arxiv: v2 [math.na] 5 Jul 2017

Transcription

1 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken arxiv: v2 [mat.na] 5 Jul 2017 Abstract In tis paper we consider a class of unfitted finite element metods for discretization of partial differential equations on surfaces. In tis class of metods known as te Trace Finite Element Metod (TraceFEM), restrictions or traces of background surface-independent finite element functions are used to approximate te solution of a PDE on a surface. We treat equations on steady and time-dependent (evolving) surfaces. Higer order TraceFEM is explained in detail. We review te error analysis and algebraic properties of te metod. Te paper navigates troug te known variants of te TraceFEM and te literature on te subject. 1 Introduction Consider te Laplace Beltrami equation on a smoot closed surface Γ, Γ u + u = f on Γ. (1) Here Γ is te Laplace Beltrami operator on Γ. Equation (1) is an example of surface PDE, and it will serve as a model problem to explain te main principles of te TraceFEM. In tis introduction we start wit a brief review of te P 1 TraceFEM for (1), in wic we explain te key ideas of tis metod. In tis review paper tis basic P 1 finite element metod applied to te model problem (1) on a stationary surface Γ will be extended to a general TraceFE metodology, including iger order Maxim A. Olsanskii Department of Matematics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas , USA molsan@mat.u.edu Arnold Reusken Institut für Geometrie und Praktisce Matematik, RWTH Aacen University, D Aacen, Germany reusken@igpm.rwt-aacen.de 1

2 2 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken elements and surface approximations, time-dependent surfaces, adaptive metods, coupled problems, etc. Te main motivation for te development of te TraceFEM is te callenge of building an accurate and computationally efficient numerical metod for surface PDEs tat avoids a triangulation of Γ or any oter fitting of a mes to te surface Γ. Te metod turns out to be particularly useful for problems wit evolving surfaces in wic te surface is implicitly given by a level set function. To discretize te partial differential equation on Γ, TraceFEM uses a surface independent background mes on a fixed bulk domain Ω R 3, suc tat Γ Ω. Te main concept of te metod is to introduce a finite element space based on a volume triangulation (e.g., tetraedral tessellation) of Ω, and to use traces of functions from tis bulk finite element space on (an approximation of) Γ. Te resulting trace space is used to define a finite element metod for (1). As an example, we consider te P 1 TraceFEM for (1). Let T be a consistent sape regular tetraedral tessellation of Ω R 3 and let V bulk denote te standard FE space of continuous piecewise P 1 functions w.r.t. T. Assume Γ is given by te zero level of a C 2 level set function φ, i.e., Γ = {x Ω : φ(x) = 0}. Consider te Lagrangian interpolant φ V bulk of φ and set Γ := {x Ω : φ (x) = 0}. (2) Now we ave an implicitly defined Γ, wic is a polygonal approximation of Γ. Tis Γ is a closed surface tat can be partitioned in planar triangular segments: Γ = K F K, were F is te set of all surface triangles. Te bulk triangulation Fig. 1 Example of a background mes T and induced surface mes F. T, consisting of tetraedra and te induced surface triangulation are illustrated in Figure 1 for a surface from [60]. Tere are no restrictions on ow Γ cuts troug te background mes, and tus te resulting triangulation F is not necessarily regular. Te elements from F may ave very small interior angles and te size of neigboring triangles can vary strongly, cf. Figure 1 (rigt). Tus Γ is not a triangulation of Γ in te usual sense (an O( 2 ) approximation of Γ, consisting of regular triangles). Tis surface triangulation F is an easy to compute O( 2 ) accurate approximation of Γ and in te TraceFEM it is used only to perform numerical integration. Te ap-

3 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 3 proximation properties of te metod entirely depend on te volumetric tetraedral mes T. Te latter is a fundamental property of te TraceFEM, as will be explained in more detail in te remainder of tis article. As starting point for te finite element metod we use a weak formulation of (1): Find u H 1 (Γ ) suc tat Γ uv + Γ u Γ v ds = Γ f v ds for all v H1 (Γ ). Here Γ is te tangential gradient on Γ. In te TraceFEM, in te weak formulation one replaces Γ by Γ and instead of H 1 (Γ ) uses te space of traces on Γ of all functions from te bulk finite element space. Te Galerkin formulation of (1) ten reads: Find u V bulk suc tat u v + Γ u Γ v ds = f v ds Γ Γ for all v V bulk. (3) Here f is a suitable approximation of f on Γ. In te space of traces on Γ, V Γ := {v H 1 (Γ ) v = v bulk Γ, v bulk V bulk }, te solution of (3) is unique. In oter words, altoug in general tere are multiple functions u V bulk tat satisfy (3), te corresponding u Γ is unique. Furtermore, under reasonable assumptions te following optimal error bound olds: u e u L 2 (Γ ) + Γ (u e u ) L 2 (Γ ) c2 u H 2 (Γ ), (4) were u e is a suitable extension of te solution to (1) off te surface Γ and denotes te mes size of te outer triangulation T. Te constant c depends only on te sape regularity of T and is independent of ow te surface Γ cuts troug te background mes. Tis robustness property is extremely important for extending te metod to time-dependent surfaces. It allows to keep te same background mes wile te surface evolves troug te bulk domain. One tus avoids unnecessary mes fitting and mes reconstruction. A rigorous convergence analysis from wic te result (4) follows will be given furter on (section 4). Here we already mention two interesting properties of te induced surface triangulations wic sed some ligt on wy te metod performs optimally for suc sape irregular surface meses as illustrated in Figure 1. Tese properties are te following: (i) If te background triangulation T satisfies te minimum angle condition, ten te surface triangulation satisfies te maximum angle condition [59]; (ii) Any element from F sares at least one vertex wit a full size sape regular triangle from F [23]. For te matrix-vector representation of te TraceFEM one uses te nodal basis of te bulk finite element space V bulk rater tan trying to construct a basis in V Γ. Tis leads to singular or badly conditioned mass and stiffness matrices. In recent years stabilizations ave been developed wic are easy to implement and result in matrices wit acceptable condition numbers. Tis linear algebra topic is treated is section 3. In Part II of tis article we explain ow te ideas of te TraceFEM outlined above extend to te case of evolving surfaces. For suc problems te metod uses a space time framework, and te trial and test finite element spaces consist of traces of standard volumetric elements on te space time manifold. Tis manifold results

4 4 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken from te evolution of te surface. Te metod stays essentially Eulerian as a surface is not tracked by a mes. Results of numerical tests sow tat te metod applies, witout any modifications and witout stability restrictions on mes or time step sizes, to PDEs on surfaces undergoing topological canges. We believe tat tis is a unique property of TraceFEM among te state-of-te-art surface finite element metods. 1.1 Oter surface Finite Element Metods We briefly comment on oter approaces known in te literature for solving PDEs on surfaces. A detailed overview of different finite element tecniques for surface PDEs is given in [28]. Te study of FEM for PDEs on general surfaces can be traced back to te paper of Dziuk [25]. In tat paper, te Laplace Beltrami equation is considered on a stationary surface Γ approximated by a regular family {Γ } of consistent triangulations. It is assumed tat all vertices in te triangulations lie on Γ. Te finite element space ten consists of scalar functions tat are continuous on Γ and linear on eac triangle in te triangulation. Te metod is extended from linear to iger order finite elements in [21]. An adaptive finite element version of te metod based on linear finite elements and suitable a posteriori error estimators are treated in [22]. More recently, Elliott and co-workers [26, 29, 33] developed and analyzed an extension of te metod of Dziuk for evolving surfaces. Tis surface finite element metod is based on a Lagrangian tracking of te surface evolution. Te surface Γ (t) is approximated by an evolving triangulated surface Γ (t). It is assumed tat all vertices in te triangulation lie on Γ (t) and a given bulk velocity field transports te vertices as material points (in te ALE variant of te metod te tangential component of te transport velocity can be modified to assure a better distribution of te vertices). Te finite element space ten consists of scalar functions tat are continuous on Γ (t) and for eac fixed t tey are linear on eac triangle in te triangulation Γ (t). Only recently a iger order evolving surface FEM as been studied in [49]. If a surface undergoes strong deformations, topological canges, or is defined implicitly, e.g., as te zero level of a level set function, ten numerical metods based on suc a Lagrangian approac ave certain disadvantages. In order to avoid remesing and make full use of te implicit definition of te surface as te zero of a level set function, it was first proposed in [3] to extend te partial differential equation from te surface to a set of positive Lebesgue measure in R 3. Te resulting PDE is ten solved in one dimension iger but can be solved on a mes tat is unaligned to te surface. Suc an extension approac is studied in [2, 40, 73, 74] for finite difference approximations, also for PDEs on moving surfaces. Te extension approac can also be combined wit finite element metods, see [6, 27, 62]. Anoter related metod, wic embeds a surface problem in a Cartesian bulk problem, is te closest point metod of Ruut and co-autors [52, 69, 65]. Te metod is based on using te closest point operator to extend te problem from te surface to a small neigborood of te surface, were standard

5 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 5 Cartesian finite differences are used to discretize differential operators. Te surface PDE is ten embedded and discretized in te neigborood. Implementation requires te knowledge or calculation of te closest point on te surface for a given point in te neigborood. We are not aware of a finite element variant of te closest point metod. Error analysis is also not known. Te metods based on embedding a surface PDE in a bulk PDE are known to ave certain issues suc as te need of artificial boundary conditions and difficulties in andling geometrical singularities, see, e.g., te discussion in [40]. Te TraceFEM tat we consider in tis article, or very closely related metods, are also called CutFEM in te literature, e.g. [9, 10, 12, 14]. Suc CutFE tecniques ave originally been developed as unfitted finite element metods for interface problems, cf. te recent overview paper [8]. In suc a metod applied to a model Poisson interface problem one uses a standard finite element space on te wole domain and ten cuts te functions from tis space at te interface, wic is equivalent to taking te trace of tese functions on one of te subdomains (wic are separated by te interface). In our TraceFEM one also uses a cut of finite element functions from te bulk space, but now one cuts of te parts on bot sides of te surface/interface and only keeps te part on te surface/interface. Tis explains wy suc trace tecniques are also called Cut-FEM. 1.2 Structure of te article Te remainder of tis article is divided into two parts. In te first part (sections 2-7) we treat different aspects of te TraceFEM for stationary elliptic PDEs on a stationary surface. As model problem we consider te Laplace Beltrami equation (1). In section 2 we give a detailed explanation of te TraceFEM and also consider a iger order isoparametric variant of te metod. In section 3 important aspects related to te matrix-vector representation of te discrete problem are treated. In particular several stabilization tecniques are explained and compared. A discretization error analysis of TraceFEM is reviewed in section 4. Optimal (iger order) discretization error bounds are presented in tat section. In section 5 we briefly treat a stabilized variant of TraceFEM tat is suitable for convection dominated surface PDEs. A residual based a posteriori error indicator for te TraceFEM is explained in section 6. In te final section 7 of Part I te Trace- or Cut-FEM is applied for te discretization of a coupled bulk-interface mass transport model. In te second part (sections 8-11) we treat different aspects of te TraceFEM for parabolic PDEs on an evolving surface. In section 8 well-posedness of a space time weak formulation for a class of surface transport problems is studied. A space time variant of TraceFEM is explained in section 9 and some main results on stability and discretization errors for te metod are treated in section 10. A few recently developed variants of te space time TraceFEM are briefly addressed in section 11. In view of te lengt of tis article we decided not to present any results of numerical experiments. At te end of several sections we added remarks on numerical

6 6 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken experiments (e.g. Remark 1) in wic we refer to literature were results of numerical experiments for te metods tat are treated are presented. Part I: Trace-FEM for stationary surfaces In tis part (sections 2-7) we introduce te key ingredients of TraceFEM for elliptic and parabolic PDEs on stationary smoot surfaces. Te surface is denoted by Γ and is assumed to be a smoot closed 2D surface, contained in a domain Ω R 3. We explain in more detail ow trace finite element spaces are used in a Galerkin metod applied to te surface PDE. One important part of almost all numerical metods for surface PDEs is te numerical approximation of te surface. We address tis topic, implementation aspects of te metod, and properties of te stiffness matrix. Related to te latter topic we treat certain stabilization procedures for improving te conditioning of te stiffness matrix. We also discuss an a-posteriori error indicator and an application of TraceFEM to coupled bulk-surface problems. 2 Trace finite element metod Te trace finite element metod applies to te variational formulation of a surface PDE. We start wit treating an elliptic problem and tus assume an H 1 (Γ ) continuous and elliptic bilinear form a(, ), and for a given f H 1 (Γ ) we consider te following problem: find u H 1 (Γ ) suc tat a(u,v) = f (v) for all v H 1 (Γ ). (5) To simplify te presentation, we again restrict to te Laplace Beltrami model problem, i.e., a(u,v) := ( Γ u Γ v + uv)ds. (6) Γ We added te zero order term in tis bilinear form to avoid te minor tecnical issue tat for te problem wit only te surface Laplacian one as to consider te bilinear form on te factor space H 1 (Γ )/R. Te variational problem (5) wit te bilinear form defined in (6) is well-posed. In section 5 we sall consider anoter example, namely a surface convection-diffusion problem. 2.1 Basic structure of TraceFEM Let T be a tetraedral triangulation of te domain Ω R 3 tat contains Γ. Tis triangulation is assumed to be regular, consistent and stable [5]; it is te background mes for te TraceFEM. On tis background mes, V, j denotes te standard space of H 1 -conforming finite elements of degree j 1,

7 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 7 V, j := {v C(Ω) v T P j for all T T }. (7) Te nodal interpolation operator in V, j is denoted by I j. We need an approximation Γ of Γ. Possible constructions of Γ and precise conditions tat Γ as to satisfy for te error analysis will be discussed later. For te definition of te metod, it is sufficient to assume tat Γ is a Lipscitz surface witout boundary. Te active set of tetraedra T Γ T is defined by T Γ = {T T : meas 2 (Γ T ) > 0}. If Γ T consists of a face F of T, we include in T Γ only one of te two tetraedra wic ave tis F as teir intersection. Te domain formed by te tetraedra from T Γ is denoted furter by ω. In te TraceFEM, only background degrees of freedom corresponding to te tetraedra from T Γ contribute to algebraic systems. Given a bulk (background) FE space of degree m, V bulk = V,m, te corresponding trace space is V Γ := {v Γ : v V bulk }. (8) Te trace space is a subspace of H 1 (Γ ). On H 1 (Γ ) one defines te finite element bilinear form, a (u,v) := ( Γ u Γ v + uv)ds. Γ Te form is coercive on H 1 (Γ ), i.e. a (u,u ) u 2 H 1 olds. Tis guarantees (Γ ) tat te TraceFEM as a unique solution in V Γ. However, in TraceFEM formulations we prefer to use te background space V bulk rater tan V Γ, cf. (3), (9) and furter examples in tis paper. Tere are several reasons for tis coice. First of all, in some versions of te metod te volume information from trace elements in ω is used; secondly, for implementation one uses nodal basis functions from V bulk to represent elements of V Γ ; tirdly, V Γ depends on te position of Γ, wile V bulk does not; and finally, te properties of V bulk largely determine te properties of te metod. Te trace space V Γ turns out to be convenient for te analysis of te metod. Tus, te basic form of te TraceFEM for te discretization of (6) is as follows: Find u V bulk suc tat a (u,v ) = f v ds for all v V bulk. (9) Γ Here f denotes an approximation of te data f on Γ. Te construction of f will be discussed later, cf. Remark 4. Clearly, in (9) only te finite element functions u,v V bulk play a role wic ave at least one T T Γ in teir support. 2.2 Surface approximation and isoparametric TraceFEM One major ingredient in te TraceFEM (as in many oter numerical metods for surface PDEs) is a construction of te surface approximation Γ. Several metods for numerical surface representation and approximation are known, cf. [28]. In tis pa-

8 8 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken per we focus on te level set metod for surface representation. As it is well-known from te literature, te level set tecnique is a very popular metod for surface representation, in particular for andling evolving surfaces. Assume tat te surface Γ is te zero level of a smoot level set function φ, i.e., Γ = {x Ω : φ(x) = 0}. (10) Tis level set function is not necessarily close to a signed distance function, but as te usual properties of a level set function: φ(x) 1, D 2 φ(x) c for all x in a neigborood U of Γ. Assume tat a finite element approximation φ V,k of te function φ is available. If φ is sufficiently smoot, and one takes φ = I k (φ), ten te estimate φ φ L (U) + (φ φ ) L (U) c k+1 (11) defines te accuracy of te geometry approximation by φ. If φ is not known and φ is given, for example, as te solution to te level set equation, ten an estimate as in (11) wit some k 1 is often assumed in te error analysis of te TraceFEM. In section 4 we explain ow te accuracy of te geometry recovery influences te discretization error of te metod. From te analysis we sall see tat setting m = k for te polynomial degree in background FE space and te discrete level set function is te most natural coice. Te zero level of te finite element function φ (implicitly) caracterizes an interface approximation Γ : Γ = {x Ω : φ (x) = 0}. (12) Wit te exception of te linear case, k = 1, te numerical integration over Γ given implicitly in (12) is a non-trivial problem. One approac to te numerical integration is based on an approximation of Γ witin eac T T Γ by elementary sapes. Sub-triangulations or octree Cartesian meses are commonly used for tese purposes. On eac elementary sape a standard quadrature rule is applied. Te approac is popular in combination wit iger order XFEM, see, e.g., [1, 54, 24], and te level set metod [53, 47]. Altoug numerically stable, te numerical integration based on sub-partitioning may significantly increase te computational complexity of a iger order finite element metod. Numerical integration over implicitly defined domains is a topic of current researc, and in several recent papers [55, 70, 35, 63, 48] tecniques were developed tat ave optimal computational complexity. Among tose, te moment fitting metod from [55] can be applied on 3D simplexes and, in te case of space time metods, on 4D simplexes. Te metod, owever, is rater involved and te weigts computed by te fitting procedure are not necessarily positive. As a computationally efficient alternative, we will treat below a iger order isoparametric TraceFEM, wic avoids te integration over a zero level of φ. Te general framework of tis paper, in particular te error analysis presented in section 4, provides an optimally accurate iger order metod for PDEs on surfaces

9 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 9 bot for te isoparametric approac and for approaces tat make use of a suitable integration procedure on implicitly defined domain as in (12). For piecewise linear polynomials a computationally efficient representation is straigtforward. To exploit tis property, we introduce te piecewise linear nodal interpolation of φ, wic is denoted by φ lin = I 1 φ. Obviously, we ave φ lin = φ if k = 1. Furtermore, φ lin(x i) = φ (x i ) at all vertices x i in te triangulation T. A lower order geometry approximation of te interface, wic is very easy to determine, is te zero level of tis function: Γ lin := {x Ω φ lin (x) = 0}. In most papers on finite element metods for surface PDEs te surface approximation Γ = Γ lin is used. Tis surface approximation is piecewise planar, consisting of triangles and quadrilaterals. Te latter can be subdivided into triangles. Hence quadrature on Γ lin can be reduced to quadrature on triangles, wic is simple and computationally very efficient. Recently in [50] a computationally efficient iger order surface approximation metod as been introduced based on an isoparametric mapping. Te approac from [50] can be used to derive an efficient iger order TraceFEM. We review te main steps below, wile furter tecnical details and analysis can be found in [37]. We need some furter notation. All elements in te triangulation T wic are cut by Γ lin are collected in te set T Γ lin := {T T T Γ lin /0}. Te corresponding domain is ω lin := {x T T T Γ lin }. We introduce a mapping Ψ on ω lin wit te property Ψ(Γ lin ) = Γ, wic is defined as follows. Set G := φ, and define a function d : ω lin R suc tat d(x) is te smallest in absolute value number satisfying φ(x + d(x)g(x)) = φ lin (x) for x ωlin. (13) For sufficiently small te relation in (13) defines a unique d(x). Given te function dg we define: Ψ(x) := x + d(x)g(x), x ω lin. (14) From φ ( Ψ(x) ) = φ lin(x) it follows tat φ( Ψ(x) ) = 0 iff φ lin (x) = 0, and tus Ψ(Γ lin ) = Γ olds. In general, e.g., if φ is not explicitly known, te mapping Ψ is not computable. We introduce an easy way to construct an accurate computable approximation of Ψ, wic is based on φ rater tan on φ. We define te polynomial extension E T : P(T ) P(R 3 ) so tat for v V,k we ave (E T v) T = v T, T T Γ lin. For a searc direction G G one needs a sufficiently accurate approximation of φ. One natural coice is G = φ, but tere are also oter options. Given G we define a function d : T Γ lin R, d δ, wit δ > 0 sufficiently small, as follows: d (x) is te in absolute value smallest number suc tat

10 10 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken E T φ (x + d (x)g (x)) = φ lin (x), for x T T Γ lin. In te same spirit as above, corresponding to d we define Ψ (x) := x + d (x)g (x), for x T T Γ lin, wic is an approximation of te mapping Ψ in (14). For any fixed x T Γ lin te value Ψ (x) is easy to compute. Te mapping Ψ may be discontinuous across faces and is not yet an isoparametric mapping. To derive an isoparametric mapping, denoted by Θ below, one can use a simple projection P to map te transformation Ψ into te continuous finite element space. For example, one may define P by averaging in a finite element node x, wic requires only computing P (x) for all elements saring x. Tis results in Θ := P Ψ [V,k ] 3. Based on tis transformation one defines Γ := Θ (Γ lin ) = {x Ω : φ lin ( Θ 1 (x)) = 0}. (15) Te finite element mapping Θ is completely caracterized by its values at te finite element nodes. Tese values can be determined in a computationally very efficient way. From tis it follows tat for Γ as in (15) we ave a computationally efficient representation. One can sow tat if (11) olds ten for bot Γ defined in (12) or (15) one gets (ere and in te remainder te constant idden in does not depend on ow Γ or Γ intersects te triangulation T ): dist(γ,γ ) = max x Γ dist(x,γ ) k+1. (16) For Γ defined in (15), owever, we ave a computationally efficient iger order surface approximation for all k 1. To allow an efficient quadrature in te Trace- FEM on Γ, one also as to transform te background finite element spaces V,m wit te same transformation Θ, as is standard in isoparametric finite element metods. In tis isoparametric TraceFEM, we apply te local transformation Θ to te space V,m : V,Θ = {v Θ 1 v (V,m ) ω lin } = {(v Θ 1 ) Θ (ω lin) v V,m }. (17) Te isoparametric TraceFEM discretization now reads, compare to (9): Find u V,Θ suc tat Γ u Γ v + u v ds = Γ f v ds Γ for all v V,Θ, (18) wit Γ := Θ (Γ lin ). Again, te metod in (18) can be reformulated in terms of te surface independent space V bulk, see (19).

11 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 11 To balance te geometric and approximation errors, it is natural to take m = k, i.e., te same degree of polynomials is used in te approximation φ of φ and in te approximation u of u. Te isoparametric TraceFEM is analyzed in [37] and optimal order discretization error bounds are derived. 2.3 Implementation We comment on an efficient implementation of te isoparametric TraceFEM. Te integrals in (18) can be evaluated based on numerical integration rules wit respect to Γ lin and te transformation Θ. We illustrate tis for te Laplacian part in te bilinear form. Wit ũ = u Θ, ṽ = v Θ V bulk := V,m, tere olds Γ u Γ v ds = Γ (DΘ ) T ũ P (DΘ ) T ṽ J Γ d s, Γ lin (19) were P = I n n T is te tangential projection, n = N/ N is te unit-normal on Γ, N = (DΘ ) T ˆn, ˆn = φ lin / φ lin is te normal wit respect to Γ lin, and J Γ = det(dφ ) N. Tis means tat one only needs an accurate integration wit respect to te low order geometry Γ lin and te explicitly available mes transformation Θ [V,k ] 3. Te terms occurring in te integral on te rigt-and side in (19) are polynomial functions on eac triangle element of Γ lin. We empasize tat taking V,Θ in place of V,m in (18) is important. For V,m it is not clear ow an efficient implementation can be realized. In tat case one needs to integrate over Γ T := Γ lin T (derivatives of) te function u Θ, were u is piecewise polynomial on T T. Due to te transformation Θ [V,k ] 3 te function u Θ as in general not more tan only Lipscitz smootness on Γ T. Hence an efficient and accurate quadrature becomes a difficult issue. Remark 1 (Numerical experiments). Results of numerical experiments wit te TraceFEM for P 1 finite elements (m = 1) and a piecewise linear surface approximation (k = 1) are given in [58]. Results for te iger order isoparametric TraceFEM are given in [37]. In tat paper, results of numerical experiments wit tat metod for 1 k = m 5 are presented wic confirm te optimal ig order convergence. 3 Matrix-vector representation and stabilizations Te matrix-vector representation of te discrete problem in te TraceFEM depends on te coice of a basis (or frame) in te trace finite element space. Te most natural coice is to use te nodal basis of te outer space V,m for representation of elements in te trace space V Γ. Tis coice as been used in almost all papers on TraceFEM. It, owever, as some consequences. Firstly, in general te restrictions to Γ of te outer nodal basis functions on T Γ are not linear independent. Hence,

12 12 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken tese functions only form a frame and not a basis of te trace finite element space, and te corresponding mass matrix is singular. Often, owever, te kernel of te mass matrix can be identified, and for V,1 elements it can be only one dimensional. Secondly, if one considers te scaled mass matrix on te space ortogonal to its kernel, te spectral condition number is typically not uniformly bounded wit respect to, but sows an O( 2 ) growt. Clearly, tis is different from te standard uniform boundedness property of mass matrices in finite element discretizations. Tirdly, bot for te mass and stiffness matrix tere is a dependence of te condition numbers on te location of te approximate interface Γ wit respect to te outer triangulation. In certain bad intersection cases te condition numbers can blow up. A numerical illustration of some of tese effects is given in [56]. Results of numerical experiments indicate tat even for diagonally re-scaled (normalized) mass and stiffness matrices condition numbers become very large if iger order trace finite elements are used. Clearly, te situation described above concerning te conditioning of mass and stiffness matrices in te TraceFEM is not completely satisfactory, especially if a iger order metod is of interest. In recent literature several stabilization metods for TraceFEM ave been introduced. In tese metods a stabilizing term is added to te bilinear form tat results from te surface PDE (for example, te one in (9)). Tis stabilization term is designed to preserve te optimal discretization error bounds and at te same time ensure tat te resulting mass and stiffness matrix ave te full rank (apart from te kernel of Laplace Beltrami operator) and ave condition numbers c 2 wit a constant c tat is independent of ow Γ intersects te volume triangulation T. Below we discuss te most important of tese stabilization metods. All tese metods are caracterized by a bilinear form denoted by s (, ), and te stabilized discrete problem uses te same finite element space as te unstabilized one, but wit a modified bilinear form A (u,v) := a (u,v) + s (u,v). (20) Gost penalty stabilization. Te gost penalty stabilization is introduced in [7] as a stabilization mecanism for unfitted finite element discretizations. In [9], it is applied to a trace finite element discretization of te Laplace Beltrami equation wit piecewise linear finite elements (m = k = 1). For te gost penalty stabilization, one considers te set of faces inside ω, F Γ := {F = T a T b ;T a,t b T Γ,meas 2(F) > 0} and defines te face-based bilinear form s (u,v ) = ρ s [[ u n ]][[ v n ]]ds, F F Γ F wit a stabilization parameter ρ s > 0, ρ s 1, n is te normal to te face F and [[ ]] denotes te jump of a function over te interface. In [9] it is sown tat for piecewise linear finite elements, te stabilized problem results in a stiffness matrix (for te Laplace Beltrami problem) wit a uniformly bounded condition number O( 2 ).

13 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 13 Adding te jump of te derivatives on te element-faces canges, owever, te sparsity pattern of te stiffness matrix. Te face-based terms enlarge te discretization stencils. To our knowledge, tere is no iger order version of te gost penalty metod for surface PDEs wic provides a uniform bound on te condition number. Full gradient surface stabilization. Te full gradient stabilization is a metod wic does not rely on face-based terms and keeps te sparsity pattern intact. It was introduced in [20, 67]. Te bilinear form wic describes tis stabilization is s (u,v ) := u n v n ds, (21) Γ were n denotes te normal to Γ. Tus, we get A (u,v ) = Γ ( u v + u v )ds, wic explains te name of te metod. Te stabilization is very easy to implement. For te case of linear finite elements, it is sown in [67] tat one as a uniform condition number bound O( 2 ) for diagonally re-scaled mass and stiffness matrices. For te case of iger order TraceFEM (m > 1), full gradient stabilization does not result in a uniform bound on te condition number, cf. [67, Remark 6.5]. Full gradient volume stabilization. Anoter full gradient stabilization was introduced in [12]. It uses te full gradient in te volume instead of only on te surface. Te stabilization bilinear form is s (u,v ) = ρ s u v dx, wit a stabilization parameter ρ s > 0, ρ s. For Γ = Γ lin te domain ΩΘ Γ is just te union of tetraedra intersected by Γ. For application to an isoparametric TraceFEM as treated in section 2.2 one sould use te transformed domain ΩΘ Γ := Θ (ω lin). Tis metod is easy to implement as its bilinear form is provided by most finite element codes. Using te analysis from [12, 37] it can be sown tat a uniform condition number bound O( 2 ) olds not only for linear finite elements but also for te iger order isoparametric TraceFEM. However, te stabilization is not sufficiently consistent, in te sense tat for te stabilized metod one does not ave te optimal order discretization bound for m > 1. Normal derivative volume stabilization. In te lowest-order case m = 1, all tree stabilization metods discussed above result in a discretization wic as a discretization error of optimal order and a stiffness matrix wit a uniform O( 2 ) condition number bound. However, none of tese metods as bot properties also for m > 1. We now discuss a recently introduced stabilization metod [11, 37], wic does ave bot properties for arbitrary m 1. Its bilinear form is given by s (u,v ) := ρ s n u n v dx, (22) Ω Γ Θ wit ρ s > 0 and n te normal to Γ, wic can easily be determined. Tis is a natural variant of te full gradient stabilizations treated above. As in te full gradient surface Ω Γ Θ

14 14 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken stabilization only normal derivatives are added, but tis time (as in te full gradient volume stabilization) in te volume ΩΘ Γ. Te implementation of tis stabilization term is fairly simple as it fits well into te structure of many finite element codes. It can be sown, see [37], tat using tis stabilization in te isoparametric TraceFEM one obtains, for arbitrary m = k 1, optimal order discretization bounds, and te resulting stiffness matrix as a spectral condition number c 2, were te constant c does not depend on te position of te surface approximation Γ in te triangulation T. Te bounds were proved in te H 1 norm, but do not foresee difficulties in sowing te optimal error bounds in te L 2 norm as well. For tese results to old, one can take te scaling parameter ρ s from te following (very large) parameter range: ρ s 1. (23) Results of numerical experiments wic illustrate te dependence of discretization errors and condition numbers on ρ s are given in [37]. 4 Discretization error analysis In tis section we present a general framework in wic bot optimal order discretization bounds can be establised and te conditioning of te resulting stiffness matrix can be analyzed. Our exposition follows te papers [67, 37]. In tis framework we need certain ingredients suc as approximation error bounds for te finite element spaces, consistency estimates for te geometric error and certain fundamental properties of te stabilization. Te required results are scattered in te literature and can be found in many papers, some of wic we refer to below. For te discretization we need an approximation Γ of Γ. We do not specify a particular construction for Γ at tis point, but only assume certain properties introduced in section 4.1 below. Tis Γ may, for example, be constructed via a mapping Θ as section 2.2, i.e., Γ = Θ (Γ lin ) or it may be caracterized as te zero level of a (iger order) level set function φ, cf. (12). In te latter case, to perform quadrature on Γ one does not use any special transformation but applies a direct procedure, e.g., a subpartition tecnique or te moment-fitting metod. Tis difference (direct access to Γ or access via Θ ) as to be taken into account in te definition of te trace spaces. We want to present an analysis wic covers bot cases and terefore we introduce a local bijective mapping Φ, wic is eiter Φ = Θ (Γ is accessed via transformation Θ ), cf. (17), or Φ = id (direct access to Γ ) and define V,Φ := {(v Φ 1 ) Ω Γ Φ v V,m }, were ΩΦ Γ is te domain formed by all (transformed) tetraedra tat are intersected by Γ. We consider te bilinear form A from (20) wit a general symmetric positive semidefinite bilinear form s (, ). Examples of s (, ) are s 0 (no stabilization)

15 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 15 and te ones discussed in section 3. Te discrete problem is as follows: Find u V,Φ suc tat A (u,v ) = f v ds for all v V,Φ. (24) Γ In te sections below we present a general framework for discretization error analysis of tis metod and outline main results. Furtermore te conditioning of te resulting stiffness matrix is studied. 4.1 Preliminaries We collect some notation and results tat we need in te error analysis. We always assume tat Γ is sufficiently smoot witout specifying te regularity of Γ. Te signed distance function to Γ is denoted by d, wit d negative in te interior of Γ. On U δ := {x R 3 : d(x) < δ }, wit δ > 0 sufficiently small, we define n(x) = d(x), H(x) = D 2 d(x), P(x) = I n(x)n(x) T, (25) p(x) = x d(x)n(x), v e (x) = v(p(x)) for v defined on Γ. (26) Te eigenvalues of H(x) are denoted by κ 1 (x),κ 2 (x) and 0. Note tat v e is simply te constant extension of v (given on Γ ) along te normals n. Te tangential derivative can be written as Γ g(x) = P(x) g(x) for x Γ. We assume δ 0 > 0 to be sufficiently small suc tat on U δ0 te decomposition x = p(x) + d(x)n(x) is unique for all x U δ0. In te remainder we only consider U δ wit 0 < δ δ 0. In te analysis we use basic transformation formulas (see, e.g.,[22]). For example: u e (x) = (I d(x)h(x)) Γ u(p(x)) a.e on U δ0, u H 1 (Γ ). (27) Sobolev norms of u e on U δ are related to corresponding norms on Γ. Suc results are known in te literature, e.g. [25, 22]. We will use te following result: Lemma 1. For δ > 0 sufficiently small te following olds. For all u H m (Γ ): D µ u e L 2 (U δ ) c δ u H m (Γ ), µ = m 0, (28) wit a constant c independent of δ and u.

16 16 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken 4.2 Assumptions on surface approximation Γ We already discussed some properties of Γ defined in (12) and (15). In tis section we formulate more precisely te properties of a generic discrete surface Γ required in te error analysis. Te surface approximation Γ is assumed to be a closed connected Lipscitz manifold. It can be partitioned as follows: Γ = Γ T, Γ T := Γ T. T T Γ Te unit normal (pointing outward from te interior of Γ ) is denoted by n (x), and is defined a.e. on Γ. Te first assumption is rater mild. Assumption 1 (A1) We assume tat tere is a constant c 0 independent of suc tat for te domain ω we ave ω U δ, wit δ = c 0 δ 0. (29) (A2) We assume tat for eac T T Γ te local surface section Γ T consists of simply connected parts Γ (i) T, i = 1,... p, and n (x) n (y) c 1 olds for x,y Γ (i) T, i = 1,... p. Te number p and constant c 1 are uniformly bounded w.r.t. and T T. Remark 2. Te condition (A1) essentially means tat dist(γ,γ ) c 0 olds, wic is a very mild condition on te accuracy of Γ as an approximation of Γ. Te condition ensures tat te local triangulation T Γ as sufficient resolution for representing te surface Γ approximately. Te condition (A2) allows multiple intersections (namely p) of Γ wit one tetraedron T T Γ, and requires a (mild) control on te normals of te surface approximation. We discuss tree situations in wic Assumption 1 is satisfied. For te case Γ = Γ and wit sufficiently small bot conditions in Assumption 1 old. If Γ is a sape-regular triangulation, consisting of triangles wit diameter O() and vertices on Γ, ten for sufficiently small bot conditions are also satisfied. Finally, consider te case in wic Γ is te zero level of a smoot level set function φ, and φ is a finite element approximation of φ on te triangulation T. If φ satisfies (11) wit k = 1 and Γ is te zero level of φ, see (12), ten te conditions (A1) (A2) are satisfied, provided is sufficiently small. For te analysis of te approximation error in te TraceFEM one only needs Assumption 1. For tis analysis, te following result is important. Lemma 2. Let (A2) in Assumption 1 be satisfied. Tere exist constants c, 0 > 0, independent of ow Γ intersects T Γ, and wit c independent of, suc tat for 0 te following olds. For all T T Γ and all v H 1 (T ): wit T := diam(t ). v 2 L 2 (Γ T ) c( 1 T v 2 L 2 (T ) + T v 2 L 2 (T )), (30)

17 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 17 Te inequality (30) was introduced in [43], were one also finds a proof under a somewat more restrictive assumption. Under various (similar) assumptions, a proof of te estimate in (30) or of very closely related ones is found in [44, 67, 16]. For deriving iger order consistency bounds for te geometric error we need a furter more restrictive assumption introduced below. Assumption 2 Assume tat Γ U δ0 and tat te projection p : Γ Γ is a bijection. We assume tat te following olds, for a k 1: d L (Γ ) c k+1, (31) n n L (Γ ) c k. (32) Clearly, if Γ = Γ tere is no geometric error, i.e. (31) (32) are fulfilled wit k =. If Γ is defined as in (12), and (11) olds, ten te conditions (31) (32) are satisfied wit te same k as in (11). In [21] anoter metod for constructing polynomial approximations to Γ is presented tat satisfies te conditions (31) (32) (cf. Proposition 2.3 in [21]). In tat metod te exact distance function to Γ is needed. Anoter metod, wic does not need information about te exact distance function, is introduced in [39]. A furter alternative is te metod presented in section 2.2, for wic it also can be sown tat te conditions (31) (32) are satisfied. Te surface measures on Γ and Γ are related troug te identity If Assumption 2 is satisfied te estimate olds, cf. [22, 67]. µ ds (x) = ds(p(x)), for x Γ. (33) 1 µ,γ k+1 (34) 4.3 Strang Lemma In te error analysis of te metod we also need te following larger (infinite dimensional) space: V reg, := {v H 1 (Ω Γ Φ) : v Γ H 1 (Γ )} V,Φ, on wic te bilinear form A (, ) is well-defined. Te natural (semi-)norms tat we use in te analysis are u 2 := u 2 a + s (u,u), u 2 a := a (u,u), u V reg,. (35) Remark 3. On V,Φ Γ te semi-norm a defines a norm. Terefore, for a solution u V,Φ of te discrete problem (24), te trace u Γ V,Φ Γ is unique. Te unique-

18 18 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken ness of u V,Φ depends on te stabilization term and will be addressed in Remark 6 below. Te following Strang Lemma is te basis for te error analysis. Tis basic result is used in almost all error analysis of TraceFEM and can be found in many papers. Its proof is elementary. Lemma 3. Let u H0 1(Γ ) be te unique solutions of (6) wit te extension ue V reg, and let u V,Φ be a solution of (24). Ten we ave te discretization error bound u e u 2 min u e A v + sup (ue,w ) Γ f w ds. (36) v V,Φ w V,Φ w 4.4 Approximation error bounds In te approximation error analysis one derives bounds for te first term on te rigt-and side in (36). Concerning te quality of te approximation Γ Γ one needs only Assumption 1. Given te mapping Φ, we define te (isoparametric) interpolation I m Φ : C(Ω Γ Φ ) V,Φ given by (I m Φ v) Φ = I m (v Φ ). We assume tat te following optimal interpolation error bound olds for all 0 l m + 1: v I m Φ v H l (Φ (T )) m+1 l v H m+1 (Φ (T )) for all v H m+1 (Φ (T )), T T. (37) Note tat tis is an interpolation estimate on te outer sape regular triangulation T. For Φ = id tis interpolation bound olds due to standard finite element teory. For Φ = Θ te bound follows from te teory on isoparametric finite elements, cf. [51, 37]. Combining tis wit te trace estimate of Lemma 2 and te estimate v e H m+1 (Ω Γ Φ ) 1 2 v H m+1 (Γ ) for all v Hm+1 (Γ ), wic follows from (28), we obtain te result in te following lemma. Lemma 4. For te space V,Φ we ave te approximation error estimate ( min v e v L v V 2 (Γ ) + ) (ve v ) L 2 (Γ ),Φ v e I m Φ ve L 2 (Γ ) + (ve I m Φ ve ) L 2 (Γ ) m+1 v H m+1 (Γ ) (38) for all v H m+1 (Γ ). Here v e denotes te constant extension of v in normal direction. Finally we obtain an optimal order bound for te approximation term in te Strang Lemma by combining te result in te previous lemma wit an appropriate assumption on te stabilization bilinear form. Lemma 5. Assume tat te stabilization satisfies s (w,w) 3 w 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) + 1 w 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) for all w V reg,. (39)

19 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 19 Ten it olds min u e v m u H v V m+1 (Γ ) for all u H m+1 (Γ ).,Φ Proof. Take u H m+1 (Γ ) and v := IΦ mue. From Lemma 4 we get u e v a m u H m+1 (Γ ). From te assumption (39) combined wit te results in (37) we get s (u e v,u e v ) 2 1 m u H m+1 (Γ ), wic completes te proof. 4.5 Consistency error bounds In te consistency analysis, te geometric error is treated, and for obtaining optimal order bounds we need Assumption 2. One as to quantify te accuracy of te data extension f. Wit µ from (33) we set δ f := f µ f e on Γ. Lemma 6. Let u H 1 (Γ ) be te solution of (6). Assume tat te data error satisfies δ f L 2 (Γ ) k+1 f L 2 (Γ ) and te stabilization satisfies s (u e,w ) sup l f w V,Φ w L 2 (Γ ) for some l 0. (40) Ten te following olds: A sup (ue,w ) Γ f w ds ( l + k+1 ) f w V,Φ w L 2 (Γ ). Proof. We use te splitting A (u e,w ) f w ds a (u e,w ) Γ f w ds + s (u e,w ). Γ Te first term as been treated in many papers. A rater general result, in wic one needs Assumption 2 and te bound on te data error, is given in [67], Lemma 5.5. Te analysis yields a sup (ue,w ) Γ f w ds k+1 f w V,Φ w L 2 (Γ ). We use assumption (40) to bound te second term. Remark 4. We comment on te data error δ f L 2 (Γ ). If we assume f to be defined in a neigborood U δ0 of Γ one can ten use f (x) = f (x). (41)

20 20 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken Using Assumption 2, (34) and a Taylor expansion we get f µ f e L 2 (Γ ) c k+1 f H 1, (U δ0 ). Hence, a data error bound δ f L 2 (Γ ) ĉk+1 f L 2 (Γ ) olds wit ĉ = ĉ( f ) = c f H 1, (U δ0 ) f 1 and a constant c independent of f. Tus, in problems wit smoot data, f H 1, (U δ0 ), te extension defined in (41) satisfies te L 2 (Γ ) condition on te data error in Lemma TraceFEM error bound and conditions on s (, ) As a corollary of te results in te sections we obtain te following main teorem on te error of TraceFEM. Teorem 1. Let u H m+1 (Γ ) be te solution of (6) and u V,Φ a solution of (24). Let te Assumptions 1 and 2 be satisfied and assume tat te data error bound δ f L 2 (Γ ) k+1 f L 2 (Γ ) olds. Furtermore, te stabilization sould satisfy te conditions (39), (40). Ten te following a priori error estimate olds: u e u m u H m+1 (Γ ) + (l + k+1 ) f L 2 (Γ ), (42) were m is te polynomial degree of te background FE space, k + 1 is te order of surface approximation from Assumption 2, see also (11), and l is te degree of consistency of te stabilization term, see (40). Remark 5. Optimal order error bounds in te L 2 -norm are also known in te literature for te stabilized TraceFEM and for te original variant witout stabilization wit m = k = 1, [9, 58]. For te iger order case wit Φ = id and s 0, te optimal order estimate u e u L 2 (Γ ) m+1 u H m+1 (Γ ) + k+1 f L 2 (Γ ) is derived in [67]. We expect tat te analysis can be extended to te isoparametric variant of te TraceFEM, but tis as not been done, yet. Te conditions (39) and (40) on te stabilization allow an optimal order discretization error bound. Clearly tese conditions are satisfied for s (, ) 0. Below we introduce a tird condition, wic as a different nature. Tis condition allows a uniform O( 2 ) condition number bound for te stiffness matrix. Te latter matrix is te representation of A (, ) in terms of standard nodal basis functions on te background mes T Γ. Te following teorem is proved in [37]. Teorem 2. Assume tat te stabilization satisfies (39) and tat a (u,u ) + s (u,u ) 1 u 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) for all u V,Φ. (43)

21 Trace Finite Element Metods for PDEs on Surfaces 21 Ten, te spectral condition number of te stiffness matrix corresponding to A (, ) is bounded by c 2, wit a constant c independent of and of te location of Γ in te triangulation T. Remark 6. From Teorem 2 it follows tat if te stabilization satisfies (39) and (43) ten te stiffness matrix as full rank and tus te discrete problem (24) as a unique solution. We summarize te assumptions on te stabilization term s used to derive Teorem 1 (optimal discretization error bound) and Teorem 2 (condition number bound): s (w,w) 3 w 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) + 1 w 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) for all w V reg,, (44a) s (u e,w ) sup l f w V,Φ w L 2 (Γ ), wit l 0, (44b) a (u,u ) + s (u,u ) 1 u 2 L 2 (Ω Γ Φ ) for all u V,Φ. (44c) In [37] tese conditions are studied for various stabilizations. It is sown tat for m = k = 1 all four stabilization metods discussed in section 3 satisfy tese tree conditions wit l = 2. Hence, tese metods lead to optimal first order discretization error bounds and uniform O( 2 ) condition number bounds. For iger order elements and geometry recovery, m = k 2, owever, only te normal derivative volume stabilization satisfies tese conditions wit l = k Stabilized TraceFEM for surface convection diffusion equations Assume we are given a smoot vector field w everywere tangential to te surface Γ. Anoter model problem of interest is te surface advection-diffusion equation, u t + w Γ u + (div Γ w)u ε Γ u = 0 on Γ. (45) In section 8 we sall consider equations modelling te conservation of a scalar quantity u wit a diffusive flux on an evolving surface Γ (t), wic is passively advected by a velocity field w. Te equation (45) represents a particular case of tis problem, namely wen w n = 0 olds, meaning tat te surface is stationary. A finite difference approximation of u t results in te elliptic surface PDE: ε Γ u + w Γ u + (c + div Γ w)u = f on Γ. (46) We make te following regularity assumptions on te data: f L 2 (Γ ), c = c(x) L (Γ ), w H 1, (Γ ) 3. Integration by parts over Γ and using w n = 0 leads us to

22 22 Maxim A. Olsanskii and Arnold Reusken te weak formulation (5) wit a(u,v) := (ε Γ u Γ v (w Γ v)u + cuv)ds. Γ Note tat for c = 0 te source term in (46) sould satisfy te zero mean constraint Γ f ds = 0. For well-posedness of te variational formulation in H1 (Γ ) it is sufficient to assume c div Γ w c 0 > 0 on Γ. (47) For given extensions w, c, and f off te surface to a suitable neigborood, te formulation of te TraceFEM or isoparametric TraceFEM is similar to te one for te Laplace Beltrami equation. However, as in te usual Galerkin finite element metod for convection diffusion equations on a planar domain, for te case of strongly dominating convection te metod would be prone to instabilities if te mes is not sufficiently fine. To andle te case of dominating convection, a SUPG type stabilized TraceFEM was introduced and analyzed in [61]. Te stabilized formulation reads: Find u V bulk suc tat Γ (ε Γ u Γ v (w Γ v )u + c u v )ds ( ) + δ T ε Γ u + w Γ u + (c + div Γ w )u w Γ v ds Γ T T Γ T δ T = f v ds + Γ T T Γ Γ T f (w Γ v )ds v V bulk. (48) Te analysis of (48) was carried out in [61] for te lowest order metod, k = m = 1. Bot analysis and numerical experiments in [61] and [17] revealed tat te properties of te stabilized formulation (48) remarkably resemble tose of te well-studied SUPG metod for planar case. In particular, te stabilization parameters δ T may be designed following te standard arguments, see, e.g., [68], based on mes Peclet numbers for background tetraedra and independent of ow Γ cuts troug te mes. One particular coice resulting from te analysis is δ 0 T w L δ T = (Γ T ) δ 1 2 T ε if Pe T > 1, if Pe T 1, and δ T = min{ δ T,c 1 }, (49) wit Pe T := T w L (Γ T ), te usual background tetraedral mes size T, and 2ε some given positive constants δ 0,δ 1 0. Define δ(x) = δ T for x Γ T. Te discretization error of te trace SUPG metod (48) can be estimated in te following mes-dependent norm: