1.
Introduction
The Brinkman equation describes the problem of fluid motion in porous media and is an appropriate model for fluid motion in higher-order non-uniform media. The model can also be seen as a generalization of the Stokes equation, that is, an effective approximation of the Navier-Stokes equation at low Reynolds numbers. Simulating fluid flow in a composite medium with multiphysics effects has significant impacts on many industrial and environmental problems, such as drilling, channels and fluid flow near faults. The permeability with high contrast determines that the flow rate through porous media can vary greatly. Mathematically, the Brinkman equation can be regarded as the combination of the Stokes equation and the Darcy equation, either of which dominantly appear in different area of the domain depending on its characteristic. Due to the change of type, the numerical algorithm [7] for solving the Brinkman equation must be able to handle both the Stokes and the Darcy equation. The numerical experiments in [5,8] show that when a fixed Stokes element is selected, the Brinkman equation is controlled by Darcy and the convergence rate is reduced. Similarly, when a fixed Darcy element is selected, the Brinkman equation becomes controlled by Stokes and the rate of convergence will also be reduced accordingly. That is, the usual Stokes stable elements are not suitable for Darcy fluids and vice versa. At present, the method for solving the Brinkman equation [6,25,28] has a finite volume discrete method, non-coordinated finite element method, weak Galerkin finite element method, etc. This article will introduce a stable and accurate calculation method for the Stokes and Darcy fluid regions, namely the hybrid weak finite element method.
In 2011, weak Galerkin finite element methods [18,24,26,32], referred to as WG method, was proposed by Junping Wang and Xiu Ye. It is a common finite element method for solving partial differential equations. It has played an important role in many fields, such as physics, biology and geosciences [2]. At the same time, the basic theory of mathematics has been improved and the method has become the research project of many researchers and engineers of computational mathematics. Its main characteristics are: (1) differential operators are approximated by discrete weak form; (2) the weak continuity of numerical solution is achieved by introducing stabilizer. The subdivision element of WG can be any polyhedron, and its approximation function space is composed of discontinuous piecewise polynomials. The flexibility of WG in the selection of approximation polynomials makes it as an ideal choice for the stable numerical scheme of partial differential equations with multiple physical properties. In addition, WG has been widely used to solve a variety of partial differential equations, such as the second-order elliptic equation [9,17,22,21,30], Maxwell equation [14], Stokes equation [20,23,27], Brinkman equation [11], and biharmonic equation [10,13,31].
In order to reduce the requirement of the continuity of numerical solution, hybrid technique [4,12,29] was introduced. It has been used as an effective way to solve partial differential equations. For example, HWG reduces the requirement of the continuity of piecewise polynomials in the whole region in the weak finite element method by introducing Lagrange multipliers at the boundary of each subdivision element. As such, it makes its construction simple, highly flexible and efficient.
The aim of this paper is to apply HWG to solve the Brinkman equation, and uses the Schur complement technique to reduce its degree of freedom, so as to improve the calculation efficiency. We shall show that the Schur complement formulation is well-posed. More specifically, we shall apply HWG to solve the Brinkman equation with the following three different boundary conditions:
(1) Brinkman equation under Dirichlet boundary condition
(2) Brinkman equation under Neumann boundary condition
(3) Brinkman equation under Robin boundary condition
where μ is the viscosity of the fluid, κ represents the permeability tensor of a polygon or polyhedron region, Ω∈Rd with (d=2,3), u and p represent the velocity and pressure of the fluid respectively, f,γ and θ are the source terms, α>0 is a parameter, and n is the unit outward normal vector to ∂Ω.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce notation for the Sobolev or broken Sobolev spaces, some inequalities, and the concepts of weak gradient and weak divergence. In Section 3, we introduce the HWG finite element method to solve the Brinkman equation under the Dirichlet boundary condition and establish the well-posedness and stability of the numerical solution. We also present error estimates in H1 and L2 norms. The Schur complement technique is then introduced to improve the algorithm. Section 4 describes the numerical algorithm and theoretical analysis of the HWG method for Brinkman equation with Neumann boundary condition. The Robin boundary case is discussed in Section 5. Numerical experiments are then presented to confirm the theoretical analysis in Section 6.
2.
Notation
We let Ω⊂Rd be polygonal for d=2 or polyhedral domain. Let Th be a finite element partition, which satisfies the shape regular assumption [21]. We then denote all the edges of Th by Eh and all the interior edges by E0h=Eh∖∂Ω. We let h=maxT∈ThhT, where hT denotes the diameter of T.
On each T∈Th, we define the weak function spaces V(T), V(T) by
where n is the outward normal direction to ∂Ω. We then define the function space on Th and Eh, denoted by V and Λ, respectively as follows
For any e∈Eh, we define the jump of both v={v0,vb} and q as follows
For any e∈Eh, we now define the similarity of λ∈Λ as follows
Let K be either T∈Th or e∈Eh and denote the space of polynomial of degree less than or equal to ℓ by Pℓ(K). For T∈Th, we define the discrete analogue of weak function spaces of V(T) and V(T), denoted by Vk(T) and Vk,N(T), respectively as follows:
where k≥1 is a constant. For T∈Th, we also define Wk(T) and Λk(∂T), respectively, by
We then define the weak finite element function spaces Vh, Λh and Wh as follows:
We shall also consider the subspaces of Vh and Λh. First, we define V0h,Vh,V0h⊂Vh, respectively by
Secondly, we define Ξh⊂Λh as follows:
The space Ξh will be taken as Lagrange multiplier approximation space for HWG. For T∈Th, we shall let (⋅,⋅)T and ⟨⋅,⋅⟩∂T denote the standard L2 inner product on T and ∂T, respectively. We are now in a position to introduce a couple of bilinear forms for any given T∈Th: for v={v0,vb},w={w0,wb}∈Vk(T), q∈Wk(T), λ∈Λk(∂T),
where ∇wv and ∇w⋅v are weakly defined gradient and divergence operator in Definition 2.5 and 2.6.
We then define the bilinear forms under different boundary conditions by summing bilinear forms defined locally above, by the following:
We introduce a couple of norms for the space Vh, Ξh, and V0h as follows
Definition 2.1. ([29]) For any v∈Vh, we let
where is the standard norm on and is the norm on .
Definition 2.2. ([29]) For , let
where is the diameter of the edge/face and is the norm on .
Definition 2.3. ([29]) For , let
Definition 2.4. For , let
Definition 2.5. For , let
For any given element and each edge/face , let and be the projection operator from to and from to , respectively. Let and be the orthogonal projection operator from to and from to , respectively.
Lastly, following [17], we shall introduce discrete weak gradient and divergence. We begin with the definition of discrete weak gradient as follows:
Definition 2.6. (Discrete weak gradient) For any , denote the discrete weak gradient operator of as the unique polynomial in such that for any , it satisfies
Definition 2.7. ([17]) (Discrete weak divergence) For any , denote the discrete weak divergence operator of as the unique polynomial in , such that for any , it satisfies
From the definition, we notice that the following identities hold: and ,
and and ,
Denote by and the discrete weak gradient operator and the discrete weak divergence operator on the finite element space, which can be computed by using (4) and (5) on each element T, respectively; i.e.,
For simplicity of notation, we shall drop the subscript and in the notation of and , respectively.
3.
HWG for Brinkman equation with Dirichlet boundary condition (1)
In this section, we present HWG algorithm to solve Brinkman equation with Dirichlet boundary condition (1).
3.1. Algorithm
The following is the weak Galerkin (WG) finite element numerical scheme of Brinkman first variational formulation [17],
Algorithm 3.1. We seek with on , such that
for all and .
We now present the HWG method for (1). HWG method is attained by introducing the Lagrange multiplier to relax on the boundary of each inner element. Namely, it can be formulated as follows (see [29] for Stokes equation):
Algorithm 3.2. We seek , with on , such that
for all , , and .
We shall establish that the problem (9) is well-posed.
Lemma 3.1. There exists a unique solution to (9).
Proof. Since (9) is linear, we only need to consider the uniqueness of homogeneous equation, let , , , , then
With the definition of , for any , we have , , on .
