Representations of Runge-Kutta Methods and Strong Stability Preserving Methods

Over the last few years a great effort has been made to develop monotone high order explicit Runge--Kutta methods by means of their Shu--Osher representations. In this context, the stepsize restriction to obtain numerical monotonicity is normally computed using the optimal representation. In this paper we extend the Shu--Osher representations for any Runge--Kutta method giving sufficient conditions for monotonicity. We show how optimal Shu--Osher representations can be constructed from the Butcher tableau of a Runge--Kutta method. The optimum stepsize restriction for monotonicity is given by the radius of absolute monotonicity of the Runge--Kutta method [L. Ferracina and M. N. Spijker, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 42 (2004), pp. 1073--1093], and hence if this radius is zero, the method is not monotone. In the Shu--Osher representation, methods with zero radius require negative coefficients, and to deal with them, an extra associate problem is considered. In this paper we interpret these schemes as representations of perturbed Runge--Kutta methods. We extend the concept of radius of absolute monotonicity and give sufficient conditions for monotonicity. Optimal representations can be constructed from the Butcher tableau of a perturbed Runge--Kutta method.

[1]  Robert H. Martin,et al.  Nonlinear operators and differential equations in Banach spaces , 1976 .

[2]  Steven J. Ruuth,et al.  A New Class of Optimal High-Order Strong-Stability-Preserving Time Discretization Methods , 2002, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[3]  J. Lambert Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Systems: The Initial Value Problem , 1991 .

[4]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  A Survey of Strong Stability Preserving High Order Time Discretizations , 2001 .

[5]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  Strong Stability-Preserving High-Order Time Discretization Methods , 2001, SIAM Rev..

[6]  M. N. Spijker,et al.  Stepsize Restrictions for the Total-Variation-Diminishing Property in General Runge-Kutta Methods , 2004, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[7]  Chi-Wang Shu,et al.  Total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes , 1998, Math. Comput..

[8]  Steven J. Ruuth,et al.  Two Barriers on Strong-Stability-Preserving Time Discretization Methods , 2002, J. Sci. Comput..

[9]  S. Osher,et al.  Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes,II , 1989 .

[10]  M. N. Spijker,et al.  An extension and analysis of the Shu-Osher representation of Runge-Kutta methods , 2004, Math. Comput..

[11]  Steven J. Ruuth,et al.  High-Order Strong-Stability-Preserving Runge-Kutta Methods with Downwind-Biased Spatial Discretizations , 2004, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[12]  Peter Lancaster,et al.  The theory of matrices , 1969 .

[13]  Lee-Ad Gottlieb,et al.  Strong Stability Preserving Properties of Runge–Kutta Time Discretization Methods for Linear Constant Coefficient Operators , 2003, J. Sci. Comput..

[14]  J. Kraaijevanger Contractivity of Runge-Kutta methods , 1991 .

[15]  Chi-Wang Shu Total-variation-diminishing time discretizations , 1988 .

[16]  J. Verwer,et al.  Stability of Runge-Kutta Methods for Stiff Nonlinear Differential Equations , 1984 .