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 $\forall n$. Under zero
214: external force the subdomain governing equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_domain}
215: implies
216: %------------------------------;
217: % Equation: Stability Step 5 ;
218: %------------------------------;
219: \begin{align}
220: \label{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5}
221: \boldsymbol{M}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)} + \boldsymbol{K}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n + \gamma)}
222: = \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}, \quad \forall i
223: \end{align}
224: %
225: Since $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ (and hence $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n + \gamma)}$) and
226: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)}$ are bounded, from equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_d_continuity_step5}
227: we conclude that the Lagrange multipliers $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}$ are also bounded
228: $\forall n$.
229:
230: But the proof of stability is not yet complete as we have not said anything about the
231: boundedness of $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i^{(n)}$ and these
232: quantities are used to advance the solution. Before we comment on the boundedness of
233: rates and Lagrange multipliers at integer time levels $t_n$, we state and prove the
234: following general result, which will be useful in assessing stability of coupling
235: algorithms. We employ the standard notation used in mathematical analysis. To avoid
236: ambiguity, let $\mathbb{N} := \left\{0,1,2, \cdots\right\}$.
237: %----------------------------------------;
238: % Proposition: Proposition on sn_gamma ;
239: %----------------------------------------;
240: \begin{proposition}
241: \label{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}
242: Let $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of real numbers and let
243: $s^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) s^{(n)} + \gamma s^{(n+1)}$, where $0 \leq \gamma
244: \leq 1$. If the element $s^{(0)}$ and the sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}
245: \right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ are bounded, then for any $\gamma > 1/2$ the (original)
246: sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded.
247: \end{proposition}
248: %--------------------------------------------;
249: % Proof: Proof of proposition on s_n_gamma ;
250: %--------------------------------------------;
251: \begin{proof}
252: We split the proof into two different cases: $\gamma = 1$ and $1/2 < \gamma < 1$.
253:
254: \textit{First case $(\gamma = 1)$}: The proof is trivial as in this case $s^{(n + \gamma)}
255: = s^{(n+1)}$. The sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ can be obtained by
256: augmenting the element $s^{(0)}$ at the start of the sequence
257: $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. Since the element $s^{(0)}$ and the
258: sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ are bounded, we conclude that
259: the original sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded.
260:
261: \textit{Second case $(1/2 < \gamma < 1)$}: Construct a new sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$
262: such that $c^{(n)} = \left|s^{(n)}\right|$. If $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded then
263: $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded and vice-versa. We now prove the proposition
264: by the method of contradiction.
265:
266: Assume that the sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. Then we can
267: find a strictly increasing unbounded subsequence $\left(c^{(n_k)}\right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}
268: \; (n_k \in \mathbb{N}, 0 \leq n_1 < n_2 < \cdots)$ such that
269: \begin{align}
270: & 0 < c^{(n_1)} < c^{(n_2)} < \cdots \rightarrow \infty \quad \mathrm{and} \\
271: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cm_leq_cnk}
272: & c^{(m)} < c^{(n_k)} \quad \forall m < n_k, m \in \mathbb{N}
273: \end{align}
274: %
275: Since the sequence $\left(s^{(n + \gamma)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, we can find
276: $0 < M \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
277: \begin{align}
278: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_sngamma_leq_M}
279: \left|s^{(n + \gamma)}\right| < M \quad \forall n
280: \end{align}
281: Since the subsequence $\left(c^{(n_k)}\right)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is strictly increasing and
282: unbounded, we can find an element of this subsequence such that
283: \begin{align}
284: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cnp1_geq_M}
285: c^{(n_p)} \geq \frac{1}{2 \gamma - 1} M, \quad p \in \mathbb{N}
286: \end{align}
287: %
288: Since $1/2 < \gamma < 1$ (and, therefore $\gamma > 2 \gamma - 1$), from equations
289: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_sngamma_leq_M} and \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cnp1_geq_M} we have
290: \begin{align}
291: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_main_inequality}
292: \gamma c^{(n_p)} > (2 \gamma - 1) c^{(n_p)} \geq M > \left|s^{(n + \gamma)}\right| \geq 0 \quad \forall n
293: \end{align}
294: %
295:
296: Using the definition of $s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}$ we have
297: \begin{align}
298: 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|
299: \end{align}
300: %
301: By using the triangle inequality (and noting that $c^{(n_p)} := |s^{(n_p)}|$) we conclude that
302: \begin{align}
303: c^{(n_p - 1)} \geq \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma \left|s^{(n_p)}\right| - \left|s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}\right| \right|
304: = \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma c^{(n_p)} - \left|s^{(n_p - 1 + \gamma)}\right| \right|
305: \end{align}
306: %
307: By using equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_main_inequality} we obtain
308: \begin{align}
309: c^{(n_p - 1)} > \frac{1}{1 - \gamma} \left|\gamma c^{(n_p)} - (2 \gamma - 1) c^{(n_p)}\right| = c^{(n_p)}
310: \end{align}
311: %
312: which is a contradiction as it violates equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_cm_leq_cnk}. This
313: implies that the sequence $\left(c^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, and so should
314: be the sequence $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. This completes the proof.
315: \end{proof}
316: %-----------------------------------------;
317: % Remark: Remark on 0 leq gamma leq 1/2 ;
318: %-----------------------------------------;
319: \begin{remark}
320: \label{Remark:DD_Remark_on_gamma_leq_dot5}
321: The result proved in Proposition \ref{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}, in general,
322: cannot be extended to $0 < \gamma \leq 1/2$. Counterexamples for the cases $0 < \gamma
323: < 1/2$ and $\gamma = 1/2$ are given in figures \ref{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_leq_dot5}
324: and \ref{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_dot5}, respectively. As discussed in Remark
325: \ref{Remark:Trapezoidal_forward_Euler_ill_posed}, the forward Euler $(\gamma = 0)$ is
326: not well-posed under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
327: %
328: This implies that, under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method, many of
329: the popular time stepping schemes from the generalized trapezoidal family (e.g., the forward
330: Euler and midpoint rule) are unstable. The midpoint rule $(\gamma = 1/2)$ is unconditionally
331: stable for linear first-order ODEs. But for linear index-2 DAEs, the midpoint rule can be
332: unstable (and is right on the boundary of the instability region).
333: \end{remark}
334:
335: %---------------------------------------------;
336: % Figure: Unstable sequence for gamma < 1/2 ;
337: %---------------------------------------------;
338: \begin{figure}
339: \psfrag{0}{$0$}
340: \psfrag{1}{$1$}
341: \psfrag{2}{$2$}
342: \psfrag{3}{$3$}
343: \psfrag{4}{$4$}
344: \psfrag{n}{$n$}
345: \psfrag{g}{$\gamma$}
346: \psfrag{gl}{$\gamma < 1/2$}
347: \psfrag{s0}{$s^{(0)}$}
348: \psfrag{s1}{$s^{(1)}$}
349: \psfrag{s2}{$s^{(2)}$}
350: \psfrag{s3}{$s^{(3)}$}
351: \psfrag{sn}{$s^{(n)}$}
352: \psfrag{sngamma}{$s^{(n + \gamma)}, \forall n$}
353: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figures/Unstable_Sequence.eps}
354: \caption{A counterexample for the case $0 \leq \gamma < 1/2$. The figure presents an example
355: in which the (constant) sequence $(s^{(n + \gamma)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded but
356: $(s^{(n)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. The elements of $(s^{(n+ \gamma)})_{n \in
357: \mathbb{N}}$ are indicated using filled squares, and those of $(s^{(n)})_{n \in
358: \mathbb{N}}$ are indicated using circles.
359: Recall that $s^{(n + \gamma)} := (1 - \gamma) s^{(n)} + \gamma s^{(n+1)}, \; \forall n$.
360: \label{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_leq_dot5}}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: %---------------------------------------------;
364: % Figure: Unstable sequence for gamma = 1/2 ;
365: %---------------------------------------------;
366: \begin{figure}
367: \begin{align*}
368: \begin{array}{c|cccccc}
369: n & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \cdots \\ \hline
370: s^{(n + 1/2)} & +1 & -1 & +1 & -1 & +1 & \cdots \\
371: s^{(n)} & 0 & +2 & -4 & +6 & -8 & \cdots
372: \end{array}
373: \end{align*}
374: \caption{A counterexample for $\gamma = 1/2$. The sequence $\left(s^{(n + 1/2)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}},
375: \; s^{(n + 1/2)} := \left(s^{(n)} + s^{(n+1)}\right)/2,$ is bounded but the sequence
376: $\left(s^{(n)}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is unbounded. \label{Fig:DD_Unstable_sequence_gamma_dot5}}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: Returning to the proof of stability of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method,
380: we have proved that $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n + \gamma)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}$ are
381: bounded $\forall i$ and $\forall n$. Applying Proposition \ref{Proposition:DD_Proposition_on_sn_gamma}
382: for individual components of the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_{i}^{(n + \gamma)}$ and
383: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}$, we can conclude that for $1/2 < \gamma \leq 1$ the vectors
384: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ are bounded $\forall i$ and $\forall n$.
385: As shown mathematically in Remark \ref{Remark:DD_Remark_on_gamma_leq_dot5}, the quantities
386: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ may not be bounded when $0 \leq \gamma
387: \leq 1/2$. In a later subsection we will present physical systems that, in fact, exhibit this kind
388: of (numerical) unbounded behavior for $\gamma \leq 1/2$ under the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
389: This completes the stability analysis of the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
390:
391: %==================================================;
392: % Subsection: Stability of modified d-continuity ;
393: %==================================================;
394: \subsection{Stability of modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method}
395: \label{Subsec:DD_stability_modified_d_continuity}
396: The majority of the proof for this method is identical to the initial part of the proof for
397: the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method (presented in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity})
398: up to the step where we deduced that the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+ \gamma)}$ and
399: $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+\gamma)}$ are bounded. The only additional thing we have to prove is
400: the boundedness of the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$,
401: which is a direct consequence of the triangle inequality. To wit, using equation
402: \eqref{Eqn:DD_modified_lambda_interpolation} (and also see Figure
403: \ref{Fig:DD_interpolation_lambda}) we have
404: %---------------------------------;
405: % Equation: Triangle inequality ;
406: %---------------------------------;
407: \begin{align}
408: \label{Eqn:DD_triangle_inequality}
409: \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right\| =
410: \left\|\gamma \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n-1+\gamma)} +
411: (1 - \gamma) \boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n + \gamma)}\right\|
412: %
413: \leq \gamma \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n-1+\gamma)}\right\| +
414: (1 - \gamma) \left\|\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}\right\|
415: \end{align}
416: %
417: Since the vectors $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n+\gamma)}$ are bounded $\forall n$, from the above equation
418: it is evident that the Lagrange multipliers at integral time levels $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ are
419: bounded $\forall n$. Using a similar reasoning, since the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+\gamma)}$ are
420: bounded $\forall n$, the rates at the integer time levels $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ are also bounded.
421: (Note that the vectors $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ are also bounded, which has been proven in subsection
422: \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}.) This means that under this method all quantities of interest are
423: bounded. This completes the stability analysis of the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method.
424:
425: Note that, as discussed in Remark \ref{Remark:Trapezoidal_forward_Euler_ill_posed}, the forward
426: Euler $(\gamma = 0)$ is not well-posed under the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity method. All
427: other time integrators from the generalized trapezoidal family $(0 < \gamma \leq 1)$ can be employed
428: and are stable under the modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain decomposition method.
429:
430: %------------------------------------------------------------------------;
431: % Remark: Comments on the backward Euler with d-continuity constraints ;
432: %------------------------------------------------------------------------;
433: \begin{remark}
434: \label{Remark:DD_backward_Euler_d_continuity}
435: For the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity and modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity domain
436: decomposition methods, with backward Euler $(\gamma = 1)$ one can achieve the continuity
437: of both temperatures and temperature rates along the subdomain interface. To wit, the
438: $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity constraints (which are basically the continuity of temperatures
439: along the interface, and are given by equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}
440: or \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_modified_d_continuity_DD_kinematic}) imply
441: %-----------------------------------;
442: % Equation: backward Euler Step 1 ;
443: %-----------------------------------;
444: \begin{align}
445: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n-1)}\right] = \boldsymbol{0}, \; \forall n
446: \end{align}
447: %
448: For backward Euler we have $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n-1)}\right] = \Delta t \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$.
449: This implies the continuity of rates along the subdomain interface.
450: %-----------------------------------;
451: % Equation: backward Euler Step 2 ;
452: %-----------------------------------;
453: \begin{align}
454: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}, \; \forall n
455: \end{align}
456: %
457: \end{remark}
458:
459: %=============================================;
460: % Subsection: Stability of the v-continuity ;
461: %=============================================;
462: \subsection{Stability of the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method}
463: We follow a similar procedure employed in subsection \ref{Subsec:DD_d_continuity}. Using equations
464: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_domain}-\eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_d_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}
465: (and as usual neglecting the external forcing function for stability analysis \cite{Hughes}; i.e.,
466: $\boldsymbol{f}_i^{(n)} = \boldsymbol{0}$) one obtains
467: %------------------------------;
468: % Equation: Stability Step 1 ;
469: %------------------------------;
470: \begin{align}
471: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
472: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right]
473: %
474: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} \Delta t {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}_{i}^{(n)}\right\}}^\mathrm{T}
475: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i\right\}
476: %
477: = \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}}^{\mathrm{T}}
478: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
479: \end{align}
480: %
481: Since the matrices $\boldsymbol{K}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots , S)$ are positive
482: semidefinite, and $\Delta t > 0$; we conclude
483: %------------------------------;
484: % Equation: Stability Step 2 ;
485: %------------------------------;
486: \begin{align}
487: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
488: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right]
489: %
490: \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{S} {\left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right\}}^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
491: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)} \right]
492: %
493: = {\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]}^{\mathrm{T}} \sum_{i=1}^{S}
494: \boldsymbol{C}_i \left\{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i\right\}
495: \end{align}
496: %
497: Using the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity given by equation
498: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_v_continuity_DD_kinematic} we conclude that
499: %------------------------------;
500: % Equation: Stability Step 3 ;
501: %------------------------------;
502: \begin{align}
503: \sum_{i = 1}^{S} \frac{1}{2} \left[{\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i}^{\mathrm{T}}
504: \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i \right] \leq 0 \quad \forall n
505: \end{align}
506: %
507: Using the definition and linearity of the jump operator, we conclude
508: \begin{align}
509: \sum_{i=1}^{S}{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)} \leq
510: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}
511: \leq \cdots \leq
512: \sum_{i=1}^{S} {\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}}^{\mathrm{T}}\boldsymbol{A}_{i} \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}
513: \end{align}
514: %
515: Since $\forall i = 1, \cdots, S$ the initial vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}$ are bounded and
516: the matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ are positive definite; we conclude that $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$
517: are bounded $\forall n$. This implies that, from the trapezoidal equation
518: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_v_continuity_DD_trapezoidal}, $\left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right]$ is
519: bounded. Then, from the subdomain governing equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_v_continuity_DD_domain},
520: we conclude that $\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i^{(n)}\right]$ is also bounded.
521:
522: For the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity domain decomposition method, solely based on the energy
523: method, one cannot infer the boundedness of the quantities $\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}$ and
524: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$. Also, there can be drift in the continuity of temperatures
525: along the subdomain interface. That is, $\sum_{i = 1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}
526: \neq \boldsymbol{0}$. This drift may grow over time due to round-off errors. As discussed
527: earlier, one of the ways to control the drift is to employ the Baumgarte stabilization. In
528: next subsection, we discuss the stability of the Baumgarte constraint stabilization in the
529: context of index-2 linear first-order transient systems.
530: %------------------------------------------------------;
531: % Remark: Remark on forward Euler under v-continuity ;
532: %------------------------------------------------------;
533: \begin{remark}
534: Note that, unlike the $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity and modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity
535: methods, one can employ the forward Euler method $(\gamma = 0)$ in individual subdomains
536: under the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity domain decomposition method.
537: \end{remark}
538:
539: %=============================================================================;
540: % Subsection: Stability of Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method ;
541: %=============================================================================;
542: \subsection{Stability of Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method}
543: \label{Subsec:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_theory}
544: We start the stability analysis by rewriting the kinematic constraints. To this end,
545: equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic} implies that
546: %---------------------------------------------;
547: % Equation: Baumgarte constraints jump form ;
548: %---------------------------------------------;
549: \begin{align}
550: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left(\left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
551: \frac{\alpha}{\Delta t} \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] \right) = \boldsymbol{0}
552: \end{align}
553: %
554: By using the kinematic constraints given by equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic}
555: and identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma} we get
556: %-----------------------------------------;
557: % Equation: Final Baumgarte constraints ;
558: %-----------------------------------------;
559: \begin{align}
560: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_final_Baumgarte_constraints}
561: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
562: \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = \boldsymbol{0}
563: \end{align}
564: %
565: where the (dimensionless) parameter $\alpha^{*}$ is introduced for convenience,
566: and is defined as
567: %--------------------------------------;
568: % Equation: Definition of alpha_star ;
569: %--------------------------------------;
570: \begin{align}
571: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}
572: \alpha^{*} := 1 + \alpha \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right)
573: \end{align}
574:
575: We now rewrite the subdomain equation in a manner similar to what we did above for the
576: kinematic constraints. Equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_domain} implies that
577: %-----------------------------------;
578: % Equation: Equilibrium jump form ;
579: %-----------------------------------;
580: \begin{align}
581: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_equilibrium_jump_form}
582: \boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \boldsymbol{K}_i \left[\boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\right] =
583: \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}} \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
584: \end{align}
585: %
586: By using the trapezoidal equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_trapezoidal} and employing
587: the identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_x_gamma} we get
588: %------------------------------------;
589: % Equation: Equilibrium final form ;
590: %------------------------------------;
591: \begin{align}
592: \boldsymbol{M}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
593: \left( \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
594: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
595: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
596: \end{align}
597:
598: Premultiplying both sides of the above equation by $\left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}
599: \right] + \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)$ and then summing over all of the
600: subdomains we get
601: %------------------------------;
602: % Equation: Stability step 1 ;
603: %------------------------------;
604: \begin{align}
605: &\sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
606: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i
607: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
608: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
609: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)\right)\notag \\
610: %
611: &= \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
612: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{C}_i^{\mathrm{T}}
613: \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]
614: %
615: = \left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i
616: \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)
617: \end{align}
618: %
619: For the Baumgarte stabilized domain decomposition method, using equation
620: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_final_Baumgarte_constraints}, we conclude that
621: %------------------------------;
622: % Equation: Stability step 2 ;
623: %------------------------------;
624: \begin{align}
625: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
626: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\boldsymbol{M}_i
627: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i
628: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
629: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)\right) = 0
630: \end{align}
631: %
632: Using the definition of $\alpha^{*}$ (equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}),
633: the above equation can be rewritten as
634: %------------------------------;
635: % Equation: Stability step 3 ;
636: %------------------------------;
637: \begin{align}
638: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
639: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{M}_i
640: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]
641: %
642: + \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
643: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
644: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) \notag \\
645: %
646: + \alpha \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left((\gamma - 1/2) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
647: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{K}_i
648: \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
649: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) = 0
650: \end{align}
651: %
652: Since $\alpha > 0$, $\Delta t > 0$ and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is positive semidefinite, we conclude
653: %------------------------------;
654: % Equation: Stability step 4 ;
655: %------------------------------;
656: \begin{align}
657: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left(\alpha^{*} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] + \alpha
658: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \boldsymbol{M}_i
659: \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]
660: %
661: + \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
662: \boldsymbol{K}_i \left(\left(\gamma - 1/2\right) \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] +
663: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}\right) \leq 0
664: \end{align}
665: %------------------------------;
666: % Equation: Stability step 5 ;
667: %------------------------------;
668: By invoking the symmetry of $\boldsymbol{M}_i$, using equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star},
669: and rearranging the terms we get
670: \begin{align}
671: \label{Eqn:New_DD_Baum_stab_step5}
672: \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
673: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
674: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\}
675: %
676: + \sum_{i=1}^{S} \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
677: \boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] \leq 0
678: \end{align}
679: %
680: where the matrix $\boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i$ is defined as
681: %-------------------------------------;
682: % Equation: Definition of A_i_tilde ;
683: %-------------------------------------;
684: \begin{align}
685: \label{Eqn:New_DD_definition_of_A_i_tilde}
686: \boldsymbol{\tilde{A}}_i := \alpha^{*} \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t
687: \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \boldsymbol{K}_i
688: \end{align}
689:
690: If the matrices $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i \; (i = 1, \cdots, S)$ are positive semidefinite
691: (later we will obtain sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
692: positive semidefinite) then equation \eqref{Eqn:New_DD_Baum_stab_step5} implies that
693: %------------------------------;
694: % Equation: Stability step 6 ;
695: %------------------------------;
696: \begin{align}
697: \sum_{i=1}^S \left[\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}
698: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
699: \left\{\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right\} \leq 0
700: \end{align}
701: %
702: By invoking identity \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Symmetric_S} we have
703: %------------------------------;
704: % Equation: Stability step 7 ;
705: %------------------------------;
706: \begin{align}
707: &\sum_{i=1}^S \left[\left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
708: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
709: \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\right] \leq 0 \quad \forall n
710: \end{align}
711: This implies that
712: %------------------------------;
713: % Equation: Stability step 8 ;
714: %------------------------------;
715: \begin{align}
716: \sum_{i=1}^S \left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}} \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i
717: + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right) \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n+1)} \leq \cdots \leq
718: \sum_{i=1}^S \left(\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
719: \left(\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i\right)
720: \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}
721: \end{align}
722: %
723: Since $\alpha > 0$, $\boldsymbol{M}_i$ is positive definite, and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is
724: positive semidefinite; the matrix $\alpha \boldsymbol{M}_i + \Delta t \boldsymbol{K}_i$
725: is positive definite. This implies that the vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}$ are bounded
726: $\forall n$ as the (initial) vectors $\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(0)}$ are bounded. This further
727: implies that, from the kinematic constraints for the Baumgarte stabilized method (given
728: by equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic}), \emph{the drift in the original
729: constraint (i.e., continuity of temperature along the subdomain interface) is also bounded
730: (but may not be zero), which is not the case with the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method}.
731:
732: To show this (for convenience) let us work with $1$-norm, and the result (boundedness)
733: will hold for other norms also (because of equivalence of norms in finite dimensional
734: vector spaces). We start with the $1$-norm of the drift in the original constraint, and
735: use equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_kinematic} and the triangle inequality:
736: %-----------------------------------------------------;
737: % Equation: Drift is bounded in Baumgarte (Step #1) ;
738: %-----------------------------------------------------;
739: \begin{align}
740: \label{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_1}
741: \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\|
742: = \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\|
743: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \|\boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\|
744: \end{align}
745: %
746: Now using the definition of matrix-norm, and the boundedness of $\boldsymbol{v}^{(n)}_i$;
747: equation \eqref{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_1} can be written as
748: %-----------------------------------------------------;
749: % Equation: Drift is bounded in Baumgarte (Step #2) ;
750: %-----------------------------------------------------;
751: \begin{align}
752: \label{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_2}
753: \|\sum_{i=1}^{S} \boldsymbol{C}_i \boldsymbol{d}_i^{(n)}\|
754: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \| \boldsymbol{C}_i\| \|\boldsymbol{v}_i^{n}\|
755: \leq \frac{\Delta t}{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{S} \|\boldsymbol{v}_i^{(n)}\| < C \quad \forall n
756: \end{align}
757: %
758: where $C > 0$ is some constant independent of $n$, and we have used the fact that the
759: $1$-norm $\|\boldsymbol{C}_i\|_{1} \leq 1$. (Also recall that if $\boldsymbol{C}_i \neq
760: \boldsymbol{0}$, which is the case in this paper, $\|\boldsymbol{C}_i\|_{1} = 1$.) Equation
761: \eqref{Eqn:DD_drift_bounded_step_2} implies that \emph{the drift in the original constraint
762: is bounded $\forall n$}.
763:
764: Similar to the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method, even under the Baumgarte stabilized method,
765: one cannot infer anything about the boundedness of $\boldsymbol{d}^{(n)}_i$ or Lagrange multipliers
766: $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(n)}$ solely based on the energy method. But, for many practical problems
767: one often gets bounded numerical results for these quantities. The boundedness of the drift
768: in the original constraint is the only additional (but very important) feature that the
769: Baumgarte stabilized method has compared to the $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity method.
770:
771: We will now obtain sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
772: positive semidefinite (which we have assumed in the stability analysis of this method, see
773: the line below equation \eqref{Eqn:New_DD_definition_of_A_i_tilde}).
774: %
775: Using the eigenvectors of the generalized eigenvalue problem \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_GEVP} as
776: the basis, the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ can be diagonalized and obeys the similarity
777: %----------------------------;
778: % Equation: Similar matrix ;
779: %----------------------------;
780: \begin{align}
781: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_similar_matrix}
782: \tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i \sim \alpha^{*} \boldsymbol{I} + \Delta t
783: \left(\gamma - \frac{1}{2}\right) \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i
784: \end{align}
785: %
786: In the above equation, the symbol ``$\sim$'' denotes similarity of matrices, and the matrix
787: $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_i$ is defined as
788: %----------------------------;
789: % Equation: Matrix Omega_i ;
790: %----------------------------;
791: \begin{align}
792: \boldsymbol{\Omega}_i = \mathrm{diag}\left(\left(\omega_i\right)_1,\cdots,
793: \left(\omega_i\right)_n\right)
794: \end{align}
795: %
796: where $n$ is the size of the (square) matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$; and $\left(\omega_i
797: \right)_1,\cdots, \left(\omega_i\right)_n$ are the eigenvalues of the generalized eigenvalue
798: problem \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_GEVP}. (It is well-known that similar matrices have the same
799: characteristic polynomial, and hence the same eigenvalues \cite{Halmos}.)
800:
801: Since $\boldsymbol{M}_i$ is positive definite and $\boldsymbol{K}_i$ is positive
802: semidefinite, the eigenvalues $\left(\omega_i\right)_1,\cdots,\left(\omega_i\right)_n$
803: are all non-negative. This implies that (using equations \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_alpha_star}
804: and \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_similar_matrix}, and noting that $\Delta t > 0$) the matrix
805: $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ is positive semidefinite unconditionally for $\gamma \geq 1/2$.
806: For $\gamma < 1/2$, sufficient conditions for the matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{A}}_i$ to be
807: positive semidefinite are
808: %-------------;
809: % Equation: ;
810: %-------------;
811: \begin{align}
812: &\alpha^{*} \geq 0 \implies \alpha \leq \frac{1}{|\gamma - 1/2|} \\
813: %
814: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_t_crit}
815: &\Delta t \leq \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} = \frac{\alpha^{*}}{|\gamma - 1/2| \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} =
816: \frac{2}{(1 - 2 \gamma) \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{\alpha}{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}
817: \end{align}
818: %------------------;
819: % Remark: Remark ;
820: %------------------;
821: \begin{remark}
822: Note that in equation \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_t_crit} $\Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}}
823: \geq 0$ as $\alpha^{*} \geq 0$ and $\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}} \geq 0$.
824: \end{remark}
825:
826: These results imply that the use of Baumgarte stabilization decreases the critical step
827: for subdomain $i$ by $\alpha/{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}$ relative to the unconstrained case.
828: Summarizing the results, sufficient conditions for the stability of Baumgarte stabilized
829: domain decomposition method are
830: %-------------------------------------;
831: % Equation: Summarizing the results ;
832: %-------------------------------------;
833: \begin{align}
834: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_leq_dot5}
835: 0 \leq \gamma < 1/2 & \quad \left\{\begin{array}{l}
836: \alpha \leq \frac{1}{|\gamma - 1/2|} \\
837: \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} =
838: \frac{2}{(1 - 2 \gamma) \omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}} -
839: \frac{\alpha}{\omega_i^{\mathrm{max}}}
840: %
841: \end{array} \right. \\
842: %
843: \label{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_geq_dot5}
844: 1/2 \leq \gamma \leq 1 & \quad \left\{\begin{array}{l}
845: \alpha < + \infty \\
846: \Delta t_i^{\mathrm{crit}} = + \infty
847: \end{array} \right.
848: \end{align}
849:
850: %-----------------------------------------;
851: % Table: A summary of stability results ;
852: %-----------------------------------------;
853: \begin{table}
854: \caption{A summary of stability results \label{Table:DD_stability_results}}
855: \begin{tabular}{ll} \hline
856: Method & Stability characteristics \\ \hline
857: $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity & Stable for $1/2 < \gamma \leq 1$. \\
858: Modified $\boldsymbol{d}$-continuity & Stable for $0 < \gamma \leq 1$. \\
859: $\boldsymbol{v}$-continuity & Drift on the interface. \\
860: Baumgarte stabilized & Unconditionally stable for $1/2 \leq \gamma \leq 1$.
861: Stability \\ & conditions for $0 \leq \gamma < 1/2$ are given in Eq.
862: \eqref{Eqn:Trapezoidal_Baumgarte_final_result_leq_dot5}. \\ \hline
863: \end{tabular}
864: \end{table}
865:
866: For a quick reference, the stability results derived in this section are
867: summarized in Table \ref{Table:DD_stability_results}. In the next section
868: we verify the theoretical predictions using numerical experiments.