# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

March  2021, 29(1): 1897-1923. doi: 10.3934/era.2020097

## A weak Galerkin finite element method for nonlinear conservation laws

 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204, USA 2 Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA 3 College of Mathematics, Physics and Information Engineering, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang 314001, China

* Corresponding author: Xiu Ye

Received  April 2020 Revised  July 2020 Published  March 2021 Early access  September 2020

Fund Project: The first author is supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1620016. The third author is supported in part by Zhejiang provincial NSF of China grant LY19A010008

A weak Galerkin (WG) finite element method is presented for nonlinear conservation laws. There are two built-in parameters in this WG framework. Different choices of the parameters will lead to different approaches for solving hyperbolic conservation laws. The convergence analysis is obtained for the forward Euler time discrete and the third order explicit TVDRK time discrete WG schemes respectively. The theoretical results are verified by numerical experiments.

Citation: Xiu Ye, Shangyou Zhang, Peng Zhu. A weak Galerkin finite element method for nonlinear conservation laws. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (1) : 1897-1923. doi: 10.3934/era.2020097
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
WG solution for Example 2, $T = 1/\pi, \lambda_1 = 2,\lambda_2 = 1,N = 128$
The $P_1$ WG solution and DG solution for Example 3, $T = 2\pi, N = 512$
$L^2$ errors and corresponding convergence rates of Example 1. $T = 2\pi$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element $P_3$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 1.29E-01 3.36E-03 2.66E-04 16 3.02E-02 2.10 3.99E-04 3.08 1.94E-05 3.78 32 7.22E-03 2.06 4.93E-05 3.02 1.27E-06 3.93 64 1.78E-03 2.02 6.14E-06 3.00 8.06E-08 3.98 128 4.42E-04 2.01 7.67E-07 3.00 5.06E-09 4.00
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element $P_3$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 1.29E-01 3.36E-03 2.66E-04 16 3.02E-02 2.10 3.99E-04 3.08 1.94E-05 3.78 32 7.22E-03 2.06 4.93E-05 3.02 1.27E-06 3.93 64 1.78E-03 2.02 6.14E-06 3.00 8.06E-08 3.98 128 4.42E-04 2.01 7.67E-07 3.00 5.06E-09 4.00
$L^2$ errors and corresponding convergence rates of Example 2. $T = 0.2$, $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 2.5$
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element $P_3$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 1.68E-02 6.60E-03 1.89E-03 16 6.11E-03 1.46 7.86E-04 3.07 2.22E-04 3.09 32 1.42E-03 2.10 1.63E-04 2.27 9.96E-06 4.48 64 3.49E-04 2.03 2.85E-05 2.51 8.19E-07 3.60 128 8.67E-05 2.01 4.98E-06 2.51 5.81E-08 3.82
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element $P_3$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 1.68E-02 6.60E-03 1.89E-03 16 6.11E-03 1.46 7.86E-04 3.07 2.22E-04 3.09 32 1.42E-03 2.10 1.63E-04 2.27 9.96E-06 4.48 64 3.49E-04 2.03 2.85E-05 2.51 8.19E-07 3.60 128 8.67E-05 2.01 4.98E-06 2.51 5.81E-08 3.82
$L^2$ errors and corresponding convergence rates of Example 3. $T = 2\pi$, $\lambda_1 = 2,\lambda_2 = 1$
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 5.93E-01 4.23E-01 16 5.01E-01 0.24 3.25E-01 0.38 32 3.93E-01 0.35 2.52E-01 0.37 64 3.26E-01 0.27 1.98E-01 0.35 128 2.72E-01 0.26 1.58E-01 0.33 256 2.26E-01 0.27 1.27E-01 0.32 512 1.89E-01 0.26 1.03E-01 0.30
 $P_1$ element $P_2$ element N $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate $\|u-u_0\|$ Rate 8 5.93E-01 4.23E-01 16 5.01E-01 0.24 3.25E-01 0.38 32 3.93E-01 0.35 2.52E-01 0.37 64 3.26E-01 0.27 1.98E-01 0.35 128 2.72E-01 0.26 1.58E-01 0.33 256 2.26E-01 0.27 1.27E-01 0.32 512 1.89E-01 0.26 1.03E-01 0.30
 [1] Xiaomeng Li, Qiang Xu, Ailing Zhu. Weak Galerkin mixed finite element methods for parabolic equations with memory. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (3) : 513-531. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019034 [2] Bin Wang, Lin Mu. Viscosity robust weak Galerkin finite element methods for Stokes problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (1) : 1881-1895. doi: 10.3934/era.2020096 [3] Jiwei Jia, Young-Ju Lee, Yue Feng, Zichan Wang, Zhongshu Zhao. Hybridized weak Galerkin finite element methods for Brinkman equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (3) : 2489-2516. doi: 10.3934/era.2020126 [4] Lunji Song, Wenya Qi, Kaifang Liu, Qingxian Gu. A new over-penalized weak galerkin finite element method. Part Ⅱ: Elliptic interface problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2581-2598. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020196 [5] Guanrong Li, Yanping Chen, Yunqing Huang. A hybridized weak Galerkin finite element scheme for general second-order elliptic problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (2) : 821-836. doi: 10.3934/era.2020042 [6] Ruishu Wang, Lin Mu, Xiu Ye. A locking free Reissner-Mindlin element with weak Galerkin rotations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (1) : 351-361. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018086 [7] Wolf-Jüergen Beyn, Janosch Rieger. Galerkin finite element methods for semilinear elliptic differential inclusions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2013, 18 (2) : 295-312. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2013.18.295 [8] K. T. Joseph, Philippe G. LeFloch. Boundary layers in weak solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws II. self-similar vanishing diffusion limits. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2002, 1 (1) : 51-76. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2002.1.51 [9] Xiu Ye, Shangyou Zhang. A new weak gradient for the stabilizer free weak Galerkin method with polynomial reduction. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (8) : 4131-4145. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020277 [10] Hui Peng, Qilong Zhai. Weak Galerkin method for the Stokes equations with damping. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021112 [11] Zengjing Chen, Qingyang Liu, Gaofeng Zong. Weak laws of large numbers for sublinear expectation. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2018, 8 (3&4) : 637-651. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2018027 [12] Yue Feng, Yujie Liu, Ruishu Wang, Shangyou Zhang. A conforming discontinuous Galerkin finite element method on rectangular partitions. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (3) : 2375-2389. doi: 10.3934/era.2020120 [13] Alexander Mielke. Weak-convergence methods for Hamiltonian multiscale problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2008, 20 (1) : 53-79. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2008.20.53 [14] Xiuting Li. The energy conservation for weak solutions to the relativistic Nordström-Vlasov system. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2016, 5 (1) : 135-145. doi: 10.3934/eect.2016.5.135 [15] Lijuan Wang, Jun Zou. Error estimates of finite element methods for parameter identifications in elliptic and parabolic systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2010, 14 (4) : 1641-1670. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2010.14.1641 [16] Chunjuan Hou, Yanping Chen, Zuliang Lu. Superconvergence property of finite element methods for parabolic optimal control problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2011, 7 (4) : 927-945. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2011.7.927 [17] Qun Lin, Hehu Xie. Recent results on lower bounds of eigenvalue problems by nonconforming finite element methods. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (3) : 795-811. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.795 [18] Zhangxin Chen. On the control volume finite element methods and their applications to multiphase flow. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1 (4) : 689-706. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.689 [19] Runchang Lin, Huiqing Zhu. A discontinuous Galerkin least-squares finite element method for solving Fisher's equation. Conference Publications, 2013, 2013 (special) : 489-497. doi: 10.3934/proc.2013.2013.489 [20] Avner Friedman. Conservation laws in mathematical biology. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2012, 32 (9) : 3081-3097. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2012.32.3081

2020 Impact Factor: 1.833