arxiv: v2 [cs.na] 22 Dec 2016

Transcription

1 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING FINITE ELEMENT SCHEMES BASED ON DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION SANTIAGO BADIA AND JESÚS BONILLA arxiv: v2 [cs.na] 22 Dec 26 Abstract. In tis work, we propose a nonlinear stabilization tecnique for scalar conservation laws wit implicit time stepping. Te metod relies on an artificial diffusion metod, based on a grap- Laplacian operator. It is nonlinear, since it depends on a sock detector. Furter, te resulting metod is linearity preserving. Te same sock detector is used to gradually lump te mass matrix. Te resulting metod is LED, positivity preserving, and also satisfies a global DMP. Lipscitz continuity as also been proved. However, te resulting sceme is igly nonlinear, leading to very poor nonlinear convergence rates. We propose a smoot version of te sceme, wic leads to twice differentiable nonlinear stabilization scemes. It allows one to straigtforwardly use Newton s metod and obtain quadratic convergence. In te numerical experiments, steady and transient linear transport, and transient Burgers equation ave been considered in 2D. Using te Newton metod wit a smoot version of te sceme we can reduce to 2 times te number of iterations of Anderson acceleration wit te original non-smoot sceme. In any case, tese properties are only true for te converged solution, but not for iterates. In tis sense, we ave also proposed te concept of projected nonlinear solvers, were a projection step is performed at te end of every nonlinear iterations onto a FE space of admissible solutions. Te space of admissible solutions is te one tat satisfies te desired monotonic properties (maximum principle or positivity). Keywords: Finite elements, discrete maximum principle, monotonicity, nonlinear solvers, sock capturing Contents. Introduction 2 2. Preliminaries Te continuous problem Finite element spaces and meses Te semi-discrete problem 4 3. Nonlinear stabilization 5 4. Monotonicity properties 7 5. Symmetric mass matrix stabilization 9 6. Lipscitz continuity 9 7. Differentiable stabilization 8. Nonlinear Solvers 2 9. Numerical Experiments Steady problems 3 Date: August 29, 28. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona-3, Edifici C, E-834 Barcelona & Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria, Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Esteve Terrades 5, E-886 Castelldefels, Spain sbadia@cimne.upc.edu. SB was partially supported by te European Researc Council under te FP7 Program Ideas troug te Starting Grant No COMFUS: Computational Metods for Fusion Tecnology and te FP7 NUMEXAS project under grant agreement SB gratefully acknowledges te support received from te Catalan Government troug te ICREA Acadèmia Researc Program. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona-3, Edifici C, E-834 Barcelona & Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria, Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Esteve Terrades 5, E-886 Castelldefels, Spain jbonilla@cimne.upc.edu. JB gratefully acknowledges te support received from la Caixa Foundation troug its PD scolarsip program.

2 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION Transient transport problems Burgers equation 8. Conclusions 9 Appendix A. Proof of Teorem 6. 2 References 25. Introduction Many partial differential equations (PDEs) satisfy some sort of maximum principle or positivity property. However, numerical discretizations usually violate tese structural properties at te discrete level, wit implications in terms of accuracy and stability, e.g., leading to non-pysical local oscillations. It is well-understood now ow to build metods tat satisfy some sort of discrete maximum principle (DMP) based on explicit time integration combined wit finite volume or discontinuous Galerkin scemes [9, 27]. However, implicit time integration is preferred in problems wit multiple scales in time wen te fastest scales are not relevant. E.g., under-resolved simulations of multi-scale problems in time are essential in plasma pysics [2]. Unfortunately, implicit DMP-preserving yperbolic solvers are scarce and not so well developed. In te frame of finite element (FE) discretizations, te local instabilities present in te solution of yperbolic problems ave motivated te use of so-called sock capturing scemes based on artificial diffusion (see, e.g., [8]). Tese metods introduce nonlinear stabilization, in contrast wit classical SUPG-type linear stabilization tecniques [6, 7]. Since linear scemes are at most first-order accurate and igly dissipative [], recent researc on FE tecniques for conservation laws as focused on te development of less dissipative nonlinear scemes. Many of tese ideas come from te numerical approximation of convection dominated convection-diffusion-reaction (CDR), were one encounters similar issues. Te cornerstone of tese metods is te design of a nonlinear artificial diffusion tat vanises in smoot regions and works on discontinuities or sarp layers. Many residual-based diffusion metods ave been considered so far (see, e.g., [] and references terein). Most of tese approaces ave failed to reac DMP-preserving metods. A salient exception is te metod by Burman and Ern [7], wic satisfies a DMP under mes restrictions. Recently, due to some interesting novel approaces in te field, te state-of-te-art in nonlinear stabilization as certainly advanced [ 3, 6, 8, 23, 24]. Implicit FE scemes for yperbolic problems rely on four key ingredients: () Te first ingredient is te definition of te sock detector tat only activates te nonlinear diffusion around socks/discontinuities. Recent nonlinear stabilization tecniques ave been developed based on sock detectors driven by gradient jumps [, 5] or edge differences [3, 23, 24]. Te use of suc scemes was proposed in [5] for D problems and extended to multiple dimensions in []. A salient property of te sceme in [] is tat it is DMP-preserving, but it relies on te DMP of te Poisson operator, wic is only true under stringent constraints on te mes. Anoter salient feature of te gradient-jump diffusion approac in [] is te fact tat it leads to so-called linearity preserving metods, i.e., te artificial diffusion vanises for first order polynomials. Tis property is related to ig-order convergence on smoot regions [25]. A modification of te nonlinear diffusion in [23] tat also satisfies tis property is proposed in [24]. (2) Te second ingredient is te amount of diffusion to be introduced on socks, wic is te amount of diffusion introduced in a first order linear sceme. In tis sense, one can consider flux-corrected transport tecniques [26]. (3) Te tird ingredient is te form of te discrete viscous operator. In order to keep te DMP on arbitrary meses, Guermond and Nazarov ave proposed to use grap-teoretic, instead of PDE-based, operators for te artificial diffusion terms. Tis approac as been used in [3, 29] (for te steady-state convection-diffusion-reaction problem) and in [2] (for linear conservation laws) combined wit artificial diffusion definitions similar to te one in [3].

3 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 3 (4) Te fourt ingredient is te perturbation of te mass matrix, in order to satisfy a DMP. Full mass lumping is one coice, but it introduces an unacceptable pase error. For continuous FE metods, improved tecniques can be found in [4]. Alternatively, limiting-type strategies are used, e.g., in [23, 24]. (5) Te metod in [3] is Lipscitz continuous, wic is needed for te well-posedness of te resulting nonlinear sceme. However, in practice, all te metods presented above are still igly nonlinear, and nonlinear convergence becomes very ard and expensive. It leads to a fift additional ingredient tat as not been considered so far in muc detail. In order to reduce te computational cost of tese scemes, we consider te smooting of te nonlinear artificial diffusion, to make it differentiable up to some fixed order. Te possibility to define smoot nonlinear scemes can improve te nonlinear convergence of te metods and make tem practical for realistic applications. Furter, te smooting step enables advanced linearization strategies based on Newton s metod. It also involves te development of efficient nonlinear solvers, e.g., based on te combination of Newton, line searc, and/or Anderson acceleration tecniques. All te results commented above are restricted to linear (or bilinear) FEs. We are not aware of te existence of ig-order implicit DMP-preserving FE scemes. For explicit time integration and limiters, second order metods can be found in [2]. Te use of p-adaptive scemes tat keep first order scemes around socks as been proposed in [5]. In tis work, we propose a novel nonlinear stabilization metod tat satisfies a DMP, positivity, and local extremum diminising (LED) properties at te discrete level. It combines: () a novel sock detector related to te one in [], wic is simple and linearity preserving; (2) te grap-laplacian artificial viscous term proposed in [3]; (3) an edge FCT-type definition of te amount of diffusion (see [23]); (4) a novel gradual mass lumping tecnique tat exploits te same sock detector used for te artificial diffusion. We prove tat te resulting metod ticks all te boxes, i.e., it is total variation diminising (TVD), DMP, positivity-preserving, linearity preserving, Lipscitz continuous, and introduces low dissipation. Wit regard to te last point, we prove tat te amount of diffusion is te minimum needed in our analysis to prove te DMP. Furter, we consider a novel approac to design a smooted version of te resulting sceme tat is twice differentiable. We prove tat linear preservation is weakly enforced in tis case, but all te oter properties remain uncanged. Finally, we analyze te effect of te smooting in te computational cost, and observe a clear reduction in te CPU cost of te nonlinear solver wen using te smoot version of te metod proposed erein wile keeping almost uncanged te sarp layers of te non-smoot version. Future work will be focused on te entropy stability analysis of tese scemes for nonlinear scalar conservation laws. A partial result in tis direction is te proof of entropy stability for a related metod wen applied to te D Burger s equations (see [5]). Tis work is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 te continuous problem and its discretization using te FE metod are presented. Sect. 3 contains te formulation of a novel nonlinear stabilization metod. Sect. 4 is devoted to te monotonicity analysis of te proposed metod. An alternative approac is presented in Sect. 5. Lipscitz continuity of te metods is proved in Sect. 6. A differentiable version te previous metod is presented in Sect. 7. Sect. 8 is devoted to nonlinear solvers. Different numerical experiments are introduced in Sect. 9. Finally, in Sect. we draw some conclusions. 2. Preliminaries 2.. Te continuous problem. Let Ω R d be a bounded domain, were d is te space dimension, and (, T ] te time interval. Te scalar conservation equation reads: find u(x, t) suc tat t u + f(u) = g, on Ω (, T ], () were f Lip(R; R d ) is te flux. It is also subject to te initial condition u(x, ) = u L (Ω) and boundary condition u(x, t) = u D (x, t) on te inflow Γ in. = {(x, t) Ω (, T ] f(x, t) n(x, t) < }. Tere exist a unique entropy solution u of te above problem tat satisfies te entropy inequalities t E(u) + F (u) for all convex entropies E Lip(R; R) wit its associated entropy fluxes

4 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 4 F i (u) = u E (v)f i(v) dv, i d (see Kružkov [2]). Let us consider te weak form of tis problem consists in seeking u suc tat u = u D on Γ in (, T ] and almost everywere in (, T ], wit g L 2 (Ω). ( t u, v) + (f (u) u, v) = (g, v) v L 2 (Ω), (2) 2.2. Finite element spaces and meses. Let T be a conforming partition of Ω into elements, K. Elements can be triangles or quadrilaterals for d = 2, or tetraedrals or exaedra for d = 3. Te set of interpolation nodes of T is represented by N, wereas N (K) denotes te set of nodes belonging to element K T. Moreover, Ω i is te macroelement composed by te union of te elements K T suc tat i N (K). N (Ω i ) denotes te set of nodes in tat macroelement. Te continuous linear FE space is defined as. { V = v C } (Ω) : v K P k (K) K T (3) for triangular or tetraedral elements (replacing P (K) by Q (K) for quadrilateral or exaedral elements). P (K) (resp., Q (K)) is te space of polynomials wit total (resp., partial) degree less or equal to. Te nodal basis of V is written {ϕ i } i N, and te FE functions can be expressed as v = i N ϕ i v i, were v i is te value of v at node i Te semi-discrete problem. Te semi-discrete Galerkin FE approximation of (2) reads: find u V suc tat u (Γ in, t) = π (u D ) and ( t u, v ) + (f (u ) u, v ) = (g, v ) v V, (4) for t (, T ], wit initial conditions u (, ) = π (u ). π denotes a FE interpolation, e.g., te Scott-Zang projector [28]... Using te notation Mu = (u, ) and F(w )u = (f (w ) u, ) we can write problem (4) in compact form as M t u + F(u )u = g (5) in V, i.e., te dual space of V.. Furter, we define M ij = (ϕj, ϕ i ), F ij (u ) =. (f (u ) ϕ j, ϕ i ), and. g i = (g, ϕi ). In order to carry out te time discretization of (5), let us consider a partition of te time domain (, T ] into sub-intervals (t n, t n+ ], wit =. t < t <... < t N. = T. We consider te Backward- Euler (BE) implicit time integrator to keep at te time-discrete level te monotonicity properties of te semi-discrete problem, leading to te discrete problem: given u. = π (u ) V, compute for n =,..., N Mδ t u n+ + F(u n+ )u n+ = g in V, (6) were δ t u n+. = t n+ (un+ u n ), and t. n+ = t n+ t n. Implicit strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta metods [9] also preserve te monotonic properties at te discrete level [9], under some restrictions on te time step size. For te sake of brevity we consider te BE sceme. Systems (5) and (6) will be supplemented wit additional stabilization terms to minimize te oscillations generated by te Galerkin FE approximation. Of particular interest are metods wic provide solutions tat satisfy te following property for all nodes, for zero forcing terms. Definition 2. (Local DMP). A solution u V satisfies te local DMP if u min i u i u max i, were u max. i = max u j, j N (Ω i)\{i} u min i. = min j N (Ω i)\{i} u j. (7) Actually, for steady problems, if tis is satisfied for all i N, ten te extrema will be at te boundary and tere exist no local extrema. Furtermore, it is useful to define local extremum diminising (LED) metods for transient problems. Definition 2.2 (LED). A metod is called LED if for g = and any time in (, T ], te solution satisfies d t u i if u i is a maximum and d t u i if u i is a minimum. (8) For time-discrete metods, te same definition applies, replacing d t by δ t.

5 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 5 3. Nonlinear stabilization We want to design a linearity preserving LED metod for stabilizing te scalar semi-discrete yperbolic problem (5) (or te discrete problem (6)), described in te previous section. As written above, tis metod is based on a grap-teoretic approac. Let us consider a nonlinear stabilization operator B(u ) : V V and denote B ij(u ) =. B(u )ϕ j, ϕ i. Particularly, we require tat te stabilization term will satisfy te following properties (see also [3]): () compact support: B ij (u ) = if j / N (Ω i ) for any u V, (2) symmetry: B ij (u ) = B ji (u ) for any u V, (3) conservation: j i B ij(u ) = B ii (u ) for any u V, (4) linear preservation: B(u ) = for any u P (Ω). To acieve tis properties we define te nonlinear stabilization term B(w )u, v =. ν ij (w )v i u j l(i, j), u, v V, (9) i N j N (Ω i) were te grap-teoretic Laplacian is defined as l(i, j) =. 2δ ij, and te artificial diffusion computed as ν ij (w ) =. max {α i (w )F ij (w ), α j (w )F ji (w ), } for i j, ν ii (w ) =. ν ij (w ), () j N (Ω i) j i were α i ( ) is te sock detector. We note tat tis coice leads to a symmetric stabilization operator B(w ). In order to define te sock detector, let us introduce some notation. Let i N be a node of te mes, v a vector field, and w a scalar field. Let r ij = x j x i be te vector pointing from nodes. r i to j in N and ˆr ij = ij r ij. Let xsym ij be te point at te intersection between te line tat passes troug x i and x j and Ω i tat is not x j (see Fig. ). Te set of all symmetric nodes wit respect to node i is represented wit N sym (Ω i ). We define r sym. ij = x sym ij x i, and u sym. j = u (x sym ij ). Ten, one can define te jump and te mean of te unknown gradient at node i in direction r ij as u ij { u ˆr ij } ij. = 2. u j u i = r ij + usym j ( u j u i r ij u i, () r sym ij ) j u i. (2) + usym r sym ij We note tat te symmetric nodes and teir corresponding values u sym j are used in te proof of te following results, Lemma 3.2, and Teorem 6., but not required in te implementation of (9). For triangular or tetraedral meses, since u is constant, u sym j can be computed easily as u sym j = u (x i ) + u (x i ) r sym ij. For quadrilateral or exaedral structured (possibly adapted and nonconforming) meses, u sym j is also easy to obtain since j sym is already in N (Ω i ). It also applies for symmetric meses, wen a mes is said to be symmetric wit respect to its internal nodes if for any i N all symmetric nodes j sym N sym (Ω i ) already belong to N (Ω i ). Making use of tese definitions, te proposed sock detector at node i N for a FE solution u reads: α i (u ) =. q j N u (Ω i ) ij if 2 { u j N (Ω i ) ˆr ij } ij j N (Ω { u i) ˆr ij } ij, (3) oterwise, for some q R +. We note tat tis sock detector is motivated from [], were te directional nodalwise jumps and mean values are first used for suc purposes. For triangular or tetraedral meses, te only difference strives in te fact tat te supremum over all j N (Ω i ) in bot te numerator and

6 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 6 Figure. Representation of te symmetric node j sym of j wit respect to i. denominator was used in [] instead of te sum. In te next lemma we sow tat in fact (3) detects extrema. Lemma 3.. Te sock detector α i (u ) defined in (3) is equal to if u as an extremum at point x i. Oterwise, α i (u ) < in general, and α i (u ) = for q =. Proof. Using te fact tat u as an extremum at x i, u ij = u j u i r ij j N (Ω i) j N (Ω i) = j N (Ω i) u j u i r ij + usym j + u i r sym ij (4) u sym j u i r sym = 2 { u ˆr ij }, (5) ij j N (Ω i) since u j u i as te same sign (or it is equal to zero) in all directions. It proves tat α i (u ) = on an extremum. In fact, if te solution does not ave an extremum, tese quantities neiter can ave te same sign nor be zero in all cases, and we only ave j N (Ω i) u ij < j N (Ω i) u j u i r ij + u sym j u i r sym = 2 { u ˆr ij }. (6) ij j N (Ω i) Hence, α i (u ) < wen tere is no extremum at x i. Moreover, for q =, te sock detector vanises in all te nodes tat are not extrema. In addition to te nonlinear stabilization term B(u ), it is necessary to do a mass matrix lumping to prove tat te LED property is satisfied. In te numerical analysis, it is enoug to make tis approximation wen testing against te sape functions corresponding to nodes related to extrema, wic is identified by te sock detector. Terefore, we propose te following stabilized semi-discrete version of (4): ( α i (u ))( t u, ϕ i ) + α i (u )( t u i, ϕ i ) + (f (u ) u, ϕ i ) + ν ij (u )v i u j l(i, j) = (g, ϕ i ) for any i N, j N (Ω i) wit te definition of te sock detector (3) and te nonlinear artificial diffusion (). Tus, te definition of te mass matrix is nonlinear (7) M ij (u ). = ( α i (u ))(ϕ j, ϕ i ) + α i (u )(δ ij, ϕ i ). (8) It can be understood as a mass matrix wit gradual lumping. Full lumping is only attained at extrema. Denoting K(u ). = F(u ) + B(u ), te stabilized problem (7) can be expressed in compact form as Analogously for te discrete problem (6), M(u )d t u + K(u )u = g in V. (9) M(u n+ )δ t u n+ + K(u n+ )u n+ = g n+ in V. (2)

7 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 7 Finally, let us note tat te sock detector (3) leads to te one of Barrenecea and co-workers [3], q j N. (Ω i ) ui uj if α i = ui uj j N (Ω u i) i u j, j N (Ω i (2) ) oterwise, wen restricted to symmetric meses of equilateral triangles. Lemma 3.2. For a symmetric triangular mes were all te edges ave te same lengt, α i in (3) is identical to α i in (2). Proof. For symmetric meses, for every j N (Ω i ), j sym N (Ω i ). So, we can group nodes in N (Ω i ) in pairs, getting 2 (u i u j ) = (u i u j + u i u sym j N (Ω i) j N (Ω i) We proceed analogously for te mean value. Furter, since r ij is identical for all j N (Ω i ) by assumption, we get j N (Ω u i) ij 2 j N (Ω u i) i u j j N (Ω { u = i) ˆr ij } ij j N (Ω u i) i u j. For arbitrary symmetric meses te metods only differ on te weigts of te terms in te sums in (3) and all te required properties stated in (22) are readily satisfied for te use of te sock detector in (2). In general meses, te sock detectors are different, and te one in (2) is not linearity preserving. 4. Monotonicity properties In te sequel, we prove tat te sceme (7) is LED. First, we define a set of necessary conditions on te nonlinear discrete operators tat lead to LED scemes. Tey are te nonlinear extension of te ones for linear systems (see, e.g., [23]). Teorem 4.. Te semi-discrete problem (9) is LED if g(x) = in Ω and, for every node i N suc tat u i is a local extremum, it olds: ij ). M ij (u ) =. δ ij m i, wit m i >, (22) K ij (u ) i j, and K ij (u ) =. (23) j N (Ω i) Moreover, for g(x) (resp. g(x) ) in Ω and for all i N suc tat u i is a local maximum (resp. minimum), if (22) olds te maximum (resp. minimum) is diminising (resp. increasing). Tese results are also true for te discrete problem (2). Furtermore, te discrete problem (2) is positivity-preserving for g = and u. Proof. Let us start proving te LED property. If u i is a maximum, from (9), conditions in (22), and te fact tat α i (u ) =, we ave: g i = m i d t u i + K ij (u )u j m i d t u i + K ij (u )u i = m i d t u i, j N (Ω i) j N (Ω i). for m i = Ω ϕ idω. As a result, d t u i and tus LED. We proceed analogously for te minimum. Te proof is analogous 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 node i in wic te minimum value is attained. Using te previous result for a minimum at te discrete level, we ave tat δ t u m i and tus u m i u m i. It leads to a contradiction, since u m i. Tus, te solution must be positive at all times.

8 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 8 Teorem 4.2 (LED). Te semi-discrete (resp., discrete) problem (9) (resp., (2)) leads to solutions u V tat enjoy te LED property in Def. 2.2 for any q R +. Proof. Assume u reaces an extremum on i N. Ten α i (u ) = and M ij (u )d t u j = m i d t u i wit m i = Ω ϕ i. On te oter and, taking into account te definition of ν ij (u ) in (), te convective term for j i reads K ij (u ) = F ij (u ) max {F ij (u ), α j (u )F ji (u ), }. (24) Using te fact tat j N (Ω F i) ij(u ) = (f (u ), ϕ i ) =, te definition of ν ii (u ), and (9), we ave K ii (u ) = F ii (u ) + max {F ij (u ), α j (u )F ji (u ), } (25) = = j N (Ω i)\{i} j N (Ω i)\{i} j N (Ω i)\{i} F ij (u ) + j N (Ω i)\{i} max {F ij (u ), α j (u )F ji (u ), } (26) K ij (u ). (27) Terefore it is clear tat te conditions stated in Teorem 4. old, tus te metod is LED. Te discrete case is proved analogously. Corollary 4.3 (DMP). Te discrete problem (2) leads to solutions tat satisfy te local DMP property in Def. 2. at every t n, for n =,..., N. Proof. If te maximum (resp., minimum) at time t n is on a node wose value is not on te Diriclet boundary, it is known from te LED property in Teorem 4.2 tat it is bounded above (resp., below) by te maximum (resp., minimum) at te previous time step value. By induction, it will be bounded by te maximum (resp., minimum) at t =. Alternatively, te maximum or minimum is on te Diriclet boundary. It proves te result. Teorem 4.4. Te diffusion defined in () is te one tat introduces te minimum amount of numerical dissipation B(u )u, u required to satisfy (22) wen q =. Proof. Using te definition of te grap-laplacian, te amount of dissipation introduced by te nonlinear stabilization is B(u )u, u = ν ij (u )(u i u j ) 2. i N j N (Ω) Let us consider two connected nodes, i.e., i, j N and j N (Ω i ). If neiter i nor j are extrema, ten α i (u ) = α j (u ) = and ν ij =. Let us assume (witout loss of generality) tat u as an extremum at i. If u i = u j, te dissipation is independent of te expression for ν ij. If u i > u j, α j = (since q = ). Tus, ν ij = max{f ij (u ), }. If F ij (u ), no dissipation is introduced. If F ij (u ) >, ten te diffusion introduced by te metod is F ij (u ) and K ij (u ) =. Let us assume tat we ave a metod tat is less dissipative tan te one proposed erein. Based on te previous analysis, tere exists a pair of connected nodes suc tat u i > u j and te dissipation introduced is smaller tan F ij (u ), for F ij (u ) >. As a result, K ij (u ) >. Tus, te properties in (4.) do not old. It proves te teorem. Furtermore, it can be proved tat te above metod (9) (also (2)) is linearly preserving. In addition, using (2) instead, te metod is still linearly preserving for symmetric meses. Teorem 4.5 (Linearity preservation). Let u be a continuous first order FE approximation of u P (Ω), ten te semi-discrete and discrete problems (9) and (2), respectively, are linearity preserving, in te sense tat te Galerkin problem and te stabilized one are identical.

9 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 9 Proof. If u P (Ω), ten it is obvious tat u is constant. Tus, u ij = for any direction r ij, and α i (u ) = for any i N. Terefore, recalling (), it is easy to see tat ν ij = for any i, j N. Tus, te nonlinear stabilization and gradual lumping terms vanis and te Galerkin sceme is recovered. 5. Symmetric mass matrix stabilization Te nonlinear mass matrix tat as been considered in (8) is nonsymmetric by construction. In any case, we can easily consider a symmetric version of te metod. Anoter alternative strategy to te nonlinear mass matrix definition in (8) is to consider te fully discrete problem (2), keeping te mass matrix at te current time step as a reaction term, leading to te following expression of te artificial diffusion ν ij (w ) =. ν ij (w ) + t max {α im ij,, α j M ji } for i j, ν ii (w ) =. ν ij. j N (Ω i) j i Let us consider anoter notion of DMP property. Definition 5. (Global DMP). A solution satisfies te global DMP if given (x, t) in Ω (, T ] were Γ. = Ω {} Γ in. (28) min u(y, t) u(x, t) max u(y, t) (29) (y,t) Γ (y,t) Γ It is easy to ceck tat te global DMP is a consequence of te local DMP and LED properties. It is possible to prove tat te modified metod wit BE time integration satisfies te global DMP in Def. 5.. Linear preservation can also be easily cecked. Teorem 5.2 (Global DMP). Let u be a continuous first order FE approximation of u. Ten, te BE time discretization of problem (4) wit g =, stabilized wit (9), and using (28) as artificial diffusion, satisfies te global DMP property in Def. (5.) for any q R +. Proof. Let us denote by K(u) and K(u) te stabilized matrix wit te artificial diffusion computed wit () and (28), respectively. Assume u reaces a maximum on x i Ω\Γ in. Ten α i =, and we ave: M ij (u )u j + K ij (u )u j = m i u i + K ij (u )u j, were we ave used te fact tat max {α i M ij,, α j M ji } = M ij. Tus, te equation related to te test function ϕ i leads to j N (Ω i) M ij m i u n j = u n+ i + j N (Ω i) K ij (u ) m i u n+ j u n+ i + j N (Ω i) K ij (u ) m i u n+ i = u n+ i. (3) Note tat Mij m i >, and M ij j N (Ω i) m i =. Hence u n+ i is smaller or equal to a convex combination of u n j, for j N (Ω i ), and tus it is bounded above by te largest of tese values. As a result, u n+ (x) max{max y Ω u n (y), max (y,t n+ ) Γ in u D (y, t n+ )}. Using a recursion argument, we prove te upper bound. We proceed analogously for te case lower bound. It proves te teorem. 6. Lipscitz continuity In te next, we want to prove te Lipscitz continuity of te nonlinear operator at every time step, i.e., T : V V defined as T(u ). = t n+ M(u )u + K(u )u g t n+ M(u )u n.

10 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION In order to prove te Lipscitz continuity of T( ), we must deal wit te nonlinear stabilization and gradual mass lumping terms. Te Galerkin terms can be andled using te fact tat f Lip(R; R d ). Let us introduce te following semi-norm generated by te grap-laplacian operator w l. = 2 i N j N (Ω i) (w i w j ) 2. Furter, we define β as te supremum of f(v) for v V adm, were V adm V is te subspace of functions tat satisfy te global DMP in Def. 5.. Teorem 6.. Let us consider a non-degenerate partition T. Given u n V and g V, te nonlinear operators B( ) : V V and M( ) : V V adm are Lipscitz continuous in V for q N +, since tey satisfy B(u) B(v), z q d β u v l z l, for any z V, M(u) M(v), z C(q d 2 u v l + u v ) z, for any z V. Proof. Te proof of te teorem is included in Appendix A. 7. Differentiable stabilization Te previous nonlinear system is Lipscitz continuous, wic improves te convergence of te nonlinear iterations. In fact, assuming tat we supplement (2) wit a diffusive term, existence and uniqueness can be proved in te diffusive regime (see [3]). However, even using Anderson acceleration nonlinear convergence can be very ard (see [23, 24] and Sect. 9). Based on tese observations, we want to develop metods tat lead to at least twice differentiable operators, i.e., 2 T(u ) 2 u C, using te previous framework. Tis allows te usage of te Newton metod to linearize te system, and reduces te required number of nonlinear iterations. Smootness is acieved by substituting te non-differentiable functions of te previous formulation wit smoot approximations. In order to end up wit a twice differentiable metod, we propose to use te following artificial diffusion:. ν ij = max σ {max σ {α ε,i (F ij (w )), α ε,j F ji (w )}, }, for i j,. ν ii = ν ij. (3) j N (Ω i) j i Te function max σ ( ) is a regularized maximum function max σ {x, y} =. x y,σ + x + y, (32) 2 2. were x,σ = x2 + σ is a smoot approximation of te absolute value. In order to keep dimensional consistency, σ sould be a small parameter of order O ( β 2 l 2(d )), were l is a caracteristic lengt of te problem. Let us define te smoot limiter function f(x) C 2 tat will be used in te definition of α ε, f(x) =. { 2x 4 5x 3 + 3x 2 + x if x < if x. (33) Tis function is used to smootly limit te value of x up to. Furter, let us define anoter smoot approximation of te absolute value, namely x 2,ε. = x 2 x2 + ε.

11 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION Finally, te sock detector is defined as α ε,i (u ). = f j N (Ω u,ε i) ij + γ } j N (Ω 2 i) { u ˆr ij 2,ε ij q, (34) + γ were γ is a small parameter tat prevents division by zero. It as been proved in Lemma 3. tat α i equals wen i is an extremum in Ω i. Let us prove tat tis is still true for α ε,i. Lemma 7.. If u as an extremum on i N ten α ε,i (u ) =. Proof. It is clear tat f(x) equals for x, ten te proof reduces to ceck tat u ij + γ } 2 { u ˆr ij 2,ε + γ. (35) ij,ε Taking into account tat j N (Ω i) j N (Ω i) x2 + ε = x,ε > x x 2,ε = x 2 x2 + ε, (36) and te fact tat u j u i as te same sign (or it is equal to zero) in all directions, it is easy to see tat u ij = u j u i + usym j u i j N (Ω i) r ij r sym j N,ε (Ω ij (37) i),ε u j u i + usym j u i r ij r sym j N (Ω ij (38) i) = u j u i u sym j u i + r ij r sym 2 { u ˆr ij } (39) j N (Ω ij i) j N (Ω i) } 2 { u ˆr ij 2,ε. (4) j N (Ω i) It proves tat α ε,i (u ) = on an extremum. In fact, if te solution does not ave an extremum, tese quantities neiter can ave te same sign nor be zero in all cases. Since u ij = lim ε u ij (4),ε and j N (Ω i) j N (Ω i) 2 { u ˆr ij } = lim j N (Ω i) ε j N (Ω i) 2 { u ˆr ij 2,ε }, (42) bound (6) leads to te fact tat lim ε α ε,i (u ) < wen tere is no extremum on i. It is straigtforward to ceck te following results. Corollary 7.2. System (9) wit te definition of te sock detector (34) and artificial diffusion (3) is LED and satisfies te local DMP. Te metod tends to a linearly preserving sceme as γ. Proof. From lemma 7. and te definition of te regularized maximum (32) it is easy to see tat artificial diffusion in (3) is greater or equal to te one in (). Hence, Teorem 4.2 still olds. Te linearity preservation is straigforward.

12 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 2 Remark 7.3. Note tat te smooted sock detector is not linearly preserving because α ε,i will never be zero. However, for regions were u is constant te gradient is zero, tus te solution is not affected. In te case of u P (Ω), but not constant, α ε,i goes to zero wit γ. Values of γ of order 8 (or even smaller) ave been considered in te numerical experiments section wit good nonlinear convergence properties. Tus, te linearity preservation is virtually preserved in practice. As in te previous section, wen restricted to symmetric meses, te following approximation (similar to te one in Barrenecea et al. [3]) of (34) maintains te same properties. j N (Ω u,ε i) i u j + q γ α ε,i = f j N (Ω u i) i u j 2,ε + γ, (43) wit ε O( 2 ε) and γ O(γ). 8. Nonlinear Solvers In tis section te metods used for solving te system of nonlinear equations resulting from te above formulation (2) wit te artificial diffusion defined in (3) is discussed. Taking advantage of te differentiability of te stabilization described in Sect. 7, Newton s metod is used for te smoot version of te metod. In addition, we use fixed point iterations wit Anderson acceleration to compare against Newton s metod performance. In order to define te scemes, it is useful to write te time-discrete problem (2) as A(u n+ )u n+ = G (44) were G is te force vector. Let J(u n+ ) =. T(un+ ) be te Jacobian. u n+ Since te above problem is nonlinear we will solve it iteratively. We denote by u k,n+ te k-t iteration of u at time step n +. Let us define some auxiliary variables used in te definition of te algoritms: m denotes te number of previous nonlinear iterations used in Anderson acceleration, s is te slope resulting form fitting te last m nonlinear errors, s min is te minimum slope allowed before increasing te relaxation, ω is te relaxation parameter, ω min is its allowed minimum, k max is te maximum nonlinear iterations allowed, tol is te nonlinear tolerance, and nlerr is te nonlinear error. For te non-differentiable metods in Sect. 3 we use Picard linearization wit Anderson acceleration (see Alg. ). Our particular implementation also includes a simple convergence rate test, were it is decided if te relaxation parameter sould be reduced or not. Tis improves te global convergence rate and te robustness of te metod. Moreover, we add a projection onto V adm to ensure tat te global DMP in Def. 5. is satisfied at all nonlinear iterations. Tis step is of special interest in te case of solving for variables tat cannot become negative, e.g., te density. In tis case, te projection onto te space of admissible solutions is performed truncating te obtained solution. However, more sopisticated metodologies can be also applied but at a iger computational cost. For te differentiable metod, Newton s linearization is used (see Alg. 2). In addition, we supplement it wit te line searc metod to improve robustness. We use numerical D minimization of te residual norm up to a tolerance of 4 for te line searc metod. Following te same approac in Alg., a projection to te FE space of admissible solutions can be performed in Alg. 2. As said before, tis step ensures tat for all nonlinear iterations te solution satisfies te global DMP. Te numerical experiments in te next section sow tat te modified metod keeps quadratic convergence, even toug we do not ave a teoretical analysis.

13 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 3 Algoritm : Fixed point iterations wit relaxed Anderson acceleration Input: u,n+, m, s min, ω min, tol, A, G, k max Output: u k,n+,k k =, nlerr = tol wile (nlerr k tol) and (k < k max ) do Set m k = min(k, m) Solve A(u k,n+ )ũ k,n+ = G Compute r k,n+ = ũ k,n+ u k,n+ Minimize m k i= ξk i rk mk +i,n+ wit respect to ξ k i subject to m k Set u k+,n+ Project u k+,n+ Set nlerr k = uk+,n+ = ( ω k ) m k i= ξk i uk m+i,n+ to V adm u k,n+ u k+,n+ Compute te slope (s) of {nlerr i } wit k i k m k if (s < s min ) and (ω > ω min ) ten Set ω k+ = ω k. else Set ω k+ = ω k Update k = k + i= ξk i = + ω k m k i= ξk i ũk mk +i,n+ Algoritm 2: Newton s metod + Line searc Input: u,n+,u n, tol, J, R, k max Output: u k,n+,k k =, nlerr = tol wile (nlerr k tol) and (k < k max ) do Solve J(u k,n+ = T(u k,n+ ) u k,n+ Minimize T(u k,n+ Set u k+,n+ Project u k+,n+ = u k,n+ ) + ξ k u k,n+ ) wit respect to ξ [, ] + ξ k u k,n+ to V adm Set nlerr k = ξk u k,n+ Update k = k + u k+,n+ 9. Numerical Experiments 9.. Steady problems. First, in order to test te previous formulation, te convergence to a smoot solution is analyzed. For tis purpose, te following equation is solved (vu) = in Ω = [, ] [, ], u = u D on Γ in, wit v(x, y). = (, ), and inflow boundary conditions u D = y y 2 on Ω\{x = }. Tis problem consists in te transport of te parabolic profile along te x direction, wic as te analytical solution u(x, y) = y y 2. Fig. 2 sows te convergence rates using te previously defined formulation ((2) wit (3)), and te Galerkin formulation. To perform tis test, an initial mes of 2 2 Q as been considered, ten successive refinements ave been performed up to a Q mes. Analogous meses as been also used for P FE. Newton s metod as been used wit q = 4, ε = 7, σ = β 4 8 and γ =. In tis case, σ as been scaled as β 2 L 2(d 3) 4 in order to recover optimal convergence, (45)

14 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 4 were L denotes a caracteristic lengt of te pysical domain Ω. As desired, te convergence rates are not affected by te stabilization, wile (as expected) te stabilized solutions ave iger errors. -2 P Galerkin Q Galerkin P Stabilized Q Stabilized -3 ku! uk n x = n y Figure 2. Convergence test, L 2 (Ω) error versus size of te mes. For P and Q FE meses ranging from = /2 to = /96. Newton s metod as been used wit parameters q = 4, ε = 7, σ = β 4 8 and γ =. A typical linear test to assess te performance of a sock capturing metod is te propagation of a discontinuity. Consider now te previous yperbolic PDE (45) wit v(x, y) =. ( /2, sin π /3), and inflow boundary conditions u D = on {x = } {y >.7} and y =, wile u D = at te rest of te inflow boundary. Tis problem as te following analytical solution { if y >.7 + 2x sin π/3, u(x, y) = (46) oterwise. At Fig. 3(a), te numerical solution using te stabilization in (3) is sown. A Q mes ave been used. Te values cosen for te parameters in (3) are q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. Tis parameter coice makes te solution at te outflow sarp wile te DMP is always satisfied. Furtermore, convergence is not jeopardized tanks to te smooted stabilization. Particularly, it took 8 iterations for te Newton s metod to converge to a nonlinear tolerance of 6. Te non-smoot version in Fig. 3(b) ((9) wit ()) did not converge using Anderson acceleration, adding a fixed relaxation parameter of ω =.5 took 392 iterations, and 7 wit Alg.. In any case, observing Fig. 4, were te outflow profile is depicted, no apparent improvement on accuracy is observed wen using te non-smoot version. Fig. 5 sows te solution for several combinations of q and ε, wit σ = β ε 5 and γ =, solved wit te two nonlinear solvers presented in te previous section over a Q mes. Furtermore, te u u L and u u errors, computed at te wole domain and restricted to te outflow boundary, are listed in Table. Tese results sow tat, as expected, eiter increasing q or reducing ε te L error diminises. Neverteless, te computational cost also increases at a iger rate. Te same can be observed for te L 2 error. It is sligtly reduced after increasing q or diminising ε, wile tis makes nonlinear convergence muc arder. Moreover, comparing bot nonlinear solvers in Sect. 8, it is important to note tat using Newton s metod te number of nonlinear iterations is reduced between to 5 times.

15 u MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 5 (a) Smoot stabilization (34), wit parameters q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. (b) Non-smoot version (3) wit q = 25. Figure 3. Stabilized solution of te straigt propagation of a discontinuity test using te steady version of discrete problem (2) wit two stabilization coices (34) or (3) Non-smoot version Smooted stabilization x Figure 4. Stabilized solution of te straigt propagation of a discontinuity test using te steady version of discrete problem (2) wit two stabilization coices (34) and (3). Te stabilization parameters used for te smooted version are q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. It is important to analyze te solution at eac nonlinear iteration. If te projection to te space of admissible solutions is not performed, it is possible tat te solution does neiter satisfy te local nor te global DMP (Def. 2. or 5., resp.) at some nonlinear iterations. Te DMP is only proved wen convergence is attained. We denote by global DMP violation te difference between te global extremum of te analytical solution and te actual global extremum of te numerical solution. Fig. 6 sows te global DMP violation of te maximum and te minimum values produced at eac nonlinear iteration for different values of q, ε, and σ. For q = 25, te global DMP is clearly not satisfied at te beginning of te iterative process. In tis particular case, tis does not destroy te nonlinear convergence, but tis is not te case in some oter problems, e.g. Euler s equations. Terefore, adding a projection step to V adm is igly recommended. Furter, it can be observed in Table tat in practice te projection step almost does not affect Newton convergence rate. Finally, it is wort to test te nonlinear convergence of te metod as te mes is refined for a problem wit a discontinuity. For tis purpose, we ave solved te previous bencmark wit q = 4, ε = 2, σ = β 4 6, and γ =. Te used meses range form 2 2 Q to Q. At Fig. 7, te number of nonlinear iterations for eac mes size is depicted. For Alg. it can be observed tat te number of iterations is increasing. On te contrary, tis beavior is muc less pronounced for Alg. 2; te number of iterations sligtly increases and remains constant in te last interval.

16 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 6 Table. Straigt propagation test errors and iterations, using te steady version of discrete problem (2) and nonlinear diffusion (3), for different values of q and ε, σ = β ε 5, γ =, and bot nonlinear solvers in Sect. 8. q ε Iterations L L error error L L 2 error 2 error A Ap N Np at Γ out at Γ out e e e-2.23e e-2 5.6e-2 8.4e-2.8e e-2 5.9e e-2.7e e-2 5.8e e-2.7e e-2 5.e e-2.7e e e e-2.2e e e e-2 9.7e e e e e e e e-2 9.4e e e-2 6.8e e e e e-2.e e-2 3.4e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e-2 4.8e e-2.e e e e e e e-2 5.9e e e e e-2 8.8e e e e-2 8.5e-2 A: Alg. witout projecting to V adm, Ap: Alg.. N: Alg. 2 witout projecting to V adm, Np: Alg. 2. Consider now te yperbolic PDE (45) on Ω = [, ] [, ] wit v(x, y) =. (y, x), and inflow boundary conditions { if.35 < x <.65, u D = (47) oterwise. Tis particular configuration as te following analytical solution { if.35 < x2 + y u(x, y) = 2 <.65, (48) oterwise. At Fig. 8 te solutions at te outflow boundary are depicted for several combinations of q and ε, wit σ = β ε 5 and γ =. In all cases, we ave considered te two scemes presented in Sect. 8 using a Q FE mes. As for te previous numerical experiment, we collect te number of iterations and te errors in Table 2. We observe tat it is particularly difficult to converge to te solution for q = and small values of ε. In any case, for q equal to 4 or greater, te number of iterations increase wit q, as naturally expected. We also observe in tis test tat te number of nonlinear iterations can be igly reduced using Newton s metod. Particularly, it reduces te number of nonlinear iterations up to 2 times. 3D plots of te smootest and te sarpest solutions in Fig. 8 (respectively top-left and bottom-rigt subfigures) are sown in Fig. 9. Fig. sows tat in tis second test, as in te previous one, if te projection step is not performed te global DMP (Def. 5.) is not satisfied at all nonlinear iterations. Tis is specially evident for te combination sown in te figure, i.e., ig values of q and low values of ε and σ Transient transport problems. Let us test te performance of te stabilization metod in Sect. 7 for transient problems. For tis purpose we will consider te 3 body rotation bencmark tat reads as: t u + (vu) = in Ω = [, ] [, ], u = on Γ in, (49) u = u at t =,

17 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 7 42 (42) A it., 9 (9) N it. 42 (43) A it., 8 (8) N it. 58 (5) A it., 7 (7) N it. 57 (5) A it., 7 (7) N it. q = (5) A it., 8 (8) N it..5 6 (58) A it., () N it (6) A it., () N it (66) A it., () N it. q = (62) A it., 9 (9) N it (7) A it., () N it (82) A it., 3 (3) N it (7) A it., 2 (2) N it. q = (39) A it., 2 () N it (57) A it., 2 (9) N it (54) A it., 5 (5) N it (6) A it., 8 (7) N it. q = " =! " =!2 " =!3 " =!4 Figure 5. Straigt propagation test solution at te outflow boundary Ω\Γ in. Using te steady version of discrete problem (2) and nonlinear diffusion (3), for different values of q and ε, σ = β ε 5, γ =, and bot nonlinear solvers in Sect. 8. Te result in brackets sows te number of iterations if no projection to V adm is done. were v. = ( /2 y, x /2) and ( ) u (x, y) =. 4 + cos π (x.25) 2 +(y.5) 2.5 /4 if (x.5) 2 +(y.25) 2 /.5 if if (x.25) 2 +(y.5) 2 /.5 (x.5)2 +(y.25) 2 /.5 { (x.5) 2 +(y.75) 2 /.5.55 < x <.45, y >.85. (5) Te above problem is solved in a 5 5 Q FE mes, wit solver parameters q = 25, γ = 8, σ = β, and ε = 4. Te discretization in time is performed using te BE metod wit a time step of 3. At Fig. (a), te initial solution is depicted. Figs. (b) to (d) sow te solution after one revolution (at time t = 2π). Te solution obtained wit te stabilization in (3), (28), and () are depicted in Figs. (b), (c), and (d), respectively. It is observed tat te symmetric mass matrix metod yields sligtly more diffusive solutions tan te LED metod. Tis can be better observed in Fig. 2, were a cross-section of eac of te figures rotated is depicted at t = and after one revolution (t = 2π) for all tree metods. As naturally expected, regularizing te stabilization makes te metod faster to converge but te solution becomes smooter. Neverteless, te regularization parameters (σ and ε) allow one to take te coice tat better fits te requirements, eiter a faster but smooter metod or te opposite. In any case, all scemes satisfy te DMP at all time steps.

18 DMP violation DMP violation DMP violation DMP violation MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 8 # 2!3 #! Minumum value Maximum value Iteration (a) Using Alg. wit q =, ε =, σ = β 6, and γ =..5 - Minumum value Maximum value Iteration (b) Using Alg. 2 wit q =, ε =, σ = β 6, and γ =. # 2! Minumum value Maximum value Iteration (c) Using Alg. wit q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. -2 Minumum value Maximum value Iteration (d) Using Alg. 2 wit q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. Figure 6. Evolution of global DMP violation during nonlinear iterations wen avoiding te projection step in Algs. and 2 for te straigt propagation of a discontinuity test Burgers equation. Finally, let us test our stabilization wit a nonlinear transient problem. Particularly te 2D Burgers equation, i.e. equation (49) wit v =. (, ) u /2, is solved on Ω = [, ] [, ] using a 5 5 Q mes. Te discretization in time is performed using te BE metod wit a time step of 2. Te initial conditions at t = are u (x, y) =..2 if x <.5 and y >.5 if x >.5 and y >.5.5 if x <.5 and y <.5.8 if x >.5 and y <.5, (5) and te solution is advanced until t =.5. Te following stabilization parameters ave been used for obtaining te results in Fig. 3(a): q =, ε = 3, σ = β 6, and γ = 8. Altoug te parameters used are not enforcing a particularly sarp solution (see Figs. 5 and 8), Fig. 3(a) sows properly transported and minimally smeared socks. Only in te lower rigt region te metod appears to be more diffusive tan desired. Notice tat in tat region te gradient in te x direction spreads as y increases, wile it sould not. Neverteless, in Fig. 3(b), tat sows te solution for q = 4, ε = 4, σ = β 7, and γ = 8.

19 Iterations MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 9 8 Fixed point (Alg. ) Newton (Alg. 2) n x = n y Figure 7. Straigt propagation test nonlinear iterations as mes refined from 2 2 Q to Q, for bot Alg. and Alg. 2. Te sock capturing parameters used are q = 4, ε = 2, σ = β 4 6, and γ =. Table 2. Circular propagation test errors and iterations, using te steady version of discrete problem (2) and nonlinear diffusion (3), for different values of q and ε, σ = β ε 5, γ =, and bot nonlinear solvers in Sect. 8. q ε Iterations L L error error L L 2 error 2 error A Ap N Np at Γ out at Γ out e-.93e- 2.e- 2.36e e-.5e-.74e- 2.5e- 3.5e-.42e-.68e-.99e e-.4e-.68e-.98e e-.82e-.97e- 2.3e e-2.5e-.55e-.84e e-2 9.3e-2.34e-.64e e e-2.29e-.6e e-2 8.8e-2.28e-.59e e-.8e-.97e- 2.3e e-2.e-.53e-.82e e-2 8.8e-2.28e-.57e e e-2.8e-.5e e e-2.6e-.48e e-.8e-.97e- 2.3e e-2.7e-.5e-.8e e-2 7.5e-2.24e-.54e e e-2.e-.44e e-2 6.4e-2.6e-.39e- A: Alg. witout projecting to V adm, Ap: Alg.. N: Alg. 2 witout projecting to V adm, Np: Alg. 2. te metod is less diffusive and te obtained socks are even sarper. In any case, bot coices satisfy te DMP for all time steps.. Conclusions In tis work, we ave considered a nonlinear stabilization tecnique for te FE approximation of scalar conservation laws wit implicit time stepping. Te metod relies on an artificial diffusion metod, based on a grap-laplacian operator. Te artificial diffusion is judiciously cosen in order to satisfy a local DMP for steady problems. It is nonlinear, since it depends on a sock detector. Furter,

20 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 2 3 (3) A it., 9 (9) N it. 54 ({) A it., () N it. { ({) A it., () N it. { (96) A it., 9 (9) N it. q = (23) A it., () N it (64) A it., 5 (5) N it..5 (5) A it., 22 (22) N it ({) A it., 24 (24) N it. q = (23) A it., () N it (73) A it., 5 (5) N it (95) A it., 9 (9) N it..5 9 () A it., 22 (22) N it. q = (22) A it., 4 (4) N it (45) A it., 5 (6) N it..5 7 (77) A it., 2 (2) N it..5 9 (3) A it., 24 (23) N it. q = " =! " =!2 " =!3 " =!4 Figure 8. Circular propagation test solution at te outflow boundary Ω\Γ in. Using te steady version of discrete problem (2) and nonlinear diffusion (3), for different values of q and ε, σ = β ε 5, γ = and bot nonlinear solvers in Sect. 8. Te result in brackets sows te number of iterations if no projection to V adm is done. te resulting metod is linearity preserving. Te same sock detector is used to gradually lump te mass matrix. Te resulting metod is LED, positivity preserving, and also satisfies a global DMP. Lipscitz continuity as also been proved. However, te resulting sceme is igly nonlinear, leading to very poor nonlinear convergence rates, even using Anderson acceleration tecniques. It is due to te fact tat te nonlinear operator to be inverted at every time step is non-differentiable. Te critical problem of nonlinear convergence of implicit monotonic metods based on nonlinear artificial diffusion ave already been previously reported in te literature (see [22]). As a result, we propose a smoot version of te sceme. It leads to twice differentiable nonlinear stabilization scemes, wic allows one to straigtforwardly use Newton s metod using te exact Jacobian. Twice differentiability ensures quadratic convergence. We ave considered two nonlinear solvers, namely Anderson acceleration and Newton s metod. We ave observed numerically tat te effect of te smootness as a positive impact in te reduction of te computational cost. Te impact of using Newton s metod versus Anderson acceleration is also very positive. In general, using te Newton metod wit a smoot version of te metod we can reduce to 2 times te number of iterations of Anderson acceleration wit te original non-smoot algoritms. All te monotonic properties are satisfied (as teoretically proved) in te numerical experiments. Steady and transient linear transport, and transient Burgers equation ave been considered in 2D. In any case, tese properties are only true for te converged solution, but not for iterates. In tis sense, we ave also proposed te concept of projected nonlinear solvers, were a projection step is

21 DMP violation DMP violation MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 2 (a) Smootest solution wit parameters: q =, ε =, σ = β 6, and γ =. (b) Sarpest solution wit parameters: q = 25 and ε = 4, σ = β 9, and γ =. Figure 9. Stabilized solution of te circular convection test using te steady version of te discrete problem (2) and te nonlinear diffusion (3) for two different parameter coices..2 # 4! Minumum value Maximum value -6-8 Minumum value Maximum value Iteration (a) Using Alg Iteration (b) Using Alg. 2 Figure. Evolution of global DMP violation during nonlinear iterations wen avoiding te projection step in Algs. and 2 for te circular propagation of a discontinuity. Using q = 25, ε = 4, σ = β 9, γ =. performed at te end of every nonlinear iterations onto a FE space of admissible solutions. Te space of admissible solutions is te one tat satisfies te desired monotonic properties (maximum principle or positivity). Te projection as no effect on te quality of te nonlinear convergence. Future work sould tackle te entropy stability analysis of te resulting scemes wen applied to nonlinear problems. Some initial results in tis direction can be found in [5]. Te extension to systems of conservation laws and iger order metods in space and time is anoter interesting line of researc. Appendix A. Proof of Teorem 6. Let us proof Teorem 6.. We assume tat te FE mes is quasi-uniform in order to reduce tecnicalities. However, te proof for Lipscitz continuity can be extended to more general meses. We denote A = cb as A B and A < cb as A B, for any positive constant c tat does not depend on te numerical or pysical parameters.

22 MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION 22 (a) Initial conditions. (b) LED sceme. (c) Global DMP sceme. (d) LED DMP nonsmoot stabilization. Figure. 3 Body rotation test results using discrete problem (2) and two different artificial diffusions ((3) leading an LED sceme, and (28) wit (34) leading a global DMP sceme). Using a 5 5 Q element mes, and parameters: q = 25, γ = 8, σ = β, ε = 4, and t = 3. From te definition of te nonlinear stabilization in (9), we get B(u)u, z B(v)v, z ν ij (v)l(i, j)(u j v j )z i (52) i N j N (Ω i) + (ν ij (u) ν ij (v))l(i, j)u j z i. (53) i N j N (Ω i)

23 u u u MONOTONICITY-PRESERVING DIFFERENTIABLE NONLINEAR STABILIZATION Cylinder cross-section.8.6 Cone cross-section Sinus cross-section Initial conditions LED (Non-smoot 8) LED (smoot 8) Global DMP x x x Figure 2. Cross-sections of eac for te figures rotated in te tree body rotation bencmark. Te parameters used are q = 25, γ = 8, σ = β, ε = 4, and t = 3, in a 5 5 Q element mes. Te discrete problem (2) is used in combination wit tree different artificial diffusions (3) and () leading to a LED sceme, and (28) leading to a global DMP sceme. (a) Solution for:q =, ε = 2, σ = β 6, and γ = 8. (b) Solution for: q = 4, ε = 3, σ = β 7, and γ = 8. Figure 3. Burger s equation solutions at t =.5 using discrete problem (2) and () wit (3). Using a 5 5 Q element mes, t = 2, and two sets of parameters q, γ, σ, and ε. Using te definition of β, te Caucy-Scwarz inequality, te fact tat ϕ i C d/2, and te inverse inequality v v for v V (see [4]), we get: for any w V adm i N j N (Ω i) F ij (w) β ϕ i L 2 ϕ j L 2 d β, (54). Using (54), te first term in te RHS of (52) is bounded as follows: ν ij (v)l(i, j)(u j v j )z i d β u v l z l. i N j N (Ω i) Te second term is bounded using te Caucy-Scwarz inequality: 2 (ν ij (u) ν ij (v))l(i, j)u j z i 2 (ν ij(u) ν ij (v)) 2 (u i u j ) 2 z l. (55) i N j N (Ω i)