Applications of mixed finite element method based on Bernstein polynomials in numerical solution of Stokes equations

Lanyin Sun; Siya Wen; Lanyin Sun; Siya Wen

doi:10.3934/math.20241706

AIMS Mathematics

2024, Volume 9, Issue 12: 35978-36000. doi: 10.3934/math.20241706

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Applications of mixed finite element method based on Bernstein polynomials in numerical solution of Stokes equations

Lanyin Sun ^,,
Siya Wen

School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang, 464000, China

Received: 22 September 2024 Revised: 19 November 2024 Accepted: 13 December 2024 Published: 25 December 2024
MSC : 65D17, 65M60

The Stokes equation is fundamental in fluid mechanics. We used bivariate Bernstein polynomial bases to construct the function space for mixed finite element methods to solve the 2D Stokes equation. Our results show that the numerical accuracy and convergence order using bicubic and lower-order Lagrange interpolation polynomials are comparable to those achieved with Bernstein polynomial bases. However, high-order Lagrange interpolation functions often suffer from the Runge's phenomenon, which limits their effectiveness. By employing high-order Bernstein polynomial bases, we have significantly improved the numerical solutions, effectively mitigating the Runge phenomenon. This approach highlights the advantages of Bernstein polynomial bases in achieving stable and accurate solutions for the 2D Stokes equation.

Keywords:

Citation: Lanyin Sun, Siya Wen. Applications of mixed finite element method based on Bernstein polynomials in numerical solution of Stokes equations[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 35978-36000. doi: 10.3934/math.20241706

Related Papers:

[1]	Faheem Khan, Tayyaba Arshad, Abdul Ghaffar, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Devendra Kumar . Numerical solutions of 2D Fredholm integral equation of first kind by discretization technique. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2295-2306. doi: 10.3934/math.2020152
[2]	Xin Zhao, Xin Liu, Jian Li . Convergence analysis and error estimate of finite element method of a nonlinear fluid-structure interaction problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5240-5260. doi: 10.3934/math.2020337
[3]	Sima Karamseraji, Shokrollah Ziari, Reza Ezzati . Approximate solution of nonlinear fuzzy Fredholm integral equations using bivariate Bernstein polynomials with error estimation. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 7234-7256. doi: 10.3934/math.2022404
[4]	Lingling Sun, Hai Bi, Yidu Yang . A posteriori error estimates of mixed discontinuous Galerkin method for a class of Stokes eigenvalue problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21270-21297. doi: 10.3934/math.20231084
[5]	Jiehua Zhang . The finite volume element method for non-stationary Stokes equations with an LC element pair. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13166-13203. doi: 10.3934/math.2025591
[6]	Tiantian Zhang, Wenwen Xu, Xindong Li, Yan Wang . Multipoint flux mixed finite element method for parabolic optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 17461-17474. doi: 10.3934/math.2022962
[7]	Jingyuan Zhang, Ruikun Zhang, Xue Lin . A stabilized multiple time step method for coupled Stokes-Darcy flows and transport model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21406-21438. doi: 10.3934/math.20231091
[8]	Hyam Abboud, Clara Al Kosseifi, Jean-Paul Chehab . Stabilized bi-grid projection methods in finite elements for the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(4): 485-513. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.4.485
[9]	Changling Xu, Hongbo Chen . A two-grid $ P_0^2 $-$ P_1 $ mixed finite element scheme for semilinear elliptic optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 6153-6172. doi: 10.3934/math.2022342
[10]	Jeong-Kweon Seo, Byeong-Chun Shin . Reduced-order modeling using the frequency-domain method for parabolic partial differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 15255-15268. doi: 10.3934/math.2023779

Abstract

1. Introduction

The Stokes equation ^[1] is a fundamental tool used to describe viscous fluid flow ^[2] at low Reynolds numbers (Re) ^[3], which typically indicates laminar flow conditions ^[4]. Re characterizes the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces in fluid dynamics. When $Re$ is very small, the characteristic velocity of the flow can be considered to approach zero. In this limit, the quadratic terms involving velocity in the Navier-Stokes equations become negligible. Consequently, the Navier-Stokes equations simplify the Stokes equations, helping to analyze more complicated fluid problems, with a very wide range of applications ^[5,6]. With the development of computer science, many numerical methods have been developed to solve Stokes problems, such as finite element method (FEM) ^[7,8,9], finite difference method ^[10], mixed FEM ^[11], boundary element method ^[12,13], and coupling of FEM ^[14]. Among them, the FEM has gradually become an important numerical computational method for approximating partial differential equations (PDEs) because of its many advantages such as strong program versatility, high accuracy, flexible mesh selection, and ability to deal with complex boundaries and high-order problems.

The FEM, as an important numerical method for solving mathematical ^[15] and physical problems ^[16], has been widely applied in the field of engineering mechanics ^[17]. In 1943, Courant ^[18] introduced the concept of FEM by using continuous functions on triangular regions to solve the torsion problem of St. Venant. By the mid-1960s, Feng ^[19,20] had independently established the mathematical foundation of FEM, making it a systematic and widely used numerical method. Since then, the scope of FEM's application has expanded from single structural analysis to various fields such as sound field analysis, flow field analysis, and electromagnetic field analysis. Based on the variational principle and subdivision interpolation, FEM uses interpolation functions in each element to approximate the unknown function in the domain piece by piece.

With the continuous progress of computer science, the FEM has undergone remarkable developments and improvements. Many new computational methods have emerged, including the finite volume method ^[21], upwind FEM ^[22], and spectral methods ^[23]. These new methods not only enrich the technical means of numerical simulation but also play a crucial role in improving computational efficiency and enhancing model accuracy. In the FEM, the selection of finite element basis functions is key, and appropriate test and trial function spaces ensure the accuracy and stability of the solution. Common choices include Lagrange functions ^[24], Hermite functions ^[25], Argyris functions ^[26], and Bernstein functions ^[27]. In 1979, Shi ^[28] used cubic B-spline variational methods to solve equilibrium problems in composite elastic structures of plates and beams in regular domains, introducing spline FEM. In the same year, Qin ^[29] proposed the spline finite point method based on spline functions, beam vibration functions, and energy variation. In 2005, Hughes et al. ^[30] used spline basis functions for approximate numerical calculations of field variables in physical problems in finite element analysis. In 2007, Bhatti and Bracken ^[27] proposed applying Bernstein polynomial bases to solve PDEs. Zhu and Kang ^[31], in 2010, used cubic B-spline quasi-interpolation to numerically solve the Burgers-Fisher equation. Dutykh ^[32], in 2014, solved the KdV and KdV-BBM equations using B-spline FEM. More recently in 2022, Pranta ^[33] solved 2D nonlinear parabolic PDEs using bicubic Bernstein polynomial bases. These developments highlight the ongoing evolution and versatility of FEM in addressing complex engineering and scientific challenges.

Lagrange interpolation functions are typically global, offering high accuracy in certain scenarios but potentially leading to numerical instability, especially with high-degree polynomials or complex boundary conditions. Although the Runge phenomenon ^[34] is less pronounced in FEM due to the integral approximation approach, it can still occur in specific cases, particularly with high-order polynomials or complex boundaries. Conversely, Bernstein polynomial functions have local support, enhancing numerical stability. They facilitate the construction of higher-order test and trial function spaces and are adept at handling complex boundary conditions. Additionally, Bernstein polynomials are non-negative and shape-preserving, making them uniquely suitable for shape-preserving approximations. Therefore, we have chosen Bernstein polynomial basis functions for our FEM implementation to ensure enhanced numerical stability and accuracy. However, it is important to note that Bernstein polynomials also have some limitations. While they offer stability and flexibility, the computational cost can increase significantly with higher polynomial degrees, making them less efficient for large-scale or real-time applications. Moreover, the theoretical foundation for certain specific problems, such as those involving very-high-order polynomials or highly oscillatory functions, may still require further research and development.

Consider the boundary value problem of the 2D Stokes equation,

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &-\nabla \cdot \mathbb{T}(\mathbf{u},p) = \mathbf{f}, \ \quad \qquad in\quad \Omega ,\\ &\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u} = 0, \qquad \qquad \quad \qquad a.e. \quad in\; \; \Omega,\\ &\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{g}, \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad a.e. \quad in \; \; \partial \Omega, \end{aligned} \right. \end{equation}$

(1.1)

where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is a bounded polygonal domain, $\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{u}(x, y)$ is the velocity vector, $p$ refers to fluid pressure, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}$ is the divergence of $\mathbf{u}$ , and $\mathbb{T}(\mathbf{u}, p) = 2\nu\mathbb{D}(u)-p\mathbb{I}$ is the stress tensor. In more details, the deformation tensor can be written as

$\begin{equation} \mathbb{D}(\mathbf{u}) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial x}&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\right)\\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\right)&\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial y} \end{array} \right). \end{equation}$

(1.2)

Hence, the stress tensor can be written as

$\begin{equation} \mathbb{T}(\mathbf{u},p) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 2\nu \frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial x}-p&\nu \left(\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\right)\\ \nu \left(\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\right)&2\nu \frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial y}-p \end{array} \right). \end{equation}$

(1.3)

$\mathbf{f}$ describes the external force, $\mathbf{g}$ is the velocity on the domain boundary, and $\nu = \frac{UL}{Re}$ represents the kinematic viscosity of the fluid where $U$ and $L$ represent characteristic speed and characteristic length, respectively. The Stokes equation is a basic equation of fluid mechanics, which simulates the motion of low velocity or viscous fluid ^[35,36] and has important applications in fluid mechanics ^[37], geophysics ^[38], telecommunication technology ^[39], and aerospace ^[40], among others ^[41,42,43]. We use the mixed FEM based on Bernstein polynomial basis to solve Stokes equations, and calculate the errors of the $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms.

The traditional FEM is a versatile numerical technique that can handle both univariate and multivariate equations. However, when applied to systems involving multiple physical quantities, such as the Stokes equation (Eq (1.1)), traditional FEM requires careful consideration to ensure the existence and uniqueness of the solution. The Stokes equation involves a tight coupling between velocity and pressure, which necessitates precise numerical treatment. To guarantee the uniqueness ^[44] of the solution to the variational problem, the finite element approximation space must satisfy the Lax-Milgram theorem ^[45]. Additionally, to ensure the stability of the solution, especially for coupled variables, the inf-sup condition ^[45] must be satisfied. While traditional FEM can theoretically meet these requirements, the selection of appropriate finite element spaces for velocity and pressure is crucial. If the selection is not appropriate, the solution can become unstable and lose accuracy. Therefore, to ensure that the finite element approximation for the Stokes equation is both convergent and stable, we have chosen the mixed FEM. The mixed FEM can better handle the coupling between velocity and pressure by selecting suitable finite element spaces for these variables. This approach more effectively satisfies the inf-sup condition, thereby providing a more stable and accurate solution. Besides, we found that only the gradient term of pressure appeared in the Stokes equation, which cannot guarantee that the solution of pressure is unique. Therefore, in the process of solving, we need to impose additional conditions for pressure. In this article, we fix pressure at one point in the region. Furthermore, the mixed FEM is not limited to the Stokes equation. It can be equally effective in other multivariate systems, such as the velocity-stress formulation of the wave equation ^[46,47]. By using mixed FEM, we can achieve higher accuracy and stability in solving a wide range of coupled PDEs.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first review some basic contents of Bernstein polynomial basis, Bézier curves, and surfaces. In Section 3, we use the mixed FEM based on the Bernstein polynomial basis to derive the discrete scheme of Stokes equation. In Section 4, the error result is obtained by some numerical examples. In Section 5, we summarize the work.

2. Bernstein basis functions, curves, and surfaces

In this section, we will recall the definitions and properties of Bernstein polynomial bases, Bézier curves, and surfaces.

Definition 1. Bernstein polynomial bases of degree $n$ are defined by

$\begin{equation} B^{n}_{i}(x) = \binom{n}{i} x^{i}(1-x)^{n-i},i = 1,2,\cdots,n, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

where, $\binom{n}{i} = \frac{n!}{i!(n-i)!}, i = 0, 1, \cdots, n.$ For simplicity, when $i< 0$ or $i> n$ , let $B^{n}_{i}(x) = 0, x\in[0, 1]$ .

Definition 2. Given control points $P_{i}(x, y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}(i = 0, 1, \cdots, n)$ , the Bézier curve of $n$ degrees is defined by

$\begin{equation*} P(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n}P_{i}{B}_{i}^{n}(x), x \in [0,1], \end{equation*}$

where ${B}_{i}^{n}(x)(i = 0, 1, \cdots, n)$ is defined as Eq (2.1), and the n-edge polygon obtained by connecting two adjacent control points with straight line segments is called the control polygon.

Bernstein polynomial bases of tensor product type can be obtained by tensor product from Bernstein polynomial bases of one variable.

Definition 3. The tensor product type Bernstein polynomial bases of $m\times n$ degree are defined by

$\begin{equation} B_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau) = B_{i}^{m}(s)B_{j}^{n}(\tau),i = 0,1,\cdots,m,j = 0,1,\cdots,n. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

Definition 4. For a continuous function $f(s, \tau)$ defined on $[0, 1]\times[0, 1]$ , the tensor product Bernstein polynomial interpolation operator $B_{h}$ is defined as

$\begin{equation} \label{B_{h}} B_{h}(f,s,\tau) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m}\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}fB_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau). \end{equation}$

(2.3)

Next, we prove that $B_{h}$ is a bounded interpolation operator.

Since $f$ is a continuous function, it is bounded on $[0, 1]\times[0, 1]$ . Therefore, there exists a constant $M$ such that $|f(s, \tau)|\leq M$ for all $(s, \tau)\in [0, 1]\times[0, 1]$ . Hence

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} |B_{h}(f,s,\tau)|& = |\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m}\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}fB_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau)|\\ &\leq \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m}\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}|f|B_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau)\\ &\leq M\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{m}\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{n}B_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau) = M. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(2.4)

So we can get that $B_{h}$ is a bounded interpolation operator.

Since $B_{h}$ is a bounded interpolation operator, by the Bramble-Hilbert Lemma ^[45], we can conclude that

$\begin{equation*} \|\mathbf{u}-B_{h}(\mathbf{u})\|_{W^{k,p}}\leq Ch^{L-k}\|\mathbf{u}\|_{W^{L,p}},\quad k = 0,1,\cdots,L. \end{equation*}$

3. Mixed finite element algorithm based on Bernstein polynomial basis for Stokes equations

In this section, we first construct function spaces of the mixed FEM with Bernstein polynomial basis, and the discrete scheme of Stokes equation in Eq (1.1) is derived.

3.1. Galerkin formulation

First of all, consider the subspace $H^{1}_0(\Omega)$ of Sobolev space $H^{1}(\Omega)$ :

$H^{1}_0(\Omega) = \left\{u \in H^{1}(\Omega);u|_{\partial \Omega} = 0\right\}.$

Multiplying the first equation of Eq (1.1) by test vector function $\mathbf{v}(x, y) \in H^{1}_0(\Omega)\times H^{1}_0(\Omega)$ and then integrating on $\Omega$ yields

$\begin{equation*} \displaystyle{\int}_{\Omega}(-\nabla \cdot \mathbb{T}(\mathbf{u},p))\cdot\mathbf{v} \:dxdy = \displaystyle{\int}_{\Omega}f\cdot\mathbf{v}\:dxdy. \end{equation*}$

Second, by multiplying the divergence-free equation by a test function $q(x, y)$ , we get

$\begin{equation*} \displaystyle{\int}_{\Omega}(\nabla\cdot \mathbf{u})q\:dxdy = 0. \end{equation*}$

Then, applying Green's identity,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \int_{\Omega}2\nu\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{u}):\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{v})\:dxdy-\int_{\Omega}p(\nabla\cdot\mathbf{v})\:dxdy & = \int_{\Omega}\mathbf{f}\cdot\mathbf{v}\:dxdy, \forall \mathbf{v} \in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)\times H_{0}^{1}(\Omega), \\ -\int_{\Omega}(\nabla\cdot\mathbf{u})q\:dxdy& = 0, \forall q \in L^{2}(\Omega), \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{u}):\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{v}) \\ = & \begin{aligned}\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_2}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_2}{\partial y}+\frac12\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_1}{\partial y}\end{aligned}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_{2}}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_{1}}{\partial y}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_{2}}{\partial x}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Introducing bilinear form,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} a(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})& = \int_\Omega2\nu\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{u}):\mathbb{D}(\mathbf{v})\:dxdy,\\ b(\mathbf{u},q)& = -\int_{\Omega}(\nabla\cdot\mathbf{u})q\:dxdy. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Then, the variational formulation of the mixed FEM of Eq (1.1) is to find $\mathbf{u}\in H_0^1(\Omega)\times H_0^1(\Omega)$ and $p\in L^2(\Omega)$ , satisfying the following equation

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{aligned} a(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})+b(\mathbf{v},p)& = (\mathbf{f},\mathbf{v}),\\ b(\mathbf{u},q)& = 0, \end{aligned} \right. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

for any $\mathbf{v}\in H_0^1(\Omega)\times H_0^1(\Omega)$ and $q\in L^2(\Omega)$ , where $(\mathbf{f}, \mathbf{v}) = \int_{\Omega}\mathbf{f}\cdot\mathbf{v}\:dxdy.$

Then, we consider the discrete form of variational Eq (3.1).

3.2. Finite element discretization

Let $\Omega_{h}$ be a uniform rectangle partition of $\Omega$ , $\mathbf{h} = [h_1, h_2] = [\frac{1}{N_1}, \frac{1}{N_2}]$ is the mesh size, where $N_1$ and $N_2$ represent the number of subintervals on the $x$ -axis and $y$ -axis of quasi-uniform subdivision. For each $T\in \Omega_{h}$ , the local finite element space $Q(T, m, n)$ is spanned by Bernstein polynomial basis defined on $T$ , i.e.,

$\begin{equation*} Q(T,m,n) = \left\{v, v\in span\left\{B_{i,j}^{m,n}(s,\tau)\right\} \right\}. \end{equation*}$

Consider a finite element space $U_h(m, n)\subset H^1(\Omega)$ for the velocity $\mathbf{u}$ and a finite element space $W_h(h, l)\subset L^2(\Omega)$ for the pressure $p$ . Assume that the polynomial space in the construction of $U_h$ contains $P_k, k\geq 1$ and that of $W_h$ contains $P_{k-1}$ , where,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} & U_h(m,n) = \left\{r, r\in Q(T,m,n), \forall T\in \Omega_{h} \right\},\\ & W_h(h,l) = \left\{w, w\in Q(T,h,l), \forall T\in \Omega_{h} \right\}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Define $U_{h0}$ to be the space that consists of the functions of $U_h$ with vanishing boundary values.

Subsequently, the discrete scheme of Eq (3.1) is to find $\mathbf{u}_h\in U_h\times U_h$ and $p_h\in W_h$ , where $\mathbf{u}_h = (u_{1h}, u_{2h})$ such that

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{aligned} a(\mathbf{u}_h,\mathbf{v}_h)+b(\mathbf{v}_h,p_h)& = (\mathbf{f},\mathbf{v}_h),\\ b(\mathbf{u}_h,q_h)& = 0, \end{aligned} \right. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

for any $\mathbf{v}_h\in U_{h0}\times U_{h0}$ and $q_h\in W_h$ .

In order to verify if $\mathbf{v}_h$ and $q_h$ satisfy the inf-sup condition, we now define an interpolation $\pi_h$ so that it is a modification of $B_h$ , that is, satisfying $\pi_h\mathbf{u} = B_h(\mathbf{u})$ . From (2.4), we know $\pi_h$ is bounded. Discrete compatibility is similar to that proved in ^[48], that is, $b(\mathbf{u}-\pi_h\mathbf{u}, q) = 0$ . So, $\mathbf{v}_h$ and $q_h$ satisfy the following inf-sup condition:

$\begin{equation*} \inf\limits_{0\neq q_h\in W_h}\sup\limits_{0\neq\mathbf{v}_h\in U_{h0}\times U_{h0}}\frac{b(\mathbf{v}_h,q_h)}{\left\|\nabla\mathbf{v}_h\right\|_0\left\|q_h\right\|_0} > \beta, \end{equation*}$

where $\beta > 0$ is a constant independent of mesh size $h$ .

In the scalar format, Eq (3.2) is to find $u_{1h} \in U_h, u_{2h} \in U_h,$ and $p_h \in W_h$ such that

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &\int_{\Omega}\nu\Big(2\frac{\partial u_{1h}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_{1h}}{\partial x}+2\frac{\partial u_{2h}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_{2h}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{1h}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_{1h}}{\partial y} \\ &\left.+\frac{\partial u_{1h}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_{2h}}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_{2h}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_{1h}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_{2h}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_{2h}}{\partial x}\right)dxdy \\ &-\int_{\Omega}\left(p_{h}\frac{\partial v_{1h}}{\partial x}+p_{h}\frac{\partial v_{2h}}{\partial y}\right)dxdy \\ & = \int_{\Omega}(f_{1}v_{1h}+f_{2}v_{2h})dxdy \\ &-\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{\partial u_{1h}}{\partial x}q_{h}+\frac{\partial u_{2h}}{\partial y}q_{h}\right)dxdy = 0, \\ \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

for any $v_{1h} \in U_h, v_{2h} \in U_h, q_h \in W_h.$

Since $u_{1h}, \:u_{2h}\in U_h = span\{r_j\}_{j = 1}^{N_b}$ and $p_h\in W_h = span\{w_j\}_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}$ , then

$\begin{equation*} u_{1h} = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}r_j,\quad u_{2h} = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{2j}r_j,\quad p_h = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_j w_j, \end{equation*}$

for some coefficients $u_{1j}, \:u_{2j} (j = 1, \cdots, N_b)$ , and $p_j (j = 1, \cdots, N_{bp}).$

Now, we set up a linear algebraic system for $u_{1j}, u_{2j} (j = 1, \cdots, N_b)$ and $p_j (j = 1, \cdots, N_{bp}).$ Then we can solve it to obtain the finite element solution $\mathbf{u}_h = (u_{1h}, u_{2h})^t$ and $p_h$ .

For the first equation in the Eq (3.3), in the first set of test functions, we set $\mathbf{v}_h = (r_i, 0)^t$ , namely, $v_{1h} = r_i(i = 1, \cdots, N_b)$ and $v_{2h} = 0$ . Then

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &2\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial x}\right)\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial x}dxdy+\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial y}\right)\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial y}dxdy \\ &+\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy-\int_{\Omega}\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_{j}w_{j}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy \\ & = \int_{\Omega}f_1 r_idxdy. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

After that, we let $\mathbf{v}_h = (0, r_i)^t$ , i.e., $v_{1h} = 0$ and $v_{2h} = r_i(i = 1, \cdots, N_b)$ ,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &2\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy+\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{1j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy \\ &+\int_{\Omega}\nu\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy-\int_{\Omega}\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_{j} w_{j}\right)\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy \\ & = \int_{\Omega}f_2 r_idxdy. \\ \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Lastly, set $q_h = w_i(i = 1, \cdots, N_{bp})$ in the second equation of the Eq (3.3), getting

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} -\int_{\Omega}\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{1j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\right)w_{i}dxdy-\int_{\Omega}\left(\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\right)w_{i}dxdy = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Simplify the above three sets of equations, obtaining

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}\left(2\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial x}\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial x}dxdy+\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial y}\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial y}dxdy\right) \\ &+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\left(\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy\right)+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_{j}\left(-\int_{\Omega}w_{j}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy\right) = \int_{\Omega}f_{1}r_{i}dxdy, \\ &\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}\left(\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial y}\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial x}dxdy\right) \\ &+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{b}}u_{2j}\left(2\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy+\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy\right) \\ &+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_{j}\left(-\int_{\Omega}w_{j}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy\right) = \int_{\Omega}f_{2} r_{i}dxdy, \\ &\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{1j}\left(-\int_{\Omega}\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial x}w_idxdy\right)+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_b}u_{2j}\left(-\int_{\Omega}\frac{\partial r_j}{\partial y}w_idxdy\right)+\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}p_j\cdot0 = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Define the stiffness matrix as

$\begin{equation*} A = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2A_1+A_2& A_3 & A_5\\ A_4& 2A_2+A_1&A_6\\ A_7& A_8 &\mathbb{O} \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}$

where $\mathbb{O} = [0]_{i = 1, j = 1}^{N_{bp}, N_{bp}},$

$\begin{equation*} \begin{gathered} A_{1} = \left[\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy\right]_{i,j = 1}^{N_{b}},\quad A_{2} = \left[\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy\right]_{i,j = 1}^{N_{b}}, \\ A_{3} = \left[\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy\right]_{i,j = 1}^{N_{b}},\quad A_{4} = \left[\int_{\Omega}\nu\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy\right]_{i,j = 1}^{N_{b}}, \\ A_{5} = \left[\int_{\Omega}-w_{j}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial x}dxdy\right]_{i = 1,j = 1}^{N_{b},N_{bp}},\quad A_{6} = \left[\int_{\Omega}-w_{j}\frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial y}dxdy\right]_{i = 1,j = 1}^{N_{b},N_{bp}} ,\\ A_{7} = \left[\int_{\Omega}-\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial x}w_{i}dxdy\right]_{i = 1,j = 1}^{N_{bp},N_{b}},\quad A_{8} = \left[\int_{\Omega}-\frac{\partial r_{j}}{\partial y}w_{i}dxdy\right]_{i = 1,j = 1}^{N_{bp},N_{b}} . \end{gathered} \end{equation*}$

Define the load vector

$\begin{equation*} \vec{b} = \left( \begin{array}{c} \vec{b_1}\\ \vec{b_2}\\ \vec{0} \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}$

where $\vec{0} = [0]_{i = 1}^{N_{bp}}$ ,

$\begin{equation*} \vec{b}_1 = \left[\displaystyle{\int}_\Omega f_1 r_idxdy\right]_{i = 1}^{N_b},\:\vec{b}_2 = \left[\displaystyle{\int}_\Omega f_2 r_idxdy\right]_{i = 1}^{N_b}. \end{equation*}$

Define the unknown vector

$\begin{equation*} \vec{X} = \left( \begin{array}{c} \vec{X_1}\\ \vec{X_2}\\ \vec{X_3} \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}$

where,

$\begin{equation*} \vec{X_1} = [u_{1j}]_{j = 1}^{N_b},\:\vec{X_2} = [u_{2j}]_{j = 1}^{N_b},\:\vec{X_3} = [p_j]_{j = 1}^{N_{bp}}. \end{equation*}$

Then, we get a linear system of ordinary differential equations for $u_{1j}, u_{2j}(j = 1, \cdots, N_b)$ and $p_j(j = 1, \cdots, N_{bp})$ ,

$\begin{equation} A\vec{X} = \vec{b}, \end{equation}$

(3.4)

so we can solve system (3.4) and obtain the unknown vector group $\vec{X}$ .

4. Numerical examples

In this section, we verify the feasibility and effectiveness of this method using several numerical examples. Tensor product Bernstein polynomial bases are used to construct the trial function space and test function space of the mixed FEM, the approximate solutions are solved by MATLAB $2022$ b, and the error and convergence order of the exact solution and the finite element solution under $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms are obtained. The numerical results obtained by solving Stokes equation with bilinear, biquadratic, and bicubic Lagrange basis functions are consistent with those obtained by using Bernstein polynomial basis with corresponding orders. Since using Lagrange basis functions of higher than bicubic order leads to the Runge phenomenon when solving the Stokes equations, we only present the error results of Bernstein polynomial basis.

Example 1. Consider the following two-dimensional stokes equation with Dirichlet boundary in rectangular domain $\Omega = [0, 1]\times [0, 1]$ .

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{aligned} &-\nabla \cdot\mathbf{T}(\mathbf{u}(x,y),p(x,y)) = \mathbf{f}(x,y),\ (x,y)\in \Omega,\\ &\nabla \cdot\mathbf{u}(x,y) = 0,\ (x,y)\in \Omega,\\ &\mathbf{u}(x,y)|_{\partial \Omega} = 0, \end{aligned} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

where the exact solution $\mathbf{u} = (u_1, u_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} u_1(x,y)& = x^{2}(1-x)^{2}(2y-6y^2+4y^3),\\ u_2(x,y)& = -y^{2}(1-y)^{2}(2x-6x^{2}+4x^{3}), \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

the exact solution $p(x, y)$ is

$\begin{equation*} p(x,y) = x-x^2, \end{equation*}$

and the body force $\mathbf{f} = (f_1, f_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} f_1(x,y) = &\nu(2y(y - 1)^2(12x^2 - 12x + 2) - x^2(24y - 12)(x - 1)^2 \\ &+ y^2(2y - 2)(12x^2 - 12x + 2))- 2x - 2\nu(2(x - 1)^2(4y^3 - 6y^2 + 2y)\\ & + 2x^2(4y^3 - 6y^2 + 2y) + 4x(2x - 2)(4y^3 - 6y^2 + 2y)) + 1,\\ f_2(x,y) = &2\nu(2(y - 1)^2(4x^3 - 6x^2 + 2x) + 2y^2(4x^3 - 6x^2 + 2x)\\ & + 4y(2y - 2)(4x^3 - 6x^2 + 2x)) - \nu(2x(x - 1)^2(12y^2 - 12y + 2)\\ & - y^2(24x - 12)(y - 1)^2 + x^2(2x - 2)(12y^2 - 12y + 2)), \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where we set $\nu = 1$ .

The domain $\Omega$ is partitioned into uniform rectangles. Here, we use biquadratic, bicubic, and biquartic Bernstein polynomial basis to solve the Stokes Eq (4.1), and calculate the $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms between the approximate solution and the exact solution. and show the numerical errors for these kinds of basis functions in $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms; the corresponding convergence orders are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The comparison of errors are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Table 1. The comparison of numerical errors of

$\mathbf{u}$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|u-u_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|u-u_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|u-u_{h}\|_{H^{1}}$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.5683e-04$	$2.2975e-04$	$1.3000e-03$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$3.3051e-05$	$2.9674e-05$	$1.7101e-04$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$4.4028e-06$	$3.7355e-06$	$2.1478e-05$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$5.5386e-07$	$4.6772e-07$	$2.6875e-06$
bicubic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$7.3008e-06$	$4.9632e-06$	$2.3383e-04$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$4.4274e-07$	$3.0623e-07$	$2.8934e-05$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$2.6941e-08$	$1.9059e-08$	$3.6060e-06$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$1.6506e-09$	$1.1897e-09$	$4.5039e-07$
biquartic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.1182e-12$	$6.8916e-13$	$2.2454e-11$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$7.6057e-13$	$3.5117e-13$	$2.3499e-11$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$3.5179e-13$	$1.7482e-13$	$2.3665e-11$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$1.6601e-13$	$8.7608e-14$	$2.3789e-11$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 2. The comparison of numerical errors of

$p$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|p-p_{h}\|_{H^{1}}$
bilinear Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$1.0700e-02$	$1.0400e-02$	$1.4430e-01$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$2.6000e-03$	$2.6000e-03$	$7.2200e-02$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$6.5301e-04$	$6.5104e-04$	$3.6100e-02$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$1.6289e-04$	$1.6276e-04$	$1.8000e-02$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.3900e-05$	$7.1260e-06$	$1.5554e-04$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$1.2875e-06$	$1.8008e-07$	$8.0360e-06$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$6.6020e-08$	$4.9431e-09$	$4.8683e-07$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$3.5086e-09$	$1.8548e-10$	$4.8902e-08$
bicubic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.8915e-10$	$1.2332e-10$	$4.8600e-09$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$2.6243e-10$	$1.1638e-10$	$9.6834e-09$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$2.4346e-10$	$1.1637e-10$	$1.9344e-08$
	$\frac{1}{32}$	$\frac{1}{32}$	$1.5440e-09$	$1.2847e-09$	$3.8696e-08$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 3. Convergence order under three norms of

$\mathbf{u}$ .

basis	$h/(\frac{1}{2} h)$	$L^{\infty}-order$	$L^{2}-order$	$H^{1}-order$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}$	$2.9580$	$2.9528$	$2.9264$
	$\frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}$	$2.9082$	$2.9898$	$2.9931$
	$\frac{1}{16}/\frac{1}{32}$	$2.9908$	$2.9976$	$2.9985$
bicubic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}$	$4.0435$	$3.6940$	$3.0146$
	$\frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}$	$4.0386$	$4.0061$	$3.0043$
	$\frac{1}{16}/\frac{1}{32}$	$4.0287$	$4.0018$	$3.0012$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 4. Convergence order under three norms of

$p$ .

basis	$h/(\frac{1}{2} h)$	$L^{\infty}-order$	$L^{2}-order$	$H^{1}-order$
bilinear Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}$	$2.0410$	$2.0000$	$0.9990$
	$\frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}$	$1.9933$	$1.9977$	$1.0000$
	$\frac{1}{16}/\frac{1}{32}$	$2.0032$	$2.0000$	$1.0040$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}$	$4.2144$	$5.3064$	$4.2747$
	$\frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}$	$4.2855$	$5.1871$	$4.0450$
	$\frac{1}{16}/\frac{1}{32}$	$4.2339$	$4.7361$	$3.3154$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 1. Error comparison of

$u-u_h$ under

$L^\infty, L^2$ , and

$H^1$ norm.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 2. Error comparison of

$p-p_h$ under

$L^\infty, L^2$ , and

$H^1$ norm.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

When solving 2D Stokes equations, with equal mesh sizes, for velocity $\mathbf{u}$ , the numerical accuracy of the bicubic Bernstein polynomial basis is 1 and 2 orders of magnitude higher than that of the biquadratic Bernstein polynomial basis, while the biquartic Bernstein polynomial basis is 4–7 orders of magnitude higher than the bicubic. For pressure p, the numerical accuracy of the biquadratic Bernstein polynomial basis is 3–5 orders of magnitude higher than that of the bilinear Bernstein polynomial basis, and the bicubic Bernstein polynomial basis is 1–5 orders of magnitude higher than the biquadratic.

When solving Eq (4.1) using biquartic Bernstein polynomial basis for velocity $\mathbf{u}$ and bicubic Bernstein polynomial basis for pressure $p$ , we attempted many methods, including adjusting the accuracy setting of MATLAB $2022$ b to improve the accuracy and convergence order of the mixed FEM, but the effect was not obvious due to the limitation of computer hardware, so the convergence order could not be computed. In the future, we will continue to explore ways to improve performance.

Example 2. Consider the following Stokes equation

(4.2)

where $\Omega = [0, 1]\times[0, 1]$ , the exact solution $\mathbf{u} = (u_1, u_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} u_1(x,y)& = -cos2\pi x sin2\pi y+sin2\pi y,\\ u_2(x,y)& = sin2\pi x cos2\pi y-sin2\pi x, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

the exact solution $p(x, y)$ is

$\begin{equation*} p(x,y) = x^2+y^2, \end{equation*}$

and the body force $\mathbf{f} = (f_1, f_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} f_1(x,y) = &2x + 4\nu\pi^2sin(2\pi y) - 8\nu\pi^2cos(2\pi x)sin(2\pi y),\\ f_2(x,y) = &2y - 4\nu\pi^2sin(2\pi x) + 8\nu\pi^2cos(2\pi y)sin(2\pi x), \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where we set $\nu = 1$ .

Analogous to Example 1, mixed FEM with bivariate Bernstein polynomial basis are used to solve the above problems. The numerical errors in $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The corresponding convergence orders are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Figures 3 and 4 display the error image.

Table 5. The comparison of numerical errors of

$\mathbf{u}$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|u-u_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|u-u_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|u-u_{h}\|_{H^{1}}$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$1.6174e-01$	$1.5937e-01$	$2.3473e-00$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$5.0100e-02$	$3.8000e-02$	$3.2450e-01$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$7.6000e-03$	$5.3000e-03$	$4.2000e-02$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$9.7064e-04$	$6.8074e-04$	$5.3000e-03$
bicubic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$6.4761e-02$	$3.8419e-02$	$9.7374e-01$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$4.6000e-03$	$2.2000e-03$	$1.0640e-01$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$3.8009e-04$	$1.4194e-04$	$1.3500e-02$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$2.5417e-05$	$8.9279e-06$	$1.7000e-03$
biquartic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$5.8918e-03$	$3.8720e-03$	$1.1391e-01$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$4.4542e-04$	$2.9417e-04$	$2.3000e-03$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$1.4655e-05$	$9.4296e-06$	$7.2741e-05$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$4.5821e-07$	$2.9652e-07$	$2.2833e-06$
biquintic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$1.1305e-03$	$7.5132e-04$	$3.0851e-02$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.7425e-05$	$1.9000e-05$	$1.4613e-04$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$6.3294e-07$	$3.0283e-07$	$2.3289e-06$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$1.0992e-08$	$4.7554e-09$	$3.7396e-08$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 6. The comparison of numerical errors of

$p$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|p-p_{h}\|_{H^{1}}$
bilinear Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$1.1055e-01$	$8.7401e-02$	$4.0825e-01$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$5.2700e-02$	$2.6300e-02$	$2.7690e-01$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$1.3800e-02$	$6.3000e-03$	$1.0890e-01$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$2.0000e-03$	$1.3000e-03$	$5.1100e-02$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$3.0446e-01$	$1.5070e-01$	$1.7746e-00$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$1.6700e-02$	$6.5000e-03$	$1.7270e-01$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$9.8603e-04$	$4.0417e-04$	$2.3900e-02$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$7.6837e-05$	$2.6949e-05$	$3.3000e-03$
bicubic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$2.0060e-02$	$7.7363e-03$	$1.4123e-01$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$5.0825e-04$	$2.2814e-04$	$7.5000e-03$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$1.0791e-05$	$3.8490e-06$	$2.4536e-04$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$1.8552e-07$	$6.3212e-08$	$7.9160e-06$
biquartic Bernstein	$\frac{1}{2}$	$\frac{1}{2}$	$3.9974e-03$	$2.3690e-03$	$7.2008e-02$
	$\frac{1}{4}$	$\frac{1}{4}$	$2.9541e-05$	$1.1172e-05$	$6.0166e-04$
	$\frac{1}{8}$	$\frac{1}{8}$	$2.1714e-07$	$7.5228e-08$	$8.0550e-06$
	$\frac{1}{16}$	$\frac{1}{16}$	$1.2925e-08$	$3.3008e-09$	$8.7917e-07$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 7. Convergence order under three norms of

$\mathbf{u}$ .

basis	$h/(\frac{1}{2} h)$	$L^{\infty}-order$	$L^{2}-order$	$H^{1}-order$
biquadratic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	1.6908	2.0683	2.8547
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	2.7207	2.8419	2.9498
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	2.9690	2.9608	2.7866
bicubic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	3.8154	4.1262	3.1940
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	3.5972	3.9542	2.9785
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	3.9025	3.9908	2.9894
biquartic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	3.7255	3.7184	5.6301
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	4.9257	4.9633	4.9827
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	4.9992	4.9910	4.9936
biquintic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	5.7603	6.1691	5.2112
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	5.6375	5.9800	4.9813
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	5.9043	5.9930	4.9953

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 8. Convergence order under three norms of

$p$ .

basis	$h/(\frac{1}{2} h)$	$L^{\infty}-order$	$L^{2}-order$	$H^{1}-order$
bilinear Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	1.0688	1.7326	0.5601
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	1.9331	2.0616	1.3464
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	2.7866	2.2768	1.0916
biquadratic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	4.1883	4.5351	3.3612
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	4.0821	4.0074	2.8532
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	3.6818	3.9067	2.8565
bicubic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	5.3026	5.0837	4.2350
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	5.5576	5.8893	4.9339
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	5.8621	5.9281	4.9540
biquartic Bernstein	$\quad \frac{1}{2}/\frac{1}{4}\quad$	5.5209	6.2951	5.0997
	$\quad \frac{1}{4}/\frac{1}{8}\quad$	5.8011	5.9533	4.8669
	$\quad \frac{1}{8}/\frac{1}{16}\quad$	5.1332	5.3535	4.4198

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 3. Error comparison of

$u-u_h$ under

$L^\infty, L^2$ , and

$H^1$ norm.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 4. Error comparison of

$p-p_h$ under

$L^\infty, L^2$ , and

$H^1$ norm.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

It can be observed from the error line in Figures 3 and 4, and the error convergence order in Tables 7 and 8 that when the mesh size is equal, the higher the degree of Bernstein polynomial basis, not only the higher the numerical accuracy of the error norm, but also the higher the error convergence order.

Example 3. Consider the following non-homogenous 2D Stokes equation

(4.3)

where $\Omega = [0, 1]\times[0, 1]$ , the exact solution $\mathbf{u} = (u_1, u_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} u_1(x,y)& = \pi sin\pi x cos\pi y,\\ u_2(x,y)& = -\pi cos\pi x sin\pi y, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

the exact solution $p(x, y)$ is

$\begin{equation*} p(x,y) = sin\pi xsin\pi y, \end{equation*}$

and the body force $\mathbf{f} = (f_1, f_2)^t$ is

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} f_1(x,y) = &2\nu\pi^3 cos(\pi y)sin(\pi x)+\pi cos\pi xsin\pi y,\\ f_2(x,y) = &-2\nu\pi^3cos(\pi x)sin(\pi y)+\pi cos\pi y sin\pi x, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where we set $\nu = 1$ .

We continue to use the above method to solve Stokes Eq (4.3). The numerical errors are shown in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. The comparison of numerical errors of

$\mathbf{u}$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

Bernstein basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|u-u_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{u}_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{u}_{h}\|_{H^1}$
biquadratic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$7.1700e-02$	$4.5300e-02$	$3.0170e-01$
biquadratic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$1.8600e-02$	$1.0600e-02$	$7.6200e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$4.8000e-03$	$2.6000e-03$	$1.9100e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$1.2000e-03$	$6.4904e-04$	$4.8000e-03$
bicubic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$5.8200e-02$	$2.7800e-02$	$2.4340e-01$
bicubic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$1.5600e-02$	$6.9000e-03$	$7.9500e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$4.0000e-03$	$1.7000e-03$	$2.6800e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$1.0000e-03$	$4.3277e-04$	$9.2000e-03$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 10. The comparison of numerical errors of

$p$ in

$L^{\infty}$ ,

$L^{2}$ , and

$H^{1}$ -semi norms.

Bernstein basis	$h_{1}$	$h_{2}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^\infty}$	$\|\|p-p_{h}\|\|_{L^{2}}$	$\|p-p_{h}\|_{H^1}$
biquadratic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$9.5200e-02$	$4.5800e-02$	$5.7360e-01$
biquadratic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$2.7400e-02$	$1.0700e-02$	$1.6570e-01$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$7.5000e-03$	$2.6000e-03$	$6.0500e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$2.0000e-03$	$6.6176e-04$	$2.6800e-02$
bicubic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{4}\quad$	$8.7900e-02$	$3.0400e-02$	$4.0270e-01$
bicubic for $\mathbf{u}$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{8}\quad$	$2.1600e-02$	$7.3000e-03$	$1.3450e-01$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{16}\quad$	$5.5000e-03$	$1.8000e-03$	$5.5500e-02$
bilinear for $p$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$\quad \frac{1}{32}\quad$	$1.4000e-03$	$4.5304e-04$	$2.6100e-02$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

As can be seen from Tables 9 and 10, the Bernstein basis function shows good convergence under the three norms as the grid size decreases, which further verifies its advantages in numerical stability. In particular, the cubic or higher-degree Lagrange interpolation shows unstable oscillations, while the Bernstein basis function can provide a stable and consistent solution, while maintaining good geometric properties and flexible boundary condition processing capabilities. The numerical stability and global approximation characteristics of Bernstein polynomial make the results more reliable than Lagrange interpolation.

The Stokes equations are primarily used to describe fluid flow phenomena at low Re, where the inertial forces are significantly smaller compared to the viscous forces and can thus be neglected. This results in a flow that is smooth and orderly. Through the three numerical experiments presented above, we observe that as the mesh size decreases, the errors also gradually diminish. This indicates that our numerical solutions are progressively approaching the true laminar flow state. This trend demonstrates the effectiveness and accuracy of our numerical method in handling low Re fluid dynamics problems.

In this study, we use tensor product Bernstein polynomial basis function and Lagrange basis function to solve Stokes equation and verify the basis functions of different orders in detail. The results show that the solutions obtained by using bicubic or low-order Lagrange basis functions are basically the same as those obtained by using Bernstein polynomial basis functions in numerical accuracy and convergence order, with slight differences only after the decimal point of some $p$ values, but the performance of Bernstein basis functions is slightly better overall. This shows that the performance of the two basis functions is equivalent in the case of lower order, but Bernstein basis function shows better stability in detail processing.

However, when the biquartic Lagrange basis function is used to solve the problem, the situation has changes significantly. In Example 1, the error result of biquartic Lagrange basis function is not as good as that of biquartic Lagrange basis function. In Examples 2 and 3, the solution of biquartic Lagrange basis function appears an obvious oscillation phenomenon, which leads to unreliable numerical results. This phenomenon shows that with the increase of the order of the basis function, and with Lagrange basis function being prone to numerical instability when dealing with complex problems, especially in the case of high order, this instability will be aggravated. In contrast, Bernstein basis functions show excellent numerical stability and higher accuracy in high-order cases. By using high-order Bernstein polynomial basis, we not only effectively alleviate the oscillation problem caused by high-order Lagrange basis function, but also generate more stable and accurate numerical solutions. Therefore, in order to ensure the reliability and stability of numerical results, we only show the solution results using Bernstein polynomial basis functions.

5. Conclusions

We review the Bernstein polynomial basis and use it to construct the mixed finite element function space. Then, the Galerkin mixed FEM based on the bivariate Bernstein polynomial basis is used to solve the 2D Stokes equation, and the $L^{\infty}$ , $L^{2}$ , and $H^{1}$ -semi norms of the error and convergence order between the exact solution and the finite element solution are calculated. At the same time, compared with the Lagrange basis function, the numerical accuracy and convergence order of solving Stokes equation with bicubic and below Lagrange interpolation polynomial basis and Bernstein polynomial basis are the same. High-order Lagrange interpolation function is often limited by Runge's phenomenon, so we use high-order Bernstein polynomial basis to effectively overcome this problem and obtain significantly better numerical results.

Author contributions

Lanyin Sun: Writing-review & editing, methodology, funding acquisition, conceptualization, visualization, data curation; Siya Wen: Writing-review & editing, writing-original draft, software. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Use of Generative-AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the editor and anonymous referees for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve the paper significantly. This work is partly supported by Program for Science Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province (No. 22HASTIT021), the Science and Technology Project of Henan Province (No. 212102210394).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	B. J. Gireesha, K. J. Gowtham, Efficient hypergeometric wavelet approach for solving lane-emden equations, J. Comput. Sci., 82 (2024), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2024.102392 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2024.102392
[2]	G. K. Ramesh, B. J. Gireesha, Non-linear radiative flow of nanofluid past a moving/stationary Riga plate, Front. Heat Mass Tran., 9 (2017), 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5098/hmt.9.3 doi: 10.5098/hmt.9.3
[3]	W. Layton, Introduction to the numerical analysis of incompressible viscous flows, SIAM, 2008.
[4]	Q. Du, X. Tian, Mathematics of smoothed particle hydrodynamics: A study via nonlocal Stokes equations, Found. Comput. Math., 20 (2020), 801–826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10208-019-09432-0 doi: 10.1007/s10208-019-09432-0
[5]	T. Borrvall, J. Petersson, Topology optimization of fluids in Stokes flow, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 41 (2003), 77–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fld.426 doi: 10.1002/fld.426
[6]	L. E. Payne, W. H. Pell, The Stokes flow problem for a class of axially symmetric bodies, J. Fluid Mech., 7 (1960), 529–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002211206000027x doi: 10.1017/s002211206000027x
[7]	B. Andrea, D. Alan, L. Martin, A divergence-conforming finite element method for the surface Stokes equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 58 (2020), 2764–2798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/19M1284592 doi: 10.1137/19M1284592
[8]	P. B. Bochev, M. D. Gunzburger, Analysis of least squares finite element methods for the Stokes equations, Math. Comput., 63 (1994), 479–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/s0025-5718-1994-1257573-4 doi: 10.1090/s0025-5718-1994-1257573-4
[9]	J. Wang, X. Ye, A weak Galerkin finite element method for the Stokes equations, Adv. Comput. Math., 42 (2016), 155–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10444-015-9415-2 doi: 10.1007/s10444-015-9415-2
[10]	M. Shao, L. Song, P. Li, A generalized finite difference method for solving Stokes interface problems, Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem., 132 (2021), 50–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2021.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.enganabound.2021.07.002
[11]	R. Stenberg, M. Suri, Mixed finite element methods for problems in elasticity and Stokes flow, Numer. Math., 72 (1996), 367–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002110050174 doi: 10.1007/s002110050174
[12]	A. Zeb, L. Elliott, D. B. Ingham, D. Lesnic, The boundary element method for the solution of Stokes equations in two-dimensional domains, Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem., 22 (1998), 317–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0955-7997(98)00072-1 doi: 10.1016/s0955-7997(98)00072-1
[13]	B. Reidinger, O. Steinbach, A symmetric boundary element method for the Stokes problem in multiple connected domains, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 26 (2003), 77–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mma.347 doi: 10.1002/mma.347
[14]	J. Walter, A. V. Salsac, D. B. Biesel, P. L. Tallec, Coupling of finite element and boundary integral methods for a capsule in a Stokes flow, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 83 (2010), 829–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.2859 doi: 10.1002/nme.2859
[15]	P. Su, J. Chen, R. Yang, J. Xiang, A new isogeometric finite element method for analyzing structures, CMES-Comp. Model. Eng., 141 (2024), 1883–1905. http://dx.doi.org/10.32604/CMES.2024.055942 doi: 10.32604/CMES.2024.055942
[16]	A. Radu, C. Stan, D. Bejan, Finite element 3D model of a double quantum ring: Effects of electric and laser fields on the interband transition, New J. Phys., 25 (2023), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/AD0B5F doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/AD0B5F
[17]	G. Wei, P. Lardeur, F. Druesne, Free vibration analysis of thin to thick straight or curved beams by a solid-3D beam finite element method, Thin Wall. Struct., 191 (2023), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TWS.2023.111028 doi: 10.1016/J.TWS.2023.111028
[18]	R. Courant, Variational methods for the solution of problems of equilibrium and vibrations, B. Am. Math. Soc., 49 (1943), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1943-07818-4 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1943-07818-4
[19]	[] K. Feng, Difference schemes based on variational principle, J. Appl. Comput. Math., 2 (1965), 238–262.
[20]	[] H. Huang, J. Wang, J. Cui, Difference scheme based on displacement solution on the plane elasticity, J. Appl. Comput. Math., 3 (1966), 54–60.
[21]	C. Guichard, E. H. Quenjel, Weighted positive nonlinear finite volume method for dominated anisotropic diffusive equations, Adv. Comput. Math., 48 (2022), 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10444-022-09995-7 doi: 10.1007/s10444-022-09995-7
[22]	L. Zhang, S. Wang, G. Niu, Upwind finite element method for solving radiative heat transfer in graded index media, Adv. Mater. Res., 1601 (2012), 1655–1658. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.430-432.1655 doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.430-432.1655
[23]	M. Puthukkudi, C. G. Raja, Mollification of fourier spectral methods with polynomial kernels, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 47 (2024), 4911–4931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/MMA.9845 doi: 10.1002/MMA.9845
[24]	Z. Csati, N. Moës, T. J. Massart, A stable extended/generalized finite element method with Lagrange multipliers and explicit damage update for distributed cracking in cohesive materials, Comput. Methods Appl. M., 369 (2020), 1–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113173 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113173
[25]	Y. Tang, Z. Yin, Hermite finite element method for a class of viscoelastic beam vibration problem, Engineering, 13 (2021), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2021.138033 doi: 10.4236/eng.2021.138033
[26]	C. Carstensen, J. Hu, Hierarchical Argyris finite element method for adaptive and multigrid algorithms, Comput. Method. Appl. Math., 21 (2021), 529–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CMAM-2021-0083 doi: 10.1515/CMAM-2021-0083
[27]	M. I. Bhatti, P. Bracken, Solutions of differential equations in a Bernstein polynomial basis, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 205 (2007), 272–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2006.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2006.05.002
[28]	[] Z. Shi, On spline finite element method, Math. Numer. Sinica, 1 (1979), 50–72.
[29]	[] R. Qin, Simple formula for calculating stress intensity factor of fracture toughness samples, Mech. Eng., 1 (1979), 52–53.
[30]	T. J. R. Hughes, J. A. Cottrell, Y. Bazilevs, Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement, Comput. Method. Appl. M., 194 (2005), 4135–4195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2004.10.008
[31]	C. Zhu, W. Kang, Numerical solution of Burgers-Fisher equation by cubic B-spline quasi-interpolation, Appl. Math. Comput., 216 (2010), 2679–2686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2010.03.113 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2010.03.113
[32]	D. Dutykh, E. Pelinovsky, Numerical simulation of a solitonic gas in KdV and KdV-BBM equations, Phys. Lett. A, 378 (2014), 3102–3110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2014.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2014.09.008
[33]	S. S. D. Pranta, H. Ali, M. S. Islam, On the numerical treatment of 2D nonlinear parabolic PDEs by the Galerkin method with bivariate Bernstein polynomial bases, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 6 (2022), 410–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/JAMC.2022.12.003 doi: 10.26855/JAMC.2022.12.003
[34]	A. A. Rodríguez, L. B. Bruno, F. Rapetti, Whitney edge elements and the Runge phenomenon, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 427 (2023), 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2023.115117 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2023.115117
[35]	S. Sindhu, B. J. Gireesha, Entropy generation analysis of hybrid nanofluid in a microchannel with slip flow, convective boundary and nonlinear heat flux, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 31 (2021), 53–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/hff-02-2020-0096 doi: 10.1108/hff-02-2020-0096
[36]	A. Felicita, B. J. Gireesha, B. Nagaraja, P. Venkatesh, M. R. Krishnamurthy, Mixed convective flow of Casson nanofluid in the microchannel with the effect of couple stresses: Irreversibility analysis, Int. J. Model. Simul., 44 (2024), 91–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02286203.2022.2156974 doi: 10.1080/02286203.2022.2156974
[37]	A. Rathi, D. K. Sahoo, B. V. R. Kumar, Variational multiscale stabilized finite element analysis of transient MHD Stokes equations with application to multiply driven cavity flow, Appl. Numer. Math., 198 (2024), 43–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2023.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2023.12.007
[38]	X. Li, T. Xie, Q. Wang, Z. Zhang, C. Hou, W. Guo, et al., Numerical study of the wave dissipation performance of two plate-type open breakwaters based on the Navier-Stokes equations, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci., 43 (2021), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-02889-7 doi: 10.1007/s40430-021-02889-7
[39]	X. Zhou, Z. Meng, X. Fan, Z. Luo, Analysis of two low-order equal-order finite element pairs for Stokes equations over quadrilaterals, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 364 (2020), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.06.039 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2019.06.039
[40]	S. K. Das, Extension of the boundary integral method for different boundary conditions in steady-state Stokes flows, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 33 (2023), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/hff-02-2022-0088 doi: 10.1108/hff-02-2022-0088
[41]	D. K. Jules, G. Hagos, K. Jonas, S. Toni, Discontinuous Galerkin methods for Stokes equations under power law slip boundary condition: A priori analysis, Calcolo, 61 (2024), 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10092-023-00563-z doi: 10.1007/s10092-023-00563-z
[42]	G. R. Barrenechea, M. Bosy, V. Dolean, F. Nataf, P. H. Tournier, Hybrid discontinuous Galerkin discretisation and domain decomposition preconditioners for the Stokes problem, Comput. Method. Appl. Math., 19 (2019), 703–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cmam-2018-0005 doi: 10.1515/cmam-2018-0005
[43]	V. Ervin, M. Kubacki, W. Layton, M. Moraiti, Z. Si, C. Trenchea, Partitioned penalty methods for the transport equation in the evolutionary Stokes-Darcy-transport problem, Numer. Meth. Part. D. E., 35 (2019), 349–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/num.22303 doi: 10.1002/num.22303
[44]	O. A. Ladyzhenskaya, R. A. Silverman, J. T. Schwartz, J. E. Romain, The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flow, AIP, 1964. https://doi.org/10.2307/3613759
[45]	C. Susanne, L. Brenner, L. R. Scott, The mathematical theory of finite element methods, Springer, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-1221
[46]	P. Moczo, J. Kristek, M. Gális, The finite-difference modelling of earthquake motions: Waves and ruptures, Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236911
[47]	H. Igel, Computational seismology: A practical introduction, Oxford University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9662-4
[48]	F. Brezzi, M. Fortin, Mixed and hybrid finite element methods, Springer-Verlag, 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3172-1

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

AIMS Mathematics

1.8 3.1

Metrics

Article views(720) PDF downloads(36) Cited by(0)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

AIMS Mathematics

Applications of mixed finite element method based on Bernstein polynomials in numerical solution of Stokes equations

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Bernstein basis functions, curves, and surfaces

3. Mixed finite element algorithm based on Bernstein polynomial basis for Stokes equations

3.1. Galerkin formulation

3.2. Finite element discretization

4. Numerical examples

5. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of Generative-AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Bernstein basis functions, curves, and surfaces

3. Mixed finite element algorithm based on Bernstein polynomial basis for Stokes equations

3.1. Galerkin formulation

3.2. Finite element discretization

4. Numerical examples

5. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of Generative-AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

AIMS Mathematics

Applications of mixed finite element method based on Bernstein polynomials in numerical solution of Stokes equations

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Bernstein basis functions, curves, and surfaces

3. Mixed finite element algorithm based on Bernstein polynomial basis for Stokes equations

3.1. Galerkin formulation

3.2. Finite element discretization

4. Numerical examples

5. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of Generative-AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Bernstein basis functions, curves, and surfaces

3. Mixed finite element algorithm based on Bernstein polynomial basis for Stokes equations

3.1. Galerkin formulation

3.2. Finite element discretization

4. Numerical examples

5. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of Generative-AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References