20XX1199\revdate20XX199
Liouville’s formulae and Hadamard variation with respect to general domain perturbations
Abstract.
We study Hadamard variations with respect to general domain perturbations, particularly for the Neumann boundary condition. They are derived from new Liouville’s formulae concerning the transformation of volume and area integrals. Then, relations to several geometric quantities are discussed; differential forms and the second fundamental form on the boundary.
Key words and phrases:
the Green function, domain perturbations, the Hadamard variation, Liouville’s formulae, the Neumann boundary condition2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 35J25; Secondary 35R351. Introduction
Our purpose is to establish Liouville’s formulae on volume and area integrals and derive Hadamard variations with respect to general domain perturbations for the Neumann boundary condition.
Let be a bounded domain in -dimensional Euclidean space , . If its boundary is represented as graphs of Lipschitz functions, is called a Lipschitz domain. For the detailed definition of Lipschitz domains, see [8] and the references there in. If is a Lipschitz domain, the smoothness of is denoted by . We suppose that is divided into two non-overlapped closed sets and satisfying
(1) |
This assumption yields that , , do not have their boundaries in .
We study the Poisson problem with the mixed boundary condition:
(2) |
where stands for the Laplacian and is the unit outer normal vector on . The standard theory of elliptic PDE tells us that if is , or more weakly, which means that it is Lipschitz continuous up to the first derivatives, and , , and , equation (2) admits a unique solution . (See Section 2.1 below for the case of Lipschitz domains.)
This solution admits the representation
(3) |
for , where is the surface element and is the Green’s function. Thus, given , if denotes the fundamental solution of :
(4) |
where is the volume of the unit ball in , and if is the solution to
(5) |
this is given by
(6) |
We take a family of domain perturbations parametrized by , , which is denoted by (the exact definition will be given in Section 2.3 below). Suppose that the boundaries , , are mapped onto , , respectively, by :
Then the Green’s function on is defined by
(7) |
where is the solution to
(8) |
By this definition, it holds that , , and .
Given , we have for . Then the Hadamard variation of the Green’s function is defined by
(9) |
The second variation is defined similarly:
(10) |
These notions are classical, but to clarify the meaning of these derivatives, including their existence, is one of our main aims. The other is to prescribe a class of domains which admits these limits. The Lipschitz domain is a main target, from the viewpoint of numerical computations in engineering, which are often concerned on polygons on the plane. Hence we are taking the applications to free boundary problems [6] or shape optimizations [1] in mind. These problems in engineering induce the third motivation of ours, study on the general domain perturbation of the domain. Thus we continue our previous work [8] on the Dirichlet boundary condition.
So far, the domain perturbation has been often introduced by the deformation of as in
(11) |
where is a smooth function of . This method, which may be called the normal perturbation, does not always work for the general Lipschitz domain, for example, if has a corner. The dynamical perturbation introduced by [8] may fit more the Lipschitz domain. It is given by for the solution to
(12) |
where is a Lipschitz continuous vector field defined on an open neighbourhood of .
In [8] we have studied the first and the second Hadamard variations under the general perturbation of Lipschitz domains for the case , that is, for the Dirichlet boundary condition. This paper is devoted to the general case of . Hence it is concerned on the Neumann boundary condition essentially, and extends the classical result of [4] on (11) for . Meanwhile we carefully examine the regularity of the domain admitting these variations.
Our strategy is a systematic use of Liouville’s formulae concerning the variation of volume and area integrals under the tranformation of variables. Actually, we have derived Liouville’s first volume and area formulae in the general form to treat the Dirichlet boundary condition in [8]. Here we formulate the second formulae of these integrals to study the Neumann boundary condition. These formulate are concerned on the second derivatives and are to be used for numerical computations adapting Newton’s method. From the viewpoint of pure mathematics, on the other hand, a role of the second fundamental form of the boundary in the second Hadamard variation is clarified for general domain perturbations. The other topic is the derivation of the first and the second area formulae via the transformation of differential forms.
This paper is composed of four sections and two appendices. Taking preliminaries in 2, we show Liouville’s volume and area formulae in 3. Then 4 is devoted to the Hadamard variation with respect to general domain perturbations. The first appendix, A, is devoted to the derivation of Liouville’s area formulae via differential forms. In the second appendix, B, we show a form of Liouville’s second area formula represented by the second fundamental form of .
Several formulae on Hadamard variations of eigenvalues noticed by [4], such as the harmonic concavity of the first eigenvalue, will be generalized in our forthcoming paper, with rigorous proof of the existence of these variations.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Poisson equation on Lipschitz domains
The fundamental property of the Lipschitz domain is the following fact [2, Theorem 3, p.127].
Theorem 1.
If is a Lipschitz domain, then the set of functions is dense in for , where
(13) |
This theorem ensures the validity of the trace operator to ([2, Theorem 1, p.133]), and then the unique solvability of (2) for the Lipschitz domain holds as in the case of . Hence we have the following theorem similarly to [8]. Note that the spaces and for are well-defined by the local chart because is Lipschitz continuous.
Theorem 2.
If is a bounded Lipschitz domain satisfying (1), there arise the following facts: First, the trace operator is extended as
Then there arise the isomorphisms
and
for . Second, the normal derivative of on is defined in the sense of
provided that , where is taken in the sense of distributions in . Hence there arises that
for any . Similarly, if , the normal derivative of on is defined in the sense of
and it holds that
for any . Finally, given , , and , there is a unique solution to (2). Hence this satisfies
and
The Green’s function of (2) is now defined by (5)-(6). It satisfies
where stands for the delta function and on is taken as an element in . Hence the solution to (2) for and admits the representation
(14) |
Here and henceforth, and , , denote the inner product in and the paring between and , respectively.
2.2. Differentiations on
We continue to suppose that is a bounded Lipschitz domain satisfying (1). It follows from Rademacher’s theorem that the tangent space and the unit outer normal vector exist for almost every . At such , we take the orthonormal moving frame
with positive orientation, where is an orthonormal frame (with positive orientation) of the tangent space . Equalities concerning the derivatives of Lipschitz functions below are valid almost everywhere, although it is not mentioned each time.
Let , , and . If is , the above are . If is , which means that it is Lipschitz continuous up to the derivatives of the second order, these vectors are in . In this case, if is a function in a neighbourhood of , then we obtain ([8, Lemma 10, Corollary 11]),
(15) | |||||
and
(16) |
on , where is the Hesse matrix of ,
(17) |
and is the sectional curvature of along , .
In the general case of the bounded Lipschitz domain , each , , forms a Lipschitz manifold without boundaries. Then the Stokes theorem ensures
(18) |
where is a Lipschitz continuous differential form of order and is its exterior derivative.
Let and be Lipschitz continuous functions on , and be in a neighbourbood of . Let, furthermore, and be differential forms with order defined by
where means excluding of and is the directional derivative along . Using (18), we obtain
and hence the following lemma. Here, the tangential gradient on is defined by
(19) |
which is independent of the choice on the orthonormal coordinate .
Lemma 3.
It holds that
(20) | |||||
(21) |
2.3. Domain perturbations
Given the bounded Lipschitz domain , let
(22) |
be a family of bi-Lipschitz homeomorphisms.
Definition 4.
The family of deformations of in (22) is said to be differentiable if is continuously differentiable in for every and the mappings
are uniformly bounded, where denotes the Jacobi matrix of . It is said to be twice differentiable if is continuously differentiable twice in for every and the mappings
are uniformly bounded.
The dynamical perturbation (12) is once and twice differentiable if and , respectively, where is an open neighbourhood of . If is, say, twice differentiable, the vector fields and defined by
(23) |
are Lipschitz continuous on . Then the family admits the Taylor expansion in ,
(24) |
if it is twice differentiable, where denotes the identity mapping. Then we put
(25) |
recalling that is the unit outer normal vector on .
2.4. Jacobi matrix and its derivatives
Given the matrices and , their inner product and the associated Frobenius norm are defined by
The Jacobi matrix of the bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism is defined by
where
We continue to suppose that is a bounded Lipschitz domain and , , is a family of bi-Lipschitz deformations of .
Lemma 5.
It holds that
(28) |
uniformly on if is differentiable, and
(29) |
uniformly on if is twice differentiable, furthermore. Here, and are vector fields on defined by (24), and and are the Jacobi matrices of and , respectively.
Proof.
The following lemma is given in [8, Theorem 6].
Lemma 6.
It holds that
(31) |
uniformly on if is differentiable, and
(32) |
uniformly on if is twice differentiable.
3. Liouville’s formulae
3.1. First formulae
This section is devoted to several Liouville’s formulae concerning volume and area integrals under general perturbation of Lipchitz domains. They are used to derive Hadamard variations associated with the Neumann boundary condition in the following section. The formulae given below are concerned on general domain perturbations. They are new, and have their own interests.
We continue to suppose that is a bounded Lipschitz domain and , , is a family of deformations of . We write either for the paring between and , or, for the inner product in . Differentiations in of the volume and area integrals below are taken in the classical sense, unless otherwise stated.
The first volume formula follows from (31) and a transformation of variables as in [8, Theorem 1]. Note that defined by (25) is Lipschitz continuous on . Let be the non-cylindrical domain defined by
(33) |
Theorem 7 (first volume formula).
If is a bounded Lipschitz domain, is differentiable, , and is continuous on , it holds that
where and .
Remark 8.
Without the last requirement of , we have
(34) |
in the sense of distributions in , where denotes the area element of and
(35) |
In other words, the mapping is locally absolutely continuous, and equality (34) holds for almost every . Then the above condition is used to take the initial trace at in (34).
Remark 9.
In [8] the above is required to be extended outside . This extension is always possible within the category of Lipschitz continuous functions because is a Lipschitz domain by the dynamical extension described later. Hence if , there is such that , where is an open set containing .
The following form with less regularity of is used later for computations of the Hadamard variation. Note that Theorem 7 is a direct consequence of this theorem.
Theorem 10.
Let be a bounded Lipschitz domain and be differentiable. Given with , put
(36) |
and assume . Then it holds that
Assume, furthermore, . Then it holds that , for defined by (35), and
(37) |
where , ,
Proof.
Since , , and , we obtain and
(38) |
in the sense of distributions, and hence . If , furthermore, it holds that , and therefore, the volume integral on the right-hand of (37) is definite by
Since
(39) |
and is differentiable, we have
with the continuity of the right-hand side in . Then the result follows with ,
from (31). ∎
Remark 11.
The differentiabilities of and in stand for those of the Lagrange and the Euler ones, respectively. Later in the study of Hadamard variations, we use the fact that the differentiability of the former implies that of the latter by the above theorem.
To formulate Liouville’s area formula, we define a -dimensional Lipschitz-manifold in by
(40) |
Here we employ the method of dynamical extension for the proof of the following lemma.
Lemma 12.
Each is extended as an element in , where is an open neighbourhood of in for
(41) |
Proof.
We take a smooth vector field , , in . Then, we let to be the solution to
There is , such that
forms an open neighbourhood of . Furthermore, by the uniqueness of the solution of the ordinary differential equation, the orbits, with , do not intersect each other, and form a tubular neighourhood of . Given , now we put
to obtain . ∎
Remark 13.
Given , we thus obtain its extension, denoted by the same symbol, , which assures . This property, however, does not imply , , because of the discrepancy of the dimensions of and , the boundary of . Note that holds for each because implies . Hence we require for both and to be continuous on , besides , in Lemma 14 below.
Recalling that denotes the area element of , we put . The outer unit normal vector is defined almost everywhere on for any , because is a Lipschitz domain.
Lemma 14.
If is a bounded Lipschitz domain, is differentiable, , and both and are continuous on , it holds that
Proof.
This lemma is reduced to an identity, valid to any , that is,
(42) |
in the sense of distributions in . Hence in (42), the boundary integral of the left-hand side is locally absolutely continuous in , and equality holds for almost all . Here, the required regularity ensures the Lipschitz continuity of , , and on , and also the differentiability in of the bi-Lipschitz diffeomorphism . We thus obtain the continuity of the right-hand side of (42) in , and hence the conclusion.
By Lemma 12 there is an extension of , denoted by the same symbol, such that , Then is dense in by Theorem 1. We may assume, therefore, to verify (42), recalling the notion (13). In this case this differentiation in is to be valid in the classical sense, and the equality is to hold for all . Below we describe the proof of this fact just for to make the description simple. Hence we show the lemma for smooth in , the open neighbourhood of in defined by (41).
For this purpose, we extend to a smooth vector field on for
that is, , where is a smooth function supported in and is equal to near . Thus the proof of this lemma is reduced for smooth , say .
Now we use the transformation of variables,
(43) |
It holds that and hence
where and denote the Jacobi matrices of and with respect to and , respectively. Then Green’s formula implies
(44) | |||||
where denotes the trace of the matrix . Note that the right-hand side of (44) is differentiable in by the above reduction of .
In fact, we have
(45) |
and
as , uniformly in . Here, since
it holds that
(46) |
where is the third-order tensor consisting of the second derivative of the components of . Hence there arises that
for and .
Gathering these observations, we obtain
and hence the conclusion. ∎
Remark 15.
Theorem 16 (first area formula).
If is a bounded domain, is differentiable, , and both and are continuous on , it holds that
where and .
3.2. Second formulae
We turn to Liouville’s second formulae. In the following formula on the volume integral, the last term vanishes for the dynamical perturbation defined by (12), because of
and (27).
Theorem 17 (second volume formula).
If is a bounded Lipschitz domain, is twice differentiable, , and is continuous on , it holds that
where , , and .
Proof.
The proof is reduced to the case of as in Lemma 14. Then we differentiate the right-hand side of
twice in . It follows that
Letting , then we obtain
by Lemma 6. Since the divergence formula implies
it follows that
for
We simplify the terms , , and furthermore.
Let and
for simplicitly. First, the divergence formula implies
Second, if we obtain
for , similarly, by
Hence it holds that
for general .
Adding these equations, we have
Gathering all equations above, the proof is complete. ∎
The following form with less regularity of is applicable to the Hadamard variation as in Theorem 10. The proof is the same and is omitted.
Theorem 18.
Liouville’s second area formula is derived from the following lemma.
Lemma 19.
If is , is twice differentiable, , and both and are continuous on , it holds that
Proof.
Differentiating the right-hand side twice, here we obtain
Since
there arises that
and hence
as , uniformly on , where denotes the fourth-order tensor which consists of the third derivatives of the elements of . Thus it follows that
as , uniformly on . Hence we obtain
using
We simplify the the last three terms further by the divergence formula. Wright
and
for simplicity. Then it follows that
and
if . Adding these equalities, we obtain
which is valid for .
Gathering all equations, we obtain the result by the divergence theorem. ∎
If is a bounded domain and is differentiable, there arises that . We have also , , such that
forms a frame of for each . The following lemma ensures again (47) for the case that is .
Lemma 20.
If is and is differentiable, it holds that
Proof.
We may fix and assume that are differentiable at to show the desired equality at this . Write , , , and . We take the exponential mapping aroud :
(48) |
This mapping is defined for , and satisfies . Furthermore, it is a local diffeomorphism, and there arises that
The perturbed boundary around is thus parametrized by as , and furthermore, the tangent space is spanned by
although does not necessarily form a frame at .
Since is and is differentiable, these vectors are Lipschitz continuous in , and it follows that
Then we obtain
(49) |
and furthermore,
by (24).
Hence it follows that
at . ∎
Theorem 21 (second area formula).
If is , is twice differentiable, , and is continuous on , it holds that
where , , , and
Proof.
By the assumption it holds that . Then we apply Lemma 19 to . First, it follows that
Second, in implies
as well as (47) everywhere. Then we obtain
almost everywhere with the continuity of its right-hand side on , where
It holds also that
almost everywhere with its right-hand side on . Hence Lemma 19 is applicable.
Since is and is twice differentiable, in Lemma 20 is Lipschitz continuous on , and it holds that
We thus obtain
Then we obtain the result by
and
derived from
∎
4. Hadamard variation of the Green’s function
4.1. First variation
The existence of Hadamard variation (9) on the Green’s function is assured by the method of [8]. Recall that and denote the Green’s function on and defined by (4), (7), (8) and (4), (5), (6), using and , respectively.
Theorem 22.
Let be a bounded Lipschitz domain and fix . Let be the solution to (8) in Theorem 2. Then, if is differentiable, it holds that
(50) |
In particular, the first Hadamard variation in (9),
exists in the sense of distributions in . There arises that
(51) |
and furthermore, , more precisely,
(52) |
for defined by (23) and .
Proof.
If is , furthermore, we have by the elliptic regularity, recalling (1). Then it holds that by (50)-(52), and then theory is applicable to (5) for . We have also , which implies
(54) |
Thus we have the well-definedness of the right-hand side of the desired identity in the following theorem.
Theorem 23 (first variational formula).
Proof.
Continue to fix . We have readily confirmed and . Now we show that solves
(55) |
where
Once (55) is shown, Theorem 2 is applicable to this Poisson equation, because (54) implies
(56) |
by . Then the desired equality follows from the representation formula (14) of the solution to (55), because .
Since the boundary condition of on in (55) is assured by the result in [8] on the Dirichlet boundary condition, we have only to confirm the boundary condition on in (56). To this end, we take an open neighbourhood of , denoted by , satisfying and .
Let . Then, for it holds that
(57) |
by
where the normal derivative of on belongs to .
4.2. Second variation
Theorem 24.
Proof.
Lemma 25.
If is and is twice differentiable, satisfies
(61) |
for
(62) |
where and
(63) |
where .
Proof.
We have readily obtained
(64) |
if is and is twice differentiable. By the same reason there arises that
for and in (63). Hence it follows that
for and defined by (62).
We have confirmed in in the previous theorem. It is also shown that
for
(65) |
by [8]. Then there arises the first equality of (63) by ,
(66) | |||||
and
(67) |
It thus suffices to ensure
(68) |
For this purpose we use the open neighbourhood of in the proof of Theorem 23 satisfying and . Taking , we have for defined by (58) and (36), from the proof of [8, Theorem 16]. Hence Theorem 18 is applicable.
Since is it holds that . Then we obtain
in the sense of distributions in , where
By (59) we have , which implies .
We examine each term on the right-hand side, recalling . First, it follows that
from . Second, we have
by (21) for , , and .
Theorem 26 (second variational formula).
If is and is twice differentiable, it holds that
for , where denotes the inner product in .
Appendix A Liouville’s area formula and differential forms
There is an alternative argument for the proof of Lemmas 14 and 19 using differential forms. Here we assume that is a bounded Lipschitz domain and suppose that the family of domain perturbations is twice differentiable.
Put , and let , , be the set of -forms on . The outer derivative and wedge product are denoted by and , respectively. Given
let
Given
we put
which is independent of the choice of , , to represent . Then the Hodge operator is defined by
It holds that
where . By this definition, there arises [3] that
where and denote the outer unit normal and area element on , respectively. Then we obtain
for .
Let be the transformation of variables, and for defined by (40). Then we obtain
(72) |
In (24) we have
in and hence
in , where , , , and so forth. Thus it holds that
Pull back the vector field on to that on by : . Using
we obtain
and therefore,
(73) | |||||
where
We have, on the other hand,
for or , recalling that indicates the exclusion of . It holds also that
and therefore,
First, if , we have
where the entries in the form of , , or are not included in this matrix. Hence it follows that
Second, if we have
(74) |
or
Equality (74) is obtained by an expansion of the determinant, and the proof is left for the reader. We thus end up with
(75) | |||||
Here, we obtain
for
Since , it holds that
and hence
by the Stokes theorem. We thus obtain
(79) |
We divide into four terms, involving , , , and , denoted by , , , and , respectively. First, we have
and hence
Second, there arises that
with
Then we obtain , and hence
similarly. It thus follows that
Third, we have
for
Then we obtain , and hence
similarly. It thus follows that
Finally, we treat
Our goal is to show
(80) | |||||
For this purpose we note the equalities
and
We write also
using
We thus obtain
for
and
Thus, equality (80) is reduced to
which follows from
(81) |
In fact, we have
with
First, noticing the terms involving the third order derivatives of , we realize
Second, the terms involving the zero-th order derivatives of also cancel as
with
Since
we obtain
Third, the terms involving the second order derivatives of cancel as
by
Finally, for the terms involving the first order derivatives of we obtain
Then it holds that
which implies
Hence we obtain (81).
Appendix B Second fundamental form on
In (63) if is the normal perturbation (11) we have
by (26) and hence
If is the dynamical perturbation using (12), it follows that
from (65), (69), and (27). In [4] the second Hadamard variation for is described in accordance with the second fundamental form of . It is concerned on the normal perturbation (11), where and
These values used in Theorem 26 are actually associated with the second fundamental form on , defined by
The argument relies on the following formula. Recall
Lemma 27.
[5, (3.1.1.8), p.137] It holds that
(82) |
Lemma 28.
It holds that
Proof.
Theorem 29.
References
- [1] H. Azegami, Shape Optimization Problems, Springer, Singapore, 2020.
- [2] L.C. Evans and R.F. Gariepy, Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992.
- [3] H. Flanders, Differential Forms with Applications to the Physical Sciences, Academic Press, New York, 1963.
- [4] P.R. Garabedian and M. Schiffer, Convexity of domain functionals, J. Ann. Math. 2 (1952-53) 281–368.
- [5] P. Grisvard, Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Pitman, Boston, 1985.
- [6] T. Suzuki, T. Tsuchiya, Convergence analysis of trial free boundary methods for the two-dimensional filtration problem, Numer. Math. 100 (2005) 537–564.
- [7] T. Suzuki, T. Tsuchiya, Weak formulation of Hadamard variation applied to the filtration problem, Japan. J. Indus. Appl. Math. 28 (2011) 327–350
- [8] T. Suzuki and T. Tsuchiya, First and second Hadamard variational formulae of the Green function for general domain perturbations, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 68 (2016) 1389–1419.
Acknowledgements. This work was promoted in Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) Joint Research Program during 2019–2021. (RIMS is an International Joint Usage/Research Center located in Kyoto University.) The authors thank Professors Hideyuki Azegami and Erika Ushikoshi for many detailed discussions at these occasions. The first author was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 19H01799. The second author was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 21K03372.