arxiv: v1 [math.na] 17 Nov 2017 Received: date / Accepted: date

Transcription

1 Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Maximum norm a posteriori error estimates for an optimal control problem Alejandro Allendes Enrique Otárola Richard Rankin Abner J. algado arxiv: v1 [math.na] 17 Nov 2017 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract We analyze a reliable and efficient max-norm a posteriori error estimator for a control-constrained, linear quadratic optimal control problem. he estimator yields optimal experimental rates of convergence within an adaptive loop. Keywords Linear quadratic optimal control problem Finite element methods A posteriori error analysis Maximum norm Mathematics ubject Classification (2000) 49J20 49M25 65K10 65N15 65N30 65N50 65Y20 1 Introduction Let Ω be an open and bounded polytope in R d, d {2,3}, with Lipschitz boundary Ω. Giveny Ω L 2 (Ω) and λ > 0 we define the cost functional J(y,u)= 1 2 y y Ω 2 L 2 (Ω) + λ 2 u 2 L 2 (Ω). (1) In this article we devise max-norm a posteriori error estimators for the following optimal control problem: Find min J(y, u) (2) Alejandro Allendes Departamento de Matemática, Universidad écnica Federico anta María, Valparaíso, Chile alejandro.allendes@usm.cl Enrique Otárola Departamento de Matemática, Universidad écnica Federico anta María, Valparaíso, Chile enrique.otarola@usm.cl Richard Rankin chool of Mathematical ciences, he University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China richard.rankin@nottingham.edu.cn Abner J. algado Department of Mathematics, University of ennessee, Knoxville, N 37996, UA asalgad1@utk.edu

2 2 Alejandro Allendes et al. subject to, for a given f L 2 (Ω), the linear elliptic partial differential equation (PDE) y=f+u in Ω, y=0 on Ω, (3) and, for a, b R with a b, the control constraints u U ad, U ad :={v L 2 (Ω) : a v(x) b for almost every x in Ω}. (4) he pioneering work [7] presented and analyzed, in two dimensions, the first max-norm a posteriori error estimator for the state equation (3). hese results were later extended to more dimensions and both nonlinear and geometric problems [3, 4, 8]. o our knowledge, max-norm a posteriori error estimation for the optimal control problem (2) (4) has not been considered previously in the literature. his is the novelty of our contribution. 2 Notation Let ={} be a conforming simplicial mesh of Ω [5], h = diam() and l = log(max h 1 ). (5) We assume that is a member of a shape regular family of meshes. Define V( ) :={w C 0 ( Ω) : w P 1 () and w Ω = 0}, U ad ( )=U ad V( ). We denote by = {} the set of internal (d 1)-dimensional interelement boundaries of and h = diam(). If, is the set of sides of. For we set N ={ +, } such that = +. For, we define N := { : /0 }. (6) For w V( ) and with N = { +, }, the jump or interelement residual is w ν =ν + w ++ν w, where ν +,ν are the unit normals to pointing towards +,. he L 2 (Ω) inner product is(, ). By A B we mean that A cb for a nonessential constant c that might change at each occurrence. 3 Optimal control problem he necessary and sufficient optimality conditions of (2) (4) read: Find(ȳ, p,ū) H 1 0 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) U ad such that ( ȳ, v) L 2 (Ω) =(f+ū,v) L 2 (Ω) v H1 0 (Ω), ( w, p) L 2 (Ω) =(ȳ y Ω,w) L 2 (Ω) w H1 0 (Ω), ( p+λū,u ū) L 2 (Ω) 0 u U ad. Following [6], there exists r > d such that ȳ, p W 1,r (Ω) C( Ω). Hence, ū C( Ω) H0 1 (Ω) since ū=π ( λ 1 p ), Π(w)(x) := min{b,max{a,w(x)}} for all x in Ω. (8) (7)

