1
$\begingroup$

A Lax-Friedrichs (LF) type of flux for a conservation law $\partial_tU+\partial_xf(U)=0$ is given by \begin{align} F(U^-, U^+) = \frac{1}{2} \Big(f(U^-) + f(U^+)\Big)\cdot \nu - \frac{1}{2} \lambda(U^+ - U^-) \end{align} where for a classical LF flux in one dimension, $\lambda = \Delta t / \Delta x$. I understand that the motivation comes from trying to write the central flux scheme \begin{align} U^{n+1} = U^{n} - \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \Big(f(U^n_{i+1}) - f(U^n_{i-1})\Big) \end{align} by \begin{align} U^{n+1} = \frac{1}{2}\left(U^n_{i+1} + U^n_{i-1} \right) - \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \Big(f(U^n_{i+1}) - f(U^n_{i-1})\Big) \end{align} which then covers a wider domain than before and hence is more stable. The step of replacing the value at a point by average seems like a small trick. I am curious what is the idea behind such scheme, and if we can arrive at the scheme by writing a modified version of PDE and proceeding along more natural path.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The most natural way to derive Lax-Friedrichs's scheme is to consider the discretisation where the approximate state $U$ is constant ($\equiv U_i^n$) in cells $((i-1)\Delta x,(i+1)\Delta x)\times((n-1)\Delta t,n\Delta t)$ where $n+i\in2{\mathbb Z}$. To pass from the array $(U_i^n)_i$ to the next one $(U_i^{n+1})_i$, you start from the piecewise constant data at time $n\Delta t$~; you can solve the Cauchy problem explicitly by gluing the solutions of the Riemann problems (a RP is a Cauchy problem with data constant on each side of one point). These RP do not interact on a time interval $\Delta t$ guaranted by the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy inequality. The solution at $(n+1)\Delta t$ is projected over the space of piecewise constant states (consisting in taking mesh averages).

If instead you consider all the cells $((i-\frac12)\Delta x,(i+\frac12)\Delta x)\times((n-1)\Delta t,n\Delta t)$ ($i,n\in{\mathbb Z}$), the same procedure yields the Godunov's flux, which is less explicit, though still computable.

The stability of these procedures is quite obvious, because both stages (explicit solution on a time step, projection) is stable.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.