approximation are employed. For the time variable, a Lagrangian basis with respect to the (k+1)
Gauss–Radau quadrature points of each subinterval is used. By the choice of a discontinuous temporal
test basis, a time-marching scheme is obtained, with temporal degrees of freedom associated with the
Gauss–Radau quadrature nodes of the subintervals. For details of the construction of the schemes we
refer to [2, 3]. We linearize the resulting nonlinear algebraic problem by a damped version of Newton’s
method. This yields linear systems of equations with block matrices of (k+1)×(k+1)subsystems, with
each of them having saddle point structure. Here, kdenotes the piecewise polynomial order of the time
discretization; cf. [2,4,11]. The structure of each of the subsystems resembles the discretization of (1.1)
by the implicit Euler method in time and inf-sup stable pairs of finite elements in space. We note that
there exits a strong link between the implicit Euler and the lowest order discontinuous Gakerkin time
discretization; cf. [20]. The solution of the problems demands for efficient and robust iteration schemes.
Geometric multigrid (GMG) methods are known as the most efficient iterative techniques for the
solution of large linear systems arising from the discretization of partial differential equations, including
incompressible viscous flow. GMG methods are applied in many variants [6, 10, 15, 19]. They exploit
different mesh levels of the underlying problem in order to reduce different frequencies of the error
by employing a relatively cheap smoother on each grid level. Different iterative methods have been
proposed in the literature as smoothing procedure. They range from low-cost methods like Richardson,
Jacobi, and SOR applied to the normal equation of the linear system to collective smoothers, that
are based on the solution of small local problems. Here, we use a Vanka-type smoother [16, 21] of
the family of collective methods. Nowadays, GMG methods are employed as preconditioner in Krylov
subspace iterations, for instance GMRES iterations, to enhance the linear solver’s robustness, which
is also done here. Parallel implementations of GMG techniques on modern computer architectures
show excellent scalability properties and their high efficiency has been recognized. Numerical evidence
of these performance properties is presented in, e.g., [2, 7, 8, 14, 15]. Analyses of GMG methods (cf.,
e.g., [6,10,16]) have been done for linear systems in saddle point form, with matrix A=A B⊺
B−Cand
symmetric and positive definite submatrices Aand C, arising for instance from mixed discretizations
of the Stokes problem. If higher order discontinuous Galerkin time stepping is used, the resulting linear
system matrix is a (k+1)×(k+1)block matrix with each block being of the form A. This imposes
an additional facet of complexity on the geometric multigrid preconditioner. In this work, we study
numerically the performance properties of GMRES iterations with GMG preconditioning for space-
time finite element discretizations of (1.1) . In particular, higher order polynomial approximation of
the temporal variable is investigated. The benchmark of flow around a cylinder [18] in two- and three
space dimensions is chosen as a test problem. Beyond the expectable spatial grid independency of the
number of iterations of the linear solver, that is already shown numerically in [3,11], the robustness of
the solver with respect to the (piecewise) polynomial degree of the time discretization is analyzed and
shown here.
2 Numerical scheme
For the time discretization, we decompose I=(0, T ]into Nsubintervals In=(tn−1, tn],n=1,...,N,
where 0 =t0<t1<⋯<tN−1<tN=T. For the space discretization, let {Tl}L
l=0be the decomposition on
every multigrid level of Ω into (open) quadrilaterals or hexahedrals, with Tl={Kii=1,...,Nel
l}, for
l=0,...,L. The finest partition is Th=TL. We assume that all the partitions {Tl}L
l=0are quasi-uniform
with characteristic mesh size hland hl=γhl−1,γ∈(0,1)and h0=O(1). On the actual mesh level,
we denote by Vh×Qh⊂H1(Ω)×L2(Ω)the finite element spaces that are built on the inf-sup stable
pair of spaces (Qr)d×Pdisc
r−1for some r≥2; cf. [13, p. 115]. By an abuse of notation, we skip the index
lof the mesh level when it is clear from the context. We let R∶=dim Vhand S∶=dim Qhas well as
ˆ
R=dim((Qr)d)and ˆ
S=dim(Pdisc
r−1). For the application of Dirichlet boundary conditions we employ
Nitsche’s method. This is only done since our approach and its implementation are embedded in a more
2