Researcher profile

Viktor Linders

Viktor Linders contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On an eigenvalue property of Summation-By-Parts operators

Summation-By-Parts (SBP) methods provide a systematic way of constructing provably stable numerical schemes. However, many proofs of convergence and accuracy rely on the assumption that the SBP operator possesses a particular eigenvalue property. In this note, three results pertaining to this property are proven. Firstly, the eigenvalue property does not hold for all nullspace consistent SBP operators. Secondly, this issue can be addressed without affecting the accuracy of the method by adding a specially designed, arbitrarily small perturbation term to the SBP operator. Thirdly, all pseudospectral methods satisfy the eigenvalue property.

preprint2022arXiv

Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Space-Time DG-SEM Implementations

We discuss two approaches for the formulation and implementation of space-time discontinuous Galerkin spectral element methods (DG-SEM). In one, time is treated as an additional coordinate direction and a Galerkin procedure is applied to the entire problem. In the other, the method of lines is used with DG-SEM in space and the fully implicit Runge-Kutta method Lobatto IIIC in time. The two approaches are mathematically equivalent in the sense that they lead to the same discrete solution. However, in practice they differ in several important respects, including the terminology used to describe them, the structure of the resulting software, and the interaction with nonlinear solvers. Challenges and merits of the two approaches are discussed with the goal of providing the practitioner with sufficient consideration to choose which path to follow. Additionally, implementations of the two methods are provided as a starting point for further development. Numerical experiments validate the theoretical accuracy of these codes and demonstrate their utility, even for 4D problems.