Abstract:In this paper, we discuss the second-order finite element method (FEM) and finite difference method (FDM) for numerically solving elliptic cross-interface problems characterized by vertical and horizontal straight lines, piecewise constant coefficients, two homogeneous jump conditions, continuous source terms, and Dirichlet boundary conditions. For brevity, we consider a 2D simplified version where the intersection points of the interface lines coincide with grid points in uniform Cartesian grids. Our findings reveal interesting and important results: (1) When the coefficient functions exhibit either high jumps with low-frequency oscillations or low jumps with high-frequency oscillations, the finite element method and finite difference method yield similar numerical solutions. (2) However, when the interface problems involve high-contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions, the numerical solutions obtained from the finite element and finite difference methods differ significantly. Given that the widely studied SPE10 benchmark problem (see <a class="link-external link-https" href="https://www.spe.org/web/csp/datasets/set02.htm" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a>) typically involves high-contrast and high-frequency permeability due to varying geological layers in porous media, this phenomenon warrants attention. Furthermore, this observation is particularly important for developing multiscale methods, as reference solutions for these methods are usually obtained using the standard second-order finite element method with a fine mesh, and analytical solutions are not available. We provide sufficient details to enable replication of our numerical results, and the implementation is straightforward. This simplicity ensures that readers can easily confirm the validity of our findings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to address the issue of significant differences between numerical solutions produced by the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Finite Difference Method (FDM) when dealing with elliptic cross-interface problems involving high contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions. Specifically, the paper explores solving elliptic cross-interface problems using second-order FEM and FDM under the following conditions:
1. **Problem Background**:
- Elliptic cross-interface problems typically appear in applications such as fluid flow simulation in porous media, for example, the SPE10 benchmark problem.
- Characteristics of these problems include vertical and horizontal straight-line interfaces, piecewise constant coefficients, two homogeneous jump conditions, continuous source terms, and Dirichlet boundary conditions.
2. **Research Motivation**:
- When the coefficient function exhibits high jumps and low-frequency oscillations or low jumps and high-frequency oscillations, the numerical solutions produced by FEM and FDM are similar.
- However, when the interface problem involves high contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions, the numerical solutions produced by FEM and FDM differ significantly.
- This phenomenon is particularly evident in the SPE10 benchmark problem, as it typically involves high contrast and high-frequency permeability due to different geological layers.
3. **Research Objectives**:
- To reveal the significant differences between FEM and FDM when dealing with elliptic cross-interface problems involving high contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions.
- To provide a reference for the development of multiscale methods, as the reference solutions for these methods are usually obtained through standard second-order FEM on fine grids, where analytical solutions are unavailable.
4. **Research Methods**:
- The paper uses a simplified 2D problem where the interface lines intersect along vertical and horizontal straight lines, and the intersection points coincide with the grid points in a uniform Cartesian grid.
- Through numerical experiments, the performance of FEM and FDM under different coefficient functions is compared, including cases of high contrast and low-frequency oscillations, low contrast and high-frequency oscillations, and high contrast and high-frequency oscillations.
5. **Main Findings**:
- When the coefficient function exhibits only slight jumps or low-frequency oscillations, the numerical solutions produced by FEM and FDM are similar.
- When dealing with elliptic cross-interface problems involving high contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions, the numerical solutions produced by FEM and FDM differ significantly.
6. **Conclusion**:
- The paper reveals the significant differences between FEM and FDM when dealing with elliptic cross-interface problems involving high contrast and high-frequency coefficient functions.
- These findings are particularly important for the development of multiscale methods, especially when the reference solutions are usually obtained through standard FEM.
- All necessary details are provided to allow readers to easily verify the accuracy of the research results.
In summary, this paper aims to explore and explain the significant differences between FEM and FDM when dealing with specific types of elliptic cross-interface problems, providing important references for research in related fields.