On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) <
benjamin.k...@nasa.gov> wrote:
> You're talking about a norm for quantifying solution accuracy, not an
> estimator for use in AMR, correct?
>
My intent is to use an estimator for AMR, but for my current study I am
choosing to use a refe
You're talking about a norm for quantifying solution accuracy, not an estimator
for use in AMR, correct?
This gets complicated by the mixed nature of the stabilized approximation (1st
order at the shock), but C.Roy et al had a good paper looking at these issues
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~cjroy/
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Manav Bhatia wrote:
For some of my earlier work I had used Kelly's error estimator for
transonic flow problems, and it did exactly what you have described.
It kept on refining the elements at the shock, and around the
leading edge and trailing edge locations of an airfoil, w
Thanks, Roy.
For some of my earlier work I had used Kelly's error estimator for
transonic flow problems, and it did exactly what you have described. It
kept on refining the elements at the shock, and around the leading edge and
trailing edge locations of an airfoil, which are locations of singular
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Manav Bhatia wrote:
> My application is compressible Euler flow, so shock will appear in
> the computational domain. Is the L2 norm of density variable, compared with
> a reference solution (obtained on a very fine mesh), better or worse than
> an H1-seminorm on density? Sho
