arxiv: v1 [math.na] 5 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 arxiv:8.0957v [math.na] 5 Dec 08 Residual-tye a osteriori estimators for a singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion variational inequality - reliability, efficiency and robustness Mirjam Walloth Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Darmstadt Dolivostraße 5, 6493 Darmstadt, walloth@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de Abstract We derive a new residual-tye a osteriori estimator for a singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion roblem with obstacle constraints. It generalizes robust residual estimators for unconstrained singularly erturbed equations. The robust uer and local lower bounds are derived with resect to an error notion which measures the error of the solution and of a suitable aroximation of the constraining force in a ɛ-deendent energy norm and its dual norm. For the roof of efficiency we construct secial bubble functions which coe with the structure of the aroximation of the constraining force and the ɛ-deendency. Key words. singularly erturbed reaction diffusion, obstacle roblem, residualtye a osteriori estimator Introduction In this work we resent a residual-tye a osteriori estimator for a singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion roblem with obstacle constraints. An examle of this can be found in hase-field models for fracture roagation with irreversibility constraints, see e.g. [6]. A osteriori estimators are widely used in the numerical simulation to obtain informations about the aroximation quality of the discrete solution as usually the exact solution is unknown. This information can be further used for mesh adatation to imrove the quality of the discrete solution for given comutational resources. It is imortant that the estimator is reliable and efficient, i.e. constitutes uer and lower bounds to the error at least u to so-called oscillation terms. Thus, the estimator is equivalent to the error which imlies that the error is neither over- nor underestimated. A reliable and efficient estimator for linear ellitic roblems, which is attractive in view of its simlicity, is the standard residual estimator []. Regarding singularly erturbed equations which deend on a

2 arameter ɛ << it is imortant that the estimator is robust, i.e. the constants in the uer and lower bounds are indeendent of ɛ. Otherwise the equivalence relation between error and estimator is destroyed for ɛ 0. For singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion equations a robust residual estimator has been resented in [0]. Standard residual estimators yield an uer but no lower bounds for obstacle roblems. In [9] a first efficient and reliable residual-tye a osteriori estimator has been derived. Therein the error was measured in both unknowns, the solution and a suitable aroximation of the constraining forces. This idea has been adated and imroved for different obstacle and contact roblems. e.g. [5,7,]. As far as we know, we derive the first efficient and reliable residual-tye a osteriori estimators for singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion roblems with obstacle constraints. The estimator reduces to the robust residual estimator of [0] if no contact occurs. In order to measure the error in both unknowns and to deal with the asect of robustness we define an energy norm deending on ɛ for the error in the solution and a corresonding dual norm for the error of a suitable aroximation of the constraining force, called quasi-discrete constraining force. The definition of this aroximation reflecting the local structure is imortant for the efficiency as well as the localization of the estimator contributions. A key ingredient in the derivation of efficient and reliable residual-tye a osteriori estimators for roblems with constraints is the Galerkin functional which relaces the linear residual of ellitic unconstrained roblems. The derivation of the robust uer bound consists of deriving an uer bound of the esilon-deendent dual norm of the Galerkin functional and an uer bound of a duality airing between the error in the solution and the constraining force. Besides estimator contributions known from [0] a comlementarity residual is art of the estimator. For discrete ga functions the estimator contributions vanish in the so-called area of fullcontact. Thus, the estimator erceives that adative refinement cannot imrove the solution if it is fixed to the obstacle. We give local lower bounds of all estimator contributions, at least for discrete ga functions. Therefore we define a linear combination of bubble functions with secial roerties. The definition has to coe with the structure of the quasi-discrete constraining force as these auxiliary functions relate the local estimator contributions to the Galerkin functional and thus to the error measure. In contrast to [5] where a similar ansatz has been used, the interior residual of a reaction-diffusion roblem which is art of the estimator cannot be aroximated by a constant interior residual lus oscillation terms. Further, to tackle the esilon-deendency of the estimator and the error measure we use bubble functions on modified elements like in [0]. In the last section we rovide numerical results. We show the adatively refined grids, the convergence of the error and the robustness of the estimator. Further, we show what haens if one uses the standard residual estimator not designed for a constrained roblem and an estimator which is suited for the obstacle roblem but not for the esilon-deendency.

3 3 The singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion variational inequality In this section we resent the weak and the discrete roblem formulations for the singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion roblem with obstacle constraints.. Weak formulation The domain is denoted by Ω R d, d =, 3 and the boundary by Γ = Ω which is subdivided in the Neumann boundary Γ N and the Dirichlet boundary Γ D. The solution sace of the weak formulation is the subsace H := {ψ H (Ω) tr Γ D(ψ) = ϕ D } of H (Ω) where tr is the trace oerator. For convenience in the discrete aroximation of the Dirichlet values we assume ϕ D to be continuous and iecewise linear on Γ D. In the following we omit the secial notation for the trace oerator. The sace of test functions is given by H 0 := {ψ H (Ω) tr Γ D(ϕ) = 0} and its dual is H. For the obstacle function g H (Ω) we define the admissible set K := {ψ H ψ g}. () We assume the force density f and the Neumann data π to be L -functions on Ω or Γ N, resectively. The L -norm and its scalar roduct are denoted by and, without any subindex. The duality airing between H and its dual H is given by, and the corresonding norms are and. Later on, we need restrictions to subdomains which are indicated by a further subindex, e.g.,,ω for ω Ω. Finally, we define the symmetric bilinear form a ɛ (ζ, ψ) := ɛ ζ, ψ + ζ, ψ ζ, ψ H, () with ɛ <<. Thus, the weak formulation of the singularly erturbed reactiondiffusion roblem is given by Problem. Problem. Weak formulation We seek a solution ϕ K such that a ɛ (ϕ, ϕ ψ) f, ϕ ψ + π, ϕ ψ Γ N ψ K. (3) The unique solvability of Problem is given by the Theorem of Lions and Stamacchia. It exists a distribution λ H which turns the variational inequality (3) in an equation λ, ψ := f, ψ + π, ψ Γ N a ɛ (ϕ, ψ) ψ H. It is called Lagrange multilier or constraining force density. Due to the variational inequality the constraining force fulfills the following sign condition λ, ϕ ψ 0. (4)

4 4. Finite element formulation In the discrete setting we assume the domain Ω to be olygonal. The mesh M, resolving the domain, consists of elements e M which are either disjoint or share a node, an edge or a face s. The olygonal boundary segments Γ D, Γ N are resolved by the mesh, too, meaning that their boundaries Γ N, Γ D are either nodes or edges. The set of nodes is given by N and we distinguish between the set N D of nodes on the Dirichlet boundary, the set N N of nodes at the Neumann boundary and the set of interior nodes N I. The mesh is taken from a shae-regular family, meaning that the ratio of the diameter of any element to the diameter of its inscribed circle is uniformly bounded. Further, we define a atch ω as the interior of the union of all elements sharing the node. We call the union of all sides in the interior of ω, not including the boundary of ω skeleton and denote it by γ. I For Neumann boundary nodes we denote the intersections between Γ and ω by γ N := Γ N ω. Further, we will make use of ω s which is the union of all elements sharing a side s. The linear finite element sace with incororated Dirichlet values ϕ D is denoted by H m := {ψ m C 0 ( Ω) e M, ψ m e P (e) and ψ m = ϕ D on Γ D }. The nodal basis functions of the finite element saces are denoted by φ. Let g m be a discrete aroximation of the obstacle function g, then the discrete admissible set is given by K m := {ψ m H m ψ m g m } (5) and K m K holds. The discrete roblem formulation is given in Problem. Problem. Discrete formulation Find ϕ m K m fulfilling the variational inequality a ɛ (ϕ m, ϕ m ψ m ) f, ϕ m ψ m + π, ϕ m ψ m Γ N ψ m K m. The unique solvability of Problem follows just as in the continuous case from the Theorem of Lions and Stamacchia. Proceeding as in the continuous case we can define the discrete constraining force density λ m, ψ m := f, ψ m + π, ψ m Γ N a ɛ (ϕ m, ψ m ). (6) Later on, when we use integration by arts, we need the definition of the jum term [ ψ m ] := e ψ m n e ẽψ m n e where e, ẽ are neighbouring elements and n e ist the unit outward normal on the common side of the two elements. 3 Main results This section is devoted to the formulation of the main results of this article while the roofs will be given in Sections 4 and 5. After defining the quasi-discrete constraining force, the Galerkin functional and the error measure, we define the estimator contributions and formulate the Theorems of reliability and efficiency.

5 5 3. Quasi-discrete constraining force The discrete constraining force λ m (6) equals the definition of the linear residual R lin m for linear ellitic equations. We recall that in the derivation of standard residual estimators for linear equations the residual lays an imortant role as it is equivalent to the error []. In the case of variational inequalities this equivalence is disturbed as the linear residual is related to the discrete constraining force as well as to the error. Thus, an error estimator based on the linear residual would overestimate the error. In [9] the first efficient and reliable residual-tye a osteriori estimator for a variational inequality was roosed. Therein, the error was measured in both unknowns the solution ϕ and the constraining force λ. In order to comare the continuous and discrete constraining forces, we cannot simly take λ m as by definition (6) it is a functional on the sace of discrete functions and there is no unique extension. Therefore we need to choose an extension which is a discrete counterart of λ as functional on H, reflecting the roerties of the constraining force and deending on the discrete solution and given data. We call this extension quasi-discrete constraining force and denote it by λ m. In [9] an extension to a functional on H has been roosed by means of luming N C s φ, where s = λm,φ ω φ 0 are the node values of the lumed discrete constraining force. The sign condition follows from the discrete variational inequality. As the lumed discrete constraining force is a discrete function a comlementarity condition, i.e. λm (ϕ m, g m ) = 0, cannot be fulfilled in the so-called semicontact zone which consists of elements having nodes which are in contact and nodes which are not in contact. It is only valid in so-called full-contact areas where ϕ m, = g m and in non-actual-contact areas where ϕ m, < g m. Esecially for the efficiency and the localization of a osteriori error estimation it is very advantageous, if the quasi-discrete constraining force density can be defined differently for the different areas of full- and semi-contact to reflect local roerties. Such an aroach has been first used for the derivation of an a osteriori error estimator in [3] and alied to obstacle and contact roblems in [5, 7,8, ]. Following this aroach we distinguish between full-contact nodes N fc and semi-contact nodes N sc. Full-contact nodes are those nodes for which the solution is fixed to the obstacle ϕ m = g m on ω and the sign condition is fulfilled R lin m, ϕ,ω 0 ϕ 0 H 0 (ω ). The latter condition means that the solution is locally not imrovable, see the exlanation in [7]. Semi-contact nodes are those nodes for which ϕ m () = g m () holds but not the conditions of full-contact. Based on this classification we define the quasidiscrete constraining force λm, ψ := λ m, ψφ N sc + N fc λ m, ψφ.

6 6 For semi-contact nodes λ m, ψφ := λ m, φ c (ψ) = ɛ [ ϕ m ]c (ψ)φ + γ I + (f ϕ m )c (ψ)φ ω holds with c (ψ) = 0 for N D and c (ψ) = γ N (π ɛ ϕ m )c (ψ)φ ω ψφ ω φ, otherwise, where ω is the atch around with resect to two uniform red-refinements. For full-contact nodes λ m, ψφ := R lin m, ψφ := ɛ [ ϕ m ]ψφ + (π ɛ ϕ m )ψφ holds. γ I + (f ϕ m )ψφ ω 3. Error measure and Galerkin functional Corresonding to the bilinear form a ɛ (, ) given in () we define the energy norm ɛ := { ɛ + }, (7) comare [0]. As we aim to measure the error in both unknowns ϕ and λ we define further the dual norm,ɛ := su ψ H,ψ ψ ɛ. The error measure we consider for the derivation of the estimator is given by γ N ϕ m ϕ ɛ + λ λ m,ɛ. (8) Accordingly, the linear residual which is used in the derivation of a osteriori estimators for linear ellitic equations is relaced by a so-called Galerkin functional which takes into account the errors in both unknowns G m, ψ = a ɛ (ϕ ϕ m, ψ) + λ λ m, ψ (9) = f, ψ + π, ψ a ɛ (ϕ m, ψ) λm, ψ = ɛ [ ϕ m ](ψ c (ψ))φ N\N fc + γ N γ I (π ɛ ϕ m )(ψ c (ψ))φ + (f ϕ m )(ψ c (ψ))φ. ω (0)

7 7 The relation between the dual norm of the Galerkin functional G m,ɛ and the error measure (8) follows from G m,ɛ ϕ ϕ m ɛ + λ λ m,ɛ, () and ϕ ϕ m ɛ G m,ɛ + λm λ, ϕ ϕ m, () and λ λ m,ɛ ( G m,ɛ + ϕ ϕ m ɛ), (3) comare [9, Lemma 3.4]. 3.3 Error estimator and main results The error estimator 7 η := η k (4) k= for which we rove reliability and efficiency in Sections 4 and 5 consists of the following local contributions η := η := η 3 := N\N fc η, N\N fc η, η 4 := N\N fc η 3, N sc η 4,, η, :=min{ h ɛ, } f ϕ m ω, η, :=min{ h ɛ, } ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I, η 3, :=min{ h ɛ, } ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N, η 4, := (s ω (g m ϕ m )φ )

8 8 η 5 := N sc η 5, η 6 := η 7 := N fc η 6, N C η 7,, η 5, := (s ω ((g g m ) + )φ ) ( ), η 6, := λ m, (g g m ) + φ, η 7, := (ϕ m g)φ ω,ɛ where h := diam(ω ) and ζ + := max{ζ, 0} denotes the ositive art of a function. We emhasize that the estimator contributions related to the constraints only contribute to η in the area where the constraints are active, actually only in the area of semi-contact if g = g m. This roerty is called localization of estimator contributions. In the absence of any contact, we have η k, = 0 for k = 4,..., 7 such that η equals the standard residual estimator η std := 3 η k, (5) for singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion equations, see [0]. In Section 4 we rove that η constitutes a robust uer bound where robust means that the constant in the bound does not deend on ɛ such that the validity of the estimator holds for arbitrary choices of ɛ. Theorem. Reliability of the error estimator The error estimator η rovides a robust uer bound of the error measure (8): k= ϕ m ϕ ɛ + λ λ m,ɛ η. In order to formulate the local lower bounds we denote by f and π the iecewise constant aroximations of f and π and we abbreviate osc (f) := min{ h ɛ, } f f ω and osc (π) := min{ h ɛ, } ɛ π π γ N. In Section 5 we derive the local lower bounds which are summarized in the following Theorems Theorem. Local lower bounds by η,, η,, η 3, The error estimator contributions η k,, k =,, 3 constitute the following robust local lower bounds η k, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f) + osc (π). Theorem 3. Local lower bound by η 4, For nodes N sc with h ɛ we have the robust local lower bound η 4, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f) + osc (π) + min{ h ɛ, } ɛ ɛ [ (g m ϕ m )] I γ. Otherwise, for nodes N sc with h > ɛ we have the local lower bound η 4, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f) + osc (π) + ɛ min{ h ɛ, } ɛ [ (gm ϕ m )] I γ. (6) (7)

9 9 Remark. We note that the additional term min{ h ɛ, } ɛ ɛ [ (g m ϕ m )] I γ in Theorem 3 only occurs for N sc. It does not deend only on the data but the local lower bound (6) shows that the decay of η 4, is of the same order as the other estimator contributions. In the alication we exect the semi-contact zone to be well resolved, esecially with resect to ɛ such that h ɛ after a finite number of adative refinement stes such that the local lower bound is robust everywhere. We do not rovide lower bounds in terms of the additional error estimator contributions η k, for k = 5, 6, 7, deending on data aroximation but notice that they cannot be neglected in the uer bound because all the other estimator contributions might be zero, while the real roblem is not resolved due to g m g, comare examles 4. and 4. in [7] and subsection 6. in [5]. In Section 6 we resent numerical exeriments to show the benefits of the new estimator η. Amongst others we will comare it to a variant η nr which can be easily derived without taking care of the asect of robustness. Imagine a residual-tye a osteriori estimator for Problem 3 would be derived with resect to the H -norm of the error, not aying attention to the ɛ-deendency. The derivation would basically follow along the lines of Section 4 and 5. The roofs would be simlified as there is no need to care about the L -aroximation for an energy norm and the standard definitions of the bubble functions can be used. The estimator contributions η k change in the way that min{ h ɛ, } is relaced by h and min{ h ɛ, } ɛ is relaced by h. 4 Reliability of the error estimator Based on the combination of () and (3) ϕ ϕ m ɛ + λ λ m,ɛ 5 G m,ɛ + 6 λm λ, ϕ ϕ m (8) we derive the reliability of the estimator by first deriving a comutable uer bound of G m,ɛ and second of λm λ, ϕ ϕ m. Thus, the roof of Theorem will follow from Lemma and Lemma Uer bound of Galerkin functional In this subsection we give the roof of Lemma. The Galerkin functional defined in (9) satisfies G m,ɛ ( 3 We will make use of the following results on the reference elements ê. k= η k ) Lemma. Let ˆv H (ê) vanish on ŝ. Then the estimate holds for all other sides ŝ ê. ˆv ŝ ˆv ê ˆv ê

10 0 The roof follows along the lines of [0, Lemma 3.]. Lemma 3 (L -aroximation with resect to energy norm). Let c (ψ) = ω ψφ ω φ with ω ω for all N\N D and c (ψ) = 0 for N D. Then the L -aroximation roerties with resect to the energy norm (7) hold (ψ c (ψ))φ ω min{ h ɛ, } ψ ɛ,ω (9) (ψ c (ψ))φ s min{ h ɛ, } ɛ ψ ɛ,ωs. (0) Proof. To get the L -aroximation roerty for c (ψ) = set ζ := ψ c (ψ) and define the constant < c >:= ω ψφ ω φ ω ζ. Thus, ω ω ζφ = ψφ ψφ φ = 0 ω ω ω φ ω and by adding and subtracting < c > ζ = ζ ζφ = ζ < c > (ζ < c >)φ. ω ω φ ω with ω ω Now, we take the L -norm, aly the triangle inequality, the Poincaré inequality with mean value zero, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and use the fact that ω is the atch around with resect to a twice uniformly red-refined mesh, such that the diameter is a fixed ortion of h = diam(ω ). ψ c (ψ) ω ζ ω ζ < c > ω + (ζ < c >)φ ω ω ω φ h ζ ω + ζ < c > ω h ψ ω. () For c (ψ) = 0 the L -aroximation () follows directly from the Poincaré inequality ψ ω h ψ ω. Together with (ψ c (ψ))φ ω ψ ω we deduce the L -aroximation roerty with resect to the energy norm (9). It remains to derive the L - aroximation roerty for sides s. Therefore we fix a node and denote the sides which are oosite to in e by s. We note that v := (ψ c (ψ))φ s = 0. Let F e be the transformation F e : e ê from the element e on the reference element ê. Thus ˆv := v Fe ŝ = 0, too. We aly the transformation rule to v and v and the result of Lemma to get (ψ c (ψ))φ s (ψ c (ψ))φ e ((ψ c (ψ))φ ) e. Next we aly the roduct rule and triangle inequality ((ψ c (ψ))φ ) e (ψ c (ψ))φ e + (ψ c (ψ)) φ e (ψ c (ψ)) e + h e (ψ c (ψ)) e.

11 Thus, we get together with the L -aroximation roerty (9) on the elements and ψ ωs ɛ ψ ɛ,ωs the L -aroximation roerty on the sides (ψ c (ψ))φ s (ψ c (ψ))φ ωs ((ψ c (ψ))φ ) ωs h e (ψ c (ψ)) ωs + (ψ c (ψ)) ωs (ψ c (ψ)) ωs h e min{ h e ɛ, } ψ ɛ,ω s + min{ h e ɛ, } ψ ɛ,ω s ɛ ψ min{ h e ɛ, } ɛ ψ ɛ,ωs ɛ,ω s Together with this reliminary results we can give the roof of Lemma. Proof of Lemma. In order to derive an uer bound of the dual norm of the Galerkin functional, we use the reresentation (0) and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality G m, ψ N\N fc ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I (ψ c (ψ))φ γ I + π ɛ ϕ m γ N (ψ c (ψ))φ γ N + f ϕ m ω (ψ c (ψ))φ ω. () Combining () and (9, 0) we get the bound of the dual norm of the Galerkin functional G m, ψ ( min{ h e ɛ, } ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I N\N fc +min{ h e ɛ, } ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N +min{ h ) ) e ɛ, } f ϕ m ω N ψ ɛ,ω and thus G m,ɛ = su ψ H G m, ψ ψ ɛ 3 η k. k= 4. Comlementarity residual In this subsection we give the roof of Lemma 4 (Comlementarity residual). Assume K m K then λm λ, ϕ ϕ m η4 holds. Otherwise, in the case K m K λm λ, ϕ ϕ m λ λ m,ɛ + η7 + η4 + η5 + η6.

12 Proof. First, we consider the case g = g m such that ϕ m K m K is an admissible function in Problem so that λ, ϕ ϕ m 0. For semi-contact nodes we exloit the sign condition (4) and for full-contact nodes ϕ m = g m and R lin m, ψ 0 for ψ 0. Further, we use ϕ g m and we exloit that diam( ω ) is a fixed ortion of diam(ω ). Thus, λm λ, ϕ ϕ m λm, ϕ ϕ m = λ m, φ c (ϕ ϕ m ) + R lin m, (ϕ g m )φ N sc N fc (g m ϕ m )φ = η4. (3) ω N sc s Second, we consider an arbitrary choice of g H (Ω). In this case K m K and thus, we cannot exloit λ, ϕ ϕ m 0. Therefore, we define ϕ m := min{ϕ m, g} H (Ω) and make use of λ, ϕ m ϕ 0. With this we get λ, ϕ m ϕ = λ, ϕ m ϕ m + ϕ m ϕ λ λ m, ϕ m ϕ m + λm, ϕ m ϕ m λ λ m,ɛ + ϕ m ϕ m ɛ + λm, ϕ m ϕ m and thus, exloiting, (ϕ ϕ m) (g ϕ m) (g ϕ m ) + (g g m ) + + (g m ϕ m ) and additionally for full-contact nodes g m = ϕ m we get λm λ, ϕ ϕ m λ λ m,ɛ + ϕ m ϕ m ɛ + λm, ϕ ϕ m λ λ m,ɛ + ϕ m ϕ m ɛ + λ m, φ c (ϕ ϕ m) N sc + λ m, (ϕ ϕ m)φ N fc λ λ m,ɛ + ϕ m ϕ m ɛ + N sc s + N fc (g m ϕ m )φ + s ω λ m, (g g m ) + φ ω ((g g m ) + )φ = λ λ m,ɛ + η 7 + η 4 + η 5 + η 6. (4)

13 3 5 Efficiency of the error estimator In this Section we give the roofs of Theorem and Local error bound by η,, η,, η 3, We start with η, for which we use the roerties of the element bubble functions Ψ e := cπ e φ, see []. 0 Ψ e (Ψ e v) e h e v e for all olynomials v where h e is the diameter of the element e. In the following we make use of h h e h s with h s = diam(ω ). With resect to the energy norm (7) this imlies for all olynomials v Ψ e v ɛ,e (ɛh e + ) v e max{ ɛ h e, } v e. (5) For all N, ω is the atch around with resect to a twice uniformly redrefined mesh M with ẽ M and hẽ = ch e. We define a linear combination of element bubble functions Ψ j with resect to all elements ẽ j e, i.e. θ e = j= a jψ j. We choose a j = 0 for all elements ẽ j containing a node N sc such that θ e φ = 0 with ẽ j. (6) ẽ j The other coefficients of the linear combination are chosen such that the bubble function θ e fulfills the following four conditions = θ e φ e e φ q = N\N fc N\N fc e e φ q θ e φ q e. As we have even more degrees of freedom (coefficients a j ) than conditions this roblem is solvable. We abbreviate r(ϕ m ) := f ϕ m, define the linear aroximation r(ϕ m ) := f ϕ m where f is assumed to be the mean value. Thus, r(ϕ m ) e N\N fc = N\N fc ( r(ϕ m ))( r(ϕ m ))θ e φ e (r(ϕ m ))( r(ϕ m ))θ e φ + e = G m, r(ϕ m )θ e + N\N fc N\N fc γ I N\N fc ɛ [ ϕ m ] r(ϕ m )θ e φ ( r(ϕ m ) r(ϕ m ))( r(ϕ m ))θ e φ + e ( r(ϕ m ) r(ϕ m ))( r(ϕ m ))θ e φ e N\N fc λ m, φ c ( r(ϕ m )θ e ) G m,ɛ,ω r(ϕ m )θ e ɛ,ω + r(ϕ m ) r(ϕ m ) e r(ϕ m )θ e e (7)

14 4 as c (θ e ) = 0 for all N sc following from (6), λ m, φ = 0 for all N\N C and θ e vanishes on the edges. Exloiting (5) for θ e instead of Ψ e, dividing (7) by r(ϕ m ) e and multilying with min{ he ɛ, } = (max{ ɛ h e, }) we arrive at min{ h e ɛ, } r(ϕ m) ω G m,ɛ,ω + min{ h e ɛ, } r(ϕ m) r(ϕ m ) ω. (8) Next, we aly the triangle inequality r r + r r, exloit the definition of r, and r, resectively, and together with () we get the desired result η, = min{ h e ɛ, } r(ϕ m) ω G m,ɛ,ω + osc (f) ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f). (9) In order to rove the lower bound in terms of η, we use the roerties of side bubble functions. Following the ansatz given in [0] we define side bubble functions with the hel of basis functions belonging to a modified element. On the reference element ê the corresonding transformation Φ δ : R n R n mas the coordinates x,..., x n to x,..., δx n. The basis functions on the transformed reference element are given by ˆφ δ,i := ˆφ i Φ δ for i =,..., n on Φ δ (ê) and ˆφ δ,i = 0 on ê\φ δ (ê), e.g. in the two-dimensional case they are given by ˆφ δ, = x, ˆφδ, = δ x, ˆφδ,3 = ( x δ x ). Let ŝ i be the sides oosite to the nodes ˆ i. The modified side bubble function we will consider is given by Ψ δ,ŝn := ˆφ δ,n+ Π n ˆφ i= δ,i, e.g. in the two-dimensional case Ψ δ,ŝ3 = ( x δ x )x. Let F s : e ê be the linear transformation which mas s on ŝ n. Then it follows from [0, Lemma 3.4] together with the transformation rule Ψ δ,s w e h e δ w s, (Ψ δ,s w) e h e δ w s, i n x i (Ψ δ,s w) e h e w s. x n δ (30) With resect to the ɛ norm we get Ψ δ,s w ɛ,e ɛh e δ w s. (3) Similar to the roof of the lower bound in terms of η, we construct a linear combination θ δ,s = j a jψ δ,j of modified side bubble functions Ψ δ,s with resect to all sides s j of the artition of s such that c (θ δ,s ) = 0. Therefore we assume that ω is the atch around with resect to two uniform red-refinements. We choose a j = 0 for all sides s j containing a node N sc such that ẽ j θ δ,s φ = 0 with s j. (3)

15 5 The other coefficients of the linear combination are chosen such that the bubble function θ δ,s fulfills the following roerty s = N\N fc s θ δ,s φ. (33) We set w := ɛ [ ϕ m ]. Thus, we aly (30), (3). Together with (3) and (33), we get ɛ [ ϕ m ] s = N\N fc G m, ɛ [ ϕ m ]θ δ,s + s + N\N fc ɛ 4 [ ϕ m ][ ϕ m ]θ δ,s φ λm, φ N\N fc ω s r(ϕ m )ɛ [ ϕ m ]θ δ,s φ c ( r(ϕ m )θ δ,s ) G m,ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ]θ δ,s ɛ,ωs + r(ϕ m ) ωs ɛ [ ϕ m ]θ δ,s ωs G m,ɛ {h s δ ɛ + δ h s } ɛ [ ϕ m ] s + δ h s r(ϕ m ) ωs ɛ [ ϕ m ] s Dividing by ɛ [ ϕ m ] s and multilying with ɛ min{ hs ɛ, } δ = min{ ɛ h s, } we get the factors and choosing ɛ h s min{ ɛ, } {ɛh s min{ ɛ, } ɛ + min{, } h h s h s =ɛ h s min{ ɛ, } h s ɛ min{ ɛ, } s } + ɛ min{ h s ɛ, } ɛ min{ h s ɛ, } and ɛ min{ h s ɛ, } min{ ɛ, } h s h s Thus, together with the estimate (9) we arrive at = min{ h s ɛ, }. ɛ min{ h s ɛ, } ɛ [ ϕ m ] s G m,ɛ + min{ h s ɛ, } r(ϕ) r(ϕ m) ωs and get the local lower bound η, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f). (34) To derive a local lower bound in terms of η 3, we can roceed in the same way to get η 3, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω + osc (f) + osc (π). (35) Theorem follows from (9, 34, 35).

16 6 5. Local error bound in terms of η 4, In order to show that also η 4, constitutes a local lower bound, we roceed almost as in [5]. We assume s > 0 and (g m ϕ m )(q) 0 for at least one node in ω so that η 4, 0. The assumtion s > 0 imlies that is a contact node, i.e. (g m ϕ m )() = 0. Choose a node ˆq in ω such that (g m ϕ m )(ˆq) (g m ϕ m )(q) for all q ω. We denote the unit vector ointing from to ˆq by τ. We denote the element to wich and ˆq belong by e and the element in ω which is intersected by τ, starting in, is denoted by e N. The elements between e and e N are denoted in order by e i, i =,..., N. We use Taylor exansion around (g m ϕ m )() = 0 and add the gradient in the oosite direction τ. Due to the constraints, e (g m ϕ m ) (±τ ) 0 holds and thus (g m ϕ m )(ˆq) = e (g m ϕ m )(ˆq ) h e (g m ϕ m ) τ h ( e (g m ϕ m ) en (g m ϕ m )) τ h N i= ei (g m ϕ m ) ei (g m ϕ m ) h h d [ (g m ϕ m )] I γ I. For the ease of resentation we set v m = (g m ϕ m ) in the following. Further, we exloit λ m, φ := ɛ [ (ϕ m )]φ + γ,i (π ɛ (ϕ m ))φ + γ,i r(ϕ m )φ. ω Putting together and assuming h < ɛ η 4, = λ m, φ c (g m ϕ m ) h d h h d [ v m ] I γ I h d + r(ϕ m ) ω φ ω ) ( h h d [ v m ] I γ I ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I h d h h ɛ ( ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I φ γ I + π ɛ ϕ m γ N φ γ N h ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ + h ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N + h ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I h γ ɛ r(ϕ m) γ ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ + h ɛ η, + η, + η 3, + h ɛ ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ. I Thus, together with (9), (34), (35) ( η4, h ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ m,ɛ,ω +osc (f)+osc (π)+ ɛ ) + π ɛ ϕ m γ N h d + r(ϕ m ) ω h d h ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ + h ɛ r(ϕ m) ω + h ɛ ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ I. ). (36)

17 7 In the remaining case h > ɛ the weightings in η,, η 3, are min{ h ɛ, } ɛ and in η, it is min{ h ɛ, } =. We exloit h and roceed as before η 4, = λ m, φ c (g m ϕ m ) h h ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ I ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ I + h ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N + h ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I h γ ɛ r(ϕ m) γ ɛ h ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ N ɛ ɛ [ ϕ m ] γ ɛ 3 ɛ [ v m ] I γ + ɛ π ɛ ϕ m γ N ɛ 3 ɛ [ v m ] I γ I + ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ r(ϕ m ) γ η, + η, + η 3, + ɛ 4 ɛ [ v m ] I γ. Thus, together with (9), (34), (35) η 4, ϕ ϕ m ɛ,ω + λ λ ( ) m,ɛ,ω +osc (f)+osc (π)+ɛ ɛ [ v m ] I γ. I (37) Theorem 3 follows from (), (37) and (36). 6 Numerical results The imlementation has been carried out in MATLAB. For the adative mesh generation we have taken from [4, Chater 5] the refinement strategy refinenvb.m for simlicial meshes and we extended rovidegeometricdata.m. As solver for the variational inequalities we imlemented a rimal-dual-active set method similar to [, Chater 5.3.]. We consider two different examles in D. The starting grid has been four times in Examle and three times in Examle uniformly refined by means of newest vertex bisection, comare [4, Chater 5]. As marking strategy for the adative rocess we use the mean value strategy, i.e. an element is marked for refinement if its local element estimator is bigger than. times the mean value of all element estimators. The maximal number of elements which has to be assed before the refinement rocess stos is set to 0000( elements. ) cos α sin α For the first examle we define the rotation matrix R := with sin α cos α [( ) ( )] [( ) ( )] α = π 6 and the rotated stris I := R,, I y y := R, y y for all y R. We define the domains Ω := [.5,.5] [.5,.5] and Ω := Ω I and Ω := Ω I. The first roblem is given by Examle (Boundary layers enforced by obstacle constraints). ɛ ϕ + ϕ = in Ω Ω ɛ ϕ + ϕ in Ω\(Ω Ω ) ϕ 0 in Ω\ (Ω Ω ) (ϕ)( ɛ ϕ + ϕ + ) = 0 in Ω\ (Ω Ω ) ϕ n = 0 on Γ =

18 8 (a) solution (b) adatively refined mesh steered by the resented new estimator η (c) adatively refined mesh steered by the standard estimator η std Figure : Examle with ɛ = 0.4 We remark that the solution can be exlicitly comuted on the non-rotated stris Ĩ := [.5, 0.5] [.5,.5], Ĩ := [0.5,.5] [.5,.5] with the ansatz ϕ (x) = c ex( x ɛ )+c ex( x ɛ ) and the boundary conditions ϕ (.5, y) = 0, ϕ ( 0.5, y) = 0 on Ĩ and with the ansatz ϕ (x) = c 3 ex( x ɛ ) + c 4 ex( x ɛ ) and the boundary conditions ϕ (0.5, y) = 0, ϕ (.5, y) = 0 on Ĩ. Further we define ϕ 3 = 0 on the rest of the domain Ω\Ĩ Ĩ. Thus, by defining ϕ in Ĩ ϕ := ϕ in Ĩ ) ϕ 3 in Ω\ (Ĩ Ĩ the solution of Examle is given by ϕ = ϕ R in Ω. In Figure (a) the solution for ɛ = 0.4 is lotted on the adatively refined grid. In the following two figures we lotted the adatively refined mesh steered by

19 9 (a) convergence of error for η std and η (ɛ = 0.08) nr = = = = = (b) efficiency index for η nr lines) and η (dashed lines) (continuous (c) efficiency index for η nr and η in last refinement ste Figure : Examle : Exerimental order of convergence and efficiency index

20 0 the resented new estimator η (4) in Figure (b) and steered by the standard residual estimator (5) for linear ellitic roblems without constraints in Figure (c). In Figure (c) also the area of full-contact is well-resolved such that one can see no clear difference between the area of contact and the area where ϕ or ϕ is the solution. In contrast in Figure (b) the area of full-contact where the solution ϕ 3 = 0 is fixed to the obstacle the refinement is less strong. It is obvious that the resented new estimator gives rise to a good resolution of the free boundary, the critical region between the areas of contact and no-contact, and avoids over-refinement in the area of full-contact. As we can comute an exact reference solution we lot the error reduction for the choice of ɛ = 0.08 in Figure (a) with logarithmic scales on both axes. The exerimental order of convergence is lower for the standard residual estimator (5) comared to the new estimator η (4). Additionally to rove that our estimator is not only reliable and efficient we show the robustness in Figure (b). Therefore we lotted the efficiency index against the number of nodes for different choices of ɛ. The dashed lines refer η ϕ ϕ m ɛ to the resented new estimator η, i.e. the efficiency index is given by and the continuous lines refer to the estimator η nr, defined at the end of Section η 3.3, i.e. the efficiency index is given by nr ϕ ϕ m. The efficiency index of the estimator η stays in the same range for different choices of ɛ while it decreases significantly for η nr. That the efficiency index decreases with the order of ɛ for the estimator η nr can be seen clearer in the tabular in Figure (c) where the efficiency index is listed for the last refinement ste for both estimators and different choices of ɛ. To show that the estimator enables a good resolution of the free boundary even though there is no boundary layer enforced by the constraints as in Examle, we give a second examle which has a smooth solution. Therefore, we adat the examle 5. of []. Let Ω = [, ] [, ] and the radius r := x ( y) where is the Euclidean norm. Examle (Smooth examle). ɛ ϕ + ϕ f in Ω ϕ 0 in Ω (ϕ)( ɛ ϕ + ϕ f) = 0 in Ω with ϕ D = r ln(r) on Γ { ɛ f = + r ( ln(r) in r ɛ + r ) in r. The force f is constructed in such a way that enetration has to be avoided by enforcing the constraints. Again we show in Figure 3 the solution on the adatively refined grid. In the following two ictures we show the adatively refined grid steered by the resented new estimator η (4) in Figure 3(b) and steered by the standard estimator η std (5) in 3(c). Even though the solution is smooth at the transition

21 (a) solution (b) adatively refined mesh steered by the resented new estimator η Figure 3: Examle with ɛ = 0.0 (c) adatively refined mesh steered by the standard estimator η std Boundary layer examle nr = = = = = Smooth examle nr = = = (a) efficiency index for η nr lines) and η (dashed lines) (continuous (b) efficiency index for η nr and η in last refinement ste Figure 4: Examle : Efficiency index

22 zone, the free boundary is well resolved while the area of full-contact is not overrefined in Figure 3(b). In contrast in Figure 3(c) the strongest refinement has been taken lace in the area of full-contact where ϕ m = g m. Further, we can see the efficiency index for η and η nr in Figure 4(a) and again for the last refinement ste in the tabular in Figure 4(b). The efficiency index stays in the same range for the resented new estimator η. Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank Professor Winnifried Wollner for fruitful discussions on the toic of this work. References [] Bartels, S.: Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. Sringer Ser. Comut. Math. 47, Sringer, Cham (05) [] Bartels, S., Carstensen, C.: Averaging techniques yield reliable a osteriori finite element error control for obstacle roblems. Numer. Math. 99, 5 49 (004) [3] Fierro, F., Veeser, A.: A osteriori error estimators for regularized total variation of characteristic functions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 4, (003) [4] Funken, S., Praetorius, D., Wissgott, P.: Efficient imlementation of adative P-FEM Matlab. Comut. Methods Al. Math., (0) [5] Krause, R., Veeser, A., Walloth, M.: An efficient and reliable residual-tye a osteriori error estimator for the Signorini roblem. Numer. Math. 30, 5-97 (05) [6] Miehe, C., Welschinger, F., Hofacker, M.: Thermodynamically consistent hasefield models of fracture: Variational rinciles and multi-field FE imlementations. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 83, 73 3 (00) [7] Moon, K., Nochetto, R., von Petersdorff, T., Zhang, C.: A osteriori error analysis for arabolic variational inequalities. MAN Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 4, (007) [8] Nochetto, R., Siebert, K. and Veeser, A.: Fully localized a osteriori error estimators and barrier sets for contact roblems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 4, 8 35 (005) [9] Veeser, A.: Efficient and reliable a osteriori error estimators for ellitic obstacle roblems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 39, (00) [0] Verfürth, R.: Robust a osteriori error estimators for a singularly erturbed reaction-diffusion equation. Numer. Math. 78, (998) [] Verfürth, R.: A Posteriori Error Estimation Techniques for Finite Element Methods. Oxford University Press (03) [] Walloth, M.: Residual-tye a osteriori estimator for a quasi-static Signorini contact roblem. Prerint 7, Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Darmstadt (08)