Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Iterative solution methods for mesh approximation of control and state constrained optimal control problem with observation in a part of the domain

  • Published:
Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Iterative solution methods for finite-dimensional constrained saddle point problems are investigated theoretically and numerically. These saddle point problems arise when approximating differential optimal control problems with point-wise state and control constraints by finite element or finite difference schemes with further using Lagrange multipliers technique. The linear elliptic boundary value problems with distributed control and the observation in a part of the domain are considered. Equivalent transformations of the constructed finite-dimensional saddle point problem are executed to apply effectively Uzawa-type iterative methods. Numerical comparison of these methods with gradient method for a regularized problem and interior point method is done.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Bergounioux, Optimization Theory Appl. 78, 493 (1993).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Bergounioux, V. Haddou, M. Hintermuller, and K. Kunisch, SIAM J. Optim. 11, 495 (2000).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Bergounioux and K. Kunisch, Comput. Optim. Appl. 22, 193 (2002).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. F. Troltzsch, U. Pufert, and M. Weiser, Comput. Optim. Appl. 39, 183 (2008).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. F. Troltzsch and I. Yousept, Comput. Optim. Appl. 42, 43 (2009).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. F. Troltzsch and I. Yousept, Comput. Optim. Appl. 28, 189 (2009).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Hintermuller and M. Hinze, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47, 1666 (2009).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. C. Graser and R. Kornhuber, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47, 1251 (2009).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Herzog and E. Sachs, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 31, 2291 (2010).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Hintermuller and I. Yousept, ESAIM, Control Optim. CalC. Var. 16, 503 (2010).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. M. Hinze and A. Schiela, Comput. Optim. Appl. 48, 581 (2011).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. A. Schiela and A. Gunther, Numer. Math. 119, 373 (2011).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Forsgren, P. E. Gill, and M. H. Wright, SIAM Rev. 44(4), 525 (2002).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. S. J. Wright, Primal-Dual Interior-Point Methods (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1997).

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Y. Ye, Interior Point Algorithms: Theory and Analysis (Wiley-Intersci. Ser. Discrete Math. Optim., John Wiley, New York, 1997).

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. E. Laitinen, A. Lapin, and S. Lapin, Comp. Methods in Appl. Math. 10, 283 (2010).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. A. Lapin, Lobachevskii J. Math. 31, 309 (2010).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. A. Lapin and M. Khasanov, Lobachevskii J. Math. 32(4), 453 (2011).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. E. Laitinen and A. Lapin, Applied Mathematics 3(12), 1862 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Lapin and D. Zaljalov, Transactions of Kazan State University 154, 129 (2012) (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. Laitinen and A. Lapin, Optimization and Technological Problems, Comp. Meth. Appl. Sc. 27, 19 (2013).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. E. Casas and M. Mateos, J. of Computational and Applied Mathematics 21, 67 (2002).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. C. Meyer, Preprint 1159, WIAS Berlin (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  24. K. Deckelnick and M. Hinze, SIAMJ. Numer. Anal. 45, 1937 (2007).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. I. Ekeland and R. Temam, Convex Analysis and Variational Problems (Amsterdam, 1976).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computational Mathematics and Information Technologies of Kazan Federal University, Kremlevskaya ul. 18, Kazan, 420008, Russia

    A. V. Lapin

  2. IT lyceum of Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia

    M. G. Khasanov

Authors
  1. A. V. Lapin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. G. Khasanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. V. Lapin.

Additional information

Submitted by A. M. Elizarov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lapin, A.V., Khasanov, M.G. Iterative solution methods for mesh approximation of control and state constrained optimal control problem with observation in a part of the domain. Lobachevskii J Math 35, 241–258 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995080214030081

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995080214030081

Keywords and phrases

Search

Navigation