4
$\begingroup$

First I'm not 100% sure I'm on the good stack for asking my question. I would like to get a bilinear form for linear elasticity that separate a rotational part from a pure divergence part, so starting from the Navier equation \begin{equation} \mu \nabla^2 \mathbf u +(\mu+\lambda)\nabla(\nabla \cdot \mathbf u) + \mathbf f =0 \end{equation}

Then I use the vector Laplacian identity $\nabla(\nabla \cdot \mathbf A)= \nabla^2 \mathbf A +\nabla \times \nabla \times\mathbf A$ to write

\begin{equation} (\lambda +2\mu) \nabla^2 \mathbf u +(\mu+\lambda)\nabla \times (\nabla \times\mathbf u) + \mathbf f =0 \end{equation}

So multiplying by a test function $\mathbf v$ I get

\begin{equation} \int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) \nabla^2 \mathbf u \cdot \mathbf v +(\mu+\lambda)\nabla \times (\nabla \times\mathbf u)\cdot \mathbf v + \mathbf f \cdot \mathbf v \bigg) d\Omega=0 \end{equation}

and using Green formula, \begin{equation} \int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) (\nabla \mathbf u :\nabla \mathbf v) +(\mu+\lambda)(\nabla \times \mathbf v)\cdot(\nabla \times\mathbf u) + \mathbf f \cdot \mathbf v \bigg) d\Omega=0 \end{equation} I'm skeptical about this for, since when I compare the bilinear form \begin{equation} a(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) := \int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) (\nabla \mathbf u :\nabla \mathbf v) +(\mu+\lambda)(\nabla \times \mathbf v)\cdot(\nabla \times\mathbf u) \bigg) d\Omega \end{equation} With the classical one
\begin{equation} a(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) := \int_\Omega \sigma(\mathbf u):\varepsilon(\mathbf v) d\Omega \end{equation}

I got few different terms. For instance, in 2D the "classical" form (noted $a_1$) gives \begin{eqnarray} a_1(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) &=& \int_\Omega \sigma(\mathbf u):\varepsilon(\mathbf v) d\Omega \\&=& \bigg(2\mu \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}+\lambda(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}) \bigg)\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} +\mu\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) +\bigg(2\mu \frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}+\lambda(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y})\bigg) \frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y} \\&=&(\lambda+2\mu) \bigg(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x} \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} +\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}\bigg) + \mu\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) +\lambda\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} +\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}\bigg)\end{eqnarray}

Whereas, the "rotational" form gives \begin{eqnarray} a_2(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) &=& \int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) (\nabla \mathbf u :\nabla \mathbf v) +(\mu+\lambda)(\nabla \times \mathbf v)\cdot(\nabla \times\mathbf u) \bigg) d\Omega\\ &=& (2\mu+\lambda)\bigg(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}\bigg) + (\lambda+\mu)\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x} -\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\bigg) \bigg(\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y} -\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) \end{eqnarray} The $(\lambda +\mu)$ terms may be developped and some terms may be factorized with some other terms of $(2\mu+\lambda)$ \begin{eqnarray} a_2(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) &=& (2\mu+\lambda)\bigg(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}\bigg) +\mu\bigg(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) + (\lambda+\mu)\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y} +\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) \end{eqnarray} The $\mu$ terms in two and second expressions may be factorized \begin{eqnarray} a_2(\mathbf u,\mathbf v) &=& (2\mu+\lambda)\bigg(\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u_y}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}\bigg) +\mu\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) + \lambda\bigg(\frac{\partial u_y}{\partial x}\frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y} +\frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x}\bigg) \end{eqnarray}

This equation is almost the same as $a_1$ except for the $\lambda$ term. Could someone correct me ?

PS: the rotational being defined by \begin{eqnarray} \nabla \times \mathbf u = \left| \begin{array}{l} \partial_x\\ \partial_y \\ \partial_z \end{array} \right. \times \left| \begin{array}{l} u_x\\ u_y \\ u_z \end{array} \right. = \left| \begin{array}{l} \partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y\\ \partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z \\ \partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}

We have \begin{eqnarray} (\nabla \times \nabla \times \mathbf u ) \cdot \mathbf v = \left| \begin{array}{l} \partial_y (\partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x) - \partial_z(\partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z)\\ \partial_z (\partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y) - \partial_x(\partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x)\\ \partial_x (\partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z) - \partial_y (\partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y) \end{array} \right. \cdot \left| \begin{array}{l} v_x \\ v_y\\ v_z \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}

And using integration by part (but I suspect that the flaw stands here), \begin{eqnarray} \int_\Omega (\nabla \times \nabla \times \mathbf u ) \cdot \mathbf v &=& -\int_\Omega \partial_y v_x(\partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x) - \partial_z v_x (\partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z)\\ &&+\partial_z v_y(\partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y) - \partial_x v_y (\partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x)\\ && +\partial_x v_z(\partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z) - \partial_y v_z(\partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y)\\ &=& - \int_\Omega (\partial_y v_x - \partial_x v_y )(\partial_x u_y -\partial_y u_x) + (\partial_z v_y-\partial_y v_z) (\partial_y u_z -\partial_z u_y) +(\partial_x v_z- \partial_z v_x )(\partial_z u_x -\partial_x u_z)\\ &=& \int_\Omega (\nabla \times \mathbf v )\cdot (\nabla \times \mathbf u) \end{eqnarray}

Thank you very much.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be useful to explain what differences you get. What did you try? $\endgroup$ – Wolfgang Bangerth Dec 15 '12 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ Wolfgang, I have edited the question. $\endgroup$ – Tom Dec 17 '12 at 10:17
  • $\begingroup$ Although divergence and gradient are defined independent of dimension, this is not the case for the curl. The vector calculus you apply is defined for 3D vector fields. (There is a cross product on 2D vectors, but that is not used here.) $\endgroup$ – Christian Clason Dec 17 '12 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ Also, the last term of your first $a_2$ formula is not symmetric with respect to $u$ and $v$, although the bilinear form obviously is. $\endgroup$ – Christian Clason Dec 17 '12 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ Christian, I did the maths in 3D but with the addtional hypothesis that vector field is zero on the z axis. I know that the form I obtain is not symmetric with respect to derivatives, and this is why is is obviously wrong. But I don't know why. $\endgroup$ – Tom Dec 17 '12 at 14:26
4
$\begingroup$

Your derivation is correct up to minor imprecisions: \begin{multline} \int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) \nabla^2 \mathbf u \cdot \mathbf v +(\mu+\lambda)\nabla \times (\nabla \times\mathbf u)\cdot \mathbf v + \mathbf f \cdot \mathbf v \bigg) d\Omega = \\ = -\int_\Omega \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) \nabla \mathbf u :\nabla \mathbf v +(\mu+\lambda)(\nabla \times \mathbf v)\cdot(\nabla \times\mathbf u) \bigg)d\Omega + \\ + \int_{\partial \Omega} \bigg((\lambda +2\mu) (\nabla \mathbf u \,\mathbf n) \cdot \mathbf v + (\mu+\lambda) \: \mathbf n \times (\nabla \times \mathbf u) \cdot \mathbf v \bigg) d \partial \Omega + \int_\Omega \big( \mathbf f \cdot \mathbf v \big) d\Omega \end{multline} where $\partial \Omega$ is the boundary and $\mathbf n$ is the unit outward normal.

By inspecting the boundary term it is clear that this is not linear elasticity, unless you have Dirichlet b.c. on the whole boundary $\partial \Omega$. The point here is that if you want to recover the proper Neumann b.c. you are not free to integrate by parts at your will: you have to transfer to the test function the correct derivatives.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.