# PyFR robustness and suitability for strongly compressible and wall-bounded turbulent flows

**URL:** <https://pyfr.discourse.group/t/pyfr-robustness-and-suitability-for-strongly-compressible-and-wall-bounded-turbulent-flows/1310>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [23 October 2025 06:45 UTC](https://pyfr.discourse.group/t/pyfr-robustness-and-suitability-for-strongly-compressible-and-wall-bounded-turbulent-flows/1310 "2025-10-23T06:45:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rain](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/pyfr.discourse.group/rain/32/753_2.png) [@Rain](https://pyfr.discourse.group/u/Rain)\
**Post date:** [23 October 2025 06:45 UTC](https://pyfr.discourse.group/t/pyfr-robustness-and-suitability-for-strongly-compressible-and-wall-bounded-turbulent-flows/1310/1 "2025-10-23T06:45:54Z")

</div>

Hi,

I’m exploring the use of **PyFR** for **strongly compressible flows** that may involve **shock waves** , **acoustic waves** , and **near-wall flow structures**.  
Could you please share how robust and efficient PyFR is in such cases, especially compared to established compressible solvers like **OpenFOAM**?  
Also, I’d like to know whether PyFR is considered suitable for **high-Re DNS or implicit LES** of wall-bounded turbulence.

Thanks a lot for your time and insights!

Best regards

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kaschau](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/pyfr.discourse.group/kaschau/32/632_2.png) [@kaschau](https://pyfr.discourse.group/u/kaschau)\
**Post date:** [7 November 2025 16:05 UTC](https://pyfr.discourse.group/t/pyfr-robustness-and-suitability-for-strongly-compressible-and-wall-bounded-turbulent-flows/1310/2 "2025-11-07T16:05:39Z")

</div>

PyFR’s primary shock capturing method is entropy filtering, see this [paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999122005630) and [test cases](https://pyfr.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples.html). It is a robust and efficient method that, like all shock capturing methods, does its best to apply the minimum amount of dissipation to maintain sane physics without smearing out flow structures.

I don’t have numbers in front of me, but OpenFOAM is not known as a performant code in terms of computational throughput, that is not its primary goal, where it is with PyFR.

PyFR is primarily used as an implicit LES → DNS solver with capability for both compressible and incompressible flows (through artificial compressibility). As with all solvers, your computational resources are likely your primary limitation, but the flow configurations you describe are very much in PyFR’s wheel-house.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rain](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/pyfr.discourse.group/rain/32/753_2.png) [@Rain](https://pyfr.discourse.group/u/Rain)\
**Post date:** [8 November 2025 04:04 UTC](https://pyfr.discourse.group/t/pyfr-robustness-and-suitability-for-strongly-compressible-and-wall-bounded-turbulent-flows/1310/3 "2025-11-08T04:04:11Z")

</div>

Thanks for your discussion.