Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
There have been many numerical simulations but few analytical results of stability and accuracy of algorithms for computational modeling of fluid-fluid and fluid-structure interaction problems, where two domains corresponding to different fluids (ocean-atmosphere) or a fluid and deformable solid (blood flow) are separated by an interface. As a simplified model of the first examples, this report considers two heat equations in $\Omega_1,\Omega_2\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ adjoined by an interface $I=\Omega_1\cap\Omega_2\subset\mathbb{R}$. The heat equations are coupled by a condition that allows energy to pass back and forth across the interface $I$ while preserving the total global energy of the monolithic, coupled problem. To compute approximate solutions to the above problem only using subdomain solvers, two first-order in time, fully discrete methods are presented. The methods consist of an implicit-explicit approach, in which the action across $I$ is lagged, and a partitioned method based on passing interface values back and forth across $I$. Stability and convergence results are derived for both schemes. Numerical experiments that support the theoretical results are presented. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2009 | 10.1137/080740891 | SIAM J. Numerical Analysis |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
domain problem,approximate solution,numerical experiment,computational modeling,blood flow,fluid-structure interaction problem,heat equation,partitioned time stepping,numerical simulation,total global energy,interface value,analytical result | Convergence (routing),Mathematical optimization,Computer simulation,Mathematical analysis,Heat equation,Discrete time and continuous time,Numerical analysis,Partial differential equation,Mathematics,Numerical stability,Parabola | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
47 | 5 | 0036-1429 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
3 | 0.49 | 0 |
Authors | ||
3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Jeffrey M. Connors | 1 | 26 | 3.69 |
Jason S. Howell | 2 | 20 | 2.32 |
William J. Layton | 3 | 170 | 72.49 |