1: %*******************************;
2: % Section: Stability analysis ;
3: %*******************************;
4: \section{STABILITY ANALYSIS}
5: \label{Sec:DD_S4_Stability_Analysis}
6: In this section we assess the stability of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity, modified
7: $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity, $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity and Baumgarte stabilized
8: domain decomposition methods using the ``energy'' method \cite{Richtmyer_Morton,Hughes}. Note that
9: the energy method provides sufficient conditions for stability. However, in many
10: instances the obtained bounds are quite sharp. For example, in the case of ODEs,
11: the obtained stability condition using the energy method (that is, the critical
12: time step) has turned out to be both necessary and sufficient \cite{Hughes}.
13:
14: Let $\mathbb{R}^m$ denote the standard $m$-dimensional Euclidean space. We say the
15: vectors $\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)} \in \mathbb{R}^{m} \; (n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots)$ are bounded
16: $\forall n$ if there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of $n$ such that
17: %------------------------------------;
18: % Equation: Boundedness of vectors ;
19: %------------------------------------;
20: \begin{align}
21: \| \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}\| < C \quad \forall n
22: \end{align}
23: %
24: where $\| \cdot \|$ is some convenient norm defined on $\mathbb{R}^m$ (for example,
25: say the $2$-norm). Note that in finite dimensional vector spaces all norms are
26: equivalent \cite{Halmos}.
27:
28: We employ the following notation for the jump and average operators over a time step:
29: %----------------------------------------;
30: % Equation: Jump and average operators ;
31: %----------------------------------------;
32: \begin{align}
33: \left[\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right] = \boldsymbol{x}^{(n+1)} - \boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}, \quad
34: \left\{\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right\} = \frac{1}{2} \left(\boldsymbol{x}^{(n+1)} + \boldsymbol{x}^{(n)} \right)
35: \end{align}
36: %
37: It is easy to show the following identities:
38: %---------------------;
39: % Equation: x_gamma ;
40: %---------------------;
41: \begin{align}
42: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma}
43: (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{x}^{(n)} + \gamma \boldsymbol{x}^{(n+1)}
44: = \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \left[\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right] + \left\{\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right\}
45: \end{align}
46: %
47: and for any symmetric matrix $\boldsymbol{S}$ we have
48: %-------------------------;
49: % Equation: Symmetric S ;
50: %-------------------------;
51: \begin{align}
52: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Symmetric_S}
53: \left\{\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right\}^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{S}
54: \left[\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}\right] =
55: %
56: \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{x}^{(n)}}^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{S} \boldsymbol{x}^{(n)} \right]
57: \end{align}
58:
59: For convenience we define the matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ as
60: %-------------------------------;
61: % Equation: Definition of A_i ;
62: %-------------------------------;
63: \begin{align}
64: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_A_i}
65: \boldsymbol{A}_i := \boldsymbol{M}_i + \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
66: \end{align}
67:
68: We choose the time step $\Delta t$ in such a way that it satisfies the stability requirements
69: for all individual unconstrained subdomains (i.e., $\boldsymbol{\lambda} = \boldsymbol{0}$).
70: %
71: That is,
72: %---------------------;
73: % Equation: Delta t ;
74: %---------------------;
75: \begin{align}
76: \Delta t < \mathrm{min} \left(\Delta t_{1}^{\mathrm{crit}}, \cdots, \Delta t_{S}^{\mathrm{crit}}\right)
77: \end{align}
78: %
79: and the critical time step for subdomain $i$ is given by
80: %--------------------------------;
81: % Equation: Delta t_i critical ;
82: %--------------------------------;
83: \begin{align}
84: \Delta t_{i}^{\mathrm{crit}} = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
85: \frac{2}{\omega_{i}^{\mathrm{max}} (1 - 2 \gamma)} & 0 \leq \gamma < 1/2 \\
86: +\infty & 1/2 \leq \gamma \leq 1
87: \end{array}\right.
88: \end{align}
89: %
90: where $\omega_{i}^{\mathrm{max}}$ is the maximum eigenvalue of the generalized eigenvalue problem
91: %--------------------------------;
92: % Equation: Eigenvalue problem ;
93: %--------------------------------;
94: \begin{align}
95: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_GEVP}
96: \omega_i \boldsymbol{M}_i \boldsymbol{\phi}_i = \boldsymbol{K}_{i} \boldsymbol{\phi}_i
97: \end{align}
98: %
99: Note that all the eigenvalues $\omega_i$ are real and non-negative \cite{Hughes}.
100: %
101: For the chosen time step as described above, the matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots, S)$
102: (defined in equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_A_i}) are positive definite. Also, note that the matrices
103: $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ are symmetric.
104:
105: %=============================================;
106: % Subsection: Stability of the d-continuity ;
107: %=============================================;
108: \subsection{Stability of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method}
109: \label{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}
110: Equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_domain} implies
111: %------------------------------;
112: % Equation: Stability Step 1 ;
113: %------------------------------;
114: \begin{align}
115: \boldsymbol{M}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n + \gamma)}_i
116: %
117: + \boldsymbol{K}_i \boldsymbol{d}^{(n + \gamma)}_i
118: %
119: = \boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n + \gamma)} + \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}
120: \end{align}
121: %
122: where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}
123: + \gamma \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+1)}$; $\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma)
124: \boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n)} + \gamma \boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n+1)}$; and similar expressions for
125: $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+\gamma)}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)}$.
126: %
127: Using equations \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}, \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma}
128: and \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_A_i}; the above equation can be written as
129: %------------------------------;
130: % Equation: Stability Step 2 ;
131: %------------------------------;
132: \begin{align}
133: \frac{1}{\Delta t} \boldsymbol{A}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right]
134: %
135: + \boldsymbol{K}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i\right\}
136: %
137: = \boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n + \gamma)} + \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}
138: \end{align}
139: %
140: Premultiplying the above equation by the vector $\left\{\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right\}$,
141: using the identity given in equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Symmetric_S}, and then summing
142: over all $S$ subdomains; we get
143: %------------------------------;
144: % Equation: Stability Step 3 ;
145: %------------------------------;
146: \begin{align}
147: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2 \Delta t} \left[{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
148: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right]
149: %
150: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{d}_{i}^{(n)}\right\}}^\mathrm{T}
151: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i\right\}
152: %
153: = \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right\}}^{\mathrm{T}}
154: \left(\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n + \gamma)} + \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}\right)
155: \end{align}
156: %
157: For stability analysis, one assumes the externally applied forces to be zero (i.e.,
158: $\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}; \; \forall i = 1,\cdots,S; \; \forall n$)
159: \cite{Hughes}. Thus, we have
160: %------------------------------;
161: % Equation: Stability Step 2 ;
162: %------------------------------;
163: \begin{align}
164: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2 \Delta t} \left[{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
165: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right]
166: %
167: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{d}_{i}^{(n)}\right\}}^\mathrm{T}
168: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i\right\}
169: %
170: = \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right\}}^{\mathrm{T}}
171: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}
172: \end{align}
173: %
174: By invoking the fact that the matrices $\boldsymbol{K}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots , S)$
175: are positive semidefinite, we conclude that
176: %------------------------------;
177: % Equation: Stability Step 3 ;
178: %------------------------------;
179: \begin{align}
180: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2 \Delta t} \left[{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
181: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right]
182: %
183: \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right\}}^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
184: \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}
185: %
186: = {\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}}^{\mathrm{T}} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i\right\}
187: \end{align}
188: %
189: Using the linearity of the average operator (which allows us to interchange the
190: summation and average operation), and the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity given by
191: equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}; we conclude that
192: %------------------------------;
193: % Equation: Stability Step 4 ;
194: %------------------------------;
195: \begin{align}
196: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2 \Delta t} \left[{\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
197: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i \right] \leq 0 \quad \forall n
198: \end{align}
199: %
200: Using the definition and linearity of the jump operator, we conclude
201: \begin{align}
202: \sum_{i=1}^{S}{\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+1)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+1)} \leq
203: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}
204: \leq \cdots \leq
205: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(0)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(0)}
206: \end{align}
207: %
208: Since $\forall i = 1, \cdots, S$ the initial vectors $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(0)}$ are bounded
209: and the matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ are positive definite; we conclude that the vectors
210: $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)} \; (i = 1, \cdots, S)$ are bounded $\forall n$. This implies that,
211: from the trapezoidal equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}, the
212: vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+\gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)} + \gamma
213: \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)} \; (i = 1, \cdots, S)$ are also bounded $\forall n$.
214:
215: We now show that the Lagrange multipliers $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}$ are bounded
216: $\forall n$. There are several ways in proving this result. Herein, we show using the Schur
217: complement operator (which is widely used in computer implementations, see Appendix). An
218: alternate derivation is presented in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_stability_v_continuity} for
219: proving a similar result. Under zero external force the subdomain governing equation
220: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_domain} implies
221: %------------------------------;
222: % Equation: Stability Step 5 ;
223: %------------------------------;
224: \begin{align}
225: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5}
226: \boldsymbol{M}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)} + \boldsymbol{K}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n + \gamma)}
227: = \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}, \quad \forall i
228: \end{align}
229: %
230: Using $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)} = \left(\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+1)} - \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}
231: \right)/\Delta t$ (see equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}) and
232: $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n + \gamma)} = (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)} + \gamma \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+1)}$,
233: the above equation can be written as
234: %-------------------------------;
235: % Equation: Stability Step 5a ;
236: %-------------------------------;
237: \begin{align}
238: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5a}
239: & \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n+1)} = \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i - (1 - \gamma)
240: \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i \right) \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)} + \Delta t \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1}
241: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)} \\
242: %
243: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_M_i_tilde}
244: & \mbox{where} \quad \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i := \boldsymbol{M}_i + \gamma \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
245: \end{align}
246: %
247: By premultiplying equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5a} with $\boldsymbol{C}_i$,
248: then summing over the number of subdomains (i.e., the index $i = 1, \cdots, S$), and
249: using the kinematic constraint for $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method (equation
250: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}); we get
251: %-------------------------------;
252: % Equation: Stability Step 5b ;
253: %-------------------------------;
254: \begin{align}
255: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5b}
256: & \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)} = -\frac{1}{\Delta t} \boldsymbol{G}^{-1}
257: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i -
258: (1 - \gamma) \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i \right) \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)} \\
259: %
260: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_G}
261: & \mbox{where} \quad \boldsymbol{G} := \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i
262: \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
263: \end{align}
264: %
265: Since the vectors $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ are bounded $\forall n$, from equation
266: \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5b}, we conclude that the Lagrange multipliers
267: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}$ are also bounded $\forall n$.
268: %-------------------------------------------------;
269: % Remark: M_i_tilde and G are positive definite ;
270: %-------------------------------------------------;
271: \begin{remark}
272: \label{Remark:DD_d_continuity_M_i_tilde_G_positive_definite}
273: Since the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i$ is positive definite (and hence invertible),
274: all the steps in equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5a} are valid.
275: %
276: Also, since the constraints are assumed to be linearly independent, one can easily
277: show that the matrix $\boldsymbol{G}$ (which is sometimes called the Schur complement
278: operator) is positive definite (and hence invertible). Therefore, all the steps in
279: equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5b} are valid. Also see Appendix.
280: \end{remark}
281:
282: But the proof of stability is not yet complete as we have not said anything about the
283: boundedness of $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ and these
284: quantities are used to advance the solution. Before we comment on the boundedness of
285: rates and Lagrange multipliers at integer time levels $t_n$, we state and prove the
286: following general result, which will be useful in assessing stability of coupling
287: algorithms. We employ the standard notation used in mathematical analysis. To avoid
288: ambiguity, let $\mathbb{N} := \left\{0,1,2, \cdots\right\}$.
289: %----------------------------------------;
290: % Proposition: Proposition on sn_gamma ;
291: %----------------------------------------;
292: \begin{proposition}
293: \label{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}
294: Let $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of real numbers and let
295: $s^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) s^{(n)} + \gamma s^{(n+1)}$, where $0 \leq \gamma
296: \leq 1$. If the element $s^{(0)}$ and the sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}
297: \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ are bounded, then for any $\gamma > 1/2$ the (original)
298: sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded.
299: \end{proposition}
300: %--------------------------------------------;
301: % Proof: Proof of proposition on s_n_gamma ;
302: %--------------------------------------------;
303: \begin{proof}
304: We split the proof into two different cases: $\gamma = 1$ and $1/2 < \gamma < 1$.
305:
306: \textit{First case $(\gamma = 1)$}: The proof is trivial as in this case $s^{(n + \gamma)}
307: = s^{(n+1)}$. The sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ can be obtained by
308: augmenting the element $s^{(0)}$ at the start of the sequence
309: $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. Since the element $s^{(0)}$ and the
310: sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ are bounded, we conclude that
311: the original sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded.
312:
313: \textit{Second case $(1/2 < \gamma < 1)$}: Construct a new sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$
314: such that $c^{(n)} = \left|s^{(n)}\right|$. If $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded then
315: $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded and vice-versa. We now prove the proposition
316: by the method of contradiction.
317:
318: Assume that the sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. Then we can
319: find a strictly increasing unbounded subsequence $\left(c^{(n_k)}\right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}
320: \; (n_k \in \mathbb{N}, 0 \leq n_1 < n_2 < \cdots)$ such that
321: \begin{align}
322: & 0 < c^{(n_1)} < c^{(n_2)} < \cdots \rightarrow \infty \quad \mathrm{and} \\
323: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cm_leq_cnk}
324: & c^{(m)} < c^{(n_k)} \quad \forall m < n_k, m \in \mathbb{N}
325: \end{align}
326: %
327: Since the sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, we can find
328: $0 < M \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
329: \begin{align}
330: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_sngamma_leq_M}
331: \left|s^{(n + \gamma)}\right| < M \quad \forall n
332: \end{align}
333: Since the subsequence $\left(c^{(n_k)}\right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is strictly increasing and
334: unbounded, we can find an element of this subsequence such that
335: \begin{align}
336: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cnp1_geq_M}
337: c^{(n_p)} \geq \frac{1}{2 \gamma - 1} M, \quad p \in \mathbb{N}
338: \end{align}
339: %
340: Since $1/2 < \gamma < 1$ (and, therefore $\gamma > 2 \gamma - 1$), from equations
341: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_sngamma_leq_M} and \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cnp1_geq_M} we have
342: \begin{align}
343: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_main_inequality}
344: \gamma c^{(n_p)} > (2 \gamma - 1) c^{(n_p)} \geq M > \left|s^{(n + \gamma)}\right| \geq 0 \quad \forall n
345: \end{align}
346: %
347:
348: Using the definition of $s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}$ we have
349: \begin{align}
350: c^{(n_p - 1)} = \left|s^{(n_p - 1)}\right| &= \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)} - \gamma s^{(n_p)}\right|
351: \end{align}
352: %
353: By using the triangle inequality (and noting that $c^{(n_p)} := |s^{(n_p)}|$) we conclude that
354: \begin{align}
355: c^{(n_p - 1)} \geq \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma \left|s^{(n_p)}\right| - \left|s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}\right| \right|
356: = \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma c^{(n_p)} - \left|s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}\right| \right|
357: \end{align}
358: %
359: By using equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_main_inequality} we obtain
360: \begin{align}
361: c^{(n_p - 1)} > \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma c^{(n_p)} - (2 \gamma - 1) c^{(n_p)}\right| = c^{(n_p)}
362: \end{align}
363: %
364: which is a contradiction as it violates equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cm_leq_cnk}. This
365: implies that the sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, and so should
366: be the sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. This completes the proof.
367: \end{proof}
368: %-----------------------------------------;
369: % Remark: Remark on 0 leq gamma leq 1/2 ;
370: %-----------------------------------------;
371: \begin{remark}
372: \label{Remark:DD_Remark_on_gamma_leq_dot5}
373: The result proved in Proposition \ref{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}, in general,
374: cannot be extended to $0 < \gamma \leq 1/2$. Counterexamples for the cases $0 < \gamma
375: < 1/2$ and $\gamma = 1/2$ are given in figures \ref{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_leq_dot5}
376: and \ref{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_dot5}, respectively. As discussed in Remark
377: \ref{Remark:Trapezoidal_forward_Euler_ill_posed}, the forward Euler $(\gamma = 0)$ is
378: not well-posed under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
379: %
380: This implies that, under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method, many of
381: the popular time stepping schemes from the generalized trapezoidal family (e.g., the forward
382: Euler and midpoint rule) are unstable. The midpoint rule $(\gamma = 1/2)$ is unconditionally
383: stable for linear first-order ODEs. But for linear index-2 DAEs, the midpoint rule can be
384: unstable (and is right on the boundary of the instability region).
385: \end{remark}
386:
387: %---------------------------------------------;
388: % Figure: Unstable sequence for gamma < 1/2 ;
389: %---------------------------------------------;
390: \begin{figure}
391: \psfrag{0}{$0$}
392: \psfrag{1}{$1$}
393: \psfrag{2}{$2$}
394: \psfrag{3}{$3$}
395: \psfrag{4}{$4$}
396: \psfrag{n}{$n$}
397: \psfrag{g}{$\gamma$}
398: \psfrag{gl}{$\gamma < 1/2$}
399: \psfrag{s0}{$s^{(0)}$}
400: \psfrag{s1}{$s^{(1)}$}
401: \psfrag{s2}{$s^{(2)}$}
402: \psfrag{s3}{$s^{(3)}$}
403: \psfrag{sn}{$s^{(n)}$}
404: \psfrag{sngamma}{$s^{(n + \gamma)}, \forall n$}
405: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figures/Unstable_Sequence.eps}
406: \caption{A counterexample for the case $0 \leq \gamma < 1/2$. The figure presents an example
407: in which the (constant) sequence $(s^{(n + \gamma)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded but
408: $(s^{(n)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. The elements of $(s^{(n+ \gamma)})_{n \in
409: \mathbb{N}}$ are indicated using filled squares, and those of $(s^{(n)})_{n \in
410: \mathbb{N}}$ are indicated using circles.
411: Recall that $s^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) s^{(n)} + \gamma s^{(n+1)}, \; \forall n$.
412: \label{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_leq_dot5}}
413: \end{figure}
414:
415: %---------------------------------------------;
416: % Figure: Unstable sequence for gamma = 1/2 ;
417: %---------------------------------------------;
418: \begin{figure}
419: \begin{align*}
420: \begin{array}{c|cccccc}
421: n & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \cdots \\ \hline
422: s^{(n + 1/2)} & +1 & -1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & \cdots \\
423: s^{(n)} & 0 & +2 & -4 & +6 & -8 & \cdots
424: \end{array}
425: \end{align*}
426: \caption{A counterexample for $\gamma = 1/2$. The sequence $\left(s^{(n + 1/2)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}},
427: \; s^{(n + 1/2)} := \left(s^{(n)} + s^{(n+1)}\right)/2,$ is bounded but the sequence
428: $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. \label{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_dot5}}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: Returning to the proof of stability of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method,
432: we have proved that $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}$ are
433: bounded $\forall i$ and $\forall n$. Applying Proposition \ref{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}
434: for individual components of the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_{i}^{(n + \gamma)}$ and
435: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}$, we can conclude that for $1/2 < \gamma \leq 1$ the vectors
436: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ are bounded $\forall i$ and $\forall n$.
437: As shown mathematically in Remark \ref{Remark:DD_Remark_on_gamma_leq_dot5}, the quantities
438: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ may not be bounded when $0 \leq \gamma
439: \leq 1/2$. In a later subsection we will present physical systems that, in fact, exhibit this kind
440: of (numerical) unbounded behavior for $\gamma \leq 1/2$ under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
441: This completes the stability analysis of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
442:
443: %==================================================;
444: % Subsection: Stability of modified d-continuity ;
445: %==================================================;
446: \subsection{Stability of modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method}
447: \label{Subsec:DD_stability_modified_d_continuity}
448: The majority of the proof for this method is identical to the initial part of the proof for
449: the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method (presented in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity})
450: up to the step where we deduced that the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+ \gamma)}$ and
451: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+\gamma)}$ are bounded. The only additional thing we have to prove is
452: the boundedness of the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$,
453: which is a direct consequence of the triangle inequality. To wit, using equation
454: \eqref{Eqn:DD_modified_lambda_interpolation} (and also see Figure
455: \ref{Fig:DD_interpolation_lambda}) we have
456: %---------------------------------;
457: % Equation: Triangle inequality ;
458: %---------------------------------;
459: \begin{align}
460: \label{Eqn:DD_triangle_inequality}
461: \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right\| =
462: \left\|\gamma \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n-1+\gamma)} +
463: (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}\right\|
464: %
465: \leq \gamma \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n-1+\gamma)}\right\| +
466: (1 - \gamma) \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}\right\|
467: \end{align}
468: %
469: Since the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}$ are bounded $\forall n$, from the above equation
470: it is evident that the Lagrange multipliers at integral time levels $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ are
471: bounded $\forall n$. Using a similar reasoning, since the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+\gamma)}$ are
472: bounded $\forall n$, the rates at the integer time levels $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ are also bounded.
473: (Note that the vectors $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ are also bounded, which has been proven in subsection
474: \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}.) This means that under this method all quantities of interest are
475: bounded. This completes the stability analysis of the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
476:
477: Note that, as discussed in Remark \ref{Remark:Trapezoidal_forward_Euler_ill_posed}, the forward
478: Euler $(\gamma = 0)$ is not well-posed under the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method. All
479: other time integrators from the generalized trapezoidal family $(0 < \gamma \leq 1)$ can be employed
480: and are stable under the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method.
481:
482: %------------------------------------------------------------------------;
483: % Remark: Comments on the backward Euler with d-continuity constraints ;
484: %------------------------------------------------------------------------;
485: \begin{remark}
486: \label{Remark:DD_backward_Euler_d_continuity}
487: For the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity and modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain
488: decomposition methods, with backward Euler $(\gamma = 1)$ one can achieve the continuity
489: of both temperatures and temperature rates along the subdomain interface. To wit, the
490: $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity constraints (which are basically the continuity of temperatures
491: along the interface, and are given by equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}
492: or \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_modified_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}) imply
493: %-----------------------------------;
494: % Equation: backward Euler Step 1 ;
495: %-----------------------------------;
496: \begin{align}
497: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n-1)}\right] = \boldsymbol{0}, \; \forall n
498: \end{align}
499: %
500: For backward Euler we have $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n-1)}\right] = \Delta t \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$.
501: This implies the continuity of rates along the subdomain interface.
502: %-----------------------------------;
503: % Equation: backward Euler Step 2 ;
504: %-----------------------------------;
505: \begin{align}
506: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}, \; \forall n
507: \end{align}
508: %
509: \end{remark}
510:
511: %=============================================;
512: % Subsection: Stability of the v-continuity ;
513: %=============================================;
514: \subsection{Stability of the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method}
515: \label{Subsec:DD_stability_v_continuity}
516: We follow a similar procedure employed in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}. Using equations
517: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_domain}-\eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}
518: (and as usual neglecting the external forcing function for stability analysis \cite{Hughes}; i.e.,
519: $\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}$) one obtains
520: %------------------------------;
521: % Equation: Stability Step 1 ;
522: %------------------------------;
523: \begin{align}
524: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
525: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right]
526: %
527: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} \Delta t {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}_{i}^{(n)}\right\}}^\mathrm{T}
528: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i\right\}
529: %
530: = \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}}^{\mathrm{T}}
531: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
532: \end{align}
533: %
534: Since the matrices $\boldsymbol{K}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots , S)$ are positive
535: semidefinite, and $\Delta t > 0$; we conclude
536: %------------------------------;
537: % Equation: Stability Step 2 ;
538: %------------------------------;
539: \begin{align}
540: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
541: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right]
542: %
543: \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right\}}^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
544: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)} \right]
545: %
546: = {\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]}^{\mathrm{T}} \sum_{i=1}^{S}
547: \boldsymbol{C}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i\right\}
548: \end{align}
549: %
550: Using the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity given by equation
551: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_v_continuity_DD_kinematic} we conclude that
552: %------------------------------;
553: % Equation: Stability Step 3 ;
554: %------------------------------;
555: \begin{align}
556: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
557: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right] \leq 0 \quad \forall n
558: \end{align}
559: %
560: Using the definition and linearity of the jump operator, we conclude
561: \begin{align}
562: \sum_{i=1}^{S}{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)} \leq
563: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}
564: \leq \cdots \leq
565: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}
566: \end{align}
567: %
568: Since $\forall i = 1, \cdots, S$ the initial vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}$ are
569: bounded and the matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ are positive definite; we conclude that
570: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ are bounded $\forall n$. This implies that, from the trapezoidal
571: equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_v_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}, $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}
572: \right]$ is bounded.
573:
574: One can further show that, under the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method, the jump in the
575: Lagrange multipliers $\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)} \right]$ is also bounded. There are
576: several ways to prove this result, which was the case even under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity
577: method for proving the boundedness of the Lagrange multipliers $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}$
578: (see subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}). As mentioned earlier, herein we take a slightly
579: different approach (than the one in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}), and which is also
580: applicable for the Baumgarte stabilized method for showing a similar result.
581: %
582: To this end, we start with
583: %------------------------------;
584: % Equation: Stability Step 4 ;
585: %------------------------------;
586: \begin{align}
587: \label{Eqn:DD_v_continuity_step4}
588: \boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \boldsymbol{K}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] =
589: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right], \quad \forall i
590: \end{align}
591: %
592: (Note that in the above equation we have used the fact that the external force on all
593: subdomains is zero, $\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}$.) By premultiplying the
594: above equation with $\boldsymbol{C}_i \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1}$, and then summing
595: over the number of subdomains, we get
596: %------------------------------;
597: % Equation: Stability Step 5 ;
598: %------------------------------;
599: \begin{align}
600: \label{Eqn:DD_v_continuity_step5}
601: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right] = \boldsymbol{G}^{-1}
602: \sum_{i}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1}
603: \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
604: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] \right)
605: \end{align}
606: %
607: where the matrices $\tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{G}$ are defined in
608: equations \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_M_i_tilde} and \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_G},
609: respectively. Since the vectors $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right]$ and
610: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ (and hence $\left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]$) are bounded
611: $\forall n$, from equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_v_continuity_step5}, we conclude that
612: $\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]$ is bounded $\forall n$.
613: %------------------------------------------;
614: % Remark: Remark on other choices of H_i ;
615: %------------------------------------------;
616: \begin{remark}
617: In order to show the above result (that the vector $\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)} \right]$
618: is bounded), in the step just above equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_v_continuity_step5}, one can
619: premultiply with any matrix of the form $\boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{H}_i$ where
620: $\boldsymbol{H}_i$ is some positive definite matrix.
621: %
622: Since $\tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1}$ is a positive definite matrix (as discussed in
623: Remark \ref{Remark:DD_d_continuity_M_i_tilde_G_positive_definite} that the matrix
624: $\tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i$ is positive definite), the choice $\boldsymbol{H}_i =
625: \tilde{\boldsymbol{M}}_i^{-1}$ is valid. We have chosen this particular choice as
626: to be able to use some of the earlier results (e.g., the matrix $\boldsymbol{G}$
627: is invertible), and to avoid introducing additional notation.
628: \end{remark}
629:
630: For the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity domain decomposition method, solely based on the energy
631: method, one cannot infer the boundedness of the quantities $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ and
632: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$. Also, there can be drift in the continuity of temperatures
633: along the subdomain interface. That is, $\sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}
634: \neq \boldsymbol{0}$. This drift may grow over time due to round-off errors. As discussed
635: earlier, one of the ways to control the drift is to employ the Baumgarte stabilization. In
636: the next subsection, we discuss the stability of the Baumgarte constraint stabilization in
637: the context of index-2 linear first-order transient systems.
638: %------------------------------------------------------;
639: % Remark: Remark on forward Euler under v-continuity ;
640: %------------------------------------------------------;
641: \begin{remark}
642: Note that, unlike the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity and modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity
643: methods, one can employ the forward Euler method $(\gamma = 0)$ in individual subdomains
644: under the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity domain decomposition method.
645: \end{remark}
646:
647: %=============================================================================;
648: % Subsection: Stability of Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method ;
649: %=============================================================================;
650: \subsection{Stability of Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method}
651: \label{Subsec:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_theory}
652: We start the stability analysis by rewriting the kinematic constraints. To this end,
653: equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic} implies that
654: %---------------------------------------------;
655: % Equation: Baumgarte constraints jump form ;
656: %---------------------------------------------;
657: \begin{align}
658: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left(\left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
659: \frac{\alpha}{\Delta t} \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] \right) = \boldsymbol{0}
660: \end{align}
661: %
662: By using the kinematic constraints given by equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic}
663: and identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma} we get
664: %-----------------------------------------;
665: % Equation: Final Baumgarte constraints ;
666: %-----------------------------------------;
667: \begin{align}
668: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_final_Baumgarte_constraints}
669: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
670: \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = \boldsymbol{0}
671: \end{align}
672: %
673: where the (dimensionless) parameter $\alpha^{*}$ is introduced for convenience,
674: and is defined as
675: %--------------------------------------;
676: % Equation: Definition of alpha_star ;
677: %--------------------------------------;
678: \begin{align}
679: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}
680: \alpha^{*} := 1 + \alpha \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right)
681: \end{align}
682:
683: We now rewrite the subdomain equation in a manner similar to what we did above for the
684: kinematic constraints. Equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_domain} implies that
685: %-----------------------------------;
686: % Equation: Equilibrium jump form ;
687: %-----------------------------------;
688: \begin{align}
689: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_equilibrium_jump_form}
690: \boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \boldsymbol{K}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] =
691: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
692: \end{align}
693: %
694: By using the trapezoidal equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_trapezoidal} and employing
695: the identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma} we get
696: %------------------------------------;
697: % Equation: Equilibrium final form ;
698: %------------------------------------;
699: \begin{align}
700: \boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
701: \left( \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
702: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
703: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
704: \end{align}
705:
706: Premultiplying both sides of the above equation by $\left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}
707: \right] + \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)$ and then summing over all of the
708: subdomains we get
709: %------------------------------;
710: % Equation: Stability step 1 ;
711: %------------------------------;
712: \begin{align}
713: &\sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
714: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i
715: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
716: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
717: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)\right)\notag \\
718: %
719: &= \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
720: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
721: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
722: %
