I am trying to prove the existence of a weak solution of the problem: $$ -\Delta^2 u = f \in L^2(U)\\ \\ u|_{\partial U}=\Delta u|_{\partial U} = 0 $$ on the bounded open set $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ which has smooth boundary. The weak formulation follows from multiplying by the test function $v$ and integration by parts:

$$ \int_U fv\,dx= \int_U \, (\Delta^2 u) v\, dx= \int_U \Delta u \Delta v \, dx + \int_{\partial U} (v \frac{\partial \Delta u}{\partial n} - \frac{\partial v}{\partial n}\Delta u)dS. $$ The second boundary vanishes for $\Delta u|_{\partial U} = 0$ and to make the first boundary term vanish we require $v$ to be in the Sobolev space $H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$, so that $v=0$ on the boundary.

Therefore $u\in H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$ is a weak solution if: $$ \int_U \Delta u \Delta v \, dx = \int_U fv\,dx\,\,\,\, \forall v\in H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U). $$

Now I want to use the Lax-Milgram theorem on the bilinear form $B[u,v]=\int_U \Delta u \Delta v \, dx$. My problem is: what norm on $H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$ should I use? At first I thought I could use either one of the norms of $H^1_0(U)$ or $H^2(U)$, since clearly $H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$ is a closed subspace of both spaces. However I realized that this argument must be wrong, otherwise I might as well use the norm of the subspace $H^{8}(U)$ and conclude there exists a weak solution in that space.

Or should I use Lax Milgram for both $H^1_0(U)$ and $H^2(U)$ and conclude that the weak solution is in their intersection?

My second problem: when proving the coercivity of $B[u,v]$, I think I need an inequality like $\int_U |\Delta u|^2 dx \geq C\int_U u^2 dx$ for some constant $C$. I know this holds for $u\in H^2_0(U)$ but I don't see why this should hold in $H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ These are called Navier boundary conditions, and the usual way of dealing with them is to treat them as a system of equations. $\endgroup$ – Ray Yang Apr 7 '13 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You mean using Lax-Milgram on $-\Delta u = w$ and $-\Delta w = f$, with $u =0$ and $w=0$ on the boundary? I then get two weak solutions $u$ and $w=-\Delta u$ in $H^1_0(U)$. Wouldn't that mean that $u$ is in $H^1_0(U)\cap H^3(U)$ rather than $H^1_0(U)\cap H^2(U)$? $\endgroup$ – ScroogeMcDuck Apr 7 '13 at 21:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Um. Yes, but $H^3(U) \subset H^2(U)$, so isn't that okay? $\endgroup$ – Ray Yang Apr 8 '13 at 6:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is, but I'm not sure the weak solution is supposed to be in $H^3(U)$. Also, $w = -\Delta u$ implies that $w$ is a strong solution which I didn't prove, so I can really only conclude that $u \in H^1_0(U)$ if I use the method of the system of equations. The problem is the $u\in H^2 (U)$ part. $\endgroup$ – ScroogeMcDuck Apr 8 '13 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ Just a quick comment (I might expand this into an answer if I find time): I am not sure what you mean by "using a norm". Where exactly do you need a norm in Lax-Milgram? As for the second problem, I am pretty sure your bilinear form is coercive in the sense that you have $B(u,u)+\gamma\|u\|_{L^2}^2>c\|u\|_{H^2}^2$ in $H^1_0\cap H^2$ for some (large) constant $\gamma$. It might even be true with $\gamma=0$. Spend some energy on this please. $\endgroup$ – timur Apr 8 '13 at 15:44

Let $H=H_0^1\cap H^2$. A good norm to work with is $$\|u\|_H=\|\Delta u\|_2$$

As you can see here, this norm is equivalently to the usual one. Also, the inequality you are looking for is true, in fact, you have that $$\int |\Delta u|^2\geq\lambda_1^2\int|u|^2,\ \forall\ u\in H$$

where $\lambda_1$ is the firt eigenvalue associated with $(-\Delta, H_0^1)$. To prove this inequality, note that

\begin{eqnarray} \int |\nabla u|^2 &=& -\int u\Delta u \nonumber \\ &\leq& \|u\|_2\|\Delta u\|_2 \nonumber \end{eqnarray}

From the last inequality, you can conclude by using Poincare inequality. Now you can easily apply Lax-Milgram.

  • $\begingroup$ Just a observation. You have to take off the sign of minus from your equation or change the weak formulation, because they are different. $\endgroup$ – Tomás Apr 9 '13 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ Is it true that the second displayed formula is not exactly coercivity. One would want an $H^2$-norm in the right hand side. $\endgroup$ – timur Apr 10 '13 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ @timur, I do not understood your comment. What formula is not coercive? $\endgroup$ – Tomás Apr 10 '13 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ The second formula that is displayed. The left hand side is the $L^1$-norm of $\Delta u$, and the right hand side is the $L^1$-norm of $u$, multiplied by $\lambda_1^2$. My understanding is that in coercivity you need $H^2$-norm of $u$ in the right hand side. $\endgroup$ – timur Apr 10 '13 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, there is an error there, as you can see in the proof a few lines down. I am gonna fixt it, thank you @timur. $\endgroup$ – Tomás Apr 10 '13 at 17:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.