Abstract
We consider a projection method for time-dependent incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with a total pressure boundary condition. The projection method is one of the numerical calculation methods for incompressible viscous fluids often used in engineering. In general, the projection method needs additional boundary conditions to solve a pressure-Poisson equation, which does not appear in the original Navier–Stokes problem. On the other hand, many mechanisms generate flow by creating a pressure difference, such as water distribution systems and blood circulation. We propose a new additional boundary condition for the projection method with a Dirichlet-type pressure boundary condition and no tangent flow. We demonstrate stability for the scheme and establish error estimates for the velocity and pressure under suitable norms. A numerical experiment verifies the theoretical convergence results. Furthermore, the existence of a weak solution to the original Navier–Stokes problem is proved by using the stability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
If \(d=2\), then we define
$$\begin{aligned} v\times w:=v_x w_y-v_y w_x\in {\mathbb R}\qquad \text{ for } \text{ all } v=(v_x,v_y),w=(w_x,w_y)\in {\mathbb R}^2. \end{aligned}$$If \(d=2\), then \(\nabla \times v\) and \((\nabla \times v)\times w\) denote the scalar and vector functions, respectively, defined as follows: for all \(v=(v_x,v_y),w=(w_x,w_y)\in {\mathbb R}^2\),
$$\begin{aligned} \nabla \times v:=\partial _x v_y-\partial _y v_x,\quad (\nabla \times v)\times w:=(w_y(\partial _y v_x-\partial _x v_y), w_x(\partial _x v_y-\partial _y v_x)). \end{aligned}$$.
If one replaces the bilinear form a with \(a_\gamma (u,v):=(\nabla \times u,\nabla \times v) + \gamma (\text{ div }\,u, \text{ div }\,v)\) for a fixed \(0 < \gamma \ne 1\), then the corresponding strong form is different from (1.3), but Theorems 2.13, 2.15, and 2.20 hold since we have for all \(\varphi \in H\), \(a_\gamma (\varphi ,\varphi ) \ge (\min \{1,\gamma \}/c_{a})\Vert \varphi \Vert _1^2\) by Lemma 2.2 (cf. [8, Lemma 2.11]). If we choose a smaller value as \(\gamma \), the coefficients of Theorems 2.13, 2.15, and 2.20 are larger (see (3.4)).
Here, it holds that for all \(i,j=1,\ldots ,d\) and \(k=1,2,\ldots ,N\),
$$\begin{aligned} (g_k)_i:=\sum _{l=1}^d\frac{\partial (u^*_k)_l}{\partial x_i}(u^*_{k-1})_l -(u^*_{k-1})_i\text{ div }\,u^*_k,\qquad (h_k)_{ij}:= -(u^*_k)_i(u^*_{k-1})_j. \end{aligned}$$Since \(p_2=2+\varepsilon \) and \(p_3=3\), we have \(p_2/{\tilde{q}}_2 = \varepsilon /2\) and \(p_3/{\tilde{q}}_3=1/2\).
References
Badia, S., Codina, R.: Convergence analysis of the FEM approximation of the first order projection method for incompressible flows with and without the inf-sup condition. Numer. Math. 107, 533–557 (2007)
Begue, C., Conca, C., Murat, F., Pironneau, O.: A nouveau sur les equations de Stokes et de Navier–Stokes avec des conditions aux limites sur la pression. C. R. Acad. Sc Paris, Serie I 304, 23–28 (1987)
Begue, C., Conca, C., Murat, F., Pironneau, O.: Les équations de Stokes et de Navier–Stokes avec des conditions aux limites sur la pression. In: H. Brezis, J.L. Lions (eds.) Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and Their Applications, College de France, Seminar, vol. IX, pp. 179–264. Longman Scientific and Technical (1988)
Benedict, R.P.: Fundamentals of Temperature, Pressure, and Flow Measurements, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1984)
Bernard, J.M.: Non-standard Stokes and Navier–Stokes problems: existence and regularity in stationary case. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 25, 627–661 (2002)
Bernard, J.M.: Time-dependent Stokes and Navier–Stokes problems with boundary conditions involving pressure, existence and regularity. Nonlinear.: Anal Real World Appl. 4, 805–839 (2003)
Bernardi, C., Canuto, C., Maday, Y.: Spectral approximations of the Stokes equations with boundary conditions on the pressure. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 28(2), 333–362 (1991)
Bernardi, C., Rebollo, T.C., Yakoubi, D.: Finite element discretization of the Stokes and Navier–Stokes equations with boundary conditions on the pressure. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 53(3), 1256–1279 (2015)
Bertoluzza, S., Chabannes, V., Prud’homme, C., Szopos, M.: Boundary conditions involving pressure for the Stokes problem and applications in computational hemodynamics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 322, 58–80 (2017)
Boyer, F., Fabrie, P.: Mathematical Tools for the Study of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations and Related Models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2013)
Cho, J.R.: Projection of the rotation form Navier–Stokes equation onto the half-staggered grid. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 30, 3159–3164 (2016)
Chorin, A.J.: Numerical solution of the Navier–Stokes equations. Math. Comput. 22, 745–762 (1968)
Conca, C., Murat, F., Pironneau, O.: The Stokes and Navier–Stokes equations with boundary conditions involving the pressure. Jpn. J. Math. 20(2), 279–318 (1994)
Girault, V., Raviart, P.A.: Finite Element Methods for Navier–Stokes Equations. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1986)
Goldstein, R.J.: Fluid Mechanics Measurements. Hemisphere Pub Corp, London (1983)
Gresho, P.M.: Incompressible fluid dynamics: Some fundamental formulation issues. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 23(1), 413–453 (1991)
Guermond, J.L., Minev, P., Shen, J.: Error analysis of pressure-correction schemes for the time-dependent Stokes equations with open boundary conditions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43(1), 239–258 (2005)
Guermond, J.L., Minev, P., Shen, J.: An overview of projection methods for incompressible flows. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195, 6011–6045 (2006)
Guermond, J.L., Quartapelle, L.: Calculation of incompressible viscous flows by an unconditionally stable projection FEM. J. Comput. Phys. 132, 12–33 (1997)
Guermond, J.L., Quartapelle, L.: On the approximation of the unsteady Navier–Stokes equations by finite element projection methods. Numer. Math. 80, 207–238 (1998)
Guermond, J.L., Shen, J.: On the error estimates for the rotational pressure-correction projection methods. Math. Comput. 73(248), 1719–1737 (2004)
Hecht, F.: New development in FreeFem++. J. Numer. Math. 20(3–4), 251–265 (2012)
Heywood, J.G., Rannacher, R.: Finite-element approximation of the nonstationary Navier–Stokes problem part IV: Error analysis for second-order time discretization. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 27(2), 353–384 (1990)
Holman, J.P.: Experimental Methods for Engineers, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, Bengaluru (2001)
Kangro, U., Nicolaides, R.: Divergence boundary conditions for vector Helmholtz equations with divergence constraints. Math. Modelling Numer. Anal. 33(3), 479–492 (1999)
Kim, T.: Regularity of solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations with a nonstandard boundary condition. Acta Math. Appl. Sin-E. 31(3), 707–718 (2015)
Kim, T., Cao, D.: Some properties on the surfaces of vector fields and its application to the Stokes and Navier–Stokes problems with mixed boundary conditions. Nonlinear Anal. 113, 94–114 (2015)
Prohl, A.: Projection and Quasi-Compressibility Methods for Solving the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations. Teubner, B.G (1997)
Rannacher, R.: On Chorin’s projection method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. In: Heywood, J.G., Masuda, K., Rautmann, R., Solonnikov, V.A. (eds.) The Navier–Stokes Equations II — Theory and Numerical Methods, pp. 167–183. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1992)
Rathakrishnan, E.: Instrumentation, Measurements, and Experiments in Fluids, 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York (2017)
Shen, J.: On error estimates of projection methods for Navier–Stokes equations: First-order schemes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 29(1), 57–77 (1992)
Shen, J.: Remarks on the pressure error estimates for the projection methods. Numer. Math. 67, 513–520 (1994)
Temam, R.: Sur l’approximation de la solution des équations de Navier–Stokes par la méthode des pas fractionnaires (II). Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 33, 377–385 (1969)
Temam, R.: Navier–Stokes Equations. North Holland (1979)
Tropea, C., Yarin, A.L., Foss, J.F. (eds.): Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics. Springer Handbooks, Springer (2007)
Wentong, S., Weilin, Y., Lucheng, J.: Effect of inlet total pressure non-uniform distribution on aerodynamic performance and flow field of turbine. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 148, 714–729 (2018)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19J20514.
Proofs of Lemmas 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, and Corollary 2.22
Proofs of Lemmas 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, and Corollary 2.22
The purpose of this appendix is to provide the Proofs of Lemmas 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, and Corollary 2.22. The continuity of the operator T follows from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 [14, Corollary 4.1]. By using Lemma 2.2 again, we prove the second inequality of Lemma 2.4.
Proof of Lemma 2.4
By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, there exists a unique solution \((w,r)\in H\times {L^2(\varOmega )}\) to (2.1) for all \(e\in {L^2(\varOmega )}^d\) and T is a continuous operator;
for a constant \(c_1>0\) independent of e [14, Corollary 4.1]. It is easy to check that T is a linear operator.
