Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My question concerns Lagrange multipliers and the possibility to impose constraints on the multipliers themselves. I have a Stokes flow which is solved using the Finite Element Method on a domain $\Omega$ having the shape of a square. The equations can be derived as the minimization of energy $\Phi(v\otimes\nabla)$ where $v$ is the velocity subject to the incompressibility condition $v \cdot \nabla = 0$. The pressure $p$ will appear as a Lagrange multiplier. The final weak form of the Stokes problem then takes the form

$$ \int_\Omega \sigma(v\otimes \nabla):[\delta v\otimes \nabla]\mbox{d}\Omega -\int_\Omega p (\delta v \cdot \nabla)\mbox{d}\Omega=0$$ $$ \int_\Omega \delta p (v\cdot \nabla)\mbox{d}\Omega=0$$

Where $\delta v$ and $\delta p$ are testfunctions. Now, I would like the velocity and the pressure to be periodic on the boundaries, i.e $v(x^+)=v(x^-)$ and $p(x^+)=p(x^-)$ where the "+" denotes coordinates on the boundaries of the domain $\Omega$ where the normal is in a positive direction (north and east) and "-" coordinates on the boundary with a negative direction (south and west). I would like to perform this using Lagrange multipliers. The minimization problem can then be stated as

min $\int_\Omega\Phi(v\otimes\nabla)\mbox{d}\Omega$

subject to:

  1. $\nabla\cdot v$=0 on $\Omega$
  2. $v(x^+)-v(x^-)=0$ on $\Gamma=\partial \Omega$
  3. $p(x^+)-p(x^-)=0$ on $\Gamma$

Constraint number 1 will result in a Lagrange multiplier $p$ which is constrained by constraint number 3. As the pressure $p$ already is a Lagrange multiplier, am I allowed to constrain it? I can't see what should be wrong with this, but it is still a quite strange formulation. If this is not at valid approach, how can I solve this problem?

share|cite|improve this question
The usual weak form I've seen has $v \in H(div;\Omega)$, $p \in L^2$. In this case there is no meaning to taking the trace of $p$ along $\Gamma$ since a-priori it may not be continuous. I don't really like this as an answer though, since elliptic regularity implies $p$ will indeed be continuous for sufficiently smooth data. Perhaps have a look in Brezzi and Fortin - Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods if you can get a hold of it..? – Nick Alger Apr 19 '12 at 10:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.