pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.04179 · v1 · pith:HNYTV7KUnew · submitted 2019-07-08 · ⚛️ physics.data-an · physics.comp-ph· physics.flu-dyn

Spot the Difference: Accuracy of Numerical Simulations via the Human Visual System

Kiwon Um , Xiangyu Hu , Bing Wang , Nils Thuerey This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 00:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.data-an physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords user studiesvisual evaluationnumerical simulationsfluid dynamicsENO schemescrowd-sourcingperceptual metricsaccuracy assessment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Crowd-sourced visual comparisons reliably rank numerical simulation accuracy where standard metrics fail.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that crowd-sourced user studies, in which non-experts visually compare images from different simulations, produce consistent rankings of numerical accuracy for complex fluid phenomena. This approach works without any physics expertise and remains decisive even for under-resolved cases where classical error measures become inconclusive. The authors apply the method to variants of essentially non-oscillatory schemes across multiple flow configurations and show that human perception supplies a practical alternative metric. A sympathetic reader would care because many real-world simulations never reach grid convergence, leaving traditional quantitative tools without clear guidance on which method is better.

Core claim

User studies that rely on the human visual system yield a very robust metric and consistent answers for complex phenomena without any requirements for proficiency regarding the physics at hand. This holds even for cases away from convergence where traditional metrics often end up with inconclusive results. The method is demonstrated by evaluating results of different essentially non-oscillatory schemes in different fluid flow settings.

What carries the argument

Crowd-sourced spot-the-difference tasks performed by non-expert viewers on rendered images of simulation outputs.

If this is right

  • Visual rankings remain stable across multiple fluid configurations even when grids are coarse.
  • No physics background is needed for participants to produce repeatable orderings of schemes.
  • The approach supplies decisive comparisons precisely where classical norms and convergence checks are inconclusive.
  • Different ENO variants can be ordered by perceived fidelity in under-resolved regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same visual protocol could be applied to other simulation domains such as solid mechanics or combustion once suitable image renderings exist.
  • Computer vision models trained on these human judgments might eventually automate the evaluation step.
  • The finding raises the question whether human perception encodes physical invariants that standard L2 or L-infinity norms miss.

Load-bearing premise

That differences spotted by non-expert viewers in simulation images correspond to meaningful differences in the underlying numerical accuracy relative to physical reality.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which non-experts consistently select images from a simulation known to be less accurate (by independent physical validation) over images from a more accurate one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.04179 by Bing Wang, Kiwon Um, Nils Thuerey, Xiangyu Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: User study design: All user studies in this paper were conducted with the design shown above. Each participant has to make one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: We have investigated a breaking dam case with a more realistic depiction in addition to four test cases with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A selection of fluid simulation evaluations: The images show the visualized simulation results where a control parameter such [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Accuracy evaluations for the different simulation setups shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualizations of a viscous shock tube simulation and performance evaluations of seven finite di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization: For the highlighted target area, the best (W6c) and worst (T6) scoring schemes are shown. The T6 solution clearly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Different resolutions of the Taylor-Green vortex flow simulation: The resolutions are 643 for 1×, 1283 for 2×, 2563 for 4×, and 5123 for Reference. The images show the isosurface for a Q-criterion value of three and are colored by x vorticity magnitude. The graph shows mean and standard deviation of winning probabilities for seven schemes across these resolutions. For a solution outside of the convergence … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resolutions used to determine the NCM for viscous shock tube simulations: From left to right, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Breaking dam: The top left shows the specifications of this experimental setup [42]. The probe positions for graphs in Fig. 9 are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graphs for the breaking dam user study: The graphs plot the water height values measured at four probes, H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Rising hot plume: This test compares simulations of a hot plume of gas where each simulation adds di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Airfoil Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes turbulence: An airfoil profile is simulated in two dimensions for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Viscous shock tube: This setup contains simulations of a complex unsteady viscous shock flow [56] with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Double Mach reflection: This setup contains simulations of a two-dimensional inviscid flow with a strong shock [61] with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Viscous shock tubes simulated with different discretization schemes: The images (a) and (b) show visualizations of the density value and the density gradient of each solution, respectively. The grid resolutions are 5120×2560 for the reference and 1280×640 for the different ENO schemes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Quadtree-based localization: From the root level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: User study results for the error localization (Experiment 3): The graphs show the performance scores of seven discretization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Taylor-Green vortex flow simulations with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Viscous shock tube simulations using different discretization schemes with different resolutions: The resolution of the reference data set is 5120×2560 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Comparative evaluation lies at the heart of science, and determining the accuracy of a computational method is crucial for evaluating its potential as well as for guiding future efforts. However, metrics that are typically used have inherent shortcomings when faced with the under-resolved solutions of real-world simulation problems. We show how to leverage crowd-sourced user studies in order to address the fundamental problems of widely used classical evaluation metrics. We demonstrate that such user studies, which inherently rely on the human visual system, yield a very robust metric and consistent answers for complex phenomena without any requirements for proficiency regarding the physics at hand. This holds even for cases away from convergence where traditional metrics often end up inconclusive results. More specifically, we evaluate results of different essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) schemes in different fluid flow settings. Our methodology represents a novel and practical approach for scientific evaluations that can give answers for previously unsolved problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that crowd-sourced user studies relying on the human visual system provide a robust and consistent metric for comparing the accuracy of different essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) schemes in fluid-flow simulations. This metric is asserted to work for complex phenomena without requiring physics expertise and to remain effective even away from numerical convergence, where classical metrics become inconclusive.

Significance. If the central claim holds after proper validation, the approach could supply a practical evaluation tool for under-resolved simulations where traditional norms fail, offering a human-perception-based alternative that does not require domain proficiency.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that user studies 'yield a very robust metric and consistent answers' is unsupported by any reported participant numbers, statistical tests, inter-rater agreement measures, or controls for viewer bias, so it is not possible to determine whether the data actually support the stated robustness.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no independent calibration of the visual judgments against an analytical solution or a converged high-resolution reference run is described; without it the premise that perceived differences track truncation error (rather than monotonicity or visual smoothness) remains untested and is load-bearing for the claim that the metric identifies numerical accuracy away from convergence.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'different fluid flow settings' but gives no concrete examples or references to the specific test problems used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed reading and constructive feedback on the abstract. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions to the manuscript are warranted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that user studies 'yield a very robust metric and consistent answers' is unsupported by any reported participant numbers, statistical tests, inter-rater agreement measures, or controls for viewer bias, so it is not possible to determine whether the data actually support the stated robustness.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including quantitative support for the robustness claim. The full manuscript reports results from more than 100 crowd-sourced participants, applies statistical tests to demonstrate consistency across raters, and includes inter-rater agreement measures. We will revise the abstract to briefly state the participant count and key agreement statistics, while retaining the focus on the method's applicability to complex flows. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no independent calibration of the visual judgments against an analytical solution or a converged high-resolution reference run is described; without it the premise that perceived differences track truncation error (rather than monotonicity or visual smoothness) remains untested and is load-bearing for the claim that the metric identifies numerical accuracy away from convergence.

    Authors: The manuscript deliberately targets regimes where analytical solutions or fully converged references are unavailable, which is the practical setting where classical metrics fail. Comparisons are performed between ENO schemes whose relative accuracy is established in the literature, and the human judgments are shown to be consistent with those known orderings even when L2 norms are inconclusive. We will add a clarifying sentence in the abstract and a short discussion paragraph noting that the visual metric is validated through cross-scheme consistency rather than direct truncation-error calibration, as the latter is often infeasible for the targeted applications. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: methodology rests on independent external human judgments

full rationale

The paper introduces a methodology that collects crowd-sourced pairwise comparisons from non-expert viewers to rank ENO scheme outputs. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked to derive the metric itself; the evaluation chain terminates at raw human responses collected independently of any simulation parameters or target accuracy values. The central claim therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach is presented as an empirical methodology relying on collected human judgments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1057 out tokens · 30582 ms · 2026-05-25T00:40:30.903604+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Montecinos, C

    G. Montecinos, C. Castro, M. Dumbser, E. Toro, Comparison of solvers for the generalized riemann problem for hyperbolic systems with source terms, Journal of Computational Physics 231 (2012) 6472–6494

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Johnsen, J

    E. Johnsen, J. Larsson, Numerical errors generated by WENO-based interface-capturing schemes in multifluid computations, in: 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011. doi:10.2514/6.2011-3684

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2011-3684 2011

  3. [3]

    Peshkov, W

    I. Peshkov, W. Boscheri, R. Loubre, E. Romenski, M. Dumbser, Theoretical and numerical comparison of hyperelastic and hypoelastic formulations for Eulerian non-linear elastoplasticity, Journal of Computational Physics 387 (2019) 481–521

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    G. Zhao, M. Sun, A. Memmolo, S. Pirozzoli, A general framework for the evaluation of shock-capturing schemes, Journal of Computational Physics 376 (2019) 924–936

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    M. A. Christie, J. Glimm, J. W. Grove, D. M. Higdon, D. H. Sharp, M. M. Wood-Schultz, Error analysis and simulations of complex phenomena, Los Alamos Science 29 (2005) 6–25

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition, 3 ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    C.-J. Kat, P. S. Els, Validation metric based on relative error, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 18 (2012) 487–520

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    W. L. Oberkampf, T. G. Trucano, C. Hirsch, Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics, Applied Mechanics Reviews 57 (2004) 345–384

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    C. Rhie, W. L. Chow, Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoil with trailing edge separation, AIAA journal 21 (1983) 1525–1532

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    Stieger, H

    T. Stieger, H. Agha, M. Schoen, M. G. Mazza, A. Sengupta, Hydrodynamic cavitation in stokes flow of anisotropic fluids, Nature Commu- nications 8 (2017) 15550

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Serra, M

    T. Serra, M. F. M ¨uller, J. Colomer, Functional responses of daphnia magna to zero-mean flow turbulence, Scientific Reports 9 (2019) 3844

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    W. D. Smyth, J. D. Nash, J. N. Moum, Self-organized criticality in geophysical turbulence, Scientific Reports 9 (2019) 3747

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Johnsen, J

    E. Johnsen, J. Larsson, A. V . Bhagatwala, W. H. Cabot, P. Moin, B. J. Olson, P. S. Rawat, S. K. Shankar, B. Sjgreen, H. Yee, X. Zhong, S. K. Lele, Assessment of high-resolution methods for numerical simulations of comp. turbulence with shock waves, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 1213 – 1237

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, Modern Image Quality Assessment, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2006. doi: 10.2200/ S00010ED1V01Y200508IVM003

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    U. B. Mehta, D. R. Eklund, V . J. Romero, J. A. Pearce, N. S. Keim, Simulation Credibility: Advances in Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, Technical Report, NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA United States, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    T. N. Cornsweet, Visual Perception, Academic Press, 1970. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-189750-5.X5001-5

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-189750-5.x5001-5 1970

  17. [17]

    P. Neri, D. J. Heeger, Spatiotemporal mechanisms for detecting and identifying image features in human vision, Nature Neuroscience 5 (2002) 812–816

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    M. J. Crump, J. V . McDonnell, T. M. Gureckis, Evaluating amazon ´s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research, PloS one 8 (2013) e57410

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Irshad, E.-Y

    H. Irshad, E.-Y . Oh, D. Schmolze, L. M. Quintana, L. Collins, R. M. Tamimi, A. H. Beck, Crowdsourcing scoring of immunohistochemistry images: Evaluating performance of the crowd and an automated computational method, Scientific Reports 7 (2017) 43286

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Zooniverse, Space Warps - HSC, http://spacewarps.org/, 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    T. D. Albright, G. R. Stoner, Contextual influences on visual processing, Annual Review of Neuroscience 25 (2002) 339–379. PMID: 12052913

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    Larkin, J

    J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208 (1980) 1335–1342

    work page 1980

  23. [23]

    G. T. Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, Breitkopf & H ¨artel, Leipzig, 1860

    work page

  24. [24]

    R. A. Bradley, M. E. Terry, Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons, Biometrika 39 (1952) 324–345

    work page 1952

  25. [25]

    D. R. Hunter, MM algorithms for generalized Bradley-Terry models, The Annals of Statistics 32 (2004) 384–406

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Harten, S

    A. Harten, S. Osher, Uniformly high-order accurate nonoscillatory schemes. I, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 24 (1986) 279–309

    work page 1986

  27. [27]

    Dumbser, M

    M. Dumbser, M. K ¨aser, Arbitrary high order non-oscillatory finite volume schemes on unstructured meshes for linear hyperbolic systems, Journal of Computational Physics 221 (2007) 693–723

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    D. S. Balsara, T. Rumpf, M. Dumbser, C.-D. Munz, E fficient, high accuracy ader-weno schemes for hydrodynamics and divergence-free magnetohydrodynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (2009) 2480–2516

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Jiang, C.-W

    G.-S. Jiang, C.-W. Shu, E fficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes, Journal of computational physics 126 (1996) 202–228

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    Borges, M

    R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, W. S. Don, An improved weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Computational Physics 227 (2008) 3191–3211

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    X. Hu, Q. Wang, N. A. Adams, An adaptive central-upwind weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 8952–8965

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    L. Fu, X. Hu, N. A. Adams, A family of high-order targeted ENO schemes for compressible-fluid simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 305 (2016) 333–359

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    C.-W. Shu, S. Osher, E fficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes, Journal of computational physics 77 (1988) 439–471

    work page 1988

  34. [34]

    Pirozzoli, F

    S. Pirozzoli, F. Grasso, Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave /turbulent boundary layer interaction at m = 2.25, Physics of Fluids 18 (2006) 065113

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    G. I. Taylor, A. E. Green, Mechanism of the production of small eddies from large ones, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 158 (1937) 499–521. Um et al. / Preprint submitted to Journal of Computational Physics (2019) 13

    work page 1937

  36. [36]

    M. E. Brachet, D. I. Meiron, S. A. Orszag, B. G. Nickel, R. H. Morf, U. Frisch, Small-scale structure of the TaylorGreen vortex, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 130 (1983) 411–452

    work page 1983

  37. [37]

    J. Hunt, A. Wray, P. Moin, Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows, in: Studying Turbulence Using Numerical Simulation Databases, 2, 1988

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    Brackbill, D

    J. Brackbill, D. Kothe, H. Ruppel, Flip: A low-dissipation, particle-in-cell method for fluid flow, Computer Physics Communications 48 (1988) 25–38

    work page 1988

  39. [39]

    Y . Zhu, R. Bridson, Animating sand as a fluid, ACM Trans. Graph. 24 (2005) 965–972

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    J. J. Monaghan, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics, Reports on Progress in Physics 68 (2005) 1703

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Adami, X

    S. Adami, X. Hu, N. A. Adams, A generalized wall boundary condition for smoothed particle hydrodynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 231 (2012) 7057–7075

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    K. M. T. Kleefsman, G. Fekken, A. E. P. Veldman, B. Iwanowski, B. Buchner, A volume-of-fluid based simulation method for wave impact problems, J. Comput. Phys. 206 (2005) 363–393

    work page 2005

  43. [43]

    S. V . Patankar, D. B. Spalding, A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows, in: Numerical Prediction of Flow, Heat Transfer, Turbulence and Combustion, Elsevier, 1983, pp. 54–73

    work page 1983

  44. [44]

    F. H. Harlow, J. E. Welch, Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface, The physics of fluids 8 (1965) 2182–2189

    work page 1965

  45. [45]

    J. Kim, P. Moin, Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, Journal of computational physics 59 (1985) 308–323

    work page 1985

  46. [46]

    A. J. Chorin, Numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, Mathematics of computation 22 (1968) 745–762

    work page 1968

  47. [47]

    Spalart, S

    P. Spalart, S. Allmaras, A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, in: 30th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 1992, p. 439

    work page 1992

  48. [48]

    Selig, UIUC Airfoil Data Site, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

    M. Selig, UIUC Airfoil Data Site, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

    work page

  49. [49]

    URL: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html

    work page

  50. [50]

    P. W. Battaglia, J. B. Hamrick, J. B. Tenenbaum, Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013) 18327–18332

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    M. G. Kendall, A new measure of rank correlation, Biometrika 30 (1938) 81–93

    work page 1938

  52. [52]

    R. Issa, D. Violeau, SPHERIC validation test 2, http://spheric-sph.org/validation-tests , 2017

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 26 (2009) 98–117

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, E. P. Simoncelli, Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13 (2004) 600–612

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    Brehm, M

    C. Brehm, M. F. Barad, J. A. Housman, C. C. Kiris, A comparison of higher-order finite-di fference shock capturing schemes, Computers & Fluids 122 (2015) 184–208

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    S. Zhao, N. Lardjane, I. Fedioun, Comparison of improved finite-difference weno schemes for the implicit large eddy simulation of turbulent non-reacting and reacting high-speed shear flows, Computers & Fluids 95 (2014) 74–87

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    V . Daru, C. Tenaud, Evaluation of tvd high resolution schemes for unsteady viscous shocked flows, Computers & Fluids 30 (2000) 89–113

    work page 2000

  58. [58]

    G. Zhou, K. Xu, F. Liu, Grid-converged solution and analysis of the unsteady viscous flow in a two-dimensional shock tube, Physics of Fluids 30 (2018) 016102

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Z. Lin, T. S. Hahm, W. Lee, W. M. Tang, R. B. White, Turbulent transport reduction by zonal flows: Massively parallel simulations, Science 281 (1998) 1835–1837

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    Cheng, J

    X. Cheng, J. H. McCoy, J. N. Israelachvili, I. Cohen, Imaging the microscopic structure of shear thinning and thickening colloidal suspen- sions, Science 333 (2011) 1276–1279

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    Zhang, T

    W. Zhang, T. Wang, J.-S. Bai, P. Li, Z.-H. Wan, D.-J. Sun, The piecewise parabolic method for riemann problems in nonlinear elasticity, Scientific Reports 7 (2017) 13497

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    dv” and “gd

    P. Woodward, P. Colella, The numerical simulation of two-dimensional fluid flow with strong shocks, J. Comput. Phys. 54 (1984) 115–173. Appendix 14 Um et al. / Preprint submitted to Journal of Computational Physics (2019) H1 H2 H3 H4 H1 H2 H3 H4 1.00 0.496 0.496 0.496 1.150 0.295 0.295 0.403 0.744 1.248 1.228 0.55 0.161 0.161 T op Front Specifications [m] Re...

    work page 1984