arxiv: v1 [math.na] 30 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE TIME-DEPENDENT JOULE HEATING PROBLEM WITH MIXED BOUNDARY CONDITIONS arxiv: v1 [math.na] 3 Jan 218 MAX JENSEN 1, AXEL MÅLQVIST 2, AND ANNA PERSSON 2 Abstract. We prove strong convergence for a large class of finite element methods for the time-dependent Joule heating problem in three spatial dimensions with mixed boundary conditions on Lipschitz domains. We consider conforming subspaces for the spatial discretization and the backward Euler scheme for the temporal discretization. Furthermore, we prove uniqueness and higher regularity of the solution on creased domains and additional regularity in the interior of the domain. Due to a variational formulation with a cut-off functional the convergence analysis does not require a discrete maximum principle, permitting approximation spaces suitable for adaptive mesh refinement, responding to the the difference in regularity within the domain. 1. Introduction The time-dependent Joule heating problem is a coupled non-linear elliptic-parabolic system of the form (1.1) u u = σ(u) ϕ 2, σ(u) ϕ =, where u denotes the temperature and ϕ the electric potential. It models the heat flow generated when an electric current is passed through a conductor. In applications the electric potential is typically only applied to smaller parts of the boundary, for instance through electric pads. To model such problems properly mixed boundary conditions are needed, see, e.g. [11]. The Joule heating problem has been studied both in a theoretical context [6, 3, 28, 2], focusing on the well-posedness of (1.1), and from a numerical point of view [8, 1, 9, 17], focusing on convergence (with rate) of numerical solutions to (1.1). There are also several works on the stationary version of the problem, see, for instance [15, 14, 16] and references therein. The main issue with the system (1.1) is the low regularity of the source term σ(u) ϕ 2. In one and two dimensions this does not lead to a problem. However, in three dimensions this term is not in H 1 and the problem does not fit into the classical variational framework for PDEs. In [3] this issue is resolved by rewriting the source term using the equation for ϕ (see also [15] for the stationary case). With this formulation existence of a solution in L 2 (H 1 ) is proved. However, to derive 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 65M6, 65M12, 35K61. Key words and phrases. Joule heating problem, Thermistor, Finite element convergence, Nonsmooth domains, Mixed boundary conditions, Regularity. 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, United Kingdom. 2 Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, SE Gothenburg, Sweden. 1

2 2 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON convergence for finite element approximations additional regularity of the solution is usually required, see [8, 1]. Typically, sufficient regularity in three dimensions cannot be proved, but needs to be assumed. To the authors knowledge, there is no numerical analysis of this problem under more realistic assumptions on the domain (Lipschitz in three spatial dimensions) and the boundary conditions (mixed). The purpose of this paper is to prove the strong convergence of finite element approximations of (1.1) on Lipschitz domains in three spatial dimensions with mixed boundary conditions. A challenge is to avoid the need for a discrete maximum principle and the associated restrictive mesh conditions [14] because a direct energy argument only delivers L 1 -control on the critical ϕ 2 term in (1.1). In our analysis this is achieved by introducing a variational formulation with a cut-off functional, extending [16]. The analysis presented in this paper covers finite element methods of any order that are conforming in space and piecewise constant in time, satisfying a backward Euler scheme. The choice of approximation spaces only needs to ensure the stability of the L 2 projection in the H 1 -norm, which holds for a large class of non-uniform meshes [4]. Having arrived at only mild mesh conditions, we find the Joule heating problem with mixed boundary conditions well suited for adaptive mesh refinement. Indeed, starting from the assumption of creased domains [21], we prove uniqueness and additional regularity of the solution. This result combines the regularity for the Poisson equation on creased domains in [21] with the results for parabolic systems in [13]. The additional regularity we obtain for ϕ, namely ϕ L 2q/(q 3) (Wq 1 ) for some q > 3, is in line with the sufficient condition for uniqueness established in [3]. Importantly, we can show higher regularity, in some cases C, in the interior of the domain. To exploit the difference in regularity within the domain we equip the Joule heating problem with a goal functional to examine duality-based additive mesh refinement in the numerical experiments. The paper is outlined as follows: In Section 2 we formulate the problem of interest and introduce some notation. Section 3 is devoted to the analysis of semidiscrete methods and Section 4 to fully discrete methods. In Section 5 we prove additional regularity and uniqueness of the solution. In Section 6 we present some numerical examples that confirm the convergence results and investigate adaptive mesh refinements. 2. Variational formulations and weak solutions In this section we introduce two variational formulations, one classical, see (2.2) below, and one based on a cut-off functional, see (2.4) below. We prove that these two are equivalent, that is, that they have the same set of solutions. The latter formulation is preferable when working with finite element discretizations of the problem, since we avoid using a discrete maximum principle, see Section 3 and Section Problem formulation and notation. Let D t denote the time derivative t and Ω R 3 be a domain describing the body of a conductor. Let u: Ω [, T ] R denote the temperature inside the conductor, ϕ: Ω [, T ] R the electric potential, and σ : R R + the electric conductivity. Furthermore, we use Γ u D and Γ u N to denote the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary for u and Γu D Γu N = Ω. Analogously, we define Γ ϕ D and Γϕ N for ϕ. With this notation, the time-dependent

3 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 3 Joule heating problem is given by the following nonlinear elliptic-parabolic system (2.1a) (2.1b) (2.1c) D t u u = σ(u) ϕ 2, in Ω (, T ), (σ(u) ϕ) =, in Ω (, T ), u = g u, on Γ u D (, T ), (2.1d) ϕ = g ϕ, on Γ ϕ D (, T ), (2.1e) n u =, on Γ u N (, T ), (2.1f) n ϕ =, on Γ ϕ N (, T ), (2.1g) u(, ) = u, in Ω. Let W k p (Ω) denote the classical range of Sobolev spaces and define W k p (Ω; Γ u D) := {v W k p (Ω) : v Γ u D = }, for k > 1/p. The space Wp k (Ω; Γ ϕ D ) is defined analogously and H1 is used to denote W2 1. We also use V for the dual space to V. Furthermore, we adopt the notation L p (, T ; V ) for the Bochner space with norm ( ) 1/p, v Lp(,T ;V ) = v p V dt 1 p <, v L (,T ;V ) = ess sup t T v V, where V is a Banach space equipped with the norm V. The notation v H 1 (, T ; V ) is used to denote v, D t v L 2 (, T ; V ). Finally, C b (Ω) is the space of bounded continuous functions Classical variational formulation. To this end we make the following assumptions on the domain and the data. (A1) Ω R 3 is a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary, meas(γ u D ) >, and meas(γ ϕ D ) >. (A2) g u L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)) H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω) ) and there are points = t < t 1 < < t K = T, K N, such that D t g u C b ([t i, t i+1 ); H 1 (Ω) ), g ϕ C b ([t i, t i+1 ); W 1 3 (Ω) L (Ω)), on each subinterval [t i, t i+1 ). (A3) u L 2 (Ω). (A4) σ C 1 (R), Lipschitz continuous, and < σ σ(x) σ <, x R. A weak solution to the Joule heating problem (2.1) is a pair (u, ϕ) = (g u + ũ, g ϕ + ϕ) such that (ũ, ϕ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)) H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, Γ ϕ D )) and for a.e. t (, T ] (2.2a) (2.2b) (2.2c) D t u, v + u, v = σ(u) ϕ 2, v, σ(u) ϕ, w =, u(), z = u, z, for all (v, w) W 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) H1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D ) and z L 2(Ω), see, for instance, [6]. Note that, is used to denote both the inner product in L 2 and the duality bracket.

4 4 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON The choice of spaces guarantees σ(u) ϕ 2 L 1 (, T ; L 1 (Ω)) so that the right-hand side in (2.2a) is well-defined for all v W 1 (Ω; Γ u D ). Throughout the text we adopt the notational convention that for a function one understands = g ϕ if is a Greek letter and = g u if is a Latin letter. Remark 2.1. In some works, e.g. [23], the notion of strong (instead of weak) solution is used when the equation is satisfied almost everywhere in time. The following lemma provides a maximum principle for ϕ(x, t). Lemma 2.2. If (u, ϕ) is a solution to (2.2), then g ϕ(x, t) g for a.e. (x, t) Ω [, T ], where g := max g ϕ (x, t), g := min g ϕ (x, t), (x,t) Γ ϕ D [,T ] (x,t) Γ ϕ D [,T ] Proof. Define χ = max(, ϕ g ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )) and choose w = χ(t) in (2.2b) and integrate from to T. Then = = σ(u) ϕ, χ dt = supp(χ) Ω σ(u) χ χ dx dt = σ(u) (ϕ g ), χ dt σ(u) χ, χ dt. Using σ(u) σ and the Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality we get χ 2 dt = and we deduce ϕ g. A similar argument using g proves ϕ g. This gives ϕ L (, T ; L (Ω)). In one and two spatial dimensions the formulation (2.2) is suitable for proving existence of a solution, see, e.g. [6, 8]. However, because of the low regularity of the right-hand side in (2.2a) this strategy does not apply to the three dimensional setting. To overcome this difficulty, it can be proved that due to (2.1b), see, for instance, [3, 15], (2.3) σ(u) ϕ 2 = (σ(u)ϕ ϕ), and from Lemma 2.2 it follows that (σ(u)ϕ ϕ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, Γ u D ) ). With this right-hand side it is now possible to use Schauder s fixed point theorem to prove existence of a solution also in three dimensions. Theorem 2.3. There exists a solution (u, ϕ) to (2.2). If ϕ L 2q (, T ; L q (Ω)) q 3 for some q > 3, then the solution is unique. Proof. This follows by adapting the fixed point argument in [3, Theorem 2.2] to mixed boundary conditions. The proof uses identity (2.3) and Schauder s fixed point theorem on the space L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). More precisely, we consider the mapping F : L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) where y = F (s) is the solution to D t y, v + y, v = (σ(s)ψ ψ), v, σ(s) ψ, w = y(), z = u, z, for all (v, w) H 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) H1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D ) and z L 2(Ω). It is clear, via (2.3) and the fact that W (Ω; 1 Γ u D ) is dense in H1 (Ω; Γ u D ), that a fixed point to F solves (2.2). To prove that F satisfies the conditions of Schauder s fixed point theorem on some

5 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 5 ball B R we may now follow [3, Theorem 2.2]. The mixed boundary conditions only affect the definition of the space V H 1 (Ω), that is, the functions in V in our case only vanish on Γ D Ω. The uniqueness follows from [3, Theorem 4.1], also by first adapting the argument to mixed boundary conditions Variational formulation with cut-off. In this paper we are interested in proving convergence of finite element approximations. For this purpose, we propose a variational formulation based on a cut-off functional to avoid using a discrete maximum principle. The cut-off functional was introduced for the stationary problem in [16], and is defined as f := min{max{f + g ϕ, a}, b} g ϕ. for some fixed a, b R with a g and b g. Note that min and max are taken over both space and time Ω [, T ] and we have a g ϕ f b g ϕ. To introduce the new weak formulation we define X := L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)) H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, Γ ϕ D )), Y := H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D ). Using these spaces, a weak solution to the system (2.1) is a pair (u, ϕ) = (g u + ũ, g ϕ + ϕ) such that (ũ, ϕ) X and for a.e. t (, T ] (2.4a) (2.4b) (2.4c) D t u, v + u, v = σ(u) ϕ ϕ, v + σ(u) ϕ g ϕ, v, σ(u) ϕ, w =, for all (v, w) Y and z L 2 (Ω). u(), z = u, z, Lemma 2.4. The set of solutions which satisfy (2.4) is equal to the set of solutions to (2.2). In particular, the right-hand side in (2.4a) defines an element in L 2 (, T ; (H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) ). Proof. The identity σ(u) ϕ 2, v = σ(u) ϕ ϕ, v + σ(u) ϕ g ϕ, v, for v W (Ω) 1 and a.e. t [, T ] follows by choosing w = (ϕ(t) g ϕ (t))v in (2.2b), see [15, Lemma 1] for the stationary case. The definition of the cut-off functional and the maximum principle for ϕ in Lemma 2.2 implies that ϕ = ϕ. The larger space of test functions does not affect the set of solutions since W (Ω; 1 Γ u D ) is dense in H 1 (Ω; Γ u D ). Furthermore, the right-hand side in (2.4a) satisfies the following bound σ(u) ϕ ϕ, v + σ(u) ϕ g ϕ, v C(σ, g ϕ ) ϕ L2(Ω) v L2(Ω) + σ ϕ L2(Ω) g ϕ L3(Ω) v L6(Ω), where the Sobolev embedding in R 3 gives v L6(Ω) C v H 1 (Ω). Hence (σ(u) ϕ ϕ) + σ(u) ϕ g ϕ 2 H 1 (Ω;Γ dt u D ) C(σ, g ϕ )( ϕ L2(,T ;L 2(Ω)) + ϕ L2(,T ;L 2(Ω)) g ϕ L (,T ;L 3(Ω))), where g ϕ L (,T ;L 3(Ω)) is bounded due to assumption (A2), so the right-hand side defines an element in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) ).

6 6 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON 3. Semidiscrete methods In this section we analyze spatially semidiscrete Galerkin methods. We prove existence and uniqueness of semidiscrete solutions and strong convergence to a weak solution satisfying (2.4) Semidiscrete formulation. Let {Vm} u m N and {Vm} ϕ m N be hierarchical families of finite-dimensional subspaces, whose unions are dense in H 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) and H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D ), respectively and define X m := {v C(, T ; V u m) : v [ti,t i+1) C 1 (t i, t i+1 ; V u m) i} L (, T ; V ϕ m). Typically, V u m and V ϕ m are finite element spaces corresponding to a family of meshes {T m } m N. For instance, one may choose Lagrangian finite elements or conforming hp-finite elements, see also the numerical examples in Section 6. We make the following additional assumption on V u m; (A5) Let V u m be of a form such that the L 2 -projection P m onto V u m is stable, uniformly in m, in the H 1 -norm. In the case when V u m is a finite element space, we refer to [4] and references therein, where the H 1 -stability of the L 2 -projection is proved for a large class of (nonuniform) meshes in three spatial dimensions. In the subsequent sections we let C m denote a generic constant that depends on the discretization m, for instance, the mesh size h m. A semidiscrete Galerkin solution is a pair (u m, ϕ m ) = (g u + ũ m, g ϕ + ϕ m ) such that (ũ m, ϕ m ) X m and for a.e. t (, T ] (3.1a) (3.1b) (3.1c) D t u m, v + u m, v = σ(u m ) ϕ m ϕ m, v σ(u m ) ϕ m, w =, for all (v, w) V u m V ϕ m and z V u m. u m (), z = u, z, + σ(u m ) ϕ m g ϕ, v, Remark 3.1. Recall the bound of the cut-off functional; a g ϕ ϕ m b g ϕ. This uniform boundedness of ϕ m in m will allow us to consider the limit of σ(u m ) ϕ m ϕ m, v as m without appealing to a discrete maximum principle. Lemma 3.2. A solution to (3.1) fulfils the following bounds (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) ϕ m L (,T ;L 2(Ω)) C(σ, g ϕ ), ũ m (T ) 2 L + 2(Ω) ũ m 2 L dt C(u 2(Ω), σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ), D t ũ m (t) 2 H 1 (Ω;Γ u D ) C(u, σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ). Proof. By choosing w = ϕ m (t) in (3.1b) we can prove ϕ m (t) 2 L 2(Ω) C(σ) g ϕ(t) 2 L 2(Ω), and (3.2) follows by using (A2) and (A4).

7 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 7 By choosing v = ũ m (t) in (3.1a) and integrating from to T we have = + D t ũ m, ũ m dt + D t g u, ũ m dt ũ m 2 L 2(Ω) dt σ(u m ) ϕ m g ϕ, ũ m dt = I + II + III + IV. g u, ũ m dt σ(u m ) ϕ m ϕ m, ũ m dt Using the Cauchy-Schwarz, Poincaré, and Young s (weighted) inequality we get (3.5) and (3.6) I + II 1 4 III + IV 1 4 ũ m 2 L dt + C 2(Ω) D t g u 2 (H 1 (Ω;Γ + g u 2 u D )) L dt, 2(Ω) + ( ũ m 2 L dt + C(σ, g 2(Ω) ϕ) g ϕ 2 L (,T ;W3 1(Ω)) ϕ m 2 L 2(Ω) dt ), where we used Sobolev embeddings as in the proof of Lemma 2.4. We can now use (3.2) to bound the last term on the right-hand side. Finally, using (3.1c) we have 2 D t ũ m, ũ m dt = D t ũ m 2 L 2(Ω) = ũ m(t ) 2 L 2(Ω) ũ m() 2 L 2(Ω) ũ m (T ) 2 L 2(Ω) u 2 L 2(Ω) g u() 2 L 2(Ω), and (3.3) follows. Observe that D t ũ m belongs to V u m. With P m denoting the L 2 -projection onto V u m we get D t ũ m (t), v D t ũ m (t), P m v D t ũ m (t) H1 (Ω;Γ u D ) = sup = sup v H 1 (Ω;Γ u v D ) H 1 (Ω) v H 1 (Ω;Γ u v D ) H 1 (Ω) v v sup C D tũ m (t), P m v v H 1 (Ω;Γ u P D ) m v H1 (Ω) Pmv = sup v V u m v C D tũ m (t), v, v H1 (Ω) where C is the H 1 -norm of the L 2 -projection, which is independent of m due to (A5). Now we can use bounds similar to (3.5) and (3.6) to prove (3.4). Lemma 3.3. There exists a unique solution (ũ m, ϕ m ) X m to (3.1). Proof. For each ũ m there is a solution ϕ m = S(ũ m ) of (3.1b), which defines a mapping S : L 2 (, T ; Vm) u L 2 (, T ; Vm). ϕ First, we assume that g ϕ (x, ) and D t g u (x, ) are continuous to prove existence and uniqueness on [, T ]. Let {λ i } M i=1 be a basis for V m. u Then ũ m = M j=1 α j(t)λ j for some α(t) = (α j (t)) R M. By substituting into (3.1a) we arrive at the following system of ODEs (3.7) MD t α(t) + Kα(t) = F (α(t), t) + G(t),

8 8 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON where M and K denote the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively, and F i (α(t), t) = σ(u m (t)) ϕ m (t) ϕ m (t), λ i + σ(u m (t)) ϕ m (t) g ϕ (t), λ i, G i (t) = D t g u (t), λ i g u (t), λ i, where ϕ m = S(ũ m ). The initial data is given by (3.1c) and corresponds to the equation Mα() = b, where b i = u g u (), λ i. Let ũ 1 m = M j=1 α1 j λ j and ũ 2 m = M j=1 α2 j λ j, and ϕ 1 m := S(ũ 1 m) and ϕ 2 m := S(ũ 2 m). Note that (ũ 1 m ũ 2 m) L2(Ω) C m α 1 α 2 R M, due to the Lipschitz continuity of linear mappings in V u m. For ϕ 1 m ϕ 2 m we use Strang s first Lemma [5, Chapter III] and the Lipschitz continuity of σ to get σ (ϕ 1 m ϕ 2 m) L2(Ω) (σ(u 1 m) σ(u 2 m)) ϕ 1 m L2(Ω) C ũ 1 m ũ 2 m L2(Ω) ϕ 1 m L (Ω) C m α 1 α 2 R M, which means that the mapping S is Lipschitz continuous. Here we have used that the boundary data is identical for the two instances, that is, u 1 m u 2 m = ũ 1 m ũ 2 m and ϕ 1 m ϕ 2 m = ϕ 1 m ϕ 2 m. Now, for F i we have for i = 1,..., M F i (α 1 (t), t) F i (α 2 (t), t) σ(u 1 m) ϕ 1 m ϕ 1 m σ(u 2 m) ϕ 2 m ϕ 2 m, λ i + (σ(u 1 m) ϕ 1 m σ(u 2 m) ϕ 2 m) g ϕ, λ i. Note that σ and the cut-off functional are Lipschitz continuous and bounded. Furthermore, the image of S( ) is bounded owing to Lemma 3.2. Using this, together with the fact that the product of bounded Lipschitz continuous functions is Lipschitz continuous, we prove the Lipschitz continuity of F in t; F (α 1 (t), t) F (α 2 (t), t) R M C m α 1 (t) α 2 (t) R M, where C m is a generic constant that does not depend on t. Picard-Lindelöf s theorem gives existence and uniqueness on some maximal interval (β 1, β 2 ). If (β 1, β 2 ) is a strict subset (, T ) then by [2, Theorem 7.6] either lim α(t) R M =, or lim t β + 1 t β 2 α(t) R M =, which contradicts Lemma 3.2. Hence there exist a unique solution in C 1 (, T ; Vm) u L (, T ; Vm). ϕ Finally, we consider the case when D t g u (x, ) and g ϕ (x, ) have at most finitely many discontinuities as specified in (A2). We may then use Picard-Lindelöf s theorem on the sub-interval [t k, t k+1 ) with the initial data α(t k ) = lim t t α(t). The k existence and uniqueness on [, T ] now follows by induction over k Convergence of semidiscrete solutions. The following lemma will be used several times in the convergence analysis in the subsequent text. Recall that = g ϕ if is a Greek letter and = g u if is a Latin letter. Lemma 3.4. Consider a sequence {ỹ m } m which converges pointwise a.e. to ỹ and a sequence { ψ m } m which converges weakly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )) to ψ, and the

9 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 9 corresponding sequences {y m } m and {ψ m } m that converges to y and ψ, respectively. Suppose that, for all m N, (3.8) σ(y m ) ψ m, ψ dt = σ(y m ) ψ m, ψ m dt =. Then ψ m ψ strongly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )) as m. Furthermore, subsequences of σ(y m ) ψ m and σ(y m ) ψ m ψ m converge strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω; R 3 )) to σ(y) ψ and σ(y) ψ ψ, respectively. Proof. The dominated convergence theorem implies that σ(y m ) ψ σ(y) ψ converges strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω; R 3 )) L 2 ((, T ) Ω; R 3 ), as σ(y m ) i ψ σ ψ for all i, m. Because in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) the scalar product of a bounded and weakly convergent sequence and a strongly convergent sequence converges to the scalar product of the limits, (3.9) = σ(y m ) ψ m, ψ dt = σ(y) ψ, ψ dt, as m. ψ m, σ(y m ) ψ dt In particular, σ(y) ψ, ψ dt =. To prove strong convergence of ψ m we write = σ(y m ) ( ψ ψ m ), ( ψ ψ m ) dt ( σ(ym ) ψ, ψ 2 σ(y m ) ψ m, ψ + σ(y m ) ψ m, ψ m ) dt =: I + II + III. Using the strong convergence of σ(y m ) ψ we get I and due to (3.9) we have II 2 σ(y) ψ, ψ dt = σ(y) ψ, ψ dt = 2 Now, due to (3.8) the third term gives III = σ(y m ) g ϕ, ψ m dt σ(y) g ϕ, ψ dt, σ(y) g ϕ, ψ dt. σ(y) g ϕ, ψ dt, since, due to the dominated convergence theorem, σ(y m ) g ϕ σ(y) g ϕ strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) and ψ m converges weakly. Thus, we conclude that I + II + III and, by applying a Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality, that ψ m converges strongly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )), and, by passing to a subsequence, also pointwise a.e. Finally, by the dominated convergence theorem in the form of [24, p. 27], σ(y mk ) ψ mk and σ(y mk ) ψ mk ψ mk converge strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω; R 3 )), where m k denotes a subsequence.

10 1 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON Theorem 3.5. A subsequence of solutions (ũ mk, ϕ mk ) X mk of (3.1) converges strongly in X to a solution (ũ, ϕ) of (2.4). Proof. Owing to Lemma 3.2 and the reflexivity of X, there exists a subsequence m k and (ỹ, ψ) X such that (ũ mk, ϕ mk ) (ỹ, ψ) in X, as k. Because initial conditions are L 2 -projected onto V u m it follows that ũ mk () ỹ() = ũ() in L 2 (Ω). The compactness of the embedding (Aubin-Lions lemma) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)) H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ) L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), implies that there exist a subsequence, still denoted m k, such that ũ mk ỹ strongly and pointwise a.e. in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). Owing to Lemma 3.4 we can pass to subsequences, without change of notation, so that ϕ mk, ϕ mk, σ(u mk ) ϕ mk and σ(u mk ) ϕ mk ϕ mk converge strongly in L 2 (, T, L 2 (Ω)). Now choose v(t) L 2 (, T ; Vm u k ) in (3.1a). Integrating from to T gives, D t u mk, v + u mk, v dt = Fixing v we may now let k to get that D t y, v + y, v dt = ( σ(umk ) ϕ mk ϕ mk, v + σ(u mk ) ϕ mk g ϕ, v ) dt. σ(y) ψ ψ, v + σ(y) ψ g ϕ, v dt, which holds for all v L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )), since k NL 2 (, T ; Vm u k ) is dense in this space and u m,k, ϕ m,k are bounded according to Lemma 3.2, see [27, Theorem 3, p. 121]. In the spirit of Lemma 3.4 we may also prove that ψ satisfies (2.4b). This together with the convergence of initial conditions imply that the limit (ỹ, ψ) is a solution to (2.4). To prove that {ũ mk } k converges strongly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )), we write = (ỹ ũ mk ), (ỹ ũ mk ) dt ( ỹ, ỹ 2 ỹ, ũmk + ũ mk, ũ mk ) dt =: I + II + III. Then II 2 ỹ, ỹ dt since ũ m k converges weakly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )). For the third term we use (3.1a) to get III = ( Dt ũ mk, ũ mk D t g u, ũ mk g u, ũ mk σ(u mk ) ϕ mk ϕ mk, ũ mk + σ(u mk ) ϕ mk g ϕ, ũ mk ) dt ( Dt ỹ, ỹ D t g u, ỹ g u, ỹ σ(y) ψ ψ, ỹ + σ(y) ψ g ϕ, ỹ ) dt as k, recalling that D t ũ mk converges weakly, u mk strongly, and the statement of Lemma 3.4. Now, (2.4a) gives III = ỹ, ỹ dt so that I + II + III.

11 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 11 Finally, to show strong convergence of the time derivative, we note that D t ỹ D t ũ mk H 1 (Ω;Γ u D ) D t ỹ P mk D t ỹ, v P mk D t ỹ D t ũ mk, v sup + sup v H 1 (Ω;Γ u v D ) H1 (Ω) v H 1 (Ω;Γ u v D ) H1 (Ω) v v =: a mk + b mk, where P mk is the L 2 -projection onto Vm. u It follows, due to the density of L 2 in (H 1 ), that a2 m k dt as k. Now, we use the self-adjointness of the L 2 -projection, (2.4a), and (3.1a) to get b2 m k dt as k since u mk, σ(u mk ) ϕ mk ϕ mk, and σ(u mk ) ϕ mk g ϕ converge strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). We conclude that D t ỹ D t ũ mk L2(,T ;H 1 (Ω;Γ u D ) ). Corollary 3.6. If the solution (u, ϕ) to (2.4) is unique, then the full sequence of Galerkin solutions (u m, ϕ m ) X m converges. Proof. Due to Lemma 3.2 the sequence is bounded in X. From the proof of Theorem 3.5 we deduce that any accumulation point of the sequence is a solution to (2.4) and that an accumulation point exists. If the solution to (2.4) is unique there can only be one accumulation point and, hence, the full sequence {(u m, ϕ m )} m must converge. 4. Fully discrete methods In this section we analyze fully discrete methods based on a backward Euler scheme in time and hierarchical families of finite dimensional subspaces, as introduced in Section 3, in space. We prove existence and uniqueness of fully discrete solutions and strong convergence to a weak solution satisfying (2.4) Fully discrete formulation. Let {J l } l N be a family of nested partitions of the time interval J = [, T ], which subordinate to the decomposition of (A2). For each partition = t < t 1 <... < t N = T we denote the subintervals I n := (t n 1, t n ] and f n := f(t n ). We consider a uniform time discretization in the analysis, that is, we assume t n t n 1 = τ l with τ l = 2 l T. It simplifies some of the analysis, but it is also a requirement for the compactness argument in [26]. Fix m and let V u m and V ϕ m be as in Section 3 and define the discrete space X m,l ={v(x, t) : n w V u m : v(t, ) = w, t I n } {v(x, t) : n w V ϕ m : v(t, ) = w, t I n }. This means that functions in X m,l are piecewise constant in time and on each interval equal to a function from Vm u Vm. ϕ Note that X m,l X m since X m,l discontinuous in time. However, we have X m,l L 2 (, T ; Vm) u L 2 (, T ; Vm). ϕ We use the backward Euler scheme to define a fully discrete solution. Find a pair (u m,l, ϕ m,l ) = (g u + ũ m,l, g ϕ + ϕ m,l ) such that (ũ m,l, ϕ m,l ) X m,l and for

12 12 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON n = 1,..., N, u n m,l un 1 m,l (4.1a), v + u n τ m,l, v = σ(u n m,l) ϕ n m,l ϕ n m,l, v l (4.1b) (4.1c) σ(u n m,l) ϕ n m,l, w =, u m,l, z = u, z, + σ(u n m,l) ϕ n m,l g n ϕ, v, for all (v, w) V u m V ϕ m and z V u m, where u n m,l = u m,l(t n ) and ϕ n m,l = ϕ m,l(t n ). Lemma 4.1. A solution (u m,l, ϕ m,l ) to (4.1) fulfils the following bounds (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) for n =,..., N. ϕ n m,l 2 L 2(Ω) C(σ, g ϕ), tn ũ n m,l 2 L + 2(Ω) ũ m,l 2 L dt C(u 2(Ω), σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ), N n=1 ũ n m,l ũ n 1 m,l 2 L 2(Ω) C(u, σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ). Proof. Choosing w = ϕ n m,l in (4.1b) we have ϕn m,l 2 L 2(Ω) C(σ) gn ϕ L2(Ω). To prove (4.3), we note that ũ n m,l ũ n 1 m,l, ũn m,l = 1 2 ũn m,l 2 L 2(Ω) 1 2 ũn 1 m,l 2 L 2(Ω) ũn m,l ũ n 1 m,l 2 L 2(Ω), and by choosing v = τ l ũ n m,l in (4.1a) and summing from n = 1 to N (4.5) 1 2 N n= = ( ũ n m,l 2 L 2(Ω) ũn 1 m,l 2 L + 2(Ω) ũn m,l ũ n 1 ) m,l 2 L 2(Ω) + ũ m,l 2 L 2(Ω) dt N gu n g n 1, ũ n m,l n=1 For the first term we get N tn N D t g u, ũ n m,l dt C t n 1 n=1 u g u, ũ m,l dt σ(u m,l ) ϕ m,l ϕ m,l, ũ m,l dt σ(u m,l ) ϕ m,l g ϕ, ũ m,l dt =: I + II + III + IV. n=1 tn t n 1 D t g u 2 H 1 (Ω;Γ u D ) dt ũ m,l 2 L 2(Ω) dt. The remaining terms II IV can be estimated as in the proof of Lemma 3.2. Using the telescoping effect of the first two terms in the sum in (4.5) completes the proof. Lemma 4.2. There exists a solution (ũ m,l, ϕ m,l ) X m,l to (4.1). Furthermore, for any fixed m, there is an L N, such that the solution (ũ m,l, ϕ m,l ) is unique for any l > L.

13 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 13 Proof. To prove this we use the ODE setting introduced in the proof of Lemma 3.3. Let ũ n m,l = M j=1 αn l,j λ j for n = 1,..., N. Then (4.1) corresponds to finding αl n R M such that Mαl n Mα n 1 l (4.6) + Kαl n = F (αl n, t n ) + G(t n ), τ l for n = 1,.., N, with Mαl = b, where b i = u g u (), λ i, F as in (3.7), and G slightly modified as G(t n ) := gn u gu n 1, λ i g τ u, n λ i. l Note that (4.6) is the backward Euler discretization of the ODE (3.7). To apply Brouwer s fixed point theorem we define the mapping f : R M R M such that β = f(γ) is the solution to the system Mβ Mα n 1 l τ l + Kβ = F (γ, t n ) + G(t n ), which is equivalent to (4.7) β = (M + τ l K) 1 (Mα n 1 l + τ l F (γ, t n ) + τ l G(t n )). Let ỹ be the function corresponding to the vector γ, that is, ỹ n = M j=1 γn j λ j. From the definitions of F i and G i in the proof of Lemma 3.3, and with ψ = S(ỹ) it follows that F i (γ, t n ) C(σ, g ϕ ) ψ L2(Ω) λ i L2(Ω) + σ ψ L2(Ω) g ϕ (t n ) L3(Ω) λ i L6(Ω) C m (σ, g ϕ ), G i (t n ) C m (D t g u, g u ). Here the boundedness of ψ L2(Ω) follows from Lemma 4.1 with ũ n m,l = ỹ. Hence, letting B R R M denote the ball with radius R >, it is clear that f : B R B R if R sufficiently large. Now define β 1 = f(γ 1 ), β 2 = f(γ 2 ) R M. From (4.7) we have (β 1 β 2 ) = τ l (M + τ l K) 1 (F (γ 1, t n ) F (γ 2, t n )), and using the Lipschitz continuity of F (, t), see proof of Lemma 3.3, we get β 1 β 2 R M C L τ l (M + τ l K) 1 F γ 1 γ 2 R M, where F denotes the matrix Frobenius norm which is finite since M + τ l K is invertible. This proves that f is continuous and the existence of a solution follows from Brouwer s fixed point theorem. Furthermore, it is clear that if τ l is sufficiently small, or equivalently l sufficiently large, then f is a contraction on R M and Banach s fixed point theorem gives uniqueness Convergence of fully discrete solutions. To prove convergence of the fully discrete method we introduce the continuous and piecewise affine interpolant Ũ m,l (t) of ũ m,l Ũm,l(t) := ũ n 1 t n t m,l + ũ n t t n 1 (4.8) m,l, t I n. t n t n 1 t n t n 1 Note that (4.9) D t Ũ m,l (t) = ũn m,l ũn 1 m,l, t I n. τ l

14 14 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON Using (4.1a), we have for t I n and v H 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) D t Ũ m,l (t), v ( u n m,l H1 (Ω) + C(σ, g ϕ ) ϕ n m,l L2(Ω) + σ ϕ n m,l L2(Ω) gϕ n L3(Ω) + t gu n ) H1 (Ω;Γ u D ) v H1 (Ω), where t gu n = (gu n gu n 1 )/τ l. Note that t gu n = τ 1 l I n D t g u dt. This, together with Lemma 4.1 and (A2), gives D t Ũ m,l L2(,T ;(V u m ) ) C(u, σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ). In addition, using (A5) as in the proof of Lemma 3.2, we get (4.1) D t Ũ m,l L2(,T ;H 1 (Ω;Γ u D ) ) C(u, σ, g u, D t g u, g ϕ ). In the analysis we also use the following reformulation of (4.1a) (4.11) with u n m,l u n 1 m,l, v = F m,l, v, F m,l, v := τ l u n m,l, v τ l σ(u n m,l) ϕ n m,l ϕ n m,l, v + τ l σ(u n m,l) ϕ n m,l g n ϕ, v, v V u m. Theorem 4.3. A subsequence of solutions (ũ mk,l k, ϕ mk,l k ) X mk,l k of (4.1) converges strongly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) L 2(, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )) to a solution (ũ, ϕ) of (2.4). Proof. From Lemma 4.1, (4.1), and the reflexivity of the spaces L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)), L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )), L 2(, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ) there exists a subsequence such that (ũ mk,l k, ϕ mk,l k ) (ỹ, ψ) in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )), for some D t Ũ mk,l k D t Ũ in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ), (ỹ, ψ) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D)) L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D )), D tũ L 2(, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) ). The convergence of the initial conditions follows as in the semi-discrete case and we conclude u m k,l k y() = u(). Next, we prove that D t ỹ = D t U. First, we note that Ũm k,l k ũ mk,l k weakly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). To see this, pick χ [ τa, τb] v : (t, x) χ [ τa, τb] (t) v(x), for v L 2 (Ω), a < b, and some τ >. Now, due to [23, Theorem 8.9], for τ lk τ Ũm k,l k ũ mk,l k, χ [ τa, τb] v dt = τ l ũ τb/τ k lk m 2 k,l k ũ τa/τ l k m,l k, v Cτ lk, where we used (4.8) and the bounds in Lemma 4.1. Since Ũm k is bounded in L 2 (; T ; L 2 (Ω)) and functions of the form χ [ τa, τb] v are dense in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) this implies Ũm k,l k ũ mk,l k in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), see [27, Theorem 3 p. 121]. Thus we get, for v C 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) with v() = v(t ) =, D t Ũ, v dt D t Ũ mk,l k, v dt = Ũm k,l k, D t v dt ỹ, D t v dt,

15 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 15 and we conclude D t ỹ = D t Ũ, due to (4.1) and since C 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) with v() = v(t ) = is dense in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), see see [27, Theorem 3 p. 121]. This implies that (ỹ, ψ) X. In [26, Theorem 3.1] it is proved that if {u mk,l k } k and {F mk,l k } k in (4.11) are bounded in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) and L 2(, T ; (Vm u k ) ), respectively, uniformly in k, then {u mk,l k } is precompact in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). Here, the boundedness of {u mk,l k } and {F mk,l k } follows from Lemma 4.1, (A2), and the bounds on σ and. Hence, there exists a subsequence, still denoted (m k, l k ), such that ũ mk,l k ỹ strongly and pointwise a.e. in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). Owing to Lemma 3.4 we have for some subsequence, still denoted (m k, l k ), that ϕ mk,l k, ϕ mk,l k, σ(u mk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k, and σ(u mk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k ϕ mk,l k, converges strongly in L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). Using (4.1a) we get for v L 2 (, T ; Vm) u = D t Ũ mk,l k + t g u, v + u mk,l k, v dt ( σ(umk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k ϕ mk,l k, v + σ(u mk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k g ϕ, v ) dt, where t gu n = (gu n g n 1 )/τ l. Keeping v fixed we get as k u D t ỹ + D t g u, v + u, v dt = ( σ(umk ) ϕ mk ϕ mk, v + σ(u mk ) ϕ mk g ϕ, v ) dt, where we used the weak convergence of Ũm k and u mk, the strong convergence of σ(u mk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k and σ(u mk,l k ) ϕ mk,l k ϕ mk,l k, and t g u D t g u. Now, due to the density of {v(x, t) : v In Vm} u and the boundedness of u mk,l k, ϕ mk,l k, this holds for all v L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) [27, Theorem 3 p. 121]. Furthermore, in the spirit of Lemma 3.8 we may prove that ψ solves (2.4b). Hence, (ỹ, ψ) is a solution to (2.4). To prove that ũ mk,l k ỹ strongly in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω; Γ u D )) we may mimic the argument in the proof of Theorem 3.5 (recall (4.9)). Corollary 4.4. If the solution (u, ϕ) to (2.4) is unique, then the whole sequence of fully discrete approximations (ũ m,l, ϕ m,l ) X m,l converges. Proof. If the solution to (2.4) is unique there can only be one accumulation point, cf. Corollary 3.6. Remark 4.5. There are many other time discretizations available, see, e.g., [25, Chapter 16] for discretizations of a parabolic nonlinear problem. For instance, one could use linearized schemes to avoid solving a nonlinear problem in each time step. In this case the existence and uniqueness result follows easily. Convergence may be deduced by comparing the linearized solution to the backward Euler solution. However, to avoid overloading the paper, we shall not analyze this here. 5. Regularity and uniqueness In this section we prove additional regularity and uniqueness of a solution to the weak problem (2.4). For this purpose we use Theorem 5.1 below, which is based on [13, 2], see, in particular, [13, Theorem 3.1]. The theory in [21] gives a setting where assumption (B5) below, is satisfied. Our aim is to combine these results to

16 16 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON obtain additional regularity for the Joule heating problem with mixed boundary conditions on creased domains. For similar settings, see [2, Section 3], where regularity for the Joule heating problem with pure Robin boundary conditions for the temperature and mixed boundary conditions for the potential is studied. In addition, we also prove higher regularity of the solution in the interior of the domain. We emphasize that the differences in the regularity within the domain makes the problem well suited for h- and hp-adaptive finite elements. In [13] the following type of systems are studied (5.1a) (5.1b) (5.1c) (5.1d) D t u u = R(u), in Ω (, T ), u = g u, on Γ u D (, T ) n u =, on Γ u N (, T ), u(, ) = u, in Ω. If we define R(u) = σ(u) S(u) 2 such that ϕ = S(u) solves (5.2a) (σ(u) ϕ) =, in Ω (, T ), (5.2b) ϕ = g ϕ, on Γ ϕ D (, T ) (5.2c) n ϕ =, on Γ ϕ (, T ), then (5.1) is equivalent to (2.1). For p > 3 2 and a fixed r > 4p 2p 3 we consider the following assumptions. (B1) Ω is a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary (in the sense of Gröger, see [13]), meas(γ u D ) >, and meas(γϕ D ) >. (B2) g u C([, T ]; W2p(Ω)) 1 Wr 1 (, T ; L p (Ω)), g u (t) =, t (, T ), and g ϕ L r (, T ; W2p(Ω)). 1 (B3) u g u () (L p (Ω), D( p )) 1 1 r,r. (B4) σ C 1 (R), Lipschitz continuous, and < σ σ(x) σ <, x R. (B5) is a topological isomorphism from W2p(Ω; 1 Γ u 1 D ) onto W2p (Ω; Γu D ) and from W2p(Ω; 1 Γ ϕ 1 D ) onto W2p (Ω; Γϕ D ). Here D(A) denotes the domain of the operator A, that is D(A) = {v H 1 (Ω; Γ D ) : f L 2 (Ω), a(v, w) = f, w, w H 1 (Ω; Γ D )}, for Γ D Ω. The semigroup generated by A extends to a C -semigroup on L p (Ω), 1 < p <, and we denote its generator by A p, see [13] and references therein. In particular, we use p for the Laplacian that maps onto L p (Ω). Furthermore, for Banach spaces V and W forming an interpolation couple, (V, W ) α,β denotes the real interpolation space. The following theorem relies on [13, Theorem 3.1]. Theorem 5.1. Let p > 3 2 and r > 4p 2p 3. Under the assumptions (B1)-(B5), there exists a unique solution to (2.1) satisfying (5.3) ũ W 1 r (, T ; L p (Ω)) L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ u D)), ϕ L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ ϕ D )), for some < T T. Proof. Consider (B6) The function R: W 1 2p(Ω) L p (Ω) is continuous. N

17 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 17 (B7) R() L r (, T ; L p (Ω)) and for β > there exist g β L r (, T ) such that R(u 1 ) R(u 2 ) Lp(Ω) g β (t) u 1 u 2 W 1 2p (Ω), t (, T ), provided max( u 1 W 1 2p (Ω), u 2 W 1 2p (Ω)) β. In [13, Theorem 3.1] it is proved that if the conditions (B1)-(B5) together with (B6)-(B7) on the operator R are satisfied, then there is a unique solution to (5.1) satisfying u Wr 1 (, T ; L p (Ω)) L r (, T ; D( p )) for some < T T. Our aim is now to prove that if R(u) = σ(u) S(u) 2 with S : W2p(Ω) 1 W2p(Ω) 1 defined as in (5.2), then R satisfies (B6)-(B7) and we may conclude that (u, ϕ) solves (2.1) and (5.3) is fulfilled. From [2, Corollary 3.24] it follows that the operator ( φ ) 1 is a linear ), if φ C is uniformly continuous on Ω, C compact set in C( Ω), φ admits a positive lower bound, and (B5) holds. It also holds that ( φ ) 1 is Lipschitz with respect to φ. In our setting, we have due to Morrey s inequality W2p(Ω) 1 C,α ( Ω), for some α >, and C,α ( Ω) embeds compactly into C( Ω). This implies that C = {σ(u) : u W2p(Ω)} 1 is compact and σ(u) is uniformly continuous, since σ is Lipschitz continuous. Furthermore, σ( ) σ >. Hence, given φ = σ(u) we deduce that homeomorphism from W 1 2p (Ω; Γϕ D ) to W 1 2p(Ω; Γ ϕ D there exists a unique solution ϕ(t) W2p(Ω; 1 Γ ϕ D ) to (5.2). This proves that the mappings S and R are well defined in the given spaces. Given u fixed, let F : W2p 1 (Ω; Γϕ D ) W 2p(Ω; 1 Γ ϕ D ), such that ψ = F (g) is the solution to (σ(u) ψ) = g, ψ Γ ϕ D =. By letting G = (σ(u) g ϕ ) and using ϕ = ϕ + g ϕ it follows from (5.2a) that ϕ = F (G). Since the operator F is bounded we get (5.4) ϕ W 1 2p (Ω;Γ ϕ D ) C G W 1 2p (Ω;Γϕ D ) = C sup (σ(u) g ϕ ), w w W 1 (2p) (Ω;Γ ϕ D )\{} w W 1 (2p) (Ω) σ(u) g ϕ, w = C sup C g ϕ w W 1 (2p) (Ω;Γ ϕ D )\{} w W 1 W 1 2p (Ω), (2p) (Ω) where (2p) is the Hölder conjugate exponent to 2p. Thus, ϕ L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω)), since g ϕ L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω)), which implies R() L r (, T ; L p (Ω)) in (B7). For ϕ 1 = S(u 1 ) and ϕ 2 = S(u 2 ) we get R(u 1 ) R(u 2 ) Lp(Ω) (σ(u 1 ) σ(u 2 )) ϕ 1 2 Lp(Ω) + σ(u 2 )( ϕ 1 2 ϕ 2 2 Lp(Ω) C( u 1 u 2 L (Ω) ϕ 1 2 L 2p(Ω) + (ϕ 1 + ϕ 2 ) L2p(Ω) (ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ) L2p(Ω)). Using Sobolev s inequality we get u 1 u 2 L (Ω) C u 1 u 2 W 1. Due to the 2p(Ω) Lipschitz property of ( σ(u) ) 1 we get ϕ 1 ϕ 2 W 1 2p (Ω) C σ(u 1 ) σ(u 2 ) L C u 1 u 2 L C u 1 u 2 W 1 2p (Ω). which proves (B7) and the continuity in (B6). Hence there exists a unique solution u W 1 r (, T ; L p (Ω)) L r (, T ; D( p )) for some T >.

18 18 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON Finally, by definition, D( p ) denotes the domain such that the Laplacian maps into L p (Ω). Let p and (2p) be the Hölder conjugates to p and 2p, respectively. Then L p (Ω) = (L p (Ω)), By Sobolev s inequality we have, W 1 2p (Ω; Γu D) = (W 1 (2p) (Ω; Γu D)). W 1 (2p) (Ω) L 6p/(4p 3)(Ω), and since p = p/(p 1) < 6p/(4p 3) when p > 3/2 we conclude W(2p) 1 (Ω; Γ u D ) L p (Ω), or equivalently L p (Ω) W2p 1 (Ω; Γu D ). Now, since we know that is an isomorphism between W2p(Ω; 1 Γ u 1 D ) and W2p (Ω; Γu D ) and L p(ω) W2p 1 (Ω; Γu D ) we deduce D( p ) W2p(Ω; 1 Γ u D ) and (5.3) follows. Note that the result is only local in time, that is, the additional regularity and uniqueness are only guaranteed up to some T T. We provide an example of a geometric setting for which (B5) is satisfied. Assume instead of (B1) the following (B1 ) Ω is a creased domain with respect to the boundary conditions for u and ϕ. In addition meas(γ u D ) > and meas(γϕ D ) >. For the full definition of creased domains we refer to [21, Definition 2.3]. We note however, that in our setting, it implies that Ω is a Lipschitz domain with Γ u D and Γ ϕ D open and non-empty and Γu D and Γϕ D are not re-entrant. This means that the angles between the Dirichlet and Neumann parts of the boundary are strictly less than π. Corollary 5.2. Let p > 3 2 and r > 4p 2p 3. Under the assumptions (B1 ) and (B2)- (B4), there exists a unique solution to (2.1) satisfying ũ W 1 r (, T ; L p (Ω)) L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ u D)), ϕ L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ ϕ D )), for some < T T. Proof. To see that condition (B5) is fulfilled we use the result on equations of Poisson type in [21]. If Ω is a creased domain, Γ D Ω, and g Bq,q(Γ s D ), then there exists ɛ (, 1 2 ) such that Poisson s equation is well-posed in the spaces (5.5) for 1 q v W s+ 1 q q (Ω; Γ D ), v = f ( W 2 s 1 q q (Ω; Γ D) ), v ΓD = g u, = 1 1 q and (s, 1 q ) H ɛ where H ɛ is the polygon with vertices in (, ), (ɛ, ), (1, 1 2 ɛ), (1, 1), (1 ɛ, 1), (, ɛ). Choosing s = 8+ɛ 12 and q = 12 4 ɛ we have for p = 6 4 ɛ > 3 2 W s+ 1 q q = W 1 12 = W2p 1 and ( W 2 s 1 q q 4 ɛ ) = (W 1 12 ) = W2p 1, 8+ɛ and since W2p(Ω) 1 Γd = Bp,p(Γ s D ) assumption (B2) gives g u (t), g ϕ (t) Bq,q(Γ s u D ). We conclude that (B5) holds. Remark 5.3. There are other geometric settings where condition (B5) is fulfilled, see, for instance, [13, 2, 7].

19 FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 19 Remark 5.4. In [3, Section 4] it is established that ϕ L 2q/(q 3) (, T ; L q (Ω)), for q > 3, is sufficient for a unique solution, see also Theorem 2.3. This agrees with the regularity we get in Theorem 5.1. The next theorem shows that higher regularity achieved in the interior of the domain, cf. the stationary case [16, Theorem 4.2]. Here we use the notation D( p,k ) for the domain such that maps into W k p (Ω). Note that D( p ) = D( p, ). Theorem 5.5. Let < T < T and let Ω be a relatively compact domain in Ω: Ω Ω. Let (u, ϕ) be the solution to (2.1) such that (5.6) ũ W 1 r (, T ; L p (Ω)) L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ u D)), ϕ L r (, T ; W 1 2p(Ω; Γ ϕ D )), for some p > 3 2 and r > 4p 2p 3. Then ũ, ϕ L r(t, T ; Ws 2 (Ω )) for all s (1, ). If σ C (R), then ũ, ϕ L r (T, T ; C (Ω )). Proof. Let Ω and {Ω i } i=1 be smooth domains such that Ω i 1 Ω i and Ω i Ω Ω, for i =, 1,... Assume, without loss of generality, that the boundary data g u and g ϕ have smooth extensions to Ω such that g u, D t g u, g ϕ L r (, T ; C (Ω )). Without loss of generality, we also assume p = 6/(4 ɛ) for some ɛ >. Let ζ i C (Ω i, [, 1]), such that ζ i Ωi = and ζ i Ωi 1 = 1. Furthermore, let {T i } i=1 and T be positive numbers such that T i < T i 1, and < T i < T < T for all i. Define η i (t) C ([T i, T ], [, 1]) such that η i (T i ) = and η i [Ti 1,T ] = 1. Let ζ i := η i ζi, then (ζ i ũ, ζ i ϕ) satisfies the following system in Ω i (T i, T ). (5.7a) (5.7b) D t (ζ i ũ) (ζ i ũ) = ζ i σ(u) ϕ 2 ζ i (D t g u g u ) + ũd t ζ i 2 ζ i ũ ũ ζ i, (ζ i ϕ) = ζ i σ (u) σ(u) u ϕ ζ i g ϕ 2 ζ i ϕ ϕ ζ i, with homogeneous Dirichlet conditions and zero initial data. Note that we have used (σ(u) ϕ) = ϕ = σ (u) u ϕ, σ(u) in the second equation. Because of the assumed regularity in (5.6) and the smoothness of ζ i, g u, and g ϕ, the right-hand sides in (5.7) are in L r (T i, T ; L p (Ω i )). There exists a unique solution in W 2 p (Ω i ) to Poisson s equation with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, if the domain is smooth and the right-hand side in L p (Ω i ), 1 < p <, see e.g. [1, Theorem 9.15]. We conclude that, for a fixed t, ζ i (t) ϕ(t) W 2 p (Ω i ). We may now use elliptic regularity in L p, see [1, Lemma 9.17], to deduce ζ i ϕ W 2 p (Ω i) C ζ i σ (u) σ(u) u ϕ ζ i g ϕ 2 ζ i ϕ ϕ ζ i Lp(Ω i). The regularity in time of the right hand side implies ζ i ϕ L r (T i, T ; Wp 2 (Ω i )). Thus ϕ L r (T i 1, T ; Wp 2 (Ω i 1 )), since ζ i = 1 on [T i 1, T ] Ω i 1. For the parabolic equation we use the theory for maximal L p -regularity with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on smooth domains, see, e.g., [12, Theorem 3.1]. If the right-hand side is in L r (, T ; L p (Ω)) and the initial data is zero, then the solution belongs to L r (, T ; D( p )) Wr 1 (, T ; L p (Ω)). From

20 2 MAX JENSEN, AXEL MÅLQVIST, AND ANNA PERSSON the results on Poisson s equation we deduce D( p ) Wp 2 (Ω i ) and thus ũ L r (T i 1, T ; Wp 2 (Ω i 1 )) Wr 1 (T i 1, T ; L p (Ω i 1 )). From the Sobolev inequality we have Wp 2 (Ω i 1 ) W3p/(3 p) 1 (Ω i 1). Using that 2p = 12/(4 ɛ) for some ɛ > we get 3p/(3 p) = 12/(4 2ɛ). Hence, we can substitute ɛ by 2ɛ, pass from i to i 1 and repeat the argument. Note that if 12/(4 ɛ) becomes negative, the right-hand side is in L (Ω i ). By induction ũ, ϕ L r (T, T ; Ws 2 (Ω )) for any s (1, ). Now assume σ C (R). A solution to Poisson s equation on a smooth domain is in Wp k+2 (Ω i ) if the right-hand side is in Wp k (Ω i ), see e.g. [1, Theorem 9.19]. By applying Leibniz s rule it is clear that there is an s such that the right-hand sides in (5.7) belongs to L r (T i, T ; Ws k (Ω i )) if ϕ, ũ L r (T i, T ; W k+1 s (Ω i)). Hence, we may perform induction over k and pass from i to i 1, to achieve ũ, ϕ L r (T, T ; Ws k+2 (Ω )), for any k, s > 1. This implies ũ, ϕ L r (T, T ; C (Ω )). 6. Numerical Examples In this section we consider four different examples. The first two are designed to test the convergence rates for different settings. In the first example we choose the domain and the data such that the exact solution is known. To achieve this we add a function f(x, t) to the right-hand side in (2.4a) and consider non-zero Neumann data for φ, see Subsection 6.1 below. For the second example we consider a setting that does not fulfil the creased domain conditions. For this problem we expect low regularity and reduced convergence rates. Finally, in the last two examples we test a goal oriented adaptivity method. In all cases we consider a continuous, piecewise affine finite element discretization. We let {T m } m denote a family of uniform triangulations of the domain such that h m+1 = 2 1 h m, h R, where h m is the maximal mesh size on T m. With this notation we may define V u m := {v H 1 (Ω; Γ u D) C ( Ω) : v K is a polynomial of degree 1, K T h }, V ϕ m := {v H 1 (Ω; Γ ϕ D ) C ( Ω) : v K is a polynomial of degree 1, K T h }. For the time discretization, we let τ l = 2 l T and the fully discrete space X m,l is defined as in Section 4. In the first two experiments we keep the time step proportional to the mesh size in each refinement. That is, we consider spaces of the form X k,k, for k = 1, 2, 3,... This means that if the solution has sufficient regularity, then we expect at most linear convergence rate in the norm L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)), see also [8, 19, 9]. All computations are made using the FEniCS software [18] Example 1. We let T =.1, Ω be the unit cube, Γ u D = Ω, and Γϕ D = Ω \ {x 3 = or x 3 = 1}. To construct an example where the exact solution is known, we consider non-zero Neumann data g N for ϕ and an additional function f in the right-hand side of (2.4a). We get D t u, v + u, v = σ(u) ϕ ϕ, v + σ(u) ϕ g ϕ, v + f, v, σ(u) ϕ, w = g N, w Γ ϕ N, where, Γ ϕ N denotes integration on the boundary Γϕ N.

21 Error FINITE ELEMENT CONVERGENCE FOR THE JOULE HEATING PROBLEM 21 Letting g u = t, g ϕ = x 2, g N = 1 + 2x 2, σ = 1, and f = 2(x 1 x 2 (1 x 1 )(1 x 2 ) + x 1 x 3 (1 x 1 )(1 x 3 ) + x 2 x 3 (1 x 2 )(1 x 3 )), u = x 1 (1 x 1 )x 2 (1 x 2 )x 3 (1 x 3 ), the exact solution is given by u = x 1 (1 x 1 )x 2 (1 x 2 )x 3 (1 x 3 ) + t and ϕ = x 2. Note that ϕ = ϕ + g ϕ and thus ϕ =. In our setting, the approximations ϕ m,l are all close to zero and, hence, we omit to plot the error for ϕ below. We compute the finite element approximation on meshes with tetrahedra of maximal diameter h = 2 k 3 and time step size τ = 2 k T = 2 k.1 for k = 1,.., 6. With this refinement, the finest approximation (k = 6) is computed on a mesh with nodes. The error in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)) is approximated using Simpson s rule in time on each interval I n and the FEniCS function errornorm in space. The relative error is depicted in Figure 1. The convergence rate is approximately linear, which is expected for sufficiently regular problems. 1 Error in u Figure 1. Relative errors for the temperature u (blue o) of Example 1 plotted against the mesh size h. The dashed line is Ch. h 6.2. Example 2. We let T =.1 and Ω be the Fichera cube depicted in Figure 2 (left). We consider non-creased boundary conditions by imposing Dirichlet conditions on the striped areas, Γ and Γ 1 in the figure (left), and homogeneous Neumann conditions on the remaining parts. On Γ we set g u = and g ϕ = 1 and on Γ 1 we set g u = g ϕ =. Furthermore, we let σ(u) = 2 1 (π arctan(u)) and u =. We compute the finite element approximation on meshes with tetrahedra of maximal diameter h = 2 (k 1) 2 and time step size τ = 2 k T = 2 k.1 for k = 1,.., 5. Since the exact solution is not known, the approximations are compared to a reference solution computed for k = 6 corresponding to a mesh with nodes. The relative error in L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω))-norm is plotted in Figure 3. We have convergence, but not with order one. This is due to the low regularity in the vicinity of the edges where the Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries meet with an angle greater than π, that is, where the creased domain condition fails.