Advertisement

Second Order Implicit Schemes for Scalar Conservation Laws

  • Lisa WagnerEmail author
  • Jens Lang
  • Oliver Kolb
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 112)

Abstract

The today’s demands for simulation and optimization tools for water supply networks are permanently increasing. Practical computations of large water supply networks show that rather small time steps are needed to get sufficiently good approximation results – a typical disadvantage of low order methods. Having this application in mind we use higher order time discretizations to overcome this problem. Such discretizations can be achieved using so-called strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta methods which are especially designed for hyperbolic problems. We aim at approximating entropy solutions and are interested in weak solutions and variational formulations. Therefore our intention is to compare different space discretizations mostly based on variational formulations, and combine them with a second-order two-stage SDIRK method. In this paper, we will report on first numerical results considering scalar hyperbolic conservation laws.

Keywords

Discontinuous Galerkin Method Total Variation Diminish Water Supply Network Slope Limiter Strong Stability Preserve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    S.E. Buckley, M.C. Leverett, Mechanism of fluid displacements in sands. Trans. AIME 146, 107–116 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.C. Butcher, Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations (John Wiley & Sons, England, 2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Cockburn, An introduction to the discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-dominated problems, in Advanced Numerical Approximation of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations. Lecture Notes in Mathematics (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1997), pp. 151–268Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.A. Di Pietro, A. Ern, Mathematical Aspects of Discontinuous Galerkin Methods. Mathématiques et Applications, vol. 69 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.C. Evans, Partial Differential Equations (American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Ferracina, M.N. Spijker, Strong stability of singly-diagonally-implicit Runge-Kutta methods. Appl. Numer. Math. 58, 1675–1686 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Gottlieb, C.W. Shu, Total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes. Math. Comput. 67, 73–85 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Gottlieb, C.W. Shu, E. Tadmor, Strong stability-preserving high-order time discretization methods. SIAM Rev. 43, 89–112 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Gottlieb, D. Ketcheson, C.W. Shu, Strong Stability Preserving Runge-Kutta and Multistep Time Discretizations (World Scientific, Singapore, 2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Hundsdorfer, J.G. Verwer, Numerical Solution of Time-Dependent Advection-Diffusion-Reaction Equations. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 33 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O. Kolb, J. Lang, Mathematical Optimization of Water Networks, Simulation and Continuous Optimization (Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Kolb, J. Lang, P. Bales, An implict box scheme for subsonic compressible flow with dissipative source term. Numer. Algorithms 53, 293–307 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E.J. Kubatko, B.A. Yeager, D.I. Ketcheson, Optimal strong-stability-preserving Runge-Kutta time discretizations for discontinuous Galerkin methods. J. Sci. Comput. 60, 313–344 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.J. LeVeque, Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws. Lectures in Mathematics ETH Zürich (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel/Boston/Berlin, 1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Martin, R. Pohl, Technische Hydromechanik 4 (Huss-Medien-GmbH, Berlin, 2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservation difference scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 32, 1–136 (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsThe Darmstadt Graduate Schools of Computational Engineering and Energy Science and EngineeringDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations