Primal dual mixed finite element methods for indefinite advection--diffusion equations

We consider primal-dual mixed finite element methods for the advection--diffusion equation. For the primal variable we use standard continuous finite element space and for the flux we use the Raviart-Thomas space. We prove optimal a priori error estimates in the energy- and the $L^2$-norms for the primal variable in the low Peclet regime. In the high Peclet regime we also prove optimal error estimates for the primal variable in the $H(div)$ norm for smooth solutions. Numerically we observe that the method eliminates the spurious oscillations close to interior layers that pollute the solution of the standard Galerkin method when the local Peclet number is high. This method, however, does produce spurious solutions when outflow boundary layer presents. In the last section we propose two simple strategies to remove such numerical artefacts caused by the outflow boundary layer and validate them numerically.Comment: 25 pages, 6 figures, 5 table

Finite element techniques for the Navier-Stokes equations in the primitive variable formulation and the vorticity stream-function formulation

Finite element procedures for the Navier-Stokes equations in the primitive variable formulation and the vorticity stream-function formulation have been implemented. For both formulations, streamline-upwind/Petrov-Galerkin techniques are used for the discretization of the transport equations. The main problem associated with the vorticity stream-function formulation is the lack of boundary conditions for vorticity at solid surfaces. Here an implicit treatment of the vorticity at no-slip boundaries is incorporated in a predictor-multicorrector time integration scheme. For the primitive variable formulation, mixed finite-element approximations are used. A nine-node element and a four-node + bubble element have been implemented. The latter is shown to exhibit a checkerboard pressure mode and a numerical treatment for this spurious pressure mode is proposed. The two methods are compared from the points of view of simulating internal and external flows and the possibilities of extensions to three dimensions