Part-II: Splitting Methods for Incompressible Flows · Part-II: Splitting Methods for...
Transcript of Part-II: Splitting Methods for Incompressible Flows · Part-II: Splitting Methods for...
Part-II: Splitting Methods for IncompressibleFlows
Jie ShenDepartment of Mathematics
Purdue University
IMS, National Singapore University, July 29-30, 2009
1
Outline
• A review of projection-type schemes
– Pressure-correction method– Velocity-correction method
• Consistent splitting method
• Role of inf-sup conditions
• Concluding remarks
2
Navier-Stokes Equations(unsteady, viscous and incompressible)
∂u
∂t− ν∆u + (u · ∇)u +∇p = f , in Q = Ω× (0, T ],
divu = 0, in Q, u|t=0 = u0,
with appropriate boundary conditions:
u|Γ1 = 0, (no-slip);
u · n|Γ2 = 0, (σ · n)τ |Γ2 = 0 (free-slip);
σ · n|Γ3 = g or (−ν∇u + pI) · n|Γ3 = g (open boundary);
where σ = −ν(∇u +∇uT ) + pI.
3
Coupled approaches
A generalized Stokes (or linearized Navier-Stokes) problem
1∆t
un+1 − ν∆un+1 +∇pn+1 = hn+1,
divun+1 = 0,
needs to be solved at each time step !
• Not as easily solvable as a Poisson equation (but could bemade equally efficient in many situations with a sophisticatedmultigrid method);
• Inf-sup condition is needed.
4
Decoupled approach: Splitting schemes
Pioneer work: The projection method, proposed by Chorin andTemam in late 60’s, decouples the computation of pressure andvelocity — very efficient but the accuracy is not satisfactory.
Countless modifications/implementations have been pro-posed/performed in the last 40 years...
A critical issue: Splitting error (very hard to remove since thepressure is not a dynamic variable) — a loss of accuracy for thepressure and vorticity.
Objective: Design splitting schemes with a loss of accuracy aslittle as possible !
5
Notations:
• Dun+1
∆t = 1∆t(βqu
n+1 −∑q−1j=0 βju
n−j): q-th order BDF approxi-mation to ut(·, tn+1).
• p∗,n+1: (q − 1)-th order extrapolation for p(·, tn+1).
q = 1 : Dvk+1 = vk+1 − vk, p∗,k+1 = 0;
q = 2 : Dvk+1 =32vk+1 − 2vk +
12vk−1, p∗,k+1 = pk,
q = 3 : Dvk+1 =16(11vk+1 − 18vk + 9vk−1 − 2vk−2), p∗,k+1 = 2pk − pk−1.
6
Pressure-correction Method
1
∆t(βqun+1 −
q−1∑j=0
βjun−j)− ν∆un+1 +∇p∗,n+1 = h(tn+1),
un+1|∂Ω = 0,βq(un+1 − un+1)
∆t+∇(pn+1 − p∗,n+1) = 0,
divun+1 = 0, un+1 · n|∂Ω = 0.The second step reduces to a Pressure Poisson equation — onlya sequence of Poisson-type equations need to be solved at eachtime step.
7
• The second step is nothing but the Helmholtz decomposition ofun+1, i.e., un+1 is the orthogonal projection of un+1 onto
H = u ∈ L2(Ω) : ∇·u = 0, u · n|∂Ω = 0.
• The pressure approx. satisfies an artificial Neumann B.C.
q = 1 :∂pn+1
∂n|∂Ω = 0; q = 2 :
∂pn+1
∂n|∂Ω =
∂p0
∂n|∂Ω
— numerical boundary layer and a loss of accuracy.
• Error estimates: (proved by many in various forms)
‖un − u(tn)‖0 + ∆t(‖un − u(tn)‖1 + ‖pn − p(tn)‖0) ≤ c∆t2.
8
9
-1-0.5
00.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
D. PRESSURE ERROR: TIME STEP=0.05, SCHEME 1.3-1.4.
-1-0.5
00.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
E. PRESSURE ERROR: TIME STEP=0.025, SCHEME 1.3-1.4.
-1-0.5
00.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1-0.05
0
0.05
F. PRESSURE ERROR: TIME STEP=0.0125, SCHEME 1.3-1.4.
-1-0.5
00.5
1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1-2
0
2
x 10-4
B. VELOCITY ERROR: TIME STEP=0.025, SCHEME 1.3-1.4.
Figure 1: Plots of the pressure and velocity errors
10
Reducing the effect of the artificial Neumannpressure boundary condition
Minev, Timmermans and Van de Vosse (1996):1
∆t(βqun+1 −
q−1∑j=0
βjun−j)− ν∆un+1 +∇p∗,n+1 = h(tn+1),
un+1|∂Ω = 0;βq(un+1 − un+1)
∆t+∇φn+1 = 0,
divun+1 = 0, un+1 · n|∂Ω = 0;
Eliminating un+1 from above, one finds that the correct way to
11
update pn+1 is:
pn+1 = φn+1 + p∗,n+1 − νdivun+1.
12
Stability and Error Analysis
(Guermond & S., Math. Comp. ’04)
A striking fact is that a priori the following estimate holds (evenfor q = 1):
‖divun‖0 ≤ c∆t3/2, q = 1, 2,
which leads to
Improved error estimates:
‖un − u(tn)‖1 + ‖pn − p(tn)‖0 ≤ c∆t32.
13
Figure 2: Plots of the pressure errors: standard form and rota-tional form
14
Figure 3: Convergence rates of 2nd-order pressure-correctionschemes: standard form and rotational form with spectral method
15
The large errors at the corners are due to the domain singular-ity.
Consider Ω = (0, 2π)× (−1, 1) with periodic condition in x.
Figure 4: Pressure error in a channel: (L) standard; (R) rotational
Second-order convergence for the pressure is proved for this
16
case by Brown, Cortez & Minion (2001).
Remark: High-order (q ≥ 3) versions are only stable if ∆t ≥ch2 or ∆t ≥ cN−3 (for linear problems) !
17
Velocity-correction method
Idea: “switch” the roles of pressure and velocity in thepressure-correction scheme.
1∆t
(βqun+1 −q−1∑j=0
βjun−j)− ν∆u∗,n+1 +∇pn+1 = h(tn+1),
divun+1 = 0, un+1 · n|∂Ω = 0,βq(un+1 − un+1)
∆t− ν∆(un+1 − u∗,n+1) = 0,
un+1|∂Ω = 0.
18
The difficulty of computing ∆u∗,n+1 (in the finite-element cases)can be avoided by reformulating the first step, e.g., for q = 2, wehave:
3un+1 − 7un + 5un−1 − un−2
2∆t+∇(pn+1 − pn) = h(tn+1)− h(tn),
divun+1 = 0, un+1 · n|∂Ω = 0.
The second step is still the same:3(un+1 − un+1)
2∆t− ν∆(un+1 − un) = 0,
un+1|∂Ω = 0.
19
• The first step is still a projection step and can be implementedas a pressure-Poisson equation.
• As in the standard pressure-correction scheme, the accuracy ofthe scheme is affected by the nonphysical B.C. For q = 2, wehave
∆un+1 · n|Γ = ∆un · n|Γ = · · · = ∆u0 · n|Γ,which implies that
∂pn+1
∂n= (h(tn+1) + ν∆u0) · n|∂Ω.
20
Stability and Error Analysis
(Guermond & S., SINUM ’03)
Stability: It is proved that the schemes (q = 1, 2) are uncondi-tionally stable despite the explicit treatment of the viscous term.
Error estimates
‖un − u(tn)‖1 + ‖un − u(tn)‖1 + ‖pn − p(tn)‖0 ≤ c∆t,(∆t
n∑k=1
(‖uk − u(tk)‖20 + ‖uk − u(tk)‖20)
)12
≤ c(∆t)2.
21
How to reduce the effect of the nonphysical B.C.?
Idea: Use the alternative formulation of the NSE, i.e. replacethe explicit term −∆u∗,n+1 in the scheme by ∇×∇× u∗,n+1 !
Rational: Since ∆u∗,n+1 = ∇divu∗,n+1−∇×∇×u∗,n+1, thishas an implicitly effect in reducing divu∗,n+1.
22
Rotational form of the velocity-correction scheme
1
∆t(βqun+1 −
q−1∑j=0
βjun−j) + ν∇×∇× u∗,n+1 +∇pn+1 = h(tn+1),
divun+1 = 0, un+1 · n|∂Ω = 0,
βq(un+1 − un+1)
∆t− ν∆un+1 − ν∇×∇× u∗,n+1 = 0,
un+1|∂Ω = 0.
23
This scheme leads to a consistent Neumann B.C.
∂pn+1
∂n= (h(tn+1) + ν∆un+1) · n|∂Ω.
• As before, the term ∇ × ∇ × u∗,n+1 in the first step can beeliminated.
• Stability and Error Analysis: (Guermond & S., SINUM ’03)
The key is the following a priori estimate (q = 1, 2):
‖divun‖0 ≤ c∆t32.
24
• Improved error estimates:
‖un − u(tn)‖1 + ‖pn − p(tn)‖0 ≤ c∆t32.
25
Figure 5: Pressure errors of 2nd-order velocity-correctionschemes: standard form and rotational form
26
Schemes of Orszag, Israeli & Deville (OID ’86) andKarniadakis, Israeli and Orszag (KIO ’91)
1∆t
(βqun+1? −
q−1∑j=0
βjun−j) +∇pn+1 = h(tn+1),
divun+1? = 0,
∂pn+1
∂n|∂Ω = [−ν∇×∇× u∗,n+1 + h(tn+1)] · n|∂Ω,
βq(un+1 − un+1? )
∆t− ν∆un+1 = 0, un+1|∂Ω = 0.
27
28
• un? is purely an intermediate quantity, not an approximation ofu(tn).
• Second-order velocity derivatives are used as boundary condi-tions for the pressure — not easy to analyze and to implement.
29
Reinterpretation of the schemes of OID and KIOConsider the change of variable
un+1 = un+1? − ∆t
βq∇×∇× u∗,n+1.
• The KIO scheme is exactly, in the spacial continuous case, thevelocity-correction scheme in the rotational form.
• A rigorous stability and convergence result for the schemes ofOID and KIO is now available.
• The variational reformulation allows the use of finite elements,and can be easily analyzed in the full discrete case.
30
A New Class of Splitting Schemes
Key idea: Replace the divergence-free condition by apressure-Poisson equation in the weak form:∫
Ω
∇p · ∇q =∫
Ω
(f + ν∆u− u·∇u) · ∇q, ∀q ∈ H1(Ω).
Note the difference between the usual pressure Poisson equa-tion: ∫
Ω
∇p · ∇q =∫
Ω
(f − u·∇u) · ∇q, ∀q ∈ H1(Ω),
31
Standard splitting schemesNow, let p∗,k+1 be a q-th order extrapolation for p(·, tk+1).
Duk+1
∆t− ν∆uk+1 +∇p?,k+1 = gk+1, uk+1|Γ = 0,
(∇pk+1,∇q) = (gk+1 + ν∆uk+1,∇q), ∀q ∈ H1(Ω).
An equivalent formulation:
To avoid computing ∆uk+1 explicitly in the second step, we canreformulate the second-step as
(∇(pk+1 − p∗,k+1),∇q) = (Duk+1
∆t,∇q), ∀q ∈ H1(Ω).
32
• This is NOT a projection scheme, for the velocity approximationuk+1 is not divergence-free.
• As in a projection scheme, one only needs to solve a set ofHelmholtz-type equations for uk+1 and a Poisson equation (inthe weak form) for pk+1.
• We observe that ∂∂n(pk+1 − p∗,k+1)|∂Ω = 0 — an artificial B.C.
which will result in a loss of accuracy.
33
Consistent splitting schemes
(Guermond & S., JCP ’03)
Replacing ∆uk+1 with −∇×∇×uk+1:
Duk+1
∆t− ν∆uk+1 +∇p?,k+1 = gk+1, uk+1|Γ = 0,
(∇pk+1,∇q) = (gk+1 − ν∇×∇×uk+1,∇q), ∀q ∈ H1(Ω).
A more implementational friendly version (See also Johnston
34
and Liu ’04):Duk+1
∆t− ν∆uk+1 +∇p?,k+1 = gk+1, uk+1|Γ = 0,
(∇pk+1,∇q) = (gk+1,∇q)− ν∫∂Ω
n×∇×uk+1 · ∇qdγ, ∀q ∈ H1(Ω).
A even more implementational friendly version:
Duk+1
∆t− ν∆uk+1 +∇p?,k+1 = gk+1, uk+1|Γ = 0,
(∇ψk+1,∇q) = (Duk+1
∆t,∇q), ∀q ∈ H1(Ω),
pk+1 = ψk+1 + p?,k+1 − ν∇·uk+1.
35
Standard formulation Consistent splitting scheme
Figure 6: Convergence rates: second-order new splitting scheme
36
Standard formulation Consistent splitting scheme
Figure 7: Pressure error field at time t = 1 in a square.
37
• For q = 1, we are able to show that for the consistent schemehas full first-order accuracy for the velocity in H1-norm and thepressure in L2-norm.
• For q = 2, we are only able to show that for the standardscheme is unconditionally stable and has the same accuracyas the standard version of the pressure-correction schemes.
• Numerical results indicate that for q = 2, the consistent schemeis unconditionally stable and has full second-order accuracy forthe velocity in H1-norm and the pressure in L2-norm.
• H1 regularity on the pressure is needed for this approach. Anice mathematical analysis of this formulation is given by Liu &
38
Liu & Pego ’05.
39