2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-9274(02)00110-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal orders of convergence for Runge–Kutta methods and linear, initial boundary value problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
52
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The result is that the temporal mismatch becomes a spatial numerical boundary layer. Suggestions for mitigating this type of order reduction have been proposed for explicit Runge-Kutta schemes [52,15,4,3]. Since SDC methods also employ lower-order solutions, they are also susceptible to this type of order reduction.…”
Section: : End Formentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The result is that the temporal mismatch becomes a spatial numerical boundary layer. Suggestions for mitigating this type of order reduction have been proposed for explicit Runge-Kutta schemes [52,15,4,3]. Since SDC methods also employ lower-order solutions, they are also susceptible to this type of order reduction.…”
Section: : End Formentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cause of this type of order reduction is a mismatch in the error between the domain boundary and its interior in the stage values computed during the Runge-Kutta procedure. Various approaches for mitigating this type of order reduction have been proposed for explicit Runge-Kutta schemes [52,15,4,3], but no general remedy for non-linear PDEs has been developed. SISDC methods are also susceptible to order reduction in the presence of time-dependent boundary conditions because they also use lower-order stage values in the solution process [46].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our context, and taking advantage of our limitation to methods with p ≥ q + 1, the key theorem of [3] is Theorem 2. This result is stated for problems with homogeneous boundary conditions, but Section 4 of [3] explains how to handle the non-homogeneous boundary conditions and why the result still holds. The following translation table 1 4 − ε} 1 0 can be used to navigate [3,Theorem 2] and relate it to our particular problem.…”
Section: Error Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This result is stated for problems with homogeneous boundary conditions, but Section 4 of [3] explains how to handle the non-homogeneous boundary conditions and why the result still holds. The following translation table 1 4 − ε} 1 0 can be used to navigate [3,Theorem 2] and relate it to our particular problem. Note that when p ≥ q + 2, it is important to have D ⊂ V ⊂ [H, D(A)] 1/4−ε with bounded embeddings.…”
Section: Error Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such reductions have been deeply studied (see for example [4], [6], [22], [26]) and recently, Alonso-Mallo and Cano ( [2], [3]) have developed and analyzed a technique which can be used in Runge-Kutta or Rosenbrock methods to avoid such order reduction. This technique also consists of modifying cleverly the boundary conditions naturally associated with the internal stages of these methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%