On the worst scenario method: Application to uncertain nonlinear differential equations with numerical examples
We apply a theoretical framework for solving a class of worst scenario problems to a problem with a nonlinear partial differential equation. In contrast to the one-dimensional problem investigated by P. Harasim in Appl. Math. 53 (2008), No. 6, 583–598, the two-dimensional problem requires stronger assumptions restricting the admissible set to ensure the monotonicity of the nonlinear operator in the examined state problem, and, as a result, to show the existence and uniqueness of the state solution....
We propose a theoretical framework for solving a class of worst scenario problems. The existence of the worst scenario is proved through the convergence of a sequence of approximate worst scenarios. The main convergence theorem modifies and corrects the relevant results already published in literature. The theoretical framework is applied to a particular problem with an uncertain boundary value problem for a nonlinear ordinary differential equation with an uncertain coefficient.
We verify functional a posteriori error estimates proposed by S. Repin for a class of obstacle problems in two space dimensions. New benchmarks with known analytical solution are constructed based on one dimensional benchmark introduced by P. Harasim and J. Valdman. Numerical approximation of the solution of the obstacle problem is obtained by the finite element method using bilinear elements on a rectangular mesh. Error of the approximation is measured by a functional majorant. The majorant value...
We verify functional a posteriori error estimate for obstacle problem proposed by Repin. Simplification into 1D allows for the construction of a nonlinear benchmark for which an exact solution of the obstacle problem can be derived. Quality of a numerical approximation obtained by the finite element method is compared with the exact solution and the error of approximation is bounded from above by a majorant error estimate. The sharpness of the majorant error estimate is discussed.
Page 1