arxiv: v1 [math.na] 13 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 AN ANALOGUE O GRAD-DIV STABILIZATION IN NONCONORMING METHODS OR INCOMPRESSIBLE LOWS MINE AKBAS, ALEXANDER LINKE, LEO G REBHOLZ, AND PHILIPP W SCHROEDER arxiv: v1 [matna] 13 Nov 217 Abstract Grad-div stabilization is a classical remedy in conforming mixed finite element metods for incompressible flow problems, for mitigating velocity errors tat are sometimes called poor mass conservation Suc errors arise due to te relaxation of te divergence constraint in classical mixed metods, and are excited wenever te spacial discretization as to deal wit comparably large and complicated pressures In tis contribution, an analogue of grad-div stabilization is presented for nonconforming flow discretizations of Discontinuous Galerkin or nonconforming finite element type Here te key is te penalization of te jumps of te normal velocities over facets of te triangulation, wic controls te measure-valued part of te distributional divergence of te discrete velocity solution urtermore, we caracterize te limit for arbitrarily large penalization parameters, wic sows tat te proposed nonconforming Discontinuous Galerkin metods remain robust and accurate in tis limit Several numerical examples illustrate te teory and sow teir relevance for te simulation of practical, nontrivial flows Key words Incompressible Navier Stokes equations, mixed finite element metods, grad-div stabilization, Discontinuous Galerkin metod, nonconforming finite elements AMS subject classifications 35Q3, 65M15, 65M6, 76M1 1 Introduction Classical conforming and inf-sup stable mixed finite element metods for te incompressible (Navier )Stokes equations, suc as te mini [2], te Bernardi Raugel [3] and te Taylor Hood elements [43], relax te divergence constraint u =, in order to construct optimally convergent spacial discretizations on regular unstructured triangulations [19, 4] Indeed, te discrete velocities solutions u are not divergence-free, but only discretely divergence-free, ie, it olds u := π ( u ) =, were denotes te discrete divergence operator and π denotes te L 2 best approximation in te discrete pressure space Wile relaxing te divergence constraint facilitates te construction of inf-sup stable discretizations, it was soon realized tat discretely divergence-free is sometimes not good enoug or example, already in 1989 D Pelletier, A ortin and R Camarero titled in teir article [36] by te provocative question Are EM solution of incompressible flows really incompressible (or ow simple flows can cause eadaces!) and pointed to te problem of poor mass conservation Poor mass conservation describes velocity errors tat are excited wen te pressure is comparably large and complicated [23] Tis appens in many flow problems, including Boussinesq flows [2, 36, 13, 18, 15, 16], potential and generalized Beltrami flows [3, 29, 23], quasigeostropic flows [42, 1, 29], electroporesis [37], and two-pase flows wit surface Version: November 11, 217 unding: Te tird autor is partially supported by NS grant DMS and US Army grant MA Department of Matematics, Duzce University, 8162, Duzce, Turkey (mineakbas@duzceedutr) Weierstrass Institute, 1117 Berlin, Germany (alexanderlinke@wias-berlinde), ORCID ttps: //orcidorg/ Department of Matematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA (rebolz@clemsonedu) Institute for Numerical and Applied Matematics, Georg-August-University Göttingen, D Göttingen, Germany (pscroeder@matuni-goettingende), ORCID ttps://orcidorg/

2 2 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER tension [17, 28] Pysical problems were poor mass conservation is not strong are rater limited, and include for example pressure-driven Stokes and pressure-driven, low-reynolds number Navier Stokes flow troug a cannel wit zero exterior forcing, were for te momentum balance approximately olds ν u + p, ie, were te pressure gradient is proportional to te friction force Penomenologically, poor mass conservation is often accompanied by comparably large violations of te divergence error u L 2, see for example [16, Table 1] To address tis, in 1988 T Huges proposed to enance te Navier Stokes momentum balance of conforming mixed finite element metods by a consistent term [14] γ( u, v ), wic penalizes large divergence errors, and is nowadays often called grad-div stabilization [33]; ere γ denotes te grad-div stabilization parameter Indeed, grad-div stabilization for conforming mixed finite element metods as recently been investigated in dept, bot from a teoretical and computational point of view [32, 33, 35, 16, 34, 7, 31, 22, 1] A better understanding of grad-div stabilization was acieved, wen te limit beavior for arbitrarily large stabilization parameters γ was investigated [7, 31, 22]; it turned out tat grad-div stabilization is not so muc a stabilization, but instead a kind of penalization procedure On a fixed grid, for γ te grad-div stabilized discrete velocity solution u γ converges to a divergence-free velocity solution u wic is te solution of a divergence-free conforming mixed finite element metod wit te same discrete velocity space, but wit a ricer discrete pressure space Since divergence-free, conforming mixed finite element metods are pressure-robust [23, 3], ie teir velocity error does not depend on te continuous pressure, grad-div stabilized discrete velocities beave in a more robust manner against large and complicated continuous pressures However, tis teoretical understanding also revealed limitations of grad-div stabilization in tat large grad-div stabilization parameters can cause classical Poisson locking penomena, wenever te limiting divergence-free mixed metod is not inf-sup stable [22] However, on certain mes families and for certain conforming mixed finite elements, grad-div over-stabilization can be avoided [22, Corollary 1, Case 2] Of course, nonconforming mixed metods like te Crouzeix Raviart finite element metod [11] are as muc endangered by poor mass conservation as conforming ones, since tey are not pressure-robust (teir velocity error depends on te continuous pressure) In [27, 26] it was recognized tat pressure-robustness of a mixed metod for incompressible flows does not depend on te fact tat te discrete velocity trial functions are divergence-free, but it only depends on te discrete velocity test functions Tey ave to be divergence-free in te weak sense of H(div), in order to be ortogonal to any gradient field in te L 2 () scalar product for vector fields [23, 27] Recall tat a vector field v L 2 () is said to be weakly divergence-free, if its distributional divergence [23] φ v φ dx vanises for all φ C (), ie if it is ortogonal in L 2 () to all smoot gradient fields [23] Tis sows tat it is actually a very strong property for a vector field v to be weakly divergence-free, at least compared to being only discretely divergence-free Indeed, applying te general definition of te distributional divergence to noncon-

3 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 3 forming finite element metods and Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) metods, it turns out tat te distributional divergence of a velocity test function v is given by φ φ v dx φ( v n ) ds, K T K i since v is elementwise polynomial and an integration by parts can be applied Terefore, te distributional divergence of v vanises only if it olds v = elementwise for all K T and v n = for all i Instead, if a vector field v is discretely divergence-free, tis implies for usual, ie, not pressure-robust [23], discretizations tat only φ φ v dx φ ( v n ) ds, K T K i vanises for all φ Q from a finite-dimensional space Q of pressure test functions Hence, an analogue for grad-div stabilization for nonconforming metods as to penalize te elementwise defined broken divergence v, and te facet jumps v n of te normal velocities (ie te mass flux) Terefore, in te following a penalization procedure wit a penalization parameter γ is proposed, wic enforces in te limit γ on a fixed grid tat te discrete velocity solution u will be elementwise divergence-free and te jumps of te normal velocities over inner facets will vanis, likewise Ten, tis discrete velocity solution u will be sown to be te discrete velocity solution of anoter DG metod, were also te velocity test functions v are weakly divergence-free, and terefore tis discrete velocity solution will be pressure-robust, ie, te discrete velocity solution is pressure-independent [23] In te context of te Crouzeix Raviart finite element metod, te importance of penalizing te jumps of te normal velocities was recognized by E Burman and P Hansbo in 25 [6] However, tey did not investigate possible problems of over-stabilization in te case of small kinematic viscosities, if te jumps of te normal velocities are strongly penalized In te context of DG metods, in [41] an elementwise divergence penalization as been used (seemingly) for te first time It was sown tat even tis incomplete stabilization metod can improve poor mass conservation for bot inf-sup stable Q dc k /Qdc k 1 and equal-order DG metods Qdc k /Qdc k on tensor-product meses in practical applications of non-isotermal flows urter, it was recognized independently in te recent works [25] and [24] tat in DG metods, te mass balance across interior facets as to be accounted for, in addition to te classical (broken) grad-div stabilization or laminar and turbulent flows, te autors of Ref [25] improving earlier results [24] use a velocity-correction time integration wit equal-order Q dc k /Qdc k elements on tensor-product meses and an implementation in dealii Te additional terms tey favor are different from te stabilization tat is proposed in tis work, see [25, 423 and 424] urter, te autors do not rigorously justify teir approac by numerical analysis and do not consider a possible lack of robustness against over-stabilization A major contribution of tis work is to propose an analogue of grad-div stabilization for DG metods as motivated above We will prove error estimates wic sow tat te same positive results for grad-div stabilization in conforming metods also old in tis setting wit tese penalizations Moreover, for DG metods using te pair

4 4 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER on simplices, we are able to caracterize te limit beavior of te penalization procedure for arbitrarily large parameters It turns out tat te metod is perfectly robust against over-stabilization since in te limit, one obtains te weakly divergence-free inf-sup stable DG metods proposed by B Cockburn, G Kanscat, and D Scötzau [8, 9] urter, some remarks are made concerning DG metods on tensor product meses, and te nonconforming Crouzeix Raviart element Our teory is restricted to te incompressible Stokes problem, owever, an extension to te Navier Stokes problem would be straigtforward, altoug naturally wit more P dc k /Pdc k 1 tecnical details Several numerical examples for te Stokes problem, te Navier Stokes problem and some coupled Boussinesq flows sow te practical relevance of te proposed penalization procedure Organization of te article Tis article is arranged as follows In Section 2 we provide some notation and matematical preliminaries to allow for a cleaner analysis to follow Section 3 considers te case of te proposed stabilization for DG on simplices, Section 4 considers tensor product meses, and Section 5 considers te enancement in Crouzeix Raviart elements Several numerical tests of concept are given in Sections 3 and 4, and in Section 6, we consider applications of te proposed penalization outside of te Stokes setting, to Navier Stokes equations and to Boussinesq In all numerical tests te (sometimes dramatic) improvement offered by te proposed penalization is clear inally, conclusions are drawn in Section 7, and future researc directions are discussed 2 Stokes problem and DG setting We consider a domain R d, d=2,3, to be a simply connected set wit smoot boundary, or a convex polygon or K we use te standard Sobolev spaces W m,p (K) for scalar-valued functions wit associated norms W m,p (K) and seminorms W m,p (K) for m and p 1 Spaces and norms for vector- and tensor-valued functions are indicated wit bold letters We use te Lebesgue space L p (K) = W,p (K) and te Hilbert space H m (K) = W m,2 (K) Additionally, te closed subspaces H 1 (K) consisting of H 1 (K)-functions wit vanising trace on K and te set L 2 (K) of L 2 (K)-functions wit zero mean in K play an important role Te L 2 (K)-inner product is denoted by (, ) K and, if K =, te domain is omitted completely wen no confusion can arise 21 Continuous Stokes problem We consider te stationary Stokes problem wit no-slip boundary conditions: ν u + p = f in, (1) u = in, u = on Wit V = H 1 () and Q = L 2 (), te weak formulation of (1) reads: ind (u, p) V Q st, (v, q) V Q, (2) νa(u, v) + b(v, p) b(u, q) = (f, v) Te bilinear forms are given by (3) a(w, v) = w : v dx and b(w, q) = q( w) dx

5 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 5 Weakly divergence-free velocities belong to (4) V div = {v V : b(v, q) =, q Q} 22 Discontinuous Galerkin setting Let T be a sape-regular E partition of witout anging nodes and mes size = max K T K, were K denotes te diameter of te particular element K T Since te subsequent velocity approximation will not be H 1 -conforming, te broken Sobolev space is introduced as follows: (5) H m (T ) = { w L 2 (): w K H m (K), K T } Define te broken gradient : H 1 (T ) L 2 () by ( w) K := ( w K ), and similarly define te broken divergence We additionally introduce te space (6) H(div; ) = { w L 2 (): w L 2 (), w n = } In our context it is wort to remind te reader tat te expression w L 2 () as te meaning tat te distributional divergence of w can be expressed as a L 2 () function, ie, tere exists s L 2 () (called te weak divergence of w) suc tat it olds for all φ C () v φ dx = s φ dx, see [23] Te skeleton denotes te set of all facets wit K = { : K} and represents te diameter of eac facet Note tat K olds true for all K and additionally, we define N = max K T card( K ) Moreover, = i were i is te subset of interior facets and collects all boundary facets To any we assign a unit normal vector n were, for, tis is te outer unit normal vector n If i, tere are two adjacent elements K+ and K saring te facet = K + K and n points in an arbitrary but fixed direction Let φ be any piecewise smoot (scalar-, vector- or tensor-valued) function wit traces from witin te interior of K ± denoted by φ ±, respectively Ten, we define te jump and average { } operator across interior facets i by (7) φ = φ + φ and { φ } = 1 2( φ + + φ ) or boundary facets we set φ = { φ = φ Tese operators act componentwise for vector- and tensor-valued functions requently, te subscript indicating } te facet is omitted Note tat if w H(div; ), ten w n = for all i ; cf [12, Lemma 124] Tis is wy te proposed stabilization of DG metods in tis work is also sometimes called H(div)-stabilization 3 Mass flux penalization applied to inf-sup stable DG metods on simplicial meses In te following, P k (K) (vector-valued: P k (K)) denotes te space of all polynomials on K wit degree less or equal to k Restricting ourselves to simplicial meses, te global discrete spaces are V = { v L 2 } (8a) (): v K P k (K), K T, Q = { q L 2 } (8b) (): q K P k 1 (K), K T

6 6 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER Tis finite element (E) pair is also called P dc k /Pdc k 1 and it forms an inf-sup stable velocity/pressure pair; cf, for example, [38, Section 64] Moreover, on simplicial meses, we ave te important property P dc k Pdc k 1 Remark 31 : On tensor-product meses, wic we consider in te next section, te inf-sup stable pressure/velocity pair Q dc k /Qdc k 1 is te common element coice A key departure for suc elements from te simplicial mes framework is tat Q dc k Q dc k 1, wic creates an additional obstacle to andle in te analysis since ere te additional penalization of te broken divergence is needed On V te following discrete trace inequality is valid; cf [12, Remark 147]: (9) v V : v 2 L 2 ( K) C trn 1 K v 2 L 2 (K), K T A similar trace inequality olds true for te pressure space Q Te appearance below of certain traces of velocity facet values, and teir normal derivatives, leads to te tecnical assumption for te proofs below tat te involved velocities belong (at least) to H 3 2 +ε (T ) for some ε > ; cf [38, Section 213] Relaxing tis assumption is possible [21], of course, but beyond te scope of tis contribution We tus define te compound space [ ] (1) V () = V V H 3 2 +ε (T ) We consider te symmetric interior penalty (SIP) metod wit σ sufficiently large to guarantee te coercivity estimates below, and so define te bilinear form a (w, v ) = w : v dx + σ w v ds (11) { w } n v ds w { v } n ds Te natural discrete energy norm corresponding to te SIP bilinear form for w V () is given by (12) w 2 e = w 2 L 2 () + σ w 2 L 2 ( ) Te discrete bilinear form for te pressure-velocity coupling is defined by b (w, q ) = q ( w ) dx + { } (13) q ( w n ) ds As mentioned above, te E pair V /Q is discretely inf-sup stable More precisely, tere exists an even smaller discrete velocity space W V, wit W H(div; ), suc tat W /Q is also inf-sup stable; cf, for example, [38, Section 64] Tis ensures te existence of a β >, independent of, suc tat (14) β q L2 () sup b (w, q ) b (v, q ) sup, q Q w W \{} w e v V \{} v e

7 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 7 We will also utilize a stronger energy norm on V (): (15) w V (): w 2 e, := w 2 e + K w n K 2 L 2 ( K) K T Ten, tere exists a M >, independent of, suc tat (16) (w, v ) V () V : a (w, v ) M w e, v e Concerning a proof, see for example [12, Section 423] for a scalar-valued analogue Moreover, note tat te e and e, norms are uniformly equivalent on V Tat is, tere exists a C > suc tat C v e, v e v e, for all v V ; cf [12, Lemma 42] (scalar-valued) Te key idea of tis work is to add te following mass flux penalization term to te DG formulation: j (w, v ) = 1 (17) ( w n )( v n ) ds We will sow te remarkable positive impact tis term can ave, as it improves mass conservation as well as te pressure-robustness of te solution In fact, te analytical and numerical results we obtain are similar to wat is found wit using grad-div stabilization in conforming metods for Stokes problems, wic is wy we caracterize tis penalization as an analogue to grad-div stabilization for nonconforming metods Tis term penalizes normal jumps and terefore, rougly speaking, te difference between a fully discontinuous DG velocity and a normal-continuous H(div) velocity However, we empasize an important advantage over grad-div stabilization in conforming metods: in te proposed DG setting, over-stabilization is never possible, as it will be sown or a discussion on te issue of over-stabilization in conforming metods wit grad-div stabilization, see [22, Corollary 1] or all v V we introduce te notation v 2 nj = 1 ( v n ) 2 ds = 1 v n 2 L 2 ( ), and note tat v nj v e for all v V () or approximating (2), te proposed DG metod wit mass flux penalization is given by: ind (u, p ) V Q satisfying (v, q ) V Q, (18) (19) νa (u, v ) + b (v, p ) + γj (u, v ) = (f, v ), were γ is te penalization parameter Discretely divergence-free DG velocities belong to b (u, q ) =, V div = {v V : b (v, q ) =, q Q }, and tanks to te inf-sup condition, an equivalent and pressure-free formulation of (18) (19) can be expressed as: u V div st νa (u, v ) + γj (u, v ) = (f, v ) v V div

8 8 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER 31 Energy estimate Making use of te discrete coercivity property of te SIP bilinear form a, cf, for example, [38, Lemma 66] or [12, Section 6121], we also easily obtain discrete coercivity wit a constant C σ >, independent of, in te following sense: (2) v V : a (v, v ) + γj (v, v ) C σ v 2 e + γ v 2 nj C σ v 2 e Te well-posedness of te formulation tus follows using tis discrete coercivity property and discrete inf-sup stability Te following energy estimate follows immediately as well Lemma 32 (Energy estimate) Let f L 2 () and assume tat σ > is sufficiently large to guarantee discrete coercivity Ten, wit a constant C >, one obtains te following estimate for te EM solution (u, p ) to (18) (19): (21a) νc σ 2 u 2 e + γ u 2 nj Cν 1 f 2 L 2 (), (21b) u 2 L 2 () Cγ 1 ν 1 f 2 L 2 (), (21c) p 2 L 2 () C f 2 L 2 () Proof : Testing wit (v, q ) = (u, p ) in (18) (19), togeter wit coercivity from (2) and Caucy Scwarz leads to (22) νc σ u 2 e + γ u 2 nj f L 2 () u L 2 () urter estimating te rigt-and side requires a DG analogue of te Poincaré riedrics (P) inequality; cf, for example, [12, Corollary 54] Ten, Young s inequality can be invoked to obtain (23) f L2 () u L2 () 1 C P f 2 L 2 νc 2 () + νc σ σ 2 u 2 e Reordering sows te first bound or an estimate of te divergence of te DG solution, coose q = u in (19) After an additional application of Caucy Scwarz and inserting γ γ = 1, we ave u 2 L 2 () = { } u ( u n ) ds (24) ( γ { ) 1/2 ( ) 1/2 } u 2 γ u L 2 ( ) n 2 L 2 ( ) or any q Q, te discrete trace inequality (9) yields { } q 2 [ q ds L 2 ( ) q 2 L 2 ( ) q 2 L 2 ( K) K T C tr N 1 K q 2 L 2 (K) K T ]

9 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 9 Tus, wit a generic constant C >, using K for all K, we obtain (25) ( γ { u } 2 L 2 ( ))1/2 Cγ 1 /2 u L 2 () or te second term, we use te energy estimate (21a) for te velocity; tat is, (26) ( ) 1/2 γ u n 2 L 2 ( ) = γ 1 /2 u nj Cν 1 /2 f L2() Using (26) and (25) in (24) sows te second bound of te lemma or te pressure bound, we invoke te discrete inf-sup condition (14) in W /Q and obtain [ β p L 2 () sup b (w, p ) (f, w ) = sup ν a ] (u, w ) (27) w W \{} w e w W \{} w e w e Here, te fact tat j (u, w ) = since w W H(div; ) as been used A furter estimation of te rigt-and side uses Caucy Scwarz and Poincaré riedrics for te term involving f togeter wit boundedness of a (16) and uniform equivalence of e and e, on V for te viscous term Tus, te supremum vanises tereby leading to (28) β p L 2 () C[ f L 2 + ν u e ] Inserting te energy estimate (21a) for te velocity concludes te proof 32 Error estimate or te error analysis tat follows, it is important tat te following property olds A proof is straigt-forward and based on te consistency of bot te DG metod and H(div)-stabilization Corollary 33 (Galerkin ortogonality) Let (u, p) V Q solve (2) and (u, p ) V Q solve (18) (19) If additionally u H 3 2 +ε (T ) and p H 1 2 +ε (T ) for ε >, ten, for all (v, q ) V Q : (29) νa (u u, v ) + b (v, p p ) b (u u, q ) + γj (u u, v ) = Under te assumptions of te previous corollary we decompose te error as u u = (u π u) (u π u) = η u e u, p p = (p π p) (p π p) = η p e p, were (π, π ): V Q V Q represent appropriate approximation operators and we refer to (η u, η p ) and (e u, ep ) as approximation and discretization error, respectively or te pressure, π simply denotes te local L 2 -projection onto Q or te approximation operator for te velocity, we require π : V W V, and recall from above tat W H(div; ) It is well-known tat functions belonging to H(div; ) ave a continuous normal component across interior facets Specifically, we

10 1 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER define te operator π to be te Brezzi Douglas Marini (BDM) interpolation operator of order k; cf [4, Sections 23 and 25] A very important property of te BDM k interpolator π is te following commuting diagram property: (3) w H(div; ): (π w) = π ( w) Note tat for te Stokes velocity u, we ave tat u = olds weakly, wic implies tat (π u) = also olds weakly Tis property is important for te following teorem Teorem 34 (Error estimate) Let f L 2 () and assume tat σ > is sufficiently large to guarantee discrete coercivity Under te assumptions of te previous corollary, te following error estimate olds true: [ ] u u e C η u e, + γ 1 /2 ν 1 /2 (31a) η p L 2 () (31b) (31c) π p p L2 () Cν u u e, [ ] ν p p L2 () Cν ηu e, + C γ + 1 η p L2 () Remark 35 : Due to te fact tat te BDM interpolator as optimal approximation properties, one obtains te standard convergence rate of k wenever te exact solution (u, p) is smoot enoug Tus, te overall convergence rate of te proposed stabilized metod remains te same as te unstabilized metod, see eg [38] Moreover, te accuracy of te discretization is robust and optimal wit respect to te limit γ, ie, over-stabilization is not possible Remark 36 : Altoug te mass flux penalization does not alter te spacial convergence rate, it can dramatically lower te velocity error for certain flows In particular, in te unstabilized DG metod, te coefficient of te pressure error term in te velocity estimate is ν 1 [38], wereas we obtain γ 1 /2 ν 1 /2 due to te penalization Tis is analogous to te effect of using grad-div stabilization in conforming metods, and as we sow below, can dramatically reduce te velocity error wen ν is small and/or te pressure is large urter, due to (31b) in te limit γ also te discrete pressure is pressure-robust in some sense, see [23, Remark 45] Proof : Testing wit (v, q ) = (e u, ep ) V div Q in Corollary 33, inserting te error splitting and reordering leads to (32) νa (e u, e u ) + γj (e u, e u ) + b (η u, e p ) b (e u, e p ) + b (e u, e p ) = νa (η u, e u ) + γj (η u, e u ) + b (e u, η p ) On te left-and side, due to (3), η u = olds weakly, and tus b (η u, e p ) = since also η u H(div; ) Te oter two mixed terms on te left-and side cancel, as tey are negative of eac oter On te rigt-and side, we observe tat η u H(div; ), and tus η u n = for all facets, and so j (η u, e u ) = or te remaining mixed term on te rigt-and side, note tat e u K P k 1 (K) and

11 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 11 since η p is ortogonal to P k 1, we obtain b (e u, η p ) = η p ( e u ) dx + = { η p } ( e u n ) ds { η p } ( e u n ) ds In (32), applying discrete coercivity (2) on te left-and side and boundedness (16) plus Caucy Scwarz on te rigt-and side now results in νc σ e u 2 e + γ eu 2 nj νm η u e, ν e u e ( + { η p } ) 1/2 ( ) 1/2 2 γ e u γ L 2 ( ) n 2 L 2 ( ) = T 1 + T 2 We furter estimate tese rigt-and side using Young s inequality: T 1 νm 2 η u 2 e, 2C + νc σ σ 2 eu 2 e, ( T 2 1 { η p } ) 2 + γ 2 γ L 2 ( ) 2 eu 2 nj Tus, te terms involving te velocity discretization error e u can be absorbed in te left-and side or te term involving te average of η p, we use te discrete trace inequality, analogously as for te energy estimate, and obtain (34) γ Combining all above estimates leads to { η p } 2 L 2 ( ) Cγ 1 η p 2 L 2 () (35) νc σ e u 2 e + γ eu 2 nj Cν ηu 2 e, + Cγ 1 η p 2 L 2 () Reordering, dropping te positive H(div; )-stabilization term on te left-and side, and taking te square root reveals [ ] e u e C η u e, + γ 1 /2 ν 1 /2 (36) η p L 2 () Application of te triangle inequality and te fact tat η u e η u e, gives te claim for te velocity error estimate or te pressure estimate, we again invoke te discrete inf-sup condition (14) in W /Q and te error splitting: (37) β e p L 2 () sup b (w, e p ) = sup w W \{} w e w W \{} [ b (w, η p ) b (w, p p ) w e It remains to furter estimate te numerator in te last term Arguing similarly as above, w K P k 1 (K) as W V, and using te fact tat η p is ortogonal to P k 1 yields b (w, η p ) = { η p (38) } ( w n ) ds =, ]

12 12 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER Table 1: Errors for te no-flow problem wit te mass flux penalized (controlled by γ) and broken divergence penalized (controlled by γ gd ) DG metod P dc 3 /P dc 2, for ν = 1 3 and using a structured triangular mes wit = 1 32 γ γ gd u u L 2 (u u ) L 2 p p L 2 u L were te last equality makes use of w n = for all Ten, Corollary 33 and (16) togeter wit w being normal-continuous leads to (39) b (w, p p ) = b (w, π p p ) = νa (u u, w ) νm u u e, w e Tis proves (31b) Equivalence of te e - and e, -norm, te velocity error estimate (31a) and te triangle inequality conclude te proof 33 Numerical illustration of te error estimate We now present results of a numerical experiment, in order to illustrate Teorem 34 Take as te domain te unit square = (, 1) 2, viscosity ν = 1 3, constant interior penalty parameter σ = 4k 2, and a tird order (k = 3) DG metod wit P dc 3 /P dc 2 elements on a structured triangular mes wit = 1 32 In order to sow tat te straigt-forward addition of te well-known (broken) grad-div stabilization alone is not sufficient for DG metods, te term (4) γ gd ( u )( v ) dx is added to te left-and side of (18) (19) Terefore, te parameter γ now controls te amount of mass flux penalization, wereas γ gd controls te amount of (broken) divergence penalization We make use of te ig-order finite element library NGSolve [39] Te problem we consider is a version of te no-flow problem were te exact solution is cosen to be u = and p = sin (2πx + 2πy) Note tat p dx = and te corresponding forcing vector is te gradient field f = p Te results of our experiment are sown in Table 1 As te mass flux stabilization parameter γ increases (wit fixed γ gd = ), we observe convergence of te velocity to te no-flow solution However, for fixed γ = and increasing γ gd, we do not observe an improvement in te velocity error, only in te

13 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 13 (broken) divergence error Te discrete pressure is not significantly influenced by eiter stabilization In contrast to Teorem 34 wic predicts an error reduction wit rate γ 1 /2, Table 1 indicates a better (linear) reduction beaving like γ 1 Te purpose of te next section is to consider te limiting beavior of te metod as γ, and resolves tis issue of scaling wit γ 34 Convergence as γ to te BDM solution We now prove a limiting result for te mass flux penalized DG metod as γ In particular, we will prove tat te metod converges to a weakly divergence-free BDM solution, wit rate O(γ 1 ) Since BDM optimally approximates Stokes, tis result explains te linear convergence wit γ 1 to te true solution, in te numerical test of te previous subsection To begin, we precisely define te BDM k space W by W = { v H(div; ): v K P k (K) } Te corresponding inf-sup stable E pair is given by W /Q, also denoted BDM k /P dc or more information on H(div)-EM, te reader is referred to [4] Note tat te pressure spaces for DG and H(div) metod coincide A sketc of te local degrees of freedom for bot DG and H(div) metods in te 2D case wit k = 3 is sown in igure 1 P dc 3 P dc 2 BDM 3 # loc{dos}=2 # loc{dos}=6 # loc{dos}=2 k 1 igure 1: Sown above is a sketc of degrees of freedom in 2D for DG and H(div) metods We ten introduce te following weakly divergence-free H(div)-DG metod: ind (û, p ) W Q suc tat for all (w, q ) W Q, (41) νa (û, w ) + b(w, p ) b(û, q ) = (f, w ) Note tat due to te H(div)-conformity and in contrast to (18) (19), te pressurevelocity coupling in (41) is te same as in te continuous weak formulation (2) of te Stokes problem Since velocities in W are normal-continuous, te mass flux penalization naturally vanises and te SIP bilinear form a in (41) acts only on te tangential component of te involved velocities Te discretely divergence-free subspace of W is defined by W div = {w W : b(w, q ) =, q Q },

14 14 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER and note tat tese discretely divergence-free H(div) velocities are even weakly divergence-free, ie W div = {w H(div; ): w = } Te aim of tis section is to sow tat te solution u of te stabilized DG metod (18) (19) converges to te weakly divergence-free H(div) solution û of (41) as γ To begin, notice tat a defines a symmetric bilinear form on V Due to te inclusion W div V div, and since bot spaces are finite-dimensional, te ortogonal complement (42) R div = ( W div ) = { v V div : a (v, w ) =, w W div } makes it possible to obtain te following inner direct sum decomposition: (43) V div = W div R div, W div R div = {}, ( wrt a inner product) Tus, W div contains weakly divergence-free, normal-continuous velocities wereas a velocity v Rdiv is eiter not in H(div; ), or v H(div; ) but v Te following lemma is te key property for sowing te convergence of u û as γ Lemma 37 Te mapping nj : V R defines a norm on R div Proof : We sow tat if v nj =, ten v for all v Rdiv, wic is te only non-trivial property Let v Rdiv wit v nj = We know tat v is discretely divergence-free; tat is, b (v, q ) = for all q Q Inserting q = v, multiplying by 1 = 1, using Caucy Scwarz and applying te discrete trace inequality leads to v 2 L 2 () = { } v ( v n ) ds C v L 2 () v nj = Tus, v = Te fact tat v nj = also means tat v is normal-continuous and terefore in H(div; ) Hence, we infer tat v W div and since W div R div = {}, v is proven Next, decompose bot te DG solution u = u + u wit ( u, ) u W div and te DG test functions v = v + v wit ( v, ) v W div R div tis decomposition and using te properties of te spaces W div following decoupled system: ( νa u, v ) ( ) = f, v, v (44a) W div, (44b) νa (u, v ) + γj (u, v ) = (f, v ), v R div and R div R div Inserting leads to te Since te solution û to te weakly divergence-free H(div)-EM is unique, we infer from (44a) tat u = û or te oter part, testing wit v = u in (44b) and using discrete coercivity (2) leads to (45) νc σ u 2 e + γ u 2 nj f L 2 () u L 2 () rom tis inequality, we can directly obtain te limit beavior as γ

15 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 15 Teorem 38 (Convergence to divergence-free H(div) solution) Let f L 2 () and assume tat σ > is sufficiently large to guarantee discrete coercivity Let u be te solution of te stabilized DG metod (18) (19) wit γ, and û be te weakly divergence-free H(div) solution of (41) Ten tere exists a constant C independent of γ suc tat (46a) (46b) u û e Cγ 1 f L2 () p p L2 () Cγ 1 ν f L2 () Remark 39 : Altoug tis result is for a fixed mes, we note tat te constant C includes constants arising from norm equivalences, and could potentially depend on Proof : irst note tat u û e = (47) u u e = u e Due to te fact tat in finite-dimensional spaces all norms are equivalent, an application of Lemma 37 on te left-and side of (45) (drop te viscous energy norm multiplied by ν) and Poincaré riedrics on te rigt-and side leads to Cγ u 2 e νc σ u 2 e + γ u 2 nj f L 2 () u L 2 () C P f L 2 () u e Reordering sows te first claim or te pressure convergence, we use te discrete inf-sup condition (14) for te E pair W /Q Since bot metods use te same pressure space, we can consider q = p p Q : β p p L2 () sup b (w, p p ) w W \{} w e νa (û u, w ) = sup w W \{} w e νm û u e, Here, we used te boundedness of a (16) Te final step is to acknowledge tat e - and e, -norm are uniformly equivalent on V Reordering and (46a) sows te convergence rate for te pressure We now illustrate Teorem 38 wit a numerical experiment We take = (, 1) 2, ν = 1 3, σ = 4k 2 and te exact solution as ( π sin 2 ) (πx) sin(2πy) u = π sin(2πx) sin 2, p = cos(πx) sin(πy) (πy) Te corresponding rigt-and side is ( ) ν2π f = 3 (2 cos(2πx) 1) sin(2πy) π sin(πx) sin(πy) ν2π 3 sin(2πx)(2 cos(2πy) 1) + π cos(πx) cos(πy)

16 16 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER We use a structured triangular mes wit = 1 2, k = 3, and (u, p ) V Q Results are sown in Table 2, and we observe te O(γ 1 ) convergence in bot pressure and velocity, as γ Table 2: Convergence beavior of H(div)-stabilized DG solution (u, p ) V Q to te weakly divergence-free H(div)-DG solution (û, p ) W Q as γ γ u û L 2 (u û ) L 2 p p L Stabilization of inf-sup stable DG metods on tensor-product meses As mentioned in te previous section, on tensor-product elements (quads and exes) using Q dc k /Qdc k 1, te situation is sligtly more involved since Q dc k Qdc k 1 In order to demonstrate te difference, we repeat te no-flow test from te previous section wit Q dc k /Qdc k 1 elements on a structured mes consisting of squares Te results are sown in Table 3 Interestingly, neiter mass flux penalization alone (γ >, γ gd = ), nor broken graddiv stabilization alone (γ gd >, γ = ), is able to improve te pressure-robustness of te considered metod, altoug eac of tem independently improve te (broken) divergence error However, wen tey are added simultaneously (γ >, γ gd > ), Table 3 clearly indicates tat te resulting stabilized DG metod yields better results In te following, we briefly sketc ow tis can be sown by te numerical analysis Te global discrete spaces in tis setting are V = { v L 2 } (48a) (): v K Q k (K), K T, Q = { q L 2 } (48b) (): q K Q k 1 (K), K T Again, we need an H(div)-conforming space W H(div; ) and we assume tat W = V H(div; ) Tere also as to be an H(div) interpolator π : V W V wic fulfills te commuting diagram property (3) inally, te pair W /Q also as to be inf-sup stable or te sake of brevity in te analysis, we only allow one stabilization parameter γ for bot mass flux and broken grad-div stabilization and redefine te stabilization bilinear form as j (w, v ) = ( w )( v ) dx + 1 ( w n )( v n ) ds

17 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 17 Table 3: Errors for te no-flow problem wit te mass flux stabilization (controlled by γ) and broken grad-div (controlled by γ gd ) stabilized DG metod Q dc 3 /Q dc 2 wit ν = 1 3 on a structured quadratic mes wit = 1 32 γ γ gd u u L 2 (u u ) L 2 p p L 2 u L Teorem 41 (Error estimate on tensor-product meses) Under te assumptions of Teorem 34, te following error estimate olds true for te stabilized DG metod on tensor-product elements: [ ] u u e C η u e, + γ 1 /2 ν 1 /2 (49a) η p L2 (), [ ] ν (49b) p p Cν η u e, + C γ + 2 η p L2 () Proof : Te proof is very similar to tat of Teorem 34 We only comment on te parts were differences occur between simplicial and tensor-product elements irst, we observe tat also for te new stabilization term, it olds j (η u, e u ) = since η u H(div; ) and η u = old exactly Te main difference occurs in te treatment of te mixed term of b, were, after Caucy Scwarz and Young, we obtain b (e u, η p ) = η p ( e u ) dx + { η p } ( e u n ) ds Cγ 1 η p 2 L 2 () + γ 2 e u 2 L 2 () + γ 2 eu 2 nj Applying te same ideas as in te proof for simplices, we arrive at νc σ e u 2 e + γ eu 2 nj + γ e u 2 L 2 () Cν ηu 2 e, + Cγ 1 η p 2 L 2 (), wic yields te velocity error estimate It is critical to note ere tat witout te (broken) grad-div stabilization, te coefficient of Cν η u 2 e, + Cγ 1 would be ν 1

18 18 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER instead of γ 1 or te pressure estimate, te discrete inf-sup condition (14) in W /Q is again essential However, since Q dc k Qdc k 1, for w W we ave to estimate (5) b (w, η p ) = η p ( w ) dx η p L 2 () w L 2 () rom ere, w L 2 () w e leads immediately to te same situation as in te proof of Teorem 34 Remark 42 : Concerning te convergence of te stabilized V /Q DG solution to te W /Q H(div) solution as γ, basically te same arguments as in Section 32 can be applied Unfortunately, to te best of te autors knowledge, te H(div)- E space W is not known in te literature, and so we do not present te analysis ere We mention, owever, tat RT [k 1] W RT [k] were RT [k] denotes te Raviart Tomas space of order k on tensor-product elements; cf [4] 5 Improving pressure-robustness in Crouzeix-Raviart approximations Te mass flux penalization can also be applied, wit similar results, to te Crouzeix Raviart (CR) element, and we include some results for completeness In a sense, it is somewat easier to analyze tan te DG case considered above, and we find a similar fundamental result: penalization of te mass flux reduces te effect of te pressure error on te velocity error Suc a result is proven implicitly for CR elements in a recent work of Burman and Hansbo [6] for te Darcy Stokes problem, were multiple stabilizations were used Interestingly, te motivation for using te stabilization in tat work was to control te nonconformity emanating from te pressure term, and in effect tey proved someting similar to wat we prove above for DG: te scaling of te pressure term in te error estimate is improved from ν 1 to ν 1/2 γ 1/2 However, tere is (seemingly) a potential negative consequence for CR tat is not an issue wit DG: te use of te stabilization seemingly increases te scaling of te velocity error in te error estimate Hence it is unclear weter large stabilization parameters can be used witout negative consequence, as can be done in te DG case (at least, up to difficulties in linear solvers due to matrix conditioning) Te nonconforming Crouzeix Raviart finite element velocity and pressure spaces are defined by: { V = v L 2 (): v K P 1 (K), K T, v =, }, Q = { q L 2 (): q K P (K), K T } Te discrete bilinear forms for CR elements are defined as a (w, v ) = w : v dx, b (w, q ) = q ( w ) dx V is equipped wit te norm ( ( ) 1/2 1/2 v 1, := v : v dx) = v 2 L 2 (K) K T

19 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 19 We propose to consider CR togeter wit te mass flux penalization: find (u, v ) V Q suc tat for all (v, q ) V Q (51) (52) γj (u, v ) + νa (u, v ) + b (v, p ) = (f, v ) b (u, q ) = Since j (u, u ), te classical well-posedness results for CR (see eg [5]) will old also for (51) (52) wit any fixed γ We now present an error estimate, wic follows from te recent work of Burman and Hansbo for a Darcy Stokes problem wit multiple stabilizations [6], and making te appropriate simplifications (ence we omit te proof) Teorem 51 (Error estimate for Crouzeix Raviart elements) Let (u, p) ( V H 2 () ) ( Q H 1 () ) be te Stokes solution, and (u, p ) te solution to (51) (52) wit parameter γ > Ten it olds tat [( u u 1, C 1 + γ 1/2 ν 1/2) ] u H 2 () + γ 1/2 ν 1/2 p H 1 () Remark 52 : Tis error estimates reveal, just as in te DG case, tat te facet jump stabilization reduces te negative effect of te pressure on te velocity error by canging te coefficient of te pressure from ν 1 to ν 1/2 γ 1/2 However, te dependence on ν 1/2 in te term ( 1 + γ 1/2 ν 1/2) u H2 () seems to be unavoidable for te nonconforming CR-element, indicating te danger of over-stabilization, wic is noting more tan a kind of Poisson locking for te divergence-free limit as γ 6 Application to more complex flows We sow ere tat te pressurerobust approac above can ave a considerable impact on muc more complicated problems tan te steady incompressible Stokes equations We consider first a numerical test for steady incompressible Navier Stokes equations (NSE), followed by a numerical test for non-isotermal flow 61 Steady Navier Stokes equations Consider now te steady incompressible Navier Stokes equations (53) { ν u + (u )u + p = f in, u = in, wit inomogeneous Diriclet velocity boundary condition g D Te new pressurerobust space discretization approac will be superior, wenever a difficult pressure spoils te velocity error In order to sow tis, we construct a simple polynomial potential flow u = χ on te unit square = ( 1, 1) 2, were χ is defined by te real part of te complex polynomial z 5, ie, χ = Re(z 5 ) = Re(x + iy) 5 = x 5 1x 3 y 2 + 5xy 4 Te resulting flow consists of ten colliding jets, meeting at te stagnation point (,), see igure 2 Indeed, (u, p) = ( χ, 1 2 χ 2 ) solves te steady incompressible NSE (53) wit appropriate inomogeneous Diriclet velocity boundary conditions, for all ν > Since p is a polynomial of order eigt, a pressure-robust low-order DG space discretization sould

20 2 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER be comparably accurate at least at non-negligible Reynolds numbers as a igorder DG approximation wic is not pressure-robust igure 2: Streamlines for te steady incompressible Navier Stokes bencmark wit ten jets and a stagnation point at (, ) Te stabilized P dc k /Pdc k 1 DG metod for te stationary Navier Stokes equations (53) is te following: ind (u, p ) V Q satisfying (v, q ) V Q, νa (u, v ) + c (u ; u, v ) + b (v, p ) + γj (u, v ) = (f, v ) + νa (g D ; v ) + γj (g D ; v ), b (u, q ) = b (g D ; q ) Due to te weak imposition of a non-zero Diriclet boundary condition g D = u, additional boundary facet terms arise from te SIP bilinear form, te pressure-velocity coupling and te mass flux stabilization term: a (g D ; v ) = σ g D v ds g D v n ds, b (g D ; q ) = j (g D ; v ) = 1 q (g D n) ds, (g D n)(v n) ds In contrast to te Stokes problem, we also additionally ave to deal wit nonlinear inertia effects or treating tis, we coose te following standard convection term wit upwinding: c (w ; u, v ) = (w )u v dx ( { } ) { } 1 w n u v ds + { } w n u v ds 2 i i

21 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 21 Table 4: Errors for te Navier Stokes potential flow problem wit te mass flux penalized (controlled by γ) DG metod P dc 4 /P dc 3 wit ν = 1 2 on an unstructured triangular mes wit = 1 γ u u L 2 (u u ) L 2 p p L 2 u L or te numerical test, we use ν = 1 2 and compute wit te E pair P dc 4 /P dc 3 on an unstructured triangular mes wit = 1 Te results can be seen in Table 4, and sow a clear and remarkable effect on te velocity error Since te true velocity solution is a fourt degree polynomial, and te metod becomes pressure-robust as γ, we observe very small velocity errors for te larger penalization parameters 62 Non-isotermal flows We consider for our final test Rayleig Bénard wit infinite Prandtl number (wic corresponds pysically to silicon oil) and Rayleig number Ra = 1 6 Here we test te CR approximation, wit and witout te mass flux penalization Te problem setup is taken from [22], and we approximate te problem p ν u = RaT e 2, u =, u T T =, on = (, 1) 2, wit no-slip boundary conditions on all walls, insulated boundary conditions on te top and bottom: T n ΓT =, and Diriclet temperature Γ B conditions on te left and rigt walls, T ΓL = 1, T ΓR = Te system is approximated using CR elements for te velocity and pressure, and S = P 1 H 1 () for te temperature approximation Te sceme takes te form (54) (55) (56) γj (u, v ) + νa (u, v ) + b (v, p ) = Ra(T e 2, v ), b (u, q ) =, (u T, s ) + ( T, s ) =, togeter wit appropriate boundary conditions, and we resolve te nonlinear problem using Newton s metod Simulations were run using (54) (56), for γ {, 1, 1, 1 3} on a uniform mes tat was additional refined along te boundary Results are sown in igure 3, and additionally we sow a reference solution found using (P 2, P 1, P 2 ) elements on a mes (we note tis solution matces tat found in [22]) rom te plots, we observe tat wit no stabilization, te CR solution is very poor: te velocity streamlines are very under-resolved, and te predicted temperature contours are visibly inaccurate Clear improvement is seen in te solution as te stabilization parameter

22 22 M AKBAS, A LINKE, LG REBHOLZ AND PW SCHROEDER is increased, and wit γ = 13, tere is no visual difference between te stabilized CR solution and te reference solution γ= 5 x γ = 1 5 x γ = 1 5 x γ = 13 5 x Reference solution 5 x igure 3: Sown above are plots of CR solutions velocity streamlines (left), pressure contours (middle), and temperature contours(rigt), for varying γ, along wit a reference solution at te bottom

23 ANALOGUE TO GRAD-DIV OR NONCONORMING METHODS 23 7 Conclusions We ave proposed (in effect), analyzed and tested a penalization(s) for nonconforming metods tat as an effect on solutions analogous to tat of grad-div stabilization for conforming metods Te penalization is a mass flux penalization, and also a broken divergence stabilization in elements were te divergence of te velocity space is not contained in te pressure space Our teoretical results include error estimates tat reduce te scaling of te velocity error by te pressure from ν 1 to γ 1/2 ν 1/2, analogous to te effect of grad-div for conforming metods [22] Additionally, we prove limiting beavior results for te penalized DG metod on simplex meses, and in particular tat te limit as γ is te associated (optimal) BDM solution Terefore, over-stabilization is not possible in tis DG context, surprisingly We also consider te limiting beavior on tensorproduct meses, and find a limit tat is seemingly not in te literature, but is in between successive RT element spaces (and is tus optimal) Since tere is now an overwelming body of work done for grad-div stabilization, we expect tat many similar results will also old wit our proposed penalization for DG metods Tis includes furter error analyses on more complex problems, linear algebra considerations, turbulence models, and so on Acknowledgments Te autors would especially like to tank Cristop Lerenfeld for several fruitful discussions and te invaluable elp e provided in using te finite element library NGSolve in te context of tis work REERENCES [1] D Arndt, H Dallmann, and G Lube, Local projection EM stabilization for te timedependent incompressible Navier Stokes problem, Numer Metods Partial Differential Equations, 31 (215), pp [2] D N Arnold, Brezzi, and M ortin, A stable finite element for te Stokes equations, Calcolo, 21 (1984), pp [3] C Bernardi and G Raugel, Analysis of some finite elements for te Stokes problem, Mat Comp, 44 (1985), pp [4] D Boffi, Brezzi, and M ortin, Mixed inite Element Metods and Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 213 [5] S Brenner, orty years of te Crouzeix Raviart element, Numer Metods Partial Differential Equations, 31 (215), pp [6] E Burman and P Hansbo, Stabilized Crouzeix Raviart element for te Darcy Stokes problem, Numer Metods Partial Differential Equations, 21 (25), pp [7] M A Case, V J Ervin, A Linke, and L G Rebolz, A connection between Scott Vogelius and grad-div stabilized Taylor Hood E approximations of te Navier Stokes equations, SIAM J Numer Anal, 49 (211), pp [8] B Cockburn, G Kanscat, and D Scötzau, A locally conservative LDG metod for te incompressible Navier Stokes equations, Mat Comp, 74 (25), pp [9] B Cockburn, G Kanscat, and D Scötzau, A note on discontinuous Galerkin divergence-free solutions of te Navier Stokes equations, J Sci Comput, 31 (27), pp [1] C J Cotter and J Tuburn, A finite element exterior calculus framework for te rotating sallow-water equations, J Comput Pys, 257 (214), pp [11] M Crouzeix and P-A Raviart, Conforming and nonconforming finite element metods for solving te stationary Stokes equations I, Rev rançaise Automat Informat Recerce Opérationnelle Sér Rouge, 7 (1973), pp [12] D A Di Pietro and A Ern, Matematical Aspects of Discontinuous Galerkin Metods, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 212 [13] O Dorok, W Grambow, and L Tobiska, Aspects of finite element discretizations for solving te Boussinesq approximation of te Navier Stokes Equations, Notes on Numerical