A discrete maximum principle for the weak Galerkin finite element method on nonuniform rectangular partitions
Abstract
This article establishes a discrete maximum principle (DMP) for the approximate solution of convection-diffusion-reaction problems obtained from the weak Galerkin finite element method on nonuniform rectangular partitions. The DMP analysis is based on a simplified formulation of the weak Galerkin involving only the approximating functions defined on the boundary of each element. The simplified weak Galerkin method has a reduced computational complexity over the usual weak Galerkin, and indeed provides a discretization scheme different from the weak Galerkin when the reaction term presents. An application of the simplified weak Galerkin on uniform rectangular partitions yields some - and -point finite difference schemes for the second order elliptic equation. Numerical experiments are presented to verify the discrete maximum principle and the accuracy of the scheme, particularly the finite difference scheme.
keywords
discrete maximum principle, simplified weak Galerkin, finite element method, finite difference method, second order elliptic equations.AMS
Primary 65N30; Secondary 65N501 Introduction
In this paper, we are concerned with the development of a discrete maximum principle for the weak Galerkin finite element approximations of convection-diffusion-reaction problems. For simplicity, we consider the problem of seeking an unknown function satisfying
| (1) | |||||
| (2) |
where is a bounded polytopal domain in with boundary , is the diffusion coefficient, is the convection, and is the reaction coefficient in relevant applications. We assume that is sufficiently smooth, , and is piecewise constant with respect to a partition of the domain. For well-posedness of the problem (1)-(2), we assume , , and
| (3) |
for a constant .
The weak Galerkin (WG) finite element method, recently introduced in [20, 21, 15], refers to a natural extension of the standard finite element methods [3, 8] where the differential operators are approximated as discrete distributions or discrete weak derivatives and the element continuity circumvented by properly selected stabilizers. The method has good flexibility in making use of discontinuous elements while sharing the simple formulation of the classical continuous or conforming finite element methods. Weak Galerkin can be easily implemented on finite element partitions consisting of general polygonal or polyhedral elements through the usual assembling strategy of element stiffness matrices. The method has gained a lot attention and popularity recently and has been successfully applied to a variety of partial differential equations, see [20, 11, 14, 19] and the references therein for more details.
A simplified formulation of the weak Galerkin finite element method has been developed in [10, 13] for second order elliptic equations in conjunction with the study of superconvergence and error estimates. This simplification idea was further applied to the Stokes equation in [12] for the development of a superconvergence theory on nonuniform rectangular partitions for both the velocity and the pressure approximations. In the simplified weak Galerkin (SWG), the degrees of freedom associated with the unknowns in the interior of each element are eliminated from the usual weak Galerkin method, yielding a numerical scheme with significantly reduced computational complexity. For pure diffusion equations (i.e., and in (1)), the simplified weak Galerkin is equivalent to the usual weak Galerkin in the sense that the numerical approximations on the element boundary are the same. But for the full convection-diffusion-reaction equation, these two methods give different numerical solutions on the element boundary. Like WG, the simplified weak Galerkin preserves the important mass conservation property locally on each element and allows the use of general polygonal partitions.
The convection-diffusion-reaction equation (1) is known to satisfy the following maximum principle: If is the solution of (1)-(2) with and in , then attains its maximum value on if and attains its non-negative maximum value on if [7]. A discrete maximum principle (DMP) refers to a similar statement for numerical solutions of (1)-(2) on specific grid points. The discrete maximum principle is of great importance from physical point of views in scientific computing (e.g. helping avoid non-physical numerical solutions). In the last two decades, a great deal of effort has been devoted to the search of DMP-preserving numerical methods, see [1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 18]. For isotropic diffusion problems, it was shown by Ciarlet and Raviart [4] that the -conforming finite element solutions satisfy a DMP if all the triangular elements have non-obtuse dihedral angles. This nonobtuse-angle condition was improved in [17] by a weaker condition (namely, the Delaunay condition) that requires the sum of any pair of angles facing a common interior edge be less than or equal to . A more recent work on DMP was developed in [23] for -conforming finite element approximations of quasi-linear second order elliptic equations by using the de Giorgi approach developed in PDE analysis. For discontinuous Galerkin finite element approximations, some DMP-preserving schemes were developed in [24] for convection-diffusion equations on triangular meshes. In the weak Galerkin context and for anisotropic diffusion problems, a DMP result was established for the lowest order WG solutions without stabilization in [9]. In [22], the authors developed a DMP theory for the WG numerical solutions on the element boundary under a weak acute angle condition for triangular partitions. For weak Galerkin on rectangular partitions, a DMP result was reported numerically in [22], but no theory was developed over there.
The goal of this paper is to establish a discrete maximum principle for the simplified weak Galerkin finite element approximations of (1)-(2) on nonuniform rectangular partitions. We show that a DMP is satisfied by the numerical solutions arising from SWG with certain values of the stabilization parameter on rectangular partitions for elements with aspect ratio in . For a better understanding of the SWG, we shall compute its global stiffness matrix on uniform rectangular partitions, and develop a 5- and 7-point finite difference scheme for the model diffusion equation. As a variant of the weak Galerkin scheme, these finite difference methods can be shown to preserve the important mass conservation property locally on each cell. We note that a similar finite difference method has been developed in [12]) for the Stokes equation.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we state the simplified weak Galerkin finite element method for the model problem (1)-(2). In Section 3, we establish a comprehensive DMP theory for the SWG approximations. Section 4 is devoted to the derivation of a technical inequality useful to the DMP development. In Section 5, we devise a finite difference scheme for the diffusion equation on uniform Cartesian grids based on the SWG formulation. Finally, in Section 6, we report some numerical results for a verification of the discrete maximum principle.
In the rest of the paper, we assume and shall use the standard notations for Sobolev spaces and norms [3, 8]. For any open set , and denote the norm and inner-product in the Sobolev space consisting of square integrable partial derivatives up to order . When or , we shall drop the corresponding subscripts in the norm and inner-product notation.
2 Simplified Weak Galerkin on Polymesh
Let be a shape-regular polygonal partition of the domain . For , denote by its diameter and by the number of edges. The meshsize of is defined as . For each edge , let be the midpoints and be the outward normal direction of ; see Fig. 1.
Let be a piecewise constant function defined on the boundary of . The weak gradient of [21, 15] is given by
| (4) |
where , is the length of the edge , and is the area of . The weak gradient can be seen to satisfy the following equation:
| (5) |
for all constant vector , where and in what follows of the paper, is the notation for the usual inner product in .
Denote by the local finite element space consisting of piecewise constant functions on . The global finite element space, denoted by , is given by patching all the local elements through common values on interior edges. Denote by the closed subspace of consisting of functions with vanishing boundary values.
Let be the space of polynomials of degree on . Each can be extended to as a linear function by the following equations:
| (6) |
It is not hard to show that is well defined by (6).
On each element , we introduce three bilinear forms:
| (7) | |||||
| (8) | |||||
| (9) |
Furthermore, let
| (10) |
for . To enforce a weak continuity, we introduce the following stabilizer:
| (11) |
where is the projection operator onto . It is clear that is the average of on each edge. With an abuse of notation, but without confusion, we use to denote the average of the Dirichlet value on each boundary edge.
SWG Algorithm 2.1.
The following result on the solution existence and uniqueness has been established by the authors in [13].
Theorem 1.
For the model problem (1)-(2), assume that and the ellipticity condition (3) is satisfied. Then, the bilinear form is bounded and coercive in the finite element space ; i.e., there exist constants and such that
| (13) | |||||
| (14) |
provided that the meshsize of is sufficiently small. Consequently, the SWG finite element scheme (12) has one and only one solution in the finite element space when the meshsize is sufficiently small.
3 Discrete Maximum Principle
The model problem (1)-(2) is known to satisfy the following maximum principle: If is the solution of (1)-(2) with and non-positive , then attains its maximum value on when and attains its non-negative maximum value on when [7]. In this section, we show that the maximum principle also holds true for the numerical solutions arising from the SWG scheme (12) on nonuniform rectangular partitions. From now on, the finite element partitions is assumed to contain only rectangular elements.
In practical computation, the load linear form in the SWG scheme (12) must be approximated by using numerical integrations on each element . Let us first derive a discrete version for on which the maximum principles will be established.
Let be a rectangular element depicted in Fig. 2 with center . Denote by and the local meshsize in and directions. From (6), the linear extension of can be represented as (see Lemma 6.1 in [10] for details)
| (15) |
where
It follows that
| (16) |
| (17) |
Let be the local basis function associated with the edge (i.e., on and on other edges). For any , we have from (15)
| (18) |
where
| (19) |
It follows that
| (20) |
Note that is linear in - direction, and constant in -. Thus, the integral can be approximated by using the mid-point rule in -direction and the Simpson’s rule in -direction:
| (21) |
From the Taylor expansion, we have
Substituting the above into (21) yields
| (22) |
where . Analogously, we have
| (23) | |||||
| (24) | |||||
| (25) |
Using (20)-(25), we may approximate by given as follows:
| (26) |
In the case that is non-smooth, the values and can be substituted by a local average of around and , respectively. Our computational version of the SWG finite element method for the elliptic equation (1)-(2) can be stated as follows:
SWG Algorithm 3.1.
We are now in a position to state the main result of this section on discrete maximum principles.
Theorem 2 (discrete maximum principle).
Let be the numerical solution of the model problem (1)-(2) arising from the scheme (27) on a general rectangular partition satisfying (35). Assume the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i)
the aspect ratio for each element satisfies with ,
- (ii)
the right-hand side load function is non-positive in (i.e., for ).
Then the following results hold true:
- (a)
If in (1), then
(28) - (b)
If and has piecewise constant value, then
(29)
Here in (28)-(29), stands for the set of edge midpoints and refers those on the boundary .
Proof.
Let and if and if . We shall show through a contradiction argument. To this end, assume holds true. For any number satisfying , we define
and
It is clear that . Since , then on so that on . Furthermore, we have on some edges in as . Thus, from (27), we have
In particular, by letting we obtain
which, together with (26) and the assumption of , yields
| (30) |
where we have used the fact that , , , and . On the other hand, we have
| (31) |
Assume the following holds true:
| (32) |
For the case of , we have from (31) and (30) that
| (33) |
which, together with the coercivity inequality (14), leads to in – a contradiction to the fact that on some edges in as a result of the assumption of . This completes the proof of the discrete maximum principle (28).
As to the case of , we note that from the selection of . Furthermore, it is not hard to see that, on each rectangular element , we have
as and from (19). It follows that the inequality (33) again holds true so that , which contradicts the fact that at some edges. The lemma is thus proved completely. ∎
4 A Technical Inequality
The goal of this section is to verify the validity of the assumption (32). From and , we may rewrite the assumption as follows:
| (34) |
Let be a rectangular element depicted in Fig. 2. For any , define and as follows
It is easy to see that
The following lemma provides a version of (34) on the element .
Lemma 3.
Let be a rectangular element of size , and be its aspect ratio. Assume that the stabilization parameter and the finite element partition satisfy
| (35) |
for some prescribed constants and . Then for any , the following inequality holds true:
| (36) |
As a result, the inequality (34) holds true for sufficiently small and sufficiently small meshsize .
Proof.
Let be illustrated in Fig. 2. Denote by the local basis function associated with the edge ; i.e.,
It follows that
where, by using (16) and (17), the function can be shown to satisfy
and
Thus, with , the first term on the left-hand side of (36) can be computed as
| (37) |
Next, from (4) for the weak gradient, we have
| (38) | |||||
By combining (37) with (38) we obtain
| (39) |
Remark 4.1.
For square elements , one has and . Thus, by letting , the condition (35) becomes to be
which is easily satisfied for sufficiently small provided that . For general rectangular partitions , one may choose so that the condition (35) becomes to be
which is satisfied for and sufficiently small meshsize .
5 SWG on Cartesian Grids
In this section we consider a special case of the SWG finite element method for the model problem (1)-(2) associated with Cartesian grids (i.e., rectangular partitions). The goal is to derive a finite difference formulation for the simplified weak Galerkin when applied to (1)-(2). For simplicity, assume that is the unit square domain , and the coefficients in the PDE are given by .
A uniform square partition of the domain can be constructed as the Cartesian product of two one-dimensional grids:
where is a positive integer and is the meshsize. Denote by
the square element centered at for . The collection of all such elements forms a uniform square partition of the domain. The collection of all the element edges is denoted as .
5.1 A 7-point finite difference scheme
Let be the approximation of the unknown function at the mid-point (i.e., the dotted points colored in red in Figure 3). It can be seen that a red-dotted grid point is located on the boundary if either or takes the value of or . The following is the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.
The simplified weak Galerkin scheme (12) on the uniform square partition for the model problem (1)-(2) with and is algebraically equivalent to the following finite difference scheme: (1) , and (2) the following equation is satisfied at each interior node:
| (43) |
where , is the stabilization parameter, , .
The rest of this subsection will be devoted to a detailed derivation of the finite difference scheme (43).
Let be the basis function of corresponding to the edge of (see Fig. 2); i.e.,
Since for square elements, from (16) and (17) we have
Hence
| (44) |
and
| (45) |
Equations (44) and (45) comprise the discrete scheme corresponding to the basis function on edge of the element :
| (46) |
The two local equations (46) corresponding to the elements and that share as a common edge (see Fig. 4(a)) are given by
| (47) | |||||
| (48) |
Summing up the equations (47) and (48) yields the following global linear equation corresponding to the degree of freedom :
| (49) |
The right-hand side of (49) can be approximated by using numerical integrations (the Simpson rule in the - direction and the midpoint rule in the - direction) as follows:
| (50) |
where we have used the following formula:
Thus, we may rewrite (49) as follows:
| (51) |
Analogously, for the degree of freedom , we have
| (52) |
The stencil for the unknown , or more precisely for (respectively ) is the seven dotted-points shown in Fig. 4(a) (respectively Fig. 4(b)) with weights
| (53) |
for .
A similar 7-point finite difference scheme can be derived by following the same calculation for general nonuniform rectangular partitions, for which the stencil should be modified accordingly; details are left to interested readers as an exercise.
5.2 A 5-point finite difference scheme
For the particular value of , the weights in (53) for the 7-point stencil become to be
so that (43) is reduced to a 5-point finite difference scheme described as follows:
5-Point Finite Difference Algorithm 5.1.
On the set of grid points , find satisfying (1) the discrete Dirichlet boundary condition of at all the red-dotted grid points on the domain boundary, and (2) the following set of linear equations:
| (54) |
where
Figure 5 shows the stencil of (54) as a five-point finite difference scheme with weights ; the left figure is for the scheme centered at and the right one is for .
Due to the connection between the finite difference scheme (43) and the SWG finite element method, we have the following result for the solvability of the finite difference method.
Theorem 5.
For any given stabilization parameter , the finite difference scheme (43) has one and only one solution. The same conclusion holds true for the five-point finite difference scheme (54). In addition, the discrete maximum principle Theorem 2 holds true for the numerical solutions obtained from the finite difference schemes.
6 Numerical Experiments
In this section, we shall numerically verify the discrete maximum principle (i.e., Theorem 2) for the simplified weak Galerkin finite element method on rectangular partitions. In addition, some numerical results will be reported to illustrate the convergence and the accuracy of the finite difference scheme 54.
The following norms are used to compute the error of the numerical solutions:
| Discrete -norm: | ||
| Discrete -norm: | ||
6.1 Verification of the discrete maximum principle
Three test cases are considered in the verification of DMP for the model problem (1)-(2) on rectangular domains . In all the numerical tests, the right-hand side function is non-positive in . The first test problems assume a vanishing reaction coefficient (i.e., ), while the third one assumes a positive constant for the reaction coefficient.
Test Case 1: In this test, the model problem (1)-(2) is defined on with solutions and coefficients given by
| (55) |
The Dirichlet boundary data is chosen to match the exact solution. Uniform square partitions (i.e. ) are employed in the SWG scheme (12) with three values for the stabilization parameter , , . Table 1 shows the corresponding error and convergence information for the numerical solutions. The numerical results illustrate an optimal order of convergence in the norm. In addition, a superconvergence of order was observed in the discrete norm when and . For the case of , the numerical approximations are of machine accuracy so that no rate of convergence is necessary.
| 8 | 1.79e-02 | 1.6 | 5.81e-02 | 1.5 | 1.71e-15 | - | 6.64e-15 | - |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 4.94e-03 | 1.9 | 1.72e-02 | 1.8 | 7.11e-16 | - | 5.77e-15 | - |
| 32 | 1.27e-03 | 2.0 | 4.83e-03 | 1.8 | 3.51e-15 | - | 1.78e-14 | - |
| 64 | 3.22e-04 | 2.0 | 1.32e-03 | 1.9 | 7.78e-15 | - | 5.08e-14 | - |
| 8 | 3.57e-03 | 2.0 | 1.37e-02 | 1.9 | ||||
| 16 | 8.81e-04 | 2.0 | 3.72e-03 | 1.9 | ||||
| 32 | 2.19e-04 | 2.0 | 9.99e-04 | 1.9 | ||||
| 64 | 5.48e-05 | 2.0 | 2.66e-04 | 1.9 | ||||
Figure 6 shows the surface plot of the SWG approximation and its maximum value on the domain boundary for the test problem (55). Each of the surface plot indicates that the maximum value of the SWG solution is attained on the domain boundary, which is consistent with the DMP theory developed in Theorem 2). We note that the DMP theory was not applicable to the case of , though it is numerically valid.









Test Case 2: In this test, the model problem (1)-(2) has the following configuration on its solution and the coefficients:
| (56) |
The domain is the unit square, and the Dirichlet boundary value is chosen to match the exact solution.
Table 2 illustrates the error and convergence performance of the numerical solutions arising from the SWG scheme (12) on uniform square partitions with three values of , , . The table shows an optimal order of convergence (i.e., ) in the norm. The computational results from this test also suggest a superconvergence of the numerical solution in the discrete norm for all three values of .
| 8 | 1.14e-02 | 1.5 | 4.58e-02 | 1.2 | 2.34e-03 | 1.9 | 1.03e-02 | 1.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 3.17e-03 | 1.9 | 1.54e-02 | 1.6 | 5.94e-04 | 2.0 | 3.17e-03 | 1.7 |
| 32 | 8.15e-04 | 2.0 | 4.85e-03 | 1.7 | 1.49e-04 | 2.0 | 9.62e-04 | 1.7 |
| 64 | 2.05e-04 | 2.0 | 1.50e-03 | 1.7 | 3.73e-05 | 2.0 | 2.91e-04 | 1.7 |
| 8 | 6.42e-04 | 2.0 | 2.83e-03 | 1.7 | ||||
| 16 | 1.63e-04 | 2.0 | 8.27e-04 | 1.8 | ||||
| 32 | 4.12e-05 | 2.0 | 2.40e-04 | 1.8 | ||||
| 64 | 1.04e-05 | 2.0 | 6.96e-05 | 1.8 | ||||
Figure 7 shows the numerical solutions and their maximum values on the domain boundary for the test problem (56) on the uniform square partition. It can be seen that DMP is satisfied for each of the test value of . Similar tests were conducted on finer rectangular partitions such as and , and the DMP was observed in all of the computations.



Test Case 3: The model problem (1)-(2) is now defined in . The solution and the PDE coefficients are given by
| (57) |
The Dirichlet boundary data is computed to match the exact solution .
Table 3 shows the error and convergence performance of the numerical solutions on uniform square partitions with three values of , , . Optimal order of convergence (i.e., ) is clearly indicated in the table for the error. In addition, a superconvergence of order is observed in the discrete norm for all three test cases of .
| 8 | 2.43e-02 | 1.6 | 5.25e-02 | 1.6 | 1.99e-03 | 2.0 | 1.23e-02 | 1.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 6.58e-03 | 1.9 | 1.46e-02 | 1.9 | 4.95e-04 | 2.0 | 3.12e-03 | 2.0 |
| 32 | 1.68e-03 | 2.0 | 3.76e-03 | 2.0 | 1.24e-04 | 2.0 | 7.82e-04 | 2.0 |
| 64 | 4.23e-04 | 2.0 | 9.49e-04 | 2.0 | 3.09e-05 | 2.0 | 1.96e-04 | 2.0 |
| 8 | 4.64e-03 | 2.0 | 1.39e-02 | 1.8 | ||||
| 16 | 1.16e-03 | 2.0 | 3.57e-03 | 2.0 | ||||
| 32 | 2.91e-04 | 2.0 | 8.98e-04 | 2.0 | ||||
| 64 | 7.28e-05 | 2.0 | 2.25e-04 | 2.0 | ||||
Figure 8 illustrates the numerical solutions and their maximum values on the domain boundary for the test problem (57) on the uniform square partitions of size . The plots indicate that the maximum value of the numerical solution is not attained on the domain boundary, but satisfies the discrete maximum principle of for all three cases of , , and .



In summary, the discrete maximum principle is satisfied for all three test problems for the case of and . The result is in good consistency with the DMP theory developed in Theorem 2. The computational result also indicates a satisfaction of the DMP for the case of for which no theory was known.
6.2 Numerical results for the finite difference scheme
The goal of this section is to investigate the performance of the finite difference scheme (12). For simplicity, we consider the model problem (1)-(2) with , , and on the unit square domain . The two test cases in our numerical experiments assume the following exact solution and the right-hand side function:
It is easy to see that the function is non-positve in both tests.
Table 4 show the error and convergence performance of the finite difference scheme (12). Optimal order of convergence can be seen for the error, while a superconvergence of order is illustrated for the numerical solution in the discrete norm.
| Test case (6.2), | Test case (6.2), | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4.59e-04 | - | 1.46e-03 | - | 3.47e-05 | - | 4.10e-04 | - |
| 16 | 1.14e-04 | 2.0 | 3.66e-04 | 2.0 | 8.63e-06 | 2.0 | 1.02e-04 | 2.0 |
| 32 | 2.85e-05 | 2.0 | 9.15e-05 | 2.0 | 2.15e-06 | 2.0 | 2.56e-05 | 2.0 |
| 64 | 7.12e-06 | 2.0 | 2.29e-05 | 2.0 | 5.33e-07 | 2.0 | 6.42e-06 | 2.0 |
| 128 | 1.78e-06 | 2.0 | 5.72e-06 | 2.0 | 1.30e-07 | 2.0 | 1.61e-06 | 2.0 |
Tables 5-6 show and for the numerical solutions arising from the finite difference scheme (43). Table 5 is concerned with the case of the scheme with and for which the DMP theory is applicable. It can be seen from the table that so that the (strong) DMP is verified. For curiosity, we also tested the case of for which no DMP theory is known. It is interesting to note that the discrete maximum principle still holds true for the case of , as shown in Table 6.
We point out that a penalization method was employed to implement the Dirichlet boundary condition in our computation so that the numerical boundary values are slightly different from the exact boundary data.
| Test problem (6.2) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | |
| -7.5e-11 | -4.9e-12 | -2.4e-13 | -6.5e-11 | -4.6e-12 | -3.0e-13 | |
| -7.5e-03 | -4.9e-04 | -3.0e-05 | -6.5e-03 | -4.6e-04 | -3.0e-05 | |
| Test problem (6.2) | ||||||
| 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | |
| 0.9435 | 0.9866 | 0.9966 | 0.9435 | 0.9866 | 0.9966 | |
| 0.7448 | 0.9408 | 0.9855 | 0.7627 | 0.9419 | 0.9855 | |
| Test problem (6.2), | Test problem (6.2), | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | 1/8 | 1/32 | 1/128 | |
| -6.3e-11 | -4.6e-12 | -3.0e-13 | 0.9435 | 0.9866 | 0.9966 | |
| -6.3e-03 | -4.6e-04 | -3.0e-05 | 0.7682 | 0.9423 | 0.9856 | |



References
- [1] E. Bertolazzi and G. Manzini, A second-order maximum principle preserving finite volume method for steady convection-diffusion problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 43, pp. 2172-2199, 2005.
- [2] A.J. Christlieb, Y. Liu, Q. Tang, and Z. Xu, High order parametrized maximum-principle-preserving and positivity-preserving WENO schemes on unstructured meshes, J. Comput. Phys., 281, pp. 334-351, 2015.
- [3] P.G. Ciarlet, The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, Classics Appl. Math. 40, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2002.
- [4] P. Ciarlet and P.-A. Raviart, Maximum principle and uniform convergence for the finite element method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2, pp. 17-31, 1973.
- [5] J. Droniou and C.L. Potier, Construction and convergence study of schemes preserving the elliptic local maximum principle, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 49, pp. 459-490, 2011.
- [6] A. Drăgănescu, T.F. Dupont, and L.R. Scott, Failure of the discrete maximum principle for an elliptic finite element problem, Math. Comput., 74, pp. 1-24, 2004.
- [7] L. Evans, Partial Differential Equations, vol. 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2010.
- [8] V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart, Finite Element Methods for the Navier-Stokes Equations: Theory and Algorithms, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
- [9] W. Huang, Y. Wang, Discrete maximum principle for the weak Galerkin method for anisotropic diffusion problems, Commun. Comput. Phys., 18, pp. 65-90, 2015.
- [10] D. Li, C. Wang, and J. Wang, Superconvergence of the gradient approximation for weak Galerkin finite element methods on nonuniform rectangular partitions, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.03998v2.pdf.
- [11] Q. Li and J. Wang, Weak Galerkin finite element methods for parabolic equations, Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ., 29, pp. 1-21, 2013.
- [12] Y. Liu and J. Wang, Simplified Weak Galerkin and Finite Difference Schemes for the Stokes Equation[J], arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00120, 2018.
- [13] Y. Liu and J. Wang, A simplified weak Galerkin finite element method: algorithm and error estimates, arXiv:1808.08667v2, 2018.
- [14] L. Mu, J. Wang, G. Wei, X. Ye, and S. Zhao, Weak Galerkin methods for second order elliptic interface problems, J. Comput. Phys., 250, pp. 106-125, 2013.
- [15] L. Mu, J. Wang, and X. Ye, A weak Galerkin finite element method with polynomial reduction, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 285, pp. 45-58, 2015.
- [16] M.K. Mudunuru and K.B. Nakshatrala, On enforcing maximum principles and achieving element-wise species balance for advection-dffusion-reaction equations under the finite element method, Journal of Computational Physics, Volume 305, 15, pp. 448–493, 2016.
- [17] G. Strang and G.J. Fix, An Analysis of the Finite Element Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.
- [18] R.S. Varga, On a discrete maximum principle, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 3, pp. 355-359, 1966.
- [19] C. Wang and J. Wang, A primal-dual weak Galerkin finite element method for second order elliptic equations in non-divergence form, Math. Comp., vol. 87, 515-545, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/mcom/3220. June 2017.
- [20] J. Wang and X. Ye, A weak Galerkin mixed finite element method for second-order ellliptic problems. arXiv: 1104.2897vl. J. Comp. and Appl. Math., 241, 103-115, 2013.
- [21] J. Wang and X. Ye. A weak Galerkin mixed finite element method for second-order elliptic problems, Math. Comp., 83, pp. 2101-2126, 2014.
- [22] J. Wang, X. Ye, Q. Zhai, and R. Zhang, Discrete maximum principle for the - weak Galerkin finite element approximations, J. Comput. Phys., 362, pp. 114-130, 2018.
- [23] J. Wang and R. Zhang, Maximum principles for P1-conforming finite element approximations of quasi-linear second order elliptic equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 50, pp. 626-642, 2012.
- [24] Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, and C.-W. Shu, Maximum-principle-satisfying second order discontinuous Galerkin schemes for convection-diffusion equations on triangular meshes, J. Comput. Phys., 234, pp. 295-316, 2013.