arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 2 Feb 2011

Transcription

1 HIGHER ORDER FINITE DIFFERENCE SCHEMES FOR THE MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS WITH RESISTIVITY U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD arxiv:48v [mathap] Feb Abstract In this paper, we design high order accurate and stable finite difference schemes for the initial-boundary value problem, associated with the magnetic induction equation with resistivity We use Summation-By-Parts SBP) finite difference operators to approximate spatial derivatives and a Simultaneous Approximation Term SAT) technique for implementing boundary conditions The resulting schemes are shown to be energy stable Various numerical experiments demonstrating both the stability and the high order of accuracy of the schemes are presented Introduction Many interesting problems in astrophysics and engineering involve evolution of macroscopic plasmas, modeled by the equations of MagnetoHydroDynamics MHD) These equations []) are a system of convection-diffusion equations with the magnetic resistivity and heat conduction playing the role of diffusion Many applications like plasma thrusters for deep space propulsion and electromagnetic pulse devices [3]) involve small but non-zero) values of the magnetic resistivity Hence, the design of efficient numerical methods for the resistive MHD equations is essential for simulating some of the afore mentioned models Numerical study of the ideal MHD equations where magnetic resistivity and other diffusions terms are neglected) has witnessed considerable progress in recent years and a variety of numerical methods are available see [6] for a review of the available literature) The design of numerical schemes for the resistive MHD equations has not reached the same stage of maturity as the presence of magnetic resistivity complicates the design of stable methods even further Given the formidable difficulties, study of prototypical sub-models that mirror some, but not all of the difficulties of the resistive MHD equations) can be a useful guide for obtaining robust methods for the resistive MHD equations In this paper, we consider the magnetic induction equations with resistivity Recent papers [, 5]) have pointed out the role that the magnetic induction equation without resistivity) plays in the design of numerical schemes for the ideal inviscid) MHD equations The induction equations with resistivity can play a similar role for designing stable methods for the resistive MHD equations Our goal in this paper is to design stable and high-order accurate numerical schemes for the magnetic induction equations with resistivity induction equation, magnetic resistivity, finite differences, SBP- Date: October 4, 8 Key words and phrases operators

2 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD We start with a brief description of how the equations are derived In a moving medium, the time rate of change of the magnetic flux across a given surface S bounded by curve S is given by see [7]): d dt S B ds = S B t ds + S B u dl + S divb))u ds + ɛ S J dl, where the unknown B = Bx, t) R 3 denotes the magnetic field, J = Jx, t) R 3 the current density and x = x, y, z) are the spatial coordinates The current density is given by: J = curlb) The parameter ɛ denotes the magnetic resistivity, and ux, t) the given) velocity field Using Faraday s law: ) d B ds = E dl, dt S Stokes theorem, the fact that the electric field E = in a co-moving frame and E = E + u B we obtain, B ) + curlb u) = udivb) ɛcurlcurlb)) t Magnetic monopoles have never been observed in nature As a consequence, the magnetic field is always assumed to be divergence free, ie, divb) = Using this constraing in ), we obtain the system: 3) S t B + curlb u) = ɛcurlcurlb)), divb) = The above equation is an example of a convection-diffusion equation The version obtained by taking zero resistivity ɛ = ) in 3) is termed the magnetic induction equation []) A standard way to obtain a bound on the solutions of convectiondiffusion equations like 3) is to use the energy method However 3) is not symmetrizable Consequently it may not be possible to obtain an energy estimate for this system On the other hand, ) is symmetrizable We use the following vector identity curlb u) = Bdivu udivb) + u ) B B ) u and rewrite ) in the form, 4) = u B ) + u B ) + u 3 B ) udivb) B )u, x y z t B + u ) B = Bdivu) + B )u ɛcurlcurlb)) = MDu)B ɛcurlcurlb)), where the matrix MDu) is given by MDu) = yu z u 3 y u z u x u x u z u 3 z u x u 3 y u 3 x u y u Introducing the matrix, x u y u z u C = x u y u z u, x u 3 y u 3 z u

3 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 3 ) can also be written in the following form, 5) t B + x A B ) + y A B ) + z A 3 B ) + CB = ɛcurlcurlb)), where A i = u i I for i =,, 3 Note that the symmetrized matrices in 5) are diagonal and that the coupling in the equations are through both the lower order source terms and the viscous terms Furthermore, taking the divergence of both sides of ) we obtain, 6) divb)) t + div udivb)) = Hence, if divbx, )) =, it follows that divbx, t)) = for t > This implies that all the above forms 5), 3) and ) are equivalent at least for smooth solutions) Although the magnetic induction equations with resistivity are linear, the coefficients are functions of x and t Therefore, closed form solutions are not available and we must resort to numerical methods in order to calculate approximate) solutions Consequently, it is important to design efficient numerical methods for these equations As mentioned before the magnetic induction equations is a sub-model in the resistive MHD equations Hence, design of stable and high-order accurate numerical schemes for the viscous induction equations can lead to robust schemes for the nonlinear resistive MHD equations The presence of the divb) = constraint leads to numerical difficulties Small divergence errors may change the nature of results from numerical simulations see [4, ] for details on the role of divergence in ideal MHD codes) Our approach to treating the constraint follows the method developed in [7, 5, ] and involves discretizing 5) TFurthermore, a proper discretization of the symmetric form 5) yields energy estimates These estimates are vital in proving existence of weak solutions We will approximate spatial derivatives by second and fourth order SBP Summation By Parts ) operators The boundary conditions of both the Dirichlet and mixed type are weakly imposed by using a SAT Simultaneous Approximation Term ) This work is an extension of the SBP-SAT schemes for the case without resistivity ɛ = ) found in a recent paper [] We would like to emphasize that other numerical frameworks like mixed finite elements, discrete duality finite volume or mimetic finite differences might also lead to stable schemes for approximating the induction equations with resistivity However, we are not aware of any papers that have approximated the resistive induction equations with these approaches The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section, we state the energy estimate for the initial-boundary value problem corresponding to 4) in order to motivate the proof of stability for the scheme This is done for mixed type and Dirichlet boundary conditions In Section 3, we present the SBP-SAT scheme and show its stability with both Dirichlet and mixed boundary conditions Numerical experiments are presented in Section 5 and conclusions from this paper are drawn in Section 6 The Continuous problem For simplicity and notational convenience, we restrict ourselves to two spatial dimensions in the remainder of this paper Extending our results to three dimensions is straightforward

4 4 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD ) and In two dimensions, 4) reads Λ = B t + Λ B x + Λ B y CB = ɛ B), [ B ) xy B )] ) yy where B) = B ) xx B ) xy ) ) ) ) u u y u u, Λ = u, C = y u x u x u, with B = B, B ) T and u = u, u ) T denoting the magnetic and velocity fields respectively Throughout this paper, we consider ) in a smooth domain Ω One can extend our results to general piecewise smooth boundaries by a standard procedure We augment ) with initial conditions, ) Bx, ) = B x), x Ω, and Dirichlet or mixed boundary conditions with homogeneous boundary data The Dirichlet boundary conditions are given as 3) Bx, t) =, x Ω In order to specify the mixed boundary conditions, we need some notation Let nx) denote the outward pointing unit normal at a point x Ω Define ) n curlb) n = Bx B 4) y) n Bx By) and 5) curlb) = B x B y, for B = B, B ) and n = n, n ) Furthermore, let Ω in denote the part of Ω where the characteristics are incoming, ie, Ω in = { x Ω nx) ux) < } With this notation, the mixed boundary conditions read 6) βnx) ux)) Bx, t) + curlbx, t)) nx) =, for x Ω in, curlbx, t)) nx) =, for x Ω \ Ω in, where β < /ɛ) is a given number In order to motivate the complicated calculations required to show stability in the discrete case, we start by explaining how stability is proved in the continuous case We assume that the solution, B, is sufficiently regular for our calculations to make sense Theorem Let Bx, t) be a solution of the problem ) and ) with boundary conditions 3) or 6) There exist positive constants α depending on u and its first derivatives) and K, such that B, t) L Ω) + ɛ curlb, t)) L Ω) Ke αt B L Ω) Proof Multiplying ) by B T and then integrating in space, we get B T t B dxdy + B T Λ B x + B T Λ B y B T CB ) dxdy Ω Ω,

5 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 5 which implies, ) B dxdy + ɛ curlb) dxdy t Ω Ω = B T C + divu)) B dxdy Ω Ω = ɛ B T B)) dxdy, Ω ) B u n) ds + ɛ B curlb) n) ds, Ω so that, ) B dxdy + ɛ curlb) dxdy t Ω Ω α B dxdy ) B u n) ds + ɛ B curlb) n) ds Ω Ω Ω From the above relation, we see that applying Dirichlet boundary conditions, 3), and integrating in time gives the required result For the mixed boundary conditions 6), we split the boundary into Ω in and Ω \ Ω in This yields ) B dxdy + ɛ curlb) dxdy t Ω Ω ) α B u n) ds B dxdy Ω + ɛ Ω in + Ω in + Ω\ Ωin Ω\ Ωin ) ) B curlb) n) Rearranging the above relation and applying mixed boundary conditions 6), remembering that β < /ɛ), we get ) B dxdy + ɛ curlb) dxdy t Ω Ω ) α B dxdy + ɛβ B u n) ds Ω Ω in From the above relation, after integrating in time then we have the required result ds 3 Semi-discrete Schemes To simplify the treatment of the boundary terms we let the computational domain Ω be the unit square A justification for this will be provided at the end of this section The SBP finite difference schemes for one-dimensional derivative approximations are as follows Let [, ] be the domain discretized with x j = j x, j =,, N A scalar grid function is defined as w = w, w N ) To approximate x w we use a summation-by-parts operator D x = Px Q x, where P x is a diagonal positive N N matrix, defining an inner product v, w) Px = v T P x w,

6 6 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD such that the associated norm w Px = w, w) / P x is equivalent to the norm w = x k w k )/ Furthermore, for D x to be a summation-by-parts operator we require that Q x + Q T x = R N L N, where R N and L N are the N N matrices: diag,, ) and diag,, ) respectively Similarly, we can define a summation-by-parts operator D y = Py Q y approximating y Later we will also need the following Lemma, proven in [8] Lemma 3 Given any smooth function ūx, y), we denote its restriction to the grid as u and let w be a smooth grid function Then 3) D x u w) u D x w Px C x ū L [,]) w P x where u v) j = u j v j Next, we move on to the two-dimensional case and discretize the unit square [, ] using NM uniformly distributed grid points x i, y j ) = i x, j y) for i =,, N, and j =,, M, such that N ) x = M ) y = We order a scalar grid function wx i, y i ) = w ij as a column vector w = w,, w,,, w,m ), w,,,, w N ),M ) ) T To obtain a compact notation for partial derivatives of a grid function, we use Kronecker products The Kronecker product of an N N matrix A and an M M matrix B is defined as the N M N M matrix 3) A B = a B a N B a NB a NN B For appropriate matrices A, B, C and D, the Kronecker product obeys the following rules: 33) 34) 35) A B)C D) = AC BD), A B) + C D) = A + C) B + D), A B) T = A T B T ) Using Kronecker products, we can define -D difference operators Let I n denote the n n identity matrix, and define d x = D x I M, d y = I N D y For a smooth function wx, y), d x w) i,j x wx i, y j ) and similarly d y w) i,j y wx i, y j ) Set P = P x P y, define w, v) P = w T Pv and the corresponding norm w P = w, w) / P Also define R = R N I M, L = L N I M, U = I N R M and D = I N L M For a vector valued grid function V = V, V ), we use the following notation ) dx V d x V = d x V, and so on In the same spirit, the P inner product of vector valued grid functions is defined by V, W) P = V, W ) P + V, W ) P

7 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 7 Remark 3 Note that the Kronecker products is just a tool to facilitate the notation In the implementation of schemes using the operators in the Kronecker products we can think of these as operating in their own dimension, ie, on a specific index Thus, to compute d x w, we can view w as a field with two indices, and the one-dimensional operator D x will operate on the first index since it appears in the first position in the Kronecker product The usefulness of summation by parts operators comes from this lemma Lemma 3 For any grid functions v and w, we have 36) v, d x w) P + d x v, w) P = v T [R L)I N P y )] w v, d y w) P + d y v, w) P = v T [U D)P x I M )] w Observe that this lemma is the discrete version of the equality v x w) dxdy + x v) w dxdy = v, y)w, y) v, y)w, y) dy Ω Proof We calculate Ω v, d x w) = v T P x P y ) Px ) Q x I M w = v T Q x P y w = v T Q T x P y w + v T Q x + Q T x ) P y w = Px Q x I M v) T P x P y ) w + v T R N L N ) P y w = d x v) T P x P y ) w + v T R L) I N P y )w The second equality is proved similarly For a vector valued grid function V, we define the discrete analogues of the curl and the curlcurl) operators by curl V) = curl V) = d x V d y V and ) ) ) dyy d xy V dyy V d xy d xx V = + d xy V d xy V d xx V, where d xy = d x d y = d y d x etc Before we define our numerical schemes, we collect some useful results in a lemma Lemma 33 V, curl V) ) P = curl V) P 37) If u is a grid function, then + V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) V, u d x V) P = VT [R L)I N P y )] u V) 38) + u d xv d x u V), V) P, V, u d y V) P = VT [U D)P x I M )] u V) + u d yv d y u V), V) P

