Abstract
We investigate \(C^1\) finite element methods for one dimensional elliptic distributed optimal control problems with pointwise constraints on the derivative of the state formulated as fourth order variational inequalities for the state variable. For the problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions, we use an existing \(H^{\frac{5}{2}-\epsilon }\) regularity result for the optimal state to derive \(O(h^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon })\) convergence for the approximation of the optimal state in the \(H^2\) norm. For the problem with mixed Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, we show that the optimal state belongs to \(H^3\) under appropriate assumptions on the data and obtain O(h) convergence for the approximation of the optimal state in the \(H^2\) norm.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let I be the interval \((-1,1)\) and the function \(J:L_2(I)\times L_2(I)\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be defined by
where \(y_d\in L_2(I)\) and \(\beta\) is a positive constant.
The optimal control problem is to
where \((y,u)\in H^2(I)\times L_2(I)\) belongs to \({\mathbb {K}}\) if and only if
together with the following boundary conditions for y:
or
Remark 1.1
Throughout this paper we will follow standard notation for function spaces and norms that can be found, for example, in Ciarlet (1978), Brenner and Scott (2008) and Adams and Fournier (2003).
For the problem with the Dirichlet boundary conditions (1.5a), we assume that
For the problem with the mixed boundary conditions (1.5b), we assume that
Remark 1.2
In the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, clearly we need \(\int _I\psi \,dx\ge 0\) since \(\int _I y' dx=0\) and \(y'\le \psi\). However \(\int _I \psi \,dx=0\) implies \(\int _I(y'-\psi )dx=0\), which together with \(y'\le \psi\) leads to \(y'=\psi\). Hence in this case \({\mathbb {K}}\) is a singleton and the optimal control problem becomes trivial.
The optimal control problem with the Dirichlet boundary conditions (1.5a) is a one dimensional analog of the optimal control problems considered in Casas and Bonnans (1988), Casas and Fernández (1993), Deckelnick et al. (2009), Ortner and Wollner (2011) and Wollner (2012) on smooth or convex domains. In Casas and Bonnans (1988) and Casas and Fernández (1993), first order optimality conditions were derived for a semilinear elliptic optimization problem with pointwise gradient constraints on smooth domains, where the solution of the state equation is in \(W^{1,\infty }\) for any feasible control. These results were extended to non-smooth domains in Wollner (2012). On the other hand higher dimensional analogs of the optimal control problem with the mixed boundary conditions (1.5b) are absent from the literature.
Finite element error analysis for the problem with the Dirichlet boundary conditions was first carried out in Deckelnick et al. (2009) by a mixed formulation of the elliptic equation and a variational discretization of the control, and in Ortner and Wollner (2011) by a standard \(H^1\)-conforming discretization with a possible non-variational control discretization.
The goal of this paper is to show that it is also possible to solve the one dimensional optimal control problem with either boundary conditions as a fourth order variational inequality for the state variable by a \(C^1\) finite element method. We note that such an approach has been carried out for elliptic distributed optimal control problems with pointwise state constraints in, for example, the papers (Liu et al. 2009; Brenner et al. 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2018, 2019). The analysis in this paper extends the general framework in Brenner and Sung (2017) to the one dimensional problem defined by (1.1)–(1.5).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We collect information on the optimal control problem in Sect. 2. The construction and analysis of the discrete problem are treated in Sect. 3, followed by numerical results in Sect. 4. We end with some concluding remarks in Sect. 5. The appendices contain derivations of the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions that appear in Sect. 2.
Throughout the paper we will use C (with or without subscript) to denote a generic positive constant independent of the mesh sizes.
2 The continuous problem
Let the space V be defined by
and
The minimization problem defined by (1.1)–(1.5) can be reformulated as the following problem that only involves y:
where
Note that the closed convex subset K of the Hilbert space V is nonempty for either boundary conditions. In the case of the Dirichlet boundary conditions, the function \(y(x)=\int _{-1}^ x (\psi (t)-\delta )dt\) belongs to K if we take \(\delta\) to be \(\frac{1}{2}\int _I\psi \,dx \,(>0)\). Similarly, in the case of the mixed boundary conditions, the function \(y(x)=\int _{-1}^x[\psi (t)-\delta \sin [(\pi /4)(1+t)]dt\) belongs to K if we take \(\delta\) to be \(\psi (1)\,(\ge 0)\).
According to the standard theory in Ekeland and Témam (1999), there is a unique solution \({\bar{y}}\) of (2.2)–(2.3) characterized by the fourth order variational inequality
We can express (2.4) in the form of
where
2.1 The Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions
The solution of (2.4) is characterized by the following conditions:
where
Note that (2.8) is equivalent to the statement that \(\mu\) is supported on the active set
for the derivative constraint (1.4).
We can also express (2.7) as
The Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) conditions (2.7)–(2.9) can be derived from the general theory on Lagrange multipliers that can be found, for example, in Luenberger (1969) and Ito and Kunisch (2008). For the simple one dimensional problem here, they can also be derived directly (cf. “Appendix A” for the Dirichlet boundary conditions and “Appendix B” for the mixed boundary conditions).
Remark 2.1
In the case of the mixed boundary conditions, additional information on the structure of \(\mu\) [cf. (2.27)] is obtained in “Appendix B”.
2.2 Dirichlet boundary conditions
We will use (2.7) to obtain additional regularity for \({\bar{y}}\) that matches the regularity result in Ortner and Wollner (2011). The following lemmas are useful for this purpose.
Lemma 2.2
We have
Proof
Observe that
if \(g\in L_2(I)\), and
if \(g\in H^1_0(I)\).
Recall that \(f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon }(I)\) by the assumption in (1.6). The estimate (2.12) follows from (2.13), (2.14) and bilinear interpolation (cf. Bergh and Löfström 1976, Theorem 4.4.1), together with the following interpolations of Sobolev spaces (cf. Lions and Magenes 1972, Sections 1.9 and 1.11):
\(\square\)
Note that the map \(z\rightarrow z''\) is an isomorphism between V [given by (2.1a)] and \(L_2(I)\). Therefore, by the Riesz representation theorem, for any \(\ell \in V'\) we can define \(p\in L_2(I)\) by
Lemma 2.3
Given any \(s\in [0,1]\), the function p defined by (2.15) belongs to \(H^{1-s}(I)\) provided that
Proof
On one hand, if \(\ell \in (H^2(I))'\), we have
On the other hand, if \(\ell \in (H^1(I))'\), then the solution p of (2.15) can also be defined by the conditions that \(p\in H^1_0(I)\) and
Hence in this case we have
The estimate (2.16) follows from (2.17), (2.18) and the following interpolations of Sobolev spaces (cf. Lions and Magenes 1972, Sections 1.6 and 1.9):
and
\(\square\)
Theorem 2.4
The solution \({\bar{y}}\) of (2.4) belongs to \(H^{\frac{5}{2}-\epsilon }(I)\) for all \(\epsilon \in (0,1/2)\).
Proof
Note that, by the Sobolev inequality (Adams and Fournier 2003),
Let \(p\in L_2(I)\) be defined by
where V is given by (2.1a). It follows from (2.12), (2.19), (2.20) and Lemma 2.3 (with \(s=\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon\)) that
Comparing (2.7) and (2.20), we see that
and hence \({\bar{y}}''=p\), which together with (2.21) concludes the proof. \(\square\)
Corollary 2.5
We have \({\bar{u}}=-{\bar{y}}''-f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon }(I)\) for all \(\epsilon \in (0,1/2)\).
Example 2.6
We take \(\beta =\psi =1\) and the exact solution
It follows from a direct calculation that
and
It is straightforward to check that \({\bar{y}}\) belongs to K, \({\mathscr {A}}=\{0\}\), and for \(z\in V\),
where
Now we take
so that \(f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon }(I)\) for all \(\epsilon >0\) and
Putting (2.23) and (2.24) together we have
where
is the characteristic function of the set S, and the KKT conditions (2.7)–(2.9) are satisfied (with \(\mu\) being the Dirac point measure at the origin) if we choose
Remark 2.7
It follows from Example 2.6 that the regularities of \({\bar{y}}\) and \({\bar{u}}\) stated in Theorem 2.4 and Corollary 2.5 are sharp under the assumptions on the data in (1.6).
