1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0764-4442(98)80036-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Boundary observability for the space-discretizations of the 1 — d wave equation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
53
0
7

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
3
53
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…In the case F = 0, it is known that (2.15)-(2.16) defines a well-posed dynamical system in the space X. More precisely, for each U 0 ∈ X, the solution U of (2.15)-(2.16) is given by 17) where S is the contraction semigroup on X generated by the unbounded operator A in…”
Section: Existence Of Periodic Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the case F = 0, it is known that (2.15)-(2.16) defines a well-posed dynamical system in the space X. More precisely, for each U 0 ∈ X, the solution U of (2.15)-(2.16) is given by 17) where S is the contraction semigroup on X generated by the unbounded operator A in…”
Section: Existence Of Periodic Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When considering numerical discretization schemes for wave equations, it is well known that most of them do not preserve the uniform (with respect to the mesh-size h) decay property of the solutions of the continuous wave equation (1.2). Indeed, as remarked in [24,25] (see, also, [4,17,27,28]), due to the existence of high frequency spurious solutions whose (group) velocity of propagation is of the order of h, the energy of the discrete solution (u h ,u h ) does not have a uniform exponential decay. This means that the discrete energy of solutions defined by E h (t) = 1 2 (u h (t),u h (t))…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…This fact may be a strong limitation if we know how an additional discretization in time could perturb properties of a scheme. Thus, at the semi-discrete level, it was shown in [12,26] that the filtering of the high frequency modes leads to a uniform observability inequality for the adjoint system. This is equivalent to the uniform controllability of the projection of the solution over the space generated by the remaining eigenmodes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Then, we associate to the first equation of (1) the finite-difference semi-discretization equation (11) where y j,k (t) denotes the approximation of y(., t) at the node (jh 1 , kh 2 ) of Ω h1,h2 . Following the methodology developed in [24], we show the efficiency of this scheme : we first prove that the energy associated with this numerical scheme decays exponentially, with a rate independent of the mesh size (see Th.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To obtain the result we combine discrete multiplier methods introduced in [11] and compactness-uniqueness arguments. Let us note that a discrete version of multipliers was also developed in [11,26] to address the issue of boundary observability in 1-D and the 2-D square domain. Then, we prove that the solution of the discretized system defined on Ω h1,h2 converges to the solution of (1) defined on Ω (see Th.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%