4.7 Article

A correction function-based kernel-free boundary integral method for elliptic PDEs with implicitly defined interfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
卷 496, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112545

关键词

Elliptic PDEs; Interface problems; Jump conditions; Cartesian grid-based method; Compact finite difference method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents a novel kernel-free boundary integral method for solving elliptic PDEs with implicitly defined irregular boundaries and interfaces. The method avoids complex derivations by solving equivalent simple interface problems, and it demonstrates accuracy and efficiency in various numerical examples.
This work addresses a novel version of the kernel-free boundary integral (KFBI) method for solving elliptic PDEs with implicitly defined irregular boundaries and interfaces. We focus on boundary value problems and interface problems, which are reformulated into boundary integral equations and solved with the matrix-free GMRES method. In the KFBI method, evaluating boundary and volume integrals only requires solving equivalent but much simpler interface problems in a bounding box, for which fast solvers such as FFTs and geometric multigrid methods are applicable. For the simple interface problem, a correction function is introduced for both the evaluation of right-hand side correction terms and the interpolation of a non-smooth potential function. A mesh-free collocation method is proposed to compute the correction function near the interface. The new method avoids complicated derivation for derivative jumps of the solution and is easy to implement, especially for the fourth-order method in three space dimensions. Various numerical examples are presented, including challenging cases such as high-contrast coefficients, arbitrarily close interfaces and heterogeneous interface problems. The reported numerical results verify that the proposed method is both accurate and efficient.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据