3.1 Two-Step Formulation via Chebyshev Polynomials
For the analysis, we will first rewrite the above LF-LTS algorithm in a
two-step leapfrog-like formulation as it was done in
[20] for homogeneous right-hand sides. For this, we
define the polynomials
|
|
|
|
(3.1) |
|
|
|
|
(3.2) |
|
|
|
|
(3.3) |
where formally we set and write short ,
, and in what follows.
The following recurrence relations for follow easily from the
recurrence relations for Chebyshev polynomials as already stated in [4, Lem.
6.1] and [20, Lem. B.1].
Lemma 1
Let . Then, the polynomials defined in
(3.1) satisfy the recurrence relation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.7) |
|
|
|
|
while satisfies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.8) |
|
|
|
|
(3.9) |
Lemma 2
Let . Then, the polynomials
defined in (3.3) satisfy the
recurrence relation
|
|
|
|
(3.10) |
|
|
|
|
(3.11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.12) |
Proof. The first equation (3.10) holds by
(3.3) and (3.11) follows directly
since . Hence, let and insert definitions
(2.13), (3.3) into the right-hand side of
(3.12) to obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the standard recursions for Chebyshev polynomials of first and second
kind [15, Table 18.9.1], respectively, we conclude
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lemma 3
For , the functions defined in Algorithm
1 can be written in the form
|
|
|
(3.13) |
for
|
|
|
Proof. In [20, Lemma B.2, (B.2)], relation
(3.13) is shown for . In the inhomogeneous case
here, it follows by the same arguments that
|
|
|
(3.14) |
where the term only depends on the right-hand side
evaluations .
Hence, it remains to prove that
|
|
|
(3.15) |
From (see
(2.11)) it follows:
|
|
|
so that
|
|
|
(3.16) |
implies (3.15).
We prove (3.16) by induction. For , this is trivial, and for
, we use the definition of in Algorithm
1, insert (3.11) for (see also
Remark 2), employ (see
(2.15)) and (3.14) to obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From (cf.
(2.14)) it follows that the second summand is .
For , Step 3 in Algorithm 1 in combination with the induction
hypothesis, the definition of , and the fact that
the linear part with respect is known from
(3.14) leads to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we used
|
|
|
It remains to prove that . We use the
induction hypotheses for as in (3.15),
(3.11) and obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we used . The first row can be
simplified by using the recurrence for (see
(3.7)). For the second one we employ the recursion
(3.12) for so that the
second row equals
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this way we have proved (3.16) and, in turn, (3.15).
Corollary 4
Let denote the discrete bilinear
form
|
|
|
(3.17) |
with associated (linear) operator
|
|
|
|
(3.18) |
|
|
|
|
and let by defined by
|
|
|
(3.19) |
Then, for , the algorithm is equivalent to
|
|
|
(3.20a) |
where .
Proof. The assertion follows directly from inserting (3.13) for
into Step 4 of Algorithm 1.
3.2 Main Convergence Results
The time-steps and , , used
in and ,
respectively, are each determined by the smallest triangle in either part of
the mesh. Hence, the “coarse”-to-“fine” time-step ratio, , must
satisfy
|
|
|
Given the quasi-uniformity constant for the coarse mesh ,
|
|
|
the ratio between the largest and smallest elements of the mesh is thus
bounded by
|
|
|
(3.21) |
In [20, Section 3.1], theoretical properties for the
bilinear form are derived, which will be used in the error
analysis below. We impose the same CFL-type stability condition as in
[20, (3.8)] on the ratio :
|
|
|
(3.22) |
where is a constant independent of such that the
inverse inequalities holds (cf. [20, (3.3), (3.4)]):
|
|
|
(3.23) |
For a discussion and a possible simplification of the CFL condition
(3.22) we refer to [20, (3.8)].
To derive a priori error estimates for the LF-LTS Galerkin FE solution of
(3.20), we first introduce
|
|
|
and rewrite (3.20) as a one-step method
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.24) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first two equations in (3.24) correspond to the one-step iteration
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
and as in (3.18).
Next, we denote the error by
|
|
|
where is the solution of (2.2)-(2.3) and the
solution of the corresponding first-order formulation: Find
such that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with initial conditions and .
We shall split the error into a semi-discrete and a fully discrete
contribution. To do so, we introduce the first-order formulation of the
semi-discrete problem (2.8). Find such that
|
|
|
Hence, we may write
|
|
|
(3.25) |
with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following similar arguments as in [19, §3.2], we derive a
recurrence relation for , which can be solved
and eventually yields the explicit error representation
|
|
|
|
(3.30) |
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
(3.31) |
with defined as in Corollary 4.
Before proving the main convergence theorem we provide some approximation estimates.
Lemma 5
Let be defined as in (3.19) and let
, . Then, there exist constants ,
independent of , , , and such that
|
|
|
(3.32) |
and
|
|
|
(3.33) |
for .
Proof. For an operator we introduce the operator norm
|
|
|
We start from the definition
|
|
|
|
(3.34) |
|
|
|
|
Since we obtain
from (3.4) and (2.12) for the first term in
(3.34)
|
|
|
(3.35) |
and hence
|
|
|
From [20, Theorem 3.7] it follows
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
(3.36) |
and, in turn,
|
|
|
(3.37) |
Next we consider the second summand in (3.34). The decomposition operator
is
defined by (cf. (2.11)) so that its left-inverse
is given
by . For an operator and we set
.
Then, it follows from [20, (3.17), Lem. 3.6]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
(3.38) |
|
|
|
|
where we used that is a projection. Clearly
and are self-adjoint
with respect to and positive
semidefinite. Furthermore, [20, Lem. 3.6] implies
|
|
|
and by applying well-known spectral theory we get
|
|
|
(3.39) |
Next, we estimate the maximum on the right-hand side. The combination of
(3.3) and (2.13) with leads to
|
|
|
(3.40) |
From [20, (3.21)] it follows that the spectrum of
is contained in so that the
argument in
(3.40) is contained in . From [15, 18.7.3, 18.14.1] we conclude that
|
|
|
and since behaves monotonically outside
we obtain by symmetry
|
|
|
(3.41) |
This leads to
|
|
|
By inserting this into (3.39) we get
|
|
|
Next we estimate the first summand in (3.38) and write
|
|
|
(3.42) |
where
|
|
|
The expansion (3.5) leads to
|
|
|
|
(3.43) |
|
|
|
|
For the estimate of we employ (3.40)
for
|
|
|
The combination of a Taylor argument and the monotonicity of orthogonal
polynomials outside results in the estimate
|
|
|
We employ Lemma 8 to estimate the ratio of the Chebyshev polynomials
and obtain
|
|
|
(3.44) |
The estimate [20, Lem. A.2] of implies
|
|
|
(3.45) |
This finishes the estimate of the left-hand side in (3.42) by combining
(3.43) and (3.45):
|
|
|
With this estimate at hand, the second term in (3.34) can be estimated
by
|
|
|
(3.46) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the second estimate (3.33) we use
|
|
|
|
(3.47) |
|
|
|
|
A Taylor argument for the last difference yields
|
|
|
and as in (3.46) we get
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the first term in (3.47) we use (3.35)
|
|
|
For the second one we write
|
|
|
for
|
|
|
Then,
|
|
|
|
(3.48) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, the first term vanishes and it remains to estimate the second one.
Analogous arguments as for (3.38) lead to
|
|
|
(3.49) |
and, in turn, as in (3.39):
|
|
|
It holds
|
|
|
and as in (3.41) we obtain
|
|
|
The combination of these estimates implies
|
|
|
It remains to estimate the first summand in the right-hand side of
(3.49) and we proceed as in (3.42):
|
|
|
for
|
|
|
Since it holds by definition that , only the term containing
has to be estimated. It is easy to see that
|
|
|
The estimate (3.45) then leads to
|
|
|
This finishes the proof of an estimate for the left-hand side in
(3.49):
|
|
|
By inserting this into (3.48) proves the second estimate
(3.33):
|
|
|
for .
