EFFICIENT PRECONDITIONERS FOR SADDLE POINT SYSTEMS WITH TRACE CONSTRAINTS COUPLING 2D AND 1D DOMAINS ∗ MIROSLAV KUCHTA †, MAGNE NORDAAS ‡, JORIS C. G. VERSCHAEVE †, MIKAEL MORTENSEN †‡, AND KENT-ANDRE MARDAL †‡ Abstract. We study preconditioners for a model problem describing the coupling of two ellip- tic subproblems posed over domains with different topological dimension by a parameter dependent constraint. A pair of parameter robust and efficient preconditioners is proposed and analyzed. Ro- bustness and efficiency of the preconditioners is demonstrated by numerical experiments. Key words. preconditioning, saddle-point problem, Lagrange multipliers AMS subject classifications. 65F08 1. Introduction. This paper is concerned with preconditioning of multiphysics problems where two subproblems of different dimensionality are coupled. We assume that Γ is a sub-manifold contained within Ω Rn and consider the following problem: ∈ ∆u + ǫδ p = f in Ω, (1.1a) − Γ ∆v p = g on Γ, (1.1b) − − ǫu v =0 onΓ, (1.1c) − where δΓ is a function with properties similar to the Dirac delta function as will be discussed later. To allow for a unique solution (u,v,p) the system must be equipped with suitable boundary conditions and we shall here, for simplicity, consider homoge- neous Dirichlet boundary conditions for u and v on ∂Ω and ∂Γ respectively. We note that the unknowns u, v are here the primary variables, while the unknown p should be interpreted as a Lagrange multiplier associated with the constraint (1.1c). The two elliptic equations that are stated on two different domains, Ω and Γ, are coupled and therefore the restriction of u to Γ and the extension of p to Ω are crucial. When the codimension of Γ is one, the restriction operator is a trace operator and the extension operator is similar to the Dirac delta function. We note that ǫ (0, 1) and that the typical scenario will be that ǫ 1. We will therefore focus on methods∈ that are robust in ǫ. ≪ The problem (1.1a)–(1.1c) is relevant to biomedical applications [18, 15, 2, 17] arXiv:1605.07198v1 [math.NA] 23 May 2016 where it models the coupling of the porous media flow inside tissue to the vascular bed through Starlings law. Further, problems involving coupling of the finite element method and the boundary element method, e.g. [24, 26], are of the form (1.1). The system is also relevant for domain decomposition methods based on Lagrange multi- pliers [32]. Finally, in solid mechanics, the problem of plates reinforced with ribs, cf. for example [44, ch. 9.11], can be recast into a related fourth order problem. We also †Department of Mathematics, Division of Mechanics, University of Oslo {mirok, joris, mikaem}@math.uio.no ‡Center for Biomedical Computing, Simula Research Laboratory, {magneano, kent-and}@simula.no ∗The work of Magne Nordaas, Mikael Mortensen and Kent-Andre Mardal has been supported by a Center of Excellence grant from the Research Council of Norway to the Center for Biomedical Computing at Simula Research Laboratory. 1 2 Preconditioning for trace constrained systems note that the techniques developed here to address the constraint (1.1c) are applica- ble in preconditioning fluid-structure interaction problems involving interactions with thin structures, e.g. filaments [22]. One way of deriving equations (1.1) is to consider the following minimization problem ( u)2 2uf dx ∇ − ZΩ min (1.2) 2 → ( v) 2vg ds ∇ − ZΓ subject to the constraint ǫu v =0 onΓ. (1.3a) − Using the method of Lagrange multipliers, the constrained minimization problem will be re-cast as a saddle-point problem. The saddle-point problem is then analyzed in terms of the Brezzi conditions [13] and efficient solution algorithms are obtained using operator preconditioning [35]. A main challenge is the fact that the constraint (1.3a) necessitates the use of trace operators which leads to operators in fractional Sobolev spaces on Γ. An outline of the paper is as follows: Section 2 presents the necessary notation and mathematical framework needed for the analysis. Then the mathemathical analysis as well as the numerical experiments of two different preconditioners are presented in §3 and §4, respectively. Section 5 discusses computational efficiency of both methods. 2. Preliminaries. Let X be a Hilbert space of functions defined on a domain D 2 and let X denote its norm. The L inner product on a domain D is denoted ( , )D k·k · · or D , while , D denotes the corresponding duality pairing between a Hilbert · h· ·i m m space X and its dual space X∗. We will use H = H (D) to denote the Sobolev spaceR of functions on D with m derivatives in L2 = L2(D). The corresponding norm m m is denoted m,D. In general, we will use H0 to denote the closure in H of the space of smoothk·k functions with compact support in D and seminorm is denoted as m,D. | · | The space of bounded linear operators mapping elements of X to Y is denoted (X, Y ) and if Y = X we simply write (X) instead of (X,X). If X and Y are HilbertL spaces, both continuously containedL in some largerL Hilbert space, then the intersection X Y and the sum X + Y are both Hilbert spaces with norms given by ∩ 2 2 2 2 2 2 x X Y = x X + x Y and z X+Y = inf ( x X + y Y ). k k ∩ k k k k k k x X,y Y k k k k ∈z=x+∈y In the following Ω Rn is an open connected domain with Lipschitz boundary ⊂ ∂Ω. The trace operator T is defined by Tu = u Γ for u C(Ω) and Γ a Lipschitz submanifold of codimension one in Ω. The trace| operator∈ extends to bounded and 1 1 surjective linear operator T : H (Ω) H 2 (Γ), see e.g. [1, ch. 7]. The fractional 1 → Sobolev space H 2 (Γ) can be equipped with the norm 2 2 2 u(x) u(y) u 1 = u 2 + | − | dxdy. (2.1) H 2 (Γ) L (Γ) n+1 k k k k Γ Γ x y Z × | − | 1 1 2 However, the trace is not surjective as an operator from H0 (Ω) into H (Γ), in 1 particular the constant function 1 H 2 (Γ) is not in the image of the trace operator. ∈ 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 Note that H0(Γ) does not characterize the trace space, since H0(Γ) = H (Γ), see [30, 1 2 ch. 2, thm. 11.1]. Instead, the trace space can be identified as H00(Γ), defined as 1 1 the subspace of H 2 (Γ) for which extension by zero into H 2 (Γ)˜ is continuous, for some suitable extension domain Γ˜ extending Γ (e.g. Γ=Γ˜ ∂Ω). To be precise, the space 1 2 ∪ H00(Γ) can be characterized with the norm u(x) x Γ 1 1 u 2 = u˜ H 2 (Γ)˜ , u˜(x)= ∈ (2.2) k kH00(Γ) k k 0 x / Γ. ( ∈ 1 2 ˜ The space H00(Γ) does not depend on the extension domain Γ, since the norms induced by different choices of Γ˜ will be equivalent. The above norms (2.1)–(2.2) for the fractional spaces are impractical from an implementation point of view, and we will therefore consider the alternative construc- 1 tion following [30, ch. 2.1] and [16]. For u, v H0 (Γ), set Lu(v) = (u, v)Γ. Then 1 ∈ Lu is a bounded linear functional on H0 (Γ) and in accordance with the Riesz-Fr´echet theorem there is an operator S H1(Γ) such that ∈ L 0 1 (Su,w) 1 = Lu(w) = (u, w) , u,w H (Γ). (2.3) H0 (Ω) Γ ∈ 0 The operator S is self-adjoint, positive definite, injective and compact. Therefore the spectrum of S consists of a nonincreasing sequence of positive eigenvalues λk ∞ { }k=1 such that 0 < λk λk and λk 0, see e.g. [48, ch. X.5, thm. 2]. The eigenvectors +1 ≤ → φk ∞ of S satisfy the generalized eigenvalue problem { }k=1 1 Aφk = λk− Mφk where operators A, M are such that Au, v Γ = ( u, v)Γ and Mu,v Γ = (u, v)Γ. h i ∇1 ∇ h i The set of eigenvectors φk k∞=1 forms a basis of H0 (Γ) orthogonal with respect the 1 { } 2 inner product of H0 (Γ) and orthonormal with respect to the inner product on L (Γ). Then for u = ckφk span φk ∞ and s [ 1, 1], we set k ∈ { }k=1 ∈ − P 2 s u H = c λ− (2.4) k k s k k k sX 2 and define Hs to be the closure of span φk k∞=1 in the above norm. Then H0 = L (Γ) 1 1 { } 2 1 and H1 = H0 (Γ), with equality of norms. Moreover, we have H 2 = H00(Γ) with 1 2 1 equivalence of norms. This essentially follows from the fact that H 2 and H00(Γ) are closely related interpolation spaces, see [16, thm. 3.4]. Note that we also have 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 H 1 = (H0 (Γ))∗ = H− (Γ) and H 2 = (H00(Γ))∗ = H− (Γ). − As the preceeding paragraph suggests− we shall use normal font to denote linear operators, e.g. A. To signify that the particular operator acts on a vector space with multiple components we employ calligraphic font, e.g. Vectors and matrices are denoted by the sans serif font, e.g., A and x. In case theA matrix has a block structure it is typeset with the blackboard bold font, e.g.