Dear Andrew, Thank you for your email. Could you give us a bit more info? A snap-shot of your case and RANS flow field along with the best Nektar++ input file could help us understand. Thanks, Guglielmo ________________________________ From: Sherwin, Spencer J <s.sherwin@imperial.ac.uk> Sent: 03 March 2023 09:43 To: Andrew Barnes <A.Barnes2@lboro.ac.uk>; nektar-users <nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk> Cc: Isler, Joao A <j.isler20@imperial.ac.uk>; Vivarelli, Guglielmo A <guglielmo.vivarelli12@imperial.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Setting a maximum artificial viscosity value HI Andrew, We are tending to use the physical smoothing now, particularly with the implicit code. @Joao, Guglielmo can you have a chat with Andrew to see what might be going on? Cheers, Spencer. From: nektar-users-bounces@imperial.ac.uk <nektar-users-bounces@imperial.ac.uk> on behalf of Andrew Barnes <A.Barnes2@lboro.ac.uk> Date: Friday, 3 March 2023 at 08:37 To: nektar-users <nektar-users@imperial.ac.uk> Subject: [Nektar-users] Setting a maximum artificial viscosity value This email from A.Barnes2@lboro.ac.uk originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list<https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx> to disable email stamping for this address. Hello everyone, I'm trying to run a complex transonic case in the CompressibleFlowSolver which keeps diverging at a specific point in flow time no matter which settings I put in, including using a few different meshes for that geometry. After playing around with an alternative solver I noticed that the stability of the simulation was highly dependent on the maximum artificial viscosity setting for the shock capture method. So I was wondering if there is an equivalent option in Nektar++? Ideally one which applies to the NonSmooth capture method but I can switch to Physical if necessary. Kind regards, Andrew