INTERFACES.

DETONATION WAVES, CAVITATION AND

THE MULTIPHASE GODUNOV METHOD

RICHARD SAUREL
Institut Universitaire des Systemes Thermiques Industriels
5 rue Enrico Fermi
13453 Marseille Cedex 13
FRANCE
richard@iusti.univ-mrs.fr

Abstract. We have recently proposed a compressible two-phase uncondi-

tionally hyperbolic model able to deal with a wide range of applications:
interfaces between compressible materials, shock waves in condensed mul-
tiphase mixtures, homogeneous two-phase flows (bubbly and droplet flows)
and cavitation in liquids. Here we generalise the formulation to an arbi-
trary number of fluids, with mass and energy transfers, and the associated
Godunov method is extended to multidimensions. This is necessary for
modelling interaction of detonation waves in multiphase mixtures with in-
terfaces separating the energetic material from inert ones. Thus, the model
is able to solve detonation problems without mixture equation of state and
dynamic interface creation for cavitating flows in multidimensions.

1. Introduction

Difficult problems arise in the modelling of flows involving mixtures. These

mixtures may have a physical origin as in classical multiphase flows or may
be due to numerical inaccuracies and artificial mixing. This occurs in the
computation of interfaces separating two compressible fluids of different
physical properties.
In this introduction these difficulties are first reviewed for flows involving
fluid interfaces, secondly for flows involving homogeneous mixtures, and
finally for flows where interfaces appear naturally: cavitating flows. The so-
lution strategy is then developed and is valid for any of these applications.

Godunov Methods: Theory and Applications

Edited by E. F. Toro, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001 785
786 RICHARD SAUREL

Short review of methods for compressible flows with interfaces

Compressible multifluid flows occur in many situations when fluids have
different physical or thermodynamical properties and are separated by in-
terfaces. Well-known examples are the Richtmyer Meshkov instabilities in
gas dynamics, the behaviour of a gas bubble in a liquid under shock wave
etc.
Usually, the mathematical model in these situations is rather simple: it is
based on compressible Euler or Navier Stokes equations. All the difficulty
does not rely on the model but on the solution procedure and numerical
method. Indeed, the various materials are governed by different equations
of state (EOS) and artificial mixing occurs at the interfaces when an Eu-
lerian scheme is used. This mixing is due to numerical diffusion of contact
discontinuities. In this artificial mixture, computation of the pressure, the
temperature, the sound speed is so wrong that methods fail at the second
time step (negative pressure). Also, mixture rules and mixture equations
of state based on physical arguments also fail because the mixing is purely
numerical. Another reason is that most of the equations of state for liquids
and solids (even for gases (Abgrall, 1996)) have limited domain of validity.
The interface is the physical location where flow parameters are close to
the limits of validity. Hence a careful and clean treatment of interfaces is
mandatory.
Basically, two classes of methods are able to solve more or less accurately
interface problems. The first class corresponds to methods that eliminate
the numerical diffusion at the interfaces. Consequently, the artificial mixing
problem is eliminated too. A short review about these methods is given in
(Saurel and Abgrall, 2000). These methods can be listed as :
- Lagrangian methods (Benson, 1992),
- Arbitrary Lagrangian - Eulerian (ALE) methods (Farhat and Roux, 1991),
- Front Tracking methods (Harten and Hyman, 1983),(Glimm et at., 1998),
- Interface reconstruction methods (Hirt and Nichols, 1981), (Youngs, 1982),
- Level Set methods (Dervieux and Thomasset, 1981),(Karni, 1996), (Fed-
kiw et at., 1999).
Lagrangian and ALE methods are not well adapted for flows with very large
distorsions, and for inflow and outflow boundary conditions. Front track-
ing methods combine several flow solvers and are very difficult to code.
Interface reconstruction methods are not conservative at the interface and
unclear regarding compressible flows (the literature is too poor to evaluate
these methods). Level set methods seem very interesting with the approach
of Fedkiw (Fedkiw et at., 1999). Indeed the same equations are solved ev-
erywhere with the same flow solver. Simplicity and generality are key points
for the design of efficient numerical schemes.
The second class of methods allows numerical diffusion at the interfaces.
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 787

The interface is solved as a numerical diffusion zone, as classically done

with shock capturing methods. In this context, simplicity and generality of
the algorithm is favoured. The aim that is followed with these methods is a
building of a scheme that works on a fixed grid, that allows interface defor-
mations as large as possible, that deals with inflow and outflow boundary
conditions in a simple way, and that uses the same numerical scheme for all
computational cells (shocks, interfaces, rarefaction waves). Here, two types
of methods exist:
- Methods based on the Euler equations (Karni, 1996), (Shyue, 1998),
(Saurel and Abgrall, 2000),
- Methods based on multiphase flows equations (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999).
The first class, based on the Euler equations consist in rather simple meth-
ods, non conservative, very efficient regarding computer resources but lim-
ited to rather simple physical situations.
The last method is based on another model involving a large number of
equations (multiphase flow model). This model is certainly more difficult
to solve and more expensive in computer resources, but the resolution can
be achieved for all mesh points with the same method. The model com-
plexity is balanced by its generality and its capabilities to solve difficult
problems involving mixtures and interfaces. Regarding interface problems
with Euler or Navier-Stokes model, an artificial mixing zone appears. With
this model mixing is naturally involved: pure phases, interfaces or true mix-
tures are considered as multiphase mixtures.
Compared to the others methods for interface computation this one in-
sures conservativity of the mixture: total energy, mass and momentum of
the mixture are preserved. Consequently, the interface temperature is ac-
curately determined.
But the most important feature is that this method does not work only for
interface problems. It is able to model non-equilibrium two-phase flows as
well as flows with interfaces. This has serious implications for the modelling
of shock waves in compressible mixtures, detonation waves in heterogeneous
materials, and any flows involving compressible mixtures. It also posses a
major feature: the method is able to dynamically create interfaces. This is
very important for the simulation of cavitating flows (or flows with mass
transfer). So this method is able to deal with a wide range of applications
as we are detailing now.
Some remarks on the modelling of detonation waves in solid en-
ergetic materials
Most detonation codes for solid energetic materials are based on the same
kind of model as those of gaseous detonations: reactive Euler equations
with mixture equation of state and more or less complicated chemical ki-
netics. But in the context of solid explosives, the assumptions required for
788 RICHARD SAUREL

the building of a mixture equation of state are very questionable. Building

of mixture equation of state is based on a combination of the pure ma-
terial equations of state and some thermodynamic assumptions to couple
them. The first thermodynamic relation is the pressure equilibrium between
each phase. This assumption can easily be justified for these problems. The
main difficulty arise from the second equilibrium relation: temperature or
density equilibrium, or others equalities between thermodynamic functions.
The density equilibrium assumption is obviously wrong: there is no physical
reason for the gas and the solid phase to have the same density. The tem-
perature equilibrium assumption is wrong too. This assumption is the one
used in gaseous and most solid detonation models. In gaseous detonations,
there is no phase change but only a change in the chemical composition of
the mixture occurs. Indeed, the molecular collisions are so intense that the
assumption of temperature equilibrium between the various components is
valid. For solid explosive detonations, this no longer holds. The detonation
is composed of a shock wave propagating in the solid material and followed
by a reaction zone where energy is released with a finite rate. During the en-
ergy release the reactive solid material transforms to gaseous products and
the reaction zone always corresponds to a multi phase mixture. In this mul-
tiphase mixture, the assumption of thermal equilibrium is totally wrong.
The reason is that the size of solid elemental particles is much bigger than
the molecular size in gas mixtures, and molecular collisions cannot make
uniform the temperature in the gas and within the particles.
A way to circumvent this problem is to determine more thermodynamic
variables for the multiphase mixture. The consequence is to replace the
Euler equations by a multiphase model. In this context, each phase will be
governed by his own set of partial differential equation, closed by the equa-
tion of state of the corresponding pure material. The multi phase model for
interface modelling will be extended for this purpose.
Some remarks on the modelling of cavitating flows
Cavitation occurs in liquids or solids when a pressure drop is large enough
that the resulting thermodynamical state corresponds to a point in the
two-phase region of the phase diagram. Such a situation may occur when a
strong rarefaction wave propagates into a liquid or when inertial effects in-
duce pressure drop. Cavitation is difficult to model because interfaces have
to be created from a pure phase (liquid) to another phase (gas). According
to our knowledge, the modelling of cavitating flows is achieved in specific
situations only:
- homogeneous bubbly flows (Tan and Bankoff, 1984), (Massoni et at.,
1999),
- study of a single or limited number of interfaces (cavitation pockets)
(Molin et at., 1997),
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 789

- homogeneous cavitation with mixture models (Saurel et al., 1999).

Models for bubbly flows are restricted in applications because the gas phase
must be initially present and also because the flow topology is fixed. For
instance, cavitation pockets cannot be predicted by this type of model.
The cavitation pockets model does not allow external bubbly flows. Also,
the liquid phase is considered incompressible, thus restricting the domain
of application. But the main limitation is that the interfaces need to be
initially settled: interface creation is not allowed.
Cavitation with mixture models allows dynamic interface creation (in a cer-
tain sense). These models are based on the compressible Euler or Navier-
Stokes equations closed by an equation of state valid for all the states of
the fluid: pure liquid, pure vapour and two-phase mixture. But again, there
are some limitations with this approach. Non-equilibrium states are forbid-
den, the flow topology is ignored and the mass transfer is assumed to occur
instantaneously.
It is now clear that previous cavitation models are restricted to specific
applications. The multi phase model we propose for interfaces and detona-
tion waves can also be used for cavitation problems. Of course, it cannot
cover all range of interest but possess several features that render it more
general. It is able to consider compressibility of all phases, it takes into
account uncondensable gases, it is able to model metastable mixtures, to
create dynamically interfaces, and also, at least in theory, the model is able
to make coexisting bubbly flows and cavitation pockets.

2. The multiphase model

The averaging method of Drew and Passman (Drew and Passman, 1998)
applied to the compressible Navier-Stokes equations of the various con-
stituents is used to obtain the multiphase flow model. All dissipative terms
are neglected everywhere except at the interfaces. This model is developed
in Saurel and Abgrall (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) for a two-phase system. It
is inspired from the formidable work of Baer and Nunziato (Baer and Nun-
ziato, 1986) where a two-phase model is proposed to study the deflagration-
to-detonation transition in solid energetic materials. The main difference
between Baer and Nunziato work and the present one is related to the use
of special relaxation terms and the new numerical method. We introduce
here the notion of infinitely fast relaxation regarding pressure and velocity.
That makes possible the numerical treatment of interface problems, and
open the model to a wider range of applications (interfaces, detonations,
cavitation, and others multiphase systems). The model is composed of a
790 RICHARD SAUREL

set of five partial differential equations for each phase k.

with averaged interface conditions:

Lkmk = 0
Lk Pi'lO:k + mkui + Fdk = 0 (2)
Lk Piui'lO:k + mkEki + FdkUi + Qki + fLPi(Pk - Pk) =0
The volume fraction O:k is defined by the volume occupied by phase k over
the total volume. The saturation constraint imposes L O:k = 1. Density,
velocity, pressure and total energy are represented respectively by p, u, P
and E = e + 1/2uu. The subscripts k and i are related to phase k and
interface averaged variables respectively.
The left-hand sides of System (1) are classical. On the right-hand side of
the same equations appear the mass transfer mk, the drag force Fdk, the
heat transfer Qi and the non conservative terms Pi'lO:k and PiUiVO:k. The
fL(Pk - Pk) and fLPi (Pk - Pk) terms are related to the pressure relaxation
process. They are of capital importance.
The first equation of System (1) expresses the evolution of the phase vol-
ume fractions. It is obtained from averaging of an indicator function equal
to 1 in phase k and 0 elsewhere. This equation is a simplification of a more
general volume fraction evolution equation accounting for inertial effects
(rebounding bubbles for example) and others interface kinematics consid-
erations. Here, for mathematical, numerical and physical reasons, the model
is closed with this simplified equation.
The last equation of System (1) represents the evolution of the number
density of individual entity composing phase k. For instance, if phase k
is the gas phase filling bubbles, Nk then represents the density number of
bubbles. Knowledge of the density number of elemental particles is impor-
tant for determining the surface of mass, momentum and energy exchanges
between phases. The term Jih models breack-up or coalescence of elemen-
tal particles. When the assumption of spherical elemental particles is not
valid, the exchange surface determination is a more acute problem. Such a
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 791

difficulty occurs when the flow changes its topology. Determination of the
interfacial area in the general case is still an open problem. The interested
reader will find information in (Drew and Passman, 1998).
Before giving details about the various terms, let us give a simple picture
of the physical meaning of the non conservative terms Pi 'Vak and PiUi 'V ak.
The basic one-dimensional Euler equations averaged over a duct of variable
cross section A:

oAp a(Apu) _ 0
at + ox -
oApu + oA(pu 2 + P) = poA (3)
at oAu(pE
oApE
Ox ox
+ P) _ poA
at + ox - at

In two-phase systems, the volume fraction a is sometimes used as a sur-

face fraction. If this analogy is retained and the temporal derivative ~~
is replaced by a space derivative u ~: by the means of the volume frac-
tion evolution equation, the one dimensional averaged Euler equations and
the multiphase model match. This means that the non-conservative terms
in the multiphase model have the same effects as the duct variation cross
section terms. Their effects are well know in steady flows: acceleration of
subsonic flows in area restriction for example. This simple picture can be
important for the derivation of numerical schemes, or results analysis.
This also means that the multiphase model, in a certain sense, couples sev-
eral Euler systems in fictitious ducts of variable cross section. These "ducts"
have permeable walls for the various transfers, they move with the flow at
velocity Ui and they expand with the pressure differential I-L(Pk - pn at a
rate controlled by I-L.

Closure relations not depending on the physical processes. They

are related to the determination of the two new interfacial averaged vari-
ables Pi and Ui. An accurate estimate of these variables is nearly impossible
in the general case and certainly unnecessary for our applications. For all
the present applications, the pressures and the velocities will be relaxed
instantaneously after each hydrodynamic time step. So, our strategy is to
choose interfacial average variables close to the relaxed state. We also need
estimates that use only variables determined by the multiphase system and
a choice that preserves symmetry is preferred. Indeed, each phase being
compressible, there is no reason to prefer a specific phase. Thus, our esti-
792 RICHARD SAUREL

mates are:
Pi = I: CtkPk (4)
Ui = I: CtkPkUk/ I: CtkPk
Note that there is a large degree of freedom for these estimates without
changing the hyperbolicity of the model. Hyperbolicity in the model is a
result of phase compressibility and not of interfacial variables as done in
(Bestion, 1990) or (Sainsaulieu, 1995) with conditionally hyperbolic mod-
els. Our model is unconditionally hyperbolic (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999).

Closure relations depending on the physical process. In most phys-

ical situations, the drag force, the mass and heat transfers, particles break-
up and coalescence are finite rate processes and are modelled by empirical
closure laws, based on separated effects experiments. We do not enter in
the details here. The novelty here is related mainly on pressure and velocity
relaxation terms which require some details.
Pressure terms. The model involves non-classical interaction terms re-
garding the pressure relaxation process: /1(Pk - Pk) in the volume fraction
evolution equation and /1Pi(Pk - Pk) in the energy equation. The first term
represents the rate of expansion of the volume fraction Ctk in order to the
pressures tend towards equilibrium. The physical meaning of this term is
very simple. If the various phases are not in pressure equilibrium after the
passage of a rarefaction or shock wave, the volume of each phase must vary
in order to reach the pressure equilibrium. The variable /1 controls the rate
at which this equilibrium is reached. The existence of this variable has been
shown theoretically according the second law of thermodynamics and me-
chanics of irreversible processes (Baer and Nunziato, 1986).
When the pressures are in a non-equilibrium state, the elementary particles
(bubbles, drops etc.) undergo a 3D microscopic motion making their volume
vary in order to the pressures tend towards equilibrium. This 3D motion
has not been taken into account in the averaged phase velocities and in the
guess of the interfacial velocity (4). The interfacial velocity represents the
average motion of the mixture, so the microscopic motion is not considered.
Introducing a volume variation function of the pressure differential is a way
to correct the estimate for the averaged interfacial velocity, and also a way
to take the information from the microscopic media.
We have shown in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) that these terms were crucial
for the computation of pressure waves in two-phase mixtures (as in shock
or detonation waves), but also of paramount importance for restoring the
pressure interface condition when solving interfaces between compressible
pure materials.
Velocity terms The velocity relaxation term is the most classical one
in multiphase systems and is represented by the drag force Fdk. What is
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 793

non-classical in our approach is to consider an infinite relaxation drag co-

efficient for specific applications. General drag force may be written under
the form: Fdk = Ak (Uk - u"J where Ak is a positive finite function (or vec-
tor if there are more than 2 fluids). It controls the rate at which velocities
tend towards equilibrium. In special physical situations, this function tends
to infinity. For example, it is the case in materials with very high devia-
toric stress tensor. Imagine gas pores inside a solid set into motion by a
strong shock wave. The gas inside the pores will have its motion imposed
nearly instantaneously by the surrounding solid. The same situation occurs
in metal alloys and metal powders. Such type of situation has been studied
recently by Kapila et ai. (Kapile et ai., 1997) in the limit of very high drag
coeffi ci en ts.
When solving interface problems between pure fluids with the multiphase
model we have shown that the missing characteristic directions at the in-
terface may be replaced by source terms with infinite pressure and velocity
relaxation coefficients (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999). The first interface condi-
tion (pressure equality) is restored when the coefficient J-l tends to infinity.
To restore the second interface condition (velocity equality), an infinite
drag coefficient A must be used. The numerical procedures with infinite
relaxation coefficients are detailed in the next section.

3. Numerical method

The previous model can be used for interface computations, detonation

waves, cavitation and other physical problems (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999). It
can also be easily shown that the summation over all the phases of the mass,
momentum and energy equations reduces to the mixture Euler equation.
So the mixture is perfectly conservative. Frame invariance of the equations
can also be easily demonstrated as well as unconditional hyperbolicity. The
solution strategy we adopt is based on an operator splitting:

Uin +1 -
-
L6.
S
t L6. t L6. t U n
R H i (5)

Ls represents the integration operator for source terms: the mass and en-
ergy finite rate transfers. When velocity and pressure relaxation are also
finite rate, the same operator is used instead of LR, the infinite relaxation
operator. Ls is a standard ODE solver, dependant on the problem stiffness.
The infinite relaxation operator LR is not easy to develop. We have detailed
it in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) in the context of two fluids only. We gen-
eralise it in the following for an arbitrary number of materials, governed
by arbitrary equations of state. This is of major importance for the appli-
cations with detonations in hydrocodes, where a large number of materials
coexist. But the major difficulties rely in the hyperbolic solver LH which is
794 RICHARD SAUREL

now detailed. The basic elements are given in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999).
We generalise it here to multidimensions.

HYPERBOLIC OPERATOR

The numerical method applies at all mesh point: single phase, two-phase
and at the interfaces. For the sake of simplicity and generality regarding
complex equations of state we have retained the simplest ingredients for the
construction of a high-resolution scheme for multiphase flows with arbitrary
equations of state. The Riemann solver is chosen for an easy implementation
with the various models and equations of state even though the accuracy
can be improved.
The hyperbolic system involves several difficulties. Non-conservative terms
and a non-conservative equation (the volume fraction evolution equation)
are present. We have proposed in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) an efficient
way to discretise these terms. The major guideline for the building of the
numerical scheme can be stated as follows: If a multiphase flows evolves
under uniform pressure and velocity conditions, these flow variables must
remain uniform during time evolution.
This guide has been systematically exploited in the context of the Euler
equation and it has shown that it was providing an efficient discretisation
scheme for non conservative equations even if velocity and pressure were
not initially uniform (Saurel and Abgrall, 2000). The method has been
developed in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) in 1D for two phases only. We
extend it here to multidimensions and arbitrary number of fluids. The two-
dimensional hyperbolic system to solve for phase k reads:

(6)

O!kPkUk O!kPkVk
O!k (pkU~ + Pk) O!kPkUkVk
F(U) = O!kPkUkVk ,G(U) = O!k (pkV~ + Pk)
O!kUk (PkEk + Pk) O!kVk (PkEk + Pk)
NkUk NkVk

The basic ingredients of the finite volume method used here are de-
scribed in (Toro, 1997) in the context of the Euler equations. We consider
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 795

a computational cell i in the two-dimensional (x, y) space. We note nij the

external unit normal vector of the j side of cell i: nij = (nijx, nijyf. We
also note I< = (F, G) the tensor of fluxes and S = (H, I) the non conserva-
tive vectors.
We first have to consider the second equation of system (6): ~~ + 'V.I< =
S. 'V ak. Integrating this equation over a fixed control volume V delimited
by its edges, leads to:

V~~ + ~ j T- 1 F(TU)dL = j(S.'Vak)dV

szdes

where T is the rotation matrix and T- 1 is its inverse.

First order time and space approximation yields the following result:
4
Ur+1 = Ui - ~t/~ 2: Ti-/ LijFj + ~t(H(Urj)~x + I(U[j)~y)
j=1

h
were A d LJ.
LJ. x an
. I approxImatIOns
A are numenca " 0
f oak
ox and Oak
oy' L ij IS.
y

the length of the j side of cell i and Fj is the HLL (Harten et al., 1983)
numerical flux on the corresponding cell boundary in the rotated frame of
reference (along the normal nij ):
Fj = (SRjF0 - SLjF;0 + SRjSLj(fJ;0 - U0)/(SRj - SLj)
where rJ:; = TijUij, % = F(rJ:;) , SL and SR are the right and left wave
speeds in the HLL solver. Since Ti-/ % = nijI<ij the Godunov method
reads:
4
Ur+ 1 = Ui - A 2: Lijif> + ~t(H(Urj)~x + I(Utj)~y) (7)
j=1

with if> = (SRjnijI<Lj - SLjnijI<Rj + SRjSLj(URj - ULj)/(SRj - SLj) and

A = ~t/~. To determine to discretisation formulas for the non-conservative
terms and equations, we consider a multi phase mixture under uniform pres-
sure and velocity conditions and develop the various steps of the Godunov
method (Godunov et al., 1979). There are some situations where it is neces-
sary to consider sliding effects along a contact discontinuity or an interface.
Such situations are explained in (Saurel and Abgrall, 2000). In those cases,
the discretisation method accounting for sliding effects as detailed in this
reference is preferred. Here, we assume that these effects are not of major
importance for the actual applications.
So, under the assumptions Pk = Pi = P and ~ = ~ = iT, the mass
conservation equation first reads: (akPk)i+1 = (akPk)i - A 2.:j=1 Lij0. with
796 RICHARD SAUREL

n= [nij.V(SRj(akPk)Lj - SLj(akPk)Rj) + SRjSLj((akPk)Rj - ((akPk)Lj)]

/(SRj - SLj)
Under the same assumptions, the x-momentum equation reads:
(akPku)i+1 = (akPku)i - A 2::j=1 Lijn + b.tPib.x with:
n= [(nijx(u 2 (SRj(akPk)Lj - SLj(akPk)Rj) + P(SRjakLj - SLkak RJ )) +
(nijyUv(SRj(akPk)Lj - SLj(akPk)Rj) + USRjSLj((akPk)Rj - (akPkhj))]
/(SRj - SLj)
By multiplying the mass equation by u and subtracting it to the momen-
tum one, in order to maintain the velocity uniform at the next time step,
the non conservative term must be discretised by:
4
b. x = l/Vi L Lijnijx(SRjak LJ - SLjakRJ)/(SRj - SLj) (8)
j=1
The same developments for the y-momentum equation yields the discreti-
. e l f oak
satlOn lormu a 0 oy:

4
b.y = l/Vi L Lijnijy(SRjakLj - SLjakRJ)/(SRj - SLj) (9)
j=1
Finally, by doing the same type of calculation for the energy equation we
obtain the discretisation formula for the volume fraction evolution equation,
under the constraint that the pressure must not have any variation during
the time step. The results is:
4
(ak)i+1 = (ak)i - A L Lijn (10)
j=1
with
n = (nij.V (SRjakLj - SLjakRj) + SRkSLk(akRj - akLj )) /(SRj - SLj)
Th 'IS equatlOn
. .IS not h'mg eIse t h an a numenca . t'IOn 0 f at
. I approxlma oak +
V.V'ak = O. The term factor of V in n is the discretisation of V'ak, while
the other term is a viscous one. It is important to note that discretisation
of non conservative terms is strongly dependent of the Riemann solver, and
discretisation of the non conservative equation makes a viscous term also
dependent of the solver appear.
The Godunov method (7), with non-conservative approximations (8) and
(9) and non-conservative scheme (10) constitutes the first order two-dimen-
sional method for System (6). Second-order extension follows MUSeL strat-
egy (vanLeer, 1979). The predictor step is done under primitive variable
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 797

formulation. This choice of variables insures that pressure and velocity will
remain uniform after the predictor step, when starting from uniform condi-
tions. Predicted variables are computed at the center of each cell boundary
with:
WD+ 1 / 2 = Wr + (Xcij - xij)8xW ij + (Ycij - Yij)8yWij
-~t/2(A(Wn)8xWij + B(W[j)8 y Wij)
where (Xcij, Ycij) and (Xi, Yi) are the cell boundary and control volume cen-
ter coordinates respectively, W is the primitive variables vector, A(W) and
B (W) the Jacobian matrix, and 8xWij, 8y Wij the limited slopes along each
direction. The primitive variables vector reads: W = (ak' Pk, Uk, Vk, Pk, Nk)T
and the Jacobian matrixes:
Ui 0 0 0 0 0
Pk/ ak( Uk - ud Uk Pk 0 0 0
(Pk - Pd/akPk 0 Uk 0 I/Pk 0
A(W) =
0 0 0 Uk 0 0
2
PkckJaduk - Ui) 0 PkCk 0 Uk 0
0 0 Nk 0 0 Uk
Vi 0 0 0 0 0
Pk/ak(Vk - Vi) Vk 0 Pk 0 0
0 0 Vk 0 0 0
B(W) =
(Pk - Pi)/akPk 0 0 Vk I/Pk 0
PkC%J ad Vk - Vi) 0 0 PkCk2 Vk 0
0 0 0 Nk 0 Vk
Then, by developing the Godunov scheme over a time step under veloc-
ity and pressure uniformity constraints, the resulting corrector step is:
(ak)i+ 1 = (ak)i - A 2:1=1 Lijn and
~

u tn+1 = un
t
_ ~t/V':'t GJ=1
,\,,4 T,-:1
tJ
L'tJ,p*n+1/2
tJ

+ ~t(H(UD+1/2)~x + I(UD+1/2)~y) , with

n -- (ntJ"V n 12
· i + / (Sn+1/2 Rj a n+1/2
kLJ
_ Sn+1/2
Lj a n+1/2)
kRj
+
Sn+1/2 Sn+1/2 (a n+1/ 2 _ a n+1/ 2))/(Sn+1/2 _ Sn+1/2)
Rk Lk kRJ kLJ RJ LJ'
~ = I/V':' ,\,,4 L.." (Sn+1/2 n+1/2 _ Sn+1/2 n+1/2)/(Sn+1/2 _ Sn+1/2)
x t GJ=1 tJntJx RJ a kLJ LJ a kRJ RJ LJ
!\
u y -
_ I/V':' ,\,,4
t G -1
L"" (Sn+1/2 n+.1/2
ZJntJY R'J a kLJ _ Sn+1/2
L'J
n+.1/2)/(Sn+1/2
a kRJ R'J
_ Sn+1/2)
L'J
J-
This scheme is stable under the standard CFL condition, based on the
largest wave speed. We now examine the various source and relaxation
operators in the specific context of infinitely fast relaxation processes.

SOURCE AND RELAXATION OPERATORS

The solution of the overall problem has a physical meaning only after the
relaxation procedure application. So this step is of paramount importance.
798 RICHARD SAUREL

As given by Equation (5), we have to solve source terms (finite rate relax-
ation) as must done for example with mass transfer. This step is classical
and not detailed here. We also have to deal with relaxation terms (infinite
rate relaxation) for pressure and velocity. We first explain this last one.

Velocity relaxation operator

For each phase k we have to solve the ODE system:

8a k =0
fJ kPk = 0
8t (11)
8akPkuk '( )
8t = 1\ Uk ' - Uk
8akPkEk
8t =AUi(Uk,-Uk)

where the relaxation coefficient A tends to infinity. That means that for any
arbitrary small time increment, the velocities must be equal.
The combination of the mass and the momentum equations yields:
8 Uk 8Uk'
8t = A(Uk,-uk)/(akPk) for phase k and 7ft = -A(Uk,-uk)/(ak'Pk' ) for
phase k'. Substracting the first equation to the second and integrating leads
to the expected result: uk - uk' = O. Then, summing the same equations
and integrating yields the relaxed velocity:

(12)
the subscript 0 indicates the solution obtained from the hyperbolic solver.
Note that this relaxed velocity corresponds to the estimate we have pro-
posed for the averaged interfacial velocity in (4). So, in every situation
where velocities are relaxed instantaneously, the estimated (4) is an accu-
rate one. Note also that relaxation procedure is an exact one. It is also a
straightforward extension of the two-fluid case as derived in (Saurel and
Abgrall, 1999).
It now remains to update the internal energies, since System (12) involves
relaxation terms in the energy equation. Again, combination of the mass,
momentum and energy equations and exact integration leads to the result:

(13)
We now examine the pressure relaxation step for an arbitrary number of
fluids.

Pressure relaxation operator

We proposed in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) a procedure valid only for two
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 799

fluids. Here, we improve the accuracy of the relaxation pressure step and
we generalise it to an arbitrary number of fluids. For any phase k we have
to solve the ODE system:

-fJCl:k = Jl(Pk - Pk')

IdatkPk = 0
aCl:kPkuk
(14)
at =0
aCl:kPkEk
at = -JlPi (Pk - Pk,)

where the relaxation coefficient Jl tends to infinity.

Combination of the volume fraction, mass, momentum and energy equa-
.
tlOns . Ids: Cl:kPkTt
Yle aek .h P
n fJCl:k Wit
-riTt '
i given b
y E '
quatlOn (4) . S'mce
mk = Cl:kPk = canst then dCl:k = -mkdpk/ Pk 2 • The energy equation be-
fJ1 /Pk B '
p i~'
fJek
comes: Tt = Y usmg a trapezOl'd a I approxlmatlOn:
.. ek - e0k =
(Pt + PP)/2(1/ Pk -1/ p~), where variables marked with an asterisk are the
relaxed ones, and variables marked with 0 are obtained from the velocity
relaxation step. This corresponds to N equations (N is the number of flu-
ids) with 2N+l unknowns: N energies, N densities and Pt- N equations of
state are available for closure: ek = ed Pt, piJ The saturation constraint
L Cl:k = 1 provides the last equation.
The system to solve now reads (we suppress the symbol *):

2pIP?( el - e?) + (Pi + PP)(PI - pg) =0

(15)
2pNP~(eN - e~) + (Pi + PP)(PN - p~) =0
'L,mk/Pk - 1 = 0

The solution of this non-linear system is obtained with the Newton Raphson

method. We set X = ( ; . ) and

F X = ( ~~.~p?(el - e?) + (Pi + PP)(PI - pg) )

() 2pNP~(eN - e~) + (Pi + PP)(PN - p~) .
Lmk/Pk - 1
Newton method reads: D(XI-I)b.XI = _F(XI-I) where l designates the
current iteration and b.X I = (Xl - Xl-I).
The solution is obtained when b.X I < Eo D(X) represents jacobian matrix
800 RICHARD SAUREL

of the non linear system (D(X) = {)~~)) and is given by:

Al 0 0 Bl

D(X) =
AN BN
mI/Pl mN/PN 0
with Ak = 2P2(ek - e2) + 2PkP2 ekp + (Pi + PP)Pk and Bk = 2PkP2 ekp +
(Pk - p2)· This procedure is robust and accurate. It has been used in all
test problems.

4. Test problems

We consider here test problems involving interfaces, cavitation, shock and

detonations in one and two space dimensions. All test problems involve
instantaneous pressure and velocity relaxation. Other test problems with
finite rate relaxation (two velocities) and other applications are available
in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999).

Water - air shock tube

A shock tube filled on the left side with high-pressure liquid water and on
the right side with air is considered. This test problem consists in a classical
shock tube with two fluids and has an exact solution. On this test problem,
standard methods based on the Euler equations fail at the second time step.
Each fluid is governed by the Stiffened Gas equation of state (Godunov
et at., 1979):
P = (, - l)pe - I~n! where I and Pin! are constant parameters.
The initial data are: PI = 1000kg / m 3 , Pz = 109 Pa, ul = 0, II = 4.4,
~nh = 6.108 Pa, al = 1 - €(E = 10- 6 ) if x < 0.7; Pg = 50kg/m3 ,
Pg = 10 5 Pa, ug = 0, Ig = 1.4, Pin!g = 0, a g = 1 - € otherwise.
A mesh with 1000 cells is used to show convergence. The corresponding
results are shown in Figure 1 at time 229 ms. On this test case, the right
and left chamber contain nearly pure fluids: the gas volume fraction in the
water chamber is only 10- 6 and inversely in the gas chamber. It clearly
appears that the correct waves speed are reproduced by the method, and
that the method converges to the correct solution. This test problem shows
that the method works correctly on interface problems.

One-dimensional cavitation tube

Consider a tube filled with water and imagine that the left part of this
tube is set to motion to the right, and the left part is set to motion in the
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 801

;:;:;- 1000 le+09

a 900
SOO
ge+OS
Se+OS
g
"-

.S'
700
600
500
'C"' on
7e+OS
6e+OS
Se+OS
'"to: 400 '"
<-<
~ 4e+OS
a'" 300 '"on 3e+OS
'<-<" 200 <-<
~
'" 2e+OS
E 100 le+OS
0 0
~ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S
x (m) x (m)
600 1

'"""
'"
"-
500
400
to:
0
';:l
u
0.9
O.S
0.7
f••
-S u..'" •
<-<
0.6
'" 300 0.5 •
.~
'00
a'" 0.4 ••
200 ~
"0 0.3 •
OJ
:> 100
0
:>
'"
CJ'"
0.2
0.1
0
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S
x (m) x (m)

Figure 1. Water-air shock tube. Computed solution with 1000 cells (symbols) and exact
solution (lines)

opposite direction. In such situation, the pressure, density and internal en-
ergy decrease across the rarefaction waves in order that the velocity reaches
zero at the center of the domain. The pressure decreases until the satura-
tion pressure at the local temperature is reached. Then the mass transfer
appears, a part of the liquid becomes gas, and the flow becomes a two-phase
mixture.
When this type of problem is solved with the Euler equations, so with a
single fluid model and an appropriate equation of state for the liquid, the
pressure becomes completely wrong (i.e. negative). The reason is that the
liquid EOS is no longer valid when the pressure becomes sub-atmospheric.
Indeed the liquid transform to gas, and the gas has neither the same EOS,
nor the same behaviour. With the multi phase model, each phase is de-
scribed by its own EOS.
Because mass and energy transfer will strongly affect the results and also
because there are strong uncertainty about these correlation, we consider a
simplified problem with a small fraction of gas initially present in the liquid
(1 % gas of its volume) and we remove the mass transfer. From this initial
situation where the gas and liquid are at atmospheric pressure, we set into
motion the right part of the tube at 100m/s, and the left part at -100m/s.
The results are shown on Figure 2.
802 RICHARD SAUREL

I r--~-fl"'"""''''''''~:-:\~---' 100 ,--~-~-,.....,.,...----,

0.9
O.B
0.7 50
0.6
0.5 O~--~~--~
0.4
0.3
0.2 -50
0.1 LL \..\
o I..-.......:*"'.L.-~~=".j -100 ' - - -..............~-~---'
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B
x(m) x(m)
I 00000 ,....,...~....---,.,.-~r-7"""""7".,-, looO,--~--------~-.
90000 900
BOOOO BOO
70000 700
~ 60000 600
" 50000 500
~ 40000 400
J: 30000 300
20000 200
10000
OL-__ ~~-U~~~ 10~ t:::~~~-L.:;;;::;:;;;~==I
o Q2 Q4 Q6 QB o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B
x(m) x(m)

Figure 2. ID cavitation tube. Interfaces appear dynamically, pressure remains positive

and liquid density remains inside the domain of validity of the EOS.

The liquid density decreases slightly but remains closed to the initial one:
it remains liquid. Gas density decreases across the rarefaction waves and
decreases again due to the pressure relaxation process. The gas density at
the centre of the tube is very low. The pressure relaxation process makes
the gas volume fraction to increase thus creating two interfaces propagat-
ing to the right and to the left. So this method has the capability to create
dynamically interfaces starting from a pure (or nearly pure) liquid. This
feature has important applications for specific problems, as shown with the
next example.

Two-dimensional cavitation around an obstacle in a superSOnIC

liquid flow
The two-dimensional unsteady calculations initiate with the same mixture
as previously: 99% water and 1% gas at atmospheric pressure and temper-
ature flowing over an obstacle under supersonic conditions. The obstacle
surface is treated as a rigid wall with centerline symmetry. The outflow
and upstream boundaries are treated as nonrefiecting boundaries. At the
inflow boundary on the left-hand side the fluid is pure liquid and moving at
2000 m/s. The obstacle has conical-shaped leading and trailing edges and
a cylindrical centre body. Since the inflow is supersonic, a detached shock
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 803

Ga volum fra lion

Gas volum fr lion
.... n=lus) .... 1t=10us1

...

==~.
- to . ~. .

Gas v lume fraclion Pres ure (1=201lS)

." (1=2Ou ) ....
...
...
. ,.
~

Figure 3. 2D supersonic liquid flow around a cylindrical projectile. Cavitation pockets

appear.

wave is expected in front of the obstacle as represented on the pressure con-

tours in Figure 3. On the two angular points connecting the cones to the
cylindrical portion, strong rarefaction waves are expected, possibly capable
of inducing cavitation. Volume fraction contours are presented in Figure 3
at 1, 10 and 20 f.18 to illustrate the unsteady formation of cavitation pockets
and bubble tearing.

Detonation test problems

We have shown in (Saurel and Abgrall, 1999) that the model and method
were able to compute very strong shock waves in two-phase mixtures (Mix-
ture Hugoniot test problem). We evaluate here the capabilities of the method
to compute detonation waves in solid energetic materials. Compared to the
Mixture Hugoniot test problem, it now involves mass and energy transfers.
Reference test problems are rather rare on detonations and nearly absent
regarding multiphase detonations.
A detonation wave in solid explosive consists in a shock wave followed by a
reaction zone where the solid transforms to gas with an energy release. So,
all reaction zone of solid explosives consists in a two-phase mixture. The
interest of the multiphase model, as explained previously in section 2, is
that no mixture equation of state are needed and that each phase will have
its own density, energy and temperature.
804 RICHARD SAUREL

''''''
....
'500
'200
0.'
3000
'500

.!
j
0.'
2800
3000

g! 0.4
2600

2400
i ~.
2500

/ ~/
2000
;:
/
<3 1500

~~ / ~V
0.2 2000
1000
1800 ~

v SOO
o~~~~~~~~
1600

.
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 004 0.05 0.060,07 0.08 0.09 0.1
o O.o! 0.02 0.03 0.04 O.OS 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
x(m)
.(m)
o om 0.020.030.040.050.060.07 0.080.09 0.1
&-+10 .(m
12000

5dlO
10000

g,

d;
4e+1O
~ '500 8000

l l
~

!
31:+10
i' ~
g
6000

Ii )
J ~/
3000
~
1:10 2e+1O
/ i
if f
~ 4000
\>Of
1",+10
2000

o 0
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.060.07 0.080.09 0.1
o 0.01 0.02 0.030.040,050.060.070.080.09 0.1 U O.QI 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
x(rn)
ll(mJ .(m)

Figure 4. Detonation test problems. Mixture variables are compared to ZND calculation
inside the reaction zone. Results also show that fluids temperatures and densities are
never in equilibrium.

An unusual test problem is chosen in order to compare the solution of

the multiphase model to an exact solution. We consider that solid and gas
phases are governed by the same equation of state, and to simplify the
analysis we chose the ideal gas equation of state P = (J - l)pe with 'Y = 3
for both the phases. Doing this, the multiphase model solution must de-
generate to the single phase Euler solution for all mixture variables.
Within the detonation wave reaction zone, the reactive Euler equations are
exactly solved between the shock point (Neumann spike) and the point
moving with the sonic velocity relative to the shock front (CJ point). This
classical calculation corresponds to the ZND model solution and can be per-
formed exactly in simplified situation as given in Fickett and Davis (Fickett
and Davis, 1979), or by the resolution of an ODE problem with a nearly
exact accuracy. Here, we use the conditions of the ZND problem given in
the Fickett and Davis's book.
We use exactly the same explosive data and the whole flow is solved in
an unsteady regime. After the shock-to-detonation transition, a stable det-
onation wave must be obtained. When this detonation is stable (the last
curves of the previous figure) we compare the reaction zone obtained from
the computation and the exact solution. The comparison is only possible in
the reaction zone because the ZND model is valid only in this part. Also,
the comparison is possible only on mixture flow variables: the ZND problem
has never been solved for multi phase mixtures. Results are shown in Figure
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 805

4.
It appears that the numerical solution converges to the exact one. The other
important results is that the densities and temperatures of the two fluids
never reach an equilibrium inside the reaction zone, even on this basic test
problem where the equation of state and material properties are exactly
the same. This result is in fact obvious: the gas phase receives energy from
the solid phase, while the solid phase does not receive anything.

11000

IIJCIOO
901.)
8OuI)
~
Air Cu Explosive Cu Air e 70W

-
llX C:s
f
.g
CiWII

SOCJO
~
; 4000
::< )(JOO
2000
1000
0 0.2 OA 0.6 08
~ II()()
.(m)
1.... 1\
1500
9.+1(1
30IMI

.
S.+ 10
2500
7.... 10
20m
1 I SUO
;? 6r+l0

j' ~ ;"+10
) .....,
~" 4< II1
IIJCM)
~
54M)

~~
II
lr 10 ./
I jl
I V~

~
·5tMI
)
• 11M N)
U 02 II ~ 06 08 o ~ ~
• (m) o 0.2 116 U8
, (m)

Figure 5. Impact of a copper plate over an explosive, transition to detonation and shock
interaction with a copper target.

We end this presentation by a last test case involving the interaction

of a detonation wave with a target material: an inert copper plate. Intro-
duction of this new material involves a third fluid and two supplementary
interfaces. Here we use all the capabilities of the model: three fluids are
present, with four interfaces, a multiphase zone inside the explosive, with
mass and energy transfers. The pressures and the velocities are relaxed
with the procedure for an arbitrary number of fluids. Simple equations of
state are used, but the method works for complicated ones. Note that this
806 RICHARD SAUREL

situation with interaction of detonation waves with inert materials is very

representative of detonation applications.
Results are represented in Figure 5. We just show some mixture variables
that are easy to analyse.

5. Conclusion

We have shown some important applications of the model and numerical

method. It is able to:
- create dynamically interfaces in cavitating flows,
- make interact multi phase mixture with interfaces as m the detonation
interaction problem.
Besides, it does not need any mixture equation of state and provides ther-
modynamic variables of each phase. It is also conservative regarding the
mixture, even at the interfaces. This provides accurate energy and temper-
ature computation at the interfaces.
Others applications are possible.

Acknow ledgments

This work has been partially supported by DGAjETCAjCEG Gramat,

CEAjDAM Bruyeres Ie Chatel, RENAULT Direction de la Recherche and
PEUGEOT. The author is particularly grateful to Gerard Baudin (CEG),
Serge Gauthier (CEA) and Lionel Sainsaulieu (RENAULT). He also addres
special thanks to Olivier Lemetayer, Jacques Massoni and Eric Daniel for
their help with the codes and daily support.

References
Abgrall, R. (1996) How to prevent pressure oscillations in multicomponent flow calcula-
tions: A quasi conservative approach. J. Compo Phys., 125, pp 150-160
Baer, M.R. and Nunziato, J.W., (1986) A two-phase mixture theory for the deflagration-
to-detonation transition (DDT) in reactive granular materials. Int. J. of Multiphase
Flows, 12, pp 861 - 889
Benson, D.J. (1992) Computational methods in Lagrangian and Eulerian hydrocodes.
Compo Meth. in Appl. Mech. and Eng., 99, pp 235-394
Bestion, D. (1990) The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code. Nuc. Eng. and
Design, 124, pp 229-245
Dervieux, A., and Thomasset, F. (1981) Multifluid incompressible flows by a finite ele-
ment method. Lect. Notes in Physics,141, pp 158-163 (1981)
Drew, D.A. and Passman, S.L.(1998) Theory of multicomponent fluids. Springer New
York. Applied Mathematical Sciences 135
Farhat, C. and Roux, F.X. (1991) A method for finite element tearing and interconnecting
and its parallel solution algorithm Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. , 32, pp 1205-1227
 INTERFACES, DETONATIONS AND MULTIPHASE GODUNOV 807

Fedkiw, RP., Aslam, T., Merriman, B. and Osher, S. (1999) A non-oscillatory Eulerian
approach to interfaces in multimaterial flows (the Ghost Fluid Method). J. Compo
Phys. , 152:2, pp 457-492
Fickett, W. and Davis, W.C (1979) Detonation. University of California Press, Berkeley
Glimm, J., Grove, J.W., Li, X.L., Shyue, KM., Zhang, Q., and Zeng, Y. (1998) Three
dimensional front tracking. SIAM J. Sc. Comp., 19, pp 703-727
Godunov S.K., Zabrodine, A., Ivanov, M., Kraiko, A. and Prokopov, G. (1979) Resolution
numerique des problemes multidimensionnels de la dynamique des gaz. Editions Mir,
Moscou
Harten, A. and Hyman, M.J. (1983) Self adjusting grid methods for one-dimensional
hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Compo Phys., 50, pp 235-269
Harten, A., Lax, P.D. and van Leer, B. (1983) On upstream differencing and Godunov
type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Rev., 25(1), pp 33-61
Hirt, C.W. and Nichols, B.D. (1981) Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics
of free boundaries. J. Compo Phys. , 39, pp 201-255
Kapila, A., Son, S., Bdzil, J., Menikoff, R and Stewart, D. (1997) Two-phase modeling
of DDT: structure of the velocity-relaxation zone. Phys. Fluids 9 : 12, pp 3885-3897
Karni, S. (1996) Hybrid multifluid algorithms. SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing,
17:5, pp 1019-1039
Massoni, J., Saurel, R, Baudin, G. and Demol, G. (1999) A mechanistic model for shock
initiation of solid explosives. Phys. Fluids, 11: 3, pp 710-736
Molin, B., Dieval, L., Marcer, R and Arnaud, M. (1997) Modelisation instationnaire de
poches de cavitation par la methode VOF.6eme Journees de I'Hydrodynamique. ISSN
1161-1847
Sainsaulieu, L. (1995) Finite volume approximations of two phase fluid flows based on
an approximate Roe-type Riemann solver. J. Compo Phys., 121, pp 1-28
Saurel, R, and Abgrall, R, (1999) A multiphase Godunov method for compressible
multi fluid and multiphase flows, J. Camp. Phys., 150, pp 425-467
Saurel, R, and Abgrall, R, (2000) A simple method for compressible multifluid flows.
SIAM J. Sc. Camp., Vol. 21, n3, pp 1115-1145
Saurel, R, Cocchi, J.P., and Butler, P.B., (1999) A numerical study of the cavitation
effects in the wake of a hypervelocity underwater projectile. J. Prop. and Power ,
15:4, pp 513-522
Tan, M.J., and Bankoff, S.G., (1984) Propagation of pressure waves in bubbly mixtures.
Phys. Fluids, 27:5 , pp 1362-1369
Toro, E.F. (1997) Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics. Springer
Verlag, Berlin.
Shyue, KM. (1998) An efficient shock-capturing algorithm for compressible multicom-
ponent problems. J. Camp. Phys., 142, 208
van Leer, B. (1979) Toward the ultimate conservative difference scheme V. A second
order sequel to Godunov's Method. J. Camp. Phys., 32, plOl
Youngs, D.L. (1982) Time dependent multi-material flow with large fluid distortion. Eds.
KW. Morton and M.J. Baines, Academic Press