MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2320058594 · doi:10.2514/6.2000-1001

Verification of error estimators for the Euler equations

2000· article· en· W2320058594 sur OpenAlexafffund
X. Zhang, D. Pelletier, Jean‐Yves Trépanier, R. Camarero

Notice bibliographique

Revue38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Établissements canadiensPolytechnique Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésEstimatorComputer scienceEuler's formulaEuler methodApplied mathematicsSemi-implicit Euler methodBackward Euler methodEuler equationsAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this paper, grid convergence studies are conducted to analyze four error estimators for their asymptotic behavior. The four error estimation techniques are based on residual, solution reconstruction, Richardson extrapolation and error equations respectively. Their accuracy, reliability and efficiency to control the true error have been verified on the quasi-one-dimensional Euler equations solved by a second-order accurate finite-volume method. Introduction The rapidly increasing power of computers allows very good approximation of solutions to partial differential equations. However, for complex problems highly accurate numerical solutions of partial differential equations can be achieved using locally adaptive grid. The generation of such adapted grid is usually guided by a proper error estimator or indicator. Analyses for error and error estimations abound for elliptic equations solved with finite-element methods. However, for hyperbolic problems, the theoretical foundation of a posteriori and a priori error analysis is far from satisfactory. Inspite of the lack of sound theoretical analyses, many practitioners simply choose one error indicator to guide mesh adaptation. Such indicators are usually based on the local gradient of a key variable,i12 such as fluid density, based on the idea that the error occurs when the variable of interest varies sharply. A more reasonable error indicator is based on the residual of the discretized equation3T4 as it is *Research Professional, Member AIAA tProfessor, Associate Fellow AIAA SAssociate ProfeSsor, Member AIAA §Professor, Member AIAA Copyright @ 2000 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission. a more reliable indication of how accurately the differential equation has been solved. Another method is to use two different levels of approximation (solution reconstruction), 5, 6 which is suitable to estimate interpolation error. Another approach is to use solutions on two or three different levels of grid to perform Richardson extrapolation to estimate solution error.7 Finally, one can solve error equations with residuals as right-hand side to provide solution error*)” which account for the transport of errors. Most of these error estimatiors are extensions from finite element methods for elliptic equations. For hyperbolic equations, several of these techniques are questionable. One important issue for any a posteriori error estimator or indicator is its ability to control the discretization error of the numerical method. At least, one requires that the estimated error and the true error should have the same asymptotic convergence rate when the mesh is refined. For hyperbolic cases very little theoretical analyses can be found about convergence rate and asymptotic behaviors of the above mentioned error estimations because of the lack of mathematical foundations. As these properties are so important in the control and minimization of the discretization error, it is worthwhile to conduct numerical investigations or verifications for test problems. The motivation of this paper is to perform careful studies of various error estimators through numerical experiments. The main concern is to assess the asymptotic convergence rates and which norm is more appropriate to measure the true and estimated errors, and consequently to assess existing error estimators for their accuracy, reliability and efficiency. Error Estimation and its Control Global control of the solution error is generally termed a priori error estimate for a given numerical 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics I (c)2000 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or published with permission of author(s) and/or author(s)’ sponsoring organization. method. It ensures the convergence of the method when the mesh size tends to zero, a basic requirement for any numerical methods. The global error estimation may be expressed as lb Uhllw,n = U(P), with h= rnrnh(h~) (1) where II * Ilw,n is a proper norm over the whole domain of concern fi in a Sobolev space W, P, the mesh partition established over a, hK represents the size of the cell K E Ph. The superscript Q: > 0 represents the convergence rate for the numerical method. For elliptic equations and finite element methods, this type of error estimation with W = H1(R) can be found in reference. lo For hyperbolic equations and finite volume methods, similar results with L2 norm were given in reference.lr It is evident that the order of convergence depends on both the problem and the method. It is also strongly dependent on the norm used to measure the error. The exact error is not always available for most problems of interest. To be able to control the true error globally, one relies on a specific error estimator and try to control the estimated error instead. However, the purpose of using adaptive technique to control the estimated error is to ultimately allow us to control the true error. This requires that the estimated error must have a behavior similar to the true one. The efficiency index defined by

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,045
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,208

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations18
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitMême sujetComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsTravaux en français237 207