4.6 Article

High-Order Low-Dissipation Targeted ENO Schemes for Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages 692-716

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10915-019-00941-2

Keywords

TENO; WENO; High-order accuracy; Low dissipation; MHD

Funding

  1. U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) [1194592-1-TAAHO]
  2. Eliza Ricketts Postdoctoral Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The recently proposed targeted ENO (TENO) schemes (Fu et al. J Comput Phys 305:333-359, 2016) are demonstrated to feature the controllable low numerical dissipation and sharp shock-capturing property in compressible gas dynamic simulations. However, the application of low-dissipation TENO schemes to ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is not straightforward. The complex interaction between fluid mechanics and electromagnetism induces extra numerical challenges, including simultaneously preserving the ENO-property, maintaining good numerical robustness and low dissipation as well as controlling divergence errors. In this paper, based on an unstaggered constrained transport framework to control the divergence error, we extend a set of high-order low-dissipation TENO schemes ranging from 5-point to 8-point stencils to solving the ideal MHD equations. A unique set of built-in parameters for each TENO scheme is determined. Different from the TENO schemes in Fu et al. (2016), a modified scale-separation formula is developed. The new formula can achieve stronger scale separation, and it is simpler and more efficient than the previous version as the computation cost of high-order global smoothness measure K is avoided. The performances of tailored schemes are systematically studied by several benchmark simulations. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the TENO schemes in the constrained transport framework are promising to simulate more complex MHD flows.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available