# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

June  2012, 17(4): 1139-1153. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2012.17.1139

## A partially implicit hybrid method for computing interface motion in Stokes flow

 1 Department of Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States

Received  September 2010 Revised  August 2011 Published  February 2012

We present a partially implicit hybrid method for simulating the motion of a stiff interface immersed in Stokes flow, in free space or in a rectangular domain with boundary conditions. We assume the interface is a closed curve which remains in the interior of the computational region. The implicit time integration is based on the small-scale decomposition approach and does not require the iterative solution of a system of nonlinear equations. First-order and second-order versions of the time-stepping method are derived systematically, and numerical results indicate that both methods are substantially more stable than explicit methods. At each time level, the Stokes equations are solved using a hybrid approach combining nearly singular integrals on a band of mesh points near the interface and a mesh-based solver. The solutions are second-order accurate in space and preserve the jump discontinuities across the interface. Finally, the hybrid method can be used as an alternative to adaptive mesh refinement to resolve boundary layers that are frequently present around a stiff immersed interface.
Citation: Anita T. Layton, J. Thomas Beale. A partially implicit hybrid method for computing interface motion in Stokes flow. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2012, 17 (4) : 1139-1153. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2012.17.1139
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
 [1] Luís Tiago Paiva, Fernando A. C. C. Fontes. Adaptive time--mesh refinement in optimal control problems with state constraints. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2015, 35 (9) : 4553-4572. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2015.35.4553 [2] Nahid Banihashemi, C. Yalçın Kaya. Inexact restoration and adaptive mesh refinement for optimal control. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (2) : 521-542. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.521 [3] Luís Tiago Paiva, Fernando A. C. C. Fontes. Sampled–data model predictive control: Adaptive time–mesh refinement algorithms and guarantees of stability. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (5) : 2335-2364. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019098 [4] Junxiang Li, Yan Gao, Tao Dai, Chunming Ye, Qiang Su, Jiazhen Huo. Substitution secant/finite difference method to large sparse minimax problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (2) : 637-663. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.637 [5] Zheng-Ru Zhang, Tao Tang. An adaptive mesh redistribution algorithm for convection-dominated problems. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2002, 1 (3) : 341-357. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2002.1.341 [6] Stefan Berres, Ricardo Ruiz-Baier, Hartmut Schwandt, Elmer M. Tory. An adaptive finite-volume method for a model of two-phase pedestrian flow. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2011, 6 (3) : 401-423. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.401 [7] Lunji Song, Wenya Qi, Kaifang Liu, Qingxian Gu. A new over-penalized weak galerkin finite element method. Part Ⅱ: Elliptic interface problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020196 [8] Yi Shi, Kai Bao, Xiao-Ping Wang. 3D adaptive finite element method for a phase field model for the moving contact line problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (3) : 947-959. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.947 [9] Zhongyi Huang. Tailored finite point method for the interface problem. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4 (1) : 91-106. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.91 [10] Lili Ju, Wensong Wu, Weidong Zhao. Adaptive finite volume methods for steady convection-diffusion equations with mesh optimization. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2009, 11 (3) : 669-690. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2009.11.669 [11] Gung-Min Gie, Makram Hamouda, Roger Témam. Boundary layers in smooth curvilinear domains: Parabolic problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2010, 26 (4) : 1213-1240. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.26.1213 [12] Navnit Jha. Nonpolynomial spline finite difference scheme for nonlinear singuiar boundary value problems with singular perturbation and its mechanization. Conference Publications, 2013, 2013 (special) : 355-363. doi: 10.3934/proc.2013.2013.355 [13] Qiang Du, Manlin Li. On the stochastic immersed boundary method with an implicit interface formulation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2011, 15 (2) : 373-389. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2011.15.373 [14] Jing Wang, Lining Tong. Stability of boundary layers for the inflow compressible Navier-Stokes equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2012, 17 (7) : 2595-2613. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2012.17.2595 [15] So-Hsiang Chou. An immersed linear finite element method with interface flux capturing recovery. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2012, 17 (7) : 2343-2357. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2012.17.2343 [16] Miles H. Wheeler. On stratified water waves with critical layers and Coriolis forces. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2019, 39 (8) : 4747-4770. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2019193 [17] Hao Wang, Wei Yang, Yunqing Huang. An adaptive edge finite element method for the Maxwell's equations in metamaterials. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (2) : 961-976. doi: 10.3934/era.2020051 [18] Vladislav Balashov, Alexander Zlotnik. An energy dissipative semi-discrete finite-difference method on staggered meshes for the 3D compressible isothermal Navier–Stokes–Cahn–Hilliard equations. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2020, 7 (2) : 291-312. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2020012 [19] Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $L^2-$norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077 [20] Ugur G. Abdulla. On the optimal control of the free boundary problems for the second order parabolic equations. II. Convergence of the method of finite differences. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (4) : 869-898. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016025

2019 Impact Factor: 1.27