Comparison results for the Stokes equations
This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernar...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Carstensen, C. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Pseudostress finite element method Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method |
|---|
| Umfang: |
12 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry - Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER, 2018, transactions of IMACS, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:95 ; year:2015 ; pages:118-129 ; extent:12 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV023375949 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV023375949 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230623170303.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2015006000011.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV023375949 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 510 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 510 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 520 |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 39.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 50.93 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Carstensen, C. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 300 | |a 12 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Pseudostress finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Bernardi–Raugel finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a MINI finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Comparison results |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a P 2 P 0 finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Non-conforming finite element method |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Stokes equations |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Köhler, K. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Peterseim, D. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schedensack, M. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |a Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER |t Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |d 2018 |d transactions of IMACS |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV001550608 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:95 |g year:2015 |g pages:118-129 |g extent:12 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-AST | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 39.00 |j Astronomie: Allgemeines |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 50.93 |j Weltraumforschung |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 95 |j 2015 |h 118-129 |g 12 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 510 | ||
| author_variant |
c c cc |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
carstensenckhlerkpeterseimdschedensackm:2015----:oprsneutfrhso |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| bklnumber |
39.00 50.93 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 doi GBVA2015006000011.pica (DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Carstensen, C. verfasserin aut Comparison results for the Stokes equations 2015 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier Köhler, K. oth Peterseim, D. oth Schedensack, M. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry 2018 transactions of IMACS Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001550608 volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST 39.00 Astronomie: Allgemeines VZ 50.93 Weltraumforschung VZ AR 95 2015 118-129 12 045F 510 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 doi GBVA2015006000011.pica (DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Carstensen, C. verfasserin aut Comparison results for the Stokes equations 2015 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier Köhler, K. oth Peterseim, D. oth Schedensack, M. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry 2018 transactions of IMACS Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001550608 volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST 39.00 Astronomie: Allgemeines VZ 50.93 Weltraumforschung VZ AR 95 2015 118-129 12 045F 510 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 doi GBVA2015006000011.pica (DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Carstensen, C. verfasserin aut Comparison results for the Stokes equations 2015 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier Köhler, K. oth Peterseim, D. oth Schedensack, M. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry 2018 transactions of IMACS Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001550608 volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST 39.00 Astronomie: Allgemeines VZ 50.93 Weltraumforschung VZ AR 95 2015 118-129 12 045F 510 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 doi GBVA2015006000011.pica (DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Carstensen, C. verfasserin aut Comparison results for the Stokes equations 2015 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier Köhler, K. oth Peterseim, D. oth Schedensack, M. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry 2018 transactions of IMACS Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001550608 volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST 39.00 Astronomie: Allgemeines VZ 50.93 Weltraumforschung VZ AR 95 2015 118-129 12 045F 510 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 doi GBVA2015006000011.pica (DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Carstensen, C. verfasserin aut Comparison results for the Stokes equations 2015 12 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier Köhler, K. oth Peterseim, D. oth Schedensack, M. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry 2018 transactions of IMACS Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001550608 volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST 39.00 Astronomie: Allgemeines VZ 50.93 Weltraumforschung VZ AR 95 2015 118-129 12 045F 510 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:95 year:2015 pages:118-129 extent:12 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Astronomie: Allgemeines Weltraumforschung |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Pseudostress finite element method Bernardi–Raugel finite element method MINI finite element method Comparison results P 2 P 0 finite element method Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Non-conforming finite element method Stokes equations |
| dewey-raw |
510 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Carstensen, C. @@aut@@ Köhler, K. @@oth@@ Peterseim, D. @@oth@@ Schedensack, M. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV001550608 |
| dewey-sort |
3510 |
| id |
ELV023375949 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV023375949</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230623170303.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2015006000011.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV023375949</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">510</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">510</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">520</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">39.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">50.93</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carstensen, C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison results for the Stokes equations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Pseudostress finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bernardi–Raugel finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">MINI finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Comparison results</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">P 2 P 0 finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Non-conforming finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Stokes equations</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Köhler, K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peterseim, D.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schedensack, M.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry</subfield><subfield code="d">2018</subfield><subfield code="d">transactions of IMACS</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV001550608</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:95</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:118-129</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-AST</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">39.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Astronomie: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">50.93</subfield><subfield code="j">Weltraumforschung</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">95</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">118-129</subfield><subfield code="g">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">510</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Carstensen, C. |
| spellingShingle |
Carstensen, C. ddc 510 ddc 520 bkl 39.00 bkl 50.93 Elsevier Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| authorStr |
Carstensen, C. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV001550608 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
510 - Mathematics 520 - Astronomy & allied sciences 620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl Comparison results for the Stokes equations Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 510 ddc 520 bkl 39.00 bkl 50.93 Elsevier Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 510 ddc 520 bkl 39.00 bkl 50.93 Elsevier Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations |
| topic_browse |
ddc 510 ddc 520 bkl 39.00 bkl 50.93 Elsevier Pseudostress finite element method Elsevier Bernardi–Raugel finite element method Elsevier MINI finite element method Elsevier Comparison results Elsevier P 2 P 0 finite element method Elsevier Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method Elsevier Non-conforming finite element method Elsevier Stokes equations |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
k k kk d p dp m s ms |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV001550608 |
| dewey-tens |
510 - Mathematics 520 - Astronomy 620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV001550608 |
| title |
Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV023375949 (ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X |
| title_full |
Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| author_sort |
Carstensen, C. |
| journal |
Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |
| journalStr |
Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
118 |
| author_browse |
Carstensen, C. |
| container_volume |
95 |
| physical |
12 |
| class |
510 510 DE-600 520 620 VZ 39.00 bkl 50.93 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Carstensen, C. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |
| dewey-full |
510 520 620 |
| title_sort |
comparison results for the stokes equations |
| title_auth |
Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| abstract |
This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. |
| abstractGer |
This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OPC-AST |
| title_short |
Comparison results for the Stokes equations |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Köhler, K. Peterseim, D. Schedensack, M. |
| author2Str |
Köhler, K. Peterseim, D. Schedensack, M. |
| ppnlink |
ELV001550608 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T18:43:12.010Z |
| _version_ |
1803856266669326336 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV023375949</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230623170303.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2015006000011.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV023375949</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0168-9274(14)00021-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">510</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">510</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">520</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">39.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">50.93</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carstensen, C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison results for the Stokes equations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper enfolds a medius analysis for the Stokes equations and compares different finite element methods (FEMs). A first result is a best approximation result for a P 1 non-conforming FEM. The main comparison result is that the error of the P 2 P 0 -FEM is a lower bound to the error of the Bernardi–Raugel (or reduced P 2 P 0 ) FEM, which is a lower bound to the error of the P 1 non-conforming FEM, and this is a lower bound to the error of the MINI-FEM. The paper discusses the converse direction, as well as other methods such as the discontinuous Galerkin and pseudostress FEMs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Pseudostress finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bernardi–Raugel finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">MINI finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Comparison results</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">P 2 P 0 finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Discontinuous Galerkin finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Non-conforming finite element method</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Stokes equations</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Köhler, K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peterseim, D.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schedensack, M.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Nagy, Melinda ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Impact of rogue active regions on hemispheric asymmetry</subfield><subfield code="d">2018</subfield><subfield code="d">transactions of IMACS</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV001550608</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:95</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:118-129</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2013.12.005</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-AST</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">39.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Astronomie: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">50.93</subfield><subfield code="j">Weltraumforschung</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">95</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">118-129</subfield><subfield code="g">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">510</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4003963 |