On classical iterative subdomain methods for the Stokes–Darcy problem
- 176 Downloads
Within classical iterative subdomain methods, the problems in the subdomains are solved alternately by only using data on the interface provided from the other subdomains. Methods of this type for the Stokes–Darcy problem that use Robin boundary conditions on the interface are reviewed. Their common underlying structure and their main differences are identified. In particular, it is clarified that there are different updating strategies for the interface conditions. For small values of fluid viscosity and hydraulic permeability, which are relevant in applications from geosciences, it is shown in numerical studies that only one of these updating strategies leads to an efficient numerical method, if it is used with appropriate parameters in the Robin conditions.
KeywordsStokes–Darcy problem Classical iterative subdomain methods Robin boundary conditions Finite element methods Continuous and discontinuous updating strategy Applications from geosciences
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.Cardenas, M., Wilson, J.: Dunes, turbulent eddies, and interfacial exchange with permeable sediments. Water Resour. Res. 43(08), 412 (2007)Google Scholar
- 11.Discacciati, M.: Domain decomposition methods for the coupling of surface and groundwater flows. PhD thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Discacciati, M., Quarteroni, A.: Navier-Stokes/Darcy coupling: modeling, analysis, and numerical approximation. Rev. Mat. Complut. 22(2), 315–426 (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Freund, J., Stenberg, R.: On weakly imposed boundary conditions for second order problems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Finite Elements in Fluids (1995)Google Scholar
- 25.Saffman, P.: On the boundary condition at the interface of a porous medium. Stud. Appl. Math. 50, 93–101 (1971)Google Scholar
- 27.Xie, X., Xu, J., Xue, G.: Uniformly-stable finite element methods for Darcy-Stokes-Brinkman models. J. Comput. Math. 26, 437–455 (2008)Google Scholar