Theorem 6
Assume that (2.1), (2.5),
(2.6), (3.21) and (3.22) hold and let the solution
and right-hand side of the semi-discrete equation (2.8) satisfy
and , respectively. Then the fully discrete solution
of (3.20) satisfies the error
estimate
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
and a constant , which is independent of , , , , ,
, and .
Proof. The proof follows the lines of the proofs of [19, Theorem 16]
and [20, Theorem 3.10]. The LF-LTS scheme
(3.24) is stable [20, Theorem 3.9], i.e., for
,
|
|
|
where is independent of , , , and . We apply the
stability estimate to the second component of the error representation
(3.30) and obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.50) |
First, we consider the last term in the right-hand side of (3.50).
By similar arguments as in the proof of [20, Theorem 3.10], we obtain
|
|
|
(3.51) |
with as in (3.36) and
|
|
|
We apply Lemma 5 to (3.51) to obtain
|
|
|
(3.52) |
Next, we investigate the summands in the second term of the right-hand side of
(3.50),
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is defined as in Corollary 4.
By similar arguments as in the proof of [20, Theorem 3.10] and by Lemma 5, we obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.53) |
We apply Lemma5 to (3.53) to obtain
|
|
|
(3.54) |
The rest of the proof follows by the same arguments as in the proof of
[20, Theorem 3.10].
Theorem 7
Assume that (2.1), (2.5),
(2.6), (3.21) and (3.22) hold and let the solution
and right-hand side of (2.2) satisfy and ,
respectively. Then, the corresponding fully discrete Galerkin FE formulation
with local time-stepping (3.20) has a unique solution which
satisfies the error estimate
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
and constants independent of , , , ,
and the final time .
Proof. We adapt the proof in [20, Thm .3.11] to the case of an inhomogeneous
right-hand side. We again use [1, Thm 4.1] to estimate the
error between the exact and semi-discrete solution. All assumptions in that
theorem are verified in the proof of [20, Thm. 3.11] except for the
condition for the right-hand side.
As usual, we denote below by a generic constant which may differ from one instance to the next.
From [7, Lem. 5.2] it follows that
|
|
|
(3.55) |
for all .
To deduce condition (3.5)
in [1] we transform the local quantities in (3.55) to
the unit reference simplex . By , we denote an affine bijection from the reference element to
the simplex . For a function with domain its pullback is
denoted by . Let
denote the volume of the simplex . A standard scaling
argument implies:
|
|
|
For and , the embedding is continuous
so that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transforming back to the physical simplex yields
|
|
|
We use
|
|
|
to obtain
|
|
|
(3.56) |
Since the and the norm are equivalent in finite-dimensional
Euclidean (index) spaces, the combination of (3.55) with
(3.56) results in
|
|
|
(3.57) |
and this implies condition (3.5) in [1, Thm 4.1].
To estimate the effect of mass lumping in the right-hand side, let
for
and . We employ the
quasi-interpolation operator as in [17, (5.1)] and the splitting:
|
|
|
(3.58) |
For the last difference we use (3.57) to obtain
|
|
|
(3.59) |
For the other terms in (3.58), the continuity of and yields
|
|
|
(3.60) |
The approximation and stability properties of are studied in [17, Lem. 5.1, Thm. 5.2] and lead to
|
|
|
(3.61) |
since and
|
|
|
(3.62) |
We combine (3.58)–(3.62) to deduce the estimate
|
|
|
Sobolev’s embedding theorem implies and for and,
finally, (3.8) in [1, Thm 4.1] follows. The application of
this theorem yields the error estimate between the exact and semi-discrete
solution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.63) |
for . Inspection of the proof in [1, Thm 4.1]
implies that (3.63) also holds for any
provided the right-hand side in (3.63) exists. Proceeding as in
the proof of [20, Thm. 3.11] we arrive at
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.64) |
As in the proof of Theorem [20, Thm. 3.11], the combination with
(3.64) leads to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.65) |
The final estimate is obtained by recalling the definition of
as in Thm. 6:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since , we obtain from the relation
|
|
|
and upon setting :
|
|
|
Hence,
|
|
|
and the combination with (3.65) leads to the assertion.