Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

A posteriori error analysis for a new fully-mixed isotropic discretization of the stationary Stokes-Darcy coupled problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Residual estimator bounds Stokes-Darcy finite-element error from both sides.

desk verdict A real gap-filling estimator for a Stokes-Darcy scheme, but the reliability proof omits the nonconformity step and needs a serious rewrite before it can be cited. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07454 v2 pith:PXWXED2T submitted 2019-08-19 math.NA cs.NA

Koffi Wilfrid Houédanou , Jamal Adetola This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 74S0574S1074S1574S2074S2574S30
keywords Stokes-Darcyproblemaposteriorierrorestimationstabilizedfully-mixedfiniteelementmethodMINIBDMBeavers-Joseph-Saffmanconditionreliabilityandefficiencyisotropicmeshes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops a posteriori error estimates for a stabilized fully mixed finite-element discretization of the stationary Stokes-Darcy flow problem. The goal is a computable quantity, built from element residuals and interface stabilization terms, that measures the discretization error without knowledge of the exact solution. The paper proves an upper bound: the error in the mesh-dependent norm $\|U - U_h\|_h$ is controlled by the estimator $\Theta$ plus data oscillation $\zeta$, and a local lower bound showing each estimator term is controlled by nearby error plus oscillation. Two-sided control of this kind is what an adaptive mesh-refinement algorithm needs to decide where to refine and when to stop.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on the mesh-dependent norm $\|V\|_h = (\|v_f\|_1^2 + \|q\|^2 + \|v_p\|_{\mathrm{div}}^2 + \|\psi\|^2 + h^{-1}\|(v_f - v_p)\cdot n_f\|_\Gamma^2)^{1/2}$, which weights the interface mismatch by $h^{-1}$. The estimator $\Theta_K$ assembles element residuals, face jumps, and the stabilization term $J_\Gamma$, and the proof uses three imported ingredients: a Helmholtz-type decomposition, a regularity result for the exact solution, and the stability estimate $\inf_{W_h \in H_h \cap H}\|U_h - W_h\|_h^2 \lesssim J_\Gamma(U_h,U_h)$. Bubble functions and quasi-interpolation then convert the residual equation into the upper and lower bounds.

What would settle it

Compute both sides of the imported stability estimate (24) on a family of uniformly refined meshes for a problem with a known exact solution. If the ratio of the infimum over conforming discrete functions to the interface stabilization term grows without bound as $h$ tends to zero, then the assumed estimate fails and the reliability proof of Theorem 3.4 lacks its essential ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the exact solution $U$ of the weak formulation and the discrete solution $U_h$ of the stabilized fully-mixed scheme, the norm $\|U - U_h\|_h$ is bounded above by the residual estimator $\Theta$ plus data oscillation $\zeta$, while each local indicator $\Theta_K$ is bounded below by local error plus local oscillation. This is stated as Theorem 3.4 (reliability) and Theorem 3.5 (efficiency). The estimator collects residual terms in the fluid and porous regions, interface terms from the Beavers-Joseph-Saffman condition and normal-flux balance, and the stabilization term measuring the jump of normal velocity across the interface. The proof combines a Helmholtz decomposition, a regularity result, a stability estimate for the stabilization term, and standard bubble-function and interpolation arguments.

Load-bearing premise

The reliability theorem depends on an estimate imported from an earlier paper: the discrete solution can be mimicked, in the norm used for the error, by a discrete function with exact interface continuity, with error no larger than the stabilization term. If that estimate is false, the stated upper bound is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The estimator $\Theta + \zeta$ is computable from the discrete solution and the data, so it can drive adaptive mesh refinement without solving the continuous problem.
  • Local indicators $\Theta_K$ identify which elements contribute most to the error, concentrating refinement near the fluid-porous interface and regions with large residuals.
  • The efficiency bound shows that stopping when the estimator is small does not miss large local errors, up to data oscillation.
  • Because the analysis covers dimensions two and three on isotropic meshes, the same estimator applies to practical two- and three-dimensional Stokes-Darcy simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the imported stability estimate is the only obstruction, a natural next step is to prove or disprove it directly for the MINI–BDM1/P1 pairing; that would decide whether the reliability constant is truly independent of mesh size.
  • The same residual structure could be adapted to anisotropic meshes or to unsteady Stokes-Darcy problems, where the $h^{-1}$ interface term would need a time-dependent counterpart.
  • The paper does not run adaptive experiments; a concrete test of the theory would be to compare effectivity indices on a sequence of adaptively refined meshes against the predicted constants.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a residual-based a posteriori error analysis for a stabilized fully-mixed finite element discretization of the stationary Stokes-Darcy problem. The scheme uses MINI elements in the fluid region, P1 and BDM1 elements in the porous region, and an interface stabilization term J_Gamma. The main results are Theorem 3.4, a global reliability bound ||U - U_h||_h <= C_rel (Theta + zeta), and Theorem 3.5, a local efficiency bound for the indicator Theta_K. The proofs rely on a Helmholtz decomposition, Clément interpolation, bubble-function localization, and three results imported from [44]. No numerical experiments are reported.

