Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 3

    Uploaded by

    Mudavath Babu Ram
    9 views17 pages

    Original Title

    2-3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views17 pages

    2 3

    Uploaded by

    Mudavath Babu Ram

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 17
    ONE-DIMENSIONAL THERMOMECHANICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS WITH NON-CONVEX POTENTIALS OF GINZBURG-LANDAU TYPE By Jirgen Sprekels IMA Preprint Series # 505 April 1989 ‘This paper will appear in the IMA ‘Volume Proceedings for the March 1989 workshop on Nonlinear Evolution Equations that. Change Type ONE-DIMENSIONAL THERMOMECHANICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS WITH NON-CONVEX POTENTIALS OF GINZBURG-LANDAU TYPE JéRGEN SPREKELS* Abstract. In this paper we study the system of partial differential equations governing the nonlinear ‘thermomechanical processes in non-viscous, heat-conducting, one-dimensional solids. To allow for both stress- and temperature-induced solid-solid phase transitions in the material, possibly accompanied by hysterenin effects, a non-convex free energy of Ginzburg-Landau form is assumed. Results concerning the ‘well:posediness of the problem, as well as the numerical approximation and the optimal control of the solutions, are presented in the paper, in particular in connection with the austenitic-martensitic phase ‘transitions in the so-called “shape memory alloys”. Key words. phase transitions, non-convex potentials, Ginzburg-Landau theory, shape memory alloys, hysteresis, conservation laws. AMS(MOS) subject classifications. 35165, 25K60, 73U05, 73B30 1, Introduction. In this paper we consider thermomechanical processes in non- viscous, one-dimensional heat-conducting solids of constant density p (assumed normalized to unity) that are subjected to heating and loading. We think of metallic solids that do not only respond to a change of the strain ¢ = uz (u stands for the displacement) by an elastic stress ¢ = o(€), but also react to changes of the curvature of their metallic lattices by a couple stress j: = (2). Thus, the corresponding free energy F is assumed in Ginzburg-Landau form, i.e, (1.1) F=F(6,€2,6), where @ is the absolute temperature. In the framework of the Landau theory of phase tran- sitions, the strain plays the role of an “order parameter”, whose actual value determines what phase is prevailing in the material (see [3)). Since we are interested in solid-solid phase transitions, driven by loading and/or heat- ing, which are accompanied by hysteresis effects, we do not assume that F(¢,¢2,6) is a convex function of the order parameter ¢ for all values of (cz,). A particularly interesting 'achbereich Bauwesen, Universitit-GHS-Essen, D-4300 asen 1, West Germany (visiting at IMA). This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), SPP “Anwendungsbezogene Opti- micrung und Steuerung”. class of materials are the metallic alloys exhibiting the so-called “shape memory effect”. Among those there are alloys like CuZn, CuSn,AuCuZn2,AgCd and, most important, TiNi (so-called Nitinol). In these materials, the metallic lattice is deformed by shear, and the assumption of a constant density is justified. The relation between shear stress and shear strain (o—e-curves) of shape memory alloys exhibit a rather spectacular temperature- dependent hysteretic behavior (see [2] for an account of the properties of shape memory alloys): a Fig 1. Typical o —¢-curves in shape memory alloys, with tempera- ture @ increasing from a) to c). In addition, for sufficiently small shear stresses @ another hysteresis occurs in the «—6-dingrome: € Fig 2. €~8 curves in shape memory alloys for different values of 0. On the microscopic scale, this hysteretic behaviour is ascribed to first-order stress- induced (fg. 1a,b) or temperature-induced (fig. 2) phase transitions between different con- figurations of the metallic lattice, namely the symmetric high-temperature phase “austen- ite” (taken as reference configuration) and its two oppositively oriented sheared versions termed “martensitic twins”, which prevail at low temperatures (cf., (6], {7]). ‘The simplest form for the free energy F which matches the experimental evidence given by figs. 1,2 quite well and takes interfacial energies into account is given by (cf., (4, [5]) (1.2) F(e,€2,8) = —Cy@log(6/O2) + Cv0 + G+ 61(8 — O1)e? — pe! + nae? + : ay where Cy denotes the specific heat, Gis some constant, 6; and @ are (positive) tempera- tures and «1,9, &3,’/ are positive constants. A complete set of data for the alloy AuCuZnz is given in {5]. Note that within the range of interesting temperatures, for 8 01, F is not convex as function of €. In the sequel, we assume F in the somewhat more general form (with positive «1, «2,7) (1.3) F(¢,€2,8) = —Cy@ log(8/62) + Cv8 + 6 + wiOFi(c) + a Fa(e) + - é, where F; and F, satisfy the hypothesis: (Hl) Fi, rect Fh(e) 2G lel-G, Ve ER, with positive constants %,72. The dynamics of thermomechanical processes in a solid are governed by the conservation Jaws of linear momentum, energy and mass. The latter may be ignored since p is constant for the materials under consideration (we assume p = 1). The two others read (14a) Ug Oet Hes =f, (1.4) eet ge 06 Hear =9- Here the involved quantities have their usual meanings, namely: o-elastic stress, p-couple stress, u-displacement, f - density of loads, ¢ - density of internal energy, q - heat flux, g -density of heat sources or sinks. We have the constitutive relations or OF pg OF (1.5) o= 5° and we assume the heat flux in the Fourier-form (1.6) q ‘x6, , where x > 0 is the heat conductivity. 3 Notice that (1.6) implies that the second principle of thermodynamics in form of the Clausius-Duhem inequality is automatically satisfied. Inserting (1.3), (1.5), (1.6) in the balance laws and assuming one-dimensional sample of unit length, we obtain the system (1.7a) te = (Kr OF (6) + 62FQ(6)), + Yteass = fy (1.7) CO — Ki OF; (eer — KOz2 = 9, (1.7e) e=us, to be satisfied in the space-time cylinder 27, where T > 0, = (0,1), and, for t > 0, % = 2x (0,1). In addition, we prescribe the initial and boundary conditions 7d) u(z,0) = uo(z), ue(z,0) = u(#), 6(¢,0) = @(z),2 € 9, (1.7e) u(0,t) = uz2(0,t) = u(1,t) = use(1,t) = 0, #€ [0,7], (up 9-(0,4) = 0, —n82(1,t) = B(O(L,t) ~ 6r(#)), #€ (0,7), where 8 > 0 is a heat exchanige coefficient, and @p stands for the outside temperature at ral In the following sections we state some results concerning the well-posedness of the system (1.7a-f), including a convergent numerical algorithm for its approximate solution. To abbreviate the exposition, all constants in (1.7a-f) are assumed to equal unity; this will have no bearing on the mathematical analysis. 2. Well-posedness. We consider (1.7a-f). In addition to (H1), we generally assume: (H2) uy € (0) = {ue H4(Q)}u(0) = u(t) = 0 = w"(0) = w"'(); ur € HQ) H4(2); 6 € H2(M), bo(2)>0, Vee® (H3) €5(0) = 0, 6r(0) = 60(1) + 4 65(1) > 0 (compatibility). (4) f.g € (0,7; H*(9)), 6p € H4(0,7), where g(z,t) > 0 on Gr and Or(t) > 0 on [0,7]. ‘We have the result: THEOREM 2.1, Suppose (H1)-(H4) hold. Then (1.7a-f) has a unique solution (u,6) which satisfies (21a) we W(0,7; 17(0)) NW" (0,7; (9) 1 H*(Q)) NL” (0,7; H4(9)), (2.1b) 6 H1(0,7;#*(Q)) NL? (0,7; #°(9)), (21c) (2,1) >0, on Tr. Moreover, the operator (f,g,6r) + (u,8) maps bounded subsets of H1 (0,7; H*(9)) x H'(0,T; H1(Q)) x M into bounded subsets of X x Y, where M := {z € |H1(0,7)| z(t) > 0 om [0,7], 2(0) = 80(2) + 04(1)} , X s= W2(0,7; L4(Q)) NWH(0,7; 41(2)N (2) L°(0,T;H*(Q)) and Y := H*(0,7;H'(Q)) NL? (0,7; H°(Q)), respectively. Proof. ‘The existence result is easily obtained by combining the Galerkin approximation employed in the proof of Theorem 2.1 in [9] with the a priori estimates derived in the proof of Theorem 2.1 in [12}; the uniqueness is a direct consequence of the subsequent Theorem 2.3. Finally, the boundedness of the mapping (f, ¢,6r) + (1,8) follows from the above- mentioned a priori estimates. 0 A sharper existence result, with regards to the smoothness properties of the solution (u,@), has been established in (12): THEOREM 2.2. Suppose that, in addition to (H1)-(H4), the following assumptions on the data of (1.7a-f) are satisfied: (2.2) up € H(Q), u, € H°(2), H € H*(M), fu € DOr), 9 €17(0,T;H7(Q)), Or € H?(0,7) . Furthermore, suppose that 0 satisfies compatibility conditions of sufficiently high or- der. Then (1.7a-f) has a unique classical solution (u,@), and all the partial derivatives appearing in (1.7a-c) belong to the Hélder class C™*/2(Sp), for some a € (0,1). Proof. See Theorem 2.1 in [12]. 0 We now derive a stability result with respect to the data (f,9,ér) which guarantees the uniqueness of the solution (1,6). ‘THEOREM 2.3. Suppose the general hypotheses (H1), (H2) and 64(0) = 0 are satisfied. We consider the variational problem a eee (230) fulsrtoteey de furtayete.o)de— ff use dr i id +f | [RE con6¥e0 + uertee— fo] de dr=0, a4 Vp € H"(0,7; (2) n27(0,7;H%(9)) , 0 0 such that r @4) (iment + lites(@)I? + [8(8)I7) + f f Gide dt aa exp 1€(0,7) r + [20,8 & < CUlbeltsen + lela) + lean): d where 8 = 6) — 9), u = ul) = ul), 6p = A — 0, f = FO — Fg = gO) — g. REMARKS. 1. Here (and throughout) we have omitted the arguments of the involved functions if no confusion may arise. 2. |]. || denotes always the L*()-norm. 3. Obviously, any solution (u, 8) of (1.7a-f) with (2.1a,b) solves (2.9a-c); consequently, the solution of (1.7a-f) is unique, 4. From the upcoming proof it will become evident that a corresponding stability result holds with respect to the initial data uo, t,6o; we restrict ourselves to the 6 data (f,9, 6r) as they are the natural candidates to serve as control variables if the system is to be controlled from the outside. Proof, Let e = u{?, i = 1,2, and ¢ = €(!) — ), In terms of the variables (u, 6) introduced in the assertion, (2.3-c) can be rewritten as (2.5a) Jutesnetenée f fruoe de de ff oeoee— Fels a aa aa t IF or “ff (F (69,0) =F (0, 0)) dz dr =0, Vee MO,THO) NOTH), OSt O be given (to be specified later). We insert @ = tus in (2.6a), integrate by parts and use Young's inequality to arrive at the estimate : @) 5 lea? +5 Nese(OP < 3 Baan) +O f h(a i ' 12 +f {| (= (0M) — = (<),0) dzdr. He Now > 2 (FE r,00y-F 0,90) = eae +02 (FE) — FC) + (Jee + uF (6) — FE) 4+ FO uD + u20 (FYE) — FYE) + F(t. 7 Consequently, invoking the mean value theorem, (28) Sf (= (00) — z (0) d : o 2 de dr : 0,02 > 0: (2.16) NOC* Mccoy Sr 6c) H HOC) + exa0¢) |? SHl6e(r)IP + Croll (DIP Since 6,” € L*(0,7; L*()), this implies that ‘ t (2.17) [OP Pe dads < J |O(r)Ilé~ all |Par [ [otros] : : < Cob f f @dedr + Cy i f Paadt, 3a 3a whence ' (as) Il 0 sufficiently small, and invoking Gronwall’s lemma, we have finally proved the assertion. 0) 3. Optimal Control. We now turn our interest to optimal control problems associ- ated with the system (1.7a-f). It is of considerable interest in the technological application of shape memory alloys to control the evolution of the austenitic-martensitic phase transi- tions in the material; in this connection, a typical object is to influence the system via the natural control variables f,g,6r in such a way, that » desired distribution of the phases in the material is produced. Since the phase transitions are characterized by the order parameter ¢, it is natural to use ¢ as the main variable in the cost functional. We consider the following control problem: (ap) . Minimize J(u, 6: f.9,8r) = J | Z1(2,t,ue(2,t),(2,), fest), o(2,t) ded ta t + fta(tGo()as f Za(emele 2), Oe,T))Ar, a 4 subject to (1.7a-4) and the side condition (f,9,6r) € X, where K denotes some nonempty, bounded, closed and convex subset of H? (0,7; H1(9)) x {g € H} (0,7; H1(2))|g(,t) > 0 on Mir} x Me For Ly: + R, Ly: R? > Ry Ly: R? > R, we assume: (H5) (i) L1, Lz, Ls are measurable with respect to the variables (2,#), resp. ¢, resp. 2, and continuous with respect to the other variables. (ii) Ly is convex with respect to f and g. (iii) Lp is convex with respect to Op. ‘These assumptions are natural in the framework of optimal control; a typical form for J would be (a) ut, 85 ,98r) = Balle — Bellzacany + Ball? ~ Bacon) + Ballua(-,T) = a? + 6.|16(,7) ~ BI? + Asllflikacaz) + Bolla liZacaz) + Frl6rlli2¢0,2)> with 8; > 0, but not all zero, and functions 7,8 € L?(r), #8 € L3(), representing the desired strain and temperature distributions during the evolution and at t = T. ‘There holds 1 THEOREM 3.1. Suppose (H1)-(H5) are true, then (CP) has a solution (w,3; 7, Proof. Let {(fa,9ns6rn)}&X denote a minimizing sequence, and let (uin,9n) denote the solution of (1.7a-f) associated with (fa, gn,6rjn),n € N. Since K is bounded, we may sésume that (3.2) In>F, weakly in H"(0,T;H*(Q)), Jn, weakly in H*(0,7;H*(Q)), rn > Br, weakly in H4(0,T). ‘Due to the weak closedness of the convex and closed set K,(7,9, Or) € XK. Let (3,8) denote the associated solution of (1.7a-f). Now, owing to the boundedness of K and Theorem 2.1, {(n/6n)}nen is @ bounded subset of X x Y. Therefore, we may assume that for some (u,8) € X x ¥ there holds Une > Uey (8.38) a uniformly on Qr, Unjee > Utes (3.3b) Unjex 7 Urey weakly in L?(Qr), Unt > Uses Unezes > Users, as well as Baz > Oxy (3.3c) But + 4, weakly in L?(Qr). On,2z > Pex Passing to the limit ae n ~+ 00 in the equations (1.7a-f) shows that (1, @) solves (1.7a— £) for the data (f,9,8r), ie, u = 1,0 = 6. Hence, (,6;f,9,5r) is admissible, and, in view of (HS), G4) Ji, 5,6r) < dim, inf J(un; Oni far 9ny9ryn)- ‘Thus (1,8; ,9, 6r) is a solution of (CP). 0 REMARKS. 5. The above way of arguing follows the lines of [10] where a related result was derived for a much more restricted free energy F. 6. It is natural to look for necessary conditions of optimality for the optimal controls of (CP). A corresponding result has not yet been derived. 7. The problem of the automatic self-regulation of the system via a fixed feedback control regulating the boundary temperature 6r has been considered in {11}. 12 4, Numerical Approximation. In this section we follow the lines of [8]. We assume the free energy in the special form (see (1.2)) ane oa_layleyle (4.1) F(6sée,8) = Glog +643 02 FAs best a Let atoe-layle (4.2) Fo(e8) = 5 OP —Get Ee. Then, for e, # €2, (43) Foless) — Folens) gees + 09) 4 W(e1,62), ae 2 where Y(¢1,€2) is a polynomial of degree 5 in «1, €2- We are going to construct a numerical scheme for the approximate solution of (1.7a-f). To this end, we assume that (H1)-(H4) and (2.2) hold, so that Theorem 2.2 applies. Now let K,N,M € N be chosen. We put h = Z, #2 = mh, 0< m< M, and AM =H 0S SN. Define (4.4) Yw = {linear splines on [0,1] corresponding to the partition {2{")}, of {0,1]}, and let (45) = span{z1,.-.,2K}) where z; denotes the j-th eigenfunction of the eigenvalue problem (4.6) 2!" = Az , in (0,1), 2(0) = 2"(0) = 0 = z"(1) = 2(1). ‘We introduce the projection operators (4.7) Px = H*(0,1) — orthogonal projection onto Zx, Qx = H?(0,1) ~ orthogonal projection onto Zx, Ry = H*(0,1) — orthogonal projection onto Yy, and the averages En mt (48) ime=]— f Hebd, ote)=F [sets (m8 (nnn ae = fH) myn 13 ‘We then consider the discrete problem (Oun.x) Find u™ = Th oP a,6" = Th aryl”, 1 0,C, > 0, which do not depend on M,N, K, such that for shr < + < Cy the discrete problem (Dy,w,x) has a solution which satisties (4.108) @™(z)>0, Veet, 0

    You might also like