Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
68 J.Ch. Gilbert and P. Joly tends to 0 – typically the step size of the computational mesh) of problems of the form: d 2 u h dt 2 + A hu h =0, (2) where the unknown u h is a function of time with value in some Hilbert space V h (whose norm will be denoted ‖·‖, even if it does depend on h) andA h denotes a bounded self-adjoint and positive operator in V h (namely an approximation of the second order differential operator A). Several approaches lead naturally to problems of the form (2), among which • variational finite differences [CJ96, Dab86, AKM74], • finite element methods [CJRT01, CJKMVV99], • mixed finite element methods [CF05, PFC05], • conservative discontinuous Galerkin methods [HW02, FLLP05]. Of course, the norm of A h blows up when h goes to 0, as ‖A h ‖ = O(h −2 ). It is well known that one has conservation of the discrete energy: E h (t) = 1 2 du h 2 ∥ dt ∥ + 1 2 a h(u h ,u h ), where a h (·, ·) is the continuous symmetric bilinear form associated with A h . From the energy conservation result and the positivity of A h , one deduces a stability result: the norm of the solution u h (t) can be estimated in function of the norm of the Cauchy data: u 0,h = u h (0), u 1,h = du h dt (0), with constants independent of h. This is also a direct consequence of the formula: [ ] [ ] u h (t) = cos A 1 2 h t u 0,h + A − 1 2 h sin A 1 2 h t u 1,h , which yields ‖u h (t)‖ ≤‖u 0,h ‖ + t‖u 1,h ‖. (3) In what follows, we are interested in the time discretization of (2) by explicit finite difference schemes. More specifically, we are interested in the stability analysis of such schemes, i.e., in obtaining a priori estimates of the form (3) after time discretization. The conservative nature (i.e., the conservation of energy) of the continuous problem can be seen as a consequence of the time reversibility of this equation. That is why we shall favor centered finite difference schemes which preserve such a property at the discrete level. The most well known scheme is the classical second order leap-frog scheme. Let us consider a time step ∆t > 0 and denote by u n h ∈ V h an approximation of u h (t n ), t n = n∆t. Thisschemeis
u n+1 h Optimal Higher Order Time Discretizations 69 − 2u n h + un−1 h ∆t 2 + A h u n h =0. (4) Of course, (4) must be completed by a start-up procedure using the initial conditions to compute u 0 h and u1 h . We omit this here for simplicity. By construction, this scheme is second order accurate in time. Its stability analysis is well known and we have (see, for instance, [Jol03]): Theorem 1. A necessary and sufficient condition for the stability of (4) is ∆t 2 4 ‖A h‖≤1. (5) Remark 1. The condition (5) appears as an abstract CFL condition. In the applications to concrete wave equations, it is possible to get a bound for ‖A h ‖ of the form ‖A h ‖≤ 4c2 + h 2 , where c + is a positive constant. This one has the dimension of a propagation velocity and only depends on the continuous problem: it is typically related to the maximum wave velocity for the continuous problem. Therefore, a (weaker) sufficient stability condition takes the form c + ∆t ≤ 1. h In many situations, it is also possible to get a lower bound of the form (where c − ≤ c + also has the dimension of velocity) ‖A h ‖≥ 4c2 − h 2 , so that a necessary stability condition is c − ∆t h ≤ 1. ⊓⊔ Next we investigate one way to construct more accurate (in time) discretization schemes for (2). This is particularly relevant when the operator A h represents a space approximation of the continuous operator A in O(h k ) with k>2: if one thinks about taking a time step proportional to the space step h (a usual choice which is in conformity with a CFL condition), one would like to adapt the time accuracy to the space accuracy. In comparison to what has been done on the space discretization side, we found very few work in this direction, even though it is very likely that a lot of interesting solutions could probably be found in the literature on ordinary differential equations
- Page 25 and 26: Discontinuous Galerkin Methods 13 3
- Page 27 and 28: Discontinuous Galerkin Methods 15 W
- Page 29 and 30: Let a h and b h denote the bilinear
- Page 31 and 32: Discontinuous Galerkin Methods 19 t
- Page 33 and 34: Discontinuous Galerkin Methods 21 l
- Page 35 and 36: Table 1. Primal DG for transport Di
- Page 37 and 38: Discontinuous Galerkin Methods 25 [
- Page 39 and 40: Mixed Finite Element Methods on Pol
- Page 41 and 42: Mixed FE Methods on Polyhedral Mesh
- Page 43 and 44: Mixed FE Methods on Polyhedral Mesh
- Page 45 and 46: Mixed FE Methods on Polyhedral Mesh
- Page 47 and 48: 4 Hybridization and Condensation Mi
- Page 49 and 50: Mixed FE Methods on Polyhedral Mesh
- Page 51 and 52: is symmetric and positive definite,
- Page 53 and 54: with some coefficient α ∈ R wher
- Page 55 and 56: 44 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski so fa
- Page 57 and 58: 46 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 2 A L
- Page 59 and 60: 48 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski S:T=
- Page 61 and 62: 50 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski minim
- Page 63 and 64: 52 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 6 On
- Page 65 and 66: 54 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Fig.
- Page 67 and 68: 56 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski and
- Page 69 and 70: 58 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 7 Num
- Page 71 and 72: 60 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Fig.
- Page 73 and 74: 62 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Assum
- Page 75: Higher Order Time Stepping for Seco
- Page 79 and 80: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 81 and 82: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 83 and 84: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 85 and 86: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 87 and 88: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 89 and 90: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 91 and 92: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 93 and 94: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 95 and 96: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 97 and 98: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 99 and 100: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 101 and 102: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 103 and 104: 96 I. Sazonov et al. To provide a p
- Page 105 and 106: 98 I. Sazonov et al. In the first s
- Page 107 and 108: 100 I. Sazonov et al. Fig. 1. An ex
- Page 109 and 110: 102 I. Sazonov et al. H z 1 exact F
- Page 111 and 112: 104 I. Sazonov et al. (a) (b) Fig.
- Page 113 and 114: 106 I. Sazonov et al. Scattering Wi
- Page 115 and 116: 108 I. Sazonov et al. 6.4 Scatterin
- Page 117 and 118: 110 I. Sazonov et al. (a) (b) Fig.
- Page 119 and 120: 112 I. Sazonov et al. [MHP96] K. Mo
- Page 121 and 122: 114 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall I R
- Page 123 and 124: 116 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall imp
- Page 125 and 126: 118 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall alo
68 J.Ch. Gilbert <strong>and</strong> P. Joly<br />
tends to 0 – typically the step size of the computational mesh) of problems of<br />
the form:<br />
d 2 u h<br />
dt 2 + A hu h =0, (2)<br />
where the unknown u h is a function of time with value in some Hilbert space V h<br />
(whose norm will be denoted ‖·‖, even if it does depend on h) <strong>and</strong>A h denotes<br />
a bounded self-adjoint <strong>and</strong> positive operator in V h (namely an approximation<br />
of the second order differential operator A). Several approaches lead naturally<br />
to problems of the form (2), among which<br />
• variational finite differences [CJ96, Dab86, AKM74],<br />
• finite element methods [CJRT01, CJKMVV99],<br />
• mixed finite element methods [CF05, PFC05],<br />
• conservative discontinuous Galerkin methods [HW02, FLLP05].<br />
Of course, the norm of A h blows up when h goes to 0, as<br />
‖A h ‖ = O(h −2 ).<br />
It is well known that one has conservation of the discrete energy:<br />
E h (t) = 1 2<br />
du h<br />
2 ∥ dt ∥ + 1 2 a h(u h ,u h ),<br />
where a h (·, ·) is the continuous symmetric bilinear form associated with A h .<br />
From the energy conservation result <strong>and</strong> the positivity of A h , one deduces a<br />
stability result: the norm of the solution u h (t) can be estimated in function<br />
of the norm of the Cauchy data:<br />
u 0,h = u h (0), u 1,h = du h<br />
dt (0),<br />
with constants independent of h. This is also a direct consequence of the<br />
formula:<br />
[ ] [<br />
]<br />
u h (t) = cos A 1 2<br />
h<br />
t u 0,h + A − 1 2<br />
h<br />
sin A 1 2<br />
h<br />
t u 1,h ,<br />
which yields<br />
‖u h (t)‖ ≤‖u 0,h ‖ + t‖u 1,h ‖. (3)<br />
In what follows, we are interested in the time discretization of (2) by explicit<br />
finite difference schemes. More specifically, we are interested in the stability<br />
analysis of such schemes, i.e., in obtaining a priori estimates of the form<br />
(3) after time discretization. The conservative nature (i.e., the conservation<br />
of energy) of the continuous problem can be seen as a consequence of the<br />
time reversibility of this equation. That is why we shall favor centered finite<br />
difference schemes which preserve such a property at the discrete level.<br />
The most well known scheme is the classical second order leap-frog scheme.<br />
Let us consider a time step ∆t > 0 <strong>and</strong> denote by u n h ∈ V h an approximation<br />
of u h (t n ), t n = n∆t. Thisschemeis