On the Quality of Velocity Interpolation Schemes for Marker-In-Cell Methods on 3-D Staggered Grids

Abstract:

The marker-in-cell method is generally considered to be a flexible and robust method to model advection of heterogenous non-diffusive properties (i.e. rock type or composition) in geodynamic problems or incompressible Stokes problems. In this method, Lagrangian points carrying compositional information are advected with the ambient velocity field on an immobile, Eulerian grid.

However, velocity interpolation from grid points to marker locations is often performed without preserving the zero divergence of the velocity field at the interpolated locations (i.e. non-conservative). Such interpolation schemes can induce non-physical clustering of markers when strong velocity gradients are present (Jenny et al., 2001) and this may, eventually, result in empty grid cells, a serious numerical violation of the marker-in-cell method. Solutions to this problem include: using larger mesh resolutions and/or marker densities, or repeatedly controlling the marker distribution (i.e. inject/delete), but which does not have an established physical background.

To remedy this at low computational costs, Jenny et al. (2001) and Meyer and Jenny (2004) proposed a simple, conservative velocity interpolation (CVI) scheme for 2-D staggered grid, while Wang et al. (2015) extended the formulation to 3-D finite element methods.

Here, we follow up with these studies and report on the quality of velocity interpolation methods for 2-D and 3-D staggered grids. We adapt the formulations from both Jenny et al. (2001) and Wang et al. (2015) for use on 3-D staggered grids, where the velocity components have different node locations as compared to finite element, where they share the same node location. We test the different interpolation schemes (CVI and non-CVI) in combination with different advection schemes (Euler, RK2 and RK4) and with/out marker control on Stokes problems with strong velocity gradients, which are discretized using a finite difference method. We show that a conservative formulation reduces the dispersion or clustering of markers and that the density of markers remains steady over time without the need of additional marker control.

Jenny et al. (2001, J Comp Phys, 166, 218–252

Meyer and Jenny (2004), Proc Appl Math Mech, 4, 466–467

Wang et al. (2015), G3, Vol.16

Funding was provided by the ERC Starting Grant #258830.