Advertisement

On the Convergence of the h-p Finite Element Method for Solving Boundary Value Problems in Physical Geodesy

  • David Mráz
  • Milan Bořík
  • Jaroslav Novotný
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 147)

Abstract

A geopotential model of the Earth is usually calculated using the Stokes coefficients. As computational power has increased, research is focusing more on new ways of gravity field modelling. The objective of this work is to study an application of the h-p finite element method for solving boundary value problems in physical geodesy. For the purpose of studying this method, we have formulated model boundary value problems with different boundary conditions. The algorithm for solving these test problems was designed and was subsequently implemented by the program. We derived a weak formulation for each model boundary value problem and also the corresponding finite element discretization. We used isoparametric reference elements with linear and quadratic shape functions. The authors present the application of the h and p methodologies for increasing the rate of convergence of our solution, discuss mesh generation for large domains, and also solve the model boundary value problem, which is similar to the geodetic boundary value problem.

Keywords

Boundary value problem Gravity field modelling p and h Convergence The h-p finite element method The Poisson equation Weak formulation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Technical University in Prague by grant No. SGS OHK1-016/15.

References

  1. Babuška I, Dorr MR (1981) Error estimates for the combined h and p version of finite element method. Numer Math 37:252–277Google Scholar
  2. Babuška I, Suri M (1990) The p- and h-p versions of the finite element method an overview. In: Canuto C, Quarteroni A (eds) Spectral and high order methods for partial differential equations. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 5–26Google Scholar
  3. Babuška I, Szabo B (1982) On the rates of convergence of the finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 18:323–341. doi:10.1002/nme.1620180302Google Scholar
  4. Bathe K (1999) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, PrenticeGoogle Scholar
  5. Čunderlík R, Mikula K, Mojzeš M (2008) Numerical solution of the linearized fixed gravimetric boundary-value problem. J Geod 82(1):15–29Google Scholar
  6. Ergatoudis J, Irons B, Zienkiewicz O (1968) Curved, isoparametric, quadrilateral elements for finite element analysis. Int J Solids Struct 4:31–42Google Scholar
  7. Fašková Z, Čunderlík, Mikula K (2010) Finite element method for solving geodetic boundary value problems. J Geod 84(2):135–144Google Scholar
  8. Grafarend E (1989) The geoid and the gravimetric boundary value problem, Report No 18. The Royal Institute of Technology (Dep of Geod), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. Grafarend E, Niemeier W (1971) The free nonlinear boundary value problem of physical geodesy. Bull Geod 101:243–261Google Scholar
  10. Grafarend E, Heck B, Knickmeyer E (1985) The free versus fixed geodetic boundary value problem for different combinations of geodetic observables. Bull Geod 59(1):11–32Google Scholar
  11. Hofmann-Wellenhof B, Moritz H (2005) Physical geodesy. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Holota P (2000) Direct methods in physical geodesy. In: Schwarz K-P (ed) Geodesy beyond 2000 - the challenges of the first decade. IAG general assembly, Birmingham, July 19–30, 1999, IAG symposia, vol 121. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  13. Holota P (2001) Variational methods in geoid determination and function bases. Phys Chem Earth Solid Earth Geod 24(1):3–14Google Scholar
  14. Holota P (2005) Neumann’s boundary-value problem in studies on Earth gravity field: weak solution. In: Holota P, Slaboch V (eds) 50 years of Research Institute of Geodesy, Topography and Cartography, Prague, vol 50, No 36. Research Institute of Geodesy, Topography and Cartography, Prague, pp 49–69Google Scholar
  15. Holota P, Nesvadba O (2007) Model refinements and numerical solutions of weakly formulated boundary-value problems in physical geodesy. In: Xu P, Liu J, Dermanis A (eds) VI Hotine-Marussi symposium of theoretical and computational geodesy, Wuhan, 29 May–2 June, 2006. IAG symposia, vol 132. Springer, Berlin, pp 314–320Google Scholar
  16. Heck B (1989) On the non-linear geodetic boundary value problem for a fixed boundary surface. Bull Geod 63(1):57–67Google Scholar
  17. Klees R (1995) Boundary value problems and approximation of integral equations by finite elements. Manuscr Geodaet 20:345–361Google Scholar
  18. Klees R, van Gelderen M, Lage C, Schwab C (2001) Fast numerical solution of the linearized Molodensky problem. J Geodesy 75:349–362Google Scholar
  19. Meissl P (1981) The use of finite elements in physical geodesy. Report 313, Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Minarechová Z, Macák M, Čunderlík R, Mikula K (2015) High-resolution global gravity field modelling by the finite volume method. Stud Geophys Geod 59(1):1–20Google Scholar
  21. Nesvadba O, Holota P, Klees R (2007) A direct method and its numerical interpretation in the determination of the Earth’s gravity field from terrestrial data. In: Tregoning P, Rizos C (eds) Dynamic planet. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 130. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 370–376Google Scholar
  22. Rektorys K (1980) Variational methods in mathematics, science and engineering. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Sansò F, Sideris M (2013) Geoid determination - theory and methods. Lecture notes in earth system sciences. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaofeng B, Dingbo C (1991) The finite element method for the geodetic boundary value problem. Manuscr Geod 16:353–359Google Scholar
  25. Šprlák M, Fašková Z, Mikula K (2011) On the application of the coupled finite-infinite element method to the geodetic boundary value problem. Stud Geophys Geod 55:479–487Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Civil EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations