1: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \twocolumn
4: %
5: \title{Hybrid-Cubic-Rational Semi-Lagrangian Method with the Optimal Mixing}
6: \author{Masato Ida}
7: \address{Satellite Venture Business Laboratory, Gunma University, 1--5--1 Tenjin-cho, Kiryu-shi, Gunma 376-8515, Japan\\
8: E-mail : ida@vbl.gunma-u.ac.jp\\ TEL : +81-277-30-1126 FAX : +81-277-30-1121}
9: %
10: \maketitle
11: %
12: \begin{abstract}
13: A semi-Lagrangian method for advection equation with hybrid cubic-rational
14: interpolation is introduced. In the present method, the spatial profile of
15: physical quantities is interpolated with a combination of a cubic and a
16: rational function. For achieving both high accuracy and convexity preserving
17: of solution, the two functions are mixed in the optimal ratio which is given
18: theoretically. Accuracy and validity of this method is demonstrated with
19: some numerical experiments.\\ \\
20: \noindent
21: {\bf Key Words:} Numerical method, Advection, Semi-Lagrangian method,
22: Interpolation, Cubic function, Rational function, Convexity preserving.
23: \end{abstract}
24:
25: %
26: %
27: \section{INTRODUCTION}
28: Basically, the CIP method \cite{ref1,ref2} is a numerical method for an
29: advection equation,
30: \[
31: \frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial t}} + u\frac{{\partial f}}{{\partial x}} = 0
32: \]
33: whose solution is expressed as
34: \begin{equation}
35: \label{eq1}
36: f(x,t + \Delta t) = f(X(x,t),t),
37: \end{equation}
38: where $X$ is the trajectory of fluid particle, which is located at
39: $x$ at the time $t + \Delta t$,
40: \begin{equation}
41: \label{eq2}
42: X(x,t) = x + \int_{t}^{t - \Delta t} {u(X(x,\tau ),\tau )d\tau }.
43: \end{equation}
44: In a semi-Lagrangian scheme like the CIP, the solution (\ref{eq1}) is solved as an
45: interpolation problem \cite{ref3,ref1}. In the CIP scheme, an Hermite cubic
46: expansion function is used to interpolate $f$ at the time $t$. The
47: quantity and its first spatial derivative defined at each grid points are
48: updated as to obey, respectively, eq.~(\ref{eq1}) and its spatial derivative, i.e.,
49: \[
50: \frac{{\partial f(x,t + \Delta t)}}{{\partial x}} = \frac{{\partial X(x,t)}}
51: {{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial f(X(x,t),t)}}{{\partial X}}
52: \]
53: Generally, the integration in eq.~(\ref{eq2}) is solved by assuming that $u$
54: is locally constant as
55: \begin{eqnarray}
56: X(x,t) &\approx& x + u(x,t)\int_{t}^{t - \Delta t} {d\tau } \nonumber\\
57: &=& x - u(x,t)\Delta t.\nonumber
58: \end{eqnarray}
59: With this, the solutions (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) are expressed,
60: respectively, as
61: \begin{equation}
62: \label{eq3}
63: f(x,t + \Delta t) = f(x - u(x,t)\Delta t,t),
64: \end{equation}
65: \begin{equation}
66: \label{eq4}
67: \frac{{\partial f(x,t + \Delta t)}}{{\partial x}} = [1 - \frac{{\partial
68: u(x,t)}}{{\partial x}}\Delta t]\frac{{\partial f(x - u(x,t)\Delta
69: t,t)}}{{\partial X}}.
70: \end{equation}
71:
72: In the last decade, various kinds of extension and improvement have been
73: adopted to this method. In 1990, Yabe et al extended this to multidimensions
74: without time-splitting technique by employing a multidimensional cubic
75: expansion function \cite{ref4}. In 1991, Kondoh extended the 1D CIP to a
76: 5th-order advection method and, furthermore, proposed a solver for parabolic
77: equations by extending the basic concept of the CIP \cite{ref5}. In the same
78: year, Aoki and Yabe improved the multidimensional one by modifying the
79: multidimensional expansion function and proposed two alternative formulae
80: \cite{ref6,ref7}. In 1994,
81: Kondoh extended his approach to a multidimensional parabolic equation and
82: general hyperbolic equations \cite{ref8}. In 1995, Ida and Yabe proposed an
83: implicit version of the CIP \cite{ref9}. This method is CFL free and can be
84: solved directly
85: with a marching procedure although it is a 3rd-order method. In the same
86: year, Utsumi extended the CIP to a solver for the Euler equations of fluid
87: flow without finite-difference technique by employing differential-algebraic
88: and Lagrangian-like concepts \cite{ref10}. In 1996, Xiao et al proposed a
89: convexity preserving method for the advection equation by replacing the cubic
90: function in the CIP scheme with a cubic-rational function \cite{ref11,ref12}.
91: In the same year, Ida proposed a high accurate solver for free-surface flow
92: problem by coupling the CIP with newly proposed extrapolation scheme
93: \cite{ref13,ref14,ref15}. With this
94: method, the density discontinuity at material interface is solved without
95: any numerical dissipation across the interface. In 1997, by extending the
96: Kondoh's approach \cite{ref5}, Aoki proposed high accurate solver for wave
97: equation, full Euler equations and others \cite{ref16}. In 1999, Tanaka et al
98: proposed an exactly conservative solver for the continuity equation in
99: non-conservative form by additionally using the local mass of fluid as a
100: dependent variable \cite{ref17,ref18}.
101:
102: In this paper we discuss on the rational method proposed by Xiao et al. As
103: proved theoretically in ref.~11, the rational interpolation method
104: suppresses the numerical oscillation which tends to appear in high-order
105: solution. However, this method sometime provides more diffusive result than
106: that with the classical cubic interpolation. We try to improve its accuracy,
107: without any loss of the convexity preserving property, by mixing with the
108: cubic interpolation function in the optimal ratio. In Sec.~2, the
109: conventional rational method is briefly reviewed and, in Sec.~3, the optimal
110: mixing ratio is given theoretically. In Sec.~4, results of some numerical
111: experiments are shown for demonstrating the accuracy and the validity of the
112: present method.
113:
114:
115: \section{CONVEXITY PRESERVING SEMI-LAGRANGIAN METHOD}
116:
117: In the rational method \cite{ref11}, the following cubic-rational interpolation
118: function is used:
119: \begin{equation}
120: \label{eq5}
121: CR(\xi ,\gamma) = \frac{{f_{i} + A1_{i} \xi + A2_{i} \xi ^{2} + A3_{i} \xi
122: ^{3}}}{{1 + \gamma B_{i} \xi }},
123: \end{equation}
124: where
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: A1_{i} &=& d_i + f_i \gamma B_i,\nonumber \\
127: A2_{i} &=& S_{i} \gamma B_{i} + (S_{i} - d_{i} )/h - A3_{i} h,\nonumber \\
128: A3_{i} &=& [d_{i} - S_{i} + (d_{i + 1} - S_{i} )(1 + \gamma B_{i} h)]/h^{2},
129: \nonumber \\
130: B_{i} &=& \left({\frac{{S_{i} - d_{i}}}{{d_{i + 1} - S_{i}}} - 1} \right)/h,
131: \nonumber \\
132: S_{i} &=& (f_{i + 1} - f_{i} )/h,\nonumber \\
133: \xi &=& - u_i \Delta t,\nonumber
134: \end{eqnarray}
135: $f_i$ and $d_i$ are a physical quantity and its first
136: spatial derivative, respectively, ${u_i}$ is the particle velocity
137: at $x_i$ assumed as negative here, $\Delta t$ is the time
138: interval, $h$ is the grid width assumed as uniform in this paper for
139: simplicity and $\gamma $ is a parameter for switching the form of
140: the interpolation function. In the case of $\gamma = 1$, eq.~(\ref{eq5})
141: is reduced to a rational formula of
142: \begin{equation}
143: \label{eq6}
144: CR(\xi ,1) = \frac{{f_{i} + R1_{i} \xi + R2_{i} \xi ^{2}}}{{1 + B_{i} \xi
145: }},
146: \end{equation}
147: where
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: R1_{i} &=& d_{i} + f_{i} B_{i},\nonumber \\
150: R2_{i} &=& S_{i} B_{i} + (S_{i} - d_{i} )/h.\nonumber
151: \end{eqnarray}
152: Unlike rational functions used in data interpolation technique (See
153: Ref.~\cite{ref19} for example), the above formula is constructed not only with
154: the quantity but also with its derivative. In the case of $\gamma = 0$, on the
155: contrary, eq.~(\ref{eq5}) is reduced to a cubic formula of
156: \begin{equation}
157: \label{eq7}
158: CR(\xi ,0) = f_i + C1_i \xi + C2_i \xi ^2 + C3_i \xi ^3,
159: \end{equation}
160: where
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: C1_{i} &=& d_{i},\nonumber \\
163: C2_{i} &=& - (2d_{i} + d_{i + 1} - 3S_{i} )/h,\nonumber \\
164: C3_{i} &=& (d_{i} + d_{i + 1} - 2S_{i} )/h^{2}.\nonumber
165: \end{eqnarray}
166: Those rational and cubic formulae satisfy a continuity condition at
167: $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ expressed as
168: \[
169: \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
170: {CR(0,1) = f_i ,} \hfill \\
171: {CR(h,1) = f_{i + 1} ,} \hfill \\
172: {\partial _x CR(0,1) = d_i ,} \hfill \\
173: {\partial _x CR(h,1) = d_{i + 1} .} \hfill \\
174: \end{array}} \right.
175: \]
176: The rational formula is adapted in a cell where the data is convex or
177: concave, i.e.,
178: \[
179: d_i > S_i > d_{i + 1}
180: \]
181: or
182: \[
183: d_{i} < S_{i} < d_{i + 1}.
184: \]
185: This rational interpolation function preserves the convexity of solution.
186: For the other data, interpolation function is switched to the formula of
187: eq.~(\ref{eq7}) which corresponds to the conventional one of CIP \cite{ref1}
188: and provides purely 3rd-order solution.
189:
190: With those interpolation functions, in this paper, we propose a hybrid
191: method of making use only of their superior characteristics by mixing them
192: optimally. In ref.~12, Xiao et al proposed an additional switching technique
193: shown as
194: \begin{equation}
195: \label{eq8}
196: \gamma = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
197: {1,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm for}\;d_i \cdot d_{i + 1} < 0,} \hfill \\
198: {0,\quad} \hfill & {\rm otherwise.} \hfill \\
199: \end{array}} \right.
200: \end{equation}
201: This means that the rational function is applied only in the cell which
202: includes a turning point of the gradient. While this procedure modifies the
203: dissipation property of the rational method, this breaks the preserving of
204: convexity as shown in Sec.~4. The optimal mixing technique being proposed in
205: this paper would achieve improvement of accuracy without any loss of the
206: convexity preserving property.
207:
208: For the convenience of the following discussion, we rearrange eqs.~(\ref{eq6})
209: and (\ref{eq7}) as
210: \begin{equation}
211: \label{eq9}
212: R(k) = f_{i} + d_{i} hk + \frac{{P_{i} ^{2}k^{2}}}{{Q_{i} + (P_{i} - Q_{i})k}},
213: \end{equation}
214: and
215: \begin{equation}
216: \label{eq10}
217: C(k) = f_{i} + d_{i} hk + (2P_{i} - Q_{i} )k^{2} + (Q_{i} - P_{i} )k^{3},
218: \end{equation}
219: respectively, where
220: \begin{eqnarray}
221: P_i &=& (S_i - d_i )h,\nonumber \\
222: Q_{i} &=& (d_{i + 1} - S_{i} )h,\nonumber
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: and
225: \[
226: k \equiv \xi /h = - u_{i} \Delta t/h
227: \]
228: is the local Courant number and
229: \[
230: k \in [0,1]
231: \]
232: because of the CFL condition.
233:
234: \section{HYBRID CUBIC-RATIONAL METHOD WITH THE OPTIMAL MIXING}
235:
236: \subsection{The optimal mixing of the two interpolation functions under the
237: convexity-preserving condition}
238:
239:
240: We start from a combination of the rational and the cubic functions shown as
241: \begin{equation}
242: \label{eq11}
243: F(k) = \alpha R(k) + (1 - \alpha )C(k),
244: \end{equation}
245: where $\alpha $ is a weighting parameter whose range is limited as
246: $\alpha \in [0,1]$. For large $\alpha $, i.e., $\alpha \sim 1$,
247: less oscillatory solution may be
248: expected because the rational function becomes dominant and, for small
249: $\alpha $, i.e., $\alpha \sim 0$, high-order solution may be
250: expected because the cubic one becomes dominant. By determining
251: $\alpha $ properly, convexity-preserving high-accurate method may
252: be produced. We discuss below how to determine the weighting parameter.
253:
254: While numerous proofs on some characteristics of the rational interpolation
255: method have been done in Ref.~\cite{ref11}, the roof of all of them is a
256: property of the rational function. The property is expressed as that, for the
257: convex data, the interpolation function is convex between the given interval
258: and, for the concave data, it is concave. Namely,
259: \[
260: \frac{{\partial^{2}R(k)}}{{\partial x^{2}}} \le 0,\quad {\rm for}\;k \in [1,0]
261: \]
262: is true for the convex data of
263: \[
264: P_{i} < 0\;{\rm and}\;Q_{i} < 0,
265: \]
266: and
267: \[
268: \frac{{\partial ^{2}R(k)}}{{\partial x^{2}}} \ge 0,\quad{\rm for}\;k \in [1,0]
269: \]
270: is true for the concave data of
271: \[
272: P_{i} > 0\; {\rm and} \; Q_i > 0.
273: \]
274: For achieving both convexity preserving and better resolution, we make the
275: weighting parameter the minimum value which satisfies the above condition.
276: The following discussion will be limited to the case where the data is
277: convex or concave since the rational interpolation is adopted only in the
278: case. For the other data, the cubic interpolation is adopted.
279:
280: The second spatial derivative of eq.~(\ref{eq11}) is shown as
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \label{eq12}
283: \frac{\partial ^2 F(k)}{\partial x^2 }&& = \alpha \frac{2P_i ^2 Q_i ^2}
284: {h^2 [(P_i - Q_i )k + Q_i]^3} \nonumber \\
285: &&+ (1 - \alpha )\frac{2}{h^2} [3(Q_i - P_i)k + 2 P_i - Q_i].
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: By introducing $H_{i}$ defined as
288: \[
289: H_{i} \equiv \frac{Q_{i}}{P_{i}},
290: \]
291: eq.~(\ref{eq12}) is rewritten as
292: \begin{eqnarray}
293: \frac{{\partial ^2 F(k)}}{{\partial x^2 }} = \frac{2}{h^2}Q_i
294: \left\{ \alpha \frac{{H_i }}{{[(1 - H_i )k + H_i ]^3 }} \right. \nonumber \\
295: \left. + (1 - \alpha ) \frac{{3(H_i - 1)k + 2 - H_i }}{{H_i}} \right\}.
296: \nonumber
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: For preserving convexity of solution, as mentioned above, the following
299: condition must be satisfied:
300: \[
301: \frac{{\partial ^{2}F(k)}}{{\partial x^{2}}} \le 0,\quad {\rm for}\;P_{i} < 0
302: \;{\rm and}\;Q_{i} < 0,
303: \]
304: or
305: \[
306: \frac{{\partial ^2 F(k)}}{{\partial x^2 }} \ge 0,\quad {\rm for}\;P_i > 0\;
307: {\rm and}\;Q_i > 0.
308: \]
309: This condition is expressed by an inequality of
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: \label{eq13}
312: {{\frac{{\partial ^2 F(k)}}{{\partial x^2 }}} \mathord{\left/
313: {\vphantom {{\frac{\partial ^2 F(k)}{\partial x^2 }}
314: {\left( {\frac{{h^2 }}{2}Q_i } \right)}}} \right.
315: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {\frac{2}{h^2}Q_i } \right)}}
316: = \alpha \frac{H_i}{[(1 - H_i )k + H_i ]^3 } \nonumber \\
317: + (1 - \alpha )\frac{{3(H_i - 1)k + 2 - H_i }}{{H_i }} \ge 0,
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: because the sigh of ${{\partial ^{2}F(k)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
320: {{\partial ^{2}F(k)} {\partial x^{2}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
321: {\partial x^{2}}}$ and $Q_i$ should be the same. Furthermore, the
322: inequality (\ref{eq13}) can be rewritten as
323: \begin{equation}
324: \label{eq14}
325: \alpha H_{i} ^{2} + (1 - \alpha )G_{i} ^{3}[3(H_{i} - 1)k + 2 - H_{i}] \ge 0,
326: \end{equation}
327: where
328: \[
329: G_{i} \equiv (1 - H_{i} )k + H_{i},
330: \]
331: because of
332: \begin{equation}
333: \label{eq15}
334: H_i > 0
335: \end{equation}
336: (Remind that the signs of $P_i$ and $Q_i$ are the same) and
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{eq16}
339: G_{i} \ge {\rm min}(1,H_{i} ) > 0, \quad {\rm for}\;k \in [0,1].
340: \end{equation}
341: Here we introduce $K_i(k)$ which is defined as
342: \[
343: K_{i} (k) \equiv G_{i} ^{3}[3(H_{i} - 1)k + 2 - H_{i} ].
344: \]
345: With this function, eq.~(\ref{eq14}) is rewritten as
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{eq17}
348: \alpha H_{i} ^{2} + (1 - \alpha )K_{i} (k) \ge 0.
349: \end{equation}
350: From the inequality (\ref{eq16}) and
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: 3(H_{i} - 1)k + 2 - H_{i} &\ge& {\rm min}(2 - H_{i} ,2H_{i} - 1),\nonumber \\
353: {\rm for}\;k &\in& [0,1],\nonumber
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: it is known that the inequality (\ref{eq17}) is always true for
356: \[
357: 1/2 \le H_i \le 2
358: \]
359: because of $K_{i} (k) \ge 0$. In this case, we can use $\alpha = 0$, i.e.,
360: the purely cubic interpolation function which provides high-order solution.
361:
362: For a while, the following discussion will be limited to the case of
363: \[
364: H_{i} > 2.
365: \]
366: The first and the second spatial derivatives of $K_{i}(k)$
367: respect to $k$ are
368: \begin{equation}
369: \label{eq18}
370: \frac{{\partial K_{i} (k)}}{{\partial k}} = 6(1 - H_{i})^{2}G_{i} ^{2}(1 - k)
371: \end{equation}
372: and
373: \begin{equation}
374: \label{eq19}
375: \frac{{\partial ^{2}K_{i} (k)}}{{\partial k^{2}}} = 6(1 - H_{i})^{2}G_{i}
376: (2 - 3G_{i} ),
377: \end{equation}
378: respectively. From eq.~(\ref{eq19}) with an inequality of
379: \[
380: G_i \ge \min (1,H_i) = 1,\quad {\rm for}\;H_{i} \ge 2\;{\rm and}\;k \in [0,1],
381: \]
382: we know that
383: \[
384: \frac{\partial ^{2}K_{i}(k)}{\partial k^{2}} < 0,\quad {\rm for}\;k \in [0,1],
385: \]
386: which means that ${{\partial K_{i} (k)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
387: {{\partial K_{i} (k)} {\partial k}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
388: {\partial k}}$ is monotonicaly decreasing for $k \in [0,1]$. Furthermore, from
389: eq.~(\ref{eq18}), we know that
390: \[
391: \frac{{\partial K_{i} (0)}}{{\partial k}} = 6(1 - H_{i} )^{2}H_{i} ^{2} > 0
392: \]
393: and
394: \[
395: \frac{{\partial K_{i} (1)}}{{\partial k}} = 0.
396: \]
397: Namely, ${{\partial K_{i} (k)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\partial K_{i}
398: (k)} {\partial k}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial k}}$ has
399: non-negative value for $k \in [0,1]$.
400:
401: Those results show that $K_i (k)$ is monotonicaly increasing for $k \in [0,1]$,
402: and the minimum value of it is
403: \[
404: {\rm min}(K_{i} (k)) = K_{i} (0) = H_{i} ^{3}(2 - H_{i} ) < 0.
405: \]
406: Thus, the inequality (\ref{eq17}) is reduced to
407: \[
408: \alpha H_{i} ^{2} + (1 - \alpha )H_{i} ^{3}(2 - H_{i} ) \ge 0.
409: \]
410: From this, we get
411: \[
412: \alpha \ge \frac{{H_{i} (H_{i} - 2)}}{{H_{i} (H_{i} - 2) + 1}}.
413: \]
414: For increasing the dominance of the cubic function as much as possible, we
415: use
416: \begin{equation}
417: \label{eq20}
418: \alpha = \frac{{H_i (H_i - 2)}}{{H_i (H_i - 2) + 1}}.
419: \end{equation}
420:
421: The proof for the case of
422: \[
423: 0 < H_{i} < 1/2
424: \]
425: can be done easily as follows. With replacements of
426: \begin{equation}
427: \label{eq21}
428: \left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
429: {H_{i} \to 1/L_{i} ,} \hfill \\
430: {k \to l - 1,} \hfill \\
431: \end{array} }} \right.
432: \end{equation}
433: the inequality (\ref{eq14}) is rewritten as
434: \[
435: \alpha L_{i} ^{2} + (1 - \alpha )[(1 - L_{i} )l + L_{i} ]^{3}[3(L_{i} - 1)l
436: + 2 - L_{i} ] \ge 0.
437: \]
438: This inequality corresponds to that of (\ref{eq14}) only with
439: replacements of $L_{i} \to H_{i} $ and $l \to k$. Thus, the solution of this
440: inequality is
441: \begin{equation}
442: \label{eq22}
443: \alpha \ge \frac{{L_{i} (L_{i} - 2)}}{{L_{i} (L_{i} - 2) + 1}},\quad
444: {\rm for}\;L_{i} > 2\;{\rm and}\;l \in [0,1].
445: \end{equation}
446: From eq.~(\ref{eq21}), it is known that the result (\ref{eq22}) is for
447: $0 < H_{i} \; < 1/2$ and $k \in [0,1]$. From the same reason as mentioned in
448: leading eq.~(\ref{eq20}), we use
449: \begin{equation}
450: \label{eq23}
451: \alpha = \frac{{L_{i} (L_{i} - 2)}}{{L_{i} (L_{i} - 2) + 1}}.
452: \end{equation}
453:
454: The above results on the determination of $\alpha $ is summarized as
455: \begin{equation}
456: \label{eq24}
457: \alpha = \frac{{M_i (M_i - 2)}}{{M_i (M_i - 2) + 1}},
458: \end{equation}
459: where
460: \begin{eqnarray}
461: \label{eq25}
462: M_i &=& \max [2,\;\max (H_i ,\;L_i )] \nonumber \\
463: &=& \max [2,\;\max (\frac{{Q_i }}{{P_i }},\;\frac{{P_i }}{{Q_i }})].
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: In the case of $1/2 \le H_{i} \le 2$ and $H_{i} \le 0$, $M_{i}$ and
466: $\alpha $ are determined with eqs.~(\ref{eq25}) and (\ref{eq24}) as
467: \begin{eqnarray}
468: M_{i} = 2,\nonumber \\
469: \alpha = 0,\nonumber
470: \end{eqnarray}
471: and the interpolation function is reduced to pure cubic. For $H_{i} \ge 2$,
472: eq.~(\ref{eq24}) is reduced to eq.~(\ref{eq20}) and, for $L_{i} \ge 2$,
473: it is reduced to eq.~(\ref{eq23}).
474:
475:
476: \subsection{Summary of the formula}
477: With a little rearrangement, the formula derived in the last subsection is
478: summarized as
479: \[
480: F(k) = f_{i} + d_{i} hk + (G1_{i} + G2_{i} )k^{2},
481: \]
482: \[
483: \frac{{\partial F(k)}}{{\partial x}} = d_{i} + [G1_{i} \frac{{Q_{i} + D_{i}
484: }}{{D_{i} }} + 2G2_{i} + (1 - \alpha )(Q_{i} - D_{i} )]\frac{{k}}{{h}},
485: \]
486: where
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: G1_i &=& \alpha P_i ^2 /D_i,\nonumber \\
489: G2_{i} &=& (1 - \alpha )(2P_{i} - D_{i} ),\nonumber \\
490: D_{i} &=& Q_{i} + (P_{i} - Q_{i} )k,\nonumber \\
491: \alpha &=& \frac{{M_{i} (M_{i} - 2)}}{{M_{i} (M_{i} - 2) + 1}},\nonumber \\
492: M_{i} &=& max[2,\;max(\frac{{Q_{i} }}{{P_{i} }},\;\frac{{P_{i} }}{{Q_{i} }})]
493: \nonumber
494: \end{eqnarray}
495: with
496: \begin{eqnarray}
497: P_i &=& (S_i - d_i )h,\nonumber \\
498: Q_{i} &=& (d_{i + 1} - S_{i} )h,\nonumber \\
499: S_{i} &=& (f_{i + 1} - f_{i} )/h.\nonumber
500: \end{eqnarray}
501: For the case of $u_i > 0$, we need replacements of
502: \[
503: i + 1 \to i - 1,\nonumber \quad h \to - h.
504: \]
505:
506: \vspace{0.8cm}
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \begin{center}
510: \epsfig{file=fig1a.eps,width=6cm}
511: \end{center}
512: \caption{Numerical error as a function of the grid width $h$ in the
513: results with the present, the CIP, the conventional rational and the
514: modified rational (with the additional switching technique) methods.}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: \section{NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS}
518: For demonstrating the validity of the previous discussions and the accuracy
519: of the present scheme, we show some numerical experiments in this section.
520:
521: The first example is the linear propagation of a sinusoidal wave. The
522: initial condition is
523: \[
524: f(i,0) = 0.5\cos (4\pi h\,i),
525: \]
526: where the grid width $h$ is set in this example as
527: \[
528: h = 1/N
529: \]
530: and $N$ is the number of grid points. The velocity is set as
531: $u = 1$ and is assumed as constant in space and time. The boundary
532: condition at $i = 0$ and $N$ is periodic. With this example,
533: we compare the accuracy of the present method with that of the three
534: existing methods, i.e., the CIP, the conventional rational method and that
535: with the additional switching (\ref{eq8}). The last one is called below the
536: modified rational method. Here we define numerical error as
537: \[
538: {\rm Error} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N} {\left| {f_{i}^{n} -
539: {\rm analytical\;value}} \right|} }}{{N}},
540: \]
541: where the superscript $n$ shows the number of time step. In Fig.~1,
542: we plot the error as a function of the grid width $h$ at $n = 4000$ with
543: CFL = 0.2. From this result, it is known that the accuracy of the
544: methods except for the conventional rational method are very similar each
545: other on this problem, while that of the present one is inferior a few among
546: them.
547:
548: \vspace{1cm}
549: \begin{figure}
550: \begin{center}
551: \epsfig{file=fig2a.eps,width=8cm}
552: \end{center}
553: \caption{Linear propagation of a triangular and a square waves. The figure
554: shows results at $n = 1,000$ (the upper group) and $n = 10,000$
555: (the lower group) with the present (1), the CIP (2), the conventional
556: rational (3) and the modified rational (4) methods.}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559: Next we solve the linear propagation of a triangular and a square wave. The
560: pulse widths of the waves are $30h$ and $26h$, respectively,
561: and pulse heights are 1. In Fig.~2, we show results at $n = 1,000$
562: (a) and 10,000 (b) with CFL = 0.2. In the results with the CIP method,
563: overshoots and undershoots are obviously shown around the discontinuities of
564: the square wave. The results with the conventional rational method are more
565: diffusive than other ones. The results with the present and the modified
566: rational method are very similar while the former one is more diffusive
567: quite a little and the latter one has small over- and undershoots.
568:
569: With the same example of the square wave, we further discuss on the
570: convexity preserving property of those methods. Here we introduce a variable
571: $p$ defined as
572: \[
573: p_{i + 1/2}^{n} = \left\{ {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
574: {1/2, \quad} & {{\rm if}\; f_{i + 1}^{n} - f_{i}^{n} > 0,} \\
575: {0, \quad} & {{\rm if}\; f_{i + 1}^{n} - f_{i}^{n} = 0,} \\
576: {-1/2, \quad} & {{\rm if}\; f_{i + 1}^{n} - f_{i}^{n} < 0.} \\
577: \end{array}} } \right.
578: \]
579: By observing this variable, we can appreciate the convexity of solution. In
580: Fig.~3, we show $f$ and $p$ at $n = 150$ (a) and $10,000$
581: (b). Analytically, $p$ becomes $1/2$ and $-1/2$ only at the left and
582: right discontinuities, respectively, and $p = 0$ elsewhere, namely,
583: only one positive and one negative regions should exist in the spatial
584: profile of $p$ if the convexity of $f$ is preserved. In the
585: results with the present and the conventional rational method, the two
586: regions are clearly seen while the width of the regions is expanded by the
587: numerical diffusion. In the results with the CIP and the modified rational
588: methods, many numbers of leaps are shown in the profile of $p$. This
589: means that the conventional CIP and the modified rational methods are not
590: oscillation free.
591:
592: \vspace{1.2cm}
593: \begin{figure}
594: \begin{center}
595: \epsfig{file=fig3a.eps,width=7cm}
596: \end{center}
597: \caption{Results of the linear propagation of a square wave at $n = 150$
598: (the upper group) and $n = 10,000$ (the lower group) with the present
599: (1), the CIP (2), the conventional rational (3) and the modified rational
600: (4) methods. The circles and the solid lines show $f$ and $p$, respectively.}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: \begin{figure}
604: \begin{center}
605: \epsfig{file=fig4a.eps,width=8.2cm}
606: \end{center}
607: \caption{Results with the reduced mixing ratio (0.99, 0.95, 0.9, 0.8 and 0.7
608: times values of the optimal one) at $n = 150$ (the upper group) and
609: $n = 10,000$ (the lower group).}
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: In order to demonstrate that the determination of $\alpha $ with
613: eq.~(\ref{eq24}) is the optimal, we show results of the same example with the
614: present method and reduced $\alpha $. In Fig.~4, we show results
615: with 0.99, 0.95, 0.9, 0.8 and 0.7 times smaller value of $\alpha $
616: than that is determined with eq.~(\ref{eq24}) and CFL = 0.2. The unphysical
617: oscillation is observed even in the results with 0.99 times value and the
618: oscillation becomes stronger according as $\alpha$ decreases. The
619: numerical oscillation at $n = 10,000$ becomes weaker than that at
620: $n = 150$ because of numerical diffusion, but still exists. The
621: overshoot around the discontinuity of $f$ can also be seen in those
622: results and it becomes larger as $\alpha $ decreases.
623:
624: Finally we show results of an extreme example for demonstrating the robustness
625: of the present method and a defect of the modified rational method. The initial
626: profiles of $f$ and $u$, the latter is assumed as constant in time, for this
627: example are shown in Fig.~5. In the initial profile of $f$, there exist two
628: steep gradients which are
629: appropriately smooth but sufficiently sharp. In the velocity distribution, a
630: similar gradient exists, and $u = 1$ in the left side of the gradient
631: and $u = 0.1$ in the right side. Those mollified profiles are made as
632: follows: First $f$ and $u$ are set as
633: \[
634: f_i = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
635: {1,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm for}\;5 \le i \le 67,} \hfill \\
636: {0,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm elsewhere}} \hfill \\
637: \end{array}} \right.
638: \]
639: and
640:
641: \begin{figure}
642: \begin{center}
643: \epsfig{file=fig5a.eps,width=6cm}
644: \end{center}
645: \caption{Initial condition of the extreme example. The upper and the lower
646: figures show $f$ and $u$, respectively.}
647: \end{figure}
648:
649: \vspace{0.8cm}
650:
651: \begin{figure}
652: \begin{center}
653: \epsfig{file=fig6a.eps,width=7cm}
654: \end{center}
655: \caption{A typical result of the extreme example by using the present method.
656: The figure shows results at $n = 0$, 140 and 450 with CFL = 0.25.}
657: \end{figure}
658:
659: \[
660: u_i = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
661: {1,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm for}\;i \le 71,} \hfill \\
662: {0.1,\quad} \hfill & {\rm elsewhere.} \hfill \\
663: \end{array}} \right.
664: \]
665: Next, those values are smoothed with a conventional 3-point smoother,
666: \begin{eqnarray}
667: g_{i}^{(m + 1)} &=& (1 - \varepsilon )g_{i}^{(m)} + \varepsilon
668: \frac{{g_{i + 1}^{(m)} + g_{i - 1}^{(m)} }}{{2}},\nonumber \\
669: &{\rm for}&\;m = 1,2, \cdots M,\nonumber
670: \end{eqnarray}
671: where $g$ is $f$ or $u$, $m$ is the iteration
672: number of the smoothing, $M$ is the maximum of it and
673: $\varepsilon $ is a positive constant smaller than 1.0. For
674: $f$ and $u$, we use $(M, \varepsilon) = (2, 0.05)$ and
675: $(2, 0.1)$, respectively. The resulting mollified values are
676: used as initial values. Initial value of $d_{i}$ is set as
677: \[
678: d_i^0 = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
679: {0,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm if}\;f_i^{(M)} = 0\;{\rm or}\;f_i^{(M)} = 1,}\hfill \\
680: {(f_{i + 1}^{(M)} - f_{i - 1}^{(M)})/2h,\quad} \hfill & {{\rm elsewhere.}}
681: \hfill \\
682: \end{array}} \right.
683: \]
684: In solving this example, we estimate the velocity gradient appearing in
685: eq.~(\ref{eq4}) with a conventional second-order centered finite differencing
686: as usually done in the CIP scheme \cite{ref1}.
687:
688: \vspace{1cm}
689:
690: \begin{figure}
691: \begin{center}
692: \epsfig{file=fig7a.eps,width=8cm}
693: \end{center}
694: \caption{Results when the right discontinuity just passes through the velocity
695: gradient (the left group:$n = 48$ with CFL = 0.25. the right group:
696: $n = 24$ with CFL = 0.5). In the results with the CIP and the modified
697: rational methods, strong overshoot appears.}
698: \end{figure}
699:
700: \vspace{1cm}
701:
702: \begin{figure}
703: \begin{center}
704: \epsfig{file=fig8a.eps,width=7cm}
705: \end{center}
706: \caption{The maximum (upper) and the minimum (lower) values in the numerical
707: results of the extreme example as a function of the time step. The maximum
708: and the minimum values calculated with the present and the conventional
709: rational methods keep with 1 and 0, respectively, while those with the CIP
710: and the modified rational method are oscillated.}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713: In the first stage of this problem, the mollified square wave of $f$
714: propagates to right in $u = 1$. Then, after the wave covers the
715: gradient of $u$, the waveform is compressed in horizontal direction
716: and the pulse width is decreased. Finally, after passing through the
717: velocity gradient, the width of the square becomes 1/10 of the initial one,
718: i.e., $\sim 6h$, and the square propagates in $u = 0.1$ (See Fig.~6 in
719: which a typical result of this problem by the present method is shown).
720:
721: In Fig.~7, we show results at $n = 48$ with CFL = 0.25 and at
722: $n = 24$ with CFL = 0.5. While the results with the present and the
723: conventional rational methods are smooth and oscillation free, strong
724: overshoot is shown in those with the CIP and the modified rational methods.
725: At the time where the gradient of $f$ passes through the gradient of
726: $u$, it is amplified strongly by the velocity gradient. Thus, if the
727: cubic interpolation is adopted in this case, the overshoot should appear. In
728: Fig.~8, we show the maximum and the minimum value of $f$ as a
729: function of the number of time step. The maximums with the CIP and the
730: modified rational methods have strong peak at $n \sim 50$, i.e.,
731: when the right gradient of $f$
732: passes through the velocity gradient and, furthermore, the minimum with the
733: CIP has strong peak at $n \sim 300$, i.e., when the left gradient of
734: $f$ passes through there. This result shows that the additional
735: switching (\ref{eq8}) raises inadequate adaptation of the cubic function. The
736: present method does not have such a defect. In Fig.~9, the results at
737: $n = 550$, i.e., those after the pulse has passed through the
738: velocity gradient is shown. The result with the modified rational method has
739: weak overshoot and that with the conventional rational method is more
740: diffusive than that with the present one.
741:
742: The above results prove that the present method has higher accuracy than
743: that of the conventional rational method and is a convexity-preserving
744: method.
745:
746: \vspace{1cm}
747:
748: \begin{figure}
749: \begin{center}
750: \epsfig{file=fig9a.eps,width=8cm}
751: \end{center}
752: \caption{Results after the square have passed through the velocity gradient
753: ($n = 550$ with CFL = 0.25). The right figure shows an enlarged one
754: of a part of the left one. The result with the CIP is not shown in the right
755: figure. Theoretically the height and the width of the projection should be 1
756: and about $6h$, respectively.}
757: \end{figure}
758:
759: \section{CONCLUSION}
760:
761: In this paper we proposed a hybrid semi-Lagrangian method with a cubic and
762: a rational interpolation functions. The optimal ratio for mixing those
763: functions was led theoretically. The present method has higher accuracy than
764: the conventional rational method and is oscillation free. The numerical
765: experiments curried out in the last section demonstrate the validity of the
766: theoretical discussion in Sec.~3 and the accuracy of the present method.
767: However, the results show a limit of the present method as well. Higher
768: accuracy than that of the given results shown, for example, in Figs.~2 and 3
769: may no longer be expected when one use the cubic and the rational functions
770: under the convexity preserving condition. Extension to a higher-order method
771: may be needed for achieving higher resolution.
772:
773: The present method may be extended to multidimensions and a conservative
774: method by employing the approaches discussed by Aoki \cite{ref6,ref7} and
775: Tanaka et al \cite{ref17,ref18}, respectively.
776:
777:
778:
779: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
780: \bibitem{ref1}
781: T. Yabe and T. Aoki, A universal solver for hyperbolic equations by
782: cubic-polynomial interpolation I. One-dimensional solver, Comput. Phys.
783: Commun. \textbf{60} (1991) pp.219-232.
784: \bibitem{ref2}
785: T. Yabe, T. Ishikawa, P. Y. Wang, T. Aoki, Y. Kadota and F. Ikeda, A
786: universal solver for hyperbolic equations by cubic-polynomial interpolation
787: II. Two- and three-dimensional solvers, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{66}
788: (1991) pp.233-242.
789: \bibitem{ref3}
790: D. R. Durran, \textit{Numerical methods for wave equations in
791: geophysical fluid dynamics}, Springer, Sec.~6, p.303.
792: \bibitem{ref4}
793: T. Yabe, T. Ishikawa and Y. Kadota, A multidimensional
794: cubic-interpolated pseudoparticle (CIP) method without time splitting
795: technique for hyperbolic equations, F. Ikeda, J. Phys. Soc. Japan
796: \textbf{59} (1990) pp.2301-2304.
797: \bibitem{ref5}
798: Y. Kondoh, On thought analysis of numerical scheme for simulation using
799: kernel optimum nearly-analytical discretization (KOND) method, J. Phys. Soc.
800: Japan. \textbf{60} (1991) pp.2851-2861.
801: \bibitem{ref6}
802: T. Aoki and T. Yabe, Multidimensional cubic interpolation for ICF
803: hydrodynamics simulation, NIFS-82, 1991, pp.1-9 (unpublished).
804: \bibitem{ref7}
805: T. Aoki, Multi-dimensional advection of CIP (Cubic-Interpolated
806: Propagation) scheme, CFD J. \textbf{4} (1995) pp.279-292.
807: \bibitem{ref8}
808: Y. Kondoh, Y. Hosaka and K. Ishii, Kernel optimum nearly-analytical
809: discretization (KOND) algorithm applied to parabolic and hyperbolic
810: equations, Comput. Math. Appl. \textbf{27} (1994) pp.59-90.
811: \bibitem{ref9}
812: M. Ida and T. Yabe, Implicit CIP (cubic interpolated propagation) method
813: in one dimension, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{92} (1995) pp.21-26.
814: \bibitem{ref10}
815: T. Utsumi, Differential algebraic hydrodynamics solver with
816: cubic-polynomial interpolation, CFD J. \textbf{4} (1995) pp.225-238.
817: \bibitem{ref11}
818: F. Xiao, T. Yabe and T. Ito, Constructing oscillation preventing scheme
819: for advection equation by rational function, Comput. Phys. Commun.
820: \textbf{93} (1996) pp.1-12.
821: \bibitem{ref12}
822: F. Xiao, T. Yabe, G. Nizam and T. Ito, Constructing multi-dimensional
823: oscillation preventing scheme for advection equation by rational function,
824: Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{94} (1996) pp.103-118.
825: \bibitem{ref13}
826: M. Ida, An improved unified solver for compressible and incompressible
827: fluids involving free surfaces. Part I. Convection, Comput. Phys. Commun.
828: \textbf{132} (2000) pp.44-65.
829: \bibitem{ref14}
830: M. Ida, ``Non-smooth solution of density jump at interfaces with
831: discontinuous interpolation and a level set approach'', in: Proc. 10th Symp.
832: on Comput. Fluid. Dynam., Tokyo, Japan, 1996, pp.382-383 (in Japanese. Most all
833: of this content is included in Ref.~\cite{ref13}).
834: \bibitem{ref15}
835: M. Ida, ``Free-surface flow simulation by an
836: interpolation-extrapolation hybrid scheme'', in: Proc. 10th Comput. Mech.
837: Conf., Tokyo, Japan, 1997, pp.17-18 (in Japanese. Most all of this content is
838: included in Ref.~\cite{ref13}).
839: \bibitem{ref16}
840: T. Aoki, Comput. Phys. Commun. Interpolated differential operator (IDO)
841: scheme for solving partial differential equations, \textbf{102} (1997)
842: pp.132-146.
843: \bibitem{ref17}
844: R. Tanaka, T. Nakamura and T. Yabe, Constructing exactly conservative
845: scheme in anon-conservative form, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{126} (2000)
846: pp.232-243.
847: \bibitem{ref18}
848: R. Tanaka, T. Nakamura and T. Yabe, ``Constructing exactly conservative
849: scheme in non-conservative form'', in: Proc. 13th Symp. on Comput. Fluid.
850: Dynam., Tokyo, Japan, 1999, pp.1-5 (in Japanese. unpublished).
851: \bibitem{ref19}
852: J. C. Clements, Convexity-preserving piecewise rational cubic
853: interpolation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. \textbf{27} (1990) pp.1016-1023.
854:
855: \end{thebibliography}
856:
857: \end{document}
858: