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

Similar documents
Axioms of Adaptivity

Axioms of Adaptivity (AoA) in Lecture 2 (sufficient for optimal convergence rates)

Axioms of Adaptivity (AoA) in Lecture 1 (sufficient for optimal convergence rates)

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

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

A posteriori error estimation for elliptic problems

Unified A Posteriori Error Control for all Nonstandard Finite Elements 1

Five Recent Trends in Computational PDEs

R T (u H )v + (2.1) J S (u H )v v V, T (2.2) (2.3) H S J S (u H ) 2 L 2 (S). S T

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

Traces and Duality Lemma

Adaptive Finite Element Methods Lecture 1: A Posteriori Error Estimation

Adaptive Boundary Element Methods Part 2: ABEM. Dirk Praetorius

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

A posteriori error estimates for non conforming approximation of eigenvalue problems

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

Institut für Mathematik

Numerische Mathematik

Medius analysis and comparison results for first-order finite element methods in linear elasticity

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

Adaptive approximation of eigenproblems: multiple eigenvalues and clusters

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

Scientific Computing I

Numerische Mathematik

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

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

Adaptive Boundary Element Methods Part 1: Newest Vertex Bisection. Dirk Praetorius

Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations

A Framework for Analyzing and Constructing Hierarchical-Type A Posteriori Error Estimators

Rate optimal adaptive FEM with inexact solver for strongly monotone operators

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

INTRODUCTION TO FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

Maximum-norm a posteriori estimates for discontinuous Galerkin methods

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

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

1 Discretizing BVP with Finite Element Methods.

Thomas Apel 1, Ariel L. Lombardi 2 and Max Winkler 1

arxiv: v2 [math.na] 23 Apr 2016

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

A Posteriori Estimates for Cost Functionals of Optimal Control Problems

ETNA Kent State University

arxiv: v1 [math.na] 19 Dec 2017

Nonconforming FEM for the obstacle problem

c 2007 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

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

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

AMS subject classifications. Primary, 65N15, 65N30, 76D07; Secondary, 35B45, 35J50

An Iterative Substructuring Method for Mortar Nonconforming Discretization of a Fourth-Order Elliptic Problem in two dimensions

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

NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS FOR THE ARNOLD WINTHER MIXED FINITE ELEMENTS FOR THE STOKES PROBLEM

arxiv: v3 [math.na] 8 Sep 2015

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

Nodal O(h 4 )-superconvergence of piecewise trilinear FE approximations

Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations

A Multigrid Method for Two Dimensional Maxwell Interface Problems

A Posteriori Error Estimation Techniques for Finite Element Methods. Zhiqiang Cai Purdue University

MULTIGRID PRECONDITIONING IN H(div) ON NON-CONVEX POLYGONS* Dedicated to Professor Jim Douglas, Jr. on the occasion of his seventieth birthday.

Lehrstuhl Informatik V. Lehrstuhl Informatik V. 1. solve weak form of PDE to reduce regularity properties. Lehrstuhl Informatik V

Hamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik

Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

Chapter 1: The Finite Element Method

ENERGY NORM A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

Finite Elements. Colin Cotter. January 18, Colin Cotter FEM

Multigrid Methods for Elliptic Obstacle Problems on 2D Bisection Grids

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

Multilevel Preconditioning of Graph-Laplacians: Polynomial Approximation of the Pivot Blocks Inverses

Maximum norm estimates for energy-corrected finite element method

Finite Elements. Colin Cotter. January 15, Colin Cotter FEM

Algorithms for Scientific Computing

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

A note on accurate and efficient higher order Galerkin time stepping schemes for the nonstationary Stokes equations

SECOND ORDER TIME DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN METHOD FOR NONLINEAR CONVECTION-DIFFUSION PROBLEMS

A posteriori error estimates for Maxwell Equations

A Finite Element Method Using Singular Functions for Poisson Equations: Mixed Boundary Conditions

A Mixed Nonconforming Finite Element for Linear Elasticity

ALL FIRST-ORDER AVERAGING TECHNIQUES FOR A POSTERIORI FINITE ELEMENT ERROR CONTROL ON UNSTRUCTURED GRIDS ARE EFFICIENT AND RELIABLE

A posteriori error estimates applied to flow in a channel with corners

EXPLICIT ERROR ESTIMATES FOR COURANT, CROUZEIX-RAVIART AND RAVIART-THOMAS FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

EXPLICIT ERROR ESTIMATES FOR COURANT, CROUZEIX-RAVIART AND RAVIART-THOMAS FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

ELLIPTIC RECONSTRUCTION AND A POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS

Analysis of an Adaptive Finite Element Method for Recovering the Robin Coefficient

PARTITION OF UNITY FOR THE STOKES PROBLEM ON NONMATCHING GRIDS

FINAL EXAM Math 25 Temple-F06

An optimal adaptive finite element method. Rob Stevenson Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics Faculty of Science University of Amsterdam

Key words. a posteriori error estimators, quasi-orthogonality, adaptive mesh refinement, error and oscillation reduction estimates, optimal meshes.

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

Preconditioned space-time boundary element methods for the heat equation

Adaptive tree approximation with finite elements

A Balancing Algorithm for Mortar Methods

Discrete Maximum Principle for a 1D Problem with Piecewise-Constant Coefficients Solved by hp-fem

An Adaptive Mixed Finite Element Method using the Lagrange Multiplier Technique

ROBUST RESIDUAL-BASED A POSTERIORI ARNOLD-WINTHER MIXED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS IN ELASTICITY

An A Posteriori Error Estimate for Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

Introduction. J.M. Burgers Center Graduate Course CFD I January Least-Squares Spectral Element Methods

A brief introduction to finite element methods

A posteriori estimators for obstacle problems by the hypercircle method

THE BEST L 2 NORM ERROR ESTIMATE OF LOWER ORDER FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR THE FOURTH ORDER PROBLEM *

Axioms of adaptivity. ASC Report No. 38/2013. C. Carstensen, M. Feischl, M. Page, D. Praetorius

Basic Principles of Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for PDEs

Lecture Note III: Least-Squares Method

Transcription:

Axioms of Adaptivity (AoA) in Lecture 3 (sufficient for optimal convergence rates) Carsten Carstensen Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 2018 International Graduate Summer School on Frontiers of Applied and Computational Mathematics Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 1 / 36

Contents L3 1 Jump Control 2 Proof of (A1) 3 Proof of (A2) 4 Quasiinterpolation 5 Proof of (A3) 6 Proof of (A4) 7 Outlook at Applications Poisson model problem (PMP) in 2D lowest-order conforming FEM w.r.t. triangles in shape regular triangulations lead to R = T \ T, Λ 3 = 0 Open-Access Reference: C-Feischl-Page-Praetorius: AoA. Comp Math Appl 67 (2014) 1195 1253 Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 2 / 36

Jump Control Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 3 / 36

Λ 1 Comes from Discrete Jump Control Given g P k (T ) for T T, set { (g T+ ) E (g T ) E for E E(Ω) with E = T + T, [g] E = g E for E E( Ω) E(K). Lemma (discrete jump control) For all k N 0 there exists 0 < Λ 1 < s.t., for all g P k (T ) and T T, K 1/2 [g] E 2 L 2 (E) Λ 1 g L 2 (Ω). K T E E(K) Proof with discrete trace inequality on E E(K) for K T K 1/4 g K L 2 (E) C dtr g L 2 (K). Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 4 / 36

Compute Λ 1 in Proof of Discrete Jump Control The contributions to LHS of interior edge E = T + T with edge-patch ω E := int(t + T ) read ( T + 1/2 + T 1/2 ) [g] E 2 L 2 (E) ( T + 1/2 + T 1/2 ) ( g T+ L 2 (E) + g T L 2 (E) ( Cdtr 2 ( T + 1/2 + T 1/2 ) T + 1/4 g L 2 (T + ) + T 1/4 g L 2 (T ) Cdtr 2 ( T + 1/2 + T 1/2 )( T + 1/2 + T 1/2 ) g 2 }{{} L 2 (ω E ) Csr 2 C 2 dtr C2 sr g 2 L 2 (ω E ). The same final result holds for boundary edge E = T + Ω with ω E := int(t + ). The sum of all those edges proves the discrete jump control lemma with Λ 1 := 3 C dtr C sr. ) 2 ) 2 Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 5 / 36

Proof of (A1) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 6 / 36

Proof of (A1) with δ(t, ˆT ) = P P L2 (Ω) Recall that ˆT is an admissible refinement of T with respective discrete flux approximations P := û h P 0 ( ˆT ; R 2 ) and P := u h P 0 (T ; R 2 ). Given any T T ˆT, set η(t ) := for α T := T 1/2 f L 2 (T ) and β 2 T := T 1/2 E E(T ) αt 2 + β2 T and η(t ) := [P ] E 2 L 2 (E) resp. βt 2 := T 1/2 α 2 T + β T 2 E E(T ) [ P ] E 2 L 2 (E) Convention for conforming P 1 FEM: Jumps on boundary edges vanish. Then, η(t ˆT ) := T T ˆT η2 (T ) and η(t ˆT ) := T T ˆT η 2 (T ) are Euclid norms of vectors in R J for J := 2 T ˆT. Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 7 / 36

Proof of (A1) with δ(t, ˆT ) = P P L2 (Ω) The reversed triangle inequality in R J bounds the LHS in (A1), namely η( ˆT, T ˆT ) η(t, T ˆT ) = η(t ˆT ) η(t ˆT ), from above by η(t ) η(t ) 2 = α 2T + β 2 T αt 2 + 2 β2 T }{{} T T ˆT T T ˆT β T β T 2 (triangle ineq. in R 2 ) The reversed triangle inequality in R 3 and L 2 (E) show β T β T = T 1/4 [ P ] E 2 L 2 (E) T 1/4 E E(T ) E E(T ) [ P P ] E 2 L 2 (E). Altogether, η(t ˆT ) η(t ˆT ) E E(T ) [P ] E 2 L 2 (E) T 1/2 [ P P ] E 2 L 2 (E) T T ˆT E E(T ) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 8 / 36

Proof of (A1) with δ(t, ˆT ) = P P L2 (Ω) Recall η(t ˆT ) η(t ˆT ) T T ˆT T 1/2 E E(T ) [ P P ] E 2 L 2 (E) and apply the discrete jump control lemma for each component of the piecewise polynomial vector field P P P 0 ( ˆT ; R 2 ). This concludes the proof of (A1). Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 9 / 36

Proof of (A2) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 10 / 36

Proof of (A2) with ϱ 2 = 2 1/4 and Λ 2 = Λ 1 Recall that ˆT is an admissible refinement of T with respective discrete fluxes P P 0 ( ˆT ; R 2 ) and P P 0 (T ; R 2 ) as before. Given any refined triangle T ˆT (K) := {T ˆT : T K} for K T \ ˆT, recall α T := T 1/2 f L 2 (T ) and βt 2 := T 1/2 [P ] F 2 L 2 (F ) resp. β2 T := T 1/2 [ P ] F 2 L 2 (F ) F E(T ) LHS in (A2) reads η( ˆT \ T ) = K T \ ˆT T ˆT (K) K T \ ˆT T ˆT (K) (αt 2 + βt 2 ) + } {{ } (i) F E(T ) (α 2 T + β 2 T ) (triangle ineq. in l2 ) K T \ ˆT T ˆT (K) ( β T β T ) 2. } {{ } (ii) Observe [P ] F = 0 for F Ê(int(K)) and T K /2 for T ˆT (K). Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 11 / 36

