- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Adaptive variational discretization approximation method for parabolic optimal control problems
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2020, Article number: 240 (2020)
Abstract
In this paper, we study variational discretization method for parabolic optimization problems. Firstly, we obtain some convergence and superconvergence analysis results of the approximation scheme. Secondly, we derive a posteriori error estimates of the approximation solutions. Finally, we present variational discretization approximation algorithm and adaptive variational discretization approximation algorithm for parabolic optimization problems and do some numerical experiments to confirm our theoretical results.
1 Introduction
Optimal control problems (OCPs) play an important role in scientific and engineering numerical simulation, and nowadays are strongly utilized in biology, economics, and finance. Finite element approximation is one of the widely used numerical methods in computing OCPs. A systematic introduction of finite element method (FEM) for partial differential equations or OPCs can be found in [1, 2, 8, 20, 30, 33].
There have been abundant researches on FEM approximation for elliptic optimal control problems (EOCPs). The pioneering work of the late 1970s in the area of finite element approximation for EOCPs includes [10, 11], where a priori error estimates were established. Then a lot of superconvergence and a posteriori error estimate results of FEM solving different kinds of EOCPs were obtained. For instance, superconvergence of FEM for linear, bilinear, and semilinear EOCPs were derived in [27, 32], and [4], respectively, while residual- and recovery-based a posteriori error estimates of FEM for distributed OCPs were constructed in [22] and [18], respectively. Moreover, adaptive FEM for EOCPs were presented in [3, 13, 17]. It is worth mentioning that some similar results of mixed FEM for EOCPs can be found in [5, 7, 16].
In the last decade, numerical solution of parabolic optimal control problems (POCPs) became a hot research topic. A priori error estimates of FEM, space-time FEM, and Petrov–Galerkin Crank–Nicolson approximation for POCPs were given in [12, 25], and [26], respectively. In [24], the authors constructed an adaptive space-time FEM for POCPs. There are also some results on residual-type a posteriori error estimates of FEM or mixed FEM for POCPs which can be found in [6, 23, 31], where the authors do not give any adaptive FEM approximation for POCPs.
Hinze presented a variational discretization (VD) concept for control constrained optimization problems in [14]. It can not only save some computation cost but also improve the error of the control variable. Recently, VD approximation of convection dominated diffusion EOCP with control constraints and POCP with pointwise state constraints were investigated in [15] and [9], respectively. We have investigated VD approximation for a linear POCP in [28].
The purpose of this work is to investigate VD approximation for a POCP with control constraints. We first analyze the convergence and superconvergence of the VD approximation scheme and derive a posteriori error estimates, then construct an adaptive VD approximation algorithm for the POCP. Finally, two numerical examples are provided to verify theoretical results.
We are interested in the following POCP:
where \(\nu >0\) represents the weight of the cost of the control, Ω is a bounded domain in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) with a Lipschitz boundary ∂Ω, \(0< T<+\infty \) and \(J=[0,T]\). The coefficient \(A(x)=(a_{ij}(x))_{2\times 2}\in (W^{1,\infty }(\bar{\Omega }))^{2 \times 2}\) is such that for any \(\xi \in \mathbb{R}^{2}\), \((A(x)\xi )\cdot \xi \geq c| \xi | ^{2}\) with \(c>0\). We assume that K is a nonempty closed convex set in \(L^{2}(J;L^{2}(\Omega ))\), defined by
where a and b are constants.
In this paper, we adopt the standard notation \(W^{m,q}(\Omega )\) for Sobolev spaces on Ω with norm \(\|\cdot \|_{W^{m,q}(\Omega )}\) and seminorm \(|\cdot |_{W^{m,q}(\Omega )}\). We denote \(W^{m,2}(\Omega )\) by \(H^{m}(\Omega )\) and set \(H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )\equiv \{ v \in H^{1}(\Omega ): v|_{\partial \Omega } =0 \} \). We denote by \(L^{s}(J;W^{m,q}(\Omega ))\) the Banach space of \(L^{s}\) integrable functions from J into \(W^{m,q}(\Omega )\) with norm \(\|v\|_{L^{s}(J;W^{m,q}(\Omega ))}= (\int _{0}^{T}\|v\|_{W^{m,q}( \Omega )}^{s}\,dt )^{\frac{1}{s}}\) for \(s\in [1,\infty )\) and the standard modification for \(s=\infty \). As in [21], we can define the space \(H^{l}(J;W^{m,q}(\Omega ))\). In addition, c or C denotes a generic positive constant independent of h and k.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we give a VD approximation for the model problem. In Sect. 3, we derive some convergence and superconvergence analysis results for the control, state, and costate variables. In Sect. 4, we establish a posteriori error estimates for the approximation scheme. We present a VD approximation algorithm and adaptive VD approximation algorithm for the POCP and do some numerical experiments to confirm our theoretical results in the last section.
2 VD approximation of POCP
In this section, we present a VD approximation for the model problem (1). For ease of exposition, we denote \(L^{p}(J;W^{m,q}(\Omega ))\) by \(L^{p}(W^{m,q})\). Let \(W=H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )\) and \(U=L^{2}(\Omega )\). Moreover, we denote \(\|\cdot \|_{H^{m}(\Omega )}\) and \(\|\cdot \|_{L^{2}(\Omega )}\) by \(\|\cdot \|_{m}\) and \(\|\cdot \|\), respectively.
Let
It follows from the assumptions on A that
Thus a possible weak formula for the model problem (1) reads:
It is well known (see, e.g., [20, 23]) that problem (2) has a unique solution \((y,u)\), and the pair \((y,u)\in (H^{1}(L^{2})\cap L^{2}(H^{1}) )\times K\) is the solution of (2) if and only if there is an adjoint state \(p\in H^{1}(L^{2})\cap L^{2}(H^{1})\) such that the triplet \((y,p,u)\) satisfies the following optimality conditions:
We introduce the following pointwise projection operator:
Similar to [15], the variational inequality (7) can be rewritten as
Let \(\mathcal{T}^{h}\) be regular triangulations of Ω and \(\bar{\Omega }=\bigcup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}^{h}}\bar{\tau }\). Let \(h=\max_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}^{h}}\{h_{\tau }\}\), where \(h_{\tau }\) denotes the diameter of the element τ. Moreover, we set
where \(\mathbb{P}_{1}\) is the space of polynomials up to order 1.
We now consider the time discretization for problem (2). Let \(k>0\), \(N=T/k\in \mathbb{Z}^{+}\), \(t_{n}=n k\), \(n=0,1,\ldots ,N\). Set \(\varphi ^{n}=\varphi (x,t_{n})\) and
We define for \(1\leq p<\infty \) the discrete time-dependent norms
where \(l=0\) for the control u and the state y and \(l=1\) for the adjoint state p, with the standard modification for \(p=\infty \). Just for simplicity, we denote \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|_{l^{p}(J;W^{m,q}(\Omega ))}\) by \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|_{l^{p}(W^{m,q})}\) and let
Then a VD approximation of (2) is as follows:
where \(P_{h}\) is an elliptic projection operator which will be specified later.
It follows (see, e.g., [15, 23]) that the control problem (9) has a unique solution \((y_{h}^{n},u_{h}^{n} )\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), and \((y_{h}^{n},u_{h}^{n} )\in W^{h}\times K\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), is the solution of (9) if and only if there is an adjoint state \(p_{h}^{n-1}\in W^{h}\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), such that the triplet \((y_{h}^{n},p_{h}^{n-1},u_{h}^{n} )\in W^{h}\times W^{h} \times K\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), satisfies the following optimality conditions:
Similar to [15], the optimality condition (14) can be equivalently expressed as
3 Convergence and superconvergence analysis
For the approximation scheme (10)–(14), some convergence and superconvergence results will be derived in this section. We define the following intermediate variables. Let \((y_{h}^{n}(u),p_{h}^{n-1}(u) )\in W^{h}\times W^{h}\), \(n=1,2, \ldots ,N\), satisfy the following system:
and introduce elliptic projection operator \(P_{h}: W\rightarrow W^{h}\), which satisfies, for any \(\phi \in W\),
It has the following approximation properties (see, e.g., [4]):
Lemma 3.1
Let \((y,p,u)\) and \((y_{h}(u),p_{h}(u) )\) be the solutions of (3)–(7) and (16)–(18), respectively. Suppose that \(y,p\in l^{2}_{D}(H^{2})\cap H^{1}(H^{2})\cap H^{2}(L^{2})\). Then
Proof
From the definition of \(P_{h}\), (3) and (16), for any \(w_{h}\in W^{h}\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), we have
By selecting \(w_{h}=y_{h}^{n}(u)-P_{h}y^{n}\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), we obtain
Note that \(a (y_{h}^{n}(u)-P_{h}y^{n},y_{h}^{n}(u)-P_{h}y^{n} )\geq 0\), and
It follows from (24)–(25) and Hölder’s inequality that
Summing over n from 1 to \(N^{*}\) (\(1\leq N^{*}\leq N\)), we get
Thus, we have
From (21), we derive
According to embedding theorem and (28)–(29), we have
Similarly, we can prove that
Then (22) follows from (30) and (31). □
For the control variable, we derive the following convergence result.
Theorem 3.1
Let \((y,p,u)\) and \((y_{h},p_{h},u_{h} )\) be the solutions of (3)–(7) and (10)–(14), respectively. Assume that all the conditions in Lemma 3.1are satisfied. Then, we have
Proof
It follows from (10)–(12) and (16)–(18) that
By using Hölder and Young inequalities, we get
From (22) and (33)–(35), we obtain (32). □
For the control, state and costate variables, we have the following results.
Theorem 3.2
Let \((y,p,u )\) and \((y_{h},p_{h},u_{h} )\) be the solutions (3)–(7) and (10)–(14), respectively. Assume that all the conditions in Theorem 3.1are valid. Then
Proof
From (3) and (10), for any \(w_{h}\in W^{h}\), \(n=1,2,\ldots ,N\), we obtain the following error equation:
By choosing \(w_{h}=P_{h}y^{n}-y_{h}^{n}\) and using the definition of \(P_{h}\), we get
Note that
and
Additionally,
Multiplying both sides of (38) by 2k, summing over n from 1 to N, and by using Hölder and Young inequalities, we have
Similarly, we can prove that
Then (36) follows from (43)–(44). □
Theorem 3.3
Assume that \(u\in l^{2}(H^{1})\) and all the conditions in Theorem 3.2are valid. Then
Proof
Notice that \(\Pi _{[a,b]}\) is Lipschitz continuous with constant 1. From (8) and (15), we have
4 A posteriori error estimates
In this section, a posteriori error estimates of recovery type will be established by utilizing the superconvergence results derived in Sect. 3. Similar to the Z–Z patch recovery in [34, 35], we introduce recovery operators \(R_{h}\) and \(G_{h}\) for the state and the adjoint state. Let \(R_{h}v\) be a continuous piecewise linear function (without zero boundary constraint) and let the values of \(R_{h}v\) on the nodes be defined by a least-squares argument on element patches surrounding the nodes. The gradient recovery operator \(G_{h}v= (R_{h}v_{x_{1}},R_{h}v_{x_{2}} )\). The details also can be found in [18].
Theorem 4.1
Let \((y,p,u)\) and \((y_{h},p_{h},u_{h})\) be the solutions of (3)–(7) and (10)–(14), respectively. Suppose that all the conditions in Theorem 3.2are valid and \(y,p\in L^{2}_{D}(J;H^{3}(\Omega ))\). Then
Proof
Let \(y_{I}\) be the piecewise linear Lagrange interpolation of y. From Theorem 2.1.1 in [19], we have
According to the standard interpolation error estimate technique (see, e.g., [8]), we have
Therefore,
From Theorem 3.2 and (51), we derive
Similarly, we can prove that
Then (47) follows from (52)–(53). □
By using the above superconvergence properties, it is easy to prove the following a posteriori error estimate results.
Theorem 4.2
Assume that all the conditions in Theorem 4.1are valid. Then
5 Numerical experiments
We do some numerical experiments to demonstrate our theoretical results. For an acceptable error Tol, we present a VD approximation algorithm (see Algorithm 5.1) for the constrained POCP (1). For ease of exposition, we have omitted the subscript h.
Similar to [18], by selecting the same meshes for the state and the adjoint state and using \(\eta _{1}\) and \(\eta _{2}\) as mesh refinement indicators for the state and the adjoint state, for an acceptable error \(\mathit{Tol}^{\prime }\), we construct adaptive VD approximation algorithm (see Algorithm 5.2).
The following numerical examples were solved with AFEPack which is freely available. Just for simplicity, we let \(\Omega =[0,1]\times [0,1]\), \(T=1\), \(A(x)=E\) be the \(2\times 2\) identity matrix and denote \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|_{l^{2}(L^{2})}\) and \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|_{l^{2}(H^{1})}\) by \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|\) and \(|\!|\!|\cdot |\!|\!|_{1}\), respectively. The convergence order is computed by the following formula: \(\mathit{Rate}=\frac{\log (e_{i+1})-\log (e_{i})}{\log (h_{i+1})-\log (h_{i})}\), where \(e_{i} (e_{i+1})\) denotes the error when the spatial partition size is \(h_{i} (h_{i+1})\). We solve the following POCP:
Moreover, we assume that
Example 1
The data are as follows:
We use the Algorithm 5.1 to solve the first example. In Fig. 1, we plot the profile of the numerical solution \(u_{h}\) at \(t=0.5\) when \(h=\frac{1}{80}\) and \(k=\frac{1}{640}\). In Table 1, the errors \(|\!|\!|u-u_{h}|\!|\!|\), \(|\!|\!|P_{h}y-y_{h}|\!|\!|_{1}\), and \(|\!|\!|P_{h}p-p_{h}|\!|\!|_{1}\) on a sequence of uniformly refined meshes are shown. It is easy to see \(|\!|\!|u-u_{h}|\!|\!|=\mathcal{O} (h^{2}+k )\), \(|\!|\!|P_{h}y-y_{h}|\!|\!|_{1}=\mathcal{O} (h^{2}+k )\), and \(|\!|\!|P_{h}p-p_{h}|\!|\!|_{1}=\mathcal{O} (h^{2}+k )\), which confirm our theoretical results.
Example 2
The data are as follows:
We take a small time size \(k=\frac{1}{100}\) and solve the second example by using the Algorithms 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. Numerical results based on a sequence of uniformly refined meshes and adaptive meshes are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. It is clear that the adaptive meshes generated via the error estimators \(\eta _{1}\) and \(\eta _{2}\) are able to save substantial computational work, in comparison with the uniform meshes.
6 Conclusions
Although there has been extensive research on FEMs for various POCPs, they mostly focused on convergence and superconvergence (see, e.g., [12, 23–26, 28, 29]), and the results on convergence and superconvergence were \(\mathcal{O}(h+k)\) and \(\mathcal{O}(h^{\frac{3}{2}}+k)\), respectively. Recently, VD were used to deal with different OCPs in [9, 14, 15, 28], while there was little work on POCPs. Hence, our results on adaptive VD for POCPs are new.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- OCP:
-
optimal control problem
- FEM:
-
finite element method
- EOCP:
-
elliptic optimal control problem
- POCP:
-
parabolic optimal control problem
- VD:
-
variational discretization
References
Ainsworth, M., Oden, J.: A Posteriori Error Estimation in Finite Element Analysis. Wiley-Interscience, New York (2000)
Babuvška, I., Rheinboldt, W.: Error estimates for adaptive finite element computations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 44(4), 75–102 (1978)
Becker, R., Kapp, H., Rannacher, R.: Adaptive finite element methods for optimal control of partial differential equations: basic concept. SIAM J. Control Optim. 39(1), 113–132 (2000)
Chen, Y., Dai, Y.: Superconvergence for optimal control problems governed by semi-linear elliptic equations. J. Sci. Comput. 39, 206–221 (2009)
Chen, Y., Huang, Y., Liu, W., Yan, N.: Error estimates and superconvergence of mixed finite element methods for convex optimal control problems. J. Sci. Comput. 42(3), 382–403 (2010)
Chen, Y., Lin, Z.: A posteriori error estimates of semidiscrete mixed finite element methods for parabolic optimal control problems. East Asian J. Appl. Math. 5(1), 85–108 (2015)
Chen, Y., Liu, W.: A posteriori error estimates for mixed finite element solutions of convex optimal control problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 211, 76–89 (2008)
Ciarlet, P.: The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)
Deckelnick, K., Hinze, M.: Variational discretization of parabolic control problems in the presence of pointwise state constraints. J. Comput. Math. 29(1), 1–16 (2011)
Falk, F.: Approximation of a class of optimal control problems with order of convergence estimates. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 44, 28–47 (1973)
Geveci, T.: On the approximation of the solution of an optimal control problem governed by an elliptic equation. RAIRO. Anal. Numér. 13, 313–328 (1979)
Gong, W., Hinze, M., Zhou, Z.: A priori error analysis for finite element approximation of parabolic optimal control problems with pointwise control. SIAM J. Control Optim. 52(1), 97–119 (2014)
Gong, W., Yan, N.: Adaptive finite element method for elliptic optimal control problems: convergence and optimality. Numer. Math. 135, 1121–1170 (2017)
Hinze, M.: A variational discretization concept in control constrained optimization: the linear-quadratic case. Comput. Optim. Appl. 30, 45–61 (2005)
Hinze, M., Yan, N., Zhou, Z.: Variational discretization for optimal control governed by convection dominated diffusion equations. J. Comput. Math. 27, 237–253 (2009)
Hoppe, R., Kieweg, M.: Adaptive finite element methods for mixed control-state constrained optimal control problems for elliptic boundary value problems. Comput. Optim. Appl. 46, 511–533 (2010)
Li, R., Liu, W., Ma, H., Tang, T.: Adaptive finite element approximation for distributed elliptic optimal control problems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 41(5), 1321–1349 (2012)
Li, R., Liu, W., Yan, N.: A posteriori error estimates of recovery type for distributed convex optimal control problems. J. Sci. Comput. 33, 155–182 (2007)
Lin, Q., Zhu, Q.: The Preprocessing and Postprocessing for the Finite Element Method. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, Shanghai (1994)
Lions, J.: Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations. Springer, Berlin (1971)
Lions, J., Magenes, E.: Non Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1972)
Liu, W., Yan, N.: A posteriori error estimates for distributed convex optimal control problems. Adv. Comput. Math. 15, 285–309 (2001)
Liu, W., Yan, N.: A posteriori error estimates for optimal control problems governed by parabolic equations. Numer. Math. 93, 497–521 (2003)
Meidner, D., Vexler, B.: Adaptive space-time finite element methods for parabolic optimization problems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 46(1), 116–142 (2007)
Meidner, D., Vexler, B.: A priori error estimates for space-time finite element discretization of parabolic optimal control problems, part II: problems with control constraints. SIAM J. Control Optim. 47(3), 1301–1329 (2008)
Meidner, D., Vexler, B.: A priori error analysis of the Petrov–Galerkin Crank–Nicolson scheme for parabolic optimal control problems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 49(5), 2183–2211 (2011)
Meyer, C., Rösch, A.: Superconvergence properties of optimal control problems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 43(3), 970–985 (2004)
Tang, Y., Chen, Y.: Variational discretization for parabolic optimal control problems with control constraints. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 25, 880–895 (2012)
Tang, Y., Hua, Y.: Convergence and superconvergence of variational discretization for parabolic bilinear optimization problems. J. Inequal. Appl. 2019, 239 (2019)
Vallejos, M., Borzì, A.: Multigrid optimization methods for linear and bilinear elliptic optimal control problems. Computing 82, 31–52 (2008)
Xiong, C., Li, Y.: A posteriori error estimates for optimal distributed control governed by the evolution equations. Appl. Numer. Math. 61, 181–200 (2011)
Yang, D., Chang, Y., Liu, W.: A priori error estimate and superconvergence analysis for an optimal control problem of bilinear type. J. Comput. Math. 26(4), 471–487 (2008)
Yang, J.: A unified a posteriori error estimate of local discontinuous Galerkin approximation for reactive transport problems. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 46(6), 759–772 (2015)
Zienkiwicz, O.C., Zhu, J.Z.: The superconvergence patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 33, 1331–1382 (1992)
Zienkiwicz, O.C., Zhu, J.Z.: The superconvergence patch recovery (SPR) and adaptive finite element refinement. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 101, 207–224 (1992)
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to both referees for carefully reading of the paper and their comments and suggestions.
Funding
The first author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11401201), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2020JJ4323), the Scientific Research Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Education (20A211), the construct program of applied characteristic discipline in Hunan University of Science and Engineering. The second author is supported by the Scientific Research Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Education (20C0854), the scientific research program in Hunan University of Science and Engineering (20XKY059).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors have participated in the sequence alignment and drafted the manuscript. They have approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tang, Y., Hua, Y. Adaptive variational discretization approximation method for parabolic optimal control problems. J Inequal Appl 2020, 240 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-020-02506-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-020-02506-6