Estimation of interpolation error constants for the P0 and P1 triangular finite elements

Dedicated to Professor Ivo Babuška on the occasion of his 80th birthday.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2006.10.029Get rights and content

Abstract

We give some fundamental results on the error constants for the piecewise constant interpolation function and the piecewise linear one over triangles. For the piecewise linear one, we mainly analyze the conforming case, but some results are also given for the non-conforming case. We obtain explicit relations for the dependence of such error constants on the geometric parameters of triangles. In particular, we explicitly determine the Babuška–Aziz constant, which plays an essential role in the interpolation error estimation of the linear triangular finite element. The equation for determination is the transcendental equation λ+tanλ=0, so that the solution can be numerically obtained with desired accuracy and verification. Such highly accurate approximate values for the constant as well as estimates for other constants can be widely used for a priori and a posteriori error estimations in adaptive computation and numerical verification of finite element solutions.

Introduction

The finite element method (FEM) is now recognized as a powerful numerical method for wide classes of partial differential equations. Furthermore, it also has sound mathematical bases such as highly refined a priori and a posteriori error estimations. In the classical a priori error analysis of FEM, interpolation errors are essential to derive final error estimates in various norms [7], [8], [10]. In this process, there appear various positive constants besides the standard discretization parameter h and norms (or seminorms), but it has been very difficult to evaluate such constants explicitly. For quantitative purposes, however, it is indispensable to evaluate or bound them as accurately as possible, because sharper estimates enable more efficient finite element computations. Thus such an evaluation has become progressively more important and has been attempted especially for adaptive finite element calculations based on a posteriori error estimation as well as for numerical verification by FEM [1], [4], [6], [7], [13]. In this paper, we will give a few fundamental results on some interpolation error constants of the most popular triangular finite elements.

More specifically, we give some results on interpolation error constants appearing in the popular P0 (piecewise constant) and P1 (piecewise linear) triangular finite elements. Essentially based on the paper of Babuška–Aziz [3], we analyze the dependence of several constants on the geometric parameters such as the maximum interior angle and the minimum edge length of the triangle more quantitatively than in [3]. Above all, the optimal constant (C3 in this paper) appearing in the H1 error estimate of the P1 interpolation of H2 functions over the unit isosceles right triangle is essential and frequently used, and it was explicitly evaluated firstly by Natterer [15]. On the other hand, this constant was shown to be closely related to the one (C1 in this paper) presented and effectively used by Babuška and Aziz in conjunction with the maximum angle condition [3]. More precisely, C1 gives an upper bound quite close to the optimal constant C3, and the relation between C3 and C1 was further discussed in [13], [18]. Thus a precise estimation of these two constants is very important, and a number of researchers have given bounds for these using various approximation methods including numerical verification, see e.g. [2], [11], [13], [14], [15], [18]. Furthermore, these constants can be also used to evaluate the interpolation error constants for the non-conforming P1 triangle, as will be mentioned later.

For the above Babuška–Aziz constant, we have succeeded in obtaining a value which is in a sense optimal. That is, by analytically solving an eigenvalue problem for the 2D Laplacian over the above triangular domain, we can show that the constant can be easily determined from a solution of the simple transcendental equation λ+tanλ=0. In this process, we use the reflection (or symmetry) method [16]. Moreover, we have obtained some explicit relations for the dependence of such constants on the geometry of triangles. It is to be emphasized that they are consistent with the maximum angle condition in [3]. We also give some numerical and analytical results, the latter of which are based on asymptotic analysis. Thus our results can be effectively used in the quantitative a priori and a posteriori error estimations of the finite element solutions by the P1 triangular element and also those based on the P0 triangle. The former is of course the most classical and fundamental one, but still in frequent use, while the latter appears in some mixed finite element methods and implicitly on various occasions. Moreover, we also give some results for the non-conforming P1 triangle by using the constants for the P0 and the conforming P1 triangles.

Section snippets

Preliminaries

Let h, α and θ be positive constants such thath>0,0<α1,π3cos-1α2θ<π.Then we define the triangle Tα,θ,h by OAB with three vertices O(0,0), A(h,0) and B(αhcosθ,αhsinθ). From (1), AB is shown to be the edge of maximum length, i.e. AB¯hαh, so that h=OA¯ here denotes the medium edge length, although the notation h is often used as the largest edge length. A point on the closure of Tα,θ,h is denoted by x={x1,x2}. By an appropriate congruent transformation in R2, we can configure any triangle as

Dependence of constants on θ

This section is devoted to analysis of the effects of the maximum interior angle θ on Ci(α,θ)’s for fixed α. For C3(α,θ), the well-known maximum angle condition was derived in [3]. However, the results reported there are not fully quantitative, so that we give here more quantitative estimates for the constants including C3(α,θ).

To this end, let us introduce the following simple affine transformation between x={x1,x2}Tα,θ and ξ={ξ1,ξ2}Tα:ξ1=x1-x2/tanθ,ξ2=x2/sinθ.This transformation is a bit

Dependence of constants on α

Up to now, we have given some basic results for dependence of error constants on h and θ. In this section, we will consider the dependence of such constants on α when θ=π/2. With this regard, we owe much the following results to the analysis by Babuška and Aziz [3]. In particular, the estimation C3(α)C1 below is an important consequence derived in [3] and also in [13], [18], and so we here call C1 the Babuška–Aziz constant.

Theorem 2

For h = 1 and θ=π/2, Ci(α) (0i4) are continuous positive-valued

Determination of C0 and C1

First let us determine C0 exactly. Actually, its exact value is already known, see e.g. [13], [14]. However, we here state the results with a proof, since the underlying idea is somewhat common to the more complicated case of C1.

Theorem 3

With regard to C0, i.e., C0(α,θ) for α = 1 and θ=π/2, it holds that C0=1/π.

Proof

We will prove in two steps, each of which is based on rather well-known arguments and techniques. The triangular domain to be considered here is T.

(1) Let Ω be a unit square domain: Ω={x={x1,x2}R2;

Asymptotic behaviors of constants as α+0

Moreover, we can analyze the asymptotic behaviors of the constants Ci(α)’s as α+0, cf. [12]. In particular, the right limit values Ci(+0)’s are given by zeros of certain transcendental equations (derived from eigenvalue problems of ordinary differential equations, ODE’s) in terms of the hypergeometric functions [20]. For example, C2(+0)-1 is equal to the first positive zero of the Bessel function J0(z).

For the analysis, we use various techniques including compactness arguments. We will publish

Nonconforming P1 triangle

We have mainly considered the conforming P1 triangle, which can naturally construct subspaces of H1 space over the entire domain. But there also exists a non-conforming counterpart, which is also based on P1 but uses as nodes the midpoints of edges or edges themselves [19]. Analysis of such an element is more complicated, since we must additionally evaluate the errors induced by the interelement discontinuity of the approximate functions. Still we can obtain some results for the interpolation

Numerical results

We performed numerical computations to see the actual dependence of various constants on α and θ. Here, we just show the results for C1(α), C2(α) and C3(α) by the P1 FEM with the uniform triangulation of the domain Tα. In such calculations, Tα is subdivided into a number of small congruent triangles Tα,π/2,h with h=1/20. The penalty method in [18] was also adopted to calculate C3(α) approximately. The resulting approximate problems are matrix eigenvalue ones, and can be solved numerically if

Concluding remarks

We have obtained some explicit relations for the dependence of a few interpolation error constants on geometric parameters of triangular finite elements. In particular, we have succeeded in determining the Babuška–Aziz constant from a very simple equation. We can effectively utilize these results to give upper bounds of the a priori and a posteriori error estimates of finite element solutions based on the P1 and/or P0 approximate functions. To obtain more clear picture for the dependence of the

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their deepest appreciation to Prof. M.T. Nakao of Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, Kyushu University and Prof. N. Yamamoto of Department of Computer Science, The University of Electro-Communication for acquainting them with the importance of the present problem and a number of references. The estimation C412 was obtained through fruitful discussion with Prof. A. Kaneko of Ochanomizu University, who presented an estimation method in his textbook:

References (20)

  • M. Ainsworth et al.

    A Posteriori Error Estimation in Finite Element Analysis

    (2000)
  • P. Arbenz

    Computable finite element error bounds for Poisson’s equation

    IMA J. Numer. Anal.

    (1982)
  • I. Babuška et al.

    On the angle condition in the finite element method

    SIAM J. Numer. Anal.

    (1976)
  • I. Babuška et al.

    The Finite Element Method and Its Reliability

    (2001)
  • R.E. Bahnhill et al.

    A comparison of finite element error bounds for Poisson’s equation

    IMA J. Numer. Anal.

    (1981)
  • W. Bangerth et al.

    Adaptive Finite Element Methods for Differential Equations

    (2003)
  • S.C. Brenner et al.

    The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods

    (2002)
  • P.-G. Ciarlet

    The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems

    (2002)
  • F. Kikuchi et al.

    Determination of the Babuška–Aziz constant for the linear triangular finite element

    Japan J. Ind. Appl. Math.

    (2006)
  • P. Knabner et al.

    Numerical Methods for Elliptic and Parabolic Partial Differential Equations

    (2003)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (39)

  • Explicit eigenvalue bounds of differential operators defined by symmetric positive semi-definite bilinear forms

    2020, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Recently, compared to the classical analysis for qualitative error analysis of eigenvalue approximation, the research on explicit bounds of eigenvalues has become a new topic in the field of numerical analysis. Early work about explicit bound of eigenvalues based on the finite element method (FEM) can be traced back to the work of [1–4], where the upper bounds of various interpolation error constants are considered by estimating the first eigenvalue of the corresponding differential operator. In [5–7], the lower bounds for leading eigenvalues of differential operators are provided; see also the work of [8,9].

  • A framework of verified eigenvalue bounds for self-adjoint differential operators

    2015, Applied Mathematics and Computation
    Citation Excerpt :

    For example, a good indicator for the error of approximate solutions requires the explicit error estimation for various interpolation operators. The estimation of error constants is reduced to eigenvalue problems of Laplace and biharmonic operators; see, [10,13]. In addition, verifying the solution for nonlinear differential equations requires eigenvalue bounds of the controlling differential operators; see, e.g., [17,19,22].

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text