Advertisement

Lowest order methods for diffusive problems on general meshes: A unified approach to definition and implementation

  • Daniele A. Di PietroEmail author
  • Jean-Marc Gratien
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics book series (PROM, volume 4)

Abstract

In this work we propose an original point of view on lowest order methods for diffusive problems which lays the pillars of a C +  + multi-physics, FreeFEM-like platform. The key idea is to regard lowest order methods as (Petrov)-Galerkin methods based on possibly incomplete, broken polynomial spaces defined from a gradient reconstruction. After presenting some examples of methods entering the framework, we show how implementation strategies common in the finite element context can be extended relying on the above definition. Several examples are provided throughout the presentation, and programming details are often omitted to help the reader unfamiliar with advanced C +  + programming techniques.

Keywords

Lowest-order methods Domain specific embedded language Petrov-Galerkin methods cell centered Galerkin methods hybrid finite volume methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Fruitful discussions with Christophe Prud’homme (Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann, University of Grenoble) are gratefully acknowledged. We also wish to thank all the contributors to the Arcane platform.

References

  1. 1.
    I. Aavatsmark, T. Barkve, Ø. Bøe, and T. Mannseth. Discretization on unstructured grids for inhomogeneous, anisotropic media, Part I: Derivation of the methods. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 19(5):1700–1716, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Aavatsmark, G. T. Eigestad, B. T. Mallison, and J. M. Nordbotten. A compact multipoint flux approximation method with improved robustness. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Eq., 24:1329–1360, 2008.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Agélas, D. A. Di Pietro, and J. Droniou. The G method for heterogeneous anisotropic diffusion on general meshes. M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 44(4):597–625, 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. N. Arnold. An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 19:742–760, 1982.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Brezzi, K. Lipnikov, and M. Shashkov. Convergence of mimetic finite difference methods for diffusion problems on polyhedral meshes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 43(5):1872–1896, 2005.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Brezzi, K. Lipnikov, and V. Simoncini. A family of mimetic finite difference methods on polygonal and polyhedral meshes. M3AS, 15:1533–1553, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Danaila, F. Hecht, and O. Pironneau. Simulation numérique en C++. Dunod, Paris, 2003. http://www.freefem.org.
  8. 8.
    D. A. Di Pietro. Cell centered Galerkin methods. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I, 348:31–34, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. A. Di Pietro. Cell centered Galerkin methods for diffusive problems. Submitted. Preprint available at http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00511125/en/, September 2010.
  10. 10.
    D. A. Di Pietro. A compact cell-centered Galerkin method with subgrid stabilization. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I., 348(1–2):93–98, 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. A. Di Pietro and A. Ern. Mathematical aspects of discontinuous Galerkin methods. Mathematics & Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. To appear.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. A. Di Pietro, A. Ern, and J.-L. Guermond. Discontinuous Galerkin methods for anisotropic semi-definite diffusion with advection. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 46(2):805–831, 2008.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Droniou and R. Eymard. A mixed finite volume scheme for anisotropic diffusion problems on any grid. Num. Math., 105(1):35–71, 2006.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Droniou, R. Eymard, T. Gallouët, and R. Herbin. A unified approach to mimetic finite difference, hybrid finite volume and mixed finite volume methods. M3AS, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 20(2):265–295, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. G. Edwards and C. F. Rogers. Finite volume discretization with imposed flux continuity for the general tensor pressure equation. Comput. Geosci., 2:259–290, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond. Theory and Practice of Finite Elements, volume 159 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2004.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Eymard, Th. Gallouët, and R. Herbin. Discretization of heterogeneous and anisotropic diffusion problems on general nonconforming meshes SUSHI: a scheme using stabilization and hybrid interfaces. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 4(30):1009–1043, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Grospellier and B. Lelandais. The Arcane development framework. In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on Parallel/High-Performance Object-Oriented Scientific Computing, pages 4:1–4:11, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Logg and G. N. Wells. DOLFIN: Automated finite element computing. ACM TOMS, 37, 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Prud’homme. A domain specific embedded language in C++ for automatic differentiation, projection, integration and variational formulations. Sci. Prog., 14(2):81–110, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFP Energies nouvellesRueil-MalmaisonFrance

Personalised recommendations