Next, we show the second inequality of Lemma 2.4. By the first equation of (2.1), it holds that for all \(\varphi \in V\),
By Lemma 2.2, we have
which implies that \(\Vert w\Vert _1\le c_a\Vert e\Vert _{V^*}\). On the other hand, by Lemma 2.2, it holds that for all \(e\in {L^2(\varOmega )}^d\),
\(\square \)
In order to prove Lemma 2.6 and Corollary 2.22, we define \({\tilde{p}}_d, {\tilde{q}}_d\) as
Here, since \(p_2=2+\varepsilon \) and \(p_3=3\), we have \(({\tilde{p}}_2, {\tilde{q}}_2) = (\frac{4+2\varepsilon }{4+\varepsilon }, 2+\frac{4}{\varepsilon })\) and \(({\tilde{p}}_2, {\tilde{q}}_2) = (\frac{6}{5}, 6)\). By the Sobolev embeddings [10, Theorem III.2.33], it holds that \({H^1(\varOmega )}\subset L^{{\tilde{q}}_d}(\varOmega )\), \({H^1(\varOmega )}\subset L^{p_d}(\varOmega )\), \(H^2(\varOmega ) \subset L^\infty (\varOmega )\) and the embeddings are continuous.
Proof of Lemma 2.6
(i) For all \(u \in L^{p_d}(\varOmega )^d, v, w \in H\), we have
for two constants \(c_1,{\tilde{c}}_1>0\), which implies the third inequality of Lemma 2.6.
(ii) For all \(u \in L^{p_d}(\varOmega )^d, v \in H, w \in H \cap H^2(\varOmega )^d\), we have
for two constants \(c_2,{\tilde{c}}_2>0\).
(iii) For all \(u \in {H^1(\varOmega )}^d, v \in H \cap H^2(\varOmega )^d, w \in H\), we have
for two constants \(c_3,{\tilde{c}}_3>0\).
(ix) For all \(u \in H^2(\varOmega )^d, v, w\in H\), we have
for two constants \(c_4,{\tilde{c}}_4>0\). \(\square \)
Next, we prove Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3.
Proof of Lemma 3.2
It holds that for all \(\varphi \in H\) and \(k=1,2,\ldots ,N\),
which implies that
Next, we show the second inequality of the conclusion. For all \(\varphi \in H\) and \(k=2,3,\ldots ,N\), we have
where we have used the coordinate transformation \((s_1,s_2)\mapsto ({\tilde{s}}_1,{\tilde{s}}_2):=(s_1+s_2,-s_1+s_2)\). Therefore, we obtain
\(\square \)
Proof of Lemma 3.3
It holds that for all \(k = 1,2,\ldots ,N\) and \(t \in [t_{k-1}, t_k]\),
which implies that \(\Vert x - x_\tau \Vert _{L^\infty (E)} \le \sqrt{\tau } \left\| \frac{\partial x}{\partial t}\right\| _{L^2(E)}\) and
On the other hand, we have
\(\square \)
We prove Corollary 2.22 by using the boundedness from Theorem 2.13 and the Aubin–Lions compactness lemma.
Proof of Corollary 2.22
By the first and third equations of (PM), it holds that for all \(v\in V\) and \(k=1,2,\ldots ,N\),
where \(g_k\) and \(h_k\) are definedFootnote 4 by
which implies that for all \(v\in V\) and \(\theta \in C^\infty _0(0,T)\),
Here, \({\bar{f}}_\tau \rightarrow f\) strongly in \(L^2(H^*)\) and \({\bar{p}}^b_\tau \rightarrow p^b\) strongly in \(L^2({H^1(\varOmega )})\) as \(\tau \rightarrow 0\). By Theorem 2.13 and Lemma 3.1, there exists a constant \(c_1>0\) such that
In particular, it holds that
which implies that \(\Vert u^*_1-u_0\Vert _0 \le \Vert u^*_1-u_1\Vert _0 + \Vert u_1-u_0\Vert _0 \le 2\sqrt{c_1}\). Furthermore, by the first equation of (PM) and Lemmas 2.2, 2.6, we have
where \(c_2:=\sqrt{c_1}(c_a + c_d\Vert u_0\Vert _{L^{p_d}}) + \Vert f\Vert _{L^2(H^*)}\). Let \(u^\circ _0:=u^*_1\), \(u^\circ _k:=u^*_k\) for all \(k=1,2,\ldots ,N\) and let \({\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau \) be the piecewise linear interpolant of \((u^\circ _k)_{k=0}^N \subset H\).
From the uniform estimates (A.2), one can show that there exist a sequence \((\tau _k)_{k\in {\mathbb N}}\) and three functions \(u\in L^2(H)\cap L^\infty ({L^2(\varOmega )}^d)\cap W^{1,4/p_d}(V^*)\) (in particular, \(u\in C([0,T];V^*)\)), \(g\in L^{4/p_d}(L^{{\tilde{p}}_d}(\varOmega )^d)\) and \(h\in L^{4/p_d}({L^2(\varOmega )}^{d\times d})\) such that \(\tau _k\rightarrow 0\) and
as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). Here, we note that \({\bar{u}}^*_{\tau _k}\), \({\hat{u}}^\circ _{\tau _k}\) and \({\hat{u}}_{\tau _k}\) possess a common limit function. Indeed, the weak convergence (A.5) of \({\bar{u}}^*_\tau \) immediately follows from the uniform estimates (A.2). Since we have \(1/{\tilde{p}}_d = 1/2 + 1/p_d\), \(p_d/4 = 1/2 + p_d/(2{\tilde{q}}_d)\), and
for a constant \(c_3>0\) (cf. [10, Theorem II.5.5]),Footnote 5 it holds that
for constants \(c_4\) and \(c_5\). Hence, by (A.2), the weak convergences (A.11) and (A.12) hold. Moreover, since there exists a constant \(c_6>0\) such that \(|(g_k,v)| \le \Vert g_k\Vert _{L^{{\tilde{p}}_d}}\Vert v\Vert _{L^{{\tilde{q}}_d}} \le c_6\Vert g_k\Vert _{L^{{\tilde{p}}_d}}\Vert v\Vert _1\) for all \(k=1,2,\ldots ,N\) and \(v\in {H^1(\varOmega )}^d\), we have
and \(\Vert \frac{\partial {\hat{u}}_\tau }{\partial t}\Vert _{L^{4/{p_d}}(V^*)}\) and \(\Vert \frac{\partial {\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau }{\partial t}\Vert _{L^{4/{p_d}}(V^*)}\) are also bounded. Hence, (A.10) holds. Furthermore, \(\Vert {\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau \Vert _{L^2(H^1)}\) is bounded: by (A.2) and (A.3),
which implies the strong convergence (A.7) of \({\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau \) in \(L^2({L^2(\varOmega )}^d)\) from the Aubin–Lions lemma [10, Theorem II.5.16 (i)]. Since we have for all \(t\in (t_{k-1},t_k), k=1,2,\ldots ,N\),
the functions \({\bar{u}}^*_{\tau _k}\), \({\hat{u}}^\circ _{\tau _k}\) and \({\hat{u}}_{\tau _k}\) possess a common limit function u, and the strong convergences (A.6) and (A.9) hold: by (A.2) and (A.3),
It also holds that
Since \(\Vert {\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau \Vert _{L^\infty (L^2)}\) and \(\Vert \frac{\partial {\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau }{\partial t}\Vert _{L^{4/p_d}(V^*)}\) are bounded, we obtain the strong convergence (A.8) of \({\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau \) in \(C([0,T];V^*)\) [10, Theorem II.5.16 (ii)]. In particular, \({\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau (0)\) converges to u(0) in \(V^*\). On the other hand, by (A.4), \({\hat{u}}^\circ _\tau (0)=u^*_1\) converges to \(u_0\) in \(V^*\). Through the uniqueness of the limit in \(V^*\), we have indeed obtained that \(u(0)=u_0\).
From (A.1) with \(\varepsilon :=\varepsilon _k\), taking \(k\rightarrow \infty \), it holds that for all \(v\in V\) and \(\theta \in C^\infty _0(0,T)\),
Next, we show that
We set \({\bar{v}}_\tau (t):=u^*_{k-1}\) for \(t\in (t_{k-1},t_k],k=1,2,\ldots ,N\). Then it holds that
and hence it follows from (A.6) that \({\bar{v}}_{\tau _k}\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(L^2({L^2(\varOmega )}^d)\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). Since \(\nabla {\bar{u}}^*_\tau \rightharpoonup \nabla u\) weakly in \(L^2({L^2(\varOmega )}^{d\times d})\) and \(\text{ div }\,{\bar{u}}^*_\tau \rightharpoonup \text{ div }\,u\) weakly in \(L^2({L^2(\varOmega )})\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \), we have
as \(k\rightarrow \infty \) (cf. [10, Proposition II.2.12]). On the other hand, we also know (A.11) and (A.12). The convergence in these spaces imply the convergence in the distributions sense, therefore (A.13) holds by the uniqueness of the limit in \({\mathcal {D}}'((0,T)\times \varOmega )\). Hence, it holds that for all \(v\in V\) and \(\theta \in C^\infty _0(0,T)\),
which is equivalent to the following
\(\square \)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Matsui, K. A projection method for Navier–Stokes equations with a boundary condition including the total pressure. Numer. Math. 152, 663–699 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-022-01323-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-022-01323-x