# High-order DG solvers for under-resolved turbulent incompressible flows: A comparison of $L^2$ and $H$(div) methods

## TL;DR

This paper compares high-order DG methods based on $L^2$ and $H(div)$ approaches for simulating turbulent incompressible flows, focusing on their mass conservation, energy stability, and performance in under-resolved regimes.

## Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of $L^2$ and $H(div)$ DG discretisations, highlighting their similarities, differences, and suitability for turbulent flow simulations.

## Key findings

- Both methods are promising for under-resolved turbulence simulations.
- $H(div)$ methods ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability.
- $L^2$ methods achieve similar robustness with stabilization techniques.

## Abstract

The accurate numerical simulation of turbulent incompressible flows is a challenging topic in computational fluid dynamics. For discretisation methods to be robust in the under-resolved regime, mass conservation as well as energy stability are key ingredients to obtain robust and accurate discretisations. Recently, two approaches have been proposed in the context of high-order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretisations that address these aspects differently. On the one hand, standard $L^2$-based DG discretisations enforce mass conservation and energy stability weakly by the use of additional stabilisation terms. On the other hand, pointwise divergence-free $H(\operatorname{div})$-conforming approaches ensure exact mass conservation and energy stability by the use of tailored finite element function spaces. The present work raises the question whether and to which extent these two approaches are equivalent when applied to under-resolved turbulent flows. This comparative study highlights similarities and differences of these two approaches. The numerical results emphasise that both discretisation strategies are promising for under-resolved simulations of turbulent flows due to their inherent dissipation mechanisms.