Skip to main content
Entropy logoLink to Entropy
. 2022 Sep 30;24(10):1395. doi: 10.3390/e24101395

Error Analysis of a PFEM Based on the Euler Semi-Implicit Scheme for the Unsteady MHD Equations

Kaiwen Shi 1, Haiyan Su 1,*, Xinlong Feng 1
Editor: Eun-jin Kim1
PMCID: PMC9602181  PMID: 37420415

Abstract

In this article, we mainly consider a first order penalty finite element method (PFEM) for the 2D/3D unsteady incompressible magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations. The penalty method applies a penalty term to relax the constraint “·u=0”, which allows us to transform the saddle point problem into two smaller problems to solve. The Euler semi-implicit scheme is based on a first order backward difference formula for time discretization and semi-implicit treatments for nonlinear terms. It is worth mentioning that the error estimates of the fully discrete PFEM are rigorously derived, which depend on the penalty parameter ϵ, the time-step size τ, and the mesh size h. Finally, two numerical tests show that our scheme is effective.

Keywords: MHD equations, PFEM, semi-implicit scheme, error estimates, LBB condition

1. Introduction

The magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) describes the dynamic behavior of a conducting fluid under external electromagnetic field, which is the coupling of the Navier–Stokes (NS) system and Maxwell’s system. It has wide practical applications in geophysics, astrophysics, and confinement for controlled thermonuclear fusion (cf. [1,2,3]). Concerning the corresponding extensive theoretical modeling/numerical analysis of the MHD system, we refer to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] and the references therein.

In this paper, we mainly consider the 2D/3D unsteady incompressible MHD equations. This model is a coupled strongly nonlinear system, and it is a saddle point problem due to the incompressible constraint. Therefore, it is necessary to construct unconditionally stable and decoupled algorithms for our model. For the time discretization, it is well-known that simple discretizations, like fully explicit or implicit type schemes, can lead to considerable instabilities or suffer from costly time expense. Recently, Euler semi-implicit schemes for some evolution differential equations have been given in [4,13,14]. This method is unconditionally stable. For the saddle point problem, there are many methods to release the incompressibility constraint for incompressible flow such as the projection method, the pressure stabilization method, the artificial compressibility method, and the penalty method (see also [15,16,17,18,19,20]).

It is worth mentioning that the penalty method is the simplest and the most basic of these methods mentioned above. For the penalty method, it can be traced back to [21]. Then, the optimal error estimate of the unsteady NS system based on the penalty finite element method (PFEM) was given in [22]. A PFEM of a Euler implicit/explicit scheme for the unsteady NS system was proposed in [23]. An error estimate of the unsteady NS system based on the P1 nonconforming PFEM was given in [24]. The authors study the PFEM of the steady MHD equations in [25]. A decoupling PFEM for the steady incompressible MHD equations was given in [18].

The aim of this paper is to develop a first order linear and decoupled scheme. We adopt an implicit scheme for the linear terms and semi-implicit treatments for nonlinear terms. Meanwhile, the penalty method is used for fluid equations. This method decouples the MHD equations into two small equations; one is the equations of the velocity and magnetic field (u,B), and the other is the equation of pressure p. Then, the error estimates for the developed scheme are present, which depend on the penalty parameter ϵ, the time-step size τ, and the mesh size h. Finally, we give two numerical tests to verify the theoretical results of our method.

The structure of the paper is as follows: in Section 2, we present the model and estimates for the solutions of penalty MHD equations. In Section 3, we give the Euler semi-implicit scheme in the case of time discretization and the convergence rate of the semi-discrete solutions. In Section 4, we give the PFEM based on the Euler semi-implicit scheme. In Section 5, we give the error estimates of the fully discrete solutions. In Section 6, the error estimates are obtained for our scheme. In Section 7, two numerical tests show that our scheme is effective. Finally, we give some conclusions.

2. Functional Setting of the Unsteady MHD Equation

In this paper, we consider the unsteady incompressible MHD equations as follows:

utνΔu+(u·)u+p+SB××B=f,in DT,·u=0,in DT,Bt+μ××B×(u×B)=g,in DT,·B=0,in DT,u(0)=u0,B(0)=B0,in D,u=0,B×n=0,on γ, (1)

where DT=D×[0,T], Γ=D×[0,T], DRd(d=2or3) stands for a bounded, convex, and open domain with the boundary D, T is the final time. Here, u,p,B are the velocity, the pressure, and the magnetic field, f is the external force term, g is the known applied current with ·g=0, and n denotes the outward normal on D. For the physical parameters, ν1=Re (fluid Reynolds number), μ1=Rm (magnetic Reynolds number) and S is the coupling coefficient.

Next, we give a penalty method for the unsteady MHD equations. Instead of solving (1), we solve (uϵ,pϵ,Bϵ) from the penalty MHD equations:

uϵtνΔuϵ+b˜(uϵ,uϵ)+pϵ+SBϵ××Bϵ=f,in DT,·uϵ+ϵνpϵ=0,in DT,Bϵt+μ××Bϵ×(uϵ×Bϵ)=g,in DT,·Bϵ=0,in DT,uϵ(0)=u0,Bϵ(0)=B0,in D,uϵ=0,Bϵ×n=0,on γ, (2)

where 0<ϵ<1 is the penalty parameter; b˜(u,v)=(u·)v+12(·u)v is the modified nonlinear term.

Then, we give some notations and estimates for MHD equations. For 1r, Lr(D) denotes the usual Lebesgue space on D with the norm ·Lr. The inner product of the space L2(D) is denoted by (·,·) that is (u,v)=Duvdx, and the norm of the space L2(D) is denoted by ·. For all non-negative integers k and r, Wk,r(D) stands for the standard Sobolev space equipped with the standard Sobolev norm ·k,r. The norm of the space Wk,2(D) is represented by ·k. The functions and spaces of vectors are represented in boldface.

Next, we give several function spaces

H˜:={vL2(D):·v=0,v·nD=0},X:=H01(D)={vH1(D)d:vD=0},M:=L02(D)={qL2(D):Dqdx=0},W:=Hn1(D)={wH1(D)d:w·nD=0},X0:={vX:·v=0},W0:={wW:·w=0}.

We define A1u=Δu and A1ϵu=Δu1ϵ·u, which are the operators associated with NS equations and the penalty NS equations. They are the positive self-adjoint operators from D(A1)=H2(D)X onto L2(D) and the powers A1α and A1ϵα(αR) are well defined. Similarly, we define the operator A2=PH(××·):D(A2)H˜, where D(A2)=H2(D)W and PH is the L2-orthogonal projector (cf. [7,26,27]). Thus, we have

(A1u,v)=(A112u,A112v)=(u,v),u,vX,(A1ϵu,v)=(A1ϵ12u,A1ϵ12v)=(u,v)+1ϵ(·u,·v),u,vX,(A2B,C)=(A212B,A212C)=(×B,×C)+(·B,·C),B,CW.

Define

b(u,v,w)=(u·v,w)+12((·u)v,w)=12b(u,v,w)12b(u,w,v),u,v,wX.

Therefore, the trilinear form b(·,·,·) satisfies

b(u,v,v)=0,u,vX. (3)

A weak formulation for (1) is as follows: find (u,p,B)L2(0,T;X)×L2(0,T;M)×L2(0,T;W) such that, for all (v,q,C)X×M×W (cf. [1,4]),

(ut,v)+ν(u,v)+b(u,u,v)(·v,p)+(·u,q)+S(B××B,v)=(f,v),(Bt,C)+μ(×B,×C)(u×B,×C)=(g,C),u(0)=u0,B(0)=B0, (4)

where utL4/d(0,T;X), BtL4/d(0,T;W) (X and W are the dual spaces of X and W, respectively), ·u0=·B0=0 and the weak formulation for (2) is as follows: find (uϵ,pϵ,Bϵ)L2(0,T;X)×L2(0,T;M)×L2(0,T;W) such that, for all (v,q,C)X×M×W

(uϵt,v)ν(uϵ,v)+b(uϵ,uϵ,v)(·v,pϵ)+(·uϵ,q)+S(Bϵ××Bϵ,v)+ϵν(pϵ,q)=(f,v),(Bϵt,C)+μ(×Bϵ,×C)(uϵ×Bϵ,×C)=(g,C),uϵ(0)=u0,Bϵ(0)=B0, (5)

where uϵtL4/d(0,T;X), BϵtL4/d(0,T;W).

Remark 1.

Taking the L2 inner product of the first equation in (1) with v, the second equation in (1) with q and summing up the two relations, we obtain the first equation of (4). Taking the L2 inner product of the third equation in (1) with C, we obtain the second equation of (4). Equation (5) can be obtained similarly.

Remark 2.

For ϕH02(D), taking C=ϕ in the second equation of (4), we easily obtain (·B)t=0, which implies ·B(t)=·B0=0. In addition, the second equation of (4) has an equivalent form (cf. [1,7])

(Bt,C)+μ(×B,×C)+μ(·B,·C)(u×B,×C)=(g,C),

in which ·B is used as a penalty term. For t(0,T), we choose C=ϕ(t)W in the second equation of (4); here, ϕ(t) is generated by the boundary value problem

Δϕ(t)=·B(t),ϕn|D=0.

We can obtain 12ϕ(t)2+μ0T·B(t)2dt=0, which also implies ·B(t)=0.

Using the operators A1ϵ,A2, we can rewrite the penalized system (5) as

uϵt+νA1ϵuϵ+b˜(uϵ,uϵ)+S(Bϵ××Bϵ)=f,Bϵt+μA2Bϵ×(uϵ×Bϵ)=g. (6)

Referring to [2,6,13,28], the following estimates hold:

vLpcv1,2p6,vH1(D), (7)
vL+vL3cv112v212,vH2(D), (8)
C1c×C+c·C,CW, (9)
(B××C,v)=(v×B,×C),B,CW,vX, (10)
×C2C,·CdC,CW, (11)
×(v×C)=v(·C)C(·v)+(C·)v(v·)C,v,CH1(D), (12)

where c(D)>0 is a constant, which have different values in different cases.

In this paper, C>0 denotes a constant depending on (ν,μ,S,D,T,u0,B0,f,g), which may have different values in different cases. We make the following assumptions for (1), which specify the regularity of the data and the smoothness of the domain D (cf. [1,4]).

Assumption 1.

The initial data u0X0H2(Ω) and B0W0H2(Ω), the external force f, and the applied current g satisfy the following bound:

u02+B02+sup0tTf(t)+g(t)+ft(t)+gt(t)C.

Assumption 1 ensures that there is a unique strong solution for (1) over some time interval [0,T); we have (cf. [5])

uC(0,T;X)L2(0,T;H2(D)),pL2(0,T;H1(D)M),BC(0,T;W)L2(0,T;H2(D)),

such that ut,BtL2(0,T;L2(D)), and Equation (4) holds for almost all t[0,T). If the data u0,B0,f and g are sufficiently small, then the solution exists for any T>0 and satisfies

sup0tT(u(t)1+B(t)1)<. (13)

Assumption 2.

The problem (4) has a weak solution (u(t),p(t),B(t)) satisfying uL2(0,T;X0), pL2(0,T;M) and BL2(0,T;W0) such that

0T(u(t)4+×B(t)4)dtC.

Remark 3.

Instead of assuming the data are small or strong condition (13) holds, we give the Assumption 2 to guarantee the uniqueness of weak solution to the 3D MHD problem on interval [0,T] (see [4,5,28]).

Assumption 3.

Assume that the boundary of D is smooth so that the unique solution (v,q)X×M of the steady Stokes problem

Δv+q=f,·v=0,inD,v|D=0,

for prescribed fL2(D) satisfies

v2+q1cf;

and Maxwell’s equations

××C=g,·C=0,inD,C×n|D=0,

for the prescribed gL2(D) admit a unique solution CW0, which satisfies

C2cg.

Remark 4.

The validity of Assumption 3 is known if D is of C2, or if D is a convex polyhedron (see [4]).

Next, we need the following lemma given in [26].

Lemma 1.

There exists a constant c1>0 depending only on D and such that, for sufficiently small ϵ, we have

Δuc1A1ϵu,uH2(D)X,uc1A1ϵ12u,uX,A1ϵ1uc1u2,uH2(D),

where H2(D) is the dual space of H2(D)X, and ·2 is the corresponding norm.

Theorem 1.

Under Assumptions 1–3, the solution (u(t),p(t),B(t)) of the problem (4) satisfies the estimates

sup0tT{ut(t)2+Bt(t)2+u(t)22+p(t)12+B(t)22}+0T(uttX02+BttW2+ut2+Bt2)dtC,sup0tT{σ(t)ut(t)12+σ(t)Bt(t)12}+0Tσ(t)(utt2+Btt2)dt+0Tσ(t)(ut22+Bt22+pt12)dtC,

where

uttX0=supvX0(utt,v)v,BttW=supCW(Btt,C)C.

For the proof of these results, we can refer to [1,4].

Theorem 2.

Under Assumptions 1–3, the solution (uϵ(t),pϵ(t),Bϵ(t)) of the problem (3) satisfies the estimates

sup0tT{uϵt(t)2+Bϵt(t)2+uϵ(t)22+pϵ(t)12+Bϵ(t)22}+0T(A1ϵ12uϵtt2+A212Bϵtt2+uϵt2+Bϵt2)dtC,sup0tT{σ(t)uϵt(t)12+σ(t)Bϵt(t)12}+0Tσ(t)(uϵtt2+Bϵtt2+pϵt2)dtC.

We can finish the proof by a similar technique used in the proof of Theorem 1.

Theorem 3.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have the following estimate (cf. [26,29])

sup0tT{σ(t)12(u(t)uϵ(t)+B(t)Bϵ(t))+σ(t)(u(t)uϵ(t)1+B(t)Bϵ(t)1)}+0Tσ2(t)p(t)pϵ(t)2dt12Cϵ.

Proof. 

We first consider the linear form of MHD equations. Then, we subtract the penalized linear MHD equations from the linear MHD equations to obtain their error equations. The error estimate in linear form is obtained through its dual problem

0T(u(t)uϵ(t)+B(t)Bϵ(t))dtCϵ.

Next, we obtain the following error estimate by choosing an appropriate L2 inner product for the error equations

sup0tT{σ(t)12(u(t)uϵ(t)+B(t)Bϵ(t))+σ(t)(u(t)uϵ(t)1+B(t)Bϵ(t)1)}+0Tσ2(t)p(t)pϵ(t)2dt12Cϵ.

Finally, we transform the nonlinear MHD equations into an intermediate linear equations, and then obtain Theorem 3 by applying a suitable L2 inner product to this system and using the previous result. □

In addition, we need the following discrete Gronwall lemma (cf. [4,30,31]).

Lemma 2.

Let an,bn,dn and C0 be nonnegative numbers for integer n0, such that

am+τn=1mbnτn=0m1dnan+C0,m1. (14)

Then

am+τn=1mbnC0exp(τn=0m1dn),m1. (15)

3. The Euler Semi-Implicit Scheme and Its Error Estimates: Time Discretization

In this section, we consider a time discretization for the penalty MHD system (6). Let τ=TN be the time-step size and N>0 is an integer. Then, tn=nτ, n=1,2,,N denote the discrete time levels. The time-discrete approximations to (uϵ(tn),pϵ(tn),Bϵ(tn)) will be denoted by (uϵn,pϵn,Bϵn) for all 1nN. Consider the Euler semi-implicit time-stepping algorithm: Given (uϵn1,Bϵn1)X×W, find (uϵn,Bϵn)X×W, pϵnM such that

(dtuϵn,v)ν(uϵn,v)+b(uϵn1,uϵn,v)(·v,pϵn)+(·uϵn,q)+S(Bϵn1××Bϵn,v)+ϵν(pϵn,q)=(f(tn),v),(dtBϵn,C)+μ(×Bϵn,×C)(uϵn×Bϵn1,×C)=(g(tn),C), (16)

where (uϵ0,Bϵ0)=(u0,B0), dtun=1τ(unun1). We can rewrite (16) as

dtuϵn+νA1ϵuϵn+b˜(uϵn1,uϵn)+S(Bϵn1××Bϵn)=fn,dtBϵn+μA2Bϵn×(uϵn×Bϵn1)=gn. (17)

Remark 5.

Since ·B0=0, we take C=ϕ with ϕH02(D) and deduce from the second equation in (16) and the identity ×ϕ=0 that ·Bn=0 for all 0nN.

Next, we give a priori bound of the scheme (17).

Theorem 4.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have a priori bound

uϵm2+SBϵm2+τn=1m(νA1ϵ12uϵn2+SμA212Bϵn2)+τn=1m(dtuϵn2+SdtBϵn2)τC,

for all 1mN.

Proof. 

Taking the L2 inner product of the first equation in (17) with 2uϵnτ, and the second equation in (17) with 2SBϵnτ, we obtain

uϵn2+SBϵn2(uϵn12+SBϵn12)+(dtuϵn2+SdtBϵn2)τ2+2νA1ϵ12uϵn2τ+2SμA212Bϵn2τ2(fn,uϵn)τ+2S(gn,Bϵn)τ. (18)

By using (7), (9), Lemma 1 and the Young inequality, we have

2|(fn,uϵn)|2fnuϵnνA1ϵ12uϵn2+cτtn1tnf(t)2dt,2S|(gn,Bϵn)|2SgnBϵnSμA212Bϵn2+cτtn1tng(t)2dt.

Combining the above inequalities with (18), we obtain

uϵn2+SBϵn2(uϵn12+SBϵn12)+(dtuϵn2+SdtBϵn2)τ2+νA1ϵ12uϵn2τ+SμA212Bϵn2τctn1tn(f(t)2+g(t)2)dt.

Summing the above inequality from 1 to m, we derive

uϵm2+SBϵm2+τn=1m(dtuϵn2+SdtBϵn2)τ+τn=1m(νA1ϵ12uϵn2τ+SμA212Bϵn2)uϵ02+SBϵ02+c0T(f(t)2+g(t)2)dt, (19)

for all 1mN. Using Assumption 1 and (19), we obtain Theorem 4. □

Next, we establish the error estimates in time for the Euler semi-implicit scheme (17). To do this, subtracting (17) from (6) and setting eun=uϵ(tn)uϵn, eBn=Bϵ(tn)Bϵn, we have

dteun+νA1ϵeun+b˜(eun1,uϵ(tn))+b˜(uϵn1,eun)+SeBn1××Bϵ(tn)+SBϵn1××eBn=R1n, (20)
dteBn+μA2eBn×(eun×Bϵ(tn1))×(uϵn×eBn1)=R2n, (21)

where

R1n=1τtn1tn(ttn1)uϵtt(t)dt+b˜(uϵ(tn1)uϵ(tn),uϵ(tn))+S((Bϵ(tn1)Bϵ(tn))××Bϵ(tn)), (22)
R2n=1τtn1tn(ttn1)Bϵtt(t)dt×(uϵ(tn)×(Bϵ(tn1)Bϵ(tn))). (23)

We are now in a position to state and prove two error estimates for the Euler semi-implicit scheme (17).

Theorem 5.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we obtain

sup1nN(uϵ(tn)uϵn+SBϵ(tn)Bϵn)+τ12n=1N(νuϵ(tn)uϵn1+SμBϵ(tn)Bϵn1)Cτ.

Proof. 

Taking the inner L2 product of (20) with 2eunτ, (21) with 2eBnτ, thanks to (4) and (10), we deduce that

eun2+SeBn2(eun12+SeBn12)+2νA1ϵ12eun2τ+2SμA212eBn2τ+2b(eun1,uϵ(tn),eun)τ+2S(eBn1××Bϵ(tn),eun)τ2S(uϵ(tn)×eBn1,×eBn)τ2(R1n,eun)τ+2(R2n,eBn)τ. (24)

By using (7)–(11) and Lemma 1, we obtain

2|b(eun1,uϵ(tn),eun)|ceun1eun1uϵ(tn)2ν6A1ϵ12eun2+cuϵ(tn)22eun12,2S|(eBn1××Bϵ(tn),eun)|ceBn1eun1Bϵ(tn)2ν6A1ϵ12eun2+cBϵ(tn)22eBn12,2S|(uϵ(tn)×eBn1,×eBn)|cuϵ(tn)2eBn1eBn1Sμ4A212eBn2+cuϵ(tn)22eBn12.

Similarly, we can derive

2|(R1n,eun)|ν6A1ϵ12eun2+cτtn1tnA1ϵ12uϵtt2dt+cτuϵ(tn)12tn1tnuϵt(t)12dt+cτBϵ(tn)12tn1tnBϵt(t)12dt,2|(R2n,eBn)|ν6A212eBn2+cτtn1tnA212Bϵtt2dt+cτuϵ(tn)12tn1tnBϵt(t)12dt.

Combining the above inequalities with (24), we obtain

eun2+SeBn2(eun12+SeBn12)+νA1ϵ12eun2τ+SμA212eBn2τcdn1(eun12+eBn12)τ+cτ2tn1tn(A1ϵ12uϵtt2+A212Bϵtt2)dt+cτ2(uϵ(tn)12+Bϵ(tn)12)tn1tn(uϵt(t)12+Bϵt(t)12)dt, (25)

where dn1=uϵ(tn)22+Bϵ(tn)22. Summing (25) from n=1 to m, due to Theorem 2, we obtain

eum2+SeBm2+τn=1m(νA1ϵ12eun2+SμA212eBn2)cτn=0m1dn(eun2+eBn2)+Cτ2. (26)

Then, by applying Lemma 2 to (26) and Theorem 2, we have

eum2+SeBm2+τn=1m(νA1ϵ12eun2+SμA212eBn2)Cτ2exp(τn=0m1dn)Cτ2, (27)

for any 1mN. Using (27), (9) and Lemma 1, we obtain Theorem 5. □

Theorem 6.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have

sup1nNσ12(tn)(uϵ(tn)uϵn1+SμBϵ(tn)Bϵn1)+τn=1Nσ(tn)pϵ(tn)pϵn212Cτ.

Proof. 

Taking the inner product of (20) with 2dteunτ, (21) with 2dteBnτ, we deduce that

2dteun2τ+2dteBn2τ+ν(A1ϵ12eun2A1ϵ12eun12+A1ϵ12(euneun1)2)+μ(A212eBn2A212eBn12+A212(eBneBn1)2)+2b(eun1,uϵ(tn),dteun)τ+2b(uϵ(tn1),eun,dteun)τ+2b(eun1,eun,dteun)τ+2S(eBn1××Bϵ(tn),dteun)τ+2S(Bϵ(tn1)××eBn,dteun)τ+2S(eBn1××eBn,dteun)τ+2(×(uϵ(tn)×eBn1),dteBn)τ+2(×(eun×Bϵ(tn1)),dteBn)τ+2(×(eun×eBn1),dteBn)τ=2(R1n,dteun)τ+2(R2n,dteBn)τ. (28)

Using (7)–(12) and Lemma 1, we obtain

2|b(eun1,uϵ(tn),dteun)|16dteun2+cuϵ(tn)22A1ϵ12eun12,2|b(uϵ(tn1),eun,dteun)|16dteun2+cuϵ(tn1)22A1ϵ12eun12,2|b(eun1,eun,dteun)|ν6τA1ϵ12(euneun1)2+c1τeun12A1ϵ12eun12,2S|(eBn1××Bϵ(tn),dteun)|16dteun2+cBϵ(tn)22A212eBn12,2S|(Bϵ(tn1)××eBn,dteun)|16dteun2+cBϵ(tn1)22A212eBn2,2S|(eBn1××eBn,dteun)|16τA1ϵ12(euneun1)2+c1τeBn12A1ϵ12eBn12,2|(×(uϵ(tn)×eBn1),dteBn)|16dteBn2+cuϵ(tn)22A212eBn12,2|(×(eun×Bϵ(tn1)),dteBn)|16dteBn2+cBϵ(tn1)22A1ϵ12eun2,2|(×(eun×eBn1),dteBn)|16τA212(eBneBn1)2+c1τeun12A1ϵ12eBn12.

Similarly, we have

2|(R1n,dteun)|16dteun2+cτtn1tnuϵtt2dt+cτuϵ(tn)22tn1tnuϵt(t)12dt+cτBϵ(tn)22tn1tnBϵt(t)12dt,2|(R2n,dteBn)|16dteBn2+cτtn1tnBϵtt2dt+cτuϵ(tn)22tn1tnBϵt(t)12dt.

Combining the above inequalities with (28), and using Theorem 2, we can derive

dteun2τ+dteBn2τ+ν(A1ϵ12eun2A1ϵ12eun12)+μ(A212eBn2A212eBn12)c(A1ϵ12eun12+A212eBn12+A1ϵ12eun2+A212eBn2)τ+cdn1(A1ϵ12eun12+A212eBn12)τ+cτ2tn1tn(uϵtt2+Bϵtt2)dt+cτ2(uϵ(tn)22+Bϵ(tn)22)tn1tn(uϵt(t)12+Bϵt(t)12)dt,

where dn1=τ1(eun12+eBn12). Multiplying this inequality by σ(tn) and taking the sum with respect to n from 1 to m, thanks to Theorems 2 and 5, we obtain

σ(tm)(ν(A1ϵ12eum2+μ(A212eBm2)+τn=1mσ(tn)(dteun2+dteBn2)cτn=0m1dn(A1ϵ12eun2+A212eBn2)+Cτ2.

Then, by applying Lemma 2 to this inequality and using Theorem 5, we have

σ(tm)(ν(A1ϵ12eum2+μ(A212eBm2)+τn=1mσ(tn)(dteun2+dteBn2)Cτ2, (29)

for all 1mN.

Finally, using (7)–(12) and the LBB condition (cf. [4,13])

βqsupvX(·v,q)v,qM, (30)

we derive

βpϵ(tn)pϵncdteun+νeun1+ceun11uϵ(tn)1+cuϵn11eun1+ceBn11×Bϵ(tn)+cBϵn11×eBn+cR1ncdteun+νeun1+ceun11uϵ(tn)1+cuϵn11eun1+ceBn11Bϵ(tn)1+cBϵn11eBn1+cτtn1tnuϵtt2dt+cτuϵ(tn)22tn1tnuϵt(t)12dt+cτBϵ(tn)22tn1tnBϵt(t)12dt.

Multiplying this inequality by σ(tn) and taking the sum with respect to n from 1 to m, due to Theorems 2 and 5 and (29), we obtain

τn=1mσ(tn)pϵ(tn)pϵn2Cτ2, (31)

for all 1mN. Using (29), (31), (9), and Lemma 1, we obtain Theorem 6. □

4. PFEM for the MHD Equations

We further consider a spatial discretization for the penalty MHD system of time discretization in this section (cf. [4]). Jh is a family of quasi-uniformly regular partitions of D into triangles or tetrahedron elements K with the diameter hK. Let the mesh size h=maxKJhhK. We give three finite element spaces Xh, Mh, Wh with XhX, MhM and WhW.

Let ρh:MMh denote the L2-orthogonal projector which is defined by

(ρhq,qh)=(q,qh),qM,qhMh. (32)

Assumption 4.

The finite element space (Xh,Mh) satisfies the discrete LBB condition (cf. [4,22])

supvhXhd(vh,qh)vhβ1qh,qhMh, (33)

where β1 is a positive constant depending on D. For each vH2(D)X, qH1(D)M,CH2(D)W, there exist πhvXh, ρhqMh and JhCWh such that

(·(vπhv),qh)=0,qhMh, (34)
(vπhv)chv2,qρhqchq1,(CJhC)chC2, (35)

together with the inverse inequalities

vhch1vh,vhXh,Chch1Ch,ChWh. (36)

Next, to obtain an approximation of (u,p,B), we consider the following finite element pairs:

Xh=(P1,hb)dX,Mh={qhC0(D)M:qh|KP1(K),KJh},Wh={ChC0(D)W:Ch|KP1(K)d,KJh},

where

P1,hb={vhC0(D):vh|KP1(K)span{b},KJh},

{b} is a bubble function. Let bH01(K) take the value 1 at the barycentre of K and satisfy 0b(x)1, which is called a “bubble function” (cf. [22]). Furthermore, we denote the discrete subspace X0h of X0 as

X0h={vhXh:d(vh,qh)=0,qhMh}.

The finite element approximation for (16) based on Xh×Mh×Wh is given as follows: find (uϵhn,pϵhn,Bϵhn) such that for all 1nN and (vh,qh,Ch)Xh×Mh×Wh,

(dtuϵhn,v)+ν(uϵhn,v)+b(uϵhn1,uϵhn,v)(·v,pϵhn)+(·uϵhn,q)+S(Bϵhn1××Bϵhn,v)+ϵν(pϵhn,q)=(f(tn),v), (37)
(dtBϵhn,C)+μ(×Bϵhn,×C)+μ(·Bϵhn,·C)(uϵhn×Bϵhn1,×C)=(g(tn),C), (38)
uϵh0=r1hu0,Bϵh0=r2hB0, (39)

where r1h:L2(D)X0h and r2h:L2(D)Wh are L2-orthogonal projectors. According to (34)–(36), these operators satisfy the following properties (cf. [3,4,22]):

vr1hv+h(vr1hv)ch2A1v,vH2(D)X, (40)
wr2hw+h(wr2hw)chiwi,wH2(D)W0,i=1,2. (41)

Here, we define the discrete Stokes operator A1h=r1hΔh, which is defined by (see [4])

(Δhuh,vh)=(uh,vh),uh,vhXh,

its discrete norm vhk,2=A1hk2vh of the kR order can be defined, where

vh1,2=vh,vh2,2=A1hvh,vh1,2=A1h12vh=supwhXh(vh,wh)A1h12wh,vhX0h.

Meanwhile, we define the discrete operator A2hBh=r2h(h××Bh+h·Bh)Wh as follows:

(A2hBh,Ch)=(A2h12Bh,A2h12Ch)=(×Bh,×Ch)+(·Bh,·Ch),

and its discrete norm Bhk=A2hk2Bh of the kR order can be defined, where

Bh1,2=A2h12Bh,Bh2,2=A2hBh,Bh1,2=A2h12Bh=supChWh(Bh,Ch)A2h12Ch,BhWh.

To obtain the error analysis of the scheme in the following section, we need the following discrete estimates which are obtained from [4,7]).

Lemma 3.

The estimates of vh and Ch are as follows:

vhL6vh1,2,vhL3cvh12vh1,212,vhL6vh2,2,vhL3+vhLcvh1,212vh2,212,vhX0h,ChL6Ch1,2,ChL3cCh12Ch1,212,ChL6Ch2,2,ChL3+ChLcCh1,212Ch2,212,ChWh.

For the finite element space Xh×Mh×Wh given above, problems (37) and (38) allow us to calculate velocity and pressure separately, i.e., (37) and (38) can be reduced as follows: find (uϵhn,pϵhn,Bϵhn)Xh×Mh×Wh such that

(dtuϵhn,v)+ν(A1h12uϵhn,A1h12v)+b(uϵhn1,uϵhn,v)+S(Bϵhn1××Bϵhn,v)+νϵ(·v,ρh·uϵhn)=(f(tn),v),(dtBϵhn,C)+μ(A2h12Bϵhn,A2h12C)(uϵhn×Bϵhn1,×C)=(g(tn),C),pϵhn=νϵρh·uϵhn. (42)

In the following, we give the algebraic matrix form for the 2D case, and the algebraic matrix form for the 3D case is similar. In order to analyze the detailed form of the coefficient matrix for this scheme, we write the fluid velocity and magnetic field vectors

uϵhn=(u1ϵhn,u2ϵhn),Bϵhn=(B1ϵhn,B2ϵhn),

and the corresponding test function vectors

vhn=(v1hn,v2hn),Chn=(C1hn,C2hn),

then, we expand (42) and obtain that

Step 1. Find (uϵhn,Bϵhn) from

τ1(u1ϵhn,v1h)+ν(xu1ϵhn,xv1h)+ν(yu1ϵhn,yv1h)+(u1ϵhn1xu1ϵhn,v1h)+(u2ϵhn1yu1ϵhn,v1h)+S(B2ϵhn1xB2ϵhn,v1h)S(B2ϵhn1yB1ϵhn,v1h)+νϵ(ρh(xu1ϵhn+yu2ϵhn),xv1h)=(f1(tn),v1h)+τ1(u1ϵhn1,v1h),τ1(u2ϵhn,v2h)+ν(xu2ϵhn,xv2h)+ν(yu2ϵhn,yv2h)+(u1ϵhn1xu2ϵhn,v2h)+(u2ϵhn1yu2ϵhn,v2h)S(B1ϵhn1xB2ϵhn,v2h)+S(B1ϵhn1yB1ϵhn,v2h)+νϵ(ρh(yu2ϵhn+yu2ϵhn),xv1h)=(f2(tn),v2h)+τ1(u2ϵhn1,v2h),τ1(B1ϵhn,C1h)η(xB2ϵhnyB1ϵhn,yC1h)+η(xB1ϵhn+yB2ϵhn,xC1h)+(u1ϵhnB2ϵhn1u2ϵhnB1ϵhn1,yC1h)=(g1(tn),C1h)+τ1(B1ϵhn1,C1h),τ1(B2ϵhn,C2h)+η(xB2ϵhnyB1ϵhn,xC2h)+η(xB1ϵhn+yB2ϵhn,yC2h)(u1ϵhnB2ϵhn1u2ϵhnB1ϵhn1,xC2h)=(g2(tn),C2h)+τ1(B2ϵhn1,C2h).

Step 2. Find pϵhn from

pϵhn=νϵρh(xu1ϵhn+yu2ϵhn).

Here, xv1h=v1h/x and yv2h=v2h/y. Next, we assume the spaces Xh and Wh are combined with the basis functions

Xh=span{φi:i=1,,N},Wh=span{ψi:i=1,,M},

where N and M denote the number of the basis functions in each of spaces. Then,

ulϵhn=i=1Nulϵh,inφi,vlh=φj,l=1,2,j=1,,N,Blϵhn=i=1MBlϵh,inψi,Clh=ψj,l=1,2,j=1,,M.

Next, we show the relationship between the (uϵhn1,Bϵhn1) and (uϵhn,Bϵhn). Apparently, step 1 of the fully discrete PFEM generates an algebraic system as follows:

AB1B2CuB=FG,

where

u=(u1ϵh,i=1,Nn,u2ϵh,i=1,Nn)T,B=(B1ϵh,i=1,Mn,B2ϵh,i=1,Mn)T,F=((f1(tn),φj)+τ1(u1ϵh,in1,φj),(f2(tn),φj)+τ1(u2ϵh,in1,φj))T,G=((g1(tn),ψj)+τ1(B1ϵh,in1,ψj),(g2(tn),ψj)+τ1(B2ϵh,in1,ψj))T.

Specifically, detailed calculation for PFEM gives

A=aij+bijcijdijaij+eij,B1=gijfijkijhij,C=lijmijmijTlij,B2=S1B1T,

where

aij=τ1(φi,φj)+ν((xφi,xφj)+(yφi,yφj))+(u1ϵhn1xφi+u2ϵhn1yφi,φj),bij=νϵ(ρhxφi,xφj),cij=νϵ(ρhyφi,xφj),dij=νϵ(ρhxφi,yφj),eij=νϵ(ρhyφi,yφj),fij=S(B2ϵhn1xψi,φj),gij=S(B2ϵhn1yψi,φj),lij=τ1(ψi,ψj)+η(yψi,yψj)+η(xψi,xψj),hij=S(B1ϵhn1xψi,φj),kij=S(B1ϵhn1yψi,φj),mij=η(yψi,xψj)η(xψi,yψj).

Then, we obtain pϵn by step 2.

Arguing in exactly the same way as in the proof of Theorem 4, using (9) and Lemma 1, we obtain a priori bound of schemes (37)–(39).

Theorem 7.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have

uϵhm2+SBϵhm2+τn=1m(νA1h12uϵhn2+SμA2h12Bϵhn2)+τn=1m(dtuϵhn2+SdtBϵhn2)C,

for all 1mN.

5. Error Analysis for the Fully Discrete Euler Semi-Implicit Scheme

In this section, we establish the error estimates for (uϵhn,pϵhn,Bϵhn) of the fully discrete Euler semi-implicit scheme (37)–(39). To this end, subtracting (37)–(38) from (16), we have

(dt(uϵnuϵhn),v)+ν((uϵnuϵhn),v)+b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵhn,v)+b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,v)(·v,pϵnpϵhn)+(·(uϵnuϵhn),q)+S((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵhn,v)+S(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),v)+ϵν(pϵnpϵhn,q)=(f(tn),v), (43)
(dt(BϵnBϵhn),C)+μ(×(BϵnBϵhn),×C)+μ(·(BϵnBϵhn),·C)((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵhn1,×C)(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×C)=(g(tn),C). (44)

In order to derive estimates of the error, we need the following regularity results.

Lemma 4.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have the following estimates:

A1ϵ12uϵm2+A212Bϵm2+τn=1m(A1ϵuϵn2+A2Bϵn2+pϵn12)C,A1ϵuϵm2+A2Bϵm2+pϵm12+dtuϵm2+dtBϵm2+τn=1m(A1ϵ12dtuϵn2+A212dtBϵn2)C,σ(tm)(A1ϵ12dtuϵm2+A212dtBϵm2)+τn=1mσ(tn)(A1ϵdtuϵn2+A2dtBϵn2+dtpϵn12)C,

for all 1nN.

We refer to [4,32] for the proof of these results.

Theorem 8.

Under Assumptions 1–3, we have

uϵmuϵhm+SBϵmBϵhm+τ12n=1m(ν(uϵnuϵhn)+Sμ(BϵnBϵhn))Ch.

Proof. 

Setting ηun=r1huϵnuϵhn, ηpn=ρpϵnpϵhn and ηBn=r2hBϵnBϵhn and taking (vh,qh)=2(ηun,ηpn)τ in (43), Ch=2SηBnτ in (44), thanks to (4) and (10), we deduce that

ηun2ηun12+S(ηBn2ηBn12)+dtηun2τ2+SdtηBn2τ2+νA1h12ηun2τ+νA1h12(uϵnuϵhn)2τ+SμA2h12ηBn2+SμA2h12(BϵnBϵhn)2τ+ϵν(ηpn2+pϵpϵn2)τ+2b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,ηun)τ+2b(uϵhn1,uϵnr1huϵn,ηun)τ+2S((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn,ηun)τ2S(uϵn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ηBn)τ+2S(Bϵhn1××(Bϵnr2hBϵn),ηun)τ2S((uϵnr1huϵn)×Bϵn1,×ηBn)τ+2S((uϵnr1huϵn)×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ηBn)τ=νA112(uϵnr1huϵn)2τ+SμA212(Bϵnr2hBϵn)2τ2(dt(uϵnr1huϵn),ηun)τ2(dt(Bϵnr2hBϵn),ηBn)τ+2d(ηun,pϵnρpϵn)τ+ϵνpϵnρpϵn2τ. (45)

Combining (7)–(12) and Lemma 3, we obtain

2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,ηun)|ν8A1h12ηun2+cuϵn22uϵn1uϵhn12,2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnr1huϵn,ηun)|ν8A1h12ηun2+cuϵhn11,22(uϵnr1huϵn)2,2S|((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn,ηun)|ν8A1h12ηun2+cBϵn22Bϵn1Bϵhn12,2S|(Bϵhn1××(Bϵnr2hBϵn),ηun)|ν8A1h12ηun2+cBϵhn11,22(Bϵnr2hBϵn)2,2S|(uϵn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ηBn)|sμ8A2h12ηBn2+cuϵn22Bϵn1Bϵhn12,2S|((uϵnr1huϵn)×Bϵn1,×ηBn)|sμ8A2h12ηBn2+cBϵn12(uϵnr1huϵn)2,2S|((uϵnr1huϵn)×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ηBn)|sμ8A2h12ηBn2+c(Bϵn112+Bϵhn11,22)(uϵnr1huϵn)2,2|(dt(uϵnr1huϵn),ηun)ν8A1h12ηun2+cdt(uϵnr1huϵn)2,2|(dt(Bϵnr2hBϵn),ηBn)|sμ8A2h12ηBn2+cdt(Bϵnr2hBϵn)2,2|d(ηun,pϵnρpϵn)|ν8A1h12ηun2+cpϵnρpϵn2.

Combining the above inequalities with (45), and using (40) and (41), we can derive

ηun2ηun12+S(ηBn2ηBn12)+dtηun2τ2+SdtηBn2τ2+νA1h12(uϵnuϵhn)2τ+SμA2h12(BϵnBϵhn)2τch2(uϵhn11,22+Bϵhn11,22+Bϵn12)(uϵn22+Bϵn22)τ+dn1(uϵn1uϵhn12+Bϵn1Bϵhn12)τ+ch2(uϵn22+Bϵn22+dtuϵn12+dtBϵn12+pϵn12)τ,

where dn1=uϵn2+Bϵn2. Summing this inequality from n=1 to m, and using (40) and (41), Theorem 7, and Lemmas 4 and 2, we have

uϵmuϵhm2SBϵmBϵhm2+τ2n=1m(dtηun2+SdtηBn2)+τn=1m(νA1h12(uϵnuϵhn)2+SμA2h12(BϵnBϵhn)2)τn=0m1dn(uϵnuϵhn2+BϵnBϵhn2)+Ch2Ch2,

for all 1nN. The proof is thus complete. □

Theorem 9.

Under Assumptions 1–4, we have

σ12(tm)(νuϵmuϵhm1+μBϵmBϵhm1)+τ12n=1mσ12(tn)(dt(uϵnuϵhn)+dt(BϵnBϵhn))Ch, (46)
τ12n=1mσ12(tn)pϵnpϵhnCh. (47)

Proof. 

To obtain the error estimates of the PFEM, we give the Galerkin projector R1h:(X,M)Xh, Qh:(X,M)Mh, which satisfies (cf. [22])

((R1h(u,p)u),vh)(·vh,Qh(u,p)p)+(·(R1h(u,p)u),qh)+ϵν(Qh(u,p)p,qh)=0,(vh,qh)(Xh,Mh),

for all (u,p)(X,M) with ·u+ϵνp=0. In addition, R2h:WWh is the H1-orthogonal projector defined by (cf. [4])

(×(R2hBB),×Ch)+(·(R2hBB),·Ch)=0,ChWh,

for all BW. Due to the properties of R1h(u,p), Qh(u,p) and R2h, we have

uR1h(u,p)+h(uR1h(u,p))+hpQh(u,p)Chi(ui+pi1),i=1,2, (48)

and

R2hBB+h(R2hBB)Ch2B2. (49)

Letting ξun=R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵhn, ξpn=Qh(uϵn,pϵn)pϵhn, and ξBn=R2hBϵnBϵhn, we derive from (43) and (44) that

(dt(uϵnuϵhn),vh)+ν(A1h12ξun,A1h12vh)+b(ξun1,uϵn,vh)+b(uϵhn1,ξun,vh)(·vh,ξpn)+(·dtξun,qh)+ϵν(dtξpn,qh)+S(ξBn××Bϵn,vh)+S(Bϵhn××ξBn,vh)=b(R1h(uϵn1,pϵn1)uϵn1,uϵn,vh)+b(uϵhn1,R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn,vh)+S(R2hBϵn1Bϵn1××Bϵn,vh)+S(Bϵhn1××(R2hBϵnBϵn),vh), (50)
(dt(BϵnBϵhn),Ch)+μ(A2h12ξBn,A2h12Ch)(ξun×Bϵn1,×Ch)(uϵhn×ξBn1,×Ch)=((R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn)×Bϵhn1,×Ch)(uϵhn×(R2hBϵn1Bϵn1),×Ch). (51)

Taking vh=2dtξunτ and qh=2ξpnτ in (50) and Ch=2dtξBnτ in (51), we obtain

2dtξun2τ+2dtξBn2τ+νA1h12ξun2+μA2h12ξBn2νA1h12ξun12μA2h12ξBn12+ϵν(ξpn2ξpn12)+2b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,dtξun)τ+2b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,dtξun)τ+2S((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn1,dtξun)τ+2S(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),dtξun)τ2((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×dtξBn)τ2(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×dtξBn)τ2(dt(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn),dtξun)τ+2(dt(R2hBϵnBϵn),dtξBn)τ. (52)

By using (7)–(12), (48) and (49), we obtain

2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,dtξun)|+2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,dtξun)|2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,dtξun)|+2|b(uϵn1,uϵnuϵhn,dtξun)|+2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,dtξun)|18dtξun2+cuϵn22(uϵn1uϵhn1)2+cuϵn122(uϵnuϵhn)2+ch2(uϵn1uϵhn1)2(uϵnuϵhn)2,2S|((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn1,dtξun)|+2S|(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),dtξun)|18dtξu2+cBϵn22(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)2+cBϵn122(BϵnBϵhn)2+ch2(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)2(BϵnBϵhn)2,2|((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×dtξBn)|+2|(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×dtξBn)|18dtξBn2+cBϵn122(uϵnuϵhn)2+cuϵn22(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)2+ch2(uϵnuϵhn)2(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)2,2|(dt(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn),dtξun)|+2|(dt(R2hBϵnBϵn),dtξBn)|18dtξun2+18dtξBn2+ch4(dtuϵn22+dtBϵn22+dtpϵn12).

Combining the above inequalities with (52), and using Theorems 4 and 8, we can derive

dtξun2τ+dtξBn2τ+ν(A1h12ξun2A1h12ξun12)+μ(A2h12ξBn2A2h12ξBn12)+ϵν(ξpn2ξpn12)c((uϵn1uϵhn1)2+(uϵnuϵhn)2+(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)2+(BϵnBϵhn)2)τ+ch4(dtuϵn22+dtBϵn22+dtpϵn12)τ+ch2dn1(ξun12+ξBn12)τ,

where dn1=ch2((uϵnuϵhn)2+(BϵnBϵhn)2). Multiplying this inequality by σ(tn) and taking the sum with respect to n from 1 to m, thanks to Theorems 4 and 8 and Lemma 2, we obtain

σ(tm)(νA1h12ξun2+μ(A2h12ξBn2)+τn=1mσ(tn)(dtξun2+dtξBn2)τn=0m1dn(ξun2+ξBn2)+Ch2Ch2. (53)

Moreover, by using (48) and (49) and Theorem 4, we obtain

(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn)2+(R2hBϵnBϵn)2ch2(uϵn22+pϵn12+Bϵn22)Ch2. (54)

Hence, by combining (53) with (54), we obtain (46).

Next, using (7)–(12), (33) and (43), we derive

βξpncdt(uϵnuϵhn)+ν(uϵnuϵhn)+c(uϵn1uϵhn1)uϵn+c(uϵn1+(uϵn1uϵhn1))(uϵnuϵhn)+cpϵnQh(uϵn,pϵn)+c(Bϵn1Bϵhn1)Bϵn+c(Bϵn1+(Bϵn1Bϵhn1))(BϵnBϵhn).

Multiplying this inequality by σ(tn) and taking the sum with respect to n from 1 to m, due to Theorem 8 and (46), we have

τn=1mσ(tn)ξpn2Ch2. (55)

Using (55) and (48) and (43), we obtain (47). Thus, this proof is thus complete. □

Next, we make the L2-error estimates. Taking vh=2A1h1ηunτ and qh=0 in (43) and Ch=2A2h1ηBnτ in (44), we obtain

ηun1,22+ηBn1,22(ηun11,22+ηBn11,22)+dtηun1,22τ2+dtηBn1,22τ2+μηBn2τ+νηun2τ+νuϵnuϵhn2τ+μBϵnBϵhn2τ+2b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,A1h1ηun)τ+2b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,A1h1ηun)τ+2S((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn1,A1h1ηun)τ+2S(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),A1h1ηun)τ2((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×A2h1ηBn)τ2(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×A2h1ηBn)τ=2(dt(uϵnr1huϵn),A1h1ηun)τ2(dt(Bϵnr2hBϵn),A2h1ηBn)τ+νr1huϵnuϵn2τ+μr2hBϵnBϵn2τ. (56)

By using (11), (12), and Lemma 3, we have

2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,A1h1ηun)|2|b(uϵn1r1huϵhn1,uϵn,A1h1ηun)|+2|b(ηun1,uϵnuϵhn,A1h1ηun)|+2|b(ηun1,uϵhn,A1h1ηun)|ν8ηun2+cuϵn12uϵn1r1huϵn12+cuϵhn2,22ηun11,22+cηun12uϵnuϵhn12,2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,A1h1ηun)|2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,A1h1(ηunηun1))|+2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnr1huϵn,A1h1ηun1)|+2|b(uϵhn1,ηun,A1h1ηun1)|18τηunηun11,22+ν8(ηun2+uϵnr1huϵn2)+cτuϵhn11,22uϵnuϵhn12+cuϵhn12,22ηun11,22,2S|((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn1,A1h1ηun)|ν8ηun2+cBϵn1r2hBϵn12Bϵn12+cηBn12BϵnBϵhn12+cBϵhn2,22ηBn11,22,2S|(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),A1h1ηun)|18τηunηun11,22+μ8(ηBn2+Bϵnr2hBϵn2)+cτBϵhn11,22BϵnBϵhn12+cBϵhn12,22ηun11,22,2|((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×A2h1ηBn)|18τηBnηBn11,22+cτBϵn112BϵnBϵhn12+μ8(ηun2+uϵnr1huϵn2)+cBϵn122ηBn11,22,2|(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×A2h1ηBn)|μ8ηBn2+cBϵn1r2hBϵn12Bϵhn1,22+cuϵhn2,22ηBn11,22,2|(dt(uϵnr1huϵn),A1h1ηun)|+2|(dt(Bϵnr2hBϵn),A2h1ηBn)|18(νηun2+μηBn2)+cdt(uϵnr1huϵn)2+cdt(Bϵnr2hBϵn)2.

Combining these inequalities with (56), using (40) and (41), we obtain

ηun1,22+ηBn1,22(ηun11,22+ηBn11,22)+μηBn2τ+νηun2τdn1(ηun11,22+ηBn11,22)τ+ch4(uϵn22+Bϵn22+pϵn12)τ+ch4(uϵhn1,22+uϵn12+Bϵn12)(uϵn22+Bϵn22+pϵn12)τ+cηun12uϵnuϵhn2τ+cηBn12BϵnBϵhn12τ+c(uϵhn2+Bϵhn12+Bϵn12)(uϵnuϵhn12+BϵnBϵhn12)τ2, (57)

where dn1=uϵhn2,22+Bϵhn2,22+uϵhn12,22+Bϵhn12,22+Bϵn122. In addition, we have

uϵhn2,2ch1uϵnuϵhn1+uϵn2,Bϵhn2,2ch1BϵnBϵhn1+Bϵn2.

Summing (57) from n=1 to m, and using Lemma 4 and Theorems 8 and 9, we have

ηun1,22+ηBn1,22+τn=1m(μηBn2+νηun2)τn=0m1dn(ηun1,22+ηBn1,22)+Ch4+Ch2τ. (58)

Then, applying Lemma 2 to (58) and using (40) and (41), we obtain

ηun1,22+ηBn1,22+τn=1m(μuϵnuϵhn2+νBϵnBϵhn2)Ch4+Cτ2. (59)

Theorem 10.

Under the assumption of Lemma 4, we have

σ12(tm)(uϵmuϵhm+BϵmBϵhm)C(h2+τ). (60)

Proof. 

Taking vh=2ξunτ and qh=2ξpnτ in (43) and Ch=2ξBnτ in (44), and adding these equations together, we have

ξun2+ξBn2(ξun12+ξBn12)+2(νξun12+μξBn12+νϵξpn2)τ+2b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,ξun)τ+2b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,ξun)τ+2S((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn,ξun)τ+2S(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),ξun)τ2((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×ξBn)τ2(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ξBn)τ2(dt(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn),ξun)τ+2(dt(R2hBϵnBϵn),ξBn)τ. (61)

By using (11), (12), and Lemma 3, we obtain

2|b(uϵn1uϵhn1,uϵn,ξun)|+2|b(uϵhn1,uϵnuϵhn,ξun)|ν8ξun12+cuϵn22uϵn1uϵhn12+cuϵn122uϵnuϵhn2+cuϵn1uϵhn112uϵnuϵhn12,2S|((Bϵn1Bϵhn1)××Bϵn,ξun)|+2S|(Bϵhn1××(BϵnBϵhn),ξun)|ν8ξun12+cBϵn22Bϵn1Bϵhn12+cBϵn122BϵnBϵhn2+cBϵn1Bϵhn112BϵnBϵhn12,2|((uϵnuϵhn)×Bϵn1,×ξBn)|+2|(uϵhn×(Bϵn1Bϵhn1),×ξBn)|μ8ξBn12+cBϵn122uϵnuϵhn2+cuϵn22Bϵn1Bϵhn12+cBϵn1Bϵhn112uϵnuϵhn12,2|(dt(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn),ξun)|+2|(dt(R2hBϵnBϵn),ξBn)|ν8ξun12+μ8ξBn12+cdt(R1h(uϵn,pϵn)uϵn)2+cdt(R2hBϵnBϵn2.

Combining these inequalities with (61) and using (40) and (41), we have

ξun2+ξBn2(ξun12+ξBn12)+(νξun12+μξBn12)τc(uϵn22+Bϵn22)(uϵn1uϵhn1+Bϵn1Bϵhn1)τ+ch4(dtuϵn22+dtBϵn22+dtpϵn12)+c(uϵn122+Bϵn122)(uϵnuϵhn+BϵnBϵhn)τ+c(uϵn1uϵhn112+Bϵn1Bϵhn112)(uϵnuϵhn12+BϵnBϵhn12)τ.

Multiplying this inequality by σ(tn) and taking the sum with respect to n from 1 to m, thanks to Theorems 4 and 8 and Lemma 2, we obtain

σ(tm)(ξum2+ξBm2)+τn=1mσ(tn)(νξun12+μξBn12)τCh4+Cτ2. (62)

Then, by applying (40), (41), Theorem 4, and (62), we obtain Theorem 10. □

6. Error Estimates

Combining Theorem 3 and the results in Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5, we obtain the following results on convergence of the fully discrete Euler semi-implicit scheme.

Theorem 11.

Under Assumptions 1–4, we have the following error estimates

σ12(tm)(νu(tm)uϵhm1+μB(tm)Bϵhm1)+τn=1mσ(tn)p(tn)pϵhn212C(h+τ+ϵ),σ12(tm)(u(tm)uϵhm+B(tm)Bϵhm)C(h2+τ+ϵ).

7. Numerical Example

In this part, we present two numerical tests to validate the accuracy and performance of our scheme. We use the P1b/P1 element that satisfies the LBB condition for velocity and pressure (u,p), and the P1 element for magnetic field B. The penalty parameter is selected as ϵ=τ in all the numerical tests.

7.1. Convergence Tests

We verify the convergence rates of the PFEM based on the Euler implicit scheme in this example. We use the computational domain [0,1]d,d=2,3 and set parameters ν=μ=S=1. The source terms are given by the following exact solutions:

u=(y(y1)(2y1)x2(x1)2cos(t),x(x1)(2x1)y2(y1)2cos(t)),p=(2y1)(2x1)cos(t),B=(cos(πy)sin(πx)cos(t),cos(πx)sin(πy)cos(t)),

and

u=((y4+z2)exp(t),(z4+x2)exp(t),(x4+y2)exp(t)),p=(2x1)(2y1)(2z1)exp(t),B=((sin(y)+z)exp(t),(sin(z)+x)exp(t),(sin(x)+y)exp(t)).

We choose τ=h2 and h=1/n (n=8,16,32,64,128 in R2 or n=4,8,12,16,20R3). The numerical errors and the space convergence rates of the PFEM based on the semi-implicit scheme at tn=1 s are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. We observe the first order accuracy for H1 errors of u,B, and the second order accuracy asymptotically for L2 errors of u,B, which are consistent with our theoretical results. These convergence rates are consistent with the expected orders. Notice that L2 errors of p has a faster convergence rate than the theoretical results.

Table 1.

The convergence rates of our scheme at tn=1 s (2D).

h uuϵhn Ratio uuϵhn1 Ratio ppϵhn Ratio BBϵhn Ratio BBϵhn1 Ratio
1/8 2.46 × 104 5.34 × 103 5.01 × 103 1.39 × 102 3.30 × 101
1/16 6.18 × 105 2.00 2.59 × 103 1.04 1.43 × 103 1.81 3.55 × 103 1.97 1.66 × 101 0.99
1/32 1.53 × 105 2.01 1.28 × 103 1.02 4.29 × 104 1.74 8.92 × 104 1.99 8.33 × 102 1.00
1/64 3.80 × 106 2.01 6.34 × 104 1.01 1.37 × 104 1.65 2.23 × 104 2.00 4.17 × 102 1.00
1/128 9.45 × 106 2.01 3.16 × 104 1.00 4.56 × 105 1.58 5.59 × 105 2.00 2.08 × 102 1.00

Table 2.

The convergence rates of our scheme at tn=1 s (3D).

h uuϵhn Ratio uuϵhn1 Ratio ppϵhn Ratio BBϵhn Ratio BBϵhn1 Ratio
1/4 2.41 × 102 2.49 × 101 9.05 × 102 1.53 × 103 2.44 × 102
1/8 6.11 × 103 1.98 1.26 × 101 0.99 2.95 × 102 1.61 3.60 × 104 2.08 1.21 × 102 1.01
1/12 2.72 × 103 2.00 8.38 × 102 1.00 1.46 × 102 1.73 1.58 × 104 2.03 8.02 × 103 1.01
1/16 1.53 × 103 2.00 6.29 × 102 1.00 8.84 × 103 1.75 8.83 × 105 2.02 6.01 × 103 1.00
1/20 9.80 × 104 2.00 5.03 × 102 1.00 6.00 × 103 1.74 5.64 × 105 2.01 4.81 × 103 1.00

7.2. Two-Sided Lid-Driven Square Cavity Flow

In this example, we test the 2D/3D two-sided driven cavity flow problem (cf. [33]). The problem we study is the incompressible viscous flow in a square cavity whose top and bottom walls move in the same (parallel) or opposite (antiparallel) direction. We take the initial values u0=B0=0 and the source terms f=g=0. In the 2D case, we set a computational domain as D=[0,1]2. The two boundary conditions are shown below:

u=0,onx=0,1,u=(1,0),ony=0,1,n×B=(1,0)×BonΓ,u=0,onx=0,1,u=(1,0),ony=1,u=(1,0),ony=0,n×B=(1,0)×BonΓ.

We set h=160, τ=13600. First, we consider the upper and lower walls moving in the same direction at the same speed along the x-axis. Figure 1 shows the velocity streamlines for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1,100,1000, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1, and the coupling coefficient S=10. It can be observed that the velocity streamlines are symmetric lines parallel to these walls and pass through the center of the cavity. With the increase of the fluid Reynolds number Re, the centers of the two symmetric vortices move to the right, and the two symmetric vortices become four symmetric vortices. Figure 2 shows the velocity streamlines for the fluid Reynolds number Re=100, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1 and the coupling coefficient S=1,100,1000. With the increase of coupling coefficient S, the two symmetric large vortices can split into more and more small vortices.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the same direction for Re=1,100,1000,Rm=1,S=10.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the same direction for Re=100,Rm=1,S=1,100,1000.

Then, we consider the upper and lower walls moving in the opposite direction at the same speed along the x-axis. Figure 3 gives the velocity streamlines for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1,100,1000, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1 and the coupling coefficient S=1. We find that, with the increase of the fluid Reynolds number Re, the centers of the two symmetric vortices shift to the upper right corner and the lower left corner, respectively. Figure 4 presents the velocity streamlines for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1 and the coupling coefficient S=100,1000,10000. It can be observed from the figure that, with the increase of coupling coefficient S, the two symmetric large vortices become four small vortices.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the opposite direction for Re=1,100,1000,Rm=1,S=1.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the opposite direction for Re=1,Rm=1,S=100,1000,10,000.

In the 3D case, we set a calculational domain is D=[0,1]3. The two boundary conditions are shown below:

u=0,onx=0,1,u=(1,0,0),ony=0,1,n×B=(1,0,0)×BonΓ,u=0,onx=0,1,u=(1,0,0),ony=1,u=(1,0,0),ony=0,n×B=(1,0,0)×BonΓ.

We set h=112, τ=1600. First, we consider the top and bottom walls moving in the same direction at the same speed. Figure 5 shows the velocity streamlines at plane y=0.5 for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1,100,500, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1 and the coupling coefficient S=1. We find that, with the increase of the fluid Reynolds number Re, the centers of the two symmetric vortices move to the right. Figure 6 shows the velocity streamlines at plane y=0.5 for the fluid Reynolds number Re=10, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1 and the the coupling coefficient S=1,100,500. We find that the two symmetric large vortices can split into more and more small vortices.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the same direction for Re=1,100,500,Rm=1,S=1.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the same direction for Re=10,Rm=1,S=1,100,500.

Then, we consider the top and bottom walls moving in the opposite direction at the same speed. Figure 7 gives the velocity streamlines at plane y=0.5 for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1,100,500, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1, and the coupling coefficient S=1. We can see the centers of the two symmetric vortices shift to the upper right corner and the lower left corner, respectively. Figure 8 presents the velocity streamlines at plane y=0.5 for the fluid Reynolds number Re=1, the magnetic Reynolds number Rm=1, and the coupling coefficient S=1,100,500. With the increase of coupling coefficient S, the centers of the two symmetric vortices are slightly offset.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the opposite direction for Re=1,100,500,Rm=1,S=1.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

The velocity streamlines of the upper and lower walls moving in the opposite direction for Re=1,Rm=1,S=1,100,500.

8. Conclusions

We present the fully discrete PFEM for the 2D/3D unsteady MHD equations in this paper. We introduce a penalty term to decouple the MHD equations into two small equations: one is the equations of velocity and magnetic field (u,B), and the other is the equation of pressure p. Furthermore, we derive the error estimates for our scheme. Finally, two 2D/3D numerical experiments are given to verify the theoretical results.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and referees for their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the results of this paper.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S.; Data curation, K.S.; Investigation, H.S.; Methodology, K.S.; Software, K.S.; Validation, H.S.; Writing—original draft, K.S.; Writing—review & editing, X.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This work is partly supported by the NSF of China (Nos. 12061076, 12126361, 11701493), the Scientific Research Plan of Universities in the Autonomous Region (No. XJEDU2020I 001), and the Key Laboratory Open Project of Xinjiang Province (No. 2020D04002).

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Zhang G., He Y. Decoupled schemes for unsteady MHD equations. I. Time discretization. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. 2017;33:956–973. doi: 10.1002/num.22132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang G., He X., Yang X. Fully decoupled, linear and unconditionally energy stable time discretization scheme for solving the magneto-hydrodynamic equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2020;369:112636. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2019.112636. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang G., He Y. Decoupled schemes for unsteady MHD equations II: Finite element spatial discretization and numerical implementation. Comput. Math. Appl. 2015;69:1390–1406. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2015.03.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.He Y. Unconditional convergence of the Euler semi-implicit scheme for the three-dimensional incompressible MHD equations. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 2015;35:767–801. doi: 10.1093/imanum/dru015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sermange M., Temam R. Some mathematical questions related to the MHD equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1983;36:635–664. doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160360506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dong X., He Y., Zhang Y. Convergence analysis of three finite element iterative methods for the 2D/3D stationary incompressible magnetohydrodynamics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2014;276:287–311. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2014.03.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yang J., He Y. Stability and error analysis for the first-order Euler implicit/explicit scheme for the 3D MHD equations. Int. J. Comput. Methods. 2018;15:1750077. doi: 10.1142/S0219876217500773. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wiedmer M. Finite element approximation for equations of magnetohydrodynamics. Math. Comput. 2000;69:83–101. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-99-01146-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gerbeau J. A stabilized finite element method for the incompressible magnetohydrodynamic equations. Numer. Math. 2000;87:83–111. doi: 10.1007/s002110000193. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schötzau D. Mixed finite element methods for stationary incompressible magneto-hydrodynamics. Numer. Math. 2004;96:771–800. doi: 10.1007/s00211-003-0487-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schmidt P. A Galerkin method for time-dependent MHD flow with nonideal boundaries. Commun. Appl. Anal. 1999;3:383–398. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schonbek M., Schonbek T., Süli E. Large-time behaviour of solutions to the magneto-hydrodynamics equations. Math. Ann. 1996;304:717–756. doi: 10.1007/BF01446316. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gerbeau J., Le Bris C., Lelièvre T. Mathematical Methods for the Magnetohydrodynamics of Liquid Metals. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Prohl A. Convergent finite element discretizations of the nonstationary incompressible magnetohydrodynamics system. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 2008;42:1065–1087. doi: 10.1051/m2an:2008034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Brezzi F., Pitkäranta J. On the Stabilization of Finite Element Approximations of the Stokes Equations. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; Wiesbaden, Geymany: 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chorin A. Numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations. Math. Comput. 1968;22:745–762. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1968-0242392-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chorin A. On the convergence of discrete approximations to the Navier-Stokes equations. Math. Comput. 1969;23:341–353. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1969-0242393-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Deng J., Si Z. A decoupling penalty finite element method for the stationary incompressible MagnetoHydroDynamics equation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019;128:601–612. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.08.096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Témam R. Sur l’approximation de la solution des équations de Navier-Stokes par la méthode des pas fractionnaires (I) Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1969;32:135–153. doi: 10.1007/BF00247678. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Témam R. Sur l’approximation de la solution des équations de Navier-Stokes par la méthode des pas fractionnaires (II) Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1969;33:377–385. doi: 10.1007/BF00247696. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Courant R. Variational methods for the solution of problems of equilibrium and vibrations. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1943;49:1–23. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1943-07818-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.He Y. Optimal error estimate of the penalty finite element method for the time-dependent Navier–Stokes equations. Math. Comput. 2005;74:1201–1216. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-05-01751-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.He Y., Li J. A penalty finite element method based on the Euler implicit/explicit scheme for the time-dependent Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2010;235:708–725. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2010.06.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lu X., Lin P. Error estimate of the P1 nonconforming finite element method for the penalized unsteady Navier–Stokes equations. Numer. Math. 2010;115:261–287. doi: 10.1007/s00211-009-0277-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Su H., Feng X., Huang P. Iterative methods in penalty finite element discretization for the steady MHD equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2016;304:521–545. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2016.02.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shen J. On error estimates of the penalty method for unsteady Navier–Stokes equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 1995;32:386–403. doi: 10.1137/0732016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.He Y., Zou J. A priori estimates and optimal finite element approximation of the MHD flow in smooth domains. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 2018;52:181–206. doi: 10.1051/m2an/2018006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yang J., He Y., Zhang G. On an efficient second order backward difference Newton scheme for MHD system. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2018;458:676–714. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2017.09.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shi K., Feng X., Su H. Optimal Error Estimate of the Penalty Method for the 2D/3D Time-Dependent MHD Equations. College of Mathematics and System Sciences, Xinjiang University; Urumqi, China: 2022. In Preparation. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.He Y. A fully discrete stabilized finite-element method for the time-dependent Navier–Stokes problem. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 2003;23:665–691. doi: 10.1093/imanum/23.4.665. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shen J. Long time stability and convergence for fully discrete nonlinear Galerkin methods. Appl. Anal. 1990;38:201–229. doi: 10.1080/00036819008839963. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shi K., Su H., Feng X. Optimal Error Estimate of the PFEM for the 2D/3D Unsteady MHD Equations. College of Mathematics and System Sciences, Xinjiang University; Urumqi, China: 2022. In Preparation. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Perumal D., Dass A. Simulation of Incompressible Flows in Two-Sided Lid-Driven Square Cavities: Part I-FDM. CFD Lett. 2010;2:13–24. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Entropy are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES