Journal of Nonlinear Science

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 153–167 | Cite as

Computational efficiency and approximate inertial manifolds for a Bénard convection system

  • M. D. Graham
  • P. H. Steen
  • E. S. Titi
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

A computational comparison between classical Galerkin and approximate inertial manifold (AIM) methods is performed for the case of two-dimensional natural convection in a saturated porous material. For prediction of Hopf and torus bifurcations far from convection onset, the improvements of the AIM method over the classical one are small or negligible. Two reasons are given for the lack of distinct improvement. First, the small boundary layer length scale is the source of the instabilities, so it cannot be modeled as a “slave” to the larger scales, as the AIM attempts to do. Second, estimates based on the Gevrey class regularity of solutions to the governing equations show that the classical and AIM methods may be virtually equivalent. It is argued that these two reasons are physical and mathematical reflections of one another.

Key words

inertial manifolds Bénard convection nonlinear Galerkin 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    D. Armbruster, J. Guckenheimer, and P. Holmes, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky dynamics on the center-unstable manifold,SIAM J. Appl. Math. 49(3) (1989) 676–691.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. L. Beck, Convection in a box of porous material saturated with fluid,Phys. Fluids 15(8) (1972) 1377–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Carr,Applications of Centre Manifold Theory (New York: Springer, 1981).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Constantin, C. Foias, B. Nicolaenko, and R. Temam,Integral Manifolds and Inertial Manifolds for Dissipative Partial Differential Equations (New York: Springer, 1988).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Constantin, C. Foias, B. Nicolaenko, and R. Temam, Spectral barriers and inertial manifolds for dissipative partial differential equations,J. Dynamics Diff. Eqs. 1 (1989) 45–73.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. H. Curry, J. R. Herring, J. Loncaric, and S. A. Orszag, Order and disorder in two- and three-dimensional Bénard convection,J. Fluid Mech. 147 (1984) 1–38.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Devulder, M. Marion, and E. S. Titi, On the rate of convergence of nonlinear Galerkin methods,Math. Comp. (1993) (to appear).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. J. Doedel, AUTO: a program for the automatic bifurcation analysis of autonomous systems,Congressus Numerantum 30 (1981) 265–284 (Proceedings of the 10th Manitoba Conference on Numerical Mathematics and Computation, University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, Canada, 1980).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Doelman and E. S. Titi, The exponential decay of modes in the Ginzburg-Landau equation,Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop: Asymptotic-Induced Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, Critical Parameters, and Domain Decomposition, eds. M. Garbey and H. G. Kaper, Beaune, France, May 1992, Kluwer in the NATO ASI Series.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Fabrie, Solutions fortes et comportement asymptotique pour un modèle de convection naturelle en milieux poreaux,Acta Applicandae Mathematicae 7 (1986) 49–77.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. Fabrie, Attracteurs pour deux modèles de convection naturelle en milieux poreaux,C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 311 I (1990) 407–410.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Foias, O. Manley, and R. Temam, Attractors for Bénard problems: existence and physical bounds on their fractal dimension,Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods and Applications 11(8) (1987) 939–967.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Foias, O. Manley, and R. Temam, Modelling of the interaction of small and large eddies in two dimensional turbulence,Math. Modelling and Numer. Anal. 22(1) (1988) 93–114.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Foias, M. S. Jolly, I. G. Kevrekidis, G. R. Sell, and E. S. Titi, On the computation of inertial manifolds,Phys. Lett. A 131(8) (1988) 433–436.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    C. Foias, B. Nicolaenko, G. R. Sell, and R. Temam, Inertial manifolds for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation and an estimate of their lowest dimension,J. Math. Pures Appl. 67 (1988) 197–226.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    C. Foias, G. R. Sell, and R. Temam, Inertial manifolds for nonlinear evolutionary equations,J. Diff. Eqs. 73 (1988) 309–353.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    C. Foias, G. R. Sell, and E. S. Titi, Exponential tracking and approximation of inertial manifolds for dissipative nonlinear equations,J. Dynamics Diff. Eqs. 1 (1989) 199–244.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Foias and R. Temam, Gevrey class regularity for the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations,J. Functional Anal. 87 (1989) 359–369.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    C. Foias and E. S. Titi, Determining nodes, finite difference schemes and inertial manifolds,Nonlinearity 4 (1991) 135–153.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    H. Frick and U. Müller, Oscillatory Hele-Shaw convection,J. Fluid Mech. 126 (1983) 521–532.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    I. Goldhirsch, R. Pelz, and S. A. Orszag, Numerical simulation of thermal convection in a two-dimensional box,J. Fluid Mech. 199 (1989) 1–28.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. D. Graham and P. H. Steen, Strongly interacting traveling waves and quasiperiodic dynamics in porous medium convection,Physica D 54 (1992) 331–350.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    H. Haken,Advanced Synergetics (Berlin: Springer, 1983).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Ju. S. Il'Yashinko, Global analysis of the phase portrait for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation,J. Dynamics Diff. Eq. (to appear).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    F. Jauberteau, C. Rosier, and R. Temam, A nonlinear Galerkin method for the Navier-Stokes equations,Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engr. 80 (1990) 245–260.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. S. Jolly, I. G. Kevrekidis, and E. S. Titi, Approximate inertial manifolds for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation: analysis and computations,Physica D 44 (1990) 38–60.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    M. S. Jolly, I. G. Kevrekidis, and E. S. Titi, Preserving dissipation in approximate inertial forms for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation,J. Dynamics Diff. Eqs. 3 (1990) 179–197.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    D. A. Jones and E. S. Titi, A remark on quasi-stationary approximate inertial manifolds for the Navier-Stokes equations, Preprint # 920408, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine; also inSIAM J. Math. Anal. (to appear).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    T. B. Lennie, D. P. McKenzie, D. R. Moore, and N. O. Weiss, The breakdown of steady convection,J. Fluid Mech. 188 (1988) 47–85.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    X. Liu, Gevrey class regularity and approximate inertial manifolds for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations,Physica D 50 (1991) 135–151.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. Marion and R. Temam, Nonlinear Galerkin methods,SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 26(6) (1989) 1139–1157.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    P. Metzener and S. H. Davis, An annulus model for time-space transitions in Bénard convection,Physica D 36 (1989) 235–258.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    D. S. Riley and K. H. Winters, Modal exchange mechanisms in Lapwood convection,J. Fluid Mech. 204 (1989) 325–358.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    L. A. Segel and M. Slemrod, The quasi-steady assumption: a case study in perturbation,SIAM Review 31(3) (1989) 446–477.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    P. H. Steen, Pattern selection for finite-amplitude convection states in boxes of porous media,J. Fluid Mech. 136 (1983) 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    P. H. Steen, Container geometry and the transition to unsteady Bénard convection in porous media,Phys. Fluids 29(4) (1986) 925–933.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    P. H. Steen and C. K. Aidun, Time-periodic convection in porous media: transition mechanism,J. Fluid Mech. 196 (1988) 263–290.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    R. Temam, Inertial manifolds and multigrid methods,SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21(1) (1990) 154–178.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    R. Temam, Stability analysis of the nonlinear Galerkin method,Math. Comp. 57 (1991), 477–505.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    E. S. Titi, On approximate inertial manifolds to the Navier-Stokes equations,J. Math. Anal. Appl. 149(2) (1990) 540–557.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    E. S. Titi, Gevrey class regularity and long time approximations for 3-D convection in porous media (in preparation).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    J. A. Yorke and E. D. Yorke, Chaotic Behavior and Fluid Dynamics, inHydrodynamic Instabilities and the Transition to Turbulence, eds. H. L. Swinney and J. P. Gollub (Berlin: Springer, 1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Graham
    • 1
  • P. H. Steen
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. S. Titi
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Chemical EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Center for Applied MathematicsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations