arxiv: v2 [math.na] 15 May 2018

Transcription

1 To appear in Applicable Analysis Vol. 00, No. 00, Mont 20XX, 1 31 A Trefftz Discontinuous Galerkin Metod for Time Harmonic Waves wit a Generalized Impedance Boundary Condition arxiv: v2 [mat.na] 15 May 2018 Selvean Kapita a, Peter Monk b and Virginia Selgas c a Institute for Matematics and its Applications, College of Science and Engineering, 306 Lind Hall, Minneapolis, MN USA 55455; b Department of Matematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716, USA; c Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Oviedo, EPIG, Gijón, Spain (Received 00 Mont 20XX; final version received 00 Mont 20XX) We sow ow a Trefftz Discontinuous Galerkin (TDG) metod for te displacement form of te Helmoltz equation can be used to approximate problems aving a generalized impedance boundary condition (GIBC) involving surface derivatives of te solution. Suc boundary conditions arise naturally wen modeling scattering from a scatterer wit a tin coating. Te tin coating can ten be approximated by a GIBC. A second place GIBCs arise is as iger order absorbing boundary conditions. Tis paper also covers bot cases. Because te TDG sceme as discontinuous elements, we propose to couple it to a surface discretization of te GIBC using continuous finite elements. We prove convergence of te resulting sceme and demonstrate it wit two numerical examples. Keywords: Helmoltz equation, Trefftz, Discontinuous Galerkin, Generalized Impedance Boundary Condition, Error estimate, Artificial Boundary Condition AMS Subject Classifications: 1. Introduction Te Trefftz metod, in wic a linear combination of simple solutions of te underlying partial differential equation on te wole solution domain are used to approximate te solution of te desired problem, dates back to te 1926 paper of Trefftz [32]. A istorical discussion in relation to Ritz and Galerkin metods can be found in [17]. rom our point of view, a key paper in tis area is tat of Cessenat and Déspres [9] wo analyzed te use of a local Trefftz space on a finite element grid to approximate te solution of te Helmoltz equation [9]. Tis was later sown to be a special case of te Trefftz Discontinuous Galerkin (TDG) metod [8, 19] wic opened te way for a more general error analysis. or more recent work in wic boundary integral operators are used to contruct te Trefftz space, see for example [3, 23]. Te aforementioned work all concerns te standard pressure field formulation of acoustics wic results in a scalar Helmoltz equation. Indeed, TDG metods are well developed for te Helmoltz, Maxwell and Navier equations wit standard boundary conditions and a recent survey can be found in [24]. or te displacement form, a TDG metod as been proposed by Gabard [15] also using simple boundary conditions. Corresponding autor. Current address: Department of Matematics, University of Georgia, 220 DW Brooks Dr, Atens, GA selvean.kapita@uga.edu 1

2 Because of te unusual boundary conditions considered in tis paper, we propose to use te displacement form of te Trefftz Discontinuous Galerkin (TDG) metod for approximating solutions of te Helmoltz equation governing scattering of an acoustic wave (or suitably polarized electromagnetic wave) by a bounded object. Tis is because te scatterer is assumed to be modeled by a Generalized Impedance Boundary condition (GIBC). Tese boundary conditions arise as approximate asymptotic models of tin coatings or gratings ([4, 5, 12, 33]). Importantly, tey also arise as approximate absorbing boundary conditions (ABCs) and our paper sows ow to andle tese boundary conditions. As far as we are aware, te displacement TDG metod as not been analyzed to date. We provide suc an analysis and tis is a one of te contributions of our paper. In order to define te problem under consideration more precisely, let D R 2 denote te region occupied by te scatterer. We assume tat D is an open bounded domain wit connected complement aving a smoot boundary Γ = D. Ten we can define Γ to be te surface gradient and Γ to be te surface divergence on Γ (see for example [11]). In addition ν denotes te outward unit normal on Γ. Let k R, k 0, denote te wave number of te field, and suppose tat a given incident field u i impinges on te scatterer. We want to approximate te scattered field u H 1 loc (R2 D) tat is te solution of u + k 2 u = 0 in Ω = R 2 D, Γ (β Γ u) + u + λu = g on Γ = D, ν u lim r( r = x r iku) = 0. (1) Te last equation, te Sommerfeld radiation condition (SRC), olds uniformly in ˆx = x/r. In addition g = Γ (β Γ u i ) + ui ν + λui, were u i is te given incident field and is assumed to be a smoot solution of te Helmoltz equation u i + k 2 u i = 0 in a neigborood of D. or example, if u i is a plane wave ten u i = exp(ikx d), were d is te direction of propagation of te plane wave and d = 1. Alternatively u i could be te field due to a point source in R 2 D. Te coefficient functions β and λ are used to model te tin coating on Γ and we sall give details of te assumptions on tese coefficients in te next section. As can be seen from te second equation in (1), te GIBC involves a nonomogeneous second order partial differential equation on te boundary of te scatterer, and tis complicates te implementation using a TDG metod wic uses discontinuous local solutions of te omogeneous equation element by element. In addition, because te problem is posed on an infinite domain we need to truncate te domain to apply te TDG metod, and ten apply a suitable artificial boundary condition (ABC) on te outer boundary. Because TDG metods ave discontinuous basis functions, wen te GIBC or ABC involve derivatives, tese boundary conditions can be applied more easily if we convert tem to displacement based equations, so we propose to solve (1) by converting it to a vector problem. To tis end, we introduce v = u, in wic case v = u = k 2 u. Using tis 2

3 relationsip we see tat v sould satisfy v + k 2 v = 0 in R 2 D, Γ (β Γ ( v)) k 2 v ν + λ v = k 2 g on Γ = D, (2) r( v ikv ˆx) = 0, lim r = x were te radiation condition (last equation) olds uniformly for all in directions ˆx = x/ x. Te use of te displacement variable for te Helmoltz equation wit standard boundary conditions in te context of plane wave metods was considered by Gabard in [15], but no error estimates were proved. In particular e used te PUEM [2] and DEM [14] approaces, not TDG. Te use of te displacement vector as te primary variable is often necessary in studies of fluid-structure interaction (see e.g. [34]). To date, no error estimates ave been proved for te displacement based formulation wit or witout te GIBC. Te vector formulation is useful in its own rigt. or example, using finite element metods, Brenner et al. [6] sow tat a vector formulation can also be advantageous for sign canging materials, altoug we do not consider tat problem ere. Our approac to discretizing (2) is to use TDG in a bounded subdomain of R 2 D, and standard finite elements or trigonometric polynomial based metods to discretize te GIBC on te boundary. Te domain is truncated using te Neumannto-Diriclet (NtD) map on an artificial boundary tat is taken to be a circle. Oter truncation conditions could be used. Since it is not te focus of te paper, we assume for simplicity tat te NtD map is computed exactly. Te discretization of te NtD map could be analyzed using te tecniques from [25, 26], and it is also possible to use an integral equation approac to approximate te NtD on a more general artificial boundary but tis remains to be analyzed. Our analysis of te discrete problem follows te pattern of te analysis of finite element metods for approximating te standard problem of scattering by an impenetrable scatterer using te Diriclet-to-Neumann boundary condition from [29]. We first sow tat te GIBC can be discretized leaving te displacement equation continuous. Ten we sow tat tis semi-discrete problem can also be discretized successfully. Te analysis of te error in te TDG part of te problem is motivated by te analysis of TDG for Maxwell s equations in [22] and uses te Helmoltz decomposition of te vector field satisfying (2) as a critical tool. Te contributions of tis paper are 1) a first application and analysis of TDG to te displacement Helmoltz problem; 2) a metod for incorporating a discretization of te GIBC into te TDG sceme using novel numerical fluxes from [25]; 3) an error analysis of te fully discrete problem (except for te NtD map as described earlier), and te first numerical results for TDG applied to tis problem. In te remainder of te paper we use bold font to represent vector fields and we will work in R 2. We utilize te usual gradient and divergence operators (bot in te domain and on te boundary), and also a vector and scalar curl defined by curl v = v x 2 v x 1 and curl v = v 2 x 1 v 1 x 2, for any v R 2 C and v R 2 C 2. Te paper proceeds as follows. In te next section we formulate problem (2) in a 3

4 variational way and sow it is well posed using te teory of Buffa [7]. Ten in Section 3 we describe and analyze te discretization of te GIBC using finite elements (or trigonometric basis functions). Te fully discrete TDG sceme is described in Section 4 were we also prove a basic error estimate and sow well-posedness of te fully discrete problem. We ten prove convergence in a special mes independent norm. In Section 5 we provide a preliminary numerical test of te algoritm, and in Section 6 we draw some conclusions. 2. Variational ormulation of te Displacement Metod In tis section we give details of our assumptions on te coefficients in te GIBC, and formulate te displacement problem (2) in variational setting suitable for analysis. Ten we sow tat te problem is well-posed. Te functions β, λ L (Γ) in (1) are complex valued functions and we assume tat tere exists a constant c > 0 suc tat R(β) c, I(β) 0 and I(λ) 0 a.e. on Γ. (3) Of key importance will be te operator G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) defined weakly as te solution operator for te boundary condition on Γ relating te Neumann and Diriclet boundary data tere. More precisely, for eac η H 1 (Γ) we define G Γ η H 1 (Γ) to be te solution of Γ (β Γ (G Γ η) Γ ξ λ G Γ η ξ) ds = Γ η ξ ds ξ H 1 (Γ). (4) An essential assumption is te following. Assumption 1 Te only solution u H 1 (Γ) of Γ (β Γ u) + λu = 0 is u = 0. We will sow tat Assumption 1 togeter wit te conditions (3) ensure tat te operator G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is well-defined. Remark 1 One possible condition under wic Assumption 1 olds is, Eiter I(β) c < 0 or I(λ) c > 0 a.e. on a segment Λ D. Remark 2 On te one and, te assumptions in (3) concerning te imaginary parts of β and λ are governed by pysics, since tese quantities represent absorption wen our model is deduced as an approximation of te Engquist-Nédélec condition modeling te diffraction of a time-armonic electromagnetic wave by a perfectly conducting object covered by a tin dielectric layer (see [12]). On te oter and, te ypotesis in (3) on te real part of β is tecnical and ensures ellipticity (see [4, T.2.1]); owever, tis property is fulfilled in te example of a medium wit a tin coating (see [12]). It would also be possible to allow R(β) c < 0 on Γ as migt be encountered modeling meta-materials, but a sign canging coefficient would require a more elaborate study. Te role of tese properties will be clarified in Lemma

5 Te assumptions on te coefficients in (3) togeter wit Assumption 1 ensure tat problem (1) as a unique weak solution u in te space V = {v H 1 loc (Ω) ; v Γ H 1 (Γ)} (see later and [4, T.2.1]). To solve (2) we first truncate te domain. We wis to analyze te error introduced in approximating a scattering problem, concentrating on te discretization of te GIBC, so we truncate te domain using a simple analytic Neumann-to-Diriclet map. Obviously oter more general truncation approaces suc as integral equations could be used. Indeed, in te numerical section, we sall consider a GIBC tat arises from approximating te Neumann-to-Diriclet map (a iger order ABC). Let B R denote te ball of radius R centered at te origin and set Ω R = B R D be our computational domain (i.e. te bounded domain tat we will mes for te UWV) and Σ R = B R, were te radius R is taken large enoug to enclose D (see ig. 1 for a diagram illustrating te major geometric elements of te problem). Te following Neumann-to-Diriclet (NtD) map N R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) will provide te ABC on Σ R. In particular let v H 1 loc (R2 B R ) solve te exterior problem v + k 2 v = 0 in R 2 B R, v r = f on Σ R, v lim r( ikv) = 0 r = x r uniformly in direction ˆx = x/ x, (5) for some f H 1/2 (Σ R ), ten N R (f) = v. Let us recall tat N R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) is an isomorpism since its inverse, te Diriclet-to-Neumann map, is also an isomorpism [11]. Obviously, te solution of (1) satisfies u = N R ( u/ r) and, in consequence, using te fact tat v = k 2 u, ( v) = k 2 N R (v ν), were we denote by ν = x/r te outward unit normal on Σ R. In te same way, for te solution of (1) we ave tat ( v) Γ = k 2 G Γ (v ν + g). Now we can write down a weak form for te boundary value problem (2) in te usual way, multiplying te first equation in (2) by a test vector function w and integrating by parts: 0 = ( v + k 2 v) w dx = ( v w + k 2 v w) dx + v ν w ds Γ v ν w ds, were te minus sign in te last term is due to te normal field ν pointing outward D. Using te NtD map N R and te boundary solution map G Γ, te above equation 5

6 Ω R u i D Γ ν Σ R ν igure 1. A cartoon sowing te geometric features of te problem. Te bounded scatterer D is covered by a tin coating giving rise to a GIBC on Γ. An incident wave u i on tis scatterer causes a scattered field u in te exterior of D. Te artificial boundary Σ R is introduced to truncate te domain resulting in a bounded computational domain Ω R and is taken to be a circle for simplicity. can be rewritten as te problem of finding v H(div; Ω R ) suc tat ( 1 k 2 v w v w) dx + N R (v ν) w ν ds Γ G Γ (v ν) w ν ds = Γ G Γ (g) w ν ds, (6) for any w H(div; Ω R ). It will be convenient to associate wit te left and side of (6) te sesquilinear form a H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) C defined by a(v, w) = ( 1 k 2 v w v w) dx+ N R (v ν) w ν ds Γ G Γ (v ν) w ν ds. (7) In order to prove te well-posedness of tis variational formulation, we now summarize some of te properties of te NtD map N R and GIBC boundary map G Γ. or a given function f H 1/2 (Σ R ) te NtD map N R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) is given by (N R f)(θ) = γ n f n exp(inθ), (8) n= were f n = 1 2πR f(r, θ) exp( inθ) dθ are te ourier coefficients of f on Σ R and γ n = 1 k H n (1) (kr) (H n (1) ) (kr). 6

7 According to [10, page 97] tere are constants C 1 > 0 and C 2 < suc tat C 1 γ C 2 n, 1 + n n 2 for all n Z. Now define ÑR H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) by (ÑRf)(θ) = Clearly ÑR is negative definite and (ÑRf) f dθ = n= n= R 1 + n 2 f n exp(inθ). 2πR n 2 f n 2 = 2πR f 2 H 1/2 (Σ R ). Also from [10, page 97] we can obtain te asymptotic estimate γ n = R n (1 + O( 1 )) wen n, n so tat γ n R/ 1 + n 2 = O(1/n 2 ) wen n. Hence, N R = ˆ N R + ÑR, (9) were ˆN R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 3/2 (Σ R ) is well-defined and bounded, in particular ˆN R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) is compact. We next state some properties of te NtD map wic follow from te properties of te better known DtN map. Lemma 2.1 or all f H 1/2 (Σ R ), it olds R ( N R f f ds) < 0 and I ( N R f f ds) 0. Proof. Te first inequality follows from [29, Lemma 3.2], wereas te second is proved as follows: or any f H 1/2 (Σ R ), we may write N R f f ds = 2πR n= f n 2 H n (1) (kr)h n (1) (kr), k H n (1) (kr) 2 were, as above, f n = 1 2πR Σ R f(r, θ) exp( inθ) dθ are te ourier coefficients of f on Σ R. Since H n (1) (kr) = J n (kr)+iy n (kr), taking 7

8 te imaginary part I ( N R f f ds) = 2πR = 4 n= n= f n 2 J n(kr) Y n (kr) J n (kr) Y n(kr) k H (1) n (kr) 2 f n 2 k 2 H n (1) (kr), 2 by te Wronskian formula for Bessel functions (see e.g. [1, ]). We note tat te foregoing teory provides a direct proof tat N R is an isomorpism as a consequence of te redolm alternative tanks to Lemma 2.1 and te splitting (9). Corollary 2.2 Te operator N R H 1/2 (Σ R ) H 1/2 (Σ R ) is an isomorpism. Next we sow tat G Γ is well defined. Lemma 2.3 Under Assumption 1 and te conditions (3), te operator G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) defined in (4) is an isomorpism. In particular, G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is well-defined, linear and continuous. Proof. We start te proof by defining te bounded sesquilinear forms a Γ, b Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) C by a Γ (ξ 1, ξ 2 ) = Γ β ( Γ ξ 1 Γ ξ 2 + ξ 1 ξ 2 ) ds and b Γ (ξ 1, ξ 2 ) = Γ (λ + β) ξ 1 ξ 2 ds, for any ξ 1, ξ 2 H 1 (Γ). Tanks to te Riesz representation teorem, we can consider te associated operators A Γ, B Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) tat satisfy (A Γ ξ 1, ξ 2 ) H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) = a Γ (ξ 1, ξ 2 ) and (B Γ ξ 1, ξ 2 ) H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) = b Γ (ξ 1, ξ 2 ), for any ξ 1, ξ 2 H 1 (Γ). Notice tat, under assumption (3), R (a Γ (ξ, ξ)) = Γ R(β) ( Γ ξ 2 + ξ 2 ) ds c ξ 2 H 1 (Γ) ξ H 1 (Γ), and, in consequence, using te Lax-Milgram teorem guarantees tat A Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is an isomorpism. Also notice tat, by Rellic s teorem we know tat H 1 (Γ) is compactly embedded into L 2 (Γ), so tat B Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is compact. Moreover, under Assumption 1, A Γ +B Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is injective. Terefore, by te redolm alternative, A Γ + B Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) is an isomorpism. Te next lemma sows tat te impedance boundary condition does not cause a loss of uniqueness for te scattering problem. Lemma 2.4 or any η H 1 (Γ), it olds tat I ((G Γ η, η) H1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ)) 0. Proof. Using te variational definition of G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) for η H 1 (Γ), 8

9 and coosing te test function ξ = G Γ η H 1 (Γ), gives Tis implies Γ (β Γ G Γ η 2 λ G Γ η 2 ) ds = Γ η G Γ η ds. I ( Γ G Γ η η ds) = I ( Γ η G Γ η ds) = Γ ( I(β) Γ G Γ η 2 + I(λ) G Γ η 2 ) ds 0. Te last inequality follows from te assumptions I(β) 0 and I(λ) 0 in (3). Starting our analysis of (6) we sow tat any solution is unique. Lemma 2.5 Problem (6) as at most one solution. Proof. Let us consider any solution of its omogeneous counterpart, tat is, v H(div; Ω R ) suc tat ( 1 k 2 v w v w) dx+ N R (v ν) w ν ds Γ G Γ (v ν) w ν ds = 0, (10) for all w H(div; Ω R ). Since Ω R is connected, by te Helmoltz decomposition teorem (see [18, T.2.7-C.I]) we can rewrite v as v = u + ψ in Ω R, for some u H 1 (Ω R ) and ψ H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ), were H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ) = {w H(div; Ω R ) ; w = 0 in Ω R, w ν = 0 on Ω R = Γ Σ R }. Ten, te omogeneous problem (10) may be rewritten as ( 1 k 2 u w ( u+ψ) w)dx+ N R ( u ν ) w ν ds Γ G Γ ( u ν ) w ν ds = 0, for all w H(div; Ω R ). In particular, taking w C 0 (Ω R) 2 we deduce tat (11) ( 1 k 2 u + u) + ψ = 0 in Ω R. Noticing tat ( 1 k 2 u + u) = ψ H 0(div 0 ; Ω R ) leads to ( 1 k 2 u + u) = 0 in Ω R and ν ( 1 k 2 u + u) = 0 on Ω R = Σ R Γ. Hence, by uniqueness of te solution (up to a constant) of te interior Neumann problem for Laplace operator in Ω R, we ave tat 1 k 2 u + u = C u in Ω R for some constant C u C; in particular, ψ = ( 1 k 2 u + u) = 0 in Ω R. urtermore, ũ = 9

10 u C u H 1 (Ω R ) satisfies ũ + k 2 ũ = 0 in Ω R, so tat 1 k 2 u = ũ in Ω R and we deduce from (11) tat ũ + N R ( ũ ν ) = 0 on Σ R, ũ + G Γ ( ũ ν ) = 0 on Γ. In consequence, by te invertibility of N R and G Γ and te uniqueness of solution of te forward problem wit GIBC (see [4, T.2.1]), we ave tat ũ = 0 in Ω R ; tat is to say, u = C u in Ω R. Summing up, we conclude tat v = u + ψ = 0 in Ω R. Using tis uniqueness result and a suitable stable splitting of H(div; Ω R ), we will be able to apply [7, Teorem 1.2] to prove te well-posedness of te continuous problem. In particular, we write were and H(div; Ω R ) = H(div 0 ; Ω R ) S, H(div 0 ; Ω R ) = {w H(div; Ω R ) ; w = 0 in Ω R } S = {p H 1 0 (Ω R ) ; u L 2 (Ω R )}, and S is endowed wit te inner product (p, q) S = Ω ( p q + p q) dx. Notice tat te ortogonality of te above splitting implies tat u H(div 0 ; Ω) if, and only if, u H(div; Ω R ) and (u, q) = 0 for all q S. We also need to define te duality pairing, between H(div; Ω R ) and its dual space H(div; Ω R ), wit respect to te pivot space L 2 (Ω R ) 2, so tat (note: tis is defined witout conjugation): u, w = u w dx u H(div; Ω R ), w H(div; Ω R ). According to te above splitting, any u H(div; Ω R ) as te form u = u 0 + p for some u 0 H(div 0 ; Ω R ) and p S. By te ortogonality of te splitting, and te fact tat u 0 = 0, we ave tat p 2 H(div;Ω R ) + u 0 2 L 2 (Ω R ) 2 = u 2 H(div;Ω R ) 10

11 and, in particular, te splitting is stable. Moreover, it allows us to define te linear continuous operator θ H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) by θu = p u 0. Next we define A H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) suc tat if u H(div; Ω R ) ten Au H(div; Ω R ) is given via te Riesz representation teorem by Au, w = a(u, w) for all w H(div; Ω R ) ; recalling te definition of a(, ) in (7). We can now state and prove te following result. Problem (6) is well-posed and te Babuška-Brezzi condition is sat- Teorem 2.6 isfied. Proof. Let u H(div; Ω R ) be split into u = u 0 + p for some u 0 H(div 0 ; Ω R ) and p S, and similarly w = w 0 + q H(div; Ω R ). Ten a(u, θw) = ( 1 k 2 p q + p q + u 0 w 0 ) dx + N R ((u 0 + p) ν)( q w 0 ) ν ds Γ G Γ ((u 0 + p) ν)( q w 0 ) ν ds 2 p q dx. (12) We expand te troublesome term N R ((u 0 + p) ν) ( q w 0 ) ν ds = N R (u 0 ν) w 0 ν ds + N R (u 0 ν) q ν ds N R ( p ν) w 0 ν ds + N R ( p ν) q ν ds. So we can define te sesquilinear form a + (u, θw) = 1 k 2 ( p q + p q + u 0 w 0 ) dx N R (u 0 ν) w 0 ν ds, and use te remaining terms in (12) to define te sesquilinear form b(u, θw) = N R (u 0 ν) q ν ds N R ( p ν) w 0 ν ds + N R ( p ν) q ν ds G Γ (u 0 + p) ν ( q w 0 ) ν ds 2 p q dx. On te one and, since R(N R ) is negative definite (see Lemma 2.1) and te splitting of te space is stable, we ave tat tere is a constant α > 0 independent of u H(div; Ω) suc tat R(a + (u, θu)) α u 2 H(div;Ω R ). Now define te operator T H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) by T u, w = b(u, w) u, w H(div; Ω R ). 11

12 Notice tat T is compact because eac sesquilinear form in its definition is compact. or example, te sesquilinear form N R (u 0 ν) q ν ds is compact by [27, Teorem 1.3], because te trace of functions in S defined into H 1/2 (Σ R ) is a compact operator; indeed, S is a subset of H 2 (Ω R ) due to our assumption of a smoot boundary Ω R = Γ Σ R, and te normal derivative operator is compact from H 2 (Ω R ) into H 1/2 (Σ R ). Te remaining sesquilinear forms are also compact by te same reasoning. Hence T is compact. Ten we conclude tat (A + T )u, θu = a + (u, θu) α u 2 H(div;Ω R ). Hence all te conditions of [7, Assumption 1] are satisfied and te existence of a unique solution to (6) is sown by [7, Teorem 2.1]. In addition tis teorem sows tat tere is an isomorpism θ H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) suc tat Au, θu α u 2 H(div;Ω R ). Tis in turn implies tat te Babuška-Brezzi condition is satisfied. 3. A Semidiscrete Problem In tis section we consider a semidiscrete problem in wic te GIBC boundary operator is discretized but te space were we searc for te solution in Ω R is not. As discussed in te introduction, we sall not consider te truncation of te NtD map ere. We sall need an additional assumption on te boundary operator G Γ. In particular we need to know tat it smoots te solution on te boundary Γ, so we make te following second assumption. Assumption 2 or eac 1 s 1/2, it olds tat G Γ (H s (Γ)) H s+2 (Γ) and tere exists Cs Γ > 0 suc tat G Γ λ H s+2 (Γ) Cs Γ λ Hs (Γ) for any λ H s (Γ). Remark 3 G Γ. Note tat if Assumption 2 olds, since G Γ λ = G Γλ, it also olds for Notice tat Assumption 2 furter constrains te coice of te coefficients β and λ in te generalized impedance boundary condition on Γ. Its role will be clarified in Lemma 3.1, were we apply Scatz s analysis [31] in order to sow tat te finite element approximation of G Γ, defined sortly, converges. On te inner boundary Γ we consider a finite dimensional subspace S H H 1 (Γ) of continuous piecewise polynomials of degree at least P (wit P 1) on a mes TH Γ. We assume tat te mes TH Γ consists of segments of te boundary Γ of maximum lengt H > 0, and tat it is regular and quasi-uniform: te latter means tat tere exists a constant σ Γ [1, ) suc tat H H e σ Γ for all edges e T Γ H and all H > 0, were H e denotes te arc lengt of te edge e in te mes. 12

13 Remark 4 Oter coices of te discretization space on Γ are possible. or example we could use a trigonometric basis or a smooter spline space on Γ; tese particular coices ave advantages in tat tey would provide faster convergence of te UWV sceme. We sall not discuss tem explicitly ere but will give an example of te use of a trigonometric space in Section 5. Ten we approximate G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) by G H Γ H 1 (Γ) S H using a discrete counterpart of (4). Indeed, eac η H 1 (Γ) is mapped onto G H Γ η S H, te unique solution of Γ (β Γ (G H Γη) Γ ξ λ G H Γη ξ) ds = Γ η ξ ds ξ S H. (13) Notice tat, as appens at continuous level, tis definition can be applied for functions in a bigger space, wic is now S H te dual space of S H wit pivot space L 2 (Γ). Indeed, Assumptions 1 and 2, and te conditions on te coefficients in (3), allow us to sow tat tis operator is well-defined for H small enoug applying te usual Scatz s analysis [31] of non-coercive sesquilinear forms. Suc argument is quite standard and we do not give te details ere: We just mention tat it applies, not just because of te approximation properties of S H, but since te operator G Γ H 1 (Γ) H 1 (Γ) can be understood as te solution operator for a bounded sequilinear form wic is te superposition of a compact and a coercive sesquilinear forms; see te proof of Lemma 2.3. Lemma 3.1 Te operator G H Γ S H S H is an isomorpism for any H > 0 small enoug. urtermore, if λ H 1/2 (Γ) is smoot enoug tat G Γ λ H t (Γ) for some t [1, P + 1], ten te following error estimate olds: (G Γ G H Γ )λ Hs (Γ) CH t s G Γ λ Ht (Γ) for any s [0, 1], and were C is independent of λ. We now consider te semidiscrete counterpart of problem (6), wic consists of computing v H H(div; Ω R ) tat satisfies ( 1 k 2 vh,m w v H w)dx + N R (v H ν) w ν ds Γ G H Γ (v H ν) w ν ds = = Γ G H Γ g w ν ds for all w H(div; Ω R ). (14) As at continuous level, it is useful to associate to te left and side of (14) te sesquilinear form a H H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) C defined by a H (u, w) = ( 1 k 2 u w v w) dx+ N R (u ν) w ν ds Γ G H Γ (u ν) w ν ds, (15) wic is just te semidiscrete counterpart of a(, ). Moreover, to study te problem (14), we define te operator A H H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) by A H u, w = a H (u, w) for all u, w H(div; Ω R ). We can now sow tat A H converges to A in norm. 13

14 Lemma 3.2 or eac H > 0 sufficiently small, tere is a constant C suc tat A A H H(div; ) H(div;Ω R ) CH. Proof. or any u, w H(div; Ω R ), from te own definitions of A and A H we ave tat (A A H )u, w = Γ (G H Γ G Γ )(u ν) w ν ds (G H Γ G Γ )(u ν) H 1/2 (Γ) w ν H 1/2 (Γ) C (G H Γ G Γ )(u ν) H 1/2 (Γ) w H(div; ). But, by Lemma 3.1 and Assumption 2, we conclude tat (G H Γ G Γ )(u ν) H 1/2 (Γ) CH G Γ (u ν) H 3/2 (Γ) CH u ν H 1/2 (Γ) CH u H(div; ). Using [28, Teorem 10.1] we ave te following result. Teorem 3.3 or all H sufficiently small, te operator A H H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) is invertible and its inverse is bounded independently of H. Suppose v satisfies (6) and v H satisfies (14), ten tere is a constant C independent of H suc tat v H v H(div; ) C ( (G H Γ G Γ )(v ν) H 1/2 (Γ) + (G H Γ G Γ )g H 1/2 (Γ)). (16) Proof. Recall tat, as sown in te proof of Teorem 2.6, te operator A H(div; Ω R ) H(div; Ω R ) is an isomorpism. urter, Lemma 3.2 sows te convergence of A H to A in te norm H(div; ) H(div;Ω R ). Ten Teorem 10.1 of [28] sows tat, for H small enoug, (A H ) 1 exists and is uniformly bounded in H. inally, to deduce te error bound (16), we notice tat A H (v H v) = (A A H )v + f H f in H(div; Ω R ), were Av = f and A H v H = f H inh(div; Ω R ) : f H (w) = Γ G H Γ g w ν ds and f(w) = Γ G Γ g w ν ds w H(div; Ω R ). But we can estimate (A A H )v H(div; ) as in te proof of Lemma 3.2, wic gives us te first term on te rigt and side of (16). Similarly, we can bound f H f H(div; ), wic gives us te second term on te rigt and side of (16). Our final result of tis section sows tat v H is smoot enoug tat te trace of v H is well defined on line segments (edges of elements) in Ω R. 14

15 Lemma 3.4 or eac 0 s < 1/2, tere exists a constant C (depending on s but independent of g H 1 (Γ)) suc tat te solution v H H(div; Ω R ) of (14) satisfies v H H 1/2+s (Ω R ) CH s g H 1 (Γ) and v H H1 (Ω R ) C g H 1 (Γ). Proof. ollowing te proof of te uniqueness result in Lemma 2.5 and replacing tere te operator G Γ by its discrete counterpart G H Γ, we see tat vh = u H were u H H 1 (Ω R ) satisfies u H + k 2 u H = 0 in Ω R, u H + N R ( uh ν ) = 0 on Σ R, u H + G H Γ ( uh ν ) = GH Γ g on Γ. Since S H consists of continuous piecewise polynomials, we know tat for eac 0 s < 1/2 it olds S H H 1+s (Γ) and, in particular, u H Γ G H Γ (H 1 (Γ)) S H H 1+s (Γ). Moreover, N R can be inverted to give te classical Diriclet-to-Neumann map, so tat u H can be extended to te exterior of B R as a radiating solution of Helmoltz equation in te wole Ω. Identifying suc extension wit u H itself, we ave tat u H satisfies te exterior Diriclet problem for Helmoltz equation in Ω and Diriclet data u H Γ H 1+s (Γ). Hence, using a priori estimates for te exterior Diriclet problem, u H H 3/2+s loc (Ω) and it satisfies u H H 3/2+s (Ω R ) u H H 3/2+s (Ω) C uh H 1+s (Γ) = C G H Γ ( uh loc ν ) GH Γ g H 1+s (Γ). By our quasi-uniformity assumption on te mes TH Γ, we know tat a standard inverse estimate olds for S H and ence u H H 3/2+s (Ω R ) CH s G H Γ ( uh ν ) GH Γ g H1 (Γ) CH s ( uh ν H 1/2 (Γ) + g H 1 (Γ)). Now note tat v H = u H in Ω R, so tat v H H 1/2+s (Ω R ) u H H 3/2+s (Ω R ) CH s ( v H ν H 1/2 (Γ) + g H 1 (Γ)). Similarly, v H = u H = k 2 u H and we deduce tat v H H1 (Ω R ) = k 2 u H H1 (Ω R ) C G H Γ ( uh ν ) GH Γ g H 1/2 (Γ) C ( v H ν H 1/2 (Γ) + g H 1 (Γ)). We complete te estimate using te well-posedness of te semidiscrete problem and te continuity of normal traces from H(div; Ω R ) into H 1/2 (Γ). 4. A Trefftz DG Metod We want to use a Trefftz discontinuous Galerkin metod to approximate te semidiscrete problem (14). In particular, in te scalar case, typical examples of 15

16 Trefftz spaces for te Helmoltz problems are linear combinations of plane waves in different directions, or linear combinations of circular/sperical waves. Te gradient of suc solutions provides a basis for te vector problem. In te following we seek a Trefftz Discontinuous Galerkin (TDG) metod to approximate te semidiscrete vector formulation of te problem (14). Let us introduce T a triangular mes of Ω R, possibly featuring anging nodes, and allowing triangles to ave curvilinear edges if tey sare an edge wit Γ or Σ R. We write for te mes widt of T, tat is, = max K T K were K te diameter of triangle K. On T we will define our TDG metod. To tis end, we denote by = K T K te skeleton of te mes T, and set R = Σ R, Γ = Γ, and I = Ω R = ( R Γ ). We also introduce some standard DG notation: Write ν +, ν and ν K for te exterior unit normals on K +, K and K, respectively, were K +, K, K T. Let u and v denote a piecewise smoot scalar function and vector field respectively on T. On any edge e I wit e = K + K, were K +, K T, we define te averages: {{u}} = 1 2 (u + u + ), {{v}} = 1 2 (v + v + ); te jumps: u ν = u ν + u + ν +, v ν = v ν + v + ν +. urtermore, we will denote by te elementwise application of, and by ν, = ν te element-wise application of ν on Ω R = Γ Σ R. We next introduce a suitable Trefftz space to approximate te semidiscrete problem written in vector form as (14). To tis end, we introduce te vector TDG spaces wit local number of plane wave directions {p K } K T, p K > 3, given by W = {w L 2 (Ω R ) 2 ; w K W pk (K) K T }, were eac W pk (K) is te span of a set of p K linearly independent vector functions on K tat enjoy te Trefftz property: w + k 2 w = 0 w W pk (K). Ten, for any u W and an arbitrary element K T, we ave te following integration by parts formula: 0 = K ( u + k 2 u ) w dx = K ( u w + k 2 u w ) dx + K u w ν K ds. Integrating by parts one more time K (u ( w + k 2 w ) dx + K u w ν K ds K u ν K w ds = 0. Now assuming tat w W pk (K), we obtain te master equation tat te fluxes are linked by K u w ν K ds K u ν K w ds = 0. Tis needs to be generalized to be applied to discontinuous trial and test functions in W. Let u and û denote numerical fluxes computed from te appropriate 16

17 functions on eiter side of an edge e in te mes (or on one side if te edge is on te boundary), as we will describe next. We ten write te extended master equation K u w ν K ds K û ν K w ds = 0. Adding over all triangles in te mes, K T, we may write te sum using te sets R, I and Γ as defined previously and obtain: ( u I w ν û w ν ) ds + ( u R w ν û ν w ) ds ( u Γ w ν û ν w ) ds = 0, (17) were te negative sign appears on te last term because of te use of an outward pointing normal on Γ. Defining numerical fluxes using conjugate variables, we are led (see also [8, 19]) to te following fluxes on edges in I : u = {{ u }} + ikα 1 u ν, û = {{u }} + α 2 ik u ν. Here α 1 and α 2 are strictly positive real numbers on eac edge e I. or te Ultra Weak Variational ormulation tat we usually use, α 1 = α 2 = 1/2 [9]. More generally tey could be mes dependent [19, 21]. Since our numerical results are for constant α 1 and α 2 we sall not investigate tese more general cases furter. or te edges on te outer boundary, R, following [25] we take u = k 2 N R (u ν) + δik N R( u + k 2 N R (u ν)), û = u + δ ik ( u + k 2 N R (u ν))ν. were NR is te L2 (Σ R )-adjoint of N R, and δ > 0 is a parameter to be cosen. urtermore, for edges on te impedance boundary, D, we consider u = k 2 G H Γ (u ν + g) ik τ G H, Γ ( u + k 2 G H (u ν + g)), û = u τ ik ( u + k 2 G H (u ν + g))ν. were G H, Γ is te L 2 (Γ)-adjoint of G H Γ, and τ > 0 is a parameter to be cosen. Note te sign cange compared to te fluxes on te outer boundary Σ R because of te outward pointing ν. 17

18 Using tese fluxes in (17) leads us to defining te sesquilinear form a H (u, w) = ({{ u}} w I ν {{u}} w ν ) ds 1 ik α 2 u ν w ν ds (k 2 N R (u ν)w ν + u ν w) ds I 1 ik δ( u + k 2 N R (u ν))( w + k 2 N R (w ν)) ds Σ R + (k 2 G H Γ (u ν) w ν + u ν w) ds + ik α Γ I 1 u ν w ν ds 1 ik τ( u + Γ k2 G H Γ (u ν))( w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν)) ds, (18) and te antilinear functional f H (w) = 1 ik Γ τk2 G H Γ (g) ( w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν)) ds + Γ k 2 G H Γ (g) w ν ds Ten te discrete problem we wis to solve is to find v H W suc tat a H (vh, w) = f H (w) for all w W. (19) We start by sowing tat tis problem as a unique solution for any > 0 and k > 0 and H small enoug. It is useful to define te sesquilinear forms a H 0, (u, w) = ({{ u}} w I ν {{u}} w ν ) ds u ν w ds + Γ u ν w ds, and b H (u, w)=ik α I 1 u ν w ν ds 1 ik α 2 u ν w ν ds I 1 ik δ ( u + k 2 N R (u ν))( w + k 2 N R (w ν)) ds k 2 N R (u ν) w ν ds Σ R + k 2 G H Γ (u ν) w ν ds 1 Γ ik τ ( u + Γ k2 G H Γ (u ν))( w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν)) ds Obviously a H (u, w) = ah 0, (u, w) + bh (u, w). We start by rewriting a H 0, in an equivalent form using te DG Magic Lemma [13]. In particular since w satisfies te Trefftz condition, for all u, w W we ave ( u w k 2 u w) dx = u ν w ds K T K K T K = ({{u}} w I ν + u ν {{ w}}) ds + u ν w ds u ν w ds. Γ Using tis equality in te definition of a H 0, (u, w) we see tat ah 0, (u, w) = ah 1, (u, w) 18

19 were a H 1, (u, w) = ( u w k 2 u w) dx+ ({{ u}} w K T K I ν + u ν {{ w}}) ds. Ten coosing w = u we immediately ave I(a H 0, (u, u)) = I(aH 1, (u, u)) = 0. Turning to te sesquilinear form b H (u, w) if we coose w = u ten b H (u, u)=ik α I 1 u ν 2 ds 1 ik α 2 u ν 2 ds I 1 ik δ u + k 2 N R (u ν) 2 ds k 2 N R (u ν)u ν ds Σ R + Γ k 2 G H Γ (u ν)u ν ds 1 ik Σ R τ u + k 2 G H Γ (u ν)) 2 ds. Tus since α 1, α 2, δ and τ are real valued I(b H (u, u)= (kα I 1 u ν 2 + α 2 k u ν 2 ) ds I( k 2 N R (u ν)u ν ds) + I( Γ k 2 G H Γ (u ν) u ν ds) + δ k u + k2 N R (u ν) 2 ds + Γ τ k u + k2 G H Γ (u ν) 2 ds. Note tat, by Lemmas 2.1 and 2.4 (wic is stated for G Γ but a similar reasoning sows tat it also olds for G H Γ ), I( N R (u ν) u ν ds) I( Γ G H Γ (u ν) u ν ds) 0, and so I(b H (u, u)) (kα I 1 u ν 2 + α 2 k u ν 2 ) ds δ + k u + k2 N R (u ν) 2 τ ds + Γ k u + k2 G H Γ (u ν) 2 ds. We may tus define te mes-dependent semi-norm w DG = I(b H (w, w)) for any function w W s (T ) were W s (T ) is defined as follows and contains W : W s (T ) = {w L 2 (Ω R ) 2 ; w K H 1/2+s (div; K) s.t. w+k 2 w = 0 in K, K T }, for any s R wit s > 0. We now ave te following result. Lemma 4.1 or any s > 0 and all H > 0 small enoug, te semi-norm DG is a 19

20 norm on W s (T ), and w 2 DG (kα I 1 w ν 2 + α 2 k w ν 2 ) ds (20) δ + k w + k2 N R (w ν) 2 τ ds + Γ k w + k2 G H Γ (w ν) 2 ds. Proof. On one and, if w DG = 0 for some w W s (T ), ten w + k 2 w = 0 in Ω R and w + k 2 N R (w ν) = 0 on Σ R, w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν) = 0 on Γ. Te well-posedness of te semi-discrete problem for all H small enoug, Teorem 3.3, implies tat w = 0, so tat te semi-norm DG is a norm on W s (T ). On te oter and, te norm bound follows from te argument preceding te lemma. We now ave te existence and uniqueness of solution for te discrete problem. Proposition 4.2 unique solution v H or all H small enoug and any > 0 and k > 0 tere exists a W to te problem (19) for every g H 1 (Γ). Proof. By te finite dimension of te space W, it suffices to sow uniqueness of solution. To tis end, we consider a solution of te omogeneous problem, tat is, v H W suc tat a H (vh, w) = 0 for any w W. Ten a H (vh, vh ) = 0, so tat v H 2 DG = I(bH (vh, vh )) = I(a(vH, vh )) = 0. Hence vh = 0 since DG is a norm on W W s (T ) (see Lemma 4.1) A bound of te approximation error in te mes-dependent norm DG We now introduce te mes-dependent norm DG + on W s (T ) as w 2 DG = + w 2 DG + k 1 α1 1 {{ w}} 2 ds + k α2 1 {{w}} 2 ds I I +k δ 1 w ν 2 ds + k Γ τ 1 w ν 2 ds. Proposition 4.3 or any u, w W s (T ), we ave a H (u, w) 2 v DG w DG +. Proof. Using integration by parts, te Trefftz property of u W s (T ), and te DG Magic Lemma, we ave ( u w k 2 u w) dx = K T K = I u w ν ds K T K {{ u}} w ν ds + u I ν {{w}} ds u w ν ds Γ + u w ν ds. (21) Substituting te expression for K T K ( u w k 2 u w) dx from equa- 20

21 tion (21) above into te expression for a H 1, (u, w) leads to a H 1, (u, w) = u I ν {{ w}} ds u I ν {{w}} ds + u w ν ds u w ν ds. Γ Ten since a H (u, w) = bh (u, w) + ah 1, (u, w), we ave tat a H (u, w)=ik α I 1 u ν w ν ds 1 ik α 2 u ν w ν ds I ( u + k 2 N R (u ν)) w ν ds + Γ ( u + k 2 G H Γ (u ν)) w ν ds 1 ik Σ R δ( u + k 2 N R (u ν))( w + k 2 N R (w ν)) ds 1 ik τ( u + Γ k2 G H Γ (u ν))( w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν)) ds + u {{ w}} ds u {{w}} ds. I I By using te weigted Caucy Scwarz inequality, we get te result. We now state a quasi-optimal error estimate wit respect to te DG and DG + norms. Teorem 4.4 Assume v W s (T ) is te analytical solution to problem (14), and te unique solution to problem (19). Ten v H v v H DG 2 inf v w DG +. w W Proof. Since v v H Ws (T ), for all w W we ave v v H 2 DG = I(a H (v v, v v )) 2 v v DG v w DG +, were te last inequality follows from te consistency of te discrete sceme, and continuity of te sesquilinear form in Proposition An error bound in a mes-independent norm We next derive a bound of te approximation error in terms of a mes-independent norm. Ideally tis would be te L 2 (Ω R ) 2 -norm, but as in te case of Maxwell s equations (see [22]) tis is not possible and we derive an estimate in te H(div; Ω R ) -norm. To tis end, we start bounding some mes-independent norm in terms of te mes-dependent norm DG in te te vector space W s (T ) for s R, s > 0, wic contains te Trefftz vector space W. Recall tat any function in tis space may be written using te L 2 (Ω R ) 2 - ortogonal Helmoltz decomposition w = w 0 + p wit w 0 H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ), p H 1 (Ω R ). (22) Also notice tat, in terms of tis decomposition, te property w K H 1/2+s (div; K) 21

22 for all K T means tat w 0 K H 1/2+s (K) 2, p K = div w K H 1/2+s (K) for all K T. (23) We will bound te L 2 (Ω R ) 2 -norm of p and also a weaker norm of w 0 by means of w DG using similar arguments to tose in [22]. In particular, we take te sape regularity and quasi-uniformity measures K s.r.(t ) = max and q.u.(t ) = max, K T d K K T K were, for eac K T, we denote by d K te diameter of te largest ball contained in K A bound of p 0, by a duality argument We consider te adjoint problem of (14), wic consists of finding φ H(div; Ω R ) suc tat ( 1 k 2 φ z φ z) dx + (N R ) (φ ν) (z ν) ds Γ (G H Γ ) (φ ν) (z ν) ds = p z dx, (24) for all z H(div, Ω R ). Let us empasize tat (24) is well-posed and sows te following regularity. Lemma 4.5 or any p H 1 (Ω R ), if H > 0 is sufficiently small ten te adjoint problem (24) is well-posed. Moreover, for eac s (0, 1/2) te solution as te regularity φ H 1/2+s (Ω R ) 2, wit were C > 0 depends only on Ω R. φ 1/2+s, CH s p 0,, Proof. Te well-posedness of te adjoint problem (24) follows from our proof of te well-posedness of te original problem (14) in Teorem 3.3. Using te Helmoltz decomposition (22) and reasoning as in te proof of Lemma 2.5, we see tat te solution of te adjoint problem is te function φ = q for q H 1 (Ω R ) wic solves te following equations in weak sense: q + k 2 q = k 2 p in Ω R, q + (N R ) ( q ν ) = 0 on Σ R, q + (G H Γ ) ( q ν ) = 0 on Γ. Tus q can be extended as a solution of a scattering problem to Ω wit te adjoint radiation condition at infinity. Hence te regularity of q is determined from te boundary condition on Γ and in particular, since (G H Γ ) ( q ν ) H1+s (Γ) for all 0 s < 1/2 (see te remark after Assumption 2), we see tat q H 3/2+s (Ω R ). Ten using an inverse estimate guaranteed by te assumed quasi-uniformity of te 22

23 boundary mes, q H 3/2+s (Ω R ) C (G H Γ ) ( q ν ) H 1+s (Γ) CH s (G H Γ ) ( q ν ) H 1 (Γ) CH s q ν H 1 (Γ) CH s φ ν H 1/2 (Γ) CH s φ H(div; ). inally, te continuity estimate for te solution of te semidiscrete adjoint problem (24) provides te bound φ H(div; ) C p L2 (Ω R ) and completes te proof. Notice tat, by te L 2 (Ω R ) 2 -ortogonality of te Helmoltz decomposition (22), p 2 0,Ω R = p p dx = p w dx. Making use of te adjoint problem for z = w, p 2 0,Ω R = ( 1 k 2 φ w φ w) dx + (φ ν) N R (w ν) ds Γ (φ ν) G H Γ (w ν) ds. If we split te domain Ω R in terms of te mes T and ten integrate by parts in eac K T, tanks to Trefftz properties for w W s (T ), we come up wit p 2 0,Ω R 1 = I α2 k φ ν α2 w ν ds 3 k k δ + (φ ν) ( w + k 2 N R (w ν)) ds δk 2 k k τ Γ τ k 2 (φ ν) (( w + k 2 G H Γ (w ν)) ds. k Ten, by Caucy-Scwartz inequality and te lower bound of te DG-norm (20), were we denote p 2 0,Ω R (G(φ)) 1/2 w DG, (25) G(φ) = 1 k 3 ( 1 φ ν 2 1 ds + I α 2 δ φ 1 ν 2 ds + Γ τ φ ν 2 ds). In order to deal wit tis last term, we use te following trace inequality (see [21, eq. (24)]): η 2 0, K C ( 1 K η 2 0,K + 2s K η 2 1/2+s,K ) η H1/2+s (K), K T ; indeed, taking η to be eac entry of φ H 1/2+s (Ω R ) 2, we deduce G(φ) 1 k 3 min{α 2, δ, τ} φ ν 2 ds K T K C k 3 min{α 2, δ, τ} ( 1 φ 2 0,K + 2s K K T K H 2s φ 2 1/2+s,K ), 23

24 were α 2 = inf α I 2, δ = inf δ and τ = inf R τ (we ave assumed α Γ 2, δ, τ > 0). Recalling tat q.u.(t ) K and applying Lemma 4.5, we ave G(φ) Terefore, using (25), C k 3 min{α 2, δ, τ} 1 ( K T q.u.(t ) φ 2 0,K + 2s H 2s φ 2 1/2+s,K ) C k 3 min{α 2, δ, τ} ( 1 q.u.(t ) φ 2 0,Ω R + 2s H 2s φ 2 1/2+s,Ω R ) C min{α 2, δ, τ} ( 1 q.u.(t ) + 2s H 2s ) H 2s p 2 0,Ω R. C H 2s 1/2 p 0, ( min{α 2, δ, τ} ( 1 q.u.(t ) + 2s H 2s )) w DG, so we ave proved te following lemma: Lemma 4.6 or sufficiently small H > 0 and any s (0, ), tere is a constant C (depending on s but independent of and H), suc tat p 0, CH s ( 1/2 + s H s ) w DG, were w W s (T ) and p H 1 (Ω R ) satisfies (22) A bound of w 0 H(curl; ) by a duality argument or any trial function u H(curl; Ω R ) we consider its L 2 (Ω R ) 2 -ortogonal Helmoltz decomposition as in (22): u = u 0 + q wit u 0 H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ), q H 1 (Ω R ). (26) Ten, using te L 2 (Ω R )-ortogonality of Helmoltz decomposition as well as Trefftz property, w 0 u dx = w 0 u 0 dx = 1 k 2 w 0 u 0 dx, K T K so tat, integrating by parts, and using tat u 0 H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ), w 0 u dx = 1 k 2 w 0 u 0 ν ds = K T K = 1 k 2 ( w I 0 ν u 0 ds + w R 0 ν u 0 ds w Γ 0 ν u 0 ds) = = 1 k 2 w I 0 ν ν u 0 ν ds. Terefore, by Caucy-Scwartz inequality, w 0 u dx 1 k 2 ( I α 2 k w 0 ν 2 ds) 1/2 ( I k α 2 u 0 ν 2 ds) 1/2, 24

25 and we ave w 0 u dx 1 k 3 α 2 w DG ( K T K u 0 ν 2 ds) 1/2. Let us notice tat, taking te curl of (26), we know tat curlu 0 = curlu L 2 (Ω R ); tis allows us to use again te trace inequality [21, eq. (24)] for u 0 H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ) H(curl; Ω R ) H 1/2+s (Ω R ) for any s [0, 1/2): u 0 ν 2 0, K u 0 2 0, K C ( 1 q.u.(t ) u 0 2 0,K + 2s u 0 2 1/2+s,K ). Ten, summing over K T and making use of te continuity of te embedding H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ) H(curl; Ω R ) H 1/2+s (Ω R ), we deduce u 0 ν 2 0, K C ( 1 K T q.u.(t ) u 0 2 0,Ω R + 2s u 0 2 1/2+s,Ω R ) 1 C ( q.u.(t ) + 2s ) ( u 0 2 0,Ω R + curlu 0 2 0,Ω R ). But recalling te L 2 (Ω R ) 2 -ortogonality of Helmoltz decomposition (26), so tat u 2 curl,ω R = u 0 2 0,Ω R + q 2 0,Ω R + curlu 0 2 0,Ω R u 0 2 0,Ω R + curlu 0 2 0,Ω R, Terefore u 0 ν 2 0, K C ( 1 K T q.u.(t ) + 2s ) u 2 curl,ω R. w 0 u dx C ((q.u.(t ) ) 1 + 2s ) 1/2 k 3 α 2 w DG u curl,, and we conclude tat w 0 H(curl; ) C ((q.u.(t ) ) 1 + 2s ) 1/2 k 3 α 2 w DG. We ave proved te following lemma: Lemma 4.7 or eac s (0, ), tere exists a constant C (depending on s but independent of > 0 and H > 0 small enoug) suc tat w 0 H(curl; ) C 1/2 w DG, for all w W s (T ) and w 0 H 0 (div 0 ; Ω R ) satisfying (22). Using Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7 we ave ten proved te following teorem tat summarizes our results from tis section. 25

26 Teorem 4.8 or all sufficiently small H and for eac s > 0, tere is a constant C depending on s but independent of, H, v H and v H suc tat v H v H H(curl,Ω R ) C H s ( 1/2 + s H s ) inf w W v w DG +. Remark 5 We could avoid te growing factor H s if we used C 1 functions to compute G H Γ. Note tat using a trigonometric basis is one case were H s can be removed. In te general case, te H s terms are not unexpected. Also notice tat we can coose a fine mes on te boundary Γ and ten we still can approximate te scattering problem wit sufficient accuracy. Proof. Let w = v H v H in (22). Ten w H v H H(curl;Ω R ) w 0 H(curl; ) + p H(curl;Ω R ). Use of Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7 completes te proof. Using approximation results from [20] tis teorem could be converted into order estimates. Because of te poor regularity of v H (due to te reduced regularity imposed by te regularity of G H Γ ) we expect to need a refined grid near te boundary unless we use smoot basis functions on Γ. Our final result combines Teorem 3.3 and Teorem 4.8 to give an error estimate for te fully discrete problem. Corollary 4.9 Under te conditions of Teorem 4.8, tere is a constant C (depending on s (0, ) but independent of, and H small enoug, v H and v H) suc tat v v H H(curl;Ω R ) CH s ( 1/2 + s H s ) ( inf w W v w DG + + (G H Γ G Γ )(v ν) H 1/2 (Γ) + (G H Γ G Γ )g H 1/2 (Γ)). Proof. We ave already sown in Teorem 3.3 tat v H converges to v in H(div; Ω R ), and tis is a stronger norm tan H(curl; Ω R ). Besides, we ave sown in Teorem 4.8 tat v H converges to vh in H(curl; Ω R ). Combining tose two results, we conclude te statement. 5. Numerical Results We now present some limited and preliminary numerical results tat illustrate te foregoing error analysis. We consider scattering by a circular disk and use absorbing boundary conditions (ABCs) on te exterior. Tis is not exactly wat is analyzed in te foregoing sections, but ABCs give rise to GIBC and are an important application of our metod. Now tere is no Neumann-to-Diriclet map and te GIBC is provided by various Absorbing Boundary Conditions. However, te same error estimates old in tis case, and te use of iger order ABCs is of considerable practical use. Our results are obtained using a modified version of LerEM [30]. We make te coice α 1 = α 2 = τ = 1/2 so tat we are actually using te Ultra Weak Variational formulation. Te wave-number is k = 8 and we use a uniform number of directions on te elements wit p K = 7 for all elements K. 26

27 In particular, we consider scattering of a plane wave incident field u i (r, θ) = exp(ikr cos θ) from a circular scatterer of radius a. We impose te Diriclet boundary condition u(a, θ) = exp(ika cos θ) on te boundary of te scatterer, and ABCs of te form: αu + β 1 u = u r on Σ R. were 1 = 1 R 2 2 θ is te Laplace-Beltrami operator on te circle Σ. Tis is obviously a special case of te GIBC (second equation in (2)) albeit on te outer rater R tan inner boundary. Tese boundary conditions are given in [16] as approximations of te Diricletto-Neumann map, for te following coices of α and β: ABC0: α = ik, β = 0, ABC1: α = (ik + 1 2R ), β = 0, ABC2: α = (ik + 1 2R + i 8kR 2 ), β = i 2kR 2, ABC3: α = (ik + 1 2R + i 8kR 2 1 8k 2 R 3 ), β = ( i 2kR 2 1 2k 2 R 3 ). Te above ABCs can ten be translated into GIBCs for te displacement problem as outlined in Section 1, and te results can ten be translated back to te field u using te Trefftz property so tat u = v/k 2. An advantage of te simple circular scatterer is tat we can write down te exact solution for scattering of a plane wave incident field wit an ABC on Σ R. In particular: u(r, θ) = [a n H n (1) (kr) + b n H n (2) (kr)] exp(inθ), n= were te coefficients a n, b n are solutions of te linear system: γh n (1) (kr) + kh n (1) (kr) γh n (2) (kr) + kh n (2) (kr) ( a n 0 ) = ( H n (1) (ka) H n (2) b n i n J n (ka) ) (ka) and γ = α βn 2 /R 2. Tis ten gives a series solution for v tat solves (2). In ig. 2 we sow field plots for te solution of te approximate scattering problem in 7 cases, togeter wit te exact solution of te full scattering problem. or tis experiment we coose k = 8 giving a wavelengt λ Te mes size requested from te mes generator is = 0.1. Te outer boundary is distance 0.64 wavelengts from te scatterer wic is rater close. Indeed te top left and top rigt panels sow considerable distortion compared to te lower rigt figure sowing te exact solution. Using ABC2 and ABC3 gives better fidelity. In te bottom left panel we sow te solution computed using a discretized NtD map, wic sows te best accuracy. To investigate convergence in a more quantitative way, in ig. 3 we sow te relative L 2 error on te domain as a function of 1/. In te left and panel we verify tat no matter wic ABC is used, te UWV solution wit an ABC or 27

28 igure 2. Moduli of te fields scattered from a disk: a = 0.5, R = 1, p = 7 plane waves per element, k = 8. Top left: ABC0. Top rigt: ABC1. Middle left: ABC2. Middle rigt: ABC3. Bottom left: NtD. Bottom rigt: Exact solution. or tese results = 0.1 is fixed and 13 ourier modes are used for te ABC and NtD models. Te exact solution uses 40 modes. te NtD boundary condition converges optimally to te exact solution for te particular ABC (essentially te result from Teorem 4.4). Ten in te rigt and panel we compare te UWV wit ABC boundary condition to te true exact solution of te full scattering problem. As can be seen ABC0 and ABC1 result in a poor relative error and do not benefit from mes refinement (te absorbing boundary is too close to te scatterer and all error is related to te ABC not te UWV). or ABC2 and ABC3 te solution does converge wit until te error from te ABC dominates. It is clear tat in tis case ABC3 can be used to obtain a solution wit better tan 1% error even wit te close absorbing boundary. Te discrete NtD solution continues to converge for all in our study and would be preferred in tis case (but ABCs can be used on non-circular absorbing boundaries and so are of practical interest). 6. Conclusion We ave provided an error analysis of te UWV discretization of te Helmoltz equation in te presence of a Generalized Impedance Boundary Conditions. Te error analysis is backed by limited numerical experiments. 28

29 igure 3. Relative L 2 (Ω R )-norm error vs. 1/, for different ABCs on Σ R. Left: Errors are computed against te exact solution for te particular ABCs. Rigt: Errors are computed against te exact solution of te scattering problem. Clearly several extensions and furter numerical tests need to be performed. In particular our analysis and numerical tests are for a smoot boundary. Analysis for a non-smoot boundary, and appropriate mes refinement strategies near corners need to be developed. Acknowledgements Te researc of Peter Monk is partially supported by NS grant number DMS Te researc of Virginia Selgas is partially supported by MCI project number MTM P. Peter Monk and Selvean Kapita acknowledge te support of te IMA, University of Minnesota during te special year Matematics and Optics. References [1] M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Matematical unctions, Applied Matematics Series, 55. National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, [2] Babuška I, Melenk JM. Te partition of unity metod. International Journal for Numerical Metods in Engineering, 40, pp , [3] H. Barucq, A. Bendali, M B. ares, V. Mattesi, S. Tordeux, A Symmetric Trefftz- DG formulation based on a local boundary element metod for te solution of te Helmoltz equation, Journal of Computational Pysics, Elsevier, 2016, Volume 330, 1 ebruary 2017, Pages [4] L. Bourgeois, N. Caulet, H. Haddar, Identification of generalized impedance boundary conditions: some numerical issues, Rapport INRIA no.7449, [5] L. Bourgeois, N. Caulet, H. Haddar, Stable reconstruction of generalized impedance boundary conditions, Inverse Problems, 27, pp , [6] S.C. Brenner, J. Gedicke and L.-Y. Sung, Hodge decomposition for two-dimensional time armonic Maxwell s equations: impedance boundary condition, Matematical Metods in te Applied Sciences, publised online ebruary (DOI: /mma.3398) [7] A. Buffa, Remarks on te discretization of some noncoercive operator wit applications to eterogeneous Maxwell equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43, pp. 1-18, [8] A. Buffa and P. Monk, Error estimates for te Ultra Weak Variational ormulation of te Helmoltz equation, ESAIM: Matematical Modeling and Numerical Analysis, 42, pp ,