Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Special Issues

Hybridized weak Galerkin finite element methods for Brinkman equations

  • This paper presents a hybridized weak Galerkin (HWG) finite element method for solving the Brinkman equations. Mathematically, Brinkman equations can model the Stokes and Darcy flows in a unified framework so as to describe the fluid motion in porous media with fractures. Numerical schemes for Brinkman equations, therefore, must be designed to tackle Stokes and Darcy flows at the same time. We demonstrate that HWG is capable of providing very accurate and stable numerical approximations for both Darcy and Stokes. The main features of HWG is that it approximates the differential operators by their weak forms as distributions and it introduces the Lagrange multipliers to relax certain constraints. We establish the optimal order error estimates for HWG solutions of Brinkman equations. We also present a Schur complement formulation of HWG, which reduces the systems' computational complexity significantly. A number of numerical experiments are provided to confirm the theoretical developments.

    Citation: Jiwei Jia, Young-Ju Lee, Yue Feng, Zichan Wang, Zhongshu Zhao. Hybridized weak Galerkin finite element methods for Brinkman equations[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(3): 2489-2516. doi: 10.3934/era.2020126

    Related Papers:

    [1] 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
    [2] 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
    [3] Hongze Zhu, Chenguang Zhou, Nana Sun . A weak Galerkin method for nonlinear stochastic parabolic partial differential equations with additive noise. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(6): 2321-2334. doi: 10.3934/era.2022118
    [4] Nisachon Kumankat, Kanognudge Wuttanachamsri . Well-posedness of generalized Stokes-Brinkman equations modeling moving solid phases. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(3): 1641-1661. doi: 10.3934/era.2023085
    [5] Chunmei Wang . Simplified weak Galerkin finite element methods for biharmonic equations on non-convex polytopal meshes. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(3): 1523-1540. doi: 10.3934/era.2025072
    [6] 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
    [7] 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
    [8] 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
    [9] Suayip Toprakseven, Seza Dinibutun . A weak Galerkin finite element method for parabolic singularly perturbed convection-diffusion equations on layer-adapted meshes. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(8): 5033-5066. doi: 10.3934/era.2024232
    [10] Yan Yang, Xiu Ye, Shangyou Zhang . A pressure-robust stabilizer-free WG finite element method for the Stokes equations on simplicial grids. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3413-3432. doi: 10.3934/era.2024158
  • This paper presents a hybridized weak Galerkin (HWG) finite element method for solving the Brinkman equations. Mathematically, Brinkman equations can model the Stokes and Darcy flows in a unified framework so as to describe the fluid motion in porous media with fractures. Numerical schemes for Brinkman equations, therefore, must be designed to tackle Stokes and Darcy flows at the same time. We demonstrate that HWG is capable of providing very accurate and stable numerical approximations for both Darcy and Stokes. The main features of HWG is that it approximates the differential operators by their weak forms as distributions and it introduces the Lagrange multipliers to relax certain constraints. We establish the optimal order error estimates for HWG solutions of Brinkman equations. We also present a Schur complement formulation of HWG, which reduces the systems' computational complexity significantly. A number of numerical experiments are provided to confirm the theoretical developments.



    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

    μΔu+p+μκ1u=f   in  Ω, (1a)
    u=0   in  Ω, (1b)
    u=0   on  Ω. (1c)

    (2) Brinkman equation under Neumann boundary condition

    μΔu+p+μκ1u=f   in  Ω, (2a)
    u=0   in  Ω, (2b)
    un=θ   on  Ω. (2c)

    (3) Brinkman equation under Robin boundary condition

    μΔu+p+μκ1u=f   in  Ω, (3a)
    u=0   in  Ω, (3b)
    un+αu=γ   on  Ω, (3c)

    where μ is the viscosity of the fluid, κ represents the permeability tensor of a polygon or polyhedron region, ΩRd 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.

    We let ΩRd 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=EhΩ. We let h=maxTThhT, where hT denotes the diameter of T.

    On each TTh, we define the weak function spaces V(T), V(T) by

    V(T)={v={v0,vb}:v0[L2(T)]d,vb[H12(T)]d},V(T)={v={v0,vb}:v0[L2(T)]d,vbnH12(T)},

    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

    V=TThV(T) and Λ=TTh[H12(T)]d.

    For any eEh, we define the jump of both v={v0,vb} and q as follows

    [[v]]e={vb|T1vb|T2,eE0h, with e=T1T2,0,eΩ,
    [[q]]e={q|T1q|T2,eE0h, with e=T1T2,0,eΩ.

    For any eEh, we now define the similarity of λΛ as follows

    λe={λ|T1+λ|T2,eE0h, with e=T1T2,0,eΩ.

    Let K be either TTh or eEh and denote the space of polynomial of degree less than or equal to by P(K). For TTh, 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:

    Vk(T)={v={v0,vb}:v0|T[Pk(T)]d,vb[Pk(e)]d,eT},Vk,N(T)={v={v0,vb}Vk(T),v0[L20(Ω)]d},

    where k1 is a constant. For TTh, we also define Wk(T) and Λk(T), respectively, by

    Wk(T)={q:qL20(Ω),q|TPk1(T)},Λk(T)={λ:λ|e[Pk(e)]d,eT}.

    We then define the weak finite element function spaces Vh, Λh and Wh as follows:

    Vh=TThVk(T),Vh,N=TThVk,N(T),Wh=TThWk(T),Λh=TThΛk(T).

    We shall also consider the subspaces of Vh and Λh. First, we define V0h,Vh,V0hVh, respectively by

    V0h={v={v0,vb}Vh:vb|e=0,eΩ},Vh={vVh:[[v]]e=0,eE0h},V0h=VhV0h.

    Secondly, we define ΞhΛh as follows:

    Ξh={λΛh:λe=0,eEh}.

    The space Ξh will be taken as Lagrange multiplier approximation space for HWG. For TTh, 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 TTh: for v={v0,vb},w={w0,wb}Vk(T), qWk(T), λΛk(T),

    sT(v,w)=h1Tv0vb,w0wbT,aT(v,w)=(wv,ww)T+(k1v0,w0)T+sT(v,w),bT(v,q)=(wv,q)T,cT(v,λ)=vb,λT,aT,R(v,w)={aT(v,w),TE0h,aT(v,w)+kvb,wbT,TΩ.

    where wv and wv 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:

    s(v,w)=TThsT(v,w),v,wVh,a(v,w)=TThaT(v,w),v,wVh,
    aR(v,w)=TThaT,R(v,w),v,wVh,b(v,q)=TThbT(v,q),vVh,qWh,c(v,λ)=TThcT(v,λ),vVh,λΛh.

    We introduce a couple of norms for the space Vh, Ξh, and V0h as follows

    Definition 2.1. ([29]) For any vVh, we let

    |||v|||2=a(v,v)=

    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

    (4)

    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

    (5)

    From the definition, we notice that the following identities hold: and ,

    (6)

    and and ,

    (7)

    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.

    In this section, we present HWG algorithm to solve Brinkman equation with Dirichlet boundary condition (1).

    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

    (8a)
    (8b)

    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

    (9a)
    (9b)

    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.

    Lemma 3.3. (Boundedness) There exists a constant such that

    (10)
    (11)
    (12)

    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.

    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

    (13)
    (14)

    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:

    (15)

    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.

    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

    (16)

    Proof. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, trace inequality, and inverse inequality, we have

    (17)

    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

    (18)

    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

    (19a)
    (19b)
    (19c)

    with . Assume that the dual problem is -regular, that is, the constant makes

    (20)

    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.

    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:

    (21)

    where , . Then we can work out from (21).

    Step 2: On each element , we represent by and

    (22)

    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

    (23)

    We observe that by (23), . Furthermore, the operator has the following properties:

    (1) Summing (21) and (22), we obtain that

    (24)

    (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 .

    (25)

    Proof. For each element , can be solved from the following equation

    (26)

    Define as . Because satisfies Lemma 3.15, satisfies the boundary condition and satisfies (25), then

    (27)

    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

    (28)

    By (24) and (28), we have

    (29)

    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

    (30)

    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).

    In this section, we present HWG algorithm for Brinkman equation with Neumann boundary condition.

    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:

    (31a)
    (31b)

    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.

    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 .

    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.

    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

    In this section, we present HWG for Brinkman equation with Robin boundary condition.

    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:

    (32a)
    (32b)

    for any , and .

    We can easily establish the following well-posedness of the problem (32).

    Lemma 5.1. The problem (32) is well-posed.

    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 .

    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.

    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:

    (33)
    (34)
    (35)

    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.

    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 .

    Table 1.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 5.63 1.06 4.67e-01 1.85
    1/8 2.87 0.97 1.81e-01 2.55 2.70e-01 0.79 1.09 0.76
    1/16 1.43 1.00 3.30e-02 2.45 1.39e-01 0.95 5.75e-01 0.93
    1/32 6.89e-01 1.00 7.17e-03 2.20 7.01e-02 0.99 2.93e-01 0.97
    1/64 7.17e-01 1.00 1.71e-03 2.06 3.51e-02 1.00 1.47e-01 0.99

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 4.03 1.16e-01 9.05e-01 3.89
    1/8 2.24 0.85 1.94e-02 2.59 7.38e-01 0.29 2.18 0.84
    1/16 1.30 0.79 7.38e-03 1.39 4.46e-01 0.73 1.08 1.01
    1/32 6.89e-01 0.91 3.07e-03 1.27 2.37e-01 0.91 5.36e-01 1.01
    1/64 3.53e-01 0.96 1.06e-03 1.53 1.09e-01 1.13 2.50e-01 1.10

