A posteriori error estimates for a modified Morley FEM

Step 1 (Error split). The triangle inequality leads to

The error in the energy norm can be split as

The first term is bounded with the help of Lemma 3.2 by \mu_\mathrm{NC}^2+\mu_{I_h}^2. For the analysis of the second term, let v\in H^2_0(\Omega) with \lvert\!\lvert\!\lvert v \rvert\!\rvert\!\rvert_\varepsilon=1 and set e_v:=v-I_\mathrm{qi}v for the Morley quasi interpolation operator I_\mathrm{qi}:H^2_0(\Omega)\to\mathcal{M}_0(\mathcal{T}) from (?). The expression inside the squared supremum then reads

with

It remains to bound these terms by the error estimator.

Step 2 (Bound of T_1). The estimates (?) of the nonconforming Morley quasi interpolation operator, the Cauchy inequality, and \lvert\!\lvert\!\lvert v \rvert\!\rvert\!\rvert_{\varepsilon}=1 prove

Similarly, the H^2 approximation property of I_h and the inverse estimate combined with the H^1 and H^2 stability of I_{qi} lead to (f, I_\mathrm{qi}v-I_hI_\mathrm{qi}v)_{L^2(\Omega)} \lesssim \eta.

Step 3 (Bound of T_2). Since the jump and the average of D^2_\mathrm{pw} u_h\,\nu_F over F is constant for any F\in\mathcal{F} and [\nabla_\mathrm{pw} e_v]_F is affine on F and vanishes in the midpoint of F, a piecewise integration by parts for T_2 leads to

The multiplicative trace inequality proves for some T_F\in\mathcal{T} with F\subseteq T_F that

The approximation and stability properties from (?) then prove

On the other hand, (?) together with the approximation and stability properties from (?) and Young’s inequality leads to

The combination of the foregoing displayed formulae leads to

This and (?) bound T_2 as

Step 4 (Bound of T_3). Since \nabla I_h u_h is piecewise constant, a piecewise integration by parts and v-I_hI_\mathrm{qi}v\in H^1_0(\Omega) imply for T_3 that

Note that the H^2 stability of the nodal interpolation operator I_h from (?), an inverse inequality, and the H^1 stability of I_\mathrm{qi} imply for any T\in\mathcal{T} that

and, therefore, the operator I_h I_\mathrm{qi} enjoys the same approximation and stability properties (?) as I_\mathrm{qi}. Hence, the trace inequality and the H^1 approximation and stability properties prove

while the H^2 approximation and stability properties show

The combination of these two estimates leads to

This and the finite overlap of the patches eventually show

Step 5 (Bound of T_4). Finally, the last term T_4 is estimated with a Cauchy inequality by

This concludes the proof.

The first step consists in the localisation of [GallistlTian2024, Lemma 3.4] that proves

where

where \kappa_y=\min\{1,h_y/\varepsilon\} with h_y=\max\{h_T\,\vert\,T\in\mathcal{T},\, T\subseteq \omega_y\} and V(\omega_y):=\{v\vert_{\omega_y}\;\vert\; v\in H^2_0(\Omega)\}. We now fix an arbitrary vertex y. Let \hat{\mathcal{T}} be a locally uniformly refined triangulation of \omega_y with (maximal) mesh-size \hat{h}\approx \min\{\varepsilon,h_y\} (with no refinement and thus \hat h = h_y in the case h_y\leq\varepsilon). Let \hat{V}_C\subseteq V(\omega_y) denote the conforming Hsieh–Clough–Tocher (HCT) finite element space [Ciarlet1978] with respect to the triangulation \hat{\mathcal{T}}. On \partial\Omega\cap\partial\omega_y, the functions of \hat{V}_C have clamped boundary conditions, whereas on the remaining part of \partial\omega_y, no boundary condition is prescribed. Let \mathcal{A} denote some averaging operator that averages over all adjacent triangles that are contained in the patch \omega_y. Define a smoothing operator \hat{\Pi}_C:\mathcal{M}_0(\mathcal{T})\to \hat{V}_C by

for all interior (with respect to \Omega) vertices z of \hat\mathcal{T}, as well as

for all interior (with respect to \Omega) faces F of \hat\mathcal{T} with a fixed normal \nu_F. Note that the HCT degrees of freedom are defind as averages because the quantities \fint_{F} \partial_{\mathrm{pw},\nu_F} v_h\,ds are possibly multi-valued on (fine) edges F of \hat T.

Case 1/2. We begin with the case that \hat\mathcal{T} coincides with \mathcal T on \omega_y, which means that h_y\lesssim \hat h and thus h_y\lesssim \varepsilon so that \kappa_y\approx h_y/\varepsilon. The conformity \hat V_C\subseteq V(\omega_y) of the HCT finite element space and inverse estimates on the scale \hat h (depending on y) show

Further, the nodal values satisfy \hat{\Pi}_C u_h(z)=I_h u_h(z)=u_h(z). In this case, standard estimates [Gallistl2015, Proposition 2.5] bound \mathcal B(y,u_h) by the sum of all \mu_\mathrm{NC}(T)^2 for T belonging to \omega_y.

Case 2/2. In the remaining case that \hat h<h_y and thus \varepsilon\lesssim h_y and \kappa_y\approx 1, we split the difference

The function u_h-I_hu_h is piecewise polynomial with respect to \mathcal T. Therefore, the triangle inequality, inverse inequalities, the discrete inequality

for the norms inside \mathcal B(y,u_h) and \varepsilon\approx \hat{h} reveal

On every triangle \hat T of \hat\mathcal{T}, the degrees of freedom of the HCT element are given by L^{(0)}_{\hat z} v = v(\hat z) and L^{(1,j)}_{\hat z} v = \partial_j v(\hat z) for the vertices \hat z of \hat T and j\in\{1,2\}, and L^{(1,\nu)}_{\hat F} v = \fint_{\hat F} \partial_{\nu_{\hat F}}v\,ds for the faces \hat F of \hat T. We do not explicitly include the dependence on \hat T in the notation because it will be clear from the context. The local basis functions dual to these degrees of freedoms are denoted by \hat\varphi^{(0)}_{\hat z}, \hat \varphi^{(1,j)}_{\hat z}, \hat \varphi^{(1,\nu)}_{\hat F}.

For any vertex \hat z of \hat T, the definition of \hat{\Pi}_C implies (I_h u_h-\hat{\Pi}_C u_h)(\hat z)=L^{(0)}_{\hat z} (I_h u_h-\hat{\Pi}_C u_h) =0. Therefore, the difference (I_h u_h-\hat{\Pi}_C u_h) can be expanded as follows

where the sums run over the nine possible pairs (d,p) of type (j,\hat z) and (\nu,\hat F) for j=1,2, the vertices \hat z, and the faces \hat F of \hat T.

The basis functions associated to the derivative degrees of freedom scale in the L^2 norm as follows

A direct scaling argument therefore shows for the squared norm of the first sum of the right-hand side of (?) that

Moreover, for the squared norm of the second term on the right-hand side of (?) we compute with the definition of \hat\Pi_Cu_h and the scaling of the basis functions

where \mathcal N(\hat T) and \mathcal{F}(\hat T) are the sets of vertices and faces of \hat T, respectively. With standard arguments [BrennerScott2008], the differences to the average can be bounded by the jumps across all faces of \hat\mathcal{T} having one of their endpoints in \hat T, namely

where \hat{\mathcal{F}} denotes the set of faces in \hat{\mathcal{T}}. Note that faces on \partial\omega_y that are not on \partial\Omega are excluded in the sum because the averaging takes only values from inside of \omega_y into account. Combining the foregoing estimates and summing over all elements of \hat\mathcal{T}, we obtain with the bounded overlap of such sets from the shape-regularity

Note that [\nabla u_h]_{\hat{F}}=0, if \hat{F}\not\subseteq F for all coarse faces F\in\mathcal{F}, and therefore

Since in the present case \hat h\approx \varepsilon, the result follows.

Efficiency of \mu_{I_h}. A triangle inequality and the definition of the (\varepsilon,\mathrm{pw},T)-norm proves

Efficiency of \eta_f. The term \eta_f(T) is estimated by the bubble function technique [Verfuerth2013]. Let \flat_T=\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2\in H^2_0(T) be the H^2_0 bubble function, where \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3 are the barycentric coordinates of T. Define \varphi_T:=\Pi_0 f \flat_T. An equivalence of norms argument shows

Since u\in H^2_0(\Omega) solves (?), it satisfies

Since D^2_\mathrm{pw} u_h and \nabla I_h u_h are constant on T, the vanishing boundary conditions of \varphi_T and \nabla \varphi_T imply

The combination of the two previously displayed inequalities leads to

The combination of the previous inequalities with a Cauchy inequality therefore proves

The definition of \varphi_T and a scaling argument show that

The combination of the previous inequalities with a Cauchy inequality therefore proves

Efficiency of \eta_1. For the estimation of \eta_1, fix T\in\mathcal{T} and let F\in\mathcal{F}(T). We first split the error in the tangential and the normal component, i.e.,

Since h_F^{-1}\min\{\varepsilon^{3/2},h_F^{1/2}\varepsilon\} \leq (\varepsilon/\kappa_T)^{1/2}, the tangential component times \varepsilon^{3/2}\kappa_T^{1/2} is bounded by \mu_\mathrm{NC}(T) through an inverse inequality. To bound the normal component, we follow the idea of [GallistlTian2024], see also [Verfuerth2013] for the second-order case, and employ an edge bubble function \chi_{F,\delta} that takes the singular perturbation into account. To this end, let 0<\delta\leq 1. The function \chi_{F,\delta} is then constructed as a bubble function of a triangles with height \delta h_F over the face F and has the properties \chi_{F,\delta}\in H^2_0(\omega_F), \chi_{F,\delta}\vert_F=0,

and the scaling properties

Details can be found in [Verfuerth1998, Verfuerth2013, GallistlTian2024].

Define \varphi:=[D^2_\mathrm{pw} u_h\nu_F]_F\cdot\nu_F \nabla \chi_{F,\delta}. Since \nabla \chi_{F,\delta} is a quadratic bubble along F pointing in normal direction, it follows

Since \chi_{F,\delta}\in H^2_0(\Omega) is a suitable test function for problem (?), we arrive at

Since \nabla I_h u_h is piecewise constant and \chi_{F,\delta}\vert_{\partial T}=0, the last term equals

The combination of the foregoing displayed formulae leads to

Let \delta:=\min\{1,\varepsilon/h_F\}. Then \kappa_T/\delta \approx h_F/\varepsilon. This and the scaling of the bubble function from (?) then prove

Since \varepsilon\kappa_T \leq h_T and \kappa_T\leq 1, the efficiency of h_T\kappa_T\lVert f\rVert_{L^2(T)} therefore proves

Efficiency of \eta_2. For the efficiency of h_T^{1/2}\kappa_T \,\lVert[\nabla I_h u_h\cdot\nu_F]_F\rVert_{L^2(F)}, define the function \flat_F=\lambda_a^2\lambda_b^2\in H^2_0(\omega_F) and let \varphi:=[\nabla I_h u_h\cdot\nu_F]_F\flat_F. Then

Since \varphi\in H^2_0(\omega_F) is a suitable test function in (?), the last term equals

Piecewise integration by parts for the last term leads to

The scaling of \varphi reads

This together with the above displayed formulae leads to

This, \kappa_T\leq 1, \varepsilon h_T^{-1}\kappa_T = \min\{1,\varepsilon/h_T\}\leq 1, and

imply

This and the efficiency of \eta_f and \eta_1 proves the efficiency of \eta_2.

Efficiency of \mu_\mathrm{NC}. In the case h_T\leq \varepsilon, the efficiency of \mu_\mathrm{NC}(T) can be proved with standard arguments, see [BeiraodaVeigaNiiranenStenberg2007, HuShi2009]. If \varepsilon<h_T, the multiplicative trace inequality shows as in [GallistlTian2024] that

The proof of the existence is contained in [Ciarlet_bookII_2022, Theorem 5.8-3, pp. 416] and [Knightly1967, Theorem 4, pp. 238]. The proof of the uniqueness is contained in [Knightly1967, Theorem 5]. The regularity theory for the biharmonic problem [BlumRannacher1980, Grisvard1992] proves (4.1).

The proof follows from Hölder inequalities and the embedding (?) and the Sobolev inequality (?).

The proof follows similar as in [MallikNataraj2016] and is outlined in the appendix.

The proof follows similar as in [MallikNataraj2016, Theorem 4.7] and only the differences are given here.

The triangle inequality leads for \rho_h = \Psi_h-I_\mathcal{M}\Psi to

The approximation and stability properties of the nodal interpolation operator from (?), the Morley interpolation operator from (?), and the enriching operator from (?) together with the stability of the continuous and discrete problem bound the first three terms on the right-hand side by h. The last term can be bounded as in [MallikNataraj2016, Theorem 4.7] by h plus the additional term

where \zeta\in H^{2+\alpha}(\Omega) is the solution of a dual problem. Since I_h\zeta=I_h I_\mathcal{M}\zeta, this term can be estimated via

where the stability of the continuous and discrete system was employed in the last step. The inverse inequality (4.5), the approximation properties of the nodal interpolation operator, the embeddings (?) and (?), and the a priori error estimate from Theorem 4.4 yield

Since \alpha\geq 1/2, this together with the approximation properties (?) and (?) eventually bounds the additional terms by h.

Let J denote the enriching operator from Section ?. The inf-sup condition (?) of the linearized problem guarantees the existence of \Theta\in H^2_0(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^2) with \lVert D^2 \Theta \rVert_{L^2(\Omega)}=1 and

Since N is quadratic and \Psi is the exact solution with N(\Psi,\cdot)=0, the following Taylor expansion around \Psi is exact, see also [CarstensenMallikNataraj2020],

Combining the two foregoing formulas with the representation (?) results in

We apply estimate (4.2) to the right-hand side of this estimate, which leads to

From the a priori error analysis it is known that J\Psi_h-\Psi\to 0 for decreasing mesh size, and since the error term appears quadratically on the right-hand side, eventually we deduce under the assumption h_{\max}\ll1 that

The definition of N and the discrete equation (?) imply for the Morley interpolation operator I_\mathcal{M} from Section ? that

The integral mean property of the Morley interpolation operator (?), the normalization \lVert D^2\Theta\rVert_{L^2(\Omega)}=1, and (?) imply

Furthermore, the approximation properties of I_\mathcal{M} from (?) and \lVert D^2\Theta\rVert_{L^2(\Omega)}=1 imply

Combining the foregoing estimates results in

It therefore remains to estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (?) involving B and B_h. The definition of B_h and I_h I_\mathcal{M}\Theta=I_h \Theta (see Section ?) imply

Since \lVert D^2\Theta\rVert_{L^2(\Omega)}=1, the inequality (4.2) implies for the first term on the right-hand side of (?) that

The stability properties of the enrichment operator and the stability of the discrete problem lead to \lVert D^2 J\Psi_h\rVert_{L^2(\Omega)}\lesssim 1, and, therefore, (?) implies

For the second term of the right-hand side of (?) we use (4.2) to conclude that

for some 2<p\leq 4. The inverse inequality (4.5) and the approximation properties of I_h from (?) together with (?) and the stability of the enriching operator (?) imply for \gamma:={1+(2-p)/p}\geq 1/2 that

The stability of the continuous problem (4.1) and (4.2) together with the embedding (?) lead for the third term on the right-hand side of (?) to

A triangle and a discrete Poincaré inequality [Brenner2003] (note that the integral mean of [\nabla\Psi_h]_F vanishes on each face) then imply

Since \operatorname{cof}(D_\mathrm{pw}^2\psi_{h,j})\nabla I_h\psi_{h,k} is piecewise constant for j,k\in\{1,2\}, a piecewise integration by parts leads for the fourth term in (?) to

A Cauchy and a trace inequality and the approximation properties of the nodal interpolation operator (?) eventually bound the right-hand side by \eta_1+\eta_2.

The combination of the previous inequalities for the terms on the right-hand side of (?) with (?) leads to

The triangle inequality and (?) therefore lead to

For sufficiently small h, the last term on the right-hand side can be absorbed.