

The computational domain is a square with 0 ≤ x ≤

1 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1. Prescribing the following inﬂow data

on the left and top boundaries results in a solution

with the following outﬂow data:

Inﬂow

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

M = 2.0

ρ = 1.0

u = cos10

0

v = −sin10

0

p = 0.17857

Outﬂow

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

M = 1.64052

ρ = 1.45843

u = 0.88731

v = 0.0

p = 0.30475

(31)

Here M is the Mach number and p is the pressure.

Four Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed at

the left and top boundaries, the slip condition with

v = 0 is set at the bottom boundary, and no boundary

condition is imposed at the outﬂow (right) boundary.

A 20×20 mesh with 800 linear triangles and 441 nodes

is employed.

Figures (3)-(6) and Tables (1) and (2) show the per-

formances of the element and edge versions of τ

g

and

τ

dof

.

6 L. CATABRIGA, A.L.G.A. COUTINHO, T.E. TEZDUYAR

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

edge

element

exact

(a) Density proﬁle at x = 0.9.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

edge

element

(b) Evolution of density residual.

Fig.3: Oblique shock – solutions and residuals ob-

tained with the element and edge versions of τ

g

and

the iteration update.

Table 1: Oblique shock – computational costs (in

number of time steps, GMRES iterations and CPU

seconds) for the element and edge versions of τ

g

.

Iteration update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 4,162 797 84

Element 4,287 846 149

Time-step update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 4,845 833 85

Element 4,246 838 145

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

edge

element

exact

(a) Density proﬁle at x = 0.9.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

edge

element

(b) Evolution of density residual.

Fig.4: Oblique shock – solutions and residuals ob-

tained with the element and edge versions of τ

g

and

the time-step update.

Table 2: Oblique shock – computational costs (in

number of time steps, GMRES iterations and CPU

seconds) for the element and edge versions of τ

dof

.

Iteration update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 4,088 787 88

Element 4,902 833 97

Time-step update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 4,965 822 87

Element 4,857 819 93

SUPG PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM LOCAL MATRICES 7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

edge

element

exact

(a) Density proﬁle at x = 0.9.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

edge

element

(b) Evolution of density residual.

Fig.5: Oblique shock – solutions and residuals ob-

tained with the element and edge versions of τ

dof

and

the iteration update.

4.2 Reﬂected Shock

This problem consists of three regions (R1, R2 and

R3) separated by an oblique shock and its reﬂection

from a wall, as shown in Fig. (7). Prescribing the

following Mach 2.9 inﬂow data in the ﬁrst region on

the left (R1), and requiring the incident shock to be at

an angle of 29

◦

, leads to the following exact solution

at the other two regions (R2 and R3):

R1

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

M =2.9

ρ =1.0

u =2.9

v =0.0

p =0.714286

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

edge

element

exact

(a) Density proﬁle at x = 0.9.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

edge

element

(b) Evolution of density residual.

Fig.6: Oblique shock – solutions and residuals ob-

tained with the element and edge versions of τ

dof

and

the time-step update.

R2

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

M = 2.3781

ρ = 1.7

u = 2.61934

v =−0.50632

p = 1.52819

R3

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

_

M =1.94235

ρ =2.68728

u =2.40140

v =0.0

p =2.93407

. (32)

The computational domain is a rectangle with 0 ≤

x ≤ 4.1 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1. We prescribe the density,

velocities and pressure at the left and top boundaries,

8 L. CATABRIGA, A.L.G.A. COUTINHO, T.E. TEZDUYAR

ο

x

y

y=0.25

1

2

3

M=2.9

M=2.3781

M=1.94235

29

ο

23.28

Fig.7: Reﬂected shock – problem description.

the slip condition with v = 0 is imposed at the bottom

boundary, and no boundary condition is imposed at

the outﬂow (right) boundary. We use an unstructured

mesh with 1,837 nodes and 3,429 elements.

(a) With τ

g

and iteration update.

(b) With τ

g

and time-step update.

(c) With τ

dof

and iteration update.

(d) With τ

dof

and time-step update.

Fig.8: Reﬂected shock – density contours obtained

with the edge versions of τ

g

and τ

dof

.

Figures (8)-(11) and Tables (3) and (4) show the

performances of the element and edge versions of τ

g

and τ

dof

.

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

We highlighted, for the SUPG formulation of invis-

cid compressible ﬂows, stabilization parameters de-

ﬁned based the element-edge matrices and the degree-

(a) With τ

g

and iteration update.

(b) With τ

g

and time-step update.

(c) With τ

dof

and iteration update.

(d) With τ

dof

and time-step update.

Fig.9: Reﬂected shock – density contours obtained

with the element versions of τ

g

and τ

dof

.

Table 3: Reﬂected shock – computational costs (in

number of time steps, GMRES iterations and CPU

seconds) for the element and edge versions of τ

g

.

Iteration update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 10,237 787 500

Element 9,127 844 948

Time-step update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 11,161 846 544

Element 9,913 893 984

of-freedom submatrices of those element-edge matri-

ces. These deﬁnitions are expressed in terms of the

ratios of the norms of the matrices, and take auto-

matically into account the ﬂow ﬁeld, the local length

scales, and the time step size. We carried out a num-

ber of test computations involving supersonic ﬂows

and shocks. By inspecting the solution quality and

SUPG PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM LOCAL MATRICES 9

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Edge

Element

(a) With iteration update.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Edge

Element

(b) With time-step update.

Fig.10: Reﬂected shock – evolution of the density

residuals obtained with the element and edge versions

of τ

g

.

convergence history, we compared these stabilization

parameters with the ones deﬁned based on the ele-

ment matrices. In both cases the formulation includes

a shock-capturing parameter. Also by inspecting the

solution quality and convergence history, we investi-

gated the performance diﬀerence between updating

the stabilization and shock-capturing parameters at

time level n and at (every nonlinear iteration of) time

level n + 1. The formulation also involves activat-

ing an algorithmic feature that is based on freezing

the shock-capturing parameter at its current value

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Edge

Element

(a) With iteration update.

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Edge

Element

(b) With time-step update.

Fig.11: Reﬂected shock – evolution of the density

residuals obtained with the element and edge versions

of τ

dof

.

when a convergence stagnation is detected. We ob-

serve that in all cases the solution qualities are very

comparable. In terms of computational eﬃciency, τ

deﬁnitions based on the element matrices are respond-

ing better to using degree-of-freedom submatrices (in

place of full matrices) than the deﬁnitions based on

the edge matrices. The edge-based implementation is

computationally more eﬃcient than the element-based

implementation. However, this advantage is less pro-

nounced for the degree-of-freedom submatrices than it

is for the full matrices.

10 L. CATABRIGA, A.L.G.A. COUTINHO, T.E. TEZDUYAR

Table 4: Reﬂected shock – computational costs (in

number of time steps, GMRES iterations and CPU

seconds) for the element and edge versions of τ

dof

.

Iteration update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 9,689 867 544

Element 9,138 845 584

Time-step update

Data structure N

GMRES

N

steps

time(sec)

Edge 9,133 862 528

Element 9,278 817 579

REFERENCES

[1] A.N. Brooks and T.J.R. Hughes. Streamline

upwind/Petrov-Galerkin formulations for convec-

tion dominated ﬂows with particular emphasis

on the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-

gineering, 32:199–259, 1982.

[2] L. Catabriga and A.L.G.A. Coutinho. Implicit

SUPG solution of Euler equations using edge-

based data structures. Computer Methods in Ap-

plied Mechanics and Engineering, 191:3477–3490,

2002.

[3] L. Catabriga and A.L.G.A. Coutinho. Improv-

ing convergence to steady-state of implicitSUPG

solution of Euler equations. Communications in

Numerical Methods in Engineering, 18:345–353,

2002.

[4] L. Catabriga, A.L.G.A. Coutinho, and T.E. Tez-

duyar. Finite element SUPG parameters com-

puted from local matrices for compressible ﬂows.

In Proceedings of the 9th Brazilian Congress of

Engineering and Thermal Sciences, Caxambu,

Brazil, 2002.

[5] L. Catabriga, A.L.G.A. Coutinho, and T.E. Tez-

duyar. Finite element SUPG parameters com-

puted from local dof-matrices for compressible

ﬂows. In Proceedings of the 24th Iberian Latin-

American Congress on Computational Methods in

Engineering, Ouro Preto, Brazil, 2003.

[6] L. Catabriga, A.L.G.A. Coutinho, and T.E. Tez-

duyar. Finite element SUPG parameters com-

puted from local edge matrices for compressible

ﬂows. In Proceedings of the 17th International

Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Sao Paulo,

Brazil, 2003.

[7] J. Donea. A Taylor-Galerkin method for convec-

tive transport problems. International Journal for

Numerical Methods in Engineering, 20:101–120,

1984.

[8] T.J.R. Hughes and A.N. Brooks. A multi-

dimensional upwind scheme with no crosswind

diﬀusion. In T.J.R. Hughes, editor, Finite Ele-

ment Methods for Convection Dominated Flows,

AMD-Vol.34, pages 19–35. ASME, New York,

1979.

[9] T.J.R. Hughes, L.P. Franca, and M. Balestra. A

new ﬁnite element formulation for computational

ﬂuid dynamics: V. Circumventing the Babuˇska–

Brezzi condition: A stable Petrov–Galerkin for-

mulation of the Stokes problem accommodating

equal-order interpolations. Computer Methods

in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 59:85–99,

1986.

[10] T.J.R. Hughes, L.P. Franca, and M. Mallet. A

new ﬁnite element formulation for computational

ﬂuid dynamics: VI. Convergence analysis of the

generalized SUPG formulation for linear time-

dependent multi-dimensional advective-diﬀusive

systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechan-

ics and Engineering, 63:97–112, 1987.

