- Journal Home
- Volume 36 - 2024
- Volume 35 - 2024
- Volume 34 - 2023
- Volume 33 - 2023
- Volume 32 - 2022
- Volume 31 - 2022
- Volume 30 - 2021
- Volume 29 - 2021
- Volume 28 - 2020
- Volume 27 - 2020
- Volume 26 - 2019
- Volume 25 - 2019
- Volume 24 - 2018
- Volume 23 - 2018
- Volume 22 - 2017
- Volume 21 - 2017
- Volume 20 - 2016
- Volume 19 - 2016
- Volume 18 - 2015
- Volume 17 - 2015
- Volume 16 - 2014
- Volume 15 - 2014
- Volume 14 - 2013
- Volume 13 - 2013
- Volume 12 - 2012
- Volume 11 - 2012
- Volume 10 - 2011
- Volume 9 - 2011
- Volume 8 - 2010
- Volume 7 - 2010
- Volume 6 - 2009
- Volume 5 - 2009
- Volume 4 - 2008
- Volume 3 - 2008
- Volume 2 - 2007
- Volume 1 - 2006
Commun. Comput. Phys., 32 (2022), pp. 1094-1128.
Published online: 2022-10
Cited by
- BibTex
- RIS
- TXT
This article concerns the weak Galerkin mixed finite element method (WG-MFEM) for second order elliptic equations on 2D domains with curved boundary. The Neumann boundary condition is considered since it becomes the essential boundary condition in this case. It is well-known that the discrepancy between the curved physical domain and the polygonal approximation domain leads to a loss of accuracy for discretization with polynomial order $α>1.$ The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, we present a detailed error analysis of the original WG-MFEM for solving problems on curved domains, which exhibits an $O(h^{1/2})$ convergence for all $α ≥ 1.$ It is a little surprising to see that even the lowest-order WG-MFEM $(α = 1)$ experiences a loss of accuracy. This is different from known results for the finite element method (FEM) or the mixed FEM, and appears to be a combined effect of the WG-MFEM design and the fact that the outward normal vector on the polygonal approximation domain is different from the one on the curved domain. Second, we propose a remedy to bring the approximation rate back to optimal by employing two techniques. One is a specially designed boundary correction technique. The other is to take full advantage of the nice feature that weak Galerkin discretization can be defined on polygonal meshes, which allows the curved boundary to be better approximated by multiple short edges without increasing the total number of mesh elements. Rigorous analysis shows that a combination of the above two techniques renders optimal convergence for all $α.$ Numerical results further confirm this conclusion.
}, issn = {1991-7120}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.OA-2022-0106}, url = {http://global-sci.org/intro/article_detail/cicp/21140.html} }This article concerns the weak Galerkin mixed finite element method (WG-MFEM) for second order elliptic equations on 2D domains with curved boundary. The Neumann boundary condition is considered since it becomes the essential boundary condition in this case. It is well-known that the discrepancy between the curved physical domain and the polygonal approximation domain leads to a loss of accuracy for discretization with polynomial order $α>1.$ The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, we present a detailed error analysis of the original WG-MFEM for solving problems on curved domains, which exhibits an $O(h^{1/2})$ convergence for all $α ≥ 1.$ It is a little surprising to see that even the lowest-order WG-MFEM $(α = 1)$ experiences a loss of accuracy. This is different from known results for the finite element method (FEM) or the mixed FEM, and appears to be a combined effect of the WG-MFEM design and the fact that the outward normal vector on the polygonal approximation domain is different from the one on the curved domain. Second, we propose a remedy to bring the approximation rate back to optimal by employing two techniques. One is a specially designed boundary correction technique. The other is to take full advantage of the nice feature that weak Galerkin discretization can be defined on polygonal meshes, which allows the curved boundary to be better approximated by multiple short edges without increasing the total number of mesh elements. Rigorous analysis shows that a combination of the above two techniques renders optimal convergence for all $α.$ Numerical results further confirm this conclusion.