arxiv: v1 [math.na] 23 Sep 2015

Transcription

1 An Entropy Stable Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Method for the Two Dimensional Shallow Water Equations on Unstructured Curvilinear Meshes with Discontinuous Bathymetry Niklas Wintermeyer a, Andrew R. Winters a,, Gregor J. Gassner a, David A. Kopriva b a Mathematisches Institut, Universität zu Köln, Weyertal 86-90, 5093 Köln, Germany arxiv: v [math.na] 3 Sep 05 Abstract b Department of Mathematics, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 3306, USA We design an arbitrary high order accurate nodal discontinuous Galerkin spectral element approximation for the nonlinear two dimensional shallow water equations with non-constant, possibly discontinuous, bathymetry on unstructured, possibly curved, quadrilateral meshes. The scheme is derived from a skew-symmetric formulation of the continuous problem. We prove that this discretisation exactly preserves the local mass and momentum. Furthermore, combined with a special numerical interface flux function, the method exactly preserves the entropy, which is also the total energy for the shallow water equations. This entropy conserving scheme is the baseline for a provably entropy stable scheme. Finally, with a particular discretisation of the bathymetry source term we prove that the numerical approximation is well-balanced. The proofs and derivations use skew-symmetric reformulations of the problem to remove aliasing errors. However, as many additional terms are introduced, the resulting skew-symmetric scheme is not computationally tractable. Therefore, we provide an equivalent reformulation of the skew-symmetric scheme, which restores computational efficiency. We provide numerical examples that verify the theoretical findings and furthermore provide an application of the scheme for a partial break of a curved dam test problem. Keywords: skew-symmetric shallow water equations, discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method, summation-by-parts, entropy stability, well-balanced, discontinuous bathymetry. Introduction Fluid flows in lakes, rivers, and near coastlines are of interest in oceanography and climate modeling. For such flows the vertical scales of motion are much smaller than the horizontal scales. From this and the assumption of hydrostatic balance [], the Euler equations can be simplified to the shallow water equations. If the fluid flows over a non-constant bottom topography the shallow water equations may be written as a hyperbolic system of balance laws t u + x f + y g = s.. It is well-known that solutions of the balance laws. may develop discontinuities in finite time, independent of the smoothness of the initial data. Hence, we consider solutions of the balance laws. in a weak sense that are well-defined provided the source term s remains uniformly bounded, Corresponding author. address: awinters@math.uni-koeln.de Andrew R. Winters Preprint submitted to Elsevier March 0, 09

2 i.e., weak solutions of. are well-defined under the assumption that the function used to model the bottom topography is in the space W, R, see e.g. []. For problems with non-constant bottom topographies the preservation of steady-state solutions is an important feature of a numerical approximation. Such preservation is particularly troublesome for discontinuous bottom topographies where special discretisations of the source term are required, e.g. [3, 4]. One important steady-state for the shallow water equations is the lake at rest condition [4, 5, 6]. This is because relevant waves in a flow may be viewed as small perturbations of the lake at rest, see [5]. A good numerical method for the shallow water equations should accurately capture both steady states and their small perturbations quasi-steady flows. Such a property will diminish the appearance of unphysical waves with magnitude proportional to the truncation error a so-called numerical storm [7], normally present for numerical schemes that cannot preserve the lake at rest. A numerical method that exactly preserves the lake at rest steady state is said to be well-balanced, see e.g. [3, 5, 6, 8]. Another interesting aspect of the numerics is the issue of robustness and the ability of the method to remain stable and accurate. Two of the most important issues are removing aliasing errors that can drive nonlinear instabilities and maintaining stability even if discontinuities develop. Recent work has focused on the use of high-order discontinuous Galerkin DG approximations to create robust numerical methods for the solution of systems of conservation laws, e.g., [8, 9, 0]. These robust high-order DG methods may be derived from the perspective of entropy conservation, e.g. [9,, ], or reformulations of the PDE in a skew-symmetric formulation to maintain conservation, e.g. [8, 0]. The motivation behind the two approaches are similar [3]. The skew-symmetric form of a problem is usually found by averaging the conservative form and the non-conservative advective form of the equation. This is problematic as it is not obvious that discretisations of the skew-symmetric form remain conservative. However, conservation is an important property for the numerical solution to exhibit correct shock speeds. Recent success has been had using diagonal norm summation-by-parts SBP operators to discretise the spatial derivatives in the skewsymmetric formulation [8, 4, 5, 6]. Fisher et al. [4] show that skew-symmetric operators based on SBP derivative matrices are consistent and conservative in the Lax-Wendroff sense. There is a known link between SBP methods and the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element approximation with Gauss-Lobatto points, e.g. [5]. This result was used in [8] to derive an entropy conserving discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method DGSEM for the one dimensional shallow water equations. The derivations and results presented in this paper extend the previous work found in [8] to multiple dimensions. There are several new results in the extension of the approximation. In this paper we present an entropy stable, high-order approximation for the shallow water equations with a discontinuous bottom topography on general quadrilateral grids. The DGSEM is naturally discontinuous at element boundaries. So, for the approximation to remain high-order we ensure that discontinuities in the bottom topography are placed on element boundaries. This increases the flexibility of the method and its ability to model realistic bottom topographies appearing in oceanography. The scheme presented herein is also well-balanced, a difficult attribute to guarantee in curvilinear coordinates. We also find that the metric identities [7] referred to in [8] as the geometric conservation law are critical to prove that the baseline scheme remains entropy conservative and well-balanced on arbitrary meshes. The conservation of mass, momentum, and entropy are important attributes as the numerical scheme can be used as a baseline to create an entropy stable approximation. In our analysis we find that the skew-symmetric form is useful to prove properties of the numerical approximation, but, in practice, is computationally untractable. Thus, utilizing previous results of Fisher [8], we reformulate a computationally efficient implementation of the skew-symmetric approximation. We note that there are a variety of discretisation variants for the DG method applied to the shallow water equations available in the literature, e.g. [4, 9, 0,,, 3, 4, 5, 6]. However, our approach

3 is general as it allows for discontinuous bottom topographies, operates on unstructured, curvilinear meshes and is provably stable. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: in Sec. we begin with a derivation of a special skew-symmetric formulation for the two dimensional shallow water equations. We outline the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method DGSEM in Sec. 3. We prove in Sec. 4 that the discretisation of the skew-symmetric formulation is conservative, in the Lax-Wendroff sense, and select a particular numerical flux function to guarantee that the method exactly preserves the total energy, which is an entropy function for the shallow water equations. Furthermore, we will show that with a particular discretisation of the source term this novel skew-symmetric DGSEM formulation allows formal proof of the well-balanced property. Sec. 4. extends the entropy conserving DGSEM approximation to general curvilinear meshes. Then in Sec. 4.3 we provide the main result, the entropy stable scheme for the shallow water equations. In Sec. 5 we discuss the efficient implementation of the newly proposed entropy stable method and provide detailed algorithms. Numerical results in Sec. 6 demonstrate and underline our theoretical findings. Our conclusions are presented in the last section.. A Skew-Symmetric Form of the Shallow Water Equations For smooth solutions, the balance law form of the two-dimensional shallow water SW equations. is C : h t + hu x + hv y = 0,. xm : hu t + h u + g h / x + huv y = g h b x,. ym : hv t + huv x + h v + g h / y = g h b y,.3 where C indicates the continuity equation and xm, ym indicate the momentum balances. The quantity h = hx, y, t denotes the water height measured from the bottom topography b = bx, y with the total height given by H = h + b. Additionally the constant g is the gravitational acceleration. The fluid velocities are given by u = ux, y, t in the x-direction and v = vx, y, t in the y-direction. The SW model.-.3 is compactly written in flux form with conservative variables w = h, hu, hv and physical fluxes w t + f x + g y = 0,.4 w t + f x + g y = g w b x,.5 w 3 t + f 3 x + g 3 y = g w b y,.6 f = hu, h u + g h /, huv, g = hv, huv, h v + g h /..7 We substitute the identities g h / x = g h h x and g h / y = g h h y into. and.3 to determine an alternative formulation for the momentum equations xm : hu t + h u x + g h h + b x + huv y = 0,.8 ym : hv t + huv x + h v y + g h h + b y = 0..9 To develop a skew-symmetric formulation we require the equations in advective form. First we expand the time derivative with the product rule and subtract the continuity equation C multiplied by the velocity u from xm as well as the continuity equation C multiplied by the velocity v from ym to find h u t + h u x + g h h + b x + huv y uhu x uhv y = 0,.0 h v t + huv x + h v y + g h h + b y vhu x vhv y = 0. 3

4 We note that hu x uhu x = huu x and huv y uhv y = hvu y, and simplify the advective form of the SW equations.0 to xa : h u t + hu u x + g h h + b x + hv u y = 0,. ya : h v t + hu v x + hv v y + g h h + b y = 0.. We derive the skew symmetric form by averaging xa and xm and ya and ym xs : ys : hu t + h u t + h u x + hu u x + g h h + bx + huv y + hv u y = 0, hv t + h v t + huv x + hu v x + h v y + hv v y + g h h + by = 0. We call C, xs, ys the skew-symmetric form of the shallow water equations. The total energy.3 e := h u + v + gh + ghb,.4 is an entropy function for the shallow water equations. Our first goal is to design a numerical scheme that conserves the entropy discretely. To do so we need continuous forms of the equations of kinetic energy k = hu + v, potential energy p = gh + ghb and total energy e = k + p. To obtain the equation for the kinetic energy we add the skew-symmetric momentum equations scaled by the respective velocity component, u xs + v ys, K : k t + hu3 x + hv3 y + huv x + hu v y + ghu h + b x + ghv h + b y = 0..5 Multiplying the continuity equation C by gh + b and noting gh + b h t = g h t + b h t = p t gives the equation for the potential energy P : p t + gh + b hu x + gh + b hv y = 0..6 To find the equation for the total energy we add equations K and P and simplify using the product rule ghu h + b x + gh + b hu x = ghuh + b x and ghv h + b y + gh + b hv y = ghvh + b y, to obtain E : e t + F x + G y = 0,.7 where we introduce the entropy fluxes F := hu3 + huv + ghuh + b, G := hv3 + hu v + ghvh + b..8 For convenience, we rewrite the total energy in terms of the conservative variables e = hu + v + gh + ghb = w + w3 + w w gw + gw b..9 Then the entropy variables q = q, q, q 3, defined by q i := e w i, are q = e w = gh + b u v, q = e w = u, q 3 = e w 3 = v..0 4

5 Finally, we note that an important steady state solution for the SW equations is the lake at rest which is defined by h + b = const,. u = v = 0. A numerical method that preserves the lake at rest solution is said to be well-balanced. 3. The Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Method In this section, we introduce the basic construction of a nodal discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method DGSEM on curvilinear quadrilateral grids. We also briefly discuss simplifications to the approximation in the case of Cartesian meshes. Furthermore, we provide details about the relationship of DG methods with summation-by-parts SBP operators as well as an equivalent subcell flux differencing formulation. 3.. Conservation Laws in Curvilinear Coordinates We consider a general two dimensional conservation law on the domain Ω w t + fw = 0, 3. where f = f, g T. In the DGSEM we decompose Ω into non-overlapping quadrilateral elements G. We map each element to the computational reference space [, ]. A common transformation between the reference square and an arbitrary curve-sided quadrilateral element is transfinite interpolation with linear blending [7]. The mapping between the coordinates of the reference square ξ, η and the physical coordinates x, y is xξ, η = [ ξγ4 η + + ξγ η + ηγ ξ + + ηγ 3 ξ ] 4[ ξ{ ηγ + + ηγ 3 } ξ{ ηγ + + ηγ 3 } ], where we assume that each element is bounded by four curves Γ j, j =,, 3, 4. For computational efficiency the DGSEM operators, such as the mass matrix and the derivative matrix, are constructed in reference space. We transform the two dimensional conservation law 3. from physical space to the reference space by rewriting derivatives using the chain rule w x = w ξ ξ x + w η η x, w y = w ξ ξ y + w η η y, 3.3 where w is an arbitrary quantity. conservation law in reference space Applying the chain rule 3.3 to 3. gives us the transformed Jw t + ξ fw = 0, 3.4 where the element mapping 3. is used to compute the Jacobian J and the contravariant fluxes f, g according to J = x ξ y η x η y ξ, fw = y η fw x η gw, 3.5 gw = y ξ fw + x ξ gw. 5

6 The quantities x ξ, x η, y ξ, y η are the metric terms of the mapping and are, in general, non-constant. However, we note that for a Cartesian mesh the metric terms and the transformation simplify considerably to become f = y η f, 3.6 g = x ξ g, with constant metric terms x ξ = x, y η = y and x η = y ξ = 0, where x and y are the lengths of the element sides. 3.. Polynomial Approximation The DGSEM is constructed in the reference space to increase computational efficiency of the resulting algorithm. Thus, we begin with the transformed form of the conservation law 3.4 on an element G. For each element the variables w and contravariant fluxes f, g are approximated by polynomials of degree N in each direction in the reference space. We define a nodal interpolation spanned with Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto GL points {ξ i } N i=0 and {η j} N j=0 in the reference square E = [, ]. The associated Lagrange basis functions are given by and satisfy the cardinal property l j ξ = N i=0,i j ξ ξ i ξ j ξ i, j = 0,..., N, 3.7 l j ξ i = δ ij, 3.8 where δ ij denotes Kronecker s symbol with δ ij = for i = j and δ ij = 0 for i j. We define the element-wise polynomial approximation for example in w w k x, y, t G = w k xξ, η, yξ, η, t w k ξ, η, t := i=0 j=0 w i,j k t l iξ l j η, k =,, 3, 3.9 where w k := {w i,j k t}n,n i=0, j=0 are the time dependent nodal degrees of freedom. For the shallow water equations, the variables are given by w = h, w = hu and w 3 = hv. We use the idea of collocation throughout this work to approximate derived quantities. For instance the velocity u is approximated by a polynomial of degree N in each direction 3.9 as well, where each nodal value is computed as u i,j := wi,j w i,j, i, j = 0,..., N. 3.0 This approximation strategy also applies to the contravariant fluxes, where we interpolate the metric terms at the same nodes, for instance f i,j = y η ξ i, η j fw i,j x η ξ i, η j gw i,j. 3. For nodal approximations, the local derivative is directly computed from derivative of the polynomial approximation, e.g., ξ w kξ, η, t = =: i=0 j=0 w i,j k i=0 j=0 w i,j k t ξ l iξ l j η ξt l i ξ l j η, 3. 6

7 where we introduce the nodal values of the derived quantity w ξ. After some algebraic manipulations and introducing the polynomial derivative matrix D D ij = l j, i, j = 0,..., N, 3.3 ξ ξ=ξi the nodal values of the derivative of a nodal approximation w are given by w k ξ = D w k and w k η = w k D T. 3.4 Summarising, the approximation space consists of a mapped mesh and a polynomial approximation in each element. To ensure consistency of the approximation space, we demand that the resulting discretisation preserves free-stream solutions, i.e. constant solutions of the conservation law 3.4 should remain constant for all times. This property is not automatically satisfied for a discretisation. Kopriva [7] proved that free-stream preservation is guaranteed if the boundaries of a quadrilateral element are approximated by a polynomial with an order equal to or lower than the polynomial order of the approximate solution. This is because in the case of a polynomial mapping with an appropriate degree the metric identities are satisfied ξ Ja + η Ja = 0, 3.5 with the covariant vectors in two dimensions given by Ja = y η, x η T, Ja = y ξ, x ξ T. 3.6 Free-stream preservation is guaranteed only when the metric identities 3.5 are satisfied discretely. Thus, in our discretisation we make sure to use an isoparametric approximation in which each boundary curve Γ j s, s [, ] of an element G is approximated by a polynomial of order N. We use the same Lagrange basis functions 3.7 to approximate the boundary curves Γ = Γs j l j s, 3.7 j=0 where the {s j } N j=0 are typically chosen to be the Chebycheff-Gauss-Lobatto or Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto nodes due to their robust interpolation properties [7]. The polynomial boundary curve approximations 3.7 are used to construct the mapping 3. for each element. As the mapping is a polynomial in ξ and η, the derivatives necessary to obtain the metric terms are computed directly in the discrete derivative sense 3.4. Further details of the isoparametric polynomial approximation of boundary curves can be found in [7, 7] Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Method DGSEM Following a standard approach we derive a discontinuous Galerkin scheme, e.g. [7] or [8]. The general discontinuous Galerkin method in weak form of the transformed conservation law 3.4 reads J w t ϕ dξ f ξ ϕ dξ = f w +, w ; nϕ ds 3.8 and in strong form E E E E J wt + ξ f ϕ dξ = f w +, w ; n f n ϕ ds 3.9 E 7

8 where ϕ is an L test function and f is a numerical flux that couples neighbouring elements through the connecting interfaces. We indicate this coupling by the dependence on the outer and inner values w +, w. There are many ways to construct a nodal discontinuous Galerkin scheme by selecting a type of mesh element, the type of polynomial basis, and the type of quadrature. We use an unstructured quadrilateral element mesh and select a tensor product Lagrange interpolation basis with Legendre- Gauss-Lobatto LGL nodes. We approximate integrals with a LGL quadrature method fξ dξ fξ j ω j, 3.0 where the {ω j } N j=0 are the quadrature weights. Thus, we collocate the interpolation and the integration to exploit the cardinal property of the Lagrange basis 3.8, drastically reducing the number of floating points operations. The resulting DGSEM in weak form reads and in strong form The DGSEM operators are given by j=0 J w t + ˆD f + g ˆD T = S f + g S, 3. J w t + D f + g D T = S f f + g g S. 3. ˆD := M D T M M := diagω 0,..., ω N S := diag, 0,..., 0, ω 0 ω N scaled derivative matrix, mass matrix, surface matrix, 3.3 with the derivative matrix D defined in 3.3. The numerical fluxes f and g are defined only at the respective interfaces, i.e. f L 0 f L N 0 0 g B f =....., g g T 0 =...., f R 0 f g R B N 0 0 g T N N where we generically indicate the interface by left L, right R, top T and bottom B in the reference element E. The numerical flux functions often depend on average or jump operators across the interface. The jumps for a nodal quantity w are defined by w L 0 w L N w ξ = w R 0 w R N, w η = w B w T w B N 0 0 w T N, 3.5 where we differentiate jumps in ξ and jumps in η direction. The averages of a nodal quantity are defined analogously. Whereas the local average operators are symmetric and hence don t prefer a direction, we define the local jumps according to the ξ and η coordinate directions: for the left L and the bottom B interface we compute the local jumps as inner value minus the outer value, whereas for the right R and top T interface the local jumps are computed as outer value minus inner value. 8

9 The entries of the discrete Jacobian J are computed according to 3.5 for each interpolation point J i,j := Jξ i, η j, 3.6 where each metric term is evaluated at an interpolation node. The Jacobian scales the approximation in a component-wise fashion. Thus, we introduce the notation of a component-wise Hadamard product of two matrices with the same dimension A B = C, with c ij = a ij b ij, i, j = 0,..., N. 3.7 We also use the Hadamard product to define component-wise powers of nodal values w k := w k w. 3.8 Furthermore, we latter make use of the fact that for a diagonal matrix M A B M = A BM. 3.9 We note that for Cartesian elements, due to the simplification of the mappings 3.6, the DGSEM simplifies to J w t + y η ˆD f + xξ g ˆD T = y η S f + x ξ g S, 3.30 for the weak form and for the strong form J w t + y η D f + x ξ g D T = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, 3.3 because the metric terms and the Jacobian are constants Summation-by-Parts and DGSEM with LGL Quadrature In this subsection, we summarise important properties of the DGSEM operators, which we will use extensively in the proofs presented in latter sections. The most important property is that the DGSEM operators constructed with the LGL quadrature nodes are summation-by-parts SBP operators for all polynomial orders, e.g. [5]. Lemma SBP-Properties. We define the matrix Q := MD, which has the SBP-property Q+Q T = B := diag,...,. The SBP-property is used to obtain alternative expressions for the derivative matrix D = M Q = M B Q T = S M Q T, 3.3 D T = M Q T = S QM. We can also use the SBP matrix Q to rewrite the derivative matrix ˆD of the weak DG formulation as ˆD = M Q T, 3.33 and thus Proof. See, for example, [9, 5, 6]. D = S + ˆD, D T = S + ˆD T

10 The LGL-based DGSEM operators are in the sub-class of SBP operators with diagonal norm matrix M, necessary to achieve the nonlinear stability results presented in this paper. For this class of diagonal norm SBP operators, Carpenter et al. [9] found an astounding relationship. It is possible to equivalently rewrite such operators into a subcell based finite volume type differencing formulation Df = M Qf = M f, 3.35 where is the N N + differencing matrix = The new flux functions, denoted with an overbar, can be thought of as subcell fluxes on a staggered subcell grid. To define the flux functions on the subcell grid we introduce a two point, symmetric flux function f vol. We discuss the specific selection of f vol for the shallow water discretisation in Sec. 5. It is possible to show consistency of the flux functions on the complementary grid when they are computed according to f 0 = f 0, i f i = Q lk f vol w l, w k, i =,..., N, k=i f N+ = f N, l=0 Thus, it follows directly that the Lax-Wendroff theorem holds [9] also on a subcell level for the DGSEM. In his PhD thesis, Fisher [8] extended the flux formulation 3.37 to curvilinear grids with corresponding element-wise mappings. For this extension, the contravariant fluxes in each direction are needed. We collect the main result below and proofs can be found in [8]. In general curvilinear coordinates the high order flux extension is of the form f j 0 = f j 0, f N j i = i f vol,m w l, w k {{n m }}, i =,..., N, 3.38 Q lk k=i l=0 m= f j N+ = f j N, where f j 0 and f j N are the physical contravariant fluxes, j =, index the physical direction, and {{n m }} = [ Ja j + m Ja j ] l m k, 3.39 is the average of the metric term components 3.6 in each direction. This important reformulation of the volume derivative terms 3.38 will enable us to recast the entropy stable DG scheme we develop here into a very efficient algorithm. Furthermore, this property is a key component for the following property of diagonal norm SBP operators, which we need to show conservation of the skew-symmetric discretisation. Lemma Non-Linear Correction Terms. The discrete derivative Df can be recast into a consistent subcell flux-difference formulation for which the Law-Wendroff theorem holds. Furthermore, α Dβ + β Dα,

11 where α and β are the point wise nodal representations of functions α and β, is a consistent and conservative approximation of the derivative of the corresponding flux α β x. Similarly, we have for the derivative in the y-direction α β D T + β α D T, 3.4 which is a consistent and conservative approximation of the derivative of the corresponding flux α β y. If we subtract the discretisations of α β x from 3.40 and α β y from 3.4, we obtain the errors in the associated product rules s αβ := Dα β + α Dβ + β D α, s T αβ := α βd T + α βd T + β αd T. 3.4 The discrete mean value of the terms 3.4 are zero T M s αβ M = 0, T M s T αβ M = 0, 3.43 for all matrices α, β R N+ N+. Proof. The proof can be found in Appendix A. 4. An Entropy Stable DGSEM for the D Shallow Water Equations In this section, the skew-symmetric entropy stable approximation of the shallow water equation is developed and its properties are proven. First, we construct a discretisation, following the ideas of Tadmor, e.g. [, 3], that discretely conserves the entropy. We denote the entropy conservative approximation as ECDGSEM. We note that entropy conservation is only valid for smooth solutions and not discontinuous solutions shocks. However, the entropy conserving discretisation is an important intermediate step. We use the entropy conserving scheme as a baseline and add dissipation in a controlled way to guarantee that entropy is always dissipated at shocks, resulting in an entropy stable approximation. Because the derivations are quite involved, we first focus on Cartesian meshes in Sec. 4. to highlight the important steps and ideas. We show in Sec. 4. that the proofs developed in Sec. 4. readily extend to create a entropy conserving discretisation on curvilinear grids. Finally, in Sec. 4.3, we introduce dissipation into the appoximation to obtain an entropy stable DGSEM for the shallow water equations, which we call ESDGSEM. 4.. ECDGSEM for the D Shallow Water Equations on Cartesian Meshes We first introduce the entropy conserving DGSEM scheme for Cartesian meshes, where the mapping discussed in Sec. 3 simplifies considerably. The entropy conserving scheme is derived by discretising the skew-symmetric form of the SW equations. and.3 and tracing it back to the strong DGSEM formulation 3. with additional correction terms of the form 3.4. Theorem Cartesian ECDGSEM. If we use the discrete skew-symmetric two dimensional DGSEM

12 formulation for the shallow water equations J h t + y η D h u + x ξ h v D T = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, J h u t + y η D h u + y η gd h + y η g h D b + x ξ h u vd T + s h + s hu + s T huv = y η g S b ξ {{h}} ξ + y η S f f + x ξ g g S, J h v t + x ξ h v D T + x ξ gh D T + x ξ g h b D T + y η Dh u v + s T hv + st h + s huv = x ξ g b η {{h}} η S + y η S f3 f 3 + x ξ g3 g 3 S, where we introduce non-linear correction terms s hu := y η D h u + h u D u + u D h u, s T huv := x ξ h u vd T + h v u D T + u h v D T, g s h := y η D h + h D h, s T hv := x ξ h v D T + h v v D T + v h v D T, s huv := y η D h u v + h u D v + v D h u, s T h := x g ξ h D T + h h D T, in combination with the numerical fluxes {{u}} {{h}} f,ec = = {{u}} {{h}} + g {{ h }}, {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} g,ec = f,ec f,ec f,ec 3 g,ec g,ec g,ec 3 = {{v}} {{h}} {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} {{v}} {{h}} + g {{ h }} then we have the following properties:. Discrete conservation of the mass and momentum.. Discrete conservation of the total energy, which is an entropy function for the shallow water equations, hence we preserve the entropy of the system..3 The numerical scheme is well-balanced for arbitrary bottom topographies provided any discontinuities coincide with element interfaces. Proof. We prove the result in three parts. Proof of Part.: For a Cartesian element, the skew-symmetric shallow water equations.

13 transformed into computational reference space are J h t + y η hu ξ + x ξ hv η = 0, J hu t + h u t + y η h u ξ + hu u ξ + y η g h h + b ξ + x ξ huv η + hv u η = 0, J hv t + hv t + y η huv ξ + hu v ξ + x ξ h v η + hv v η + x ξ g h h + b η = 0. We insert the polynomial ansatz for the solution and fluxes and replace spatial derivatives by their discrete analogs 3.4 to discretise 4.4. Care must be taken to ensure that the approximation remains well-balanced. Thus, for the moment, we leave the discretisation of the source term open and defer that discussion to the proof of Part.3 of the theorem. To account for coupling between neighbouring elements, we add surface terms analogous to the those present in the strong form of the DGSEM dc : J h t + y η D h u + x ξ h v D T = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, dxs : J h u t + h u t + y η D h u + h u Du + y η g h D h + y η g h b ξ + x ξ h u v D T + h v ud T = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, dys : J h v t + h v t + x ξ h v D T + h v vd T + x ξ g h h D T + x ξ g h b η + y η D h u v + h v Du = y ηs f 3 f 3 + x ξ g 3 g 3 S. The special fluxes f, g introduced in dxs and dys differ from the fluxes of the standard DGSEM of the conservative form of the shallow water equations. These fluxes will be chosen in such a way that guarantees the conservation of momentum. To show the conservation of the x and y components of the momentum we derive two new equations by adding dxs + u dc in the x-direction and dys + v dc in the y-direction to return the discretised set of equations to a conservative form, e.g., dxs + u dc : J h u t + h u t + u h t + y η Dh u + h u Du + y η g h D h + y η g h b ξ + x ξ h u vdt + h v ud T + y η u Dh u + x ξ u h vdt = y η Sf f + u f f + x ξ g g + u g g S. 4.6 We assume temporal continuity and use the continuous product rule for the time derivative terms to obtain J h u t + y η D h u + h u Du + u Dh u + y η g h D h + y η g h b ξ + x ξ h u vdt + h v ud T + u h vd T = y η Sf f + u f f + x ξ g g + u g g S. 4.7 Similar to derivations presented in [8], which were one dimensional, we reformulate the discretisation so that we obtain the standard DGSEM formulation with additional correction terms. These correction terms all have the structure described in 3.4 and are to be interpreted as errors in the discrete 3

14 product rule in space. The addition of such correction terms, scaled by the correct constant coefficient, remove nonlinear aliasing driven instabilities. It is important that according to Lemma the correction terms do not negatively impact the conservation of the discretisation. So, we rewrite equation 4.7 as J h u t + y η Dh u + s hu + y η gdh + s h + y η g h b ξ + x ξ h u vd T + s T huv = y η Sf + u f f + u f + x ξ g + u g g + u g S, 4.8 where the s matrices refer to the correction terms s hu := y η D h u + h u Du + u Dh u, s T huv := x ξ h u vdt + h v ud T + u h vd T, g s h := y η Dh + h Dh, so the respective discrete product rule error can be clearly observed. If we select special fluxes in the right hand side of 4.8 to be 4.9 f := f u f, f := f u f, g := g u g, g := g u g, 4.0 we recover a discretisation of the conservative formulation xm with additional nonlinear correction terms. Following similar steps for the momentum equation in the y-direction we obtain J h v t + x ξ h v D T + s T hv + x ξ gh D T + s T h + x ξg h b η + y η Dh u v + s huv = y η Sf 3 f 3 + v f f + x ξ g 3 g 3 + v g g S, with the three additional error-terms: s T hv := x ξ h v D T + h v vd T + v h vd T, s huv := y η Dh u v + h u Dv + v Dh u, s T h := x g ξ h D T + h hd T. We choose the right hand side terms in 4. to be f 3 := f 3 v f, f 3 := f 3 v f, g 3 := g 3 v g, g 3 := g 3 v g Now, we have converted the skew-symmetric discretisation back to a standard strong form DGSEM 3. with additional nonlinear correction terms. The extra correction terms do not impact the conservation or consistency of the resulting discretisation due to the result of Lemma. Therefore, the two dimensional skew symmetric DGSEM conserves mass as well as momentum in the homogeneous case. 4

