Hi Justin,
I'm clearly not understanding your new paper, but why does the new second derivative you create in 4.13 not go away by multiplying by a test funcion and integrating by parts?
In addition, I don't understand why it makes sense to take a second derivative of a Q1 element. Q1 does not span P2 so you have a very big part of your space which is linear (and therefore has the same issue as P1). In addition, as Andrew already stated, C0 elements don't have enough continuity to take that derivative, so I don't understand why the second derivative in this case makes sense.
Having said all that, as far as I know, it should be possible to just put the second derivative into UFL and let FFC deal with it. Does that produce an error?
Cheers,
David
I am looking at equal order mixed formulations. Two discretizations in particular:
1) Our group recently released a paper on enforcing local mass balance and discrete maximum principles through the least-squares finite element method. The paper can found here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06099v1.pdf
Equation 4.13 is what I want to solve using firedrake. Everything in that paper was written in MATLAB because the authors could not get FEniCS to do what they want. I am guessing it's because there were no Q1 elements available within FEniCS (double derivative
 of P1 elements makes no sense).
 
2) The other discretization, based on the variational multi-scale formulation, for Darcy-Brinkmann equations is described in this paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fld.2544/abstract
 
Though I am currently looking at the steady-state version of this. Appendix A1 describes how they discretize the \delta v and \delta w terms.
 
I could perhaps figure these out through trial and error, but I got my hands full with other things ATM :)
Thanks,
Justin