arxiv: v1 [math.na] 27 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 Numerical study of goal-oriented error control for stabilized finite element metods M. P. Brucäuser, K. Scwegler, M. Bause Helmut Scmidt University, Faculty of Mecanical Engineering, Holstenofweg 85, 2243 Hamburg, Germany arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 27 Mar 218 Abstract Te efficient and reliable approximation of convection-dominated problems continues to remain a callenging task. To overcome te difficulties associated wit te discretization of convection-dominated equations, stabilization tecniques and a posteriori error control mecanisms wit mes adaptivity were developed and studied in te past. Neverteless, te derivation of robust a posteriori error estimates for standard quantities and in computable norms is still an unresolved problem and under investigation. Here we combine te Dual Weigted Residual (DWR) metod for goal-oriented error control wit stabilized finite element metods. By a duality argument an error representation is derived on tat an adaptive strategy is built. Te key ingredient of tis work is te application of a iger order discretization of te dual problem in order to make a robust error control for user-cosen quantities of interest feasible. By numerical experiments in 2D and 3D we illustrate tat tis interpretation of te DWR metodology is capable to resolve layers and sarp fronts wit ig accuracy and to furter reduce spurious oscillations. Keywords: Convection-dominated problems, stabilized finite element metods, mes adaptivity, goal-oriented a posteriori error control, Dual Weigted Residual metod, duality tecniques 1 Introduction From te second alf of te last century to nowadays, especially in te pioneering works of te 198 s (cf., e.g., [13, 21]), strong efforts and great progress were made in te development of accurate and efficient approximation scemes for convection-dominated problems. For a review of fundamental concepts related to teir analysis and approximation and a presentation of prominent robust numerical metods we refer to te monograp [3]. Convection-dominated problems arise in many brances of tecnology and science. Applications can be found in fluid dynamics including turbulence modelling, eat transport, oil extraction from underground reservoirs, electro-magnetism, semi-conductor devices, environmental and civil engineering as well as in cemical and biological sciences. Te solutions of convection-dominated transport problems are typically caracterized by te occurrence of sarp moving fronts and interior or boundary layers. Te key callenge for te accurate numerical approximation of solutions to convection-dominated problems is tus te development of discretization scemes wit te ability to capture strong gradients of solutions witout producing spurious oscillations or smearing effects. A possible remedy is te application of one of te numerous stabilization concepts tat ave been proposed and studied for various discretization tecniques in te recent years; cf. [3]. Here we focus on using finite element discretizations along wit residual-based stabilizations. Among teses tecniques, we coose te streamline upwind Petrov Galerkin (SUPG) metod brucaeuser@su-.de bause@su-.de 1

2 [2, 13], wic aims at reducing non-pysical oscillations in streamline direction. Besides te class of residual-based stabilization tecniques, flux-corrected transport scemes (cf., e.g., [28]) ave recently been developed and investigated strongly. Tey ave sown teir potential to andle te caracteristics of convection-dominated problems and resolve sarp fronts wit ig accuracy; cf. [25]. Recently, numerical analyses of tese metods were presented; cf. [7]. In contrast to residual-based stabilizations, flux-corrected transport scemes aim at a stabilization on te algebraic level. In [25], a competitive numerical investigation of te performance properties of tese and furter stabilization concepts is given. In [25] and many oter works of te literature autors conclude tat spurious oscillations in te numerical approximation of convection-dominated problems can be reduced by state-of-te-art stabilization tecniques, but neverteless te results are not satisfactory yet, in particular, if applications of practical interest and in tree space dimensions are considered. A furter and widespread tecnique to capture singular penomena and sarp profiles of solutions is te application of adaptive mes refinement based on an a posteriori error control mecanism. For a review of a posteriori error estimation tecniques for finite element metods and automatic mes generation we refer, for instance, to te monograp [32]. Te design of an adaptive metod requires te availability of an appropriate a posteriori error estimator. For convection-dominated problems, te derivation of suc an error estimator, tat is robust wit respect to te small perturbation parameter of te partial differential equation, is delicious and as borne out to be a considerable source of trouble. Existing a posteriori error estimates are typically eiter non-robust wit respect to te perturbation parameter or provide a control of quantities tat are typically not of interest in practice or a control in non-computable error norms; cf. [16, 24]. Consequently, te quality of adaptively refined grids is often not satisfactory yet. Furter, only a few contributions ave been publised for convection-dominated problems and te considered type of stabilized finite element discretizations. For a more detailed discussion we refer to [24]. In tis work we use an adaptive metod tat is based on dual weigted residual a posteriori error estimation [11, 12, 6]. Te Dual Weigted Residual metod (DWR) aims at te economical computation of arbitrary quantities of pysical interest, point-values or line/surface integrals for instance, by properly adapting te computational mes. Tus, te mes adaptation process can be based on te computation and control of a pysically relevant goal quantity instead of a control in te traditional energy- or L 2 -norm. In particular in te context of convection-dominated transport, te control of local quantities is typically of greater importance tan te one of global quantities arguing for te application of DWR based tecniques. Te DWR approac relies on a variational formulation of te discrete problem and uses duality tecniques to provide a rigorous a posteriori error representation from tat a computable error indicator can be derived. Of course, suc an error estimation can also be obtained wit respect to global quantities and norms, e.g., te L 2 -norm or energy norm; cf. [4]. Te exact error representation witin te DWR metod cannot be evaluated directly, since it depends on te unknown exact solution of a so called dual or adjoint problem. Te dual solution is used for weigting te local residuals witin te error representation and as to be computed numerically. Tis approximation cannot be done in te finite element space of te primal problem, since it would result in an useless vanising approximation of te error quantity; cf. [6]. Approximation by iger-order metods, approximation by iger-order interpolation, approximation by difference quotients and approximation by local residual problems ave been considered so far as suitable approaces for te approximation of te dual solution; cf. [6]. In tis work we combine te DWR approac wit SUPG stabilized approximations of convection-dominated problems. Even toug te DWR approac as been applied to many classes of partial differential equations, our feeling is tat its potential for te numerical approximation of convection-dominated problems as not been completely understood and explored yet. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to stationary convection-dominated problems ere. Tis is done in order to focus on te interaction of stabilization and error control in a simplified framework rater tan considering sopisticated problems. In [18], iger-order finite elements and a partition-of-unity tecnique are used to get te local error estimations witin te DWR metod for a class of elliptic problems. Similarly to [18], we solve te dual problem by using iger-order finite element tecniques, wic is a key ingredient of 2

3 tis work. However, we differ from [18] wit respect to te computation of te local error indicator. Here, we follow te classical way of te DWR pilosopy, receiving te error representation on every mes element by a cell-wise integration by parts. Due to te specific caracter of convection-dominated problems our computational experience is tat te error control needs a particular care in regions wit interior and boundary layers and in regions wit sarp fronts in order to get an accurate quantification of te numerical errors. Tis is in contrast to oter works of te literature on te DWR metod in tat strong effort is put onto te reduction of te computational costs for solving te dual problem. In numerical experiments we will illustrate te ig impact of te proper coice of te weigts and tereby of te dual solution on te mes adaptation process. Te key motivation in tis work is to reduce sources of inaccuracies and non-sarp estimates in te a posteriori error representation as far as possible in order to avoid numerical artefacts. Tereby we aim to improve te quality of te numerical approximation and error control in particular in regions wit sarp fronts and sensitive solution profiles were te application of interpolation tecniques is expected to be igly defective. We note tat in te case of nonlinear problems, like te Navier Stokes equations, te computational costs for solving te primal problem dominate, since ere a Newton or fixed-point iteration as to be applied, wereas te dual problem always remains a linear one. Terefore, in te case of nonlinear problems a iger order approac for te dual problem does not necessarily dominate te overall computational costs. Our approac is elaborated by careful numerical investigations in two and tree space dimensions tat represent a furter ingredient of tis work. Tis work is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we introduce our model problem togeter wit some global assumptions and our notation. Furter we present a sort derivation of te DWR approac as well as te finite element approximation in space. We conclude Sect. 2 by presenting te SUPG stabilized form of te discrete sceme. In Sect. 3 we derive a localized error representation in terms of a user cosen target quantity. In Sect. 4 some implementational issues and our adaptive solution algoritm are addressed. Finally, in Sect. 5 te results of numerical computations in two and tree space dimensions are presented in order to illustrate te feasibility and potential of te proposed approac. 2 Problem formulation and stabilized discretization In tis section we first present our model problems. Ten we sketc te stabilized approximation of te primal and dual problem witin te DWR framework. 2.1 Model problem and variational fomulation In tis work we consider te steady linear convection-diffusion-reaction problem (ε u) + b u + αu = f in Ω, u = on Ω. (2.1) We assume tat Ω R d, wit d = 2 or d = 3, is a polygonal or polyedral bounded domain wit Lipscitz boundary Ω. For brevity, problem (2.1) is equipped wit omogeneous Diriclet boundary conditions. In our numerical examples in Sect. 5, we also consider oter types of boundary conditions. In Remark 3.6, te incorporation of nonomogeneous Diriclet and Neumann boundary conditions is briefly addressed. Problem (2.1) is considered as a prototype model for more sopisticated equations of practical interest, for instance, for te Navier Stokes equations of incompressible viscous flow. For an application of our approac to semilinear problems wit nonlinear reactive terms we refer to [31]. Here, < ε 1 is a small positive diffusion coefficient, b (H 1 (Ω)) d (L (Ω)) d is te flow field or convection tensor, α L (Ω) is te reaction coefficient, and f L 2 (Ω) is a given outer source of te unknown scalar quantity u. Furtermore, we assume tat te following condition is fulfilled: b(x) = and α(x) x Ω. (2.2) 3

4 It is well known tat problem (2.1) along wit condition (2.2) admits a unique weak solution u V = H 1 := { v H 1 (Ω) v Ω = } tat satisfies te following variational formulation; cf., e.g. [3, 2, 24]. Find u V suc tat A(u)(ϕ) = F (ϕ) ϕ V, (2.3) were te bilinear form A : V V R and te linear form F : V R are given by A(u)(ϕ) := (ε u, ϕ) + (b u, ϕ) + (αu, ϕ), F (ϕ) := (f, ϕ). We denote by (, ) te inner product of L 2 (Ω) and by te associated norm wit v = (v, v) 1 2 = ( Ω v 2 dx) Te Dual Weigted Residual approac Te DWR metod aims at te control of an error in an arbitrary user-cosen target functional J of pysical relevance. To get an error representation wit respect to tis target functional, an additional dual problem as to be solved. Before we focus on tis error representation, we introduce te derivation of te dual problem of (2.3) needed below in te DWR approac. For tis, we consider te Euler-Lagrangian metod of constrained optimization. For some given functional J : V R we consider solving J(u) = min{j(v), v V, were A(v)(ϕ) = F (ϕ) ϕ V }. For tis we define te corresponding Lagrangian functional L : V V R by L(u, z) := J(u) + F (z) A(u)(z), (2.4) were we refer to z V as te dual variable (or Lagrangian multiplier), cf. [6]. We determine a stationary point {u, z} V V of L(, ) by te condition tat or, equivalently, by te system of equations tat L (u, z)(ψ, ϕ) = {ψ, ϕ} V V, (2.5) A (u)(ψ, z) = J (u)(ψ) ψ V, (2.6) A(u)(ϕ) = F (ϕ) ϕ V. (2.7) Eq. (2.7), te z-component of te stationary condition (2.5), is just te given primal problem (2.3) wereas Eq. (2.6), te u-component of (2.5), is called te dual or adjoint problem. In strong form, te dual problem reads as (ε z) b z + αz = j in Ω, z = on Ω, (2.8) were j L 2 (Ω) is a L 2 -representation of te target function J( ) tat is supposed to exist; cf. Eq. (2.12). Te bilinear form A is given by A (u)(ψ, z) = (ε ψ, z) + (b ψ, z) + (αψ, z) = A(ψ)(z). Applying integration by parts to te convective term along wit te condition (2.2) yields for A (u)(ψ, z) te representation tat A (z)(ψ) := A (u)(ψ, z) = (ε z, ψ) (b z, ψ) + (αz, ψ). (2.9) Tus we ave te following Euler-Lagrange system. Find {u, z} V V suc tat A(u)(ϕ) = F (ϕ) ϕ V, (2.1) A (z)(ψ) = J(ψ) ψ V, (2.11) were te functional J( ) is supposed to admit te L 2 -representation J(ψ) := (j(u), ψ). (2.12) 4

5 2.3 Discretization in space Here we present te spatial discretization of (2.1). We use Lagrange type finite element spaces of continuous functions tat are piecewise polynomials. For te discretization in space, we consider a decomposition T of te domain Ω into disjoint elements K, suc tat Ω = K T K. Here, we coose te elements K T to be quadrilaterals for d = 2 and exaedrals for d = 3. We denote by K te diameter of te element K. Te global space discretization parameter is given by := max K T K. Our mes adaptation process yields locally refined and coarsened cells, wic is facilitated by using anging nodes [14]. We point out tat te global conformity of te finite element approac is preserved since te unknowns at suc anging nodes are eliminated by interpolation between te neigboring regular nodes, cf. [6]. Te construction of te approximating function spaces is done on te reference element ˆK := [, 1] d, d = 2, 3. Terefore, we introduce te mapping T K : ˆK K from te reference element ˆK onto an element K T. On tat reference domain ˆK, we introduce te following finite element spaces { } p1 ˆQ p1,p2 := ˆϕ : [, 1] 2 R ˆϕ(ˆx) := p 2 ˆϕ i,j x i 1x j 2, wit ˆϕ i,j R and i= j= { } p1 ˆQ p1,p2,p3 := ˆϕ : [, 1] 3 R ˆϕ(ˆx) := p 2 p 3 ˆϕ i,j,k x i 1x j 2 xk 3, wit ˆϕ i,j,k R. i= j= k= Ten, for an arbitrary polynomial degree p, te approximating finite element spaces are defined by {{ v V C( Ω) v K V p := T 1 K { v V C( Ω) v K T 1 K p,p ˆQ, K T }, d = 2, p,p,p } (2.13) ˆQ, K T, d = Streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin stabilization In order to reduce spurious and non-pysical oscillations of te discrete solutions, arising close to layers or sarp fronts, we apply te SUPG metod, a well-known residual based stabilization tecnique for finite element approximations; cf. [3, 1, 25, 9]. Te SUPG approac aims at an stabilization in te streamline direction; cf. [3]. In particular, existing a priori error analysis ensure its convergence in te natural norm of te sceme including te control of te approximation error in streamline direction; cf. [3, Tm. 3.27]. Applying te SUPG approac to te discrete counterpart of (2.1) and (2.11) yields te following stabilized discrete system of equations. Find {u, z } V p V p+s, s 1, suc tat A S (u )(ϕ ) = F (ϕ ) ϕ V p, (2.14) A S(z )(ψ ) = J(ψ ) ψ V p+s, s 1, (2.15) were te stabilized bilinear forms are given by and te stabilized terms are defined by S(u )(ϕ ) := A S (u )(ϕ ) := A(u )(ϕ ) + S(u )(ϕ ), A S(z )(ψ ) := A (z )(ψ ) + S (z )(ψ ), K T δ K (R(u ), b ϕ ) K, R(u ) := (ε u ) + b u + αu f, S (z )(ψ ) := K T δ K(R (z ), b ψ ) K, R (z ) := (ε z ) b z + αz j(u ). 5

6 Remark 2.1. Te proper coice of te stabilization parameters δ K and δk is an important issue in te application of te SUPG approac; cf. [23, 22] and te discussion terein. As proposed by te analysis of stabilized finite element metods in [29, 9], we coose te parameter δ K and δk as { δk, δk K min ; 2 K p b L (K) p 4 ε ; 1 }. α Here, te symbol denotes te equivalence up to a multiplicative constant independent of K. Tis constant as to be understood as a numerical tuning parameter. Remark 2.2. We note tat te stabilization witin te dual problem acts in te negative direction of te flow field b; cf. Eq. (2.9). Te discrete dual probleme (2.15) is based on a first dualize and ten stabilize (FDTS) principle in tat te dual problem of te weak equation (2.11) is derived first. Te stabilization is ten implemented by applying te SUPG metod to te discrete counterpart of te dual problem. Te alternative strategy first stabilize and ten dualize (FSTD) of transposing te stabilized fully discrete equation (2.14) requires differentiation of te stabilization terms. In general, te strategies FDTS and FSTD do not commute wit eac oter. In te literature (cf. [1]) te possibility of stability problems is noted for te FSTD strategy. In our performed numerical experiments te FSTD strategy did not sow any lack of stability but led to sligtly weaker results; cf. [31]. For tese reasons we focus on te FDTS strategy only in tis work. 3 Error Estimation In tis section our aim is to derive a localized (i.e. elementwise) a posteriori error representation for te stabilized finite element approximation in terms of te target quantity J( ) by using te concepts of te DWR approac briefly introduced in Subsect Afterwards, an adaptive mes refinement process is built upon te tus given error representation. Refining and coarsening of te finite element mes is considered. To acieve tis aim, some abstract results are needed. First, we sow an error representation by means of te Lagrangian functional. From tis, an error representation in terms of te primal and dual residual is deduced. In te final step te dual residual is substituted by te primal residual and some stabilization terms. To start wit, we put and Te discrete solution x V p V p x := {u, z}, y := {ψ, ϕ} V V, (3.1) x := {u, z }, y := {ψ, ϕ } V p V p, (3.2) S(x )(y ) := S(u )(ϕ ) + S (z )(ψ ). ten satisfies te variational equation L (x )(y ) = S(x )(y ) y V p V p. (3.3) Now we develop te error in terms of te Lagrangian functional. Teorem 3.1. Let X be a function space and L : X R be a tree times differentiable functional on X. Suppose tat x c X c wit some ( continuous ) function space X c X is a stationary point of L. Suppose tat x d X d wit some ( discrete ) function space X d X, wit not necessarily X d X c, is a Galerkin approximation to x c being defined by te equation In addition, suppose tat te auxiliary condition is satisfied. Ten tere olds te error representation L (x d )(y d ) = S(x d )(y d ) y d X d. (3.4) L (x c )(x d ) = (3.5) L(x c ) L(x d ) = 1 2 L (x d )(x c y d ) S(x d)(y d x d ) + R y d X d, 6

7 were te remainder R is defined by R = 1 2 wit te notation e := x c x d. 1 L (x d + se)(e, e, e) s (s 1) ds, (3.6) Proof. We let e = x c x d. By te fundamental teorem of calculus it olds tat L(x c ) L(x d ) = 1 L (x d + se)(e) ds. Approximating te integral by te trapezoidal rule yields tat L(x c ) L(x d ) = 1 2 L (x d )(x c x d ) L (x c )(x c x d ) + R, (3.7) wit R being defined by (3.6). By te supposed stationarity of L in x c along wit te assumption (3.5) te second of te terms on te rigt-and side of (3.7) vanises. Togeter wit eq. (3.4) we ten get tat L(x c ) L(x d ) = 1 2 L (x d )(x c y d ) L (x d )(y d x d ) + R = 1 2 L (x d )(x c y d ) S(x d)(y d x d ) + R, for all y d X d. Tis completes te proof of te teorem. For te subsequent teorem we introduce te primal and dual residuals by ρ(u )(ϕ) := F (ϕ) A(u )(ϕ) ϕ V, (3.8) ρ (z )(ψ) := J (u )(ψ) A (z )(ψ) ψ V. (3.9) Teorem 3.2. Suppose tat {u, z} V V is a stationary point of te Lagrangian functional L defined in (2.4) suc tat (2.5) is satisfied. Let {u, z } V p V p denote its Galerkin approximation being defined by (2.14) and (2.15) suc tat (3.3) is satisfied. Ten tere olds te error representation tat J(u) J(u ) = 1 2 ρ(u )(z ϕ ) ρ (z )(u ψ ) + R S + R J, (3.1) for arbitrary functions {ϕ, ψ } V p V p, were te remainder terms are defined by and wit e = u u. R S := 1 2 S(u )(ϕ + z ) S (z )(ψ u ), R J := J (u + s e)(e, e, e) s (s 1) ds, (3.11) Proof. Let x, defined by (3.1), be a stationary point of L in (2.4) suc tat (2.5) is satisfied. Let x, defined by (3.2), denote te Galerkin approximation of x tat is given by (2.14) and (2.15), respectively. From (2.4) along wit (2.5) and (2.14) we conclude tat Using Tm. 3.1 we get tat J(u) J(u ) = L(x) L(x ) + S(u )(z ). J(u) J(u ) = 1 2 L (x )(x y ) S(x )(y x ) + S(u )(z ) + R, (3.12) for all {ψ, ϕ } V p V p wit te remainder R being defined by (3.6). Recalling te definition (2.4) of L yields for te remainder R te asserted representation (3.11), due to te fact tat all parts of te tird derivative of L vanis except te tird derivative of J. 7

8 Taking into account tat L u (u, z)(ψ) + L z (u, z)(ϕ) =,were L u and L z denote te u- component and z-component, respectively, of te stationary condition (2.5), we can write te Frécet derivative of te Lagrangian functional as L (u, z )(u ψ, z ϕ ) = J (u )(u ψ ) A (z )(u ψ ) + F (z ϕ ) A(u )(z ϕ ) = ρ (z )(u ψ ) + ρ(u )(z ϕ ), for all {ψ, ϕ } V p V p. Substituting tis identity into (3.12) yields tat J(u) J(u ) = 1 2 ρ (z )(u ψ ) ρ(u )(z ϕ ) S(x )(y x ) + S(u )(z ) + R J. (3.13) Finally, we note tat 1 2 S(x )(y x ) + S(u )(z ) = 1 2 S(u )(ϕ z ) S (z )(ψ u ) + S(u )(z ) = 1 2 S(u )(ϕ + z ) S (z )(ψ u ). (3.14) Combining (3.13) wit (3.14) proves te assertion of te teorem. In te error respresentation (3.1) te continuous solution u is required for te evaluation of te adjoint residual. In te following teorem we sow tat te adjoint residual coincides wit te primal residual up to a quadratic remainder. Tis observation will be used below to find our final error respresentation in terms of te goal quantity J and a suitable linearization for its computational evaluation or approximation, respectively. Teorem 3.3. Under te assumptions of Tm. 3.2, and wit te definitions (3.8) and (3.9) of te primal and dual residual, respectively, tere olds tat ρ (z )(u ψ ) = ρ(u )(z ϕ ) + S(u )(ϕ z ) + S (z )(u ψ ) + ρ J, for all {ψ, ϕ } V p V p, were te remainder term is given by wit e := u u. ρ J := 1 J (u + s e)(e, e) ds, (3.15) Proof. Let e := u u and e := z z denote te primal and dual error, respectively. For arbitrary ψ V p we put k(s) := J (u + s e)(u ψ ) A (z + s e )(u ψ ). We ave tat From (3.9) we get tat k(1) := J (u)(u ψ ) A (z)(u ψ ) =. Furter, we conclude tat k() = J (u )(u ψ ) A (z )(u ψ ) = ρ (z )(u ψ ). k (s) = J (u + s e)(e, u ψ ) A (e )(u ψ ). 8

9 Using (2.15) and (3.9) we find tat ρ (z )(u ψ ) = J (u )(u ψ ) A (z )(u ψ ) + S (z )(ψ ) S (z )(ψ ) J (u )(u ) + A (z )(u ) + S (z )(u ) = ρ (z )(u u ) + S (z )(u ψ ) = ρ (z )(e) + S (z )(u ψ ). (3.16) From (3.16) along wit te teorem of calculus ρ (z )(u ψ ) = ρ (z )(e) + S (z )(u ψ ) = k() k(1) + S (z )(u ψ ) = 1 1 k (s) ds = k(1) k() it follows tat ( ) A (e )(e) + J (u + s e)(e, e) ds + S (z )(u ψ ) = A (e )(e) + S (z )(u ψ ) + ρ J. (3.17) Next, for te first term on te rigt-and side of (3.17) we get tat A (e )(e) = (ε e, e) (b e, e) + (αe, e) = (ε e, e ) + (b e, e ) + (αe, e ) = F (e ) A(u )(e ) = ρ(u )(z z ) = ρ(u )(z ϕ ) + S(u )(ϕ z ), (3.18) for all ϕ V p. Combining (3.17) wit (3.18) yields tat ρ (z )(u ψ ) = ρ(u )(z ϕ ) + S(u )(ϕ z ) + S (z )(u ψ ) + ρ J, for all {ψ, ϕ } V p V p te teorem. wit ρ J being defined by (3.15). Tis proves te assertion of We summarize te results of te previous two teorems in te following corollary. Corollary 3.4. Under te assumptions of Tm. 3.2 wit te definitions (3.8) and (3.9) of te primal and dual residual, respectively, tere olds te error representation tat J(u) J(u ) = ρ(u )(z ϕ ) + S(u )(ϕ ) + R J ρ J, (3.19) for arbitrary functions ϕ V p, were te remainder term R J is given by (3.11) and te linearization error ρ J is defined by (3.15). In te final step we derive a localized or elementwise approximation of te error tat is ten used for te design of te adaptive algoritm. Teorem 3.5 (Localized error representation). Let te assumptions of Tm. 3.2 be satisfied. Neglecting te iger order error terms in (3.19), ten tere olds as a linear approximation te cell-wise error representation J(u) J(u ) =. { (R(u ) ( ), z ϕ R(u ), b ϕ )K ( ) } E(u ), z ϕ. (3.2) K T K δ K Te cell- and edge-wise residuals are defined by R(u ) K := f + (ε u ) b u αu, (3.21) { 1 2 E(u ) Γ := ] if Γ K\ Ω, (3.22) if Γ Ω, were [ u ] := u Γ K u Γ K defines te jump of u over te inner edges Γ wit normal unit vector n pointing from K to K. K 9

10 Proof. Te assertion directly follows from (3.19) by neglecting te iger order remainder terms R J and ρ J as well as applying integration by parts on eac cell K T to te diffusion term in te primal residual (3.8). Remark 3.6. (Nonomogeneous Diriclet and Neumann boundary conditions) We briefly address te incorporation of furter types of boundary conditions. First, we consider problem (2.1) equipped wit te nonomogeneous Diriclet condition u = g D on Ω for a given function g H 1 2 ( Ω). For tis, let g D H 1 (Ω) be an extension of g D in te sense tat te trace of g D equals g D on Ω. Furter, let te discrete function g D, be an appropriate finite element approximation of te extension g D. Ten, te trace on Ω of g D, represents a discretization of g D. For instance, a nodal interpolation of g D and an extension in te finite element space can be used. Tis allows us to recast te weak form of problem (2.1) and its discrete counterpart in terms of w = u g D H 1 (Ω) and w = u g D, V p H1 (Ω). Te previous calculations and te derivation of te a posteriori error estimator are ten done for te weak problem and its discrete counterpart rewritten in terms of w and w. Tis yields te result tat J(u) J(u ) =. { (R(u ) ), z ϕ K δ ( ) K R(u ), b ϕ K K T ( } E(u ), z ϕ ) K ( (g D g D, ), ε z n ) (3.23), Ω were R(u ) and E(u ) are given by (3.21) and (3.22), respectively. Te result of Tm. 3.5 is tus extended by te last term of (3.23). If a omogeneous Neumann condition is prescribed on a part Ω N of te boundary Ω = Ω D Ω N, wit Diriclet part Ω D, ten te derivation as to be done analogously for te solution space V = {v H 1 (Ω) v = on Γ D } and its discrete counterpart and te resulting variational problems. 4 Practical Aspects In tis section we present practical aspects regarding te application of te result given in Tm. 3.5 in computational studies of convection-dominated problems. In particular, we present our mes adaptation strategy tat is based on (3.2). We note tat te concepts described ere can be generalized to nonstationary problems; cf. [27]. Te error representation (3.2), rewritten as J(u) J(u ). = K T = η := { (R(u ) ), z ϕ δ ( K K R(u ), b ϕ )K ( ) E(u ), z ϕ K T η K, (4.1) depends on te discrete primal solution u as well as on te exact dual solution z. For te application of (4.1) in computations, te unknown dual solution z as to be approximated wic results in an approximate error indicator η. As noted before, and as a consequence of (3.19) and (3.2), respectively, te approximation of te dual solution cannot be done in te same finite element space as used for te primal problem, since tis would result in an useless vanising error representation η =, due to te Galerkin ortogonality. As a key ingredient of tis work, for te numerical approximation of te dual solution z V we use a finite element approac tat is of iger polynomial order tan te one of te discretization of te primal problem. Again, to overcome te difficulties associated wit te convection-dominance te SUPG metod (2.15) is ere applied to te discrete dual problem as well. Tus, we determine an approximation z of te te dual solution z V in te space V p+s for some s 1. In contrast to many oter works of te literature we tus use a iger order approac for te approximation of te dual solution, i.e. z V p+s wit s 1 wereas u V p, wic owever leads to iger computational costs; cf. [8, 26] for algoritmic formulations and analyses. In K } 1

11 te literature, te application of iger order interpolation instead of usage of iger order finite element spaces is often suggested for te DWR approac; cf. [6, 4]. For convectiondominated problems suc an interpolation migt be defective and lead to tremendous errors close to sarp layers and fronts. Higer order tecniques sow more stability and reduce spurious oscillations (cf. [9]) wic is our key motivation for using a iger order approac for te approximation of te dual solution. We also refer to our remark in Sect. 1 regarding te computational costs if te DWR is applied to nonlinear problems as tey typically arise in applications of practical interest. In order to define te localized error contributions η K we consider a ierarcy of sequentially refined meses M i, wit i 1 indexing te ierarcy. Te corresponding finite element spaces are denoted by V p+s,i, s 1, (cf. (2.13)) wit te additional index i denoting te mes ierarcy. We calculate te cell-wise contributions to te linearized error representation (4.1) and (3.2), respectively, by means of η K = ( R(u i ), z i I z i ) K δ K( R(u i ), b I z i ) K ( E(u i ), z i I z i ) K, (4.2) were te cell and edge residuals are given in (3.21) and (3.22), respectively. By I z i V p,i we denote te nodal based Lagrange interpolation of te iger order approximation z i V p+s,i, s 1 into te lower order finite element space V p. Our adaptive mes refinement algoritm based on (4.2) is summarized in te following. Adaptive solution algoritm (Refining and Coarsening) Initialization Set i = and generate te initial finite element spaces for te primal and dual problem. 1. Solve te primal problem: Find u i V p,i A S (u i )(ϕ ) = F (ϕ ) 2. Solve te dual problem: Find z i V p+s,i A S(z i )(ψ ) = J(ψ ) suc tat ϕ V p,i. V p,i, s 1, suc tat ψ V p+s,i, s 1. Here, V p+s,i denotes te finite element space of piecewise polynomials of iger order on te mes M i. 3. Evaluate te a posteriori error indicator η := η K, K T η K = ( R(u i H), z i I z i ) δ K K( R(u i H ), b I z i ) ( E(u i K H), z i I z i ) were te cell and edge residuals are given in (3.21) and (3.22). By u i H we denote te nodal based Lagrange interpolation of u i p+s,i in V. Furter, z i is te computed dual solution and I z i is te interpolation of zi p,i in te finite element space V of te primal problem. 4. Histogram based refinement strategy: Coose θ (.25, 5). Put η max = max K T η K and η K K T µ = θ #K. K, Wile µ > η max : µ := µ 2. Mark te elements K wit η K > µ to be refined and tose two percent of te elements ˆK tat provide te smallest contribution to η to be coarsened. Generate a new mes M i+1 by regular coarsening and refinement. 11

12 5. Ceck te stopping condition: If η max < tol or η < tol is satisfied, ten te adaptive solution algoritm is terminated; Else, i is increased to i + 1 and it is jumped back to Step 1. Remark 4.1. Regarding te coice of te numerical tuning parameter θ in Step 4 of te previous algoritm we made te computational experience tat a value of θ between.25 and 5 typically leads to good results. Furter, we note tat te performance properties of adaptive algoritms are strongly affected by te marking strategy. Here, marking is implemented in Step 4. We carefully analyzed te cell-wise distribution of te magnitude of te error indicators defined in Step 3 of te previous algoritm. Te presented istogram based remesing strategy of Step 4 yielded te best results. Te so called Dörfler marking (cf. [17]) or te marking of te largest local error indicators represent furter popular marking strategies. For a furter discussion of tis issue we refer to, e.g., [6]. Remark 4.2. According to te adaptive solution algoritm presented above, we use te same mes for solving te primal and dual problem, more precisely we use te same triangulation for bot problems, but different polynomial degrees for te underlying sape functions of te respective finite element space. For measuring te accuracy of te error estimator, we will study in our numerical experiments te effectivity index I eff = η J(u) J(u ) (4.3) as te ratio of te estimated error η of (4.1) over te exact error. Desirably, te index I eff sould be close to one. 5 Numerical studies In tis section we illustrate and investigate te performance properties of te proposed approac of combining te Dual Weigted Residual metod wit stabilized finite element approximations of convection-dominated problems. We demonstrate te potential of te DWR metod wit regard to resolving solution profiles admitting sarp layers as tey arise in convection-dominated problems. Furter we investigate te mes adaptation processes by prescribing various target functionals or goal quantities, respectively. For tis, standard bencmark problems of te literature for studying te approximation of convection-dominated transport are applied. For te implementation and our numerical computations we use our DTM++ frontend software [26, Capter 4] tat is based on te open source finite element library deal.ii; cf. [3, 5]. 5.1 Example 1 (Hump wit circularly layer, 2d) In te first numerical experiment we focus on studying te accuracy of our error estimator and te impact of approximating te weigts of te dual solution witin te error indicators (4.2). For tis, we consider different combinations of polynomial orders for te finite element spaces of te primal and dual solution. We study problem (2.1) wit te prescribed solution (cf. [25, 9, 1]) { 1 u(x) = 16x 1 (1 x 1 )x 2 (1 x 2 ) 2 + arctan ( 2ε 1/2 [ r 2 (x 1 x 1) 2 (x 2 x 2) 2]) π }. (5.1) were Ω := (, 1) 2 and z =.25, x 1 = x 2 =.5. We coose te parameter ε = 1 6, b = (2, 3) and α = 1.. For te solution (5.1) te rigt-and side function f is calculated from te partial differential equation. Boundary conditions are given by te exact solution. Our target quantity is cosen as J(u) = 1 e L 2 (Ω) (e, u) Ω. (5.2) 12

13 gl Q 1 ad Q 1 /Q (a) L 2 -error over degrees of freedom for global and DWR adaptive mes refinement. (b) Adaptive mes for target quantity (5.2) wit degrees of freedom. Figure 5.1: Comparison of L 2 -errors and visualization of te adaptive mes for Example 5.1. (a) Global Refinement. (b) Adaptive Refinement. Figure 5.2: Stabilized solution profile on a globally refined mes wit 6649 degrees of freedom (5.2a) and on an adaptively refined mes wit error control by te target quantity (5.2) wit degrees of freedom (5.2b) for Example 5.1. In Fig. 5.1a we compare te convergence beavior of te proposed DWR approac wit a global mes refinement strategy. Te corresponding solution profiles are visualized in Fig Te adaptively generated mes is presented in Fig. 5.1b. Te DWR based adaptive mes adaptation is clearly superior to te global refinement in terms of accuray over degrees of freedom. Wile te globally refined solution is still perturbed by undesired oscillations witin te circular layer and beind te ump in te direction of te flow field b, te adaptively computed solution exibits an almost perfect solution profile for even less degrees of freedom. In Fig. 5.3 we present te calculated effectivity indices (4.3) for solving te primal and dual problem in different pairs of finite element spaces based on te Q k element of polynomials of maximum degree k in eac variable. Considering te Q 1 based approximation of te primal problem, we note tat by increasing te polynomial degree of te dual solution from Q 2 to Q 4 te mes adaptation process reaces te stopping criterion faster and requires less degrees of freedom. Tis observation is reasonable, since a iger order approximation of te dual problem is closer to its exact solution of te dual problem, wic is part of te error representation (3.2). Tus we conclude tat a better approximation of te weigts provides a iger accuracy of te error estimator. Tis observation is also confirmed by te pairs of Q 2 /Q 3 wit Q 2 /Q 4 based finite element spaces. Neverteless, te difference for using igerorder finite elements for solving te dual problem is not tat significant, even less if we take into account te iger computational costs for solving te algebraic form of te dual problem for an increasing order of te piecewise polynomials. Using pairs of Q k /Q k+1 based elements for te approximation of te primal and dual problem, te error estimator gets worse for increasing values of te parameter k. Tis observation is in good agreement wit te results in [18, Example 3]. A reason for tis beavior is given by te observation tat for increasing values of k te mes is less refined for te same number of degrees of freedom. Terefore less cells are available to capture te strong gradients of te exact solution. Tis argues for coosing smaller values of k in te application of our DWR based approac. 13

14 1.5 Q 1 /Q 2 Q 1 /Q 3 Q 1 /Q 4 Q 2 /Q 3 Q 2 /Q 4 Q 3 /Q Figure 5.3: Effectivity indices over degrees of freedom for te target quantity (5.2) and different polynomial degrees for Example Example 2 (Point-value error control, 2d). In tis example we study te application of our approac for different target functionals and a sequence of decreasing diffusion coefficients. Tereby we aim to analyze te robustness of te approac wit respect to te small perturbation parameter ε in (2.1). If convection-dominated problems are considered, or also often for applications of practical interest, local quantities are of greater interest tan global ones. Te DWR approac offers te appreciable advantage over standard a posteriori error estimators tat an error control in an arbitrary user-cosen quantity and not only in te global L 2 norm, as in Example 1, or a norm of energy type can be obtained. Since te error representation is exact up to iger order terms (cf. Tm. 3.5), robustness wit respect to te perturbation parameter ε can be expected to be feasible. Of course, te approximation of te dual solution z in (3.2) adds a source of uncertainty in te error representation. In te sequel, we evaluate te potential of our approac wit respect to tese topics for different target functionals. As a bencmark problem we consider problem (2.1) for te solution (cf. [29, Example 4.2]) u(x) = 1 ( 1 tan 2x ) 1 x 2.25 (5.3) 2 5ε wit corresponding rigt-and side function f. Furter, Ω = (, 1) 2, α = 1., b = 1 5 (1, 2). Te Diriclet boundary condition is given by te exact solution. Te solution is caracterized by an interior layer of tickness O( ε ln ε ). We study te target functionals 1 J L 2(u) = (e, u) Ω, J 1 (u) = u dx and J 2 (u) = u(x e ), e L 2 (Ω) were e := u u and wit a user-prescribed control point x e = ( 5 16, 8) 3 tat is located in te interior of te layer. In our computations we regularize J 2 ( ) by J r (u) = 1 B r Ω B r u(x) dx, were te ball B r is defined by B r = {x Ω x x e < r} wit small radius r >. Here, all test cases are solved by using te Q 1 /Q 2 pair of finite elements for te primal and dual problem wic is due to te observations depicted in Example 1. In Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.4 we present te effectivity indices of te proposed DWR approac applied to te stabilized approximation sceme (2.14) for a sequence of vanising diffusion coefficients. For te target functionals J L 2( ) and J 1 ( ) te effectivity indices nicely converge to one for an increasing number of degrees of freedom. Moreover, te expected convergence beavior is robust wit respect to te small diffusion parameter ε. For te more callenging error control of a point-value, wic owever can be expected to be of iger interest in practice, te effectivity indices also convergences nicely to one. Tis is in good agreement wit effectivity 14

15 ε = 1 6 ε = 1 7 ε = 1 8 J L 2 J 1 J r J L 2 J 1 J r J L 2 J 1 J r dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff dofs I eff Table 5.1: Effectivity indices for te target quantities J L 2 perturbation parameters for Example 5.2. J 1 and J r and different decreasing indices for point-value error control tat are given in oter works of te literature for te pure Poisson problem; cf. [6, p. 45]. We note tat in te case of a point-value error control te target functional lacks te regularity of te rigt-and side term in te dual problem tat is typically needed to ensure te existence and regularity of weak solutions; cf. [19, Capter 6.2]. However, no impact of tis lack of regularity is observed in te computational studies. Tus, for all target functionals a robust convergence beavior is ensured for tis test case ε = 1 6 J L 2 J 1 J r ε = 1 7 J L 2 J 1 J r ε = 1 8 J L 2 J 1 J r Figure 5.4: Effectivity indices over degrees of freedom for different target functionals and decreasing diffusion coefficient for Example 5.2. For completeness, in Figure 5.5 we visualize te computed solution profiles and adaptive meses for an error control based on te local target functional J r ( ) and te global target functional J L 2( ), respectively. Tis test case nicely illustrates te potential of te DWR approac. For te point-value error control te refined mes cells are located close to te specified point of interest and along tose cells tat affect te point-value error by means of transport in te direction of te flow field b. Furtermore, te mes cells witout strong impact on te solution close to te control point are coarsened furter. Even toug a roug approximation of te sarp interface is obtained in downstream direction from te viewpoint of te control point, in its neigborood an excellent approximation of te sarp layer is ensured by te approac. A igly economical mes along wit a ig quality in 15

16 (a) Point-value error control. (b) Global error control. Figure 5.5: Point-value error control by J 2 (5.5a) and global error control by J L 2 te DWR approac for Example 5.2. (5.5b) by te computation of te user-specified goal quantity is tus obtained. In contrast to tis, te global error control of J L 2( ) provides a good approximation of te solution in te wole domain by adjusting te mes along te complete layer. 5.3 Example 3 (Variable convection field, 3D). In our last test case we apply te approac to a tree-dimensional test case wic represents a more callenging task. Moreover, we consider a velocity field b depending on te space variable x. Precisely, we consider problem (2.1) wit te unit cube Ω = (, 1) 3, ε = 1 6, α = 1, b = ( x 2, x 1, ) and f. Te boundary conditions are given by u n = on Γ N = {x Ω x 1 = }, u = 1 on Γ D1 = {x Ω.4 x 1.6, x 2 =,.4 x 3.6}, and u = on Γ D2 = Ω\{Γ N Γ D1 }. Tus, by te boundary part Γ D1 we model an inflow region (area) were te transport quantity modelled by te unknown u is injected; cf. Fig Γ N models an outflow boundary. Prescribing a omogeneous Diriclet condition on Γ D2 is done for te sake of simplicity and of no real relevance for te test setting. Te target functional aims at te control of te solution s mean value in a smaller, inner domain Ω In = [,.1] [.4,.6] [.4,.6], and is given by J 4 (u) = u dx. Ω In In te context of applications, te transport quantity u is tus measured and controlled in te small region of interest Ω In. Figure 5.6 illustrates te computed adaptively generated meses for some of te DWR iteration steps. For visualization purposes, two surfaces wit corresponding mes distribution are sown for eac grid, te bottom surface and te surface in te domain s center wit respect to te x 3 direction. We note tat te postprocessed solutions are visualized on a grid for te respective surfaces. Te cells on te surfaces are triangular-saped since te used visualization software ParaView is based on triangular-saped elements. Similar to te previous test case of a point-value error control, te refinement is located on tose cells tat affect te mean value error control. Here, te cells close to te two inner layers aligned in te flow direction b are strongly refined. Tis refinement process is obvious since te inner and control domain Ω In is cosen to ave exactly te same dimensions as te cannel-like extension of te boundary segment Γ D1 along te flow direction into te domain Ω. Outside te inner domain Ω In and te cannel-like domain of transport te mes cells are coarsened for an increasing number of DWR iteration steps. 16

17 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 5.6: Adaptive grids after first (5.6a), tird (5.6b), fift (5.6c) and sevent (5.6d) iteration step of te DWR approac wit coarsening and refinement wit target functional J1 for Example Summary In tis work we developed an adaptive approac for stabilized finite element approximations of stationary convection-dominated problems. It is based on te Dual Weigted Residual metod for goal-oriented a posteriori error control. A first dualize and ten stabilize pilosopy was applied for combining te mes adaptation process in te course of te DWR approac wit te stabilization of te finite element tecniques. In contrast to oter works of te literature we used a iger order approximation of te dual problem instead of a iger order interpolation of a lower order approximation of te dual solution. Tereby we aim to eliminate sources of inaccuracies in regions wit layers and close to sarp fronts. In numerical experiments we could prove tat spurious oscillations tat typically arise in numerical approximations of convection-dominated problems could be reduced significantly. Robust effectivity indices very close to one were obtained for te specified test target quantities. We demonstrated te efficiency of te approac also for tree space dimensions. Te presented approac offers large potential for combining goal-oriented error control and selfadaptivity wit stabilized finite element metods in te approximation of convection-dominated transport. Te application of te approac to nonlinear, nonstationary and more sopisticated problems of multipysics is our ongoing work. Moreover, te efficient computation of te iger order approximation to te dual problem offers potential for optimization. Tis will also be our work for te future. 17

18 References [1] Amed, N., Jon, V.: Adaptive time step control for iger order variational time discretizations applied to convection-diffusion equations. Comput. Metods Appl. Mec. Engrg. 285, (215) [2] Angermann, L.: Balanced a posteriori error estimates for finite-volume type discretizations of convection-dominated elliptic problems. Computing. 55(4), (1995) [3] Arndt, D., Bangert, W., Davydov, D., Heister, T., Heltai, L., Kronbicler, M., Maier, M., Pelteret, J.-P., Turcksin, B., Wells, D.: Te deal.ii Library, Version 8.5. J. Numer. Mat. 25(3), (217). doi:1.1515/jnma [4] Bangert, W., Geiger, M., Rannacer, R.: Adaptive Galerkin finite element metods for te wave equation. Comput. Metods Appl. Mat. 1, 3 48 (21) [5] Bangert, W., Hartmann, R., Kanscat, G.: deal.ii-a general purpose object oriented finite element library. ACM Trans. Mat. Software 33(4), 24/1 24/27 (27). doi:1.1145/ [6] Bangert, W., Rannacer, R.: Adaptive Finite Element Metods for Differential Equations. Birkäuser, Basel (23) [7] Barrenecea, G. R., Jon, V., Knobloc, P.: Analysis of algebraic flux correction scemes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 54(4), (216) [8] Bause, M., Köcer, U.: Variational time discretization for mixed finite element approximations of nonstationary diffusion problems. J. Comput. Appl. Mat. 289, (215) [9] Bause, M., Scwegler, K.: Analysis of stabilized iger order finite element approximation of nonstationary and nonlinear convection-diffusion-reaction equations. Comput. Metods Appl. Mec. Engrg , (212) [1] Becker, R.: An optimal-control approac to a posteriori error estimation for finite element discretizations of te Navier Stokes equations, East-West J. Numer. Mat. 8, (2) [11] Becker, R., Rannacer, R.: Weigted a posteriori error control in FE metods. In: Bock, H. G. et al. (eds.) ENUMATH 97. Proceedings of te 2nd European Conference on Numerical Matematics and Advanced Applications, pp World Scientific, Singapore (1998) [12] Becker, R., Rannacer, R.: An optimal control approac to a posteriori error estimation in finite element metods. Acta Numer. 1, 1 12 (21) [13] Brooks, A. N., Huges, T. J. R.: Streamline upwind/petrov-galerkin formulations for convection dominated flows wit particular empasis on te incompressible Navier- Stokes equations. Comput. Metods Appl. Mec. Engrg. 32(1-3), (1982) [14] Carey, G. F., Oden, J. T.: Finite Elements, Computational Aspects, Vol. III (Te Texas finite element series). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1984) [15] Ciarlet, P. G.: Basic error estimates for elliptic problems. In: Ciarlet, P. G., Lions, J. L. (eds.) Handbook of Numerical Analysis, vol. 2, pp , Nort-Holland, Amsterdam (1991) [16] Dolejší, V., Ern, A., Voralkík, M.: A framework for robust a posteriori error control in unsteady nonlinear advection-diffusion problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 51(2), (213) [17] Dörfler, W.: A convergent adaptive algoritm for Poisson s equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 33, (1996) 18