723: = \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i
724: \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)
725: \end{align}
726: %
727: For the Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method, using equation
728: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_final_Baumgarte_constraints}, we conclude that
729: %------------------------------;
730: % Equation: Stability step 2 ;
731: %------------------------------;
732: \begin{align}
733: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
734: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i
735: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
736: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
737: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)\right) = 0
738: \end{align}
739: %
740: Using the definition of $\alpha^{*}$ (equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}),
741: the above equation can be rewritten as
742: %------------------------------;
743: % Equation: Stability step 3 ;
744: %------------------------------;
745: \begin{align}
746: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
747: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{M}_i
748: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]
749: %
750: + \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
751: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
752: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) \notag \\
753: %
754: + \alpha \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left((\gamma - 1/2) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
755: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{K}_i
756: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
757: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = 0
758: \end{align}
759: %
760: Since $\alpha > 0$, $\Delta t > 0$ and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is positive semidefinite, we conclude
761: %------------------------------;
762: % Equation: Stability step 4 ;
763: %------------------------------;
764: \begin{align}
765: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
766: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{M}_i
767: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]
768: %
769: + \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
770: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
771: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) \leq 0
772: \end{align}
773: %------------------------------;
774: % Equation: Stability step 5 ;
775: %------------------------------;
776: By invoking the symmetry of $\boldsymbol{M}_i$, using equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star},
777: and rearranging the terms we get
778: \begin{align}
779: \label{Eqn:New_DD_Baum_stab_step5}
780: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
781: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
782: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}
783: %
784: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
785: \boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] \leq 0
786: \end{align}
787: %
788: where the matrix $\boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i$ is defined as
789: %-------------------------------------;
790: % Equation: Definition of A_i_tilde ;
791: %-------------------------------------;
792: \begin{align}
793: \label{Eqn:New_DD_definition_of_A_i_tilde}
794: \boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i := \alpha^{*} \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t
795: \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \boldsymbol{K}_i
796: \end{align}
797:
798: If the matrices $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots, S)$ are positive semidefinite
799: (later we will obtain sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
800: positive semidefinite) then equation \eqref{Eqn:New_DD_Baum_stab_step5} implies that
801: %------------------------------;
802: % Equation: Stability step 6 ;
803: %------------------------------;
804: \begin{align}
805: \sum_{i=1}^S \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
806: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
807: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\} \leq 0
808: \end{align}
809: %
810: By invoking identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Symmetric_S} we have
811: %------------------------------;
812: % Equation: Stability step 7 ;
813: %------------------------------;
814: \begin{align}
815: &\sum_{i=1}^S \left[\left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
816: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
817: \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] \leq 0 \quad \forall n
818: \end{align}
819: This implies that
820: %------------------------------;
821: % Equation: Stability step 8 ;
822: %------------------------------;
823: \begin{align}
824: \sum_{i=1}^S \left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i
825: + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right) \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)} \leq \cdots \leq
826: \sum_{i=1}^S \left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
827: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
828: \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}
829: \end{align}
830: %
831: Since $\alpha > 0$, $\boldsymbol{M}_i$ is positive definite, and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is
832: positive semidefinite; the matrix $\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i$
833: is positive definite. This implies that the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ are bounded
834: $\forall n$ as the (initial) vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}$ are bounded. From the
835: trapezoidal equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_trapezoidal}, one can conclude
836: that the vectors $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right]$ are bounded $\forall n$. Using
837: the same derivation as presented under the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method, one
838: can conclude that the vector $\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]$ is bounded
839: $\forall n$.
840:
841: Furthermore, one can easily show that under the Baumgarte stabilized method \emph{the
842: drift in the original constraint (i.e., continuity of temperature along the subdomain
843: interface) is also bounded (but may not be zero), which is not the case with the
844: $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method}.
845: %
846: To show this (for convenience) let us work with $1$-norm, and the result (boundedness)
847: will hold for other norms also (because of equivalence of norms in finite dimensional
848: vector spaces). We start with the $1$-norm of the drift in the original constraint, and
849: use equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic} and the triangle inequality:
850: %-----------------------------------------------------;
851: % Equation: Drift is bounded in Baumgarte (Step #1) ;
852: %-----------------------------------------------------;
853: \begin{align}
854: \label{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_1}
855: \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\|
856: = \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\|
857: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \|\boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\|
858: \end{align}
859: %
860: Now using the definition of matrix-norm, and the boundedness of $\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i$;
861: equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_1} can be written as
862: %-----------------------------------------------------;
863: % Equation: Drift is bounded in Baumgarte (Step #2) ;
864: %-----------------------------------------------------;
865: \begin{align}
866: \label{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_2}
867: \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\|
868: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \| \boldsymbol{C}_i\| \|\boldsymbol{v}_i^{n}\|
869: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \|\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\| < C \quad \forall n
870: \end{align}
871: %
872: where $C > 0$ is some constant independent of $n$, and we have used the fact that the
873: $1$-norm $\|\boldsymbol{C}_i\|_{1} \leq 1$. (Also recall that if $\boldsymbol{C}_i \neq
874: \boldsymbol{0}$, which is the case in this paper, $\|\boldsymbol{C}_i\|_{1} = 1$.) Equation
875: \eqref{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_2} implies that \emph{the drift in the original constraint
876: is bounded $\forall n$}.
877:
878: Similar to the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method, even under the Baumgarte stabilized method,
879: one cannot infer anything about the boundedness of $\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i$ or Lagrange multipliers
880: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ solely based on the energy method. But, for many practical problems
881: one often gets bounded numerical results for these quantities. The boundedness of the drift
882: in the original constraint is the only additional (but very important) feature that the
883: Baumgarte stabilized method has compared to the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method.
884:
885: We will now obtain sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
886: positive semidefinite (which we have assumed in the stability analysis of this method, see
887: the line below equation \eqref{Eqn:New_DD_definition_of_A_i_tilde}).
888: %
889: Using the eigenvectors of the generalized eigenvalue problem \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_GEVP} as
890: the basis, the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ can be diagonalized and obeys the similarity
891: %----------------------------;
892: % Equation: Similar matrix ;
893: %----------------------------;
894: \begin{align}
895: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_similar_matrix}
896: \tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i \sim \alpha^{*} \boldsymbol{I} + \Delta t
897: \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i
898: \end{align}
899: %
900: In the above equation, the symbol ``$\sim$'' denotes similarity of matrices, and the matrix
901: $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ is defined as
902: %----------------------------;
903: % Equation: Matrix Omega_i ;
904: %----------------------------;
905: \begin{align}
906: \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i = \mathrm{diag}\left(\left(\omega_i\right)_1,\cdots,
907: \left(\omega_i\right)_n\right)
908: \end{align}
909: %
910: where $n$ is the size of the (square) matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$; and $\left(\omega_i
911: \right)_1,\cdots, \left(\omega_i\right)_n$ are the eigenvalues of the generalized eigenvalue
912: problem \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_GEVP}. (It is well-known that similar matrices have the same
913: characteristic polynomial, and hence the same eigenvalues \cite{Halmos}.)
914:
915: Since $\boldsymbol{M}_i$ is positive definite and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is positive
916: semidefinite, the eigenvalues $\left(\omega_i\right)_1,\cdots,\left(\omega_i\right)_n$
917: are all non-negative. This implies that (using equations \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}
918: and \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_similar_matrix}, and noting that $\Delta t > 0$) the matrix
919: $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ is positive semidefinite unconditionally for $\gamma \geq 1/2$.
920: For $\gamma < 1/2$, sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
921: positive semidefinite are
922: %-------------;
923: % Equation: ;
924: %-------------;
925: \begin{align}
926: &\alpha^{*} \geq 0 \implies \alpha \leq \frac{1}{|\gamma - 1/2|} \\
927: %
928: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_t_crit}
929: &\Delta t \leq \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} = \frac{\alpha^{*}}{|\gamma - 1/2| \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} =
930: \frac{2}{(1 - 2 \gamma) \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{\alpha}{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}
931: \end{align}
932: %------------------;
933: % Remark: Remark ;
934: %------------------;
935: \begin{remark}
936: Note that in equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_t_crit} $\Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}}
937: \geq 0$ as $\alpha^{*} \geq 0$ and $\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}} \geq 0$.
938: \end{remark}
939:
940: These results imply that the use of Baumgarte stabilization decreases the critical step
941: for subdomain $i$ by $\alpha/{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}$ relative to the unconstrained case.
942: Summarizing the results, sufficient conditions for the stability of Baumgarte stabilized
943: domain decomposition method are
944: %-------------------------------------;
945: % Equation: Summarizing the results ;
946: %-------------------------------------;
947: \begin{align}
948: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_leq_dot5}
949: 0 \leq \gamma < 1/2 & \quad \left\{\begin{array}{l}
950: \alpha \leq \frac{1}{|\gamma - 1/2|} \\
951: \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} =
952: \frac{2}{(1 - 2 \gamma) \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} -
953: \frac{\alpha}{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}
954: %
955: \end{array} \right. \\
956: %
957: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_geq_dot5}
958: 1/2 \leq \gamma \leq 1 & \quad \left\{\begin{array}{l}
959: \alpha < + \infty \\
960: \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} = + \infty
961: \end{array} \right.
962: \end{align}
963:
964: %-----------------------------------------;
965: % Table: A summary of stability results ;
966: %-----------------------------------------;
967: \begin{table}
968: \caption{A summary of stability results \label{Table:DD_stability_results}}
969: \begin{tabular}{ll} \hline
970: Method & Stability characteristics \\ \hline
971: $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity & Stable for $1/2 < \gamma \leq 1$. \\
972: Modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity & Stable for $0 < \gamma \leq 1$. \\
973: $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity & Drift on the interface. \\
974: Baumgarte stabilized & Unconditionally stable for $1/2 \leq \gamma \leq 1$.
975: Stability \\ & conditions for $0 \leq \gamma < 1/2$ are given in Eq.
976: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_leq_dot5}. \\ \hline
977: \end{tabular}
978: \end{table}
979:
980: For a quick reference, the stability results derived in this section are
981: summarized in Table \ref{Table:DD_stability_results}. In the next section
982: we verify the theoretical predictions using numerical experiments.