arxiv: v3 [math.na] 27 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD FOR FOURTH ORDER LINEAR ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS arxiv: v3 [math.na] 27 Aug 2018 Abstract. In this paper, we propose a unified framework, the Hessian discretisation method (HDM, which is based on four discrete elements (called altogether a Hessian discretisation and a few intrinsic indicators of accuracy, independent of the considered model. An error estimate is obtained, using only these intrinsic indicators, when the HDM framework is applied to linear fourth order problems. It is shown that HDM encompasses a large number of numerical methods for fourth order elliptic problems: finite element methods (conforming and non-conforming as well as finite volume methods. We also use the HDM to design a novel method, based on conforming P 1 finite element space and gradient recovery operators. Results of numerical experiments are presented for this novel scheme and for a finite volume scheme. Keywords: fourth order elliptic equations, numerical schemes, error estimates, Hessian discretisation method, Hessian schemes, finite element method, finite volume method, gradient recovery method. AMS subject classifications: 65N15, 65N30, 65N Introduction Fourth order elliptic partial differential equations arise in various applications, such as structural engineering, thin plate theories of elasticity, thin beams, biharmonic problems, the Stokes problem, image processing, etc. A large number of schemes, such as finite element (conforming, non-conforming and finite volume methods, have been developed for the numerical approximation of these models. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a unified analysis framework, the Hessian discretisation method (HDM, that covers most of these schemes; by highlighting key abstract properties that ensure the scheme s convergence, the HDM also enables the design of novel schemes. We focus here on linear fourth order problem; non-linear models will be covered in a forthcoming paper. The principle of the HDM, inspired by the Gradient Discretisation Method for 2nd order problems [10], is to first select four discrete elements (a space and three reconstruction operators, altogether called a Hessian discretisation (HD. These elements are then substituted, in the weak formulation of the model, to the corresponding continuous space and operators, giving rise to a numerical scheme; this scheme is called a Hessian scheme (HS. A few indicators only, independent of the model and related to the coercivity, consistency and limit-conformity of the HD, are required to write error estimates in L 2, H 1 and H 2 norms for the corresponding HS. We show that schemes of the finite element and finite volume families fit into the HDM, with proper choices of HD, and we design a novel method based on the conforming P 1 space and a gradient recovery operator. The finite element (FE method is one of the most well-known tools for solving fourth-order elliptic boundary value problems. When conforming finite elements 1

2 2 are used, the corresponding space must be a subspace of H0 2 (. The corresponding strong continuity requirement of function and its derivatives makes it difficult to construct such a finite element, and leads to schemes with a large number of unknowns [3, 8, 6, 26, 27]. It is known that to consider a conforming finite element space with C 1 continuity for a fourth-order problem, like the plate bending problem, a polynomial of degree at least 5 with 18 parameters (Bell s triangle is required for a triangular element, and a bi-cubic polynomial with 16 parameters for a rectangular element (Bogner-Fox-Schmit rectangle [6]. The nonconforming finite element method relaxes the continuity requirement, which has a great impact on the resulting scheme. For the fourth order problem, two interesting nonconforming elements are the Adini rectangle and the Morley triangle [6]. The finite element methods have been well-developed for the fourth order partial differential equation with variable constant coefficients, biharmonic problem and the bending problem, see [1, 2, 29, 28, 23, 24, 14, 13, 20, 22, 25]. We refer to [12] and the reference therein for a discussion of finite volume methods for the biharmonic problem on general meshes. The interest of the method in [12] is that it is easy to implement, computationally cheap and requires only one unknown per cell. The analysis in [12] is first based on meshes that respect an adequate orthogonality property, and then generalized to general polygonal meshes. In [21], a finite element method for the biharmonic equation is presented; this method is based on gradient recovery operator, where the basis functions of the two involved spaces satisfy a condition of biorthogonality. The main idea is to use the gradient recovery operator to lift the non-differentiable, piecewise-constant gradient of P 1 finite element functions into the P 1 finite element space itself; the lifted functions are thus differentiable, and can be used to compute some kind of Hessian matrix of P 1 finite element functions. Ensuring the coercivity of the method in [21] on generic triangular/tetrahedral meshes however requires the addition of a stabilisation term. We also refer to [4] for the application of the gradient recovery operator to fourth order eigenvalue problems. We note that the interest of the HDM is that it extends the analysis beyond the setting of FE methods. It covers in particular situations where the second Strang lemma cannot be applied either because the continuous bilinear form cannot be extended to the space of discrete functions, and match there the discrete bilinear form, or even because the discrete space used in the scheme is not a space of functions (and the sum of the continuous and discrete spaces does not make sense. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the model problem and list some important examples of fourth order problems. We present the Hessian discretisation method in Section 3, together with the error estimate established in this framework. In Section 4, we present a novel scheme based on the P 1 FE space and a gradient recovery designed using biorthogonal systems; this scheme does not require additional stabilisation terms, as the corresponding Hessian discretisation is built to already satisfy all required coercivity properties. In Section 5, we show that the finite volume method in [12] is an HDM, and that the generic error estimate established in the HDM slightly improves the estimates found in [12], see Remark 5.4 below. Numerical results are presented to illustrate the theoretical convergence rate established in the HDM for the gradient recovery method and finite volume method in Section 6. In Section 7, we show that some known schemes (conforming

3 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 3 and non-conforming FE schemes fit into the HDM. Finally, some technical results are gathered in an appendix. Notations. A fourth order symmetric tensor P is a linear map S d (R S d (R, where S d (R is the set of symmetric matrices, d is the dimension; p ijkl denote the indices of the fourth order tensor P in the canonical basis of S d (R. For simplicity, we follow the Einstein summation convention unless otherwise stated, i.e, if an index is repeated in a product, summation is implied over the repeated index. For ξ S d (R, using the definition of symmetric tensor, one has P ξ S d (R and p ijkl = p jikl = p ijlk. The scalar product on S d (R is defined by ξ : φ = ξ ij φ ij. For a function ξ : S d (R, denoting the Hessian matrix by H we set H : ξ = ij ξ ij. Finally, the transpose P τ of P is given by P τ = (p klij, if P = (p ijkl. Note that P τ ξ : φ = ξ : P φ. The tensor product a b of two vectors a, b R d is the 2-tensor with coefficients a i b j. The Euclidean norm on R d is denoted by, as is the induced norm on S d (R. The Lebesgue measure of a measurable set E R d is denoted by E (note that the nature of the argument of, a vector or a set, makes it clear if we talk about the Euclidean norm or the Lebesgue measure. The norm in L 2 (, L 2 ( d for vector-valued functions, and L 2 (; R d d for matrix-valued functions, is denoted by. 2. Model problem Let R d be a bounded domain with boundary and consider the following fourth order model problem with clamped boundary conditions. d i,j,k,l=1 kl (a ijkl ij u = f in, (2.1a u = u = 0 on, (2.1b n where x = (x 1, x 2,..., x d, f L 2 (, n is the unit outer normal to and the coefficients a ijkl are measurable bounded functions which satisfy the conditions a ijkl = a jikl = a ijlk = a klij for i, j, k, l = 1,, d. For all ξ, φ S d (R, we assume the existence of a fourth order tensor B such that Aξ : φ = Bξ : Bφ, where A is the four-tensor with indices a ijkl. We notice that Bξ : Bφ = B τ Bξ : φ, so that A = B τ B. Setting V = H 2 0 ( = the weak formulation of (2.1 is Find u V such that v V, { v H 2 (; v = v } = 0 on n = { v H 2 (; v = v = 0 on }, H B u : H B v dx = fv dx, (2.2 where H B v = BHv. Note that HB u : H B v dx = AHu : Hv dx, since A = B τ B. We assume in the following that B is constant over, and that the following coercivity property holds: ϱ > 0 such that H B v ϱ v H 2 (, v H 2 0 (. (2.3

4 4 Hence, the weak formulation (2.2 has a unique solution by the Lax Milgram lemma. Remark 2.1. Adapting the analysis of Section 3 to B dependent on x is easy, provided that the entries of B belong to W 2, ( Examples. Let us examine two specific examples of the abstract problem ( Biharmonic problem. The biharmonic problem is 2 u = f in, u = u = 0 in. (2.4 n The weak formulation of this model is given by (2.2 provided that B is chosen to satisfy H B u : H B v dx = u v dx. One possible choice of B is therefore to set Bξ = tr(ξ d Id for ξ S d (R (where Id is the identity matrix, in which case H B =. Since u v dx = Hu : Hv dx, another possibility is to set B the identity tensor (Bξ = ξ, in which case H B = H. By the Poincaré inequality, both choices satisfy ( Plate problem. The clamped plate problem [6, Chapter 6] corresponds to (2.2 with d = 2 and left-hand side u v + (1 γ(2 12 u 12 v 11 u 22 v 22 u 11 v dx. (2.5 Here, the constant γ lies in the interval (0, 1 2. We notice that (2.5 is equal to AHu : Hv dx, where the tensor A has non-zero indices a 1111 = 1, a 2222 = 1, a 1212 = (1 γ, a 2121 = (1 γ, a 1122 = γ and a 2211 = γ. Its square root 1+ 1 γ can be defined as the tensor B with non-zero indices b 1111 = b 2222 = 2 2, 1 1 γ b 1122 = b 2211 = 2 2 and b 1212 = b 2121 = 1 γ. It can be checked that (2.3 holds since, for some ϱ > 0, Aξ : ξ ϱ 2 ξ 2 for all ξ S d (R. 3. The Hessian discretisation method We present here the Hessian discretisation method, and list the properties that are required for the convergence analysis of the Hessian scheme. The error estimate is stated at the end of the section. Definition 3.1 (B Hessian discretisation. A B Hessian discretisation for clamped boundary conditions is a quadruplet D = (X D,0, Π D, D, H B D such that X D,0 is a finite-dimensional space encoding the unknowns of the method, Π D : X D,0 L 2 ( is a linear mapping that reconstructs a function from the unknowns, D : X D,0 L 2 ( d is a linear mapping that reconstructs a gradient from the unknowns, H B D : X D,0 L 2 (; R d d is a linear mapping that reconstructs a discrete version of H B (= BH from the unknowns. It must be chosen such that D := H B D is a norm on X D,0.

5 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 5 Remark 3.2 (Dependence of the Hessian discretisation on B. In the (2nd order gradient discretisation method, the definition of a gradient discretisation is independent of the differential operator. Here, our definition of Hessian discretisation depends on B, that appears in the differential operator. This is justified by the fact that some methods (such as the one presented in Section 5 are not built on an approximation of the entire Hessian of the functions, but only on some of their derivatives (such as the Laplacian of the functions. Although it might be possible to enrich these methods by adding approximations of the missing second order derivatives (as done in [9] in the context of the GDM, it does not seem to be the most natural way to proceed, and it leads to additional technicality in the analysis. Making the definition of HD dependent on the considered model through B enables us to more naturally embed some known methods into the HDM. Note however that a number of FE methods provide approximations of the entire Hessian of the functions (see Sections 4 and 7. For those methods, a B-Hessian discretisation is built from an Id-Hessian discretisation (that is independent of the model by setting HD B = BHId D. If D = (X D,0, Π D, D, HD B is a B Hessian discretisation, the corresponding scheme for (2.1, called Hessian scheme (HS, is given by Find u D X D,0 such that for any v D X D,0, HDu B D : HDv B D dx = fπ D v D dx. (3.1 This HS is obtained by replacing, in the weak formulation (2.2, the continuous space V by X D,0, and by using the reconstructions Π D and HD B in lieu of the function and its Hessian. We will show that the accuracy of the HS can be evaluated using only three measures, all intrinsic to the Hessian discretisation. The first one is a constant, CD B, which controls the norm of the linear mappings Π D and D. ( CD B ΠD w = max w X D,0 \{0} HD Bw, Dw HD Bw. (3.2 The second measure of accuracy is the interpolation error S B D defined by ϕ H0 2 (, ( SD(ϕ B = min Π D w ϕ + D w ϕ + H B w X D,0 Dw H B ϕ. (3.3 Finally, the third quantity is a measure of limit-conformity of the HD, that is, how well a discrete integration-by-parts formula is verified by the discrete operators: ξ H B ( := {ζ L 2 ( d d ; H : B τ Bζ L 2 (}, WD B 1 ( (ξ = max w X D,0 \{0} HD Bw (H : B τ BξΠ D w Bξ : H B Dw dx. (3.4 Note that if ξ H B ( and φ H0 2 (, integration-by-parts show that (H : B τ Bξφ = Bξ : HB φ. Hence, the quantity in the right-hand side of (3.4 measures a defect of discrete integration-by-parts between Π D and HD B. Closely associated to the three measures above are the notions of coercivity, consistency and limit-conformity of a sequence of Hessian discretisations.

6 6 Definition 3.3 (Coercivity, consistency and limit-conformity. Let (D m m N be a sequence of B Hessian discretisations in the sense of Definition 3.1. We say that (1 (D m m N is coercive if there exists C P R + such that C B D m C P for all m N. (2 (D m m N is consistent, if (3 (D m m N is limit-conforming, if ϕ H 2 0 (, lim m SB D m (ϕ = 0. (3.5 ξ H B (, lim m W B D m (ξ = 0. (3.6 Remark 3.4. As for the (2nd order gradient discretisation method, see [10, Lemmas 2.16 and 2.17], it is easily proved that, for coercive sequences of HDs, the consistency and limit-conformity properties (3.5 and (3.6 only need to be tested for functions in dense subsets of H0 2 ( and H B (, respectively. Remark 3.5. If B = Id, we write H D (resp. C D, S D and W D instead of HD Id (resp. CD Id, SId Id D and WD. We can now state our main theorem giving the error estimates. Theorem 3.6 (Error estimate for Hessian schemes. Under Assumption (2.3, let u be the solution to (2.2. Let D be a B Hessian discretisation and u D be the solution to the corresponding Hessian scheme (3.1. Then we have the following error estimates: Π D u D u C D W B D (Hu + (C D + 1S B D(u, (3.7 D u D u C D W B D (Hu + (C D + 1S B D(u, (3.8 H B Du D H B u W B D (Hu + 2S B D(u. (3.9 (Note that Hu H B ( because Hu L 2 ( d d and H : B τ BHu = H : AHu = f L 2 (. The following convergence result is a trivial consequence of the error estimates above. Corollary 3.7 (Convergence. Let (D m m N be a sequence of B Hessian discretisations that is coercive, consistent and limit-conforming. Then, as m, Π Dm u Dm u in L 2 (, Dm u Dm u in L 2 ( d and HD B m u Dm H B u in L 2 ( d d. Let us now prove Theorem 3.6. Proof of Theorem 3.6. For all v D X D,0, the equation (2.1a taken in the sense of distributions shows that f = H : AHu, and thus, by the Hessian scheme (3.1, HDu B D : HDv B D dx = fπ D v D dx = (H : B τ BHuΠ D v D dx. Using the definition of WD B, we infer (H B u HDu B D : HDv B D dx WD B (Hu HDv B D. (3.10

7 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 7 Define the interpolant P D : H0 2 ( X D,0 by ( P D u = argmin Π D w u + D w u + HDw B H B u w X D,0 and notice that Π D P D u u + D P D u u + H B DP D u H B u S B D(u. (3.11 Introducing the term H B u and using (3.10, we obtain (H DP B D u HDu B D : HDv B D dx ( = (H B u HDu B D : HDv B D dx + HDP B D u H B u : HDv B D dx W B D (Hu H B Dv D + H B DP D u H B u H B Dv D. Choosing v D = P D u u D, we get Thus, by (3.11, H B D(P D u u D 2 W B D (Hu H B D(P D u u D + H B DP D u H B u H B D(P D u u D. H B DP D u H B Du D W B D (Hu + S B D(u. (3.12 A use of triangle inequality, (3.11 and (3.12 yields H B Du D H B u H B Du D H B DP D u + H B DP D u H B u W B D (Hu + 2S B D(u, which is (3.9. Using the definition of C D, and (3.11 and (3.12, we obtain Π D u D u Π D u D Π D P D u + Π D P D u u C D H B DP D u H B Du D + S B D(u C D W B D (Hu + (C D + 1S B D(u. Hence, (3.7 is established, and (3.8 follows in a similar way. We now aim to present particular HDMs. The first (in Section 4 is a novel scheme based on gradient recovery operators, and a particular cheap construction of these operators using biorthogonal basis. Then, we show that a finite volume method (in Section 5 and known finite element methods (in Section 7 fit into the HDM. Let us first set some notations related to meshes. Definition 3.8 (Polytopal mesh [10, Definition 7.2]. Let be a bounded polytopal open subset of R d (d 1. A polytopal mesh of is T = (M, F, P, where: (1 M is a finite family of non empty connected polytopal open disjoint subsets of (the cells such that = K. For any K M, K > 0 is the measure of K, h K denotes the diameter of K, x K is the center of mass of K, and n K is the outer unit normal to K. (2 F is a finite family of disjoint subsets of (the edges of the mesh in 2D, the faces in 3D, such that any σ F is a non empty open subset of a hyperplane of R d and σ. Assume that for all K M there exists a subset F K of F such that the boundary of K is σ F K σ. We then set M σ = {K M ; σ F K } and assume that, for all σ F, M σ has exactly

8 8 one element and σ, or M σ has two elements and σ. Let F int be the set of all interior faces, i.e. σ F such that σ, and F ext the set of boundary faces, i.e. σ F such that σ. The (d 1-dimensional measure of σ F is σ, and its centre of mass is x σ. (3 P = (x K is a family of points of indexed by M and such that, for all K M, x K K. Assume that any cell K M is strictly x K -starshaped, meaning that if x K then the line segment [x K, x is included in K. The diameter of such a polytopal mesh is h = max h K. 4. Method based on Gradient Recovery Operators 4.1. General setting. Let V h be an H 1 0 -conforming finite element space with underlying mesh M = M h. We assume that V h contains the piecewise linear functions, and that M h satisfies usual regularity assumptions, namely, denoting by ρ K = max{r > 0 ; B(x K, r K} the maximal radius of balls centred at x K and included in K, we assume that there exists η > 0 (independent of h such that K M, η h K ρ K. (4.1 The gradient u of u V h is well defined, but its second derivative u is not. In order to compute some sort of second derivatives, consider a projector Q h : L 2 ( V h, which is extended to L 2 ( d component-wise. Then u can be projected onto Vh d, and the resulting function Q h u Vh d is differentiable. We can then consider (Q h u as a sort of Hessian of u. However, it not necessarily clear, for some interesting choices of practically computable Q h (see Section 4.2, that this reconstructed Hessian has proper coercivity properties. We therefore also consider a function S h whose role is to stabilise this reconstructed Hessian. Let (V h, Q h, I h, S h be a quadruplet of a finite element space V h H0 1 (, a reconstruction operator Q h : L 2 ( V h that is a projector onto V h (that is, Q h = Id on V h, an interpolant I h : H0 2 ( V h and a stabilisation function S h L ( d such that, with constants C not depending on h, (P0 [Strucure of V h and I h ] The inverse estimate z Ch 1 z holds for all z V h and, for ϕ H0 2 (, we have I h ϕ ϕ Ch ϕ H2 (. (P1 [Stability of Q h ] For φ L 2 (, we have Q h φ C φ. (P2 [Q h I h approximates ] For some space W densely embedded in H 3 ( H0 2 ( and for all ψ W, we have Q h I h ψ ψ Ch 2 ψ W. (P3 [H 1 approximation property of Q h ] For w H 2 ( H0 1 (, we have Q h w w Ch w H 2 (. (P4 [Asymptotic density of [(Q h (V h ] ] Setting N h = [(Q h (V h ], where the orthogonality is considered for the L 2 ( d -inner product, the following approximation property holds: inf µ h ϕ Ch ϕ H1 ( d, ϕ µ h N H1 ( d, h (P5 [Stabilisation function] 1 S h C and, for all K M, denoting by V h (K = {v K ; v V h, K M} the local FE space, [ Sh K (Q h (V h (K ] V h (K d,

9 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 9 where the orthogonality is understood in L 2 (K d d with the inner product induced by :. Remark 4.1. A classical operator Q h that satisfies these assumptions, for standard FE spaces V h, is the L 2 -orthogonal projector on V h. This operator is however nonlocal and complicated to compute. We present in Section 4.2 a much more efficient construction of Q h, local and based on biorthogonal bases. To construct an HD based on such a quadruplet, we assume the following stronger form of (2.3: C B > 0 : Bξ C B ξ, ξ S d (R. (4.2 Definition 4.2 (B Hessian discretisation using gradient recovery. Under Assumption (4.2, the B-Hessian discretisation based on a quadruplet (V h, Q h, I h, S h satisfying (P0 (P5 is defined by: X D,0 = V h and, for u X D,0, Π D u = u, D u = Q h u and H B Du = B [ (Q h u + S h (Q h u u]. The next theorem gives an estimate on the accuracy measures CD B, SB D and W D B associated with an HD D using gradient recovery. Incidentally, the estimate on CD B also establishes that HD B is a norm on X D,0. Theorem 4.3 (Estimates for Hessian discretisations based on gradient recovery. Let D be a B Hessian discretisation in the sense of Definition 4.2, with B satisfying Estimate (4.2 and (V h, I h, Q h, S h satisfying (P0 (P5. Then, there exists a constant C, not depending on h, such that CD B C, ϕ W, SD B(ϕ Ch ϕ W, ξ H 2 ( d d, WD B(ξ Ch ξ H 2 ( d d. Before proving this theorem, let us note the following straightforward consequence of Remark 3.4. Corollary 4.4 (Properties of Hessian discretisation based on gradient recovery. Let (D m m N be a sequence of B Hessian discretisations, with B satisfying Estimate (4.2 and each D m associated with (V hm, Q hm, I hm, S hm satisfying (P0 (P5 uniformly with respect to m. Assume that h m 0 as m. Then the sequence (D m m N is coercive, consistent and limit-conforming. Proof of Theorem 4.3. Coercivity: Let v X D,0. Noticing that a b = a b for any two vectors a and b, the definition of HD B, Property (4.2 of B and S 1 yield HDv B 2 CB 2 (Q h v + S h (Q h v v 2 dx = CB 2 (Q h v 2 dx + CB 2 S h (Q h v v 2 dx + 2CB 2 (Q h v : S h (Q h v v dx CB 2 ( (Qh v 2 + Q h v v 2 + 2CB 2 (Q h v : S h (Q h v v dx. K

10 10 Since (Q h v K V h (K d, a use of property (P5 shows that the last term vanishes, and we have thus HDv B 2 CB 2 ( (Qh v 2 + Q h v v 2, (4.3 which implies C 1 B 2 H B D v (Q h v + Q h v v. (4.4 Apply now the Poincaré inequality twice, the triangle inequality and (4.4 to obtain Π D v = v diam( v diam( v Q h v + diam( Q h v diam( v Q h v + diam( 2 (Q h v C 1 B 2 max(diam(, diam( 2 HDv. B (4.5 From (4.3 and the Poincaré inequality, we also have D v = Q h v diam( (Q h v diam(c 1 B HB Dv. (4.6 Estimates (4.5 and (4.6 show that CD B C 1 2 max(diam(, diam( 2. Consistency: let ϕ W H 3 ( H0 2 ( and choose v = I h ϕ X D,0. Using the properties (P0 (which implies I h ϕ ϕ Ch ϕ H 2 ( by the Poincaré inequality and (P2, we obtain and B Π D v ϕ = I h ϕ ϕ Ch ϕ H 2 ( (4.7 D v ϕ = Q h I h ϕ ϕ Ch 2 ϕ W. (4.8 Let us now turn to H B D v HB ϕ. Observe that is another notation for H. Using a triangle inequality, the boundedness of B and S h implies H B Dv H B ϕ = B [ (Q h v + S h (Q h v v] BHϕ B [ (Q h v ϕ] + BS h (Q h v v C (Q h v ϕ +C Q h v v. (4.9 }{{}}{{} A 1 A 2 Introducing the term (Q h ϕ, using in sequence the triangle inequality, the inverse inequality in (P0, (P3, the projection property of Q h, (P1 and (P2, we get A 1 [Q h v Q h ϕ] + (Q h ϕ ϕ Ch 1 Q h v Q h ϕ + Ch ϕ H2 ( Ch 1 Q h (Q h v ϕ + Ch ϕ H 2 ( Ch 1 Q h I h ϕ ϕ + Ch ϕ H2 ( Ch ϕ W. (4.10 To estimate A 2, we use the properties (P2 and (P0: A 2 Q h v ϕ + ϕ v Ch 2 ϕ W + Ch ϕ H2 (. (4.11 The estimate on SD B (ϕ follows from ( (4.11.

11 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 11 Limit-conformity: for ξ H 2 ( d d and v X D,0, ( (H : B τ BξΠ D v Bξ : HDv B dx ( = (H : B τ BξΠ D v Bξ : B (Q h v dx }{{} B 1 Bξ : BS h (Q h v v dx. (4.12 } {{ } B 2 Recall that v = Π D v and A = B τ B. Since Q h v H0 1 (, Lemma A.2 applied to (H : Aξv and an integration-by-parts on Bξ : B (Q h v = Aξ : (Q h v show that, for any µ h N h = [(Q h (V h ], B 1 = (H : Aξv dx + Q h v div(aξ dx = (Q h v v div(aξ dx = (Q h v v (div(aξ µ h dx Q h v v div(aξ µ h. (4.13 Take the infimum over all µ h N h. Estimate (4.4 and Property (P4 yield B 1 Ch HDv div(aξ B H1 ( d. (4.14 Let ξ K denote the average of ξ over K M. By the mesh regularity assumption, ξ ξ K L 2 (K Ch ξ d d H 1 (K d d (see, e.g., [10, Lemma B.6]. Moreover, since V h contains the piecewise constant functions, V h (K contains the constant vector-valued functions on K and thus, by the orthogonality condition in (P5, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the boundedness of B and S h, and (4.4, B 2 = B τ Bξ : S h (Q h v v dx = C K K (B τ Bξ B τ Bξ K : S h (Q h v v dx ξ ξ K L2 (K Q h v v L2 (K Ch ξ H 1 ( d d HB Dv. (4.15 Plugging (4.14 and (4.15 into (4.12 yields ( (H : B τ BξΠ D v Bξ : HDv B dx Ch ( div(aξ H 1 ( + ξ d H 1 ( HDv. B d d By the definition (3.4 of WD B (ξ, this concludes the proof of the estimate on this quantity.

12 A gradient recovery operator based on biorthogonal systems. We present here a particular case of a method based on a gradient recovery operator, using biorthogonal systems as in [21]. V h is the conforming P 1 FE space on a mesh of simplices, and I h is the Lagrange interpolation with respect to vertices of M. We will build a locally computable projector Q h, that is, such that determining Q h f on a cell K only requires the knowledge of f on K and its neighbouring cells. Let B 1 := {φ 1,, φ n } be the set of basis functions of V h associated with the inner vertices in M. Let the set B 2 := {ψ 1,, ψ n } be the set of discontinuous piecewise linear functions biorthogonal to B 1 also associated with the inner vertices of M, so that elements of B 1 and B 2 satisfy the biorthogonality relation ψ i φ j dx = c j δ ij, c j 0, 1 i, j n, (4.16 where δ ij is the Kronecker symbol and c j = ψ jφ j dx. Let M h := span{b 2 }. Such biorthogonal systems have been constructed in the context of mortar finite elements, and later extended to gradient recovery operators [16, 18, 21]. The basis functions of M h can be defined on a reference element. For example, for the reference triangle, we have ψ 1 (x := 3 4x 1 4x 2, ψ2 (x := 4x 1 1, and ψ3 (x := 4x 2 1, associated with its three vertices (0, 0, (1, 0 and (0, 1, respectively. For the reference tetrahedron, we have ψ 1 (x := 4 5x 1 5x 2 5x 3, ψ2 (x := 5x 1 1, ψ 3 (x := 5x 2 1, and ψ4 (x := 5x 3 1, associated with its four vertices (0, 0, 0, (1, 0, 0, (0, 1, 0 and (0, 0, 1, respectively. These basis functions satisfy d+1 i=1 ψ i = 1. (4.17 The projection operator Q h : L 2 ( V h is the oblique projector onto V h defined as: for f L 2 (, Q h f V h satisfies (Q h f ψ h dx = f ψ h dx, ψ h M h. (4.18 Due to the biorthogonality relation (4.16, Q h is well-defined and has the explicit representation n Q h f = ψ i f dx φ i. (4.19 c i i=1 The relation (4.18 shows M h [(Q h I(L 2 (]. Hence, if M h satisfies the approximation property inf α h M h α h ψ Ch ψ H 1 (, ψ H 1 (, we know that (P4 holds. In order to get this approximation property it is sufficient that the basis functions of M h reproduce constant functions. Let K M be an interior element not touching any boundary vertex. Due to the property (4.17 d+1 ψ vi = 1 on K, i=1

13 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 13 where {ψ vi } d+1 i=1 are basis functions of M h associated with the vertices (v 1,..., v d+1 of K. However, this property does not hold on K M if K has one or more vertices on the boundary. We need to modify the piecewise linear basis functions of M h to guarantee the approximation property [19, 17]. Let W h H 1 ( be the lowest order FE space including the basis functions on the boundary vertices of M, and let M h the space spanned by the discontinuous basis functions biorthogonal to the basis functions of W h. M h is then obtained as a modification of M h, by moving all vertex basis functions of this latter space to nearby internal vertices using the following three steps. (1 For a basis function ψ k of M h associated with a vertex v k on the boundary we find a closest internal triangle or tetrahedron K M (that is, K does not have a boundary vertex. (2 Compute the barycentric coordinates {α K,i } d+1 i=1 of v k with respect to the vertices of K, and modify all the basis functions { ψ K,i } d+1 i=1 of M h associated with K into ψ K,i = ψ K,i + α K,i ψk for i = 1,, d + 1. (3 Remove ψ k from the basis of M h. An alternative way is to modify the basis functions of all triangles or tetrahedra having one or more boundary vertices as proposed in [16]. (1 If all vertices {v i } d+1 i=1 of an element K M are inner vertices, then the linear basis functions {ψ vi } d+1 i=1 of M h on K are defined using the biorthogonal relationship (4.16 with the basis functions {φ vi } d+1 i=1 of V h. (2 If an element K M has all boundary vertices, then we find a neighbouring element K, which has at least one inner vertex v, and we extend the support of the basis function ψ v M h associated with v to the element K by defining ψ v = 1 on K. (3 If an element K M has only one inner vertex v and other boundary vertices, then the basis function ψ v M h associated with the inner vertex v is defined as ψ v = 1 on K. (4 If an element K has two inner vertices v 1 and v 2 and other boundary vertices, then the basis functions ψ v1, ψ v2 M h associated with these points are chosen to satisfy the biorthogonal relationship (4.16 with φ v1, φ v2 V h, as well as the property ψ v1 + ψ v2 = 1 on K. (5 In the three-dimensional case, we can have an element K with three inner vertices {v i } 3 i=1 and one boundary vertex. In this case we define three basis functions {ψ vi } 3 i=1 to satisfy the biorthogonal relationship (4.16 with {φ vi } 3 i=1 as well as the condition 3 i=1 ψ v i = 1 on K. The projection Q h is stable in L 2 and H 1 -norms [18], and hence assumption (P1 follows. To establish (P2, we need the following mesh assumption. (M For any vertex v, denoting by M v the set of cells having v as a vertex, K S v (x K v = O(h 2, v where S v is the support of the basis function φ v of V h associated with v. This assumption is satisfied if the triangles of the mesh can be paired in sets of two that share a common edge and form an O(h 2 -parallelogram, that is, the lengths of

14 14 any two opposite edges differ only by O(h 2. In three dimensions, (M is satisfied if the lengths of each pair of opposite edges of a given element are allowed to differ only by O(h 2 [5]. The following theorem establishes (P2 with W = W 3, ( H0 2 ( and can be proved as in [30, 18]. Theorem 4.5. Let u W 3, ( H 2 0 (. Assume that the triangulation satisfies the assumption (M. Then Q h I h u u Ch 2 u W 3, (. Since Q h is a projection onto V h, Q h I h = I h. Hence, for w H 2 ( H0 1 (, introducing Q h I h w = I h w and invoking the H 1 -stability property of Q h [17, Lemma 1.8] leads to Q h w w Q h (w I h w + I h w w C I h w w. The standard approximation properties of V h then guarantee (P3. The Assumption (P4 is satisfied since M h N h (M h is obtained by combining functions in M h, that satisfies this property and the basis functions of M h locally reproduce constant functions. To build S h that satisfies (P5, divide each triangle K M into four equal triangles using the mid-points of each side, and define S h as a piecewise constant function as described in Figure 1. It can be checked that this function satisfies (P5. A similar construction also works on tetrahedra (in which case S h K is equal to 1 on the four sub-tetrahedra constructed around the vertices of K, and 4 in the rest of K K Figure 1. Values of the stabilisation function S h inside a cell K. 5. Finite volume method based on -adapted discretizations We consider here the finite volume (FV scheme from [12] for the biharmonic problem (2.4 on -adapted meshes, that is, meshes that satisfy an orthogonality property. Definition 5.1 ( -adapted FV mesh. A general mesh T is -adapted if (1 for all σ F int, denoting by K, L M the cells such that M σ = {K, L}, the straight line (x K, x L intersects and is orthogonal to σ, (2 for all σ F ext with M σ = {K}, the line orthogonal to σ going through x K intersects σ. For such a mesh, we let D K,σ be the cone with vertex x K and basis σ, and D σ = σ D K,σ. For each σ F int, an orientation is chosen by defining one of the two unit normal vectors n σ, and we denote by K σ and K + σ the two adjacent control

15 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 15 volumes such that n σ is oriented from Kσ to K σ +. For all σ F ext, we denote the control volume K M such that σ F K by K σ and we define n σ by n K,σ. We then set { dist(xk d σ =, σ + dist(x σ K σ +, σ σ F int (5.1 dist(x K, σ σ F ext. For all K M, set F K,int = F K F int and F K,ext = F K F ext. Finally, we define the mesh regularity factor by { ( diam(k θ T = max max dist(x K, σ, d σ ; K M, σ F K }. dist(x K, σ We now define a notion of B Hessian discretisation for B = tr( d Id, in which case (2.2 corresponds to the biharmonic problem (2.4, for which the coercivity property (2.3 holds (see Section Definition 5.2 (B Hessian discretisation based on -adapted discretisation. Let B = tr( d Id and T be a -adapted mesh. A B Hessian discretisation is given by D = (X D,0, Π D, D, HD B where X D,0 is the space of all real families u D = (u K, such that u K = 0 for all K M with F K,ext. For u D X D,0, Π D u D is the piecewise constant function equal to u K on the cell K. The discrete gradient D u D is defined by its constant values on the cells: K u D = 1 K σ F K σ (δ K,σu D (x σ x K d σ, (5.2 where { ul u δ K,σ u D = K σ F K,int, M σ = {K, L} 0 σ F K,ext. (5.3 The discrete Laplace operator D is defined by its constant values on the cells: K u D = 1 σ δ K,σu D. (5.4 K d σ σ F K We then set HD Bu D = d Du D Id. For u D, v D X D,0, [u D, v D ] = σ δ σ u D δ σ v D (5.5 d σ σ F defines an inner product on X D,0, whose associated norm is denoted by u D D. Here δ σ is given by δ σ u D = { uk + σ u Kσ σ F int 0 σ F ext. (5.6 It can easily be checked that, with this Hessian discretisation, the Hessian scheme (2.2 is the scheme of [12] for the biharmonic equation. Let us examine the properties of this Hessian discretisation. Theorem 5.3. Let D be a B Hessian discretisation in the sense of Definition 5.2. Then there exists a constant C, depending only on on θ θ T, such that

16 16 C B D C, If ϕ C 2 c (, ϕ H 1 ( and a > 0 is such that supp(ϕ {x ; dist(x, > a}, then S B D(ϕ Ch ϕ H 1 ( + Ch ϕ C 2 ( { ln(a a 3/2 if d = 2, a 5/3 if d = 3. If ϕ H 2 0 ( C 2 ( with ϕ H 1 (, then S B D(ϕ Ch ϕ H 1 ( + C ϕ C2 ( { h 1/4 ln(h if d = 2, h 3/13 if d = 3. ξ H 2 ( d d, W B D (ξ Ch tr(ξ H 2 (. (5.7 (5.8 Remark 5.4. If the solution u to (2.4 belongs to H 4 ( H0 2 (, then u C 2 ( and u H 2 (. In that case, Theorems 3.6 and 5.3 provide an O(h 1/4 ln(h (in dimension d = 2 or O(h 3/13 (in dimension d = 3 error estimate for the Hessian scheme based on the HD from Definition 5.2. This slightly improves the result of [12, Theorem 4.3], in which an O(h 1/5 estimate is obtained if u C 4 ( H0 2 (. As for the method based on gradient recovery operators, the properties of the Hessian discretisation follow from the estimates in Theorem 5.3 and from Remark 3.4. Corollary 5.5. Let (D m m N be a sequence of B Hessian discretisations in the sense of Definition 5.2, associated to meshes such that h m 0 and (θ Tm m N is bounded. Then the sequence (D m m N is coercive, consistent and limit-conforming. Proof of Theorem 5.3. Coercivity: the discrete Poincaré inequality of [11] states that Π D v D diam( v D D, v D X D,0. (5.9 Let us first prove that Π D u D D v D dx = [u D, v D ] D, u D, v D X D,0. (5.10 The definitions of Π D and D yield Π D u D D v D dx = K u K K v D = u K σ δ K,σv D. d σ σ F K For σ F ext, δ K,σ v D = 0. Gathering the sums by edges and using (5.3 and (5.6, we obtain Π D u D D v D dx = σ (v K v L u K = σ δ σ u D δ σ v D, d σ d σ σ F K,int σ F int which establishes (5.10. Choosing v D = u D, applying the Cauchy Schwarz inequality and using (5.9, we get u D 2 D Π D u D D u D diam( u D D D u D. Thus, u D D diam( D u D. (5.11 Combining (5.9 and (5.11, we get Π D v D diam( 2 D u D. (5.12

17 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 17 The stability of the discrete gradient [12, Lemma 4.1] yields D u D θ d u D D u D X D,0. Estimate (5.11 then shows that D u D diam(θ d D u D, which, together with (5.12, concludes the proof of the estimate on CD B. Consistency compact support: The proof utilises the ideas of [12], with a few improvements of the estimates. For s > 0 we let s = {x ; dist(x, > s}. In this proof, A B means that A CB for some constant C depending only on θ. We first consider the case where ϕ Cc 2 ( and ϕ H 1 (, with support at distance from equal to or greater than a. As in [12, Proof of Lemma 4.4], let ψ a Cc (, equal to 1 on 3a/4, that vanishes on \ a/4, and such that, for all α N d, with α = d i=1 α i, α ψ a L ( a α. (5.13 Letting ψ a D = (ψa (x K, we have D ψ a D a 2. Hence, for all r [1, ], since \ 2a has measure a, D ψ a D Lr ( a 2+ 1 r. (5.14 Letting ṽ = (ṽ K be the solution of the two-point flux approximation finite volume scheme with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions and source term ϕ, by [11] we have, with ϕ D = (ϕ(x K, ( 1/2 σ (δ σ (ṽ ϕ D 2 h ϕ C2( (5.15 d σ σ F and, for q [1, + if d = 2, q [1, 6] if d = 3, ( 1/q K ṽ K ϕ(x K q qh ϕ C2 (. (5.16 We then set w = (ψ a (x K ṽ K, that belongs to X D,0 if h a/4. It is proved in [12, Proof of Lemma 4.4, p. 2032] that, with [ ϕ] K = 1 ϕ dx, K w [ ϕ] K = (ṽ K ϕ(x K K ψd a + 1 σ (δ K,σ ψ K d Dδ a K,σ (ṽ ϕ D, σ σ F K = T 1,K + T 2,K. (5.17 Using Hölder s inequality with exponents (q, (5.16, and recalling (5.14, we have ( 1/2 K T 1,K 2 K K 2q q 2, for some q > 2 admissible in q 2 2+ qha 2q ϕ C2 (. (5.18 On the other hand, we have δ K,σ ψd a d σa 1 (see [12, Proof of Lemma 4.4]. Hence, by Cauchy Schwarz inequality on the sum over the faces, and using the estimate σ F K σ d σ K, T 2,K 2 a 2 K 2 ( 2 σ δ K,σ (ṽ ϕ D a 2 K σ F K σ F K σ d σ (δ K,σ (ṽ ϕ D 2.

18 18 Estimate (5.15 thus leads to ( 1/2 K T 2,K 2 a 1 h ϕ C2 (. (5.19 Denote by [ ϕ] D the piecewise constant function equal to [ ϕ] K on K M. Taking the L 2 norm of (5.17 and using (5.18 and (5.19, we arrive at, since a 1 a q, D w [ ϕ] D L 2( qha q ϕ C2 (. Taking q = ln(a if d = 2 or q = 6 if d = 3 shows that D w [ ϕ] D L 2 ( h ϕ C2 ( { ln(a a 3/2 if d = 2, a 5/3 if d = 3. A classical estimate [10, Lemma B.6] gives (5.20 [ ϕ] D ϕ L 2 ( h ϕ H 1 (, (5.21 which shows that D w ϕ L 2 ( is bounded above by the right-hand side of (5.7. The estimates on D w ϕ and on Π D w ϕ follow as in [12, Lemma 4.4]. Consistency general case: Consider now ϕ H0 2 ( C 2 (, and take ψ a as above. The boundary conditions on ϕ show that ϕ(x ϕ C2 ( dist(x, 2 and ϕ(x ϕ C 2 ( dist(x,. Hence, using ( , \ a a and the fact that 1 ψ a = 0 in a, we see that, for all α N d with α 2, α ϕ α (ψ a ϕ L 2 ( a 1/2 ϕ C2 (. (5.22 Since = 2 i=1 2 i, the above estimate applies to instead of α and, as a consequence, [ ϕ] D [ (ψ a ϕ] D L 2 ( ϕ (ψ a ϕ L 2 ( a 1/2 ϕ C2 (. (5.23 Consider now the interpolant w X D,0 for ψ a ϕ Cc 2 ( constructed above. Applying (5.20 to ψ a ϕ instead of ϕ, noting that ψ a ϕ C 2 ( ϕ C 2 ( (consequence of (5.22, and using (5.23, we obtain D w [ ϕ] D L 2 ( a 1/2 ϕ C2 ( + h ϕ C 2 ( { ln(a a 3/2 if d = 2, a 5/3 if d = 3. Taking a = h 1/2 if d = 2 or a = h 6/13 if d = 3 leads to D w [ ϕ] D L 2 ( ϕ C 2 ( { h 1/4 ln(h if d = 2, h 3/13 if d = 3. Combined with (5.21 this shows that D w ϕ L2 ( is bounded above by the right-hand side of (5.8. The estimates on Π D w ϕ and D w ϕ follow in a similar way. Limit-conformity: For ξ H B ( and v D X D,0, B = tr( d Id implies (H : B τ BξΠ D v D dx = (BH : BξΠ D v D dx = φπ D v D dx, where φ = tr(ξ. Also, by definition of HD B, Bξ : HDv B D dx = φ D v D dx.

19 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 19 Thus, (3.4 can be rewritten as W B D (ξ = max v D X D,0 \{0} 1 HD Bv D ( φπ D v D φ D v D dx, (5.24 where φ = tr(ξ. Define δ σ φ = { φ(x K + σ φ(x K σ σ F int φ(z σ φ(x Kσ σ F ext, (5.25 where z σ is the orthogonal projection of x K on the hyperplane which contains σ. For ξ H 2 ( d d, using the divergence theorem, φπ D v D dx = K φπ D v D dx = v K σ F K Gathering over the edges and using the definition of δ σ, this leads to δ σ v D φπ D v D dx = σ F = ( δσ φ δ σ v D σ F σ d σ = σ F δ σ v D δσ φ σ d σ σ φ n σ ds(x + φ n σ δ σ φ d σ ds(x + σ F δ σ v D Since δ σ v D = 0 for any σ F ext, (5.25, (5.3 and (5.4 imply σ F δ σ v D δσ φ σ d σ σ σ φ n K,σ ds(x. ( δσ φ d σ φ n σ ds(x. (5.26 = σ ( δ σ v D φ(x + K d σ φ(x K σ σ σ F int = φ(x K σ δ K,σ v D = K φ(x K K v D. d σ σ F K Substituting this in (5.26, we obtain φπ D v D dx = + σ F K φ(x K K v D δ σ v D σ ( δσ φ d σ φ n σ ds(x. (5.27 To deal with the first term, we first combine the two estimates in [10, Lemma 7.61] to see that φ(x K φ(y Ch K 1/2 φ H 2 (K, y K.

20 20 Hence, using the Cauchy Schwarz inequality, K φ(x K K v D φ D v D dx ( = K φ(x K 1 φ(y dy K v D K K ( 1/2 Ch φ H2 ( K K v D 2 = Ch φ H2 ( D v D. (5.28 Turning to the second term in the right-hand side of (5.27, we notice that the estimate on the terms R K,σ in [11, Proof of Theorem 3.4] show that δ σ φ σ φ n σ Ch Hφ L 2 ( L Mσ L d d. dσ d σ Hence, by the Cauchy Schwarz inequality, we have δ σ v D σ F σ ( δσ φ d σ φ n σ ( ds(x Ch Hφ σ F 1/2 σ (δ σ v D 2 d σ = Ch φ H 2 ( v D D Chdiam( φ H 2 ( D v D, (5.29 where we have used (5.11 in the last line. Plugging (5.28 and (5.29 into (5.27, we obtain φπ D v D dx φ D v D dx Ch φ H 2 ( D v D, and the estimate on W D (ξ then follows from (5.24, recalling that φ = tr(ξ. Remark 5.6. The same analysis also probably applies to the second method presented in [12, Section 5], which is applicable on general polygonal meshes. 6. Numerical results In this section, we present the results of some numerical experiments for the gradient recovery (GR method and finite volume (FV method presented in Sections 4 and 5. All these tests are conducted on the biharmonic problem 2 u = f on = (0, 1 2, with clamped boundary conditions and for various exact solutions u Numerical results for Gradient Recovery method. Three examples are presented to illustrate the theoretical estimates of Theorem 3.6 on the Hessian discretisation described in Section 4.2. The considered FE space V h is therefore the conforming P 1 space, and the implementation was done following the ideas in [20]. The following relative errors, and related orders of convergence, in L 2 (, H 1 (

21 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 21 and H 2 ( norms are presented: err D (u := Π Du D u, err( u := u D u u u err D ( u := Du D u u err D (Hu := HB D u D Hu Hu = Q h u D u, u = (Q h u D Hu, Hu where u D is the solution to the Hessian scheme (3.1. We provide in Table 1 the mesh data: mesh sizes h, numbers of unknowns (that is, the number of internal vertices nu, and numbers of non-zero terms nnz in the square matrix of the system. Table 1. (GR Mesh size, number of unknowns and number of nonzero terms in the square matrix h nu nnz Example 1. The exact solution is chosen to be u(x, y = x 2 (x 1 2 y 2 (y 1 2. To assess the effect of the stabilisation function S h on the results, we multiply it by a factor r that takes the values 0.1, 1, 10, and 100. The errors and orders of convergence for the numerical approximation to u are shown in Tables 2 5. It can be seen that the rate of convergence is quadratic in L 2 -norm and linear in H 1 -norm (see err( u. However, using gradient recovery operator, a quadratic order of convergence in H 1 norm is recovered (see err D ( u. The rate of convergence in energy norm is linear (see err D (Hu, as expected by plugging the estimates of Theorem 4.3 into Theorem 3.6. We also notice a very small effect of r on the relative errors and rates. Table 2. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 1, r = 0.1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Example 2. We consider here the transcendental exact solution u = x 2 (x 1 2 y 2 (y 1 2 (cos(2πx + sin(2πy, and r = 0.1, 1 and 10. Tables 6 8 presents the numerical results. The same comments as in Example 1 can be made about the rates of convergence. Past the coarsest meshes, we also notice as in Example 1 that r only has a small impact on the relative errors.

22 22 Table 3. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 1, r = 1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 4. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 1, r = 10 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 5. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 1, r = 100 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 6. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 2, r = 0.1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Example 3. Here, u(x, y = x 3 y 3 (1 x 3 (1 y 3 (e x sin(2πx + cos(2πx and r = 0.1, 1 and 10. The results presented in Tables 9 11 are similar to those obtained for Examples 1 and Numerical results for FVM. In this section, we present numerical results based on the finite volume method presented in Section 5. As noticed, this scheme requires only one unknown per cell, and is therefore easy to implement and computationally cheap. The schemes were first tested on a series of regular triangular meshes (mesh1 family and then on square meshes (mesh2 family, both taken from

23 THE HESSIAN DISCRETISATION METHOD 23 Table 7. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 2, r = 1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 8. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 2, r = 10 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 9. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 3, r = 0.1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order Table 10. (GR Convergence results for the relative errors, Example 3, r = 1 nu err D (u Order err( u Order err D ( u Order err D (Hu Order [15]. To ensure the correct orthogonality property (see Definition 5.1, the point x K K is chosen as the circumcenter of K if K is a triangle, or the center of mass of K if K is a rectangle. As a result, for triangular meshes, the L 2 error, err D (u, is calculated using a skewed midpoint rule, where we consider the circumcenter of each cell instead of its center of mass. We denote the relative H 2 error by err D ( u := Du D u. u