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 9.87e-01 6.02e-01 7.87e-02 1.82e-01
    1/8 5.06e-01 0.96 1.63e-01 1.88 5.84e-02 0.43 1.25e-01 0.54
    1/16 2.47e-01 1.03 3.63e-02 2.17 3.56e-02 0.71 7.54e-02 0.73
    1/32 1.22e-01 1.02 8.08e-03 2.17 1.92e-02 0.89 4.04e-02 0.90
    1/64 6.06e-02 1.01 1.92e-03 2.07 9.80e-03 0.97 2.07e-02 0.97

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 7.33e-01 8.32e-02 1.20e-01 4.07e-01
    1/8 4.41e-01 0.73 3.38e-02 1.30 9.01e-02 0.42 2.07e-01 0.98
    1/16 2.36e-01 0.90 1.02e-02 1.73 4.70e-02 0.94 9.96e-02 1.06
    1/32 1.20e-01 0.97 2.63e-03 1.96 2.15e-02 1.13 4.52e-02 1.14
    1/64 6.04e-02 0.99 6.56e-03 2.00 1.01e-02 1.09 2.14e-02 1.08

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Comparison of the degrees of freedom between the weak Galerkin finite element method based on gradient divergence and Schur complement method.
    dof dof schur
    1/4 8.32e+02 6.40e+02
    1/8 3.26e+03 2.50e+03
    1/16 1.29e+03 9.86e+03
    1/32 5.15e+04 3.92e+04
    1/64 2.05e+05 1.56e+05

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 5.79 1.21 5.54e-01 8.08e-01
    1/8 2.93 0.98 2.23e-01 2.44 3.00e-01 0.89 3.08e-01 1.39
    1/16 1.46 1.40 4.74e-02 2.24 1.48e-01 1.02 9.44e-02 1.71
    1/32 7.32e-01 1.00 1.13e-03 2.07 7.33e-02 1.02 2.64e-02 1.84
    1/64 3.66e-01 1.00 2.80e-03 1.92 3.65e-02 1.01 7.19e-03 1.87

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 3.51 1.90e-01 8.61e-01 3.14
    1/8 2.36 0.57 6.20e-02 1.62 6.87e-01 0.33 1.70 0.89
    1/16 1.35 0.80 2.45e-02 1.34 3.76e-01 0.87 7.73e-01 1.14
    1/32 7.14e-01 0.92 8.46e-03 1.54 1.59e-01 1.24 2.97e-01 1.38
    1/64 3.64e-01 0.97 2.44e-03 1.79 5.76e-02 1.47 9.30e-02 1.68

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 1.14 6.87e-01 3.45e-02 1.02e-01
    1/8 6.46e-01 0.82 2.31e-01 1.57 1.70e-02 1.02 5.39e-02 0.92
    1/16 3.41e-01 0.92 7.23e-02 1.67 7.52-03 1.18 2.28e-02 1.24
    1/32 1.75e-01 0.96 2.05e-02 1.82 2.85e-02 1.40 8.34e-03 1.45
    1/64 8.83e-02 0.98 5.46e-03 1.91 1.01e-03 1.50 2.82e-03 1.57

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  Error and convergence order of velocity function and pressure function .
    order order order order
    1/4 1.06 3.22e-01 7.91e-02 4.07e-01
    1/8 6.21e-01 0.78 1.41e-02 1.19 5.52e-02 0.51 1.60e-01 0.44
    1/16 3.33e-01 0.90 5.74e-02 1.30 2.97e-02 0.90 1.18e-01 0.89
    1/32 1.73e-01 0.94 1.88e-02 1.61 1.14e-02 1.38 6.36e-02 1.37
    1/64 8.81e-02 0.95 5.29e-03 1.91 3.47e-03 1.93 7.56e-02 1.51

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 10.  Comparison of the degrees of freedom between the weak Galerkin finite element method based on gradient divergence and Schur complement method.
    dof dof Schur
    1/4 7.20e+02 5.28e+02
    1/8 2.85e+03 2.08e+03
    1/16 1.33e+03 8.26e+03
    1/32 4.52e+04 3.29e+04
    1/64 1.80e+05 1.31e+05

