1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% author.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % sample root file for your contribution to a "contributed book"

4: %

5: % "contributed book"

6: %

7: % Use this file as a template for your own input.

8: %

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: 

11: 

12: % RECOMMENDED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: \documentclass{svmult}

14: 

15: %\usepackage{showkeys}

16: 

17: % choose options for [] as required from the list

18: % in the Reference Guide, Sect. 2.2

19: 

20: \usepackage{makeidx}         % allows index generation

21: \usepackage{graphicx}        % standard LaTeX graphics tool

22:                              % when including figure files

23: \usepackage{multicol}        % used for the two-column index

24: \usepackage[bottom]{footmisc}% places footnotes at page bottom

25: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

26: % etc.

27: % see the list of further useful packages

28: % in the Reference Guide, Sects. 2.3, 3.1-3.3

29: 

30: \makeindex             % used for the subject index

31:                        % please use the style sprmidx.sty with

32:                        % your makeindex program

33: \def\R{\mathbb{R}}

34: \def\de#1#2{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

35: \def\dt#1#2{\frac{{\rm d} #1}{{\rm d}#2}}

36: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

37: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

38: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

39: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

40: \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

41: \newcommand{\pref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

42: \newcommand{\ps}[1]{\left \langle #1 \right \rangle}

43: \def\xt{(x,\,t)}

44: \def\xvt{(x,\,v,\,t)}

45: \def\cR{\mathcal{R}}

46: \def\cF{\mathcal{F}}

47: \def\cM{\mathcal{M}}

48: \def\fpi{f^{(i)}}

49: \def\Mi{M^{(i-1)}}

50: \def\fj{f^{(j)}}

51: \def\fs{f^{(s)}}

52: \def\fn1{f^{n+1}}

53: \def\Dt{\Delta t}

54: \def\Kn{\mathrm{Kn}}

55: \def\Nv{N_\mathrm{v}}

56: \def\Nx{N_\mathrm{x}}

57: 

58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: \title*{Increasing efficiency through optimal RK time integration of

63:   diffusion equations}

64: % Use \titlerunning{Short Title} for an abbreviated version of

65: % your contribution title if the original one is too long

66: \titlerunning{Optimal RK time integration of

67:   diffusion equations}

68: \author{Fausto Cavalli\inst{1} \and Giovanni Naldi\inst{1}  \and Gabriella Puppo\inst{2}  \and Matteo

69:   Semplice\inst{1}}

70: \authorrunning{F. Cavalli, G. Naldi, G. Puppo, M. Semplice}

71: % Use \authorrunning{Short Title} for an abbreviated version of

72: % your contribution title if the original one is too long

73: \institute{Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\`a di Milano, via

74:   Saldini 50, 20133 Milano, ITALY.

75:   \texttt{\{cavalli,naldi,semplice\}@mat.unimi.it} 

76:   \and 

77:   Dipartimento di Matematica, corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129 Torino, Italy

78:   \texttt{gabriella.puppo@polito.it}

79: }

80: %

81: % Use the package "url.sty" to avoid

82: % problems with special characters

83: % used in your e-mail or web address

84: %

85: 

86: \maketitle

87: 

88: \begin{abstract}

89: \noindent The application of Runge-Kutta schemes designed to enjoy a

90: large region of absolute stability can significantly increase the

91: efficiency of numerical methods for PDEs based on a method of lines

92: approach. In this work we investigate the improvement in the

93: efficiency of the time integration of relaxation schemes for

94: degenerate diffusion problems, using SSP Runge-Kutta schemes and

95: computing the maximal CFL coefficients. This technique can be extended

96: to other PDEs, linear and nonlinear, provided the space operator has

97: eigenvalues with a non-zero real part.

98: \end{abstract}

99: 

100: \section{Introduction}\label{sect:introduction}

101: The integration of evolution PDE's through a method of lines approach

102: leads to the solution of large systems of ODE's. Often such ODE's are

103: stiff or moderately stiff; therefore the possibility of increasing the

104: stability region of the time integrator can lead to a significant

105: increase in efficiency for explicit or semi-implicit time-integration.

106: 

107: Specifically, we consider the system of PDE's 

108: \be 

109: u_t + f_x(u) = D p_{xx}(u), \label{eq:general_system}

110: \ee

111: where $f(u)$ is hyperbolic, i.e. the Jacobian of $f$ is provided with

112: real eigenvalues and a basis of real eigenvectors for each $u$, while

113: $p(u)$ is a non decreasing 

114: Lipshitz continuous function, with Lipshitz constant $\mu$. We assume

115: the system has been fully 

116: discretized in space on a grid of $N$ points $x_j$, $j=1,\dots N$, and

117: we denote with $U(t)=[U_1(t), \dots, U_N(t)]^T$ the vector of the grid

118: values of the numerical solution at time $t$.

119: The space discretized system can be written in the form: 

120: \be

121: \frac{dU}{dt} = L(U(t)),  \label{eq:general_semidiscrete}

122: \ee

123: leading to an autonomous system of $N$ non linear first order

124: ODE's. If we consider for instance a system of conservation laws,

125: $D=0$, the operator $L$ obtained from a conservative space

126: discretization, will be written as: 

127: \[

128: L(U) = -\frac1h \left( F_{j+1/2} - F_{j-1/2} \right),

129: \]

130: where $F_{j+1/2}$ is the numerical flux consistent with the physical

131: flux $f(u)$ in the usual sense of the Lax-Wendroff theorem and $h$ is

132: the grid spacing. 

133: 

134: In recent years, much research has focused on the efficient

135: integration of the semidiscrete system

136: \pref{eq:general_semidiscrete}. In particular, in this work we will

137: concentrate on the performance of optimal Runge-Kutta schemes,

138: characterized by a large stability region, introduced in

139: \cite{SR02}. 

140: 

141: Optimal Runge-Kutta schemes are built choosing an accuracy order $p$

142: and a number of stages $s$, with $s \ge p$. In principle, once $s$ and

143: $p$ are fixed, the coefficients of the Butcher tableaux defining the

144: Runge-Kutta schemes are computed maximizing in some sense the

145: stability region and keeping as constraints the fulfilment of the

146: accuracy requirements. To compute their optimal schemes, Spiteri and

147: Ruuth in \cite{SR02} start from a strong stability condition which

148: requires that the operator $L$ be non linearly stable with respect to

149: a suitable norm for a certain CFL with Forward Euler integration,

150: namely:

151: \[

152: || U^n + \Delta t L(U^n)|| \leq ||U^n||, \quad \forall \Delta t \leq \Delta t_{FE}.

153: \]

154: Once this assumption is satisfied, the optimal schemes proposed in

155: \cite{SR02} do yield considerable savings in CPU time for a given

156: accuracy.

157: 

158: The idea is that an $s$ stages Runge-Kutta scheme applied to

159: \pref{eq:general_semidiscrete} can be written as a convex combination

160: of $s$ Forward Euler steps as (see also \cite{GST01}): 

161: 

162: \begin{eqnarray}

163: U^{(1)} & = & U^n  \\

164: U^{(i)} & = & \sum_{k=1}^{i-1} \alpha_{ik} \left[ U^{(k)} + \Delta t

165:   \frac{\beta_{ik}}{\alpha_{ik}} L(U^{(k)}) \right] \\ 

166: U^{(n+1)} & = & U^{(s)}.  \label{eq:general_RK}

167: \end{eqnarray}

168: Thus if the space discretized operator $L$ is strongly stable for

169: $\Delta t \leq \Delta t_{FE}$ with Forward Euler time integration,

170: than the scheme in \pref{eq:general_RK} will be strongly stable for: 

171: \be

172: \Delta t \leq \lambda \, \Delta t_{FE}, \qquad \lambda = \min \frac{\alpha_{ik}}{\beta_{ik}}

173:                   \label{eq:cfl_fe}

174: \ee

175: Note that \pref{eq:cfl_fe} is only a sufficient condition for

176: stability: clearly it may be possible to violate \pref{eq:cfl_fe} and

177: still find a stable scheme. 

178: 

179: The problem is that several high order space discretization operators

180: $L$ {\em are not} stable under the Forward Euler scheme, and therefore

181: it is not possible to use the estimate \pref{eq:cfl_fe} to guarantee

182: that optimal SSP schemes will  improve the efficiency of the time

183: integration of \pref{eq:general_semidiscrete}. 

184: 

185: In the case of pure convection, that is for $D=0$ in

186: \pref{eq:general_system}, high order space discretizations of $f_x(u)$

187: have purely imaginary eigenvalues $\nu$ up to high order powers of the

188: mesh width $h$, that is $\Re(\nu) = O(h)^p$ and therefore are not

189: stable under Forward Euler time integration. This is the case for

190: instance of the fifth order WENO space discretization, see also

191: \cite{Spiteri:private}, but we conjecture that the same holds for

192: other widely used high order space discretizations for convective

193: operators, such as ENO.

194: 

195: On the other hand, when $D\neq0$, the eigenvalues of the semidiscrete

196: operator $L$ do have a negative real part of order $1$, and therefore

197: can be made stable under Forward Euler for a non zero $\Delta t_{FE}$.

198: In this work we study the stability of a family of high order

199: numerical fluxes coupled with optimal RK-SSP schemes for

200: \pref{eq:general_system}, in the case of pure diffusion, i.e. $f

201: \equiv 0$. In this case we find that several widespread space

202: discretization schemes are stable with Forward Euler time integration,

203: and therefore optimal RK-SSP schemes do yield a significant increase

204: in the allowable CFL. Since in this case the eigenvalues of the exact

205: operator are real, we even find that the stability estimate in

206: \pref{eq:cfl_fe} may be quite pessimistic, because it underestimates

207: the stability region of some SSP schemes. In these cases, it is easy

208: to compute numerically the maximal CFL, obtaining a further

209: improvement in the efficiency of the scheme.

210: 

211: 

212: \section{Diffusive relaxation}\label{sect:diffusive}

213: 

214: We consider high order approximations of the degenerate parabolic equation

215: \be 

216: u_t  = D p_{xx}(u), \label{eq:parabolic_system}

217: \ee

218: using relaxation schemes, a technique initially proposed in \cite{JX95}. Following

219: \cite{NP00} and \cite{arxiv0604572}, we rewrite the system as a hyperbolic

220: system with a stiff source term depending on a parameter

221: $\varepsilon$, which formally relaxes on the original parabolic equation as

222: $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, namely: 

223: \begin{equation} \label{3eq}

224: \left\{

225: \begin{array}{ll}

226: \displaystyle

227: \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} = 0 \\

228: \\

229: \displaystyle \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} + \Phi^2 \frac{\partial

230:   w}{\partial x}  = 

231:     -\frac1\varepsilon v

232:     +\left(\Phi^2- \frac{D}{\varepsilon}\right) \frac{\partial

233:   w}{\partial x} \\

234: \\

235: \displaystyle

236: \frac{\partial w}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} =

237:     -\frac1\varepsilon (w-p(u))

238: \end{array} 

239: \right.

240: \end{equation}

241: %

242: where $\Phi^2$ is a suitable positive parameter. Formally, as

243: $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, $w \rightarrow p(u)$, and $v \rightarrow

244: - \partial_x p(u)$ and the original equation \pref{eq:parabolic_system} is

245: recovered. We integrate the system above with an IMEX Runge-Kutta

246: scheme \cite{PR05}. In this fashion, the stiff source term is

247: implicit and does not require restrictive stability conditions, while

248: the linear convective term is explicit.  

249: 

250: In this work we consider only the relaxed scheme, which is obtained

251: setting $\varepsilon = 0$ in the discretized equations. Let $\tilde{a}_{i,k}$ and $\tilde{b}_i$ be the coefficients forming the Butcher tableaux of the explicit Runge-Kutta scheme in the IMEX pair. The

252: computation of the first stage value of the Runge Kutta scheme reduces

253: to:  

254: \be

255: \ba{l} u^{(1)}=u^n \\ w^{(1)}=p(u^n) \\ v^{(1)}=-D\partial_x w^{(1)}\ea.

256: \ee

257: For the following stages the first equation is

258: \be\label{originalRK}

259:  u^{(i)}=u^n -\Delta t \sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\tilde{a}_{i,k}

260:    \partial_x v^{(k)}.

261: \ee

262: In the other equations the convective terms are dominated by the

263: source terms and thus $v^{(i)}$ and $w^{(i)}$ are given by  

264: \be

265:  w^{(i)}=p(u^{(i)}), \qquad v^{(i)}=-D\partial_x w^{(i)}.

266: \ee

267: In this fashion, due to the particular structure of the relaxation

268: scheme we are considering, only the explicit tableaux of the

269: Implicit-Explicit Runge-Kutta scheme enters the actual computation,

270: while the coefficients of the implicit scheme drop out as the

271: relaxation step is computed. For this reason we can apply any explicit

272: Runge-Kutta scheme to advance in time the solution $u$. Finally the updated solution is given by: 

273: \be

274: u^{n+1} = u^n  - \Delta t \sum_{i=1}^{\nu} \tilde{b}_i \partial_x v^{(i)}

275: \ee 

276: The overall accuracy of the scheme depends on the accuracy of the

277: numerical flux used to approximate $\partial_x v^{(i)}$ and on the

278: accuracy of the Runge-Kutta explicit scheme.  

279: 

280: A non linear stability analysis for the first order version of this

281: scheme (upwind numerical flux on a piecewise constant space reconstruction to evaluate $\partial_x v$ and Forward Euler in time) yields a parabolic stability restriction of the form: 

282: \be

283: \Delta t \leq \frac{2h^2}{\mu} \frac{1}{1+2h \phi},

284: \ee

285: where $\mu$ is the Lipshitz continuity constant of $p(u)$, see

286: \cite{arxiv0604572}. The parabolic CFL implies that to  obtain a scheme of order $p$ one should use a $p$th order

287: accurate numerical flux for $\partial_x v$ and a $p/2$ order accurate Runge-Kutta method in time.

288: 

289: A linear stability analysis of several higher order numerical fluxes

290: yields again a parabolic CFL, of the form $ \Delta t \leq C_1

291: h^2(1-C_2h\Phi)/\mu$,  with

292: constant $C_1$ given by Table \ref{table_CFL}.

293: Note that the scheme is unstable for $\Delta t=C_1h^2/\mu$, but for a

294: sufficiently small $h$ it is enough to pick $\Delta t=(C_1-\delta)h^2/\mu$

295: for a suitable positive $\delta$, i.e. the scheme is stable provided

296: $C_1$ is slightly decreased, see Table \ref{tab:matteo}. Note that the

297: stability requirement becomes more strict as space accuracy increases,

298: while it loosens as time accuracy increases. 

299: 

300: \begin{table}

301: \begin{center}

302: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

303: \hline

304:                 & RK1 & RK2 & RK3 \\

305: \hline

306: P-wise constant & 2   & 2   & 2.51\\

307: \hline

308: P-wise linear   & 0.94&0.94 & 1.18\\

309: \hline

310: WENO5           & 0.79&0.79 & 1   \\

311: \hline

312: \end{tabular}

313: \end{center}

314: \caption{CFL constant $C_1$ for a few space reconstruction algorithms (from linear analysis) for standard first, second and third order RK schemes}  \label{table_CFL}

315: \end{table}

316: 

317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

318: \section{Diffusive relaxation and SSP schemes}

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: 

321: We start fixing a standard notation for $s$ stages Runge-Kutta schemes. As in

322: \cite{SR02} we denote SSP(s,p) the optimal strongly stable

323: Runge-Kutta scheme of order $p$ with $s$ stages. We point out that

324: SSP(1,1) is the Forward Euler scheme, SSP(2,2) the Heun scheme

325: and SSP(3,3) the TVD third order Runge-Kutta method of \cite{SO88},

326: which is probably the high order Runge-Kutta scheme most frequently 

327: used in conjunction with high order space discretizations for

328: \pref{eq:general_system}. 

329: 

330: 

331: \begin{table}

332: \begin{center}

333: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 

334: \hline

335:      & s=1 & s=2 & s=3 & s=4 & s=5\\ \hline

336:  p=1 & 1   & 2   & 3   & 4   & 5  \\   \hline

337:  p=2 &     & 1   & 2   & 3   & 4  \\   \hline

338:  p=3 &     &     & 1   & 2   & 2.65  \\   \hline

339: \end{tabular}

340: \caption{Improved stability coefficients for several $s$ stages order $p$

341:   Runge-Kutta schemes (from \cite{SR02})}  

342: \label{table:optimal_cfl}

343: \end{center}

344: \end{table}

345: 

346: From the first column of Table \ref{table_CFL} we note that all the

347: numerical fluxes considered are at least linearly stable with the

348: Forward Euler scheme. Thus the theory of strongly stable Runge-Kutta

349: schemes can be applied in this case. In particular we consider the

350: schemes introduced in \cite{SR02}, for which the improved stability

351: coefficients $\lambda$ of \pref{eq:cfl_fe} can be found in Table

352: \ref{table:optimal_cfl}. To indicate the fact that these coefficients

353: are found through the theory of strongly stable Runge Kutta schemes

354: and to identify to which scheme they apply, we will label these

355: coefficients as $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,p)$.

356: 

357: 

358: \begin{figure}

359: \begin{center}

360: %\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp1.eps}

361: %\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp2.eps}

362: %\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp3.eps}

363: \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp1.eps}

364: \hfil

365: \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp2.eps}\\

366: \includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figure/bean-ssp3.eps}

367: \end{center}

368: 

369: \caption{Regions of absolute stability for optimal SSP schemes. On the

370:   top left: order 1, stages 1,2,3. On the top right: order 2, stages

371:   2,3,4. On the bottom: order 3, stages 3,4,5. The dashed line is the

372:   Forward Euler scheme.}

373: \label{fig:fausto}

374: \end{figure}

375: 

376: 

377: The coefficients $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,p)$ are not optimal in

378: the case of pure diffusion. They can be further improved considering

379: the actual stability region of SSP schemes and recalling that for the

380: purely diffusive operator we are considering, only the intersection of

381: the stability region with the real line is relevant.

382: 

383: In Figure \ref{fig:fausto} we find the regions of absolute

384: stability for some SSP schemes 

385: given in \cite{SR02}. On the top left of the figure we find the stability

386: regions of schemes of

387: order $1$ with $1,2$ and $3$ stages. We point out that here the improvement

388: in the CFL constant is exactly balanced by the increased computational

389: effort due to the higher number of stages: there is no gain in

390: efficiency with respect to the standard Forward Euler scheme.

391: In the top right of Figure \ref{fig:fausto} there are the stability

392: regions of schemes of

393: order $2$ with $2,3$ and $4$ stages and, for comparison, of the

394: Forward Euler scheme (dashed line). The SSP theory underestimates the effective CFL

395: and direct inspection of the stability plot suggests that the

396: stability coefficient $\lambda$ appearing in Table \ref{tab:matteo} can be

397: increased finding the intersection of the stability curve with the

398: real axis.

399: Finally, on the bottom of Figure \ref{fig:fausto} we show the stability

400: regions of schemes of

401: order $3$ with $3,4$ and $5$ stages. Again the CFL gain of

402: Table \ref{table:optimal_cfl} can be improved by direct inspection of

403: the graph. 

404: 

405: Let $\eta_{s,p}$ be the abscissa of the

406: intersection of the stability curve with the negative real axis. Then the

407: maximal gain in CFL with respect to Forward Euler, for a problem with

408: real eigenvalues, is given by

409: \[ \lambda_{\mbox{\tiny OPT}}(s,p) = \frac{|\eta_{s,p}|}{|\eta_{1,1}|} 

410:          = \frac{|\eta_{s,p}|}{2} 

411: \]

412: For several schemes in the figure it is easy to see that

413: $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny OPT}}(s,p)>\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,p)$.

414: 

415: The optimal CFL number for a given scheme can be found multiplying the

416: coefficient $C_1-\delta$ determined by the space discretization by

417: the proper stability coefficient $\lambda$, i.e.

418: \(

419: \Delta t \leq (C_1-\delta) \lambda_{\mbox{\tiny OPT}}(s,p) h^2/\mu

420: \).

421: 

422: \begin{table}

423: \begin{center}

424: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|}

425: \multicolumn{4}{l}{SSP(2,s) + WENO5}\\ \hline

426: stages & CFL & order & $N_f$ 

427: \\ \hline

428: 2 & $0.78$        & $4$ & $810$ 

429: \\ \hline

430: 3 & $2\times0.78$ & $4$ & $606$ 

431: \\ \hline

432: 4 & $3\times0.78$ & $4$ & $540$ 

433: \\ \hline \hline

434: \multicolumn{4}{l}{SSP(3,s) + WENO5}\\ \hline

435: stages & CFL & order & $N_f$ 

436: \\ \hline

437: 3 & $0.78$        & $4.5$ & $1230$ 

438: \\ \hline

439: 4 & $2\times0.78$        & $5.2$ & $820$ 

440: \\ \hline

441: 5 & $2.65\times0.78$        & $5.2$ & $770$ 

442: \\ \hline

443: \end{tabular}

444: %

445: \hfil

446: \begin{tabular}[b]{|c|c|c|c|}

447: \multicolumn{4}{l}{SSP(2,s) + WENO5}\\ \hline

448: stages & CFL & order & $N_f$ 

449: \\ \hline

450: 2 & $1\times0.78$ & $4$ & $810$ 

451: \\ \hline

452: 3 & $\mathbf{2.259\times}0.78$ & $4$ & $537$ 

453: \\ \hline

454: 4 & $3\times0.78$ & $4$ & $540$ 

455: \\ \hline \hline

456: \multicolumn{4}{l}{SSP(3,s) + WENO5}\\ \hline

457: stages & CFL & order & $N_f$ 

458: \\ \hline

459: 3 & $\mathbf{1.256\times}0.78$   & $4.8$ & $978$ 

460: \\ \hline

461: 4 & $\mathbf{2.574\times}0.78$   & $5.6$ & $636$ 

462: \\ \hline

463: 5 & $\mathbf{3.106\times}0.78$   & $5.4$ & $660$ 

464: \\ \hline

465: \end{tabular}

466: \end{center}

467: \caption{Order of convergence and number of numerical flux function

468:   evaluations $N_f$ (with 80 grid points) for the SSP-CFL      $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{SSP}}}(s,p)$ (left) and the

469:   maximal CFL $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{OPT}}}(s,p)$ (right) for several RK schemes.}

470: \label{tab:matteo}

471: \end{table}

472: %

473: 

474: To measure the computational complexity of a scheme we compute the number $N_f$

475: of numerical flux evaluations needed to reach a fixed integration

476: time. Thus, for a given numerical flux, the most efficient scheme has

477: the lowest value of $N_f$. 

478: Table \ref{tab:matteo} shows the different values of $N_f$ obtained

479: with CFL chosen according to the values of 

480: $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,p)$ on the left and 

481: $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny OPT}}(s,p)$ on the right. 

482: The grid spacing $h$

483: is the same for all values of $N_f$, namely, $h=1/80$. The table

484: contains also data on the accuracy of the space-time scheme. The

485: accuracy was evaluated using four different grids, and modifying the

486: time step according to $h$ and the chosen value of $\lambda$.   

487: We don't show data for first order schemes since 

488: $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,1)=\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny OPT}}(s,1)$. The

489: table shows the increased efficiency of the SSP(s,p) schemes with

490: $s>p$ (left column) and the gain obtained by a better estimate of

491: $\lambda$ (right column). In the table, the optimal values of

492: $\lambda$ are indicated in bold face, when they are sensitively larger

493: than the corresponding $\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny SSP}}(s,p)$. In

494: particular, the improvement between the standard SSP(3,3) and the five

495: stages SSP(5,3) with the optimal CFL is quite striking. 

496: 

497: The data in Table \ref{tab:matteo} refer to a linear diffusion

498: problem, although we find analogous results for a nonlinear degenerate

499: diffusion equation. We performed tests on the self-similar Barenblatt

500: solution of the porous media equation. In this case the order of

501: accuracy is limited by the non regularity of the solution, but we find

502: that the errors with respect to the exact solution slightly decrease

503: using the SSP(s,p) with $s>p$ and the optimal $\lambda$.

504: 

505: \section{Final remarks}

506: 

507: We have shown that the theory of \cite{SR02} can be applied

508: to diffusion equations in the relaxation framework to improve the

509: efficiency of the time integration. Moreover the fact that the

510: eigenvalues of the semidiscrete operator are real numbers permits to further improve the

511: efficiency of the schemes. We expect that analogous results can be

512: obtained for convection-diffusion operators, thanks to the nonzero

513: real part of the eigenvalues of the discrete operators. This allows to

514: achieve stability under Forward Euler integration.

515: 

516: We also note that the same framework can be applied to other space

517: discretizations besides the numerical fluxes obtained via relaxation

518: schemes: the key factor is the localization of the eigenvalues of the

519: differential operator, which must have a non zero real part. On the

520: other hand, the plots of absolute stability regions show that

521: Runge-Kutta schemes with number of stages $s>p$ can be built with

522: improved stability regions, notwithstanding stability under Forward

523: Euler. These schemes can be applied to semidiscrete operators even in

524: the convective regime, but their stability conditions cannot be

525: derived from the behaviour of the operator under the Forward Euler

526: scheme.  

527: 

528: \bibliographystyle{alpha}

529: \bibliography{ssp}

530: \end{document}

531: 

532: