arxiv: v1 [math.na] 17 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 Adapted numerical methods for the numerical solution of the Poisson equation with L 2 boundary data in non-convex domains Thomas Apel Serge Nicaise Johannes Pfefferer arxiv: v [math.na] 7 Feb 26 February 8, 26 Abstract The very weak solution of the Poisson equation with L 2 boundary data is defined by the method of transposition. The finite element solution with regularized boundary data converges in the L 2 (Ω-norm with order /2 in convex domains but has a reduced convergence order in non-convex domains although the solution remains to be contained in H /2 (Ω. The reason is a singularity in the dual problem. In this paper we propose and analyze, as a remedy, both a standard finite element method with mesh grading and a dual variant of the singular complement method. The error order /2 is retained in both cases also with non-convex domains. Numerical experiments confirm the theoretical results. Key Words Elliptic boundary value problem, very weak formulation, finite element method, mesh grading, singular complement method, discretization error estimate AMS subject classification Introduction 65N3; 65N5 In this paper we consider the boundary value problem y = f in Ω, y = u on Γ = Ω, (. with right hand side f H (Ω and boundary data u L 2 (Γ. We assume Ω R 2 to be a bounded polygonal domain with boundary Γ. Such problems arise in optimal This paper is an extension of our previous paper []. The work was partially supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, IGDK 754. thomas.apel@unibw.de, Institut für Mathematik und Bauinformatik, Universität der Bundeswehr München, D Neubiberg, Germany snicaise@univ-valenciennes.fr, LAMAV, Institut des Sciences et Techniques de Valenciennes, Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut Cambrésis, B.P. 3, 5933 Valenciennes Cedex, France pfefferer@ma.tum.de, Lehrstuhl für Optimalsteuerung, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 3, D Garching bei München, Germany

2 control when the Dirichlet boundary control is considered in L 2 (Γ only, see for example [8, 2, 24]. For boundary data u L 2 (Γ we cannot expect a weak solution y H (Ω. Therefore we define a very weak solution by the method of transposition which goes back at least to Lions and Magenes [23]: Find y L 2 (Ω : (y, v Ω = (u, n v Γ (f, v Ω v V (.2 with (w, v G := G wv denoting the L2 (G scalar product or an appropriate duality product. In our previous paper [2] we showed that the appropriate space V for the test functions is V := H (Ω H (Ω with H (Ω := {v H (Ω : v L 2 (Ω}. (.3 In particular it ensures n v L 2 (Γ for v V such that the formulation (.2 is well defined. We proved the existence of a unique solution y L 2 (Ω for u L 2 (Γ and f H (Ω, and that the solution is even in H /2 (Ω. The method of transposition is used in different variants also in [2, 5,,, 8, 24]. Consider now the discretization of the boundary value problem. Let T h be a family of quasi-uniform, conforming finite element meshes, and introduce the finite element spaces Y h := {v h H (Ω : v h T P T T h }, Y h := Y h H (Ω, Y h := Y h Ω. Since the boundary datum u is in general not contained in Yh we have to approximate it by u h Yh, e. g. by using L2 (Γ-projection or quasi-interpolation. In this way, the boundary datum is even regularized since u h H /2 (Γ. Hence we can consider a regularized (weak solution in Y h := {v H (Ω : v Γ = u h }, y h Y h : ( y h, v Ω = (f, v Ω v H (Ω. (.4 The finite element solution y h is now searched in Y h := Y h classical way: find Y h and is defined in the y h Y h : ( y h, v h Ω = (f, v h Ω v h Y h. (.5 The same discretization was derived previously by Berggren [5] from a different point of view. In [2] we showed that the discretization error estimate ( y y h L 2 (Ω Ch s h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ holds for s = /2 if the domain is convex; this is a slight improvement of the result of Berggren, and the convex case is completely treated. In the case of non-convex domains this convergence order is reduced although the very weak solution y is also in H /2 (Ω; the finite element method does not lead to the best approximation in L 2 (Ω. In order to describe the result we assume for simplicity that Ω has only one corner with interior angle ω (π, 2π. We proved in [2] the convergence order s = λ /2 ε, where 2

3 λ := π/ω and ε > arbitrarily small, and showed by numerical experiments that the order of almost λ /2 is sharp. Note that s for ω 2π. This is the state of the art for this kind of problem, and our aim is to devise methods to retain the convergence order s = /2 in the non-convex case. In order to explain the reduction in the convergence order and our first remedy, let us first mention that we have to modify the Aubin-Nitsche method to derive L 2 (Ω-error estimates. The first reason is that our problem has no weak solution, only the dual problem, v z V : (ϕ, v z Ω = (z, ϕ Ω ϕ L 2 (Ω (.6 has. The second reason is that the solution y has inhomogeneous Dirichlet data such that an estimate of the L 2 (Γ-interpolation error of n v z is needed. The H (Ω-error of a standard finite element method is of order one in convex domains but reduces to s = λ ε in the case of non-convex domains; moreover, the order of the L 2 (Γ- interpolation error of n v z reduces from /2 to λ /2 ε. It is known for a long time that locally refined (graded meshes and augmenting of the finite element space by singular functions are appropriate to retain the optimal convergence order for such problems, see, e. g., [4, 7, 2, 25, 27, 28]. We use these strategies in this paper. The novelty is that the adapted methods act now implicitly and occur essentially in the analysis for the dual problem. This sounds particularly simple in the case of mesh grading. However, the convergence proof in [2] contains not only interpolation error estimates for the dual solution and its normal derivative (which are improved now but also the application of an inverse inequality which gives a too pessimistic result if used unchanged in the case of graded meshes. We prove in Section 2 a sharp result by using a weighted norm in intermediate steps. Note we suggest a strong mesh grading with grading parameter µ (the parameter is explained in Section 2 for ω 2π because of the interpolation error estimate of n v z ; the numerical tests show that weaker grading is not sufficient. The basic idea of the dual singular function method, see [7], or the singular complement method, see [2], is to augment the approximation space for the solution by one (or more, if necessary singular function of type r λ sin(λθ and the space of test functions by a dual function of type r λ sin(λθ, where r, θ are polar coordinates at the concave corner. In this paper we do it the other way round and compute an approximate solution such that the error estimate z h Y h Span{r λ sin(λθ}, y z h L 2 (Ω Ch /2 ( h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ can be shown. Note that the original singular complement method augments the standard finite element space with a function which is part of the representation of the solution. Here, we complement the finite element space with r λ sin(λθ H /2 (Ω, and although y H /2 (Ω this has an effect on the approximation order in the L 2 (Ω-norm. 3

4 This makes the method different from the original singular complement method, [2], and we call it dual singular complement method. Numerical experiments in Section 4 confirm the theoretical results. Finally in this introduction, we would like to note that higher order finite elements are not useful here since the solution has low regularity. The extension of our methods to three-dimensional domains should be possible in the case of mesh grading (at considerable technical expenses in the analysis but is not straightforward in the case of the dual singular complement method since the space V \ H 2 (Ω is in general not finite dimensional, see [3, 4] for the Fourier singular complement method to treat special domains. Curved boundaries could be treated at the prize of using non-affine finite elements, see, e. g., [6, 8, 8]. 2 Graded meshes Recall from the introduction that Ω R 2 is a bounded polygonal domain with boundary Γ, and we consider here the case that Ω has exactly one corner (called singular corner with interior angle ω (π, 2π. The convex case was already treated in [2] and the case of more than one non-convex corners can be treated similarly since corner singularities are local phenomena. Without loss of generality we can assume that the singular corner is located at the origin of the coordinate system, and that one boundary edge is contained in the positive x -axis. We recall from [2, 22] that the weak solution of the boundary value problem v = g in Ω, v = on Γ = Ω, (2. with g L 2 (Ω is not contained in H 2 (Ω but in H (Ω H (Ω = ( H 2 (Ω H (Ω Span{ξ(r r λ sin(λθ}, (2.2 ξ being a cut-off function, while r and θ denote polar coordinates at the singular corner. Let the finite element mesh T h = {T } be graded with the mesh grading parameter µ (, ], i. e., the element size h T = diam T and the distance r T of the element T to the singular corner are related by Define the finite element spaces c h /µ h T c 2 h /µ for r T =, c hr µ T h T c 2 hr µ T for r T >. (2.3 Y h = {v h H (Ω : v h T P T T h }, Y h = Y h H (Ω, Y h = Y h Ω, (2.4 and let the regularized boundary datum u h Yh H/2 (Γ be defined by the L 2 (Γ- projection Π h u or by the Carstensen interpolant C h u, see [9]. To define the latter let N Γ be the set of nodes of the triangulation on the boundary, and set C h u = Γ π x (uλ x with π x (u = uλ x x N Γ Γ λ = (u, λ x Γ, x (, λ x Γ 4

5 where λ x is the standard hat function related to x. As already outlined in [2], the advantages of the interpolant in comparison with the L 2 -projection are its local definition and the property u [a, b] C h u [a, b], see [7]; a disadvantage may be that C h u h u h for piecewise linear u h. With these regularized boundary data we define the regularized weak solution y h Y h := {v H (Ω : v Γ = u h } by (.4. Lemma 2.. The effect of the regularization of the boundary datum can be estimated by ( y y h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Ω + h /2 f H (Ω if the mesh is graded with parameter µ < 2λ. Proof. In view of y y h L 2 (Ω = (y y h, z Ω sup z L 2 (Ω,z z L 2 (Ω we have to estimate (y y h, z Ω. To this end, let z L 2 (Ω be an arbitrary function, let v z V be defined by (ϕ, v z Ω = (z, ϕ Ω ϕ L 2 (Ω, (2.5 see also (.6. Since the weak regularized solution y h Y h := {v H (Ω : v Γ = u h } defined by (.4 is also a very weak solution, we get with (.2 and (2.5 (y h, v Ω = (u h, n v Γ (f, v Ω v V (2.6 (y y h, z Ω = (u u h, n v z Γ. If u h is the L 2 (Γ-projection Π h u of u we can continue with (u u h, n v z Γ = (u u h, n v z Π h ( n v z Γ = (u, n v z Π h ( n v z Γ u L 2 (Γ n v z Π h ( n v z L 2 (Γ u L 2 (Γ n v z C h ( n v z L 2 (Γ = u L 2 (Γ ( n v z π x ( n v z λ x x N Γ ( c u L 2 (Γ n v z π x ( n v z 2 L 2 (ω x x N Γ L 2 (Γ /2. 5

6 If u h is the Carstensen interpolant of u, there holds ( (u C h u, n v z Γ = (u π x uλ x, n v z Γ = (u π x (u, ( n v z λ x Γ x N Γ x N Γ = (u π x (u, ( n v z π x ( n v z λ x Γ x N Γ u L 2 (ω x n v z π x ( n v z L 2 (ω x x N Γ ( /2, c u L 2 (Γ n v z π x ( n v z 2 L 2 (ω x x N Γ i. e., in both cases we have to estimate x N Γ n v z π x ( n v z 2 L 2 (ω x. To this end we notice that v z V = ( H 2 (Ω H (Ω Span{ξ(r r λ sin(λθ}, and consequently N n v z V Γ = j= (Γ j Span{ξ(r r λ }, H /2 see also the discussion in [2]. This means that we can split n v z = αξ(r r λ + N j= w j with w j H /2 (Γ j and α + N j= w j H /2 (Γ j =: nv z VΓ c v z V := v z L 2 (Ω = z L 2 (Ω. By standard estimates we obtain w j π x w j 2 L 2 (ω x x N Γ /2 ch /2 w j H /2 (Γ j ( /2 such that it remains to show that x N ξ(r rλ Γ π x (ξ(r r λ 2 L 2 (ω x ch /2 ( /2 to conclude x NΓ nv z π x ( n v z 2 L 2 (ω x ch /2 z L 2 (Ω. Denote by N Γ,reg N Γ the set of nodes where ω x does not contain the singular corner. We can estimate ξ(r r λ π x (ξ(r r λ 2 L 2 (ω c x h 2 x r λ 2 2 L 2 (ω x x N Γ,reg x N Γ,reg ch rx µ x N Γ,reg diamω r x r λ 2 2 L 2 (ω ch x r 2 µ+2(λ 2 dr = ch 6

7 for µ < 2λ. For the three nodes x N Γ \ N Γ,reg we cannot use the H (ω x -regularity of r λ but there holds simply ξ(r r λ π x (ξ(r r λ L 2 (ω x c r λ L 2 (ω x h λ x h /2 x h (λ/2/µ h /2 for µ < 2λ. This finishes the proof. We consider now a lifting B h u h Y h defined by the nodal values as follows: { ( B h u h u h (x, for all nodes x Γ, (x = for all nodes x Ω. (2.7 The function y h and its finite element approximation y h Y h = Y h Y h are now defined by y h = y f + B h u h + ỹ h as well as y h = y fh + B h u h + ỹ h, (2.8 where y f, ỹ h H (Ω and y fh, ỹ h Y h satisfy ( y f, v Ω = (f, v Ω v H (Ω, (2.9 ( y fh, v h Ω = (f, v h Ω v h Y h. (2. ( ỹ h, v Ω = ( ( B h u h, v Ω v H (Ω, (2. ( ỹ h, v h Ω = ( ( B h u h, v h Ω v h Y h. (2.2 In order to estimate y h y h L 2 (Ω we estimate y f y fh L 2 (Ω and ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω. Lemma 2.2. The error in approximating y f satisfies if the mesh is graded with parameter µ < λ. y f y fh L 2 (Ω ch f H (Ω. Note that the condition µ < λ is weaker than the condition µ < 2λ from Lemma 2. since λ <. Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 2., let z L 2 (Ω be an arbitrary function, let v z V be defined via (2.5, and let v zh Y h be the Ritz projection of v z. By the definitions (2.9 and (2. and using the Galerkin orthogonality we get (y f y fh, z Ω = ( (y f y fh, v z Ω = ( (y f y fh, (v z v zh Ω = ( y f, (v z v zh Ω y f L 2 (Ω (v z v zh L 2 (Ω By using standard a priori estimates we obtain with grading µ < λ and hence with the assertion of the lemma. y f L 2 (Ω f H (Ω, (v z v zh L 2 (Ω ch z L 2 (Ω, y f y fh L 2 (Ω = (y f y fh, z Ω sup z L 2 (Ω,z z L 2 (Ω 7

8 In order to estimate ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω, we divide the domain Ω into subsets Ω J, i.e., Ω = I Ω J, J= where Ω J := {x : d J+ x d J } for J =,..., I, Ω I := {x : x d I } and Ω := Ω\ I J= Ω J. The radii d J are set to 2 J and the index I is chosen such that d I = 2 I = c I h /µ (2.3 with a constant c I > exactly specified later on. In addition we define the extended domains Ω J and Ω J by Ω J := Ω J Ω J Ω J+ and Ω J := Ω J Ω J Ω J+, respectively, with the obvious modifications for J =, and J = I, I. Lemma 2.3. With σ := r + d I there holds the estimate σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Γ. Proof. We start by rearranging terms, i.e., σ ( µ/2 ỹ h 2 L 2 (Ω = σ µ ỹ h ỹ h Ω = ỹ h (ỹ h σ µ Ω Ω ỹ h ỹ h σ µ. (2.4 For the first term in (2.4 we conclude according to (2. ỹ h (ỹ h σ µ = ( B h u h (ỹ h σ µ Ω Ω = σ µ ( B h u h ỹ h ỹ h ( B h u h σ µ Ω ( Ω σ ( µ/2 ( B h u h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω + σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω, (2.5 where we used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and σ µ = ( µσ µ (cos θ, sin θ T. (2.6 Having in mind the decomposition of the domain in subdomains Ω J, an application of the Poincaré inequality yields for the latter term in (2.5 I σ ( µ/2 ỹ h 2 L 2 (Ω = σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω J σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω J c J= I J= I J= d ( µ/2 J ỹ h L 2 (Ω J σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω J d ( µ/2 J ỹ h L 2 (Ω J σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω J c σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω, 8

9 where we used d J σ for x Ω J twice and the discrete Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Consequently, we get from (2.5 ỹ h (ỹ h σ µ c σ ( µ/2 ( B h u h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω. (2.7 Ω Similarly to the above steps, we get for the second term in (2.4 by means of (2.6 ỹ h ỹ h σ µ σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω Ω ( σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h + B h u h L 2 (Ω + σ ( µ/2 Bh u h L 2 (Ω, (2.8 such that we infer from (2.4, (2.7 and (2.8 that ( σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω c σ ( µ/2 Bh u h L 2 (Ω + σ ( µ/2 ( B h u h L 2 (Ω + σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h + B h u h L 2 (Ω. (2.9 Due to the definition of B h and the definition of the element size h T in case of graded meshes we easily obtain by means of the norm equivalence in finite dimensional spaces that σ ( µ/2 Bh u h L 2 (Ω + σ ( µ/2 ( B h u h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u h L 2 (Γ ch /2 u L 2 (Γ, (2.2 where we employed the stability of u h in L 2 (Γ in the last step. Having in mind the definition (2.3 of d I, we conclude by applying [2, Lemma 2.8] together with [2, Remark 2.7] that σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h + B h u h L 2 (Ω d µ/2 I σ /2 (ỹ h + B h u h L 2 (Ω ch /2 r /2 (ỹ h + B h u h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u h L 2 (Γ ch /2 u L 2 (Γ, (2.2 where we used again the stability of u h. The estimates (2.9, (2.2 and (2.2 end the proof. Lemma 2.4. Let σ := r + d I and µ (, 2λ. Then there is the estimate σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Γ. Proof. Let v H (Ω be the weak solution of v = σ ( µ (ỹ h ỹ h in Ω, v = on Γ, which, according to Theorem 2.5 of [6], has the regularity v V 2,2 ( µ/2(ω (as µ < 2λ and hence 2 ( µ > λ and satisfies the a priori estimate v V 2,2 ( µ/2 (Ω c σ ( µ (ỹ h ỹ h V,2 ( µ/2 (Ω c σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω, (2.22 9

10 where we use the weighted Sobolev space V k,2 β (Ω := {v D : v V k,2 < } with (Ω k v 2 := v 2 V k,2 β (Ω V j,2 (Ω, v V j,2 β k+j β (Ω := rβ j v L 2 (Ω. j= β Then we obtain by using integration by parts and the Galerkin orthogonality σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h 2 L 2 (Ω = (ỹh ỹ h, v Ω I = ( (ỹ h ỹ h, (v I h v Ω = ( (ỹ h ỹ h, (v I h v ΩJ J= I (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J (v I h v L 2 (Ω J. (2.23 J= By employing standard interpolation error estimates on graded meshes we obtain for any µ (, ] (v I h v L 2 (Ω J chd ( µ/2 J v V 2,2 ( µ/2 (Ω J, (2.24 where the constant c is independent of c I, see e.g. [3, Lemma 3.7] or [26, Lemma 3.58]. In fact, the constant is essentially the one appearing in the local, elementwise interpolation error estimate. Note that this kind of independence will be crucial when applying a kick back argument further below. Local finite element error estimates from [9, Theorem 3.4] yield (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J c min v h Y h ( (ỹ h v h L 2 (Ω J + d J ỹ h v h L 2 (Ω J + c d J ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J. By choosing v h and by applying the Poincaré inequality, we conclude ( (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J c ỹ h L 2 (Ω J + ỹ h ỹ h d L 2 (Ω J J ( c ỹ h L 2 (Ω J + d ( µ/2 J σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J, (2.25 where we used d J σ for x Ω J. Consequently, we get from (2.23 (2.25 σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h 2 L 2 (Ω I ( c h σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω J + hd µ J σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω J v V 2,2 ( µ/2 (Ω J J= ( c h σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω + c µ I σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω v V 2,2 (Ω, ( µ/2

11 where we again employed d J σ for x Ω J, hd µ J c µ I, which holds due to the definition (2.3 of d I, and the discrete Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. For µ (, 2λ we infer by the a priori estimate (2.22 that ( σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω c h σ ( µ/2 ỹ h L 2 (Ω + c µ I σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω. By choosing c I large enough we can kick back the second term in the above inequality such that Lemma 2.3 yields the desired result. Theorem 2.5. For µ (, 2λ we get y y h L 2 (Ω ch /2 ( u L 2 (Ω + h /2 f H (Ω. (2.26 Proof. Due to the boundedness of σ ( µ/2 independent of h for all µ (, ] we obtain from Lemma 2.4 ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω σ ( µ/2 L (Ω σ ( µ/2 (ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Γ. (2.27 In view of (2.8 we get by using the triangle inequality y y h L 2 (Ω y y h L 2 (Ω + y f y fh L 2 (Ω + ỹ h ỹ h L 2 (Ω. These three terms are bounded by the right hand side of (2.26 in Lemmata 2. and 2.2 as well as in ( The dual singular complement method 3. Analytical background and regularization Using the notation of the previous section, we recall that the splitting (2.2 implies that H (Ω H (Ω = ( H 2 (Ω H (Ω Span{ξ(r r λ sin(λθ}, R := { v : v H 2 (Ω H (Ω}, is a closed subspace of L 2 (Ω. It is shown in [22, Sect. 2.3] that with the dual singular function L 2 (Ω = R Span{p s }, (3. p s = r λ sin(λθ + p s (3.2 where p s H (Ω is chosen such that the decomposition (3. is orthogonal for the L 2 (Ω inner product. Therefore, the dual singular function p s is a solution of w L 2 (Ω : ( v, w = v H 2 (Ω H (Ω, (3.3

12 which proves the non-uniqueness of the solution of (3.3. This is the dual property to the non-existence of a solution of (2. in H 2 (Ω H (Ω, see [22, Introduction]. Due to (3. we can split any L 2 (Ω-function into L 2 (Ω-orthogonal parts. To this end denote by Π R and Π ps the orthogonal projections on R and on Span{p s }, respectively, i.e., for g L 2 (Ω, it is g = Π R g + Π ps g where Since p s L 2 (Ω there exists Π ps g = α(g p s with α(g = (g, p s Ω p s 2, L 2 (Ω Π R g = g Π ps g. φ s H (Ω H (Ω : φ s = p s, (3.4 see also Section 3.3 for more details on φ s. For the moment we assume that p s and φ s are explicitly known; hence the decomposition g = Π R g + α(g p s can be computed once g is given. Computable approximations of p s and φ s are discussed in Section 3.3. Now we come back to problem (.2 and decompose its solution y in the form y = Π R y + α(y p s. (3.5 From the decomposition (3. we see that problem (.2 is equivalent to (y, p s Ω = (u, n φ s Γ + (f, φ s Ω, (y, v Ω = (u, n v Γ (f, v Ω and with the orthogonal splitting (3.5 to α(y (p s, p s Ω = (u, n φ s Γ + (f, φ s Ω, v H 2 (Ω H (Ω (Π R y, v Ω = (u, n v Γ (f, v Ω v H 2 (Ω H (Ω. The first equation directly yields α(y, namely α(y = (u, nφ s Γ + (f, φ s Ω (p s, p s Ω, (3.6 hence the projection of y on p s is known. It remains to find an approximation of Π R y. At this point we recall the regularization approach from [2] which we summarized already in the introduction. Let u h H /2 (Γ be a regularized boundary datum (this can be any, e. g. Π h u or C h u from Section 2, but we do not assume graded meshes here such that we can define the regularized (weak solution in Y h := {v H (Ω : v Γ = u h }, y h Y h : ( y h, v Ω = (f, v Ω v H (Ω. (3.7 In [2, Remark 2.3] we showed that the regularization error can be estimated by y y h L 2 (Ω c u u h H s (Γ where < s < λ 2 (if Ω was convex we would get s = 2, that means the regularization error is in general bigger in the non-convex case. With the next lemma we show that Π R (y y h is not affected by non-convex corners. 2

13 Lemma 3.. The estimate holds. Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω C u u h H /2 (Γ Proof. Recall V = H (Ω H (Ω from (.3. From (3.7 and the Green formula, we have for any v V (f, v Ω = ( y h, v Ω = (y h, v Ω + (y h, n v Γ. Note that v V is sufficient, see [5, Lemma 3.4]. Subtracting this expression from the very weak formulation (.2, we get (y y h, v Ω = (u u h, n v Γ v V. Restricting this identity to v H 2 (Ω H (Ω, we have (Π R (y y h, v Ω = (u u h, n v Γ v H 2 (Ω H (Ω. (3.8 Now for any z R, we let v z H 2 (Ω H (Ω be the unique solution of that satisfies Since for any g L 2 (Ω the equality v z = z, (3.9 n v z H /2 (Γ c v z H 2 (Ω c z L 2 (Ω. (3. (Π R (y y h, g Ω = (Π R (y y h, Π R g Ω = (y y h, Π R g Ω holds we get with (3.8 (3. Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω = (y y h, z Ω sup z R,z z L 2 (Ω (u u h, n v z Γ = sup z R,z z L 2 (Ω u u h H /2 (Γ sup z R,z n v z H /2 (Γ z L 2 (Ω c u u h H /2 (Γ which is the estimate to be proved. 3.2 Discretization by standard finite elements Recall from (2.4 the finite element spaces Y h = {v h H (Ω : v h T P T T h }, Y h = Y h H (Ω, Yh = Y h Ω, 3

14 defined now on a family T h of quasi-uniform, conforming finite element meshes. Assume that the regularized boundary datum u h is contained in Yh such that the estimates u h L 2 (Γ c u L 2 (Γ, (3. u u h H /2 (Γ Ch/2 u L 2 (Γ, (3.2 hold. It can be derived from [2, Lemma 2.4] that this can be accomplished by using the L 2 (Γ-projection or by quasi-interpolation. A consequence of Lemma 3. is the estimate Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω Ch /2 u L 2 (Γ. (3.3 (In the case of a convex domain the operator Π R is the identity, and the corresponding error estimates were already proven in [2]. As already done in the introduction, define further the finite element solution y h Y h := Y h Y h via y h Y h : ( y h, v h Ω = (f, v h Ω v h Y h. (3.4 We proved in [2] that in the case of quasi-uniform meshes T h y y h L 2 (Ω Ch s ( h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ (3.5 holds for s (, λ 2 (again s = 2 for convex domains. As before, in the next lemma we show that Π R (y y h is not affected by the non-convex corners. Lemma 3.2. The discretization error estimate holds. Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω Ch /2 ( h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ Proof. By the triangle inequality we have Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω + Π R (y h y h L 2 (Ω. (3.6 The first term is estimated in (3.3. For the second term we first notice that y h y h H (Ω satisfies the Galerkin orthogonality ( (y h y h, v h Ω = v h Y h, (3.7 see (.4 and (.5. With that, we estimate Π R (y h y h L 2 (Ω by a similar arguments as Π R (y y h L 2 (Ω in the proof of Lemma 3.. Recall from (3.9 and (3. that v z H 2 (Ω H (Ω is the weak solution of v z = z R. It can be approximated by the Lagrange interpolant I h v z satisfying (v z I h v z L 2 (Ω ch v z H 2 (Ω ch z L 2 (Ω. 4

15 We get Π R (y h y h L 2 (Ω = (y h y h, z Ω sup z R,z z L 2 (Ω ( (y h y h, (v z I h v z Ω = sup z R,z z L 2 (Ω ( (y h y h, v z Ω = sup z R,z z L 2 (Ω ch (y h y h L 2 (Ω. (3.8 In order to bound (y h y h L 2 (Ω by the data we consider the lifting B h u h Y h defined by (2.7. The next steps are simpler than in Section 2 since we have quasiuniform meshes and obtain a sharp estimate also by using an inverse inequality below. The homogenized solution y h = yh B h u h H (Ω satisfies By taking v = y h ( y h, v Ω = (f, v Ω ( ( B h u h, v Ω we see that v H (Ω. y h 2 L 2 (Ω f H (Ω y h H (Ω + ( B h u h L 2 (Ω y h L 2 (Ω. Using the Poincaré inequality we obtain and with the Céa lemma y h L 2 (Ω c f H (Ω + ( B h u h L 2 (Ω, (3.9 (y h y h L 2 (Ω (y h B h u h L 2 (Ω = y h L 2 (Ω c f H (Ω + ( B h u h L 2 (Ω. The remaining term ( B h u h L 2 (Ω is estimated by using the inverse inequality ( B h u h L 2 (T ch /2 u h L 2 (E. for E T Γ, T T h, which can be proved by standard scaling arguments, to get Hence we proved ( B h u h L 2 (Ω ch /2 u h L 2 (Γ. (3.2 (y h y h L 2 (Ω c f H (Ω + ch /2 u h L 2 (Γ. With (3.6, (3.3, (3.8, the previous inequality, and (3. we finish the proof. With (3.5 we can immediately conclude the following result. Corollary 3.3. Let y h Y h be the solution of (3.4, then the discretization error estimate ( y (Π R y h + α(yp s L 2 (Ω Ch /2 h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ holds, reminding that p s and α(y are given by (3.2 and (3.6, respectively. Hence the positive result is that Π R y h +α(yp s is a better approximation of y than y h. The problem is that p s and φ s are used explicitly, and in practice they are not known. A remedy of this drawback is the aim of the next section. 5

16 3.3 Approximate singular functions Following [2], we approximate p s from (3.2 by p h s = p h r h + r λ sin(λθ, r h = B h (r λ sin(λθ, p h Y h : ( p h, v h Ω = ( r h, v h Ω v h Y h, (3.2 with B h from (2.7. The function φ s from (3.4 admits the splitting φ s = φ + βr λ sin(λθ, (3.22 with φ H 2 (Ω and β = π p s 2 L 2 (Ω, see again [2]. It is approximated by φ h s = φ h β hs h + β h r λ sin(λθ, s h = B h (r λ sin(λθ, β h = π ph s 2 L 2 (Ω, φ h Y h : ( φ h, v h Ω = (p h s, v h Ω + β h ( s h, v h Ω v h Y h, (3.23 that means, φ is approximated by φ h = φ h β hs h Y h. The approximation errors are bounded by see [2, Lemmas ], where (3.25 and (3.26 imply p s p h s L 2 (Ω ch 2λ ɛ ch, (3.24 β β h ch 2λ ε ch, (3.25 φ s φ h s,ω ch, (3.26 φ φ h,ω ch. (3.27 At the end of Section 3.2 we saw that Π R y h + α(yp s is a better approximation of y than y h. Since this function is not computable we approximate it by with z h = Π h R y h + α h p h s, (3.28 Π h R y h = y h γ h p h s, and a suitable approximation α h of γ h = (y h, p h s Ω p h s 2 L 2 (Ω (3.29 α(y = (u, nφ s Γ + (f, φ s Ω (p s, p s Ω from (3.6. To this end we write the problematic term by using (3.22 as (u, n φ s Γ = (u, n φγ + β(u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ. 6

17 and replace the term (u, n φγ by (u h, n φγ. Since φ belongs to H 2 (Ω and u h is the trace of B h u h, we get by using the Green formula (u h, n φγ = ( B h u h, φ Ω + ( B h u h, φ Ω = ( B h u h, p s Ω + ( B h u h, φ Ω (3.3 as φ = φ s = p s. With all these notations and results, we define α h = ( B h u h, p h s Ω ( B h u h, φ h Ω β h (u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ + (f, φ h s Ω (p h s, p h s 2. (3.3 Ω Note that α h can be computed explicitly and therefore z h as well. Let us estimate the approximation errors made. Lemma 3.4. Let y h Y h be the solution of (3.4. Then the error estimates hold. Π R y h Π h R y h L 2 (Ω ch ( f H (Ω + u L (Γ 2, (3.32 ( α(y α h ch /2 h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ (3.33 Proof. With the definitions of Π R and Π h R, with γ := (y h, p s Ω / p s 2 L 2 (Ω, and by using the triangle inequality we have We write Π R y h Π h R y h L 2 (Ω = γp s γ h p h s L 2 (Ω γ γ h p h s L 2 (Ω + γ p s p h s L 2 (Ω γ γ h = (y h, p s Ω p s 2 (y h, p h s Ω p L 2 (Ω h s 2 L 2 (Ω = (y h, p s p h s Ω p s 2 L 2 (Ω + (y h, p h s Ω ( p s 2 L 2 (Ω p h s 2 L 2 (Ω = (y h, p s p h s Ω p s 2 L 2 (Ω + (y h, p h (p h s + p s, p h s p s Ω s Ω p s 2 L 2 (Ω ph s 2, L 2 (Ω and by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (3.24 we get γ γ h ch y h L 2 (Ω. We have used that p s L 2 (Ω and p h s L 2 (Ω can be treated as constants due to the definition of p s and due to (3.24. We conclude with γ c y h L 2 (Ω, and (3.24 that Π R y h Π h R y h L 2 (Ω ch y h L 2 (Ω. (3.34 7

18 In view of the finite element error estimate (3.5 and the standard a priori estimate for the very weak solution, see Lemma 2.3 of [2], we have y L 2 (Ω c ( f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ, y h L 2 (Ω y L 2 (Ω + y y h L 2 (Ω c ( f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ. This estimate together with (3.34 proves (3.32. The proof of the estimate (3.33 is based on writing the problematic term in the definition of α(y without approximation as (u, n φ s Γ = (u, n φγ + β(u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ = (u u h, n φγ + (u h, n φγ + β(u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ = (u u h, n φγ ( B h u h, p s Ω + ( B h u h, φ Ω + β(u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ where we used (3.3 in the last step. Consequently, we showed that ( α(y α h = p s 2 (u u h, n φγ + ( B h u h, p s p h s Ω ( B h u h, ( φ φ h Ω L 2 (Ω (β β h (u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ + (f, φ s φ h s Ω. To prove (3.33, in view of (3.24, (3.25, and (3.26 it remains to show that (u u h, n φγ ch /2 u L 2 (Γ, ( B h u h, p s p h s Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Γ, ( B h u h, ( φ φ h Ω ch /2 u L 2 (Γ. The first estimate follows from the estimate (3.2 and the fact that φ belongs to H 2 (Ω. The second one follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the estimates (3.2 and (3.24. Similarly, the third estimate follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the estimates (3.2 and (3.27. Corollary 3.5. Let Ω be a non-convex domain and let y h Y h be the solution of (3.4 and let z h be derived by (3.28, (3.29, and (3.3, then the discretization error estimate ( y z h L 2 (Ω Ch /2 h /2 f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ holds. 8

19 Proof. The main ingredients of the proof were already derived. Indeed, it is y z h L 2 (Ω = Π R y + α(yp s Π h R y h α h p h s L 2 (Ω Π R y Π R y h L 2 (Ω + Π R y h Π h R y h L 2 (Ω+ α(y α h p s L 2 (Ω + α h p s p h s L 2 (Ω. The first three terms can be estimated by using Lemmas 3.2 and 3.4. So it remains to treat the fourth term. To bound α h we use the triangle inequality α h α h α(y + α(y. For the first term we use (3.33, while for the second term we use (3.6 reminding that φ s belongs to H 3/2+ɛ (Ω with some ɛ >. Altogether we have α h C ( f H (Ω + u L 2 (Γ and conclude by using ( The method in form of an algorithm Before we describe the numerical experiments, let us summarize the algorithm.. Compute the finite element solution y h Y h : ( y h, v h Ω = (f, v h Ω v h Y h where Y h = {v h Y h : v h Γ = u h }, compare (.5, with u h Yh approximation of the boundary datum u satisfying (3. and (3.2. being an 2. Compute the approximate singular functions: r h = B h (r λ sin(λθ, p h Y h : ( p h, v h Ω = ( r h, v h Ω v h Y h, p h = p h r h, β h = π p h + r λ sin(λθ 2 L 2 (Ω, s h = B h (r λ sin(λθ, φ h Y h : ( φ h, v h Ω = ( p h + r λ sin(λθ, v h Ω + β h ( s h, v h Ω v h Y h, φ h = φ h β hs h, compare (3.2 and (

20 3. Compute γ h = (y h, p h s Ω (p h s, p h s Ω with p h s = p h + r λ sin(λθ, α h = ( B h u h, p h s Ω ( B h u h, φ h Ω β h (u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ + (f, φ h s Ω (p h s, p h s 2, Ω δ h = α h γ h, z h = y h + δ h p h, compare (3.29 and (3.3. According to (3.28, the numerical solution is z h = z h + δ h r λ sin(λθ. Note that all integrals with r λ and r λ must be computed with care. 4 Numerical experiment This section is devoted to the numerical verification of our theoretical results. For that purpose we present an example with known solution. Furthermore, to examine the influence of the corner singularities, we consider several polygonal domain Ω ω depending on an interior angle ω (, 2π; we present here the results for ω = 27 and ω = 355. The computational domains are defined by Ω ω := (, 2 {x R 2 : (r(x, θ(x (, 2] [, ω]}, (4. where r and θ stand for the polar coordinates located at the origin. The boundary of Ω ω is denoted by Γ ω. We solve the problem y = in Ω ω, y = u on Γ ω, (4.2 numerically by using a standard finite element method with graded meshes and the proposed dual singular function method with quasi-uniform meshes. The boundary datum u is chosen to be u := r.4999 sin(.4999 θ on Γ ω. This function belongs to L p (Γ for every p < 2.4. The exact solution of our problem is simply y = r.4999 sin(.4999 θ, since y is harmonic. Quasi-uniform finite element meshes are generated from a coarse initial mesh by using a newest vertex bisection algorithm. Graded meshes are generated by marking and bisecting elements until the grading condition (2.3 is fulfilled with suitable constants c and c 2, see Figure. As a regularization we have used the L 2 (Γ-projection. The discretization errors are calculated by an adaptive quadrature formula. 2

21 DOF: Figure : Graded mesh with µ =.3333, generated by newest vertex bisection; left: whole mesh, right: zoom unknowns standard eoc DSCM eoc expected.67.5 Table : Discretization errors e h = y y h with quasi-uniform mesh (standard and e h = y z h (DSCM for ω = 27 The discretization errors for different mesh sizes and the corresponding experimental orders of convergence are given in Tables and 2 for the interior angle ω = 27 and in Tables 3 and 4 for the interior angle ω = 355. We see that the numerical results confirm the expected convergence rate /2 for the dual singular complement method and the finite element method on sufficently graded meshes. For µ > 2λ we obtain a convergence rate of about (λ /2/µ only which can certainly be proven with an adaption of the techniques used in Section 2 but is of less interest. We show the numerical results here mainly to underline that the strong grading µ < 2λ is indeed necessary for optimal convergence. Finally, in Figures 2 and 3 we display the exact and some computed solutions for a visual comparison. There is a pole of type r.4999 in the boundary data and hence in the exact solution. The standard finite element solution and the solution on graded meshes are computed after regularization of the boundary datum which replaces the infinite value for r = by a finite one, which may be big as in the case of ω = 355. One can also see that the behavior for r can be approximated better with graded meshes. The solution with the DSCM contains two parts, a the finite element function on a 2

22 µ =.666 µ =.5 µ =.333 unknowns error eoc unknowns error eoc unknowns error eoc expected Table 2: Discretization errors e h = y y h for ω = 27 unknowns standard eoc DSCM eoc expected.7.5 Table 3: Discretization errors e h = y y h with quasi-uniform mesh (standard and e h = y z h (DSCM for ω = 355 µ =.5 µ =.3 µ =.485 unknowns error eoc unknowns error eoc unknowns error eoc expected Table 4: Discretization errors e h = y z h for ω =

23 Solution of the Problem Solution of the Problem exact solution quasi-uniform mesh Solution of the Problem Solution of the Problem graded mesh DSCM Figure 2: Visual comparison of the solutions, ω = 27 Solution of the Problem Solution of the Problem exact solution quasi-uniform mesh Solution of the Problem Solution of the Problem graded mesh DSCM Figure 3: Visual comparison of the solutions, ω =

24 quasi-uniform mesh and a multiple of the singular function r λ sin(λθ which has a pole of type r 2/3 for ω = 27 and of type r 8/355 for ω = 355. The latter term produces an infinite value for r = and has a asymptotic behaviour which is different from the exact solution. Interesting enough, the L 2 (Ω-error of the DSCM solution profits from the presence of this term. Concerning the DSCM, we emphasize that the quadrature formula for the numerical evaluation of the integral (u, n (r λ sin(λθ Γ has to be adapted in order to get a sufficiently good approximation. Otherwise, the error due to quadrature dominates the overall error. In our implementation, we chose for the numerical integration a graded mesh on the boundary (h E hr µ E if the distance r E of the boundary edge E satisfies < r E < R with R being the radius of the refinement zone and µ being the refinement parameter, and h T = h /µ for r E = combined with a one-point Gauss quadrature rule on each element. The choice µ 2π/ω seems to be the correct grading to achieve a convergence order of /2. For the results presented in Tables and 3 we used R =. and µ = 2π/ω. References [] T. Apel, S. Nicaise, and J. Pfefferer. A dual singular complement method for the numerical solution of the Poisson equation with L 2 boundary data in non-convex domains. Preprint arxiv:55.44 [math.na], arxiv, 25. [2] T. Apel, S. Nicaise, and J. Pfefferer. Discretization of the Poisson equation with nonsmooth data and emphasis on non-convex domains. To appear in Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations, 26. [3] T. Apel, J. Pfefferer, and A. Rösch. Finite element error estimates on the boundary with application to optimal control. Math. Comp., 84:33 7, 25. [4] I. Babuška. Error-bounds for finite element method. Numerische Mathematik, 6: , 97/97. [5] M. Berggren. Approximations of very weak solutions to boundary-value problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 42(2:86 877, 24. [6] C. Bernardi. Optimal finite-element interpolation on curved domains. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 26(5:22 24, 989. [7] H. Blum and M. Dobrowolski. On finite element methods for elliptic equations on domains with corners. Computing, 28(:53 63, 982. [8] J. H. Bramble and J. T. King. A robust finite element method for nonhomogeneous Dirichlet problems in domains with curved boundaries. Math. Comp., 63(27: 7,

25 [9] C. Carstensen. Quasi-interpolation and a posteriori error analysis in finite element methods. M2AN, Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 33(6:87 22, 999. [] E. Casas, M. Mateos, and J.-P. Raymond. Penalization of Dirichlet optimal control problems. ESAIM. Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 5(4:782 89, 29. [] E. Casas and J.-P. Raymond. Error estimates for the numerical approximation of Dirichlet boundary control for semilinear elliptic equations. SIAM J. Control Optim., 45(5:586 6, 26. [2] P. Ciarlet, Jr. and J. He. The singular complement method for 2d scalar problems. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 336(4: , 23. [3] P. Ciarlet, Jr., B. Jung, S. Kaddouri, S. Labrunie, and J. Zou. The Fourier singular complement method for the Poisson problem. I. Prismatic domains. Numer. Math., (3:423 45, 25. [4] P. Ciarlet, Jr., B. Jung, S. Kaddouri, S. Labrunie, and J. Zou. The Fourier singular complement method for the Poisson problem. II. Axisymmetric domains. Numer. Math., 2(4:583 6, 26. [5] M. Costabel. Boundary integral operators on Lipschitz domains: elementary results. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 9(3:63 626, 988. [6] M. Dauge, S. Nicaise, M. Bourlard, and J. M.-S. Lubuma. Coefficients des singularités pour des problèmes aux limites elliptiques sur un domaine à points coniques. I. Résultats généraux pour le problème de Dirichlet. RAIRO Modél. Math. Anal. Numér., 24(:27 52, 99. [7] J. C. de los Reyes, C. Meyer, and B. Vexler. Finite element error analysis for stateconstrained optimal control of the Stokes equations. Control Cybernet., 37(2:25 284, 28. [8] K. Deckelnick, A. Günther, and M. Hinze. Finite element approximation of Dirichlet boundary control for elliptic PDEs on two- and three-dimensional curved domains. SIAM J. Control Optim., 48(4: , 29. [9] A. Demlow, J. Guzmán, and A. H. Schatz. Local energy estimates for the finite element method on sharply varying grids. Math. Comp., 8(273: 9, 2. [2] D. A. French and J. T. King. Approximation of an elliptic control problem by the finite element method. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optimization, 2(3-4:299 34, 99. [2] P. Grisvard. Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, volume 24 of Monographs and Studies in Mathematics. Pitman, Boston London Melbourne, 985. [22] P. Grisvard. Singularities in boundary value problems, volume 22 of Research Notes in Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York,

26 [23] J.-L. Lions and E. Magenes. Problèmes aux limites non homogènes et applications. Vol., 2. Travaux et Recherches Mathématiques. Dunod, Paris, 968. [24] S. May, R. Rannacher, and B. Vexler. Error analysis for a finite element approximation of elliptic Dirichlet boundary control problems. SIAM J. Control Optim., 5(3: , 23. [25] L. A. Oganesjan and L. A. Ruhovec. Variatsionno-raznostnye metody resheniya ellipticheskikh uravnenii. Akad. Nauk Armyan. SSR, Erevan, 979. [26] J. Pfefferer. Numerical analysis for elliptic Neumann boundary control problems on polygonal domains. PhD thesis, Universität der Bundeswehr München, [27] G. Raugel. Résolution numérique par une méthode d éléments finis du problème de Dirichlet pour le laplacien dans un polygone. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. A, 286(8:A79 A794, 978. [28] G. Strang and G. J. Fix. An analysis of the finite element method. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.,