1996
DOI: 10.1051/m2an/1996300403851
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A posteriori error estimators for nonconforming finite element methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
105
0
3

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
105
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…We establish the lower error bound of the estimator η p K in a more or less standard way (see [14,20]). Since we consider a nonstationary problem, we further need the following assumption (see [9,22]), that is easily checked in an adaptive context:…”
Section: Lower Error Boundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We establish the lower error bound of the estimator η p K in a more or less standard way (see [14,20]). Since we consider a nonstationary problem, we further need the following assumption (see [9,22]), that is easily checked in an adaptive context:…”
Section: Lower Error Boundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To be able to extend these techniques to nonconforming spatial approximations, as for elliptic problems [14], we need to be able to estimate the consistency term appearing in the error equation. As in [14], this term is managed using a Helmholtz decomposition of the error. This allows us to extend the results from [7][8][9]22] to the nonconforming case.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observe that this also provides L 2 (Ω) error control because of the discrete Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality. To estimate the error we shall make use of the following lemma, which is proved in [11] and used in [4,9].…”
Section: 7mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various alternative a posteriori estimators for the error in the broken energy norm have been proposed for the lowest order nonconforming Crouzeix-Raviart finite element approximation on triangular elements, including explicit residualbased estimators [11], hierarchical basis estimators [14] and averaging type estimators [10]. All of these estimators provide two-sided bounds on the error up to unknown positive constants that are nevertheless independent of the mesh-size.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first results proving the equivalence between the error and a residual type estimator were based on the use of a Helmholtz type decomposition of the error [9]. See also [3,7,11] where similar techniques were applied for mixed finite element approximations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%