1 / 21

Minimum Numerical Viscosity to Care the Carbuncle Instability

Minimum Numerical Viscosity to Care the Carbuncle Instability. Tomoyuki Hanawa (Chiba U.) Collaborators: Hayato Mikami, Tomoaki Matsumoto. before. after. Carbuncle Instability. It appears only in 2D & 3D. Originally reported by Peery & Imlay (1988). Supersonic flow around a cylinder.

john-curtis
Download Presentation

Minimum Numerical Viscosity to Care the Carbuncle Instability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minimum Numerical Viscosity to Care the Carbuncle Instability Tomoyuki Hanawa (Chiba U.) Collaborators: Hayato Mikami, Tomoaki Matsumoto before after

  2. Carbuncle Instability It appears only in 2D & 3D. Originally reported by Peery & Imlay (1988) Supersonic flow around a cylinder Spurious protuberance ahead of the bow shock. Fig. 3 of Kim et al. (2003)

  3. Condition for Carbuncle Ins. • When the flow is 2D or 3D. • No carbuncle in 1D simulation. • When the numerical viscosity is small. • A Diffusive scheme is stable. • When the shock is strong. • When the shock front is parallel to the cell surface. • When the energy equation is solved. • Stable when the flow is barotropic.

  4. Cause of the Carbuncle Ins. • Physical instability? [No] • Inaccuracy of the approximate Riemann solver? [No] Godunov is also unstable. • Dependence of mass flux on the pressure? (cf. Liou 2000) [we doubt] • Numerical viscosity is too small. • Riemman solution is for 1D not for 2D/3D. • Nonlinear coupling between waves propagating in the x-, y- and z-directions.

  5. Quirk’s strategy A diffusive scheme is stable but the solutions are dull. • To supplement numerical viscosity near the shock front to the Roe scheme. • cf. Kim et al. (2003) for hydrodynamics • How can we identify shock wave? • How large viscosity do we supplement?

  6. Pj Pj+1 Carbuncle Care by Kim et al. MHD shocks? Gravity? How large viscosity?

  7. Difference in the Characteristics Δλ: wave compresssion rate Shock index The other waves will be compressed also at the same rate. Extra diffusion is needed.

  8. Maximum Shock Index Fast × 2 + Slow × 2 8 Adjacent Cell Surfaces

  9. Supplementary Viscosity (1) Roe Average Viscosity

  10. Supplementary Viscosity (2) No change Fast waves Alfven and slow waves Entropy wave otherwise

  11. Spherical Expansion Test (Roe)

  12. Spherical Expansion Test- Roe+Viscosity-

  13. Detection of Shock Waves

  14. Detection of Shock Waves

  15. Supplementary Viscosity

  16. Supplementary Viscosity

  17. Odd-Even DecouplingTest Shock Front Zigzagged front Original Roe Roe + Viscosity Comparison at #200

  18. Comparison with HLL on B⊥ HLL Diffusion of B in HLL Rotation Axis

  19. Twisted Magnetic Field 6.80 ms 5.98 ms time P = 2 ms

  20. This work HLL Roe Small Viscosity Minimum Viscosity? • We need more examples to evaluate the real minimum. • Our scheme might be unstable. • We can reduce the viscosity more. Large Viscosity

  21. Summary • MHD Carbuncle instability can be removed by supplementary viscosity. • Spatial Difference in the propagation speed is good measure for the supplementary viscosity. • Only one practical problem has been tested. We would like to ask you to apply this viscosity to your problem.

More Related