Advertisement

Numerische Mathematik

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Inhomogeneous Dirichlet conditions in a priori and a posteriori finite element error analysis

  • S. Bartels
  • C. CarstensenEmail author
  • G. Dolzmann
Article

Summary.

The numerical solution of elliptic boundary value problems with finite element methods requires the approximation of given Dirichlet data u D by functions u D,h in the trace space of a finite element space on Γ D . In this paper, quantitative a priori and a posteriori estimates are presented for two choices of u D,h , namely the nodal interpolation and the orthogonal projection in L2 D ) onto the trace space. Two corresponding extension operators allow for an estimate of the boundary data approximation in global H1 and L2 a priori and a posteriori error estimates. The results imply that the orthogonal projection leads to better estimates in the sense that the influence of the approximation error on the estimates is of higher order than for the nodal interpolation.

Keywords

Finite Element Method Orthogonal Projection Posteriori Error Element Space Elliptic Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ainsworth, M., Oden, J.T.: A posteriori error estimation in finite element analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babuška, I., Strouboulis, T.: The finite element method and its reliability. Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartels, S., A posteriori error analysis of time-dependent Ginzurg-Landau type equations. Preprint, 2004, Electronic version available at http://www.math.umd.edu/sba/publications/sba_gl.pdf
  4. 4.
    Bartels, S., Carstensen, C.: Each averaging technique yields reliable a posteriori error control in FEM on unstructured grids. Part II: higher order FEM. Math. Comp. 71, 971–994 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartels, S., Carstensen, C.: Averaging techniques yield reliable a posteriori finite element error control for obstacle problems. Numer. Math. (accepted) (2004). Preprint available at http://www.numerik.uni-kiel.de/reports/2000/01-2.html
  6. 6.
    Bramble, J.H., Pasciak, J.E., Steinbach, O.: On the stability of the L2-projection in H1(Ω). Math. Comp. 71, 147–156 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carstensen, C.: Quasi interpolation and a posteriori error analysis in finite element method. M2AN 33, 1187–1202 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carstensen, C.: Merging the Bramble-Pasciak-Steinbach and the Crouzeix-Thomée Criterion for H1 stability of the L2 projection onto finite element spaces. Math. Comp. 71, 157–163 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carstensen, C.: An adaptive mesh refining algorithm allowing for an H1 stable L2 projection onto Courant finite element spaces. Constr. Appr. 4, 549–564 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carstensen, C., Bartels, S.: Each averaging technique yields reliable a posteriori error control in FEM on unstructured grids Part I: low order conforming, nonconforming, and mixed FEM. Math. Comp. 71, 945–969 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carstensen, C., Bartels, S., Jansche, S.: A posteriori error estimates for nonconforming finite element methods. Numer. Math. 92, 233–256 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carstensen, C., Verfürth, R.: Edge residuals dominate a posteriori error estimates for low order finite element methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 36, 1571–1587 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ciarlet, P.G.: The finite element method for elliptic problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crouzeix, M., Thomée, V.: The stability in Lp and W1,p of the L2-projection onto finite element function spaces. Math. Comp. 48, 521–532 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dörfler, W., Rumpf, M.: An Adaptive Strategy for Elliptic Problems Including A Posteriori Controlled Boundary Approximation. Math. Comp. 67, 1361–1382 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eriksson, K., Estep, D., Hansbo, P., Johnson, C.: Introduction to adaptive methods for differential equations. Acta Numerica 1995, pp. 105–158Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott, R.: Interpolated boundary conditions in the finite element method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 12, 404–427 (1975)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verfürth, R.: A review of a posteriori error estimation and adaptive mesh-refinement techniques. Wiley-Teubner, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics DepartmentUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations