A posteriori error estimation for elliptic problems

Similar documents
Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

Basic Concepts of Adaptive Finite Element Methods for Elliptic Boundary Value Problems

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

INTRODUCTION TO FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

Lecture Notes: African Institute of Mathematics Senegal, January Topic Title: A short introduction to numerical methods for elliptic PDEs

Chapter 6 A posteriori error estimates for finite element approximations 6.1 Introduction

Chapter 5 A priori error estimates for nonconforming finite element approximations 5.1 Strang s first lemma

Scientific Computing WS 2017/2018. Lecture 18. Jürgen Fuhrmann Lecture 18 Slide 1

Adaptive Finite Element Methods Lecture 1: A Posteriori Error Estimation

1. Let a(x) > 0, and assume that u and u h are the solutions of the Dirichlet problem:

Axioms of Adaptivity (AoA) in Lecture 3 (sufficient for optimal convergence rates)

On an Approximation Result for Piecewise Polynomial Functions. O. Karakashian

Finite Elements. Colin Cotter. February 22, Colin Cotter FEM

Scientific Computing WS 2018/2019. Lecture 15. Jürgen Fuhrmann Lecture 15 Slide 1

A WEAK GALERKIN MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR BIHARMONIC EQUATIONS

LECTURE 1: SOURCES OF ERRORS MATHEMATICAL TOOLS A PRIORI ERROR ESTIMATES. Sergey Korotov,

Finite difference method for elliptic problems: I

1. Introduction. We consider the model problem that seeks an unknown function u = u(x) satisfying

Overview. A Posteriori Error Estimates for the Biharmonic Equation. Variational Formulation and Discretization. The Biharmonic Equation

Chapter 1: The Finite Element Method

Solutions of Selected Problems

ENERGY NORM A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

Finite Element Spectral Approximation with Numerical Integration for the Biharmonic Eigenvalue Problem

Numerical Analysis of Higher Order Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element Methods

ABHELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Applied/Numerical Analysis Qualifying Exam

Projected Surface Finite Elements for Elliptic Equations

Convergence and optimality of an adaptive FEM for controlling L 2 errors

PREPRINT 2010:25. Fictitious domain finite element methods using cut elements: II. A stabilized Nitsche method ERIK BURMAN PETER HANSBO

ASYMPTOTICALLY EXACT A POSTERIORI ESTIMATORS FOR THE POINTWISE GRADIENT ERROR ON EACH ELEMENT IN IRREGULAR MESHES. PART II: THE PIECEWISE LINEAR CASE

Finite Element Error Estimates in Non-Energy Norms for the Two-Dimensional Scalar Signorini Problem

Hamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik

PARTITION OF UNITY FOR THE STOKES PROBLEM ON NONMATCHING GRIDS

Subdiffusion in a nonconvex polygon

Finite Element Methods for Maxwell Equations

Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

PIECEWISE LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ARE NOT LOCALIZED

arxiv: v3 [math.na] 8 Sep 2015

THE PATCH RECOVERY FOR FINITE ELEMENT APPROXIMATION OF ELASTICITY PROBLEMS UNDER QUADRILATERAL MESHES. Zhong-Ci Shi and Xuejun Xu.

MULTIGRID METHODS FOR MAXWELL S EQUATIONS

An interpolation operator for H 1 functions on general quadrilateral and hexahedral meshes with hanging nodes

A Mixed Nonconforming Finite Element for Linear Elasticity

weak Galerkin, finite element methods, interior estimates, second-order elliptic

Multigrid Methods for Maxwell s Equations

Local pointwise a posteriori gradient error bounds for the Stokes equations. Stig Larsson. Heraklion, September 19, 2011 Joint work with A.

PREPRINT 2010:23. A nonconforming rotated Q 1 approximation on tetrahedra PETER HANSBO

A posteriori error estimation in the FEM

Mortar estimates independent of number of subdomains

Find (u,p;λ), with u 0 and λ R, such that u + p = λu in Ω, (2.1) div u = 0 in Ω, u = 0 on Γ.

Maximum norm estimates for energy-corrected finite element method

Adaptive Finite Element Methods Lecture Notes Winter Term 2017/18. R. Verfürth. Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Solution of Non-Homogeneous Dirichlet Problems with FEM

Technische Universität Graz

Goal. Robust A Posteriori Error Estimates for Stabilized Finite Element Discretizations of Non-Stationary Convection-Diffusion Problems.

FEniCS Course. Lecture 8: A posteriori error estimates and adaptivity. Contributors André Massing Marie Rognes

arxiv: v2 [math.na] 16 Nov 2016

A DELTA-REGULARIZATION FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR A DOUBLE CURL PROBLEM WITH DIVERGENCE-FREE CONSTRAINT

Finite Element Methods for Fourth Order Variational Inequalities

c 2005 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

ENERGY NORM A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

Graded Mesh Refinement and Error Estimates of Higher Order for DGFE-solutions of Elliptic Boundary Value Problems in Polygons

Remarks on the analysis of finite element methods on a Shishkin mesh: are Scott-Zhang interpolants applicable?

Preconditioned space-time boundary element methods for the heat equation

A NOTE ON THE LADYŽENSKAJA-BABUŠKA-BREZZI CONDITION

New class of finite element methods: weak Galerkin methods

A Posteriori Estimates for Cost Functionals of Optimal Control Problems

1 Discretizing BVP with Finite Element Methods.

LECTURE # 0 BASIC NOTATIONS AND CONCEPTS IN THE THEORY OF PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS (PDES)

POLYNOMIAL PRESERVING GRADIENT RECOVERY AND A POSTERIORI ESTIMATE FOR BILINEAR ELEMENT ON IRREGULAR QUADRILATERALS

Fact Sheet Functional Analysis

A posteriori estimators for obstacle problems by the hypercircle method

Trefftz-discontinuous Galerkin methods for time-harmonic wave problems

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

Multigrid Methods for Saddle Point Problems

A-posteriori error estimates for optimal control problems with state and control constraints

Three remarks on anisotropic finite elements

Robust error estimates for regularization and discretization of bang-bang control problems

From Completing the Squares and Orthogonal Projection to Finite Element Methods

A Least-Squares Finite Element Approximation for the Compressible Stokes Equations

Adaptive tree approximation with finite elements

Chapter 3 Conforming Finite Element Methods 3.1 Foundations Ritz-Galerkin Method

An A Posteriori Error Estimate for Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

Weak Formulation of Elliptic BVP s

A posteriori error estimation of approximate boundary fluxes

Math 660-Lecture 15: Finite element spaces (I)

An a posteriori error estimate and a Comparison Theorem for the nonconforming P 1 element

arxiv: v1 [math.na] 8 Feb 2018

ELLIPTIC RECONSTRUCTION AND A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS

Geometric Multigrid Methods

SUPERCONVERGENCE PROPERTIES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS DISCRETIZED BY PIECEWISE LINEAR AND DISCONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS

u = f in Ω, u = q on Γ. (1.2)

IMPROVED LEAST-SQUARES ERROR ESTIMATES FOR SCALAR HYPERBOLIC PROBLEMS, 1

A BIVARIATE SPLINE METHOD FOR SECOND ORDER ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS IN NON-DIVERGENCE FORM

BUBBLE STABILIZED DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN METHOD FOR STOKES PROBLEM

A non-standard Finite Element Method based on boundary integral operators

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Theory, Computation and Applications

Partially Penalized Immersed Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Interface Problems

A u + b u + cu = f in Ω, (1.1)

PRECONDITIONING OF DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN METHODS FOR SECOND ORDER ELLIPTIC PROBLEMS. A Dissertation VESELIN ASENOV DOBREV

Transcription:

A posteriori error estimation for elliptic problems Praveen. C praveen@math.tifrbng.res.in Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Center for Applicable Mathematics Bangalore 560065 http://math.tifrbng.res.in March 4, 013 1 / 0

Partial differential equation u = f in Ω u = 0 on Ω Weak formulation Find u H0 1 (Ω) such that a(u, v) = l(v) v H0 1 (Ω) (1) where a(u, v) = u v, l(v) = fv Ω Ω Galerkin method Find u h V h H 1 0 (Ω) such that a(u h, v h ) = l(v h ) v h V h () / 0

Example: u = 1 π tan 1 (y/x) ndofs=11 ndofs=441 3 / 0

A priori error estimate If we take V h = X 1 h = {v C 0 ( Ω) : v P 1 } and if u H (Ω) then we have the error estimate u u h 1,Ω C ( T h h u, ) 1 Ch u,ω This is not precisely computable since it depends on the exact solution u. We can estimate the element seminorms u, by using the numerical solution u h and some finite difference approximation, etc. Then h u h, indicates the error from element. Identify elements with largest error indicator and refine them. Or equi-distribute the error: given some error tolerance ɛ, let N = number of elements. Then refine all elements for which h u h, > ɛ CN 4 / 0

L a posteriori error estimate Let Ω be a convex polygonal domain and let u and u h be the solutions to (1) and (), respectively. Then u u h 0,Ω C ( T h h η ) 1 where η = h f + u h 0, + 1 h 1 n u h 0, \Γ (3) where n u h denotes the jump across in the normal derivative n u h. Proof: We use the duality argument which was also used to prove the L a-priori error estimate. Let e h = u h u be the error and let ϕ be the solution of the adjoint problem, ϕ = e h in Ω and ϕ = 0 on Γ: find ϕ H0 1 (Ω) such that a(v, ϕ) = e h v v H0 1 (Ω) Note that ϕ H (Ω) and ϕ,ω C e h 0,Ω. Ω 5 / 0

Taking v = e h in adjoint problem, the error can be written as e h 0,Ω = a(e h, ϕ) = a(u h u, ϕ) = a(u h, ϕ) (f, ϕ) = = = [( u h, ϕ) (f, ϕ) ] [( u h f, ϕ) + (n u h, ϕ) ] [( u h f, ϕ) + 1 ( n u h, ϕ) \Γ ] where the factor of 1 appears in the second term since each interior edge belongs to two elements. Since a(e h, v h ) = a(u h u, v h ) = 0 v h V h we can replace ϕ with ϕ I h ϕ to obtain e h 0,Ω = a(e h, ϕ I h ϕ) [ u h + f ϕ I h ϕ + 1 ] n u h \Γ ϕ I h ϕ \Γ 6 / 0

We have the interpolation error estimates ϕ I h ϕ Ch ϕ, ϕ I h ϕ Ch 3 ϕ, (4) which leads to the desired result since e h 0,Ω C [h u h + f ϕ, + 1 ] h 3 n u h \Γ ϕ, = C h η ϕ, ( C h η ) 1 ( ϕ, ) 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 1 = C h η ϕ,ω C h η ϕ,ω ( ) 1 C h η e h 0,Ω 7 / 0

To show the second inequality in (4) we will show that for any w H 1 () ( ) w C h 1 w + h 1 w 1, which then leads to ( ) ϕ I h ϕ C h 1 ϕ I hϕ + h 1 ϕ I h ϕ 1, ( ) C h 1 h ϕ, + h 1 h ϕ, Ch 3 ϕ, To prove (5) we map any element to the reference element ˆ by the affine transformaton x = F (ˆx) = B ˆx + b ; then (5) w h d 1 ŵ ˆ, d =, 3 (6) From the trace theorem, we have continuity of trace operator which means ŵ ˆ C ŵ 1, ˆ C( ŵ ˆ + ŵ 1, ˆ) (7) 8 / 0

Now we convert the norms to the original element using a previous result ŵ m, ˆ C B m det B 1 w m, w H m () Note that det B = > Cρ d Cκ d h d where we use the fact that we have a regular triangulation. Moreover recall that B h ˆρ Hence for m = 0, 1 we get ŵ ˆ Ch d w and ŵ 1, ˆ Ch1 d w 1, (8) Combining (6), (7), (8) we obtain ( ) w Ch d 1 ( ŵ ˆ + ŵ 1, ˆ) C h 1 w + h 1 w 1, 9 / 0

Clement interpolation The standard interpolation requires function to be in H. For functions which are only in H 1, we have to use other types of interpolation operations. Let T h be a shape-regular triangulation of Ω. Given a node x j, let ω j = { T h : x j }, ω = {ω j : x j } The number of triangles that belong to ω j and ω is bounded. Since T h is shape-regular, the area of ω can be bounded as ω c(κ)h For v H 1 we cannot evaluate the functions pointwise since they may not be continuous. We will use a local averaging procedure to associate a function value to each node of the mesh. Let X 1 h denote the space of piecewise P 1 functions, and let {ϕ j } j be the standard hat basis functions. 10 / 0

Clement interpolation Clement interpolation Let T h be a shape-regular triangulation of Ω. Then there exists a linear mapping C h : H 1 (Ω) X 1 h such that for all T h v C h v m, Ch 1 m v 1, ω m = 0, 1 v C h v 0, Ch 1 v 1, ω Proof: Given a nodal point x j, let Q j : L (ω j ) P 0 be the L projection onto the constant functions, i.e., Q j v = v = Q j v = 1 ω j ω j ω j It follows by applying Bramble-Hilbert lemma that ω j v v Q j v 0,ωj Ch j v 1,ωj (9) 11 / 0

Clement interpolation where h j is the diameter of ω j. In order to cope with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on Γ D Ω we can modify the operator and set { 0 if x j Γ D Q j v = Q j v otherwise Using a proof similar to Poincare-Friedrichs inequality we obtain v Q j v = v 0,ωj Ch j v 1,ωj if x j Γ D 0,ωj Next we define the Clement interpolation as C h v = j ( Q j v)ϕ j X 1 h The shape functions {ϕ j } j form a partition of unity. Hence v C h v = j vϕ j j ( Q j v)ϕ j = j (v ( Q j v))ϕ j 1 / 0

Clement interpolation and hence v C h v 0, j v ( Q j v))ϕ j 0, j v Q j v 0,ωj C j h j v 1,ωj Ch v 1, ω The case of m = 1 is left for further studies. Error norm on : We make use of inequality (5). ( ) v C h v 0, C h 1 v C hv 0, + h 1 v C h v 1, ( ) C h 1 h v 1, ω + h 1 v 1, ω = Ch 1 v 1, ω 13 / 0

We next derive an error estimate for the Galerkin solution assuming that the true solution u H 1 0 (Ω) only. H 1 semi-norm error estimate Let T h be a shape-regular triangulation. Then the Galerkin solution satisfies the a-posteriori error estimate u u h 1,Ω C where η is given by equation (3). ( T h η Proof: We start by using a duality argument to compute the semi-norm of the error ( (u u h ), w) Ω L(w) u u h 1,Ω = sup = sup w H0 1(Ω) w 1,Ω w H0 1(Ω) w 1,Ω ) 1 14 / 0

Then L(w) = ( (u u h ), w) Ω = (f, w) Ω ( u h, w) Ω = [(f, w) ( u h, w) ] = = [( u h + f, w) 1 ( n u h, w) \Γ ] [ (f, w) ( u h, w) (n u h, w) \Γ ] The Galerkin solution satisfies a(u u h, w h ) = ( (u u h ), w h ) Ω = 0 w h V h 15 / 0

Let us take w h = C h w so that L(w) = L(w C h w) [( u h + f, w C h w) 1 ] ( n u h, w C h w) \Γ = C = C [ u h + f w C h w + 1 n u h \Γ w C h w ] [h u h + f w 1, ω + 1 h 1 n u h \Γ w 1, ω ] [h u h + f + 1 h 1 n u h \Γ ] w 1, ω = C η w 1, ω C ( η ) 1 ( ) 1 ( w 1, ω C η ) 1 w 1,Ω which yields the desired result. 16 / 0

Galerkin method with P 1 functions In this case u h 0 so that η = h f + 1 h 1 n u h Compute η for each T h Sort the values {η } in decreasing order. Select some fraction of elements with highest value of η and flag them for division Divide each element (into two or four); divide neighbouring elements to avoid hanging nodes. If dividing into two elements, select largest edge of and divide it. 17 / 0

Example: u = 1 π tan 1 (y/x) 18 / 0

Example: u = 1 π tan 1 (y/x) ndofs=131 ndofs=31 19 / 0

Example: u = 1 π tan 1 (y/x) 10 1 Uniform Adaptive 10 L error 10 3 10 4 10 10 3 10 4 10 5 ndof Uniform refinement shows convergence rate 1.0 0 / 0