arxiv: v2 [math.na] 17 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 arxv: v2 [math.na] 17 an 218 An Energy Stable Approach for Dscretzng Hyperbolc Equatons wth Nonconformng Dscontnuous Galerkn Methods eremy E. Kozdon Lucas C. Wlcox Receved: date / Accepted: date Abstract When nonconformng dscontnuous Galerkn methods are mplemented for hyperbolc equatons usng quadrature, exponental energy growth can result even when the underlyng scheme wth exact ntegraton does not support such growth. Usng lnear elastcty as a model problem, we propose a skew-symmetrc formulaton that has the same energy stablty propertes for both exact and nexact quadrature-based ntegraton. These stablty propertes are mantaned even when the materal propertes are varable and dscontnuous, and the elements are nonaffne e.g., curved. Adonally, we show how the nonconformng scheme can be made conservatve and constant preservng wth varable materal propertes and curved elements. The analytc stablty, conservaton, and constant preservng results are confrmed through numercal experments demonstratng the stablty as well as the accuracy of the method. Keywords dscontnuous Galerkn nonconformng meshes energy stablty lnear elastcty skew-symmetry Mathematcs Subject Classfcaton 21 65M12 65M6 1 Introducton In ths paper, we consder the energy stablty of the sem-dscrete dscontnuous Galerkn method on nonconformng meshes. Two key buldng blocks for the work are the use of a skew-symmetrc form of the governng equatons and the projecton The vews expressed n ths document are those of the authors and do not reflect the offcal polcy or poston of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. Approved for publc release; dstrbuton unlmted eremy E. Kozdon Lucas C. Wlcox Department of Appled Mathematcs, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA E-mal: {jekozdon,lwlcox}@nps.edu

2 2 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox or nterpolaton of both the tral and test functons to nonconformng mortar elements. It has long been recognzed that dscretzng hyperbolc equatons n skewsymmetrc form s advantageous; see for nstance [27]. Recently, there has been a resurgence of nterest n skew-symmetrc formulatons to mprove robustness of hgh-order methods; see [6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 21, 24]. The skew-symmetrc form decouples the stablty of the dscontnuous Galerkn dscretzaton of the equatons nto a volume and surface component. The stablty of the volume terms comes drectly from the use of the weak dervatve dervatves of the test functons and the stablty of the surface terms comng from a sutably chosen flux. Ths stablty does not requre a dscrete ntegraton-by-parts property.e., summaton-by-parts [2] nor a dscrete chan rule. We note that when the operators do have a summaton-byparts property ths can be used to flp the weak dervatves back to strong dervatves wthout mpactng the stablty of the method though n the nonconformng method presented here, the surface ntegrals that result from ths procedure would be over an element face and not the correspondng mortar element. Skew-symmetry also ensures that the same treatment s used for nonconformng faces n the prmal and dscrete adjont equatons. For example, ths can be useful when developng dscretely exact dscretzatons for hyperbolc optmzaton problems [25]. In ths work, we merge the deas of skew-symmetry wth nonconformng meshes. Koprva [14] and Koprva, Woodruff, and Hussan [17] lad much of the groundwork for the use of nonconformng dscontnuous Galerkn method for hyperbolc problems. These methods were analyzed by Bu-Thanh and Ghattas [3], where t was shown that when nexact quadrature s used, constant coeffcent problems on affne meshes can have energy growth that s not present n the method when exact ntegraton s used. Recently, Fredrch et al. [1] proposed a smlar scheme for nonconformng SBP operators. In ther work, affne meshes wth constant coeffcents are consdered and the nonconformng characterstc of the dscretzaton are due to dfferent approxmaton wthn the elements.e., hangng elements are not consdered. An mportant dfference between ths work and Fredrch et al. s that here we consder the mpact of nonconformng mesh geometry and curvlnear coordnate transforms.e., non-affne meshes. Here we expand upon the lterature related to skew-symmetrc dscretzatons by showng that the skew-symmetrc approach s of value for nonconformng methods ether due to hangng nodes n the mesh or changes n element spaces. Two crtcal deas n ths work are: the use of a skew-symmetrc form for lnear elastcty so that ntegraton by parts s not needed dscretely; and evaluaton of the skew-symmetrc surface ntegrals n a mortar space so that all surface ntegrals are consstent even when varatonal crmes are present. The frst pont s now well-known n the lterature. The second pont s the core contrbuton of the work and a pont that has not been dscussed prevously n the lterature. Unlke many prevous skew-symmetrc formulatons, for nonconformng meshes skew-symmetry s also of value for constant coeffcent problems on affne

3 Nonconformng DG 3 meshes to remove the potental exponental growth of energy when nexact quadrature s used 1. In adon to stablty, t s often desrable that schemes be both conservatve and constant preservng. These propertes can be lost due to a lack of a dscrete product rule f care s not taken n the computaton of the metrc terms [13]. Wth nonconformng meshes, adonal challenges arse as the mesh may become dscretely dscontnuous due to dfferent alasng errors beng ncurred across nonconformng faces. By enforcng a set of accuracy constrants on the dscrete operators as well as requrng a dscrete verson of the dvergence theorem, we are able to show that our proposed dscretzaton s both conservatve and constant preservng. For soparametrc, hexahedral elements ths wll necesstate that the mesh s made dscretely contnuous, or watertght, after a global coordnate transform and that alasng errors n the calculaton of metrc terms be made consstent across nonconformng faces. Throughout ths paper, we take varable coeffcent elastodynamcs as a model problem, though the approach s straghtforward to generalze to other lnear wave problems that can be wrtten n skew-symmetrc form. In the results secton we consder soparametrc, hexahedral elements but the stablty analyss apples to other element types. 2 Contnuous Problem We consder a velocty-stress formulaton of tme-dependent lnear elastcty n the doman Ω R d : ρ v t = σ j σ j, = 1 x j t 2 C v jkl + v j, 1 x j x where d = 2 or d = 3. Unless otherwse noted, summaton over 1, 2, 3 s mpled for terms wth twce repeated subscrpts; free subscrpts can take any of the values 1, 2, 3; and n the case of d = 2 the dervatves wth respect to x 3 are taken to be. Here v s the partcle velocty n the x drecton and σ j are the components of the symmetrc stress tensor such that σ j = σ j. The scalar ρ s the densty of the materal and C jkl are the components of the fourth-order stffness tensor that has the symmetres: C jkl = C klj = C jkl = C jlk. In the results 5, sotropc elastcty s consdered where C jkl = λδ j δ kl + µ δ k δ jl + δ l δ jk, 2 wth λ and µ denotng Lamé s frst and second parameters µ s also known as the shear modulus, and δ j denotng the Kronecker delta that takes a value of 1 f = j and otherwse. Both ρ and C jkl are allowed to be spatally dependent and may nclude jump dscontnutes. 1 Even n the conformng case, the choce of the quadrature rule for some element types may requre skew-symmetrc form even for constant coeffcent problems on affne meshes e.g., SEM quadrature for the quadrlateral face of pyramds [6].

4 4 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox Snce the focus of ths work s the treatment of nonconformng mesh nterfaces, only the tracton-free boundary conon on Ω s consdered. That s, f n s a component of the outward pontng normal vector to Ω and T = σ j n j are components of the tracton vector, then the boundary conon s T = on Ω. Crtcal to the stablty analyss that follows s the exstence of an energy norm n whch the energy of the sem-dscrete numercal scheme s non-ncreasng. Ths s motvated by the fact that the contnuous problem wth the tracton-free boundary conon does not support energy growth, where the energy n the soluton s defned as E = Ω ρ 2 v v σ js jkl σ kl. 3 Here S jkl denotes the components of the fourth-order complance tensor whch s the nverse of the stffness tensor,.e., s j C jkl S klnm s nm = s j s j for all symmetrc second-order tensors wth components s j. The energy equaton 3 s a well-defned norm f ρ > and the complance tensor s postve defnte,.e., s j S jkl s kl > for all non-zero, symmetrc second-order tensors wth components s j e.g., see [22]. In the case of sotropc elastcty the components of the complance tensor are λ S jkl = 2µ2µ + 3λ δ jδ kl + 1 4µ δ kδ jl + δ l δ jk, 4 and the complance tensor s postve defnte f µ > and K = λ + 2µ/3 > ; K s known as the bulk modulus of the materal. To see that the tracton-free boundary conon does not lead to energy growth, the tme dervatve of the energy equaton 3 s consdered: de = v ρv Ω t + σ σ kl σ j v js jkl = v + σ j t Ω x j x j 5 where 1 has been used to change tme dervatves nto spatal dervatves. By applyng the dvergence theorem and substtutng n the tracton-free boundary conon, the energy rate of change s then We formalze ths n the followng theorem. de = v σ j n j = v T =. 6 Ω Ω Theorem 1 Problem 1 wth the tracton-free boundary conon T = on Ω satsfes the energy estmate Et = E. Proof Integratng 6 gves the result Et = E.

5 Nonconformng DG 5 full-sde mortar m 4 m 3 m 2 e 3 e 1 e 1 e 2 m 5 m 6 e 3 m 8 m 1 e 2 m 9 m 7 m 4 splt-sde mortar m 5 e 1 m 6 m 7 m 2 e 3 m 9 m 1 m 3 2 e m 8 m 1 Fg. 1 left Example of a nonconformng mesh. center Example of a mortar decomposton of the mesh, where the mortar elements are conformng to the larger element across the nonconformng faces; we refer to ths type of mortar element as a full-sde mortar. rght Example of a mortar decomposton of the mesh, where the mortar elements conform to the smaller elements across the nonconformng faces; we refer to these type of mortar elements as a splt-sde mortar. center and rght The arrows on the mortar faces represent the drecton of the canoncal and arbtrary mortar element normals. 3 Notaton for the Dscontnuous Galerkn Method 3.1 Mesh and Geometry Transformaton In ths work, the fnte element mesh s defned n two steps. Frst, the doman s parttoned nto a set of non-overlappng elements, the unon of whch completely covers the doman. It s assumed that there s an exact transformaton between the physcal elements and a set of reference elements. After ths, approxmaton errors are allowed for n the mappngs between the physcal and reference elements whch may result n gaps and overlaps n the mesh and produce a set of elements whose unon s no longer equal to the doman. Ths could arse f one used an soparametrc approxmaton for the geometry on a nonconformng mesh. Other approxmatons for the geometry are possble as long as the ntroduced quadrature rules satsfy the constrants gven n 3.3. Though the scheme s stable wth gaps n the computatonal mesh, t s not necessarly conservatve and constant preservng, and n 4.4 and Appendx C we show how these propertes can be ensured. Intally, we let Ω be parttoned nto a fnte set of non-overlappng, possbly nonconformng, d-dmensonal, curved volume elements. Let E denote the set of all elements and E be the total number of volume elements. At ths ntal stage, we requre that e E e = Ω. These requrements on the parttonng of Ω mply that before approxmaton errors are ntroduced the mesh has no gaps. In the computatonal results 5, d = 3 s consdered wth curvlnear hexahedral elements, though the stablty analyss s more general. Let Γ = e E e where e s the boundary of element e; we call Γ the mortar and t contans both the nternal mesh nterfaces and the outer boundary. The mortar s parttoned nto a fnte set of non-overlappng, d 1-dmensonal mortar elements; the set of mortar elements s denoted by M. The number of mortar elements s M and we requre that m M m = Γ. Fg. 1 contans an example volume mesh and two possble mortar meshes. The center and rght panels show two dfferent approaches

6 6 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox to parttonng the nternal mortar for the volume mesh n the left panel. When the mortar elements span the entre nonconformng nterface between elements we call ths a full-sde mortar, and when the mortar elements conform to the smallest volume faces we call ths a splt-sde mortar. The set M e s defned to be the set of mortar elements that volume element e E connects to: M e = {m M e m M and m e }. 7 Smlarly the set E m s defned to be the set of volume elements that mortar element m M connects to: E m = {e E m e E and m e }. 8 It s useful to further partton E m nto two subsets dependng on whch sde of the mortar each element resdes. To do ths, each mortar element m M s gven a canoncal orentaton defned by a unt normal the orentaton of whch s arbtrary; the components of the unt normal for m are denoted n m. In the method developed below, surface ntegrals wll be performed over the mortar elements and not the faces of the volume elements, and thus the outward normal to the element may have a dfferent orentaton sgn than the mortar element normal. If a volume element e E m s on the sde of the mortar towards whch the normal ponts the element s sad to the be on the plus-sde of the mortar, otherwse t s sad to be on the mnus-sde of the mortar. The sets of volume elements on the plus and mnus sdes of mortar element m are denoted by E +m and E m, respectvely, and E m = E +m E m. For the example mesh shown n the center panel of Fg. 1 the above-defned sets are: { M e1 = m 2, m 3, m 4, m 5} {, E m1 = e 2, e 3} {, E m2 = e 1, e 2, e 3}, { { { M e2 = M e3 = m 1, m 2, m 7, m 9}, E +m1 = { m 1, m 2, m 6, m 8}, E m1 = e 3}, E +m2 = { e 2}, E m2 = e 2, e 3}, { e 1}. Each element e E s taken to have a reference element ê where the dscretzaton s specfed. It s assume that there exsts a dffeomorphc mappng between the reference and physcal elements. That s, there exst dfferentable functons x e and r e such that f r ê then x e r e and f x e then r e x ê. Smlarly, for each mortar element m M t s assumed that there exsts a reference mortar element ˆm along wth a dffeomorphc mappng between the reference and physcal mortar elements. Smlar to volume elements, there exst dfferentable functons x m and r m such that f r ˆm then x m r m and f x m then r m x ˆm. For the exact transformaton, the acoban determnant for volume element e E s denoted e. For d = 2 the acoban determnant s 9 e = xe 1 r 1 x e 2 r 2 xe 1 r 2 x e 2 r 1, 1

7 Nonconformng DG 7 and for d = 3 e = ε jk x e 1 r x e 2 r j x e 3 r k, 11 wth ε jk beng the Lev-Cvta permutaton symbol +1, f jk s 123, 312, or 231, ε jk = 1, f jk s 321, 132, or 213,, otherwse. 12 The surface acoban determnant for mortar element m M s S m. For d = 2, the surface acoban determnant for a mortar element s S m dx m 2 1 dx m 2 = + 2, 13 dξ dξ where the parametrc curves r m 1 ξ, r m 2 ξ parameterze the mortar element and dx m j dξ = xm j dr1 m r 1 dξ + xm j r 1 dr m 2 dξ. 14 For d = 3, the surface acoban determnant of a mortar element s S m x m j x m k x = ε jk ε m n x m l nl ξ η ξ η wth the mortar element parameterzed as r m 1 ξ, η, r m 2 ξ, η, r m 3 ξ, η and 15 x m k ξ = xm k r r m ξ, x m k η = xm k r r m η. 16 In Appendx C we dscuss how we numercally evaluate 11 as well as the other metrc relatons n order to ensure the scheme s conservatve and constant preservng; see also Koprva [13] for a dscusson concernng conformng meshes. 3.2 Functon Spaces The fnte dmensonal approxmaton space for e E s defned on the reference element ê, and s denoted by ˆV e L 2 ê and has dmenson dm ˆV e. For the numercal results 5, tensor product polynomals of degree at most N are used: { d } ˆQ N,d := r n n N, [1, d]. 17 =1 A correspondng space V e for the physcal element can be defned as the space of all functons q e such that q e x = q e r e x for some q e ˆV e. Smlar defntons are used for each mortar element m M, wth Û m L 2 ˆm beng the fnte

8 8 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox dmensonal space defned on the reference element ˆm wth dmenson dm Û m ; n the results Û m = ˆQ N,d 1 where N s the same as n the volume approxmaton. The operator P m,e : ˆV e Û m s taken to be an operator wth the property that f q e ˆV e then P m,e q e Û m. Though not requred for stablty, the most natural way to defne ths operator s as an L 2 -projecton. Namely f q e ˆV e and m M e, then P m,e q e s constructed so that for all φ m Û m φ m P m,e q e = φ m q e, 18 ˆm ˆm e where ˆm e s the porton of the reference mortar element ˆm that corresponds to the ntersecton n physcal space of m and e; see Appendx A for more detals on the constructon of P m,e. Note that when the m e = m the operator P m,e s an nterpolaton operator from the volume element to the mortar element assumng that the order of functon on the mortar s greater than or equal to the volume element faces. For nstance, f the mortar elements between nonconformng elements were as shown n the center panel of Fg. 1, then P m2,e 2 and P m2,e 3 would be components of the L 2 -projecton operator between from e 2 and e 3 to m 2, and P m2,e 1 would be an nterpolaton operator. On the other hand, f the mortar elements between nonconformng elements were as shown n the rght panel of Fg. 1, then P m2,e 1, P m2,e 3, P m3,e 1, and P m3,e 2 would all be nterpolaton operators. If ζn e ˆV e for n = 1, 2,..., dm ˆV e are lnearly ndependent bass functons for ˆV e, then q e ˆV e can be wrtten as q e = dm ˆV e n=1 q e nζ e n, 19 where q e n are the scalar degree of freedom and are stored as the vector q e 1 q e q e 2 =... 2 q e dm ˆV e Smlar notaton s used to represent functons on the reference mortar element ˆm wth the vector q m beng the dm Û m degrees of freedom representng q m Û m. 3.3 Quadrature To allow for a more general formulaton, we allow the exact geometry transformatons to be approxmated, such as by an soparametrc geometry approxmaton, whch leads to the defnton of approxmate physcal elements. Namely, t s assumed that there exst approxmate transformatons r e h and x e h that transform between the reference element ê and an approxmate physcal element e h = r e h ê where e h e; approxmaton of the mortar element transforms leads to approxmate mortar elements m h = r e h ˆm m. The ntroducton of the approxmate physcal elements e h

9 Nonconformng DG 9 means that t s possble that e h E h e h = Ω h Ω. Smlarly, dependng on how the approxmate transformatons are defned, the computatonal mesh may now have gaps and overlap between neghborng elements. 2 As noted above, allowng for gaps and overlaps has an mpact on the conservaton and constant preservng propertes of the method and ths wll be addressed n more detal n 4.4. The κ e -weghted nner product over e E between p e ˆV e and q e ˆV e s approxmated as κ e e p e q e p e T M e κq e, 21 ê where M e κ s a symmetrc matrx. If κ e > then t s assumed that M e κ s postve defnte. Ths postve defnte assumpton on the mass matrx M e κ does not requre any partcular assumptons concernng the approxmaton of the geometry transformaton. For example, the acoban determnant could be computed usng the exact transformaton 11 or computed to respect the metrc denttes [13]. If S jkl s a component of a postve-defnte, fourth-order tensor then t s not requred that M e S jkl be postve defnte snce any ndvdual component of a postvedefnte tensor need not be postve. That sad, t s requred that s e T j Me S jkl s e kl for all symmetrc second-order tensors whose components s e j ˆV e satsfy s e j = s e j. Defnng M e S 1111 M e S 1122 M e S M e S M e S M e S 1112 M e S 1122 M e S 2222 M e S M e S M e S M e S 2212 M e S = M e S 1133 M e S 2233 M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e, 22 S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S M e S 1212 the above restrcton on M e S jkl can be restated as requrng that M e S be symmetrc, postve defnte. Integrals nvolvng spatal dervatves of the soluton are approxmated as e p e q e = e p e rk e q e p e T S e jq e, 23 x j x j r k ê ê where we hghlght the fact that stffness matrx S e j contans the metrc terms. One feature of our dscretzaton s that no summaton-by-parts [2] property between stffness and mass matrces s requred for the scheme to be stable. In the results 5 we use tensor product hexahedral elements, wth collocaton of the ntegraton and nterpolaton ponts, and the stffness matrx S e j s taken to be of the form S e j = M e e r e k,jd e k, 24 where M e s the dagonal matrx of tensor product quadrature weghts, e and r e k,j are dagonal matrces of the approxmatons of e and r e k/ x j, respectvely, at the 2 In prncple one could ntroduce approxmatons of the reference elements as well so that ê ê h, but snce many methods are specfed usng straght-sded reference elements ths s not consdered here.

10 1 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox nodes, and D e k s the dfferentaton matrx dervatves wth respect to the reference drecton r k. Surface ntegrals over m M are assumed to be approxmated usng a prmtve, postve weght, n m q -pont quadrature rule defned for the reference element ˆm. Thus, f ω m n > are the weghts and r m n are the nodes of the rule wth n = 1, 2,..., n m q then W m s the dagonal matrx of quadrature weghts and surface acoban determnant evaluated at the quadrature nodes. Namely, the dagonal elements of the matrx are W m nn = ω m n S m r m n no summaton over n. 25 If L m s the nterpolaton matrx that goes from the degrees of freedom of Û m to values at the quadrature nodes, then nner products over the mortar m M between p m Û m and q m Û m are approxmated as S m p m q m p m T L m T W m L m q m. 26 ˆm If the ntersecton of the boundary of volume element e E and m M n non-zero, that s e m, then ntegrals between p m Û m and q e ˆV e are approxmated as S m p m P m,e q e p m T L m T W m P m,e q e, 27 ˆm where we note that P m,e goes drectly from the volume element to the quadrature nodes, and thus ncludes both the projecton operator P m,e or ts approxmaton and the nterpolaton matrx L m. 4 Dscontnuous Galerkn Method 4.1 Exact Integraton A skew symmetrc, dscontnuous Galerkn formulaton based on 1 s: For each e E, fnd vj e ˆV e and symmetrc σj e = σj e ˆV e such that for all φ e j ˆV e and symmetrc ψj e = ψj e ˆV e the followng holds: ê ê e ρ e φ e v e t = e ψjs e jkl e σkl e = t e φ e σj e + ê x j m M e e v e ê 2 ψe j + ve j x j x + m M e ˆm S m n j ψ j m,e v m ˆm S m φ m,e T m[e], 28 v m[e]. Here the mortar projected test velocty from element e s defned as φ m,e = P m,e φ. The mortar projected test tracton n j ψ j m,e can be defned by projectng the element face computed test tracton to the mortar, n j ψ j m,e = P m,e n e jψ j where 29

11 Nonconformng DG 11 n e j s the outward normal for element e, or by projectng the test stress tensor to the mortar and then compute the test tracton on the mortar, n j ψ j m,e = n m,e j P m,e ψ j where n m,e j s the mortar normal that s orented outward to element e. Both approaches wll result n a stable numercal method, and n the results secton the latter approach s used projectng the stresses. The quantty v m[e] = v +m f e E +m and v m[e] = v m f e E m where v ±m = P m,e v e, 3 e E ±m are the veloctes on the plus and mnus sde of the mortar. The vectors T m[e] and v m are the numercal fluxes whch enforce contnuty of tracton and velocty across the mortar elements and the physcal boundary conons. The choce of the numercal flux s crtcal to ensure the consstency and stablty of the method as dscussed below. The superscrpt [e] n T m[e] denotes the fact that ths tracton s defned wth respect the normal of element e. Namely, f elements e 1 and e 2 are both connected to mortar m then T m[e1 ] = T m[e2 ] f both elements are on the same sde of the mortar element and T m[e1 ] = T m[e2 ] f they are on opposte sdes due to the equal but opposte normal vector. An mportant feature of s that the surface ntegrals are evaluated on the mortar elements, not the volume element faces. Ths structure essentally decouples the volume and surface stablty, leadng to a sem-dscretely stable scheme even when quadrature or under-ntegraton s used. The energy n element e s defned as E e = e ρ 2 ve v e σe jsjklσ e kl e, 31 ê wth E = e E E e beng the energy n the entre doman; see 3. Snce the contnuous problem does not support energy growth, t s desrable that the sem-dscrete problem mmc ths property, e.g., de/. For each element, the energy rate of change s =, 32 de m,e de e = m,e de m M e S m ˆm v m,e T m[e] + v m T m,e v m[e] T m,e, 33 where de m,e / s the contrbuton to the energy rate of change for mortar element m M e that comes from element e, the mortar projected velocty from element e s v m,e = P m,e v e, and the mortar projected tracton vector T m,e = n j σ j m,e s ether the projecton of the tractons to the mortar or the tractons defned from the projected stresses; see dscusson followng 29. To complete the energy estmate, a sngle mortar element m M s consdered and the contrbuton from all elements e E m are summed: de m =. 34 m,e de e E m

12 12 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox Usng the 3 along wth the mortar plus and mnus tractons T ±m = e E ±m T m,e, 35 the mortar element energy rate of change can be wrtten as de m = S m ˆm v m v +m T m + v m v m T m + v +m T +m T m T +m. 36 Here, the tracton component of the numercal flux T m = T m[e] f e E m and = T m[e] f e E +m. For mortar elements on the physcal boundary, the T m energy rate of change s de m = S m ˆm v m T m + v m T m v m T m. 37 If the numercal flux s defned such that the ntegrand of 36 and 37 are non-postve for all v ±m and T ±m, then the followng theorem results. Theorem 2 If there exsts a numercal flux such that the ntegrands of 36 and 37 are non-postve, then dscontnuous Galerkn method satsfes the energy estmate Et E and s energy stable. Proof Takng the dervatve of the energy gves, de = de e = de m. 38 e E m M If across every face the numercal fluxes have the property that 36 and 37 are non-postve t follows that de, 39 and Et E results upon ntegraton. 4.2 Numercal Flux for Isotropc Elastcty The crtcal queston then becomes: can numercal fluxes be defned so that 36 and 37 are non-postve? For sotropc elastcty, one approach s to use a flux defned as T m = n m T m + T m, v m = n m v m + v m, 4

13 Nonconformng DG 13 where T m and v m are the mortar parallel tracton and velocty, and T m and v m the mortar perpendcular components. To defne these terms, t s necessary to frst defne the parallel and perpendcular plus and mnus states: T ±m = n T ±m, T ±m = T ±m n T ±m, 41 v ±m = n v ±m, v ±m = v±m n v ±m. 42 Wth ths, the terms n flux 4 can be defned as T m v m T m v m = k m p = k m p = k m s = k m s Z +m p Z m p Z +m s Z m s T m v m + Z m p T +m + Z +m T m v m p v +m αzp m Z p +m α v +m 43, 44 v+m, 45, 46 v m T m T +m + Z m s T +m αz m s Z s +m + Z+m s v +m α T m T +m v m wth the materal propertes enterng the flux defnton through the followng relatonshps Z s ±m = ρ ±m µ ±m, Z p ±m = ρ ±m λ ±m + 2µ ±m, 47 ks m 1 = Zs m + Z s +m, kp m 1 = Zp m + Z p +m. 48 Here the parameter α controls the amount of dsspaton that occurs through the flux, wth α = 1 beng the upwnd flux [26] and α = beng a central-lke flux whch results n no-energy dsspaton across the nterface. To enforce the physcal boundary conon T = we set v +m = Zp m whch leads to Z +m p T m =, v m = v m α T m Zp m = v m, T +m = T m, Z s +m, T m =, v m = v m = Z m s α T m Zs m, and. 49 To see that 4 results n a stable flux, frst consder the nteror mortar rate of energy change ntegral 36. Rewrtng the ntegrand n terms of the parallel and perpendcular components gves v m v +m = + v m T m v +m v m v+m + v m T m T m + v m T m T +m v m T m + v +m T +m T m T +m v m T m + v +m T +m 5 + v m T m T +m v m T m + v+m T +m,

14 14 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox where t has been used that, by defnton, v ±m, T ±m, v m, and T m are orthogonal to n m. Substtutng n the numercal flux expressons gves v m v +m = α k m p T m 3 α ks m =1 + v m T m T +m Zp m Z p +m v m v +m Zs m Z s +m v m v m T m + v +m T +m T m T +m 2 2 v+m + T m T +m. A smlar calculaton for the boundary mortar elements, gves that the ntegrand of 37 s v m T m + v m T m v m T m = α T m Z m p 2 3 α =1 T m 2 Z m s Thus for both 36 and 37 the ntegrand s non-postve f α, and the flux yelds a stable scheme by Theorem 2. Corollary 1 For a varable coeffcent, sotropc materal the skew-symmetrc scheme usng numercal flux 4 wth leads to a sem-dscrete scheme that satsfes Et E. 4.3 Quadrature Integraton We now turn to the case when quadrature s used to evaluate the ntegrals n the 28 29, and show that ths has sem-dscrete stablty even wth some varatonal crmes. In the analyss that follows, we make mnmal assumptons about the quadrature rules and nterpolaton procedures. The analyss s ndependent of element shape. A quadrature based verson of s: For each e E, fnd v e j ˆV e and symmetrc σ e j = σ e j ˆV e such that: M e dv e ρ M e S jkl dσ e kl = S e T j σ e j + P m,e T W m T m[e], 53 m M e S e j v e + S e v e j + = 1 2 m M e P m,e T n j W m v m v m[e], 54 Here, the subscrpt n j n P m,e n j denotes the fact that ths projecton operator could be defned such that the unt normal n j s multpled before or after the projecton, that s P m,e n j σ e j approxmates n j σ j m,e at the quadrature nodes; see dscusson followng The tral velocty vector on the mortar depends on whch sde

15 Nonconformng DG 15 of mortar m element e s on. Namely, v m[e] = v +m e E m wth v ±m = f e E +m and v m[e] = v m e E ±m P m,e v e. 55 The remanng notaton n s dscussed n 3.3. We call ths sem-dscrete scheme the symmetrc flux ntegral method SFIM as both the tral and test functons are projected to the mortar for ntegraton, and note that SFIM can be appled to ether the full-sde or splt-sde mortars as shown n Fg. 1. The energy n element e E s defned as E e = 1 2 ve T M e ρv e σ e j T M e Sjkl σe kl, 56 wth the total energy n the system defned as E = e E E e. For ths to be a well-defned norm, t s requred that M e ρ and M e S, see 22, be symmetrc postve defnte. The tme dervatve of the energy gves de e de m,e m,e de m M e = = v m,e T W m T m[e], 57 + v m T W m T m,e v m[e] f T W m T m,e, 58 where v m,e = P m,e v e and T m,e = P m,e n j σ e j. Consderng only a sngle mortar element m M and summng contrbutons from all e E m gves de m m,e de e E m =, 59 whch for an nteror mortar element s de m = v m v +m T W m T m v m T W m T m + + v m T W m T m T +m T W m T +m v +m 6 and for a boundary mortar element s de m = v m T W m T m + v m T W m T m v m T W m T m. 61 Here the plus and mnus sde tracton states on the mortar are defned as T ±m = e E ±m T m,e ; 62 the velocty state on the mortar s defned n 55. The tracton component of the numercal flux s defned as T m = T m[e] s e E m and T m = T m[e] s e E +m.

16 16 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox Theorem 3 Gven a numercal flux such that the ntegrand of the energy rate 36 and 37 are non-postve, the energy rates 6 and 61 are non-postve and quadrature-based dscontnuous Galerkn method satsfes the energy estmate Et E and s energy stable. Proof Recall that W m s a dagonal matrx of quadrature weghts and surface acoban determnants, thus 6 can be wrtten as de m = n m q k=1 ω m k { S m v m v +m T m } v m T m + v +m T +m, k + v m T m T +m 63 and 61 as de m = n m q k=1 ω m k { S m v m T m + v m T m v m T m } k, 64 where { } k denotes that the term nsde the brackets s evaluated at mortar quadrature node k. Snce the terms nsdes the brackets are the same as the ntegrand of 36 and 37, a numercal flux that results n non-postve ntegrands for 36 and 37 wll result n 6 and 61 beng non-postve. The remander of the proof s dentcal to the proof of Theorem Conservaton and Constant Preservaton Snce the dffeomorphc mappngs between the physcal and reference elements see 3.1 were defned pror to the ntroducton of an approxmaton space, gaps and overlaps n the mesh may occur when the mappngs are approxmated. For an soparametrc geometry approxmaton, one approach s to nterpolate the geometry transform at nodal degrees of freedom. Though ths approach s straghtforward to mplement, dfferences n the nterpolatons of the mappngs across nonconformng nterfaces can result n dfferng approxmatons; across conformng faces ths problem does not arse because the alasng errors are the same on both sdes of a face. By constructon, the stablty of SFIM s not mpacted by a dscretely dscontnuous mesh snce the volume and surface stablty are decoupled, but a dscretely dscontnuous mesh can lead to a lack of conservaton and breakdown of constant preservng. Here, we show how SFIM can be made conservatve and constant preservng by mposng a set of accuracy and consstency constrants. Most of the constrants are qute natural such as the ablty to exactly approxmate and dfferentate constants. One of the constrants requres that the operators satsfy a dscrete dvergence theorem and ths mplctly mples some contnuty of the metrc terms. For tensor product, hexahedral elements, wth Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto quadrature we satsfy these constrants by makng the mesh dscretely watertght.e., removng holes and

17 Nonconformng DG 17 overlaps as well as ensurng that alasng errors n certan metrc relatons are the same across nonconformng faces; detals are gven n Appendx C. In the followng, we assume that the doman s perodc so that the mpact of the boundary conons can be gnored. The followng constrants are mposed n order to make SFIM conservatve and constant preservng: Constrant 1 Approxmaton Consstency We assume that the volume and mortar approxmaton spaces can exactly represent constants. The notaton 1 e and 1 m are used to denote the expanson of 1 wthn the chosen bass for a volume element e E and mortar element m M, respectvely; for nodal bass functons these would be vectors of ones. We also defne e = 1 e and m = 1 m. Constrant 2 Projecton Consstency It s assumed that the dscrete projecton operators P m,e exactly project constants from the volume to the mortar. Namely, we assume that for each m M the followng holds P m,e 1 e = P m,e 1 e = 1 m. 65 e E m e E +m Constrant 3 Stffness Consstency The stffness matrces S e j are assumed to dfferentate constants exactly. Namely t s assumed that S e j1 e = e. 66 Constrant 4 Consstent Numercal Flux The numercal flux s assumed to be consstent n the sense that f v +m = v m and T +m = T m for = 1, 2, 3 then v m = v ±m and T m = T ±m. Constrant 5 Dscrete Dvergence Theorem We assume that the stffness matrces satsfy the followng dscrete dvergence theorem: S e T j 1 e = P m,e T W m n m[e] j, 67 m M e where n m[e] j = n m j f e E m and n m[e] j = n m j f e E +m wth n m j beng the components of the normal vector at the mortar degrees of freedom. We call ths a dscrete dvergence theorem because, after multplcaton by q e T, 67 approxmates e e q e x j = m M e m S m n e jp m,e q e = where the last equalty assumes that P m,e s an exact L 2 projecton. e S e n e jq e, 68 Constrant 6 Consstent, Constant Tracton Calculaton If for a mortar element m M the projected stresses on neghborng volume elements are constant,.e., for some σ j R the element stresses are σ e j = σ j 1 e for all e E m, then we assume that T m = T +m = σ j n m j ; namely that the tracton on the mortar elements are the σ j weghted sum of the normal vectors on the mortar. Recall that followng 29

18 18 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox we gave two approaches to computng the mortar tractons, ether projectng the stresses wth tracton calculaton on the mortar or projectng the volume face computed tractons to the mortar elements. The frst approach, projectng the stresses, automatcally satsfes ths constrant by Constrant 2. If the second approach, projectng the tractons, s used then adonal assumptons on the normal vectors as calculated on the faces of the volume elements as well as the accuracy of the projecton operators for hgh-order functons would be needed. In the results secton we use the approach of projectng the stresses and ths constrant s satsfed by constructon. Constrants 1 3 are reasonable accuracy and consstency assumptons for most approxmatons spaces, and Constrant 4 s farly standard for dscontnuous Galerkn methods. As noted above, Constrant 6 holds for our choce of projectng the tractons. Thus, t only remans to show that Constrant 5 holds. One of the key features n satsfyng Constrant 5 s the computaton of the metrc terms. For conformng meshes, the dscrete dvergence theorem can be ensured usng the curl nvarant form of Koprva [13]. In Appendx C we show how the curl nvarant form can be adapted for nonconformng meshes wth tensor product, hexahedral elements wth Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto quadrature. For perodc domans, one of the steady state solutons admtted by governng equatons 1, regardless of the varablty of the materal propertes, s constant veloctes v and stresses σ j. By Constrant 1, the constant soluton s exactly admssble by the approxmaton, and thus t may be desrable to requre that a dscretzaton of 1 represent ths steady state soluton wth no error,.e., that the scheme be constant preservng. It s known that even on conformng meshes, when the elements are non-affne constant preservng requres careful handlng of the metrc terms; see for nstance the work of Koprva [13]. To see that when the above assumptons are satsfed that SFIM s constant preservng, we plug v e = β and σ j = α j nto the rght-hand sde wth β and α j beng constants: M e dv e ρ M e S jkl dσ e kl = α j S e T j 1 e + P m,e T W m T m[e], 69 m M e = 1 β S e j1 e + β j S e 1 e + P m,e T n 2 j W m β m β m[e]. 7 m M e Usng Constrants 3 stffness consstency and 5 dscrete dvergence theorem relatons 69 7 can be rewrtten as M e dv e ρ = T m[e] α j n m[e] j, 71 M e S jkl dσ e kl m M e P m,e T W m = m M e P m,e T n j W m β m Projecton consstency Constrant 2 mples that β m[e]. 72 β m[e] = β m[e ] e, e E m, 73

19 Nonconformng DG 19 and ths along wth flux consstency Constrant 4 gves β m It then follows that 72 becomes M e dv e ρ = β m[e], T m = α j n m[e] j. 74 =, M e S jkl dσ e kl =, 75 and the soluton remans constant n tme. For lnear elastcty, the conserved quanttes are the components of momentum ρv and stran ɛ j = S jkl σ kl. To show dscrete conservaton we need to show that e E 1 e T M e dv e ρ =, e E Multplyng on the left by 1 e T we have 1 e T M e dv e ρ 1 e T M e S jkl dσ e kl 1 e T M e S jkl dσ e kl =. 76 = 1 e T S e T j σ e j + 1 m T W m T m[e], 77 m M e = 1e T 2 S e j v e + S e v e j + m M e n e j T W m v m v m[e]. Usng the stffness consstency and dscrete dvergence assumptons Constrants 3 and 5 these become 1 e T M e dv e ρ 1 e T M e S jkl dσ e kl Consderng 79 and summng over all the elements gves e E 1 e T M e dv e ρ 78 = 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e], m M e 79 = 1 e T P m,e T n j W m v m. m M e 8 = 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e] e E m M e = 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e] m M e M e 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e] 81 e M +e + 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e]. m M e M e = m M Applyng projecton consstency Constrant 2 along wth the fact that T m T m[e] for e E m and T m = T m[e] for e E +m gves 1 e T P m,e T W m T m[e] e M ±e = = 1 m T W m T m, 82

20 2 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox and thus 81 becomes e E 1 e T M e dv e ρ = m M A smlar calculaton for 8 results n 1 m T W m T m + 1 m T W m T m =. e E 1 e T M e S jkl dσ e kl = 1 e T P m,e T n j W m v m 83 m M e E +m + 1 e T P m,e T n j W m v m. m M e E +m Whch, after applyng the tracton consstency constrant Constrant 6 leads to 83 becomng e E 1 e T M e S jkl dσ e kl = m M n e T j W m v m + n e T j W m v m =. 84 Thus the scheme satsfes dscrete conservaton. The dscrete dvergence theorem Constrant 5 and tracton consstency Constrant 6 are only requred for conservaton of stran, and f only conservaton of momentum s requred a scheme wthout these propertes can be used. If the converse was desred automatc conservaton of stran then the weak and strong dervatves n formulaton should be swapped. 4.5 Comment on the Implementaton of 54 Due to the mpled summaton on the rght-hand sde 54 the mass matrx to be nverted s not M e S jkl but the combned matrx M e S defned n 22. In the results secton, we wll be usng tensor product hexahedral elements wth Legendre-Gauss- Lobatto quadrature. Wth ths, mass matrx M e S jkl = M e S e jkl s dagonal wth M e beng a dagonal matrx of quadrature weghts and acoban determnants and S e jkl beng a dagonal matrx of the complance tensor evaluated at the quadrature nodes not to be confused wth the stffness matrx S e. In ths case, the combned mass matrx s M e S = S e I 6 6 M e = I 6 6 M e S e, 85 S e 1111 S e 1122 S e S e S e S e 1112 S e 1122 S e 2222 S e S e S e S e 2212 S e = S e 1133 S e 2233 S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e, S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e S e 1212

21 Nonconformng DG 21 Adonally, the nverse of the combned mass matrx s M e 1 S = M e C = C e I 6 6 M e 1 = I 6 6 M e 1 C e, 87 C e 1111 C e 1122 C e 1133 C e 1123 C e 1113 C e 1112 C e 1122 C e 2222 C e 2233 C e 2223 C e 2213 C e 2212 C e = C e 1133 C e 2233 C e 3333 C e 3323 C e 3313 C e 3312 C e 1123 C e 2223 C e 3323 C e 2323 C e 2313 C e, C e 1113 C e 2213 C e 3313 C e 2313 C e 1313 C e 1312 C e 1112 C e 2212 C e 3312 C e 2312 C e 1312 C e 1212 where C e jkl s the dagonal matrx of stffness tensor elements C jkl evaluated at the quadrature nodes. Wth ths, for tensor product elements, 54 s equvalently wrtten as M e dσ e kl = 1 2 Ce jkl S e kv e l + S e l v e k 89 + n k T W m v m l v m[e] l, m M e C e jklp m,e where we hghlght that C e jkl s defned on the volume element and not the mortar. For many element types such a decomposton s not possble because the nterpolaton and quadrature ponts are dfferent. One opton n ths case s to nvert M e S on each element. Alternatvely, one could use the weght-adjusted approach of Chan, Hewett, and Warburton [7] and let whch then allows 54 to be wrtten as M e S = I 6 6 M e M e C 1 I6 6 M e, 9 M e dσ e kl = 1 2 Me C jkl M e 1 S e kv e l + S e l v e k 91 + M e C jkl M e 1 P m,e n k T W m v m l v m[e] l. m M e The weght adjusted approach can also be used for the case of nonconstant acoban determnants when the mass matrx M e s not dagonal [7]. 4.6 Comparson wth a Prevous DG Mortar Method Here we compare the proposed method wth the approach outlned by Koprva [14] and Koprva, Woodruff, and Hussan [17], whch was analyzed by Bu-Thanh and Ghattas [3]. In ths prevous approach, the fluxes are computed on the mortar, but they are projected back to the local element space for ntegraton. Ths s as opposed to our approach where we project the test and tral functons to the mortar space, and all surface ntegrals are computed on the mortar.

22 22 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox In ths earler approach, method would be e v e ρ φ ê t = e φ σj e + Sφ e e T e, 92 ê x j ê e σ e kl e v e ψ j S jkl = ê t ê 2 ψ j + ve j 93 x j x + Sn e e jψj e v e v e. ê The numercal flux terms T e and v e are the L 2 -projected fluxes from the mortar onto the surface of the volume element, e.g., L 2 -projecton from the set of mortar elements M e. Snce the L 2 -projecton s only appled to the tral functon and not the test functon, we call ths approach the asymmetrc flux ntegral method AFIM. As wth the SFIM proposed above, the AFIM can be appled to ether the full-sde or splt-sde mortars shown n Fg. 1. Wth exact ntegraton and L 2 -projecton, ths scheme has the same stablty propertes as 28 29, but when nexact quadrature s used ths scheme may admt energy growth even on affne elements. In the case of affne meshes wth constant coeffcents, Bu-Thanh and Ghattas [3] showed that Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto ntegraton leads to an energy estmate of the form Et e ct E where c > s a small but postve constant that converges to zero under mesh refnement. Thus, even though stable, the scheme admts exponental energy growth. The man dffculty n achevng a strctly non-ncreasng energy estmate for ths scheme s that when quadrature s used, the nexact face mass matrx and L 2 -projecton operator are no longer consstent. Ths means that ntegrals over the element face space and the mortar space are not equvalent. One approach to overcomng these dffcultes would be to use nexact L 2 -projectons defned such that the quadrature verson of s purely dsspatve. Wth some reformaton, the proposed scheme could be nterpreted as gvng a consstent approach for defnng these nexact L 2 -projectons. 5 Computatonal Results In ths secton, the energy stablty, conservaton, and constant preservng propertes of SFIM are verfed for d = 3 wth sotropc elastcty and the accuracy of the scheme s nvestgated. The adapted meshes n the examples are generated wth p4est [4] usng ts topology terator [12]. Hexahedral elements wth tensor product Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto LGL nodes are used for nterpolaton and ntegraton e.g., the so-called dscontnuous Galerkn spectral element method [2, 15]; LGL quadrature s also used on the mortar elements. A computatonal advantage of LGL quadrature s that some of the degrees of freedom exst on the element faces whch means that for conformng faces, no nterpolaton operaton s requred to compute the flux. That sad, an LGL quadrature rule wth N + 1 ponts can only ntegrate polynomals of degree 2N 1 exactly, and thus the dagonal mass matrx defned usng LGL quadrature s nexact for two polynomals of degree N. When

23 Nonconformng DG 23 curved elements and varable coeffcents are used, the metrc terms and materal propertes are multpled wth the quadrature weghts, thus mantanng the dagonal structure of the mass matrx at the cost of to further under-ntegraton. Despte ths, as shown above, the newly proposed method does not requre exact ntegraton as stablty s acheved through the use of skew-symmetry. The geometry terms are approxmated n an soparametrc fashon.e., the coordnate mappng s evaluated at the nterpolaton nodes of the reference element wth the metrc terms evaluated usng the curl nvarant form of Koprva [13]; see also Appendx C. All of the schemes ntroduced above are n sem-dscrete form wth tme left contnuous. The scheme can be wrtten as a system of lnear ordnary dfferental equatons: dq = Aq, 94 where q s the vector of stresses and partcle veloctes at all the degrees of freedom. As s standard when dscretzng hyperbolc equatons, n our mplementaton A s not explctly formed only ts acton on q s computed. We ntegrate 94 n tme usng the fourth-order, low-storage, Runge-Kutta scheme of Carpenter and Kennedy [5] 5,4 2N-Storage RK scheme, soluton 3. To compute the tme step for the Runge-Kutta method, at every node of the mesh we compute β = mnβ 1, β 2, β 3, 95 1 r k r k β k = N C p no summaton over k, 96 x x where N s the polynomal order and C p = λ + 2µ/ρ s the p-wave speed of the materal at the node. The maxmum tme step s then chosen to be proportonal to the mnmum β over the whole mesh. 5.1 Planewave Soluton n Perodc Box In ths test, SFIM and AFIM are compared wth both full-sde and splt-sde mortar elements. To do ths, an affne mesh wth constant materal propertes s consdered. Subsequent tests nvolved varable materal propertes and non-affne meshes wll only uses SFIM. Recall that SFIM, descrbed n 4.3, refers to the symmetrc applcaton of L 2 -projecton operators to both the test and tral functon, whereas AFIM, descrbed n 4.6, refers to the asymmetrc applcaton of the L 2 -projecton operators to the tral and flux functons but not the test functon. Recall also that full-sde mortar elements conform to the larger volume element faces and the splt-sde mortar elements conform the to smaller volume element faces see Fg. 1. The doman s taken to be the unt cube: Ω = [, 1] 3. The doman s ntally parttoned nto a mesh of hexahedral elements, and then four elements are further subdvded nto 8 elements; see Fg. 2. Ths base mesh has E = 36 elements, and n the base mesh only faces nternal to the refned blocks are conformng.

24 24 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox SFIM, full-sde SFIM, splt-sde AFIM, full-sde AFIM, splt-sde E error rate error rate error rate error rate Polynomal order N = Polynomal order N = Polynomal order N = Polynomal order N = Polynomal order N = Table 1 Error and estmated convergence rates for a planewave propagatng through an adapted, affne mesh. The base mesh and a log-log plot of the error for the SFIM wth fullsde mortar elements are shown n Fg. 2. The materal s taken to be homogeneous, sotropc wth ρ = 2, µ = 3, and λ = 4. The soluton s a planewave propagatng n the x 1 -drecton: u 1 = cos 2π c p t + x 1, u 2 = cos 2π c s t + x 1, u 3 = cos 2π c s t + x 1, 97 wth c p = λ + 2µ/ρ and c s = µ/ρ beng the P- and S-wave speeds of the materal. Here the soluton s wrtten n terms of the dsplacements, and the velocty and stresses are v = u t, σ u k u j = λδ j + µ + u j. 98 x k x j x Table 1 and Fg. 2 show convergence results for ths planewave test for varyng polynomal order N; refnement of the mesh s done wth bsecton so that each hexahedral element s subdvded nto 8 affne elements of equal sze. The fnal tme

25 Nonconformng DG N = 3 N = 4 N = 5 N = 6 N = 7 z L 2 Error y x Number of Elements Fg. 2 left Base mesh for planewave test. rght Log-log plot of E number of elements versus the L 2 error measured wth the energy norm for a mesh of affne square elements. Only the error for the projecton mortar s shown as the other three cases look smlar. Numercal values and rates for all four methods are gven n Table 1. of the smulaton s t = 2/c s, e.g., the planewave propagates around the unt cube 2 tmes. As Table 1 shows, four methods are consdered for each N: SFIM wth splt-sde mortar elements, SFIM wth full-sde mortar elements, AFIM wth spltsde mortar elements, and AFIM wth full-sde mortar elements. In all cases, the error n the soluton s measured usng the quadrature based energy norm 56. The numercal flux used for these tests s the upwnd flux descrbed by 4-47 wth α = 1. As can be seen Table 1, all four methods converge at hgh-rates. That sad, the AFIMs do have lower errors and mproved rates. The two newly proposed methods seem to be tendng towards convergence rates at order N as opposed to N + 1/2, suggestng that some accuracy s lost wth the mproved stablty propertes. 5.2 Egenvalue Spectrum for Perodc Box To hghlght the stablty propertes of the methods, we now consder the egenvalue spectrum of each of the methods usng the mesh and materal propertes of the prevous perodc box test problem. Fg. 3 shows the egenvalue spectrum for all the methods wth an upwnd flux on the base mesh E = 36; the spectrum s computed by formng the matrx A and then fndng the egenvalues wth the MATLAB [1] eg command. Table 2 gves the maxmum and mnmum real part of the egenvalue spectrum for all four methods wth both the upwnd α = 1 and central α = flux. As can be seen, the SFIM wth both splt-sde and full-sde mortar elements are stable n the sense that the maxmum, real part of the egenvalue spectrum s close to zero consstent wth the energy analyss earler n the paper. The AFIMs have

26 26 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox maxk <λk mnk <λk maxk =λk SFIM, full-sde SFIM, splt-sde AFIM, full-sde AFIM, splt-sde Upwnd Flux SFIM, full-sde SFIM, splt-sde AFIM, full-sde AFIM, splt-sde Central Flux Table 2 Table comparng the extrema of the real and magnary parts of the egenvalue spectrum for all four methods wth both an upwnd and central flux wth N = 4 on the base mesh E = 36. Egenvalues are computed by formng the matrx and usng the MATLAB [1] eg command. See also Fg. 3. SFIM,splt-sde =λ =λ SFIM, full-sde <λ <λ <λ 2 AFIM, splt-sde =λ =λ AFIM, full-sde <λ 2 Fg. 3 Egenvalue spectrum for the E = 36 mesh wth polynomal order N = 4 upwnd flux. See Table 2 for the lmts of the spectrum for these spectra.

27 Nonconformng DG 27 postve real parts, even wth the upwnd flux, consstent wth the energy analyss of Bu-Thanh and Ghattas whch allows for energy growth e.g., a postve, real part of the spectrum. For ths mesh, whch has a total of 45 degrees of freedom, the AFIMs wth the upwnd flux have, respectvely, 18 and 12 computed egenvalues that have a real part larger than 1 12 wth a maxmum of, respectvely, and As can be seen from both the Fg. 3 and Table 2, the spectral radus of the SFIM wth full-sde mortar elements s larger than the SFIM wth splt-sde mortar elements 2.3 tmes larger wth the upwnd flux and 2.4 tmes larger wth the central flux. The mplcaton of ths s that the largest tme step that can be used for the SFIM wth full-sde mortar elements on ths mesh s almost half the sze of that of the SFIM wth splt-sde mortar elements. Gven that ths partcular mesh has a hgh nonconformng to conformng rato 2/3 of the mortar s nonconformng t s unclear whether ths stffness would be seen n practcal smulatons. For the upwnd flux, both SFIM and AFIM wth full-sde mortar elements have twce as many egenvalues wth approxmately zero real part as compared wth the SFIM and AFIM wth spltsde mortar elements 83 versus 42 egenvalues wth real component less than 1 12 n magntude. Ths suggests that the SFIM and AFIM wth splt-sde mortar elements are slghtly more dsspatve across the nonconformng nterfaces assumng that there s energy n the assocated egenfunctons of the soluton. Snce even on affne meshes wth constant coeffcents, AFIM does not guarantee an energy non-ncreasng property n the remander of the paper we only consder SFIM. That sad, AFIM s not energy ncreasng on all meshes when upwndng α = s used; every test we have run usng AFIM wth a central flux α = has sgnfcant energy growth. 5.3 Conservaton, Constant Preservng, and Long-Tme Energy Stablty To further explore the long-tme stablty as well as the conservaton and constant preservng propertes of SFIM a curvlnear mesh wth heterogeneous materal propertes s now consdered. Let Ω = [ 1, 1] 3 be perodc n all drectons. The mesh s made curvlnear by ntroducng the followng global coordnate transform where the coeffcents Q j are the elements of the matrx x = r j Q j, 99 cos 2 β cosβ snβ snβ Qβ = snβ cosβ 1 cosβ snβ sn 2 β cosβ where β = π/4 3 =1 1 r2. When r 1 = r 2 = r 3 = ths corresponds to two rotatons of π/4 and there s no rotaton when r = 1 for any {1, 2, 3}. A crosssecton of the mesh s shown n Fg. 4 and the same refnement patten as n the planewave test has been used every other corner has been refned once for a total of 36 elements. At every degree of freedom of the mesh the materal propertes are

28 28 eremy E. Kozdon, Lucas C. Wlcox Fg. 4 Cross-secton of the skewed mesh defned by transform 99. The total number of elements n the mesh s E = 36 assgned usng a pseudorandom number generator whch results n a dscontnuous, non-smooth descrpton; the S-wave and P-wave speeds vary from 4.4 to 6.5 and 7.2 to 1.7, respectvely. All of the tests n ths secton are run wth polynomal order N = 4. Three dfferent approaches to handlng the geometry are consdered whch we call the nterpolated, watertght, and contnuous metrc approach. In the nterpolated geometry handlng, the coordnate transform 99 s sampled at the LGL nodal degrees of freedom. Snce the transform s non-polynomal the mesh wll be dscretely dscontnuous across nonconformng faces. In the watertght approach, the physcal mesh s made contnuous by nterpolatng x face values from larger faces and edges to smaller faces and edges 3. Fnally, n the contnuous metrc approach the product S n s made proportonal across nonconformng faces and edges by ensurng that alasng errors n the computaton of these terms are ncurred smlarly; see Appendx C. In order to test the long-tme stablty and the conservaton propertes of SFIM, the ntal conon s generated wth a pseudorandom number generator. Ths s done to wdely dstrbute the energy n the soluton across varous egenmodes of the operator. The smulaton s then run to tme t = 1L/c s mn where L = 2 3 s the longest corner-to-corner dstance n the doman and c s mn = 2 s the slowest wave speed n the system; n the fgures n ths secton tme s normalzed by t = L/c s mn. Fg. 5 shows the energy n the soluton versus tme for SFIM wth both fullsde and splt-sde mortar elements usng both the upwnd and central fluxes when the coordnate transform 99 s nterpolated. As can be seen, the upwnd schemes quckly dsspate energy of the unresolved modes n the soluton and then reman stable. The central method preserves the ntal energy; there s an 1 4 % energy 3 Nonconformng edge values need to be modfed n order to ensure that new gaps and overlaps are not ntroduced along the edges of conformng elements.