Shape and Topological Derivative Using Minmax Method: Application to Linear Thermoelasticity Problem ()
1. Introduction
In this paper, we deal with thermoelasticity problem by using shape and topological optimization problem and their application in solar energy.
For what purpose, it is important to study one of many efficience criteria of the materiel: we want to point out the geometrical and topological properties of the materials. The performance of the used material is linked to its physical properties. But there is a relationship between physical and machanical aspects of the material. For the solids it is interesting to get information on the deformations field of the solid studied.
The topology of the material may play a principal role for a selected efficience criteria. For instance, the homogenization theory allows us to get good physical and topological properties for a material. For thermal solar or photo voltaïc energy one of the efficience criteria is to know which deformation for the used material in order to get the best performance in the outpout sense.
Topological optimization gives an opportunity to get important informations on the topology of the considered domain in order to optimize at least a criteria. For our study, it permits us to know the optimal deformation in the geometrical and topological point of view in order to have the best distribution of the temperature in the domain. And then, the hope is to improve the output of thermal and photo voltaïc systems.
We study the geometrical and topological of solid materials by using tools of partial differential equation (PDE) and the topological optimization. And this may lead to a good selection for the choice of the material in physics, in industry.
Domain optimization is used today in many industrial environments, such as Airbus, for the reduction of structures, the improvement of resistance to vibrations, and many other areas of physics [1]-[3].
In [4], the authors address a shape optimization problem for a thermoelasticity model with uncertainties in the Robin boundary condition. The problem was formulated as the minimization of the volume of the body under an inequality constraint on the expectation. They derived analytical expressions of the shape functional to obtain the shape derivative via second order correlations. An efficient numerical method based on the low rank approximation was proposed. The solution of the optimization problem was implemented numerically via the level method.
The isogeometric approach has been adopted in research areas where sophisti- cated geometric representations are demanding, such as shell analysis [5], fluid-structure interaction [6], robust mesh [7] and shape design optimization [8] [9]. With respect with thermoelastic behavior, the thermomechanical contact of the mortar problem [10] and material distribution of functionally graded structures [11] [12] were studied using the isogeometric approach. For more information see [13].
In 1995, Rodrigues and Fernandes [14] attempted for the first time solve the problem of optimizing the topology of the thermoelastic structure. Focused on the problem of minimum conformity, they used the homogenization method and the augmented Lagrange method. Li et al. [15] applied a scalable thickness design to the displacement minimization problem. Cho and Choi [16] developed a design sensitivity analysis method for weakly coupled thermoelastic elasticity problems and applied this method to solve the minimum conformance topology problem. In the same year, a similar method was used by Zuo et al. [17] and was applied to the topological design of thermally actuated folding micro-mechanisms. Xia and Wang [18] applied the method of defining levels with the augmented Lagrange multiplier method to the problem of minimal and comparative conformity results with other methods. Sun and Zhang [19] used independent interpolation models in mechanics and thermal fields for better results in 2009. For more informations see [20].
Chung et al. [21] studied the topological optimization of structures subjected to large deformations due to thermal and mechanical loads, which demonstrated how temperature changes affected the optimized design of large deformation structures. Considering the effect of temperature changes, Deng et al. [22] and Yan et al. [23] multi-scale simultaneous use formulations to optimize macro-scale topology and micro-scale material configurations. Li et al. [24] studied multi-scale optimization based on the level set approach in thermomechanics. Environ- ment and indicated that the porous material proves systematically favored for a coupled multi-physics problem. Zhu et al. [25] proposed a temperature-constrained topology optimization for coupled thermomechanical problems and revealed that temperature constraints play an important role in relevant issues. For more reviews on thermoelastic design optimization, readers can refer to Wu et al. [26] and [27].
The main objective in this article is to determine the shape and topological derivative of the functional
, where the perturbed domain
of
is defined by
or
depending on the derivative to be calculated.
The paper is organized as follows: In the first section we give the introduction. In the second section we give a modeling of linear thermoelasticy problem and the presentation of the models problem. The section 3 is devoted to shape and topological optimization. This section gives theoretical results in asymptotic analysis. These results allow us to get ideas and information about the topological variation of the domain.
And in the section 4, we give the conclusion and some extensions.
2. Modeling
The model is essentially based on the principle of conservation of the mass and the momentum and the general law of thermoelasticity.
Let
be a domain included in big ball
at time
which is in movement and becomes at time
,
. Let
be a point of
which is
in
. Let
the displacement vector ( the deformation) where
is given by
Using conservation of mass and the momentum we have
(2.1)
and
(2.2)
where
(resp.
) the volume mass of
(resp
).
Suppose that
is an homogenous medium. The general law of thermoelasticity is given by
The general law of thermoelasticity, combining with law conservation gives directly in the permanent case
(2.3)
The equation (2.3) relates a thermoelasticity problem. We will add some boundary condition. The temperature
is solution of a boundary value problem (in our case it is solution of the Neumann Laplacian problem) see the following section.
In the following section we will study these partial differential equations with boundaries conditions. In what follows, we consider the following optimization problem
(2.4)
where
is the functional defined by
(2.5)
with
is solution to:
(2.6)
3. Main Results
In this part, we give the main results of the paper. We first start with the theorem giving the shape derivative and the theorem giving the topological derivative. For this purpose, we rely on the work of the pioneers [28]-[33] on the minmax method.
3.1. Shape Derivative
3.1.1. Preliminaries for the Shape Derivative
We will need some notations. The reader can confer to [34]-[37] for further information.
Notations: For
and the diffeomorphism
where
and
is the identity matrix on
. Moreover
where
and
are the jacobian matrix of
and
. For
,
is the space of
times continuously differentiable functions from
to
going to zero at infinity; for
,
is the space of continuous functions from
to
going to zero at infinity. We shall also use the notation
Lemma 3.1 Assume that
, then
For
sufficiently small,
, and there exist constants
such that for all
,
et
. Moreover, one has:
(i) When
goes to zero,
in
,
in
,
in
,
is bounded in
,
is bounded in
.
(ii) When
goes to zero,
where
is the jacobian matrix of
and
is the transpose of
.
(iii) Given
, as
goes to zero,
Proof. see [30] [31].
In this section, we recall the framework used in [37] and extended in [32] for the multivalued case.
Definition 3.1 A Lagrangian is a function of the form:
(3.1)
where
is a vector space,
is a non-empty subset of a vector space, and
is affine. Associate with the parameter
the parametrized minimax:
(3.2)
When the limits exist, we shall use the following compact notation:
(3.3)
(3.4)
(3.5)
The notation
and
means that
and
go to 0 through strictly positive values. Since
is affine in
, for all
,
(3.6)
We define the state equation as follows : for all
(3.7)
The set of solutions (states)
at
is denoted:
(3.8)
The adjoint state equation is defined as follows: for all
is:
(3.9)
and the set of solutions is denoted
. Finally, the set of minimizers for the minimax is given by:
(3.10)
Lemma 3.2 The following properties are satisfied
1.
.
2. The minimax
if and only if
. Hence,
.
3. If
, then
and
(3.11)
Proof. See [32] [37].
Theorem 3.3 Consider the Lagrangian functional
(3.12)
where
and
are vector spaces, and the function
is affine. Let the following hypotheses be satisfied:
is a vector space.
For all
,
is finite,
and
are singletons.
exists for all
and
.
The following limit exists:
(3.13)
(3.14)
Proof. See [32] [37].
Theorem 3.4 Consider the Lagrangian functional
(3.15)
where
and
are vector spaces, and the function
is affine. Let the following hypotheses be satisfied:
is a vector space.
For all
,
is finite,
and
are singletons.
exists;
the following limit exists
Then, the differential
exists and
.
Notice that, under condition
, condition
is optimal since
Hypotheses
and
are weaker and more general than
and
. Indeed, it is readily seen that if
and
are verified, then
and
are verified with
.
Proof. See [32] [37].
In the folowing we wil use a new condition with the standard adjoint at
. The use of the averaged adjoint revealed the possible occurrence of an extra term and provided a simpler expression for the former hypothesis
. It turns out that the extra term can also be obtained by using the standard adjoint at
, significantly simplifying the checking of that condition.
Theorem 3.5 Consider the Lagrangian functional
where
and
are vector spaces and the function
is affine. Let
and the following hypotheses be satisfied:
•
: For all
,
is finite,
, and
are singletons.
•
:
exists.
•
: The following limit exists:
Then,
exists and
.
Proof.
Recalling that
and
for any
, then for the standard adjoint state
at
:
Dividing by
:
Therefore, in view of Hypothesis
, the limit
exists if and only if the limit of the first term exists. Thus,
and the existence of the limit of the first term replaces hypothesis
.
3.1.2. Shape Derivative for Funtional
In what follows, we will apply the previous results to our model problem and calculate the derivative associated with the functional (2.5). This, therefore, requires first verifying the existence of solutions to the model given by the partial differential equation (2.6) and verifying the Lagragian differentiability associated with the form funtional (2.5).
The following theorem gives the main result of the form derivative of the functional.
Theorem 3.6 The shape derivative exists if and only if
exists with
If
the shape derivative is given by the expression:
Proof. The shape functional associated the perforated domain is given by
(3.16)
where
is solution the variational problem
(3.17)
and
(3.18)
for all
and
for some given functions
,
.
In the case where
in (3.17) is reduced to the following variational problem
(3.19)
and
solution to (3.18). Before starting the formal derivative, will first need to define the following set.
We also introduce
So, we aim to find
thus that
(3.20)
By applying the change of variable formula, we have
And on the other hand, we also have
And thus, we obtain
So, we have
with
denotes the Jacobian matrix of
. And we have
(3.21)
Let us recall that the shape functional is given by
And on the other hand, we also have
We now define the Lagrangian in terms of
.
Let evaluate the derivative of the Lagrangian by first setting
By taking
and
we have
So, we obtain
(3.22)
For the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to
we have
(3.23)
And on the other hand, the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to
is given by
(3.24)
So, we have the state equation for
is given by
(3.25)
And the adjoint state equation for
is also given by
(3.26)
By substituting
into the adjoint equation for
, we obtain:
So, we have
As a result, we have
We can now rewrite the expression of
as follows.
From this, we have the following estimate
By lemma 3.1 the terms
and
are uniformy bounded. To conclude that the limit of
exists and is zero, it remains to show that
in
-strong and that the
norm of
is bounded. From the state equation (3.25) of
and
, for
:
Substitute
to obtain the following estimate
So
is a bounded open lipschitzian domain, there existe a constant such that
and we have
but the right-hand side of this enequality goes to zero as
goes to zero. Therefore
in
. Finally, going back to the inaquality and dividing by
and we have
Since the right hand of the above inequality is bounded,
is bounded. This means that
is bounded in
and hence
is
bounded in
. And the term
is zero.
The shape derivative is given by
3.2. Topological Derivative
In this part we give the fundamental results of the topological derivative of the functional. Before tackling this main result, we will need the following preliminary results.. For more informations, the reader can refer to Delfour papers [29] [32] [37]-[41].
3.2.1. Preliminaries for Topological Derivative
Definition 3.2 Given
,
, the d-dimensional upper and lower Minkowski contents of a set
are defined through an r-dilatation of the set
as follows:
where
is the Lebesgue measure in
and
is the volume of the ball of radius one in
. When the two limits exist and are equal, we say that
admits a d-dimensional Minkowski content, and their common value will be denoted
.
Definition 3.3 Let
be a subset of a metric space
. We say that
is d-rectifiable if it is the image of a compact subset
of
by a Lipschitz continuous function
.
Definition 3.4 Let
be
-measurable. We say that
is
1) countably d-rectifiable if there exist countably many Lipschitzian functions
such that
.
2) countably
-rectifiable if there exist countably many Lipschitz functions
such that
is
-negligible:
.
3)
-rectifiable if it is countably
-rectifiable and
.
Definition 3.5 Let
be a closed subset of
.
1. The set of points of
which have a unique projection on
.
where
is the distance function from a point
to
.
2. The reach of a point
and the reach of
are respectively defined as follows :’
Remark 3.1 We say that
is a positive reach if
.
