Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the convergence and optimality of a standard adaptive nonconforming linear element method for the Stokes problem. After establishing a special quasi-orthogonality property for both the velocity and the pressure in this saddle point problem, we introduce a new prolongation operator to carry through the discrete reliability analysis for the error estimator. We then use a specially defined interpolation operator to prove that, up to oscillation, the error can be bounded by the approximation error within a properly defined nonlinear approximate class. Finally, by introducing a new parameter-dependent error estimator, we prove the convergence and optimality estimates.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The adaptive finite element method plays an important role in the numerical solution for partial differential equations [1, 2, 42]. The convergence and optimality of the adaptive method have been much studied in recent years. For the Poisson equation and its variants, the theory is well-developed [9, 15, 19, 20, 26, 35–38, 40, 41]. However, for many other important problems this is not the case. Among these under studied problems is the Stokes problem, the main subject of this paper.
The convergence analysis of the adaptive finite element method of the Poisson equation is based on the orthogonality property [19, 26, 35, 36], such orthogonality can be weakened to some quasi-orthogonality for the nonconforming and mixed methods [4, 6, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 29, 31, 34, 39]. The Stokes problem, as a saddle point problem with two variables (velocity and pressure), lacks the usual orthogonality or quasi-orthogonality that holds for the positive and definite problem. As a result, it is not obvious how the technique for nonconforming and mixed methods for the Poisson equation can be carried over to the Stokes problem. Although the mixed formulation of the Poisson equation is also a saddle point problem, analyses of this formulation’s convergence and optimality [4, 17, 20] are not so different from that for the primary formulation of the Poisson equation. The reason is that only the stress variable, which can be decoupled from the primary variable, needs to be involved in the analysis. This is not, however, the case for the Stokes problem under consideration here because the two variables, velocity and pressure, are coupled and cannot be separated in analyses of the convergence and optimality. To circumvent this difficulty, Bänsch, Morin, and Nochetto developed a modified adaptive procedure in which the Uzawa algorithm on the continuous level is used as the outer iteration [3, 32, 33]. See also [24] for adaptive wavelet methods.
The optimality of the adaptive finite element method for the Poisson equation is analyzed based on discrete reliability (see [19, 40, 41] and the references therein). Basically, we need one restriction operator and one prolongation operator in order to analyze the discrete reliability. For the conforming method, a natural candidate for the prolongation operator is the usual inclusion operator, and for the restriction operator a Scott–Zhang-type can be used as it has both the local projection property and the global and uniform boundedness property. For the nonconforming method under consideration here, however, it is a challenge to come up with a prolongation operator that has both the local projection property and the global and uniform boundedness property. For the nonconforming linear element method for the Poisson equation, such a difficulty can be circumvented using the discrete Helmholtz decomposition [6, 39]. However, the Helmholtz decomposition seems not applicable for the problem under consideration because the existence of such a decomposition is unclear for the general case.
The first convergence and optimality analysis of a standard adaptive finite element method for the Stokes problem was presented in a technical report [30] in 2007 by the authors of this paper. The analysis was based on some special relation between the nonconforming P 1 element and the lowest Raviart–Thomas element for the Stokes problem and one prolongation operator between the discrete spaces. But we later found a gap in our discrete reliability analysis caused by the prolongation operator used therein. A convergence and optimality analysis was published in [5] in 2011; however, we also found a gap in their analysis similar to that in our earlier report [30] (see Appendix for more details).
The present paper is an improved version of [30] with simplified and corrected proofs. Its purpose is to provide a rigorous analysis of the convergence and optimality of the adaptive nonconforming linear element method for the Stokes problem. The main idea is to establish the orthogonality or quasi-orthogonality of both the velocity variable and the pressure variable. The nonconformity of the discrete velocity space is the main difficulty in establishing the desired quasi-orthogonality property and the discrete reliability estimate. To overcome this difficulty we take two steps, (1) we establish the quasi-orthogonality for both the velocity and pressure variables by using a special conservative property of the nonconforming linear element, and (2) we introduce a new prolongation operator that has both the projection property and the uniform boundedness property for the discrete reliability analysis. To analyze optimality within the standard nonlinear approximate class [19], we define a new interpolation operator to bound the consistency error and prove that the consistency error can be bounded by the approximation error up to oscillation. This in fact implies that the nonlinear approximate class used in [30] is equivalent to the standard nonlinear approximate class [7, 19]. Finally, by introducing a new parameter-dependent error estimator, we prove convergence and optimality estimates for the Stokes problem.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we present the Stokes problem and its nonconforming linear finite element method, and recall a posteriori error estimate according to [12, 13, 16, 25]. We prove the quasi-orthogonality in Sect. 3 and then show the reduction of some total error in Sect. 4 in terms of a new parameter-dependent estimator. We introduce a new prolongation operator to establish discrete reliability in Sect. 5. And, we show optimality of the adaptive nonconforming linear element method in Sect. 6.
2 The Adaptive Nonconforming Linear Element
Let us first introduce some notations. We use the standard gradient and divergence operators ∇r:=(∂r/∂x,∂r/∂y) for a scalar function r, and \(\operatorname {div}\boldsymbol {\psi }:={\partial \psi_{1}}/{\partial x}+{\partial \psi_{2}}/{\partial y}\) for a vector function ψ=(ψ 1,ψ 2). Given a polygonal domain Ω⊂ℝ2 with the boundary ∂Ω, we use the standard notation for Sobolev spaces, such as H 1(Ω) and L 2(Ω). We define
In addition, we denote \((\cdot, \cdot)_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\) as the usual L 2 inner product of functions in the space L 2(Ω), and \(\|\cdot\|_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\) the L 2 norm.
Suppose that \(\overline{\varOmega}\) is covered exactly by a sequence of shape-regular triangulations \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) (k≥0) consisting of triangles in 2D (see [11, 22]), and that this sequence is produced by some adaptive algorithm where \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) is some nested refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) by the newest vertex bisection [40, 41]. Let \(\mathcal {E}_{k}\) be the set of all edges in \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\); \(\mathcal {E}_{k}(\varOmega )\) the set of interior edges; \(\mathcal {E}(K)\) the set of edges of any given element K in \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\); and h K =|K|1/2 the size of the element \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) where |K| is the area of element K. ω K is the union of elements \(K'\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) that share an edge with K, and ω E is the union of elements that share a common edge E. Given any edge \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k}(\varOmega )\) with the length h E , we assign one fixed unit normal ν E :=(ν 1, ν 2) and tangential vector τ E :=(−ν 2, ν 1). For E on the boundary, we choose ν E :=ν, the unit outward normal to Ω. Once ν E and τ E are fixed on E, in relation to ν E we define the elements \(K_{-}\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(K_{+}\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), with E=K +∩K −. Given \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k}(\varOmega)\) and some ℝd-valued function v defined in Ω, with d=1,2, we denote \([v]:=(v|_{K_{+}})|_{E}-(v|_{K_{-}})|_{E}\) as the jump of v across E, where v| K is the restriction of v on K and v| E is the restriction of v on E.
2.1 The Stokes Problem and Its Nonconforming Linear Element
The Stokes problem is defined as follows: Given g∈L 2(Ω)2, find \((u, p)\in V\times Q:=(H_{0}^{1}(\varOmega ))^{2}\times L_{0}^{2}(\varOmega )\) such that
where u and p are the velocity and pressure of the flow, respectively, and
where μ>0 is the viscosity coefficient of the flow.
Given ω⊂ℝ2 and some integer ℓ, denote P ℓ (ω) as the space of polynomials of degree ≤ℓ over ω. We define
Since V k is not a subspace of H 1(Ω)2, the gradient and divergence operators are defined element by element with respect to \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\), and denoted by ∇ k and \(\operatorname {div}_{k}\). Define the piecewise smooth space
The discrete bilinear forms read
for any \(u, v\in(H^{1}(\mathcal {T}_{k}))^{2}, \text{ and } q\in Q\).
The nonconforming P 1 element, proposed in [23], for the Stokes problem is as follows: Given g∈L 2(Ω)2, find (u k ,p k )∈V k ×Q k such that
Let \(\operatorname {id}\in \mathbb {R}^{2\times 2}\) be the identity matrix. Define
Then, we have
2.2 The a Posteriori Error Estimate
To recall the a posteriori error estimator of the nonconforming P 1 element, we define the residual \(\operatorname {R}_{k-1}(\cdot)\) by
with the solution (u k−1,p k−1) of (2.5) on the mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), which is a coarser and nested mesh of \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\). It follows from the definition of (u k−1,p k−1) that
Given \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), we define the element estimator
Given \(S_{k}\subset \mathcal {T}_{k}\), we define the estimator over it by
Given any \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), denote g K as the L 2 projection of g onto P 0(K). We define the oscillation
The reliability and efficiency of the estimator \(\eta(u_{k}, p_{k}, \mathcal {T}_{k})\) can be found in [12, 13, 16, 25], as stated in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1
Let (u,p) and (u k ,p k ) be the solutions of the Stokes problem (2.1) and the discrete problem (2.5), respectively. Then,
Remark 2.2
For the Stokes problem, the estimator usually involves the pressure approximation. For the nonconforming P 1 element, as shown in the above lemma, we can decouple the pressure from the velocity [25].
Here and throughout the paper, we use the notations ≲ and ≊. When we write
possible constants C 1, c 2 and C 2 exist such that
2.3 The Adaptive Nonconforming Finite Element Method
The adaptive algorithm is defined as follows: Let \(\mathcal{T}_{0}\) be an initial shape-regular triangulation, a right-side g∈L 2(Ω)2, a tolerance ϵ, and a parameter 0<θ<1.
Algorithm 2.1
\([\mathcal{T}_{N}, u_{N}, p_{N}]= \textbf{ANFEM}(\mathcal{T}_{0}, g, \epsilon, \theta)\)
η=ϵ,k=0
WHILE η≥ϵ, DO
-
(1)
Solve (2.5) on \(\mathcal{T}_{k}\) to get the solution (u k ,p k ).
-
(2)
Compute the error estimator \(\eta=\eta(u_{k}, p_{k}, \mathcal {T}_{k})\).
-
(3)
Mark the minimal element set \(\mathcal{M}_{k}\) such that
$$ \eta^2(u_{k}, p_{k}, \mathcal{M}_{k})\geq\theta\, \eta^2(u_{k}, p_{k}, \mathcal {T}_{k}). $$(2.13) -
(4)
Refine each triangle \(K \in\mathcal{M}_{k}\) by the newest vertex bisection to get \(\mathcal {T}_{k+1}\) and set k=:k+1.
END WHILE
\(\mathcal {T}_{N}=\mathcal {T}_{k}\).
END ANFEM
3 Quasi-orthogonality
The quasi-orthogonality property is the main ingredient for the convergence analysis of the adaptive nonconforming method under consideration. In this section we establish such a property by exploring the conservative property of the nonconforming linear element and by confirming that the stress is piecewise constant. To this end, we define a canonical interpolation operator Π k for the nonconforming space V k and a restriction operator I k−1 from V k to the coarser space V k−1. Given v∈V, we define the interpolation Π k v∈V k by
In this paper, the above property is referred to as the conservative property. This property is crucial for the analysis herein. A similar conservative property was first explored in [29] to analyze the quasi-orthogonality property of the Morley element.
The interpolation admits the following estimate:
Given v k ∈V k , we define the restriction interpolation I k−1 v k ∈V k−1 by
The properties of the restriction operator I k−1 are summarized in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1
Let the restriction operator I k−1 be defined in (3.3). Then,
Proof
The property (3.4) directly follows from the definition of the restriction interpolation. Only the estimate (3.5) needs to be proved. In fact, both sides of (3.5) are semi-norms of the restriction (V k ) K of V k on K. If the right-hand side vanishes for some v∈(V k ) K , then v k is a piecewise constant vector over K with respect to \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\). Given the average continuity of v k across the internal edges of \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\), it follows that v k is a constant vector on K. Therefore, the left-hand side also vanishes for the same v k . The desired result then follows a scaling argument. □
Remark 3.2
An alternative proof for the inequality (3.5) follows the discrete Poincare inequality established in [10] for the scalar function, which is further investigated in [39]. Notice that the positive constant of (3.5) is independent of the ratio
see [39, Lemma 4.1] for more details.
Lemma 3.3
Let (u k−1,p k−1) be the solution of the discrete problem (2.5) on the mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\). It, therefore, holds that
Proof
For the reader’s convenience, we recall the definition of the residual as follows:
To analyze the right-hand side of the above equation, we set v k−1=I k−1 v k . As σ k−1 is a piecewise constant tensor with respect to the mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), the definition of the interpolation operator I k−1 in (3.3) leads to
For any \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k}\) that lies in the interior of some \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), the integral average of v k over E is continuous and σ k−1 is a constant on K. Then,
By integrating parts on the fine mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and using (3.9) and (3.10), we get
Inserting this identity into (3.8) and adopting the discrete problem (2.5), we employ properties (3.4) and (3.5) of the interpolation operator I k−1 to derive
which completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.4
(Quasi-orthogonality of the velocity)
Let (u k ,p k ) and (u k−1,p k−1) be the discrete solutions of (2.5) on \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), respectively. Then,
Proof
The Stokes problem (2.1) and the discrete problem (2.5) give
Given that \((\operatorname {div}_{k}(u-u_{k}), p_{k}-p_{k-1})_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}=0\), let v k =Π k (u−u k ). And, σ k −σ k−1 is a piecewise constant tensor with respect to the fine mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\); therefore, by the definition of the interpolation operator Π k in (3.1), we integrate by parts on \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) to obtain
From the discrete problem (2.5), we have
The term on the right-hand side of (3.15) can be estimated by the inequality (3.7) as follows:
which completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.5
(Quasi-orthogonality of the pressure)
Let (u k ,p k ) and (u k−1,p k−1) be the discrete solutions of (2.5) on \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), respectively. Then,
Remark 3.6
The quasi-orthogonality of the pressure herein is different from those for the nonstandard method of the Poisson equation [14, 15, 20] by the fact that both \(\|\nabla _{k}(u_{k}-u_{k-1})\|_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\) and \(\|p-p_{k}\|_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\) appear on the right-hand side of (3.16).
Proof
Let Π 0,k be the L 2 projection operator from \(L^{2}_{0}(\varOmega)\) onto Q k . It follows from the discrete inf-sup condition that there exists v k ∈V k with
Since p k −p k−1∈Q k , it follows from the continuous problem (2.1), the discrete problem (2.5), and the definition of the residual (2.7) that
We use the estimates in (3.7) and (3.17) to get
which completes the proof. □
4 The Convergence of the ANFEM
To prove the convergence of the adaptive algorithm, we first prove the reduction of the error between the two nested meshes, \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), where \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) is the refinement of the coarser mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) with (2.13) by the newest vertex bisection. In order to control the volume part \(\sum_{K\in \mathcal {T}_{k-1}\backslash \mathcal {T}_{k}}h_{K}^{2}\|g\|_{L^{2}(K)}^{2}\) appearing in Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, we introduce the following modified estimator:
with the positive constant β 1>0 to be determined later. Note that this modified estimator is introduced only for the convergence analysis and that the final convergence and optimal complexity will be proved for Algorithm 2.1.
Note that the volume residual \(\sum_{K\in \mathcal {T}_{k-1}} h_{K}^{2}\|g\|_{L^{2}(K)}^{2}\) does not contain the unknowns. Hence, we add it to settle down the lacking of the Galerkin-orthogonality or quasi-orthogonality. We stress that the Galerkin-orthogonality or quasi-orthogonality is an essential ingredient for the convergence analysis of the adaptive conforming, nonconforming, and mixed methods for the Poisson-like problems [14, 15, 19, 20, 26, 35, 36]. This is another reason that we need a modified estimator as in (4.1).
We list three standard components for the convergence analysis of the adaptive method, which can be proved by following the arguments, for instance, in [15, 19, 26].
Lemma 4.1
Let \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) be some refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) from Algorithm 2.1, then ρ>0 and a positive constant β∈(1−ρθ,1) exist, such that
Proof
The result can be proved by following the idea in [15, 19, 26]. The details are only given for the readers’ convenience. In fact, we have
For any \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k-1}\backslash \mathcal {T}_{k}\), we only need to consider the case where K is subdivided into \(K_{1},K_{2}\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) with \(|K_{1}|=|K_{2}|=\frac{1}{2}|K|\). As [∇ k−1 u k−1 τ E ]=0 over the interior edge \(E=K_{1}\cap K_{2}\in \mathcal {E}_{k}\), we have
Consequently,
Let \(\rho=1-\frac{1}{2^{1/2}}\), therefore, we obtain
Choosing the positive parameter β with 1−ρθ<β<1, we combine the above inequality and the bulk criterion (2.13) to achieve the desired result. □
Lemma 4.2
Let \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) be some refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) produced in Algorithm 2.1, then there exists ρ>0 such that
Proof
This can be proved by a similar argument proposed in the previous lemma. □
Lemma 4.3
(Continuity of the estimator)
Let u k and u k−1 be the solutions to the discrete problem (2.5) on the meshes \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) obtained from Algorithm 2.1. Given any positive constant ϵ, there exists a positive constant β 2(ϵ) dependent on ϵ such that
Proof
Given any \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), it follows from the definitions of η K (u k ,p k ) and η K (u k−1,p k−1) in (4.4) that
Given \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k}\), let \(K_{1}, K_{2}\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) be the two elements that take E as one edge. Then, we use the trace theorem and the fact that ∇ k (u k −u k−1) is a piecewise constant tensor to get
which gives
for some positive constant C Con . Given any positive constant ϵ, we apply the Young inequality to get
A summation over all elements in \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) completes the proof with \(\beta_{2}(\epsilon)=\frac{M\epsilon}{C_{Con}^{2}(1+\epsilon)}\), where the positive constant M depends on the finite overlapping of the patches ω K . □
In the following theorem, we prove the convergence of the adaptive nonconforming finite element method for the Stokes problem. The main ingredients are the quasi-orthogonality of both the velocity and the pressure in Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, and the relations of the estimators between two the meshes \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\) presented in Lemmas 4.1–4.3.
Theorem 4.4
Let (u,p) and (u k ,p k ) be the solutions of (2.1) and (2.5). Then γ 1,γ 2,β 1>0 and 0<α<1 exist, such that
Proof
First, we adopt the quasi-orthogonality of both the velocity and the pressure. Denote the multiplication constant in Lemma 3.4 by C QOV . As
it follows from the quasi-orthogonality of the velocity in Lemma 3.4 and the Young inequality that
where \(C_{1}(\delta_{1})=\frac{C_{QOV}^{2}}{\delta_{1}}\) for any positive constant 0<δ 1<1. Denote the multiplication constant in Lemma 3.5 by C QOP . From the quasi-orthogonality of the pressure proved in Lemma 3.5 and the Young inequality, we have
here \(\beta_{3}(\delta_{3})=\frac{\delta_{3}}{C_{QOP}^{2}}\) and \(C_{2}(\delta_{2})=\frac{C_{QOP}^{2}}{\delta_{2}}\) for any constants 0<δ 2,δ 3<1. Then we multiply the inequality (4.14) by γ 1>0 and the inequality (4.15) by γ 2>0 to obtain
For the presentation, we introduce some short-hand notations for any positive constants γ 3,γ 4>0:
Second, we use the continuity of the estimators from Lemmas 4.1–4.3 to cancel both the term \(\|\nabla _{k}(u_{k}-u_{k-1})\|_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\) and the volume estimator. In fact, from (4.2) and (4.8), we have
Then we combine the above inequality with the inequalities (4.16) and (4.7) to obtain
It remains to prove that the positive constants δ i ,i=1,2,3, γ i ,i=1,2,3,4, ϵ, β, and β 1 exist such that the contraction (4.12) holds for some constant 0<α<1. Further it is possible that the constant dependent on the choices of the aforementioned parameters but independent of the meshsize h and the level k. This will be achieved in the following three steps.
Step 1
For the second, fourth, and fifth terms on the right-hand side of the above inequality to vanish, we set
Note that γ 2, γ 4, and β will be determined after δ i ,i=1,2,3, γ 1, γ 3, and ϵ have been specified. In the following, we assume that ϵ is fixed in such a way that 0<β<1. Also, we let γ 1 and γ 3 be fixed such that \(\gamma_{1}>\frac{\gamma_{3}}{\beta_{2}(\epsilon)}\) and γ 2>0. Hence, we have
Let the positive constant α with β<α<1 be determined later. We define
Then we perform the decomposition \(\overline{\mathfrak {G}}_{k-1}(u_{k-1}, p_{k-1})=\alpha \mathfrak {G}_{k-1}(u_{k-1},p_{k-1})+ \mathfrak{R}_{k-1}(u_{k-1}, p_{k-1})\) to get
Step 2
Now we only need to show that it is possible to choose α<1 such that ℜ k−1(u k−1,p k−1)≤0. This can be achieved by selecting parameters δ i ,i=1,2,3. To this end, we recall the reliability of \(\eta(u_{k-1}, p_{k-1}, \mathcal {T}_{k-1})\) in Lemma 2.1 with the multiplication coefficient C Rel :
Further, we take δ 1=δ 2+δ 3 with \(0<\delta_{1}<\min( \frac{\gamma_{3}(1-\beta)}{C_{Rel}(\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2})},1)\). Then, we take
It is straightforward to see that β<α<1. As
we obtain
This proves that
Step 3
Finally, we take β 1:=γ 4/γ 3 and rearrange γ 2:=γ 2(1−δ 2−δ 3)/(1−δ 1)γ 1, γ 3:=γ 3/(1−δ 1)γ 1, which completes the proof. □
5 The Discrete Reliability
In this section, we prove the discrete reliability. The analysis needs some prolongation operator from V k to V k+ℓ with some integer ℓ≥1. Some further notations are needed. Given \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k+\ell}\), the edge patch ω E,k of E with respect to the mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) is defined as
Let \(\xi_{E}=\operatorname {card}( \omega_{E, k})\). We define the prolongation interpolation \(I_{k+\ell}^{\prime}v_{k}\in V_{k+\ell}\) for any v k ∈V k , as
For the interpolation operator \(I_{k+\ell}^{\prime}\), we have
As we will see in Remark 5.3 below, we cannot directly use the prolongation operator \(I^{\prime}_{k+\ell}\) in the analysis of the discrete reliability. An averaging operator is needed. Denote \(\mathcal{N}_{k}\) as the set of internal vertexes of the mesh \(\mathcal{T}_{k}\), and denote \(S_{k}\subset H_{0}^{1}(\varOmega)\) as the conforming linear element space over \(\mathcal{T}_{k}\). Given \(Z\in\mathcal{N}_{k}\), the nodal patch ω Z,k is defined by
Denote ϕ Z ∈S k as the canonical basis function associated to Z, which satisfies ϕ(Z)=1 and ϕ(Z′)=0 for vertex Z′ of \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) other than Z. We define
The idea of [10] leads to the definition of the following averaging operator Π:V k →(S k )2:
where
Given any \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), we have
for any v k ∈V k , see [10] for the proof. Define
The main idea herein is to take the mixture of the prolongation operators \(I_{k+\ell}^{\prime}\) and Π. More precisely, we use Π in the region \(\varOmega_{\mathcal {R}}\) where the elements of \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) are refined and take \(I_{k+\ell }^{\prime}\) in the region \(\mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}\cap \mathcal {T}_{k}\), and we define some mixture in the layers between them. This leads to the prolongation operator J k+ℓ :V k →V k+ℓ as follows:
where v k+ℓ,tr is defined as
Lemma 5.1
For any v k ∈V k , it holds that
Proof
As J k+ℓ v k =Πv k on \(\varOmega_{\mathcal{R}}\) and J k+ℓ v k =v k on \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\cap \mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}\), from (5.3) and (5.8), we only need to estimate \(\|\nabla (J_{k+\ell}v_{k}-v_{k})\|_{L^{2}(K)}=\|\nabla (v_{k+\ell, tr}-v_{k})\|_{L^{2}(K)}\) for \(\mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}\ni K\subset \varOmega \backslash(\varOmega_{\mathcal{R}}\cup(\mathcal {T}_{k}\cap \mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}))\). Given \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k+\ell}\), let φ E be the canonical basis function of the nonconforming P 1 element on \(\mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}\), which satisfies ∫ E φ E ds=|E| and ∫ E′ φ E ds=0 for any \(E^{\prime}\in \mathcal {E}_{k+\ell}\) other than E. A direct calculation yields
Let \(v_{E}^{\prime}:=\int_{E} v_{k+\ell, tr}|_{K}ds\) and v E :=∫ E v k | K ds; thus we have
Next we bound the terms \(|v_{E}^{\prime}-v_{E}|\) for \(E\in \mathcal {E}_{k+\ell}\).
Case 1
\(E\subset \partial \varOmega_{\mathcal{R}}\). Let \(F\in \mathcal {E}_{k}\) be the mother of edge E in the sense of E⊂F. Let \(T\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\) be the mother of K in the sense of K⊂T. Denote the vertexes of T as Z i ,i=1,2,3. Without losing generality, we assume that Z 1 and Z 2 are two endpoints of F. Then, the trace of v k | T on F can be expressed as
Note that
We recall that \(v_{Z_{i}}\) are defined in (5.7) and that \(\phi_{Z_{i}}\) are the canonical basis functions associated with vertexes Z i for the conforming linear element. Therefore
Case 2
\(E\nsubseteq \partial \varOmega_{\mathcal{R}}\). Again, let \(F\in \mathcal {E}_{k}\) be the mother of E in the sense of E⊂F. Then, we simply have
By inserting the estimates of \(|v_{E}^{\prime}-v_{E}|\) from (5.13) and (5.14) into (5.10), we complete the proof. □
We define the ratio γ as follows:
One observation herein is that γ is bounded for the element \(K\in \mathcal {T}_{k}\), which lies in the layer \(\varOmega\backslash(\varOmega_{\mathcal{R}}\cup(\mathcal {T}_{k}\cap \mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}))\).
Lemma 5.2
The following discrete reliability holds:
Remark 5.3
If we directly take the prolongation operator \(I_{k+\ell}^{\prime}\) to analyze this discrete reliability, the constant for the established discrete reliability will depend on the ratio γ (see Appendix for an example).
Proof
For any v k+ℓ ∈V k+ℓ , we have the following decomposition:
We will first estimate the first term on the right-hand side of the above equation. It follows the discrete problem (2.5) that
The first term on the right-hand side of (5.18) can be bounded as in (3.7):
Now we turn to the second term on the right hand side of (5.18). Thanks to the discrete inf-sup condition, we use the discrete problem (2.5) to get
An application of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality leads to
After inserting (5.18), (5.19), (5.20), and (5.21) into (5.17), we use the triangle and Young inequalities to derive
An application of (5.9) bounds the second term on the right-hand side of (5.22). This completes the proof. □
With γ 1 from Theorem 4.4, we define the following energy norm:
We denote its piecewise version by \(|\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|\cdot |\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|_{k+\ell}\).
The following lemma gives links between the error reduction to the bulk criterion.
Lemma 5.4
Let \(\mathcal {T}_{k+\ell}\) be the refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) with the following reduction:
with 0<α′<1 and the positive constant γ 2 from Theorem 4.4. There exists 0<θ ∗<1 with
Proof
It follows (5.24) and the definitions of the norms \(|\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|\cdot |\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|_{k}\) and \(|\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|\cdot |\hskip -0.8pt|\hskip -0.8pt|_{k+\ell}\) that
The first two terms, I 1 and I 2, are estimated by the discrete reliability in Lemma 5.2,
where the coefficient C Drel is from Lemma 5.2. The third term I 3 can be estimated by the quasi-orthogonality of the velocity in Lemma 3.4. In fact, let the multiplication constant therein be the coefficient C QOV , so that we have
Next, we use the quasi-orthogonality of the pressure in Lemma 3.5 to analyze the fourth term, I 4. Denote the constant of Lemma 3.5 by C QOP , and we obtain
Hence it follows from (5.26) that
A direct calculation leads to
we combine (5.26)–(5.29), and (5.24) with the efficiency of the estimator, which proves the desired result by the parameter
with the efficiency constant C Eff of the estimator \(\eta(u_{k}, p_{k}, \mathcal {T}_{k})\) from Lemma 2.1. □
6 The Optimality of the ANFEM
In this section, we address the optimality of the adaptive nonconforming linear element method under consideration. We need to control the consistency error \(\kappa (\sigma ,\mathcal {T})\) defined by
where \(\mathcal {T}\) is some refinement of the initial mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{0}\) by the newest vertex bisection. The following conforming finite element space is needed:
Then, there exists an interpolation operator \(\varPi_{\mathcal {T}}: V_{\mathcal {T}}\rightarrow P_{3}(\mathcal {T})\) with the following properties [28, Lemma A.3]:
for any edge E and element K of \(\mathcal {T}\). In addition, we have
For any \(s_{\mathcal {T}}\in V_{\mathcal {T}}\) and \(q_{\mathcal {T}}\in Q_{\mathcal {T}}\), we define \(\sigma_{\mathcal {T}}=\mu s_{\mathcal {T}}+q_{\mathcal {T}}\). The idea of [27, Lemma 2.1] leads to the following decomposition:
for any \(v_{\mathcal {T}}\in V_{\mathcal {T}}\). By the properties (6.3) and (6.4), we obtain
This implies that the nonlinear approximate class used in [30] is equivalent to the standard nonlinear approximate class [7, 19]. Hence, we can introduce the following semi-norm:
Then the nonlinear approximate class \(\mathbb{A}_{s}\) can be defined by
We must stress that this is the first time the standard nonlinear approximate class [19] has been used to analyze the adaptive nonconforming finite element method. In the relevant literature, the discrete solution of the discrete problem has been used to define the nonlinear approximate class [5, 6, 34, 39]. Let \((u_{\mathcal {T}}, p_{\mathcal {T}})\) be the approximation solution of (2.5) on the mesh \(\mathcal {T}\). It follows from the Strang Lemma [22]
and the following fact
that the nonlinear approximate class of [5] is equivalent to \(\mathbb{A}_{s}\) of (6.8). A similar method herein proves that the nonlinear approximate class of [6, 34, 39] is equivalent to the standard nonlinear approximate class [19].
Remark 6.1
After we submitted the revised version to the journal, we learnt about that a different argument of [18] shows that the nonlinear approximate class of [6, 34, 39] is equivalent to the standard nonlinear approximate class [19].
Thanks to (6.6), we have
A straightforward investigation shows that if \(\mathcal {T}_{k}\) is any refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{k-1}\), then it holds that
With these preparations, following [29], we have the following optimality:
Theorem 6.2
Let (u,p) be the solution of Problem (2.1), and let \((\mathcal {T}_{k}, V_{k}\times Q_{k}, (u_{k},p_{k}))\) be the sequence of meshes, finite element spaces, and discrete solutions produced by the adaptive finite element methods. If \(( u, p, g)\in\mathbb{A}_{s}\) with
Then, it holds that
References
Ainsworth, M., Oden, J.T.: A Posteriori Error Estimation in Finite Element Analysis. Wiley, New York (2000)
Babuskă, I., Vogelius, M.: Feedback and adaptive finite element solution of one-dimensional boundary value problems. Numer. Math. 44, 75–102 (1984)
Bänsch, E., Morin, P., Nochetto, R.: An adaptive Uzawa FEM for the Stokes problem: convergence without the inf-sup condition. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 40, 1207–1229 (2002)
Becker, R., Mao, S.P.: An optimally convergent adaptive mixed finite element method. Numer. Math. 111, 35–54 (2008)
Becker, R., Mao, S.P.: Quasi-optimality of adaptive nonconforming finite element methods for the Stokes equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 49, 970–991 (2011)
Becker, R., Mao, S.P., Shi, Z.C.: A convergent nonconforming adaptive finite element method with quasi-optimal complexity. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47, 4639–4659 (2010)
Binev, P., Dahmen, W., DeVore, R., Petrushev, P.: Approximation classes for adaptive methods. Serdica Math. J. 28, 391–416 (2002)
Binev, P., Dahmen, W., DeVore, R.: Adaptive finite element methods with convergence rate. Numer. Math. 97, 219–268 (2004)
Bonito, A., Nochetto, R.H.: Quasi-optimal convergence rate of an adaptive discontinuous Galerkin method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 48, 734–771 (2010)
Brenner, S.: Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality for piecewise H 1 functions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 41, 306–324 (2003)
Brenner, S., Scott, L.R.: The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. Springer, New York (1994)
Carstensen, C.: A unifying theory of a posteriori finite element error control. Numer. Math. 100, 617–637 (2005)
Carstensen, C., Funken, S.A.: A posteriori error control in low-order finite element discretisations of incompressible stationary flow problems. Math. Comput. 70, 1353–1381 (2001)
Carstensen, C., Hoppe, R.H.W.: Error reduction and convergence for an adaptive mixed finite element method. Math. Comput. 75, 1033–1042 (2006)
Carstensen, C., Hoppe, R.H.W.: Convergence analysis of an adaptive nonconforming finite element method. Numer. Math. 103, 251–266 (2006)
Carstensen, C., Hu, J.: A unifying theory of a posteriori error control for nonconforming finite element methods. Numer. Math. 107, 473–502 (2007)
Carstensen, C., Rabus, H.: An optimal adaptive mixed finite element method. Math. Comput. 80, 649–667 (2011)
Carstensen, C., Peterseim, D., Schedensack, M.: Comparison results of finite element methods for the Poisson model problem (2011). Available at http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~Peterseim/files/Comparison.pdf
Cascon, J.M., Kreuzer, C., Nochetto, R.H., Siebert, K.G.: Quasi-optimal convergence rate for an adaptive finite element method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 46, 2524–2550 (2008)
Chen, L., Holst, M., Xu, J.: Convergence and optimality of adaptive mixed finite element methods. Math. Comput. 78, 35–53 (2009)
Chen, H.X., Xu, X.J., Hoppe, R.H.W.: Convergence and quasi-optimality of adaptive nonconforming finite element methods for some nonsymmetric and indefinite problems. Numer. Math. 116, 383–419 (2010)
Ciarlet, P.G.: The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978). Reprinted as SIAM Classics in Applied Mathematics, 2002
Crouzeix, M., Raviart, P.-A.: Conforming and nonconforming finite element methods for solving the stationary Stokes equations. RAIRO. Anal. Numér. 7, 33–76 (1973)
Dahlke, S., Dahmen, W., Urban, K.: Adaptive wavelet methods for saddle point problems—Optimal convergence rates. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 40, 1230–1262 (2002)
Dari, E., Duran, R., Padra, C.: Error estimators for nonconforming finite element approximations of the Stokes problem. Math. Comput. 64, 1017–1033 (1995)
Dörfler, W.: A convergent adaptive algorithm for Poisson’s equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 33, 1106–1124 (1996)
Gudi, T.: A new error analysis for discontinuous finite element methods for linear problems. Math. Comput. 79, 2169–2189 (2010)
Girault, V., Raviart, P.A.: Finite Element Methods for Navier–Stokes Equations, Theorem and Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (1986)
Hu, J., Shi, Z.C., Xu, J.C.: Convergence and optimality of the adaptive Morley element method. Numer. Math. (2012). doi:10.1007/s00211-012-0445-0. See also, Hu, J. and Shi, Z.C. and Xu, J.C., Convergence and optimality of the adaptive Morley element method. Research Report 19 (2009). School of Mathematical Sciences and Institute of Mathematics, Peking University. Available online from May 2009. http://www.math.pku.edu.cn:8000/var/preprint/7280.pdf
Hu, J., Xu, J.C.: Convergence of adaptive conforming and nonconforming finite element methods for the perturbed Stokes equation. Research report, School of Mathematical Sciences and Institute of Mathematics, Peking University (2007). Also available online from December 2007. http://www.math.pku.edu.cn:8000/var/preprint/7297.pdf
Huang, J.G., Huang, X.H., Xu, Y.F.: Convergence of an adaptive mixed finite element method for Kirchhof plate bending problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 49, 574–607 (2010)
Kondratyuk, Y.: Adaptive finite element algorithms for the Stokes problem: Convergence rates and optimal computational complexity. Preprint 1346, Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University (2006)
Kondratyuk, Y., Stevenson, R.: An Optimal Adaptive Finite Element Method for the Stokes Problem. Preprint (2007)
Mao, S.P., Zhao, X.Y., Shi, Z.C.: Convergence of a standard adaptive nonconforming finite element method with optimal complexity. Appl. Numer. Math. 60, 673–688 (2010)
Mekchay, K., Nochetto, R.H.: Convergence of adaptive finite element methods for general second order linear elliptic PDEs. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43, 1043–1068 (2005)
Morin, P., Nochetto, R., Siebert, K.: Data oscillation and convergence of adaptive FEM. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 38, 466–488 (2000)
Morin, P., Nochetto, R.H., Siebert, K.G.: Convergence of adaptive finite element methods. SIAM Rev. 44, 631–658 (2002)
Morin, P., Nochetto, R.H., Siebert, K.G.: Local problems on stars: A posteriori error estimators, convergence, and performance. Math. Comput. 72, 1067–1097 (2003)
Rabus, H.: A natural adaptive nonconforming FEM is of quasi–optimal complexity. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 10, 316–326 (2010)
Stevenson, R.: Optimality of a standard adaptive finite element method. Found. Comput. Math. 7, 245–269 (2007)
Stevenson, R.: The completion of locally refined simplicial partitions created by bisection. Math. Comput. 77, 227–241 (2008)
Verfürth, R.: A Review of a Posteriori Error Estimation and Adaptive Mesh-Refinement Technique. Wiley-Teubner, New York (1996)
Acknowledgements
The first author was supported by NSFC 10971005, and in part by NSFC 11031006. The second author was supported in part, by NSFC-10528102, NSF DMS 0915153, and DMS 0749202, and by the PSU-PKU Joint Center for Computational Mathematics and Applications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: A Counter Example
Appendix: A Counter Example
We present an example in this appendix to show that if the prolongation operator \(I_{h}^{\prime}\) defined by (5.2) is directly used to analyze the discrete reliability of the estimator, the constant for the established discrete reliability could depend on some key mesh refinement ratio
where \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) is some regular triangulation of Ω into triangles and \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\) is some refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\). To this end, we first give an example to demonstrate that there are generally no positive constants C independent of γ such that the following estimate holds true:
where u H ∈V H is the finite element solution of the velocity on the mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) and v h is some element of V h over the nested fine mesh \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\). As usual, \(\mathcal {E}_{H}\) (resp. \(\mathcal {E}_{h}\)) is the set of the edges of \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) (resp. \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\)). Denote V H (resp. V h ) as the nonconforming linear element space with respect to \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) (resp. \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\)). Denote [⋅] as the jump of some function across the edge E and {⋅} as the average of some function across the edge E. In addition, denote ν E as the unit normal vector to E with the length h E .
In the following, an example is given to show that u H ∈V H and v h ∈V h exist such that the above constant C depends on the ratio γ. For simplicity, let \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) consist of two triangles △ABC and △ACD as in Fig. 1. Let \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\) be a uniform triangulation of Ω into 2×N 2 triangles, cf. Fig. 1 for the case N=5. We stress that the idea and result can be easily extended to the mesh with the newest vertex bisection. For the sake of simplicity, let N=2k+1 with some nonnegative integer k. Let Z i , i=−k,…,k, be the nodes of \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\) whose coordinates are \((\frac {1}{N},\frac {2i}{N})\). Let \(\phi_{Z_{i}}\) be the nodal basis function of the conforming linear element space defined over \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\) such that \(\phi_{Z_{i}}(Z_{i})=1\) and \(\phi_{Z_{i}}(Z)=0\) for any node Z other than Z i . We choose u H ∈V H such that the jump is [u H ]=y over the edge AC. We choose v h as follows:
Note that \(\{\frac{\partial \phi_{Z_{i}}}{\partial \nu_{E}}\}=N/2\) over the edge AC for i=−k,…,k. A direct calculation gives
On the other hand, a direct calculation leads to
This indicates that the constant C in (A.1) should be \(\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})\), which depends on the ratio \(\gamma =\mathcal {O}(N) \) for this example.
For the analysis of the discrete reliability, a direct application of the prolongation operator \(I_{h}^{\prime}\) as defined in (5.2) will lead to a similar estimate like (A.1), and, as a result, the constant for the established discrete reliability based on such an estimate will depend on the ratio γ. Note that in the analysis of optimality of the adaptive method it is possible to know that \(\mathcal {T}_{h}\) is some refinement of \(\mathcal {T}_{H}\) only by the newest vertex bisection [8, 19, 40]. Note, too, that there is no guarantee that γ is bounded. Therefore, the proof of the discrete reliability based on the prolongation operator \(I_{h}^{\prime}\) as presented in [5, 30] may not lead to a uniform estimate as claimed.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hu, J., Xu, J. Convergence and Optimality of the Adaptive Nonconforming Linear Element Method for the Stokes Problem. J Sci Comput 55, 125–148 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-012-9625-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-012-9625-4