arxiv: v1 [math.na] 18 Jul 2015

Transcription

1 ENERGY NORM ERROR ESTIMATES FOR FINITE ELEMENT DISCRETIZATION OF PARABOLIC PROBLEMS HERBERT EGGER arxiv: v1 [matna] 18 Jul 2015 Department of Matematics, TU Darmstadt, Germany Abstract We consider te discretization of parabolic initial boundary value problems by finite element metods in space and a Runge-Kutta time stepping sceme Order optimal a-priori error estimates are derived in an energy-norm under natural smootness assumptions on te solution and witout artificial regularity conditions on te parameters and te domain Te key steps in our analysis are te careful treatment of time derivatives in te H 1 -norm and te te use of an L 2 -projection in te error splitting instead of te Ritz projector Tis allows us to restore te optimality of te estimates wit respect to smootness assumptions on te solution and to avoid artificial regularity requirements for te problem, usually needed for te analysis of te Ritz projector, wic limit te applicability of previous work Te wider applicability of our results is illustrated for two irregular problems, for wic previous results can eiter not by applied or yield igly sub-optimal estimates Keywords: parabolic problems, Galerkin distretization, finite element metod, backward Euler sceme, energy-norm estimates AMS-classification: 35K20, 65L06, 65L70, 65M15, 65M20, 65M60 1 Introduction Let Ω R d be a bounded domain and T > 0 denote a time orizon We consider te numerical solution of parabolic initial boundary value problems of te form u (t)+a(t)u(t) = f(t), in Ω, 0 < t < T, (1a) u(t) = 0, on Ω, 0 < t < T, (1b) u(0) = u 0, in Ω (1c) Here u is te time derivative and Au = div(a u) + b u + cu is a second order differential operator wit coefficients a,b,c L and a(x,t) a > 0, suc tat A(t) is uniformly elliptic for every point in time It is well known, tat for any u 0 L 2 (Ω) and any f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) tere exists a unique weak solution in te energy-space W(0,T) = {u L 2 (0,T;H 1 0(Ω) : u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))}, (2) wic can be bounded a-priori by u W(0,T) = u L 2 (0,T;H 1 0 (Ω)) + u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) (3) C ( f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) + u 0 L 2 (Ω)) (4) Moreover, te constant C only depends on te domain and te bounds for te coefficients We will refer to W(0,T) as te energy-norm of te problem If te coefficients and te 1

2 2 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS data are sufficiently smoot, te solution of (1a)-(1c) can be expected to be more regular: For instance, if one assumes tat a,b,c W 1,, ten u L 2 (0,T;H 1 0 (Ω)) + u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) (5) C ( f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) + f(0) A(0)u 0 L 2 (Ω)), wenever te rigt and side is bounded If, in addition, also te domain is sufficiently regular and u 0 H0 1 (Ω), ten u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) + u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) C ( f L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) + u 0 H 1 0 (Ω)) (6) We refer to [9] for details and proofs of tese estimates and furter results Let us empasize at tis point tat te two estimates (5) and (6) also caracterize te basic regularity spaces for parabolic problems In particular, time derivatives typically lack two order of spatial regularity compared to te solution itself In tis paper, we study te numerical solution of (1a)-(1c) by finite element discretization in space and Runge-Kutta time stepping scemes Suc approximations ave been investigated intensively in te literature, see eg [6, 12, 14, 18, 23, 25]; we refer to [20] for a compreensive collection of results and furter references Our main goal ere is to derive order optimal a-priori error estimates in te energy-norm W(0,T) Tese can be obtained under minimal regularity assumptions on te coefficients and te domain, and we only require natural smootness conditions for te solution To keep te notation simple, we consider ere in detail only te lowest order approximation by piecewise linear finite elements in space and te backward Euler metod in time Te generalization of our arguments to approximations of iger order is owever straigt forward To put our results into perspective, let us sortly recall some of te standard results for te Galerkin approximation of parabolic problems [20, 23, 25] and compare tem wit te main contributions of our manuscript: As a first step, we will consider te semi-discretization in space by piecewise linear finite elements Te standard lowest order error estimate for parabolic problems ten reads u u L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) C ( u 0 H 1 (Ω) + u L 1 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) (7) Here u is te finite element approximation and te messize Tis estimate amounts to [20, Teorem 12] wit r = 1 Assuming sufficient regularity of te domain, te parameters, and te solution, also second order convergence can be obtained ere Te basic step in te proof of tis error estimate is te decomposition of te error into u u = (u R u)+(r u u ), (8) were R denotes te Ritz projection associated to te operator A; see [23, 25] Te proof of te error bound ten relies on a discrete energy estimate for te semi-discrete problem and certain properties of te Ritz projection, in particular, on a bound u R u L 2 (Ω) C u H 1 (Ω), (9) for te L 2 -norm error, wic can be obtained by te usual duality arguments [1, 17] Witout some additional regularity assumptions on te parameters and te domain, te estimate (9) for te Ritz projection is owever not valid, and terefore te validity of te bound(7) for irregular problemscannot begranted by teproofs given in [20, 23, 25] Also note tat te estimate (7) is somwat sub-optimal concerning te regularity requirements for te solution: In fact, it sould suffice to assume tat u L (0,T;H 1 (Ω)), wic is already valid if u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) H 1 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) Let us empasize tat no spatial