The definition of
implies the existence of a projection on
, a function
which associates
such that
.
Definition 3.6 Let
be a closed subset of
such that
for some
, and
be a continuous function on a bounded open subset
of
. The d-dimensional topological derivative of the volume functional
with respect to
is defined as follows:
whenever the limit exists.
Theorem 3.7 Let
be a compact subset of
and
an integer.
Let
denote the volume of the unit ball in
. We assume that the following properties hold:
1)
is a d-rectifiable subset of
such that
and
;
2)
has positive reach; that is, there exists
such that
;
3)
is continuous in
.
In the section of topological derivative we recall the notions of Minkowski content, d-rectifiability, and positive reach that are used to define the topological derivative of an objective function with respect to perturbations by a d-dimensional closed subset
of
. Given an open domain
with boundary
, the perturbed domain
is obtained by removing the
-dilatation
of the set
. The boundary of
is made up of two disjoint parts
. The notion of positive reach for a nowhere dense closed set
ensures that the boundary
of the hole is of class
and that
.
Before tacking the theorem of the topological derivative, we also need the following hypotheses. For the conception of these hypotheses, we relied on Novotny’s papers [38] [42] [43], and on Delfour’s papers [29]-[33].
Let us associate with
,
, the perturbed domain
, where by assumption,
, and
and
.
Let
denote the component of
for which
is part of its boundary. Let
denote the blind component of
whose boundary has no intersection with
. The function
is divided between the two
components
and
as follows:
within
, and
on
as
consists of the two disjoint boundaries
and
et
. We can construct an extension of
by defining the solution as follows:
on
,
on
.
For more information, the reader can refer to [29].
In the following theorem
denotes the dimension of the workspace,
the dimension of a subset
of
,
the radius of the ball and
is the volume of the unit ball in
.
3.2.2. Topological Derivative for the Functional
In what follows, we establish the main result of the topological derivative.
Theorem 3.8 Let
,
and
. The topological derivative exists if and only if the following limit:
exists with
and
Moreover, the topological derivative of the function is given by the expression:
where
are solutions of systems
Proof. In the following, consider also then functional defined in
, by
(3.27)
where
be the solution to the following problem
(3.28)
Considering a shape function
defined by
(3.29)
where
is solution to the variational problem
(3.30)
and
(3.31)
for all
and
for some given functions
,
.
In the case where
in
, (3.30) is reduced to the following variational problem
(3.32)
and
solution to (3.31). The shape functional associated the perforated domain is given by
(3.33)
where
is solution the variational problem
(3.34)
We aim to compute the topological derivative of the functional
And for this purpose, we define the following set:
(3.35)
Our variational formulation (3.28) consists of finding
such that
(3.36)
In the case where
in
we have
(3.37)
Thus, the Lagrangian dependent on
will be written in the form:
(3.38)
From this, we can now evaluate the derivative of the Lagrangian, dependent on
, with respect to
.
Subsequently, we obtain the variational formulation of the adjoint state equation given by
, where
for
. Find
such that
(3.39)
Next, we derive the Lagrangian with respect to
.
The initial state
is a solution of
and in this case, we have:
Then, we have:
The state
for all
satisfies
In the following, we aim to find the derivative of the Lagrangian, with respect to
. To achieve this, let us first compute the quotient
For
,
,
.
By evaluating the last equation at the point
, we obtain:
Hence, if
, we have:
Therefore, taking the ast result at the point
becomes:
We will now define
by
By substituting
and
into the adjoint equation
for
, we obtain:
Thus, for all
, equation (3.37) becomes:
Now, considering the assumption about
,
and
And in this case, we have:
(3.40)
By taking the difference between equation (3.37) and equation (3.40), we obtain:
The adjoint equation for
yields:
(3.41)
By taking
in equation (3.41), we have:
The final equation for
becomes:
4. Conclusion and Extensions
In this article, we studied a linear thermoelasticity problem using optimization methods. After a thermoelasticity model using mass conservation was given, we established the derivative form. And to be sure, we have to recall a few notions about the minmax method. Finally, the topological derivative was established using the same method but with different basic tools. We then intend to study regularity problems as well as numerical methods of the problem proposed.