Let $\Omega$ an open bounded and regular domain to $\mathbb{R^n}$ and let $\{\overline{\Omega_1},\overline{\Omega_2}\}$ a partition of $\Omega.$ $\bar{\Omega} = \bar{\Omega_1} \cup \bar{\Omega_2}.$ We put $\Gamma = \partial \Omega_1 \cap \partial \Omega_2$ the interface between $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ such that $\Gamma \subset \Omega.$

We put $u_1 = u/\Omega_1$ (restriction $u$ to $\Omega_1$) and we condider the problem:

$$-k_i \Delta u_i = f , x \in \Omega_1 , i=1,2$$ $$u_1=0 , x \in \partial \Omega$$ $$u_1 = u_2 , x \in \Gamma$$ $$k_1 \nabla u_1 n = k_2 \nabla u_2 n , x \in \Gamma$$

$k(x)$ is an piecewise constant , with $k(x) = k_i > 0, i = 1,2$ and $f \in L^2(\Omega)$

My questions are, how:

1-prouve that this problem admit a unique solution in an adequat Hilbert space $V.$

2- Prouve that $\exists c > 0, ||u||_V \leq c$ and prouve that $u$ verfies the minimum of energy.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi, @jijiii, did you see my comment in math.stackexchange.com/questions/402922/… ? $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao May 31 '13 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ For the second condition on $\Gamma$, what is $\eta$, do you mean $k_1\nabla u\cdot n = k_2\nabla u\cdot n$? where $n$ is the unit vector normal to the $\Gamma$. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao May 31 '13 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ yes, n is the unit vector normal to $\Gamma.$ ($n$ and not $\eta$) $\endgroup$ – jijiii May 31 '13 at 17:02

The big picture is: If $u$ satisfies those two continuity conditions on $\Gamma$ together with the equation in each subdomain, then $u$ solves the weak problem for the following diffusion equation on the whole domain: $$\left\{\begin{aligned} -\nabla \cdot (k\nabla u )&= f \quad\text{in } \Omega, \\ u&=0 \quad\text{on } \partial \Omega. \end{aligned}\right. $$

Multiply both equations by a same $H^1_0(\Omega)$ test function $v$: $$ -\int_{\Omega_1}k_1 \Delta u_1\,v -\int_{\Omega_2}k_2 \Delta u_2\,v= \int_{\Omega}f\,v. $$ Integrating by parts using Green's identity on each domain: $$ \int_{\Omega_1}k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot\nabla v - \int_{\partial \Omega_1}k_1 (\nabla u_1\cdot n_1)v + \int_{\Omega_2}k_2 \nabla u_2\cdot\nabla v - \int_{\partial \Omega_2}k_2 (\nabla u_2\cdot n_2)v = \int_{\Omega}f\,v, $$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the unit vector normal to the boundaries of $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ respectively. Now we focus on the boundary part, for $\partial \Omega_1\cap \partial \Omega_2 = \Gamma$: $$ \begin{aligned} &\int_{\partial \Omega_1}k_1 (\nabla u_1\cdot n_1)v + \int_{\partial \Omega_2}k_2 (\nabla u_2\cdot n_2)v \\ =& \int_{\partial \Omega_1\backslash\Gamma}k_1 (\nabla u_1\cdot n_1)v + \int_{\partial \Omega_2\backslash\Gamma}k_2 (\nabla u_2\cdot n_2)v + \int_{\Gamma} (k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot n_1 + k_2\nabla u_2\cdot n_2)v \\ =& \int_{\partial \Omega}k (\nabla u\cdot n)v + \int_{\Gamma} (k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot n_1 + k_2\nabla u_2\cdot n_2)v. \end{aligned} $$ The first term vanishes because $v=0$ on $\partial \Omega$. Second term vanishes because $$k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot n - k_2\nabla u_2\cdot n = k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot n_1 + k_2\nabla u_2\cdot n_2 = 0,$$ by $n_1$ and $n_2$ share the same magnitude but point the opposite direction pointwisely. By the other interface condition $u_1 = u_2$ on $\Gamma$, we know $u\in H^1_0(\Omega)$, therefore $$ \int_{\Omega} k\nabla u\cdot \nabla v = \int_{\Omega}f\,v,\quad \forall v\in H^1_0.\tag{1} $$

To prove the existence of a solution in $V = H^1_0$, we need to fulfill the conditions of Lax-Milgram theorem:

  • $\displaystyle \int_{\Omega} k\nabla u\cdot \nabla v \leq C\|u\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)} \|v\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)}$, this is trivial by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

  • Coercivity relies on Poincaré inequality for $v\in H^1_0$: $\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq c\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$, so we have $$\int_{\Omega} k|\nabla v|^2 \geq \alpha (\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2)$$ for some constant $\alpha>0$ (You need to work out this $\alpha$, it depends on $k_1$, $k_2$ and $c$ in Poincaré inequality).

The second question is then trivial, let $v=u$ in (1), using Cauchy-Schwarz and Poincaré inequality on the right hand side: $$ \alpha \|u\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)}^2\leq \int_{\Omega} k|\nabla u|^2 = \int_{\Omega}f\,u\leq \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq c\|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|u\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)}, $$ hence the Céa's lemma holds: $$\|u\|_{H^1_0(\Omega)} \leq \frac{c}{\alpha}\|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$

And if $u$ solves (1), $u$ also minimize the energy functional: $$ \mathcal{F}(u) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega} k|\nabla u|^2 - \int_{\Omega}f\,u. $$

There are several typos in your question, please double check your notes:

  1. It should be $u_1 = u|_{\Omega_1}$.
  2. It should be $u= 0$ on $\partial \Omega$, not just $u_1$.
  3. There should be a dot product between the gradient and the normal, $k_1 \nabla u_1\cdot n= k_2\nabla u_2\cdot n$ because they are vectors.
  4. "prove", not "prouve".
  5. Céa's lemma has some norm of $f$ on the right hand side, because $\|u\|_V$ depends on that, you can't find a single $c$ satisfying that property.
  • $\begingroup$ $u=u_1 + u_2$??and $k=k_1 + k_2?$ i have problem to prove the first condition of Lax - Milgram $\endgroup$ – jijiii May 31 '13 at 23:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jijiii No, $u|_{\Omega_1} = u_1$ and $u|_{\Omega_2} = u_2$, $k|_{\Omega_1} = k_1$ and $k|_{\Omega_2} = k_2$. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao Jun 1 '13 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ so how we can found that $$|a(u,v)| \leq C ||\nabla u|| ||\nabla v||$$? $\endgroup$ – jijiii Jun 1 '13 at 0:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jijiii The first condition of Lax-Milgram can be proved by Cauchy Schwarz like I said in the answer: $$\int_{\Omega} k\nabla u\cdot \nabla v\leq \max\{k\} \|\nabla u\|_{L^2} \|\nabla v\|_{L^2},$$ then $\|\nabla u\|_{L^2} \leq (\|\nabla u\|_{L^2}^2 + \|u\|_{L^2}^2)^{1/2} = \|u\|_{H^1}$ is trivial, if you square both sides you will find that the left is a part of the right. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao Jun 1 '13 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much! Please, can you help me in math.stackexchange.com/questions/408421/finite-elements $\endgroup$ – jijiii Jun 1 '13 at 17:17

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.