Processing math: 36%
Research article

Convergence and proposed optimality of adaptive finite element methods for nonlinear optimal control problems

  • This paper investigates the adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problem, and the research content of reference ([21] H. Leng and Y. Chen, 2017) is extended accordingly. Linear discretisation of the equation of state and the equation of common state is performed using continuous segmentation functions. At the same time, we use the bubble function technique to prove that the posterior error estimates are obtained from the upper and lower bounds. What is more, for the adaptive finite element method, we also consider convergence and quasi-optimality, where we find that the demand h01 on the initial grid is unconstrained for the convergence analysis of the proposed adaptive algorithm for the nonlinear optimal control problem. Simultaneously, some numerical simulation is used to verify our theoretical analysis.

    Citation: Zuliang Lu, Fei Cai, Ruixiang Xu, Lu Xing. Convergence and proposed optimality of adaptive finite element methods for nonlinear optimal control problems[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 19664-19695. doi: 10.3934/math.20221079

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mingliang Liao, Danxia Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Hongen Jia . The error analysis for the Cahn-Hilliard phase field model of two-phase incompressible flows with variable density. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 31158-31185. doi: 10.3934/math.20231595
    [2] Saulo Orizaga, Maurice Fabien, Michael Millard . Efficient numerical approaches with accelerated graphics processing unit (GPU) computations for Poisson problems and Cahn-Hilliard equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27471-27496. doi: 10.3934/math.20241334
    [3] Saulo Orizaga, Ogochukwu Ifeacho, Sampson Owusu . On an efficient numerical procedure for the Functionalized Cahn-Hilliard equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20773-20792. doi: 10.3934/math.20241010
    [4] Dieunel DOR . On the modified of the one-dimensional Cahn-Hilliard equation with a source term. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14672-14695. doi: 10.3934/math.2022807
    [5] Hyun Geun Lee . A mass conservative and energy stable scheme for the conservative Allen–Cahn type Ohta–Kawasaki model for diblock copolymers. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6719-6731. doi: 10.3934/math.2025307
    [6] Alain Miranville . The Cahn–Hilliard equation and some of its variants. AIMS Mathematics, 2017, 2(3): 479-544. doi: 10.3934/Math.2017.2.479
    [7] Naveed Iqbal, Mohammad Alshammari, Wajaree Weera . Numerical analysis of fractional-order nonlinear Gardner and Cahn-Hilliard equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5574-5587. doi: 10.3934/math.2023281
    [8] Aymard Christbert Nimi, Daniel Moukoko . Global attractor and exponential attractor for a Parabolic system of Cahn-Hilliard with a proliferation term. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1383-1399. doi: 10.3934/math.2020095
    [9] Jean De Dieu Mangoubi, Mayeul Evrard Isseret Goyaud, Daniel Moukoko . Pullback attractor for a nonautonomous parabolic Cahn-Hilliard phase-field system. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 22037-22066. doi: 10.3934/math.20231123
    [10] Joseph L. Shomberg . Well-posedness and global attractors for a non-isothermal viscous relaxationof nonlocal Cahn-Hilliard equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2016, 1(2): 102-136. doi: 10.3934/Math.2016.2.102
  • This paper investigates the adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problem, and the research content of reference ([21] H. Leng and Y. Chen, 2017) is extended accordingly. Linear discretisation of the equation of state and the equation of common state is performed using continuous segmentation functions. At the same time, we use the bubble function technique to prove that the posterior error estimates are obtained from the upper and lower bounds. What is more, for the adaptive finite element method, we also consider convergence and quasi-optimality, where we find that the demand h01 on the initial grid is unconstrained for the convergence analysis of the proposed adaptive algorithm for the nonlinear optimal control problem. Simultaneously, some numerical simulation is used to verify our theoretical analysis.



    The Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system is a very important mathematical model which describes the motion of a viscous incompressible fluid between two closely spaced parallel plates and can be viewed as the simplification of the Cahn-Hilliard-Navier-Stokes system [1,2,3]. The model are widely applied in different fields, such as simulations of nonlinear tumor growth and neovascularization [4,5,6,7], spinodal decomposition in a Hele-Shaw cell [8], and two-phase flow in porous medium [9,10], etc.

    The Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system is a gradient system coupled with fluid motion, which is difficult to solve because of its complex form. For this model, purely explicit methods are limited by strict time step constraints for stability, and completely implicit numerical methods must contend with potentially large systems of nonlinear algebraic equations [11]. There have been many effective numerical schemes for the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system. Guo et al. proposed a semi-implicit time integration scheme based on convex splitting technique, and proved the unconditional stability of the fully discrete scheme of the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system [12]. S.M. Wise put forward an unconditionally stable finite difference scheme for the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw [13]. Chen et al. established a finite difference simulation of Gagliardo-Nirenberg-type inequalities to analyze stability and convergence [14]. Liu et al. developed a mixed finite element numerical scheme for the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system and proved its unconditional stability [15]. Guo carried out a numerical analysis for the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with variable mobility and logarithmic Flory-Huggins potential [16]. The above mentioned works are numerical methods to solve the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system. However, there are few researches on the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system.

    The modified Cahn-Hilliard equation (also named Cahn-Hilliard-Oono equation) used to suppress phase coarsening in [17] is as follows

    ϕt+Δ(εΔϕ1εf(ϕ))+θ(ϕˉϕ0)=0,xΩ,0<tT, (1.1)
    ϕn=(νΔϕf(ϕ))n,xΩ, (1.2)
    ϕ(x,0)=ϕ0(x),xΩ, (1.3)

    where ¯ϕ0:=1|Ω|Ωϕ0(x)dx. More works on the modified Cahn-Hilliard equation can be found in [18,19,20,21]. For the modified Cahn-Hilliard equation, when θ = 0, the equation becomes the classical Cahn-Hilliard equation[22,23,24]. When the modified Cahn-Hilliard is coupled with the Darcy equation, the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw equation can be obtained. Jia et al. introduced a novel finite element method for the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system [25], in which the time discretization was based on the convex splitting of the energy functional in the modified Cahn-Hilliard equation. Of course, the above numerical methods are directly solved based on the coupling equation, and the solving process is complicated. To solve this kind of problem, many decoupled methods have been proposed to solve the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system in recent years. Han [26] presented a decoupled unconditionally stable numerical scheme for the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with variable viscosity, in which the operator-splitting strategy and the pressure-stabilization technique were used to completely decouple the nonlinear Cahn-Hilliard equation from pressure. Similar strategies were also adopted in [27]. Then, Gao [28] studied the fully decoupled numerical scheme of the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw model, in which the scalar auxiliary variable method was used to deal with the nonlinear term in the free energy. Similarly, decoupled schemes are also effectively used in other systems and models recently. Zhao et al. [29] developed an energy-stable scheme for a binary hydrodynamic phase field model of mixtures of nematic liquid crystals and viscous fluids. A second-order decoupled energy-stable schemes for Cahn-Hilliard-Navier-Stokes equations was suggested in [30]. For thermodynamically consistent models, Zhao [31] investigated a general numerical framework for designing linear, energy stable, and decoupled numerical algorithms. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are few researches on decoupling methods of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system, it will be the purpose of our paper.

    Based on Eqs (1.1)-(1.3), the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with double well potential is given by

    tϕ+(ϕu)=Δμ,inΩ×(0,T), (1.4)
    μ=f(ϕ)ε2Δϕ+ξ,inΩ×(0,T), (1.5)
    Δξ=θ(ϕ¯ϕ0),inΩ×(0,T), (1.6)
    u=(p+γϕμ),inΩ×(0,T), (1.7)
    u=0,inΩ×(0,T), (1.8)
    ϕ|t=0=ϕ0,inΩ, (1.9)
    nϕ=nμ=0,un=0,onΩ×(0,T). (1.10)

    where ΩRd(d=2,3). ϕ is the concentration field, u is the advective velocity, ε>0 is the constant to measure the thickness of the transition layer between the two phases, and μ is the chemical potential. f(ϕ) is the derivative of the double well potential F(ϕ), ξ is an auxiliary variable. p and γ represent the pressure and the dimensionless surface tension parameter, respectively. n is the unit outer normal of the boundary Ω. when θ = 0, the equation becomes the classical Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaws equation. With regard to the double well potential corresponding to f(ϕ) in Eq (1.2), the following ˇF(ϕ) can be taken[32,33,34]

    ˇF(ϕ)=ˇF1(ϕ)+ˇF2(ϕ):=(ϕ2+14)+{2ϕ+34,ϕ1,32ϕ2+14ϕ4,ϕ[1,1],2ϕ+34,ϕ1. (1.11)

    Correspondingly, the derivatives of ˇF(ϕ) can be split as follows

    ˇf(ϕ)=ˇF(ϕ)=ˇf1(ϕ)+ˇf2(ϕ)=2ϕ+{2,ϕ1,3ϕ+ϕ3,ϕ[1,1],2,ϕ1. (1.12)

    F(ϕ) and f(ϕ) are replaced by ˇF(ϕ) and its derivative ˇf(ϕ), which are still recorded as F and f for simplicity. Typically, the free energy functional of a modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with double well potential is given by

    E(ϕ)=Ω(ε22|ϕ|2+F(ϕ))dx. (1.13)

    In this paper, a decoupled finite element scheme for a modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with double well potential is proposed. The temporal discretization is based on the convex splitting of the energy functional in the modified Cahn-Hilliard equation, and the spacial discretization is carried out by the mixed finite element method. The computation of the velocity u is separated from the computation of the pressure p by using an operator-splitting strategy. A Possion equation is solved to update the pressure at each time step. We prove that the the proposed scheme is unconditionally stable in energy, and the error analyses are obtained. Finally, the numerical results verify the theoretical analysis. The rest of this article is structured as follows.The finite element discrete scheme of the Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system combing with the convex splitting is given in Section 2; The theoretical preparations and stability of the proposed numerical scheme are proved in Section 3; The error analyses of the proposed scheme are addressed in Section 4; Some numerical examples are given to verify the previous theory in Section 5, and the conclusion is given in Section 6.

    Let L2(Ω) is a space of square integrable function and Hk(Ω),Hk0(Ω) denote the usual Sobolev spaces. L2(Ω) inner product and its norm are denoted by (u,v)=Ωu(x)v(x)dx, ϕ=ϕL2(Ω)=(ϕ,ϕ). The weak formulation of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with double well potential can be written as

    {(tϕ,v)+((ϕu),v)+(μ,v)=0,vH1(Ω),(μ,w)(f1(ϕ)+f2(ϕ),w)ε2(ϕ,w)(ξ,w)=0,wH1(Ω),(ξ,ψ)θ(ϕ¯ϕ0,ψ)=0,ψH1(Ω),(p+γϕμ,q)=0.qH1(Ω). (2.1)

    where,

    f1(ϕ)=2ϕ,f1(ϕ)=2.f2(ϕ)={2,ϕ13ϕ+ϕ3,ϕ[1,1]2,ϕ1,f2(ϕ)=3(ϕ21)0.

    Let N be a positive integer and 0=t0<t1<<tN=T be a uniform partition of [0,T], where ti=iτ, i=0,1,,N1, τ=TN.

    The semi-discrete scheme of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system with double well potential is as follows. For n0, find {ϕn+1,μn+1,ξn+1,pn+1} such that

    (ϕn+1ϕnτ,v)(ϕnun+1,v)+(μn+1,v)=0, (2.2)
    (μn+1,w)(f1(ϕn+1)+f2(ϕn),w)ε2(ϕn+1,w)(ξn+1,w)=0, (2.3)
    (ξn+1,ψ)θ(ϕn+1¯ϕ0,ψ)=0, (2.4)
    ((pn+1pn),q)=(un+1,q), (2.5)

    where the velocity is given by

    un+1=(pn+γϕnμn+1). (2.6)

    Combing with the idea of the literatures [26,35], the computation of the modified Cahn-Hilliard equations (2.2)-(2.4) are decoupled from Eq (2.5) after substituting un+1 into Eq (2.2), since the pressure is explicit in Eq (2.6). The velocity un+1 is regarded as an intermediate velocity by using the incremental projection method similar to the Navier-Stokes equation. The real velocity ˜un+1 is obtained from the intermediate velocity and satisfies

    ˜un+1un+1=(pn+1pn),˜un+1=0. (2.7)

    Then Eq (2.6) and Eq (2.7) are added together to obtain the original Eq (1.7). If the divergence operator is applied to both side of Eq (2.7), the real velocity ˜un+1 will vanished. We have

    (pn+1pn)=un+1. (2.8)

    Let Th={K} be a regular partition of the domain Ω that is divided into triangles with the size h=max0iNhi. Sh is a piecewise polynomial space, which is defined as

    Sh={υhC0(Ω)|υh|KPk(x,y),KTh}H1(Ω),

    where Pk(x,y) is a polynomial of degree at most r.