Take any , according to (6), we have
Then for any . That is, for any . Let , according to we have
That is, for all .
For any two adjacent elements and with the common edge , take , ; the same, take , and in , , we have
Since , we notice that is a constant. Furthermore, since , in . Lastly, let , then
and therefore . This completes the proof.
Theorem 3.2. We assume that is the solution to HWG algorithm (9), then is the solution of WG algorithm (8).
Proof. For with , let on , on , and elsewhere. According to (9), we have
This leads that . Now, by taking , we have . For all , take and , we derive
This completes the proof.
3.2. Stability analysis
Lemma 3.3. (Boundedness) There exists a constant such that
Proof. For (10), according to the definition of and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we can have
For (11), according to the definition of , (7), Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and trace inequality, we can have
For (12), we invoke the definition of and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain
This completes the proof. We now establish the coercivity:
Lemma 3.4. We have that
Proof. Since , it holds that . This completes the proof. We shall now establish total three inf-sup conditions.
Lemma 3.5. (inf-sup condition 1) There is a constant independent of such that for any , we have
Proof. , there is and , such that
For , . According to the definition of norm and trace inequality, we have
Now due to the identity:
We complete the proof.
Lemma 3.6. (inf-sup condition 1') For any , there is a constant independent of and such that
Proof. , there exists and making
We want to prove with . It follows from the definition of norm, trace inequality, and inverse inequality that
Then
This completes the proof.
Lemma 3.7. (inf-sup condition 2) There is a constant , for any given , there is , so that
Proof. . Let , according to the definition of bilinear form, we have
where and represent the value of and , respectively. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, trace inequality, and inverse inequality,
where can be selected as or and can be selected as or , it depends on the sectioning unit and is in. As a result of , we can get
This completes the proof.
3.3. Error equation
The purpose of this section is to construct the error equation [3,19] between the numerical solution and the true solution of HWG according to the numerical algorithm (9).
Now, we shall present the properties of projection operators without proofs: (see [17] for proofs).
Lemma 3.8. The projection operators , and satisfy the following properties:
Lemma 3.9. Assume that is the true solution of (1), is the solution of (9). Let , take . Then the error function , , and satisfy the following equations
where
Proof. First, we invoke the definition of discrete weak gradient (4) and partial integral,
By adding these for all , we obtain
Similarly, from (5) and partial integral, we have that
Hence,
Testing for both sides of (1), we obtain
Now, from the identity:
we can have
By combining these with (9), we have that
which then results in
From Theorem 3.2, , we can get
Now, for any , and we can get
This completes the proof.
3.4. Error estimation
In this section, we establish the and norm error estimates using the error equations (13)-(14). To do so, we first provide some simple, but useful lemmas.
Lemma 3.10. If is the true solution to the problem (1), there is a constant such that
Proof. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, trace inequality, and inverse inequality, we have
Same as the proof of (17), according to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and trace inequality, we have
By the nature of , Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, trace inequality, and inverse inequality, we can get
The theorem is proved.
Theorem 3.11. Assume that is the true solution satisfying (1), is the solution of (9), then
Proof. In the error equation (13)-(14), taking , we have
In (16), let , we have
According to , we can further obtain
There are the following facts , so
According to Lemma 3.5, by taking , we have
According to (16), error equation (13), and boundedness of bilinear form (10)-(11), we can get
And because , we have
Taking , same as the proof of (18), we can get
And because , we have
This completes the proof.
Finally, the dual technique is used to derive the optimal order error estimates of the WG scheme under norm. Consider the following dual problems
with . Assume that the dual problem is -regular, that is, the constant makes
Theorem 3.12. Suppose is the true solution to the problem (1), is the solution of (9), then
Proof. Multiplying to both sides of (19) gives
Take in the above formula, from the error equation
The following estimates the above formula item by item
Because of the following fact
we can get .
In (16), by taking , we can get
Then
From regularity (20), we have
This completes the proof.
Note that Under the condition of Dirichlet boundary value, change the space of Lagrange multiplier and redefine it as
Denote the projection operator from to . Then from (15), we can get
The error equation is
and , so the error equation is the same as Theorem 3.9, we can get the same error estimates.
3.5. Theoretical analysis of Schur complement method
Due to the introduction of Lagrange multipliers, the number of unknowns to be solved is increased in HWG method. The purpose of this section is to apply complement technique [24,29] to reduce degrees of freedom, based on the numerical scheme constructed by HWG method. That is, boundary function is used to express internal function and Lagrange multiplier .
First, we define the boundary finite element space as follows
For Hilbert space , we define inner product as follows
is a subspace of , consisting of functions in , with zero boundary value. Obviously, is isomorphic to . In order to eliminate Lagrange multiplier and interior unknowns by Schur complement technique, we introduce mapping .
For a fixed function and any given function , we shall define by the following three steps:
Step 1: On each element , is represented by and through the following equation:
where , . Then we can work out from (21).
Step 2: On each element , we represent by and
Then we can work out from (22).
Step 3: We then define by the following: the similarity of on the inner boundary and on the outer boundary, that is
We observe that by (23), . Furthermore, the operator has the following properties:
(1) Summing (21) and (22), we obtain that
(2) From the superposition principle, we have that
where corresponds to the operator of .
Lemma 3.13. For operator , the following equation holds true
where , and correspond to the operator of .
Proof. For any . From the definition of operator , we obtain
Let in (23), we have
We complete the proof.
Lemma 3.14. Assume that is the only solution of HWG algorithm (9), we have that and are well defined functions and .
Proof. Because is the only solution of HWG algorithm (9). Then by Theorem 3.2, we obtain that for any , , and on , so and are well defined. on , and elsewhere. Substituting (9), we obtain
where on the element , and elsewhere . Substituting (9), then satisfies the following equation
where is the limit of on . From the definition of operator , we obtain
So , that is .
Lemma 3.15. Assume that is a function satisfying on , and and satisfy the following operator equations:
Then is the solution of the WG algorithm (8), where is the solution of the following problem on each element .
Proof. For each element , can be solved from the following equation
Define as . Because satisfies Lemma 3.15, satisfies the boundary condition and satisfies (25), then
Using (25) subtract (26), we have
Adding up all on so that
Limiting in weak function space , and using (27), it is easy to get
Then
According to the assumption and Theorem 3.2, is the solution of WG method (8).
From the above lemma, it is not difficult to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 3.16. Assume that is a function satisfying that on , is the solution to (25).Then is the solution of WG problem (8) if and only if satisfies the following operator equation
By (24) and (28), we have
Seeking the finite element satisfying: on , and elsewhere. Since is a linear operator, we obtain
Substituting the above equation in (29) gives
We define such that on . Let , then
Subtraction algorithm 1 The solution of the WG algorithm (8) can be obtained by the following steps
Step 1: On each element , can be solved by the following equation
Step 2: Solving through (30).
Step 3: Calculating , we get the solution on the element boundary, and then on each element , we calculate through (21).
4.
HWG for Brinkman equation with Neumann boundary condition (2)
In this section, we present HWG algorithm for Brinkman equation with Neumann boundary condition.
4.1. Algorithm
First we present the WG numerical scheme of Brinkman first variational formulation.
Algorithm 4.1. ([17]) Find such that on and the following equation holds true:
for all and .
Similarly to the case of Dirichlet boundary condition, by introducing Lagrange multipliers, we introduce HWG method:
Algorithm 4.2. ([29]) Find such that on and satisfying the following equations:
for any , and .
Lemma 4.1. The problem (31) is well-posed.
Proof. The argument is similar to that for the Lemma 3.1. This completes the proof.
4.2. Stability analysis
The proofs of the following lemmas are the same as Lemma 3.3 - 3.7.
Lemma 4.2. (Boundedness) There exists a constant such that
Lemma 4.3. (Positivity) For any , we have , then
Lemma 4.4. (inf-sup condition 1) There exists a constant independent of , for any , we have
Lemma 4.5. (inf-sup condition 1') For any , there exists a constant independent of and , we have
Lemma 4.6. (inf-sup condition 2) For any , there exists satisfying , such that
where is a constant independent of .
4.3. Error equation
The purpose of this section is to construct the error equation between the numerical solution and the true solution for HWG according to the numerical solution algorithm (31).
Lemma 4.7. Assume that is the true solution of (2), is the solution of (31). Let , take . Error function , , and satisfy the following equation
where
Proof. By Lemma 3.9, we obtain
By combining with (31), we obtain
Now, from Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 3.9, we have
We complete the proof.
4.4. Error estimation
In this section, we first give the following lemmas to make the corresponding and error estimates for the error equation.
Lemma 4.8. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (2). Then, there exists a constant such that
Proof. By Lemma 3.10, we obtain
This completes the proof. The proofs of the following Theorems are similar to those of Theorem 3.11 and Theorem 3.12. Therefore, we only state the the conclusion without proofs.
Theorem 4.9. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (2), and is the solution of (31). We have
Finally, the dual technique is used to derive the optimal order error estimates of the weak finite element scheme under norm. We consider the following dual problems
where . Assume that the above dual problem has - regularity, that is, there is a constant , which makes
Theorem 4.10. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (2), and is the solution of (31). We have
5.
HWG for Brinkman problem with Robin boundary condition (3)
In this section, we present HWG for Brinkman equation with Robin boundary condition.
5.1. Algorithm
We, first give a weak Galerkin finite element numerical scheme of Brinkman first variational formulation under Robin boundary condition as follows:
Algorithm 5.1. ([17]) Find such that on and the following equations hold true
for any and .
Similar to the other two boundary cases, by introducing Lagrange multipliers, we introduce the HWG method for Robin boundary case as follows:
Algorithm 5.2. ([29]) Find such that on and the following equations hold true:
for any , and .
We can easily establish the following well-posedness of the problem (32).
Lemma 5.1. The problem (32) is well-posed.
5.2. Stability analysis
Lemma 5.2. (Boundedness) There exists a constant such that
Lemma 5.3. (Positivity) For any , we have , then
Lemma 5.4. (inf-sup condition 1) There exists a constant independent of , for any , we have
Lemma 5.5. (inf-sup condition 1') For any , there exists a constant and independent of , we have
Lemma 5.6. (inf-sup condition 2) For any , there exists satisfying , such that
where is a constant independent of .
5.3. Error equation
The purpose of this section is to construct the error equations between the numerical solution and the true solution for HWG, according to the numerical solution algorithm (32).
Lemma 5.7. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (3), and is the solution of (32). Let , take . Error function , , and satisfy the following equation satisfy the following equation
where
Proof. Similar to the Lemma 3.9, we have that
By combining it with (32), we obtain that
which gives
From Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 3.9, we obtain
This completes the proof.
5.4. Error estimation
In this section, we want to give the and error estimates, so the following lemmas are given first.
Lemma 5.8. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (3). There exists constant satisfying
Proof. From Lemma 3.10, we have
From Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and trace inequality, we obtain
we complete the proof.
The proofs of the following Theorems are similar to that of Theorem 3.11.
Theorem 5.9. Assume that is the true solution which satisfies the problem (3), and is the solution of (32). We have
Finally, the dual technique is used to derive the optimal order error estimates of the weak Galerkin finite element scheme under norm. Consider the following dual problem:
with . Assume that the above dual problem has - regularity, that is, there is a constant , which makes
Theorem 5.10. Assume that is the true solution to the problem (3), is the solution of (32). When , we have
Proof. Using to act on both ends of (33), we obtain
Take in the above formula. From the error equation, we obtain
Using Theorem 3.12, we have
Since we have
we obtain
This completes the proof.
6.
Numerical experiments
In this section, we consider Brinkman problem (1) on the partition region , where we consider different and given as follows:
where is a constant and a number of different values of have been tested. Our results show that the proposed method produce robust numerical solutions for varying parameters and .
We shall take the following analytical solution:
According to (1), we can get the exact and let denote the grid size. For simplicity, we choose the polynomial degree . We shall set , , and .