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV


    [1] S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott, The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods, Springer, New York, 2008. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75934-0
    [2] Z. Chen, Finite Element Methods and Their Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 2005.
    [3] A posteriori error estimates for weak Galerkin finite element methods for second order elliptic problems. J. Sci. Comput. (2014) 59: 496-511.
    [4] Unified hybridization of discontinuous Galerkin, mixed, and continuous Galerkin methods for second order elliptic problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. (2009) 47: 1319-1365.
    [5] Computations with finite element methods for the Brinkman problem. Comput. Geosci. (2011) 15: 155-166.
    [6] Analysis of finite element methods for the Brinkman problem. Calcolo (2010) 47: 129-147.
    [7] Numerical computations with (div)-finite elements for the Brinkman problem. Comput. Geosci. (2012) 16: 139-158.
    [8] A robust finite element method for Darcy-Stokes flow. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. (2002) 40: 1605-1631.
    [9] A computational study of the weak Galerkin method for second-order elliptic equations. Numer. Algorithms (2013) 63: 753-777.
    [10] Weak Galerkin finite element methods for the biharmonic equation on polytopal meshes. Numer. Methods PDE (2014) 30: 1003-1029.
    [11] A stable numerical algorithm for the Brinkman equations by weak Galerkin finite element methods. J. Comput. Phys. (2014) 273: 327-342.
    [12] A hybridized formulation for the weak Galerkin mixed finite element method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2016) 307: 335-345.
    [13] A -weak Galerkin finite element method for the biharmonic equation. J. Sci. Comput. (2014) 59: 473-495.
    [14] L. Mu, J. Wang, X. Ye et al, A weak Galerkin finite element method for the Maxwell equations, J. Sci. Comput., 65 (2015), 363-386. doi: 10.1007/s10915-014-9964-4
    [15] A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for Stokes flow. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. (2010) 199: 582-597.
    [16] P.-A. Raviart and J. M. Thomas, A mixed finite element method for second order elliptic problems, in: I. Galligani, E. Magenes (Eds.), Mathematical Aspects of the Finite Element Method, in: Lecture Notes in Math., Springer, Berlin, 606 (1977), 292-315. Technical Report LA-UR-73-0479, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 1973.
    [17] J. Wang and X. Wang, Weak Galerkin finite element methods for elliptic PDEs(in Chinese), Sci. Sin. Math., 45 (2015), 1061-1092.
    [18] A locking-free weak Galerkin finite element method for elasticity problems in the primal formulation. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2016) 307: 346-366.
    [19] Unified a posteriori error estimator for finite element methods for the Stokes equations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. (2013) 10: 551-570.
    [20] A weak Galerkin finite element scheme for solving the stationary Stokes equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2016) 302: 171-185.
    [21] A weak Galerkin finite element method for second-order elliptic problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2013) 241: 103-115.
    [22] A weak Galerkin mixed finite element method for second order elliptic problems. Math. Comp. (2014) 83: 2101-2126.
    [23] A weak Galerkin finite element method for the stokes equations. Adv. Comput. Math. (2016) 42: 155-174.
    [24] J. Wang, X. Ye and R. Zhang, Basics of weak Garkin finite element methods(in Chinese), Math. Numer. Sin., 38 (2016), 289-308.
    [25] The weak Galerkin method for solving the incompressible Brinkman flow. J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2016) 307: 13-24.
    [26] H. Xie, Q. Zhai and R. Zhang, The weak galerkin method for eigenvalue problems, arXiv: 1508.05304, (2015).
    [27] Pressure recovery for weakly over-penalized discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Stokes problem. J. Sci. Comput. (2015) 63: 699-715.
    [28] A new weak Galerkin finite element scheme for the Brinkman model. Commun. Comput. Phys. (2016) 19: 1409-1434.
    [29] A hybridized weak Galerkin finite element scheme for the Stokes equations. Sci. China Math. (2015) 58: 2455-2472.
    [30] A weak finite element method for elliptic problems in one space dimension. Appl. Math. Comput. (2016) 280: 1-10.
    [31] A weak Galerkin finite element scheme for the biharmonic equations by using polynomials of reduced order. J. Sci. Comput. (2015) 64: 559-585.
    [32] Weak Galerkin finite element method for second order parabolic equations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. (2016) 13: 525-544.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Lidan Zhao, Ruishu Wang, Yongkui Zou, A hybridized weak Galerkin finite element scheme for linear elasticity problem, 2023, 425, 03770427, 115024, 10.1016/j.cam.2022.115024
    2. Seulip Lee, Lin Mu, A Uniform and Pressure-Robust Enriched Galerkin Method for the Brinkman Equations, 2024, 99, 0885-7474, 10.1007/s10915-024-02503-7
    3. Nisachon Kumankat, Nachayadar Kamolmitisom, Two-Dimensional Fluid Flow Due to Blade-Shaped Waving of Cilia in Human Lungs, 2025, 13, 2227-7390, 1703, 10.3390/math13111703
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3102) PDF downloads(270) Cited by(3)

Figures and Tables

Tables(10)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog