Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:52:43.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of Impacts of Removing Arbitrarily Constrained Domain Details to the Analysis of Incompressible Fluid Flows

Part of: Equations of mathematical physics and other areas of application Incompressible viscous fluids Numerical methods in calculus of variations and optimal control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2016

Kai Zhang ,
Ming Li  and
Jingzhi Li
Kai Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Jilin University, Changchun, P.R. China
Ming Li*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of CAD & CG, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China
Jingzhi Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, P.R. China
*
*Corresponding author. Email addresses:[email protected] (K. Zhang), [email protected] (M. Li), [email protected] (J. Li)
*Corresponding author. Email addresses:[email protected] (K. Zhang), [email protected] (M. Li), [email protected] (J. Li)
*Corresponding author. Email addresses:[email protected] (K. Zhang), [email protected] (M. Li), [email protected] (J. Li)
Get access

Abstract

Removing geometric details from the computational domain can significantly reduce the complexity of downstream task of meshing and simulation computation, and increase their stability. Proper estimation of the sensitivity analysis error induced by removing such domain details, called defeaturing errors, can ensure that the sensitivity analysis fidelity can still be met after simplification. In this paper, estimation of impacts of removing arbitrarily constrained domain details to the analysis of incompressible fluid flows is studied with applications to fast analysis of incompressible fluid flows in complex environments. The derived error estimator is applicable to geometric details constrained by either Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, and has no special requirements on the outer boundary conditions. Extensive numerical examples were presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed error estimator.

Keywords

Defeaturing erroradjoint formulationincompressible fluid mechanics

MSC classification

Secondary: 35Q30: Navier-Stokes equations 49M05: Methods based on necessary conditions 76D05: Navier-Stokes equations
Type
Research Article
Information
Communications in Computational Physics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 944 - 968
Copyright
Copyright © Global-Science Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Amstutz, S.. The topological asymptotic for the Navier-Stokes equations. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 11(3):401–425, 2005.Google Scholar
[2] Amstutz, S.. Sensitivity analysis with respect to a local perturbation of the material property. Asymptotic Analysis, 49(1-2):87–108, 2006.Google Scholar
[3] Amstutz, S.. Topological sensitivity analysis for some nonlinear PDE systems. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 85(4):540–557, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Bazilevs, Y., Calo, V., Cottrell, J., Evans, J., Hughes, T., Lipton, S., Scott, M., and Sederberg, T.. Isogeometric analysis using T-splines. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 199(5-8):229–263, 2010.Google Scholar
[5] Becker, A.. The Boundary Element Method. McGraw Hill: New York, 1992.Google Scholar
[6] Berenger, J.. A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. Journal of Computational Physics, 114(2):185–200, 1994.Google Scholar
[7] Bettess, P.. Infinite Elements. Penshaw Press: Sunderfand, U.K., 1992.Google Scholar
[8] Cao, Y., Zhang, R., and Zhang, K.. Finite element method and discontinuous Galerkin method for Stochastic scattering problem of Helmholtz type in Rd . Potential Analysis, 28(4):301–319, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Faria, J., Novotny, A., Feijoo, R., Taroco, E., and Padra, C.. Second order topological sensitivity analysis. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44(14-15):4958–4977, 2007.Google Scholar
[10] Ferrandes, R., Marin, P., Leon, J., and Giannini, F.. A posteriori evaluation of simplification details for finite element model preparation. Computers & Structures, 87(1-2):73–80, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Galdi, G.. An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier-Stokes Equations, Volume I, II. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
[12] Gao, H.Y., Wang, Z.J., and Huynh, H.T.. Differential formulation of discontinuous Galerkin and related methods for the Navier-Stokes equations. Communications in Computational Physics, 13(4):1013–1044, 2013.Google Scholar
[13] Giles, M. and Suli, E.. Adjoint methods for PDEs: A posteriori error analysis and postprocessing by duality. Acta Numerica, 11:145–236, 2002.Google Scholar
[14] Gopalakrishnan, S. and Suresh, K.. A formal theory for estimating defeaturing-induced engineering analysis errors. Computer-Aided Design, 39(1):60–68, 2007.Google Scholar
[15] Gratsch, T. and Bathe, K.. A posteriori error estimation techniques in practical finite element analysis. Computers & Structures, 83(4-5):235–265, 2005.Google Scholar
[16] Guillaume, P. and Idris, K.S.. Topological sensitivity and shape optimization for the stokes equations. Rapport MIP, No 01-24, 2001.Google Scholar
[17] Keller, J.. Removing small features from computational domains. Journal of Computational Physics, 113(1):148–150, 1994.Google Scholar
[18] Kelly, D., De, J., Gago, S., Zienkiewicz, O., and Babuska, I.. A posteriori error analysis and adaptive processes in the finite element method: Part I: Error analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 19(11):1593–1619, 1983.Google Scholar
[19] Kim, T.Y., Dolbow, J., and Fried, E.. A numerical method for a second-gradient theory of incompressible fluid flow. Journal of Computational Physics, 223(2):551–570, 2007.Google Scholar
[20] Li, M. and Gao, S.. Estimating defeaturing-induced engineering analysis error for arbitrary 3D features. Computer-Aided Design, 43(12):1587–1597, 2011.Google Scholar
[21] Li, M., Gao, S., and Martin, R.. Estimating effects of removing negative features on engineering analysis. Computer-Aided Design, 43(1):1402–1412, 2011.Google Scholar
[22] Li, M., Gao, S., and Martin, R.. Engineering analysis error estimation when removing finite-sized features in nonlinear elliptic problems. Computer-Aided Design, 45(2):361–372, 2013.Google Scholar
[23] Li, M., Gao, S., and Zhang, K.. Goal-oriented error estimator for the analysis of simplified designs. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 255:89–103, 2013.Google Scholar
[24] Novotny, A., Feijoo, R., Taroco, E., and Padra, C.. Topological-shape sensitivity analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192(7):803–829, 2003.Google Scholar
[25] Oden, J. and Prudhomme, S.. Estimation of modeling error in computational mechanics. Journal of Computational Physics, 182(2):496–515, 2002.Google Scholar
[26] Parussini, L. and Lucia, P.. Fictitious domain approach with hp-finite element approximation for incompressible fluid flow. Journal of Computational Physics, 228(10):3891–3910, 2009.Google Scholar
[27] Prudhomme, S., Oden, J., Westermann, T., Bass, J., and Botkin, M.. Practical methods for a posteriori error estimation in engineering applications. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 56(8):1193–1224, 2003.Google Scholar
[28] Saad, Y.. Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Halstead Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Shetty, A.D., Shen, J., Chandy, A.J., and Frankel, S.H.. A pressure-correction scheme for rotational Navier-Stokes equations and its application to rotating turbulent flows. Communications in Computational Physics, 9(3):740–755, 2011.Google Scholar
[30] Sumner, D.. Two circular cylinders in cross-flow: A review. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 26(6):849–899, 2010.Google Scholar
[31] Tachim Medjo, T., Temam, R., and Ziane, M.. Optimal and robust control of fluid flows: Some theoretical and computational aspects. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 61(1):010802:1–23, 2008.Google Scholar
[32] Temam, R.. Navier-Stokes Equations. Elsevier, 1984.Google Scholar
[33] Tokyay, T., Constantinescu, G., Gonzalez-Juez, E., and Meiburg, E.. Gravity currents propagating over periodic arrays of blunt obstacles: Effect of the obstacle size. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 27(5-6):798–806, 2011.Google Scholar
[34] Turevsky, I., Gopalakrishnan, S., and Suresh, K.. Defeaturing: A posteriori error analysis via feature sensitivity. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 76(9):1379–1401, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35] Turevsky, I., Gopalakrishnan, S., and Suresh, K.. An efficient numericalmethod for computing the topological sensitivity of arbitrary-shaped features in plate bending. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79(13):1683–1702, 2009.Google Scholar
[36] White, D., Saigal, S., and Owen, S.. Meshing complexity of single part CAD models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Meshing Roundtable Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, U.S.A., 2003.Google Scholar
[37] Yoon, D., Yang, K., and Choi, C.. Flow past a square cylinder with an angle of incidence. Physics of Fluids, 22(4):1–12, 2010.Google Scholar