    Let us denote

    L20:={uL2(Ω)|(u,1)=0},ˆSh:=ShL20,
    ˆH1:=H1(Ω)L20,ˆH1:={vH1(Ω)|(v,1)=0}.

    The corresponding fully discrete scheme have the following expression, find {ϕn+1h,μn+1h,ξn+1h,pn+1h}Sh×Sh׈Sh׈Sh, such that

    (ϕn+1hϕnhτ,vh)(ϕnhun+1h,vh)+(μn+1h,vh)=0, (2.9)
    (μn+1h,wh)(f1(ϕn+1h)+f2(ϕnh),wh)ε2(ϕn+1h,wh)(ξn+1h,wh)=0, (2.10)
    (ξn+1h,ψh)θ(ϕn+1h¯ϕ0,ψh)=0, (2.11)
    ((pn+1hpnh),qh)=(un+1h,qh), (2.12)

    where the velocity is given by

    un+1h=(pnh+γϕnhμn+1h). (2.13)

    Definition 3.1. [36] The Ritz projection operator Rh(Ω): ϕH1(Ω)Sh satisfies

    ((Rhϕϕ),χ)=0,χSh,(Rhϕϕ,1)=0. (3.1)

    and have the following estimates,

    RhϕH1(Ω)CϕH1,ϕH1(Ω), (3.2)
    ϕRhϕ+hϕRhϕH1(Ω)Chq+1ϕHq+1,ϕHq+1(Ω). (3.3)

    Definition 3.2. [36] Define the operator Th:ˆH1ˆH1 through the following variational problems, given ζˆH1, find Th(ζ)ˆH1 such that

    (Th(ζ),χ)=(ζ,χ),χˆH1. (3.4)

    Lemma 3.1. [12,15] Let ζ,φˆH1 and set

    (ζ,φ)1,h:=(Th(ζ),Th(φ))=(ζ,Th(φ))=(Th(ζ),φ), (3.5)

    where (,)1,h defines an inner product on the ˆH1 and its corresponding H1 norm is written as

    ζ1,h=(ζ,ζ)1,h=sup0χˆH1(ζ,χ)χ. (3.6)

    Consequently, for χˆH1,ζˆH1,

    |(ζ,χ)|ζ1,hχ. (3.7)

    Furthermore, the following Poincarˊe inequalities holds,

    ζ1,hCζ,ζL20. (3.8)

    Definition 3.3. [12,15] Define W:={uL2(Ω)|(u,q),qH1(Ω)}. The projection operator P:wL2(Ω)W is defined as

    P(w)=p+w, (3.9)

    where p˙H1:={ϕH1(Ω)|(ϕ,1)=0} is the unique solution to

    (p+w,q)=0,qH1(Ω). (3.10)

    Lemma 3.2. [12,15] Projection operator P is linear and satisfies the following properties

    (P(w)w,v)=0,vW, (3.11)

    and

    P(w)w. (3.12)

    Definition 3.4. [12,15] Define Wh:={uhL2(Ω)|(uh,qh)=0,qhSh}. The projection operator Ph:wL2(Ω)Wh is defined as

    Ph(w)=ph+w, (3.13)

    where ph^Sh is the unique solution to

    (ph+w,qh)=0,qh^Sh(Ω). (3.14)

    Lemma 3.3. [14,15] Projection operator Ph is linear and satisfies the following properties

    (Ph(w)w,vh)=0,vhWh, (3.15)

    and

    Ph(w)w. (3.16)

    Lemma 3.4. [12,15] Suppose that wHq(Ω) with the compatible boundary condition wn=0 on Ω and qHq+1(Ω), then

    Ph(w)P(w)=(pph)Chq|p|Hq+1. (3.17)

    Theorem 3.1. Let {ϕn+1h,μn+1h,pn+1h,ξn+1h} be the unique solution of Eqs (2.9-2.12). Define

    Ξ(ϕn+1h):=E(ϕn+1h)+ϕn+1h2+θ2ϕn+1h¯ϕ021,h+τ2γpn+1h2. (3.18)

    Then for any h,τ,ε>0,n0, scheme (2.9)-(2.12) satisfies the following property,

    Ξ(ϕn+1h)+τμn+1h2+ϕn+1hϕnh2+ε22ϕn+1hϕnh2+θ2ϕn+1hϕnh21,h+τ2γun+1h2Ξ(ϕnh). (3.19)

    Proof. Taking vh=τμn+1h in Eq (2.9), one has

    (ϕn+1hϕnh,μn+1h)τ(ϕnhun+1h,μn+1h)+τμn+1h2=0. (3.20)

    In Eq (2.10), f1(ϕn+1h)=2ϕn+1h, f2(ϕnh)=(ϕnh)33ϕnh. For f2(ϕnh), through Taylor expansion

    F2(ϕn+1h)=F2(ϕnh)+f2(ϕnh)(ϕn+1hϕnh)+f2(η)2(ϕn+1hϕnh)2.

    where η is a number between ϕnh and ϕn+1h, we have

    f2(ϕnh)(ϕn+1hϕnh)=(F2(ϕn+1h)F2(ϕnh),1)f2(η)2(ϕn+1hϕnh)2.

    Then, choosing wh=(ϕn+1hϕnh) and using the fact that (a,ab)=12[a2b2+(ab)2] give

    (μn+1h,ϕn+1hϕnh)+(ϕn+1h2ϕnh2+ϕn+1hϕnh2)+(F2(ϕn+1h)F2(ϕnh),1)f2(η)2ϕn+1hϕnh2+ε22(ϕn+1h2ϕnh2+ϕn+1hϕnh2)+(ξn+1h,ϕn+1hϕnh)=0. (3.21)

    Replacing ψh by Th(ϕn+1hϕnh) in Eq (2.11). By Eq (3.1) in definition 3.1, Eq (3.5) in lemma 3.1 and (a,ab)=12[a2b2+(ab)2], one obtains

    (ξn+1h,ϕn+1hϕnh)+θ2(ϕn+1h¯ϕ021,hϕnh¯ϕ021,h+ϕn+1hϕnh21,h)=0. (3.22)

    Next, we take inner product of Eq (2.13) with τγun+1h to get

    τγun+1h2+τγ(pnh,un+1h)=τ(ϕnhμn+1h,un+1h). (3.23)

    Now, taking qh=τγpnh and using the fact that (ab,2b)=a2b2(ab)2 in Eq (2.12), we arrived at

    τ2γ(pn+1h2pnh2pn+1hpnh2)=τγ(un+1h,pnh). (3.24)

    To deal with the τ2γpn+1hpnh2 in Eq (3.24), replacing qh with (pn+1hpnh) in Eq (2.12) and using Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities, the following estimation can be obtained

    pn+1hpnh2un+1h2. (3.25)

    Combining Eqs (3.23)-(3.25), it can be written as

    τ2γun+1h2+τ2γ(pn+1h2pnh2)=τ(ϕnhμn+1h,un+1h). (3.26)

    Summing Eqs (3.20)-(3.26), one concludes that

    τμn+1h2+(ϕn+1h2ϕnh2+ϕn+1hϕnh2)+(F2(ϕn+1h)F2(ϕnh),1)f2(η)2ϕn+1hϕnh2+ε22(ϕn+1h2ϕnh2+ϕn+1hϕnh2)+θ2(ϕn+1h¯ϕ021,hϕnh¯ϕ021,h+ϕn+1hϕnh21,h)+τ2γun+1h2+τ2γ(pn+1h2pnh2)=0. (3.27)

    Since f2(ϕ)=3(ϕ21)0, ϕ[1,1], there is f2(η)2ϕn+1hϕnh20 by Taylor expansion. Therefore,

    Ξ(ϕn+1h)Ξ(ϕnh)+τμn+1h2+ϕn+1hϕnh2+ε22ϕn+1hϕnh2+θ2ϕn+1hϕnh21,h+τ2γun+1h20. (3.28)

    The proof is completed.

    Corollary 3.1. Suppose that Ξ(ϕ0h)C0, there is a constant C>0 independent of τ and h, such that the following estimates hold for any τ,h>0,

    max0nN(ϕn+1h2+ϕn+1h2+ϕn+1h¯ϕ021,h)C, (3.29)
    max0nNpn+1h2C, (3.30)
    Ni=0(ϕi+1hϕih2+ϕi+1hϕih2+ϕi+1hϕih21,h)C, (3.31)
    Ni=0τ(μi+1h2+ui+1h2)C. (3.32)

    Proof. Summing the Eq (3.19) from i=0toN, we get

    Ξ(ϕNh)+τNi=0μi+1h2+τ2γNi=0ui+1h2+Ni=0ϕi+1hϕih2+ε22Ni=0ϕi+1hϕih2+θ2Ni=0ϕi+1hϕih21,hΞ(ϕ0h)C. (3.33)

    The proof is completed.

    In this section, we assume that the weak solution {ϕ,μ,ξ,p} satisfies the following regularity

    ϕH1(0,T;Hq+1(Ω))L(0,T;H1(Ω))L(0,T;Hq+1(Ω)),μL(0,T;H1(Ω))L2(0,T;Hq+1(Ω)),ξL2((0,T;Hq+1(Ω))),uL(0,T;Hq(Ω)),ϕμL(0,T;Hq(Ω)).

    For the convenience of subsequent analysis, we introduce some notations,

    ϕn+1=ϕ(tn+1),δτϕn+1=ϕn+1ϕnτ,˜en+1ϕ=ϕn+1Rhϕn+1,ˆen+1ϕ=Rhϕn+1ϕn+1h,˜en+1μ=μn+1Rhμn+1,ˆen+1μ=Rhμn+1μn+1h,˜en+1ξ=ξn+1Rhξn+1,ˆen+1ξ=Rhξn+1ξn+1h,˜en+1p=pn+1Rhpn+1,ˆen+1p=Rhpn+1pn+1h,σ(ϕn+1)=δτRhϕn+1tϕn+1.

    Lemma 4.1. [36] Suppose the {ϕ,μ,ξ,p} is the solution to Eq (2.1), the following estimate holds

    σ(ϕn+1)2Ch2q+2+Cτ2. (4.1)

    Theorem 4.1. Suppose the solutions of the initial problem Eq (2.1) and the fully discrete scheme Eqs (2.9)-(2.12) are {ϕ,μ,ξ,p} and {ϕn+1h,μn+1h,ξn+1h,pn+1h}, respectively. Then for any h,τ>0, the following estimate holds

    ni=0τˆei+1μ2+ε2ˆen+1ϕ2+θˆen+1ϕ21,h+ni=0τεγˆei+1p2+ni=0τγPh(ϕihˆei+1μ)2Cτ2+Ch2q. (4.2)

    Proof. Subtracting Eqs (2.9)-(2.12) from Eq (2.1) at t=n+1, one has

    (σ(ϕn+1),vh)+(δτˆen+1ϕ,vh)+(ϕn+1(pn+1+γϕn+1μn+1),vh) (4.3)
    (ϕnh(pnh+γϕnhμn+1h),vh)+(ˆen+1μ,vh)=0,(˜en+1μ,wh)+(ˆen+1μ,wh)+(f1(ϕn+1h)+f2(ϕnh),wh)(f(ϕn+1),wh) (4.4)
    ε2(ˆen+1ϕ,wh)(ˆen+1ξ,wh)(˜en+1ξ,wh)=0,(ˆen+1ξ,ψh)+(˜en+1ξ,ψh)θ(ˆen+1ϕ,ψh)θ(˜en+1ϕ,ψh)=0, (4.5)
    (ˆen+1p,qh)+(γϕn+1μn+1γϕnhμn+1h,qh)=0. (4.6)

    We choose vh=ˆen+1μ in Eq (4.3), wh=δτˆen+1ϕ in Eq (4.4), ψh=Th(δτˆen+1ϕ) in Eq (4.5), qh=εˆen+1p in Eq (4.6) and sum them to get

    ˆen+1μ2+ε22τ(ˆen+1ϕ2ˆenϕ2+ˆen+1ϕˆenϕ2)+θ2τ(ˆen+1ϕ21,hˆenϕ21,h+ˆen+1ϕˆenϕ21,h)+εˆen+1p2=(σ(ϕn+1),ˆen+1μ)+(˜en+1μ,δτˆen+1ϕ)θ(˜en+1ϕ,Th(δτˆen+1ϕ))+(f1(ϕn+1h)+f2(ϕnh),δτˆen+1ϕ)(f(ϕn+1),δτˆen+1ϕ)(ϕn+1(pn+1+γϕn+1μn+1),ˆen+1μ)+(ϕnh(pnh+γϕnhμn+1h),ˆen+1μ)εγ(ϕn+1μn+1ϕnhμn+1h,ˆen+1p)=6i=1Mi, (4.7)

    where we denote

    M1=(σ(ϕn+1),ˆen+1μ),M2=(˜en+1μ,δτˆen+1ϕ),M3=θ(˜en+1ϕ,Th(δτˆen+1ϕ)),M4=(f1(ϕn+1h)+f2(ϕnh),δτˆen+1ϕ)(f(ϕn+1),δτˆen+1ϕ),M5=(ϕn+1(pn+1+γϕn+1μn+1),ˆen+1μ)+(ϕnh(pnh+γϕnhμn+1h),ˆen+1μ),M6=εγ(ϕn+1μn+1ϕnhμn+1h,ˆen+1p). (4.8)

    Next, we estimate Mi. According to the poincarˊe inequality, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the Young inequality and lemma 4.1, one obtains

    M1=(σ(ϕn+1),ˆen+1μ)|(σ(ϕn+1),ˆen+1μ)||(σ(ϕn+1),ˆen+1μ¯ˆen+1μ)|σ(ϕn+1)ˆen+1μ1Mσ(ϕn+1)2+M4ˆen+1μ2Cτ2+Ch2q+2+M4ˆen+1μ2. (4.9)

    Using Eq (3.7) in lemma 3.1, the Young inequality and Eq (3.3) in definition 3.1, we have

    M2=(˜en+1μ,δτˆen+1ϕ)|(˜en+1μ,δτˆen+1ϕ)|˜en+1μδτˆen+1ϕ1,h1α˜en+1μ2+α4δτˆen+1ϕ21,hCh2q+α4δτˆen+1ϕ21,h. (4.10)

    Similarly, according to lemma 3.1, the Schwarz inequality, the Young inequality, and Eq (3.3) in definition 3.1, we can estimate M3 as follows,

    M3=θ(˜en+1ϕ,Th(δτˆen+1ϕ))θ|(˜en+1ϕ,Th(δτˆen+1ϕ))|θ˜en+1ϕTh(δτˆen+1ϕ)θ˜en+1ϕδτˆen+1ϕ1,hθ22˜en+1ϕ2+α4δτˆen+1ϕ21,hCh2q+2+α4δτˆen+1ϕ1,h. (4.11)

    As for M4, there is f1(ϕn+1)f1(ϕn+1h)=2(ϕn+1ϕn+1h) for f1(ϕ)=2ϕ, and f2(ϕn+1)f2(ϕnh)C(ϕn+1ϕnh) for f2(ϕ)=ϕ33ϕ. Then, according to lemma 3.1, the Young inequality, definition 3.1 and Taylor extension τδτϕ(t)2Cτ2, the following inequality is established

    M4=(f1(ϕn+1h)+f2(ϕnh),δτˆen+1ϕ)(f(ϕn+1),δτˆen+1ϕ)|(f1(ϕn+1)f1(ϕn+1h),δτˆen+1ϕ)+(f2(ϕn+1)f2(ϕnh),δτˆen+1ϕ)||2((ϕn+1ϕn+1h),δτˆen+1ϕ)+f2(η)((ϕn+1ϕnh),δτˆen+1ϕ)|2(ϕn+1ϕn+1h)δτˆen+1ϕ1,h+L(ϕn+1ϕnh)δτˆen+1ϕ1,h16α˜en+1ϕ2+4αˆen+1ϕ2+16Lα(ϕn+1ϕn)2+16Lα˜enϕ2+16Lαˆenϕ2+α2δτˆen+1ϕ21,hCτ2+Ch2q+4αˆen+1ϕ2+Cˆenϕ2+α2δτˆen+1ϕ21,h. (4.12)

    To deal with M5, we denote b(ϕ,u,v):=(ϕu,v). Referring to the method in [15], M5 can be analyzed as

    M5=(ϕn+1(pn+1+γϕn+1μn+1),ˆen+1μ)+(ϕnh(pnh+γϕnhμn+1h),ˆen+1μ)=b(ϕn+1,un+1,ˆen+1μ)+b(ϕnh,un+1h,ˆen+1μ)=b(˜en+1ϕ,un+1,ˆen+1μ)b(τδτRhϕn+1,un+1,ˆen+1μ)b(ˆenϕ,un+1,ˆen+1μ)b(ϕnh,un+1un+1h,ˆen+1μ)b(˜en+1ϕ,un+1,ˆen+1μ)+b(τδτRhϕn+1,un+1,ˆen+1μ)+b(ˆenϕ,un+1,ˆen+1μ)+b(ϕnh,un+1un+1h,ˆen+1μ)CD(τ2+h2q)+CDˆenϕ2+14ˆen+1μ2γPh(ϕnhˆen+1μ)2, (4.13)

    where D: = \|\phi^{n}_{h}\|^{4}_{L^{\infty}}+1\leq C . Therefore,

    \begin{eqnarray} &M_{5}\leq C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q}+C\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\dfrac{1}{4}\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2} -\gamma\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}.& \end{eqnarray} (4.14)

    According to the definition 3.3, definition 3.4, lemma 3.4, Taylor expansion \|\nabla\tau\delta_{\tau}p^{n+1}\|^{2}\leq C\tau^{2} , the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Young inequality, the following error estimation formulation holds

    \begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} M_{6}&=-\varepsilon\gamma(\phi^{n+1}\nabla\mu^{n+1}-\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\mu^{n+1}_{h},\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p})\\ &=-\varepsilon\gamma(\nabla p^{n+1}+\phi^{n+1}\nabla\mu^{n+1},\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p})+\varepsilon\gamma(\nabla p^{n+1}-\nabla p^{n},\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p})\\ &\quad+\varepsilon\gamma(\nabla p^{n}-\nabla p^{n}_{h},\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p})+\varepsilon\gamma(\nabla p^{n}_{h}+\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\mu^{n+1}_{h},\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p})\\ &\leq\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla( p^{n+1}-p^{n})\|\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|+\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla(p^{n}-p^{n}_{h})\|\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|\\ &\leq\frac{\varepsilon\gamma}{2}\|\nabla\tau\delta_{\tau}p^{n+1}\|^{2}+\frac{\varepsilon\gamma}{2}\|\nabla(p^{n}-p^{n}_{h})\|^{2}+\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &\leq C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q}+\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray} (4.15)

    Combining Eqs (4.7)-(4.15) gives

    \begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2\tau}(\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}-\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}-\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2})\\ &+\frac{\theta}{2\tau}(\|\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}-\|\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}+\|\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}-\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h})+\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &+\gamma\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}\\ \leq& C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q}+C\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\frac{4}{\alpha}\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}+\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &+\alpha\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray} (4.16)

    For \|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h} , taking \alpha v_{h} = T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}) in Eq (4.3) and using a similar idea as M_{5} , the following inequality can be obtained,

    \begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} \alpha\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h} = &\alpha(\sigma(\phi^{n+1}), T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))-\alpha(\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}, \nabla T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))\\ &-\alpha(\phi^{n+1}(\nabla p^{n+1}+\gamma\phi^{n+1}\nabla\mu^{n+1}), \nabla T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))\\ &+\alpha(\phi^{n}_{h}(\nabla p^{n}_{h}+\gamma\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\mu^{n+1}_{h}), \nabla T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))\\ \leq&\alpha\|\sigma(\phi^{n+1})\|\|T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi})\|+\alpha\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|\|T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi})\|\\ &+\alpha b(\tilde{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}, \mathbf{u}^{n+1}, T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))+\alpha b(\tau\delta_{\tau}R_{h}\phi^{n+1}, \mathbf{u}^{n+1}, T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))\\ &+\alpha b(\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}, \mathbf{u}^{n+1}, T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))+\alpha b(\phi^{n}_{h}, \mathbf{u}^{n+1}-\mathbf{u}^{n+1}_{h}, T_{h}(\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}))\\ \leq&2\alpha\|\sigma(\phi^{n+1})\|^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{8}\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}+\alpha \|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{4}\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}\\ &+CD(\tau^{2}+h^{2q})-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}+CD\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{8}\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}\\ \leq&C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q+2}+CD(\tau^{2}+h^{2q})-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}\\ &+\alpha\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+CD\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\frac{\alpha}{2}\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray} (4.17)

    Therefore, it follows that

    \begin{eqnarray} &\alpha\|\delta_{\tau}\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}\leq C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q}+2\alpha\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+C\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}-\dfrac{\gamma}{\alpha}\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}.& \end{eqnarray} (4.18)

    Then, combining Eq (4.16) with Eq (4.18) and multiplying by 2\tau , one has

    \begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\tau\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}(\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}-\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}-\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2})\\ &+\theta(\|\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}-\|\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}+\|\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}-\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1,h}) +2\tau\varepsilon\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &+2\tau\gamma\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}\\ \leq&C\tau\tau^{2}+C\tau h^{2q}+C\tau\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n}_{\phi}\|^{2} +{\dfrac{8\tau}{\alpha}}\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}+2\tau\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &+2\alpha\tau\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}-\frac{2\tau\gamma}{\alpha}\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{n}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray} (4.19)

    Finally, we take the appropriate \alpha(0 < \alpha\leq \dfrac{1}{2}) and add the above estimates from i=0 to n. When 0 < \tau\leq\dfrac{\alpha\varepsilon^{2}}{8}, according to the discrete Gronwall inequality, one concludes that

    \begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n}\tau \|\nabla\hat{e}^{i+1}_{\mu}\|^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}+\theta\|\hat{e}^{n+1}_{\phi}\|^{2}_{-1, h}+\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n} \tau\varepsilon\gamma\|\nabla\hat{e}^{i+1}_{p}\|^{2}\\ &+\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n}\tau\gamma\|\mathcal{P}_{h}(\phi^{i}_{h}\nabla\hat{e}^{i+1}_{\mu})\|^{2}\leq C\tau^{2}+Ch^{2q}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray} (4.20)

    The proof is completed.

    In this part, some numerical examples are used to verify the correctness and validity of the theoretical analysis. Next, let us take the initial conditions \phi_{0} = 0.24*cos(2\pi x)cos(2\pi y)+0.4*cos(\pi x)cos(3\pi y) , and the domain of the calculation is [0, 1]\times[0, 1] .

    For Tables 1 and 2, the parameters are chosen as follows, \tau = 0.01, T = 0.1 , \varepsilon = 0.14 and mesh steps h = \frac{1}{16}, \frac{1}{32}, \frac{1}{64}, \frac{1}{128} . The spatial convergence orders of relative error \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} are close to 1, which is consistent with the convergence order obtained from theoretical analysis. Moreover, different \theta and \gamma have little effect on the corresponding convergence order.

    Table 1.  The spacial convergence rate of \hat{e}_{\phi} with \theta = 0 .
    \gamma=0.02 h \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate \gamma=0.5 \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate
    \frac{1}{16} 0.114235 0.112924
    \frac{1}{32} 0.0538164 1.08589 0.0532056 1.08571
    \frac{1}{64} 0.0276215 0.962255 0.0272203 0.966891
    \frac{1}{128} 0.0137438 1.00701 0.0135257 1.00898

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  The spacial convergence rate of \hat{e}_{\phi} with \theta = 0.5 .
    \gamma=0.02 h \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate \gamma=0.5 \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate
    \frac{1}{16} 0.113003 0.113255
    \frac{1}{32} 0.05391 1.06774 0.0529089 1.09799
    \frac{1}{64} 0.0275791 0.966978 0.0272109 0.959326
    \frac{1}{128} 0.0137206 1.00723 0.0134845 1.01288

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    For Tables 3 and 4, the parameters are chosen as follows, \varepsilon = 0.01, T = 0.1, h = \tau = 0.0625, 0.03125, 0.015625. The temporal convergence orders of relative error \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} are close to 1, which is consistent with the convergence order obtained from theoretical analysis.

    Table 3.  The temporal convergence rate of \hat{e}_{\phi} with \theta = 0.01 .
    \gamma=0.01\tau \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}}rate \gamma=0.08 \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate
    0.0625 1.00089 1.14072
    0.03125 0.50614 0.983677 0.998929 0.981451
    0.015625 0.259234 0.965282 0.505928 0.968364

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Let us test the energy dissipation of our proposed scheme. The energy functional Eq (1.13) of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system Eqs (1.4)-(1.10) can be discreteized as.
    \gamma=0.01 \tau \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}}rate \gamma=0.08 \|\hat{e}_{\phi}\|_{H^{1}} rate
    0.0625 1.00089 1.14072
    0.03125 0.506139 0.983679 0.998926 0.981446
    0.015625 0.259234 0.96528 0.505928 0.968365

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Let us test the energy dissipation of our proposed scheme. The energy functional Eq (1.13) of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system Eqs (1.4)-(1.10) can be discreteized as

    \begin{eqnarray} E(\phi_{h}^{n+1}) = \int_{\Omega}(\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2}|\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1}|^{2}+F(\phi_{h}^{n+1}))dx. \end{eqnarray} (5.1)

    Correspondingly, the modified energy of the fully discrete scheme Eqs (2.9)-(2.13) is defined as

    \begin{eqnarray} &\Xi(\phi^{n+1}_{h}): = E(\phi^{n+1}_{h})+\|\phi^{n+1}_{h}\|^{2}+\dfrac{\theta}{2}\|\phi^{n+1}_{h}-\overline{\phi}_{0}\|^{2}_{-1, h} +\dfrac{\tau}{2\gamma}\|\nabla p^{n+1}_{h}\|^{2}. \end{eqnarray} (5.2)

    For the test, the parameters are chosen as follows: T = 5 , \tau = 0.001 , h = \dfrac{1}{64} , \varepsilon = 0.4 , \gamma = 0.5 . In Figure 1, we can see that the energy functional is non-increasing for \theta = 0, 0.1, 1.

    Figure 1.  the evolutions of discrete energy.

    In this part, we present the phase separation dynamics that is called spinodal decomposition in the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system. In the simulation, the computational domain is chosen as [0, 1]\times[0, 1] , the parameters are chosen as follows: \varepsilon = 0.05 , \gamma = 0.45 , \tau = 0.0001 . Then, let us take the initial condition

    \phi_{0} = 2*rand()-1,

    where rand()\in [0, 1] . The process of coarsening is shown in the following figures. From figures 2-19, we can see that the contours of \phi are gradually coarsened over time. However, the profiles obtained by different \theta are similar at the same time T . From left to right, the coarsening processes of \theta = 50, 200 are not obvious compared with the coarsening processes of \theta = 0 . We know the bigger \theta can suppress the coarsening process.

    Figure 2.  T = 0.0001, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 3.  T = 0.0001, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 4.  T = 0.0001, \theta = 200 .
    Figure 5.  T = 0.0005, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 6.  T = 0.0005, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 7.  T = 0.0005, \theta = 200 .
    Figure 8.  T = 0.001, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 9.  T = 0.001, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 10.  T = 0.001, \theta = 200 .
    Figure 11.  T = 0.005, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 12.  T = 0.005, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 13.  T = 0.005, \theta = 200 .
    Figure 14.  T = 0.01, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 15.  T = 0.01, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 16.  T = 0.01, \theta = 200 .
    Figure 17.  T = 0.02, \theta = 0 .
    Figure 18.  T = 0.02, \theta = 50 .
    Figure 19.  T = 0.02, \theta = 200 .

    In this paper, a decoupled scheme of the modified Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw system is studied. In our scheme, the velocity and pressure are decoupled, and a Possion equation is solved to update the pressure at each time step. Unconditional stability of the scheme in energy is proved. The convergence analysis are addressed in the frame of finite element method. Furthermore, the theoretical part is verified by several numerical examples. The results show that the numerical examples are consistent with the results of the theoretical part.

    The work is supported by the the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi (No. 201901D111123) and Key Research and Development (R & D) Projects of Shanxi Province (No. 201903D121038).

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] D. Braess, C. Carstensen, R. Hoppe, Convergence analysis of a conforming adaptive finite element method for an obstacle problem, Numer. Math., 107 (2007), 455–471. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-007-0098-6 doi: 10.1007/s00211-007-0098-6
    [2] P. Binev, W. Dahmen, R. Devore, Adaptive finite element methods with convergence rates, Numer. Math., 97 (2004), 219–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-003-0492-7 doi: 10.1007/s00211-003-0492-7
    [3] I. Babu\mathrm{\breve{s}}ka, W. Rheinboldt, Error estimates for adaptive finite computations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 15 (1978), 736–754. https://doi.org/10.1137/0715049 doi: 10.1137/0715049
    [4] J. Cascon, C. Kreuzer, R. Nochetto, K. Siebert, Qusi-optimal convergence rate for an adaptive finite element method, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 46 (2008), 2524–2550. https://doi.org/10.1137/07069047X doi: 10.1137/07069047X
    [5] Y. Chen, Z. Lu, R. Guo, Error estimates of triangular mixed finite element methods for quasilinear optimal control problems, Front. Math. China, 7 (2012), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11464-012-0179-4 doi: 10.1007/s11464-012-0179-4
    [6] P. Ciarlet, The finite element method for elliptic problems, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978.
    [7] A. Demlow, R. Stevenson, Convergence and quasi-optimlity of an adaptive finite element method for controlling L^2 errors, Numer. Math., 117 (2011), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-010-0349-9 doi: 10.1007/s00211-010-0349-9
    [8] M. Dobrowolski, R. Rannacher, Finite element methods for nonlinear elliptic systems of second order, Math. Nach., 94 (1980), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/mana.19800940112 doi: 10.1002/mana.19800940112
    [9] W. D\ddot{\mathrm{o}}rfler, A convergent adaptive algorithm for Poisson equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33 (1996), 1106–1124. https://doi.org/10.1137/0733054 doi: 10.1137/0733054
    [10] X. Dai, J. Xu, A. Zhou, Convergence and optimal complexity of adaptive finite element eigenvalue computations, Numer. Math., 110 (2008), 313–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-008-0169-3 doi: 10.1007/s00211-008-0169-3
    [11] K. Eriksson, C. Johnson, An adaptive finite element method for linear elliptic problems, Math. Comp., 50 (1988), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1988-0929542-X doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1988-0929542-X
    [12] K. Eriksson, C. Johnson, Adaptive finite element methods for parabolic problems IV: nonlinear problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 32 (1995), 1729–1749. https://doi.org/10.1137/0732078 doi: 10.1137/0732078
    [13] A. Gaevskaya, R. Hoppe, Y. llish, M. Kieweg, Convergence analysis of an adaptive finite element method for distributed control problems with control constrains, In: Control of coupled partial differential equations, Basel: Birkhäuser, 2007, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-7721-2_3
    [14] L. Ge, W. Liu, D. Yang, L^2 norm equivalent a posteriori error estimate for a constrained optimal control problem, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Mod., 6 (2009), 335–353.
    [15] L. Ge, W. Liu, D. Yang, Adaptive finite element approximation for a constrained optimal control problem via multi-grids, J. Sci. Comput., 41 (2009), 238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-009-9296-y doi: 10.1007/s10915-009-9296-y
    [16] W. Gong, N. Yan, Adaptive finite element method for elliptic optimal control problems: convergence and optimality, Numer. Math., 135 (2017), 1121–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00211-016-0827-9 doi: 10.1007/S00211-016-0827-9
    [17] J. Hu, J. Xu, Convergence and optimality of the adaptive nonconforming linear element method for the stokes problem, J. Sci. Comput., 55 (2013), 125–148. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-012-9625-4 doi: 10.1007/s10915-012-9625-4
    [18] H. Leng, Y. Chen, Convergence and quasi-optimality of an adaptive finite element method for optimal control problems on L^2-errors, J. Sci. Comput., 73 (2017), 438–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0425-8 doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0425-8
    [19] H. Leng, Y. Chen, Convergence and quasi-optimality of an adaptive finite element method for optimal control problems with integral control constraint, Adv. Comput. Math., 44 (2018), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-017-9546-8 doi: 10.1007/s10444-017-9546-8
    [20] J. Lions, Optimal control of systems governed by partial differential equations, Berlin: Springer, 1971.
    [21] R. Li, W. Liu, H. Ma, T. Tang, Adaptive finite element approximation for distributed elliptic optimal control problems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 41 (2002), 1321–1349. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012901389342 doi: 10.1137/S0363012901389342
    [22] W. Liu, N. Yan, Adaptive finite element methods for optimal control governed by PDEs, Beijing: Science Press, 2008.
    [23] Z. Lu, Y. Chen, W. Zheng, A posteriori error estimates of lowest order Raviart-Thomas mixed finite element methods for bilinear optimal control problems, East Asian J. Appl. Math., 2 (2012), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.4208/eajam.080212.260312a doi: 10.4208/eajam.080212.260312a
    [24] Z. Lu, Existence and uniqueness of second order parabolic bilinear optimal control problems, Lobachevskii J. Math., 32 (2011), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995080211040135 doi: 10.1134/S1995080211040135
    [25] P. Morin, R. Nochetto, K. Siebert, Data oscillation and convergence of adaptive FEM, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 38 (2000), 466–488. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142999360044 doi: 10.1137/S0036142999360044
    [26] W. Shen, D. Yang, W. Liu, Optimal control problem governed by a linear hyperbolic integro-differential equation and its finite element analysis, Bound. Value Probl., 2014 (2014), 173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-014-0173-8 doi: 10.1186/s13661-014-0173-8
    [27] R. Stevenson, Optimality of a standard adaptive finite element method, Found. Comput. Math., 7 (2007), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-005-0183-0 doi: 10.1007/s10208-005-0183-0
    [28] R. Verfürth, A review of a posteriori error estimation and adaptive Grids-Refinement techniques, Wiley, 1998.
    [29] P. Wriggers, O. Scherf, An adaptive finite element technique for nonlinear contact problems, In: Contact mechanics, Boston, MA: Springer, 1995,183–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1983-6_24
    [30] J. Xu, A. Zhou, Local and parallel finite element algorithms based on two-grids discretizations, Adv. Comput. Math., 14 (2001), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012284322811 doi: 10.1023/A:1012284322811
    [31] D. Yang, A priori error estimate and superconvergence analysis for an optimal control problem of bilinear type, J. Comput. Math., 26 (2008), 471–487.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Linhui Zhang, Hongen Jia, Hongbin Wang, Fully decoupled SAV Fourier-spectral scheme for the Cahn–Hilliard–Hele–Shaw system, 2025, 25, 25900374, 100534, 10.1016/j.rinam.2024.100534
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1467) PDF downloads(78) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(6)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog