TVD PROPERTIES Of A CLASS Of MODIfIED ENO SCHEMES fOR SCALAR CONSERVATION LAWS
ChiWang Shu
Institute for Mathematics and its Applications University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Abstract
A class of modified ENO (essentially nonoscillatory) schemes is proven to
be TVD (totalvariationdiminishing) both for onedimensional and for
multidimensional scalar conservation laws.
1980 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 65 M05, Secondary 65 M10 Key Hords: ENO, TVD, conservation laws, multidimension.
.. I
I. Introduction
We are interested in solving the hyperbolic conservation law
(1.1a)
(1. Ib )
Here u = (ul, ••• ,um)T , x = (x1",.,xd)' and any real combination of the
d af i
Jacobi matrices 1. ~l' ,, has m real eigenvalues and a complete set of
. 1 aU
1 =
eigenvectors.
On a computational grid
x.=j.~, J
we use
n
u· to denote the J
computed approximation to the exact solution u(Xj,tn) of (1.1).
In what follows we only consider the scalar case m=1. This is the case where we can do theory (e.g. TVD). However numerically the generalizations to systems m > 1 usually work equally well. See e.g. [3J,[4J,[6J[9J.
At present, TVD (totalvariationdiminishing) has become the
stateoftheart in the computation of hyperbolic conservation laws. TVB
(totalvariationbounded) and ENO (essentiallynonoscillatory) schemes are also
constructed to overcome the difficulties of degeneracy of accuracy at critical
points and near discontinuities. TVD or TVB schemes have convergent subsequences and wi 11 be convergent if a further "entropy condition" is
satisfied. ENO schemes use adaptive stencils (traditional TVD or TVB schemes
only use fixed stencils) to obtain information from smooth regions when
discontinuities are present, allowing the achievement of high order accuracy
right up to discontinuities. For details, see [3J[9J, [11J[14J, and the
references listed there.
Numerically ENO schemes work extremely well [5J[7],[13J. However TVB for
ENO schemes is not proven and may not be correct without modifications on the
schemes for general initial conditions (e.g. for the crazy initial condition
o .
uj = (_1)J). Another possible way to investigate the stability of ENO schemes
3
; s to see how far they di Her from schemes whi ch can be proven TVD. If only a slight change of ENO in the limiters leads to TVD, then we have reason to believe the stability of ENO if this change does not get turned on very often (numerically). We are interested in TVD versions of ENO schemes also because by experience, during steady state calculations, even a slight increase in TV will slower the convergence. Hence a good strategy may be to use a TVD scheme at the beginning to get close to steady state fast, then switch to the unlimited ENO scheme to recover full order of accuracy.
In this paper we modify the ENO schemes in [13J and prove TVD of the modified schemes. Section II is for onedimensional schemes; section III discusses multidimensional schemes, both semidiscrete methodoflines and
fully discrete. The multidimensional TVD schemes lose accuracy in a region near critical points in one of the variables. However considering the result of Goodman and LeVeque [2J (in which they proved that an explicit TVD scheme with a local stencil can be at most first order in multidimension), the result here is still reasonable. (See Remark 3.4).
4
II. OneDimensional Case
We use conservative schemes of the form
(2.1)
where uj is an approximation to the exact solution u(jt.x, n st.) of (1.1); A = At , and the numerical flux f is consistent with f
M .+1
J "2
A A
f 1 = f (u. n , ••• ,U . +k )
.+= JJ(. J
J 2
A
f'{u , ••• .u ) = f(u)
(2.2)
The total variation is defined by
TV(u) = 1.IA+Ujl j
(2.3)
where A+Uj = Uj+1  Uj is the forward difference operator.
We say scheme (2.1) is TVD if
(2.4)
and TVB in 0 .. t .. T if
(2.5)
for a fixed B depending only on TV(uO), and for all n and At such that
° .. n L'lt <; T •
The rth order ENO schemes in [13] have the following framework:
Step_(l) Decompose f into
(2.6)
5
such that
(2.7)
e.g. for LaxFriedrichs building block:
f+(u) = 1. (f {u ) + aU), r(u) = 1. (f{u )  au)
2 2
a ) ma x If" (u ) I
(2.8)
As discussed in [13], since we only use the differences of f+ and f,
we can also start with any first order E  flux [8]
then define
h 1 = h(uJo+1' uJo), J+
2
df~ 1 = fJo+1  ho 1; df~ 1 = ho 1  fJo
J+ J+ J+ J+
2 222
(2.9)
which stand for
Ste~ ( 2) Build a Newt on divided difference table, up to order r , for
f+(un( .)) and f(un(.)), or for df+ and dr ,
Ste~ (3 ) Construct rth degree polynomi a1 s + (x) +
p: interpolating f: at
J J
adaptive r+1 point stencils x , ... , \ ±(r) as follows:
k ±~ r)
mln max ( i )
(2.10)
(2.11)
(i i )
Inductively assume we have already defined k±~s1) k±(s1) and
, mln ' max
Q(±s1)(x), h b h h di ° f
_ ten, y 'I. e st order lVlded differences 0
f±(u(o)):
, ... ,
u (x )]
k ±(s1) + 1 max
(2.12a)
6
, ... ,
u(\±(S_1) )]
max
(2.12b)
We proceed to add a point to the stencil according to the smaller sth
order divided difference:
k ±(s) ±(s1)
max = kmax
if
(2.13a)
if
(2.13b)
and
K(S1) max
Q~s)(x) = Q~s1) + m(a±,b±) IT (s1) (xxk) k =kmi n
(2.14)
(This is the Newton's interpolation polynomial formula) Here and in what follows, the function m is defined by
(2.15)
Step (4) Define the numerical flux by
..
f ,+1 J  2
.. + "
= f 1 + f~ 1
j+ J+
2 2
(2.16)
where
... + + rn1
f  = p j (x ) + y
j+l j+l k=1
2 2
2k ",2k +
a2k I1X (_0  PJ: )
x=x, 1
ax2k J+"2
(2.17)
with m = [r+1] 2
1 24
7 5760
, etc.
7
Use the numerical flux (2.16) in (2.1).
Use a TVD RungeKutta type [13J or multilevel type [12J time
discretization to (2.1) in order to achieve high order accuracy in time without
increasing total variation.
We now modify the scheme in Step (3) above, trying to get a TVD scheme
out.
Modification (1) For s = 1, change the function m in (2.14) to the minmod
function m defined by
= {m (a i  ... ,a n) ,if sign (a 1) = ••• =
a , otherwise
(2.18)
Modification (2)
 + +)
For s > 1, change the function arguments m(a. b
in
(2.14) to
(2.19)
where a > a is some constant, to be determined later. Notice that the explicit appearance of M in (2.19) is only because a±, b± are sth order divided differences. If we use the limiter m on the undivided differences,
M will not appear explicitly.
Proposition 2.1 There exists positve B such that the above scheme with modifications (1) and (2) is TVD, under CFL number l .
2
Proof:
,,+M
The fluxes (2.17) with modifications (1) and (2) (we use f 1 .+
J 2"
to make
a distinction) can be written out in the form
8
A+M + 1 + + r +  + + + +
f.+1 = f. +  m( t!+ f. M fj_1) + ) c·k m(ajk• bjk• BMf j' BMfj_1) (2.20a)
J  J 2 J k;';2 J
2
A_M _ 1 (  r 
f. 1 = f·+1   m 4 f. • t!+ fj+1) + ) c·k m(ajk' bjk' BMfj. BMfj+1) (2.20b)
J+ J 2 J k';'2 J
2 where
are some constants (due to the adaptivity of the stencil
varies with
j ) •
and
are
kth order undivided differences of
f±. We then rewrite scheme (2.1) with flux f"M into an incremental form
which is suitable for proving TVO:
n+1
u . =
J
(2.21)
with {I
4 f~ 1 m( M fj. M fj+l) +l m(M fj_1' t!+ fj)
r J +
v.+1  
J  Mu. 2 Mf: 2 Mf7
2 J J J r + L k=2
8M fj)] I
(2.22a)
and
 +
+ m(aj_1.k·
 cj_1•k
(2.22b)
9
It is well known [3J that scheme (2.21) is TVO if
C .+1 , 0 ·+1 , 1  A(C. 1 + 0.+1) ;> 0
J  J  J+ J 
2 2 2 2
Let (2.23)
Due to the adaptivity of stencils, it is tedious to find ck because all the possible stencils have to be considered. For example. the 4th order scheme
(r=4) gives
229 c3 
1152
(2.25)
By (2.22), (2.24) and the definitions of limiters (2.15) and (2.18), and
the fact
~f.
___ J)O,
~u.
J
+ MfJ. 1
:> 0
(2.26)
due to (2.7), or due to the definition of Eflux if we use (2.9), sufficient conditions for achieving (2.23) are
1 r
1    2 B Y. ck ) 0
2 k=2
+
Mf. f.+f j1 + l + 28 r
A( ___ J + ) (1 Y ck) ( 1
~u. MUj_1 2 k=2
J
If we choose (2.27a)
(2.2 7b )
B = __ 1~_ r
4 y. ck k=2
(2.28)
10
then (2.27a) is satisfied, and the CFL condition (2.27b) becomes
(2.29)
tI
Remark 2.2. Even if a in (2.28) is usually less than one, for example for
the 4th order scheme a ~ 0.3, the modifications (1) and (2) still do not affect accuracy, aw~om critical points, if flX is small (AX «a). This is because away from critical points, the functions m and m are the same in
Modification (1), and (2.19) in Modification (2) is of the form ffi(O(I), 0(1), aO(flX1s), aO(flX1s)) for s ) 2, hence away from critical points and when flX « a it coincides with m(O(I), 0(1)). Near critical points, we lose
accuracy through both of the modifications. This is not surprising since all
TVD schemes necessarily degenerate to first order accuracy at critical points
[8J.
Remark 2.3 The modified TVD schemes still share the advantage of adaptive stencils with the ENO schemes, hence they may perform better than the
traditional fixed stencil TVD schemes near discontinuities.
Remark 2.4
For the TVD schems here, the accuracy near critical points can be
recovered by a TVB modification procedure introduced in [IIJ. We omit the
details because it is very similar to the cases discussed there.
11
III. MultiDimensional Case
For simplicity of notations \'Je only consider twodimensional case d=2.
Generalizations to d > 2 is straightforward. For d=2 we use (x,y), (f,g)
We consider both semidiscrete methodoflines:
d
_ u .. = L(u) ..
dt lJ lJ
(3.1)
and fully discrete scheme
n+1 n n
u " = u.. + At L ( u ) ..
lJ lJ lJ
(3.2)
where L(u) is a (usually nonlinear) conservative discrete spatial operator approximating  f(u)x  g(u)y to rth order in smooth, monotone regions:
1 A
L(u) .. = _ (f. 1.
1 J AX 1 +,J
2
A 1 ('
 f. 1 .)   g . . + 1  g. . 1)
l"2,J 4Y l,J"2 1,J"2
(3.3a)
(3.3b)
with consistent numerical fluxes
f. 1 . = f(ui+P,j+q'···'Ui_R.,j_k) 1 +2",J
.
f(u, •.. ,u) = f(u)
(3.4a)
g. . 1 = 9 ( u i +p J' +q > ..., U i  R., J' k ) ;
1,J+ ,
2
g(u, ... .u ) = g(u)
(3. 4b )
Define three functions of t:
S. 1 . = sign (A~ uiJ') ; 1 +,J
2
s .. 1 = sign (~u .. )
l,J+ lJ
2
(3.5)
s .. lJ
S. 1 .) + Ax (S. . +1 S. . 1)
12,J 1 J 1,J
, 2" 2
(3.6)
12
where, as usual, ~ and ~ are the forward di fferences:
( 3.7)
and we choose sign (0) = ±1 in some consistent way, e.g. such that
s
. 1 .
1 +,J 2
= S, 1 . 1 "2,J
if
x
~+ u i j = 0 •
The total variation is defined as usual
TV(u) =.L. (4YI~ uijl + AX I~ uijl)
1 , J
(3.8)
We define TVD of schemes (3.2) and (3.1), respectively, by (2.4) and
.!_ TV(u) < 0 dt
(3.9)
Using ideas in [10] and [15], we get
Lemma 3.1 A sufficient condition for (3.1) to be TVD is
s .. L(u) .. ) 0, \I i,j
lJ lJ
(3.10a)
and for (3.2) to be TVD is
S~:l L(un).. 0 IJ
lJ lJ)' i,j
(3 .10b )
Proof: forward differencing (3.1) or (3.2) in x and y directions,
multiplying by (3.5), noticing
x d
ti.+ u··  S 1 = 0 in distribution sense (for
1 J dt i +,j
2
(3.1)), summing and using summation by parts, we get
.!_ TV (u ) dt
  ~ S .. L(u) ..
t. 1 J 1 J
i , j
(3.11a)
for (3.1) and
13
n+l x n n+l y n n+l n
~ [So 1 . AYA+ u;J· + S1 .. +1 ss s; Uij]  At Y Sij L(u );j
.. 1 +. J • J  i J.
1.J 2 2 •
(3.l1b)
for (3.2).
o
The S .. as defined in (3.6) is almost always zero. It fails to be zero 1J
only at critical points in x or y directions. Hence we only need to enforce
(3.10) at those critical points to get TVD.
We consider operators of the form
L(u) .. = Ll(u) .. + LC(u) ..
lJ 1J lJ
(3.12)
where L l(u) is a fi rst order monotone operator whi ch is known to be TVD in scalar multidimensional case [1], and LC(u) t s a high order correction term
such that (3.12) satisfies (3.3b) in smooth, monotone regions. Notice that
operators of many existing schemes. e.g. two dimensional versions of the ENO
schemes in [13] and of the TVD schemes in [9] and their TVB modifications in [11]. are already written in the form (3.12).
For fully discrete explicit schemes (3.2), we have an additional difficulty in tracking the critical points of the unknown un+1 in order to enforce (3.11b). To get around this difficulty, we further require LC to
satisfy a monotonicitypreserving property. i.e. if
U.. = u ~. + At L 1 (u n) . . (3.13)
lJ 1J lJ
is the solution of the first order monotone scheme. then we require
(3.14)
where n+I is the solution of (3.2)(3.12). Or. using notations (3.5)(3.6).
u
Sn+l '" Sn+l '" S~:l '"
= S . 1 . = S . . 1 = S .. 'If t , j (3.15)
. 1 . . . 1 1J 1J
1 +,J 1 +.J l,J+ 1,J+
2 2 2 2 14
~
(In order to achieve this we may have to compute u before computing
We have the following
Lemma 3.2. A sufficient condition for (3.1)  (3.12) to be TVD is
s .. LC(u) .. ) 0 , II i,j
lJ lJ
(3.16a)
and for (3.2)(3.12)(3.13)(3.15) to be TVD is
(3.16b)
Proof:
(1) For (3.1)(3.12), (3.11a) now becomes
~ TV(u) = dt
 ,
f
i , j
s .. L l(u) ..  J. S .. LC(u) ..
lJ lJ. '. lJ lJ
1 , J
(3.17)
Hence it suffices to prove
IJ u
(3.18)
In fact, given u, we may use it for the initial condition of the first order monotone scheme ~t vij = L l(v)ij , then the derivative of the total variation .1._ TV(v) at t=O, which is just the lefthandside of (3.18), should be nondt
pos it i ve because the monotone scheme is TVD;
(2) For (3.2)(3.12)(3.13)(3.15), (3.11b) now becomes
(3.19)
'"
= TV ( u)  y S.. L c ( u ) . .
lJ lJ
i , j
Ct
15
We now use Lemma 3.2 to generalize our TVD modified ENO schemes to
twodimension: We use step (1)  step (4) in section II separately to x and
... ...
y di recti ons in constructing f . 1 . and g .. +1 for (3.3a), with the following
1 +,J 1,J 
2 2
(3.1),  + b±) in (2.14)
modifications at step 3: for change m(a  • to 13m ( t.~u i + 1 , j 1 ' t.~u i + 1 , j )) (3 • 2 Oa 1 ) t.ys
...
in the x direction when constructing f, and to
13m ( t.{u i , j 1 ' t.~u i j , t.~u i , j + 1 ) ) (3.20a2)
t.ys
...
in the y  direction when constructing g
and, for (3.2), change it to
...
in the x  direction when constructing f
and to
in the y  direction when constructing
A
g •
Again, t.x and t.y vii 1 1 not appear explicitly if the limited quantities are undivided differences.
Then we have the following
Proposition 3.3. (i) Scheme (3.1) with (3.20a) is TVD, for any B > 0
(ii) Scheme (3.2) with (3.20b) is TVD under the CFL restriction
16
1
48(1 + 2
(3.21)
plus, of course, the CFL restriction on the first order monotone scheme (3.13).
Proof: (t ) Clearly LC(u)ij = 0 when Sij "* 0, due to the definition of the minmod limiter (2.18). So (3.16a) is satisfied;
(ii) (3.20b)(3.21) implies (3.14) (see (2.20) and (2.24) and use the fact that sign(a+b) = sign(a) if [b ] c [a ] }; and (3.20b) implies
c n ~
L (u ) .. = 0 when S .. "* 0, again due to (2.18). So (3.16b) is satisfied.
lJ lJ
o
Remark 3.4.
Limiters (3.20) affect accuracy in regions where
x y
/).+u.. or ~+u ..
lJ lJ
approaches zero, i.e. near critical points (in broad sense: i.e. the first
partial derivative is zero) in either x or y directions. In the example of
Goodman and LeVeque [2]
~+u .. = 0, hence the scheme becomes first order. lJ
In
(3.20a) we may let B + 00 and in (3.20b) we may choose a larger 8 by reducing the CFL number A (see (3.21)), in order to reduce the size of the degeneracy
region. Other strategies, e.g. choosing different 81s for x and y
direction differences and for various orders of divided differences, may also help
to reduce the size of degeneracy region.
Remark 3.5. The same procedure works to generalize certain other onedimensional
TVD schemes to multidimension, e.g. the high order (up to 15th order) TVD schemes in (9) and their TVB globaly high order modifications in [11]. We will not carry
out the details here.
17
References
[1] M. Crandall and A. Majda, Monotone Difference Approximations for Scalar Conservation Laws; Math. Comp., V34, 1980, pp. 121.
[2] J. Goodman and R. LeVeque, On the Accuracy of Stable Schemes for 20 Scalar Conservation Laws; Math. Comp., V45, 1985, pp. 1521.
[3] A. Harten, High Resolution Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws; J. Comput. Phys., V49, 1983, pp. 357393.
[4] A. Harten, On a class of High Resolution TotalVariationStable Finite Difference Schemes; SIAM J. Numer. Anal., V21, 1984, pp. 123.
[5] A. HartenJ Prelimina~ Results on the Extension of ENO Schemes to TwoDimensional Problems; Proceedings of the International Conference on Hyperbolic Problems, SaintEtienne, January 1986.
[6] A. Harten and S. Osher, Uniformly High Order Accurate NonOscillatory Schemes, I; MRC Technical Summary Report #2823, May 1985, to appear in SIAM J. Numer. Anal.
[7] A. Harten, B. Enguist, S. Osher and S. Chakravarthy, Uniformly High Order Accurate Essentially NonOscillatory Schemes, III; to appear in J. Comput. Phys.
[8] S. Osher and S. Chakravarthy, High Resolution Schemes and the Entropy Condition; SIAM J. Numer. Anal., V21, 1984, pp. 955984.
[9] S. Osher and S. Chakravarthy, Very High Order Accurate TVD Schemes; IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, V2, SpringerVerlag, 1986, pp. 229274.
[10] R. Sanders, On Convergence of Monotone Finite Difference Schemes with Variable Spatial Differencing; Math. Comp., V40, 1983, pp. 91106.
[11] C. Shu, TVB Uniformly high Order Schemes for Conservation Laws; Math.
Comp., V49, July 1987, (to appear).
[12] C. Shu, TVD Time Discretizations; preprint.
[13] C. Shu and S. Osher, Efficient Implementation of Essentially NonOscillatory Shock Capturing Schemes; preprint, to be submitted to J. Comput. Phys.
[14] P.K. Sweby, High Resolution Schemes Using Flux Limiters for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws; SIAM J. Numer. Anal., V21, 1984, pp. 9951011.
[15] E. Tadmor, Convenient Total Variation Diminishing Conditions for Nonlinear Difference Schemes; ICASE Report No. 8674, November 1986
l~".~'_.441.;' IIII,;;'~;;:~~wtr·f.jr'.~;"'''~~~~''''''''~;\.\'.\,/,r;:~." :.'~'~.~" .. r.,~,",!;
'ai:icJ;PLICATI "'~
PM 0
Job
Phone:
Run Size
'I
Trim Size
x
Finish Size
x
II
One Side 0 Two
Other:
Body
Cover
Size
Megas 0
Metal Pits. 0
GBC Binding 0
Left Corner 0
For #1o's 0
OTHER: Drill 0 2·hole
Cutting 0 Trimming 0 Perfect 0
Tape 0
Shrink/Plastic Wrap 0
Banding 0
2 on Side
Saddle 0
1/, Fold 0
OTHER:
3hole
Perforate 0
Score 0
Count in 100'5 0
1'1
(
.....
BUS ADM FORM 173 REV 9/85
,:,'::';"
TVD PROPERTIES OF A CLASS OF MODIFIED ENO SCHEMES FOR SCALAR CONSERVATION LAWS
By
CHIWANG SHU
IMA Preprint Series # 308
April 1987
INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
514 Vincent Hall
206 Church Street S.E.
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55455
VJ c \/I + (1)
3 \/I
3 C»
() o ~ + ,
o
o ~ ::..
o ::..

")
+ ~
o :>
o ~ :> + \/I
:> + VI
;0
~
III ,
7'C' VI
» sr o <= to
~
~ o ,
c
~
,
to III
z <= o
~ QI ,

:>
(f) " III
o ~ VI

~
if~
,0 N :> o VI :>
.9~
to
"I
30
 I N " III (I)
to'
0
o 0 :> 
QI ..... to o  , 0
:>
~
,
7'C' o <
+ zr
"
o
,.,0 :> to
:>
»<= <= ~ +Q. ::r~
~ ;