Chapter 4

MIXED FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

In this chapter we utilize the RaviartThomas spaces to present and analyze specific
mixed finite element methods applied to some of the examples studied in Chap. 2.
The corresponding discussion follows mainly the presentations in [12, 39, 50, 52].
We begin with a preliminary section dealing with the approximation properties of
the finite element subspaces to be employed.

4.1 Projection Operators

In what follows, is a bounded and connected domain of Rn , n {2, 3}, with

polyhedral boundary , and Th is a triangularization of . Then, given a
nonnegative integer k (either k 0 or k 1, as indicated subsequently), we are
interested in the following orthogonal projectors (in each case with respect to the
inner products of the projected spaces):

Pdiv,h
k : H(div; ) Hhk ,
Pk1,h : H 1 ( ) Xhk ,
Pkh : L2 ( ) Xhk ,
Phk : L2 ( ) Yhk ,

where Hhk is the global RaviartThomas space defined at the beginning of Sect. 3.4.1,
that is, for each k 0
 
Hhk := h H(div; ) : h |K RTk (K) K Th , (4.1)

Xhk is the usual Lagrange finite element space, that is, for each k 1
 
Xhk := vh C( ) : vh |K Pk (K) K Th , (4.2)

G.N. Gatica, A Simple Introduction to the Mixed Finite Element Method: Theory 93
and Applications, SpringerBriefs in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-03695-3 4,
Gabriel N. Gatica 2014
94 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

and Yhk is the space of piecewise polynomials of degree k 0 given by

 
Yhk := vh L2 ( ) : vh |K Pk (K) K Th . (4.3)

In what follows, we assume that Th belongs to a regular family of

triangularizations {Th }h > 0. In addition, we recall from Chap. 3 [cf. (3.5)] that
hk : H(div;  ) Z Hh is the global RaviartThomas interpolation
k
 operator,
where Z := [L2 ( )]n : |K [H 1 (K)]n K Th (cf. Theorem 3.2).
Then we observe that for each H(div; ) Z there holds

 Pdiv,h
k
( )div, := inf  h div,  hk ( )div, ,
h Hhk

which, thanks to Theorem 3.6, implies that for each [H l+1 ( )]n , with div
H l+1 ( ), 0 l k, there also holds
 
 Pdiv,h
k
( )div, C hl+1 | |l+1, + |div |l+1, . (4.4)

Then, if hk : C( ) Xhk denotes the global Lagrange interpolation operator (e.g.,

[20, 51]), we obviously find that for each v C( ) there holds

v Pk1,h (v)1, := inf v vh 1, v hk (v)1,

vh Xhk

v hk (v)0, + |v hk (v)|1,
and
v Pkh (v)0, := inf v vh 0, v hk (v)0, ,
vh Xhk

which, thanks to the known estimates for hk (e.g., [20, 51]), yields for each v
H l+1 ( ), 1 l k, that

v Pk1,h (v)1, C hl+1 |v|l+1, + C hl |v|l+1, C hl |v|l+1, , (4.5)

and
v Pkh (v)0, C hl+1 |v|l+1, . (4.6)
Now, applying the BrambleHilbert lemma (cf. Theorem 3.5) to S = and
:= Pk1,h (with m = 1 and k = 0), and noting that (p) = p p P0 ( ) Xhk ,
we deduce that
v Pk1,h (v)1, C |v|1, ,
which proves that (4.5) can be extended to l = 0, and therefore we can write

v Pk1,h (v)1, C hl |v|l+1, v H l+1 ( ) , 0 l k. (4.7)

4.1 Projection Operators 95

In addition, (4.6) can also be extended to l = 0 (with  1, instead of | |1, on

the right-hand side), but this extension requires some results on the interpolation of
Sobolev spaces (cf. [49, Appendix B]). Nevertheless, later on we give an alternative
deduction of this estimate (with | |1, ), which, as a consequence of the result to be
presented next, is valid only for a convex domain [see (4.14)].
More precisely, the following lemma, known as the AubinNitsche trick, assumes
that the domain is convex and utilizes a duality argument to establish an estimate
of the projection error I Pk1,h measured in the norm || ||0, . Hereafter, I denotes a
generic identity operator.

Lemma 4.1. Let be a convex domain, and let k 1. Then there exists C > 0,
independently of h, such that for each v H l+1 ( ), 0 l k, there holds

v Pk1,h (v)0, C hl+1 |v|l+1, . (4.8)

Proof. Let T : L2 ( ) H 1 ( ) be the linear and bounded operator assigning to

each r L2 ( ) a unique solution T (r) H 1 ( ), which is guaranteed by the Riesz
representation theorem, of the problem

T (r), w1, = r, w0, w H 1 ( ), (4.9)

where , 1, and , 0, denote the inner products of H 1 ( ) and L2 ( ),

respectively. Note that (4.9) is the variational formulation of the boundary value
problem

T (r) + T (r) = r in , T (r) n = 0 on ,

where n is the normal vector at . Since is convex, the corresponding elliptic

regularity result says that T (r) H 2 ( ) and that there exists C := C( ) > 0
such that
T (r)2, C r0, r L2 ( ). (4.10)

Now, given v H l+1 ( ), 0 l k, we obtain, utilizing (4.9), that

r, v Pk1,h (v)0,

v Pk1,h (v)0, = sup
r L2 ( )
r0,
r= 0
T (r), v Pk1,h (v)1,
= sup
r L2 ( )
r0,
r= 0
T (r) vh , v Pk1,h (v)1,
= sup
r L2 ( )
r0,
r= 0

for each vh Xhk , where the orthogonality condition characterizing the orthogonal
projector Pk1,h is used in the last equality. In particular, taking vh := Pk1,h (T (r)) and
96 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

applying the CauchySchwarz inequality, we find that

T (r) Pk1,h (T (r))1,

v Pk1,h (v)0, v Pk1,h (v)1, sup . (4.11)
r L2 ( )
r0,
r= 0

Moreover, since T (r) H 2 ( ), a direct application of (4.5) (with l = 1) and the

estimate (4.10) imply that
T (r) Pk1,h (T (r))1, C h |T (r)|2, C h r0, ,
which, inserted into (4.11), gives
v Pk1,h (v)0, C h v Pk1,h (v)1, (4.12)
and, using (4.7) (with l = 0) in (4.12), yields

v Pk1,h (v)0, C h |v|1, v H 1 ( ). (4.13)

Finally, combining (4.12) and (4.5) we conclude that

v Pk1,h (v)0, C hl+1 |v|l+1, v H l+1 ( ), 1 l k.

This last estimate, together with (4.13), gives (4.8) and completes the proof. 


It is important to remark here, as stated earlier, that starting from the preceding
lemma one can extend inequality (4.6) to l = 0. In fact, it is clear that

v Pkh (v)0, v Pk1,h (v)0, ,

from which, using (4.8) with l = 0, it follows that

v Pkh (v)0, C h |v|1, v H 1 ( ), (4.14)
and therefore (4.6) can be replaced by
v Pkh (v)0, C hl+1 |v|l+1, v H l+1 ( ), 0 l k. (4.15)
The next goal is to prove, under suitable hypotheses, that the projection errors I Pkh
and I Pk1,h , both measured in  1, , are equivalent. Indeed, it is easy to see
first that
v Pk1,h (v)1, := inf v vh 1, v Pkh (v)1, v H 1 ( ).
vh Xhk
(4.16)

To complete this equivalence, an inverse inequality satisfied by the elements of Xhk

is required. To this end, we now assume that the family {Th }h>0 is quasi-uniform,
which means that, besides being regular [cf. (3.32)], there exists c > 0 such that

min hK c h h > 0.
KTh
4.1 Projection Operators 97

Then we have the following result.

Lemma 4.2. There exists C > 0, independent of h, such that

|vh |1, C h1 vh 0, vh Xhk .

Proof. Given vh Xhk we can obviously write

|vh |21, = |vh |21, K . (4.17)

K Th

Then, applying estimate (3.15) (cf. Lemma 3.12) and the geometric bounds given
by Lemma 3.14, we obtain

|vh |1, K C |det BK |1/2 B1

K  |vh |1, K
h
C |det BK |1/2 |vh |1, K
K
 
hK
= C |det BK |1/2 h h1
K |vh |1, K ,
K

hK
from which, using that c [cf. (3.32)] and hK c h K Th , it follows that
K

|vh |1, K C |det BK |1/2 h1 |vh |1, K .

But, since the norms are certainly equivalent in the finite-dimensional space Pk (K),
there holds |vh |1, K C vh 0, K , and hence, using now estimate (3.14) (cf. Lemma
3.12), we deduce that

|vh |1, K C |det BK |1/2 h1 vh 0, K

C |det BK |1/2 h1 BK  |detBK |1/2 vh 0, K (4.18)
= C h1 vh 0, K .

In this way, (4.17) and (4.18) provide the required inequality. 


We are now in a position to prove the missing inequality in (4.16).
Lemma 4.3. There exists C > 0, independent of h, such that

v Pkh (v)1, C v Pk1,h (v)1, v H 1 ( ).

Proof. Let us observe first that, given v H 1 ( ), we have

v Pkh (v)1, v Pk1,h (v)1, + Pk1,h (v) Pkh (v)1,

= v Pk1,h (v)1, + Pkh (v Pk1,h (v))1, , (4.19)

98 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

where we have used that Pk1,h (v) = Pkh (Pk1,h (v)). Then, applying the inverse inequal-
ity given by Lemma 4.2 and the estimate (4.12) (cf. proof of Lemma 4.1), we obtain
that

Pkh (v Pk1,h (v))21, = Pkh (v Pk1,h (v))20, + |Pkh (v Pk1,h (v))|21,

(1 + C2 h2 ) Pkh (v Pk1,h (v))20,

(1 + C2 h2 ) v Pk1,h (v)20,
(1 + C2 h2 )C h2 v Pk1,h (v)21,
= C (C2 + h2 ) v Pk1,h (v)21,
C v Pk1,h (v)21, .
Hence, the preceding estimate and (4.19) complete the proof. 


According to the foregoing estimates, the approximation properties of the pro-

jectors Pkh and Pk1,h are summarized in the following inequality:

v Pkh (v)0, + v Pk1,h (v)0,
C hl+1 |v|l+1, (4.20)
+ h v Pk (v) + h v Pk1,h (v)1,
h 1,

for each v H l+1 ( ), 0 l k.

Note here, in virtue of the preceding analysis, that the estimates that arise from
the first term (with l = 0), and from the second and third terms on the left-hand side
of (4.20), require the convexity of .
Finally, let us consider the projector Phk : L2 ( ) Yhk para k 0. In this
respect, it is easy to see first that

Phk (v)|K = PKk (v|K ) v L2 ( ), K Th ,

where PKk : L2 (K) Pk (K) is the local orthogonal projector. Now, from the first
term of (4.20) applied to = K Th , which is obviously convex, we find that

v PKk (v)0, K C hl+1

K |v|l+1, K v H l+1 (K).

Then, for each v H l+1 ( ), 0 l k, there holds

v Phk (v)20, = v PKk (v)20, K

KTh

2(l+1)
C 2 hK |v|2l+1, K C h2(l+1) |v|2l+1, ,
KTh

that is,
v Phk (v)0, C hl+1 |v|l+1, . (4.21)
4.2 Poisson Problem 99

4.2 Poisson Problem

In this section we analyze a Galerkin scheme for the Poisson problem studied in
Sect. 2.4.1. For this purpose, we first recall that, given a bounded domain
Rn , n {2, 3}, with polyhedral boundary , and given f L2 ( ) and g H 1/2 ( ),
the corresponding mixed variational formulation reduces to [cf. (2.19)] the follow-
ing problem: find ( , u) H Q such that

a( , ) + b( , u) = F( ) H ,
b( , v) = G(v) v Q,

where H := H(div; ), Q := L2 ( ), a and b are the bilinear forms defined by


a( , ) := ( , ) H H,


b( , v) := v div ( , v) H Q,

and the functionals F H

and G Q
are given by

F( ) :=  n ( ), g H, G(v) := fv v Q.

Then, if {Th }h>0 is a regular family of triangularizations of [cf. (3.32)] and k is

an integer 0, we introduce the following finite element spaces [cf. (4.1) and (4.3)]:
 
Hh := Hhk := h H(div; ) : h |K RTk (K) K Th , (4.22)
 
Qh := Yhk := vh L2 ( ) : vh |K Pk (K) K Th , (4.23)

so that the associated Galerkin scheme is as follows: find ( h , uh ) Hh Qh

such that
a( h , h ) + b( h , uh ) = F( h ) h Hh ,
(4.24)
b( h , vh ) = G(vh ) v h Qh .
The next goal is to apply the theory developed in Sect. 2.5 to conclude the unique
solvability and stability of (4.24). To this end, we observe that Vh , the discrete kernel
of b [equivalently, N(Bh ), where Bh : Hh Qh is the discrete operator induced by
b], is given by
  
Vh := h Hh : b( h , vh ) := vh div h = 0 vh Qh

 
= h Hh : Ph (div h ) = 0 ,
k
100 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

from which, noting precisely that div h Yhk h Hh , we deduce that

 
Vh := h Hh : div h = 0 in . (4.25)

It follows that for each h Vh there holds

a( h , h ) =  h 20, =  h 2div, ,

which proves the Vh -ellipticity of a with constant = 1, and hence, according

to (2.76), hypothesis (i) of Theorem 2.4 (discrete BabuskaBrezzi theorem) is
satisfied.
On the other hand, to establish the discrete inf-sup condition for b [cf. hypothesis
(ii) of Theorem 2.4], we need the following previous result.

Lemma 4.4. Let hk : H(div; ) Z Hhk be the global RaviartThomas inter-

polation operator. Then there exists C > 0, independent of h, such that

hk ( )div, C  1, [H 1 ( )]n . (4.26)

Proof. Let [H 1 ( )]n . Then, applying the upper bound for the local interpolation
hK
error given by Lemma 3.17 (with m = 0 and l = 0), and using that c, we
K
obtain
h2
 hk ( )0, K C K | |1, K C hK | |1, K K Th ,
K
and then
hk ( )0,  hk ( )0, +  0,

C h | |1, +  0, C  1, . (4.27)

Next, since div (hk ( )) = Phk (div ) (cf. Lemma 3.7), there holds

div hk ( )0, = Phk (div )0, div 0, ,

which, together with (4.27), implies estimate (4.26). 


We proceed next to prove the existence of a Fortin operator so that we can
then apply the corresponding result (cf. Lemma 2.6) and thereby verify the dis-
crete inf-sup condition for b. Specifically, we need to define a family of uniformly
bounded operators {h }h>0 L (H, Hh ) such that

b( h( ), vh ) = 0 H, v h Qh , h > 0.

In fact, given H := H(div; ), we set

div in ,
f :=
0 in B\ ,
4.2 Poisson Problem 101

where B is an open ball containing . Since f L2 (B) and B is obviously convex,

the boundary value problem

z = f in B, z = 0 on B ,

has a unique solution z H01 (B) H 2 (B) that satisfies

z2,B C  f 0,B = C div 0, .

Then we let := z| and notice that [H 1 ( )]n , div = div in , and

 1, z2, z2,B C div 0, . (4.28)

The foregoing analysis suggests defining the Fortin operator as

h ( ) := hk ( ) H(div; ). (4.29)

It is important to remark here that the necessity of previously regularizing by

means of the auxiliary function is explained by the fact that the global Raviart
Thomas interpolation operator is defined not in H(div; ) but in H(div; ) Z,
which contains the space [H 1 ( )]n .
It follows, applying Lemma 4.4 and the estimate (4.28), that

h ( )div, = hk ( )div, C  1, C1 div 0, ,

and then

h ( )div, C1  div, H := H(div; ), (4.30)

which confirms the uniform boundedness of {h }h>0 . Next, using the estimate (3.8)
given by Lemma 3.7 and the fact that Phk is the orthogonal projector of L2 ( ) into
Qh := Yhk , we deduce that for each H and for each vh Qh there holds

b( h ( ), vh ) = vh (div div h ( ))


= vh (div div hk ( ))


= vh (div Phk (div ))


= vh (div Phk (div )) = 0,

which yields the second property required by {h }h>0 , and consequently the Fortin
lemma (cf. Lemma 2.6) guarantees that b satisfies the discrete inf-sup condition
on Hh Qh with a constant > 0, independently of h. It is important to observe
here that, proceeding similarly to the construction of the present Fortin operator,
102 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

one can prove that in this case there also holds div Hh = Qh . Indeed, given vh Qh ,
it suffices to replace div by vh in the preceding definition of f , which leads to
div hk ( ) = Phk (div ) = Phk (vh ) = vh in .
Consequently, a straightforward application of Theorems 2.4 and 2.6 implies that
there exist a unique ( h , uh ) Hh Qh solution of (4.22) and constants C1 ,C2 > 0,
independent of h, such that
 
( h , uh )H Q C1  f 0, + g1/2,

and
 
 h H + u uh Q C2 dist( , Hh ) + dist(u, Qh ) , (4.31)

where C1 depends on A 1 (norm of the operator induced by a), = 1, and

, whereas C2 depends on A, B 1 (norm of the operator induced by b), ,
and .
Now, according to the upper bounds for the projection errors given by (4.4) and
(4.21), we have, respectively,
 
dist( , Hh ) :=  Pdiv,h
k
( )div, C hl+1 | |l+1, + |div |l+1, (4.32)

if [H l+1 ( )]n , with div H l+1 ( ), 0 l k, and

dist(u, Qh ) := u Phk (u)0, C hl+1 |u|l+1, (4.33)
if u H l+1 ( ), 0 l k. Therefore, under these regularity assumptions on
the exact solution ( , u) H Q, we deduce that the rate of convergence of the
Galerkin method (4.24) is given by the estimate that follows from (4.31)(4.33),
that is,
 
 h div, + u uh 0, C hl+1 | |l+1, + |div |l+1, + |u|l+1, .

On the other hand, if ( , u) is not sufficiently regular and estimates (4.32) and (4.33)
do not necessarily hold, the convergence of the Galerkin scheme (4.24), but without
any rate of convergence, can still be proved by employing suitable density argu-
ments. More precisely, we have the following result.

Lemma 4.5. Let ( , u) H Q and ( h , uh ) Hh Qh be the solutions of the

continuous and discrete formulations, respectively. Then
 
lim  h div, + u uh 0, = 0 . (4.34)
h 0

Proof. We use that [C ( )]n and C0 ( ) are dense in H(div; ) and L2 ( ), respec-
tively, whence there exist sequences { j } jN [C ( )]n and {u j } jN C0 ( )
j j
such that  j div, 0 and u u j 0, 0. Then, since it is clear that
j [H 1 ( )]n , div j H 1 ( ), and u j H 1 ( ), it follows from (4.4) and (4.21)
that for each j N
4.3 Primal-Mixed Formulation of Poisson Problem 103

 j Pdiv,h
k
( j )div, C h {| j |1, + |div j |1, } (4.35)

and
u j Phk (u j )0, C h |u j |1, . (4.36)
Now, given > 0, there exists N N such that

 N div, < /4 and u uN 0, < /4 .

Next, for j = N we deduce from (4.35) and (4.36) that there exists h0 > 0 such
that

 N Pdiv,h
k
( N )div, < /4 and uN Phk (uN )0, < /4 h h0 .

Therefore, from the Cea estimate (4.31) we conclude that for each h h0
 
 h div, + u uh 0, C2 dist( , Hh ) + dist(u, Qh )
 
C2  Pdiv,h
k
( N )div, + u Phk (uN )0,

C2  N div, +  N Pdiv,hk
( N )div,

+ u uN 0, + uN Phk (uN )0,

C2 ,

which proves the convergence (4.34). 



4.3 Primal-Mixed Formulation of Poisson Problem

In this section we analyze a Galerkin scheme for the primal-mixed formulation of

the two-dimensional version of the Poisson problem studied in Sect. 2.4.4. To this
end, we recall that, given a bounded domain R2 with polygonal boundary ,
and given data f L2 ( ) and g H 1/2 ( ), the primal-mixed formulation reduces
to [cf. (2.70)] the following: find (u, ) H Q such that

a(u, v) + b(v, ) = F(v) v H,

b(u, ) = G( ) Q,

where H := H 1 ( ), Q := H 1/2 ( ), a and b are the bilinear forms defined by


a(u, v) := u v (u, v) H H,

b(v, ) :=  , v (v, ) H Q,
104 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

and the functionals F H

and G Q are given by

F(v) := fv v H, G( ) =  , g Q.

Then, given a regular family of triangularizations {Th }h>0 of , we introduce the

subspaces of H [cf. (4.21)] and Q:
 
Hh := Xh1 := v C( ) : v|K P1 (K) K Th ,
 
Qh := L2 ( ) : |j P0 (j ) j {1, , m} ,

where {1 , 2 ,  , m } is a partition of (independent of the one inherited from Th )

and h := max |j | : j {1, , m} . Hence, the associated Galerkin scheme is as
follows: find (uh , h ) Hh Qh such that

a(uh , vh ) + b(vh , h ) = F(vh ) vh Hh ,

(4.37)
b(uh , h ) = G(h ) h Qh .

We now let Vh be the discrete kernel of b, that is,

 
Vh := vh Hh : b(vh , h ) = 0 h Qh
 
= vh Hh : h , vh  = 0 h Qh .

Note that, in particular, h 1 belongs to Qh , and therefore

 
Vh V := v H : 1, v = 0 ,

that is,   
Vh V := v H : v=0 .

Then, utilizing the generalized Poincare inequality (cf. [46, Theorem 5.11.2]), one
can prove that  1, and | |1, are equivalent in V and, hence, in Vh . It follows that

a(vh , vh ) = |vh |1, c vh 1, vh Vh ,

which proves that a is Vh -elliptic.

We prove next that b satisfies the discrete inf-sup condition, that is, there exists
> 0, independent of h, such that

b(vh , h )
sup h 1/2, h Qh ,
vh Hh vh 1,
vh =0
4.3 Primal-Mixed Formulation of Poisson Problem 105

which is
h , vh 
sup h 1/2, h Qh .
vh Hh vh 1,
vh = 0

For this purpose we need an inverse inequality for Qh , which is proved by the
following lemma for a generic space Qh .
Lemma 4.6. Let {1 , 2 , , m } be a partition of , denote h j := |j | j
{1, , m}, assume that there exists c > 0 such that

h j c h := c max hi j {1, , m},

i{1, ,m}

and define
 
Qh := h L2 ( ) : h |j P0 (j ) j {1, , m} .

Then there exists C > 0 such that

h r, C h1/2r h 1/2, h Qh , r [1/2, 0].

Proof. Since clearly

h 1/2, h0 h 1/2, h Qh ,

it suffices to prove that

h 0, C h1/2 h 1/2, h Qh , (4.38)

and then conclude by interpolation estimates (cf. [49, Appendix B]). In fact, given
h Qh , we let j := h |j P0 (j ) and observe that
m m m
h 20, = h 20,j = h j j2 = h j  j 20, ,
j=1 j=1 j=1

where is a reference segment of measure | | = 1. For instance, we can con-

sider := {(x, 0) : x ]0, 1[ }. Then, using the equivalence of norms in finite
dimension, we have that
m
h 20, c h j  j 21/2,00, , (4.39)
j=1

1/2 1/2
where  1/2,00, is the norm of H00 ( ), which is the dual of H00 ( ). On the
other hand, applying the inequality [cf. (3.15), Lemma 3.12]

|v|m,K c B1
K  |det BK |
m 1/2
|v|m,K
106 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

to K = j and K = , we obtain

1/2
|j | 1/2
v0,j c v0, = c h j v0, v L2 (j )
| |

and
1
1/2
h |j | 1/2
|v|1,j c |v|1, c h j |v|1, v H 1 (j ).
j | |

Then, according to the interpolation estimates for Sobolev spaces (cf. [49, Appendix
1/2
B]) and using that H00 (j ) = (H01 (j ), L2 (j ))1/2 , we find that

1/2
v1/2,00,j c v1/2,00, v H00 (j ),

1/2
where  1/2,00,S denotes the norm of H00 (S) for S {j , }.
Analogously, applying now [cf. (3.14), Lemma 3.12]

|v|m,K c BK m |det BK |1/2 |v|m,K

1/2
to K = j and K = , using interpolation estimates again, and noting that H00 ( )
is given by (H01 ( ), L2 ( ))1/2 , we deduce that

1/2
v1/2,00, c v1/2,00,j v H00 ( ) ,

and therefore
v1/2,00,j =
v1/2,00, .
1/2
Consequently, given H00 (j ), we obtain by a duality argument that

 , v
 1/2,00, = sup
1/2 v1/2,00,
v H00 ( )
v=0
h1
j  , vj
= sup
1/2 v1/2,00,
v H00 ( )
v= 0
h1
j  1/2,00,j v1/2,00,j
C sup
1/2 v1/2,00,j
v H00 ( )
v= 0
= C h1
j  1/2,00,j .

In this way, employing the preceding estimate in (4.39), we conclude that

4.3 Primal-Mixed Formulation of Poisson Problem 107
m
h 20, c h j h2
j  j 1/2,00,j
2
j=1
m
c h1  j 21/2,00,j c h1 h21/2, ,
j=1

which gives (4.38) and completes the proof. 



We are now in a position to prove the discrete inf-sup condition for b.

Lemma 4.7. There exist C0 > 0 and > 0, independent of h and h, such that for
each h C0 h there holds

h , vh 
sup h 1/2, h Qh .
vh Hh v h 1,
vh = 0

Proof. Given h Qh , we let z H 1 ( ) be the unique solution of the problem

z + z = 0 in , z n = h in .

The continuous dependence result provided by the classical LaxMilgram lemma

(cf. Theorem 1.1) establishes that

z1, c h 1/2, .

In addition, since Qh H ( ) for some > 0, it follows by elliptic regularity (cf.

[42]) that z H 1+ ( ) [0, 0 ], where 0 := min { 12 + , } and is the
largest interior angle of . We then fix (0, 0 ), < 1/2, and observe that

z1+ , C h 1/2+ , .

On the other hand, since [cf. (4.7)]

v P11,h (v)1, C h v2, v H 2 ( )

and clearly
v P11,h (v)1, h0 v1, v H 1 ( ),

the estimates for the interpolation of Sobolev spaces (cf. [49, Appendix B]) imply

v P11,h (v)1, C h v1+ , v H 1+ ( ).

It follows that

z P11,h (z)1, C h z1+ , C h h 1/2+ , ,

108 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

and using the inverse inequality for Qh (cf. Lemma 4.6), that is,

h 1/2+ , C h h 1/2, ,

we arrive at

h
z P11,h (z)1, C h 1/2, . (4.40)
h
Next, it is clear that

P11,h (z)1, z1, c h 1/2, . (4.41)

Then, using the Green identity in H(div; ) (cf. Lemma 1.4) we see that

h , z =  z n, z = n ( z), 0 (z)
  
= z div z + z z = z21, ,

and, recalling from Theorem 1.7 that n : H(div; ) H 1/2( ) is bounded, we

obtain that

h1/2, = n ( z)1/2,  zdiv, = z1, ,

which yields
h , z h 21/2, . (4.42)

In this way, employing estimates (4.40)(4.42) we find that

h , vh  |h , P11,h (z)|

sup
vh Hh vh 1, P11,h (z)1,
vh = 0
|h , P11,h (z)|

c h 1/2,

|h , z| |h , z P11,h (z)|
C
h 1/2, h 1/2,

h
Ch 1/2, C h 1/2,
h
  
h
= C C h 1/2, ,
h
 1/
C
where, choosing h C0 h, with C0 = , we deduce the existence of > 0
2C
such that
4.3 Primal-Mixed Formulation of Poisson Problem 109

h , vh 
sup h 1/2, h Qh ,
vh Hh vh 1,
vh = 0

thereby completing the proof. 



Consequently, applying the results from the discrete BabuskaBrezzi theory

(cf. Theorems 2.4 and 2.6), we deduce that h C0 h there exists a unique pair
(uh , h ) Hh Qh solution of the Galerkin scheme (4.37), and there holds the Cea
estimate
u uh 1, +  h 1/2,

(4.43)
c inf u vh 1, + inf  h 1/2, .
vh Hh h Qh

Note that the first term on the right-hand side of the preceding equation reduces to
u P11,h(u)1, , which can be bounded by means of (4.7). To estimate the second
term we need the following previous result.
Lemma 4.8. Let Ph0 : L2 ( ) Qh be the orthogonal projector with respect to the
L2 ( )-inner product. Then there holds

 Ph0 ( )1/2, c h  1/2, H 1/2 ( ).

Proof. Starting from the estimates

 Ph0 ( )0, h0  0, L2 ( )

and
 Ph0 ( )0, C h  1, H 1 ( ),

the latter being a consequence of the DenyLions and BrambleHilbert Lemmas

(cf. Theorems 3.4 and 3.5), we find by interpolation that

 Ph0 ( )0, C h1/2  1/2, H 1/2 ( ).

Next, using a duality argument and the preceding estimate, we have that for each
H 1/2 ( ) there holds

 Ph0 ( ), 
 Ph0 ( )1/2, = sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
=

 Ph0 ( ), 0,
= sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
=
110 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

 Ph0 ( ), Ph0 ( )0,

= sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
= 0
 Ph0 ( )0,  Ph0 ( )0,
sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
= 0
C h1/2  1/2, C h1/2  1/2,
sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
= 0

= C h  1/2, ,
which completes the proof. 


We now let P1/2,h : H 1/2 ( ) Qh be the orthogonal projector with respect

to the H 1/2 ( )-inner product. It is then clear that

inf  h 1/2, =  P1/2,h ( )1/2,

h Qh

and that

 P1/2,h ( )1/2,  1/2, H 1/2 ( ). (4.44)

In addition, utilizing Lemma 4.8 we obtain that

 P1/2,h ( )1/2,  Ph0 ( )1/2, C h  1/2, H 1/2 ( ),

that is,

 P1/2,h( )1/2, C h  1/2, H 1/2 ( ),

which, together with (4.44) and thanks to the interpolation estimates for Sobolev
spaces, gives
1
 P1/2,h( )1/2, C hr+ 2  r, H r ( ), r [1/2, 1/2].
(4.45)
Therefore, recalling that

v P11,h (v)1, C hl vl+1, v H l+1 ( ), 0 l 1, (4.46)

we conclude from (4.43), (4.45), and (4.46) that

 
u uh 1, +  h 1/2, C hl ul+1, + hr+1/2  r,

for each u H l+1 ( ), 0 l 1, and for each H r ( ), 1/2 r 1/2.

4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions 111

4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions

In this section we analyze a Galerkin scheme for the two-dimensional version of the
Poisson problem studied in Sect. 2.4.2 with Neumann boundary conditions, that is,
when N = . In other words, given a bounded domain of R2 , f L2 ( ), and
g H 1/2 ( ), we are interested in the boundary value problem

u
u = f in , = g in , u = 0,
n

for which we need to assume that the data satisfy the compatibility condition

f +  g, 1 = 0.

Then defining the auxiliary unknowns

:= u in and := 0 (u) in

and proceeding as in Sects. 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, one arrives at the mixed variational
formulation: find ( , (u, )) H Q such that

a( , ) + b( , (u, )) = 0 H,

b( , (v, )) = f v + g,  (v, ) Q,

where H := H(div; ), Q := L20 ( ) H 1/2 ( ), and the bounded bilinear forms

a : H H R and b : H Q R are defined by

a( , ) := , H (4.47)

and

b( , (v, )) := v div +  n,  H, (v, ) Q . (4.48)

As in Chap. 3, henceforth we omit the symbol n to denote the respective normal

traces and simply write n instead of n ( ).

We now consider finite-dimensional subspaces Hh H, Quh L20 ( ) and Qh
H 1/2 ( ) and define

Qh := Quh Qh Q .
Then, the associated Galerkin scheme reduces to the following formulation: find
( h , (uh , h )) Hh Qh such that

a( h , h ) + b( h , (uh , h )) = 0 h Hh ,
 (4.49)
b( h , (vh , h )) = f vh +  g, h  (vh , h ) Qh .

112 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

For the analysis of (4.49) we first focus on the discrete inf-sup condition for b, that
is, on the eventual existence of > 0, independent of h, such that

b( h , (vh , h ))
sup (vh , h )Q (vh , h ) Qh . (4.50)
h Hh  h H
h = 0

Since b can be decomposed as the sum of two bilinear forms b1 and b2 , that is [cf.
(4.48)],
b( , (v, )) = b1 ( , v) + b2 ( , ) H, (v, ) Q , (4.51)
we could certainly utilize the corresponding characterization result established in
[40, Theorem 7] to prove (4.50). Alternatively, and due to the same decomposition,
one could also employ the slightly different equivalence given in [45, Theorem 3.1].
However, and to provide further points of view to this analysis, in what follows we
apply another procedure that can be seen as a combination of the aforementioned
approaches. Indeed, we first use the boundedness of the normal trace of vectors in
H(div; ) [see (1.44) in the proof of Theorem 1.7] to deduce that
b( h , (vh , h )) b1 ( h , vh )
sup sup h 1/2,
h Hh  h H h Hh  h div,
h = 0  h = 0
vh div h
= sup h 1/2, (vh , h ) Qh .
h Hh  h div,
h = 0
Next, considering the particular subspaces [cf. (4.1) and (4.3)]
 
Hh := Hh0 := h H(div; ) : h |K RT0 (K) K Th ,
 
Quh := Yh0 L20 ( ) := vh L20 ( ) : vh |K P0 (K) K Th

and employing the analysis from Sect. 4.2, we obtain that

b( h , (vh , h ))
sup vh 0, h 1/2, (vh , h ) Qh , (4.52)
h Hh  h H
h = 0

with a constant > 0, independent of h. Then, it is straightforward to see that

b( h , (vh , h )) b2 ( h , h )
sup sup
h Hh  h H h V1,h  h div,
h = 0 h = 0
(4.53)
 h n, h 
= sup (vh , h ) Qh ,
h V1,h  h div,
h = 0
4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions 113

where V1,h is the discrete kernel of b1 , that is,

  
V1,h = h Hh : b1 ( h , vh ) := vh div h = 0 vh Quh

  (4.54)
= h Hh : div h P0 ( ) .

Hence, it is easy to see from (4.52) and (4.53) that, in order to conclude (4.50), it
suffices to show that there exists a constant > 0, independent of h, such that

 h n, h 
sup h 1/2, h Qh . (4.55)
h V1,h  h div,
h = 0

Throughout the rest of this section we aim to prove (4.55). To this end, we now
introduce the following definition.
Definition 4.1. Let h ( ) := { h n| : h V1,h }. We say that a linear operator
Lh : h ( ) V1,h is a STABLE DISCRETE LIFTING if
(i) Lh (h ) n = h on h h ( );
(ii) c > 0, independently of h such that

Lh (h )div, c h 1/2, h h ( ).

Lemma 4.9. Assume that there exists a stable discrete lifting Lh : h ( ) V1,h .
Then the discrete inf-sup condition (4.55) is equivalent to the existence of C > 0,
independent of h, such that

h , h 
sup C h 1/2, h Qh . (4.56)
h h ( ) h 1/2,
h = 0

Proof. It suffices to see, according to (ii) in Definition 4.1, that

|h , h | c |h , h | | h n, h |
c sup
h 1/2, Lh(h )div, h V1,h  h div,
h = 0

and, according to the bound given by (1.44) (cf. Theorem 1.7), that

| h n, h | | h n, h | |h , h |
sup ,
 h div,  h n1/2, h h ( ) h 1/2,

h = 0

whence (4.55) and (4.56) are equivalent. 



In what follows we provide sufficient conditions for the existence of a stable

discrete lifting Lh : h ( ) V1,h . To this end, we proceed as in [39, Sects. 5.2
114 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

and 5.3] and assume that Th is quasi-uniform around . This means that there exist
a neighborhood of and a constant c > 0, independent of h, such that, denoting

Th, := {K Th : K = 0}
/ , (4.57)

there holds
max hK c min hK .
KTh, KTh,

It is important to remark here that, while the aforementioned requirement of quasi-

uniformity was removed recently in [48, Sects. 4 and 5] for the two-dimensional
case, we prefer to keep it throughout the rest of the present analysis since, to our
knowledge, the approach to be shown below is also the only known one that can be
applied to derive the existence of stable discrete liftings in three dimensions (e.g.,
[33, Lemma 7.5]).
Now, because of the regularity of Th [cf. (3.32)], which means that

hK
c K Th , h > 0
K

or, equivalently, that {Th }h>0 satisfies the minimum angle condition, the quasi-
uniformity assumption implies that the partition on inherited from Th , say h , is
also quasi-uniform, that is, there exists c > 0, independently of h, such that
   
h := max |e| : e h c min |e| : e h .

We now define
 
h ( ) := h L2 ( ) : h |e P0 (e) e h

and notice that h ( ) h ( ). In addition, the quasi-uniformity of h implies that

h ( ), which coincides with the space Qh given in Sect. 4.3, satisfies the inverse
inequality (cf. Lemma 4.6)

h 1/2+ , C h h 1/2, h h ( ), [0, 1/2] . (4.58)

Theorem 4.1. Under the previously stated assumptions, there exists a stable discrete
lifting Lh : h ( ) V1,h .

Proof. Let h h ( ), and let v H 1 ( ) be the unique solution of the problem

 
1
v = h in , v n = h on , v = 0.
| |
4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions 115

The corresponding continuous dependence result says that v1, C1 h 1/2, .

Next, the elliptic regularity result in nonconvex polygonal domains (cf. [42]) estab-
lishes that there exists (0, 1/2) such that v H 1+ ( ) and

v1+ , C h 1/2+ , .

It follows that v [H ( )]2 H(div; ) [note that div (v) = v = 1
| | h

R], and hence we can define (see remark immediately preceding Lemma 3.19)

Lh (h ) := h0 (v) .

According to the preceding equation and (3.8) (cf. Lemma 3.7), we obtain

1
div Lh (h ) = div h0 (v) = Ph0 (div v) = Ph0 ( v) = h P0 ( ) ,
| |

which confirms that Lh (h ) V1,h , and, thanks to (3.36) (see proof of Lemma 3.18),
we find that

Lh (h ) n = h0 (v) n = Ph,0 (v n) = Ph,0 (h ) = h ,

where Ph,0 : L2 ( ) h ( ) is the orthogonal projector. Note that this last

identity also proves that h ( ) h ( ), and therefore we deduce that
 
h ( ) := h n| : h V1,h
 
= h ( ) := h L2 ( ) : h |e P0 (e) e h .

It remains to prove that Lh : h ( ) V1,h is uniformly bounded. To this end, we

first observe that
 1  2
 
Lh (h )2div, = Lh (h )20, +  h  Lh (h )20, + C h 21/2, .
| | 0,

Next, we recall from (4.57) the definition of Th, and introduce the sets
 
h1 := K Th : K  Th, \

and  
h2 := \h1 = K Th, .

Since \ is strictly contained in , the interior elliptic regularity result (cf. [49,
Theorem 4.16]) implies that v| \ H 2 ( \ ) and

v2, \ C2 h 1/2, .
116 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

It follows that
Lh (h )0, Lh (h )0, 1 + Lh (h )0, 2
h h

= h0 (v)0, 1 + h0 (v)0, 2

h h

C v1, 1 + v0, 2 + v h0 (v)0, 2

h h h
C v2, 1 + v1, 2 + v h0 (v)0, 2
h h h
CC2 h 1/2, + C1 h 1/2, + v h0 (v)0, 2 .
h

On the other hand, applying estimate (3.37) (cf. Lemma 3.19) and inverse
inequality (4.58), we obtain

v h0 (v)20, 2 =
h

v K0 (v)20,K
KTh,

 1  2
 
C hK |v| ,K + 
2 2
h 
| | 0,K
KTh,
 
C max h2K v21+ , 2 + h 21/2,
KTh, h
 
2
C max hK v1+ , + h 21/2,
2
KTh,
 
C max h2K h 21/2+ , + h 21/2,
KTh,
 
C max h2K h2 h 21/2, + h 21/2,
KTh,

C h 21/2, ,

where the fact that hK C h K Th, has been used in the last inequality.
Consequently, gathering together the preceding estimates, we conclude that

Lh (h )div, C h 1/2, h h ( ),

which completes the proof. 



We now aim to prove the following result, which, according to Lemma 4.9, will
suffice to conclude the required discrete inf-sup condition for the term on .
Lemma 4.10. There exists > 0, independent of h, such that

h , h 
sup h 1/2, h Qh .
h h ( ) h 1/2,
h = 0

For the aforementioned purpose we proceed as in [39, Sect. 5.3] and describe in
what follows two different procedures under which Lemma 4.10 is proved.
4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions 117

PROCEDURE 1. The subsequent analysis is based on the approach originally

proposed in [9]. In fact, we now set
 
h ( ) = h ( ) := h L2 ( ) : h |e P0 (e) e h ,
 
where h is the partition on inherited from Th , and let h := max |e| : e h .
In addition, we introduce the space
 

Qh := h C( ) : h |j P1 (j ) j {1, , m} ,
 
where 1 , 2 , , m is another partition of and
 
h := max |j | : j {1, , m} .

Then we have the following result.

Lemma 4.11. There exist c0 , > 0, independent of h and h, such that h
c0 h
h , h 
sup h 1/2, h Qh .
h h ( )  
h 1/2,
h = 0

Proof. Given h Qh , we let z H 1 ( ) be the unique solution of the problem

z + z = 0 in , z = h on .

Since Qh H 1 ( ), we obtain by elliptic regularity (cf. [42]) that z H 1+ ( )
 
and z1+ , C h 1/2+ , [0, 0 ], where 0 := min 12 , and is
the largest interior angle of . In what follows, we fix (0, 0 ], < 1/2, and

observe that z n H 1/2+ ( ) and

 
 
z n C z1+ , .
1/2+ ,

Then, according to the approximation properties of h ( ), whose details are

described following this proof, we find that
   
 1/2   
z n Ph (z n)  C h z n
1/2, 1/2+ ,
C h z1+ , C h h 1/2+ , ,

1/2
where Ph : H 1/2 ( ) h ( ) is the orthogonal projector with respect to the

H 1/2 ( )-inner product. Hence, applying the inverse inequality for Qh (see remark
following proof), we deduce that
118 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

   
 1/2  h
z n Ph (z n)  C h 1/2, .
1/2, h

Next, using that  zdiv, = z1, and that z = z in , it follows that

   
 1/2   
Ph (z n)  z n z1, C h 1/2, .
1/2, 1/2,

On the other hand, it is clear that

' ( ' (
z n, h = z n, z = z21, C z21/2, = C h 21/2, .

In this way, we deduce that

' (
1/2
h , h  P h (z n) , h
sup  


h h ( )  
h 1/2, Ph
1/2
(z n) 
h = 0
 ' ( ' 1/2, (
1  1/2 
C  z n, h z n Ph (z n) , h 
h 1/2,
  
1 h
C C h 1/2, C
2
h 1/2,
2
h 1/2, h
  
h
C1 C2 h 1/2, ,
h
 1/
C1
from which, taking C0 = , the proof is concluded. 

2C2

We notice now that, to have the inverse inequality for Qh , one needs to see that

h 1/2, h0 h 1/2, h Qh

and then prove that

h 1, C h1/2 h1/2, h Qh ,

for which it suffices to demonstrate that |h |1, C h1/2 h 1/2, h Qh .
 
PROCEDURE 2. Let h ( ) := h L2 ( ) : h |e P0 (e) e h , define h :=
 
max |e| : e h , and assume that the number of edges e of h is even. Then we set
 

Qh := h C( ) : h |e P1 (e) e 2h ,
4.4 Poisson Problem with Neumann Boundary Conditions 119

where 2h is the partition of that arises by joining adjacent edges (certainly lying

on the same line). Note that dim h ( ) = 2 dim Qh . As was the case earlier, the
goal here is to show the existence of > 0 such that

h , h 
sup h 1/2, h Qh . (4.59)
h h ( ) h 1/2,
h = 0

To this end, we assume henceforth (see details in [39]) that there exist h ( )

h ( ) and constants 0 , 1 > 0, such that dim h ( ) = dim Qh ,

h , h 
sup 0 h 0, h Qh , (4.60)
h h ( )
h 0,
h = 0

and
h , h 
sup 1 h 1, h Qh , (4.61)
h h ( )
 h 1,
h = 0

so that (4.59) is proved next by interpolating (4.60) and (4.61). In fact, we have
the following result (cf. F.J. Sayas 2012, private communication).
Lemma 4.12. There exists > 0, independent of h, such that (4.59) holds.

Proof. Let Gh : L2 ( ) Qh be the operator defined by Gh ( ) := h for each
L2 ( ), where h is the unique element in Qh such that

h , h  = h ,  h h ( ) .

Note that the inf-sup condition (4.60) and the fact that dim h ( ) = dim Qh guar-
antee the existence and uniqueness of h . Observe, in addition, that h is a Petrov
Galerkin type approximation of . Now it is easy to see that (4.60) and (4.61) can
be put together in the form

h , h 
sup s h s, h Qh , s {0, 1}.
h h ( )
 h s,
h = 0

Applying the preceding inequality to Gh ( ) Qh , we obtain

1 h , Gh ( )
Gh ( )s, sup
s ( ) h s,
h h
h = 0
1 h ,  1
= sup  s, H s ( ) ,
s h h ( )
 
h s, s
h = 0
120 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

that is,

Gh ( )s, s1  s, H s ( ), s {0, 1},

and then, thanks to the interpolation estimates for Sobolev spaces (cf. [49, Appendix
B]), we obtain

Gh ( )1/2, (0 1 )1/2  1/2, H 1/2 ( ) . (4.62)

1/2
We now let Ph : H 1/2( ) h ( ) be the orthogonal projector. Then, given
H ( ), we consider the functional f : H 1/2 ( ) R defined by
1/2

1/2
f ( ) := Ph ( ),  H 1/2 ( )

and let v := J 1 ( f ) H 1/2 ( ), where J : H 1/2 ( ) H 1/2 ( )

H 1/2 ( )
is
the usual isometry characterizing reflexive spaces, that is, J(v)(F) = F(v) F
H 1/2 ( ) H 1/2 ( )
, v H 1/2 ( ). It follows that h h ( ) there holds

h , Gh (v ) = h , v  = J(v )(h ) = f (h )
1/2
= Ph (h ),  = h ,  = h , Gh ( ) ,

and therefore Gh (v ) = Gh ( ). Consequently, utilizing (4.62) and the fact that

1/2
Ph ( )1/2, is certainly bounded by  1/2, , we find that for each
H 1/2 ( ) there holds

(0 1 )1/2 Gh ( )1/2, = (0 1 )1/2 Gh (v )1/2,

| , v |
v 1/2, = sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
= 0
1/2
|Ph ( ), |
= sup
H 1/2 ( )
 1/2,
= 0
1/2
|Ph ( ), |
sup 1/2
H 1/2 ( ) Ph ( )1/2,
= 0
h 
sup .
h h ( )
h 1/2,
h = 0

Finally, applying the preceding expression to h Qh , noting in this case that
Gh (h ) = h , and recalling that h ( ) h ( ), we conclude that

(0 1 )1/2 h 1/2, = (0 1 )1/2 Gh (h )1/2,

4.5 Linear Elasticity Problem 121

h , h  h , h 
sup sup h Qh ,
h h ( )
h 1/2, h h ( ) h 1/2,
h = 0 h = 0

which constitutes the required discrete inf-sup condition (4.59). 



We now look at the discrete kernel Vh of b, that is,

 
Vh := h Hh : b( h , (vh , h )) = 0 (vh , h ) Qh ,

which, according to (4.51) and (4.54), yields

 

Vh := h Hh : div h P0 ( ) and  h n, h  = 0 h Qh .

Hence, the Vh -ellipticity of a follows straightforwardly from [39, Lemma 3.2] by

making use of only the first property characterizing the elements of Vh .
Consequently, applying again the discrete BabuskaBrezzi theory (cf. Theo-
rems 2.4 and 2.6) we conclude that (4.49) has a unique solution ( h , (uh , h ))
Hh Qh , and there exists a constant C > 0, independent of h, such that

( , (u, )) ( h , (uh , h ))HQ

C inf ( , (u, )) ( h , (vh , h ))HQ .

( h ,(vh ,h ))Hh Qh

The approximation properties of Hh and Quh are somehow already established by

(4.32) and (4.33) [see also (4.4) and (4.21)], whereas that of Qh is given by (cf. [39,
(AP3)])

 P1/2,h( )1/2, C h  1/2+ , H 1/2+ ( ) , [0, 1] ,

where P1/2,h : H 1/2 ( ) Qh is the orthogonal projector with respect to the inner
product of H 1/2 ( ).

4.5 Linear Elasticity Problem

In this section we analyze the Galerkin scheme for the two-dimensional version
of the linear elasticity problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions studied in
Sect. 2.4.3.1. To this end, we recall that, given a bounded domain R2 with
Lipschitz-continuous boundary , and given f L2 ( ), the corresponding mixed
formulation reduces to [cf. (2.50)] the following problem: find ( , (u, )) H0 Q
such that
122 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

a( , ) + b( , (u, )) = F( ) H0 ,
(4.63)
b( , (v, )) = G(v, ) (v, ) Q ,
where (cf. Sect. 2.4.3.1)
  
H0 := H0 (div; ) : tr( ) = 0 , Q := L2 ( ) L2skew ( ),

a : H0 H0 R and b : H0 Q R are the bilinear forms defined by

  
1
a( , ) := C 1 : = : tr( ) tr( ) (4.64)
2 4 ( + )

for all ( , ) H0 H0 , and

 
b( , (v, )) := v div + : (4.65)

for all ( , (v, )) H0 Q, and the functionals F H0

and G Q
are given by

F( ) := 0 H0 , G(v, ) := f v (v, ) Q. (4.66)

We now let {Hh }h>0 , {Q1,h }h>0 , and {Q2,h }h>0 be families of arbitrary finite
element subspaces of H0 , Q1 := L2 ( ), and Q2 := L2skew ( ), respectively. Then,
denoting Qh := Q1,h Q2,h , we consider the associated Galerkin scheme: find
( h , (uh , h )) Hh Qh such that

a( h , h ) + b( h , (uh , h )) = F( h ) h Hh ,
(4.67)
b( h , (vh , h )) = G(vh , h ) (vh , h ) Qh .

Our goal is to apply the theory from Sect. 2.5 to find specific subspaces Hh , Q1,h
and Q2,h ensuring the unique solvability and stability of (4.67). More precisely,
assuming in advance that a is going to be elliptic on the discrete kernel Vh of b
(which actually will be shown later on), we concentrate in what follows on proving
the discrete inf-sup condition for b, that is, the existence of > 0, independent of
h, such that
b( h , (vh , h ))
sup (vh , h )Q (vh , h ) Qh . (4.68)
h Hh  h H
h = 0

To accomplish this, we know from Fortins lemma (cf. Lemma 2.6) that it suffices to
build a sequence of uniformly bounded operators {h }h>0 L (H, Hh ) such that

b( h ( ), (v, h )) = 0 (v, h ) Qh . (4.69)

We now let b1 : H0 Q1 R and b2 : H0 Q2 R be the bounded bilinear

forms such that
4.5 Linear Elasticity Problem 123

b( , (v, )) = b1 ( , v) + b2 ( , ) ( , (v, )) H0 Q,

that is,
 
b1 ( , v) := v div and b2 ( , ) := : .

It follows that (4.69) can be rewritten as

b1 ( h ( ), vh ) + b2 ( h ( ), h ) = 0 (vh , h ) Qh . (4.70)

In addition, if we assume for a moment that we already have a sequence of uniformly

bounded operators {1,h }h>0 L (H, Hh ) such that

b1 ( 1,h ( ), vh ) = 0 vh Q1,h , (4.71)

then we aim to find a second sequence of uniformly bounded operators {2,h }h>0
L (H, Hh ) such that
(i) b1 (2,h ( ), vh ) = 0 vh Q1,h and
(ii) b2 ( 1,h ( ) 2,h ( ), h ) = 0 h Q2,h ,
so that defining h := 1,h + 2,h we satisfy the condition (4.70) [equivalently,
(4.69)]. Indeed, it is easy to see from the analysis in Sect. 4.2 that, given a triangu-
larization Th of and an integer k 0, and defining

Hh := { h H0 : h,i |K RTk (K) K Th } (4.72)

and
Q1,h := {vh L2 ( ) : vh |K [Pk (K)]2 K Th } , (4.73)
where h,i stands for the ith row of h , one can proceed by rows as in (4.29) to define
a uniformly bounded explicit family {1,h }h>0 satisfying (4.71).
It remains therefore to build a family {2,h}h>0 L (H, Hh ) verifying (i) and
(ii). To this end, we now follow the approach introduced in [23] (see also [12] for
further extensions). More precisely, we let Xh and Yh be stable finite element sub-
spaces for the usual primal formulation of the Stokes problem and, given H0 ,
consider the associated Galerkin scheme: find (zh , ph ) Xh Yh such that
 
zh : h + ph div h = 0 h Xh ,

  (4.74)
qh div zh = ( 1,h ( )) : S(qh ) qh Yh ,

 
0q
where S(q) := Q2 := L2skew ( ) q L2 ( ). Note that the stability
q 0
of (4.74) guarantees the existence of a constant C > 0, independent of h, such that
124 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

zh 1, + ph 0, C  1,h ( )0, H0 . (4.75)

Now it is easy to see that

 
qh div zh = curlzh : S(qh ),

where, denoting zh := (zh,1 , zh,2 )t Xh ,

zh,1 zh,1
x2 x1
curlzh :=
zh,2
,
zh,2

x2 x1
and hence the second equation in (4.74) can be rewritten as
  
1,h ( ) curlzh : S(qh ) = 0 qh Yh .

Thus, a comparison between this identity and the required condition (ii) for 2,h
suggests defining 2,h ( ) := curlzh under the assumptions that curl(Xh ) Hh and
Q2,h S(Yh ). Next, since div 2,h ( ) = div curl zh = 0, it follows that

b1 (2,h ( ), vh ) = vh div 2,h ( ) = 0 vh Q1,h ,

which shows that (i) is also satisfied. In addition, thanks to the uniform boundedness
of {1,h }h>0 [cf. (4.30)] and the stability result given by (4.75), we find that for each
H0 there holds

2,h ( )div, = curlzh 0, zh 1,

 
C  1,h ( )0, C  0, + 1,h ( )0,
 
C  0, + C1  div, C2  div, ,

which proves that {2,h }h > 0 is uniformly bounded as well.

As a consequence of the preceding analysis, we can say that, given a pair (Xh ,Yh )
yielding a well-posed Galerkin scheme for the Stokes problem, the discrete inf-sup
condition for b is insured by redefining
 
Hh := h H0 : h,i |K RTk (K) K Th + curl(Xh ) , (4.76)

by keeping Q1,h as in (4.73), and by defining

Q2,h := S(Yh ). (4.77)

4.5 Linear Elasticity Problem 125

In particular, if we consider the mini finite element (cf. [41, Chap. II, Sect. 4.1])
given by
 
Xh := h [C( )]2 : h |K [P1 (K)  bK ]2 K Th

and  
Yh := qh C( ) : qh |K P1 (K) K Th ,

where bK is the bubble function on the triangle K, then (4.76) (with k = 0) and
(4.77) become
 
Hh := h H0 : h,i |K RT0 (K) +  curl bK  K Th

and
 
 0 qh 
Q2,h := h := : qh C( ) and qh |K P1 (K) K Th ,
qh 0

which, together with Q1,h given by (4.73) (with k = 0), constitutes the well-known
PEERS finite element subspace of order 0 for linear elasticity (cf. [2]).
Finally, it is easy to see from these definitions of Hh , Q1,h , and Q2,h that the
discrete kernel of b becomes
  
Vh := h Hh : div h = 0 in and h : h = 0 h Q2,h .

Hence, according to the inequalities given by (2.52) and Lemma 2.3, we conclude
that a is Vh -elliptic, which completes the hypotheses required by the discrete
BabuskaBrezzi theory (cf. Theorem 2.4) for the well-posedness of (4.67).

We end this monograph by mentioning that certainly many interesting topics have
been left out of the discussion, including, to name just a few, nonlinear boundary
value problems, time-dependent problems, a posteriori error analysis, and further
applications in continuum mechanics and electromagnetism (see, e.g., the recent
book [13] and the extensive list of references therein for a thorough discussion of
them). In particular, it is worth mentioning that in the case of the linear elastic-
ity problem, new stable mixed finite element methods in two and three dimensions
with either strong symmetry or weakly imposed symmetry for the stresses have
been derived over the last decade using the finite element exterior calculus, a quite
abstract framework involving several sophisticated mathematical tools (e.g., [36]).
In addition, concerning a posteriori error estimates for mixed finite element meth-
ods, we refer to the key contributions in [1, 17] and, within the context of the lin-
ear elasticity and Stokes problems, to [18, 19, 47]. Furthermore, and as comple-
mentary bibliographic material addressing some of the related contributions by the
author, together with his main collaborators and former students, we may also refer
126 4 M IXED FINITE ELEMENT M ETHODS

to [10, 11, 21, 24, 25, 2730, 3234, 3638], which deal mainly with augmented
mixed methods for linear and nonlinear problems in elasticity and fluid mechanics,
twofold saddle point variational formulations, fluidsolid interaction problems, and
the corresponding a posteriori error analyses. We hope to write an extended version
of the present book in the near future that will incorporate the contents of most of
the aforementioned references.