From: blaisb Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 05:39:27 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Begun work on the introduction of the documentation of step-70 X-Git-Tag: v9.2.0-rc2~3^2~31 X-Git-Url: https://gitweb.dealii.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=5b716d880e2e50792297fdd75c842305c07b6bf6;p=dealii.git Begun work on the introduction of the documentation of step-70 --- diff --git a/examples/step-70/doc/intro.dox b/examples/step-70/doc/intro.dox index 4cd9edc183..1bc40a2d08 100644 --- a/examples/step-70/doc/intro.dox +++ b/examples/step-70/doc/intro.dox @@ -10,16 +10,31 @@

Introduction

-

Smart ass title here.

+

Non-matching grid simulations through a massively parallel and distributed Nitsche method

In this tutorial we consider the case of two domains, $\Omega$ in -$R^{\text{spacedim}}$ and $\Gamma$ in $R^{\text{dim}}$, where $\Gamma$ is -embedded in $\Omega$ ($\Gamma \subseteq \Omega$). We want to solve a partial +$R^{\text{spacedim}}$ and $\Gamma$ in $R^{\text{dim}}$ The domain $\Gamma$ is +embedded (i.e. non-matching) in $\Omega$ ($\Gamma \subseteq \Omega$). We want to solve a partial differential equation on $\Omega$, enforcing some conditions on the solution of -the problem *on the embedded domain* $\Gamma$. +the problem *on the embedded domain* $\Gamma$ using the Nitsche method +(Freund, 1995). -There are two interesting scenarios: +The technique we describe here is presented in the literature using one of many names: +the immersed finite element method and the fictitious boundary method among others. The main principle is +that the discretization of the two grids and of the two finite element spaces +are kept completely independent. In the present tutorial, this approach is used to solve for the motion of a +viscous fluid, described by the Stokes equation, that is agitated by a rigid (non-deformable) impeller. + Thus, the equations solved in $\Omega$ are the Stokes equations for a creeping +flow (i.e. a flow where $\text{Re}\rightarrow 0$) and a no-slip boundary +condition is applied on the moving *embedded domain* associated with +the impeller : $\Gamma$. However, this tutorial could be readily extended +to other equations (e.g. the Navier-Stokes equations, linear elasticity equation, etc.). It can +can be seen as a natural extension of step-60 that enables the solution +of large problems using distributed parallel computing architecture via MPI. + +There are two interesting scenarios that occur when one wants to enforce +conditions on the embedded domain $\Gamma$: - the geometrical dimension `dim` of the embedded domain $\Gamma$ is the same of the domain $\Omega$ (`spacedim`), that is, the spacedim-dimensional measure of @@ -30,120 +45,118 @@ than that of $\Omega$ (`spacedim`), thus its spacedim-dimensional measure is zero; for example it is a curve embedded in a two dimensional domain, or a surface embedded in a three-dimensional domain. -In both cases define the restriction operator $\gamma$ as the operator that, -given a continuous function on $\Omega$, returns its (continuous) restriction on -$\Gamma$, i.e., - -\f[ -\gamma : C^0(\Omega) \mapsto C^0(\Gamma), \quad \text{ s.t. } \gamma u = u|_{\Gamma} \in C^0(\Gamma), -\quad \forall u \in C^0(\Omega). -\f] - -It is well known that the operator $\gamma$ can be extended to a continuous -operator on $H^1(\Omega)$, mapping functions in $H^1(\Omega)$ to functions in -$H^1(\Gamma)$ when the intrinsic dimension of $\Gamma$ is the same of $\Omega$. - -The same is true, with a less regular range space (namely $H^{1/2}(\Gamma)$), -when the dimension of $\Gamma$ is one less with respect to $\Omega$, and -$\Gamma$ does not have a boundary. In this second case, the operator $\gamma$ is -also known as the *trace* operator, and it is well defined for Lipschitz -co-dimension one curves and surfaces $\Gamma$ embedded in $\Omega$ (read this wikipedia article -for further details on the trace operator). - -The co-dimension two case is a little more complicated, and in general it is not -possible to construct a continuous trace operator, not even from $H^1(\Omega)$ to -$L^2(\Gamma)$, when the dimension of $\Gamma$ is zero or one respectively in two -and three dimensions. - -In this tutorial program we're not interested in further details on $\gamma$: we -take the extension $\gamma$ for granted, assuming that the dimension of the +In this tutorial program we are not interested in further details on $\Gamma$: we +take the extension $\Gamma$ for granted, assuming that the dimension of the embedded domain (`dim`) is always smaller by one or equal with respect to the dimension of the embedding domain $\Omega$ (`spacedim`). We are going to solve the following differential problem: given a sufficiently -regular function $g$ on $\Gamma$, find the solution $u$ to +regular function $g$ on $\Gamma$, find the solution $(\textbf{u},p)$ to + +@f{eqnarray*} +{ + -\Delta \mathbf{u} + \nabla p &=& 0,\\ + -\nabla \cdot \textbf{u} &=& 0,\\ + \textbf{u} &=& \textbf{g} \text{ in } \Gamma,\\ + \textbf{u} &=& 0 \text{ on } \partial\Omega. +@f} -@f{eqnarray*}{ -- \Delta u + \gamma^T \lambda &=& 0 \text{ in } \Omega\\ -\gamma u &=& g \text{ in } \Gamma \\ -u & = & 0 \text{ on } \partial\Omega. +We are looking for a velocity field + $\mathbf{u}$ and a pressure field $p$ that satisfies the Stokes equations + on $\Omega$ and homogeneous boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$. + Additionally, the velocity field is subject to the condition + $\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{g}$ on $\Gamma$ that is imposed weakly using +Nitsche method. The application of Nitsche's method will be discussed +furthermore once the variational formulation has been introduced. + + +The weak form of the Stokes equations is obtained by writing it in vector form as + +@f{eqnarray*} + \begin{pmatrix} + {-\Delta \textbf{u} + \nabla p} + \\ + {-\nabla \cdot \textbf{u}} + \end{pmatrix} + = + \begin{pmatrix} + {0 + \\ + 0 + \end{pmatrix}, +@f} +forming the dot product from the left with a vector-valued test +function $\phi = \begin{pmatrix}\textbf{v} \\ q\end{pmatrix}$ and integrating +over the domain $\Omega$, yielding the following set of equations: +@f{eqnarray*} + (\mathrm v, + -\Delta \textbf{u}} + \nabla p)_{\Omega} + - + (q,\textrm{div}\; \textbf{u})_{\Omega} + = + (\textbf{v}, 0)_\Omega, @f} +which has to hold for all test functions $\phi = \begin{pmatrix}\textbf{v} +\\ q\end{pmatrix}$. + -This is a constrained problem, where we are looking for a harmonic function $u$ -that satisfies homogeneous boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$, subject to -the constraint $\gamma u = g$ using a Lagrange multiplier. - -This problem has a physical interpretation: harmonic functions, i.e., functions -that satisfy the Laplace equation, can be thought of as the displacements of a -membrane whose boundary values are prescribed. The current situation then -corresponds to finding the shape of a membrane for which not only the -displacement at the boundary, but also on $\Gamma$ is prescribed. For example, -if $\Gamma$ is a closed curve in 2d space, then that would model a soap film -that is held in place by a wire loop along $\partial \Omega$ as well as a second -loop along $\Gamma$. In cases where $\Gamma$ is a whole area, you can think of -this as a membrane that is stretched over an obstacle where $\Gamma$ is the -contact area. (If the contact area is not known we have a different problem -- -called the "obstacle problem" -- which is modeled in step-41.) - -As a first example we study the zero Dirichlet boundary condition on -$\partial\Omega$. The same equations apply if we apply zero Neumann boundary -conditions on $\partial\Omega$ or a mix of the two. - -The variational formulation can be derived by introducing two infinite -dimensional spaces $V(\Omega)$ and $Q^*(\Gamma)$, respectively for the solution -$u$ and for the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$. - -Multiplying the first equation by $v \in V(\Omega)$ and the second by $q \in -Q(\Gamma)$, integrating by parts when possible, and exploiting the boundary +By integrating by parts when possible, and exploiting the boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$, we obtain the following variational problem: +@f{eqnarray*}{ +(\nabla \textbf{v}, \nabla \textbf{u})_{\Omega} + (\nabla \cdot \textbf{v}, p)_{\Omega} + + (q, \nabla \cdot \textbf{u})_{\Omega}&=& 0 +@f} + +where $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\Omega}$ represents the $L^2$ scalar product. + +This variational formulation does not take into account the embedded domain. Contrarily +to step-60, we do not enforce strongly the constraints of $\textbf{u}$ on $\Gamma$, +but enforce them weakly through Nitsche's method. This is achieved by using the +following modified formulation : -Given a sufficiently regular function $g$ on $\Gamma$, find the solution $u$ to @f{eqnarray*}{ -(\nabla u, \nabla v)_{\Omega} + (\lambda, \gamma v)_{\Gamma} &=& 0 \qquad \forall v \in V(\Omega) \\ -(\gamma u, q)_{\Gamma} &=& (g,q)_{\Gamma} \qquad \forall q \in Q(\Gamma), +(\nabla \textbf{v}, \nabla \textbf{u})_{\Omega} + (\nabla \cdot \textbf{v}, p)_{\Omega} + + (q, \nabla \cdot \textbf{u})_{\Omega} - (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} + + \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} &=& -(\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} + + \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} @f} -where $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\Omega}$ and $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\Gamma}$ represent, -respectively, $L^2$ scalar products in $\Omega$ and in $\Gamma$. +It can be shown (e.g. see Freund, 1995) that there exist a positive constant +$C_1$ so that if $\beta > C_1$, the weak imposition of the boundary will +be consistent and stable. We note that the additional terms on the left-hand +and right-hand side are equal since $\textbf{u}=\textbf{g}\text{ in } \Gamma$. +It follows that : -Inspection of the variational formulation tells us that the space $V(\Omega)$ -can be taken to be $H^1_0(\Omega)$. The space $Q(\Gamma)$, in the co-dimension -zero case, should be taken as $H^1(\Gamma)$, while in the co-dimension one case -should be taken as $H^{1/2}(\Gamma)$. +@f{eqnarray*}{ +(\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} ++ \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} &=& -(\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} ++ \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} +@f} -The function $g$ should therefore be either in $H^1(\Gamma)$ (for the -co-dimension zero case) or $H^{1/2}(\Gamma)$ (for the co-dimension one case). -This leaves us with a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ in $Q^*(\Gamma)$, which is -either $H^{-1}(\Gamma)$ or $H^{-1/2}(\Gamma)$. +We note that an alternative formulation can be used : -There are two options for the discretization of the problem above. One could choose -matching discretizations, where the Triangulation for $\Gamma$ is aligned with the -Triangulation for $\Omega$, or one could choose to discretize the two domains in -a completely independent way. +@f{eqnarray*}{ +(\nabla \textbf{v}, \nabla \textbf{u})_{\Omega} + (\nabla \cdot \textbf{v}, p)_{\Omega} + + (q, \nabla \cdot \textbf{u})_{\Omega} + (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} + + \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{u})_{\Gamma} &=& (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} + + \beta (\textbf{v}\cdot \textbf{n},\textbf{g})_{\Gamma} +@f} -The first option is clearly more indicated for the simple problem we -proposed above: it is sufficient to use a single Triangulation for $\Omega$ and -then impose certain constraints depending $\Gamma$. An example of this approach -is studied in step-40, where the solution has to stay above an obstacle and this -is achieved imposing constraints on $\Omega$. +in which case the stability and consistency condition becomes $\beta > 0$. -To solve more complex problems, for example one where the domain $\Gamma$ is time -dependent, the second option could be a more viable solution. Handling -non aligned meshes is complex by itself: to illustrate how is done we study a -simple problem. +In step-60, the imposition of the constraint in the strong form +required the addition of new variables in the form of the Lagrange multipliers. +This is not the case for this tutorial program. The imposition of the +boundary condition using Nitsche's method only modifies the system matrix +and the right-hand side without adding additional unknowns. However, the velocity +vector $\textbf{u}$ on the embedded domain will not match exactly the prescribed +velocity $\textbf{g}$. Furthermore, as in +step-60, we still need to integrate over the non-matching embedded grid in order +to construct the boundary term necessary to impose the boundary condition +over $\Gamma$. -The technique we describe here is presented in the literature using one of many names: -the immersed finite element method, the fictitious boundary method, the -distributed Lagrange multiplier method, and others. The main principle is -that the discretization of the two grids and of the two finite element spaces -are kept completely independent. This technique is particularly efficient for -the simulation of fluid-structure interaction problems, where the configuration -of the embedded structure is part of the problem itself, and one solves a -(possibly non-linear) elastic problem to determine the (time dependent) -configuration of $\Gamma$, and a (possibly non-linear) flow problem in $\Omega -\setminus \Gamma$, plus coupling conditions on the interface between the fluid -and the solid. + +---- Here now ---- In this tutorial program we keep things a little simpler, and we assume that the configuration of the embedded domain is given in one of two possible ways: @@ -289,34 +302,30 @@ and we construct $S$ using LinearOperator classes.

The testcase

-The problem we solve here is identical to step-4, with the difference that we -impose some constraints on an embedded domain $\Gamma$. The tutorial is written -in a dimension independent way, and in the results section we show how to vary -both `dim` and `spacedim`. - -The tutorial is compiled for `dim` equal to one and `spacedim` equal to two. If -you want to run the program in embedding dimension `spacedim` equal to three, -you will most likely want to change the reference domain for $\Gamma$ to be, for -example, something you read from file, or a closed sphere that you later deform -to something more interesting. - -In the default scenario, $\Gamma$ has co-dimension one, and this tutorial -program implements the Fictitious Boundary Method. As it turns out, the same -techniques are used in the Variational Immersed Finite Element Method, and -the coupling operator $C$ defined above is the same in almost all of these -non-matching methods. - -The embedded domain is assumed to be included in $\Omega$, which we take as the -unit square $[0,1]^2$. The definition of the fictitious domain $\Gamma$ can be -modified through the parameter file, and can be given as a mapping from the -reference interval $[0,1]$ to a curve in $\Omega$. - -If the curve is closed, then the results will be similar to running the same -problem on a grid whose boundary is $\Gamma$. The program will happily run also -with a non-closed $\Gamma$, although in those cases the mathematical -formulation of the problem is more difficult, since $\Gamma$ will have a -boundary by itself that has co-dimension two with respect to the domain -$\Omega$. +The problem we solve here is a demonstration of the time-reversibility of Stokes +flow. This is often illustrated in science vulgarization experiments with a +Taylor-Couette flow and dye droplets that revert back to their original shape +after the fluid has been displaced in a periodic manner. + +In the present problem, a very viscous fluid is agitated by the rotation of an impeller, +which, in 2D, is modeled by a rectangular grid. The impeller rotates for a +given number of revolutions and than, the flow is reversed such that the same number +of revolutions is carried out in the opposite direction. We recall that since the Stokes +equations are self-adjoint, creeping flows are reversible. Consequently, +if the impeller motion is reversed in the opposite direction, the fluid should +return to its original position. In the present case, this is illustrated by +inserting a circle of passive tracer particles that are advected by the fluid +and which return to their original position, thus demonstrating the time-reversibility +of the flow. + + +In the default scenario, $\Gamma$ has co-dimension zero, and this tutorial +program imposes motion of $\Gamma$ through Nitsche method. As it turns out, +very similar approaches are used in other fictitious boundary method. Consequently, +this step could be easily extended to account for a deformable embedded grid +by using a Lagrange multiplier approach and by solving the complete fluid-structure interaction problem. + +

References

@@ -332,3 +341,6 @@ $\Omega$. Finite Element Methods.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 229–232. +- Freund, J., Stenberg, R. (1995). On weakly imposed boundary conditions for + second order problems. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on + Finite Elements in Fluids. 327-336.