Journal of Scientific Computing

, Volume 31, Issue 1–2, pp 273–305 | Cite as

A New Smoothness Indicator for the WENO Schemes and Its Effect on the Convergence to Steady State Solutions

  • Shuhai Zhang
  • Chi-Wang Shu


The convergence to steady state solutions of the Euler equations for the fifth-order weighted essentially non-oscillatory (WENO) finite difference scheme with the Lax–Friedrichs flux splitting [7, (1996) J. Comput. Phys. 126, 202–228.] is studied through systematic numerical tests. Numerical evidence indicates that this type of WENO scheme suffers from slight post-shock oscillations. Even though these oscillations are small in magnitude and do not affect the “essentially non-oscillatory” property of WENO schemes, they are indeed responsible for the numerical residue to hang at the truncation error level of the scheme instead of settling down to machine zero. We propose a new smoothness indicator for the WENO schemes in steady state calculations, which performs better near the steady shock region than the original smoothness indicator in [7, (1996) J. Comput. Phys. 126, 202–228.]. With our new smoothness indicator, the slight post-shock oscillations are either removed or significantly reduced and convergence is improved significantly. Numerical experiments show that the residue for the WENO scheme with this new smoothness indicator can converge to machine zero for one and two dimensional (2D) steady problems with strong shock waves when there are no shocks passing through the domain boundaries.


WENO scheme steady state solution smoothness indicator 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gottlieb S., Shu C.-W., Tadmor E. (2001). Strong stability preserving high order time discretization methods. SIAM Rev. 43:89–112MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harten A. (1983). High-resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 49:357–393MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harten A., Engquist B., Osher S., Chakravarthy S. (1987). Uniformly high order essentially non-oscillatory schemes, III. J. Comput. Phys. 71:231–303MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henrick A.K., Aslam T.D., Powers J.M. (2005). Mapped weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes: achieving optimal order near critical points. J. Comput. Phys. 207:542–567MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jameson A. (1993). Artificial diffusion, upwind biasing, limiters and their effect on accuracy and multigrid convergence in transonic and hypersonic flows. AIAA Paper 93–3359Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jameson A. (2001). A perspective on computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37:197–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang G.-S., Shu C.-W. (1996). Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 126:202–228MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jiang G.-S., Wu C.-C. (1999). A high-order WENO finite difference scheme for the equations of ideal magnetohydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 150:561–594MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu X.-D., Osher S., Chan T. (1994), Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 115:200–212MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osher S., Chakravarthy C. (1984). High-resolution schemes and the entropy condition. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 21:955–984MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saad M.A. (1993). Compressible Fluid Flow. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serna S., Marquina A. (2004). Power ENO methods: a fifth-order accurate weighted power ENO method. J. Comput. Phys. 194:632–658MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi J., Zhang Y.-T., Shu C.-W. (2003). Resolution of high-order WENO schemes for complicated flow structures. J. Comput. Phys. 186:690–696MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shu C.-W. (1988). Total-Variation-Diminishing time discretizations. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 9:1073–1084MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shu, C.-W. (1998). Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. In B. Cockburn, C. Johnson, C.-W. Shu and E. Tadmor (Editor: A. Quarteroni), Advanced Numerical Approximation of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1697. Springer, Berlin, pp. 325–432.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shu C.-W., Osher S. (1988). Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock capturing schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 77:439–471MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shu C.-W., Osher S. (1989). Efficient implementation of essentially non- oscillatory shock capturing schemes II. J. Comput. Phys. 83:32–78MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Leer B. (1979). Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J. Comput. Phys. 32:101–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venkatakrishnan V. (1995). Convergence to steady state solutions of the Euler equations on unstructured grids with limiters. J. Comput. Phys. 118:120–130MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woodward P., Colella P. (1984). The numerical simulation of two-dimensional fluid flow with strong shocks. J. Comput. Phys. 54:115–173MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, S., Zhang, Y.-T., and Shu, C.-W. (2005). Multistage interaction of a shock wave and a strong vortex. Phys. Fluid 17, 116101.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Y.-T., Shi J., Shu C.-W., Zhou Y. (2003). Numerical viscosity and resolution of high-order weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes for compressible flows with high Reynolds numbers. Phys. Rev. E 68, 046709Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China Aerodynamics Research and Development CenterMianyang, SichuanChina
  2. 2.Division of Applied MathematicsBrown UniversityProvidenceRIUSA

Personalised recommendations