Significance. If the stated bounds were proven, the paper would fill a genuine gap: no a posteriori error analysis appears to exist for the stabilized fully-mixed discretization of [58]. The estimator is residual-based and does include the stabilization term, which is appropriate for the nonconforming nature of the scheme. The authors also explicitly identify the auxiliary results from [44] that the analysis needs. However, the manuscript as written does not provide a verifiable proof of the two central estimates: the reliability proof skips the nonconforming-interface step, and the efficiency proof does not localize the stabilization term. The absence of numerical verification further limits confidence. The topic is relevant and the contribution is potentially useful, but the paper requires substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Theorem 3.4] The proof of the reliability estimate (40) is not verifiable as written. The proof states that 'the inf-sup condition of L_h' gives ||U - U_h|| <= C sup_{V in H} |L_h(U - U_h, V)| / ||V|| and then says that (41)-(43), Cauchy-Schwarz, and Clément interpolation yield (40). This skips the central difficulty: the target norm ||.||_h contains the interface term h^{-1} ||(u_{f,h} - u_{p,h}) . n_f||_Gamma^2, while the test functions V in H have a continuous normal interface trace, so the inf-sup pairing with conforming V cannot see the nonconforming jump of U_h. The only tool supplied for this jump is Theorem 3.3, Eq. (24), which bounds inf_{W_h in H_h intersect H} ||U_h - W_h||_h^2 by J_Gamma(U_h, U_h), but Theorem 3.4 never invokes Theorem 3.3. A complete proof would need to split U - U_h = (U - W_h) + (W_h - U_h) with W_h in H_h intersect H, estimate W_h - U_h via (24), and U - W_h via the continuous inf-sup and the residual bounds. Because this split is absent, the derivation of (40) is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (25)-(27)] The residual equation used for reliability is incomplete. After (25) the error is written as L_h(U - U_h, V) = L_h(U - U_h, V - V_h), and it is then expanded into the element residuals (26)-(27) with no interface term involving the discrete velocity jump (u_{f,h} - u_{p,h}) . n_f. However, the stabilized method (18) contains J_Gamma, and the Galerkin orthogonality for L_h = L + J_Gamma produces either L(U - U_h, V_h) = J_Gamma(U_h, V_h) (if L_h denotes L) or an explicit J_Gamma(U - U_h, V - V_h) term (if L_h denotes L + J_Gamma). In either reading, a term of the form delta h^{-1} <(u_{f,h} - u_{p,h}) . n_f, ((v_f - v_{f,h}) - (v_p - v_{p,h})) . n_f> must appear in the residual decomposition. Such a term is absent from (26)-(27) and from (42)-(43), so the stabilization terms in (30) are not connected to the error equation used for reliability. This is a second, independent gap in the proof of (40).
  3. [Section 3.3.2, Eq. (53)] The efficiency proof does not establish the bound for the stabilization term. In (53) the authors assert h_E^{1/2} ||[rho g phi_h n_p]||_E + delta h_E^{1/2} h^{-1} ||[(u_{f,h} - u_{p,h}) . n_f]||_E is bounded by local error plus oscillation, but the proof preceding (53) only constructs a bubble test function for the piezometric-head jump [rho g phi_h n_p]_E. No test function is chosen to isolate the velocity jump ((u_{f,h} - u_{p,h}) . n_f) on Gamma, and the statement that 'by regularity Theorem 3.2 the jump of u is zero through all the edges of Omega' does not localize this quantity; the exact interface condition (3) gives (u_f - u_p) . n_f = 0, not an estimate for U_h. Since Theta_{K,p} in (30) contains the stabilization term, Theorem 3.5 cannot be considered proven for that term.
  4. [Section 2.2, definition of X_f] The function space X_f is defined as {v_f in [L^2(Omega_f)]^d : v_f = 0 on Gamma_f}, but the weak form (8) contains a_f(u_f, v_f) = 2 nu (D(u_f), D(v_f)) and the norms used later include |v_f|_{1,Omega_f} = ||nabla v_f||. These expressions are not well-defined for general L^2 functions, and the trace and Korn inequalities quoted in Section 2.2 require H^1 regularity. The space should be a subspace of H^1(Omega_f)^d; as stated, the variational formulation (14) is not well-posed. If this is a typographical omission, it must be corrected and used consistently throughout the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections 2.3 and 3.3.1] The form L_h is used in (25) and in the proof of Theorem 3.4 but is never defined; please define it explicitly, for example L_h(.,.) = L(.,.) + J_Gamma(.,.), and use it consistently in the Galerkin orthogonality discussion.
  2. [Remark 2.1] The Galerkin orthogonality relation is asserted after an unexplained invocation of Theorem 3.2; the intermediate steps needed to subtract (14) and (18) should be written out.
  3. [Section 3.3.2, Eq. (45)] Equation (45) claims ||nabla u_{f,h}||_K = ||nabla(u_f - u_{f,h})||_K, which is false unless u_f is piecewise affine; the intended statement is the divergence identity ||nabla . u_{f,h}||_K = ||nabla . (u_{f,h} - u_f)||_K, using nabla . u_f = 0.
  4. [Section 3.2.2 and 3.3.2] Several discrete-data symbols are not defined before use: f_{p,h} in (43), J_K(v_f, v_f) in the efficiency norm, and the norm ||.||_{h,w} in Theorem 3.5. Please define these quantities explicitly.
  5. [General] There are no numerical experiments; given the proof gaps, a numerical confirmation of the estimator's effectivity would substantially strengthen the paper. The text also contains many typographical and typesetting errors that should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the residual estimator is not forced by construction; the reliability proof has an omitted nonconforming-interface step, which is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained against the claimed circularity patterns. The estimator Θ is defined from discrete residuals (Eqs. (29)–(30)) plus the stabilization term δh_E/h||[(u_fh−u_ph)·n_f]||²_E and data oscillation ζ (Eq. (32)); it is not obtained by inverting the error equation or by fitting constants, so the reliability bound (40) is not forced by definition. The only component of the error norm that matches an estimator term by construction is the interface part: h^{-1}||(u_fh−u_ph)·n_f||²_Γ = δ^{-1}J_Γ(U_h,U_h), while Θ contains J_Γ(U_h,U_h) up to mesh-dependent constants; this is the intended stabilized-estimator identity, not a circular prediction. Theorems 3.1–3.3 are indeed cited from [44], a paper co-authored by the first author, but they are parameter-free auxiliary estimates (Helmholtz decomposition, regularity, stability of the nonconforming distance to H_h∩H) whose stated assumptions do not include the target estimate (40); under the hard rules such citations are independent support and self-citation alone does not raise the circularity score. I nevertheless flag an omitted proof: Theorem 3.4 (Section 3.3.1) is concluded in one sentence, “The inf-sup condition of Lh leads to… we deduce the estimate (40)”, without explicitly bounding the nonconforming interface term; this is a correctness/verifiability gap, not a circular reduction, since no equation is used as its own conclusion. Overall, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard finite element machinery (inf-sup conditions, trace and inverse inequalities, Clement interpolation) plus three technical results imported from the same group's earlier paper [44]. The most delicate input is the stability estimate Theorem 3.3, which controls the nonconforming part of the discrete solution; it is not proved here. No new entities are introduced. The stabilization parameter delta is a user-chosen parameter that enters all bounds.

free parameters (1)
  • delta (stabilization parameter)
    The discrete problem (18) uses a stabilization term J_Gamma with user-chosen coefficient delta; the analysis never specifies conditions on delta, and all constants in the error bounds may depend on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The discrete inf-sup conditions (16) for the Stokes velocity-pressure pair and (17) for the Darcy velocity-head pair hold uniformly in h.
    Assumed for the finite element spaces (MINI and BDM1/P1); used to guarantee well-posedness of the discrete problem and to derive the reliability bound.
  • domain assumption The triangulations of Omega_f and Omega_p coincide on the interface Gamma and are uniformly shape-regular.
    Required by the trace, inverse, and Clement interpolation inequalities (Lemmas 3.1-3.3) used throughout the proofs.
  • standard math Theorem 3.1 (Helmholtz decomposition) from [44] holds for the space H.
    Used in the error equation (25) to express the porous-media residual in terms of beta_p.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 3.2 (regularity) from [44]: for K in C^{0,1}, the exact solution satisfies u|Omega_p in H^{1/2+epsilon}(Omega_p)^d.
    Invoked in Remark 2.1 for Galerkin orthogonality and in the efficiency proof to assert that jumps of u vanish across interior edges; regularity is not proved.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 3.3 (stability) from [44]: inf_{W_h in H_h intersect H} ||U_h - W_h||_h^2 <= C J_Gamma(U_h, U_h).
    Essential for reliability in the h-norm but stated without proof; imported from the authors' prior work.
  • domain assumption The exact solution satisfies the strong interface condition (3), so (u_f - u_p) . n_f = 0 on Gamma.
    Used to show J_Gamma(U,.) = 0, which underlies the Galerkin orthogonality relation in Remark 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A posteriori error analysis for a new fully-mixed isotropic discretization of the stationary Stokes-Darcy coupled problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXWXED2T

@misc{pith2026190807454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A posteriori error analysis for a new fully-mixed isotropic discretization of the stationary Stokes-Darcy coupled problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXWXED2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07454}
}
abstract

In this paper we develop an a posteriori error analysis for the stationary Stokes-Darcy coupled problem approximated by conforming finite element method on isotropic meshes in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $d\in\{2,3\}$. The approach utilizes a new robust stabilized fully mixed discretization developed by Jiaping Yu et al. (Advances in Difference Equations, SpringerOpen Journal, 2018). The a posteriori error estimate is based on a suitable evaluation on the residual of the finite element solution plus the stabilization terms. It is proven that the a posteriori error estimate provided in this paper is both reliable and efficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Global domain Ω consisting of the fluid region Ωf and the porous media region Ωp separated by the interface Γ. The fluid velocity and pressure uf (x) and p(x) are governed by the Stokes equations in Ωf :  −2ν∇ · D(uf ) + ∇p = ff in Ωf , ∇ · uf = 0 in Ωf , (1) where T = −pI + 2νD(uf ) denotes the stress tensor, and D(uf ) = 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    J. Yu, M. A. A. Mahbub, F. Shi, and H. Zheng. Stabilized fin ite element method for the stationary mixed Stokes-Darcy problem. Advances in Diffference Equations , https:// doi.org/10.1186/s13662-018-1809-2346, 2018. E-mail address : a) khouedanou@yahoo.fr D´epartement de Math ´ematiques, Universit´e d’Abomey-Calavi (UAC), Rep. of Benin E-mail address : b) a...

    work page doi:10.1186/s13662-018-1809-2346 2018

  2. [44]

    Nicaise, B

    S. Nicaise, B. Ahounou, and W. Hou´ edanou. A residual-b ased posteriori error estimates for a nonconforming finite element discretization of the Stokes-Darcy coupled p roblem: Isotropic discretization. Afr. Mat., African Mathematical Union and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg : New York , 27(3):701–729, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [1]

    Ainsworth and J

    M. Ainsworth and J. Oden. A posteriori error estimators f or Stokes and Ossen’s equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 17:228–246, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [2]

    Arbogast and D

    T. Arbogast and D. Brunson. A computational method for ap proximating a Darcy-Stokes system governing a vuggy porous medium. Computational Geosciences, 11:207–218, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    M. G. Armentano and M. L. Stockdale. A unified mixed finite e lement approximations of the Stokes-Darcy cou- pled problem. Computers and Mathematics with Applications , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2018.12.032, 2018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2018.12.032 2018

  6. [4]

    D. N. Arnold, F. Brezzi, and M. Fortin. A stable finite elem ent for the Stokes equations. Calcolo, 21:337–344, 1984

    work page 1984

  7. [5]

    Babuˇ ska and G

    I. Babuˇ ska and G. Gatica. A residual-based a posteriori error estimator for the Stokes-Darcy coupled problem. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 48:498–523, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    Babuˇ ska and W

    I. Babuˇ ska and W. C. Rheinboldt. A posteriori error esti mates for the finite element method. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. , 12:1597–1615, 1978

    work page 1978

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    Bank and B

    R. Bank and B. W elfert. A posteriori error estimates for t he Stokes problem. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 28:591– 623, 1991

    1991

  2. [8]

    Beavers and D

    G. Beavers and D. Joseph. Boundary conditions at a natura lly permeable wall. J. Fluid Mech. , 30:197–207, 1967

    1967

  3. [9]

    R. Beck, R. Hiptmair, R. Hoppe, and B. W ohlmuth. Residual based a posteriori error estimators for eddy current computation. Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 34:159–182, 2000

    2000

  4. [10]

    Braess and R

    D. Braess and R. Verf¨ urth. A posteriori error estimato rs for the raviart-thomas element. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33:2431–2444, 1996

    1996

  5. [11]

    Brezzi, J

    F. Brezzi, J. J. Douglas, and L. D. Marini. Two families o f mixed finite elements for second order elliptic problem. Numer. Math. , 47:217–235, 1985

    1985

  6. [12]

    Carstensen

    C. Carstensen. A posteriori error estimate for the mixe d finite element method. Math. of Computations , 66:465–476, 1997

    1997

  7. [13]

    Carstensen and G

    C. Carstensen and G. Dolzmann. A posteriori error estim ates for mixed FEM in elasticity. Numer. Math. , 81(2):187–209, 1998

    1998

  8. [14]

    Carstensen, T

    C. Carstensen, T. Gudi, and M. Jensen. A Unifying Theory of a Posteriori Control for Discontinuous Galerkin FEM. Numer. Math. , 112:363–379, 2009

    2009

  9. [15]

    W. Chen, P. Chen, M. Gunzburger, and N. Yan. Superconver gence Analysis of FEMs for the Stokes-Darcy System. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences , 33:13, 2010

    2010

  10. [16]

    Chen and Y

    W. Chen and Y. W ang. A posteriori error estimate for H(di v) conforming mixed finite element for the coupled Darcy-Stokes system. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 255:502–516, 2014

    2014

  11. [17]

    Cl´ ement

    P. Cl´ ement. Approximation by finite element functions using local regularisation. RAIRO Mod´ elisation Math´ ematique et Analyse Num´ erique, 9:77–84, 1975

    1975

  12. [18]

    Costabel and M

    M. Costabel and M. Dauge. Singularities of electromagn etic fields in polyhedral domains. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 151:221–276, 2000

    2000

  13. [19]

    Costabel, M

    M. Costabel, M. Dauge, and S. Nicaise. Singularities of maxwell interface problems. RAIRO Mod` el. Math. Anal. Num´ er., 33:627–649, 1999. A POSTERIORI ERROR ANALYSIS 15

