The Immersed Weak Galerkin and Continuous Galerkin Finite Element Method for Elliptic Interface Problem
Abstract
In this paper, we use the weak Galerkin finite element method to solve the elliptic interface problem on interface-independent meshes. In the interface element, we use the immersed finite element (IFE) functions satisfying the interface conditions precisely and they have optimal approximation capabilities. In the non-interface element, the continuous element is employed to approximate the exact solution. The optimal convergence orders of error are obtained in the norm and norm. A series of numerical experiments are provided to validate the efficiency of the proposed method.
keywords:
Immersed finite element; Weak Galerkin finite element method; Higher degree finite element; Interface problems; Cartensian mesh.1 Introduction
In this paper, we assume that the domain is bounded in with boundary and the domain is separated by an interface into two sub-domains and . We consider the following elliptic interface problem in domain .
(1.1) | |||||
(1.2) |
where for the integer and is a piece-wise constant function
Without loss of generality, we suppose . The interface conditions on are as follows:
(1.4) | ||||
(1.5) |
where is the unit outward normal vector on the interface pointing from into .
When , we need to imposed the Laplacian extended jump conditions:
(1.6) |
2 The Numerical Scheme
In the section, the weak Galerkin finite element method and the finite element method are applied to the elliptic interface problem on unfitted meshes. First, we give the definitions of the approximation functions space and the weak differential operators. Then the numerical scheme are proposed.
Assume the partition satisfies the shape-regular conditions [4] and do not require the mesh to be aligned with the interface. Denote by the set of the non-interface element. Denote by the set of the interface element which intersect with interface. For , define the diameter of as . Set . Denote by the set of the all edges in . The set of intersecting edges of interface elements and non-interface elements is denoted as . In the WG method, the discontinuous weak function is used. The weak function is consistent of two parts: the interior function and the boundary function . Noted that has one unique value on the boundary . For the integer , we define the following approximation function spaces.
For , we define the following the finite element space:
For , the definition of WG space is as follows:
where the space is the immersed interface function space satisfying the interface conditions (1.4) - (1.6), as details in [2].
The global weak Galerkin finite element spaces are as follows.
Define as the interpolate function of in , . Denote by the projection from into in . Define as the projection from into on . Set and where
.
Definition 2.1.
For and , the weak gradient satisfies
(2.2) |
Based on the above definitions, the following numerical scheme is proposed.
Find and on to satisfy
(2.3) |
where
3 Existence and Uniqueness
We define the following semi-norm:
(3.1) |
Lemma 3.1.
is a norm in .
Proof.
Let for some . By the definition of , we have
Therefore, is a constant on . Since is zero on , is zero on .
Combining with on , we get . By on , we have . Therefore is obtained. The proof of the lemma is completed. ∎
According to the above lemma, it’s easy to obtain that the numerical scheme (2.3) has only one solution.
4 Some Inequalities
The trace inequality, the inverse inequality and the projection inequality are essential technique tools for the analysis. We prove these inequalities holds true for the interface element.
Lemma 4.1.
For and , we have
(4.1) |
Proof.
Assume , and . Then we have
(4.2) |
For , we have
(4.3) |
Next we estimate the every term on the right side of the above inequality.
(4.4) |
According to the chain rule, we have
We have
(4.5) |
Thus we have
Similarly, we have
Therefore the proof of the lemma is completed. ∎
5 Error Equation
In this section, we present the error equation for the velocity function . We use to represent the numerical solution obtained from the numerical scheme. Denote by and the projection operators satisfying
and
The error associated with is defined as follows:
Denote by the projection operator from into in .
Lemma 5.1.
For and , we have the following properties of the discrete weak gradient operator:
(5.3) |
Proof.
Lemma 5.2.
Proof.
For , using integration by parts, we obtain
(5.5) |
Similarly, for , it follows from Eq.(5.3), Eq.(2.2) and the definition of the projection operator that
(5.6) |
Then on two sides of Eq.(1.1), integrating with of in yields
(5.7) |
Using integration by parts, we get
(5.8) |
We use the fact that to get
(5.9) |
Substituting Eq.(5.9) into Eq.(5.8) yields
(5.10) |
Combining Eqs.(5.5)-(LABEL:proof_ee_10), we use the fact that on to get
(5.11) |
The proof of the above lemma is completed. ∎
Theorem 5.1.
6 Error Estimate in norm
Lemma 6.1.
[3] For any and , we have
(6.1) |
Lemma 6.2.
For , we have the following estimates:
(6.2) | |||||
(6.3) | |||||
(6.4) | |||||
(6.5) | |||||
(6.6) | |||||
(6.7) |
Proof.
For the estimate (6.2), according to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the trace inequality and the projection inequality, we get
Similarly, for , we obtain
For , using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the definition of the projection operator , the trace inequality, the inverse inequality and the projection inequality leads to
For , by the fact that , the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the projection inequality and the inequality (6.1), we have
For , it follows from the fact that that
For , according to the definition of the projection operator , the trace inequality, and the projection inequality, we get
The proof of the lemma is completed. ∎
Theorem 6.1.
7 Error Estimate in norm
In this section, we use the dual argument to give the error estimate in norm. We consider the following problem: seeking satisfying
(7.1) | |||||
(7.2) | |||||
(7.3) | |||||
(7.4) |
where .
Assume the solution satisfies -regularity, i.e
(7.5) |
Theorem 7.1.
Based on the assumption in Theorem 6.1, we have the following error estimate in the norm:
(7.6) |
Proof.
On two sides of Eq.(7.1), integrating with yields
(7.7) |
For , it’s similar to Eq.(5.6) to get
(7.8) |
Substitute Eq.(7.8) into Eq.(7.7) leads to
(7.9) |
Choosing in Eq.(5.12) yields
(7.10) |
Thus we have
(7.11) |
Substitute Eq.(7.11) into Eq.(7.9) leads to
(7.12) |
By Lemma 6.2 and the estimates (6.9)-(6.10), we have
(7.13) |
Each of the remaining terms is handled as follows.
(1) For , according to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the definition of the projection operator , the trace inequality, and the projection inequality, we get
(7.14) |
(2) Similarly, for , we get the following estimate
(7.15) |
(3) For , using the fact that leads to
(7.16) |
(4) For and , we have
(7.17) |
and
(7.18) |
Denote by , then we have
(7.19) |
Therefore we get
(7.20) |
Now we estimate each term on the right side of the above equation.
For , we have
(7.21) |
where for any , , and , it follows from Eq.(5.3) that
(7.22) |
Similarly, for and , we have
(7.23) |
Taking in Eq.(7.22) leads to
(7.24) |
Substitute Eq.(7.22) and Eq.(7.24) into Eq.(7.21) yields
(7.25) |
For , by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the projection inequality, we have
(7.26) |
For , using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the trace inequality, the inverse inequality and the projection inequality leads to
(7.27) |
Similarly, we get
(7.28) |
and
(7.29) |
For , we obtain
(7.30) |
(5)For , we get
(7.31) |
Using Eqs.(7.14)-(7.31) yields
(7.32) |
The proof of the theorem is completed. ∎
8 The Numerical Experiments
In this section, we give the numerical experiment to demonstrate that the proposed immersed numerical scheme is efficient to solve the elliptic interface problem on unfitted meshes.
Example 8.1.
Consider the interface problem in the square domain . The interface is as follows:
The exact solution is



We implement this example on triangular meshes (see Figure 1). We use the to WG elements and the finite elements to solve the elliptic interface problems. The numerical results are shown in Tables 1 - 4. From these tables, it become evident that the convergence orders of the velocity function are and in the energy norm and norm, respectively. Hence, the results of the above numerical results show that it is effective to use the proposed numerical scheme to solve the elliptic interface problems on unfitted meshes.
n | order | order | order | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.2370E+00 | – | 1.2148E-01 | – | 2.1283E-01 | – |
2 | 1.1168E+00 | 1.0021 | 3.0795E-02 | 1.9799 | 6.8040E-02 | 1.6452 |
3 | 5.5127E-01 | 1.0186 | 7.6231E-03 | 2.0142 | 1.8944E-02 | 1.8446 |
4 | 2.7364E-01 | 1.0105 | 1.8950E-03 | 2.0081 | 4.8964E-03 | 1.9519 |
5 | 1.3631E-01 | 1.0054 | 4.7205E-04 | 2.0052 | 1.2392E-03 | 1.9823 |
1 | 3.0460E-01 | – | 7.6529E-03 | – | 2.4590E-02 | – |
2 | 7.6341E-02 | 1.9964 | 9.3282E-04 | 3.0363 | 4.1435E-03 | 2.5691 |
3 | 1.9045E-02 | 2.0031 | 1.1557E-04 | 3.0128 | 5.6694E-04 | 2.8696 |
4 | 4.7491E-03 | 2.0036 | 1.4385E-05 | 3.0061 | 7.2963E-05 | 2.9580 |
5 | 1.1857E-03 | 2.0020 | 1.7953E-06 | 3.0023 | 9.2153E-06 | 2.9851 |
n | order | order | order | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4.4477E-01 | 0.0000 | 2.2992E-02 | 0.0000 | 1.0227E-01 | 0.0000 |
2 | 2.1656E-01 | 1.0383 | 5.5631E-03 | 2.0472 | 3.3270E-02 | 1.6200 |
3 | 1.0895E-01 | 0.9911 | 1.3331E-03 | 2.0612 | 8.0039E-03 | 2.0555 |
4 | 5.3592E-02 | 1.0236 | 3.2047E-04 | 2.0565 | 2.3125E-03 | 1.7912 |
5 | 2.6520E-02 | 1.0149 | 7.8282E-05 | 2.0334 | 6.4345E-04 | 1.8456 |
1 | 4.1278E-02 | – | 9.8355E-04 | – | 2.6897E-03 | – |
2 | 1.0145E-02 | 2.0247 | 1.2011E-04 | 3.0336 | 4.3858E-04 | 2.6165 |
3 | 2.5260E-03 | 2.0058 | 1.4944E-05 | 3.0067 | 7.1094E-05 | 2.6250 |
4 | 6.2971E-04 | 2.0041 | 1.8625E-06 | 3.0042 | 8.5184E-06 | 3.0611 |
5 | 1.5712E-04 | 2.0028 | 2.3247E-07 | 3.0021 | 9.2153E-07 | 3.2085 |
n | order | order | order | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.7402E-01 | – | 1.7639E-02 | – | 1.2115E-01 | – |
2 | 1.8228E-01 | 1.0369 | 4.2320E-03 | 2.0594 | 4.3600E-02 | 1.4744 |
3 | 9.3339E-02 | 0.9656 | 1.0190E-03 | 2.0541 | 1.2268E-02 | 1.8295 |
4 | 4.6063E-02 | 1.0189 | 2.4419E-04 | 2.0611 | 3.0937E-03 | 1.9875 |
5 | 2.2799E-02 | 1.0146 | 5.9424E-05 | 2.0389 | 7.2310E-04 | 2.0970 |
1 | 2.7535E-02 | – | 5.9485E-04 | – | 2.5620E-03 | – |
2 | 6.7377E-03 | 2.0309 | 7.6048E-05 | 2.9675 | 3.3375E-04 | 2.9404 |
3 | 1.6767E-03 | 2.0066 | 9.5658E-06 | 2.9910 | 7.1478E-05 | 2.2232 |
4 | 4.1809E-04 | 2.0038 | 1.1965E-06 | 2.9990 | 8.5962E-06 | 3.0557 |
5 | 1.0426E-04 | 2.0036 | 1.4944E-07 | 3.0012 | 9.0610E-07 | 3.2459 |
n | order | order | order | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.6990E-01 | – | 1.6765E-02 | – | 1.1861E-01 | – |
2 | 1.7904E-01 | 1.0468 | 3.9831E-03 | 2.0735 | 3.2937E-02 | 1.8484 |
3 | 9.1880E-02 | 0.9625 | 9.6856E-04 | 2.0400 | 1.1087E-02 | 1.5708 |
4 | 4.5623E-02 | 1.0100 | 2.3645E-04 | 2.0343 | 2.9154E-03 | 1.9271 |
5 | 2.2699E-02 | 1.0071 | 5.8357E-05 | 2.0185 | 6.9691E-04 | 2.0647 |
1 | 2.7281E-02 | – | 5.8729E-04 | – | 2.0661E-03 | – |
2 | 6.6883E-03 | 2.0282 | 7.5315E-05 | 2.9631 | 3.3401E-04 | 2.6289 |
3 | 1.6656E-03 | 2.0056 | 9.4895E-06 | 2.9885 | 7.0919E-05 | 2.2356 |
4 | 4.1538E-04 | 2.0035 | 1.1876E-06 | 2.9982 | 8.5933E-06 | 3.0449 |
5 | 1.0359E-04 | 2.0036 | 1.4836E-07 | 3.0010 | 8.9880E-07 | 3.2571 |
References
- [1] S. Adjerid, I. Babuška, R. Guo, and T. Lin, An enriched immersed finite element method for interface problems with nonhomogeneous jump conditions, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 404 (2023), pp. Paper No. 115770, 37.
- [2] S. Adjerid, T. Lin, and H. Meghaichi, A high order geometry conforming immersed finite element for elliptic interface problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 420 (2024), pp. Paper No. 116703, 21.
- [3] L. Mu, J. Wang, and X. Ye, A weak Galerkin finite element method with polynomial reduction, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 285 (2015), pp. 45–58.
- [4] J. Wang and X. Ye, A weak Galerkin finite element method for the stokes equations, Adv. Comput. Math., 42 (2016), pp. 155–174.