arxiv: v1 [math.na] 3 Jun 2018

Transcription

1 SUPG stabilization for the nonconforming virtual element method for advection-diffusion-reaction equations S Berrone a, A Borio a, G Manzini b,c arxiv:186879v1 [mathna] 3 Jun 18 Abstract a Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 4, Torino, 119, Italy b T-5 Group, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA c Istituto di Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche - CNR, via Ferrata 1, Pavia 71, Italy We present the design, convergence analysis and numerical investigations of the nonconforming virtual element method with Streamline Upwind/Petrov-Galerkin VM-SUPG stabilization for the numerical resolution of convection-diffusion-reaction problems in the convective-dominated regime According to the virtual discretization approach, the bilinear form is split as the sum of a consistency and a stability term The consistency term is given by substituting the functions of the virtual space and their gradients with their polynomial projection in each term of the bilinear form including the SUPG stabilization term Polynomial projections can be computed exactly from the degrees of freedom The stability term is also built from the degrees of freedom by ensuring the correct scalability properties with respect to the mesh size and the equation coefficients The nonconforming formulation relaxes the continuity conditions at cell interfaces and a weaker regularity condition is considered involving polynomial moments of the solution jumps at cell interface Optimal convergence properties of the method are proved in a suitable norm, which includes contribution from the advective stabilization terms xperimental results confirm the theoretical convergence rates eywords: Virtual lement Methods, Advection-diffusion-reaction problem, SUPG, stability, convergence MSC: 65N3, 65M1 G Manzini has been partially supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program LDRD, US Department of nergy Office of Science, Office of Fusion nergy Sciences, under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the US Department of nergy by Los Alamos National Laboratory, operated by Los Alamos National Security LLC under contract D-AC5-6NA5396 This work is assigned the LA-UR number LA-UR The three authors are also members of the Gruppo Nazionale Calcolo Scientifico GNCS at Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica INdAM S Berrone and A Borio kindly acknowledge partial financial support by INdAM-GNCS Projects 18, HPC@Polito and by the MIUR project Dipartimenti di ccellenza 18- Preprint submitted to lsevier June 5, 18

2 1 Introduction The virtual element method VM was proposed in [1] as a variational reformulation of the nodal mimetic finite difference MFD method [ 5] for solving diffusion problems on unstructured polygonal meshes A survey on the MFD method can be found in the review paper [6] and the research book [7] The VM inherits the great flexibility of the MFD method with respect to the admissible meshes, and, despite its introduction dates back to a few years ago a huge amount of development has taken place, see, for example, [8 31] We emphasize that the VM is not the only existing way to treat partial differential equations numerically on unstructured meshes Other methods or families of methods that are available from the literature include the polygonal/polyhedral finite element method PFM [3, 33], the BM-based FM [34, 35], the finite volume methods [36, 37], hybrid high-order HHO method [38], the discontinuous Galerkin DG method [39, 4], and the hybridized discontinuous Galerkin HDG method [41] Many of these methods are also part of the Gradient Scheme framework recently proposed by [4, 43] Moreover, the connection between VM and finite elements on polygonal/polyhedral meshes is touroughly investigated in [44 46], between VM and BM-based FM method in [47] The virtual element method is a finite element method, but is dubbed virtual because its formulation does not require the explicit knowledge of a set of shape functions and gradients of shape functions to compute the bilinear forms, eg, mass and stiffness matrices The global approximation space is defined over the whole domain by gluing together local elemental spaces under some regularity constraint ach elemental space is formed by the solutions of a local Poisson problem with a polynomial right-hand side and nonhomogeneous polynomial Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions Clearly, a subspace of polynomials up to a given degree always belongs by construction to each elemental space The remarkable fact is that we can compute exactly the projections of the virtual functions and their first derivatives onto such polynomials by using only the degrees of freedom Therefore, a straightforward strategy to approximate the bilinear forms is to substitute the shape functions and their derivatives in their arguments with their polynomial projections This approach yields the so-called consistency term, to which we add a stability term that ensures the nonsingularity of the resulting discretization The stability term is designed to be easily computable from the degrees of freedom The VM was originally formulated in [1] as a conforming FM for the Poisson problem It was later extended to convection-reaction-diffusion problems with variable coefficients in [1, 48] Meanwhile, the nonconforming formulation for diffusion problems was proposed in [49] as the finite element reformulation of [5] and later extended to general elliptic problems [51], Stokes problem [5], and the biharmonic equation [53, 54] The two major differences between the conforming and nonconforming formulations are: i at the elemental level the virtual space is formed by the solution of a Poisson problem with Neumann boundary conditions; ii at the global level we relax the interelement conformity requirement, and the definition of the global discrete space just relays on some form of weaker regularity according to [55]

3 Nonconforming finite element spaces were historically proposed to approximate the velocity field of the Stokes equations on triangular meshes [55] The functions in these finite element spaces are piecewise polynomials of degree k = 1 [55], k = [56], k = 3 [57], and k > 3 [58 6] In such formulations, continuity is required only at a discrete set of special points located at cell interfaces, which are the roots of the one-dimensional k th -order Legendre polynomials defined over each edge, ie, the nodes of the Gauss- Legendre quadrature rule of order k This minimal continuity requirement ensures the optimal convergence rate; see, for instance, [55] Attempts to extend non-conforming finite elements to quadrilaterals, tetrahedra and hexahedra are found in [61 63] A major issue of the nonconforming formulations is that they may strongly depend on the parity of the underlying polynomial space, the geometric shape of the element and its spatial dimensionality -D or 3-D For example, on triangles the nonconforming finite element space for even k in [56, 58, 59] must be enriched by a one-dimensional subspace generated by a bubble function Also, the definition of nonconforming spaces is substantially different from D and 3D and requires a simple geometric shape for the element eg, a simplex, a quadrilateral, or an hexahedral cell, and also differs from D to 3D Instead, the nonconforming virtual element space proposed in [49] has the same construction for every k regardless of the parity, the space dimension, and the elemental geometric shape In the case of the convection-dominated regime, a stabilization must be included in the variational formulation to deal with high Péclet number situations In finite element approximations, different strategies have been designed to such purpose, as, for example, local projections [64], bubble functions [65, 66] the SUPG method [67 7] The SUPG stabilization in the conforming virtual element formulation was previously considered in [73] The main goal of this work is the development of the nonconforming formulation with SUPG stabilization suitable to solve convection-dominated transport problems with a moderate reaction term In such a situation the SUPG stabilization parameters becomes dependent on a local Péclet number and a local arlovitz-like number In case of a vanishing reaction the SUPG stabilization parameter converges to its expected classical definition We prove the robustness of the method with respect to high Péclet numbers when the problem coefficients are constants and a conforming formulation is considered, whereas a weak dependence on the Péclet number is observed, due to the non-consistency of the VM bilinear form [1] when the coefficients are variable or a non conforming formulation is considered The presented analysis is also valid for SUPG-stabilized conforming virtual elements as presented in [73] The outline of the paper is as follows In Section we introduce the mathematical model of the convection-reaction-diffusion problem In Section 3 we present the nonconforming VM with the SUPG stabilization for the convection-dominated regime In Section 4 we carry out the convergence analysis and derive optimal a priori error estimates In Section 5 we show the performance of the method on a set of representative problems In Section 6 we offer our final remarks and conclusions 11 Notation The notation throughout the paper is as follows:, and denote the L Ω scalar product and norm, and, ω and ω denote the L ω scalar product and norm defined on the subdomain ω Ω; α and α denote the H α Ω norm and semi-norm; α,ω and α,ω denote the H α ω norm and semi-norm; W q p ω and Wpω q denote the 3

4 Wpω q norm and semi-norm, where p 1 is the Lebesgue regularity index and q is the order of the Sobolev space Moreover, P k ω denotes the space of polynomial functions of degree up to the integer number k that are defined on the d-dimensional subset ω Ω with d = 1,, 3 If T h is a partitioning of Ω in a set of non-overlapping polytopal elements, ie, the mesh, for the formal definition see Section 31, by P k T h we denote the space of discontinuous functions defined on Ω whose restriction to any element is a polynomial of degree less than or equal to k; hence, p P k T h iff p P k Finally, H t T h for any t 1 is the broken Sobolev space of globally L -integrable functions on Ω whose restriction to any mesh element of the mesh T h belongs to H t ; formally, we can write that } H t T h := {v L Ω : v H t, T h 1 To ease the notation, since these spaces contain discontinuous functions, in the following we will intend all norms and seminorms to be broken on the mesh For example: v = v 1 Furthermore, we will use the symbol C to denote a generic constant independent of the mesh size and the problem data, β and γ In the estimates this constant may have a different value for each occurrence The variational formulation Let Ω R d, d =, 3 be a polytopal domain with boundary Ω and consider the convection-diffusion-reaction problem: u + β u + γu = f in Ω, u = on Ω, We assume that [L Ω] d d is a strongly elliptic and symmetric tensor almost everywhere ae on Ω Hence, there exist two positive constant κ and κ such that κ ξ ξ ξ xξ κ ξ ξ for every ξ R d and almost every x Ω We denote C κ = κ /κ Moreover, we assume that β [L Ω] d with β = and γ L Ω such that inf x Ω γx = γ To ease the exposition, we present the virtual element formulation and the convergence analysis assuming homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions However, all the results presented in this paper can readily be extended to more general situations Consider the bilinear form B : H 1 Ω H 1 Ω R defined by B w, v := w, v + β w, v + γw, v w, v H 1 Ω, 3 and the linear functional F : H 1 Ω R defined by F v := f, v v H 1 Ω 4

5 The variational formulation of reads as: Find u H 1 Ω such that B u, v = F v v H 1 Ω 4 The bilinear form B is coercive and bounded, and the variational problem 4 has a unique solution in view of the Lax-Milgram lemma 3 The virtual element formulation Hereafter, we consider only the case for d = However, the nonconforming virtual element formulation is almost the same for d = and 3, the main substantial difference being necessarily in the mesh assumptions that for d = 3 must also consider a star-shaped condition on the faces Therefore, most of the results presented in the next sections can easily be generalized to the three-dimensional case with minor or no changes at all 31 General assumptions Let { T h be a sequence of meshes of Ω, ie, a sequence of non-overlapping polygonal }h partitions of the domain Ω ach T h is labeled by the subscript h, the maximum diameter of its polygonal elements The polygonal elements can have a different number of edges and hanging node-like configurations are possible with nodes placed on an edge and forming a flat angle We denote the set of all the mesh edges e of the polygonal cells in T h by h We also distinguish between the subset of internal edges h int and the subset of the boundary edges h bnd; clearly, h = h int h bnd We assume that the members of the sequence { T h satisfy the following regularity }h assumptions: There exists a global constant ρ > such that for each mesh T h : i every polygon T h is star-shaped with respect to a ball whose radius is greater than or equal to ρh, where h = max x,y x y is the element diameter; ii T h, each side e of is such that h e ρh, where h e is the length of e; Remark 1 Assumption i implies that each element is simply connected Assumption ii implies that the number of sides of each polygon of the mesh is uniformly bounded over the mesh sequence The restriction of to any element T h is still a strongly elliptic tensor and its spectrum can be locally bounded by using two constants and, so that for any vector-valued field ξx defined on it holds that ξx ξx ξx xξx ξx ξx x 5 We will find convenient for the next theoretical developments to assume that the inequalities < κ κ holds true for every mesh element Since is represented by a symmetric and positive definite matrix we consider the decomposition = and we write v, v = v, v = v for any sufficiently regular function v Therefore, setting ξ = v in 5 yields v v 5 v

6 We will use this relation extensively in the analysis of the next sections For each element T h we also set β := sup βx R, γ := γ, x Let k be an integer number and α = α 1, α a two-dimensional multi-index of order α = α 1 + α k The polynomial space P k is spanned by the monomials m α M k defined as m α x := x x α h α x, where x is the center of the ball with respect to which is star-shaped Similarly, P k e, the space of polynomials of degree k defined on edge e, is spanned by the monomials m α ξ := ξ ξ e α /h α e M k e for α k, where ξ is a local coordinate defined on e, ξ e the midpoint of e, and h e the length of e In the formulation of the method we will make use of the elliptic projection operator Π k : H1 T h P k T h, whose restriction to each element is the solution of the local problem: Π k v, p = v, p p P k Π k v, 1 = v, 1 if k = 1, Π k v, 1 = v, 1 if k > 1 6 We will also consider the L -projection operator Π l : H1 T h P l T h whose restriction to each element is the L -projection onto P l A crucial property of these projection operators, which will be discussed in the next section see Remark, is that they are computable on the functions of the virtual element space using only their degrees of freedom 3 The local nonconforming virtual element space The local nonconforming virtual element space of order k 1 is defined as follows: { Vh := v h H 1 : v h P k, v h P k 1 e e, ˆn e v h, p = Π k v h, p } p P k /P k, where P k /P k is the subspace of P k of the polynomials that are L -orthogonal to P k or, alternatively, the polynomials whose degree is exactly k 1 and k, and for k = 1 we conventionally take P 1 = {} The definition of Vh is based on the enhancement strategy that was introduced in [48] for the conforming case and extended to the nonconforming case in [51] From the definition above it follows immediately that P k is a linear subspace of Vh A function v h V h is uniquely identified by the following set of degrees of freedom: 6

7 k = 1 k = k = 3 k = 4 Figure 1: Degrees of freedom of a hexagonal cell for k = 1,, 3, 4; edge moments are marked by a circle; cell moments are marked by a square for k 1, the moments of v h of order up to k 1 on each mesh interface e: 1 v h m α dξ m α M k 1 e ; 7 e e for k > 1, the moments of v h of order up to k inside element : 1 v h m α dx m α M k, 8 The unisolvency of these degrees of freedom is proved in [49] A counting argument shows that the cardinality of this set of degrees of freedom, which is also the dimension of V h, is equal to n k 1 + kk 1/, where n is the number of edges of The degrees of freedom for an hexagonal cell are shown in Figure 1 Remark The elliptic projection Π k v h is computable from the degrees of freedom of v h In fact, an integration by parts of the right-hand side of 6 yields: v h, p = v h, p + v h, n e p e, e The terms on the right can be expressed by using the k -order moments of v h inside and the k 1-order moments of v h on each edge e and are thus computable A similar argument shows that also Π k 1 v h and Π k 1 v h are computable from the degrees of freedom of v h 33 Global nonconforming virtual element spaces For the construction of the global virtual element spaces we introduce the nonconforming functional space { H 1,nc k T h := v H 1 T h : v q dξ = q P k 1 e e h }, e where denotes the jump operator across a mesh interface, which is defined as follows If e is an internal edge, we fix a unique unit normal vector ˆn e and we set v := v + v, where v ± are the traces of v on e from within the two elements ± 7

8 sharing the edge, being + the element for which ˆn e is pointing outward If e is a boundary edge, ˆn e is orthogonal to e and pointing out of the computational domain Ω and v := v + Finally, the global nonconforming virtual element space of order k is defined by { V h := v h H 1,nc k T h : v h Vh T h } 9 ach function v h of V h is uniquely characterized by: for k 1, the moments of order up to k 1 on each internal mesh edge e h int: 1 v h m α dξ m α M k 1 e; 1 e e for k > 1, the moments of order up to k inside each element T h : 1 v h m α dx m α M k 11 The unisolvency of these degrees of freedom in V h is a direct consequence of the unisolvency of the local degrees of freedom introduced in section 3 and the definition of the nonconforming space H 1,nc k T h, cf [49] 34 SUPG-VM formulation The discretization of the variational formulation 4 may lead to instabilities when the convective term β w, v is dominant with respect to the diffusive term w, v Here we consider also a moderate reaction term that we assume not to be source of instabilities In this section we recast the classical Streamline Upwind Petrov Galerkin SUPG approach [68] in the framework of the nonconforming VM, showing that the optimal order of convergence can be preserved To this end, we assume that [ W 1 Ω ] d d Then, we introduce the functional space V := { v H 1 Ω : v L T h }, 1 the bilinear form B supg : V H 1 Ω R given by B supg w, v := a w, v + b w, v + c w, v + d w, v, 13 where a w, v := w, v + τ β w, β v, 14 b w, v := 1 [ ] β w, v w, β v, 15 c w, v := γw, v + τ β v, 16 d w, v := τ w, β v 17 8

9 Furthermore, let F supg : H 1 Ω R be the linear functional given by F supg v = f, v + τ f, β v 18 The real positive factor τ is the local SUPG parameter and is discussed in section 35 The SUPG variational formulation of problem reads as: Find u V such that B supg u, v = F supg v v H 1 Ω 19 Remark 3 Under the assumptions of Section, the bilinear term b in 3 that corresponds to the convective flux is equivalent to the skew-symmetric term b in 15 Remark 4 By introducing the matrix β, = + τ ββ, the bilinear form a in 14 can be reformulated as: a w, v := a w, v = β, w, v Since matrix β, is positive definite, we can use the decomposition β, = β, β, and prove that the bilinear form is continuous, ie, a w, v β, w β, v, 1 which holds for every pair of nonconforming functions v, w The SUPG-stabilized virtual element approximation of 4 reads as: Find u h V h such that B supg,h u h, v h = F supg,h v h v h V h, where the bilinear form B supg,h : V h V h R and the right-hand side F supg,h : V h R are the virtual element approximation of B supg and F supg, respectively The bilinear form B supg,h is given by B supg,h w h, v h := a h w h, v h + b h w h, v h + c h w h, v h + d h w h, v h 3 for any w h, v h V h, where a h w h, v h := Π k 1 w h, Π k 1 v h + τ β Π k 1 w h, β Π k 1 v h + S I Π k 1 wh, I Π k 1 vh, 4 b h w h, v h := 1 β Π k 1 w h, Π k 1v h Π k 1w h, β Π k 1 v h, 5 c h w h, v h := γπ k 1 w h, Π k 1v h + τ β Π k 1 v h 6 d h w h, v h := τ Π k 1 w h, β Π k 1 v h 9, 7

10 the local VM stabilization term in a h w h, v h is given by S I Π k 1 wh, I Π k 1 vh := + τ βs I Π k 1 wh, I Π k 1 vh, 8 where S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh is such that there exist two constants σ, σ >, independent of h and the problem parameters satisfying, v h V h, σ I Π k 1 vh S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh σ I Π k 1 vh 9 Moreover, the linear functional F supg,h v h is given by F supg,h v h = f, Π k 1v h + τ f, β Π k 1 v h for any v h V h In view of Remark 4, we can define the local bilinear form, 3 a h w h, v h = β, Π k 1 w h, Π k 1 v h such that a h w h, v h = a h w h, v h + S I Π k 1 wh, I Π k 1 vh Notice that, by 1, 8 and 9, the stabilization term S : V h V h R satisfies S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh σ + τ β vh Π k 1v h σ + τ β vh Π k 1 v h σ β, vh Π k 1 v h, being vh Π k 1 v h vh Π k 1 v h According to [51], a possible choice for S is given by S I Π k 1 wh, I Π N k 1 vh = χ i I Π k 1 wh χi I Π k 1 vh, 3 i=1 where N is the number of degrees of freedom on the element and χ i is the operator that selects the i-th degree of freedom The effect of the SUPG stabilization in the VM stabilization is reflected by the term τ β that appears in the local coefficient multiplying S in definition The SUPG parameter τ According to [68, 73], the stability parameter τ when there is no reaction term is defined by τ = h min {Pe, 1}, where Pe := m k β 1 β h, 33

11 and m k := { 1 3 if v h = v h V h, C k otherwise, is the biggest constant number satisfying the fol- is the mesh Péclet number of ; C k lowing inverse inequality: C k h v h v h v h V h 34 A proof of such a local inverse inequality for the virtual element space Vh is provided in [9, Lemma 1] for constant and any function with polynomial laplacian under the current mesh regularity assumptions For a nonconstant, using standard manipulations we obtain 34 with a constant C k that may depend on the variations of on the element In [68, 73] no reaction term was considered Since here we have such a term we need to modify the definition of τ by adding a constraint that guarantees the coercivity of B supg and B supg,h As in the proof of Lemma 1 we need that 1 γ τ C >, we may assume that there exists a constant C τ, 1 such that } τ := min { C k h, h β, C τ γ 35 Finally, we introduce the local arlovitz number, ie, the dimensionless parameter associated with each mesh element, and we redefine τ as a := β C τ h γ, τ = h β min {Pe, 1, a } The comparison between Pe and a determines whether the value of τ is dominated by the convective term, the diffusive term, or the reactive term The two curves in Figure show the behaviour of τ for two possible choices of the problem coefficients The curves are parametrized by the diameter h with decreasing values from left to right along each curve We see that for small values of h right-most part of each curve, τ falls in the diffusive regime, possibly passing through the convective regime, as expected 4 rror Analysis In the following we assume that the problem is well written in the non-dimensional way, and consequently 1, h 1, β = O1, γ O1 Let h := max Th h and define the following norms: v β := a v, v + a h v, v 1, 36 v βγ := v β + γπ k 1v 1, 37 11

12 = 1, = 1, = 1e-4 = 1, = 1, = 5e-6 Pe reaction dominated convection dominated 1 diffusion dominated a Figure : Different regimes of τ for different values of Pe and a on the nonconforming space H 1,nc k T h In 36, for the evaluation of S v, v, we assume to use the VM interpolant of the function v, see [9, Theorem 11] Clearly, v β v βγ 41 Discretization errors The following Lemmas, 3, 4, and 5 provide a continuity bound for the discrete bilinear forms 4-7 and an estimate of the approximation error when compared with the corresponding continuous ones Throughout the section, we use the approximation results for the local polynomial projections of a function v H s+1, cf [74, Lemma 51], given by: v Π k 1 v + h v Π k 1 v 1, Ch s+1 v s+1, 1 s + 1 k, 38 v Π k v + h v Π k v 1, Ch s+1 v s+1, 1 s + 1 k + 1, 39 which hold for every mesh element and polynomial degree k 1 under the mesh assumptions of Section 31 For every internal edge e = + and functions v H s+1 ω e with ω e = + we will also consider the trace inequality v Π,e k 1 v e v + h e Π,e k 1 v 1,e Ch s+ 1 e v s+1,ωe 1 s + 1 k 4 We use the error estimate for the virtual element interpolant of order k of a function ϕ H s+1, 1 s + 1 k + 1 [49]: ϕ ϕ I + h ϕ ϕ I 1, Ch s+1 ϕ s+1, 41 1

13 Furthermore, 41 implies that ϕ ϕ I βγ = ϕ ϕi + τ β ϕ ϕ I + + Π k 1 ϕ ϕ I + τ β Π k 1 ϕ ϕ I +S I Π k 1 ϕ ϕi, I Π k 1 ϕ ϕi + γπ k 1ϕ ϕ I C {, τ β, h } γ h s ϕ s+1,, max 4 for some positive constant C independent of h and the local problem coefficients, β, γ Assumption 1 We assume that the solution u to 19 belongs to H s+1 T h V, with 1 < s + 1 k + 1 and that [ W Ω ] s d d [, β W s+1 Ω ] d [, γ W s+1 Ω ] The following technical lemma is needed in the upcoming proofs Lemma 1 Let a, b W s be given, T h Then, ab Π ab 3 W s a W s b Π b + b W s a W Π s a W s 43 Proof We consider the following decomposition, exploiting the fact that Π aπ b = Π aπ b = Π bπ a : ab Π ab = 1 ab + ab Π ab Π ab = 1 [ ab Π a b + Π a b Π a Π b + Π bπ a Π ab +ab aπ b + aπ b Π a Π b + Π aπ b Π ab ] = 1 [ a Π a b + b Π b Π a + a b Π b + a Π a Π b Π Π a a b + Π Π b b a ] The proof is concluded by the triangle inequality, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and by exploiting the fact that Π a W s = Π a a, a W s We now estimate the terms inside B supg,h to analyse their continuity, and their consistency with respect to polynomials of order k Lemma For every function w H 1,nc k T h and v h V h H 1,nc k T h, a h w, v h w βγ v h βγ 44 Moreover, if w H 1,nc k T h H s+1 T h, then a Π { k 1w, v h ah Π k 1 w, v h C max C nc a,} h s w T s+1 v h β, 45 h 13

14 where β, Π β, Ca, nc W s = 46 Proof Regarding 44, to estimate the continuity of a h, we use the Cauchy-Schwarz and Hölder inequalities and the definition of the norm 36: a h w, v h a h w, w a h v h, v h 1 w β v h β To prove 45, we first notice that S I Π k 1 Π k 1 w, v h = and Π k 1 Π k 1 w = Π k 1 w: a Π k 1 w, v h ah Π k 1 w, v h β, Π k 1 Π k 1w, Π k 1 v h = β, Π k 1w, v h β, Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h The local terms are bounded using the k-consistency a h, = a, when the coefficients are constants and one of the arguments is a polynomial: β, Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h = β, Π β, Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h = β, Π β, Π k 1w Π k 1 β, Π β, Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h β, Π β, Π k 1w Π k 1 β, Π β, Π k 1w vh Π k 1 v h Ch s β, Π β, Π k 1w vh s, + Π k 1 v h β, Π β, Ch s W s w s+1, v h β, Remark 5 We can bound Ca, nc as follows, using 43 and 35: β, Π β, Ca, nc W s = 1 Π + τ W s ββ Π ββ W s C Π + h W s β β W s Lemma 3 For every function w H 1,nc k [ b h w, v h C max τ 1 β Π β W s T h and v h V h H 1,nc k T h it holds that ], h 1 nc b, w + max C nc,1 T b,, nc b, w h v h β, 47 14

15 where C nc,r b, = h β Π β W r, r 1, 48 nc b, = h β ˆn W 1 49 Moreover, for every function w H 1,nc k T h H s+1 T h, it holds that b Π k 1 w, v h bh Π k 1 w, v h C max C nc,s+1 T b, h s w s+1 v h β 5 h Proof To obtain 47, we first introduce the following decomposition: b h w, v h = T,1 + T, + T,3 + T,4, where, T h, T,1 = β Π k 1 w w, Π k 1v h, 51 T, = β w, Π k 1v h v h, 5 T,3 = β w, v h, 53 T,4 = Π k 1w, β Π k 1 v h 54 We estimate T,1 in 51 as follows: T,1 = Π k 1 w w, β Π βπ k 1v h = w, β Π βπ k 1v h Π k 1 β Π βπ k 1v h w β Π βπ k 1v h Π k 1 β Π βπ k 1v h Ch w β Π βπ k 1v 1, h Ch w β Π β W 1 Π k 1 v 1, h C h β Π β W 1 w v h β 15

16 T, in 5 is estimated similarly, using also 9: T, = β w, Π k 1v h v h w, β Π k 1v h v h + τ 1 w τ 1 β Π k 1 v h v h + C w β ˆn, vh Π k 1v h τ 1 w w β ˆn Π k 1v h v h 1 τ β σ S I Π k 1 vh, I Πk 1 vh + Ch 1 w β ˆn, h 1 v h C τ 1 + β ˆn, w v h β, The estimation of T,3 in 53 requires an application of Green s formula, as follows: T,3 w, β v h + β ˆn wv h T h = w, β v h + 1 β ˆn wv h T h The first term is estimated locally by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality: w, β v h τ 1 w v h β, The boundary terms are estimated exploiting β ˆn = β =, and denoting by 16

17 Π, k 1 v the piecewise polynomial projection of v on each e : β ˆn wv h = β ˆn w R v h + w v h R ω = R ω + = R ω R ω + = R ω R ω + R ω R R R C 1 R R β ˆn w R Π, k 1 β ˆn w R v h w β ˆn v h Π, k 1 β ˆn v h β ˆn w R Π, k 1 β ˆn w R v h Π, k 1 v h w Π k 1 w β ˆn v h Π, k 1 β ˆn v h β ˆn w R Π, k 1 β ˆn w R R v h Π, k 1 h v R w Π k 1w β R ˆn vh Π, k 1 β ˆn v h R ω h β ˆn w R 1,R + C R ω h β ˆn v h 1, R h 1 v h ω h 1 w ω C 1 h 1 β ˆn W 1 w ω h 1 v h ω R + C h 1 β ˆn W 1 v h ω h 1 w ω C h β ˆn W 1 w ω v h β,ω The estimate of T,4 defined by 54 is obtained by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the continuity of projections and the definition of the norm 36: T,4 = Π k 1w, β Π k 1 v h Cτ 1 w v h β, To derive 5, we set b Π k 1w, v h bh Π k 1 w, v h = R,1 R,, where, recalling that Πk 1 Π k 1 w = Π k 1 w, R,1 = β Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h, 55 R, = Π k 1w, β v h Π k 1 v h 56 17

18 R,1 can be estimated as follows: R,1 = β Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h = β Π β Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h = β Π β Π k 1w Π k 1 β Π β Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h β Π β Π k 1w Π k 1 β Π β Π k 1w vh Π k 1v h Ch s β Π β Π k 1w s, h v h Ch s+1 β Π β W s w s+1, v h C h β Π β W s h s w s+1, v h β The estimate of R, in 56 is obtained as follows: R, = Π k 1w, β v h Π k 1 v h = β Π β Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h = β Π β Π k 1w Π k 1 β Π β Π k 1w, v h β Π β Π k 1w Π k 1 β Π β Π k 1w v h Ch s+1 β Π β Π k 1w s+1, v h Ch s+1 β Π β W s+1 Π k 1w s+1, v h C h β Π β W s+1 h s w s+1, v h β, Remark 6 The coefficient b, nc can be rewritten, considering that β ˆn = β ˆn =, in the following way: β b, nc = h β ˆn h W 1 ˆn β ˆn W 1 = Lemma 4 For every function w H 1,nc k T h and v h V h it holds that c h w, v h 1 + C τ w βγ v h βγ 57 Moreover, for every function w H 1,nc k T h H s+1 T h, it holds that c Π k 1 w, v h ch Π k 1 w, v h C max Cc, nc h s w T s+1 v h β, 58 h { h Cc, nc γ Π γ W s+1 = max, h τ γβ Π γβ } W s

19 Proof Inequality 57 follows easily from the definition of the norm 37 and the definition of τ 35: γπ k 1 w, Π k 1v h + τ γπ k 1 w, β Π k 1 v h γπ k 1w γπ k 1 v h + τ γ γπ k 1 w τ β Π k 1 v h 1 + C τ w βγ, v h βγ, To prove 58, we start with: where c Π k 1w, v h ch Π k 1 w, v h = R,1 + R,, R,1 = γπ k 1w, v h Π k 1v h, 6 R, = τ γπ k 1 w, β v h β Π k 1 v h 61 The first term, given by 6, can be bounded as follows: R,1 = γ Π γ Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h = γ Π γ Π k 1w Π k 1 γ Π γ Π k 1w, v h Π k 1v h γ Π γ Π k 1w Π k 1 γ Π γ Π k 1w vh Π k 1v h Ch s+1 γ Π γ Π k 1w s+1, h v h Ch s+ γ Π γ W s+1 Π k 1w s+1, v h C h γ Π γ W s+1 h s w s+1, v h β, The term R, in 56 can be bounded as follows: R, = τ γπ k 1 w, β v h β Π k 1 v h = τ γβ Π γβ Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h = τ γβ Π γβ Π k 1w Π k 1 γβ Π γβ Π k 1w, v h Π k 1 v h τ γβ Π γβ Π k 1w Π k 1 γβ Π γβ Π k 1w vh Π k 1 v h Ch s+1 τ γβ Π γβ Π k 1w s+1, v h Ch τ γβ Π γβ W s+1 hs w s+1, v h C h τ γβ Π γβ W s+1 h s w s+1, v h β, Remark 7 The second argument of the max in 59 can be bounded by 43 and 35: h τ γβ Π γβ W s+1 C Cτ h γ γ W s h β β W s+1 β Π β W s+1 γ Π γ W s+1

20 Lemma 5 For any w H 1,nc k T h and v h V h, d h w, v h w β v h β 6 Moreover, if w V H s+1 T h, then d Π k 1 w, v h dh Π k 1 w, v h C max Cd, nc h s w T s+1 v h β, 63 h where Cd, nc = max h 1 τ i=1 d βi Π β i W s, τ β Π β W s Proof To prove 6, we use the inverse inequality 34 and the definition of the norm 36: T h, τ Π k 1 w, β Π k 1 v h τ Π k 1 w τ β Π k 1 v h Regarding 63, we procede as follows: T h, 64 1 Π k 1 w v h β w β v h β τ Π k 1 w, β v h Π k 1 v h = R,1 + R,, where, with the notation k 1 = I Π k 1, R,1 = τ d i=1 β i Π k 1 w vh, k 1, 65 x i R, = τ β Π k 1 w, k 1 v h 66

21 The term R,1 in 55 can be estimated as follows, using 43, d R,1 = τ β i Π β i Π k 1 w vh, k 1 x i=1 i d = τ k 1 βi Π β i Π k 1 w vh, k 1 x i τ i=1 d k 1 βi Π β i Π k 1 w vh k 1 x i i=1 Ch 1 τ d k 1 βi Π β i Π k 1 w v h x i i=1 Ch 1 τ h s Ch 1 τ h s d β i Π β i Π k 1 w s, v h i=1 d i=1 βi Π β i Π W s k 1 w s, v h C h 1 τ d i=1 βi Π β i W s h s w s+1, v h β, The term R, in 56 can be estimated as follows, using also 43: R, = τ β Π k 1 w, k 1 v h = τ k 1 β Π β Π k 1 w, v h τ k 1 β Π β Π k 1 w v h Cτ h s β Π β Π k 1 w s, v h C τ β Π β W s h s w s+1, v h β, Remark 8 The first argument of the max in 64 can be bounded as follows, using 43 and 35: τ d i=1 βi Π β i W s + β W s Π W s C h h 1 W s 3h 1 τ β Π β W s + β W s β Π β W s β W s Π W s 1

22 Similarly, the second argument in 64 can be bounded as follows: τ β Π β W s C h β W s W s β +h Π β W s W s Finally, the following Lemma states the continuity of B supg, defined by 13 Lemma 6 Let w H 1,nc k T h H T h and v h V h Then, [ B supg w, v h C max τ 1, h 1 nc b, w + w βγ + max b, nc w T h ] + max τ W 1 w Π k 1 w, v h βγ, 67 Proof The proof of the continuity of a, b and c follows the same arguments of Lemmas, 3 and 4 The proof of the continuity of d is slightly different, and can be done as follows: τ w, β v h = τ w Π k 1 w, β v h + τ Π k 1 w, β v h τ w Π k 1 w β v h + τ Π k 1 w β v h τ w Π k 1 w + τ w Π k 1 w + Π τ k 1 w β v h C τ W 1 w Π k 1 w, + w w β The above lemmas can be summarized in the following lemma, estimating the error of approximation of the exact bilinear form by the discrete bilinear form Lemma 7 For any given w H 1,nc k T h H s+1 T h and any v h V h, { W 1 B supg w, v h B supg,h w, v h C max, h β, h γ, C nc a,, C nc b,, C nc c,, C nc d,, nc b,} h s w s+1 v h β, where Ca, nc, Cnc b,, Cnc c,, Cnc d, and nc b, are defined by 46, 48, 59, 64 and 49 68

23 Proof Collecting the results of Lemmas, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the approximation estimates on the polynomial projections, we get B supg w, v h B supg,h w, v h Bsupg w Π k 1 w, v h + Bsupg,h w Π k 1 w, v h + Bsupg Π k 1 w, v h Bsupg,h Π k 1 w, v h C max w Π k 1w βγ + max τ W 1 + max { W 1 C max { Ca,, nc C nc,s+1 T b, h w Π k 1w + max, τ 1 }, Cc,, nc Cd,, nc b, nc h s w s+1 v h β, h β, h γ, C nc a,, C nc,s+1 b,, C nc w Π k 1w c,, Cd,, nc b, nc } h s w s+1 v h β Due to the non-conformity of our approach and since the functions in the global virtual element space V h may be discontinuous, for the exact solution u H T h H 1 Ω and every v h V h it holds that where B supg u, v h = F supg v h + N h u, v h, N h u, v h := u ˆn 1 β ˆn u, v h 69 is called the conformity error This term is a generalization of the one of the pure diffusion problem that is introduced and estimated in [49, Lemma 41] Lemma 8 Conformity error Let u H s+1 T h H 1 Ω, 1 s k, be the solution of the variational problem 4 Let β W s+1 Ω and suppose u H div, Ω Under the mesh regularity assumptions of Section 31, for every v h V h it holds that { } W s N h u, v h C max, nc N, h s u s+1 v h βγ, 7 where nc N, = h β ˆn s+ 1 W 71 Proof The first term in 69 is bounded following [49, Lemma 41], using the fact that, 3

24 by hypothesis, u ˆn is continuous: u ˆn, v h = u ˆn, v h e = u Π k 1 u ˆn, v h e e h e h u Π k 1 u ˆn e v h Π,e k 1 v e h e h e h Ch s 1 e u s,ωe h 1 e v h ωe W s h s u s+1,ωe v h ωe The second term in 69 is estimated using the fact that v h H 1,nc k T h Denoting by Π, k 1 v h the piecewise polynomial projection of v h on each e and since Π,e k 1 v h = Π,e k 1 v h e = e because e e v h q = q P k 1 e, and since β ˆnu is continuous across the edges being β a divergence-free vector and u H 1 Ω, we get β ˆnu, v h = β ˆn u, v h = 1 β ˆn u, v h = 1 β ˆn u, v h Π, k 1 v h = 1 β ˆn u Π, k 1 β ˆn u, v h Π, k 1 v h 1 β ˆn u Π, k 1 β ˆn u v h Π, k 1 h v C h s+ 1 C h s+1 β ˆn u s+ 1, h 1 v h ω β ˆn s+ 1 W u s+1,ω v h β,ω 4 Well-posedness of the discrete problem The following theorem proves the well-posedness of the discrete formulation Theorem 1 Coercivity of B supg,h For any v h V h, { 1 B supg,h v h, v h min 4, σ } 1 Cτ where C τ is the constant introduced in 35 4 v h βγ, 7

25 Proof Let v h V h By definition 5, it holds that b v h, v h = 1 [ β Π k 1 v h, Π k 1v h Π k 1v h, β Π k 1 v h ] = Moreover, using Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities we find that τ γπ k 1 v h, β Π k 1 v h γ τ γπ k 1 v h β Π k 1 v h 1 γπ k 1v h γ τ + β Π k 1 v h, which implies that τ γπ k 1 v h, β Π k 1 v h Inverse inequality 34 imply that 1 γπ k 1v h γ τ β Π k 1 v h 73 τ Π k 1 v h C k h Π k 1 v h 1 Π k 1 v h Π k 1 v h, 74 since Π k 1 v h Π k 1 v h Using the definition of B supg,h, cf 3, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, inverse inequality 34, inequalities 73, 74 and 35, we 5

26 have B supg,h v h, v h = { Π k 1 v h + S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh + γπ k 1v h + τ γπ k 1 v h, β Π k 1 v h } τ Π k 1 v h, β Π k 1 v h { Π k 1 v h + 1 γ τ + S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh τ Π } k 1 v h β Π k 1 v h { Π k 1 v h + S I Π k 1 vh, I Π 1 k 1 vh + 1 τ Π } k 1 v h { 1 Π k 1 v h +S I Π k 1 vh, I Π 1 k 1 vh + 1 C τ Π k 1 v h + τ β Π k 1 v h τ β Π k 1 v h γπ k 1v h 1 + C τ τ β Π k 1 v h γπ k 1v h 1 + C τ τ β Π k 1 v h } γπ k 1v h + τ β Π k 1 v h +S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh + γπ k 1 v h 6

27 Next, using the coercivity of the VM stabilization in 31 we get T h, Π k 1 v h + τ β Π k 1 v h + S I Π k 1 vh, I Π k 1 vh 1 a h v h, v h + 1 Π k 1 v h + τ β Π k 1 v h +σ + τ β v h Π k 1v h { 1 } Π k 1 v h 1 a h v h, v h + min, σ + + τ β vh Π k 1 v h 1 { 1 a h v h, v h + min, σ + v h Π k 1 v h { 1 min 4, σ } Π k 1 v h } a h v h, v h + a v h, v h + τ β Π k 1 v h + τ β Π k 1 v h + τ β v h Π k 1 v h In the last line we use the following inequalities: Π k 1 v h + v h Π k 1 v h 1 v h, β τ Π k 1 v h + β vh Π k 1 v h 1 β v h 43 A priori error estimates Here, we prove the a priori error estimates showing that the stabilized formulation of the problem has optimal rates of convergence Several constants in the error inequalities are numbered to track their dependence on the local problem coefficients Theorem Let u H s+1 T h H 1 Ω, s + 1 k + 1, be the solution of the variational problem 19 with f H s 1 Ω, [ W s+1 Ω ] d d [, β W s+1 Ω ] d and γ W s+1 Ω Let u h V h be the solution of the VM under the mesh assumption of Section 31 Then, for h sufficiently small, it holds W u u h βγ Ch {max s s, h β, h γ, Ca,, nc C nc,s+1 b,, Cc,, nc Cd,, nc N nc,, } nc b, where Ca, nc, Cnc,s+1 b,, Cc, nc, Cnc 71 and 49 respectively, and C nc f, = max u s+1 + max Cf, nc d,, nc N,, and nc b, { f Π f s 1,, h 1 τ 7 75 are defined by 46, 48, 59, 64, fβ Π fβ } s 1, 76

28 Proof First, by using the triangle inequality we have u u h βγ u u I βγ + u h u I βγ The first term is bounded using 4 with ψ = u We are left to estimate the norm of e h := u h u I Since e h V h, by 7 we know that α e h βγ B supg,h u h u I, e h = F supg,h e h B supg,h u I, e h = F supg,h e h F supg e h N h u, e h + B supg u, e h B supg,h u I, e h F supg,h e h F supg e h + N h u, e h + B supg,h u u I, e h + B supg u, e h B supg,h u, e h We estimate the first term as follows: f, e h Π k 1e h + τ f, β eh Π k 1 e h = = f Π f, e h Π k 1e h + τ fβ Π fβ, e h f Π f Π k 1 f Π f, e h Π k 1e h + τ fβ Π fβ Π k 1 fβ Π fβ, e h f Π f Π k 1 f Π f e h Π k 1e h + τ fβ Π fβ Π k 1 fβ Π fβ e h Ch s f Π f + h 1 s 1, τ fβ Π fβ s 1, e h Ch s f Π f s 1, + h 1 τ fβ Π fβ s 1, e h β, Using the continuity estimate 44 to bound a h, 47 to bound b h, 57 to bound c h, 6 to bound d h, and the estimate of the VM interpolant 4, we estimate the third term as follows: Bsupg,h u u I, e h Ch s { u u I βγ e h βγ + max u u I } e h β τ 1 + max C nc,1 T b, + nc b, u u I h Ch s max {, h β, h γ, C nc,1 b,, nc b, 77 } u s+1 e h βγ The proof of 75 is concluded by using the above estimates, the estimate 7 on the non-conformity term and 68 8

29 Remark 9 The second argument of the max in 76 can be estimated as follows, using 43: h 1 τ fβ Π fβ s 1, β Π β W s 1 C f s 1, + β W s 1 f Π f s 1, β Remark 1 When we consider constant coefficients and a costant right-hand side all the non-consistency terms in 75 vanish, yielding the following estimate: u u h βγ Ch s max, h β, h γ, N nc,, b, nc u T s+1 h Moreover, if we consider a conforming discretization, Theorem proves a robust estimate with respect to the Péclet number: u u h βγ Ch s max, h β, h γ u T s+1, h as obtained for classical Finite lements 5 Numerical Results The numerical experiments of this section are aimed at confirming the convergence rates predicted by the a priori analysis developed in the previous sections and comparing the performance of the nonconforming VM with that of the conforming VM In a preliminary stage, the consistency of the numerical method, ie the exactness of these methods for polynomial solutions, has been tested numerically by solving the elliptic equation with boundary and source data determined by the monomials ux, y = x µ y ν on different set of polygonal meshes and for all possible combinations of nonnegative integers µ and ν such that µ + ν k, with k = 1,, 3 In all the cases, the error magnitude was within the arithmetic precision, thus confirming the consistency of the VM To study the accuracy of the method we solve the convection-reaction-diffusion equation on the domain Ω =], 1[ ], 1[ The variable coefficients of the equation are given by [ ] 1 + x xy x, y = α xy 1 + y, α = 1 7, 78 βx, y = cosπx, sinπy T, 79 γx, y = expx + y 8 Since the Péclet number here is in the range [ 1 6, 1 7], all calculations are in the convection dominated regime The forcing term and the Dirichlet boundary conditions are set such that the exact solution is ux, y = sinπx sinπy + x 5 + y

30 Mesh mesh Mesh Non Convex Octo 81 5x5 mesh Mesh Mesh Non Convex Octo 81 1x1 a b c d Figure 3: Base mesh top row and first refinement bottom row of the four mesh families: a regular hexagonal mesh; b remapped hexagonal mesh; c highly distorted quadrilateral mesh; d non-convex regular mesh The performances of the methods presented above are investigated by evaluating the rate of convergence on four different sequences of unstructured meshes, labeled by M 1, M, M 3, and M 4 respectively The top panels of Fig 3 show the first mesh of each sequence and the bottom panels show the mesh of the first refinement The meshes in M 1 are built by partitioning the domain Ω into regular hexagonal cells At the boundaries of Ω each mesh is completed by half hexagonal cells The meshes in M are built as follows First, we determine a primal mesh by remapping the position x, ŷ of the nodes of a uniform square partition of Ω by the smooth coordinate transformation: x = x + 1/1 sinπ x sinπŷ, y = ŷ + 1/1 sinπ x sinπŷ The corresponding mesh of M is built from the primal mesh by splitting each quadrilateral cell into two triangles and connecting the barycenters of adjacent triangular cells by a straight segment The mesh construction is completed at the boundary by connecting the barycenters of the triangular cells close to the boundary to the midpoints of the boundary edges and these latters to the boundary vertices of the primal mesh The meshes in M 3 are taken from the mesh suites of the FVCA-6 Benchmark [75], and are formed by highly skewed quadrilateral cells The meshes in M 4 are obtained by filling Ω with a suitably scaled non-convex octagonal reference cell All the meshes are parametrised by the number of partitions in each direction The starting mesh of every sequence is built from a 5 5 regular grid, and the refined meshes are obtained by doubling this resolution All errors, computed as in [51, 73], are reported in Figs 4, 5, 6, and 7 rror values are labeled by a circle for the nonconforming VM and by a square for the conforming VM, that are stabilized by the method developed in [73] ach figure shows the relative errors with respect to the maximum diameter of the discretization, in the L norms left 3

31 panel and in the H 1 norms right panel In the same figures we report the slopes k + 1 for the L -norm and k for the H 1 -norm The numerical results confirm the theoretical rate of convergence for the H 1 -norm The conforming and nonconforming VMs provide very close results on any fixed mesh, with the conforming method slightly over performing the nonconforming VM in few cases To test the robustness of the approach with respect to very large Péclet numbers, we have performed some tests with values of and β in the form of 78 and 79, with α spanning a wide range of orders of magnitude α { 1 i : i = 4,, 11 }, with γx, y = In Figure 8 we display the H 1 approximation error plotted with respect to the values of α, on two of the meshes previously used We can see that, as far as the presented tests are concerned, the error is bounded independently of the values of α, even on non convex polygons, thus confirming the robustness of the approach 51 Approximation of internal and boundary layers The second test is the classic problem from [68] The computational domain and the boundary conditions are as shown in Figure 9 The velocity forms an angle θ with the x-axis, and propagates the non-homogeneous boundary condition u = 1 inside Ω, thus generating an internal discontinuity, which is numerically approximated by an internal layer, a sharp transition between the constant solution states u = and 1 The homogeneous boundary condition at the top of the computational domain produces a boundary layer The diffusion coefficient is constant on Ω and given by = 1 6, while the velocity is β = cos θ, sin θ, and θ = arctan1 The Péclet number is about 1 6 We solve this problem using the remapped and the regular hexagonal meshes see plots a b of Figure 3, with resolution 4 4 third refinement Figures 1 and 11 show the results obtained with the conforming VM [73] left panels and the nonconfoming VM right panels for the polynomial degrees k = 1 and k = 3 The results are quite similar to those presented in [68, 73], and are coherent with the expected behaviour of the method Undershoots and overshoots are present near the internal layer, as is normal for this problem However, by increasing the accuracy order of the VM, the numerical solution becomes smoother A thorough inspection of these plots also reveals that the nonconforming VM tends to provide a sharper internal layer than that of the conforming VM at the price of a relatively bigger amplitude of the spurious oscillations in the transition region 6 Conclusions In this paper, we proposed a nonconforming VM for the advection-diffusion-reaction problem in the convection-dominated regime Due to the strong convective field with respect to the diffusion term, we introduced the SUPG stabilization by extending to the nonconforming VM the stabilization technique proposed in [73] The stabilization included in the virtual element formulation is a natural extension of the classical SUPG stabilization for the standard FM To ensure coercivity of the discrete operators, we modify the SUPG stabilization by introducing a VM stabilization of the SUPG stabilization term Optimal convergence rates are obtained from the convergence analysis under proper assumptions on the regularity of problem coefficients, the meshes, and the exact solution The numerical results confirm the behaviour of the VM that is expected 31

32 1 L Approximation rror H 1 Approximation rror Mesh size h Mesh size h Figure 4: Relative approximation errors obtained using the conforming VM dashed lines labeled with squares and the nonconforming VM solid lines labeled with circles for k = 1,, 3 from top to bottom Calculations are carried out using the regular hexagonal meshes of Figure 3a rrors are measured in the L norm left panels and H 1 norm right panels, and plotted versus h from the theory and the stabilizing effect of the additional SUPG term provides stable discrete solutions even for very large Péclet numbers in the order of 1 6 References [1] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, A Cangiani, G Manzini, L D Marini, A Russo, Basic principles of virtual element methods, Mathematical Models & Methods in Applied Sciences [] L Beirão da Veiga, G Manzini, M Putti, Post-processing of solution and flux for the nodal mimetic finite difference method, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential quations [3] L Beirão da Veiga, Lipnikov, G Manzini, Arbitrary order nodal mimetic discretizations of elliptic problems on polygonal meshes, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis [4] F Brezzi, A Buffa, Lipnikov, Mimetic finite differences for elliptic problems, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis [5] G Manzini, Lipnikov, J D Moulton, M Shashkov, Convergence analysis of the mimetic finite difference method for elliptic problems with staggered discretizations of diffusion coefficients, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis doi:11137/16m [6] Lipnikov, G Manzini, M Shashkov, Mimetic finite difference method, Journal of Computational Physics 57 Part B , review paper [7] L Beirão da Veiga, Lipnikov, G Manzini, The Mimetic Finite Difference Method, I dition, Vol 11 of MS&A Modeling, Simulations and Applications, Springer, 14 [8] P F Antonietti, L Beirão da Veiga, S Scacchi, M Verani, A C 1 virtual element method for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with polygonal meshes, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis [9] A Cangiani, H Georgoulis, T Pryer, O J Sutton, A posteriori error estimates for the virtual element method, Numerische Mathematik doi:117/s [1] L Beirão da Veiga, A Chernov, L Mascotto, A Russo, Basic principles of hp virtual elements on quasiuniform meshes, Mathematical Models & Methods in Applied Sciences [11] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, Hdiv and Hcurl-conforming VM, Numerische Mathematik [1] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, Virtual element methods for general second 3

33 1 L Approximation rror H 1 Approximation rror Mesh size h Mesh size h Figure 5: Relative approximation errors obtained using the conforming VM dashed lines labeled with squares and the nonconforming VM solid lines labeled with circles for k = 1,, 3 from top to bottom Calculations are carried out using the remapped hexagonal meshes of Figure 3b rrors are measured in the L norm left panels and H 1 norm right panels, and plotted versus h order elliptic problems on polygonal meshes, Mathematical Models & Methods in Applied Sciences [13] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, Mixed virtual element methods for general second order elliptic problems on polygonal meshes, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis [14] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, Serendipity nodal vem spaces, Computers and Fluids [15] M F Benedetto, S Berrone, A Borio, S Pieraccini, S Scialò, A hybrid mortar virtual element method for discrete fracture network simulations, Journal of Computational Physics doi:1116/jjcp [16] S Berrone, A Borio, S Scialò, A posteriori error estimate for a PD-constrained optimization formulation for the flow in DFNs, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis doi:11137/15m11476 [17] M F Benedetto, S Berrone, S Scialò, A globally conforming method for solving flow in discrete fracture networks using the virtual element method, Finite lements in Analysis and Design doi:1116/jfinel1513 [18] S Berrone, S Pieraccini, S Scialò, Towards effective flow simulations in realistic discrete fracture networks, Journal of Computational Physics doi:1116/jjcp1619 [19] P Wriggers, W T Rust, B D Reddy, A virtual element method for contact, Computational Mechanics doi:117/s x URL [] L Beirão da Veiga, G Manzini, Residual a posteriori error estimation for the virtual element method for elliptic problems, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis doi:1151/man/1447 [1] S Natarajan, P A Bordas, T Ooi, Virtual and smoothed finite elements: a connection and its application to polygonal/polyhedral finite element methods, Intenational Journal on Numerical Methods in ngineering [] S Berrone, S Pieraccini, S Scialò, F Vicini, A parallel solver for large scale DFN flow simulations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing C85 C36 doi:11137/ [3] G Vacca, L Beirão da Veiga, Virtual element methods for parabolic problems on polygonal meshes, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential quations An International Journal [4] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, The hitchhiker s guide to the virtual element method, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences

34 L Approximation rror Mesh size h Mesh size h Figure 6: Relative approximation errors obtained using the conforming VM dashed lines labeled with squares and the nonconforming VM solid lines labeled with circles for k = 1,, 3 from top to bottom Calculations are carried out using the highly distorted quadrilateral meshes of Figure 3c rrors are measured in the L norm left panels and H 1 norm right panels, and plotted versus h H 1 Approximation rror [5] L Beirão da Veiga, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, Virtual element methods for general second order elliptic problems on polygonal meshes, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences doi:1114/s [6] L Beirão da Veiga, L Manzini, A virtual element method with arbitrary regularity, IMA Journal on Numerical Analysis , doi: 1193/imanum/drt18, first published online 13 [7] M F Benedetto, S Berrone, S Pieraccini, S Scialò, The virtual element method for discrete fracture network simulations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and ngineering doi:1116/jcma14716 [8] F Brezzi, L D Marini, Virtual element methods for plate bending problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and ngineering doi:1116/jcma191 [9] M F Benedetto, S Berrone, A Borio, The Virtual lement Method for underground flow simulations in fractured media, in: Advances in Discretization Methods, Vol 1 of SMA SIMAI Springer Series, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 16, pp doi:117/ _8 [3] S Berrone, A Borio, Orthogonal polynomials in badly shaped polygonal elements for the Virtual lement Method, Finite lements in Analysis & Design doi:1116/jfinel 1716 [31] M F Benedetto, S Berrone, A Borio, S Pieraccini, S Scialo, The virtual element method for discrete fracture network flow and transport simulations, in: CCOMAS Congress 16 - Proceedings of the 7th uropean Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and ngineering, Vol, 16, pp [3] Wachspress, A rational finite element basis, Vol 114 of Mathematics in Science and ngineering, Academic Press, Inc, New York-London, 1975 [33] N Sukumar, A Tabarraei, Conforming polygonal finite elements, International Journal for Numerical Methods in ngineering [34] C Hofreither, U Langer, S Weißer, Convection-adapted BM-based FM, ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik [35] S Weißer, Residual error estimate for bem-based fem on polygonal meshes, Numerische Mathematik [36] J Droniou, Finite volume schemes for diffusion equations: Introduction to and review of modern methods, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences [37] J Droniou, R ymard, T Gallouët, R Herbin, A unified approach to mimetic finite difference, 34

35 1 L Approximation rror H 1 Approximation rror Mesh size h Mesh size h Figure 7: Relative approximation errors obtained using the conforming VM dashed lines labeled with squares and the nonconforming VM solid lines labeled with circles for k = 1,, 3 from top to bottom Calculations are carried out using the non convex meshes of Figure 3d rrors are measured in the L norm left panels and H 1 norm right panels, and plotted versus h hybrid finite volume and mixed finite volume methods, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences doi:1114/s18514 [38] D A D Pietro, A rn, Hybrid high-order methods for variable-diffusion problems on general meshes, Comptes Rendus Mathematique doi:1116/jcrma14113 [39] D A Di Pietro, A rn, Mathematical aspects of discontinuous Galerkin methods, Springer Science & Business Media, 11 [4] A Cangiani, H Georgoulis, P Houston, hp-version discontinuous Galerkin methods on polygonal and polyhedral meshes, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences [41] B Cockburn, J Gopalakrishnan, R Lazarov, Unified hybridization of discontinuous Galerkin, mixed, and continuous Galerkin methods for second order elliptic problems,, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis [4] J Droniou, R ymard, R Herbin, Gradient schemes: Generic tools for the numerical analysis of diffusion equations, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis doi:1151/man/1579 [43] J Droniou, R ymard, R Herbin, Gradient schemes: a generic framework for the discretisation of linear, nonlinear and nonlocal elliptic and parabolic problems, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences doi:1114/s [44] G Manzini, A Russo, N Sukumar, New perspectives on polygonal and polyhedral finite element methods, Mathematical Models & Methods in Applied Sciences [45] A Cangiani, G Manzini, A Russo, N Sukumar, Hourglass stabilization of the virtual element method, International Journal on Numerical Methods in ngineering [46] D A Di Pietro, J Droniou, G Manzini, Discontinuous skeletal gradient discretisation methods on polytopal meshes, Journal of Computational Physics doi: 1116/jjcp [47] A Cangiani, V Gyya, G Manzini, S O, Chapter 14: Virtual element methods for elliptic problems on polygonal meshes, in: Hormann, N Sukumar ds, Generalized Barycentric Coordinates in Computer Graphics and Computational Mechanics, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 17, pp 1 [48] B Ahmad, A Alsaedi, F Brezzi, L D Marini, A Russo, quivalent projectors for virtual element methods, Computers & Mathematics with Applications [49] B Ayuso de Dios, Lipnikov, G Manzini, The non-conforming virtual element method, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis [5] Lipnikov, G Manzini, A high-order mimetic method for unstructured polyhedral meshes, Journal 35

36 Conforming VM Nonconforming VM H 1 Approximation rror k = 1 k = k = 3 H 1 Approximation rror k = 1 k = k = Coefficient α Coefficient α Mesh of regular hexagons a Conforming VM Nonconforming VM H 1 Approximation rror k = 1 k = k = 3 H 1 Approximation rror k = 1 k = k = Coefficient α Coefficient α Mesh of regular non convex cells d Figure 8: H 1 relative approximation error versus the viscous coefficient α [1 11, 1 4 ] using the first refined mesh of mesh families a top panels and d bottom panels for the test case with γx, y = The problem is solved by applying the conforming VM left panel and nonconforming VM right panel of degree k = 1 circles, k = squares, k = 3 diamonds 36

37 y y=1 u = u = velocity θ u = u = 1 y= u = 1 x=1 x Figure 9: Test : domain and boundary conditions of Computational Physics [51] A Cangiani, G Manzini, O Sutton, Conforming and nonconforming virtual element methods for elliptic problems, IMA Journal on Numerical AnalysisAccepted June 16 doi:1193/imanum/ drw36 [5] A Cangiani, V Gyrya, G Manzini, The non-conforming virtual element method for the Stokes equations, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis [53] P F Antonietti, G Manzini, M Verani, The fully nonconforming Virtual lement method for biharmonic problems, M3AS Math Models Methods Appl Sci 8 [54] J Zhao, S Chen, B Zhang, The nonconforming virtual element method for plate bending problems, Mathematical Models & Methods in Applied Sciences [55] M Crouzeix, P-A Raviart, Conforming and nonconforming finite element methods for solving the stationary Stokes equations I, Rev Francaise Automat Informat Recherche Opérationnelle Sér Rouge 7 R [56] M Fortin, M Soulie, A non-conforming piecewise quadratic finite element on triangles, International Journal for Numerical Methods in ngineering doi:11/nme URL [57] M Crouzeix, R S Falk, Nonconforming finite elements for the Stokes problem, Math Comp [58] G Stoyan, A Baran, Crouzeix-Velte decompositions for higher-order finite elements, Comput Math Appl doi:1116/jcamwa5111 URL [59] A Baran, G Stoyan, Gauss-Legendre elements: A stable, higher order non-conforming finite element family, Computing doi:117/s URL [6] M Ainsworth, Robust a posteriori error estimation for nonconforming finite element approximation, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis doi:11137/s [61] R Rannacher, S Turek, Simple nonconforming quadrilateral Stokes element, Numer Methods Partial Differential quations doi:11/num1698 [6] G Matthies, L Tobiska, Inf-sup stable non-conforming finite elements of arbitrary order on triangles, Numerische Mathematik doi:117/s URL [63] G Matthies, Inf-sup stable nonconforming finite elements of higher order on quadrilaterals and hexahedra, SAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis URL [64] S Ganesan, L Tobiska, Stabilization by local projection for convection diffusion and incompressible flow problems, Journal of Scientific Computing [65] F Brezzi, L P Franca, A Russo, Further considerations on residual-free bubbles for advectivediffusive equations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and ngineering [66] L P Franca, L Tobiska, Stability of the residual free bubble method for bilinear finite elements on rectangular grids, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis

38 k=1 k=3 Figure 1: Test Case : conforming VM left panels and nonconforming VM right panels for k = 1 and k = 3 and using a regular hexagonal mesh third refinement k=1 k=3 Figure 11: Test Case : conforming VM left panels and nonconforming VM right panels for k = 1 and k = 3 and using a remapped hexagonal mesh third refinement 38