[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Time Step Restrictions for Strong-Stability-Preserving Multistep Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Scientific Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discontinuous Galerkin finite element spatial discretizations are often used in a method-of-lines approach with an ordinary differential equation solver to step the solution forward in time. Explicit strong-stability-preserving time steppers are a popular choice because they provably preserve the nonlinear stability properties of the forward Euler method applied to discontinuous Galerkin semi-discretized equations, subject to a time step constraint. While nonlinear stability is guaranteed by strong-stability-preservation, a separate condition for linear stability of the combined scheme must also be satisfied. In this work, we assess the linear stability properties of discontinuous Galerkin spatial discretizations with a set of strong-stability-preserving multistep Runge–Kutta methods. We find that, in all cases, the constraint for linear stability is more strict than that for strong-stability-preservation. For each order, from the set of multistep Runge–Kutta methods, we select an optimal time stepper that requires the fewest evaluations of the discontinuous Galerkin operator. All methods are tested for convergence in application to both a linear and a nonlinear partial differential equation, and all methods are found to converge in both cases using the maximum stable time step as determined by the stability constraints found in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated are included in the publication.

References

  1. Aizinger, V., Dawson, C., Cockburn, B., Castillo, P.: The local discontinuous Galerkin method for contaminant transport. Adv. Water Resour. 24, 73–87 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benedir, M.: On the root distribution of general polynomials with respect to the unit circle. Signal Process. 53, 75–82 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biswas, R., Devine, K.D., Flaherty, J.: Parallel, adaptive finite element methods for conservation laws. Appl. Numer. Math. 14, 255–283 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bresten, C., Gottlieb, S., Grant, Z., Higgs, D., Ketcheson, D., Németh, A.: Explicit strong stability preserving multistep Runge–Kutta methods. Math. Comput. 86(304), 747–769 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Butcher, J.C.: Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)

  6. Chapelier, J.B., de la Llave Plata, M., Renac, F., Lamballais, E.: Evaluation of a high-order discontinuous Galerkin method for the DNS of turbulent flows. Comput. Fluids 95, 210–226 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng, Y., Li, F., Qiu, J., Xu, L.: Positivity-preserving DG and central DG methods for ideal MHD equations. J. Comput. Phys. 238, 255–280 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Cockburn, B., Hou, S., Shu, C.W.: The Runge–Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws IV: the multidimensional case. Math. Comput. 54(190), 545–581 (1990)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Cockburn, B., Hou, S., Shu, C.W.: The Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin method for conservation laws V: multidimensional systems. J. Comput. Phys. 141, 199–224 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Cockburn, B., Lin, S.Y., Shu, C.W.: TVB Runge–Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for conservation laws III: one-dimensional systems. J. Comput. Phys. 84, 90–113 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Cockburn, B., Shu, C.W.: The Runge–Kutta local projection \({P}^1\)-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for scalar conservation laws. Math. Modell. Numer. Anal. 25(3), 337–361 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cockburn, B., Shu, C.W.: TVB Runge–Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for scalar conservation laws II: general framework. Math. Comput. 52, 411–435 (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cockburn, B., Shu, C.W.: Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods for convection-dominated problems. J. Sci. Comput. 16(3), 173–261 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Eskilsson, C., Sherwin, S.J.: A triangular spectral \(hp\) discontinuous Galerkin method for modelling 2d shallow water equations. Eng. Comput. 45, 605–623 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Gottlieb, S., Ketcheson, D., Shu, C.W.: Strong Stability Preserving Runge–Kutta and Multistep Time Discretizations. World Scientific, Singapore (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Krivodonova, L., Qin, R.: An analysis of the spectrum of the discontinuous Galerkin method. Appl. Numer. Math. 64, 1–18 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Kubatko, E.J., Bunya, S., Dawson, C., Westerink, J.J.: Dynamic p-adaptive Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods for the shallow water equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 198, 1766–1774 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kubatko, E.J., Westerink, J.J., Dawson, C.: \(hp\) discontinuous Galerkin methods for advection dominated problems in shallow water flow. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 196, 437–451 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kubatko, E.J., Westerink, J.J., Dawson, C.: Semidiscrete discontinuous Galerkin methods and stage exceeding order strong stability preserving Runge–Kutta time discretizations. J. Comput. Phys. 222, 832–848 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Kubatko, E.J., Yeager, B.A.: Optimal strong-stability-preserving Runge–Kutta time discretizations for discontinuous Galerkin methods. J. Sci. Comput. 60, 313–344 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Mirabito, C., Dawson, C., Kubatko, E.J., Westerink, J.J., Bunya, S.: Implementation of a discontinuous Galerkin morphological model on two-dimensional unstructured meshes. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 200, 189–207 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Puelza, C., Čanić, S., Rivière, B., Rusin, C.G.: Comparison of reduced models for blood flow using Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods. Appl. Numer. Math. 115, 114–141 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Schur, J.: Über potenzreihen, die im innern des einheitskreises beschränkt sind. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1917(147), 205–232 (1917)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shu, C.W., Osher, S.: Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 77, 439–471 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Sun, T., Qiu, J.: LWDG method for a multi-class traffic flow model on an inhomogeneous highway. Adv. Appl. Math. Mech. 1(3), 438–450 (2009)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Trahan, C.J., Dawson, C.: Local time-stepping in Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods applied to the shallow-water equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 217, 139–152 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Xing, Y., Shu, C.W.: High order well-balanced finite volume WENO schemes and discontinuous Galerkin methods for a class of hyperbolic systems with source terms. J. Comput. Phys. 214, 567–598 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Xing, Y., Zhang, X., Shu, C.W.: Positivity-preserving high order well-balanced discontinuous Galerkin methods for the shallow water equations. Adv. Water Resour. 33, 1476–1493 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from NSF Grants EAR-1520870 and ICER-1855047.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University, New York, USA

    Benjamin Yeager

  2. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ethan Kubatko

  3. Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN, USA

    Dylan Wood

Authors
  1. Benjamin Yeager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ethan Kubatko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dylan Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Yeager.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with the material presented in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A Time Step Restrictions for SSP MSRK Methods with DG Spatial Discretizations

A Time Step Restrictions for SSP MSRK Methods with DG Spatial Discretizations

See Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Table 2 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=2\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=1\)
Full size table
Table 3 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=3\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=2\)
Full size table
Table 4 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=4\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=3\)
Full size table
Table 5 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=5\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=4\)
Full size table
Table 6 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=6\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=5\)
Full size table
Table 7 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=7\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=6\)
Full size table
Table 8 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=8\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=7\)
Full size table
Table 9 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=9\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=8\)
Full size table
Table 10 Effective stability constraints \(\mu _\mathrm {eff}\) and percent differences \(\varsigma \) between numerical and theoretical stability constraint estimates for SSP RK, LM, and MSRK methods of order \(q=10\) with DG spatial discretization of degree \(p=9\)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeager, B., Kubatko, E. & Wood, D. Time Step Restrictions for Strong-Stability-Preserving Multistep Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods. J Sci Comput 89, 29 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-021-01635-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-021-01635-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation