Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
3.10 Lemma.
Assume that (3.34) and (3.35) hold. Let the mapping
div
h
:
X
h
→
L
2
() satisfy
div
v
−
div
h
v
0
≤
ch
v
2
(
3
.
38
)
and
div
h
v
=
0
div
v
=
0
.
if
(
3
.
39
)
Then we have
div
h
u
0
≤
c
h
f
0
λ
div
u
−
(
3
.
40
)
where u denotes the solution of the variational problem (3.31).
Proof.
By (3.34) and (3.37) there exists
w
∈
H
2
()
∩
H
0
()
such that div
w
=
div
u
and
div
u
1
≤
cλ
−
1
w
2
≤
c
f
0
.
From (3.38) we conclude that
div
h
w
0
≤
c
h
w
2
≤
c
hλ
−
1
div
w
−
f
0
.
(
3
.
41
)
Since div
(w
−
u)
=
0, it follows from (3.39) that div
h
(w
−
u)
=
0 and div
u
−
div
h
u
=
div
w
−
div
h
w
. Combining this with (3.41) we obtain
div
h
w
0
≤
c
hλ
−
1
div
u
−
div
h
u
0
=
div
w
−
f
0
,
and the proof is complete.
Now the discretization error for nearly incompressible material is estimated
by the lemma of Berger, Scott, and Strang [1972]. The term for the approximation
error is the crucial one. Let
P
h
:
H
2
()
∩
H
0
()
→
X
h
be an interpolation
operator. It is sufficient to make provision for
v
−
P
h
v
1
+
div
v
−
div
h
v
0
≤
ch
v
2
,
div
h
v
h
0
≤
c
v
h
1
for all
v
h
∈
X
h
.
These inequalities are clear for the model problem in (3.35). Moreover, let the
mesh-dependent bilinear form
a
h
be defined by polarization of the quadratic form
in (3.36). It follows from Lemma 3.10 that we have for
w
h
∈
X
h
a
h
(u
−
P
h
u, w
h
)
=
µ(ε(u
−
P
h
u), ε(w
h
))
0
+
λ(
div
u
−
div
h
u,
div
h
w
h
)
0
,
≤
ch
u
2
w
h
1
+
ch
u
2
div
h
w
h
0
,
≤
ch
u
2
w
h
1
.
Finally, the consistency error is given by the term
λ(
div
u
−
div
h
u,
div
h
w
h
)
0
.An
estimate of this expression is already included in the formula above, and we have
a robust estimate with a constant
c
that does not depend on
λ
, namely
u
−
u
h
1
≤
ch
f
0
.
The following theory describes why uniform convergence cannot be expected
with some discretizations. The equation (3.29) is included as a special case if we
set
X
:
=
H
1
()
,
a
0
(u, v)
:
div
v
, and
t
2
=
2
µ(ε(u), ε(v))
0
,
Bv
:
=
=
1
/λ
.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search