Stability Issues of Entropy-Stable and/or Split-form High-order Schemes

The focus of the present research is on the analysis of local energy stability of high-order (including split-form) summation-by-parts methods, with e.g. two-point entropy-conserving fluxes, approximating non-linear conservation laws. Our main finding is that local energy stability, i.e., the numerical growth rate does not exceed the growth rate of the continuous problem, is not guaranteed even when the scheme is non-linearly stable and that this may have adverse implications for simulation results. We show that entropy-conserving two-point fluxes are inherently locally energy unstable, as they can be dissipative or anti-dissipative. Unfortunately, these fluxes are at the core of many commonly used high-order entropy-stable extensions, including split-form summation-by-parts discontinuous Galerkin spectral element methods (or spectral collocation methods). For the non-linear Burgers equation, we further demonstrate numerically that such schemes cause exponential growth of errors during the simulation. Furthermore, we encounter a similar abnormal behaviour for the compressible Euler equations, for a smooth exact solution of a density wave. Finally, for the same case, we demonstrate numerically that other commonly known split-forms, such as the Kennedy and Gruber splitting, are also locally energy unstable.

Fast Barycentric-Based Evaluation Over Spectral/hp Elements

As the use of spectral/hp element methods, and high-order finite element methods in general, continues to spread, community efforts to create efficient, optimized algorithms associated with fundamental high-order operations have grown. Core tasks such as solution expansion evaluation at quadrature points, stiffness and mass matrix generation, and matrix assembly have received tremendous attention. With the expansion of the types of problems to which high-order methods are applied, and correspondingly the growth in types of numerical tasks accomplished through high-order methods, the number and types of these core operations broaden. This work focuses on solution expansion evaluation at arbitrary points within an element. This operation is core to many postprocessing applications such as evaluation of streamlines and pathlines, as well as to field projection techniques such as mortaring. We expand barycentric interpolation techniques developed on an interval to 2D (triangles and quadrilaterals) and 3D (tetrahedra, prisms, pyramids, and hexahedra) spectral/hp element methods. We provide efficient algorithms for their implementations, and demonstrate their effectiveness using the spectral/hp element library Nektar++ by running a series of baseline evaluations against the ‘standard’ Lagrangian method, where an interpolation matrix is generated and matrix-multiplication applied to evaluate a point at a given location. We present results from a rigorous series of benchmarking tests for a variety of element shapes, polynomial orders and dimensions. We show that when the point of interest is to be repeatedly evaluated, the barycentric method performs at worst $$50\%$$ 50 % slower, when compared to a cached matrix evaluation. However, when the point of interest changes repeatedly so that the interpolation matrix must be regenerated in the ‘standard’ approach, the barycentric method yields far greater performance, with a minimum speedup factor of $$7\times $$ 7 × . Furthermore, when derivatives of the solution evaluation are also required, the barycentric method in general slightly outperforms the cached interpolation matrix method across all elements and orders, with an up to $$30\%$$ 30 % speedup. Finally we investigate a real-world example of scalar transport using a non-conformal discontinuous Galerkin simulation, in which we observe around $$6\times $$ 6 × speedup in computational time for the barycentric method compared to the matrix-based approach. We also explore the complexity of both interpolation methods and show that the barycentric interpolation method requires $${\mathcal {O}}(k)$$ O ( k ) storage compared to a best case space complexity of $${\mathcal {O}}(k^2)$$ O ( k 2 ) for the Lagrangian interpolation matrix method.