Proof of (A2) with ϱ 2 = 2 1/4 and Λ 2 = Λ 1 Since [P ] F = 0 for F Ê(int(K)) and T K /2 for T ˆT (K) and K T \ ˆT, (i) := (αt 2 + βt 2 ) K 2 f 2 L 2 (K) + K 1/2 [P ] E 2 2 L 2 (E). T ˆT (K) E E(K) Reversed triangle inequalities in the second term prove β T β T = T 1/4 [ P ] F 2 L 2 (F ) [P ] F 2 L 2 (F ) F E(T ) F E(T ) T 1/4 [ P P ] F 2 and so lead to L 2 (F ) (ii) := K T \ ˆT T ˆT (K) F E(T ) (β T β T ) 2 K T \ ˆT T ˆT (K) T 1/2 [ P P ] F 2 L 2 (F ) F E(T ) This and the discrete jump control lemma conclude the proof. Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 12 / 36

Quasiinterpolation Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 13 / 36

Discrete Quasiinterpolation Notation := L 2 (Ω) and := := H 1 (Ω) Theorem (approximation and stability). 0 < C = C(min T) < T T ˆT T (T ) ˆV S 1 0( ˆT ) V S 1 0(T ) V = ˆV on ˆT T and h 1 T ( ˆV V ) + V C ˆV. Proof. Define V S0 1 (T ) by linear interpolation of nodal values ˆV (z) if z N (Ω) N (T ) for some T T ˆT V (z) := ω z ˆV dx/ ωz if z N (Ω) and T (z) ˆT (z) = 0 if z N ( Ω) Since V and ˆV are continuous at any vertex of any T T ˆT, the first case applies in the definition of V (z) = ˆV (z) for all z N (T ). This proves V = ˆV on T T ˆT. Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 14 / 36

Given any node z N in the coarse triangulation, let ω z = int( T (z)) denotes its patch of all triangles T (z) in T with vertex z. Lemma A. There exists C(z) diam(ω z ) with ˆV V (z) L 2 (ω z) C(z) ˆV L 2 (ω z). Proof4Case II: z N (Ω) and T (z) ˆT (z) = with V (z) = ω zˆv dx/ ωz. Then, the assertion is a Poincare inequality with C(z) = C P (ω z ). Proof4Case III: z N ( Ω) and V (z) = 0. Since ˆV V vanishes along the two edges along Ω of the open boundary patch ω z with vertex z. Hence the assertion is indeed a Friedrichs inequality with C(z) = C F (ω z ). Proof4Case I: T T (z) ˆT (z) for z N (Ω) and V = ˆV on T. This leads to homogenous Dirichlet boundary conditions on the two edges of the open patch ω z \ T with vertex z and ˆV V allows for a Friedrichs inequality (on the open patch as in Case III for a patch on the boundary) ˆV V L 2 (ω z) C F (ω z \ T ) ( ˆV V ) L 2 (ω z) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 15 / 36

However, this is not the claim! The idea is to realize that LHS= w L 2 (ω z) for w := ˆV ˆV (z), which is affine on T and vanishes at vertex z. Hence (as an other inverse estimate or discrete Friedrichs inequality) w L 2 (T ) C df (T ) w L 2 (T ) C df (T ) w L 2 (ω z) E.g. the integral mean w T := T w dx/ T of w := ˆV ˆV (z) on T satisfies w T 2 T C df (T ) 2 w 2 L 2 (ω z) Compare with integral mean w := w dx/ ω z and compute ω z w w T 2 T = T 1 (w w)dx 2 w w 2 L 2 (T ) T w w 2 L 2 (ω C z) P (ω z ) 2 w 2 L 2 (ω z) Consequently, w w T 2 ω z ω z / T }{{} C sr C P (ω z ) 2 w 2 L 2 (ω z) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 16 / 36

The orthogonality of 1 and w w in L 2 (ω z ) is followed by Poincare s and geometric-arithmetic mean inequality to verify w 2 L 2 (ω z) = w 2 ω z + w w 2 L 2 (ω z) 2 w w T 2 ω z + 2 w T 2 ω z + C P (ω z ) 2 w 2 L 2 (ω z) The above estimates for w T 2 T and w w T 2 T lead to w 2 L 2 (ω z) ( 2 ω z / T (C df (T ) + C P (ω z ) 2 ) + C P (ω z ) 2) }{{} =:C(z) 2 2 w L 2 (ω z) W.r.t. triangulation T and nodal basis functions ϕ 1, ϕ 2, ϕ 3 in S 1 (T ), let T = conv{p 1, P 2, P 3 } T and Ω T := ω 1 ω 2 ω 3 for ω j := {ϕ j > 0} Lemma B. There exists C(T ) h T with ˆV V L 2 (T ) C(T ) ˆV L 2 (Ω T ). Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 17 / 36

Proof of Lemma B. N.B. V = 3 j=1 V (P j) ϕ j and 1 = 3 j=1 ϕ j on T Hence ˆV V 2 L 2 (T ) = ( T T 3 ( ˆV V (P j )) ϕ j 2 dx j=1 3 ( ˆV 3 V (P j ) 2 )( j=1 3 ˆV V (P j ) 2 L 2 (T ) j=1 k=1 ϕ 2 k }{{} 1 3 C(P j ) 2 ˆV 2 L 2 (ω j ) (Lemma A) j=1 3 C(P j ) 2 ) ˆV 2 L 2 (Ω T ) j=1 } {{ } C 2 (T ) ) dx (CS in R 3 ) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 18 / 36

Lemma C. There exists C > 0 (which solely depends on min T) with V L 2 (T ) C ˆV L 2 (Ω T ). Proof. N.B. V = 3 j=1 V (P j) ϕ j and 0 = 3 j=1 ϕ j on T Hence 3 V 2 L 2 (T ) = ( ˆV V (P j )) ϕ j 2 dx T T ( j=1 3 ˆV V (P j ) 2 )( j=1 C(min T ) 2 h 2 T... (as before)... 3 j=1 3 ϕ k 2 k=1 }{{} C(min T ) 2 /h 2 T C(min T ) 2 h 2 T C2 (T ) }{{} ˆV =:C 2 T ˆV V (P j ) 2 dx 2 L 2 (Ω T ) ) dx (CS in R 6 ) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 19 / 36

Finish of proof of theorem: h 1 T ( ˆV V ) L 2 (Ω) + V ˆV. Lemma B and C show for some generic constant C > 0 hidden in the notation and any T T that h 1 T ( ˆV V ) 2 L 2 (T ) + V 2 L 2 (T ) ˆV 2 L 2 (Ω T ) Notation Ω T := z N (T ) ω x is the interior of the set of T plus one layer of triangles of T around. The sum over all those inequalities for T T concludes the proof because the overlap of (Ω T ) T T is bounded by generic constant C(min T). Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 20 / 36

Proof of (A3) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 21 / 36

Proof of (A3) Given discrete solution U (resp. Û) of CFEM in PMP w.r.t. T (resp. refinement ˆT ), set ê := Û U S1 0 ( ˆT ) with quasiinterpolant e S 1 0 (T ) as above. Then, v := ê e satisfies δ 2 (T, ˆT ) = ê 2 = a(ê, v) = F (v) a(u, v) }{{} Res(v) A piecewise integration by parts with a careful algebra with the jump terms for appropriate signs shows a(u, v) = v [ U/ ν E ] E ds E E(Ω) E E(Ω) E E 1 v 2 L 2 (E) E E(Ω) E [ U/ ν E ] E 2 L 2 (E) Recall trace inequality E 1 v 2 L 2 (E) C tr(h 2 ω E v 2 L 2 (ω E ) + v 2 L 2 (ω E ) ) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 22 / 36

to estimate E E(Ω) E 1 v 2 L 2 (E) Finish of Proof of (A3) E E(Ω) (h 2 ω E v 2 L 2 (ω E ) + v 2 L 2 (ω E ) ) h 1 T v 2 L 2 (Ω) + v 2 ê 2 with the approximation and stability of the quasiinterpolation. A weighted Cauchy inequality followed by approximation property of quasiinterpolation show F (v) h T f L 2 (Ω) h 1 T v L 2 (Ω) C h T f L 2 (Ω) ê All this plus shape-regularity (e.g. T h 2 T h2 E ) lead to reliability δ 2 (T, ˆT ) = ê 2 Λ 3 η(t ) ê The extra fact v = 0 on T ˆT and a careful inspection on disappearing integrals in the revisited analysis prove the asserted upper bound in (A3), δ(t, ˆT ) Λ 3 η(t, T \ ˆT ) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 23 / 36

Proof of (A4) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 24 / 36

(A4) follows from (A3) for CFEM with Λ 4 = Λ 2 3 The pairwise Galerkin orthogonality in the CFEM allows for the (modified) LHS in (A4) the representation l+m k=l δ 2 (T k, T k+1 ) = δ 2 (T l, T l+m+1 ) for m N 0. (A3) shows that this is bounded from above by Λ 2 3 η2 l. Since m N 0 is arbitrary, this implies k=l l+m δ 2 (T k, T k+1 ) = lim δ 2 (T k, T k+1 ) Λ 2 m 3ηl 2. k=l Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 25 / 36

Outlook at Applications Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 26 / 36

Elastoplasticity Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 27 / 36

An Optimal Adaptive FEM for Elastoplasticity [Carstensen-Schröder-Wiedemann: An optimal adaptive FEM for elastoplasticity, Numer. Math. (2015)] Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 28 / 36

Computational Benchmark in Elastoplasticity Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 29 / 36

Convergence History in Computational Benchmark Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 30 / 36

Affine Obstacle Problem Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 31 / 36

An Optimal Adaptive FEM for an Obstacle Problem Reference: An optimal Adaptive FEN for an obstacle problem. Carstensen-Hu Jun, CMAM [Online Since 13/06/2015] Given RHS F H 1 (Ω) (dual to H0 1 (Ω) w.r.t. energy scalar product a) and affine obstacle χ P 1 (Ω) s.t. K := {v H 1 0 (Ω) : χ v a.e. in Ω}, the obstacle problem allows for a unique weak solution u K to F (v u) a(u, v u) for all v K. Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 32 / 36

An Optimal Adaptive FEM for an Obstacle Problem Reference: An optimal Adaptive FEN for an obstacle problem. Carstensen-Hu Jun, CMAM [Online Since 13/06/2015] Conforming discretization leads to discrete solution u l and a posteriori error control via for any interior edge E. η 2 E := h E [ u l ] E ν E 2 L 2 (E) + Osc2 (f, ω E ) Theorem (Carstensen-Hu 2015). AFEM leads to optimal convergence rates. Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 33 / 36

Eigenvalue Problems Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 34 / 36

SIAM Student Paper Prize 2013 for Joscha Gedicke Eigenvalue Problem u = λu in Ω and u = 0 on Ω Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 35 / 36

Optimal Computational Complexity - 3D [Carstensen-Gedicke (2013) SINUM] 10 2 10 1 10 0 l 2, l 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 1 P1 l adaptive 2/3 2 P1 l adaptive 1 P2 adaptive 4/9 l 2 P2 l adaptive 1 P3 l adaptive 2 1 P3 l adaptive P4 adaptive l 2 P4 adaptive l 4/3 P4 1 l uniform 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 CPU time (sec) Carsten Carstensen (HU Berlin) Axioms of Adaptivity Lecture 3 Shanghai 2018 36 / 36