3 Maximum norm a posteriori error estimates for an optimal control problem 3 For G Ω this operator is nonexpansive in L (G), i.e., Π(w 1 ) Π(w 2 ) L (G) w 1 w 2 L (G) w 1,w 2 C( Ω). (9) We approximate the solution of (7) by finding(ȳ, p,ū ) V( ) V( ) U ad ( ) such that ( ȳ, v ) L 2 (Ω) =(f+ū,v ) L 2 (Ω) v V( ), ( w, p ) L 2 (Ω) =(ȳ y Ω,w ) L 2 (Ω) w V( ), (10) ( p + λū,u ū ) L 2 (Ω) 0 u U ad ( ). 4 A posteriori error analysis: reliability We begin by defining the local error indicators E y (ȳ,ū ;)=h 2 d/2 f+ū L 2 () + h ȳ ν L ( \ Ω), (11) E p ( p,ȳ ;)=h 2 d/2 ȳ y Ω L 2 () + h p ν L ( \ Ω), (12) E u (ū, p ;)= Π( p /λ) ū L (), (13) E(ȳ, p,ū ;)= ( E 2 y (ȳ,ū ;)+E 2 p ( p,ȳ ;)+E 2 u (ū, p ;) ) 1/2, (14) and the global a posteriori error estimators E y (ȳ,ū ; )= max E y(ȳ,ū ;), (15) E p ( p,ȳ ; )= max E p( p,ȳ ;), (16) E u (ū, p ; )= max E u(ū, p ;), (17) E(ȳ, p,ū ; )= ( E 2 y(ȳ,ū ; )+E 2 p( p,ȳ ; )+E 2 u(ū, p ; ) ) 1/2. (18) We also introduce two auxilliary variables: ŷ, ˆp H 0 1 (Ω) which solve, respectively, ( ŷ, v)=(f+ū,v) v H0 1 (Ω), ( w, ˆp)=(ȳ y Ω,w) w H0 1 (Ω). (19) We note that ŷ, ˆp H 1 0 (Ω) C( Ω) and thus we can invoke [2, Lemma 4.2] to conclude that ŷ ȳ L (Ω) l E y (ȳ,ū ; ), ˆp p L (Ω) l E p ( p,ȳ ; ). (20) Finally, for eȳ =ȳ ȳ, e p = p p and eū =ū ū we define (eȳ,e p,eū) 2 Ω := e ȳ 2 L (Ω) + e p 2 L (Ω) + e ū 2 L (Ω). (21) heorem 1 (global reliability) Let (ȳ, p,ū) H 1 0 (Ω) H1 0 (Ω) L2 (Ω) be the solution to (7) and(ȳ, p,ū ) V( ) V( ) U ad ( ) its numerical approximation obtained as the solution to (10). hen (eȳ,e p,eū) Ω max{1,l }E(ȳ, p,ū ; ). (22)

4 4 Alejandro Allendes et al. Proof We proceed in five steps. tep 1. First we control the error ū ū L 2 (Ω). Define ũ=π( λ 1 p ), which can be equivalently characterized by ( p + λũ,u ũ) 0 u U ad. (23) We first bound ū ũ L 2 (Ω). etu=ũin (7), u=ūin (23) and add the results to obtain λ ū ũ 2 L 2 (Ω) ( p p,ũ ū). o bound the right hand side of the previous expression, we let(ỹ, p) H 0 1(Ω) H1 0 (Ω) be such that ( ỹ, v)=(f+ũ,v) v H 1 0(Ω), ( p, w)=(ỹ y Ω,w) w H 1 0(Ω). With the auxilliary adjoint state p at hand, we thus arrive at λ ū ũ 2 L 2 (Ω) ( p p,ũ ū)+( p ˆp,ũ ū)+(ˆp p,ũ ū). (24) We now observe that ( (ỹ ȳ), v)=(ũ ū,v) for all v H0 1 (Ω) and ( w, ( p p))= (ȳ ỹ,w) w H0 1 (Ω). Hence, ( p p,ũ ū)=( (ỹ ȳ), ( p p))= ȳ ỹ 2 L 2 (Ω) 0. In view of this, an application of the Cauchy chwarz and Young s inequalities to (24) yields ū ũ 2 L 2 (Ω) p ˆp 2 L 2 (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L 2 (Ω). (25) We now control p ˆp 2 L 2 (Ω). ince ( w, ( p ˆp))=(ỹ ȳ,w), for all w H0 1 (Ω), we have that p ˆp 2 L 2 (Ω) ( ( p ˆp), ( p ˆp)) =(ỹ ȳ, p ˆp) ( ỹ ŷ L 2 (Ω) + ŷ ȳ L 2 (Ω) ) p ˆp L 2 (Ω). Consequently, p ˆp L 2 (Ω) ỹ ŷ L 2 (Ω) + ŷ ȳ L 2 (Ω). his, in conjunction with (25), yields ū ũ 2 L 2 (Ω) ỹ ŷ 2 L 2 (Ω) + ŷ ȳ 2 L 2 (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L 2 (Ω). (26) Upon observing that ( (ỹ ŷ), v)=(ũ ū,v), for all v H0 1 (Ω), we obtain that ỹ ŷ 2 L 2 (Ω) ( (ỹ ŷ), (ỹ ŷ))=(ũ ū,ỹ ŷ) ũ ū L 2 (Ω) ỹ ŷ L 2 (Ω) and hence, ỹ ŷ L 2 (Ω) ũ ū L 2 (Ω). Combining this with (26) implies that ū ũ 2 L 2 (Ω) ũ ū 2 L 2 (Ω) + ŷ ȳ 2 L 2 (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L 2 (Ω). he triangle inequality then allows us to conclude that ū ū 2 L 2 (Ω) ũ ū 2 L 2 (Ω) + ŷ ȳ 2 L 2 (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L 2 (Ω) ũ ū 2 L (Ω) + ŷ ȳ 2 L (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L (Ω). (27)

5 Maximum norm a posteriori error estimates for an optimal control problem 5 tep 2. In this step we control ȳ ȳ L (Ω). In view of the results of [6] there exists r>d such that ȳ ŷ L (Ω) ȳ ŷ W 1,r (Ω) ū ū L 2 (Ω). Consequently, the triangle inequality and (27) give us that ȳ ȳ 2 L (Ω) ŷ ȳ 2 L (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L (Ω) + ũ ū 2 L (Ω). (28) tep 3. o bound p p L (Ω) we again use [6] to conclude that there exists r> d such that p ˆp L (Ω) p ˆp W 1,r (Ω) ȳ ȳ L 2 (Ω) ȳ ȳ L (Ω). hus, this estimate and (28) imply that p p 2 L (Ω) p ˆp 2 L (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L (Ω) ŷ ȳ 2 L (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L (Ω) + ũ ū 2 L (Ω). (29) tep 4. he goal of this step is to control the error ū ū L (Ω). We begin with the basic estimate ū ū L (Ω) ū ũ L (Ω)+ ũ ū L (Ω). (30) Using (9) we have that ū ũ L (Ω)= Π( λ 1 p) Π( λ 1 p ) L (Ω) p p L (Ω). herefore, upon combining this with (30) and (29), we can conclude that ū ū 2 L (Ω) ŷ ȳ 2 L (Ω) + ˆp p 2 L (Ω) + ũ ū 2 L (Ω). (31) tep 5. he claimed result follows upon gathering (28), (29) and (31), and using (17) and (20). 5 A posteriori error analysis: efficiency Let P denote the L 2 -projection onto piecewise linear, over, functions. For g L 2 (Ω) and M we define osc (g;m) 2 = h 4 d g P g 2 L 2 (). (32) M Lemma 1 (local efficiency of E y ) In the setting of heorem 1 we have that E y (ȳ,ū ;) ȳ ȳ L (N )+ h 2 ū ū L (N )+ osc (f;n ), (33) where the hidden constant is independent of the size of the elements in the mesh and #. Proof Let v H 1 0 (Ω) be such that v C 2 () for all. Using (7) and integrating by parts yields (ȳ ȳ ) v= (f+ū)v+ ȳ ν v. Ω

6 6 Alejandro Allendes et al. ince on each we have that v C 2 (), we again apply integration by parts to conclude that (ȳ ȳ ) v= Ω v(ȳ ȳ ) v ν (ȳ ȳ ). In conclusion, since the left hand sides of the previous expressions coincide, we arrive at the identity v(ȳ ȳ ) (f+ū)v+ ȳ ν v= v ν (ȳ ȳ ), (34) for every v H 1 0 (Ω) such that v C 2 () for all. We now proceed, on the basis of (15), in two steps. tep 1. Let. We begin with the basic estimate h 2 d/2 f+ū L 2 () h2 d/2 P f+ū L 2 () + h2 d/2 f P f L 2 (). (35) By lettingv=β =(P f+ū )ϕ 2 in (34), where ϕ is the standard bubble function over [1,9], we obtain that (P f+ū )β = β (ȳ ȳ ) (ū ū )β (f P f)β, (36) since β ν (ȳ ȳ )=0 for all. We now bound each term on the right hand side of (36) separately. ince (P f+ū ) = 0 on, we have that β = 4 (P f+ ū ) ϕ ϕ + 2(P f+ū )(ϕ ϕ + ϕ ϕ ). his equality, the properties of the bubble function ϕ and an inverse inequality allow us to conclude that β (ȳ ȳ ) ( h d/2 1 (P f+ū ) L 2 () + hd/2 2 P f+ū L 2 () h d/2 2 P f+ū L 2 () ȳ ȳ L (). In addition, we have that (ū ū )β ū ū L 2 () P f+ū L 2 () and h d/2 ū ū L () P f+ū L 2 () (f P f)β f P f L 2 () P f+ū L 2 (). ) ȳ ȳ L () In view of the fact that P f +ū 2 L 2 () (P f+ū )β, the previous findings allow us to state that h 2 d/2 P f+ū L 2 () ȳ ȳ L ()+ h 2 ū ū L ()+ h 2 d/2 f P f L 2 ().

7 Maximum norm a posteriori error estimates for an optimal control problem 7 Consequently, using (35) we conclude that h 2 d/2 P f+ū L 2 () ȳ ȳ L ()+ h 2 ū ū L ()+ osc (f;). (37) tep 2. Let and. We proceed to control h ȳ ν L () in (15). o do this, we use the property ȳ ν L () ȳ ν ϕ, (38) of ϕ, the standard bubble function over [1,9]. We now letv=ϕ in (34) and arrive at ȳ ν ϕ N f+ū ϕ + N ȳ ȳ ϕ + N ȳ ȳ ϕ ν ( ) 1/2 f+ū L 2 ( ) + 1/2 ū ū L ( ) N + N h 2 +h 1 ȳ ȳ L ( ). In view of the fact that h 1 h 2 d, the previous estimate combined with (38) and (37) yields the bound h ȳ ν L () h 2 ū ū L (N )+ ȳ ȳ L (N )+ osc (f;n ). We finally combine the results of tep 1 and 2 and arrive at the desired estimate (33). his concludes the proof. imilar arguments to the ones elaborated in the proof of Lemma 1 allow us to conclude the following result. Lemma 2 (local efficiency of E p ) In the setting of heorem 1 we have that E p ( p,ȳ ;) p p L (N )+ h 2 ȳ ȳ L (N )+ osc (y Ω ;N ), (39) where the hidden constant is independent of the size of the elements in the mesh and #. Lemma 3 (local efficiency of E u ) In the setting of heorem 1 we have that E u (ū, p ;) ū ū L () + p p L (), (40) where the hidden constant is independent of the size of the elements in the mesh and #. Proof he estimate follows immediately from definition (8) and the Lipschitz property (9). he results of Lemmas 1, 2 and 3 immediately yield the following result upon observing that Ω is bounded.

8 8 Alejandro Allendes et al. heorem 2 (local and global efficiency of E ) In the setting of heorem 1 we have that and E(ȳ, p,ū ;) ȳ ȳ L (N )+ p p L (N )+ ū ū L (N ) + osc (f;n )+osc (y Ω ;N ), (41) E(ȳ, p,ū ; ) (eȳ,e p,eū) Ω + max osc (f;n )+ max osc (y Ω ;N ), (42) where the hidden constants are independent of the size of the elements in the mesh and #. 6 Numerical example We illustrate the performance of the a posteriori error estimator with a numerical example. We set Ω =( 1,1) 2 \[0,1) ( 1,0], a=0, b=1and the data f andy Ω to be such that, in polar coordinates (r,θ) with θ [0,3π/2], and ȳ=(1 r 2 cos 2 (θ))(1 r 2 sin 2 (θ))r 2/3 sin(2θ/3) p=sin(2πr cos(θ))sin(2πr sin(θ))r 2/3 sin(2θ/3). A sequence of adaptively refined meshes was generated from an initial mesh (consisting of 12 congruent triangles) by using a maximum strategy to mark elements for refinement. he number of degrees of freedom Ndof is three times the number of vertices in the mesh. Figure 1 shows the results and we can observe that, once the mesh has been sufficiently refined, the error and estimator converge at the optimal rate (eȳ,e p,eū) Ω E(ȳ, p,ū ; ) Ndof Pfrag replacements 10 6 Pfrag replacements (eȳ,e p,eū) Ω E(ȳ, p,ū ; ) Ndof 1 Ndof Ndof Fig. 1 he error (eȳ,e p,eū) Ω and the estimator E(ȳ, p,ū ; ) (left) and the 24th adaptively refined mesh (right).

9 Maximum norm a posteriori error estimates for an optimal control problem 9 Acknowledgements A. Allendes was supported in part by CONICY through FONDECY project E. Otárola was supported in part by CONICY through FONDECY project A. J. algado was supported in part by NF grant DM References 1. Ainsworth, M., Oden, J..: A posteriori error estimation in finite element analysis. Wiley-Interscience, New York (2000) 2. Allendes, A., Otárola, E., Rankin, R., algado, A.J.: An a posteriori error analysis for an optimal control problem with point sources. arxiv: (2017) 3. Dari, E., Durán, R.G., Padra, C.: Maximum norm error estimators for three-dimensional elliptic problems. IAM J. Numer. Anal. 37(2), (2000) 4. Demlow, A., Kopteva, N.: Maximum-norm a posteriori error estimates for singularly perturbed elliptic reaction-diffusion problems. Numer. Math. 133(4), (2016) 5. Ern, A., Guermond, J.L.: heory and practice of finite elements. pringer, New York (2004) 6. Jerison, D., Kenig, C.E.: he inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Lipschitz domains. J. Funct. Anal. 130(1), (1995) 7. Nochetto, R.H.: Pointwise a posteriori error estimates for elliptic problems on highly graded meshes. Math. Comp. 64(209), 1 22 (1995) 8. Nochetto, R.H., chmidt, A., iebert, K.G., Veeser, A.: Pointwise a posteriori error estimates for monotone semi-linear equations. Numer. Math. 104(4), (2006) 9. Verfürth, R.: A posteriori error estimation techniques for finite element methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)