[11] T.J.R Hughes and T.E. Tezduyar. Finite ele-

ment methods for ﬁrst-order hyperbolic systems

with particular emphasis on the compressible Eu-

ler equations. Computer Methods in Applied Me-

chanics and Engineering, 45:217–284, 1984.

[12] C. Johnson, U. Navert, and J. Pitk¨aranta. Finite

element methods for linear hyperbolic problems.

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-

gineering, 45:285–312, 1984.

[13] G.J. Le Beau and T.E. Tezduyar. Finite element

computation of compressible ﬂows with the SUPG

SUPG PARAMETERS COMPUTED FROM LOCAL MATRICES 11

formulation. In Advances in Finite Element Anal-

ysis in Fluid Dynamics, FED-Vol.123, pages 21–

27, New York, 1991. ASME.

[14] T.E. Tezduyar. Stabilized ﬁnite element formula-

tions for incompressible ﬂow computations. Ad-

vances in Applied Mechanics, 28:1–44, 1991.

[15] T.E. Tezduyar. Adaptive determination of the

ﬁnite element stabilization parameters. In Pro-

ceedings of the ECCOMAS Computational Fluid

Dynamics Conference 2001 (CD-ROM), Swansea,

Wales, United Kingdom, 2001.

[16] T.E. Tezduyar. Calculation of the stabilization

parameters in SUPG and PSPG formulations. In

Proceedings of the First South-American Congress

on Computational Mechanics (CD-ROM), Santa

Fe–Parana, Argentina, 2002.

[17] T.E. Tezduyar. Calculation of the stabilization

parameters in ﬁnite element formulations of ﬂow

problems. to appear in Journal of Computational

Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 2003.

[18] T.E. Tezduyar. Computation of moving bound-

aries and interfaces and stabilization parameters.

International Journal for Numerical Methods in

Fluids, 43:555–575, 2003.

[19] T.E. Tezduyar and T.J.R. Hughes. Develop-

ment of time-accurate ﬁnite element techniques

for ﬁrst-order hyperbolic systems with particu-

lar emphasis on the compressible Euler equa-

tions. NASA Technical Report NASA-CR-

204772, NASA, 1982.

[20] T.E. Tezduyar and T.J.R. Hughes. Finite element

formulations for convection dominated ﬂows with

particular emphasis on the compressible Euler

equations. In Proceedings of AIAA 21st Aerospace

Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 83-0125, Reno,

Nevada, 1983.

[21] T.E. Tezduyar and Y. Osawa. Finite element sta-

bilization parameters computed from element ma-

trices and vectors. Computer Methods in Applied

Mechanics and Engineering, 190:411–430, 2000.

[22] T.E. Tezduyar and Y.J. Park. Discontinuity cap-

turing ﬁnite element formulations for nonlinear

convection-diﬀusion-reaction problems. Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,

59:307–325, 1986.

- hsp maths f5 2008
- Engineering Models 2 Homework 1
- 807023
- Cosmos Users Guide
- rr420302-finite-element-methods
- An Arbitrary Lagrangian¨CEulerian Computing Method for All Flow Speeds
- Course Learning Outcomes.docx
- smq
- Si Rect 2008 - Paper III - Key
- On Flux Vector Splitting for the Euler Equation
- Maths Mock Test
- lec7
- 2008 F5 Mid Year SBP Math K2
- Fluid Mechanics Mass Energy Eq Probs
- Eigenvalues
- EER STG 2
- Morison Equation
- layout in gp ap etc
- Csi Rug c Net Engineering Science
- Luis A. Boticario- Dynamic Response of Cylindrical Shells to Underwater End-On Explosion
- DK3162app10
- Matlab2012HW1C
- fox & c
- First Technical English Module
- Root Users Guide a 4
- matlab-1.docx
- Workbook4
- 25002
- sensors-08-05866
- Boussinesq_clapotis

- [Frank_E.,_Witten_I.H.]_Data_Mining_Practical_Mac(BookFi).pdf
- examples from FEM
- International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2011 Sornin 845 75
- Paper 15.pdf
- Linux Refresher Presentation
- Book on Damage mechanics
- AI_EFEM1D
- Arc length method implementation and application
- appendix_tensors.pdf
- Embedded FEM Technique
- FEM Book
- ContentServer (1)
- Hybrid_and_enhanced_strain_elements.pdf
- Mixed FEM for elastoplasticity
- Introduction.to.Uncertainty.quantification
- 1620290802_ftp
- multiscale method
- space time FEM
- Week2 ODEs
- week7_PolyGen
- implementation of anisotropic damage model
- ms10_2012
- implementation of component based parallel finite element library
- Web 5155
- Bsc Thesis
- coupled damage plasticity model
- concepts of higher order finite elements using sparse grids
- Slide Chpt09
- Flow
- cuda3

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading