arxiv: v1 [cs.na] 27 Dec 2016

Transcription

1 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN METHODS ON ARBITRARY MESHES SANTIAGO BADIA, JESÚS BONILLA, AND ALBA HIERRO arxiv: v [cs.na] 27 Dec 26 Abstract. Tis work is devoted to te design of interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin (dg) scemes tat preserve maximum principles at te discrete level for te steady transport and convectiondiffusion problems and te respective transient problems wit implicit time integration. Monotonic scemes tat combine explicit time stepping wit dg space discretization are very common, but te design of suc scemes for implicit time stepping is rare, and it ad only been attained so far for D problems. Te proposed sceme is based on an artificial diffusion tat linearly depends on a sock detector tat identifies te troublesome areas. In order to define te new sock detector, we ave introduced te concept of discrete local extrema. Te diffusion operator is a grap-laplacian, instead of te more common finite element discretization of te Laplacian operator, wic is essential to keep monotonicity on general meses and in multi-dimension. Te resulting nonlinear stilization is non-smoot and nonlinear solvers can fail to converge. As a result, we propose a smooted (twice differentile) version of te nonlinear stilization, wic allows us to use Newton wit line searc nonlinear solvers and dramatically improve nonlinear convergence. A teoretical numerical analysis of te proposed scemes sow tat tey satisfy te desired monotonicity properties. urter, te resulting operator is Lipscitz continuous and tere exists at least one solution of te discrete problem, even in te non-smoot version. We provide a set of numerical results to support our findings. Keywords: inite elements, discrete maximum principle, monotonicity, sock capturing, discontinuous Galerkin, local extrema diminising Contents. Introduction 2 2. Te Convection-diffusion problem and its discretization Notation Weak form and interior penalty dg approximation Implicit time integration 4 3. Monotonicity Properties 5 4. Te DMP-preserving artificial diffusion sceme 7 5. Lipscitz continuity and existence of solutions 6. Smooting te sock detector Parameters fine-tuning 4 7. Numerical experiments Convergence to a smoot solution DMP-preservation Tree body rotation 9 8. Conclusions 2 Acknowledgments 2 References 23 Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria (CIMNE), Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, UPC, Esteve Terradas 5, 886 Castelldefels, Spain ({sbadia,jbonilla,aierro}@cimne.upc.edu). Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona -3, Edifici C, 834 Barcelona, Spain.

2 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 2. Introduction Te transport problem is one of many problems tat migt satisfy a maximum principal (MP) or a positivity property. However, its numerical discretization may violate tese properties at te discrete level. Tese violations arise in te form of local spurious oscillations near sarp layers of te solution. Suc oscillations break te MP of te continuous problem according to wic te maximum and te minimum of te solution are on te boundary of te domain wen tere is no source force in te steady case; tey are bounded by te boundary and te initial solution extrema in te transient case. Scemes tat satisfy a discrete maximum principle (DMP) based on explicit time integration combined wit finite volumes or discontinuous Galerkin (dg) metods are already well understood (see, e.g., [24]). or implicit time integration, several metods ave been developed for continuous Galerkin (cg) finite element space discretization suc tat te numerical solution inerits te MP property [2 5, 9 3, 2, 22, 25], based on te introduction of artificial diffusion. Tis kind of metods consists of adding an a priori computed diffusion in order to control some properties of te operator associated to te discrete problem. Instead, te situation is muc less understood for te dg space discretization of steady problems and transient problems wit implicit time integration. An attempt to develop implicit DMP-preserving dg scemes as been proposed in [3], but even toug a DMP enjoying artificial diffusion metod can be constructed for te D problem, te extension to te multi-dimensional case fails to enjoy suc property. Artificial diffusion metods are based on four key ingredients. () A sock detector tat only activates te artificial diffusion in regions around socks. A sock detector restrics te application of te stilization to regions were te solution presents socks or sarp layers, and is te key ingredient to obtain a ig order stilization metod. (2) Te amount of diffusion added to ensure te DMP, e.g., using flux-corrected transport ideas [23]. (3) Te discrete diffusion operator in order to keep te DMP on arbitrary meses. Recently, Guermond and Nazarov ave proposed to use grap-teoretic artificial diffusion operators, wic ave already been used by Guermond and co-workers [6, 7], Kuzmin et al. [2, 22] and Badia and Bonilla [2]. (4) or transient problems, a perturbation of te mass matrix is required to obtain a local extremum diminising (LED) sceme. Te reader migt refer to [2] and te references terein for more insigts on eac of te ove ingredients. Te objective of tis work is to design a multidimensional DMP-preserving dg metod on arbitrary meses for bot implicit time integration and steady problems. urtermore, we propose a linearity preserving and differentile metod. Tis latter property is particularly important for improving te convergence of te nonlinear solver, as sown in [2]. In order to do so, we propose a sock detector for dg tat is based on te jumps of te gradient of te discrete solution around te nodes of te mes. Its definition is related to te one proposed in [3]. We consider a grap-teoretic diffusion operator for dg metods to keep te DMP on arbitrary meses. Tis work is structured as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce te problem to solve, te notation, and te discretization of te problem in space using te interior penalty dg metod. Ten, in Sect. 3, we state a novel definition of te DMP property for dg metods, by introducing te concept of discrete local extrema. In Sect. 4, we propose a sceme tat fulfills suc property. Lipscitz continuity and existence of solutions are proved in Sect 5. A discussion out te importance of smooting te computation of te sock capturing terms and some tests to coose te optimal values of te smooting parameters are developed in Sect. 6. inally, numerical experiments sow te performance of te metod in Sect. 7, and some conclusions are drawn in Sect Te Convection-diffusion problem and its discretization We consider a transient convection-diffusion problem wit Diriclet boundary conditions: t u + (βu) (µ u) = g in Ω [, T], u(x, t) = u(x, t) on Ω [, T], u(x, ) = u (x) x Ω. ()

3 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 3 Te domain Ω is an open, bounded, connected subset of R d wit a Lipscitz boundary Ω, were d is te space dimension, β is te convective velocity, wic is assumed to be divergence-free, and µ is a constant diffusion. Even toug we ave considered Diriclet boundary conditions in te statement of problem (), i.e., Ω Ω D, Neumann boundary conditions can also be considered straigtforwardly. In te case of pure convection (µ = ), boundary conditions are only imposed on te inflow boundary Ω. = {x Ω : β n Ω < }, were n Ω is te outward-pointing unit normal. urter, we define te outflow boundary as Ω +. = Ω\ Ω. Below, we also consider te steady case, by eliminating te time derivative term. 2.. Notation. Let T = {K} be a partition of Ω formed by elements K of caracteristic lengt K. or quasi-uniform meses, we can define a global caracteristic lengt of te mes. We denote by V te set of vertices of te partition and define V (K) =. {a V : x a K}. Given te mes T, te non-empty intersection = K K of two neigbor elements K, K T is called an interior facet of T if it is a subdomain of dimension d. Te set of all te interior facets is denoted by E. On te oter and, te non-empty intersection = K Ω of an element K T on te boundary wit te boundary of te domain is called an inflow boundary facet (analogously for Ω + and outflow boundary facets). Te set of inflow boundary facets is denoted by E, and te set of outflow boundary facets is denoted by E +. (We assume tat te finite element partition is conforming. wit te inflow and outflow boundaries.) Te set of all te facets is denoted by E = E E + E. or any facet E, we represent wit K+ and K te only two neigbor elements suc tat K + K =. In addition, we call n+ and n te unitary normal to facet outside K+ and K, respectively. Given a facet, we can also define te caracteristic facet lengt. On tetraedral (or triangular) meses, te discrete space considered encefort is te discontinuous space of piecewise linear functions V = {v : v K P (K) K T }, were P (K) is te space of linear polynomials in K. or exaedral (or quadrilateral) meses, V = {v : v K Q (K) K T }, were Q (K) is te tensor product space of piecewise linear D polynomials. In addition, we represent te space of traces of V as V Ω. In order to define dg spaces, we use te nodal set as te Cartesian product of element vertices, i.e., N = Π K T V (K). Tus, every node a N can also be represented as a pair (i, K), wit K T and. i V (K). Given te node a N, its coordinates are represented wit x a, Ω a = {K T : x a K} is its support, and N (a) = {b N : x b Ω a } is te set of nodes connected to a. We define te set of boundary nodes N. = {a N : x a Ω}, and N (a) =. N (a) N. Te functions v V can be expressed as a linear combination of te basis {ϕ a } a N, were ϕ a corresponds to te sape function of node a. It is defined as follows. Given a N and its corresponding vertex-element pair (i, K), we define ϕ a as te elementwise (bi)linear function suc tat ϕ a (x a ) K = and ϕ a (x b ) K = for b a, and ϕ a K for K K. Any function v V is double-valued on E and single-valued on Ω. Tus, v V can be expressed as v = a N v a ϕ a. Moreover we consider v K as te restriction of v into K. Given v V, we can define te common concepts of average { } and jump [ ] on an interior point x of a facet E as follows: {v }(x) = ( ) v K+ 2 (x) + vk (x), [v ](x) = v K+ (x)n+ + vk (x)n, were n + (resp. n ) is te outward normal wit respect to K+ (resp. K ) on ; we use n on boundary facets and in places were te sign is not relevant. On boundary facet points x, Ω, we define {v }(x) = v K+ (x), [[v ](x) = v K+ (x)n+ (x). We will use standard notation for Sobolev spaces (see, e.g., [7]). In particular, te L 2 (ω) scalar product will be denoted by (, ) ω for some ω Ω, but te domain subscript is omitted for ω Ω. Te L 2 (Ω) norm is denoted by. We will denote by te function tat is equal to in Ω; (x) = x Ω Weak form and interior penalty dg approximation. Te stilized dg bilinear form for te transport problem proposed in [8] combined wit te interior penalty (IP) metod for te viscosity

4 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 4 term reads as: wit ind u V suc tat ( t u, v ) + K (u, v ) = G (v ) + B (u ; v ) v V, (2) K (u, v ). = K T + E K + (µ u v u β v ) E + E µ ( [u ] { v } { u } [v ] + c ip [u ] [v ] ) {βu } [v ] + E β n [u ] [v ], 2 were te rigt and side (RHS) includes te terms corresponding to te source G (v ). = K T (g, v ) K, and weak boundary conditions B (u ; v ), B (w ; v ) =. β n Ω w v E E E+ µw { v } n Ω + E E+ (3) (4) c ip µ w v. Te parameter c ip is a constant set to. Te projection u V Ω is te facetwise linear polynomial function obtained, e.g., by te nodal interpolation of u on te nodes of te boundary N, i.e., ū = a N ϕ a u(x a ). Wen te nodal projector is not well-defined, oter projections tat preserve te DMP can be also used, e.g., te Scott-Zang projection [26]. Notice tat wit tis definition u is bounded by te maximum and minimum values of te function u. Moreover, te semi-discrete problem (2) can be rewritten in algebraic form as M t u + Ku = G + Bu, (6) were M. = (ϕb, ϕ a ) and K. = K (ϕ b, ϕ a ), for a, b N, G a. = G (ϕ a ), for a N, and B. = B (ϕ b ; ϕ a ), for a N, b N Implicit time integration. We consider te time discretization of (2) using te metod of lines. In doing so, we are interested in scemes tat ensure te DMP as te discrete solution evolves in time. Tis kind of metods are also known as local extrema diminising (LED). In particular, we will use te θ-metod, even toug te generalization of te following results to oter scemes tat preserve monotonicity properties is straigtforward. We consider a partition of (, T ] into N t time steps wit equal time step lengt t = T N in suc a way tat t t n = n t, n =,, N t. Te problem will be solved by computing an approximation of u in eac of tose time steps u n u(, t n). Te discretization of () by means of te θ-metod reads: ind u n+ V suc tat u n, v ) + K (θu n+ + ( θ)u n, v ) = G (v ) + B (u ; v ) v V. (7) t (un+ We use a projection of te actual initial condition u at t = as te initial discrete solution u, suc tat it inerits te DMP. Te value of θ is to be cosen in te interval [, ]. Some common values are θ =, wic leads to te explicit forward Euler sceme, θ =.5 for te Crank-Nicolson sceme, and θ =, leading to te Backward-Euler (BE) sceme. Eac of tese metods as different features. In particular, in order to obtain an unconditionally LED sceme, it is necessary to use θ =. Using BE, te discrete problem in compact form reads Mδ t u + Ku n+ = G + Bu, (8) were δ t u = t (u n+ u n ). Oter coices of θ lead to LED scemes under a CL-like condition. Tis is specially important in te case of te Crank-Nicolson (CN) metod, wic is second-order (5)

5 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 5 accurate and non-dissipative. Te requirements to obtain monotonicity-preserving scemes in tese cases are commented in Sect Monotonicity Properties In tis section we introduce te desired properties tat we want our discrete problem to fulfill. Te use of local extrema in dg is too restrictive for our purposes. One can satisfy DMP and positivity properties witout te need to eliminate all local extrema. Tus, we consider te concept of discrete local extrema, wic is defined on nodes, and means tat te nodal value is extremum in te support of te node. A discrete local extremum is a local extremum, but not te opposite. We will see later on tat tis weaker definition is enoug for our purposes. Definition 3. (Local Discrete Extremum). Te function v V as a local discrete maximum (resp. minimum) on a node a N if u a u (x) (resp. u a u (x)) x Ω a, and also u a u(x) (resp. u a u(x)) x Ω a Ω. Terefore, te DMP can be defined as follows. Definition 3.2 (DMP). or steady problems a solution u V satisfies te local DMP if for every a N, we ave: { } u min a u a u max a, were u max. a = max max u b, max u (x), (9) \{a} x Ω a Ω D { } and u min. a = min min u b, min u (x), () \{a} x Ω a Ω D were u V Ω is te finite element interpolation of te boundary conditions on te Diriclet boundary Ω D. In te case of transient problems, u max a and u min a are defined as { } u max. a = max max u b, max u(x), max N (a)\{a} x Ω a Ω D (,T ] x Ω u (x) () { }. = min, (2) u min a min u b, N (a)\{a} min u(x), min x Ω a Ω D (,T ] x Ω u (x) were u V is te finite element projection of te initial condition u. A sceme suc tat its solutions satisfy te DMP is called DMP-preserving. Instead, for transient problems, we define LED scemes. Definition 3.3 (LED). A metod is called LED if for g = and any time in t (, T ], te solution u (t) V satisfies d t u a if u a is a maximum and d t u a if u a is a minimum. (3) or time-discrete metods, te same definition applies, replacing d t by te time derivative discrete approximation δ t. Let us assume now tat we ave system (6) plus some nonlinear stilization terms, M(u, u ) t u + K(u, u )u = G + B(u, u )u. (4) Te superscript, e.g., in K, denotes te fact tat te operator K is equal to K plus stilization terms. We ave written, e.g., K(u, u ), to explicitly denote te fact tat te entries of te matrix K are potentially nonlinear wit respect to u and u. Problem (4) is LED under te following requirements.

6 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 6 Teorem 3.4 (LED). Te semi-discrete problem (4) is LED (as defined in Def. 3.3) if g = and for every a N suc tat u a is a local extremum, it olds: M (u, u ). = δ m a, wit m a >, (5a) K (u, u ), b N : b a, B (u, u ), b N, (5b) K (u, u ) B b N (a) (u, u ) =, (5c) were m a. = Ω ϕ adω, δ is te Kronecker delta. urter, for g (resp. g ) in Ω solutions of (4) satisfy te DMP property in Def Moreover, te discrete problem (4) is positivity-preserving for g and u >. Proof. Assume u a is a discrete maximum. rom (2) and te conditions in (5) we ave tat G a = m a d t u a + K (u, u )u b B (u, u )u b (6) b N (a) m a d t u a + K (u, u ) B (u, u ) u a = m a d t u a. (7) b N (a) Terefore, d t u a G a. Proceeding analogously for a minimum we can prove tat te metod is LED. Te proof is equivalent for te discrete problem wit BE time integration. Next, we prove positivity. Let us consider tat at some time step m te solution becomes negative, and consider te degree of freedom a in wic te minimum value is attained. Using te previous result for a minimum at te discrete level, we ave tat δ t u a and tus u m a ua m. It leads to a contradiction, since u m a. Hence, te solution must remain positive. Corollary 3.5. If te discrete problem (4) meets te conditions in T. 3.4, ten it leads to solutions tat satisfy te local DMP in Def. 3.2 at every time t n, for n =,...N t. Proof. By te LED property we know tat a discrete maximum (resp. minimum) will be bounded ove (resp. below) by te solution at te previous time step. Proceeding by induction, te solution will be bounded by te initial condition u and te boundary conditions imposed at any previous time step. ollowing [4, T. ], we can prove tat te steady counterpart of problem (4) is DMP-preserving. Teorem 3.6 (DMP). A steady solution of te discrete problem (4) satisfies te DMP in Def. 3.2 if g = in Ω and, for every degree of freedom a N suc tat u a is a local discrete extremum, conditions (5b)-(5c) old. Proof. Assume u a is a discrete maximum, ten te steady counterpart of problem (4) reads K (u, u )u b B (u, u )u b =, (8) b N (a) Terefore, u a can be computed as B b N u a = (a) (u, u )u b K \{a} (u, u )u b. (9) K aa (u, u ) rom conditions (5b)-(5c), te coefficients tat multiply u b and u b are in [, ], and te sum of all tese coefficients add up to one. Terefore, u a is a convex combination of its neigbors (including boundary conditions u ). Since u a is a maximum and a convex combination of its neigbors, ten u b = u a for some b N (a). urter, it can also be proved tat u a is a convex combination of all its neigbors but u b, and vice versa u b is a convex combination of all its neigbors but u a. Hence, by induction, we know tat extrema at any degree of freedom are bounded by te boundary conditions. Tus, te DMP is satisfied.

7 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 7 4. Te DMP-preserving artificial diffusion sceme In te previous section, we ave stated te requirements to be fulfilled by our discrete sceme to be DMP-preserving and LED. In tis section, we build a nonlinear stilization of te dg formulation (2) tat satisfies all tese conditions. Te nonlinear stilization will rely on an artificial grap-viscosity term. Te grap-viscosity is supplemented wit a sock detector, in order to obtain iger tan linear convergence on smoot regions. Moreover, for transient metods we make use of te sock detector in order to perform te mass matrix lumping only were is required, wic allows us to minimize te pase error of te metod. Let us start by defining te grap-viscosity ν. or a N and b N (a) we define ν. = max{ α a B (ϕ b ; ϕ a ), }. (2) Clearly, tis viscosity is only non-zero wen a N. Next, for a N and b N (a), we define {. max{αa K (ϕ b, ϕ a ),, α b K (ϕ a, ϕ b )} b a, ν = \a ν + b N (a) ν oterwise, were α a is a parameter tat enjoys te following property. Definition 4.. Given a N, we say tat α a : V R enjoys te sock detector property if it is suc tat α a (u, u ) [, ] u V and α a (u, u ) = if u as a local discrete extremum on x a. Next, we design a sock detector tat satisfies tis property. Given a N and b N (a) wit x b x a, we define x sym as te intersection between Ω a and te line tat passes troug x b and x a,. and it is not x b. Moreover, we define r = xb x a, r sym. = x sym x a, and u sym. = u (x sym ) (see ig. ). urter, we denote by ˆr te unit vector of r. Ten, we define te jump and te mean of te unknown gradients as u b u a if x a = x b,. [ u ] = u b u a + usym u a (22) r r sym oterwise, u b u a if x. a = x b, { u ˆr } = ( ) ub u a + usym u a (23) 2 r r sym oterwise. (2) igure. Representation of te symmetric node x sym of x b wit respect to x a. Remark 4.2. Tese definitions may imply x sym = x a on some boundaries. In tese cases, te value at te symmetric point of x b wit respect to x a takes an extrapolation of te boundary condition value suc tat te metod is linearly preserving, i.e., u sym = u a +(u b u a ) sign((u a u a )(u b u a )), and te value r sym is taken equal to r. Tis extrapolation is not only important for linear preservation, but also for obtaining optimal convergence rates in convection-diffusion problems wit boundary layers. Remark 4.3. Notice tat wen x sym coincides wit a node te value u (x sym ) is not unique. In tis case, we compute [ u ] and { u ˆr } for all values of u (x sym ) in Ω a.

8 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 8 Making use of te ove definitions, te proposed sock detector reads b N (a) [ u q ] α a (u, u ) = 2 { u if b N ˆr } (a) { u ˆr }, oterwise. were q R +. Let us prove tat te sock detector (24) satisfies te sock detector property in Def. 4.. Lemma 4.4. Te function α a (u, u ) defined in (24) satisfies te sock detector property in Def. 4.. urtermore, if a N is not an extremum and q =, α a (u, u ) =. Proof. Let us assume tat u as a discrete maximum (resp. minimum) on x a, ten u b u a b N (a) and u sym u a b N (a), (resp. u b u a b N (a) and u sym u a b N (a)). Terefore, [ u ] = [ u ] + x b =x a = x b =x a = x b =x a x b x a u b u a + x b x a u b u a + x b x a [ u ] u b u a r u b u a r u a + usym r sym u a = + usym r sym (24) (25) (26) (27) 2 { u ˆr }. Tus, α a (u, u ) =. urter, if u a is not an extremum, ten (25) is no longer true. Hence, [ u ] = [ u ] + [ u ] x b =x a x b x a = u b u a + u b u a + usym u a r r sym x b =x a < x b =x a x b x a u b u a + x b x a u b u a r u a = + usym r sym (28) (29) (3) 2 { u ˆr }. Terefore, α a (u, u ) <. Moreover, wen q =, α a (u, u ) = if u a is not an extremum. In order to prove te DMP-preservation in te numerical analysis below we need to perturb bot te weak boundary conditions and te bilinear form. Te perturbed weak boundary conditions read: B (w, w, u ; v ) =. B (u ; v ) + ν(w, w )v a u b. (32) a N b N (a) (3)

9 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 9 were v, w V, and w, u V Ω. urtermore, given u, v, w V and w, V Ω, we can define te perturbed bilinear form K as: K (w, w ; u, v ) =. K (u, v ) + ν (w, w )v a u b l(a, b), (33) a N were l(a, b). = 2δ is te grap-laplacian operator. It leads to te following stilized steady discrete problem: ind u V wit u V Ω suc tat K (u, u ; u, v ) = G (v ) + B (u, u, u ; v ) v V. (34) We are ready to prove te desired DMP property of tis metod. or tis purpose, we define K (u, u ) =. K (u, u ; ϕ b, ϕ a ) for a, b N, and B (u, u ) =. B (u, u, ϕ b ; ϕ a ) for a N, b N. Teorem 4.5. Te discrete problem (34) wit te stilized semilinear forms defined in (32) and (33) is DMP-preserving for g =. Proof. Let x a be an interior node and assume tat u as an extremum on x a. Given te set of all nodes b N (a) coupled to node a N, we ave: K (u, u ) B (u, u ) = { (µ ϕ b ϕ a ϕ b β ϕ a ) (35) E + E + E + E + E K T E E+ K µ ( [ϕ b ] { ϕ a } { ϕ b } [ϕ a ] + c ip [ϕ b ] [ϕ a ] ) β {ϕ b } [ϕ a ] + β n ϕ b ϕ a + c ip µ ϕ bϕ a E E E+ } β n 2 (36) [ϕ b ] [ϕ a ] (37) µϕ b { ϕ a } n (38). (39) (We note tat B as only been defined for nodes b N. Here, we use of notation, and extend by zero te definition to all nodes, wit B = wen b N.) We use te fact tat te sape functions are a partition of unity, i.e., ϕ b is equal to one on Ω a and zero elsewere. As a result, [ϕ b ] = on facets Ω a \ Ω a, and ϕ b = in any K T. On te oter and, ϕ a vanises on any Ω a \ Ω by construction. Using tese properties, we get: β n [ϕ b ] [ϕ a ] =, (4) E 2 µc ip [ϕ b ] [ϕ a ] c ip µ ϕ bϕ a =, (4) E E µ[ϕ b ] { ϕ a } + µ { ϕ b } [ϕ a ] =, and te following terms can be integrated by parts as E E+ E E+ Ω µϕ b { ϕ a } n =, (42) µ ϕ b ϕ a =, (43)

10 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS = K T K T K K ϕ b β ϕ a + E + E β {ϕ b } [ϕ a ] + E β n ϕ b ϕ a (44) ϕ a β ϕ b =. (45) inally, since ν (u ) + b N (a) ν (u ) = by construction (see (2) and (2)), ten K (u, u ) B (u, u ) =. Moreover, it is clear tat K (u, u ) for any b a and B (u, u ) in all cases, based on te definition of tese operators in (32)-(33) and teir respective grap-viscosities in (2)-(2). It finises te proof. Tus, by T. 4.5, we can ensure tat te extrema of te solution of (6), will be on te boundary of te domain wen g =. Let us now define te mass matrix perturbation used in order to obtain a LED sceme. As its name reveals, tis property ensures tat te value of te discrete maximum and te minimum of a transient problem can be bounded by tose in te initial solution u = u(, t ) and boundary conditions. It as been proved in [9, Lemma 3.2] tat, if te steady problem, e.g., (34), enjoys te DMP property, its transient version enjoys te LED property if we replace te mass matrix ( t u, v ) by its lumped version ( t u, v ) corresponding to te Gauss-Lobatto sub-integration. Te form (, ) is suc tat ( t u, ϕ a ) = t u a (, ϕ a ) for any a N. In fact, as Kuzmin and co-workers ave proved in [2, 22], it is enoug to lump only te terms associated to te degrees of freedom were u as an extremum. ollowing te same strategy as in [2], we can perform selective lumping using te sock detector. We define: M L (u, u ; t u, v ). = a N v a ( α Q a (u, u ))( t u, ϕ a ) + α Q a (u, u ) t u a v a (, ϕ a ). (46) Te exponent Q > is added in order to minimize te lumping perturbation, wic leads to pase error in te discrete solution. In addition, we define M (u, u ). = M L (u, u ; ϕ b, ϕ a ), for a, b N. If one considers te semi-discrete problem in space only, we ave: ind u V suc tat M L (u, u ; t u, v ) + K (u, u ; u, v ) = G (v ) + B (u, u, u ; v ) v V. (47) Lemma 4.6. Te sceme (47) wit te semilinear forms defined in (46), (32), and (33) is LED for g =. Proof. Te conditions required on K(u, u ) and B(u, u ) in T. 3.4 to obtain a LED sceme ave already been proved in T urter, if we assume tat u a is an extremum, ten α a (u, u ) = and M (u ) becomes (, ϕ a ) = δ m a wit m a = Ω ϕ a. Hence, te definition of te mass matrix in (46) satisfies (5a). As a result, we fulfill all conditions stated in T. 3.4 and tus te sceme is LED. urtermore, te stilized problem (47) is linearity preserving, i.e. linear solutions are solution of te original IP dg metod (2). Lemma 4.7. Te stilization terms in (32), (33), and (46), vanis for functions u P (Ω), i.e., B (u, u Ω, ū ; v ) = B (ū ; v ), K (u, u Ω ; u, v ) = K (u, v ), (48) M L (u, u Ω ; u, v ) = (u, ϕ a ), for any u V. (49) Proof. If u is linear and continuous, ten by definition [[ u] = a and b N (a). Hence, for any a we ave tat α a. Tus, bot ν and ν are equal to zero. Tus, all te stilization terms vanis and we recover te original formulation.

11 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS Te results in tis section for te BE time discretization can be extended to any θ-metod. We refer te reader to te work by Kuzmin and co-workers [2, 23] for te proofs of suc properties. In particular, θ-metods are positivity-preserving under te CL-like condition (see [23, T. ]) (, ϕ a ) t min a N ( θ) K (u n+, u n+ ; ϕ a, ϕ a ). (5) urtermore, under certain conditions of te matrix and te RHS, it as been proved in [2, T. 4] tat te sceme is not only positivity-preserving but satisfies te DMP. Tis means tat te discrete maximum and te minimum of te solution are bounded by te values of te initial solution and te boundary conditions for any θ-metod. Te autors in [23, T. ] take advantage of te mass lumping properties for all of tis proofs, but te lumping only needs to be activated for te degrees of freedom were te discrete solution as an extrema. Tus, te sceme defined in (7) togeter wit te definition of M L (, ;, ) given by (46) leads to a DMP-preserving metod under te ove CL-like condition. 5. Lipscitz continuity and existence of solutions. Let us define te Cartesian product space Ṽ = V V Ω. Tus, any function ṽ Ṽ can be expressed as ṽ = (v, v), were te first component includes te values of te dg function v V and te second component te projection of te Diriclet values v V Ω. Analogously, we can define te. set of nodes for Ṽ as M = N N {(a, ), (, b) : a N, b N }. We consider an extended grap-laplacian operator over Ṽ Ṽ as follows: D(ũ, ṽ) = D((u, ū), (v, v)) =. ν l(a, b)ũ b ṽ a (5) a M b M. = ν l(a, b)u b v a νū b v a νbau b va a. (52) b N a N Based on tis definition, we implicitly ave: a N b N a N b N ν = ν, if a, b (N, ), ν = ν, if a (N, ), b (, N ), ν = ν ba, if a (, N ), b (N, ), ν =, if a, b (, N ). (53) It is easy to ceck tat tis operator is symmetric and positive-semidefinite. In order to sow te second property, we use te expression for ν and ν in (2) and (2), respectively, in order to get ν, ν, and ν aa = ν aa = ν ν = ν. b N b M Using te last property, we get: 2 D(ũ, ṽ) = a M b N b M ν l(a, b)(ũ a ũ b )(ṽ a ṽ b ). (54) Tus, we ave ũ 2 D. = D(ũ, ũ). urter, we define te restriction operators D(u, v) = D((u, ), (v, )) and D (ū, v) = D((,.. ū), (, v)), and teir corresponding semi-norms u D = D(u, u) and ū D = D (ū, ū).

12 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 2 Given te source g V and ū V Ω, we define te operator T : V V for te steady problem as: T(z), v =. A (z, v) B (ū, v) G (v) + D(z, v) = A (z, v) B (ū, v) G (v) + + a N b N (a) ν l(a, b)v a ū b. a N ν l(a, b)v a z b Clearly, to find u V suc tat T(u ) = is equivalent to te stilized problem (34). or transient problems, given also te previous time step solution u n V, we define te operator T n+ : V V at every time step as (55) T n+ (z), v. = M L (z; z, v) M L (z; u n, v) + T(z), v. (56) System (47) can be stated in compact form as: find u V suc tat T n+ (u ) =. In te next teorem, we prove tat bot operators are Lipscitz continuous. We provide a sketc of te proof, since it follows te same lines as in [2, T. 6.]. Teorem 5.. Te nonlinear operators T and T n+ are Lipscitz continuous in V for q N +. Proof. In order to prove te Lipscitz continuity, we proceed as in [2]. After some manipulation, we get: T(u), w T(v), w A (u v, v) + ν (v)l(a, b)w a (u b v b ) (57) a N + (ν (u) ν (v))l(a, b)w a u b (58) a N + (ν(u) ν(v))w a ū b a N b N (a). (59) Te first term is linear and continuous (see, e.g., []). We ave to prove Lipscitz continuity for te rest of terms. We use te inverse inequalities ϕ a K C ϕ a K and ϕ a C ϕ a (see [6]) and te fact tat sape functions are a partition of unity ( ϕ a K C d/2 and ϕ a C (d )/2 ), to get: Ā (u, ū ; ϕ b, ϕ a ) B (u, ū ; ϕ b, ϕ a ) Cq( d β L (Ω) + µ d 2 ). (6) Te rest of te proof follows te same lines as in [2, T. 6.] and is not included for te sake of conciseness. Te grap-laplacian edges for pairs (a, b) suc tat x a x b are as in [2], using (6). Te case x a = x b is simpler. Lipscitz continuity for te transient problem is a consequence of te Lipscitz continuity of T and of te mass matrix wit te selective mass lumping. Te last property can be proved using again te analysis in [2, T. 6.]. Next, we sow tat te proposed scemes ave at least one solution. Uniqueness results could also be obtained for te diffusion-dominated regime following te ideas in [5]. Teorem 5.2. Tere is at least one solution u V of te steady problem T(u ) =, and one solution of every time step of te transient problem, i.e., T n+ (u ) =. Proof. In order to prove existence of solutions, we rely on te approac in [5], based on fixed point arguments. irst, we combine te stility analysis in [8] (for first-order yperbolic problems) wit

13 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 3 te stility analysis for te interior penalty discretization of te Laplacian operator (see, e.g., [] for details), getting: A (z, z) C z 2, wit z 2. = µ z 2 H (K) + µc ip [z ] 2 L 2 ( ) + c 2 β, [z ] 2 L 2 ( ), (6) K T E m and c β, (x). = β(x) n (x). On te oter and, using standard dg arguments (see [] and [5, Prop. 3.55]), we ave: B (ū, z) Cc c 2 e ū 2 L 2 ( Ω ) + Cc µc ip ū 2 L 2 ( Ω) + c z 2, (62) for c arbitrarily small. We note tat te nonlinear stilization terms can be written in terms of te extended grap- Laplacian operator as: ν l(a, b)v a z b νv a ū b = D((z, ū), (v, )). a N a N b N (a) Taking v = z and using (54) and te Caucy-Scwarz inequality, we get: D((z, ū), (z, )) 2 z 2 D + 2 ū D. Combining (55), (6), and (62) (wit c small enoug), we finally obtain: C T z, z z 2 + z 2 D ū D c 2 e ū 2 L 2 ( Ω ) µc ip ū 2 L 2 ( Ω). (63) We can readily pick a z V suc tat T(z), z >. Using te Brower s fixed point teorem, tere exists u V suc tat T(u ) =, and tus, solves te steady version of (47) (see [5] for details). Existence is straigtforward for te transient problem, combining te previous results wit te coercivity of te mass matrix operator. 6. Smooting te sock detector In Sect. 4, we ave defined ν (u, u ), ν (u, u ), and α a (u, u ) in (2), (2), and (24), respectively, using non-smoot functions. Te problem of using tis raw definitions is tat, since tey are not smoot, it is difficult for te nonlinear solvers to converge. Tus, following te ideas in [2], we add some parameters (τ,γ,σ ) and regularize te definition of non-smoot functions suc as te solute value and te maximum. In tis section we will proceed to unfold all te smoot definitions to facilitate te reproducibility of te metod. Te resulting formulation is not only Lipscitz continuous but twice differentile by construction. urtermore, te smooting involves sligtly more diffusion, and it is easy to ceck tat we keep te DMP and LED properties ove. Linearity-preservation is only satisfied weakly (see [2, Remark 7.3]). We do not prove tese results for te sake of conciseness, since te proofs are similar to te ones in [2, Lemma 7.]. We will start by introducing a couple of smooted versions of te solute value: x,τ = x 2 + τ, x 2,τ = x 2 x2 + τ. (64) Te value of τ is assumed to be small and is going to be specified in Sect. 7. or values of x τ, we ave x,τ x x 2,τ but always x 2,τ x x,τ. Now, we can redefine { u ˆr } as: u b u a 2,τ if x a = x b,. { u ˆr 2,τ } = 2 ( ub u a 2,τ r + usym u a 2,τ r sym ) oterwise. (65)

14 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 4 Te quotient associated to α a would read: [ u,τ ] + γ ζ a = 2 { u. (66) ˆr 2,τ } + γ Here γ is anoter extra stility parameter added to ensure differentiility of ζ a for values of u suc tat te denominator is nullified. By te definition and te properties of,τ and 2,τ, it is easy to prove tat in te case tat u as a local discrete extremum on a, ζ a >. So, since we want α a to enjoy te sock detector property stated in Def. 4., we need to construct a twice differentile function Z suc tat Z(x) = wen x. To tis end, we define { 2x Z(x) = 4 5x 3 + 3x 2 + x <, (67) x.. Now we are le to define te smoot value of α a as α a = (Z(ζa )) q. Moreover, we ave also modified te computation of te maximum in te following way: max σ (x, y) = 2 (x y)2 + σ + (x + y). (68) 2 urtermore, at boundaries u sym is computed using te sign function wic needs to be regularized too. In particular we use sign τ (x) =. x/ x,τ. Ten te smoot definition of ν in (2) for a N and b N (a) \ {a} will read and for b N (a) ν = max σ (, max σ ( α a K (ϕ b, ϕ a ), α b K (ϕ a, ϕ b ))), (69) ν. = max σ ( α a B (ϕ b ; ϕ a ), ). (7) Te objective of tese modifications is twofold. On te one and, tey smoot te function improving te convergence of te nonlinear iterations. On te oter and, tey make te metod differentile wit respect to u, and te Jacobian matrix is defined everywere; some nonlinear iteration metods, suc as Newton s metod, wic need to compute te Jacobian matrix of te problem, can be used. urter, te metod is twice differentile wic is required to get quadratic nonlinear convergence rates wit Newton s metod. In order to keep a dimensionally correct metod and, at te same time, do not affect te convergence of te non-stilized metod, te parameters sould scale as follows: σ = σ β 2 L 2(d 3) 4, τ = τ 2 L 4, γ = γl, (7) were d is te space dimension of te problem, L a caracteristic lengt of te problem, τ and γ ave te same dimension as te unknown, and σ is dimensionless. 6.. Parameters fine-tuning. In order to find te appropriate values for all te parameters introduced before, we will ceck ow tese values affect te performance of te metod. To tis end, we will consider te steady ( t u = ) transport (µ = ) problem wit no force (g = ) and rotational convection β = (y, x): (βu) = in [, ] [, ]. (72) In te transport case, te Diriclet boundary conditions are only imposed on te inflow boundaries, wic, for tis convection field, are te sides of te square [, ] [, ] corresponding to x = and y =. We will impose all along te side y = and te following function on te side x = : u(, y) = y [.5,.45], cos ( 2 3 π(y.4)) y [.55,.85], elsewere. We know tat te exact solution of tis problem consists of a translation of tis function in te direction of te convection in suc a way tat on te outflow boundary corresponding to y = te solution is u(x, ) = u(, x). We solve tis problem in a Q mes and ceck te effect of te constants (73)

15 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS (a) Solution on inflow boundary x =. (b) Solution on te wole domain igure 2. Solution of te problem (72) used for parameter-tuning after iterations wit q =, and σ = τ = γ =. A Q mes as been used. σ, τ and γ on te resulting outflow profile wit respect to te value in te inflow boundary x =, plotted in 2(a). irst of all, we can observe te dissipative effect of te parameters on te final solution. We set values of q = {, 2, 4, }, σ = {, 2, 3, 4 }, and τ = σ 2, and fix te value of γ to 2. We use Picard linearization and te nonlinear iterative sceme wit te relaxation parameters proposed in [8], using te same parameter values terein. In addition, we also solve all tests using a ybrid Newton-Picard metod; we use Picard wit a tolerance 2 and next Newton wit line searc. or bot nonlinear solvers te tolerance is set to be 4 and we allow a maximum of 5 iterations. Te results are sown in 3. It can be observed tat, in order to obtain sarp solutions, it is important to use bot ig values of q and low values of σ and τ. Neverteless fixing q =, and tuning only σ and τ, we can eiter obtain a metod tat is easy to converge, but quite dissipative, or a metod tat is arder to converge, but muc more accurate. or te moment, we ave fixed te relation between σ and τ. In te next test we fix q =, γ = 2, and different values for τ and σ. In particular we will use τ = {, 2 4, 8 } and σ = {, 2, 3, 4 }. We will use te same nonlinear solvers as before. Te obtained results are sown in 4. Values of σ around 2 and τ ove 4 are needed to ensure Picard convergence. In te case of te ybrid sceme, we do not observe muc difference in terms of te number of iterations required to converge for different values of τ. Neverteless, as σ is reduced te metod requires a sligtly larger number of iterations. inally, we want to fine-tune γ. To do so, we will fix te values of σ = 2 and τ = 4 and reduce te value of γ from 4 to. We can ceck in 5 ow, even wit γ =, te solution is le to converge, but te number of iteration is larger tan between γ = 4 and γ = 8 wereas te solution is practically te same. In our numerical experiments we will work wit te smoot and non-smoot version and wit bot nonlinear solvers. Tus, wen comparing results we are interested in solutions tat converge in a reasonle amount of time steps (we take γ = 2 ). In te transient examples, we will only use Picard linearization, allowing us take γ = to see weter we can obtain a sarper solution. Additionally, we will let Q, te exponent of α a for te perturbation of te mass matrix in (46), be Q = + ; meaning tat te matrix is only perturbed wen α a =. Neverteless, we recall tat we can do so because te nonlinear iterative metod tat we use does not need te stilization to be differentile; if tat is not te case, γ must be greater tan and Q < +. Summarizing, in view of te results obtained, we will use q =, Q =, σ = 2, τ 6 and eiter γ = 2 or γ = in te oncoming transient numerical experiments.

16 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 6 q= σ=.e-, -- (9) q= σ=.e-2, -- (4) q= σ=.e-3, -- (3) q= σ=.e-4, -- (3) q=2 σ=.e-, -- (9) q=2 σ=.e-2, -- (4) q=2 σ=.e-3, -- (32) q=2 σ=.e-4, -- (49) q=4 σ=.e-, 3 (3) q=4 σ=.e-2, -- (9) q=4 σ=.e-3, -- (2) q=4 σ=.e-4, -- (22) q= σ=.e-, 24 (9) q= σ=.e-2, 63 () q= σ=.e-3, -- (8) q= σ=.e-4, -- (23) igure 3. Profile of te solution of (72) on te outflow side (y = ) for different values of q, σ, τ = σ 2, and γ = 2. Eac figure title indicates te value of q, σ, te number of nonlinear iterations for Picard and te ybrid sceme (in brackets), (- -) means not converged. A mes as been used. 7. Numerical experiments In tis section, we are interested in sowing ow te metod previously introduced deals wit a set of numerical experiments. We recall tat, since we are using isotropic uniform meses, te value of te caracteristic lengt K of eac element K can be computed as te lengt of te edges of te squares. 7.. Convergence to a smoot solution. In tis first experiment we want to determine te convergence of te metod towards a smoot solution tat as maxima and minima inside te domain (α a reaces te value in some regions in te domain). We compare te performance of te original interior penalty dg metod against our dg metod wit artificial diffusion, bot wit and witout smooting (allowing a maximum of iterations). Te steady problems we solve to tis end are te following: { u + (βu) = 4π 2 sin ( 2π ( x y u(x, y) = sin ( 2π ( x y )) tan θ tan θ )) ( + ) tan 2 θ in Ω = [, ] [, ], on Ω, and { (βu) = in Ω = [, ] [, ], u(x, y) = sin ( 2π ( x y )) (75) tan θ on Ω, wit β = (cos(θ), sin(θ)) and θ = π/3. In bot cases te exact solution is u(x, y) = sin(2π(x y tan θ )). We ave quadratic convergence of te non-stilized metod wit (bi)linear finite elements and we (74)

17 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 7 τ=.e- σ=.e-, 25 () τ=.e- σ=.e-2, 26 (25) τ=.e- σ=.e-3, -- (9) τ=.e- σ=.e-4, -- (9) τ=.e-2 σ=.e-, 24 (9) τ=.e-2 σ=.e-2, 7 (5) τ=.e-2 σ=.e-3, -- (22) τ=.e-2 σ=.e-4, -- (2) τ=.e-4 σ=.e-, 3 () τ=.e-4 σ=.e-2, 63 () τ=.e-4 σ=.e-3, -- (6) τ=.e-4 σ=.e-4, -- (23) τ=.e-8 σ=.e-, -- (9) τ=.e-8 σ=.e-2, -- (3) τ=.e-8 σ=.e-3, -- (7) τ=.e-8 σ=.e-4, -- (23) igure 4. Profile of te solution of (72) on te outflow side (y = ) for different values of σ, τ, q =, and γ = 2. Eac figure title indicates te value of τ, σ, te number of nonlinear iterations for Picard and te ybrid sceme (in brackets), (- -) means not converged. A mes as been used. γ=.e-4. 6 It. γ=.e-8. 6 It. γ=.e-2. 6 It. γ=.e It igure 5. Profile of te solution of (72) on te outflow side (y = ) for different values of γ, q =, σ = 2, and τ = 4. Eac figure title indicates te value of γ, and te number of nonlinear iterations for Picard sceme. A mes as been used. would like to preserve it for te stilized one wen applied to smoot solutions. Tis is indeed wat appens. Wen we consider te problem wit diffusion µ = in wic te contributions to te matrix are dominated by te diffusion term for te finest meses, te error is almost te same for bot te smooted and te non-smooted versions. In addition, it is important to notice te requirement of te boundary condition extrapolation to acieve optimal convergence. Tests witout te extrapolation in Remark 4.2, i.e., u sym = u a, sow degenerated convergence rates. Tis correction is more important

18 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 8.. Non-stilized dg σ= -2, τ= -6, γ= -2 σ=τ=γ= σ= -2, τ= -6, γ= -2 (No extrapolation) σ=τ=γ= (No extrapolation) L 2 error.. e-5 Mes size / igure 6. L 2 error convergence test for a convection-diffusion problem (µ = ) wit a smoot solution. Different coices of stilization parameters ave been tested. as te gradients on te boundary become larger and te jumps smaller. As opposed, wen working wit pure transport, te effect of tis extrapolation becomes negligible. In any case, te order of convergence is maintained. or te pure convection test, te smooting of te parameters add an extra error to te computed solution, as expected, since it implies more artificial diffusion DMP-preservation. In order to test te performance of te metod in terms of DMP-preservation, we solve te steady problem 4 u + (βu) = in Ω = [, ] [, ], u(x, ) = x [, ], u(x, ) = x [, ], (76) u(, y) = 2 + π arctan(4 (y.7)) y (, ), u(, y) = y (, ), wit β = (cos(π/3), sin(π/3)). As te problem is convection-dominated, te expected result is a propagation in te direction defined by β of te profile imposed in te inflow boundary x =. It is well known tat wen te metod is not stilized, it leads to a solution tat as strong oscillations around te internal and boundary layers. We expect our metod to control suc spurious oscillations, as already proved in te numerical analysis. We use a Q mes, set te tolerance of te nonlinear iterations to 4, and allow a maximum of 5 iterations. We plot te maximum oscillation, defined as OSC = max{, min x Ω u (x), max x Ω (u (x) ), }, (77) at eac iteration. Bot te smoot and te non-smoot metods are tested and bot nonlinear solvers ove are used for te smoot version. Te results sow tat only te ybrid metod is le to converge. Even toug Picard metod wit smoot stilization does not converge it satisfies te DMP up to macine precision. On te contrary, te ybrid metod satisfies te DMP up to te

19 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 9. Non-stilized dg σ= -2, τ= -6, γ= -2 σ=τ=γ= σ= -2, τ= -6, γ= -2 (No extrapolation) σ=τ=γ= (No extrapolation). L 2 error.. e-5 Mes size / igure 7. L 2 error convergence test for a pure convection problem (µ = ) wit a smoot solution. Different coices of stilization parameters ave been tested. tolerance, but it only needs 5 iterations to converge (see 8). Te results obtained are plotted in 9 and are as sarp as te non-smoot ones Tree body rotation. inally, we want to test te DMP-preservation and LED property of te metod for transient problems. To tis end, we use te classical tree body rotation test. We solve te 2D transport equation () in Ω = [, ] [, ] wit µ =, β = ( 2π(y.5), 2π(x.5)). Te initial solution is given in [9] and its interpolation in a mes of 2 2 bilinear elements is displayed in. Te solution to te transport problem is simply a translation in te direction of te convection. In tis case, te initial solution rotates counterclockwise and te final solution is computed at T = after one complete round. Te idea is to compare te initial and te final values to see ow dissipative te metod is and, at te same time, ceck te values of te maximum oscillation in eac time step to see if tere is any violation of te DMP. In order to do so, we ave used te color map plotted in (c), wic takes colors from black to green in te interval [, ] but it uses sades of red in [., ) (,.] and sades of yellow in [.2,.) (.,.2]. Tis way, it is easy to identify te violations of te global DMP of te problem. Te solution is computed wit te dg metod witout any stilization, te smooted stilized metod (in wic we consider bot γ = and γ = 2 ), and te stilized metod witout smooting (σ = τ = γ = ). Te smooted case wit γ = as been considered to reduce te mass lumping activation witout spoiling te convergence of te nonlinear iterations. As we will see in te numerical results, altoug te metod is less dissipative, te final results do not differ muc (see (d) and (f)). We recall tat, for te integration in time, a weigted mass lumping is used and te parameter Q is set to Q = in te smooted case and Q = + in te non-smooted, to minimize te pase error induced by te lumping of te matrix. We ave run te test in a mes of 2 2 bilinear elements and used N t = 2 time steps, wit nonlinear tolerance of 5 4 and a maximum of 5 iterations. Te results are plotted in. We ave also plotted te maximum oscillation in time in 2.

20 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 2. σ=τ=γ= σ= -2, τ= -4, γ= -2 (Picard) σ= -2, τ= -4, γ= -2 (Hybrid). e-6 Oscillation e-8 e- e-2 e-4 e-6 Iteration igure 8. Maximum oscillation as defined in (77) for eac nonlinear iteration performed for solving (76). Te results for bot a smoot and a non-smoot stilization, as well as for different nonlinear scemes are depicted. A Q mes as been used for te tests. (a) σ = 2 ; τ = 4 ; γ = 2. 3 Iterations. (b) σ = τ = γ =. NC. igure 9. Solution of problem (76) using bot te smoot and te non-smoot version of te stilization. A mes ave been used. Actually, instead of printing te maximum oscillation at eac time step we depict te mean value of te maximum in eac bunc of time steps, for improving te result visualization and analysis. We can observe in 2 ow, if te metod is not stilized, te oscillations appear from te first iterations and do not decrease in time, being of order. On te oter and, one can observe tat te stilized version of te metod gives oscillatory results on te first iterations if te metod is not smooted. Tis is due to te fact tat te nonlinear solver is not le to converge in te first time steps and wat is plotted is te result after 5 nonlinear iterations. Instead, wen smooting te stilization, te nonlinear solver converges and te violation of te DMP is of te order of te

21 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 2 (a) 2D (b) 3D (c) Legend igure. Initial solution of tree body rotation test problem discretized in a 2 2 Q mes. tolerance for γ =. Wen using γ = 2, te metod is even more dissipative (as expected since te greater te value of γ te more te sock detector is activated) and te DMP is only violated up to macine precision. We want to point out tat te appearance of jumps on te smoot part of te figures, suc as te cone, is due to te lumping of te mass matrix. Wen avoiding te mass lumping, tose jumps disappear, but te DMP is ten violated. 8. Conclusions In tis work we ave designed a metod tat fulfills te DMP property for te steady multidimensional transport problem wen a dg space discretization is used. In te transient case, togeter wit implicit time stepping, te metod enjoys te LED property. Te original sceme is stilized wit an artificial diffusion grap-laplacian operator. Te edge diffusion is only activated on troublesome regions based on a sock detector tat relies on te jumps of te gradient of te solution around te nodes of te mes, in order to minimize te smearing of te solution and improve te solution in smoot regions. We provide a set of conditions to be satisfied by te stilized formulation to enjoy te DMP (and LED) properties, and designed an artificial edge viscosity to fulfill tese conditions. Te results old for arbitrary meses and space dimensions. Te resulting metod is proved to be DMP-preserving, LED, linearity-preserving, and Lipscitz continuous. We ave also proved te existence of solutions. However, te metod is stil igly nonlinear and it is ard to attain nonlinear solver convergence. Tus, we propose a smoot version of te sceme tat is twice differentile and still enjoys DMP and LED properties. We provide a set of numerical experiments to ceck te features proved in te teoretical analysis, and to sow te improvement in terms of computational cost due to te combination of te smoot version of te sceme wit a Newton nonlinear solver wit line searc. Some interesting future work migt be to extend tese features to approximations of muc more involved equations suc as Euler or compressible Navier-Stokes problems. Acknowledgments SB gratefully acknowledges te support received from te Catalan Government troug te ICREA Acadèmia Researc Program. JB gratefully acknowledges te support received from la Caixa oundation troug its PD scolarsip program. AH gratefully acknowledges te support received from te Catalan Government troug a I fellowsip. We acknowledge te financial support to CIMNE via te CERCA Programme / Generalitat de Catalunya.

22 DIERENTIABLE MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING SCHEMES OR DG METHODS 22 (a) 2D. No stilization (b) 3D. No stilization (c) 2D. σ = 2 ; τ = 4 ; γ = 2 ; Q =. (d) 3D. σ = 2 ; τ = 4 ; γ = 2 ; Q =. (e) 2D. σ = 2 ; τ = 4 ; γ = ; Q =. (f) 3D. σ = 2 ; τ = 4 ; γ = ; Q =. (g) 2D. σ = τ = γ =. NC. () 3D. σ = τ = γ =. NC. igure. Solution of tree body rotation test for different combinations of te stilization parameters. A 2 2 Q mes and Crank-Nicolson time integration wit N t = 3 ave been used.