Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Proof. Let v h S h . For convenience, set u h v h = w h . Then by the uniform
continuity and (1.2)-(1.3), we have
α
2
u h
v h
a h (u h
v h ,u h
v h )
=
a h (u h
v h ,w h )
= a(u v h ,w h ) +
[ a(v h ,w h ) a h (v h ,w h ) ]
+
[ a h (u h ,w h ) a(u, w h ) ]
= a(u v h ,w h ) +
[ a(v h ,w h ) a h (v h ,w h ) ]
[
, w h h ,w h
] .
Dividing through by
u h v h = w h
and using the continuity of a ,weget
u h v h C
.
u v h + | a(v h ,w h ) a h (v h ,w h ) |
+ | h ,w h , w h |
w h
w h
Since v h is an arbitrary element in S h , the assertion follows from the triangle
inequality
u h
v h +
u h
v h
u
u
.
Dropping the conformity condition S h V has several consequences. In
particular, the H m -norm might not be defined for all elements in S h , and we have
to use mesh-dependent norms
· h as discussed, e.g., in II.6.1.
We assume that the bilinear forms a h are defined for functions in V and in
S h , and that we have ellipticity and continuity:
a h (v, v)
2
h
α v
for all v S h ,
( 1 . 4 )
|
a h (u, v)
|≤
C
u
h
v
h
for all u
V
+
S h ,v
S h ,
with some positive constants α and C independent of h .
The following lemma is often denoted as the second lemma of Strang.
1.2 Lemma of Berger, Scott, and Strang.
Under the above hypotheses there
exists a constant c independent of h such that
u u h h c inf
.
| a h (u, w h ) h ,w h |
w h h
v h S h u v h h + sup
w h S h
Remark. The first term is called the approximation error , and the second one is
called the consistency error .
Proof. Let v h S h . From (1.4) we see that
α u h v h
2
h
a h (u h v h ,u h v h )
= a h (u v h ,u h v h ) +
[
h ,u h v h a h (u, u h v h ) ] .
Dividing by
u h v h h and replacing u h v h by w h ,wehave
u h v h h α 1 C u v h h + | a h (u, w h ) h ,w h |
.
w h h
The assertion now follows from the triangle inequality as in the proof of the first
lemma.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search