Abstract
We investigate a second-order accurate time-stepping scheme for solving a time-fractional diffusion equation with a Caputo derivative of order \(\alpha \in (0,1)\). The basic idea of our scheme is based on local integration followed by linear interpolation. It reduces to the standard Crank–Nicolson scheme in the classical diffusion case, that is, as \(\alpha \rightarrow 1\). Using a novel approach, we show that the proposed scheme is \(\alpha \)-robust and second-order accurate in the \(L^2(L^2)\)-norm, assuming a suitable time-graded mesh. For completeness, we use the Galerkin finite element method for the spatial discretization and discuss the error analysis under reasonable regularity assumptions on the given data. Some numerical results are presented at the end.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We shall approximate the solution of the time-fractional diffusion equation
subject to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, that is, \(u({\varvec{x}},t)= 0\) on \(\partial \Omega \times (0,T]\), with \(u({\varvec{x}},0)=u_0({\varvec{x}})\) at the initial time level \(t=0.\) The spatial domain \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) (with \(d=1\), 2, 3) is a convex polyhedron, \(0<\alpha <1\), the time fractional Caputo derivative
where \(v'=\partial v/\partial t\) and \(\Gamma \) denotes the gamma function. We use the notation \(\mathcal {I}v(t)\) for the standard time integral of v from 0 to t. In (1.1), \(\mathcal {A}\) is an elliptic operator in the spatial variables, defined by \({\mathcal A}w({\varvec{x}})=-\nabla \cdot (\kappa ({\varvec{x}})\nabla w)({\varvec{x}})\). The diffusivity \(\kappa \in L^\infty (\Omega )\) satisfies \(0< \kappa _{\min } \le \kappa \) on \(\Omega ,\) for some constant \(\kappa _{\min }\). For the error analysis, we also require that \(\kappa \in W^{1,\infty }(\Omega )\).
The presence of the nonlocal time fractional (Caputo) derivative in (1.1) and the fact that the solution u suffers from a weak singularity near \(t=0\) have a direct impact on the accuracy, and consequently the convergence rates, of numerical methods. To overcome this difficulty, different approaches have been applied including corrections, graded meshes, and convolution quadrature [6, 9, 15, 24, 29, 30]. Indeed, the numerical solutions for model problems of the form (1.1), including a priori and a posteriori error analyses and fast algorithms, were studied by various authors over the past fifteen years using multiple approaches [1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18], see also [27, 31,32,33, 35, 36]. For more references and details, see the recent monograph by Jin and Zhou [12].
In this work, we investigate rigorously the error from approximating the solution of the initial-boundary value problem (1.1) using a uniform second-order accurate time-stepping method. The latter is defined via a local time-integration of problem (1.1) on each subinterval of the time mesh combined with continuous piecewise linear interpolation. The proposed scheme is identical to the piecewise-linear case of a discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin method proposed in [21]. Therein, with \(\tau \) being the maximum time mesh step size, a suboptimal convergence rate of order \(O(\tau ^{(3-\alpha )/2})\) was proved. A time-graded mesh (2.1) was employed to compensate for the singular behaviour of the continuous solution at \(t=0\). In the limiting case as \(\alpha \rightarrow 1\), the problem (1.1) reduces to the classical diffusion equation, and the considered numerical scheme reduces to the classical Crank–Nicolson method. In this case, \(O(\tau ^{(3-\alpha )/2})\) reduces to \(O(\tau )\) which is far from the optimal \(O(\tau ^2)\) rate achieved in practice.
By using an innovative approach that relies on interesting implicit polynomial interpolations and duality arguments, we show \(O(\tau ^2)\) convergence, whilst at the same time relaxing the imposed regularity assumptions from the earlier analysis [21]. This convergence rate is \(\alpha \)-robust in the sense that the constant in the error bound remains bounded as \(\alpha \rightarrow 1\). Implementation wise, although the proposed scheme is uniformly second-order accurate, the computational cost is comparable to the well-known backward Euler or L1 [16, 24, 28] methods, which are not even first-order accurate.
For completeness, we discretize the problem (1.1) over the spatial domain \(\Omega \) using the standard Galerkin finite element method (FEM), thereby defining a fully discrete approximation to u. An additional error of order \(O(h^2)\) is anticipated under certain regularity assumptions on the continuous solution, where h is the maximum spatial finite element mesh size. This is proved via a concise approach that relies on the discrete version of the earlier error analysis. To make this feasible, the solution of the semidiscrete Galerkin finite element solution of problem (1.1) plays the role of the comparison function.
Outline of the paper. In the next section, we define our time-stepping scheme, introduce some notations and technical lemmas, and summarize the convergence results in Theorem 1. The required regularity properties are also highlighted. Section 3 proves some error bounds for the implicit piecewise-linear interpolant \({\widehat{u}}\) defined in (2.6). Section 4 is devoted to showing the second-order of accuracy of the proposed time-stepping scheme via a duality argument. In Sect. 5, we discretize in space via the Galerkin finite element method and discuss the convergence of the fully discrete solution. To support our theoretical findings, we present some numerical results in Sect. 6. Finally, a short technical appendix derives an \(\alpha \)-robust interpolation estimate.
2 Time-Stepping Scheme
This section is devoted to discretizing the model problem (1.1) over the time interval [0, T] through a second-order accurate method, and stating our main convergence results. We begin by introducing some notations that will be used throughout the paper.
For \(\ell \ge 0,\) the norm on \(H^\ell (\Omega )\) is denoted by \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _\ell \). The Sobolev spaces \(H^\ell (\Omega )\) and \(H^1_0(\Omega )\) are defined as usual, and the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{\dot{H}^r(\Omega )}\) in the (fractional-order) Sobolev space \(\dot{H}^r(\Omega )\) is defined in the usual way via the Dirichlet eigenfunctions of the self-adjoint elliptic operator \(\mathcal {A}\) on \(\Omega \). The inner product in \(L^2(\Omega )\) is denoted by \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \), and the associated norm by \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \). The generic constant C remains bounded for \(0<\alpha \le 1,\) and is independent of the time mesh and the finite element mesh, but may depend on \(\Omega \), T, and other quantities, including \(\kappa \), \(u_0\) and f.
Define the time mesh \(0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\cdots <t_N=T\) by
and let \(\tau _n = t_n-t_{n-1}\). Such a time-graded mesh has the properties [19]
Integrating problem (1.1) over \(I_n:=(t_{n-1},t_n)\) and then dividing by \(\tau _n\) yields
where \({\bar{f}}_n=\tau _n^{-1}\int _{I_n}f(t)\,dt\) denotes the average value of a function f over the time interval \(I_n\), and similarly, \(\bar{u}_n\) is defined. Motivated by (2.3), for \(t\in I_n\) and for \(1\le n\le N,\) our semidiscrete approximate solution \(U(t)\approx u(t)\) is defined by requiring that
with
where \(U^{n-1/2}={\bar{U}}_n =\tfrac{1}{2}( U^n+ U^{n-1}).\) If \(\alpha \rightarrow 1\), then \(\partial _t^\alpha u\rightarrow u'\) and \(\partial _t^\alpha U\rightarrow U'\), implying that our scheme reduces to the Crank–Nicolson scheme for the classical diffusion equation.
Our convergence analysis relies on decomposing the error as
where \({\widehat{u}}\) is a continuous piecewise-linear function in time satisfying
Alternatively, \({\widehat{u}}\) can be defined via \(\mathcal {I}{\widehat{u}}(t_n)=\mathcal {I}u(t_n)\) for \(1\le n\le N\), with \({\widehat{u}}(0)=u_0\), and we say that \({\widehat{u}}\) interpolates u implicitly. The decomposition (2.5) of the error \(\eta \) follows a well-known pattern, but the novel choice of the piecewise linear function \({\widehat{u}}\) makes possible our improved error analysis under reasonable regularity assumptions. The continuous average of u equals both the continuous and the discrete average of \({\widehat{u}}\) on each time subinterval \(I_n\). For comparison, let \(u_I\) denote the usual continuous piecewise-linear interpolant to u, that is,
and observe that \(u_I\) and u have the same discrete average \(\tfrac{1}{2}(u(t_n)+u(t_{n-1}))\) on each \(I_n\), but their continuous averages will differ unless u is linear on \(I_n\).
Subtracting (2.4) from (2.3) and using (2.6), we obtain
Taking the \(L^2(\Omega )\)-inner product with a test function \(\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega )\), and applying the divergence theorem, it follows that
Choosing \(\varphi =\theta '\) and summing over n yields
Since \(\mathcal {I}(\langle \kappa \nabla \theta ,\nabla \theta ' \rangle )(t_n) =\tfrac{1}{2}(\Vert \sqrt{\kappa }\nabla \theta (t_n)\Vert ^2-\Vert \sqrt{\kappa }\nabla \theta (0)\Vert ^2)=\tfrac{1}{2}\Vert \sqrt{\kappa }\nabla \theta (t_n)\Vert ^2\),
To proceed in our analysis, we make use of the following technical lemma. For the proof, we refer to Mustapha and Schötzau [22, Lemma 3.1 (iii)].
Lemma 1
For \(0<\alpha \le 1\) and \(\epsilon >0\),
For later use, by expanding \(\langle \mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }(v+w),v+w) \rangle \) then applying Lemma 1 with \(\epsilon =1/(2\alpha )\) we deduce the inequality in the next lemma.
Lemma 2
For \(0<\alpha \le 1\),
We now apply Lemma 1 to the right-hand side of (2.9) with \(\epsilon =1/(2\alpha ^2)\). Multiplying through by 2, and then cancelling the similar terms, leads to the estimate below that will be used later in our convergence analysis.
Under reasonable regularity assumptions, a novel error analysis involving implicit interpolations and a duality argument leads to the convergence results in the next theorem. With \(J=(0,T)\), an optimal \(O(\tau ^2)\)-rate of convergence is achieved in the \(L^2(J; L^2(\Omega ))\)-norm. Our numerical results illustrate this in the stronger \(L^\infty (J; L^2(\Omega ))\)-norm. Moreover, our numerical results suggest that the condition on the graded mesh exponent can be further relaxed. More precisely, instead of \(\gamma >\max \{2/\sigma , (3-\alpha )/(2\sigma -\alpha )\}\) it suffices to impose \(\gamma > 2/\sigma \).
The developed error analysis requires the following regularity property [11, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2], [26, Theorems 1 and 2], and: for some \(\sigma >0\),
For example, if \(f\equiv 0\) and \(u_0\in \dot{H}^r(\Omega )\) with \(1\le r\le 2\), then (2.11) holds true for \(\sigma =r\alpha /2\).
For a given time interval Q, let
denote the norms in \(L^\infty \bigl (Q;L^2(\Omega )\bigr )\) and \(L^2\bigl (Q;L^2(\Omega )\bigr )\), respectively.
Theorem 1
Let u and U be the solutions of (1.1) and (2.4), respectively. If the graded time mesh exponent \(\gamma >\max \{2/\sigma , (3-\alpha )/(2\sigma -\alpha )\}\) and if the regularity assumption (2.11) holds true with \(\sigma >\alpha /2\), then we have
Proof
The desired estimate follows from Lemma 6 and Theorem 2 below. \(\square \)
3 Errors from Implicit Interpolations
In preparation for our convergence analysis, we now study the error from approximating u by \({\widehat{u}}\), and proceed to estimate \(\Vert \psi \Vert \) and \(\mathcal {I}(\langle \mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha } \psi ',\psi ' \rangle )\). These estimates assume that the regularity property (2.11) holds. For ease of reference, we here introduce the parameter \(\delta =\sigma -\frac{2}{\gamma }\) which will subsequently appear repeatedly. We start this section with the following representation of the implicit interpolation error in the approximation \(u\approx {\widehat{u}}\) at \(t=t_n\).
Lemma 3
For \(1\le n\le N\), \(\psi ^n=\sum _{j=1}^n(-1)^{n+j+1}\Delta _j\) where
Proof
Since \(\int _{I_n}u_I\,dt=\tfrac{1}{2}\tau _n(u^n+u^{n-1})\), we find using (2.6) that
The formula for \(\psi ^n\) then follows by induction on n, after noting that \(\psi ^0=0\). Recalling the Peano kernel for the trapezoidal rule, we see that
implying the second expression for \(\Delta _j\). \(\square \)
Lemma 4
For \(1\le n\le N\),
and \(\Vert \psi (t)\Vert \le \Vert u(t)-u_I(t)\Vert +\max \bigl (\Vert \psi ^n\Vert , \Vert \psi ^{n-1}\Vert \bigr )\) for \(t\in I_n\).
Proof
For \(t \in I_j\), we have the identity
Multiply both sides by \((t_j-t)(t-t_{j-1})\) and integrate to obtain
where
Thus, by Lemma 3,
Shifting the summation index, so
Since \(\Delta _1=-\tau _1^{-1}\int _{I_1}(t_1-s)su''(s)\,ds\) and since \(\Vert R_j\Vert \le \frac{\tau _j^2}{6}\int _{I_j}\Vert u'''(t)\Vert \,dt,\)
Using
and the bound for \(\Vert \psi ^n\Vert \) follows after canceling the common terms.
The interpolant \(\psi _I\), defined as in (2.7), satisfies \(\psi _I=u_I-{\widehat{u}}\), leading to the representation
which implies the desired bound for \(\Vert \psi (t)\Vert \) (as stated in the statement of this lemma) because \(\Vert \psi _I(t)\Vert \le \max \bigl (\Vert \psi ^n\Vert , \Vert \psi ^{n-1}\Vert \bigr )\) for \(t\in I_n\). \(\square \)
Corollary 1
Under the regularity assumption in (2.11) and for a time mesh of the form (2.1) with grading parameter \(\gamma \ge 1\) we have, for \(n\ge 1\),
Proof
First we show that for \(\gamma \ge 1,\)
Since the interpolation error \(u-u_I\) vanishes if u is a polynomial of degree 1, by computing the Peano kernel one finds that for \(t\in I_n\),
The right-side is bounded by
and so, by using the time mesh properties in (2.2), we get
Since \(\tau _n \le C \tau t_n^{1-1/\gamma }\), the proof of (3.2) is completed after noting that
Turning to the estimate for \(\psi ^n\), Lemma 4 and (2.11) imply that
for \(1\le n\le N.\) Since \(t_1=\tau ^\gamma \) and \(\tau _2\le 2^\gamma \tau ^\gamma ,\) \(\int _{I_1}t^{\sigma -1}\,dt+\tau _2^2t_1^{\sigma -2}\le C\tau ^{\gamma \sigma },\) and we again bound \(\tau _n^2t_n^{\sigma -2}\) using (3.4). For the sum over j,
and the estimate for \(\Vert \psi ^n\Vert \) follows. \(\square \)
The next target is to estimate \(\mathcal {I}(\langle \mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha } \psi ',\psi ' \rangle )(t_n)\). Preceding this, we need to bound \(\Vert \psi '\Vert \) in the next lemma.
Lemma 5
We have \(\Vert \psi '(t)\Vert \le t^{\sigma -1}\) for \(t\in I_1\). Moreover, \(\Vert \psi '(t)\Vert \le C\tau ^2\tau _n^{-1}t_n^\delta \) for \(t\in I_n\) with \(n\ge 2,\) and for \(\delta >0\).
Proof
Differentiating (3.1) and (3.3), we see for \(t\in I_n\) that
Thus, if \(t\in I_1\) then, by (2.11), Corollary 1, and the fact that \(\psi ^0=0,\)
If \(\delta >0\), \(n\ge 2\) and \(t\in I_n\) then, recalling (3.4) and using again (2.11),
showing that \(\Vert \psi '(t)\Vert \le C\tau ^2\tau _n^{-1}t_n^\delta \). \(\square \)
Lemma 6
Assume \(\sigma >\alpha /2\). Then \(\big |\mathcal {I}(\langle \mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha } \psi ',\psi ' \rangle )(t_n)\big | \le C\tau ^{3-\alpha }\) for \(n\ge 1\), provided that \(\gamma >\max \{2/\sigma , (3-\alpha )/(2\sigma -\alpha )\}\).
Proof
For \(n=1\), the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, Lemma 5, and the assumption \(\sigma >\alpha /2\) give
To deal with the case \(n\ge 2\), we make the splitting \(\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }\psi '=T_1+T_2\) where
for \(t\in I_j\) and \(j\ge 2\). Using Lemma 5 and (2.2), we observe that
For estimating \(T_1(t)\), integrate by parts recalling \(\psi ^0=0\),
where \(\omega _{-\alpha }(t)=\omega _{1-\alpha }'(t)=-\alpha t^{-\alpha -1}/\Gamma (1-\alpha )\). We apply Corollary 1 to conclude that \(\Vert T_1(t)\Vert \) is bounded by
Lemma 5 and above estimates for \(\Vert T_1\Vert \) and \(\Vert T_2\Vert \) yield
By using this and (3.5), and noting that \(\gamma (2\sigma -\alpha )>3-\alpha \), we reach
for \(j\ge 2.\) By (2.2), if \(j\ge 2\) then \(\tau ^{1+\alpha }\le C\tau _j^{1+\alpha }t_j^{-(1+\alpha )(1-1/\gamma )}\) so
and therefore the desired bound holds. \(\square \)
4 Errors from the Time Discretizations
This section is devoted to estimating the error \(\eta =u- U\) from the time discretization in the norm of \(L^2(J;L^2(\Omega ))\). To achieve an optimal convergence rate, we employ a duality argument in addition to the usage of the time graded meshes. By reversing the order of integration, we find that
Using \(\mathcal {I}(\langle \partial _t^\alpha v,w \rangle )(T) =\mathcal {I}(\langle v',\mathcal {J}_{T}^{1-\alpha }w \rangle )(T)\) and integrating by parts yield
and since \(\partial _t^\alpha v =\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }v'=(\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }v)'-v(0)\omega _{1-\alpha }\),
We remark that Zhang et al. [34, Equation (89)] have recently exploited this dual operator \(w\mapsto -(\mathcal {J}_{T}^{1-\alpha }w)'\) in the error analysis of a discontinuous Galerkin scheme for (1.1).
Suppose that \(\varphi \) satisfies the final-value problem
subject to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, that is, \(\varphi ({\varvec{x}},t)= 0\) on \(\partial \Omega \times (0,T)\). Let \(y(t)=\varphi (0)+\int _0^t\varphi (s)\,ds\) so that y solves the initial-value problem
and with \(y_I\) denotes the continuous piecewise-linear function that interpolates y at the time levels \(t_j\), put
Lemma 7
With the notation above, \(\Vert \eta \Vert ^2_{L^2(J)}\le \mathcal {I}( \langle Y',\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }\eta '+\mathcal {A}\eta \rangle )(T).\)
Proof
Using (4.1), (4.3), \(\eta (0)=0\) and (4.4),
At the same time, (2.3) and (2.4) imply that
because \(y_I'\) is constant on \(I_n\). Since \(Y'=y'-y_I'\), the inequality follows at once. \(\square \)
We will show below in Theorem 3 that the interpolation error Y satisfies
Assuming this fact for now, we can derive an estimate for \(\eta \) in terms of \(\psi '\). We use the following notations: for a given time-dependent function g,
Theorem 2
We have \(\alpha ^2\Vert \eta \Vert ^2_{L^2(J)} \le C\,\tau ^{\alpha +1} \mathcal {I}(\langle \mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha } \psi ',\psi ' \rangle )(T).\)
Proof
It suffices to estimate the right-hand side of the inequality in Lemma 7. By Lemma 1,
After using (2.10) and \(\eta '=\psi '-\theta '\), we conclude that
Since \(Y(t_j)=0\) for \(0\le j\le N\), integrating by parts, using \(\mathcal {A}Y=\mathcal {I}\mathcal {A}Y'=\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }(\mathcal {I}^\alpha \mathcal {A}Y')\), and applying Lemma 1,
The same estimate holds with \(\theta \) replaced by \(\psi \), so because \(\eta =\psi -\theta \), and using (2.10) again,
Adding (4.7) and (4.8), we see \(\alpha ^2\Vert \eta \Vert ^2_{L^2(J)}\le 2G(\psi )(G(Y)+F(\mathcal {A}Y))\) by Lemma 7. Squaring both sides, we have
Since \((G(Y))^2+(F(\mathcal {A}Y))^2\) is just the left-hand side of (4.6), the desired inequality followed after cancelling the common factor \(\Vert \eta \Vert ^2_{L^2(J)}\). \(\square \)
It remains to prove (4.6). We start by showing preliminary bounds for \(\big |\mathcal {I}(\langle Y',\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }Y' \rangle )(T)\big |\) and \(\big |\mathcal {I}(\langle \mathcal {A}Y,\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha }\mathcal {A}Y' \rangle )(T)\big |\) in the next two lemmas. The regularity properties outlined in (2.11) are sufficient to ensure that the assumptions imposed on y in these lemmas hold true.
Lemma 8
Assume that \(y,y' \in L^2(J;L^2(\Omega )),\) then for \(0<\alpha <1,\) we have
Proof
For \(t\in I_j\) with \(j\ge 2\), we write \(\mathcal {I}^{1-\alpha } Y'(t)=S_1(t)+S_2(t)\) where
Applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, integrating, changing the order of integration, and integrating again, yields
For \(t \in I_1\), let \(S_1(t)=\int _0^t\omega _{1-\alpha }(t-s)Y'(s)\,ds\) and \(S_2(t)=0\). Following the steps above, we find that \(\Vert S_1\Vert ^2_{L^2(I_1)} \le C\tau _1^{2(1-\alpha )}\Vert Y'\Vert ^2_{L^2(I_1)}\). Thus,
and consequently
Turning to the second term \(S_2\), we integrate by parts (noting that \(Y^{j-2}=0=Y^0\)) and obtain
Since \(|\omega _{-\alpha }(t-s)|\le |\omega _{-\alpha }(t_{j-1}-s)|\) for \(t\in I_j\),
with
and, remembering that \(\omega _{-\alpha }(t)=-\alpha \,t^{-1}\omega _{1-\alpha }(t)\),
Since \(t_j-t_i\ge t_{j-1}-t_{i-1}\), \(\omega _{1-\alpha }(t_{j-1}-t_{i-1}) \ge \omega _{1-\alpha }(t_j-t_i)\), and thus,
and in the second term, noting that \(1/\Gamma (1-\alpha )=(1-\alpha )/\Gamma (2-\alpha )\),
By interchanging the order of the double sum,
which, combined with (4.9), yields the desired estimate. \(\square \)
Lemma 9
Assume that \(\mathcal {A} y \in L^\infty (J;L^2(\Omega ))\) and \(\mathcal {A} y' \in L^1(J;L^2(\Omega ))\). Then for \(0<\alpha <1,\)
Proof
Integrating by parts,
where we used the splitting \(\mathcal {I}^{\alpha }\mathcal {A}Y=S_3+S_4\) with
for \(t\in I_j\). Since \(\Vert S_3(t)\Vert \le \Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_j}\int _{t_{j-1}}^t\omega _\alpha (t-s)\,ds \le C\tau _j^\alpha \Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_j}\),
For the estimate involving \(S_4\), we reverse the order of integration and then integrate by parts, to obtain
and thus, applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and using \(\Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_i}\Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_j}\le \Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_i}^2+\Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_j}^2,\) we get
The proof is concluded by inserting this and (4.11) into the splitting (4.10). \(\square \)
By using the achieved estimates in the previous two lemmas, we are now able in the next theorem to provide the missing part in the proof of Theorem 2.
Theorem 3
The inequality (4.6) is satisfied by the function Y defined via (4.3)–(4.5).
Proof
Recall that \(Y=y-y_I\) where \(y_I\) is the piecewise linear polynomial that interpolates y at the time nodes, and \(y'=\varphi \). Thus, if \(t\in I_j\) then
so \(\Vert Y(t)\Vert \le \int _{I_j}\Vert \varphi \Vert \,ds\). Similarly, replacing u with y in (3.3), we have \(\Vert Y(t)\Vert \le \tau _j\int _{I_j}\Vert \varphi '\Vert \,ds\), and therefore
Consider the linear operator B defined by \((B\varphi )(t)=\tau _j^{-\alpha /2}\Vert Y\Vert _{I_j}\) for \(t\in I_j\) and \(1\le j\le N\). The estimates (4.13) give
and, since \(\varphi (T)=0\) and \((\tau ^{1-\alpha })^{1-\alpha }(\tau ^{3-\alpha })^\alpha =\tau ^{1+\alpha }\), we may apply Corollary 2 from the Appendix to deduce that
Furthermore, by differentiating (4.12) and (3.3),
for \(t\in I_j\), so
implying that
After summing over j and once again applying Corollary 2, we arrive at
Now take the inner product of (4.3) with \(-(\mathcal {J}_{T}^{1-\alpha }\varphi )'\) in \(L_2(\Omega )\), and then integrate in time to obtain
By (4.2),
and therefore
Combining this with (4.14), (4.16), we conclude that
and so, applying Lemma 8,
By taking the inner product of (4.3) with \(\mathcal {A}\varphi \) and proceeding as above, we deduce that
Repeating the arguments leading to the first estimate in (4.15) but with \(Y'\) replaced by \(\mathcal {A}Y'\), we see that \(\Vert \mathcal {A}Y'\Vert ^2_{L^2(J)}\le \Vert \mathcal {A}\varphi \Vert ^2_{L^2(J)}\) and so
Likewise, \(\Vert \mathcal {A}Y\Vert _{I_j}^2 \le \tau _j\Vert \mathcal {A}\varphi \Vert ^2_{L^2(I_j)}\) by the arguments leading to (4.12), so
Together, (4.18) and (4.20) imply the desired estimate (4.6). \(\square \)
5 A Fully Discrete Scheme and Error Analysis
In this section, we discretize the time-stepping scheme (2.4) in space using the continuous piecewise-linear Galerkin FEM and hence define a fully-discrete method. Thus, we introduce a family of regular (conforming) triangulations \(\mathcal {T}_h\) of the domain \(\overline{\Omega }\) indexed by \(h=\max _{K\in \mathcal {T}_h}(h_K)\), where \(h_{K}\) denotes the diameter of the element K. Let \(V_h\) denote the space of continuous, piecewise-linear functions with respect to \(\mathcal {T}_h\) that vanish on \(\partial \Omega \). Let \(\mathcal {W}(V_h)\subset \mathcal {C}([0,T];V_h)\) denote the space of linear polynomials on \({\overline{I}}_n\) for \(1\le n\le N\), with coefficients in \(V_h\). Motivated by the weak formulation of (2.4), our fully-discrete solution \( U_h\in \mathcal {W}(V_h)\) is defined by requiring
and for \(1\le n\le N\), where \( U_h^n:= U_h(t_n)\) and \(U_h^{n-1/2}=\tfrac{1}{2}( U_h^n+ U_h^{n-1})\). For the discrete initial data, we choose \( U_h^0=R_h u_0\in V_h\), where \(R_h:H^1_0(\Omega ) \mapsto V_h\) is the Ritz projection defined by \(\langle \kappa \nabla (R_h w-w),\nabla v_h \rangle = 0\) for all \(v_h\in V_h\).
In the next theorem, we prove that the numerical solution defined by (5.1) is second-order accurate in both time and space, provided that the time mesh exponent \(\gamma \) is chosen appropriately. In comparison, under heavier regularity assumptions and stronger graded meshes, convergence of order \(h^2+\tau ^{(3-\alpha )/2}\) was proved by Mustapha et al. [21]. Furthermore, the proof therein is more technical and lengthy. Use of the piecewise-linear polynomial function \({\widehat{u}}\), see (2.6), and a duality argument allowed us to improve the convergence rate, simplify the proof and also relax the regularity assumptions. In addition to the regularity assumption in (2.11), for \(t>0,\) we impose
Theorem 4
Let u be the solution of (1.1) and let \( U_h^n\) be the approximate solution defined by (5.1). Assume that the regularity assumptions in (2.11) and (5.2) are satisfied for \(\sigma ,\upsilon >\alpha /2\), and choose the mesh grading exponent \(\gamma >\max \{2/\sigma ,1/\upsilon , (3-\alpha )/(2\sigma -\alpha )\}\). Then, \(\Vert u- U_h\Vert _{L^2(J)}\le C(\tau ^2+h^2).\)
Proof
Decompose the error as \(u- U_h= (u- u_h)+(u_h- U_h)\), where \( u_h\) is the Galerkin finite element solution of (1.1) defined by
for each fixed \(t >0,\) with \( u_h(0)= U_h^0=R_hu_0.\) From this, the weak formulation of (1.1), and the orthogonality property of the Ritz projection, we have
Choose \(v_h= (u_h-R_hu)'\), integrate over (0, t) and apply Lemma 1 to the right-hand side with \(\epsilon =1/(4\alpha ^2)\). After canceling the common terms,
The error bound for the Ritz projection and the regularity assumption in (5.2) yield \(\Vert e_h'(t)\Vert \le Ch^2\Vert u'(t)\Vert _2\le Ch^2 t^{\upsilon -1}\). Hence, \(\Vert \partial _t^\alpha e_h(t)\Vert \le Ch^2 t^{\upsilon -\alpha }\) and consequently, \(\mathcal {I}( \langle \partial _t^\alpha e_h,e_h' \rangle )(t)\le Ch^4\) for \(\upsilon >\alpha /2\). Inserting this estimate in the above equation, we obtain \(\Vert \nabla (u_h-R_h u)(t)\Vert \le C h^2\) for \(\upsilon >\alpha /2\), and thus, by applying the Poincaré and triangle inequalities, we get \(\Vert u(t)- u_h(t)\Vert \le Ch^2.\)
The remaining target now is to estimate \( U_h- u_h.\) By analogy with our earlier splitting (2.5), we let
From (5.1) and (5.3), and with \(\chi _h=u_h-R_h{\widehat{u}},\) we have
for \(v_h\in V_h\). Using the orthogonality property of the Ritz projection and the definition of \({\widehat{u}}\), in addition to (5.3),
and hence
By repeating the steps from (2.8) to (2.10), we deduce that
Applying Lemma 2 with \(v={\widehat{e}}_h':=(\widehat{u}-R_h{\widehat{u}})'\) and \(w=\psi '\) so that \(\psi _h'=v+w\),
For \(t\in I_j\), since \({\widehat{u}}'(t)=\tau _j^{-1}({\widehat{u}}^j-{\widehat{u}}^{j-1}),\) the Ritz projection error bound gives
From Lemma 3, (5.2) and the time mesh property (2.2), we have
for \(\gamma >1/\upsilon \) with \(j\ge 1.\) Combining the above two estimates, we conclude that \(\Vert {\widehat{e}}_h'(t)\Vert \le Ch^2 t_j^{\upsilon -1}\le Ch^2 t^{\upsilon -1}\) for \(t \in I_j\). This leads to \(\Vert {\widehat{e}}_h'(t)\Vert \le Ch^2\omega _\upsilon (t)\) and \(\Vert \partial _t^\alpha {\widehat{e}}_h(t)\Vert \le Ch^2\omega _{1-\alpha +\upsilon }(t).\) Thence,
for \(\upsilon >\alpha /2\), so by Lemma 6,
Adapting (4.3), suppose that \(\varphi _h(t) \in V_h\) satisfies the discrete final-value problem
where the discrete elliptic operator \(\mathcal {A}_h:V_h \rightarrow V_h\) is defined by \(\langle \mathcal {A}_h v_h, q_h \rangle =\langle \kappa \nabla v_h,\nabla q_h \rangle \) for all \(v_h,q_h \in V_h\). We now repeat the step in the error analysis of Sect. 4, with \(\eta _h,\) \(\theta _h\), \(\psi _h\) and \(\mathcal {A}_h\) playing the roles of \(\eta ,\) \(\theta \) \(\psi \) and \(\mathcal {A}\), respectively, and using (5.1) and (5.4) instead of (2.4) and (2.10), and (5.5) instead of Lemma 6. We notice for \(\gamma > \max \{2/\sigma ,1/\upsilon , (3-\alpha )/(2\sigma -\alpha )\}\) and for \(\sigma ,\upsilon > \alpha /2,\) that
The proof of this theorem is completed. \(\square \)
6 Numerical Results
In this section, we illustrate numerically the theoretical finding in Theorem 1. An \(O(h^2)\) convergence of the finite element solution was confirmed for various choices of the given data [9, 11, 23]. In time, some numerical convergence results (piecewise linear discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin method) were also delivered [21]. However, we illustrate the errors and convergence rates in the stronger \(L^\infty (J;L^2(\Omega ))\)-norm on more realistic examples. We choose \(\kappa =1\), \(\Omega =(0,1)\) and a uniform spatial grid \(\mathcal {T}_h\). In both examples, we choose h so that the error from the time discretization dominates.
Example 1
We choose \(u_0(x)=x(1-x)\) and \(f\equiv 0\). Thus, by separating variables, the continuous solution has a series representation in terms of the Mittag–Leffler function \(E_\alpha \),
Since \(u_0\in \dot{H}^{2.5^-}(\Omega )\), the regularity estimate (2.11) is satisfied for \(\sigma =\alpha \). Thus, we expect from Theorem 1 that \(e_\tau :=\Vert u- U_h\Vert _{L^2(J)}\le C\tau ^2\) provided that the mesh exponent \(\gamma > \max \{2/\alpha ,(3-\alpha )/\alpha \}=(3-\alpha )/\alpha \). The numerical results in Table 1 indicate order \(\tau ^2\) convergence in the stronger \(L^\infty (J;L^2(\Omega ))\)-norm for \(\gamma > 2/\alpha \). Rates of order \(\tau ^{\sigma \gamma }\) for \(1\le \gamma \le 2/\sigma =2/\alpha \) are observed. Thence, our imposed assumption on \(\gamma \) is not sharp.
To measure the \(L^\infty (J;L^2(\Omega ))\) error \(E_\tau :=\max _{0\le t\le T}\Vert u-U_h\Vert \), we approximated \(E_\tau \) by \(\max _{1\le j\le N}\max _{1\le i\le 3} \Vert u(t_{i,j})- U_h(t_{i,j})\Vert \) where \(t_{i,j}:=t_{j-1}+i\tau _j/3\). In our calculations, the \(L^2(\Omega )\) norm, \(\Vert \cdot \Vert ,\) is approximated using the two-point composite Gauss quadrature rule.
In all tables and figures, we evaluated the series solution by truncating the infinite series after 60 terms. The empirical convergence rate CR is calculated by halving \(\tau \), that is, \(\text {CR}=\log _2(E_{\tau }/E_{\tau /2})\). Figure 1 plots the nodal errors \(\Vert U^n_h-u(t_n)\Vert \) against \(t_n\in [0,1]\) for different values of N in the cases \(\gamma =1\) and \(\gamma =4\). The practical benefit of the mesh grading is evident.
Example 2
We again take \(f\equiv 0\) but now choose less regular initial data, namely, the hat function on the unit interval, \(u_0(x)=1-2|x-\tfrac{1}{2}|\). So,
Since \(u_0 \in \dot{H}^{1.5^-}(\Omega )\), the regularity property (2.11) is satisfied for \(\sigma =\tfrac{3}{4}\alpha \). As in Example 1, the numerical results in Table 2 exhibit convergence of order \(\tau ^{\sigma \gamma }\) for \(1\le \gamma \le 2/\sigma \) in the stronger \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _J\)-norm. For a graphical illustration of the impact of the graded mesh on the pointwise error, we fixed \(N=80\) in Fig. 2 and plotted the error at the time nodal points for different choices of \(\gamma \).
Data Availability
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
Alikhanov, A.A.: A new difference scheme for the time fractional diffusion equation. J. Comput. Phys. 280, 424–438 (2015)
Ashyralyev, A.: A note on fractional derivatives and fractional powers of operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 357, 232–236 (2009)
Banjai, L., Makridakis, C.G.: A posteriori error analysis for approximations of time-fractional subdiffusion problems. Math. Comput. 91, 1711–1737 (2022)
Bergh, J., Löfström, J.: Interpolation Spaces: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin (1976)
Cen, Z., Huang, J., Le, A., Xu, A.: An efficient numerical method for a time-fractional diffusion equation, preprint. arxiv:1810.07935 (2018)
Gunzburger, M., Wang, J.: A second-order Crank–Nicolson method for time-fractional PDEs. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. 16, 225–239 (2019)
Haase, M.: The Functional Calculus for Sectorial Operators. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2006)
Hou, D., Hasan, M.T., Xu, C.: Müntz spectral methods for the time-fractional diffusion equation. Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 18, 43–62 (2018)
Jin, B., Zhou, Z.: Correction of high-order BDF convolution quadrature for fractional evolution equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 39, A3129–A3152 (2017)
Jin, B., Li, B., Zhou, Z.: An analysis of the Crank–Nicolson method for subdiffusion. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 38, 518–541 (2018)
Jin, B., Li, B., Zhou, Z.: Subdiffusion with time-dependent coefficients: improved regularity and second-order time stepping. Numer. Math. 145, 883–913 (2020)
Jin, B., Zhou, Z.: Numerical Treatment and Analysis of Time-Fractional Evolution Equations. Springer, Berlin (2023)
Karaa, S.: Semidiscrete finite element analysis of time fractional parabolic problems: a unified approach. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 56, 1673–1692 (2018)
Kopteva, N.: Error analysis for time-fractional semilinear parabolic equations using upper and lower solutions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 58, 2212–2234 (2020)
Kopteva, N.: Error analysis of an L2-type method on graded meshes for a fractional-order parabolic problem. Math. Comput. 90, 19–40 (2021)
Liao, H.-L., Li, D., Zhang, J.: Sharp error estimate of the nonuniform L1 formula for linear reaction-subdiffusion equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 56, 1112–1133 (2018)
Martínez Carracedo, C., Sanz Alix, M.: The Theory of Fractional Powers of Operators. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2001)
Al-Maskari, M., Karaa, S.: Numerical approximation of semilinear subdiffusion equations with nonsmooth initial data. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 57, 1524–1544 (2019)
McLean, W., Mustapha, K.: A second-order accurate numerical method for a fractional wave equation. Numer. Math. 105, 481–510 (2007)
McLean, W., Mustapha, K., Ali, R., Knio, O.: Well-posedness of time-fractional advection–diffusion–reaction equations. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 22, 918–944 (2019)
Mustapha, K., Abdallah, B., Furati, K.M.: A discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin method for time-fractional diffusion equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 52, 2512–2529 (2014)
Mustapha, K., Schötzau, D.: Well-posedness of \(hp-\)version discontinuous Galerkin methods for fractional diffusion wave equations. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 34, 1226–1246 (2014)
Mustapha, K.: FEM for time-fractional diffusion equations, novel optimal error analyses. Math. Comput. 87, 2259–2272 (2018)
Mustapha, K.: An L1 approximation for a fractional reaction–diffusion equation, a second-order error analysis over time-graded meshes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 58, 1319–1338 (2000)
Prüss, J., Sohr, H.: On operators with bounded imaginary powers in Banach spaces. Math. Z. 203, 429–452 (1990)
Sakamoto, K., Yamamoto, M.: Initial value/boundary value problems for fractional diffusion-wave equations and applications to some inverse problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 382, 426–447 (2011)
Shen, J., Sheng, C.-T.: An efficient space-time method for time fractional diffusion equation. J. Sci. Comput. 81, 1088–1110 (2019)
Styness, M.: A survey of the L1 scheme in the discretisation of time-fractional problems. Numer. Math. Theor. Meth. Appl. 15, 1173–1192 (2022)
Stynes, M., O’Riordan, E., Gracia, J.L.: Error analysis of a finite difference method on graded meshes for a time-fractional diffusion equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 55, 1057–1079 (2017)
Wang, J., Wang, J., Yin, L.: A single-step correction scheme of Crank-Nicolson convolution quadrature for the subdiffusion equation. J. Sci. Comput. 87, 26 (2021)
Wang, Y., Yan, Y., Yang, Y.: Two high-order time discretization schemes for subdiffusion problems with nonsmooth data. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 23, 1349–1380 (2020)
Wu, S., Zhou, Z.: A parallel-in-time algorithm for high-order BDF methods for diffusion and subdiffusion equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 43, A3627–A3656 (2021)
Yan, Y., Egwu, B.A., Liang, Z., Yan, Y.: Error estimates of a continuous Galerkin time stepping method for subdiffusion problem. J. Sci. Comput. 88, 68 (2021)
Zhang, H., Zeng, F., Jiang, X., Zhang, Z.: Fast time-stepping discontinuous Galerkin method for the subdiffusion equation. arxiv:2309.02988 (2023)
Zeng, F., Li, C., Liu, F., Turner, I.: Numerical algorithms for time-fractional subdiffusion equation with second-order accuracy. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 37, A55–A78 (2015)
Zhu, H., Xu, C.: A fast high order method for the time-fractional diffusion equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 57, 2829–2849 (2019)
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no Conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Grant DP220101811.
Appendix: An \(\alpha \)-Robust Interpolation Estimate
Appendix: An \(\alpha \)-Robust Interpolation Estimate
The purpose of this appendix is to prove Corollary 2, which was used in the proof of Theorem 3. Suppose that Y is a complex Hilbert space with inner product \((\cdot ,\cdot )_Y\) and norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _Y\). Put
equipped with the inner products
We define an unbounded operator \(D_0\) on \(X_0\) with domain \(X_1\), by setting \(D_0u=u'\) on the interval (0, T). Let \(\Re z\) denote the real part of a complex number z. Since \(\Re \bigl (u(t),D_0u(t)\bigr )_Y=\tfrac{1}{2}(d/dt)\Vert u(t)\Vert _Y^2\), we have \(\Re (u,D_0u)_{X_0}=\tfrac{1}{2}\Vert u(T)\Vert _Y^2\ge 0\) for all \(u\in X_1\). In addition, one easily verifies that
so \(D_0\) is m-accretive [17, p. 9], and therefore a positive operator [17, pp. 1, 11] with \(\sup _{\lambda >0}\Vert \lambda (\lambda +D_0)^{-1}\Vert _{X_0\rightarrow X_0}=1\), where \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{X_0\rightarrow X_0}\) denotes the operator norm induced by the norm of \(X_0\).
Assume that \(0<\Re \beta <1\). The operator \(D_0^{-\beta }\) is defined via the integral [2, Equation (1.3)]
A short calculation using (7.2) shows [2, Theorem 2.2] that \(D_0^{-\beta }u=\mathcal {I}^\beta u\). One may then define [2, Equation 1.4], [17, Equation (3.1)]
The operator \(D_0^\beta \) coincides with \(\mathcal {I}^{1-\beta }u'=(\mathcal {I}^{1-\beta }u)'\), or in other words, with both the Caputo and Riemann–Liouville fractional derivatives of order \(\beta \).
For \(0\le \alpha \le 1\), let \(X_\alpha \) denote the complex interpolation space [4, Chap. 4] arising from \(X_0\) and \(X_1\). The next result is known [17, Theorem 11.6.1], but we sketch the proof in order to verify that the constant does not depend on \(\alpha \).
Theorem 5
Let \(0<\alpha <1\). For the spaces (7.1) and any complex Hilbert space Z, if the linear operator B satisfies \(\Vert Bu\Vert _Z\le M_j\Vert u\Vert _{X_j}\) for \(u\in X_j\) and \(j\in \{0,1\}\), then \(\Vert Bu\Vert _Z\le e^{1+(\pi /4)^2}M_0^{1-\alpha }M_1^\alpha \Vert D_0^\alpha u\Vert _{X_0}\) for \(D_0^\alpha u\in X_0.\)
Proof
If we set \(Z_0=Z_1=Z\), then \(Z_\alpha =Z\) with equal norms [4, Theorem 4.2.1], so \(\Vert Bu\Vert _Z\le M_0^{1-\alpha }M_1^\alpha \Vert u\Vert _{X_\alpha },\) and our task is to estimate the interpolation norm \(\Vert u\Vert _{X_\alpha }\) in terms of the fractional derivative \(D_0^\alpha u\). Define the closed strip \(S=\{\,z\in \mathbb {C}:0\le \Re z\le 1\,\}\) in the complex plane, and let \(\mathcal {F}\) denote the space of functions \(f:S\rightarrow X_0+X_1\) that are bounded and continuous on S, analytic in the interior of S, and such that f(iy) and \(f(1+iy)\) tend to zero as \(|y|\rightarrow \infty \). It can be shown [4, Lemma 4.1.1] that \(\mathcal {F}\) is a Banach space with respect to the norm
The space \(X_\alpha \) then consists of those \(u\in X_0+X_1\) such that \(u=f(\alpha )\) for some \(f\in \mathcal {F}\), with the interpolation norm defined by
If we define \(f(z)=e^{(z-\alpha )^2}D_0^{\alpha -z}u\), then \(f(\alpha )=u\) with
and
If \(\Re \zeta \ge 0\) then \(|\zeta ^{iy}|\le e^{\pi |y|/2}\) for \(y\in \mathbb {R}\). Therefore, because \(D_0\) is m-accretive, \(\Vert D_0^{iy}u\Vert _{X_0}\le e^{\pi |y|/2}\Vert u\Vert _{X_0}\) for \(u\in X_0\) ( [25, Example 2], [7, Theorem 7.1.7]). Thus
and since \(-y^2+\tfrac{1}{2}\pi |y| =(\tfrac{1}{4}\pi )^2-(|y|-\tfrac{1}{4}\pi )^2\le (\tfrac{1}{4}\pi )^2,\) the proof is completed. \(\square \)
The interpolation estimate used in the proof of Theorem 3 now follows by repeating the preceding arguments with \(D_0\) and \(X_1\) replaced by their time-reversed equivalents
In fact, \(\Re (u,D_T u)_{X_0}=\tfrac{1}{2}\Vert u(0)\Vert _Y^2\ge 0\) for all \(u\in X_{T,1}\), and
so \(D_T\) is m-accretive, and we find that if \(0<\Re \beta <1\) then \(D_T^{-\beta }u=\mathcal {J}_{T}^{\beta }u\) for \(u\in X_0\), with
Corollary 2
In the statement of Theorem 5, we may replace \(D_0\) and \(X_1\) with \(D_T\) and \(X_{T,1}\), respectively.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mustapha, K., McLean, W. & Dick, J. An \(\alpha \)-Robust and Second-Order Accurate Scheme for a Subdiffusion Equation. J Sci Comput 99, 87 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-024-02554-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-024-02554-w