Global and local pointwise error estimates for finite element approximations to the Stokes problem on convex polyhedra
Niklas Behringer, Dmitriy Leykekhman, Boris Vexler

TL;DR
This paper establishes new stability and localized error estimates for finite element solutions to the Stokes problem on convex polyhedra, extending known results to unstructured meshes in 2D and 3D.
Contribution
It introduces novel stability and localization results for finite element approximations of the Stokes system on unstructured meshes, using regularized Green's functions.
Findings
New stability estimates in $W^{1,inity}$ and $L^{inity}$ norms.
Localized error estimates for finite element solutions on convex polyhedra.
Extension of stability results to unstructured meshes in 2D and 3D.
Abstract
The main goal of the paper is to show new stability and localization results for the finite element solution of the Stokes system in and norms under standard assumptions on the finite element spaces on quasi-uniform meshes in two and three dimensions. Although interior error estimates are well-developed for the elliptic problem, they appear to be new for the Stokes system on unstructured meshes. To obtain these results we extend previously known stability estimates for the Stokes system using regularized Green's functions.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
\newsiamremark
remarkRemark \newsiamremarkhypothesisHypothesis
\newsiamthmclaimClaim \newsiamthmassumptionAssumption
\headersStokes global and local pointwise error estimatesN. Behringer, D. Leykekhman and B. Vexler
\externaldocumentex_supplement
Global and local pointwise error estimates for finite element approximations to the Stokes problem on convex polyhedra††thanks: \fundingThe first author gratefully acknowledges support from the International Research Training Group IGDK, funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). The second author was supported by the NSF grant DMS-1913133.
Niklas Behringer Chair of Optimal Control, Center for Mathematical Sciences, Technical University of Munich, 85748 Garching by Munich, Germany (, ). [email protected]
Dmitriy Leykekhman Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269 (). [email protected]
Boris Vexler22footnotemark: 2
Abstract
The main goal of the paper is to show new stability and localization results for the finite element solution of the Stokes system in and norms under standard assumptions on the finite element spaces on quasi-uniform meshes in two and three dimensions. Although interior error estimates are well-developed for the elliptic problem, they appear to be new for the Stokes system on unstructured meshes. To obtain these results we extend previously known stability estimates for the Stokes system using regularized Green’s functions.
keywords:
maximum norm, finite element, best approximation, error estimates, Stokes.
{AMS}
65N30, 65N15.
1 Introduction
In the introduction and the major part of the paper we focus on the three-dimensional setting. However, our results are valid in two dimensions and we comment on that at the end of the paper. We assume is a convex polyhedral domain, on which we consider the following Stokes problem:
[TABLE]
with be such that or respectively and . The solution is unique up to a constant, we choose , i.e. has zero mean.
This paper is the first paper in our program to establish best approximation results for the fully discrete approximations for transient Stokes systems in and norms. Similar program was carried out by the last two authors for the parabolic problems in a series of papers [15, 16, 17, 18]. The approach there relies on stability of the Ritz projection, resolvent estimates in and norms and discrete maximum parabolic regularity. We intend to derive corresponding results for the Stokes systems. In this paper, we give a new stability result of the form
[TABLE]
In a second step we prove respective local versions of Eq. 2 and of the corresponding results from [12, 13]. These estimates take the form
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where for , , , and depends on .
Global pointwise error estimates for the Stokes system similarly to Eq. 2 have been thoroughly discussed in recent years. The three-dimensional case was first discussed in [2, 11] under smoothness assumptions on the domain or limiting angles in non-smooth domains. Later on, using new results on convex polyhedral domains, e.g. from [19, 21, 26], the limitations on the domain were weakened in [12, 13]. The bounds were first discussed for in [8] and for dimensions greater than one and smooth domains in [2] but with the norm appearing on the right-hand side and using weighted norms, which is not sufficient for the applications we have in mind.
Interior (or local) maximum norm estimates are well-known for elliptic equations, see, e.g., [14, 28], and are particularly useful when dealing with scenarios where the solution has low regularity close to the boundary or on local subsets of , e.g. for optimal control problems with pointwise state constraints, sparse optimal control and pointwise best approximation results for the time dependent problem, see [5, 16, 24]. For the Stokes system, the only pointwise interior error estimates are available on regular translation invariant meshes in two dimensions [22]. To our best knowledge, the interior results presented here are novel and have not been discussed before.
Let us quickly comment on one property specific to the Stokes problem. Regularity results typically appear as velocity-pressure pair where the pressure has lower norm, e.g. and . This pair can then be estimated as in [12, 13]. Thus, we only supply estimates for in the max-norm estimate since bounds for would add another layer of complexity and to our knowledge have no apparent advantages.
In three dimensions our proof of the local estimates is essentially based on and weighted estimates of regularized Green’s functions. For it is enough to slightly adapt the results from [13] for the Green’s function of velocity and pressure.
In the case of , we prove the respective estimates using the local energy estimates given in [13] and estimates for Green’s matrix of the Stokes system, see, e.g., [21]. Furthermore, another important element of the proof for is a pointwise estimate of the Ritz projection [15]. Using the stability result proven there, we are able to carry out our proof without the need to discuss the behavior of the discrete solution along finite element boundaries.
In two dimensions our approach for the local estimates follows along the lines of the three-dimensional case. Here the estimates for the regularized Green’s functions and the Ritz projection are all known from the literature, see [8, 11, 27]. The results from [8, 11] are derived using an alternative technique, the global weighted approach as introduced in [23, 25]. For the global weighted approach we need similar but slightly different assumptions on the finite element space than for the local energy estimate technique in the three-dimensional setting. Thus, to keep the notation simple, we deal with the two dimensional case in a separate section at the end of this work.
Several important applications from Navier-Stokes free surface flows to the numerical analysis of finite-element schemes for non-Newtonian flows have already been noted in [11]. As mentioned, interior estimates play a role specifically for optimal control problems with state constraints, e.g. in [6]. Stokes optimal control problems are also closely related to subproblems in optimal control of Navier-Stokes systems where for Newton iterations one has to solve linearized optimal control subproblems in each step, see, e.g. [4].
An outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we introduce notation and state assumptions on the approximation operators as well as the main results of our analysis. Section 3 gives key arguments for the proof of the main theorems for the velocity and reduces them to the estimates of regularized Green’s functions, which are derived in Section 4. Based on these results, we deal with bounds for the pressure in Section 5. Finally, in the last section we show the local estimates in two dimensions.
2 Assumptions and main results in three dimensions
2.1 Notation
We now introduce basic notation. Throughout this paper, we use the usual notation for the Lebesgue, Sobolev and Hölder spaces. These spaces can be extended in a straightforward manner to vector functions, with the same notation but with the following modification for the norm in the non-Hilbert case: if , we then set
[TABLE]
where denotes the Euclidean vector norm for vectors or the Frobenius norm for tensors.
We denote by the inner product and specify subdomains by subscripts in the case they are not equal to the whole domain. In the analysis, we also make use of the weight for which , and will be defined later on.
2.2 Basic estimates
Next we want to recall some results for solutions to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c. Existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the problem on bounded domains are shown in [10]. For the proof of the respective regularity estimates on convex polyhedral domains we refer to [3, 20]. For there holds
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for , are elements of and it holds
[TABLE]
2.2.1 Local stability estimates
In the following analysis we will also require the following localized stability estimates.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let , for and . We denote the difference of the radii by . Furthermore let be the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c. Then, it holds
[TABLE]
Proof 2.2**.**
Let be a smooth cut-off function with on and on such that
[TABLE]
We consider and . Then, we get the following weak formulation for
[TABLE]
where we used Eq. 1a and in addition we get . Thus, and solve the following boundary value problem in the weak sense
[TABLE]
By construction we have that is convex and vanishing on the boundary . Thus, according to [3, Thm. 9.20] and the fact that is zero on , the regularity result Eq. 7 holds in this situation as well, and we obtain
[TABLE]
where we used Eq. 9. We get
[TABLE]
Using a covering argument (see Corollary 2.11 for details), we may show the following corollary.
Corollary 2.3**.**
Let with , then holds for the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c that
[TABLE]
2.2.2 Green’s matrix estimate
We also need estimates of the respective Green’s matrix for the Stokes problem. For this, refer to [21, Section 11.5]. Let be vanishing in a neighborhood of the edges and The matrix is the Green’s matrix for problem Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c if the vector functions and are solutions of the problem
[TABLE]
and satisfies the condition
[TABLE]
For the existence and uniqueness of such a matrix, we again refer to [21]. If now and the uniquely determined solutions of the Stokes system given by satisfy the condition
[TABLE]
then the components of admit the representations
[TABLE]
To apply this result to our case, we need to find a suitable such that Eq. 24 holds. We show this is possible for . By [21, Theorem 11.3.2] this is fulfilled for data in . For our use cases in later sections we consider at least continuous right-hand sides, so this is applicable.
Without loss of generality, we assume . Thus, since the mean value of is zero, there exist non-empty open sets such that on and on . We then can choose such that on and on , and thus vanishing close to the edges of . Through suitable scaling on and , we get
[TABLE]
and hence we can conclude that Eq. 24 holds for . Finally, since by assumption , we normalize with respect to the norm to complete the construction. This shows that we can apply the results for the Green’s matrix to . Furthermore, we can also use the available results from [13].
We state estimates for the Green’s matrix specific to convex polyhedral domains as it can be found in [21, Theorem 11.5.5, Corollary 11.5.6].
Proposition 2.4**.**
Let be a convex polyhedral type domain. Then, the elements of the matrix satisfy the estimate
[TABLE]
for and . Furthermore, the following Hölder type estimate holds in this setting
[TABLE]
2.3 Finite element approximation
Let be a regular, quasi-uniform family of triangulations of , made of closed tetrahedra , where is the global mesh-size and the space of functions with zero-mean value. Let and be a pair of finite element spaces satisfying a uniform discrete inf-sup condition,
[TABLE]
with a constant independent of . The respective discrete solution associated with the velocity-pressure pair is defined as the pair that solves the weak form of Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c given by the bilinear form which is defined as
[TABLE]
and the equation
[TABLE]
2.4 Assumptions
Next, we make assumptions on the finite element spaces. We assume, there exist approximation operators and as in [13], i.e. and fulfill the following properties. Let , with , for some fixed sufficiently large and . For and with corresponding to without the zero-mean value constraint, we assume the following assumptions hold. {assumption}[Stability of in ]
There exists a constant independent of such that
[TABLE]
{assumption}
[Preservation of discrete divergence for ]
It holds
[TABLE]
{assumption}
[Inverse Inequality]
There is a constant independent of such that
[TABLE]
{assumption}
[ approximation]
For any and any exists independent of , and such that
[TABLE]
In the following, denotes the -th standard basis vector in . {assumption}[Approximation in the Hölder spaces]
For \vec{v}\in\big{(}C^{1,\alpha}(\Omega)\cap H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)\big{)}^{3} and , it holds
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
{assumption}
[Super-Approximation I]
Let and a smooth cut-off function such that on and
[TABLE]
where . We assume
[TABLE]
For , we assume
[TABLE]
One common example of a finite element space satisfying the above assumptions are the Taylor-Hood finite elements of order greater or equal than three. For more details on these spaces and the respective approximation operators, we refer to [1, 11, 12].
Remark 2.5**.**
*Here we restrict ourselves to Taylor-Hood finite element spaces since in the following arguments we use results for finite element approximations of elliptic problems. These results are available for the usual space of Lagrange finite elements and can possibly be extended to other elements used for the Stokes problem, like e.g. the “mini” element, which also fulfills the assumptions above. *
Next, we state a well-known energy error estimate for an approximation of the Stokes system. For details on the proof, see e.g. [9, Proposition 4.14].
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let solve Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c and be its finite element approximation defined by Eq. 31. Under the assumptions above, there exists a constant independent of such that,
[TABLE]
2.5 Local energy estimates
An important tool in our analysis are the local energy estimates from [13, Thm. 2].
Proposition 2.7**.**
Suppose and satisfy
[TABLE]
for the bilinear form given in Eq. 30. Then, there exists a constant such that for every pair of sets such that (for some fixed constant sufficiently large) the following bound holds for every
[TABLE]
2.6 Main results
In the following statements, the constant is independent of , and , but may depend on the parameter related to the largest interior angle of . We start with the error estimates. The global stability result
[TABLE]
on convex polyhedral domains was established in [13] (see also [12]). Here, we establish a localized version of it. In the our results denotes a ball of radius centered at .
Theorem 2.8** (Interior estimate for the velocity and estimate for the pressure).**
Let the assumptions of Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 hold. Put , , (with large enough), . If is the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c, and is the solution to Eq. 31, then
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance of from . *
Next we state similar results for the velocity in norm.
Theorem 2.9** (Global estimate for the velocity).**
Under the assumptions of Section 2.3 and Section 2.4, for the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c and the solution to Eq. 31, it holds
[TABLE]
The additional logarithmic factor in front of the velocity is probably not optimal, it appears when applying a pointwise estimate for the Ritz projection. We also get the respective local estimates.
Theorem 2.10** (Interior error estimate for the velocity).**
Under the assumptions of Section 2.3 and Section 2.4, with , , (with large enough), and for the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c and the solution to Eq. 31, it holds
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance of from . *
Based on these theorems, we can derive the following corollaries for general subdomains with .
Corollary 2.11** (Interior estimate for the velocity and estimate for the pressure).**
Under the assumptions of Section 2.3 and Section 2.4, with and for the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c and the solution to Eq. 31, we have
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance to from . *
Proof 2.12**.**
We can construct a covering of , with such that
- (1)
. 2. (2)
* for .* 3. (3)
Let where . There exists a fixed number such that each point is contained in at most sets from .
Now, since and (2), we have that . We can apply Theorem 2.8 to the pairs :
[TABLE]
*where we used (3) in the third line. *
Similarly, the following corollary follows with .
Corollary 2.13** (Interior error estimate for the velocity).**
Under the assumptions of Section 2.3 and Section 2.4, with and for the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c and the solution to Eq. 31, we have
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance to from . *
Remark 2.14**.**
We may also write the results above in terms of best approximation estimates. For example for global bounds:
[TABLE]
*Naturally, this also applies for other results in this section. *
Remark 2.15**.**
*Using the weighted discrete - condition from [7] it is possible to extend the the global estimate to the compressible case. However, for the applications we have in mind the incompressible Stokes system is sufficient. *
3 Proof of main theorems
In this section, we reduce the proofs of Theorems 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 for the velocity to certain estimates for the regularized Green’s functions. The estimates for the pressure are given in Section 5. To introduce the regularized Green’s function we first need to introduce a regularized delta function. In addition we will require a certain weight function.
3.1 Regularized delta function and the weight function
Let such that for any the ball contains . Furthermore, let be an arbitrary point of and . In the following sections, we estimate , for arbitrary and .
Next we introduce the parameters for the weight function . Parameter is a constant that is chosen to be large enough. Furthermore, let be suitably small such that (see also [11, Remark 1.4]). In the following, we use a regularized Green’s function to express the norm such that the problem is reduced to estimating the discretization error of the Green’s function in the norm as in [12, 13]. To that end, we define a smooth delta function , which satisfies for every :
[TABLE]
The construction of such a can be found in [29, Appendix]. We recall some properties for and . By construction, it follows
[TABLE]
Next, we provide an estimate for the norm of the product of and .
Lemma 3.1**.**
There exists a constant such that for
[TABLE]
Proof 3.2**.**
*This follows from the fact that is only non-zero on , is bounded on by and Eq. 57. *
The general strategy for proving the local results is to partition the domain into the local part and its complement. Then, we use regularized Green’s function estimates in the norm on the local part and weighted norm on the complement. For the error estimates we additionally require a certain estimate for the Ritz projection.
3.2 Estimates for
The proof of local error estimates is similar to the global case [12, 13] and is obtained by introducing a regularized Green’s function.
3.2.1 Regularized Green’s function
For the error estimates, we define the regularized Green’s function as the solution to
[TABLE]
We also define the finite element approximation by
[TABLE]
3.2.2 Auxiliary results for and
To show our main interior result, we need the regularized Green’s function error estimate in norm which is given in [13, Lemma 5.2].
Lemma 3.3**.**
There exists a constant independent of and such that
[TABLE]
In addition, we also need the following weighted estimate, the proof of which follows by a minor modification of the proof in [13, Lemma 5.2].
Corollary 3.4**.**
There exists a constant independent of and such that
[TABLE]
The details on the proof of this corollary are given in Section 4 where we introduce the respective dyadic decomposition.
Remark 3.5**.**
*The results in Lemma 3.3 and Corollary 3.4 also follow in a straightforward manner from the arguments in [12] but are not available in our setting since we make different assumptions on the finite element space which we find similar but not directly compatible to the assumptions made in [12]. *
3.2.3 Localization
We reduce the proof to estimates involving and .
Proof 3.6** (Proof of Theorem 2.8 (velocity)).**
Using the regularized Green’s function as defined in Eqs. 60a, 60b, and 60c, for , we have as in [13]
[TABLE]
To treat we use integration by parts, the Hölder estimate, and (57)
[TABLE]
Since this proves the result for .
For the other two terms, we split the domain into and . Using that on and the Hölder estimates, we have
[TABLE]
*The result then follows from Lemma 3.3 and Corollary 3.4. *
3.3 Estimates for
For this case we use the stability of the Ritz projection in norm as shown in [15].
3.3.1 Regularized Green’s function
This time we define the approximate Green’s function as the solution to
[TABLE]
Here, is as before the -th standard basis vector in . We also define the finite element approximation by
[TABLE]
Compared to Eqs. 60a, 60b, and 60c, the right-hand side of Eq. 71a is less singular, which means we can expect faster convergence.
3.3.2 Auxiliary results for , and the Ritz projection
Similarly to the case, we need certain error estimates for the discretization of the regularized Green’s function . However in contrast to , we could not locate such results in the literature. For our purpose we need to establish the following results, for which the proofs are given in Section 4.
Lemma 3.7**.**
Let be the solution of Eqs. 71a, 71b, and 71c and the respective discrete solution. Then, it holds
[TABLE]
The weighted norm estimate follows essentially from Lemma 3.7.
Corollary 3.8**.**
Let be the solution of Eqs. 71a, 71b, and 71c and the respective discrete solution. Then, it holds
[TABLE]
As mentioned before, the proof is based on local and global max-norm estimates for the Ritz projection of which is given by
[TABLE]
We state the slightly modified results [15, Theorem 12] and [14, Theorem 4.4] for the convenience of the reader.
Proposition 3.9**.**
There exists a constant independent of such that, for the solution of the Laplace equation, it holds that
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.10**.**
Let , where . Then, for the solution of the Laplace equation, there exists a constant , independent of , such that
[TABLE]
*where . *
We will also require the following result.
Lemma 3.11**.**
Let be the solution of Eqs. 71a, 71b, and 71c. Then, it holds
[TABLE]
The respective proof is given in Section 4.
3.3.3 Max-norm estimate
With these tools at hand, we can go ahead with the proof of the theorem.
Proof 3.12** (Proof of Theorem 2.9 (velocity)).**
We make the ansatz for
[TABLE]
Since we have and hence by using
[TABLE]
We can use an inverse estimate on . Thus,
[TABLE]
For the second term, we get by estimating the divergence by the gradient:
[TABLE]
Now we can apply our auxiliary result for . Thus, we have by Lemma 3.7 combined with Proposition 3.9 and Lemma 3.11
[TABLE]
3.3.4 Localization
The approach for the localization in the case is similar to but different in the sense that we again use the stability of in norm.
Proof 3.13** (Proof of Theorem 2.10 (velocity)).**
We only consider . As before, using Eqs. 72, 30, and 31 gives
[TABLE]
Using the properties of the Ritz projection we first consider
[TABLE]
Next, we apply Eq. 56 and split the domain into and
[TABLE]
Using the properties of and applying an inverse inequality gives
[TABLE]
To estimate in the and norm we can apply Proposition 3.10 and an estimate for to see together with Lemma 3.7, Corollary 3.8 and Lemma 3.11 that
[TABLE]
Using similar arguments we get for
[TABLE]
*which concludes the proof of the theorem. *
4 Estimates for the regularized Green’s function
In this section we prove Corollaries 3.4 and 3.8 and Lemmas 3.11 and 3.7 which we need in order to establish the main theorems.
4.1 Dyadic decomposition
For the proof of our results, we use a dyadic decomposition of the domain , which we will introduce next. Without loss of generality, we assume that the diameter of is less than . We put and consider the decomposition , where
[TABLE]
is a sufficiently large constant to be chosen later and is an integer such that
[TABLE]
We keep track of the explicit dependence on . Furthermore, we consider the following enlargements of
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
There exists a constant independent of such that for any ,
[TABLE]
Proof 4.2**.**
Due to Eq. 25 and Proposition 2.4, it holds for
[TABLE]
where we used that . Similarly, without loss of generality, considering the -th component, , we have for
[TABLE]
*The estimate for is similar. *
As an immediate application of the above result and Corollary 2.3 we obtain the following result.
Corollary 4.3**.**
[TABLE]
Proof 4.4**.**
By Corollary 2.3, the Hölder estimates, and Lemma 4.1 (with instead of ), we obtain
[TABLE]
4.2 interpolation estimate for
Theorem 4.5**.**
For the solution of Eqs. 71a, 71b, and 71c, it holds
[TABLE]
Proof 4.6**.**
Using the dyadic decomposition and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
[TABLE]
We apply Section 2.4 and the regularity as in Eq. 7, which give
[TABLE]
This implies for the first term in Eq. 114
[TABLE]
For the second term, by the approximation estimate Section 2.4 and Corollary 4.3 it follows
[TABLE]
Hence, we can conclude
[TABLE]
*From Eq. 104, we see that scales logarithmically in and thus get the claimed result. *
4.3 Local duality argument
In the following theorem, we again consider the sub-domains from the dyadic decomposition in a duality argument. For the error
[TABLE]
we can make a duality argument using the dual problem
[TABLE]
Theorem 4.7**.**
For the solution of Eqs. 71a, 71b, and 71c and it holds
[TABLE]
Proof 4.8**.**
By using Eq. 120 and that and are divergence free for , the bilinear form from Eq. 30 and Section 2.4, it follows
[TABLE]
For , we split the term
[TABLE]
We then can estimate using Section 2.4 for
[TABLE]
Now we use [13, (5.11)] and Section 2.4 to see that
[TABLE]
Analogously, we split
[TABLE]
Then again, we use approximation results and Corollary 4.3, to see
[TABLE]
For the second term, we apply again the Hölder estimate, Theorem 4.5 and [13, (5.11)]
[TABLE]
It remains to deal with , we split again
[TABLE]
Analogously to before, we estimate
[TABLE]
The estimate for is given in [13, p. 17]. Summing up, we have
[TABLE]
*Now, because due to Eq. 104 and , it holds . Thus, we arrive at the conclusion of the theorem. *
4.4 estimate and weighted estimate
Now we can proceed with the proof of Lemma 3.7.
Proof 4.9** (Proof of Lemma 3.7).**
We again use the dyadic decomposition and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to see
[TABLE]
Applying Proposition 2.6, Section 2.4, regularity as stated in Eq. 7 and Eq. 57 leads to the following estimate for the first term
[TABLE]
In the following, we consider the second term for which we want to apply the local energy estimate from Proposition 2.7:
[TABLE]
For the first two terms we use approximation results and Corollary 4.3, to obtain
[TABLE]
The contribution to the sum is given by
[TABLE]
where due to Eq. 104 we see that . Similarly, we see
[TABLE]
For , it holds
[TABLE]
Thus, we get by summing up Eq. 154 and using Eq. 155 with that . To summarize our results so far, we define , and substitute into Eq. 150
[TABLE]
Next, we apply Theorem 4.7 to the last term
[TABLE]
We expand the sum over the last three terms so that we get
[TABLE]
Now we can again use Eq. 155 on the last two summands to arrive at
[TABLE]
where we also used that and . Now for the second and last term, we easily see
[TABLE]
where the last term is again bounded by . Combined, this means we have for constant and
[TABLE]
We make and by choosing small and big enough. After kicking back the sum to the left-hand side this leads to
[TABLE]
We now treat as a constant. Finally substituting this into Eq. 145
[TABLE]
*and choosing large enough such that , we get the result. *
As a corollary to the theorem, we get the respective estimate for weighted norms.
Proof 4.10** (Proof of Corollary 3.8).**
This corollary directly follows using the same techniques as above and the fact on . We start by splitting the left-hand side according to the dyadic decomposition
[TABLE]
Without loss of generality, we can assume . After going through the same steps as in the proof of Lemma 3.7, particularly Eq. 145, we end up with the right-hand side of Eq. 163
[TABLE]
*Now applying Lemma 3.7 to estimate we arrive at the result. *
Similarly we can conclude the following result.
Proof 4.11** (Proof of Corollary 3.4).**
Again using the fact on , we start by splitting the left-hand side according to the dyadic decomposition
[TABLE]
As before, we can assume . This is equal to the term introduced by the dyadic decomposition in the proof of [13]. Again, following the same steps as there, we get
[TABLE]
*where depends the constants introduced in the proof of [13]. Nonetheless, applying Lemma 3.3 to estimate we arrive at the result. *
4.5 Proof of Lemma 3.11
Proof 4.12** (Proof of Lemma 3.11).**
We use the dyadic decomposition introduced in the beginning of Section 4 to get the following estimate due to on ( on )
[TABLE]
The first summand is bounded by a constant due to Eq. 7 and Eq. 57. By Corollary 4.3 we see that and as a result
[TABLE]
*This proves the result for the weighted case and by the estimate. *
5 Estimates for the pressure
We now consider estimates for the remaining component of our Stokes system, the pressure. Similarly to before, let denote a smooth delta function on the tetrahedron where the maximum for the pressure is attained. We may define the following regularized Green’s function to deal with the pressure
[TABLE]
By construction we have . This also allows us to apply similar arguments as in [12, 13], only with different bounds for the appearing terms.
The global case has already been discussed in [12, 13], thus we now focus on localized estimates. As before, we need some auxiliary results which we state now.
Proposition 5.1**.**
[TABLE]
A proof of this is given in [13, Lemma 5.4]. The following corollary follows by the same arguments as Corollary 3.4 and Corollary 3.8.
Corollary 5.2**.**
[TABLE]
Proof 5.3** (Proof of Theorem 2.8 (pressure)).**
For this we again split the domain into and and only consider .
The pointwise estimate of can be expanded in the following way
[TABLE]
The the last two terms we may estimate using Proposition 2.6
[TABLE]
By assumption is bounded on . For the first term, we can see by Section 2.4 that
[TABLE]
For , we get the following estimate
[TABLE]
*To arrive at this bound, we used Lemma 3.1 and that
. Using Eq. 31 and Eq. 170 we see for *
[TABLE]
Here again we use that is bounded by on and choose appropriately such that we can apply Theorem 2.8 for the velocity, e.g. with . Finally stability for follows by Proposition 2.6 and we get
[TABLE]
6 Assumptions and main results in two dimensions
In this section we give a short derivation of the respective local estimates in and for the two dimensional case. Note that the localization arguments made in the three dimensional case are independent of the dimension apart from the auxiliary estimates. For two dimensions the respective estimates of the regularized Green’s functions and the Ritz projection are all available from the literature albeit under slightly different assumptions on the finite element space.
In the following, we state the required assumptions, the necessary auxiliary results, their references and finally the local estimates. From now on let , a convex polygonal domain, and consider the two dimensional analogs , , and their finite element discretization as well as the respective two dimensional function and finite element spaces. The basic results and requirements for the continuous problem from Sections 2.2 and 2.3 still apply, as referenced in these sections.
As stated in [11], assume that we have approximation operators
and which fulfill the two dimensional versions of Sections 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, and 2.4 and in addition the following super-approximation properties. {assumption}[Super-Approximation II]
Let , and , then
[TABLE]
and if and , then
[TABLE]
As in the three dimensional case, this holds for Taylor-Hood finite element spaces, see, e.g. [11]. Apart from this, we need to adapt the estimates for and . For the two dimensional versions we get
[TABLE]
Let and denote the two dimensional regularized Green’s functions, defined as in Section 3 but for two dimensions. Then we get the following convergence estimates for their discrete counterparts. The estimates needed when deriving velocity estimates,
[TABLE]
follow from [11, Theorem 8.1] using Eq. 58 and similarly for the pressure estimates where we need
[TABLE]
which can be found in [11, p. 328]. In the case for the velocity we get
[TABLE]
from [8, Theorem 4.1, Proof of Theorem 4.2]. The equivalent version of Lemma 3.11 is given by [8, Lemma 3.1]. Finally the estimate for the Ritz projection in two dimensions
[TABLE]
is given in [27]. Note that the local maximum norm estimates for from [14] hold as well in two dimensions. Thus, using the same techniques as in Section 3 we get the following theorems for .
Theorem 6.1** (Interior estimate for the velocity and estimate for the pressure).**
Under the assumptions above, with and if is the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c, then it holds for the solution to Eq. 31:
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance to from . *
Theorem 6.2** (Interior error estimate for the velocity).**
Under the assumptions above, with and if is the solution to Eqs. 1a, 1b, and 1c, then it holds for the solution to Eq. 31:
[TABLE]
*Here, the constant depends on the distance to from . *
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. N. Arnold and X. Liu , Local error estimates for finite element discretizations of the Stokes equations , RAIRO Modél. Math. Anal. Numér., 29 (1995), pp. 367–389, https://doi.org/10.1051/m 2an/1995290303671 . · doi ↗
- 2[2] H. Chen , Pointwise error estimates for finite element solutions of the Stokes problem , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44 (2006), pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1137/S 0036142903438100 . · doi ↗
- 3[3] M. Dauge , Stationary Stokes and Navier-Stokes systems on two- or three-dimensional domains with corners. I. Linearized equations , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 20 (1989), pp. 74–97.
- 4[4] J. C. de los Reyes and K. Kunisch , A semi-smooth Newton method for control constrained boundary optimal control of the Navier-Stokes equations , Nonlinear Anal., 62 (2005), pp. 1289–1316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.04.035 . · doi ↗
- 5[5] J. C. de los Reyes, C. Meyer, and B. Vexler , Finite element error analysis for state-constrained optimal control of the Stokes equations , Control Cybernet., 37 (2008), pp. 251–284.
- 6[6] J. C. de los Reyes, C. Meyer, and B. Vexler , Finite element error analysis for state-constrained optimal control of the Stokes equations , Control Cybernet., 37 (2008), pp. 251–284.
- 7[7] R. G. Durán and M. A. Muschietti , An explicit right inverse of the divergence operator which is continuous in weighted norms , Studia Math., 148 (2001), pp. 207–219.
- 8[8] R. G. Durán, R. H. Nochetto, and J. P. Wang , Sharp maximum norm error estimates for finite element approximations of the Stokes problem in 2 2 2 -D , Math. Comp., 51 (1988), pp. 491–506, https://doi.org/10.2307/2008760 . · doi ↗