3 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS 3 regularity for te time derivative seems to be required Also, in view of te a-priori estimate (6), tis latter condition would be a natural regularity assumption As a replacement for (7), we will derive an error estimate in te energy-norm W(0,T), wic arises in te a-priori estimate for te solution We will sow tat u u W(0,T) = u u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) + u u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C ( u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) + u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω))) (10) By continuous embedding, one as u u L (0,T;Ω) C u u W(0,T), wic yields te corresponding estimate also for te error in te L 2 -norm at every point in time One can easily see tat te estimate (10) is optimal wit respect to te approximation properties of te finite element spaces and also wit respect to te smootness requirements on te solution, wic are natural for te problem under investigation Also note tat we require no additional regularity of te domain or te parameters for te proof of tis result As a second step, we will ten investigate te time discretization by te backward Euler metod Te standard error estimate for te fully discrete approximation reads max 0 t n T u(tn ) u n L 2 (Ω) C ( ) u 0 H 1 (Ω) + u t L 1 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ u tt L 1 (0,T;L 2 ), (11) see [20, Teorem 15] wit r = 1 Here τ = t n t n 1 is te time-step size, and u n denotes te n-t iterate of te Euler metod Again, we observe a certain sub-optimality concerning te regularity requirments for te solution Moreover, te proof given in [20], see also [25, 23], is only valid under additional restrictive regularity assumptions on te parameters and te domain, wic strongly limit te applicability of te results As a replacement for (11), we will derive te energy-norm estimate u ũ W(0,T) = u ũ L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) + u ũ L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) (12) C ( u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) + u 2 L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) +τ u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) Here ũ denotes te function obtained from u n by piecewise linear interpolation in time Te bound for u n again follows easily by embedding of W(0,T) into L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) As before, te estimate (12) can be seen to be optimal wit respect to te approximation properties of te discretization, and, in view of te a-priori bounds (5) and (6), te regularity requirements for te solution seem natural Moreover, no artificial regularity of te domain and te coefficients will be required for te proof of tis estimate One key step in te derivation of our results will be te careful estimation of time derivatives in te H 1 -norm Tis seems natural in view of te definition of te energynorm and its role in te a-priori estimates Te importance of suc estimates as already been observed in te context of a-posteriori error estimation [15] Let us also mention [13, 26], were H 1 -Galerkin metods for te solution of parabolic initial boundary value problems ave been investigated A second difference to previous investigations is, tat we use ere a somewat different error splitting as usually employed, namely u u = (u π u)+(π u u ), (13) were π is te L 2 -projection onto te finite element space Te L 2 -projection π as important advantages in comparison to te Ritz-projector R : First, te estimate corresponding to (9) and furter approximation properties can be proven witout regularity assumptions on te domain or te parameters In addition, π commutes wit te time

4 4 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS derivative, even for problems wit time dependent parameters At several places in our analysis, we will rely on te H 1 -stability of te L 2 -projection [3, 4] Morover, we use approximation error estimates for te L 2 -projection in various norms, in particular including estimates in te H 1 -norm Te remainder of te manuscript is organized as follows: In Section 2, we formally present te problem to be investigated and we discuss te basic assumptions on te domain and te coefficients In Section 3, we introduce te finite element spaces and summarize some estimates for te L 2 -projection tat are required later in our analysis Section 4 is ten concerned wit te derivation of te estimate (10) for te semi-discretization In Section 5, we investigate te time discretization by te backward Euler metod and we derive te second estimate (12) For illustration of te wider applicability of our results, we discuss in Section 6 two irregular test proplems, for wic, due to lack of regularity, te standard bounds (7) and (11) cannot be applied directly Due to te weaker requirements for our estimates (10) and (12), te optimal convergence in te energy-norm can owever still be guaranteed also teoretically We close wit a sort discussion of our results and igligt some possibilities for generalization and future investigations 2 Preliminaries Let Ω R d, d = 2,3, be some bounded domain and T > 0 We use standard notation for function spaces, see eg [9]; in particular, H0 1 (Ω) denotes te sub-space of functions in H 1 (Ω) witvanisingtraces on Ω, andh 1 (Ω) = (H0 1(Ω)) istespaceofboundedlinear functional on H0 1(Ω); te corresponding duality product is denoted by, H 1 (Ω) H0 1(Ω) Of particular importance for our analysis is te energy-space W(0,T) = {u L 2 (0,T;H 1 0 (Ω)) : u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))}, (14) wic is equipped wit te norm u W(0,T) = u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) + u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) For later reference, let us recall te following embedding result [9, Sec 59] Lemma 1 Let u W(0,T) Ten u C([0,T];L 2 (Ω)) and sup u(t) L 2 (Ω) C u W(0,T) 0 t T As a consequence, all estimates derived in te energy-norm W(0,T) automatically yield corresponding boundsin L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)), ie, pointwise in time Here and below, we denote by C some generic constant wic may ave different values in different occasions Let us now turn to te initial-boundary value problem (1a)-(1c) We assume tat te operator A as te form Au = div(a u)+b u+cu In order to proof well-posedness of te initial boundary value problem, we assume tat te parameters satisfy (A1) a,c L (Ω (0,T)) and b L (Ω (0,T)) d, and (A2) a(x,t) a for some constant a > 0 and ae (x,t) Ω (0,T) Because of te first assumption, A defines a bounded linear operator from L 2 (0,T;H0 1(Ω)) to L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) For ae t (0,T) we ten define an associated bilinear form by a(u,v;t) = a(x, t) u(x) v(x) + b(x, t) u(x)v(x) + c(x, t)u(x)v(x) dx (15) Ω Te weak formulation of te initial boundary value problem (1a)-(1c) now reads

5 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS 5 Problem 2 (Weak formulation) Given f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) and u 0 L 2 (Ω), find u W(0,T) suc tat u(0) = u 0 and u (t),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) +a(u(t),v;t) = f(t),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) olds for all test functions v H0 1 (Ω) and for ae t (0,T) Under assumptions (A1)-(A2), Problem 2 as a unique solution u W(0,T) and tere olds u W(0,T) C ( u 0 L 2 (Ω) + f L 2 (0,T;H (Ω)) 1 wit a constant C tat depends only on te bounds for te coefficients and on te domain; see [9] for details Te proof relies on a Gronwall argument and te following properties of te bilinear form Lemma 3 (Continuity and Gårding inequality) Let (A1) and (A2) old Ten tere exist constants C a,α,η > 0 suc tat a(u,v;t) C a u H 1 (Ω) v H 1 (Ω) and a(u,u;t)+η u 2 L 2 (Ω) α u 2 H 1 (Ω), (16) and tese estimates old uniformly for ae t (0,T) and all u,v H 1 (Ω) Proof Te continuity follows from te Caucy-Scwarz inequality Using te lower and upper bounds for te coefficients, we get a(u,u;t) a u 2 L 2 (Ω) + b(t) L u L 2 (Ω) u L 2 (Ω) + c(t) L u 2 L 2 (Ω) Te Gårding inequality ten follows by Young s inequality and coosing te coefficients, for instance, as α = a/2 and η = a/2+ b 2 L /(2a)+ c L 3 Properties of te L 2 -projection onto finite element spaces For te semi-discretization in space, we will employ a standard finite element metod To avoid tecnical difficulties, we assume tat Ω is polyedral and tat it can be partitioned into a set T = {T} of simplicial elements T More precisely, we require tat (A3) T is a regular simplicial partition of Ω, ie, te intersection of two different elements eiter empty, or a vertex, an entire edge, (an entire face) of bot elements; (A4) T is locally quasi-uniform, ie, tere exists a γ > 0 suc tat te diameter T of an element T and te radius ρ T of te largest ball tat can be inscribed in T are related by γ T ρ T T for all elements T Given suc a mes T, we consider te standard finite element space V = {v H 1 0(Ω) : v T P 1 (T) for all T T }, (17) of piecewise linear continuous functions tat vanis on te boundary Furtermore, we denote by π : L 2 (Ω) V te L 2 -ortogonal projection defined by (π u,v ) L 2 (Ω) = (u,v ) L 2 (Ω) for all v V Obviously, π u L 2 (Ω) u L 2 (Ω), ie, te L 2 -projection is stable (a bounded linear operator) on L 2 (Ω) Under te assumption (A3)-(A4), it is owever also stable on H 1 0 (Ω) Lemma 4 (H 1 -stability) Let (A3)-(A4) old Ten π u H 1 (Ω) C u H 1 (Ω) for all u H0 1 (Ω), and te constant C only depends on te domain and te regularity constants of te mes For globally quasi-uniform meses, te result follows directly from te Bramble-Hilbert Lemma and an inverse inequality Te proof for locally quasi-uniform meses as been given in [4]; see [3] for generalizations including iger order approximations We will also require te following approximation error estimates

6 6 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS Lemma 5 Let (A3)-(A4) old Ten u π u H s (Ω) C k s u H k (Ω) for all u H k 0 wit 0 k 2 and 1 s min{1,k} Proof For completeness, we sketc te main steps Te case s = 0 and 0 k 2 is well known and follows from te Bramble-Hilbert lemma and scaling arguments To sow te estimate for s = 1 and 1 k 2, let us denote by π 1 : H1 0 (Ω) V te H 1 -ortogonal projection defined by (π 1 u,v ) H 1 (Ω) = (u,v ) H 1 (Ω) for all v V Recall tat π 1 u u H 1 (Ω) C k 1 u H k (Ω) for 1 k 2, wic is te usual finite element error estimate [5] We can ten proceed by u π u H 1 (Ω) u π π 1 u H 1 (Ω) + π (u π 1 u) H 1 (Ω) (1+C) u π 1 u H 1 (Ω) (1+C)C u H 2 (Ω), were we used te projection property and te H 1 -stability of π, and te approximation properties of π 1 in te last two steps Now assume tat u Hk (Ω) wit 0 k 2 Ten u π u H 1 (Ω) = sup v H 1 0 (Ω) (u π u,v) L 2 (Ω)/ v H 1 (Ω) = sup v H 1 0 (Ω) (u,v π v) L 2 (Ω)/ v H 1 (Ω) C k+1 u H k (Ω) Here we used te approximation property of π for s = 0 Tis yields te estimate for s = 1 and 0 k 2 and completes te proof Corresponding estimates for real valued s and k can be obtained by interpolation arguments Also note tat te dependence on in te above estimates can be localized 4 Galerkin semi-discretization As a first step in te approximation process, let us investigate te semi-discretization in space by finite elements Proceeding in a standard fasion, we define Problem 6 (Semi-discretization) Find u H 1 (0,T;V ) suc tat u (0) = π u 0 and (u (t),v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(u (t),v ;t) = f(t),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) (18) for all test functions v V and ae t (0,T) Te first term could also be written as u (t),v H 1 (Ω) H0 1 (Ω) By coosing a basis for v, te semi-discrete problem yields an ordinary differential equation, and existence and uniqueness follow by te Picard-Lindelöf teorem More precicely, we ave Lemma 7 (Well-posedness and discrete a-priori estimate) Let (A1) (A4) old Ten Problem 6 as a unique solution u H 1 (0,T;V ) and u W(0,T) C( u 0 L 2 (Ω) + f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) Te constant C in tis estimate depends only on te bounds for te coefficients, te domain, and te constants caracterizing te regularity of te mes

7 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS 7 Proof It remains to verify te a-priori estimate By testing te discrete variational problem in te usual way wit v = u (t), one can sow tat 1 d 2dt u (t) 2 L 2 (Ω) + α 2 u (t) 2 H 1 (Ω) η u 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 2α f(t) 2 H 1 (Ω) Here we only used te Gårding inequality (16) and some elementary manipulations Integrating over time and applying a Gronwall argument ten yields te energy estimate u 2 L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) + u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C( u 0 2 L 2 (Ω) + f 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) To obtain te remaining bound for te time derivative, observe tat te H 1 -norm of a discrete function can be expressed as u (t) H 1 (Ω) = sup v H 1 0 (Ω) (u (t),v) L 2 (Ω)/ v H 1 (Ω) = sup v H 1 0 (Ω) (u (t),π v) L 2 (Ω)/ v H 1 (Ω) Using te discrete variational problem wit v = π v furter yields (u (t),π v) L 2 (Ω) = f (t),π v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) a(u (t),π v;t) ( f (t) H 1 (Ω) +C u (t) H 1 (Ω)) π v H 1 (Ω) Since π is bounded on H 1 0 (Ω), we furter ave π v H 1 (Ω) C v H 1 (Ω) Using tese estimates in te expression for te norm of te time derivative finally yields u (t) H 1 (Ω) C ( f (t) H 1 (Ω) + u (t) H 1 (Ω)) Te result ten follows by integration over time and te energy estimate derived before As a direct consequence of te definition and te similarity of te continuous and te semi-discrete variational problems, we obtain Lemma 8 (Galerkin ortogonality) Let u and u denote te solutions of Problems 2 and 6, respectively Ten u(t) u (t),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) +a(u(t) u (t),v ;t) = 0 for almost every t (0,T) and all v V Moreover, π (u(0) u (0)) = 0 We can now turn to te error analysis of te semi-discretization To tis end, we divide te error into an approximation error and a discrete error as u(t) u (t) = (u(t) π u(t))+(π u(t) u (t)) = (i)+(ii) Due to te approximation properties of π, te first term can be bounded readily by Lemma 9 (Approximation error) Let (A3)-(A4) old Ten u π u W(0,T) C ( u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω) + u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω))), and C only depends on te domain and te sape-regularity constants of te mes Using Galerkin ortogonality and te discrete stability of te metod, te discrete error component can ten be bounded as usual by te approximation error as well Lemma 10 (Discrete error) Let (A1) (A4) old Ten π u u W(0,T) C u π u W(0,T) Moreover, te constant C only depends on te domain, te bounds for te coefficients, and te sape-regularity of te mes

8 8 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS Proof Te discrete error e = π u(t) u (t) satisfies (e (t),v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(e (t),v ;t) = (π u (t) u (t),v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(π u(t) u(t),v ;t) = a(π u(t) u(t),v ;t) =: f(t),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω), and also e (0) = π u(t) u (t) = 0 Using te continuity of te bilinear form, we ave f(t) H 1 (Ω) C a u(t) π u(t) H 1 (Ω) By application of Lemma 7 to te equation for te discrete error, we tus obtain e W(0,T) C f L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C u π u W(0,T), and tis already proves te assertion of te lemma By combining te previous two lemmas, we readily obtain our first main result Teorem 11 (Energy-norm error estimate for te semi-discretization) Let (A1)-(A4) old, and let u and u denote te solutions of Problems 2 and 6, respectively Ten u u W(0,T) C ( u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω) + u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω))), and te constant C only depends on te domain, te bounds for te parameters, and te sape regularity of te mes Let us empasize tat te regularity requirements for te solution are natural In view of approximation properties of finite elements, tey are also almost necessary to guarantee te approximation order one in te energy-norm Also note tat no additional regularity of te domain or te coefficients was required for our proofs 5 Time stepping Let us now turn to te time discretization of te semi-discrete Problem 6 by te backward Euler metod For ease of presentation, we only consider ere uniform time steps of size τ = T/N, and terefore set t n = nτ To allow for evaluation of te coefficients and te data at individual points in time, we furter assume tat (A5) a,b,c W 1, (0,T;L (Ω)), and (A6) f H 1 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) Te condition (A5) could be relaxed by using a Discontinuous-Galerkin metod for te time discretization In addition, we require tat te time step is sufficiently small, ie, (A7) τ < 1/η, were η is te constant from te Gårding inequality (16) Tis condition could be avoided by treating te lower order terms in te bilinear form in an explicit manner To facilitate te notation, we will use in te sequel τ u n+1 = 1 τ (un+1 u n ) to denote te discrete time derivatives at t n+1 Applying te backward Euler sceme for te time discretization of Problem 6 ten leads to Problem 12 (Fully discrete sceme) Set u 0 := π u 0 and find u n V for 1 n N, suc tat ( τ u n+1,v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(u n+1,v ;t n+1 ) = f(t n+1 ),v H 1 (Ω) H 1 0 (Ω) (19) olds for all test functions v V

9 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS 9 Te equation (19) amounts to an implicit time-stepping sceme and tat te snapsots u n can be computed recursively Te assumption (A7) guarantees tat te elliptic problem for eac time-step is uniquely solvable More precisely, we ave Lemma 13 (Discrete well-posedness and a-priori estimates) Let (A1)-(A7) old Ten Problem 12 as a unique solution {u n } 0 n N, and N τ( τ u n ( ) n=1 2 H 1 (Ω) + un 2 H (Ω)) C 1 u0 L 2 (Ω) + f H 1 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) Te norm on te left and side is a discrete version of te energy-norm W(0,T) Proof Testing (19) wit u n+1 and proceeding as in te proof of Lemma 7 yields 1 2τ un+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + α 2 un+1 2 H 1 (Ω) 1 2τ un 2 L 2 (Ω) +η un+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 2α f(tn+1 ) 2 H 1 (Ω) Via a Gronwall argument, we ten obtain te discrete energy estimate max 1 n N u n 2 L 2 (Ω) + n τ un 2 H 1 (Ω) C( u 0 2 H 1 (Ω) + n τ f(tn ) 2 ) H 1 (Ω)) Due to condition (A5), te last term can be estimated via Talyor expansion by n τ f(tn+1 ) 2 H 1 (Ω) C( f 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 f 2 ) L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) In order to derive te estimate for τ u n, recall tat τ u n+1 H 1 (Ω) = sup v H 1 0 (Ω) ( τ u n+1,π v) L 2 (Ω)/ v H 1 (Ω) Using v = π v as a test function in te discrete sceme (19), we furter obtain ( τ u n+1,π v) L 2 (Ω) = f(t n+1 ),π v H 1 (Ω) H0 1 (Ω) a(un+1,π v;t n+1 ) C( f(t n+1 ) H 1 (Ω) +C u n+1 H (Ω)) 1 π v H 1 (Ω) Using te stability of te projection π, tis allows to estimate te discrete time derivative by known terms Te assertion ten follows from te previous estimates Let us now turn to te derivation of error estimates for te full discretization defined in Problem 12 Similar as in te previous section, we use an error decomposition into an approximation error and a discrete error by u(t n ) u n = (u(tn ) π u(t n ))+(π u(t n ) u n ) = (i)+(ii) Te first component can be bounded by te approximation estimates for π as follows Lemma 14 (Approximation error) Let (A3)-(A4) old Ten N τ( τ u(t n ) τ π u(t n ) 2 n=1 H 1 (Ω) + u(tn ) π u(t n ) 2 ) H 1 (Ω) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H (Ω))) 1 Proof Using Taylor expansion in time and te properties of te projection, we obtain n τ τu(t n ) τ π u(t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) C u π u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω))

10 10 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS In a similar manner, we obtain for te second term n τ u(tn ) π u(t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) C ( u π u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 u π u 2 ) L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C ( 2 u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +τ 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) Te assertion ten follows by summing up te two contributions Te discrete stability of te sceme (19) allows us to bound te discrete error as follows Lemma 15 (Discrete error) Let (A1)-(A7) old Ten N τ( τ π u(t n ) τ u n n=1 2 H 1 (Ω) + π u(t n ) u n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H (Ω))) 1 Proof Let e n = τπ u(t n ) u n denote te discrete error Ten τ (e n+1,v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(e n+1,v ;t n+1 ) = ( τ u(t n+1 ) u (t n+1 ),v ) L 2 (Ω) +a(π u(t n+1 ) u(t n+1 ),v ;t n+1 ) Wit similar arguments as in te proof of Lemma 13, we ten obtain max 1 n N en 2 L 2 (Ω) + n τ en 2 H 1 (Ω) C n τ( τ u(t n ) u (t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) + π u(t n ) u(t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω)) Using Taylor expansion, te first term on te rigt and side can be furter bounded by n τ τu(t n ) u (t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) τ2 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)), In a similar way, we obtain for te second term τ π u(t n+1 ) u(t n+1 ) 2 n H 1 (Ω) C ( π u u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 π u u 2 ) L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (t n,t n+1 ;H 2 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (t n,t n+1 ;H 1 (Ω))) Here we employed Taylor expansions and te approximation and stability properties of te projection π By combination of te two estimates we obtain max 1 n N π u(t n ) u n 2 L 2 (Ω) + n τ π u(t n ) u n 2 H 1 (Ω) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) Using te caracterization of te H 1 -norm for finite element functions, te definition of te discrete sceme (19), Galerkin-ortogonality, and some basic manipulations, we can furter bound te discrete time derivative terms by n τ τπ u(t n ) u n 2 H 1 (Ω) C n τ( τ u(t n ) u (t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) + u(t n ) π u(t n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) + un π u(t n ) H 1 (Ω)) Te first and second term on te rigt and side can be estimated as above, and te tird term is an approximation error wic as already been bounded

11 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS 11 Summing up te two estimates for approximation error and te discrete error yields Lemma 16 (Discrete energy-norm error estimate) Let (A1)-(A7) old Ten N τ( τ u(t n+1 ) τ u n+1 n=1 2 H 1 (Ω) + u(tn+1 ) u n ) 2 H 1 (Ω) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +2 u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) +τ 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) To finally obtain an estimate in te energy-norm W(0,T), let us denote by ũ (t) = tn+1 t t n+1 t nun + t tn t n+1 t nun+1, t n t t n+1, (20) te linear interpolant of te fully discrete approximations u n in time Using te definition of ũ and simple manipulations, we now obtain te second main result of tis paper Teorem 17 (Error estimate for te full discretization) Let (A1)-(A7) old and u be sufficiently smoot Ten u ũ W(0,T) C ( 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) +2 u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) +τ 2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) +τ2 u 2 L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω))) Like in te previous estimates, te constant C ere only depends on te domain, on te bounds for te coefficients, and on te sape regularity of te mes Let us empasize tat in view of te bounds (5) and (6), te regularity requirements for te solution are reasonable and tat te rates are optimal wit respect to te approximation properties of te discretization Also note, tat no additional smootness assumptions for te domain or on te spatial regularity of te parameters were required 6 Numerical tests For illustration of te benefits of our results, let us sortly present two irregular test problems, for wic te standard error estimates (7) and (11) cannot be applied directly, wile our estiamtes (10) and (12) still provide order optimal error estimates 61 Lack of smootness Let us consider te one-dimensional eat equation t u(x,t) = u xx (x,t)+f(x,t), 0 < x < 1, 0 < t < 1, wit omogeneous initial and boundary conditions Here t u = u is used for te time derivative synonymously We assume tat te exact solution as te form u(x,t) = n 1 u nsin(nπx)sin(n 2 πt) wit u n = (1+n 2 ) 5/4 ε Te parameter ε > 0 is assumed to be small Te special form of te solution allows to compute various norms of u analytically and, in particular, to sow tat u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)) and u L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) At te same time, one can easily ceck tat u / L (0,T;H 1+3ε (Ω)) and u / L 1 (0,T;H 3ε (Ω)) Due to lack of regularity, te standard a-priori estimate (7) for te semi-discretization terefore cannot be applied, in contrast to our energy-norm estimate (10), wic yields u u L (0,T;L 2 (0,π)) C u u W(0,T) C

12 12 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS Note tat, since u / L (0,T;H 1+3ε (Ω)), te rate of convergence for te error in te norm of L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) cannot be improved substantially ere For a solution of te form u(x,t) = n 1 u nsin(nπx)sin(n 3/2 πt) wit u n = (1+n 2 ) 5/4 ε, one can see in a similar manner tat u L 2 (0,T;H 2 (Ω)), u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)), and u L 2 (0,T;H 1 (Ω)) However, u / L 2 (0,T;L 2 (Ω)), and terefore te standard estimate (11) for te full discretization cannot be applied due to lack of regularity On te oter and, our error estimate (12) for te full discretization still allows to guarantee u(t n ) u (t n ) L 2 (Ω) u ũ L (L 2 (Ω)) C u ũ W(0,T) C(+τ) Note tat by interpolation one as at least u L (0,T;H 3/2 ) ere, so te rate of convergence for te error u(t) u (t) L 2 (Ω) in terms of te messize may possibly be improved For sufficiently smoot solutions, te estimates of [23, 25, 20] would in fact predict te optimal rate u(t) u (t) L 2 (Ω) C( 2 +τ) ere 62 Discontinuous parameters As a second test case, we consider a termal diffusion problem on a square covered by an inomogeneous medium Te governing system reads t u(x,t) = div(a(x) u(x,t))+f(x,t), x ( 1,1) 2, 0 < t < 1/2 As before, we presecribe omogeneous initial and boundary conditions Moreover, we assume tat te diffusion parameter as te form { 1, x 1 x 2 > 0, a(x) = ε, x 1 x 2 < 0, were ε is some small positive constant It is well-known [16], tat te associated elliptic operator Lu = div(a u) for suc a problem is rater irregular More precisely: for every β > 0, one can coose an ε > 0, suc tat L is not an isomorpism from H 1+β 0 (Ω) to H 1+β (Ω) In particular, te maximal value of β, suc tat R u u L 2 (Ω) C β u H 1 (Ω) (21) olds for arbitrary u H0 1 (Ω) can be made arbitrarily small Note tat te standard estimate(7) does not apply directly ere, since only (21) olds instead of (9) A generalization of te error estimate to non-smoot problems owever still allows to guarantee u u L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) C 2β, (22) provided tat te solution u is sufficiently smoot; see [20, Sec 19] for details Since β can be aribtrarily small in general, tis estimate is igly unsatisfactory Our energy-norm estimate (10) for te semi-discrete approximation owever still applies and yields u u L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) C u u W(0,T) C, provided tat te solution as te required smootness Tis results old regardless of te spatial regularity of te diffusion parameter a( ) For illustration of te validity of tis teoretical result, we also provide some results of numerical tests To verify te convergence rate for te semi-discretization, we integrated te semi-discrete problem numerically in time wit a very accurate time stepping sceme Te resulting errors obtained on a sequence of uniformly refined meses are summarized in Table 1 As predicted by te teory, we observe convergence of te energy-norm error wit first order Te numerical tests actually yield a better convergence rate for te error in te norm of L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)),

13 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS rate e e Table 1 Errors e 1 = u u W(0,T) and e 2 = u u L (0,T;L 2 (Ω)) obtained on a sequence of uniformly refined meses wit messize wic in fact is te optimal one from an approximation point of view We owever cannot give a full explanation for tis observation yet 7 Summary Various results concerning te numerical analysis of Galerkin approximations for parabolic problems are available in te literature; see [20] for a compreensive overview and furter references Tis paper contributes to tis active field wit providing error estimates in te energy-norm u W(0,T) = u L 2 (0,T;H 1 )+ u L 2 (0,T;H 1 ), wic seems to be a natural coice from an analytic point of view, but wic as not been studied intensively in previous works In tis manuscript, we considered only low order discretizations of a simple model problem Te general approac is owever applicable to muc wider class of problems and discretization scemes Morover, our arguments may also be fruiteful for te derivation of a-priori error estimates in oter norms [13, 19, 22, 24, 26] and for te derivation of a-posteriori error estimates [7, 8, 10, 15] Our main motivation to consider te energy-norm, was to overcome a sub-optimality of te standard estimates (7) and (11) concerning te regularity requirements for te solution, for te domain, and for te parameters Tis sub-optimality is partly due to a loose andling of time derivatives in te estimates, and, on te oter and, stems from te use of te Ritz projector in te error decomposition, wic requires duality arguments and regularity of te underlying elliptic problem We terefore utilize ere te L 2 -projection in our error splitting and carefully estimate time derivatives in te H 1 -norm Inour presentation, wefocused ona-priori error estimates in teenergy-norm W(0,T), and we could establis optimal convergence rates under minimal regularity assumptions By continuous embedding, we could also obtain estimates pointwise in time wit te same convergence rates In our numerical experiments, we observed a better convergence of te error in te norm of L (0,T;L 2 ) for a particular problem, wic does not follow directly from our results For sufficiently regular problems, tis better convergence is well explained by te standard results [20, 25, 23] A justification for te case of certain irregular problems is owever missing Acknowledgements Te autor would like to gratefully acknowledge support by te German Researc Foundation (DFG) via grants GSC 233, IRTG 1529, and TRR 154 References [1] J P Aubin Beaviour of te error of te approximate solution of boundary value problems for linear elliptic operators by Galerkin s and finite difference metods Ann Scuola Norm Sup Pisa, 21: , 1967

14 14 ENERGY NORM ESTIMATES FOR PARABOLIC PROBLEMS [2] I Babuska and S Onimus A posteriori error estimation for te semidiscrete finite elements metod of parabolic differential equations Comput Metods Appl Mec Engrg, 190: , 2001 [3] R E Bank and H Yserentant On te H 1 -stability of te L 2-projection onto finite element spaces Numer Mat, 126: , 2014 [4] J H Bramble, J E Pasciak, and O Steinbac On te stability of te L 2 projection in H 1 (Ω) Mat Comp, 71: , 2002 [5] S C Brenner and L R Scott Te Matematical Teory of Finite Element Metods Springer, 2008 [6] T Dupont L 2 error estimates for projection metods for parabolic equations in approximating domains In Matematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations, pages Academic Press, New York, San Fransisco, London, 1974 [7] K Eriksson and C Jonson Adaptive finite element metods for parabolic problems I A linear model problem SIAM J Numer Anal, 28:43 77, 1991 [8] K Eriksson and C Jonson Adaptive finite element metods for parabolic problems II Optimal error estimates in L (L 2 ) and L (L ) SIAM J Numer Anal, 32: , 1995 [9] L C Evans Partial Differential Equations, volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Matematics American Matematical Society, Rode Island, 1998 [10] Emmanuil H Georgoulis, Omar Lakkis, and Jua M Virtanen A posteriori error control for discontinuous Galerkin metods for parabolic problems SIAM J Numer Anal, 49: , 2011 [11] C Jonson, Y Y Nie, and V Tomee An a posteriori error estimate and adaptive timestep control for a backward Euler discretization of a parabolic problem SIAM J Numer Anal, 27: , 1990 [12] J Douglas Jr and T Dupont Galerkin metods for parabolic equations SIAM J Numer Anal, 7: , 1970 [13] J Douglas Jr and T Dupont H 1 Galerkin metods for problems involving several space variables In J J H Miller, editor, Topics in Numerical Analysis III, pages Academic Press, London, 1977 [14] J Douglas Jr, T Dupont, and M F Weeler H 1 -Galerkin metods for te Laplace and eat equations In C de Boor, editor, Matematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations, pages Academic Press, New York, 1974 [15] C Makridakis and R H Nocetto Elliptic reconstruction and a posteriori error estimates for parabolic problems SIAM J Numer Anal, 41: , 2003 [16] S Nicaise and A M Sandig General interface problems I-II Mat Met Appl Sci, 17: , 1994 [17] J A Nitsce Ein Kriterium für die Quasioptimalität des Ritzscen Verfarens Numer Mat, 11: , 1968 [18] V Tomee Some convergence results for Galerkin metods for parabolic boundary value problems In C de Boor, editor, Matematical Aspects of Finite Elements, pages Academic Press, New York, 1974 [19] V Tomee Negative norm estimates and superconvergence in Galerkin metods for parabolic problems Mat Comp, 34:93 113, 1980 [20] V Tomee Galerkin Finite Element Metods for Parabolic Problems 2nd ed Number 25 in Springer Series in Computational Matematics Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006 [21] V Tomee and L B Walbin On Galerkin metods in semilinear parabolic problems SIAM J Numer Anal, 12: , 1975 [22] V Tomee and L B Walbin Maximum-norm stability and error estimates in Galerkin metods for parabolic equations in one space variable Numer Mat, 41: , 1983 [23] R S Varga Functional Analysis and Approximation Teory in Numerical Analysis CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Matematics SIAM, Piladelpia, 1971 [24] M F Weeler L estimates of optimal order for Galerkin metods for one dimensional second order parabolic and yperbolic equations SIAM J Numer Anal, 10: , 1973 [25] M F Weeler Apriori L 2 error estimates for Galerkin approximations to parabolic partial differential equations SIAM J Numer Anal, 10: , 1973 [26] M F Weeler An H 1 Galerkin metod for a parabolic problem in a single space variable SIAM J Numer Anal, 12: , 1975