AG-2026.07-1297·math-ph
Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative Method: Mechanical Equilibrium Mechanism and Liquid-Upwind Anomaly
Authors
- Bai Haotong
- Yang Yixin
- Xie Wenjia
- Yi Ping
- Sun Mingbo
Abstract
From the perspective of continuum thermodynamics, we revisit the pressure oscillation problem in finite-volume methods for real fluids and clarify the physical counterpart of the Real Fluid Quasi-Conservative (RFQC) method. The RFQC method recovers the mechanical-equilibrium pressure by evolving the affine parameters xi and E0 of the isentropic internal energy-pressure relation along pathlines, while the thermodynamic re-projection converts the deviation from the isentropic trajectory into an internal-energy error, thereby ensuring the thermodynamic consistency and numerical stability of the method. We then investigate the applicability limit of the RFQC method and identify a Liquid-upwind Anomaly (LUA) in extreme phase-change cases. For a Riemann problem involving liquid-vapor phase change, a numerical anomaly may occur if a liquid-upwind translational velocity is initially superimposed and exceeds a certain threshold. Theoretical analysis reveals that this anomaly is initiated by the orders-of-magnitude jump in the affine slope xi during phase change, which subsequently delays the pressure rise in the downstream low-pressure cell. Concurrently, the re-projection equivalently removes the positive pressure increment. As a result, a large re-projection internal-energy error is repeatedly generated in this anomalous cell, and the cell is trapped in a cycle of delayed low-pressure recovery. The analysis indicates that the LUA is a start-up anomaly, which can be resolved by introducing a regularization strategy at the initial discontinuity. With the proposed regularization strategy, the RFQC method is equipped with enhanced accuracy and robustness for extreme thermodynamic flows, such as sonic phase-change jets.
Submitted
15 July 20266 days ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2607.13996
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.