Alternative subcell discretisations for viscoelastic flow: Velocity-gradient approximation

Under subcell discretisation for viscoelastic flow, we have given further consideration to the compatibility of function spaces for stress/velocity-gradient approximation [see F. Belblidia, H. Matallah, B. Puangkird, M.F. Webster, Alternative subcell discretisations for viscoelastic flow: stress interpolation, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 146 (2007) 59–78]. This has been conducted through the three scheme discretisations (quad-fe(par), fe(sc) and fe/fv(sc)). In this companion study, we have extended the application of an original implementation for velocity-gradient approximation, being of localised superconvergent recovered form, continuous and quadratic on the parent fe-triangular element. This has led to the consideration of both localised (pointwise) and global (Galerkin weighted-residual) approximations for velocity-gradient, highlighting some of their advantages and disadvantages. The global form is equivalent to the discontinuous elastico–viscous stress splitting (DEVSS-type) technique of Fortin and co-workers. Each representation, local or global, is based on linear/quadratic order upon parent or subcell element stencils. We consider Oldroyd modelling and the contraction flow benchmark, covering abrupt and rounded-corner planar geometries. The localised superconvergent quadratic velocity-gradient treatment affords strong stability and accuracy properties for the three scheme discretisations considered. Through associated analysis and iterative solution processes, we have successfully linked global approximations to their localised counterparts, depicting the inadequacy of inaccurate but stable versions through their corresponding solution features. These issues pervade all formulations, coupled or pressure-correction, and in focusing on velocity-gradient approximation, also apply universally to all discrete representations of stress. The inaccuracy of the global treatment can be somewhat repaired through an increase in (mass) iteration number. The efficiency of localised schemes (and associated properties) is particularly attractive over their global alternatives, being less restrictive to choice of spatial-order (higher-order). Conversely, global implementations are more restrictive in satisfaction of the space inclusion principle. Localised schemes come into their own when chosen to represent strongly localised solution features, such as arise in non-smooth flows. Analysis has also proved helpful in clarifying that space inclusion (extended LBB-condition) is a non-necessary convergence condition in the viscoelastic context.Overall, the localised-quadratic velocity-gradient treatment for both linear (subcell) and quadratic (parent) stress interpolation has achieved both stability and accuracy. Under DEVSS-type approximations (global), once function spaces for stress and velocity-gradients have been selected, this choice dictates the state of system consistency. Additionally, stability gains are recognised through the further application of strain-rate-stabilisation procedures.