    1999

  14. [20]

    Creus´ e, G

    E. Creus´ e, G. Kunert, and S. Nicaise. A posteriori erro r estimation for the Stokes problem: Anisotropic and isotropic discretizations. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 14:1297–1341, 2004

    2004

  15. [21]

    Cui and N

    M. Cui and N. Yan. A posteriori error estimate for the Sto kes-Darcy system. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. , 34:1050– 1064, 2011

    2011

  16. [22]

    E. Dari, R. Dur´ an, and C. Padra. Error estimators for no nconforming finite element approximations of the Stokes problem. Math. Comp. , 64:1017–1033, 1995

    1995

  17. [23]

    M. Dauge. Elliptic boundary value problems on corner domains , volume 1341 of Springer-Verlag, Berlin . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1988

    1988

  18. [24]

    Discacciati and A

    M. Discacciati and A. Quarteroni. Navier-Stokes/Darc y coupling: Modeling, analysis, and numerical approxi- mation. Rev. Math. Comput. , 22:315–426, 2009

    2009

  19. [25]

    Doerfler and M

    W. Doerfler and M. Ainsworth. Reliable a posteriori erro r control for nonconforming finite element approxi- mation of Stokes flow. Math. Comp. , 74:1599–1619, 2005

    2005

  20. [26]

    Galvis and M

    J. Galvis and M. Sarkis. Nonconforming mortar discreti zation analysis for the coupling Stokes-Darcy equations. Electronic. Trans. Numer. Anal. , 26:350–384, 2007

    2007

  21. [27]

    G. Gatica. A note on the efficiency of residual-based a-po steriori error estimators for some mixed finite element methods. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. , 17:218–233, 2004

    2004

  22. [28]

    Gatica, R

    G. Gatica, R. Oyarz` ua, and F.-J. Sayas. A residual-bas ed a posteriori error estimator for a fully-mixed formu- lation of the Stokes-Darcy coupled problem. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engry. , 200:1877–1891, 2011

    2011

  23. [29]

    G. N. Gatica, S. Meddahi, and R. Oyarz` ua. A conforming m ixed finite element method for the coupling of fluid flow with porous media flow. IMA J. Numer. Anal. , 29:86–108, 2009

    2009

  24. [30]

    Gatica, R

    G.-N. Gatica, R. Oyarz` ua, and F.-J. Sayas. Convergenc e of a family of Galerkin discretizations for the Stokes- Darcy coupled proplem. Numer. Meth. Part. Diff. Eq. , 27:721–748, 2011

    2011

  25. [31]

    Girault and P.-A

    V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart. Finite element methods for Navier-Stokes equations, Theor y and algorithms. , volume 5 of Springer, Berlin . In Computational Mathematics, 1986

    1986

  26. [32]

    Grisvard

    P. Grisvard. Th´ eor` emes de traces relatifs ` a un poly` edre. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. , 278:1581–1583, 1974

    1974

  27. [33]

    Grisvard

    P. Grisvard. Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains. Pitman, Boston–London–Melbourne , 1985

    1985

  28. [34]

    Hannukainen, R

    A. Hannukainen, R. Stenberg, and M. Vohralik. Unified fr amework for a posteriori error estimation for the Stokes problem. Numer. Math. , Submitted

  29. [35]

    K. W. Hou´ edanou and B. Ahounou. A posteriori error esti mation for the Stokes-Darcy coupled problem on anisotropic discretization. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. , 40(10):3741–3774 (2017), 2016

    2017

  30. [36]

    J¨ ager and A

    W. J¨ ager and A. Mikeli´ c. On the boundary conditions of the contact interface between a porous medium and a free fluid. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Oisa Cl. Sci. , 23, 1996

    1996

  31. [37]

    J¨ ager and A

    W. J¨ ager and A. Mikeli´ c. On the interface boundary con dition of beavers, joseph and saffman. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 60:1111–1127, 2000

    2000

  32. [38]

    J¨ ager, A

    W. J¨ ager, A. Mikeli´ c, and N. Neuss. Asymptotic analysis of the laminar visous flow over a porous bed. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 22:2006–2028, 2001

    2006

  33. [39]

    Kanschat and B

    G. Kanschat and B. Rivi` ere. A strongly conservative fin ite element method for the coupling of the Stokes and Darcy flow. J. Comput. Phys. , 229:5933–5943, 2010

    2010

  34. [40]

    Karakashian and F

    O. Karakashian and F. Pascal. A posteriori error estima tes for a discontinuous Galerkin approximation of second-order problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 41:2374–2399, 2003

    2003

  35. [41]

    Karpar, K.-A

    T. Karpar, K.-A. Mardal, and R. Winther. Unified Finite E lement Discretizations of Coupled Darcy-Stokes Flow. Numer. Meth. Part. Diff. Eq. , 25:311–326, 2008

    2008

  36. [42]

    Lovadina and R

    C. Lovadina and R. Stenberg. Energy norm a posteriori er ror estimates for mixed finite element methods. Math. Comp. , 75:1659–1674, 2006

    2006

  37. [43]

    A. D. N., Brezzi, and F. F. M. 2nd ed., Pure Appl. Math. (Amst.) , 140, 2003. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    2003

  38. [45]

    Nicaise and E

    S. Nicaise and E. Creus´ e. A posteriori error estimatio n for the heteregeneous Maxwell equations on isotropic and anisotropic meshes. Calcolo, 40:249–271, 2003

    2003

  39. [46]

    F. Nobel. A posteriori error estimates for the finite ele ment approximation of the Stokes problem. TICAM REPORT, pages 03–13, 2003

    2003

  40. [47]

    Payne and B

    L. Payne and B. Straughan. Analysis of the boundary cond ition at the interface between a viscous fluid and a porous medium and related modeling questions. J. Math. Pures Appl. , 77:317–354, 1998

    1998

  41. [48]

    Rivi` ere

    B. Rivi` ere. Analysis of a discontinuous finite element method for the coupled Stokes and Darcy. J. Sci. Comp. , 23:479–500, 2005

    2005

  42. [49]

    Rivi` ere and I

    B. Rivi` ere and I. Yotov. Locally conservative couplin g of Stokes and Darcy flows. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 42:1959–1977, 2005

    1959

  43. [50]

    Rui and R

    H. Rui and R. Zhang. A unified stabilized mixed finite elem ent method for coupling Stokes and Darcy flows. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engry. , 198:2692–2699, 2009

    2009

  44. [51]

    P. Saffman. On the boundary condition at the interface of a porous medium. Stud. Appl. Math. , 1:93–101, 1971

    1971

  45. [52]

    Verf¨ urth

    R. Verf¨ urth. A posteriori error estimators for the Sto kes equations. Numer. Math. , 3:309–325, 1989. 16 HOU ´EDANOU KOFFI WILFRID (A) AND ADETOLA JAMAL (B)

    1989

  46. [53]

    Verf¨ urth

    R. Verf¨ urth. A posteriori error estimation and adapti ve mesh-refinement techniques. J. Comput. Appl. Math. , 50:67–83, 1994

    1994

  47. [54]

    Verf¨ urth

    R. Verf¨ urth. A review of a posteriori error estimation and adaptive mesh-refinement techniques. Wiley-Teubner, Chrichester, UK. , 1996

    1996

  48. [55]

    W ang, Y

    J. W ang, Y. W ang, and X. Ye. A posteriori error estimatio n for an interior penalty type method employing H(div) elements for the Stokes equations. SIAM J. Sci, Comp. , 33:131–152, 2011

    2011

  49. [56]

    W ang, Y

    J. W ang, Y. W ang, and X. Ye. A posteriori error estimate f or stabilized finite element methods for the Stokes equations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. , 9:1–16, 2012

    2012

  50. [57]

    L. J. William, S. Friedhelm, and Y. Ivan. Coupling fluid fl ow with porous media flow. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 40(6):2195–2218 (2003), 2002

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.