2.3 Mixed boundary conditions
In this case the nonnegative Borel measure \(\mu\) on \([-1,1]\) satisfies [cf. (B.8)–(B.10)]
where \(\rho \in L_2(I)\) is nonnegative, \(\gamma\) is a nonnegative number and \(\delta _{-1}\) is the Dirac point measure at \(-1\).
Theorem 2.8
The solution \({\bar{y}}\) of (2.4) belongs to \(H^3(I)\).
Proof
Recall that \(f\in H^1(I)\) by the assumption in (1.7). After substituting (2.27) into (2.7) and carrying out integration by parts, we have
where V is given by (2.1b).
Let \(H^1(I;1)=\{v\in H^1(I):\,v(1)=0\}\) and \(p\in H^1(I;1)\) be defined by
where \(\Phi \in H^1(I;1)\) is defined by
Note that (2.29) is the weak form of the two-point boundary value problem
and hence we can conclude from elliptic regularity that
and hence \({\bar{y}}''=p'\) because the map \(z\rightarrow z''\) is also an isomorphism between V (defined by (1.5b)) and \(L_2(I)\). The theorem then follows from (2.31). \(\square\)
Corollary 2.9
We have \({\bar{u}}=-{\bar{y}}''-f\in H^1(I)\).
Example 2.10
We take \(\beta =\psi =1\), \(f=0\) and the exact solution is given by
where
We have \({\mathscr {A}}=[-1,1/3]\), \(p\in H^2(I)\),
If we choose the function \(\Phi\) by
then \(\Phi \in H^1(I;1)\) by (2.34) and (2.35), and
Therefore (2.29) is valid if we take
Finally we define \(y_d\) according to (2.30) so that
Putting (2.32) and (2.36)–(2.38) together, we see that the KKT conditions (2.7)–(2.9) are valid provided we define the Borel measure \(\mu\) by
3 The discrete problem
Let \({\mathcal {T}}_h\) be a quasi-uniform partition of I and \(V_h\subset V\) be the cubic Hermite finite element space (Ciarlet 1978) associated with \({\mathcal {T}}_h\). The discrete problem is to
where
and \(P_h\) is the nodal interpolation operator for the \(P_1\) finite element space (Ciarlet 1978; Brenner and Scott 2008) associated with \({\mathcal {T}}_h\). In other words the derivative constraint (1.4) is only imposed at the grid points.
The nodal interpolation operator from \(C^1({\bar{I}})\) onto \(V_h\) will be denoted by \(\Pi _h\). Note that
In particular, the closed convex set \(K_h\) is nonempty.
The minimization problem (3.1)–(3.2) has a unique solution characterized by the discrete variational inequality
which can also be written as
We begin the error analysis by recalling some properties of \(P_h\) and \(\Pi _h\).
For \(0\le s\le 1\le t\le 2\), we have an error estimate
that follows from standard error estimates for \(P_h\) (cf. Ciarlet 1978; Brenner and Scott 2008) and interpolation between Sobolev spaces (Adams and Fournier 2003).
For \(0\le s\le 1\) and \(2\le t\le 4\), we also have the estimates
that follow from standard error estimates for \(\Pi _h\) (cf. Ciarlet 1978; Brenner and Scott 2008) and interpolation between Sobolev spaces.
3.1 An intermediate error estimate
Let the energy norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _a\) be defined by
We have, by a Poincaré−Friedrichs inequality (Nečas 2012),
Observe that (3.4), (3.8) and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality imply
and we have, by (2.8)–(2.11) and (3.2),
for all \(y_h\in K_h\).
It follows from (3.10) and (3.11) that
3.2 Dirichlet boundary conditions
The following estimates will allow us to produce concrete error estimates from (3.12). First of all, we have
by (2.19), Theorem 2.4, (3.5) and (3.9); secondly
by the assumption on \(\psi\) in (1.6) and (3.5). Finally, in view of Theorem 2.4, (2.19), (3.6)–(3.7) and (3.9), we also have
Putting (3.3), (3.12)–(3.15) and Young’s inequality together, we arrive at the estimate
that is valid for any \(\epsilon >0\), which in turn implies the following result, where \({\bar{u}}_h=-{\bar{y}}_h''-f\) is the approximation for \({\bar{u}}=-{\bar{y}}''-f\).
Theorem 3.1
Under the assumptions on the data in (1.6), we have
Remark 3.2
Numerical results in Sect. 4 indicate that \(|{\bar{y}}-{\bar{y}}_h|_{H^1(I)}\) is of higher order.
3.3 Mixed boundary conditions
In this case we have
by (2.27), Theorem 2.8, (3.5) and (3.9);
by the assumption on \(\psi\) in (1.7), (2.27) and (3.5); and
by (2.27), Theorem 2.8, (3.6), (3.7) and (3.9).
Combining (3.12) and (3.17)–(3.19) with Young’s inequality, we find
which immediately implies the following result, where \({\bar{u}}_h=-{\bar{y}}_h''-f\) is the approximation for \({\bar{u}}=-{\bar{y}}''-f\).
Theorem 3.3
Under the assumptions on the data in (1.7), we have
Remark 3.4
Numerical results in Sect. 4 again indicate that \(|{\bar{y}}-{\bar{y}}_h|_{H^1(I)}\) is of higher order.
4 Numerical results
In the first experiment, we solved the problem in Example 2.6 on a uniform mesh with dyadic grid points. The errors of \({\bar{y}}_h\) in various norms are reported in Table 1. We observed \(O(h^2)\) convergence in \(|\cdot |_{H^2(I)}\) and higher convergence in the lower order norms. This phenomenon can be justified as follows.
Note that for this example the first term on the right-hand side of (3.12) vanishes because \(\mu\) is supported at the origin which is one of the grid points where \({\bar{y}}_h\) (resp. \(\psi\)) and \(P_h{\bar{y}}_h\) (resp., \(P_h\psi\)) assume identical values. The remaining term on the right-hand side of (3.12) is bounded by
where we have used the estimate (3.6), with I replaced by the intervals \((-1,0)\) and (0, 1), the norm equivalence (3.9), and the fact that \({\bar{y}}\) defined by (2.22) is a sextic polynomial on each of these intervals.
In the second experiment we solved the problem in Example 2.6 on slightly perturbed meshes where the origin is no longer a grid point. The errors are reported in Table 2. We observed \(O(h^{0.5})\) convergence in the \(|\cdot |_{H^2(I)}\) (which agrees with Theorem 3.1) and O(h) convergence in the lower order norms.
In the third experiment, we solved the problem in Example 2.10 on a uniform mesh with dyadic grid points. We observed O(h) convergence in \(|\cdot |_{H^2(I)}\) from the results in Table 3 (which agrees with Theorem 3.3) and \(O(h^2)\) convergence in the lower order norms.
In the final experiment, we solved the problem in Example 2.10 by a uniform mesh that includes 1/3 as a grid point. The errors are reported in Table 4. We observed similar convergence behavior as the dyadic case, but the magnitude of the errors is smaller. This can be justified by the observation that the term [cf. (3.17)]
because \({\bar{y}}(x)=1+x\) on the active set \({\mathscr {A}}=[-1,1/3]\) and 1/3 is a grid point. On the other hand the corresponding integral is nonzero for dyadic meshes.
5 Concluding remarks
We have demonstrated in this paper that the convergence analysis developed in Brenner and Sung (2017) can be adopted to elliptic distributed optimal control problems with pointwise constraints on the derivatives of the state, at least in a simple one dimensional setting.
The results in this paper can be extended to two-sided constraints of the form \(\psi _1\le y'\le \psi _2,\) where \(\psi _i\) and \(\psi _2\) are sufficiently regular and \(\psi _1<0<\psi _2\) on I. In particular, they are valid for the constraints defined by \(|y'|\le 1\).
It would be interesting to find out if the results in this paper can be extended to higher dimensions. We note that the higher dimensional analogs of the variational inequality for the derivative [cf. (B.5)] lead to obstacle problems for the vector Laplacian. Such obstacle problems are of independent interest and appear to be open.
References
Adams RA, Fournier JJF (2003) Sobolev spaces, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam
Bergh J, Löfström J (1976) Interpolation spaces. Springer, Berlin
Brenner SC, Scott LR (2008) The mathematical theory of finite element methods, 3rd edn. Springer, New York
Brenner SC, Sung L-Y (2017) A new convergence analysis of finite element methods for elliptic distributed optimal control problems with pointwise state constraints. SIAM J Control Optim 55:2289–2304
Brenner SC, Sung L-Y, Zhang Y (2013) A quadratic \(C^0\) interior penalty method for an elliptic optimal control problem with state constraints. In: Karakashian O, Feng X, Xing Y (eds) Recent developments in discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods for partial differential equations, volume 157 of The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications. Springer, Cham-Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London, pp 97–132. (2012 John H. Barrett Memorial Lectures)
Brenner SC, Davis CB, Sung L-Y (2014) A partition of unity method for a class of fourth order elliptic variational inequalities. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 276:612–626
Brenner SC, Oh M, Pollock S, Porwal K, Schedensack M, Sharma N (2016) A \(C^0\) interior penalty method for elliptic distributed optimal control problems in three dimensions with pointwise state constraints. In: Brenner SC (ed) Topics in numerical partial differential equations and scientific computing, vol 160. The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications. Springer, Cham-Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London, pp 1–22
Brenner SC, Gedicke J, Sung L-Y (2018) \(C^0\) interior penalty methods for an elliptic distributed optimal control problem on nonconvex polygonal domains with pointwise state constraints. SIAM J Numer Anal 56:1758–1785
Brenner SC, Gudi T, Porwal K, Sung L-Y (2018) A Morley finite element method for an elliptic distributed optimal control problem with pointwise state and control constraints. ESAIM:COCV 24:1181–1206
Brenner SC, Sung L-Y, Zhang Y (2019) \(C^0\) interior penalty methods for an elliptic state-constrained optimal control problem with Neumann boundary condition. J Comput Appl Math 350:212–232
Casas E, Bonnans JF (1988) Contrôle de systèmes elliptiques semilinéares comportant des contraintes sur l’état. In: Brezzis H, Lions JL (eds) Nonlinear partial differential equations and their applications, 8th edn. Longman, New York, pp 69–86
Casas E, Fernández LA (1993) Optimal control of semilinear elliptic equations with pointwise constraints on the gradient of the state. Appl Math Optim 27:35–56
Ciarlet PG (1978) The finite element method for elliptic problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Deckelnick K, Günther A, Hinze M (2009) Finite element approximation of elliptic control problems with constraints on the gradient. Numer Math 111:335–350
Ekeland I, Témam R (1999) Convex analysis and variational problems. Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia
Ito K, Kunisch K (2008) Lagrange multiplier approach to variational problems and applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia
Lions JL, Magenes E (1972) Non-homogeneous boundary value problems and applications I. Springer, New York
Liu W, Gong W, Yan N (2009) A new finite element approximation of a state-constrained optimal control problem. J Comput Math 27:97–114
Luenberger DG (1969) Optimization by vector space methods. Wiley, New York
Murthy MKV, Stampacchia G (1973) A variational inequality with mixed boundary conditions. Israel J Math 13(188–224):1972
Nečas J (2012) Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations. Springer, Heidelberg
Ortner C, Wollner W (2011) A priori error estimates for optimal control problems with pointwise constraints on the gradient of the state. Numer Math 118:587–600
Rudin W (1966) Real and complex analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York
Schwartz L (1966) Théorie des distributions. Hermann, Paris
Wollner W (2012) Optimal control of elliptic equations with pointwise constraints on the gradient of the state in nonsmooth polygonal domains. SIAM J Control Optim 50:2117–2129
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The work of the first and second authors was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. DMS-16-20273 and DMS-19-13035.
Appendices
Appendix A. KKT conditions for the Dirichlet boundary conditions
First we note that
since \(\int _I y'dx=0\) and \(\int _I\psi \,dx>0\), and also
Let \({\mathscr {K}}=\{v\in H^1(I)/{\mathbb {R}}:\,v\le \psi \;\) in \(I\}\). We can rewrite (2.4) in the form of
where
and the function \(\Phi \in H^1(I)/{\mathbb {R}}\) is defined by
Let the bounded linear functional \(L:H^1(I)/{\mathbb {R}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be defined by
Observe that (A.3) implies
since in this case \(\pm \epsilon v+p\in {\mathscr {K}}\) for \(0<\epsilon \ll 1\).
Since the active set \({\mathscr {A}}\) is a closed subset of [0, 1], according to (A.1) there exist two numbers \(a,b\in I\) such that \(a<b\) and \([a,b]\cap {\mathscr {A}}=\emptyset\). Let \(G=(-1,a)\cup (b,1)\). Then we have (i) \({\mathscr {A}}\,\cap I\subset G\) and (ii) there exists a bounded linear extension operator \(E_{\scriptscriptstyle G}:H^1(G)\longrightarrow H^1(I)/{\mathbb {R}}\).
Remark A.1
Observe that a bounded linear extension operator \(E_G^*:H^1(G)\longrightarrow H^1(I)\) can be constructed by reflections (cf. Adams and Fournier 2003). The operator \(E_G\) can then be defined by
where \(\phi\) is a smooth function with compact support in (a, b) such that \(\int _I \phi \,dx=1\).
We define a bounded linear map \(T_{\scriptscriptstyle G}:H^1(G)\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) by
where \({\tilde{v}}\) is any function in \(H^1(I)/{\mathbb {R}}\) such that \({\tilde{v}}=v\) on G. \(T_{\scriptscriptstyle G}\) is well-defined because the existence of \({\tilde{v}}\) is guaranteed by the extension operator \(E_{\scriptscriptstyle G}\) and the independence of the choice of \({\tilde{v}}\) follows from (A.7).
Let \(v\in H^1(G)\) be nonnegative. Then \(-\epsilon {\tilde{v}}+p\in {\mathscr {K}}\,\) for \(0<\epsilon \ll 1\) because \(p\le \psi\) on G and \(p<\psi\) on the compact set \([a,b]=I\backslash G\). Hence we have
It follows from (A.9) and the Riesz-Schwartz Theorem (cf. Rudin 1966; Schwartz 1966) for nonnegative functionals that
where \(\mu _{\scriptscriptstyle \bar{G}}\) is a nonnegative Borel measure on \([-1,a]\cup [b,1]\).
Because of (A.8) and (A.10), we have
and the observation (A.7) implies that \(\mu _{\scriptscriptstyle \bar{G}}\) is supported on \({\mathscr {A}}\).
We conclude from (A.6) and (A.11) that
where \({\tilde{\mu }}\) is the trivial extension of \(\mu _{\scriptscriptstyle \bar{G}}\) to \([-1,1]\). It follows that
where \(\mu =\beta {\tilde{\mu }}\), and in view of (A.2), (A.4), (A.5) and (A.12),
Appendix B. KKT conditions for the mixed boundary conditions
In this case we have, by (2.1b),
Let \({\mathscr {K}}=\{v\in H^1(I;1):\,v\le \psi \quad \text {in I}\}\). We can rewrite (2.4) in the form of
where
and the function \(\Phi \in H^1(I;1)\) is defined by
Note that \(f\in H^1(I)\) by the assumption in (1.7). After integration by parts, the inequality (B.2) becomes
The variational inequality defined by (B.3) and (B.5) is equivalent to a second order obstacle problem with mixed boundary conditions whose coincidence set is identical to the active set \({\mathscr {A}}\) in (2.10).
Since \(\psi \in H^2(I)\) by the assumption in (1.7), we can apply the penalty method in Murthy and Stampacchia (1973) to show that
and, after integration by parts, we have
where
and \(\delta _{-1}\) is the Dirac point measure at \(-1\).
The variational inequality (B.5) is then equivalent to
Consequently the KKT conditions (2.7)–(2.9) hold for the Borel measure
Remark B.1
In the special case where \(f=0\) and \(\psi\) is a positive constant, the condition (B.9d) implies \(p'(-1)=0\) if \(-1\not \in {\mathscr {A}}\), and the conditions (B.9a) and (B.9c) imply \(p'(-1)=0\) if \(-1\in {\mathscr {A}}\). Therefore we have \(p'(-1)=0\) if \(f=0\) and \(\psi\) is a positive constant, in which case \(\mu\) is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Hence it is necessary to choose \(\gamma =p'(-1)=0\) in Example 2.10.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brenner, S.C., Sung, LY. & Wollner, W. Finite element methods for one dimensional elliptic distributed optimal control problems with pointwise constraints on the derivative of the state. Optim Eng 22, 1989–2008 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-020-09491-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-020-09491-1