15 To summarise this section, the new semi-discrete system reads: J h t + y η Dh u + x ξ h vd T = y η Sf f + x ξ g g S, Jh u t + y η Dh u + s hu + y η gdh + s h + y η g h b ξ + x ξ h u vd T + s T huv = y η Sf f + x ξ g g S, Jh v t + x ξ h v D T + s T hv + x ξ gh D T + s T h + x ξg h b η + y η Dh u v + s huv = y η Sf3 f 3 + x ξ g3 g 3 S. 4.4 Proof of Part.: Next we must define the numerical fluxes f and g at element interfaces. To do so we derive a discretised equation for the total energy. We add the discretised equations for the kinetic energy dk and the potential energy dp defined by dk := u dxs + v dys, dp := gh + b dc. 4.5 The source term plays a crucial part in the discrete total energy equation and needs a specific discretisation. Accounting for possibly discontinuous bottom topographies, we propose the following approximation of the source term y η g h b ξ y η g h D b + S b ξ {{h}} ξ, x ξ g h b η x ξ g h b D T b η {{h}} η S. The discrete total energy equation is given by de : Je t + y η ˆD F + shu 3 + x ξ G ˆD T + s T hv + 3 st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b + y η g Su b x {{h}} x + x ξ g v b y {{h}} y S = y η u Sf f + x ξ u g g S + y η v Sf 3 f 3 + x ξ v g 3 g 3 S + y η gh + b Sf f + x ξ gh + b g g S + y η SF + x ξ GS, 4.7 where we, again, assumed continuity in time and used integration by parts, see 3.34, for the flux volume terms. We also introduced the discrete entropy fluxes F := h u3 + h v u + gu h h + b, G := h v3 + h u v + gh v h + b. 4.8 Note that only the interior terms of the bottom approximations 4.6 are incorporated into the entropy fluxes. The equation de is simplified by moving the surface contributions of the bottom topography to the right hand side and factoring out the surface matrix Je t + y η ˆD F + shu 3 + x ξ G ˆD T + s T hv 3 + st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b = y η S u f f + v f 3 f 3 + gh + b f f + F g u b ξ {{h}} ξ + gh + b g g + v g 3 g 3 + u g g + G g v b η {{h}} η x ξ S 4.9 5

16 Next, we substitute the definitions of the fluxes f 4.0 and g 4.3 into the right hand side of 4.9 to obtain Je t + y η ˆD F + xξ G ˆD T + s hu 3 + s T hv + 3 st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b = y η S u f u f f u f + v f3 v f f 3 v f +gh + b f f + F g u b ξ {{h}} ξ + v g3 v g g 3 v g + u g u g g u g +gh + b g g + G g v b η {{h}} η x ξ S. Regrouping the terms on the right hand side 4.0 becomes Je t + y η ˆD F + xξ G ˆD T + s hu 3 + s T hv + 3 st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b = y η S gh + b u v f + u f + v f3 gh + b u v f u f v f 3 + F g + gh + b u v g + u g + v g3 gh + b u v g u g v g 3 + G g We rewrite 4. in terms of the entropy variables to find u b ξ {{h}} ξ v b η {{h}} η x ξ S Je t + y η ˆD F + xξ G ˆD T + s hu 3 + s T hv 3 + st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b = y η S q f + q f + q 3 f3 q f q f q 3 f 3 + F g u b ξ {{h}} ξ + q g + q g + q 3 g3 q g q g q 3 g 3 + G g v b η {{h}} η x ξ S. 4. Next, we insert the discrete physical flux functions, f = h u, h u + gh /, h u v and g = h v, h u v, h v + gh /, to find 3 q i f i = h u v + h u 3 + gh u h + b + gu h, i= 3 q i g i = h v u + h v 3 + gh v h + b + gv h. i= From the definition of the discrete entropy fluxes 4.8 we know F G 3 q i f i = gu h, i= 3 q i g i = gv h. i=

17 Substituting the terms 4.4 into 4. we find Je t + y η ˆD F + shu 3 + x ξ G ˆD T + s T hv + 3 st hu v + s huv + st hvh+b + s huh+b = y η S q f + q f + q 3 f3 gu h g u b ξ {{h}} ξ + q g + q g + q 3 g3 gv h g v b η {{h}} η x ξ S. 4.5 Our goal is to obtain numerical flux functions that preserve the discrete mean value of the total energy. We compute the discrete mean value by multiplying 4.5 by T M from the left and by M from the right. Due to the consistency of the derivative matrix we know that the discrete derivative of a constant vanishes discretely, i.e., T M ˆD = ˆD T M = 0, ˆD T M = M ˆD T = M T ˆD T = M ˆD = From Lemma we know that the discrete mean value for each of the correction terms s is zero. So, the discrete mean value of the total energy equation reduces to T M Je t M = T M y η S q f + q f + q 3 f3 gu h g u b ξ {{h}} ξ M + T M q g + q g + q 3 g3 gv h g v b η {{h}} η x ξ S M. 4.7 To exactly preserve the global discrete mean value of the total energy we must ensure that the interface contributions at every interface cancel exactly. Thus we examine the interface contributions at vertical and horizontal interfaces individually. Computation of the discrete mean value interacts with the surface matrix S in the following way T M S = T M M B = T B =, 0,..., 0,, S M, = M B M = B =, 0,..., 0, T. 4.8 With 4.8 and 3.5 we have on a vertical interface y η q 0: f 0: + q 0: f 0: + q 3 0: f 3 0: gu 0: h 0: g u 0: b L T {{h}} T L q N: f N: + q N: f N: + q 3 N: f 3 N: gu N: h N: + g and on a horizontal interface T M q :0 g :0 + q :0 g :0 + q 3 :0 g 3 :0 gv :0 h :0 g u N: b R T {{h}} T R v :0 b B {{h}} B q :N g :N + q :N g :N + q 3 :N g 3 :N gv :N h :N + g v :N b T R {{h}} T M, 4.9 x ξ At a single interface we have terms from two neighbouring elements. However, the numerical fluxes f and g as well as the jump in bottom topography and the average water height are uniquely defined at each interface. It follows that due to the definition of the local jumps according to the coordinate 7

18 directions ξ and η, the bottom and top jumps at a shared interface as well as the right and the left jumps at an interface are identical. The same holds for the average in the computed water height. Thus, if we consider the contribution of the two neighbouring elements at a shared interface we have at a vertical interface y η q = y η q f + q f + q 3 f 3 g u h g u N + u 0 b {{h}} T M f + q f + q 3 f 3 g u h g {{u}} b {{h}} T M, 4.3 where we just replaced the left and right jump and average operators by b and {{h}}. At a horizontal interface we obtain analogously T M q g + q g + q 3 g 3 g v h g v 0 + v N b {{h}} x ξ = T M q g + q g + q 3 g 3 g v h 4.3 g {{v}} b {{h}} x ξ. To simplify 4.3 and 4.3 we first expand the jump in entropy variables q = gh + b u v = g h + g b {{u}} u {{v}} v, q = u, q 3 = v Substituting the jump in entropy variables 4.33 and the numerical flux f from 4.3 we find for the contribution at a vertical interface y η g h + g b {{u}} u {{v}} v {{u}} {{h}} + u {{u}} {{h}} + g {{ h }} + v {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} g {{ h }} u g {{u}} {{h}} h g {{u}} b {{h}} T M 4.34 = y η 0 T M = 0. Similarly, the contribution at a horizontal interface is found to vanish x ξ T M g h + g b {{u}} u {{v}} v {{v}} {{h}} + u {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} + v {{v}} {{h}} + g {{ h }} g {{ h }} v g {{v}} {{h}} h g {{v}} b {{h}} 4.35 = x ξ T M 0 = 0. Thus, as each of the interface contributions vanishes, we conclude that the total energy is discretely conserved for the discretisation if we use the particular numerical fluxes f and g given in 4.3. Proof of Part.3: Lastly, we demonstrate that the lake at rest problem is preserved using the proposed entropy conserving scheme. That is, we show that the time derivatives are discretely zero for the lake at rest steady state solution.. Four of the six correction terms collapse to zero for 8

19 the initial conditions. as they contain velocity components. Thus s hu = y η Dh u + h u D u + u Dh u = 0, s T huv = x ξ h u vdt + h v ud T + u h vd T = 0, s T hv = x ξ h v D T + h v v D T + v h vd T = 0, s huv = y η Dh u v + h u D v + v Dh u = 0. We examine the remaining correction terms g s h = y η D h + h D h, s T h = x g ξ h D T + h h D T. If we substitute the lake at rest. solution, the system of discretised equations 4.4 become J h t = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, Jh u t + y η gd h + s h + y η g h D b + S b ξ {{h}} ξ = y η S f f + x ξ g g S, Jh v t + x ξ gh D T + s T h h + b D T + x ξ g b η {{h}} η S = y η S f 3 f 3 + x ξ g 3 g 3 S For the lake at rest initial conditions. the numerical fluxes on the right hand side of 4.38 become {{u}} {{h}} f,ec = {{u}} {{h}} + g {{ 0 h }} = g {{ 0 h }}, f = g h, 4.39 {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} 0 0 and g,ec = {{v}} {{h}} {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} {{v}} {{h}} + g {{ h }} = 0 0 g {{ h }}, g = 0 0 g h, 4.40 respectively. Because we allow discontinuities in the bottom topography at element interfaces we must account for the jump in water height and we cannot guarantee that {{ h }} = h. Instead we have at each interface {{ h }} h = h i + h o h i = h o h i = ± h = ± {{h}} h, 4.4 where h i denotes the inner and h o the outer value. The sign of 4.4 is depends upon which interface we consider, it is positive for the right and top interface and negative otherwise. We examine each element to find {{ h }} ξ h = {{h}} ξ h ξ, {{ h }} η h = {{h}} η h η. 4.4 We next demonstrate that each of the time derivatives are zero. From 4.38, 4.39 and 4.40 we immediately determine for the continuity equation that J h t =

20 From the previous computation 4.4 the remaining numerical flux terms at surfaces in 4.38 are Jh u t + y η gd h + s h + y η g h D b = y η g S {{h}} ξ h ξ b ξ {{h}} ξ, Jh v t + x ξ gh D T + s T h + x ξgh b D T = x ξ g {{h}} η h η b η {{h}} η S. The right hand side terms of 4.44 cancel for the lake at rest initial conditions: y η g S x ξ g {{h}} ξ h ξ b ξ {{h}} ξ = y η g S {{h}} η h η b η {{h}} η S = x ξ g {{h}} ξ h + b ξ = 0, {{h}} η h + b η S = We substitute the definitions of the remaining correction terms 4.37 and obtain Jh u t + y η gd h + g D h + h D h + g h D b = 0, Jh u t + y η gh Dh + b = 0, Jh v t + x ξ gh D T + g h D T + h h D T + gh b D T = 0, 4.46 Jh v t + x ξ gh h + bd T = 0. We use the fact that h + b = const and the consistency of the discrete derivative, Dh + b = 0, h + bd T = 0, to determine that Thus, the proposed entropy conserving DGSEM is well-balanced. Jh u t = 0, Jh v t = Remark Integral formulation. We define the jumps in the bottom topography as b, η = b L η, b ξ, = b B ξ, b +, η = b R η, b ξ, + = b T ξ, 4.48 and the integral as the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto quadrature rule,n fz dz := fξω j j=0 Note that the signs in the definitions are swapped compared to the surface matrix notation. average water heights are given by The {{h}}, η = {{h}} L η, {{h}} ξ, = {{h}} B ξ, {{h}} +, η = {{h}} R η, {{h}} ξ, + = {{h}} T ξ

21 Now, we can re-interpret the discrete numerical scheme 4.4 and rewrite the approximation in integral form: J J J h t + hu x + hv y l i ξ l j η dξ dη = y η [f ξ, η f ξ, ηl i ξ] l jη dη,n,n,n + x ξ [gξ, η g ξ, ηl j η] l iξ dξ,,n,n,n hu t + hu x + ghh x + ghb x + huv y l i ξ l j η dξ dη + s hu + s T huv + s h = y η [ b ξ, η {{h}} ξ, η l i ξ] l jη dη,n + y η [f ξ, η f ξ, ηl i ξ] l jη dη,n + x ξ [gξ, η g ξ, ηl j η] l iξ dξ,,n hv t + hv y + gh y + ghb y + huv x l i ξ l j η dξ dη,n,n + s T hv + s huv + s T h = x ξ,n + y η [f3 ξ, η f 3 ξ, ηl i ξ] l jη dη,n + x ξ [g3ξ, η g 3 ξ, ηl j η] l iξ dξ.,n [ b ξ, η {{h}} ξ, η l j η] l iξ dξ 4.5 It should be noted that as is its counterpart 4.4 this formulation is only valid for Cartesian grids. Remark Approximation of the bottom topography. We approximate the source terms of the shallow water equations with an interior term to account for smooth variations of the bottom topography inside an element and a surface term to include jumps at element interfaces. y η g h b ξ y η g h D b + S b ξ {{h}} ξ, x ξ g h b η x ξ g h b D T b η {{h}} η S, where b ξ incorporates the jumps in the bottom topography across an interface at a constant x- coordinate, b η incorporates the jumps in the bottom topography across an interface at a constant y-coordinate. If the bottom topography is continuous at an interface the additional surface terms are zero. Analogously, {{h}} ξ is the average water height across x-interfaces and {{h}} η is the average water height across y-interfaces. Remark 3 One-dimensional bottom formulation. In one space dimension we use the following approximation of the source term for an element G g h b x g h D b + g {{h}} L b L e ω + 0 g {{h}} R b R e ω N N

22 Here {{h L }} is the average water height at the left interface node of element G and the right interface node of element G, {{h R }} is the average water height at the right interface node of element G and the left interface node of element G + : {{h}} m L = hm 0 + h m N, {{h}} m R = hm N + h m In the same fashion the jump in bottom topography is defined as b m L = bm 0 b m N, b m R = bm+ 0 b m N The quadrature weights are denoted by ω 0 and ω N and the N +-dimensional unit vectors are denoted by e and e N ECDGSEM on Curvilinear Meshes We now generalize the semi-discrete form of the ECDGSEM to curvilinear meshes. Analogous proofs from the Cartesian approximation are applied herein. For curvilinear meshes we note that the metric terms are now polynomials. Thus the nonlinearity in the contravariant flux terms increases as triple product terms now appear, e.g. x [y η h u u] The increased nonlinearity due to the curvilinear grid is an additional cause for aliasing driven nonlinear instabilities. We thus adapt and extend the skew-symmetric formulation to account for these new instabilities. As a result, the number of nonlinear correction terms drastically increases and we move the precise definition of all these terms to Appendix B. However, the general structure of the correction terms remains the same as in the Cartesian mesh case. Thus, all properties, such as conservation, are still valid from Lemma. The following theorem summarises the general entropy conserving DGSEM for curvilinear grids. Theorem Curvilinear ECDGSEM. The semi-discrete form of the two dimensional ECDGSEM formulation for the shallow water equations on curvilinear grids is given by J h t + D f + g D T + s yη,hu s xη,hv s yξ,hu + s xξ,hv = S f f + g g S, J h u t + D f + g D T + s h,yηh + s yη,hu + s u,y ηhu + s hu,yηu s xη,huv s u,xηhv s hv,xηu s T h,y ξ h s T y ξ,hu st u,y ξ hu s T hu,y ξ u + s T x ξ,huv + s T u,x ξ hv + s T hv,x ξ u + g h [ y η Db + Dy η b y ξ bd T y ξ bd T ] = g S y η {{h}},3 b,3 g y ξ {{h}},4 b,4 S + S f f + g g S, 4.57 J h v t + D f 3 + g 3 D T s h,xηh + s yη,huv + s v,yηhu + s hu,yηv s xη,hv s v,x ηhv s hv,xηv + s T h,x ξ h s T y ξ,huv s T v,y ξ hu s T hu,y ξ v + s T x ξ,hv + st v,x ξ hv + s T hv,x ξ v + g h [ x η Db Dx η b + x ξ bd T + x ξ bd T ] = g S x η {{h}},3 b,3 + g x ξ {{h}},4 b,4 S + S f 3 f 3 + g 3 g 3 S,

23 where we have the discrete contravariant flux components f = y η h u x η h v, g = y ξ h u + x ξ h v, f = y η h u + g h x η h u v, g = y ξ h u + g h + x ξ h u v, 4.58 f3 = y η h u v x η h v + g h, g 3 = y ξ h u v + x ξ h v + g h, and introduce nonlinear correction terms of the form 3.4, given in Appendix with the numerical fluxes f,ec {{u}} {{h}} f,ec = f,ec = {{u}} {{h}} + g {{ h }}, {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} g,ec = f,ec 3 g,ec g,ec g,ec 3 = {{v}} {{h}} {{u}} {{v}} {{h}} {{v}} {{h}} + g {{ h }}, B, in combination 4.59 then we have the following properties:. Discrete conservation of the mass and momentum.. Discrete conservation of the total energy, which is an entropy function for the shallow water equations, hence we preserve the entropy of the system..3 The numerical scheme is well-balanced for arbitrary bottom topographies provided any discontinuities coincide with element interfaces. Proof. The proof of Parts. and. follow direct analogs of the arguments presented in the proof of Thm.. We note that we make repeated use of the fact that the approximation satisfies the metric identities 3.5 to cancel extraneous terms. Discrete recovery of the metric identities is fundamental to demonstrate mass, momentum, and entropy conservation. Proof of Part.3: The proof of well-balancedness for curvilinear meshes also follows an analog of the argument made in Thm.. However, we feel it necessary to describe the construction of the bottom topography discretisations. For the two dimensional problem in general coordinates we require discrete approximations for b x and b y or more compactly b. From 3.3 we know the explicit form of the gradient in computational coordinates is [ ] T b J b = y η ξ y b ξ η, x b η ξ + x b ξ, 4.60 η or discretely J b [ y η Db y ξ bd T, x η Db + x ξ bd T ] T

24 For the skew-symmetric curvilinear approximation the metric terms are nonconstant. Thus, we treat the source term in a skew-symmetric fashion, i.e., b x y η Db y ξ bd T + s yηb s T y ξ b, b y x η Db + x ξ bd T s xηb + s T x ξ b. 4.6 However, if we expand the nonlinear correction terms for the approximation of b x the properties of the b y approximation are similar we find y η Db y ξ bd T + s yηb s T y ξ b = y η Db y ξ bd T + y η Db + Dy η b + b Dy η yξ bd T + y ξ bd T + b y ξ D T, = yη Db + Dy η b y ξ bd T y ξ bd T b Dyη b y ξ D T, = yη Db + Dy η b y ξ bd T y ξ bd T, where we have cancelled extraneous terms in 4.63 because the approximation satisfies the metric identities 3.5. So, from 4.63, we account for the volume contributions of the source term discretisation in The surface contributions follow from a similar logic in that we require the derivative of b at the boundary in this case the jump. Remark 4 Computational Inefficiency of the skew-symmetric DGSEM. We found in Thm. that the number of correction terms for the ECDGSEM on Cartesian meshes was manageable and the approximation remained computationally efficient. However, we see from 4.76 that the number of nonlinear correction terms in the curvilinear ECDGSEM make the current skew-symmetric DGSEM computationally inefficient for practical simulations. We note that the structure of the semi-discrete form 4.76 was useful to prove the properties of the numerical method, like conservation or well balancedness. Later, in Sec. 5, we will focus on an efficient implementation, where we rewrite the skew-symmetric DGSEM using the flux differencing form discussed in Sec Entropy Stable DGSEM The skew-symmetric DGSEM presented so far, with an appropriate numerical flux, exactly conserves the discrete entropy. However, the solution of the shallow water equations may develop discontinuities shocks in finite time even for smooth initial data. We know that total energy is dissipated across shocks and hence total energy, or entropy, decreases or increases in a physical sense. Thus, exact entropy conservation is no longer physically accurate and the entropy equality becomes an inequality [3]. Thus, we must add numerical dissipation to the skew-symmetric entropy conserving DGSEM in such a way that entropy is guaranteed to be dissipated or conserved for smooth well resolved solutions. In other words, we require that a discrete version of the entropy inequality holds for our discretisation. A typical way to add dissipation in a discontinuous Galerkin approximation is via the definition of the numerical flux function. Most often, those numerical flux functions are based on approximate Riemann solvers that inherently create dissipation at shocks or generally in case of under resolution. We follow this basic idea and add dissipation in the spirit of Riemann solvers at 4

25 the element interfaces to stabilise the ECDGSEM. We denote the entropy stabilised approximation as ESDGSEM. and The physical fluxes.7 have the associated flux Jacobians 0 0 A f = f u = gh u u 0, 4.64 uv v u 0 0 A g = g u = uv v u gh v 0 v The eigenvalues of 4.64 are u + c, u, u c and for 4.65 v + c, v, v c with the wave speed c = gh. The eigenvectors of 4.64 and 4.65 are 0 R f = u + c 0 u c, 4.66 v v and respectively. 0 R g = u u, 4.67 v + c 0 v c To derive a dissipation term to stabilise the approximation will also require the entropy Jacobian matrix H = q w. To obtain H, we express the conservative variables w = h, hu, hv in terms of the entropy variables q = gh + b u v, u, v : w = g q b + g q + q 3, w = g q q bq + g q3 + q q 3, w 3 = g q q 3 bq 3 + g q q 3 + q Differentiating 4.68 directly leads to the entropy Jacobian matrix H = u v u gh + u uv g v uv gh + v With an appropriate scaling for the right eigenvectors we can obtain Merriam s identity [] H = RTRT T, 4.70 which relates the right eigenvectors to the entropy Jacobian. We consider the matrix T = diag s, s, s 3, 4.7 with scaling parameters on the diagonal. We define S = T and have the identity in a new form H = RSR T

26 For the eigenvectors of the f-flux Jacobian, R f, we find s = g, s = h, s 3 = g A straightforward calculation shows that the same scaling works for the eigenvectors of the flux Jacobian in the y-direction as well. Now we have all the necessary components to define the entropy stable numerical flux functions. We subtract the dissipation term required for stability for the x-direction f,es = f,ec R f S Λ f R T f q, 4.74 and the y-direction g,es = g,ec R g S Λg R T g q, 4.75 where Λ f and Λ g are the diagonal matrices containing the eigenvalues previously computed. We use the arithmetic average values at an element interfaces to compute the right eigenvector, scaling, and eigenvalue matrices in 4.74 and It is important that the dissipation terms depend on the jumps of the entropy variables and not on the jump of the conserved quantities as would be common in standard Riemann solver-based numerical flux functions. If we compute the discrete entropy equation by multiplying the scheme with the entropy variables, we get contributions of the form q Rf S Λf R T f q at each interface which is guaranteed to be negative due to the positivity of the matrix R f S Λf R T f. It follows that entropy is dissipated when the jump in entropy variables across interfaces is large e.g. shocks and is nearly preserved when the jumps are small well resolved smooth solution. We finally present an ESDGSEM for the shallow water equations, the main contribution of the present work Theorem 3 Curvilinear ESDGSEM. The semi-discrete form of the two dimensional ESDGSEM formulation for the shallow water equations on curvilinear grids is given by J h t + D f + g D T + s yη,hu s xη,hv s yξ,hu + s xξ,hv = S f,es f + g,es g S, J h u t + D f + g D T + s h,yηh + s yη,hu + s u,y ηhu + s hu,yηu s xη,huv s u,xηhv s hv,xηu s T h,y ξ h s T y ξ,hu st u,y ξ hu s T hu,y ξ u + s T x ξ,huv + s T u,x ξ hv + s T hv,x ξ u + g h [ y η Db + Dy η b y ξ bd T y ξ bd T ] = g S y η {{h}},3 b,3 g y ξ {{h}},4 b,4 S + S f,es f + g,es g S, J h v t + D f 3 + g 3 D T s h,xηh + s yη,huv + s v,yηhu + s hu,yηv s xη,hv s v,x ηhv s hv,xηv + s T h,x ξ h s T y ξ,huv s T v,y ξ hu s T hu,y ξ v + s T x ξ,hv + st v,x ξ hv + s T hv,x ξ v + g h [ x η Db Dx η b + x ξ bd T + x ξ bd T ] = g S x η {{h}},3 b,3 + g x ξ {{h}},4 b,4 S + S f,es 3 f 3 + g,es 3 g 3 S, 4.76 where we have the discrete contravariant flux components 4.58 and introduce nonlinear correction terms of the form 3.4, given in Appendix B, in combination with the entropy stable numerical fluxes 4.74 and 4.75 then we have the following properties: 3. Discrete conservation of the mass and momentum. 6

27 3. The DGSEM approximation is entropy stable. 3.3 The numerical scheme is well-balanced for arbitrary bottom topographies provided any discontinuities coincide with element interfaces. Proof. The ESDGSEM follows directly from the curvilinear ECDGSEM presented in Thm.. To guarantee entropy stability we replace the entropy conserving numerical fluxes 4.39, 4.40 at element interfaces with the entropy stable numerical fluxes 4.74, Computationally Efficient Implementation of the ESDGSEM In this section we outline a computationally efficient implementation for the ESDGSEM. We begin the discussion in one spatial dimension to introduce how we restructure the skew-symmetric approximation. Next, we rewrite the ESDGSEM on Cartesian meshes in the computationally efficient form. Then, we extend the computationally efficient ESDGSEM algorithm to a two dimensional, curvilinear framework. Finally, we provide specific details and algorithm pseudocode to describe how a standard DGSEM implementation can be modified to implement the curvilinear entropy stable numerical scheme. 5.. An Equivalent Subcell Flux Differencing Form As was described in Sec. 4., we derive the skew-symmetric form by averaging the advective and conservative forms of the equations [8, 6, 9]. This approach was useful to prove underlying properties of the numerical approximation like conservation or well-balancedness. However, as previously noted, this form of the curvilinear skew-symmetric form 4.76 is computationally inefficient due to the large number of nonlinear correction terms. We introduced in Sec. 3.4 the recent work of Carpenter et al. [9] that recasts diagonal norm SBP operators of volume derivative terms into an equivalent subcell flux differencing form. We now demonstrate that it is possible to rewrite the ESDGSEM into this computationally efficient framework. To do so, let us consider the one dimensional skew-symmetric ESDGSEM for the shallow water equations with continuous bottom topography [8] in one spatial dimension. For the discussion we introduce the notation where a single underbar represents a vector of the approximate quantities, e.g. h, and h = diagh. The one dimensional entropy stable scheme is given by [ ] J t w + D f = S f,es f, J t w + D f + g h D b + s hv + s h [ ] = S f,es f, where J = x is the one dimensional Jacobian. The discrete physical fluxes are approximated by and the nonlinear correction terms are s hu = [ ] D h u + h u D u + u D h u, s h = g 5. f = h v, f = h v + g h, 5. where f,es is the one dimensional entropy stable numerical flux of the form [ ] D h + h D h, 5.3 7

28 Proposition Component Reformulation: If we select a momentum flux component of the form f vol w l, w k = {{hu}} {{u}}, 5.4 in the flux extension 3.37, then we recover the physical flux with nonlinear correction term D h u + s hu. 5.5 Proof. For this proof we consider the i = and i = terms of the flux extension The argument we present easily extends to every other component of the flux f. From 3.37 we have and We substitute for the volume flux f = f = into 5.6 from 5.7 and expand to find f = f = If we subtract 5.6 from 5.7 we find f f = k= l=0 Q 0k f vol w 0, w k, 5.6 k= k= l=0 Q lk f vol w l, w k. 5.7 f vol w l, w k = {{hu}} {{u}}, 5.8 Q 0k hu 0 + hu k u 0 + u k, k= k= l=0 Q lk hu l + hu k u l + u k. Q lk hu l + hu k u l + u k We know from the structure of the SBP matrix Q that 5.9 Q 0k hu 0 + hu k u 0 + u k 5.0 k= Q 0 = Q 0, Q = We also note that from the consistency of the derivative matrix, the rows of the matrix Q sum to zero. We use the properties 5. and consistency of the derivative matrix to rewrite the flux difference 5.0 as f f = = k= l=0 Q lk hu l + hu k u l + u k Q k hu + hu k u + u k, k=0 = hu k=0 Q k u k + hu u k=0 Q k + u Q 0k hu 0 + hu k u 0 + u k, k= Q k hu k + k=0 = hu Q k u k u Q k hu k + k=0 k=0 = Q k hu k u k + N hu Q k u k + u k=0 k=0 8 Q k hu k u k, k=0 N k=0 Q k hu k Q k hu k u k, k=0 Q k hu k u k. k=0 5.

29 If we divide the last line of 5. by the Gauss-Lobatto weight ω we obtain f f = Q k hu k u k + N N hu Q k u k + u Q k hu k Q k hu k u k. 5.3 ω ω ω k=0 k=0 But from the structure of the derivative matrix 3.3 we see that 5.3 is the i = row of the expression M f = D h u + h u D u + u D h u D h u = D h u s hu. k=0 k=0 From Prop. we see that it is possible to construct a particular volume flux f vol to put the skewsymmetric ESDGSEM 5. into the subcell flux differencing form of Carpenter et al. In particular, if we select the volume flux in 3.37 to be of the form f vol {{hu}} w l, w k = {{hu}} {{u}} + g {{h}} g {{ h }}, 5.5 then 5. is recast into the subcell flux differencing form J t w + M f [ ] = S f,ec f, J t w + M f [ ] + g h D b = S f,ec f. 5.6 We next move the ESDGSEM on two dimensional Cartesian meshes into the flux differencing framework. This is a straightforward process because the DGSEM decouples derivatives in each component direction. The high order flux extension in the y direction has an identical structure to 3.37 albeit with a different volume flux g vol w l, w k. Utilizing the result of Prop. we construct the volume fluxes {{hu}} f vol w l, w k = {{hu}} {{u}} + g {{h}} g {{ h }}, {{hu}} {{v}} {{hv}} g vol w l, w k = {{hv}} {{u}} {{hv}} {{v}} + g {{h}} g {{ h }}, and rewrite the two dimensional ESDGSEM on Cartesian meshes 4. in the flux differencing form 5.7 dc : J h t + y η M f S + x ξ ḡ S T M = y η S f,es f + xξ g,es g S, dxm : J h u t + y η M f S + x ξ ḡ S T M + y η g h D b = y η g S b ξ {{h}} ξ + y η S f,es f + xξ g,es g S, dym : J h v t + y η M f S 3 + x ξ ḡ S 3 T M + x ξ g h b D T = x ξ g b η {{h}} η S + y η S f,es 3 f 3 + xξ g,es 3 g 3 S. 5.8 Finally, we reformulate the ESDGSEM on curvilinear meshes into the flux differencing form. With the high order flux extension in curvilinear coordinates 3.38 we can directly rewrite the ESDGSEM 9

30 on curvilinear meshes 4.76 into the subcell flux differencing form. We select the volume fluxes in 3.38 to be the same as 5.7, i.e., f vol, w l, w k = f vol w l, w k, f vol, w l, w k = g vol w l, w k. 5.9 This straightforward formulation is possible because the flux extension 3.38 automatically incorporates the nonconstant metric term contributions into the extended contravariant fluxes. Therefore, we determine the flux difference form of 4.76 to be dc : J h t + M S f + g S M T = S f,es f +,es g g S, dxm : J h u t + M S f + g S M T + g h [ y η Db + Dy η b y ξ bd T y ξ bd T ] = g S y η {{h}} ξ b ξ g dym : J h v t + M f S 3 + g S = g S x η {{h}} ξ b ξ + g y ξ {{h}} η b η S + S f,es f + g,es g S, 3 M T + g h [ x η Db Dx η b + x ξ bd T + x ξ bd T ] x ξ {{h}} η b η S + S f,es 3 f 3 +,es g 3 g 3 S. 5.0 Note that on Cartesian meshes the metric terms are constant, so the contravariant fluxes and bottom topography discretisation simplify and the approximation becomes the flux differencing scheme presented in 5.8. For the numerical results presented in Sec. 6, we implement the computationally efficient formulation of the ECDGSEM and ESDGSEM in the subcell flux differencing framework 5.0. For clarity in the next section we provide specific details and pseudocode on how to implement the subcell flux differencing method. We will show that the transition from a traditional DGSEM approximation to the newly proposed entropy stable formulation is straightforward, requiring only a couple additional algorithms. 5.. Algorithmic Description of the ESDGSEM We outlined the efficient formulation of the curvilinear ESDGSEM in the previous section. Now we provide specific details and restructure the algorithms of a standard DGSEM implementation to incorporate the entropy stable approximation. The flux differencing form for the curvilinear ESDGSEM 5.0 is self-contained, but it seems to be a daunting task to implement. However, we will demonstrate in this section that with a few extra procedures and a slight restructuring of a standard DG time derivative routine it is straightforward to implement the newly proposed entropy stable scheme. For this discussion we focus on the computation of the time derivative on a single spectral element. The global time derivative is assembled by looping over every element in a mesh [7]. To make the discussion concrete we utilize the DGSEM structure outlined in Chap. 8.4 of the book by Kopriva [7], but the discussion readily extends to any standard DGSEM implementation. To begin, we introduce the notation used throughout this section. We store the computed solution on each element, scaled by the Jacobian, in the array {Jw i,j,n } N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n= where N is the polynomial order of the approximation and neqn is the number of equations. The time derivative, also scaled by the Jacobian, is stored in the array {Jẇ i,j,n } N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n=. Each element stores array information about its mapping the Jacobian, metric terms, etc. in the geom object. We adopt the notation of a period to denote access to a component of an object. We store the bottom topography contributions in the volume and on the boundary of an element in separate places for convenience. The array {b i,j } N,N i=0,j=0 stores the bottom topography evaluated at the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto nodes. The array {db i,j,n } N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n= stores the volume contributions of the source term and the array { b i,id }N,4 i=0,id= stores the jump in the bottom topography along each edge of a quadrilateral element. To compute 30

31 the source term at each edge we also store the average of the computed water height in the array {{{h}} i,id } N,4 i=0,id=. First, we outline the details of the source term discretisation. We divide the computation into two parts: surface and volume contributions. For the surface contributions we alter the routine Alg. 37 EdgeFluxes from [7]. This is done out of convenience because the EdgeFluxes procedure already has access to local information about an edge, its local ID, and the elements that border an edge. Because we are on an unstructured mesh, care must be taken when computing the jump in the bottom topography term. We take the element to the left of an edge, e, to be the interior and the element on the right, e, to be the exterior so that definition of the b terms is clear. Also, we denote the local side ID of an edge on each element by s and s respectively. We fill a temporary array from the bottom topography term {b i,j } N,N i=0,j=0 that depends on the local side index of the edge on the elements e and e, e.g., if s = then b L = e.{b i,0 } N i=0 and s = 3 then b R = e.{b i,n } N i=0. Then, after the normal numerical flux at an edge is computed, one adds to the existing algorithm: { } N e. b i,s = b R b L, i=0 { } N { } N e. b i,s = e. b i,s, i=0 i=0 { } N e. {{h}} i,s = i=0 h R + h L, { } N { } N e. {{h}} i,s = e. {{h}} i,s. i=0 i=0 5. Alg. BottomContributions is a straightforward implementation of 4.6 to compute the volume contributions of the source term. We note that one one could write the volumetric computation of the source term under BLAS3 architecture standards. Because the bottom topography does not depend on time we precompute and store the quantities {db i,j,n } N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n= for later use. Algorithm : BottomContributions Computation of the volumetric source term contributions. Procedure BottomContributions Input: x, y, {h} N,N i=0,j=0, {b}n,n i=0,j=0, geom, {Di,j}N,N i=0,j=0 // polynomial derivative matrix {db i,j,n} N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n= 0 for i = 0 to N do for j = 0 to N do {sum m} 6 m= 0 for k = 0 to N do sum sum + D i,k b k,j sum sum + b i,k D T k,j sum 3 sum 3 + D i,k geom.y η k,j b k,j sum 4 sum 4 + geom.y ξ i,k b i,k D T k,j sum 5 sum 5 + D i,k geom.x η k,j b k,j sum 6 sum 6 + geom.x ξ i,k b i,k D T k,j db i,j, geom.y η i,j sum geom.y ξ i,j sum + sum 3 sum 4 db i,j,3 geom.x η i,j sum + geom.x ξ i,j sum sum 5 + sum 6 Output: {db} N,N,nEqn i=0,j=0,n= End Procedure BottomContributions We next present Algs. HighOrder-xFlux and 3 HighOrder-yFlux needed to reformulate the 3

32 ESDGSEM into the subcell flux differencing form. Routines to compute the volume fluxes f vol and g vol, given in 5.7, are straightforward to implement, so we omit an explicit algorithmic definition. For clarity we present the high order flux extension 3.38 for each component direction. To simplify the indexing each of the high order flux algorithms we assume that each of the procedures is passed an appropriate slice from the solution storage and metric term arrays. Algorithm : HighOrder-xFlux Computation of the contravariant flux f on the complimentary grid. Procedure HighOrder-xFlux Input: {w i,n} N,nEqn i=0,n= // slice of solution on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: { f i,n} N,nEqn i=0,n= // slice of contravariant flux on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: {y η i} N i=0, {xηi}n i=0 // metric terms on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: Q // SBP matrix { } neqn f0,n { } neqn f0,n n= n= for i = to N do for k = i to N do for l = 0 to i do {{y η}} yη l + y η k {{x η}} xη l + x η k { } neqn fi,n n= Q l,k {{yη}} f vol {w l,n } neqn n=, {w k,n} neqn n= { } neqn fn+,n { } neqn fn,n n= n= { } N+,nEqn Output: fi,n i=0,n= End Procedure HighOrder-xFlux {{xη}} g vol {w l,n } neqn n=, {w k,n} neqn n= Now that we have outlined the source term discretisation and the high order flux extensions we are prepared to present the main algorithm for the efficient ESDGSEM implementation. We restructure the routine Alg. 44 MappedDGDTimeDerivative from [7] that computes the local time derivative on a curved quadrilateral element. We outline the explicit steps to change a standard DGSEM approximation to implement the ESDGSEM for the shallow water equations:. Begin with Alg. 44 MappedDGDTimeDerivative from [7] that computes the local time derivative on an element.. Remove the standard approach that computes the DG derivative denoted Alg. 9 SystemDGDerivative in [7]. 3. Insert the equivalent flux differencing formulation outlined in Sec. 5. and detailed in Algs. and Use the entropy stable numerical fluxes 4.74 and 4.75 at element interfaces. 5. Add the precomputed source term contributions at each element edge as well as in the volume. 6. Alg. 4 ESDGDTimeDerivative summarises the reformulation of a standard DG derivative to the computationally efficient flux difference form. 3

33 Algorithm 3: HighOrder-yFlux Computation of the contravariant flux g on the complimentary grid. Procedure HighOrder-yFlux Input: {w j,n} N,nEqn j=0,n= // solution on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: { g j,n} N,nEqn j=0,n= // contravariant flux on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: {y ξ j} N j=0, {x ξ j} N j=0 // metric terms on Gauss-Lobatto grid Input: Q // SBP matrix } neqn { g 0,n { g n= 0,n} neqn n= for j = to N do for k = j to N do for l = 0 to j do {{y ξ }} y ξ l + y ξ k {{x ξ }} x ξ l + x ξ k } neqn { g j,n n= Q l,k {{yξ }} f vol {w l,n } neqn n=, {w k,n} neqn n= } neqn { g N+,n { g n= N,n} neqn n= Output: { g } N+,nEqn j,n j=0,n= End Procedure HighOrder-yFlux + {{xξ }} g vol {w l,n } neqn n=, {w k,n} neqn n= To reiterate, we assume that the volume source term contributions are precomputed and stored and the surface source term contributions are computed in an augmented EdgeFluxes procedure. 6. Numerical Results In this section, we use the numerical scheme 4.76 on several test cases to numerically verify the theoretical findings from Thms. 3. To integrate the system in time we use the five stage, fourth order Runge-Kutta time integrator of Carpenter and Kennedy [30]. First, to verify the convergence, conservation and well-balancedness of the proposed scheme we use a structured curvilinear mesh depicted in Figure. Elements are numbered by counting from left to right and bottom to top. After all theoretical findings are verified numerically, we present a simulated partial dam break from a parabolic dam with a discontinuous bottom topography in the downstream region of the flow. The partial dam break problem serves to exercise each component of the ESDGSEM approximation. 6.. Convergence We first test the convergence of the entropy conserving and entropy stable approximations with a smooth solution test problem. We use the method of manufactured solutions to create an analytic solution. The manufactured solution is chosen to be Hx, y, t = hx, y, t + bx, y = 8 + cosx siny cost, ux, y, t = 0.5, vx, y, t =

34 0.5 y x Figure : The curvilinear mesh used for verification of convergence, conservation, and wellbalancedness. The manufactured solution 6. introduces additional source terms to the equations of the form s := H t + uh x b x + vh y b y, s := uh t + u H x b x + uvh y b y + H x H b, s 3 := vh t + uvh x b x + v H y b y + H y H b, 6. where derivatives regarding H are computed analytically and derivatives regarding bx, y are approximated by We solve this problem on the domain [, ] with the smooth bottom topography b x, y = sin πx cos πy. 6.3 The gravitational constant is set to g =. We increase the polynomial degree on the mesh given in Fig. and observe exponential convergence up to N = 6 N = 5 for ESDGSEM for t = /000 and N = 7 N = 6 for ESDGSEM for t = /4000, when the errors introduced by the time integrator become dominant. We present semi-log plots in Fig. for the entropy conserving scheme and Fig. 3 for the entropy stable scheme. As previously observed, e.g. [8, 5, 6, 3], we find a suboptimal order of convergence for odd polynomial degree N for the purely entropy conserving scheme. However, both the ECDGSEM and ESDGSEM are spectrally accurate for smooth problems. 6.. Conservation of Mass and Momentum We first numerically verify that mass and momentum are conserved, Property. of Thm.. To show that the mass and momentum are conserved we consider a constant bottom topography. Additionally, with the specific numerical flux functions 4.3 the approximation will conserve the total energy modulo dissipative effects of the time integrator. Also, for a non-constant bottom topography the momentum equations become balance laws, and we show that mass and entropy are still conserved discretely, even for discontinuous bottom topographies. To examine the scheme, we use a dam break problem on the domain Ω = [, ]. The dam break is initialised along the vertical line x = 0. We use the curvilinear mesh shown in Fig. with periodic 34

35 0 0 t = /000 t = / L Error N Figure : Semi-log plot shows the spectral convergence in space and fourth order accuracy in time for of the ECDGSEM scheme applied to a smooth solution. 0 0 t = /000 t = / L Error N Figure 3: Semi-log plot shows the spectral convergence in space and fourth order accuracy in time for the ESDGSEM scheme applied to a smooth solution. boundary conditions and a polynomial degree of N = 5. The gravitational constant is again set to 35

36 g =. The dam break problem uses the initial conditions { 5 bx, y if x < 0 hx, y, 0 =, ux, y, 0 = vx, y, 0 = bx, y if x > Dam Break Over a Flat Bottom We demonstrate the entropy conservative properties of the ECDGSEM scheme, Property. of Thm.. We consider a flat bottom topography, b 0, and run the dam break problem on the curvilinear mesh Fig.. The differences in mass, momentum, and total energy are listed in Table. The error in the discrete energy reflects the dissipative influence of the time integrator. Otherwise, we see that the conservation in mass and momentum is on the order of machine precision for each time step value considered. By shrinking the time step we see that we can drive the error in the discrete total energy to the order of machine precision Dam Break Over a Discontinuous Bump Next we examine the conservative properties of the numerical scheme over a discontinuous bottom topography. We know that momentum will no longer be conserved. However, we know that the mass should be conserved and the error in the total energy should reduce as the time step is refined. These properties are demonstrated in the numerical test presented in Table. We consider the discontinuous bottom topography { sin πx cos πy, b x, y = 0, otherwise if elementid = 6, 6.5 which is the bottom topography 6.3 restricted to a single element. If we use the entropy conserving scheme without added stabilisation and periodic boundaries, we expect the entropy total energy to be conserved in the scheme. Table shows that the error in the total energy shrinks as the time step is refined. Also, we see that mass is conserved to machine precision for all temporal refinements Well-Balancedness Over a Discontinuous Bottom Next we demonstrate numerically that the curvilinear entropy conserving numerical scheme 4.4 is well-balanced, numerically demonstrating Property.3 of Thm.. We focus, particularly, on a discontinuous bottom topography. So, we configure a lake at rest test problem as in. h + b x, y = 5, u = v = 0, 6.6 with the discontinuous bottom topography 6.5. The boundary conditions are set to be periodic. We use the curvilinear mesh in Fig. on the domain Ω = [, ] with a varying polynomial degree N. The time step is fixed as t = /000. Table 3 shows that the L -error of the approximation is of the magnitude of round-off errors for both, the ECDGSEM and the ESDGSEM Dam Break Over a Discontinuous Bump Next we compute the solution of a dam break problem using both the ECDGSEM and the ES- DGSEM. This numerical example demonstrates that the entropy stable approximation removes spurious oscillations in the post-shock regions of the flow introduced by an entropy conservative approximation. For the numerical test we set Dirichlet boundaries along the vertical lines x = 0 and x = 0 36

37 and periodic boundaries along the horizontal lines y = 0 and y = 0 on the domain Ω = [0, 0]. We use a rectangular mesh with different mesh sizes and polynomial degree of N = 4. The gravitational constant is again set to g =. The initial conditions are { 3.5 b3 x, y if x < 5 hx, y, 0 =, ux, y, 0 = vx, y, 0 = b 3 x, y if x > 5 We initialise the problem with a discontinuity on the cell interfaces at x = 5.0. As a bottom topography we use {.0 x 5 y 5, if x 5 < and y 5 < b 3 x, y =, 6.8 0, otherwise which is a box with a smooth top that has its center at 5.0, 5.0, side lengths of, and is initialised discontinuously along the edges of the box, which align with cell interfaces. The results shown in Fig. 4 for the purely conserving scheme we find that the entropy conserving procedure produces severe ringing in the post-shock region of the approximation. The entropy stable approximation removes these spurious oscillations except near the discontinuity at the shock front. We demonstrate the computed entropy stable solution in Fig. 5, where we present a grid refinement study for the entropy stable approximation. It is clear that the additional dissipation smoothes the spurious oscillations and the ESDGSEM provides a more physical solution to the dam break problem over a discontinuous bump. We note that, although stable, the ESDGSEM is not completely oscillation-free. Figure 4: ECDGSEM, dam break over a discontinuous bump on elements at T = and CF L = Parabolic Dam In Secs we have verified the theoretical properties of the EC and ESDGSEM. As a final demonstration we examine the problem of a partial dam break configuration from a parabolic dam. 37

38 a 0 0 b c d Figure 5: Grid refinement study for the dam break problem modeled by the ESDGSEM at different grid resolutions with CF L = 0. and N = 4. First, we will demonstrate the well-balancedness of the ESDGSEM approximation on curvilinear grids, numerical verification of Property 3.3 of Thm. 3. To do so we consider the dam break problem before the failure of the dam, which amounts to two lake at rest problems on the left and right sides of the dam. On the right side of the dam we also place a discontinuous bottom topography. Then, we allow the dam to fail and examine the flow. For both numerical tests in this section we consider a domain Ω = [ 5, 5] [ 5, 5], which is divided into 600 nonoverlapping quadrilateral elements. We model a parabolic dam placed near the center of the domain Ω with the curve x = 5 y Finally, for each configuration we place, on the downstream side of the dam, a discontinuous bottom topography of the form {.0 + lnx.5 if x.5, b 4 x, y = if x <.5, ESDGSEM Well-Balancedness We first consider the computational problem before the dam fails. This configuration yields a lake at rest problem on either side of the dam. We will consider the water height to the left of the dam to 38

39 be higher than the water on the right of the dam. We consider the initial conditions 0 b 4 x if x < 5 y 4, hx, y, 0 = 5 b 4 x if x > 5 y, ux, y, 0 = vx, y, 0 = , We set periodic boundary conditions for each lake individually. This test serves to demonstrate the well-balancedness of the ESDGSEM on a curvilinear mesh, including a discontinuous source term 6.0, Property 3.3 of Thm 3. For the test problem we take the time step to be t = /5000 and integrate to a final time of T = 5. We present the L error in the approximation of the constant water heights in Table 4. We find that on either side of the parabolic dam the error in the computed water height is on the order of machine precision Partial Dam Break with Discontinuous Bottom Topography The final demonstration considers the partial failure of a parabolic dam. The initial conditions are taken to be identical to 6.. The boundary conditions used for this computation are periodic along the lines y = 5 and y = 5, Dirichlet along the lines x = 5 and x = 5, and reflecting wall boundary states along the unbroken parts of the parabolic dam. We assume instantaneous failure of the portion of the dam in the region y [ 0.5, 0.5]. It is only in this region that the two states interact. First, we provide a visual grid convergence study for this complex test problem that does not have an analytical solution. In Fig. 6 we provide the computed solution of the water height for three polynomial orders N = 3, N = 5, and N = 7, with t = /500, integrated to a final time of T =.5. The overlay of quadrilaterals represent the spectral element mesh. We see from the numerical p-refinement study that the waves in the approximation are well-resolved for N = 5 and N = 7. a N = 3 b N = 5 c N = 7 Figure 6: Grid convergence study for the ESDGSEM approximation of the parabolic partial dam break configuration with t = /500 at T =.5. The overlay of quadrilaterals represent the mesh and the thick black line represents the unbroken portion of the parabolic dam. From the grid convergence study we know, heuristically, that the computation is well resolved with polynomial order N = 5 in each element. So with N = 5, we show the evolution of the water height of the partial dam break problem at times T = 0.0, T = 0.5, T =.0, and T =.5 in Fig. 7. Again for this computation, we chose a time step of t = /500. This numerical test combines each aspect of the ESDGSEM approximation, i.e., a discontinuous solution, curvilinear mesh, and discontinuous bottom topography. The pseudocolor plots in Fig. 7 show the propagation of eddys 39

40 near the dam break. Lastly, we provide in Fig. 8 a three dimensional visualization of the partial dam break simulation where we can see on the downstream side of the dam the interaction of the resulting flow with the discontinuous bottom topography 6.0. a T = 0.0 b T = 0.5 c T =.0 d T =.5 Figure 7: ESDGSEM approximation for the parabolic partial dam break at various times with N = 5 and t = /500. The overlay of quadrilaterals represent the mesh and the thick black line represents the unbroken portion of the parabolic dam. Lastly, we note that a standard DGSEM scheme is unstable when solving the partial dam break problem from a parabolic dam, even for very small time steps. 40

41 a T = 0.0 b T = 0.5 c T =.0 d T =.5 Figure 8: Three dimensional visualization of the ESDGSEM approximation for the parabolic partial dam break at various times with N = 5 and t = /500. Here the interaction of the flow with the discontinuous bottom topography is clear. 7. Conclusion In this work we developed a new high-order DGSEM discretisation for a skew-symmetric form of the two dimensional shallow water equations on general curvilinear meshes. Due to the complexity 4