Advances in Computational Mathematics

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 929–980 | Cite as

Linear hybrid-variable methods for advection equations

  • Xianyi ZengEmail author


We propose a general hybrid-variable (HV) framework to solve linear advection equations by utilizing both cell-average approximations and nodal approximations. The construction is carried out for 1D problems, where the spatial discretization for cell averages is obtained from the integral form of the governing equation whereas that for nodal values is constructed using hybrid-variable discrete differential operators (HV-DDO); explicit Runge-Kutta methods are employed for marching the solutions in time. We demonstrate the connection between the HV-DDO and Hermite interpolation polynomials, and show that it can be constructed to arbitrary order of accuracy. In particular, we derive explicit formula for the coefficients to achieve the optimal order of accuracy given any compact stencil of the HV-DDO. The superconvergence of the proposed HV methods is then proved: these methods have one-order higher spatial accuracy than the designed order of the HV-DDO; in contrast, for conventional methods that only utilize one type of variables, the two orders are the same. Hence, the proposed method can potentially achieve higher-order accuracy given the same computational cost, comparing to existing finite difference methods. We then prove the linear stability of sample HV methods with up to fifth-order accuracy in the case of Cauchy problems. Next, we demonstrate how the HV methods can be extended to 2D problems as well as nonlinear conservation laws with smooth solutions. The performance of the sample HV methods are assessed by extensive 1D and 2D benchmark tests of linear advection equations, the nonlinear Euler equations, and the nonlinear Buckely-Leverett equation.


Linear advection equations Hybrid-variable interpolation Hermite interpolation polynomials High-order accuracy Superconvergence Linear stability 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

65M12 35L45 65D25 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The author thanks the University of Texas at El Paso for the general support in the form of research start-up fund. The author would like to thank Prof. George Papanicolaou for the fruitful discussion at the beginning stage of this project at Stanford University.


  1. 1.
    Barth, T.J.: Recent developments in high order k-exact reconstruction on unstructured meshes. In: 31st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit. Reno, Nevada (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berndt, M., Lipnikov, K., Shashkov, M., Wheeler, M.F., Yotov, I.: Superconvergence of the velocity in mimetic finite difference methods on quadrilaterals. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43(4), 1728–1749 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brezzi, F., Lipnikov, K., Shashkov, M.: Convergence of the mimetic finite difference method for diffusion problems on polyhedral meshes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43(5), 1872–1896 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpenter, M.H., Gottlieb, D., Abarbanel, S.: Time-stable boundary conditions for finite-difference schemes solving hyperbolic systems- methodology and application to high-order compact schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 111(2), 220–236 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Després, B.: Uniform asymptotic stability of Strang’s explicit compact schemes for linear advection. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47(5), 3956–3976 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Droniou, J.: Finite volume schemes for diffusion equations: introduction to and review of modern methods. Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 24(8), 1575–1619 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Droniou, J., Eymard, R., Gallouët, T., Herbin, R.: A unified approach to mimetic finite difference, hybrid finite volume and mixed finite volume methods. Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 20(2), 265–295 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumbser, M., Balsara, D.S., Toro, E.F., Munz, C.D.: A unified framework for the construction of one-step finite volume and discontinuous Galerkin schemes on unstructured meshes. J. Comput. Phys. 227(18), 8209–8253 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodrich, J., Hagstrom, T., Lorenz, J.: Hermite methods for hyperbolic initial-boundary value problems. Math. Comput. 75(254), 595–630 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gottlieb, S., Shu, C.W.: Total variational diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes. Math. Comput. 67(221), 73–85 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gustafsson, B.: High Order Difference Methods for Time Dependent PDE, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 38, 1st edn. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hairer, E., Nørsett, S.P., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 8, 2 edn. Springer (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harten, A.: High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 49, 217–237 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huynh, H.T.: A Piecewise-Parabolic Dual-Mesh Method for the Euler Equations. In: 12Th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference. San Diego, California (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Imai, Y., Aoki, T., Takizawa, K.: Conservative form of interpolated differential operator scheme for compressible and incompressible fluid dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 227(4), 2263–2285 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Isaacson, E., Keller, H.B.: Analysis of Numerical Methods, reprint edn Dover Publication (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iserles, A.: Order stars and a saturation theorem for first-order hyperbolics. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 2(1), 49–61 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iserles, A.: Generalized leapfrog methods. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 6(4), 381–392 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iserles, A., Strang, G.: The optimal accuracy of difference schemes. T. Am. Math. Soc. 277(2), 779–803 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang, G.S., Shu, C.W.: Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 126(1), 202–228 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karabasov, S.A., Goloviznin, V.M.: Compact accurately boundary-adjusting high-resolution technique for fluid dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 228(19), 7426–7451 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Leer, B.: Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme IV. A new approach to numerical convection. J. Comput. Phys. 23(3), 276–299 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Leer, B.: Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme V. A second-order sequel to godunov’s method. J. Comput. Phys. 32(1), 101–136 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeVeque, R.: Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems. Cambridge texts in applied mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    LeVeque, R.J.: Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws, 2nd edn. Lectures in mathematics. Birkhäuser (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, X.D., Osher, S., Chan, T.: Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 115(1), 200–212 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luther, H.A.: Further explicit fifth-order runge-kutta formulas. SIAM Rev. 8 (3), 374–380 (1966)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roe, P.L.: Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 43(2), 357–372 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rusanov, V.V.: The calculation of interaction of non-steady shock waves with obstacles. USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 1(2), 304–320 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanders, R., Weiser, A.: High resolution staggered mesh approach for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 101(2), 314–329 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shu, C.W.: High-order finite difference and finite volume WENO schemes and discontinuous Galerkin methods for CFD. Int. J. Comput. Fluid D. 17(2), 107–118 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sod, G.A.: A survey of several finite difference methods for systems of nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 27(1), 1–31 (1978). ReviewMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strang, G.: Trigonometric polynomials and difference methods of maximum accuracy. J. Math. and Phys. 41(1–4), 147–154 (1962)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Szegö, G.: Orthogonal Polynomials Colloquium Publications, vol. XXIII, 4th edn. Providence, RI (1975)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Toro, E.F.: Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: a Practical Introduction, 3rd. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xiao, F., Ikebata, A., Hasegawa, T.: Numerical simulations of free-interface fluids by a multi-integrated moment method. Comput. Struct. 83(6–7), 409–423 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang, Z.C., Yu, S.T.J., Chang, S.C.: A space-time conservation element and solution element method for solving the two- and three-dimensional unsteady euler equations using quadrilateral and hexahedral meshes. J. Comput. Phys. 175(1), 168–199 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical Sciences, Computational Science ProgramUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations