Lehrenfeld, Christoph

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","533"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","556"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","91"],["dc.contributor.author","Fehn, Niklas"],["dc.contributor.author","Kronbichler, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Lehrenfeld, Christoph"],["dc.contributor.author","Lube, Gert"],["dc.contributor.author","Schröder, Philipp W."],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-03-02T16:00:09Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-03-02T16:00:09Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the under-resolved regime, mass conservation as well as energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high-order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard ^2ehBbased DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence-free (\\operatorname{div})ehBconforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. The present work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to under-resolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for under-resolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms."],["dc.identifier.arxiv","1905.00142v1"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/fld.4763"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/63042"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DeepGreen Import"],["dc.relation.issn","0271-2091"],["dc.relation.issn","1097-0363"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Numerische und Angewandte Mathematik"],["dc.relation.workinggroup","RG Lehrenfeld (Computational PDEs)"],["dc.title","High-order DG solvers for under-resolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of $L^2$ and $H(div)$ methods"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]