Popov PPM Gaz

1970
ISSN 0965-5425, Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 2007, Vol. 47, No. 12, pp. 19701989. Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
Original Russian Text M.V. Popov, S.D. Ustyugov, 2007, published in Zhurnal Vychislitelnoi Matematiki i Matematicheskoi Fiziki, 2007, Vol. 47, No. 12, pp. 2055
2075.

Piecewise Parabolic Method on Local Stencil
for Gasdynamic Simulations

M. V. Popov and S. D. Ustyugov

Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Miusskaya pl. 4, Moscow, 125047 Russia
e-mail: mirage@fromru.com, ustyugs@keldysh.ru

Received May 30, 2007; in nal form, June 5, 2007

Abstract

A numerical method based on piecewise parabolic difference approximations is proposed
for solving hyperbolic systems of equations. The design of its numerical scheme is based on the conser-
vation of Riemann invariants along the characteristic curves of a system of equations, which makes it
possible to discard the four-point interpolation procedure used in the standard piecewise parabolic
method (PPM) and to use the data from the previous time level in the reconstruction of the solution
inside difference cells. As a result, discontinuous solutions can be accurately represented without adding
excessive dissipation. A local stencil is also convenient for computations on adaptive meshes. The new
method is compared with PPM by solving test problems for the linear advection equation and the invis-
cid Burgers equation. The efciency of the methods is compared in terms of errors in various norms. A
technique for solving the gas dynamics equations is described and tested for several one- and two-
dimensional problems.

DOI:

10.1134/S0965542507120081

Keywords:

numerical methods in gas dynamics, local stencil, Riemann invariants, numerical methods,
hyperbolic systems of equations, PPM, PPML

1. INTRODUCTION
The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for the numerical solution to hyperbolic systems of equations
was rst proposed in [1] and was found to be efcient in numerical practice. The method is third-order accu-
rate in space and second-order accurate in time. To determine boundary points in the construction of a parab-
ola in each difference cell, the PPM method reconstructs the variables on an extended four-point stencil.
This leads to excessive dissipation in the scheme, for example, on contact discontinuities. As a result, a spe-
cial adjustable technique is required for steepening the discontinuity fronts. Additionally, computational dif-
culties arise in the construction and use of well-dened boundary conditions in the computational domain.
The application of high-order interpolation on an extended stencil ensures high-quality results for smooth
solutions but leads to noticeable oscillations at discontinuities. The situation can be improved by applying
limiters. In that case, however, difculties are encountered in problems with oscillatory solutions, since the
oscillation amplitude is damped due to the strong diffusion caused by limiters in the neighborhood of steep
fronts. Another shortcoming of limiters as applied to the preservation of discontinuity proles is that they
strengthen short oscillation modes, which increase instability when the original equations involve disper-
sion terms.
We proposed a piecewise parabolic method on a local stencil in which the boundary points of each parab-
ola are determined using data from the previous time level according to the method of characteristics. A sim-
ilar idea was rst used in [2] to construct a rst-order-accurate difference scheme inside difference cells and
was discussed in [3]. In this approach, discontinuous solutions can be accurately represented without adding
excessive dissipation inherent in schemes on extended stencils. The piecewise parabolic method on a local
stencil will be referred to as PPML.
A widely used modern practice is that difference schemes are tested in numerical experiments and their
errors are compared in different norms (see [47]). We compare the PPM and PPML methods by numeri-
cally solving the Cauchy problem for the linear advection equation and the nonlinear inviscid Burgers equa-
tion. The analysis is based on the technique used in [57] in a similar study of various difference schemes.
The PPM method was tested and compared with other difference schemes in [7], where it was shown that
PPM is one of the best modern techniques for computing the gas dynamics equations.

COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS

Vol. 47

No. 12

2007

PIECEWISE PARABOLIC METHOD 1971

In this paper, we describe a numerical scheme for gasdynamic simulation based on the new method. The
gas dynamics equations have three characteristics along which Riemann invariants interpreted as wave
amplitudes are conserved. The equations are nonlinear, and a local basis of eigenvectors has to be deter-
mined in each cell in order to apply characteristic analysis. The nonlinear problem of determining uxes at
the cell boundaries can then be linearized in the neighborhood of each cell boundary, which makes it possi-
ble to use a piecewise parabolic distribution of physical variables.
2. PIECEWISE PARABOLIC METHOD (PPM)
Consider a homogeneous one-dimensional mesh of size

h

with the desired function

q

(

x

)

dened on it.
Let

q

i

and

q

i

+ 1/2

denote the values at the cell centers and on the boundary, respectively. According to the
PPM method,

q

(

x

)

inside each cell can be approximated by a parabola (see Fig. 2):

(1)

where
Formula (1) satises the relation
In domains where

q

(

x

)

is smooth and has no extrema, its boundary value belongs to the interval

(2)

In this case, we have

= =

q

i

+ 1/2

and

= =

q

i

1/2

. The values

q

i

+ 1/2

are computed using the
fourth-order interpolation procedure

(3)

where
For the solution to be monotone and condition (2) to be satised, the values

q

i

in (3) have to be replaced
with
The values

and

have to be updated in domains where the solution

q

(

x

)

is not monotone. If

q

i

is a
local maximum or minimum, then interpolation function (1) has to be a constant; i.e.,

= =

q

i

. If

q

i

is
too close to

or , then parabola (1) can have an extremum inside a cell (here,

q

i

<

). In this case,
q x ( ) q
i
L
q
i
q
i
6 ( )
1 ( ) + ( ), + =
x x
i 1/2
( )h
1
, q
i
q
i
R
q
i
L
, = =
q
i
6 ( )
6 q
i
1/2 ( ) q
i
L
q
i
R
+ ( ) ( ). =
q
i
h
1
q x ( ) x. d
x
i 1/2
x
i 1/2 +
=
q
i 1/2 +
q
i
q
i 1 +
[ ].
q
i
R
q
i 1 +
L
q
i
L
q
i 1
R
q
i 1/2 +
1/2 ( ) q
i
q
i 1 +
+ ( ) 1/6 ( ) q
i 1 +
q
i
( ), =
q
i
1/2 ( ) q
i 1 +
q
i 1
+ ( ). =
m
q
i
min q
i
2 q
i 1 +
q
i
2 q
i
q
i 1
, , ( ) q
i
( ), q
i 1 +
q
i
( ) q
i
q
i 1
( ) sgn 0, >
0, q
i 1 +
q
i
( ) q
i
q
i 1
( ) 0.
=
q
i
L
q
i
R
q
i
L
q
i
R
q
i
L
q
i
R
q
i
6 ( )
q
L
i
q
R
i
q
i
x
i 1/2
x
i + 1/2
x
i
Fig. 1.
1972
COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS Vol. 47 No. 12 2007
POPOV, USTYUGOV
and are chosen so that the extremum is shifted toward the cell boundary. These conditions can be
written as
(4)
and
(5)
After q(x) has been dened, we can calculate its mean over the interval [x
i + 1/2
yx
i + 1/2
] (for y > 0):
(6)
Consider the linear advection equation
(7)
When a discontinuity decays on the boundary of two adjacent cells at the point x
i + 1/2
, there arises a mean
state q*(x
i + 1/2
, t). The advection equation has a single characteristic determined by the condition dx/dt = a.
Therefore, for a > 0, the solution at the time t = t
0
+ is dened as an average over the spatial interval [x
i + 1/2

ax
i + 1/2
]; i.e., q*(x
i + 1/2
, t
0
+ ) = = (a). For a < 0, the determining interval (region of influ-
ence) is [x
i + 1/2
x
i + 1/2
+ a]. In this case, we have q*(x
i + 1/2
, t
0
+ ) = = (a), where
(8)
Here, y > 0. The ux on the boundary of adjacent cells in the Riemann problem is given by the formula
For convenience, we can introduce the functions a
+
= max(a, 0) = (a + a)/2 and a
= min(a, 0) = (a a)/2.
Then
(9)
The values for a < 0 and for a > 0 can be arbitrary.
3. PIECEWISE PARABOLIC METHOD ON A LOCAL STENCIL (PPML)
A shortcoming of the PPM method is that it uses four-point interpolation procedure (3), which smooths
the discontinuous solutions q(x), for example, at shock fronts or contact discontinuities. Instead of the inter-
polation procedure, we suggest that q
i + 1/2
, for example, on the right cell boundary be determined by trans-
ferring the parabola value from the preceding time step along the characteristic dx/dt = a. In other words,
q
i + 1/2
at the time t = t
0
+ is calculated by moving along the characteristic from the point x
i + 1/2
on the right
cell boundary with the value q
i + 1/2
up to the time t = t
0
(see Fig. 2).
Therefore, for a > 0, we have
(10)
where = (x x
i 1/2
)h
1
= (h a)h
1
= 1 ah
1
. All the values on the right-hand side of (10) are taken
from the previous time step t = t
0
. For a < 0, the value q
i + 1/2
is determined from the parabola in the cell
q
i
L
q
i
R
q
i
L
q
i
, q
i
R
q
i
, if q
i
L
q
i
( ) q
i
q
i
R
( ) 0, = =
q
i
L
3q
i
2q
i
R
, if q
i
q
i
6 ( )
q
i
( )
2
, > =
q
i
R
3q
i
2q
i
L
, if q
i
q
i
6 ( )
q
i
( )
2
. < =
q
i 1/2 +
L
y ( ) y
1
q x ( ) x d
x
i 1/2 +
y
x
i 1/2 +
q
i
R
1/2 ( )yh
1
q
i
1 2/3 ( )yh
1
( )q
i
6 ( )
( ). = =
q
t
------ a
q
x
------ + 0. =
q
i 1/2 +
L
q
i 1/2 +
L
q
i 1/2 +
R
q
i 1/2 +
R
q
i 1/2 +
R
y ( ) y
1
q x ( ) x d
x
i 1/2 +
x
i 1/2 +
y +
q
i 1 +
L
1/2 ( )yh
1
q
i 1 +
1 2/3 ( )yh
1
( )q
i 1 +
6 ( )
+ ( ). + = =
F
i 1/2 +
1
--- F q* x
i 1/2 +
t , ( ) ( ) t. d
t
0
t
0
+
=
F
i 1/2 +
a
+
q
i 1/2 +
L
a
q
i 1/2 +
R
. + =
q
i 1/2 +
L
q
i 1/2 +
R
q
i 1/2 +
t
0
+ ( ) q
i
R
t
0
+ ( ) q
i
L
q
i
q
i
6 ( )
1 ( ) + ( ), + = =
indexed by i + 1:
where = ah
1
.
Thus, an approximating parabola is constructed in each cell. After verifying conditions (4) and (5), we
use formulas (6) and (8) to calculate (a) for a > 0 or (a) for a < 0 and then determine uxes
(9).
In this modication, the computational algorithm is implemented on a local stencil, since the boundary
points of the piecewise parabola at the subsequent time step are determined without using the solution in
neighboring cells.
4. TESTING THE METHODS BY SOLVING THE ADVECTION EQUATION
The methods were tested according to the technique described in [6]. We considered the Cauchy problem
for linear advection equation (7) with the initial conditions q(x, 0) = 0 for x (, l
1
) (l
2
, +) and q(x,
0) = q
0
(x) for x [l
1
, l
2
]. Various profiles were used as q
0
(x):
(left triangle),
rectangle),
(cosine),
q
i 1/2 +
t
0
+ ( ) q
i 1 +
L
t
0
+ ( ) q
i 1 +
L
q
i 1 +
q
i 1 +
6 ( )
1 ( ) + ( ), + = =
q
i 1/2 +
L
q
i 1/2 +
R
q
0
x ( )
1
l
2
l
1
------------- x l
1
( ) =
q
0
x ( ) 1 =
q
0
x ( )
1
2
---
1
2
---
2
l
2
l
1
------------- x l
1
( )
,
_
cos =
q
0
x ( )
2
3 l
11
l
1
( )
----------------------- x l
1
( ) 1, x l
1
l
11
), , [ +
1
3
---, x l
11
l
22
, [ ],
2
3 l
2
l
22
( )
----------------------- x l
2
( ) 1, x l
22
l
2
], (tooth), , ( +
=
q
0
x ( )
2
3 l
12
l
1
( )
----------------------- x l
1
( ) 1, x l
1
l
12
), , [ +
2
3 l
2
l
12
( )
----------------------- x l
2
( ) 1, x l
12
l
2
, [ ], (M), +
=
t
0
+
t
0
x
i 1/2
x x
i + 1/2
q
i + 1/2
q
i
a x
Fig. 2.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1974
POPOV, USTYUGOV
(right triangle).
The numerical solution to Eq. (7) was compared with the exact one given by the formula
For this purpose, we calculated the norms in C, L
1
, L
2
, and on = (, +) [0, T] (integrated over
time):
The following parameters were used in the computations: l = 520, l
1
= 10, l
2
= 30, l
11
= 16 , l
22
= 23 ,
l
12
= 20, T = 400, h = 1, and a = 1. For these values of h and a, the Courant number coincides with the
time step . Over the time T = 400, the prole travels over 20 of its own lengths, which are sufcient to exam-
ine the properties of the numerical scheme.
Finite-difference schemes were analyzed in [6]. Values between grid nodes are not dened in such
schemes, and norms have to be calculated using their nite-difference analogues, in which the integrals are
replaced by sums over grid nodes and time steps. In the PPM method, the solution inside difference cells is
approximated by a parabola; therefore, the spatial integrals in the formulas for the L
1
and L
2
norms are pre-
cisely calculated.
To calculate the norm in C, each cell indexed by i was partitioned by M = 200 nodes (indexed by j) at
which the values at the time k were determined:
Here, N is the number of cells and K is the number of time steps (k = K corresponds to t = T).
While calculating the norm in , it should be borne in mind that all the initial proles q
0
(x) (except for
the cosine one) involve discontinuity points at which = . Therefore, the evaluation of exact integrals
makes no sense. Instead, we use a nite-difference analogue of with the norm dened as in [6]:
Obviously, the values of the norm in then depend on the degree of detail of the grid and tend to as
h 0 for profiles involving discontinuity points.
Figure 3 shows the numerical solutions to Eq. (7) at times t from 0 to T for three of the six initial proles
q
0
(x) at the Courant number = 0.8. Using these results, we can compare the accuracy of the profiles trans-
ferred in the PPM and PPML methods. Tables 1 and 2 present the time-integral errors that are the norms of
the difference between the exact and numerical solutions for PPM and PPML, respectively. It can be seen
that PPML produces better solutions for all the proles due to lower dissipation.
q
0
x ( )
1
l
2
l
1
------------- l
2
x ( ) =
q
0
x ( )
0, x at l
1
, <
u
0
x at ( ), l
1
x at l
2
,
0, x at l
2
. >
=
W
2
1
f
C
f , f
L
1
max f x t, f
L
2
d d

+
0
T
f
2
x t d d

+
0
T
,

_
1/2
, = = =
f
W
2
1 f
x
'
( )
2
x t d d

+
0
T
,

_
1/2
. =
2
3
---
1
3
---
q
i j ,
k
q
C
q
i j ,
k
.
0 i N 0 j M 0 k K , ,
max =
W
2
1
q
x
'
W
2
1
q
W
2
1 h
1
q
i 1
k
q
i
k
( )
2
k 0 =
K
i 0 =
N
,

_
1/2
. =
W
2
1
5. TESTING THE METHODS BY SOLVING THE BURGERS EQUATION
The PPM and PPML methods were also used to solve the Cauchy problem for the inviscid Burgers equa-
tion, which describes the origin and propagation of shock waves. The arising shock waves are similar to
those in gas dynamics problems. The Burgers equation has the form
or
(11)
Obviously, the characteristic curve of Eq. (11) is determined by the condition dx/dt = q. Since the charac-
teristic velocity q is not a constant, Eq. (11) is nonlinear. The velocity of propagation at each point described
by the wave equation can be different, which leads to the formation of discontinuous solutions and shock
waves. In certain cases, the analytical solution to Eq. (11) can be written as
(12)
where q(x, 0) = q
0
(x) is the initial prole. Expression (12) holds true in the case of a smooth initial prole
until shock waves appear, after which the solution is represented as a piecewise linear function.
q
t
------
x
------
q
2
2
-----
,
_
+ 0, =
q
t
qq
x
+ 0. =
q x t , ( ) q
0
x qt ( ), =
Fig. 3.
PPM PPML
Table 1
PPM Left triangle Rectangle Cosine Tooth M Right triangle
C 0.66672 0.64466 0.065666 0.68878 0.67407 0.66621
L
1
448.1290 714.6680 101.9580 1001.1000 998.2290 473.5950
L
2
10.8551 14.7612 1.7026 16.5501 15.8830 10.9834
15.5816 22.0077 1.5848 22.8209 22.4006 15.6465
W
2
1
Table 2
PPML Left triangle Rectangle Cosine Tooth M Right triangle
C 0.61997 0.61360 0.040749 0.62633 0.62209 0.63704
L
1
363.3940 625.4640 39.4735 783.3780 790.9780 365.4070
L
2
9.9448 13.7838 0.79444 14.7433 14.4267 10.0368
14.9228 21.0576 0.81280 21.6119 21.3418 14.9330
W
2
1
1976
POPOV, USTYUGOV
Since the ux in the Burgers equation is F = q
2
/2, relation (9) is replaced by
where (y) and (y) are given by formulas (6) and (8), respectively, and a
i + 1/2
is the velocity on
the boundary of adjacent cells, which is calculated by averaging the right and left boundary states:
We employ one of the test problems from [7] that demonstrates the evolution of a discontinuous prole
involving the collision of shock waves and the expansion of rarefaction regions.
The computational domain was divided into N = 50 cells, and the computations were performed for =
0.4. The time step was determined by the Courant condition
The initial prole of the solution was specied as
Figure 4 shows the analytical solution to Eq. (11) for this initial prole at t = 0, 0.6, and 2.0. Initially,
there are two shock waves at x = 2 and x = 3 that propagate toward each other and there is a rightward-
expanding discontinuity at x = 0.2 and a leftward-expanding discontinuity at x = 4.8. It can be seen that, over
time, two expanding fans appear at x = 0.2 and 4.8. At t = 1, the shock waves collide and merge into a single
one moving to the left.
Figure 5 displays the numerical solutions (dots) produced by PPM at t = 0.6 and 2.0. The exact solution
is depicted by the solid line. The numerical results obtained with PPML at the same times are shown in
Fig. 6. The arrows indicate the areas where the methods exhibit visible differences. Specically, in these
F
i 1/2 +
1
2
--- q
i 1/2 +
L
a
i 1/2 +
( ) ( )
2
, a
i 1/2 +
0,
1
2
--- q
i 1/2 +
R
a
i 1/2 +
( ) ( )
2
, a
i 1/2 +
0, <
=
q
i 1/2 +
L
q
i 1/2 +
R
a
i 1/2 +
1
2
--- q
i
R
q
i 1 +
L
+ ( ). =
h/ q
i
( )
i
min . =
q
0
x ( )
1.0, 0.2 x 2.0, < <
0.5, 2.0 x 3.0, < <
1.0, 3.0 x 4.8, < <
0, x 0.2 x 4.8. > <
=
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
q
5 4 3 2 1 0
x
t = 0
t = 0.6
t = 2.0
Shock waves
Shock waves
Expansion
Expansion
Fig. 4.
areas, the PPML solution (Fig. 6) exhibits smaller deviations from the exact one than the PPM solution
(Fig. 5). The expansion regions observed in this test are similar to rarefaction waves occurring in gas dynam-
ics problems. This means that the solutions produced by PPML are more accurate in areas where rarefaction
waves develop. Table 3 lists the errors in L
1
for various N at t = 0.6 and 2.0. It can be seen that PPML yields
considerably better results.
6. GAS DYNAMICS EQUATIONS
Consider the conservative form of the gas dynamics equations in two dimensions:
(13)
where
t
U
x
F
y
G + + 0, =
U
u
v
E
,

_
, F
u
u
2
p +
uv
E p + ( )u
,

_
, G
v
uv
v
2
p +
E p + ( )v
,

_
. = = =
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
q
t = 0.6
5 4 3 2 1 0
t = 2.0
5 4 3 2 1 0
x
Fig. 5.
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
q
5 4 3 2 1 0
t = 0.6
5 4 3 2 1 0
t = 2.0
x
Fig. 6.
1978
POPOV, USTYUGOV
System (13) is supplemented by the total energy equation
(14)
and the ideal-gas equation of state
(15)
where is the specic internal energy.
The gas dynamics equations are solved using the conservative difference scheme
(16)
The half-integer spatial indices at the uxes show the cell boundaries to which they correspond. The half-
integer time step n + 1/2 means that we use the uxes averaged over the time step , which gives second-
order accuracy in time.
The solution inside each cell is approximated by a parabola along each coordinate axis. The boundary
points of each piecewise parabola are determined by the property that the Riemann invariants are conserved
along the characteristics of the original linearized system. To compute the uxes at the cell boundaries, the
generalized Riemann problem with an arbitrary distribution of the desired function inside a cell is trans-
formed into an equivalent Riemann problem with this distribution specied by a piecewise constant func-
tion.
In PPM, a piecewise parabola in each cell is constructed using the physical variables V = (, u, v, p)
.
For this reason, to determine the uxes, the gas dynamics equations are additionally used in the nonconser-
vative form
(17)
The matrices A and B can be calculated via the Jacobians of the conservative system and the transition
matrix
(18)
For example, for A, we have
The matrices A and B have a complete set of right and left eigenvectors corresponding to real eigenvalues
(the gas dynamics equations are hyperbolic). Therefore, A and B can be decomposed in terms of their eigen-
vectors. For example, for A (which corresponds to the x direction), we have
(19)
Here, the columns of R
x
are the right eigenvectors (p = 1, , 4); L
x
is the inverse of R
x
with its rows being
E
u
2
v
2
+ ( )
2
-------------------------- + =
p 1 ( ), =
U
i j ,
n 1 +
U
i j ,
n
x
------ F
i 1/2 + j ,
n 1/2 +
F
i 1/2 j ,
n 1/2 +
( )
y
------ G
i j , 1/2 +
n 1/2 +
G
i j , 1/2
n 1/2 +
( ). =
t
V A
x
V B
y
V + + 0. =
M
U
V
-------. =
A M
1 F
U
-------M. =
A R
x
x
L
x
. =
r
x
p
Table 3
N
t = 0.6 t = 2.0
PPM PPML PPM PPML
64 8.60 10
2
4.27 10
2
1.40 10
1
7.41 10
2
128 7.49 10
2
5.86 10
2
9.00 10
2
4.95 10
2
256 4.75 10
2
2.33 10
2
5.84 10
2
2.02 10
2
512 3.18 10
2
1.39 10
2
3.37 10
2
8.99 10
3
1024 1.55 10
2
5.81 10
3
1.89 10
2
7.12 10
3
the left eigenvectors :
and
x
is a diagonal eigenvalue matrix: (
x
)
ij
= 0 for i j and ((
x
)
ij
=
p
for i = j = p, where
p
is the solution
to the characteristic equation
(20)
Equation (20) is solved by the eigenvalues
1
= u + c,
2
=
3
= u, and
4
= u c, where c is the speed of
sound: c
2
= (p
)
s
= (p
+ (p
p/
2
.
To construct piecewise parabolas at the next time step, we have to determine the values (states) at the cell
boundaries and the values at the cell centers.
6.1. Computation of the Boundary Values of Piecewise Parabolas
For simplicity, Eqs. (17) are replaced by the one-dimensional system
(21)
(the two-dimensional case will be considered later). Plugging (19) into (21) and multiplying L on the left,
we obtain
(22)
The vector V(x, t) is decomposed in the local basis of right eigenvectors r
p
xed for a given cell:
(23)
Substituting (23) into (22) yields
(24)
Equations (24) mean that the coefcients
p
(x, t) in (23) (which correspond to wave amplitudes) are con-
served along each characteristic x
p
(t) dened by the condition
i.e., they are Riemann invariants. The value of a Riemann invariant on the cell boundary at x = x
i + 1/2
at the
time t + can be calculated in terms of its value at t:
(25)
As an example, Fig. 7 shows two adjacent cells indexed by i and i + 1. The set of characteristics is
denoted by p
1
in the cell i and by p
2
in the cell i + 1. One of the characteristics (t) with the eigenvalue
> 0 is shown in the cell i. The characteristic (t) corresponding to < 0 is shown in the cell i + 1.
According to (25), the amplitude at point 3 for the wave propagating in the cell i along the characteristic
(t) corresponding to the eigenvalue is determined by the wave amplitude at point 1. Similarly, the
amplitude at point 3 for the wave propagating in the cell i + 1 along the characteristic (t) with the eigen-
value is determined by the wave amplitude at point 2.
The state at point 3 calculated via formula (23) by summing up values over the eigenvectors xed in the
cell i and associated with positive eigenvalues (i.e., over the index p
1
for all > 0) is the left state with
respect to the boundary and is denoted by V
L
. Analogously, the state at point 3 calculated by summing up
l
x
p
R
x
1 0 1 1
c/ 0 0 c/
0 1/ 0 0
c
2
0 0 c ( )
2
,

_
, L
x
0 /(2c) 0 1/(2c
2
)
0 0 0
1 0 0 1/c
2
0 /(2c) 0 1/(2c
2
)
,

_
; = =
det E A 0. =
t
V x t , ( ) A
x
V x t , ( ) + 0 =
L
t
V L
x
V + 0. =
V x t , ( )
p
x t , ( )r
p
.
p
p
+ 0, p 1 4. , , = =
dx
p
/dt
p
, =
p
x
i 1/2 +
t + , ( )
p
x
i 1/2 +
p
t , ( ). =
x
p
1
p
1
x
p
2
p
2
x
p
1
p
1
x
p
2
p
2
p
1
1980
POPOV, USTYUGOV
values over the eigenvectors in the cell i + 1 (i.e., over the index p
2
for all < 0) is the right state with
respect to the boundary and is denoted by V
R
.
Figure 8 displays a piecewise parabolic approximation to one of the components V(x) of the vector func-
tion V(x, t) at some time inside cells. The arrows indicate the values to the left and right of the boundary;
here, V
L
V
R
. The dotted lines show the mean values for each cell. For example, the mean for the cell i is
The states V
L
and V
R
are required for constructing piecewise parabolas at the next time step. In the stan-
dard PPM method, these states are matched so that
(26)
In PPM, condition (26) holds by construction, since V
i + 1/2
is calculated using the fourth-order interpolation
procedure on a four-point stencil. In the case under study, the parabolas can be matched by solving the Rie-
mann problem, for example, by Roes method (see [8]). To do this, we proceed from the simple to conser-
vative variables:
(27)
where = are the right eigenvectors for conservative system (13) (M is the transition matrix given
by (18)). The values U
L
and U
R
are calculated according to the eigenvector basis chosen in the cells i and
i + 1. Numerical computations have shown that the results are hardly affected by the choice of a basis. The
values of are calculated from the state V* determined by the formulas
(28)
(see [8]). Here, u is a velocity component and h = (E + p)/ is the specic enthalpy.
The eigenvalues *
p
have the form *
1
= u* + c*, *
2
= *
3
= u*, and *
4
= u* c*, where c* =
(p* = p(*, *)). The amplitudes *
p
are calculated from the state V* according to (23):
When the PPML method is applied to two-dimensional problems, system (17) is split over the spatial
variables and the resulting one-dimensional equations are solved separately along each coordinate axis.
However, the additional variations in the quantities at boundary points due to the uxes in the corresponding
directions should be taken into account. This procedure is not required in PPM.
p
2
V
i
1
x
------ V x ( ) x. d
x
i 1/2
x
i 1/2 +
=
V
L
V
R
V
i 1/2 +
. = =
U
i 1/2 + j ,
U
L
U
R
+
2
--------------------
1
2
--- *
p
r
Ux
p
V* ( )
p
x
*
p
0 > ( )
1
2
--- *
p
r
Ux
p
V* ( ),
p
x
*
p
0 < ( )
+ =
r
Ux
p
Mr
x
p
r
Ux
p
*
L
R
, *
R
+
R
+
-------------------------------------- for u h , = = =
p
*
( )
s
V* *
p
r
p
V* ( ).
p
=
t
i
1 2
3
i + 1
x
p
1(t) x
p
2
(t)
p
1
p
2
x
t +
t
x
i 1/2
x
i + 1/2
x
i + 3/2
Fig. 7.
Additional variations in the quantities, for example, at point 1 between the cells (i, j) and (i + 1, j) (see
Fig. 9) are caused by the ux in the y direction in the transition to the next time level. These variations can
be taken into account by solving Eq. (17) in the x direction with the term responsible for the y direction
treated as a source. Then (24) is replaced by
(29)
(30)
where l
p
is a left vector of the Jacobian A and B
p
is a column of B corresponding to the y direction. The
components of l
p
and B
p
in (30) are calculated from the same state in which we x the eigenvector basis in
the cell (i, j) for waves propagating along characteristics with positive eigenvalues or in the cell (i, j + 1) for
waves corresponding to negative eigenvalues. The partial derivatives
y
V
p
are calculated by replacing them
with difference ones:
Here, and are taken from the previous time level. The solution to Eq. (29) is similar to (25)
but involves an additional source term:
(31)
The left V
L
and right V
R
boundary states at point 1 are calculated by formula (23) by summing up the cor-
responding amplitudes (31) times the right eigenvectors of A. In what follows, the boundary state V
i + 1/2, j
is
calculated using formula (27).
The state V
i, j + 1/2
at point 2 is calculated in a similar fashion. In this case, the source takes into account
the variations caused by the ux in the x direction.
6.2. Computation of the Fluxes on the Cell Boundaries
Figure 10 shows the set of characteristics corresponding to
p
> 0 inside the cell indexed by i. The char-
acteristic x
1
(t) corresponds to the maximum eigenvalue
1
. Point 1 lies at the intersection of this character-
istic with the piecewise parabola at the previous time step. Obviously, the state at point 2 (left boundary
state) is affected only by the domain between the cell boundary x = x
i + 1/2
and point 1.
To derive a second-order-accurate approximation in time, the amplitudes
p
(x, t) corresponding to each
characteristic have to be averaged over its domain of inuence. For a wave propagating inside the cell i along
the characteristic with
p
> 0, its averaged amplitude on the boundary
p
(x, t) at the time t + is calculated
by the formula
(32)
p
+ D
p
, p 1 4, , , = =
D
p
l
p
B
p
y
V
p
, =
y
V
p
V
i j 1/2 + ,
p
V
i j 1/2 ,
p
y
-----------------------------------------. =
V
i j 1/2 ,
p
V
i j 1/2 + ,
p
p
x
i 1/2 +
t + , ( )
p
x
i 1/2 +
p
t , ( ) D
p
. + =
i 1/2 +
p 1
--------
p
x ( ) x,
p
d
x
i 1/2 +
p

x
i 1/2 +
0. > =
V
i i + 1
V
i+1
V
i
V
L
V
R
x
x
i 1/2
x
i + 1/2
x
i + 3/2
Fig. 8.
1982
POPOV, USTYUGOV
The amplitudes
p
(x) can be calculated by multiplying (23) by the left eigenvectors:
(33)
Here, V(x) is taken from the previous time step. Relations (33) are substituted into (32) and the eigenvectors
l
p
fixed in each cell are taken outside the integral sign to obtain
where
(34)
We need to choose the state used to calculate the eigenvectors xed in each cell. This state for the cell i
is dened as the contribution (averaged by formula (34)) to the left boundary state made by the wave
propagating along the characteristic corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue. Numerical computations
have shown that the numerical results are hardly affected by this choice.
Obviously, the waves propagating along the characteristics with
p
< 0 inside the cell i do not inuence
the state at point 2. Therefore, any number can be taken for with
p
< 0. For convenience, we use the
general formula
(35)
The state to the left of the boundary is obtained via formula (23) by summing up amplitudes (35)
times the right vectors. However, it is more convenient to expand the increment of the state vector in terms
of the right eigenvectors. To derive the expansion formula, (35) is written in the form
(36)
(here, the arguments of the eigenvectors were dropped.) Multiplying (36) by r
p
and summing the result over
p, after simple rearrangements, we obtain
(37)
p
x ( ) l
p
V x ( ),
p
0. > =
i 1/2 +
p
l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L p ,
, =
V
i 1/2 +
L p ,
1
-------- V x ( ) x,
p
d
x
i 1/2 +
p

x
i 1/2 +
0. > =
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
i 1/2 +
p
i 1/2 +
p
l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
( ) V
i 1/2 +
L p ,
,
p
0, >
l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
( ) V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
,
p
0. <
=
V
i 1/2 +
L
i 1/2 +
p

p
( ) l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L p ,
( ) 1
p
( ) ( ) l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
( ) + =
V
i 1/2 +
L
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
r
p
l
p
V
i 1/2 +
L p ,
V
i 1/2 +
L 1 ,
( ) ( ).
p
p
0 > ( )
=
1
2
y
x
i i + 1
j + 1
j
Fig. 9.
The cell i has been considered thus far. A similar formula for determining to the right of the
boundary can be derived for the cell i + 1 and a characteristic with negative eigenvalues:
(38)
Here, r
p
and l
p
are the eigenvectors xed in the cell i + 1. The state is the contribution to made
by the wave propagating along the characteristic corresponding to the maximum (in modulus) negative
eigenvalue averaged over the corresponding domain of inuence in the cell i + 1.
Formulas (37) and (38) have an illustrative interpretation: they show that the increment in each physical
variable near the boundary is the sum of its corresponding increments as each characteristic is crossed from
left to right from one state to another.
To determine the ux at the boundary x = x
i + 1/2
, we again use Roes method (see [8]). First, we
proceed from the physical variables V to the conservative ones U (there is a one-to-one correspondence
V U) and compute the fluxes to the left and right of the boundary: F
L
= F( ) and F
R
= F( ).
Then we use the formula
(39)
where
(40)
and = Mr
p
is the right eigenvector for the conservative gas dynamics system (M is the transition matrix
given by (18)). In (40), we used the relation
Due to this property, the left eigenvectors do not need to be computed in terms of conservative variables.
The components of V* are calculated using (28) with respect to the states and , and U* is the
state corresponding to V* in conservative variables.
In the two-dimensional case formulas (37) and (38) contain additional term (30). After the uxes on the
cell boundaries in the x direction have been calculated, the uxes in the y direction are determined in a sim-
ilar manner. Next, difference scheme (16) is used to compute the states at the cell centers at the next
time step.
V
i 1/2 +
R
V
i 1/2 +
R
V
i 1/2 +
R 1 ,
r
p
l
p
V
i 1/2 +
R p ,
V
i 1/2 +
R 1 ,
( ) ( ).
p
p
0 < ( )
=
V
i 1/2 +
R 1 ,
V
i 1/2 +
R
F
i 1/2 +
n 1/2 +
U
i 1/2 +
L
U
i 1/2 +
R
F
i 1/2 +
n 1/2 + F
L
F
R
+
2
------------------
1
2
---
p
V* ( )
i 1/2 +
p
r
U
p
U* ( ),
p
i 1/2 +
p
l
p
V* ( ) V
i 1/2 +
R
V
i 1/2 +
L
( ), =
r
U
p
l
U
p
U l
p
V. =
V
i 1/2 +
L
V
i 1/2 +
R
U
i j ,
n 1 +
t
x
2
1 Region of inuence
x
1
(t)
i
t +
t
x
i 1/2
x
i + 1/2
Fig. 10.
1984
POPOV, USTYUGOV
To complete the solution of the problem, the boundary values and calculated by for-
mula (27) are updated according to the PPM method in the area of a nonmonotone solution (see (4), (5)).
7. TEST PROBLEMS IN GAS DYNAMICS
The method proposed was tested by solving several one- and two-dimensional gas dynamics problems.
In all the cases, we considered the ideal-gas equation of state (15) with = 1.4.
7.1. One-Dimensional Tests
The rst three tests in one dimension were performed according to [4]. Specically, we considered Sods
problem [9], Laxs problem [10], and Shus problem [11]. They were solved on the interval x [1, 1],
which was initially divided into two subintervals by the boundary x
b
:
We used historical boundary conditions; i.e., the boundary values did not vary with time.
The fourth test was the interaction of two shock waves (see [12]). This problem was solved on the inter-
val x [0, 1], which was initially divided into three subintervals:
Total reection conditions were used at the boundary in this test. For this purpose, we introduced three addi-
tional cells with states V
0
, V
1
, and V
2
for the left boundary and three cells with states V
N + 1
, V
N + 2
, and
V
N + 3
for the right boundary. The values of these states at every time step were defined as
The CPU time was denoted by T, and N was the number of difference cells. The time step was deter-
mined by the Courant condition with the Courant number = 0.5 in all the computations.
Test 1 (Sods problem [9]). The initial conditions for the gas dynamics equations have the form
Test 2 (Laxs problem [10]). The initial conditions have the form
Test 3 (Shus problem [11]). The initial conditions have the form
V
i j , 1/2 +
n 1 +
V
i 1/2 + j ,
n 1 +
V
V
L
, x x
b
,
V
R
, x x
b
. >
,
=
V
V
L
, x 0.1, <
V
M
, 0.1 x 0.9, <
V
R
, x 0.9.
l 1 +
l
, u
l 1 +
u
l
, p
l 1 +
p
l
, l 1 2 3, , , = = = =
N l +
N l 1 +
, u
N l +
u
N l 1 +
, p
N l +
p
N l 1 +
, l 1 2 3. , , = = = =
L
u
L
p
L
, , ( ) 1 0 1 , , ( ), =
R
u
R
p
R
, , ( ) 0.125 0 0.1 , , ( ), =
x
b
0, N 100, T 0.4. = = =
L
u
L
p
L
, , ( ) 0.445 0.698 3.528 , , ( ), =
R
u
R
p
R
, , ( ) 0.5 0 0.571 , , ( ), =
x
b
0, N 100, T 0.32. = = =
L
u
L
p
L
, , ( ) 3.857143 2.629369 10.3333 , , ( ), =
R
u
R
p
R
, , ( ) 1 0.2 5x ( ) sin + 0 1 , , ( ), =
x
b
0.8, N 300, T 0.36. = = =
Test 4 (interaction of shock waves (1D, see [12]). The initial conditions have the form
Figures 1114 show the numerical results obtained in Tests 14, respectively [912]. The exact solutions
are depicted by the solid lines. In Test 4, three areas of contact discontinuity are formed, of which the middle
one is very difcult to resolve by any numerical method (Fig. 14).
7.2. Two-Dimensional Tests
We computed two versions of the initial conguration proposed in [13]. Specically, they dealt with the
motion and interaction of shock waves (Test 5) and of contact discontinuities (Test 6). The two-dimensional
L
u
L
p
L
, , ( ) 1 0 10
3
, , ( ),
M
u
M
p
M
, , ( ) 1 0 10
2
, , ( ), = =
R
u
R
p
R
, , ( ) 1 0 10
2
, , ( ), = N 400, T 0.038. = =
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.0 1.0 0 0.5 1.0

x
Fig. 11.
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0 0.5 0 0.5 1.0
x
Fig. 12.
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5 0 0.5
x
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

x
Fig. 13. Fig. 14.
1986
POPOV, USTYUGOV
domain x y = [0, 1] [0, 1] was divided into four squares with different initial states. We used a numerical
grid with N
x
N
y
= 400 400 cells. The Courant number was = 0.2. The values in boundary cells were
set by transfer. For example, on the left boundary, we set
Additionally, we considered the reection of an oblique shock wave [14] (Test 7) and double Mach
reection [12] (Test 8).
Test 5 (interaction of shock waves (2D, see [13]). The initial conditions have the form
The CPU time was T = 0.25.
Test 6 (interaction of contact discontinuities, see [13]). The initial conditions have the form
The CPU time was T = 0.3.
Test 7 (reection of an oblique shock wave, see [14]). The problem was solved in the domain x y = [0,
4] [0, 1] on a grid of 60 40 cells with the Courant number = 0.4. A shock wave was initialized by
V
2 j ,
V
3 j ,
, V
1 j ,
V
2 j ,
, j 1 2 N
y
. , , , = = =
u v p , , , ( )
1.1 0 0 1.1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5, > >
0.5065 0.8939 0 0.35 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y < 0.5, >
1.1 0.8939 0.8939 1.1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5, < <
0.5065 0 0.8939 0.35 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5. < >
=
u v p , , , ( )
1 0.75 0.5 1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5, > >
2 0.75 0.5 1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y < 0.5, >
1 0.75 0.5 1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5, < <
3 0.75 0.5 1 , , , ( ), x 0.5, y 0.5. < >
=
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
y
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
x
Fig. 15.
boundary conditions. A rigid wall was specied on the lower boundary, a supersonic outow was set on the
right boundary, and the following physical variables were xed on the left and upper boundaries:
Under these boundary conditions, an oblique shock wave is formed that propagates from the upper left cor-
ner and reects from the lower boundary. A steady-state ow pattern was established after 10000 time steps.
L
u
L
v
L
p
L
, , , ( ) 1 2.9 0 1/ , , , ( ), =
, , , ( ) 1.69997 2.61934 0.50632 1.52819 , , , ( ). =

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
y
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
x
Fig. 16.
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
4 3 2 1 0
x
Fig. 17.
1988
POPOV, USTYUGOV
Test 8 (double Mach reection, see [12]). The problem was solved in the domain x y = [0, 4] [0, 1]
on a grid of 480 120 cells with the Courant number = 0.4. The reecting wall was set on the lower bound-
ary within the interval (1/6, 0)(4, 0). A shock wave propagating at a speed of Mach 10 impinged on this
wall at the point (1/6, 0) at an angle of 60 to the x axis. The parameters of the medium to the left and right
of the wave were
The conditions on the lower boundary within the interval (0, 0)(1/6, 0) and on the right boundary were
specied by linear extrapolation. A supersonic inow was set on the left boundary, and time-varying condi-
tions depending on the exact motion of the shock wave were used on the upper boundary. The computations
were continued until T = 0.2.
Figures 1518 show the numerical results obtained in the two-dimensional computations. Specically,
Figs. 15, 16, and 18 display lines of constant density in Tests 5, 6, and 8, respectively. Figure 17 shows the
pressure along the line y = 0.55 (Test 7), which corresponds to j = 11. The exact solution is depicted by the
solid line.
8. CONCLUSIONS
A modication of the well-known piecewise parabolic method was proposed that involves computations
on a local stencil without using the solution in neighboring cells. The PPML method was analyzed as
applied to the Cauchy problem for the one-dimensional linear advection equation and the inviscid Burgers
equation. Test computations with various initial proles were performed for the advection equation. The
error was estimated by calculating the norms of the difference between the exact and numerical solutions in
the spaces C, L
1
, L
2
, and . A comparison of the errors in PPM and PPML suggests that the latter is more
accurate, since the errors for the new scheme are smaller in all the norms. The new scheme has noticeably
lower dissipation. By solving the Cauchy problem for the Burgers equation, we examined the new scheme
as applied to the formation, motion, and collision of shock waves and to the analysis of rarefaction regions.
The PPML method improves the solution in rarefaction regions without degrading accuracy in the remain-
ing space.
A numerical scheme based on the new method was developed for solving the gas dynamics equations.
To use the conservation of Riemann invariants along the characteristics of the gas dynamics equations, they
were linearized with a xed basis of right and left eigenvectors in each difference cell. The characteristic
analysis of the equations can be performed only in this case. The test computations showed that the solution
is hardly affected by the choice of the state used to x an eigenvector basis.
The PPML method as applied to the gas dynamics equations involves two tasks. First, the boundary val-
ues of piecewise parabolas within each cell have to be determined in the transition to the next time step. The
difference of PPML from the PPM method is that the interpolation procedure for computing boundary states
L
u
L
v
L
p
L
, , , ( ) 8 7.1447 4.125 116.5 , , , ( ), =
R
u
R
v
R
p
R
, , , ( ) 1.4 0 0 1 , , , ( ). =
W
2
1
1.0
0.5
0
y
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 x
Fig. 18.
in the latter is replaced by the transfer of the corresponding wave amplitudes at the previous time step along
the characteristics. Then each cell has its own boundary states, which have to be matched, since their left
and right values at a common interface do not coincide. The states are matched by solving the corresponding
Riemann problem with the transition to conservative variables.
The second task is to compute the uxes on the cell boundaries. The left and right uxes are determined
at the interface of adjacent cells. A second-order-accurate approximation in time for the left and right bound-
ary states is derived by averaging the wave amplitudes over the corresponding domain of inuence. The
boundary ux is determined by solving another Riemann problem. In both cases, the Riemann problems are
solved by Roes method (see [8]), since it is relatively simply implemented and has low numerical viscosity.
The states at the cell centers are easily determined in terms of uxes by formula (16).
After the states at the cell centers at the next time step have been calculated, the boundary states in the
areas of a nonmonotone solution are updated according to the standard PPM method (see (4), (5)).
In the case of two or three dimensions, PPML has an additional difference from PPM: the boundary val-
ues of the piecewise parabolas in PPML must be calculated taking into account additional variations of their
values caused by the uxes in the orthogonal directions. In other words, when the gas dynamics equations
are solved, for example, in the x direction, we have to take into account the derivatives in the y direction (and
in the z direction for three-dimensional problems). These derivatives are involved as sources in the ampli-
tude equations. In this case, Roes scheme is free of the carbuncle phenomenon (see [15]).
The above study suggests that the PPML method improves the accuracy of the numerical solution. It
retains all the advantages of PPM and additionally exhibits lower dissipation. Moreover, we believe that a
local stencil used in PPML will simplify the algorithm as applied to problems on adaptive numerical grids.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M.V. Popovs research was supported by a grant from the President of the Russian Federation for young
Russian scientists, project no. MK-403.2007.2.
REFERENCES
1. P. Collela and P. Woodward, The Piecewise Parabolic Method for Gas-Dynamical Simulations, J. Comput. Phys.
54, 174201 (1984).
2. B. Van Leer, Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme II: Monotonicity and Conservation Com-
bined in a Second-Order Scheme, J. Comput. Phys. 14, 361370 (1974).
3. V. Guinot, High Resolution Godunov-Type Schemes with Small Stencils, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 44,
11191162 (2004).
4. A. Suresh and H. T. Huynh, Accurate Monotonicity-Preserving Schemes with RungeKutta Time Stepping, J.
Comput. Phys. 136, 8399 (1997).
5. M. P. Galanin and T. G. Elenina, Preprint No. 52, IPM RAN (Keldysh Inst. of Applied Mathematics, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1998).
6. M. P. Galanin and T. G. Elenina, Preprint No. 40, IPM RAN (Keldysh Inst. of Applied Mathematics, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1999).
7. H. Q. Yang and A. J. Przekwas, A Comparative Study of Advanced Shock-Capturing Schemes Applied to Burgers
Equation, J. Comput. Phys. 102, 139159 (1992).
8. P. L. Roe, Characteristic-Based Schemes for the Euler Equations, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 337365 (1986).
9. G. A. Sod, A Survey of Several Finite Difference Methods for Systems of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Conservation
Laws, J. Comput. Phys. 27, 131 (1978).
10. P. D. Lax, Weak Solutions of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations and Their Numerical Computation, Commun.
Pure Appl. Math. 7, 159193 (1954).
11. C.-W. Shu, Numerical Experiments on the Accuracy of ENO and Modied ENO Schemes, J. Sci. Comput. 5,
127149 (1990).
12. P. Woodward and P. Collela, The Numerical Simulation of Two-Dimensional Fluid Flow with Strong Shocks, J.
Comput. Phys. 54, 115173 (1984).
13. C. W. Schulz-Rinne, J. P. Collins, and H. M. Glaz, Numerical Solution of the Riemann Problem for Two-Dimen-
sional Gas Dynamics, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14, 13941414 (1993).
14. P. Collela, Multidimensional Upwind Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws, J. Comput. Phys. 87, 171
200 (1990).
15. J. J. Quirk, A Contribution to the Great Riemann Solver Debate, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 18, 555574
(1994).

Popov PPM Gaz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Popov PPM Gaz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1970

1.0 1.0 0 0.5 1.0

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

, , , ( ) 1.69997 2.61934 0.50632 1.52819 , , , ( ). =

You might also like