8 8 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD Proof To prove 37), V, curl V) ) P = V, d yy V + d yx V ) P + V, d xy V d xx V ) P = d y V, d y V + d x V ) P d x V, d y V d x V ) P + V ) T [U D) Px I M )] d y V + d x V ) + V ) T [R L) IN P y )] d y V d x V ) = curl V), curl V)) P + V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) To show 38), first note that since P is diagonal, u dv, V) P = dv, u V) P We use Lemma 3 to calculate u d x V, V) P = d x u V), V) P + u d x V d x u V), V) P = u V, d x V) P + V T R L) I N P y ) u V) + u d x V d x u V), V) P = u d x V, V) P + V T R L) I N P y ) u V) + u d x V d x u V), V) P This shows the first equation in 38), the second is proved similarly Now we are in a position to state our schemes) For l = or we will use the notation u l for both the grid function defined by the function u l x, y) and for the function itself Similarly, for the boundary values, we use the notation h and g for both discrete and continuously defined functions Hopefully, it will be apparent from the context what we refer to The differential equation 5) will be discretized in an obvious manner We incorporate the boundary conditions by penalizing boundary values away from the desired ones with a O/ x) term To this end set B = [ P x I M ) ΣL L + Σ R R) + I N P y ) ΣD D + Σ U U) ], where Σ L, Σ R, Σ D and Σ U are diagonal matrices, with components σ L ) jj ordered in the same way as in 3)) and similarly for the other penalty matrices), to be specified later Furthermore, the following form of the penalty paramaters will be convenient: 39) B = B + ɛb and similarly for Σ L, σ L etc With this notation the scheme for the differential equation ) with boundary values Bx, y) = gx, y) reads 3) V t + u d x V + u d y V CV + ɛcurl V) = BV g), t >, while V) is given Here C denotes the matrix ) dy u C = d y u d x u d x u

9 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 9 Theorem 3 Let V be as solution to 3) with g = If the constants in B is chosen as 3) σ R) N,j u,, y j ), σ L),j u,+, y j ) and σ D) i, u,+ x i, ),, σ U) i,m u, x i, ), 3) σ R p x, σ L p x, σ U p y, and σ D p y, and all other entries are, then 33) Vt) P ect V) P, where u l,+ = u l ), u l, = u l ), for l =, and c is a constant depending on u, u, and their derivative approximations, but not on N or M By construction of the SBP operators p = p x = p x N = py = py M, where P x = x diag ) p x,, p x N and P y = y diag p y,, M ) py Proof Set Et) = V, V) P Taking the P inner product of 3) and V, we get d dt E + ɛ V, curl V) ) = V, u d P x V ) V, u d P y V ) P + V, CV) P + V, BV) P Using Lemma 33 we get d dt E + ɛ curl V) P = ɛ V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) + ɛ V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) V, u d x V ) P V, u d y V ) P + V, CV) P + V, BV) P = ɛ V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) + ɛ V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) VT [R L)I N P y )] u V) VT [U D)P x I M )] u V) u d x V d x u V), V ) P u d y V d y u V), V ) P + V, CV) P + V, B + ɛb )V) P Note that by 3), u d x V d x u V), V ) c V P P, 34) u d y V d y u V), V ) c V P P, V, CV) P c V P, for some constant c depending on the first derivatives of u and u Using the conditions 3) we arrive at d dt E + ɛ curl V) P ce ɛ V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) + ɛ V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) + ɛ V, B V) P

10 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD Next, for any grid function w with components as in 3))), we have Similarly M w P = j= y p y j N i= N y p x p x i i= M w P x p j= y p y j x p x i w i,j w i, + wi,m ) ) w,j + wn ),j Combining this we find that w P x p ) 35) wt I N P y )L + I N P y )R w + y p ) wt P x I M )D + P x I M )U w We also compute 36) w, Bw) P = w T I N P y )Σ L L + I N P y )Σ R R + P x I M )Σ D D + P x I M )Σ U U Using 35) for w = curlv), and 36) for w = V we find d dt E ce =: ɛa pdx ɛ curlv)t I N P y )L + I N P y )R ) curlv) + p dy curlv)t P x I M )D + P x I M )U ) curlv) ) w + V ) T [U D) Px I M )] curl V) V ) T [R L) IN P y )] curl V) + V T σ LI N P y )L σ RI N P y )R σ DP x I M )D σ UP x I M )U ) ) V Choose the remaining penalty parameters as in 3) and write A p dx curlv), curlv) L + V, curlv) L σ L V, V L + p dx curlv), curlv) R V, curlv) R σ R V, V R + p dy curlv), curlv) D V, curlv) D σ D V, V D + p dy curlv), curlv) U + V, curlv) U σ U V, V U V + p dx curlv), V + p dx curlv) pdx pdx = + + V p dx curlv), V p dx curlv) pdx pdx V p dy curlv), V p dy curlv) pdy pdy L + σ L R D p x) V, V L + σ R p x) V, V R + σ D ) V, V p y D

11 +, where SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS V + p dy curlv), V + p dy curlv) pdy pdy v, w R = v T I N P y )Rw and so on are positive semi-definite forms U + σ U ) V, V p y U Furthermore, we used the notation p dx = p x and p dy = p y Summing up, we have shown that d Et) cet), dt and the result follows by Gronwall s inequality The scheme for the mixed boundary conditions reads V t +u d x V + u d y V CV + ɛcurl V) ) ) 37) U D) IN Py = BV g) + ɛ curlv) h) R L) ) Px, t >, I M curlv) h) where h is the desired value of curlv) on the boundary Theorem 3 If V is a solution of 37) with h = g =, and B= B ) is chosen so that 3) holds, then t 38) Vt) P + ɛ e ct s) curlvs)) P ds ect V) P, where c is a constant depending on d x, d y and the derivatives of u and u, but not on N or M Proof The proof of this theorem proceeds as the proof of Theorem 3 Note that we are subtracting the boundary terms coming from V, curl V)) P, so that we do not need to split B The other terms are estimated as before, and we get the inequality d dt E + ɛ curlv) P ce, which yields the stability result Remark 3 We have assumed a constant resistivity co-efficient ε in the above discussion However, in many practical applications, the co-efficient of resistivity can vary in space In such cases, our theoretical results hold provided that the resistivity co-efficient is uniformly bounded away from zero The analysis has been carried out on a Cartesian equidistant grid on the unit square However, this is not a restriction as problems on general domains may be addressed using coordinate transformations The stability proofs will hold as long as the norm matrices P x P y, P z ) are diagonal SBP finite-difference schemes with diagonal P matrix have a truncation error of p in the interior and p near the boundary resulting in a global order of accuracy/convergence rate of p + See [9] for further details) The resistive magnetic induction equations include diffusive terms Those are discretized by applying the first-derivative operators twice This results in a truncation error of p near the boundary for the diffusive terms However, thanks to the energy stability of the scheme, the global convergence rate and order of accuracy remains at p + see [])

12 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD 4 Schemes in Three-dimensions In this section, we are going to write down the three-dimensional version of the finite difference scheme for the equation 4) To begin with, we discretize unit cube [, ] 3 using uniformly distributed grid points x i, y j, z k ) = i x, j y, k z) for i =,, N, j =,, M, and k =,, K such that N ) x = M ) y = K ) z = We order a scalar grid function wx i, y i, z k ) = w ijk as a column vector w = w,,, w,,,, w,,k ), w,,, w,,,, w,m ),K ),, w,,,,, w N ),M ),K ) ) T As before, let I n denote the n n identity matrix, and define d x = D x I M I K, d y = I N D y I K, d z = I N I M D z Set P = P x P y P z, define w, v) P = w T Pv and the corresponding norm w P = w, w) / P Also define R = R N I M I K, L = L N I M I K, U = I N R M I K and D = I N L M I K, A = I N I M R K, B = I N I M L K For a vector valued grid function V = V, V, V 3 ), we use the following notation d x V d x V = d x V, d x V 3 and so on In the same spirit, the P inner product of vector valued grid functions is defined by V, W) P = V, W ) P + V, W ) P + V 3, W 3 ) P Finally, we set S = [ P x ) I M I K ΣL L + Σ R R) + I N Py ) I K ΣD D + Σ U U) + I N I M Pz ) ΣA A + Σ B B)], where Σ L, Σ R, Σ D,Σ U,Σ A and Σ B are diagonal matrices With these notations above the scheme for the differential equation 4) with boundary values Bx, y, z) = gx, y, z) reads 4) V t + u d x V + u d y V + u 3 d z V CV + ɛcurl V) = SV g), t >, while V) is given Here C denotes the matrix C = d yu d z u 3 d y u d z u d x u d x u d z u 3 d z u, d x u 3 d y u 3 d x u d y u and d y dx V d y V ) d z dz V d x V 3) curl V) = d z dy V 3 d z V ) d x dx V d y V ) d x dz V d x V 3) d y dy V 3 d z V ) Remark 4 Note that the stability result for the three-dimensional scheme can be achieved along the same way as in Theorem 3 by choosing the penalty parameters as 4) σ R) N,j,k u,, y j, z k ), σ L),j,k u,+, y j, z k ), σ U) i,m,k u, x i,, z k ), σ D) i,,k u,+ x i,, z k ), σ A) i,j,k u3, x i, y j, ), and σ B) i,j, u3,+ x i, y j, ),

13 43) SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 3 σ R p x, σ L p x, σ U p y, σ D p y, and all other entries are σ A, and σ B p z p z, 5 Numerical Experiments The SBP-SAT schemes 3) have been tested on a suite of numerical experiments in order to demonstrate their effectiveness We have used the second-order first-order) accurate and the fourth-order second-order) accurate SBP operators in the interior boundary) From the results of [], these operators result in overall second and third order accurate discretizations of the equations Henceforth, the second first)-order accurate SBP scheme will be denoted as SBP and the fourth second)-order accurate SBP scheme will be denoted as SBP 4 after their orders of accuracy in the interior Time integration is performed by using a standard secondorder accurate Runge-Kutta scheme Using a higher-order Runge Kutta scheme didn t affect the quality of the computational results) Numerical experiment : To begin with, we consider a divergence free velocity field ux, y) = y, x) T and a slightly modified form of ) given by [ ] B ) xy B ) yy ) 5) B t + Λ B x + Λ B y CB = ɛ + F, B ) xx B ) xy ) where the forcing function F is given by, 5) f = 6ɛy 5 sint)) [ 4 + 4{x 5 cost)) + y 5 sint)) } ] e At), f = 6ɛy 5 cost)) [ 4 + 4{x 5 cost)) + y 5 sint)) } ] e At), with A: At) = {x cost) + y sint) 5) + x sint) + y cost)) } We note that it is straightforward to extend the stability results of the previous section to SBP-SAT schemes for 5) The forcing term is evaluated in a standard manner The forcing function in 5) enables us to calculate an exact smooth) solution of the equation given by, 53) Bx, t) = Rt)B R t)x), where Rt) is a rotation matrix with angle t Note that this exact solution represents the rotation of the initial data about the origin In fact, 53) is also an exact solution of 5) with both the forcing term F and the resistivity ɛ set to zero Hence, this example follows from a similar example for the inviscid magnetic induction equations considered in [, 5] For initial data, we choose the divergence free magnetic field: ) y 54) B x, y) = 4 x e x /) +y ), and the computational domain [, ] [, ] In this case, the exact solution is a smooth hump centered at /, ) and decaying exponentially) rotating about the

14 4 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD origin and completing one rotation in time t = π The hump remains completely inside the domain during the course of the rotation Since the exact solution is known in this case, we use this solution to specify the data for the boundary conditions 3) or 6) The above setup is simulated using the SBP and SBP4 schemes Using Dirichlet or mixed boundary conditions led to very similar results Hence, we present results only with the mixed boundary conditions 6) in this case The time-integration was performed with a second-order Runge-Kutta method at a CF L number of 5 The resistivity ɛ = was used Also we have used the value of the penalty parameters as mentioned in Theorem 3, for instance we used σ L = σ L + ɛσ L = u,+ ɛ p x and so on We plot the l norm of the magnetic field: B = B ) + B ), at times t = π half rotation) and t = π full rotation) for both the SBP and SBP4 schemes in figure 5 As shown in a) SBP, half rotation b) SBP, full rotation c) SBP4, half rotation d) SBP4, full rotation Figure 5 Numerical Experiment : B = B + B for the SBP and SBP4 schemes on a mesh the figure, both SBP and SBP 4 schemes resolve the solution quite well There

15 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 5 are very few noticeable differences between the second and fourth order schemes at this resolution The shape of the hump is maintained during the rotation A quantitative view of the results is presented in Table 5 where 55) relative percentage error = B num B ex B ex, B num is the numerical approximation and B ex is the exact reference solution and w = x k w k )/ The errors are computed at time t = π one rotation) on Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate 4 4 e- 6e e- 9 e e- e e-3 3e e-4 6e-6 3 Table 5 Relative percentage errors in L for B at time t = π and rates of convergence for numerical experiment a sequence of meshes with both the SBP and SBP 4 schemes The results show that the errors are quite low, particularly for SBP 4 and the rate of convergence approaches for SBP and 3 for SBP 4 This is consistent with the theoretical order of accuracy for SBP operators see []) The very low values of error with SBP 4 suggest that one should use high order schemes to resolve interesting solution features Another feature of numerical solutions of equations 5) is the behavior of divergence of the magnetic field Note that both the initial data and the forcing function 5) are divergence free Hence, the divergence of the exact solution of 5) should remain zero for all time However, as remarked before, we don t attempt to preserve any particular discrete form of divergence Hence, numerical divergence errors are an indicator of the performance of the schemes We define the discrete divergence operator: div P V ) = d x V + d y V This corresponds to the standard centered discrete divergence operator at the corresponding orders of accuracy The divergence errors in l and rates of convergence at time t = π for the SBP and SBP 4 schemes on a sequence of meshes are presented in Table 5 From Table 5, we conclude that although the initial di- Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate 89e- 45e e- 8e e- 4e e- 9 5e e-3 5 8e-5 6 Table 5 Numerical Experiment : Divergence errors in l and rates of convergence at time t = π vergence is zero, the discrete divergence computed with both the SBP and SBP 4

16 6 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD schemes is not zero However, the divergence errors are very low in magnitude even on fairly coarse meshes and converge to zero at a rate of 5 and 5 for SBP and SBP 4 scheme respectively A simple truncation error analysis suggests that these rates for the SBP and SBP 4 schemes are optimal Finally, we emphasize again that the quality of the solutions are good and the convergence rates did not suffer, despite the scheme not preserving any form of discrete divergence Numerical Experiment In the previous numerical experiment, the hump representing the interesting parts of the solution) was confined to the interior of the domain A more challenging test of the boundary closures is provided if the hump interacts with the boundary We proceed to test this situation by considering 5) in a domain [, ] [, ] with exactly the same initial data, resistivity and forcing function as in the previous numerical experiment The exact solution 53), being a rotation about the origin, now exits the domain first at the lower boundary including a corner) and enters the domain through another part of the boundary during the course of a single rotation We study this interaction by simulating 5) with the SBP and SBP4 schemes We consider 5) with Dirichlet boundary conditions The boundary data are calculated by evaluating the exact solution 53) at the boundary The L norm of B after half a rotation and one full rotation is plotted in figure 5 The figure shows that both the SBP and SBP4 schemes resolve the solution quite well and maintain the shape of the hump Furthermore, the boundary interactions are resolved in a stable and accurate manner, showing that the choice of boundary closures was proper The errors in L are shown in tables 53 and 54 and we observe that the errors are quite low and the correct rates of convergence are obtained The results were very similar to those obtained in numerical experiment Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate 55e- 5e- 4 4 e- 4 9e e-3 6e e-4 9e e-4 5e-6 3 Table 53 Relative percentage errors in L and rates of convergence for numerical experiment Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate 56e- 98e e- 8 37e e-3 9 3e e-3 5e e-4 5 4e-5 6 Table 54 Divergence errors in l and rates of convergence at time t = π for numerical experiment

17 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS a) SBP, half rotation b) SBP, full rotation c) SBP4, half rotation d) SBP4, full rotation Figure 5 Numerical Experiment : B = B + B SBP and SBP4 schemes on a mesh for the This shows that the SAT technique for imposing boundary conditions weakly works very well even with complicated boundary data Numerical Experiment 3 In the first two examples, we verified the accuracy of our schemes by manufactured solutions, using specific forcing functions Next, we compute solutions of the magnetic induction equations in its original form ) without any forcing) to illustrate the role of the resistivity, ɛ, in driving the dynamics We use the same velocity field and initial data as in the previous two numerical experiments The domain is [, ] [, ] We compute solutions till t = π with two different values of resistivity The results with ɛ = 5 and ɛ = are shown in figure 53 In the absence of exact solutions for B, we can only compare qualitative features in this case For low resistivities like ɛ =, the problem is very close to its inviscid version and the hump doesn t show much distortion during the rotation The results in this case are very similar to the ones for the inviscid magnetic induction equations presented in [] The SBP4 scheme is

18 8 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD x a) SBP, ɛ = 5 b) SBP, ɛ = x c) SBP4, ɛ = 5 d) SBP4, ɛ = Figure 53 Numerical Experiment 3: B = B + B SBP and SBP4 schemes on a mesh for the slightly sharper and hence more accurate) than the SBP scheme Taking a higher value of resistivity ɛ = 5, the viscous term starts playing an important role in the dynamics and the hump is expected to be smeared out This is clearly shown in figure 53 The results of SBP and SBP4 schemes are very similar in this case Since we do not enforce the divergence constraint excactly, we can use divergence errors as a quantitative measure We know that the initial divb) = and it should remain so during the computation In tables 55 and 56, we display the divergence errors and their convergence rates for two different values of ɛ The convergence rates are as expected and we note that the errors are much lower for the higher order scheme Thus, this experiment illustrates that both schemes are quite robust and efficient for different values of the resistivity

19 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS 9 Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate e 73e e- 4 e e- 6 8e e- e e- 5 7e-4 6 Table 55 Divergence errors in L and rates of convergence at time t = π for numerical experiment 3 with ɛ = Grid size SBP rate SBP 4 rate 73e- 4e e- 8 e e- 7e e-3 9 e e e-6 6 Table 56 Divergence errors in L and rates of convergence at time t = π for numerical experiment 3 with ɛ = 5 6 Conclusion We have presented finite difference schemes for the magnetic induction equations with resistivity These equations arise as a sub model in the resistive MHD equations of plasma physics We have shown that the symmetric form 4) of the magnetic induction equations with resistivity is well-posed with general initial data and both Dirichlet boundary conditions as well as mixed boundary conditions SBP-SAT based finite difference schemes were designed for the initial-boundaryvalue problem corresponding to the magnetic induction equations with resistivity These schemes were based on the form 4) and use SBP finite difference operators to approximate spatial derivatives and an SAT technique for implementing boundary conditions The resulting schemes are high-order accurate and shown to be energy stable The schemes were tested on numerical experiments illustrating both the stability as well as high-order of accuracy We also the use of the divergence errors as a measure of the accuracy of the solution The results show that the SBP-SAT approach is a promising method to simulate initial boundary value problems for more complicated equations like the resistive MHD equations Appendix For the sake of completeness, here we will present all the SBP operators used in the analysis We consider second and third order accurate finite difference approximations

20 U KOLEY, S MISHRA, N H RISEBRO, AND M SVÄRD First order accuracy at the boundary: The discrete norm P and the discrete second order accurate SBP operator P Q approximating d dx are given by P = h, P Q = h We have used the operator P QP Q to approximate d dx Second order accuracy at the boundary: The discrete norm P is defined as P = h The discrete difference SBP operator P Q approximating d dx is given by P Q = h References [] D Biskamp Nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics Cambridge monographs on plasma physics, Cambridge university press, 993 [] U Koley, S Mishra, NH Risebro and M Svärd Higher order finite difference schemes for the magnetic induction equations Preprint, BIT Numerical analysis, to appear [3] TC Warburton and GE Karniadakis A discontinuous Galerkin method for the viscous MHD equations Journal of computational physics 5,68-64, 999 [4] JU Brackbill and DC Barnes The effect of nonzero divb on the numerical solution of the magnetohydrodynamic equations J Comp Phys, 35:46-43, 98 [5] F Fuchs, KH Karlsen, S Mishra and NH Risebro Stable upwind schemes for the Magnetic Induction equation Preprint,, MAN Math model Num Anal, to appear [6] F Fuchs, S Mishra and N H Risebro Splitting based finite volume schemes for the ideal MHD equations J Comp Phys, 8 3), 9, [7] KG Powell, PL Roe TJ Linde, TI Gombosi and DL De Zeeuw, A solution adaptive upwind scheme for ideal MHD J Comp Phys, 54), 84-39, 999 [8] S Mishra and M Svärd On stability of numerical schemes via frozen coefficients and magnetic induction equations Preprint, Submitted [9] M Svärd On coordinate transformations for summation-by-parts operators J Sci Comput 4), 9-4 [] M Svärd and J Nordström On the order of accuracy for difference approximations of initialboundary value problems Journal of Computational Physics, 8 6) [] M Torrilhon and M Fey Constraint-preserving upwind methods for multidimensional advection equations SIAM J Num Anal, 44):694-78, 4 [] G Toth The divb = constraint in shock capturing magnetohydrodynamics codes J Comp Phys,6:65-65,

21 SBP-SAT SCHEMES FOR MAGNETIC INDUCTION EQUATIONS Ujjwal Koley) Centre of Mathematics for Applications CMA) University of Oslo PO Box 53, Blindern N 36 Oslo, Norway address: ujjwalk@cmauiono Siddhartha Mishra) Centre of Mathematics for Applications CMA) University of Oslo PO Box 53, Blindern N 36 Oslo, Norway address: siddharm@cmauiono Nils Henrik Risebro) Centre of Mathematics for Applications CMA) University of Oslo PO Box 53, Blindern N 36 Oslo, Norway address: nilshr@mathuiono Magnus Svärd) Centre of Mathematics for Applications CMA) University of Oslo PO Box 53, Blindern N 36 Oslo, Norway address: magnussvard@cmauiono