1: \documentclass[11pt,reqno,oneside]{amsart}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,cite,epsfig,xspace,alltt,verbatim}
3: %\usepackage[notcite,notref]{showkeys}
4: %\linespread{2.0}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: % Page layout for top matter %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \hoffset 0.0in
9: \voffset 0.0pt
10: \evensidemargin 0.0in
11: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
12: \topmargin 0.0in
13: \headheight 12pt
14: \headsep 24pt
15: \textheight 8.5in
16: \textwidth 6.5in
17: \marginparsep 0.0in
18: \marginparwidth 0.0in
19: \footskip 0.5in
20:
21:
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: % Declaration section %
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
26:
27: \theoremstyle{plain}
28: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
29: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]
30: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]
31: \theoremstyle{definition}
32: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]
33: \newtheorem{problem}{Problem}[section]
34:
35: \theoremstyle{remark}
36: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]
37: %\newtheorem{notation}{Notation}[section]
38: \newtheorem{example}{Example}[section]
39:
40: \hyphenation{qua-si-con-tin-u-um}
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: % My own macros %
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d}}
45: \newcommand{\Real}{\mathbb R}
46: \newcommand{\Nat}{\mathbb N}
47: \newcommand{\Int}{\mathbb Z}
48: \newcommand{\oneb}{{\mathbf 1}}
49: \newcommand{\ah}{\hat{a}}
50: \newcommand{\ab}{{\mathbf a}}
51: \newcommand{\bb}{{\mathbf b}}
52: \newcommand{\fb}{{\mathbf f}}
53: \newcommand{\gb}{{\mathbf g}}
54: \newcommand{\rb}{{\mathbf r}}
55: \newcommand{\ub}{{\mathbf u}}
56: \newcommand{\xb}{{\mathbf x}}
57: \newcommand{\yb}{{\mathbf y}}
58: \newcommand{\zerob}{{\mathbf 0}}
59: \newcommand{\kh}{\hat{k}}
60:
61: \newcommand{\E}{{\mathcal E}}
62:
63: \newcommand{\nr}{\nabla_{\negthickspace \rb}}
64: \def\maxnorm#1{\left|\left|#1\right|\right|_\infty}
65:
66: %Shortcuts for the discrete Sobolev norms. First argument is the norm
67: %argument, second is value of 'p'.
68: \newcommand{\lpnorm}[2]{\left|\left|#1\right|\right|_{\ell^{#2}_h}}
69: \newcommand{\wpnorm}[2]{\left|\left|#1\right|\right|_{w^{1,#2}_h}}
70:
71: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}
72: \newcommand{\quarter}{{\textstyle \frac{1}{4}}}
73:
74: \DeclareMathOperator*{\spn}{span}
75: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{argmin}
76: %\newcommand{\dd}[2]{\frac{d #1}{d #2}}
77: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
78:
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: % Beginning of the document %
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: \begin{document}
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
85: % Topmatter %
86: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
87: \title{An Analysis of the Effect of Ghost Force Oscillation on Quasicontinuum Error}
88: %%%%%%%%%%%
89: % Authors %
90: %%%%%%%%%%%
91: \author{Matthew Dobson}
92: \author{Mitchell Luskin}
93:
94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
95: % Addresses %
96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: \address{Matthew Dobson\\
98: School of Mathematics \\
99: University of Minnesota \\
100: 206 Church Street SE \\
101: Minneapolis, MN 55455 \\
102: U.S.A.}
103: \email{dobson@math.umn.edu}
104:
105:
106: \address{Mitchell Luskin \\
107: School of Mathematics \\
108: University of Minnesota \\
109: 206 Church Street SE \\
110: Minneapolis, MN 55455 \\
111: U.S.A.}
112: \email{luskin@umn.edu}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: % Acknowledgments %
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117: \thanks{
118: This work was supported in part by DMS-0757355,
119: DMS-0811039, the Institute for Mathematics and
120: Its Applications,
121: the University of Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, and
122: the University of Minnesota Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship.
123: This work is also based on
124: work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number
125: DE-FG02-05ER25706.
126: }
127:
128: %%%%%%%%%%%%
129: % Keywords %
130: %%%%%%%%%%%%
131: \keywords{} %quasicontinuum, ghost force, atomistic to continuum}
132:
133:
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135: % Subject class %
136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
137: \subjclass[2000]{65Z05,70C20}
138:
139: %%%%%%%%
140: % Date %
141: %%%%%%%%
142: \date{\today}
143:
144: %%%%%%%%%%%%
145: % Abstract %
146: %%%%%%%%%%%%
147: \begin{abstract}
148: The atomistic to continuum interface for quasicontinuum energies
149: exhibits nonzero forces under uniform strain that have been
150: called ghost forces.
151: In this paper,
152: we prove for a linearization of a one-dimensional quasicontinuum energy
153: around a uniform strain
154: that the effect of the ghost forces on the displacement
155: nearly cancels and has a small effect on the error away from the interface.
156: We give optimal order error estimates
157: that show that the quasicontinuum displacement
158: converges to the atomistic displacement at the rate O($h$)
159: in the discrete $\ell^\infty$ and
160: $w^{1,1}$ norms where $h$ is the interatomic spacing.
161: We also give a proof that the error in the displacement gradient
162: decays away from the interface to O($h$) at distance O($h|\log h|$)
163: in the atomistic region and distance O($h$) in the continuum region.
164: E, Ming, and Yang previously gave a counterexample to convergence in the $w^{1,\infty}$ norm for a harmonic interatomic potential.
165: Our work gives an explicit and simplified form for the decay of the effect of the
166: atomistic to continuum coupling error in terms of a general underlying interatomic potential and gives the estimates described above in the discrete $\ell^\infty$ and $w^{1,p}$ norms.
167: \end{abstract}
168:
169: %%%%%%%%
170: % Body %
171: %%%%%%%%
172: \maketitle
173: {
174: \thispagestyle{empty}
175:
176: \section{Introduction}
177:
178: The quasicontinuum method (QC) reduces the computational complexity of
179: atomistic simulations by replacing smoothly varying regions of the
180: material with a continuum approximation derived from the atomistic
181: model~\cite{pinglin03, pinglin05,
182: legollqc05, ortnersuli, OrtnerSueli:2006d, e05, tadm96, knaportiz, e06,
183: mill02, rodney_gf, miller_indent, curtin_miller_coupling,
184: jacobsen04,dobs08}. This is extremely effective in simulations
185: involving defects, which have singularities in the deformation gradient.
186: In such simulations, a few
187: localized regions require the accuracy and high computational expense
188: of atomistic scale resolution, but the rest of the material has a
189: slowly varying deformation gradient which can be more efficiently computed
190: using the continuum approximation without loss of the desired accuracy.
191: Adaptive algorithms have been developed for QC to determine
192: which regions require the accuracy of atomistic modeling and how to
193: coarsen the finite element mesh in the continuum
194: region~\cite{ortnersuli,OrtnerSueli:2006d,prud06,oden06,arndtluskin07a,arndtluskin07b,ArndtLuskin:2007c}.
195: The atoms retained in the atomistic region and the atoms at nodes of
196: the piecewise linear finite element mesh in the continuum region are
197: collectively denoted as {\em representative atoms}.
198:
199: Recent years have seen the development of many QC approximations that differ
200: in how they compute interactions among the representative atoms.
201: In the following, we concern
202: ourselves with the original energy-based quasicontinuum (QCE)
203: approximation~\cite{tadm96,mill02}, but the phenomena that we analyze
204: occur in all other quasicontinuum approximations, as well as
205: in other multiphysics coupling methods~\cite{e06}. In QCE, a total energy is
206: created by summing energy contributions from each representative atom in
207: the atomistic region and from each element in the continuum region,
208: where the volume of the elements in the atomistic to continuum interface
209: is modified to exactly conserve mass. This construction was
210: chosen so that for any uniform strain the QCE energy,
211: the continuum energy, and the atomistic energy are identical.
212: (As discussed later, this conservation property for the QCE approximation
213: is not sufficient to prevent the existence of nonzero forces at the
214: atomistic to continuum interface for uniform strain.)
215: The representative
216: atoms then interact via forces defined by the total energy. This
217: makes for a simple and versatile method that can treat complicated
218: geometries and can be used with adaptive algorithms that modify the mesh and
219: atomistic regions during a quasi-static process.
220: Other atomistic to continuum approaches have been
221: proposed, for example, that utilize overlapping or blended
222: domains~\cite{BadiaParksBochevGunzburgerLehoucq:2007,ParksBochevLehoucq:2007}.
223:
224: One drawback of the energy-based quasicontinuum approximation that has
225: received much attention is the fact that at the atomistic to continuum
226: interface the balance of force equations do not give a
227: consistent scheme~\cite{shenoy_gf}. As explained in Section~\ref{sec:model}, the
228: equilibrium equations in the interior of both the atomistic region and
229: the continuum region give consistent finite difference schemes for the
230: continuum limit, whereas the QC equilibrium equations near the
231: interface are not consistent with the continuum limit. This is most
232: easily seen by considering a uniform strain, which
233: will be assigned identically zero elastic forces by any
234: consistent scheme. (Ensuring that a given scheme assigns zero forces for
235: uniform strain has been known as the ``patch test'' in
236: the theory of finite elements~\cite{strangfix}.)
237: The nonzero residual forces present in QCE
238: for uniform strain
239: have been called ``ghost forces''~\cite{shenoy_gf,dobs08}.
240:
241: In this paper, we give optimal order error estimates for the effect of the
242: inconsistency on the displacement and displacement gradient for a linearization of
243: a one-dimensional atomistic energy
244: and its quasicontinuum approximation.
245: We consider the linearization of general interatomic potentials
246: which are concave near second-neighbor interatomic distances.
247: This property guarantees that the interfacial error due to the Cauchy-Born
248: approximation with a second-neighbor cut-off is positive~\cite[p. 117]{dobs08} and
249: that the quasicontinuum
250: error is not oscillatory in the atomistic region (see Section~\ref{sec:comp}).
251: Similar optimal order error estimates have been given by E, Ming, and Yang~\cite{emingyang}
252: for a harmonic interatomic potential.
253:
254: We begin
255: by linearizing a one-dimensional atomistic energy, its local quasicontinuum approximation
256: (which we will call the continuum energy),
257: and its quasicontinuum approximation
258: about a uniform strain
259: for a second-neighbor atomistic energy.
260: %A uniform strain is usually a good approximation for the
261: %environment of the atomistic to continuum interface since
262: %regions with strain that vary on the atomistic scale must be included in the
263: %atomistic region to guarantee sufficient accuracy.
264: We will show in Section~\ref{sec:model} that the three systems of equilibrium equations are then
265: \begin{equation*}
266: \begin{split}
267: L^{a,h} \ub_a &= \fb,\qquad \qquad \text{(atomistic)}\\
268: L^{c,h} \ub_c &= \fb,\qquad \qquad \text{(continuum)}\\
269: L^{qc,h} \ub_{qc}-\gb &= \fb, \qquad \qquad \text{(quasicontinuum)}
270: \end{split}
271: \end{equation*}
272: where $\fb$ is an external loading, $L$ and $\ub$ are the linearized operator
273: and corresponding displacement for each scheme,
274: $\gb$ is non-zero only in the atomistic
275: to continuum interface, and $h$ is the interatomic spacing.
276: The term $\gb$ in the quasicontinuum equilibrium
277: equations is due to the unbalanced second-neighbor
278: interactions in the interface~\eqref{ghost} and
279: for uniform stretches is precisely
280: the ghost force described in~\cite{shenoy_gf,dobs08,mill02}.
281:
282: %the atomistic operator $L^{a,h}$ is a five point difference
283: %stencil~\eqref{atom} that is consistent
284: %with the continuum limit~\eqref{bvp}, the continuum operator $L^{c,h}$
285: %is a three point difference stencil~\eqref{cont1}
286: %that is consistent
287: %with the continuum limit~\eqref{bvp}, $\fb$ is
288: %any external loading, and $\ub_a$ and $\ub_c,$ and $\ub_{qc}$ are
289: %corresponding displacements. The quasicontinuum difference operator
290: %$L^{qc,h}$ is equal to $L^{a,h}$ in the atomistic region and is
291: %equal to $L^{c,h}$ in the continuum region, but it is not consistent with the continuum limit~\eqref{bvp}
292: %in the atomistic to continuum interfacial region~\eqref{fishtail}.
293: %The additional term $\gb$ in the quasicontinuum equilibrium equations is
294: %non-zero only in the atomistic to continuum interface and
295: %is due to the unbalanced second-neighbor interactions in the interface~\eqref{ghost}.
296:
297: Formally, the error decomposes as
298: \begin{equation*}
299: \ub_a - \ub_{qc} = ( (L^{a,h})^{-1} - (L^{qc,h})^{-1}) \fb -
300: (L^{qc,h})^{-1} \gb.
301: \end{equation*}
302: (The operators are all translation invariant, so they only have solutions
303: up to the choice of an additive constant.)
304: In this paper, we focus on the second term, $(L^{qc})^{-1} \gb,$ which is the
305: error due to the inconsistency at the interface. To do so, we consider the
306: case of no external field, $\fb=\zerob,$ which will make
307: $\ub_a = \zerob.$ For most applications of the quasicontinuum method,
308: the only external field is due to loads that are applied on the
309: boundary of the material, far from the atomistic to continuum
310: interface.
311:
312: We showed in~\cite{dobs08}
313: that the ghost forces are oscillatory and sum to zero.
314: %In this paper,
315: %we prove that the effect of the ghost forces on the displacement
316: %computed by the one-dimensional linearized quasicontinuum energy with periodic
317: %boundary conditions nearly cancels and has a small effect on the error.
318: In this paper, we prove that the error in the displacement
319: gradient is O(1) at the interface and
320: decays away from the interface to O($h$) at distance O($h|\log h|$)
321: in the atomistic region and distance O($h$) in the continuum region.
322: As noted above, similar results have been given
323: in~\cite{emingyang} for a harmonic interatomic potential
324: with $\fb\ne \zerob$ and
325: Dirichlet boundary conditions. Here, we present a simplified approach
326: starting from
327: a linearization of a quasicontinuum approximation with a concave
328: second-neighbor interaction. We explicitly give the form of the solution
329: and analyze the solution in discrete $l^\infty$ and $w^{1,p}$ norms.
330: We
331: show that the quasicontinuum displacement converges to the atomistic
332: displacement at the
333: rate O($h$) in the discrete $l^\infty$ and $w^{1,1}$ norms where $h$
334: is the interatomic spacing.
335:
336: In Section~\ref{sec:model}, we describe the energy-based
337: quasicontinuum approximation (QCE) and set up the analysis.
338: %In
339: %Section~\ref{sec:si}, we first develop a one-dimensional model problem
340: %with similar interface inconsistencies as QC, but which has a much
341: %simpler expression for its solution. For this model problem, we prove
342: %(see Theorem~\ref{thm}) an optimal order, O($h$) error estimate in the
343: %$l^\infty$ norm and a O($h^{1/p}$) error estimate in the $w^{1,p}$
344: %norm for $1 \leq p < \infty.$
345: In Section~\ref{sec:comp}, we prove
346: Theorem~\ref{thm2} for the quasicontinuum energy that %similarly
347: gives an optimal order, O($h$) error estimate in the $l^\infty$ norm and a
348: O($h^{1/p}$) error estimate in the $w^{1,p}$ norm for $1 \leq p <
349: \infty.$ Note that for simplicity
350: the models and analysis are presented for the
351: case where no degrees of freedom have been removed in the continuum region,
352: but
353: we explain in Remark~\ref{coarsen} that identical results hold when the continuum region is
354: coarsened. We present numerical computations in %Figure~\ref{si_plot} and
355: Figure~\ref{qc_comp} that clearly show that the error is localized in
356: the atomistic to continuum interface.
357:
358:
359:
360:
361: \section{One-Dimensional, Linear Quasicontinuum Approximation}
362: \label{sec:model}
363: We consider an infinite one-dimensional chain of atoms with
364: periodicity $2F$ in the deformed configuration.
365: Let $y_j$
366: denote the atomic positions for $-\infty<j<\infty,$ where there
367: are $2N$ atoms in each period. Let
368: $h = 1/N$ and let
369: \begin{equation*}
370: u_j := y_j - F h j
371: \end{equation*}
372: denote the displacement from the average interatomic spacing, $F h.$
373: In the following, we analyze the behavior
374: of the quasicontinuum method as the atomistic chain approaches the
375: continuum limit with $F$ fixed and $N \rightarrow \infty.$
376:
377: The atomistic energy for a period of the chain is
378: \begin{equation}\label{en}
379: \E^{tot,h}(\yb) := h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N}
380: \left[\phi\left(\frac{y_{j+1} - y_{j}}{h} \right)
381: + \phi\left(\frac{y_{j+2} - y_{j}}{h}\right) - f_j y_{j}\right],
382: \end{equation}
383: where $\phi(r)$ is a two-body interatomic
384: potential (for example, the Lennard-Jones potential
385: ${\phi}(r) = 1/ r^{12} - 2/r^6$) and $\fb = (f_{-N+1},\dots,f_{N})$ are
386: external forces applied as dead loads on the atoms.
387: The periodic conditions
388: \begin{equation*}
389: y_{j+2N} = y_j + 2 F \qquad\text{or}\qquad u_{j+2N} = u_j
390: \end{equation*}
391: allow $\E^{tot, h}$ to be written in terms of $\yb := (y_{-N+1},\dots,y_{N}).$
392: We assume that
393: $\sum_{-N+1}^N f_j=0,$ otherwise there are no energy minimizing solutions since
394: the elastic energy is translation invariant. In the following, we discuss the
395: existence and uniqueness of solutions to each of the models we encounter.
396: We note that the energy per bond in~\eqref{en}
397: has been scaled like $h\phi(r/h).$ This scaling implies that if we
398: let $y_j = y(j/N)$ and $f_j = f(j/N)$ for $j=-N+1, \dots, N$ where
399: $y \in C^1([-1,1])$ and
400: $f \in C([-1,1]),$ then as $N\to \infty$ and $F$ is held fixed, the
401: energy of a period~\eqref{en} converges to
402: \begin{equation*}
403: \int^1_{-1} \phi(y'(x)) + \phi(2 y'(x)) - f(x) y(x) \, \ud x.
404: \end{equation*}
405:
406: We expand first neighbor terms around $F,$ giving
407: \begin{equation*}
408: \begin{split}
409: \phi \left(\frac{y_{j+1} - y_{j}}{h}\right) &=
410: \phi \left(F + \frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right) \\
411: &= \phi(F)
412: + \phi'(F) \left.\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
413: + \half \phi''(F) \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2
414: +O\left(\left|\frac{u_{j+1}-u_{j}}{h}\right|^3\right),
415: \end{split}
416: \end{equation*}
417: and the second neighbor terms around $2F,$ giving
418: \begin{equation*}
419: \begin{split}
420: \phi \left(\frac{y_{j+2} - y_{j}}{h}\right)
421: &= \phi \left(2F + \frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right) \\
422: &= \phi(2 F) + \phi'(2 F) \left.\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
423: + \half \phi''(2 F) \left(\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2
424: +O\left(\left|\frac{u_{j+2}-u_{j}}{h}\right|^3\right).
425: \end{split}
426: \end{equation*}
427:
428: \subsection{Atomistic Model}
429: The linearized atomistic energy is then given by
430: %\begin{equation*}
431: %\begin{split}
432: \begin{equation}\label{at}
433: \begin{split}
434: \E^{a,h}(\ub) &:= h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N}
435: \left[ \phi'_F \left.\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
436: + \half \phi''_{F} \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2 \right. \\
437: &\qquad\qquad \left. + \phi'_{2F} \left.\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
438: + \half \phi''_{2 F} \left(\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2
439: - f_j u_j\right],
440: %&= \sum_{j=-N}^{N-3} \half \phi''_{F} (u_{j+1} - u_{j})^2
441: % + \half \phi''_{2 F} (u_{j+2} - u_{j})^2 \\
442: %&\qquad + \half \phi''_{F} (u_{-N} + L - u_{N-1})^2 + \half \phi''_{F} (u_{N-1} - u_{N})^2\\
443: %&\qquad + \half \phi''_{2 F} (u_{-N+1} + L - u_{N-1})^2
444: % + \half \phi''_{2 F} (u_{-N} + L - u_{N-2})^2 \\
445: %&\qquad + (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F}) L
446: \end{split}
447: \end{equation}
448: where
449: $\phi'_F := \phi'(F), \phi''_{F} := \phi''(F),
450: \phi'_{2F} := \phi'(2F), \phi''_{2 F} := \phi''(2F),$
451: and $\ub := (u_{-N+1}, \dots, u_{N}).$ Note that here and in the following,
452: we neglect the additive constant
453: $\phi(F) + \phi(2F) - h \sum_{j=-N+1}^N f_j F h j$ in
454: the linearized energy. We assume that $\phi \in C^2([r_0, \infty))$
455: for some $r_0$ such that $0< r_0 < F,$
456: and
457: \begin{equation}
458: \label{assume}
459: \phi''_F > 0 \text{ and } \phi''_{2F} < 0.
460: \end{equation}
461: This holds true for the Lennard-Jones potential for $F h$ below the load limit,
462: unless the chain is extremely compressed (less than 60\% of the equilibrium
463: length).
464: %We observed in~\cite[p. 117]{dobs08} that the property $\phi''_{2F} < 0$
465: %is required for the second-neighbor cut-off to give an
466: %interfacial error due to the Cauchy-Born
467: %approximation to be positive.
468: The property $\phi''_{2F} <0$ ensures that the quasicontinuum
469: error is not oscillatory in the atomistic region (see Section~\ref{sec:comp}).
470: %If $\phi''_{2F} >0,$ then the
471: %interfacial error due to the Cauchy-Born
472: %approximation can
473: %usually be
474: %obtained by considering longer range interactions such as third-neighbor
475: %interactions.
476:
477: We furthermore assume that
478: \begin{equation}
479: \label{assume2}
480: \phi''_F + 5 \phi''_{2F} > 0,
481: \end{equation}
482: which will be sufficient to
483: give solutions to the QC equilibrium equations under the assumption of
484: no resultant external forces (see Lemma~\ref{wellposed}). In contrast, the weaker assumption
485: $\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F} >0$
486: is sufficient for the fully atomistic or fully continuum approximation.
487: The equilibrium equations,
488: $\frac1h\pd{\E^{a,h}}{u_j}(\ub) = 0,$ for the
489: atomistic model~\eqref{at} are
490: \begin{equation}\label{atom}
491: \begin{split}
492: (L^{a,h} \ub)_j
493: &= \frac{- \phi''_{2 F} u_{j+2} - \phi''_{F} u_{j+1}
494: + 2 (\phi''_{F} + \phi''_{2 F}) u_{j} - \phi''_{F} u_{j-1}
495: - \phi''_{2 F} u_{j-2}}{h^2} = f_j, \\
496: &\hspace{1.9in} u_{j+2N} = u_j,
497: \end{split}
498: \end{equation}
499: for $-\infty < j < \infty.$ Note that scaling by $\frac{1}{h}$
500: makes this a consistent approximation of the boundary value problem
501: \begin{equation}
502: \label{bvp}
503: \begin{split}
504: - (\phi''_{F}+4\phi''_{2 F}) u''(x) = f &\qquad \textrm{ for } -\infty<x <\infty,\\
505: u(x+2) = u(x) &\qquad \textrm{ for } -\infty<x <\infty.
506: \end{split}
507: \end{equation}
508: The linearized atomistic energy~\eqref{at} has a unique minimum (up to a
509: constant) if $\phi''_{F} + 4 \phi''_{2 F}>0,$ provided that
510: $\sum_{j=N-1}^{N} f_j = 0.$ Standard ODE results show that~\eqref{bvp} has a
511: unique solution (up to a constant)
512: provided that $\int^1_{-1} f(x) \, \ud x = 0 .$
513:
514: \begin{remark}
515: \label{rem1}
516: For the atomistic energy~\eqref{at}, the linear terms sum to zero by the
517: periodicity of the displacement, since
518: \begin{equation*}
519: \begin{split}
520: h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} &\left[ \phi'_F \ \frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}
521: + \phi'_{2F} \ \frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h} \right] \\
522: &=
523: \phi'_F \left[u_{N+1} - u_{-N+1}\right] +
524: \phi'_{2F} \left[u_{N+2} + u_{N+1} - u_{-N+2} - u_{-N+1}\right] = 0.
525: \end{split}
526: \end{equation*}
527: However, we keep these terms in the model since they do not sum to zero when
528: the atomistic model is coupled to the continuum approximation in the
529: quasicontinuum energy. The resulting terms give a more accurate representation
530: of what happens in the non-linear quasicontinuum model.
531: \end{remark}
532:
533: \subsection{Continuum Approximation}
534: The continuum approximation splits the chain into linear finite elements with
535: nodes given by the representative atoms, which we recall are a
536: subset of the atoms in the chain. The energy of the chain is the sum
537: of element energies which depend only on the element's deformation
538: gradient, the linear deformation that interpolates its nodal
539: positions. The energy of an element is then computed by applying the
540: element's deformation gradient to the reference lattice, computing the
541: energy per atom using the atomistic model, and multiplying by the
542: number of atoms in the element (where the boundary atoms are shared
543: equally between neighboring elements). If the continuum approximation
544: is not coarsened (every atom is a representative atom), then
545: the continuum energy is given by
546: \begin{equation}\label{cont}
547: \begin{split}
548: \E^{c,h}(\ub) &:= h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} \left[ (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F})
549: \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)
550: + \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2
551: - f_j u_j\right].
552: %&= \sum_{j = -N}^{N-2} \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) (u_{j+1} - u_j)^2 + \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) (u_{-N} +
553: % L - u_{N-1})^2
554: % + (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F}) (u_N - u_{-N}) \\
555: %&= \sum_{j = -N}^{N-2} \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) (u_{j+1} - u_j)^2 + \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) (u_{-N} +
556: % L - u_{N-1})^2
557: % + (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F}) L
558: \end{split}
559: \end{equation}
560: See~\cite{dobs08} for a derivation of the continuum energy and a
561: discussion of the error terms at the element boundaries.
562: For $j \in \{-N+1, \dots, N\}$, the equilibrium equations
563: for the continuum approximation are
564: \begin{equation}\label{cont1}
565: (L^{c,h} \ub)_j = (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F})
566: \left[\frac{- u_{j+1} + 2 u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h^2} \right] = f_j,
567: %\quad \text{ for } -N+1 \leq j \leq N,
568: \end{equation}
569: which is also a consistent approximation for the boundary value
570: problem~\eqref{bvp}.
571: It is easy to see that the
572: continuum energy~\eqref{cont} has a unique minimum (up to a constant)
573: if $\phi''_{F} + 4 \phi''_{2 F}>0,$ provided that $\sum_{j=N-1}^{N} f_j = 0.$
574: %Note that in the current model there is no coarsening, and
575: %the reference length of each element is $h.$
576: The quasicontinuum method
577: inherently supports coarsening, but we neglect it here since in one dimension
578: this only changes the scaling of equilibrium equations.
579:
580: \subsection{Splitting the Energy}
581: We can split the atomistic energy and the continuum energy into
582: per-atom contributions so that
583: \begin{equation*}
584: %\label{splitidea}
585: \E^{a,h}(\ub) = h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} \left[\E^{a,h}_j\left(\ub\right) - f_j u_j\right]
586: \quad \text{ and } \quad
587: \E^{c,h}(\ub) = h \sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} \left[\E^{c,h}_j\left(\ub\right) - f_j u_j\right].
588: \end{equation*}
589: There are many possible ways to define the per-atom contributions, and
590: we do this in such a
591: way that these contributions are linearizations of the ones in the fully
592: nonlinear case presented in~\cite{dobs08,tadm96}. In this case, we split the
593: energy of each bond to obtain
594: \begin{equation}
595: \label{atomsplit}
596: \begin{split}
597: \E^{a,h}_j(\ub) :=
598: \frac{1}{2} \Bigg[ \phi'_F &\left.\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
599: + \half \phi''_{F} \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2 \\
600: &+ \phi'_{2F} \left.\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right.
601: + \half \phi''_{2 F} \left(\frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2 \Bigg]\\
602: +\frac{1}{2} \Bigg[ \phi'_F &\left.\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h}\right.
603: + \half \phi''_{F} \left(\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h}\right)^2 \\
604: &+ \phi'_{2F} \left.\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-2}}{h}\right.
605: + \half \phi''_{2 F} \left(\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-2}}{h}\right)^2 \Bigg],
606: \end{split}
607: \end{equation}
608: and
609: \begin{equation}
610: \label{contsplit}
611: \begin{split}
612: \E^{c,h}_j(\ub) := \frac{1}{2} &\left[ (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F})
613: \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)
614: + \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) \left(\frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}\right)^2 \right]\\
615: &+ \frac{1}{2} \left[ (\phi'_F + 2 \phi'_{2F})
616: \left(\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h}\right)
617: + \half (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) \left(\frac{u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h}\right)^2 \right].
618: \end{split}
619: \end{equation}
620:
621: \subsection{Energy-Based Quasicontinuum Approximation}
622: The energy-based quasicontinuum approximation partitions
623: the representative atoms into atomistic and continuum representative atoms and
624: assigns to each atom the split energy corresponding to its
625: type (\ref{atomsplit}-\ref{contsplit}).
626: We define the nodes $-N+1,\dots,-K-1$ and $K+1,\dots,N$ to be continuum and
627: $-K,\dots,K$ to be atomistic, where we assume that $2\le K\le N-2$
628: to ensure well-defined atomistic and continuum regions.
629: The quasicontinuum energy is then
630: \begin{equation}
631: \label{qceTot}
632: \E^{qc,h}(\ub) :=
633: \sum_{j = -N+1}^{-K-1} \E_{j}^{c,h}\left(\ub\right) +
634: \sum_{j=-K}^{K} \E_{j}^{a,h}\left(\ub\right) +
635: \sum_{j= K+1}^{N} \E_{j}^{c,h}\left(\ub\right) -
636: \sum_{j = -N+1}^{N} f_j u_j.
637: \end{equation}
638:
639: Since the energy is quadratic, the equilibrium equations,
640: $\frac1h\pd{\E^{qc,h}}{u_j}(\ub_{qc})=0,$ take the form
641: \begin{equation}\label{qc1}
642: L^{qc,h} \ub_{qc}-\gb = \fb.
643: \end{equation}
644: %The operator $L^{qc,h} \ub_{qc}$ is invariant under the transformation
645: %$u_j \rightarrow -u_{-j},$ so we only list the equations for
646: For $0 \leq j \leq N,$ the QCE operator is given by
647: \begin{equation*}
648: \label{fishtail}
649: \begin{split}
650: (L^{qc,h} \ub)_j &= \phi''_F \frac{-u_{j+1} +2 u_j - u_{j-1}}{h^2} \\
651: &+ \begin{cases}
652: \displaystyle
653: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+2} +2 u_j - u_{j-2}}{4 h^2},
654: & 0 \leq j \leq K-2, \\[6pt]
655: %
656: \displaystyle
657: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+2} +2 u_j - u_{j-2}}{4 h^2}
658: + \frac{\phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{2 h}, & j = K-1, \\[6pt]
659: %
660: \displaystyle
661: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+2} +2 u_j - u_{j-2}}{4 h^2}
662: - \frac{2 \phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}
663: + \frac{\phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j+2} - u_{j}}{2 h},
664: & j = K, \\[6pt]
665: %
666: \displaystyle
667: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+1} +2 u_j - u_{j-1}}{h^2}
668: - \frac{2 \phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j} - u_{j-1}}{h}
669: + \frac{\phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j} - u_{j-2}}{2 h}, & j = K+1, \\[6pt]
670: %
671: \displaystyle
672: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+1} +2 u_j - u_{j-1}}{h^2}
673: + \frac{\phi''_{2 F}}{h} \frac{u_{j} - u_{j-2}}{2 h}, & j = K+2, \\[6pt]
674: %
675: \displaystyle
676: 4 \phi''_{2 F} \frac{-u_{j+1} +2 u_j - u_{j-1}}{h^2}, & K+3 \leq j
677: \leq N.
678: %
679: \end{cases}
680: \end{split}
681: \end{equation*}
682: Similarly, $\gb$ is given by
683: \begin{equation}
684: \label{ghost}
685: g_j = \begin{cases}
686: 0, & 0 \leq j \leq K-2, \\
687: -\half \phi'_{2F} /h, & j = K-1, \\
688: \half \phi'_{2F} /h, & j = K, \\
689: \half \phi'_{2F} /h, & j = K+1, \\
690: -\half \phi'_{2F} /h, & j = K+2, \\
691: 0, & K+3 \leq j \leq N.\\
692: \end{cases}
693: \end{equation}
694: For space reasons, we only list the entries for $0\le j\le N.$ The equations
695: for all other $j\in\Int$ follow from symmetry and periodicity.
696: Due to the symmetry in the definition of the atomistic and continuum regions,
697: we have that $L^{qc,h}_{i,j} = L^{qc,h}_{-i,-j}$ and
698: $g_{j} = -g_{-j}$ for $-N+1 \leq i,j \leq 0.$ To see this, we define
699: the involution operator $(S\ub)_j=-u_{-j}$ and observe that
700: $\E^{qc,h}(S\ub)=\E^{qc,h}(\ub).$
701: It then follows from the chain rule that
702: \[
703: S^TL^{qc,h} S\ub-S^T\gb-S^T\fb =L^{qc,h} \ub-\gb -\fb
704: \quad \text{for all periodic }\ub\text{ and }\fb.
705: \]
706: Since $S^T=S,$ we can
707: conclude that
708: \begin{equation}\label{S}
709: SL^{qc,h} S = L^{qc,h}\quad\text{and}\quad Sg=g.
710: \end{equation}
711: Note that the expression for $\gb$
712: does not depend on $\phi'_F$ since the first-neighbor terms
713: identically sum to zero in the energy~\eqref{qceTot}.
714: We can now observe that the QCE approximation~\eqref{qc1}
715: is not consistent with the continuum limit of the atomistic model~\eqref{bvp}.
716:
717:
718: The linear operator $L^{qc}$ has all uniform translations,
719: $\ub = c \oneb = (c, c, \dots, c),$ in its nullspace.
720: To see that this is the full nullspace, we consider the factored operator
721: $L^{qc} = D^T E^{qc} D,$ where $(D \ub)_j = \frac{u_{j+1} - u_j}{h}$ and
722: \begin{equation*}
723: %\label{dom}
724: (E^{qc} \rb)_j = \begin{cases}
725: \phi''_{2 F} r_{j-1} + (\phi''_{F}+ 2 \phi''_{2 F}) r_{j} +
726: \phi''_{2 F} r_{j+1}, & 0 \leq j \leq K-2, \\
727: \phi''_{2 F} r_{j-1} + (\phi''_{F}+ \frac32 \phi''_{2 F}) r_{j} +
728: \frac12 \phi''_{2 F} r_{j+1}, & j =K-1, \\
729: \frac12 \phi''_{2 F} r_{j-1} + (\phi''_{F}+ 3 \phi''_{2 F}) r_{j} +
730: \frac12 \phi''_{2 F} r_{j+1}, & j = K, \\
731: \frac12 \phi''_{2 F} r_{j-1} + (\phi''_{F}+ \frac92 \phi''_{2 F}) r_{j},
732: & j = K+1, \\
733: (\phi''_{F}+ 4 \phi''_{2 F}) r_{j},
734: & K+2 \leq j \leq N.
735: \end{cases}
736: \end{equation*}
737: We see that $E^{qc}$ is diagonally dominant provided
738: $\phi''_{F} + 5 \phi''_{2F}>0,$ hence assumption~\eqref{assume2}
739: implies $E^{qc}$ is invertible.
740: So we have that the nullspace of
741: $L^{qc}$ is precisely the nullspace of $D.$
742: Thus, $L^{qc} \ub = \gb$ has a solution whenever $\sum_{j=-N+1}^N f_j = 0,$
743: since
744: $\sum_{j=-N+1}^N g_j = 0.$ This solution is unique up to
745: a constant.
746:
747: We now gather together the existence and uniqueness results stated
748: for the models.
749: \begin{lemma}
750: \label{wellposed}
751: If $\sum_{j=-N+1}^N f_j = 0$ and $\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F} > 0,$ then the
752: linearized atomistic energy~\eqref{at} and continuum approximation~\eqref{cont}
753: both have a global minimum that is unique up to an additive constant.
754:
755: Under the slightly stronger assumption $\phi''_F + 5 \phi''_{2F} > 0,$ the quasicontinuum
756: energy~\eqref{qceTot} has a unique minimizer up to a constant.
757: \end{lemma}
758:
759: Here, and in the following, we take $\fb = \zerob,$ in order to focus
760: on the effect of the ghost force $\gb.$ Under this assumption, we can
761: conclude that the unique mean zero solution to the QCE equilibrium
762: equations~\eqref{qc1} is odd. This follows from $S^{-1}=S$ and
763: \eqref{S} which together imply that $S\ub$ is a solution if and only
764: if $\ub$ is. Because $S$ preserves the mean zero property, we
765: conclude that $\ub_{qc}$ is odd.
766: The unique odd solution to the atomistic equations,
767: $L^{a,h} \ub_a = \zerob,$ is $\ub_a =\zerob.$ Thus, the QCE
768: equilibrium equations,
769: \begin{equation}
770: \label{elqce}
771: L^{qc,h} \ub_{qc} - \gb=\zerob,
772: \end{equation}
773: are also the error equations, and the quasicontinuum solution is
774: the error in approximating $\ub_a.$
775:
776: \subsection{Discrete Sobolev Norms}
777: The effect of the interface terms on the total error is
778: norm-dependent, so we now employ discrete analogs of Sobolev
779: norms~\cite{ortnersuli}. We define the discrete weak derivative by
780: \begin{equation*}
781: u'_j = \frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j}}{h}.
782: \end{equation*}
783: For $1 \leq p < \infty$ the discrete Sobolev norms are given by
784: \begin{equation*}
785: \begin{split}
786: \lpnorm{u}{p} &= \left(\sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} h |u_j|^p\right)^{1/p}, \\
787: \wpnorm{u}{p} &= \lpnorm{u}{p}
788: + \lpnorm{u'}{p},
789: %\left(\sum_{j=-N+1}^{N} h |u'_j|^p\right)^{1/p},
790: \end{split}
791: \end{equation*}
792: and for $p = \infty$ by
793: \begin{equation*}
794: \begin{split}
795: \lpnorm{u}{\infty} &= \max_{-N+1 \leq j \leq N} |u_j|, \\
796: \wpnorm{u}{\infty} &= \lpnorm{u}{\infty}
797: + \lpnorm{u'}{\infty}.
798: %\max_{-N+1 \leq j \leq N} |u'_j|.
799: \end{split}
800: \end{equation*}
801: The above discrete Sobolev norms are equivalent to the standard Sobolev
802: norms restricted to the continuous, piecewise linear interpolants
803: $u(x)$ satisfying $ u(j/N)=u_j$ for $j = -N+1,\dots,N.$
804:
805:
806: \section{Convergence of the Quasicontinuum Solution}
807: \label{sec:comp}
808:
809: We now analyze the quasicontinuum error, $\ub_{qc}.$ We note that is
810: it theoretically possible to solve~\eqref{elqce} explicitly for $\ub_{qc};$
811: however, the form of the solution is complicated by the second-neighbor
812: coupling in the atomistic region, so we instead obtain estimates for the decay
813: of the error, $\ub_{qc},$ by analyzing a O($h^2$)-accurate approximation of the
814: error.
815: Figure~\ref{qc_comp} shows the results of solving~\eqref{elqce} numerically
816: for odd solutions, $u_j = -u_{-j},$ with three choices of lattice spacing
817: and two sets of parameters. Note that for both sets of parameters, the
818: magnitude decays linearly with $h,$ whereas the displacement gradient
819: is O($1$) in the atomistic to continuum region.
820: %TODO: IS THIS TOO REPETITIVE WITH THE CAPTION OF FIGURE 1?
821: The following argument proves the
822: qualitative error behavior analytically.
823: \begin{figure}
824: \begin{center}
825: \includegraphics[height=7.5in]{all_int}
826: \end{center}
827: \caption{\label{qc_comp}
828: Error for the energy-based quasicontinuum
829: approximation, $\ub_{qc}.$
830: We observe that the magnitude of the error is O($h$).
831: However, the oscillation near the interface means that the
832: error in the displacement gradient is O($1$)
833: in the interfacial region. The average deformation gradient, $F,$ for the right
834: column is close to failing the stability condition
835: $\phi''_{F} + 5 \phi''_{2 F} > 0.$ In all plots $K = N/2$ and
836: $\phi'_{2F} = 1.$}
837: \end{figure}
838:
839: \subsection{Form of the Solution}
840: In the interior of the continuum region the solution is linear, but
841: in the atomistic region $\ub_{qc}$ is the sum of a linear
842: solution and
843: exponential solutions.
844: The homogeneous atomistic difference scheme
845: \begin{equation}\label{ato}
846: - \phi''_{2F} u_{j+2} - \phi''_F u_{j+1} + (2 \phi''_F + 2 \phi''_{2F}) u_j - \phi''_F u_{j-1} - \phi''_{2F} u_{j-2}
847: = 0%,\qquad -\infty<j<\infty.
848: \end{equation}
849: has characteristic equation
850: \begin{equation*}
851: - \phi''_{2F} \Lambda^2 - \phi''_F \Lambda + (2 \phi''_F + 2 \phi''_{2F})
852: - \phi''_F \Lambda^{-1} - \phi''_{2F} \Lambda^{-2}
853: = 0,%,\qquad -\infty<j<\infty.
854: \end{equation*}
855: with roots
856: \begin{equation*}
857: 1, 1, \lambda, \frac{1}{\lambda},
858: \end{equation*}
859: where
860: \begin{equation*}
861: \lambda=\frac{(\phi''_F + 2 \phi''_{2F})
862: + \sqrt{(\phi''_F)^2 + 4 \phi''_F \phi''_{2F}}}{-2 \phi''_{2F}}.
863: \end{equation*}
864: Based on the assumptions on $\phi$ in~\eqref{assume} and~\eqref{assume2}, we
865: have that $\lambda > 1.$ We note that if $\phi''_{2F}$ were positive
866: contrary to assumption~\eqref{assume}, then $\lambda$ would
867: be negative which would give a damped oscillatory error in the
868: atomistic region. General solutions of the homogeneous atomistic
869: equations~\eqref{ato} have the form $u_j = C_1 + C_2 h j + C_3 \lambda^j + C_4
870: \lambda^{-j},$ but seeking an odd solution reduces this to the form
871: $u_j = C_2 hj + C_3 (\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}).$
872:
873: The odd solution of the quasicontinuum error equations~\eqref{elqce}
874: is thus of the form
875: \begin{equation*}
876: (\ub_{qc})_j = \begin{cases}
877: m_1 hj + \beta \left(\frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^K}\right),
878: & 0 \leq j \leq K, \\
879: m_2 hj - m_2 + \tilde{u}_{K+1} , & j = K+1, \\
880: m_2 hj -m_2, & K+2 \leq j \leq N,
881: \end{cases}
882: \end{equation*}
883: where expressing the unknown $u_{K+1}$ using a perturbation of the
884: linear solution, $\tilde{u}_{K+1},$ simplifies the solution
885: of the equilibrium equations.
886: The four coefficients $m_1,\ m_2, \tilde{u}_{K+1}, \text{ and } \beta$ can be
887: found by satisfying the four equations in the interface, $j = K-1,\dots,K+2.$
888: Summing the equilibrium equations across the interface gives
889: \begin{equation*}
890: \begin{split}
891: 0 &= \sum_{j=K-1}^{K+2} g_j = \sum_{j=K-1}^{K+2} (L^{qc,h} \ub_{qc})_j \\
892: &= \phi''_F \left. \frac{u_{K-1} - u_{K-2}}{h^2} \right.
893: + 4 \phi''_{2F} \left.
894: \frac{u_K + u_{K-1} - u_{K-2} - u_{K-3}}{4 h^2} \right.\\
895: & \qquad - (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) \left( \frac{u_{K+3} - u_{K+2}}{h^2} \right)\\
896: &= (\phi''_F + 4 \phi''_{2F}) \left(\frac{m_1}{h} - \frac{m_2}{h}\right).
897: \end{split}
898: \end{equation*}
899: The cancellation of the exponential terms in the final equality holds
900: because
901: \begin{equation*}
902: \phi''_{2F}(\lambda^{K}-\lambda^{-K})+(\phi''_F+\phi''_{2F})(\lambda^{K-1}-\lambda^{-K+1}
903: -\lambda^{K-2}+\lambda^{-K+2})+\phi''_{2F}(-\lambda^{K-3}+\lambda^{-K+3})=0,
904: \end{equation*}
905: which can be seen by summing \eqref{ato} with the homogeneous solution
906: $u_j=-\lambda^j$ for $j=-K+2,\dots,K-2.$
907: %by noting that $\lambda$ is a root of
908: %$\sum_{j=-K+2}^{K-2} (L^{ac,h} \ub_{ac})_j.$
909: Thus $m_1=m_2,$ that is, the slope of the linear part
910: does not change across the interface.
911: Hence, the odd solution is given by
912: \begin{equation}
913: \label{qcform}
914: (\ub_{qc})_j = \begin{cases}
915: m hj + \beta \left(\frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^K}\right),
916: & 0 \leq j \leq K, \\
917: m hj - m + \tilde{u}_{K+1} , & j = K+1, \\
918: m hj -m, & K+2 \leq j \leq N,
919: \end{cases}
920: \end{equation}
921: where the coefficients $m, \tilde{u}_{K+1}, \text{ and } \beta$ can now be found
922: by satisfying any three of the equations in the interface, $j = K-1,\dots,K+2.$
923:
924:
925: \subsection{Magnitude of the Solution}
926: We focus on the equations at $j = K-1, K+1, \text{ and } K+2$ and split the
927: interface equations as $(A_K + h B) \xb = h \bb,$ where
928: \begin{equation*}
929: \begin{split}
930: A_K &= \left[
931: \begin{array}{rrr}
932: \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F}
933: & -\frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F}
934: &\phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K+1} - \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K-1} \\[3pt]
935: %
936: -\phi''_F -\frac{5}{2} \phi''_{2F}
937: &2\phi''_F +\frac{13}{2}\phi''_{2F}
938: &-\phi''_F\gamma_{K} -2\phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K} - \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K-1} \\[3pt]
939: %
940: - \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F}
941: & -\phi''_F - 4 \phi''_{2F}
942: &- \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K}
943: \end{array}
944: \right], \\
945: %
946: %
947: B &= \left[
948: \begin{array}{rrr}
949: \phi''_{2F} & 0 & 0 \\[3pt]
950: -\phi''_{2F} & 0 & 0\\[3pt]
951: \phi''_{2F} & 0 & 0
952: \end{array}
953: \right], \quad
954: %
955: %
956: \xb =
957: \left[
958: \begin{array}{r}
959: m \\
960: \tilde{u}_{K+1} \\
961: \beta
962: \end{array}
963: \right], \quad
964: %
965: %
966: \bb = \frac{1}{2} \phi'_{2F} \left[
967: \begin{array}{r}
968: -1 \\
969: 1 \\
970: -1
971: \end{array}
972: \right],
973: \end{split}
974: \end{equation*}
975: and $\gamma_j = \frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^{K}}.$
976: We note that $A_K,$ $B,$ and $\bb$ do not depend on $h$ directly,
977: though $A_K$ may have indirect dependence if $K$ scales with $h$ as in
978: Figure~\ref{qc_comp}.
979: Therefore, we can neglect $B$ and conclude that $\xb$ is $O(h)$ provided
980: that $A_K^{-1}$ exists and is bounded uniformly in $K.$
981:
982: \begin{lemma}
983: \label{fullrank}
984: For all $K$ satisfying $2\le K\le N-2,$ the matrix $A_K$ is nonsingular and
985: $||A_K^{-1}|| \leq C$ where $C>0$ is
986: independent of $K.$
987: \end{lemma}
988:
989: \begin{proof}
990: Applying row reductions gives the upper triangular form
991: \begin{equation*}
992: \begin{split}
993: \widetilde{A} &= \left[
994: \begin{array}{rrr}
995: \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} & -\frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} & \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K+1} -
996: \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K-1} \\[3pt]
997: 0 & -\phi''_F - \frac{9}{2} \phi''_{2F} & \phi''_{2F} \gamma_{K+1} -
998: \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \gamma_K - \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F}
999: \gamma_{K-1}\\[3pt]
1000: 0 & 0 & \eta_K
1001: \end{array}
1002: \right]
1003: \end{split}
1004: \end{equation*}
1005: where
1006: \begin{equation*}
1007: \eta_K = \textstyle \left(
1008: (\phi''_F)^2 + \frac{15}{2} \phi''_F \phi''_{2F} + \frac{53}{4}(\phi''_{2F})^2
1009: \right) \left(2 \gamma_{K+1} - \gamma_K - \gamma_{K-1}\right)
1010: + \frac{1}{2} \phi''_{2F} \left(\phi''_F + \frac{9}{2}
1011: \phi''_{2F}\right) \left(\gamma_K - \gamma_{K-1}\right).
1012: \end{equation*}
1013: If the diagonal entries of $\widetilde{A}$ are
1014: non-zero, then $A_K$ is nonsingular.
1015: The coercivity assumption $\phi''_F + 5 \phi''_{2F} >0$~\eqref{assume2}
1016: implies that
1017: $-\phi''_F - 9/2 \phi''_{2F} < 0$ since $\phi''_{2F} <0,$ so the first
1018: and second
1019: diagonal entries are non-zero. Since the second term of $\eta_K$ is negative,
1020: we can use the fact that
1021: $\gamma_K-\gamma_{K-1} < 2 \gamma_{K+1} - \gamma_K - \gamma_{K-1}$ to see that
1022: \begin{equation*}
1023: \begin{split}
1024: \eta_K &> \textstyle \left(
1025: (\phi''_F)^2 + 8 \phi''_F \phi''_{2F} + \frac{62}{4} (\phi''_{2F})^2\right)
1026: \left(2 \gamma_{K+1} - \gamma_K - \gamma_{K-1}\right)\\
1027: &= \textstyle \left(\phi''_F
1028: + \left(4 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \phi''_{2F}\right)
1029: \left(\phi''_F + \left(4 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \phi''_{2F}\right)
1030: \left(2 \gamma_{K+1} - \gamma_K - \gamma_{K-1}\right)\\
1031: &> 0.
1032: \end{split}
1033: \end{equation*}
1034: Therefore, $A^{-1}_K$ exists for all $K.$ Taking limits, we find
1035: \begin{equation*}
1036: \lim_{K\to\infty} \eta_K \geq
1037: \textstyle \left(\phi''_F
1038: + \left(4 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \phi''_{2F}\right)
1039: \left(\phi''_F + \left(4 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \phi''_{2F}\right)
1040: \left(2 \lambda - 1 - \lambda^{-1}\right) > 0,
1041: \end{equation*}
1042: where we note that the elementary matrices corresponding to the row reduction
1043: operations did not depend on $K$ so that $\lim_{K\to\infty} A_K$ is
1044: nonsingular.
1045: The inverse of a matrix
1046: is continuous as a function of the entries whenever the matrix is nonsingular.
1047: Thus, the fact that $\lim_{K\to\infty} A_K$ is nonsingular implies that
1048: $\lim_{K\to\infty} ||A_K^{-1}||$ is finite.
1049: Since $||A_K^{-1}||$ is finite for all $K$ and
1050: $\lim_{K\to\infty} ||A_K^{-1}||$ is finite, we conclude that
1051: $||A_K^{-1}||$ is uniformly bounded.
1052: \end{proof}
1053:
1054: Thus, we have that $m, \tilde{u}_{K+1},$ and $\beta$ are all O($h$). We can
1055: express the derivative, $\ub'_{qc},$ as
1056: \begin{equation*}
1057: (\ub'_{qc})_j = \begin{cases}
1058: m + \frac{\beta}{h}
1059: \left( \frac{\lambda^{j+1} - \lambda^{-j-1}}{\lambda^K }
1060: - \frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^K } \right), & 0 \leq j \leq K-1, \\
1061: m - \frac{m}{h} + \frac{\tilde{u}_{K+1}}{h} - \frac{\beta}{h}
1062: \left( \frac{\lambda^K - \lambda^{-K}}{\lambda^K }\right), & j = K, \\
1063: m - \frac{\tilde{u}_{K+1}}{h}, & j = K+1, \\
1064: m, & K+2\leq j \leq N-1,
1065: \end{cases}
1066: \end{equation*}
1067: where $u'_{-j-1} = u'_j$ for $j = 0, \dots, N-1.$
1068:
1069: \begin{theorem}
1070: \label{thm2}
1071: Let $\ub_{qc}$ be the solution to the QC error equation~\eqref{elqce}.
1072: Then for $1 \leq p \leq \infty, $ $2\le K\le N-2,$ and $h$ sufficiently small,
1073: the error can be bounded by
1074: \begin{equation*}
1075: \begin{split}
1076: \lpnorm{\ub_{qc}}{\infty} &\leq C h, \\
1077: \wpnorm{\ub_{qc}}{p} &\leq C h^{1/p},
1078: \end{split}
1079: \end{equation*}
1080: where $C>0$ is independent of $h, K,$ and $p.$
1081: \end{theorem}
1082:
1083: \begin{proof}
1084: The result for the $\ell^{\infty}$ norm follows from the fact that
1085: all terms in $\eqref{qcform}$ are O($h$). To show the bound on
1086: $w^{1,p},$ we first apply the triangle inequality to separate the $m,
1087: \frac{\tilde{u}_{k+1}}{h}, \frac{m}{h},$ and $\frac{\beta}{h}$ terms
1088: which we bound using the fact that $\tilde{u}_{K+1}, m,$ and $\beta$
1089: are $O(h).$ We have
1090: \begin{equation*}
1091: \begin{split}
1092: \wpnorm{\ub_{qc}}{p} &= \lpnorm{\ub_{qc}}{p} + \lpnorm{\ub_{qc}'}{p} \\
1093: &\leq \lpnorm{\ub_{qc}}{p} + |m|
1094: + \left(2 \left| \frac{m}{h}\right|^{p} h \right)^{1/p}
1095: + \left(4 \left| \frac{\tilde{u}_{K+1}}{h}\right|^{p} h \right)^{1/p}
1096: \\
1097: %&\qquad + \left( h \sum^{K-1}_{j=-K-1} \left|\frac{\beta}{h}
1098: % \frac{\lambda^{j+1} - \lambda^{-j-1}}{\lambda^K}\right|^p
1099: % \right)^{1/p} \\
1100: &\qquad + 2 \left( h \sum^{K}_{j=-K} \left|\frac{\beta}{h}
1101: \frac{(\lambda^{j} - \lambda^{-j})}{\lambda^K}\right|^p
1102: \right)^{1/p} \\
1103: %&\leq C h^{1/p} + 2 \left( 2h \sum^{K}_{j=0} \left| \frac{\beta}{h}
1104: % \frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^K} \right|^p
1105: % \right)^{1/p}\\
1106: &\leq C h^{1/p} + \frac{2 |\beta|}{h} \left( 2h \sum^{K}_{j=0}
1107: \left| \frac{\lambda^j }{\lambda^K} \right|^p
1108: \right)^{1/p}\\
1109: &\leq C h^{1/p} + \frac{2 |\beta|}{h} \left( 2 h
1110: \frac{ \lambda^p}{\lambda^p - 1} \right)^{1/p} \\
1111: &\leq C h^{1/p}. \qedhere
1112: \end{split}
1113: \end{equation*}
1114: \end{proof}
1115:
1116: Finally, we show that the pointwise error in the derivative, $\ub'_{qc},$
1117: decays exponentially in $j$ to O($h$) away from the interface in the atomistic
1118: region and decays immediately to O($h$) away from the interface in the continuum region.
1119: \begin{lemma}
1120: There is a $C > 0$ such that
1121: $|(\ub'_{qc})_j| \le C h$
1122: for all $0\le j \leq K + \frac{\ln h}{\ln \lambda}$ and
1123: $K+2 \leq j \leq N.$
1124: Thus, the interface has size O($h |\log h|$).
1125: \end{lemma}
1126:
1127: \begin{proof}
1128: For $h$ sufficiently small, we have that
1129: $\max(m, \beta) \leq C h.$
1130: Since $u'_j = m$ for $K+2 \leq j \leq N,$ in this region
1131: $u'_j \le C h.$ For the terms $0 \leq j \leq K-1$ it is sufficient to show that
1132: the exponential term is less than or equal to $C h.$
1133: For $0 \leq j \leq K + \frac{\ln h}{\ln \lambda},$ we have that
1134: \begin{equation*}
1135: \begin{split}
1136: \left( \frac{\lambda^{j+1} - \lambda^{-j-1}}{\lambda^K }
1137: - \frac{\lambda^j - \lambda^{-j}}{\lambda^K } \right)
1138: & \leq \lambda^{j+1 - K} \\
1139: &\leq \lambda^{K + \frac{\ln h}{\ln \lambda} +1 - K}\\
1140: &\leq C h. \qedhere
1141: \end{split}
1142: \end{equation*}
1143: \end{proof}
1144:
1145: \begin{remark}\label{coarsen}
1146: In order reduce the degrees of freedom, the continuum region is
1147: coarsened in computations using the quasicontinuum method.
1148: For simplicity, coarsening was omitted
1149: from the model presented in this paper, but, in fact, the results are unchanged if it is used.
1150: Conventionally, coarsening only occurs away from the atomistic to
1151: continuum interface, so that no degrees of freedom are removed if they
1152: interact directly with the atomistic region. Since the solution $u_j$
1153: is linear for $K+2 \leq j \leq N,$ any level of coarsening produces
1154: an identical solution.
1155:
1156:
1157: \end{remark}
1158:
1159: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1160:
1161: \bibitem{arndtluskin07a}
1162: M.~Arndt and M.~Luskin.
1163: \newblock Goal-oriented atomistic-continuum adaptivity for the quasicontinuum
1164: approximation.
1165: \newblock {\em International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering},
1166: 5:407--415, 2007.
1167:
1168: \bibitem{arndtluskin07b}
1169: M.~Arndt and M.~Luskin.
1170: \newblock Error estimation and atomistic-continuum adaptivity for the
1171: quasicontinuum approximation of a {Frenkel-Kontorova} model.
1172: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling \& Simulation}, 7:147--170, 2008.
1173:
1174: \bibitem{ArndtLuskin:2007c}
1175: M.~Arndt and M.~Luskin.
1176: \newblock Goal-oriented adaptive mesh refinement for the quasicontinuum
1177: approximation of a {Frenkel-Kontorova} model.
1178: \newblock {\em Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering}, to
1179: appear.
1180:
1181: \bibitem{BadiaParksBochevGunzburgerLehoucq:2007}
1182: S.~Badia, M.~L. Parks, P.~B. Bochev, M.~Gunzburger, and R.~B. Lehoucq.
1183: \newblock On atomistic-to-continuum {(AtC)} coupling by blending.
1184: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling \& Simulation}, 7(1):381--406, 2008.
1185:
1186: \bibitem{legollqc05}
1187: X.~Blanc, C.~Le~Bris, and F.~Legoll.
1188: \newblock Analysis of a prototypical multiscale method coupling atomistic and
1189: continuum mechanics.
1190: \newblock {\em M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.}, 39(4):797--826, 2005.
1191:
1192: \bibitem{curtin_miller_coupling}
1193: W.~Curtin and R.~Miller.
1194: \newblock Atomistic/continuum coupling in computational materials science.
1195: \newblock {\em Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng.}, 11(3):R33--R68, 2003.
1196:
1197: \bibitem{dobs08}
1198: M.~Dobson and M.~Luskin.
1199: \newblock Analysis of a force-based quasicontinuum method.
1200: \newblock {\em M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.}, 42:113--139, 2008.
1201:
1202: \bibitem{e06}
1203: W.~E., J.~Lu, and J.~Yang.
1204: \newblock Uniform accuracy of the quasicontinuum method.
1205: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. B}, 74:214115, 2006.
1206:
1207: \bibitem{e05}
1208: W.~E and P.~Ming.
1209: \newblock Analysis of the local quasicontinuum method.
1210: \newblock In T.~Li and P.~Zhang, editors, {\em Frontiers and Prospects of
1211: Contemporary Applied Mathematics}, pages 18--32. Higher Education Press,
1212: World Scientific, 2005.
1213:
1214: \bibitem{emingyang}
1215: W.~E, P.~Ming, and J.~Z. Yang.
1216: \newblock Analysis of the quasicontinuum method.
1217: \newblock manuscript, 2007.
1218:
1219: \bibitem{knaportiz}
1220: J.~Knap and M.~Ortiz.
1221: \newblock An analysis of the quasicontinuum method.
1222: \newblock {\em J. Mech. Phys. Solids}, 49:1899--1923, 2001.
1223:
1224: \bibitem{pinglin03}
1225: P.~Lin.
1226: \newblock Theoretical and numerical analysis for the quasi-continuum
1227: approximation of a material particle model.
1228: \newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 72(242):657--675 (electronic), 2003.
1229:
1230: \bibitem{pinglin05}
1231: P.~Lin.
1232: \newblock Convergence analysis of a quasi-continuum approximation for a
1233: two-dimensional material.
1234: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 45(1):313--332, 2007.
1235:
1236: \bibitem{miller_indent}
1237: R.~Miller, L.~Shilkrot, and W.~Curtin.
1238: \newblock A coupled atomistic and discrete dislocation plasticity simulation of
1239: nano-indentation into single crystal thin films.
1240: \newblock {\em Acta Mater.}, 52(2):271--284, 2003.
1241:
1242: \bibitem{mill02}
1243: R.~Miller and E.~Tadmor.
1244: \newblock The quasicontinuum method: Overview, applications and current
1245: directions.
1246: \newblock {\em J. Comput. Aided Mater. Des.}, 9(3):203--239, 2002.
1247:
1248: \bibitem{oden06}
1249: J.~T. Oden, S.~Prudhomme, A.~Romkes, and P.~Bauman.
1250: \newblock Multi-scale modeling of physical phenomena: Adaptive control of
1251: models.
1252: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing}, 28(6):2359--2389, 2006.
1253:
1254: \bibitem{OrtnerSueli:2006d}
1255: C.~Ortner and E.~S\"uli.
1256: \newblock A-posteriori analysis and adaptive algorithms for the quasicontinuum
1257: method in one dimension.
1258: \newblock Research Report NA-06/13, Oxford University Computing Laboratory,
1259: 2006.
1260:
1261: \bibitem{ortnersuli}
1262: C.~Ortner and E.~S\"uli.
1263: \newblock Analysis of a quasicontinuum method in one dimension.
1264: \newblock {\em M2AN}, 42:57--91, 2008.
1265:
1266: \bibitem{ParksBochevLehoucq:2007}
1267: M.~L. Parks, P.~B. Bochev, and R.~B. Lehoucq.
1268: \newblock Connecting atomistic-to-continuum coupling and domain decomposition.
1269: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling \& Simulation}, 7(1):362--380, 2008.
1270:
1271: \bibitem{prud06}
1272: S.~Prudhomme, P.~T. Bauman, and J.~T. Oden.
1273: \newblock Error control for molecular statics problems.
1274: \newblock {\em International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering},
1275: 4(5-6):647--662, 2006.
1276:
1277: \bibitem{rodney_gf}
1278: D.~Rodney and R.~Phillips.
1279: \newblock Structure and strength of dislocation junctions: An atomic level
1280: analysis.
1281: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 82(8):1704--1707, Feb 1999.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{shenoy_gf}
1284: V.~Shenoy, R.~Miller, E.~Tadmor, D.~Rodney, R.~Phillips, and M.~Ortiz.
1285: \newblock An adaptive finite element approach to atomic-scale mechanics --- the
1286: quasicontinuum method.
1287: \newblock {\em J. Mech. Phys. Solids}, 47(3):611--642, March 1999.
1288:
1289: \bibitem{jacobsen04}
1290: T.~Shimokawa, J.~Mortensen, J.~Schiotz, and K.~Jacobsen.
1291: \newblock Matching conditions in the quasicontinuum method: Removal of the
1292: error introduced at the interface between the coarse-grained and fully
1293: atomistic regions.
1294: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. B}, 69(21):214104, 2004.
1295:
1296: \bibitem{strangfix}
1297: G.~Strang and G.~Fix.
1298: \newblock {\em Analysis of the Finite Elements Method}.
1299: \newblock Prentice Hall, 1973.
1300:
1301: \bibitem{tadm96}
1302: E.~Tadmor, M.~Ortiz, and R.~Phillips.
1303: \newblock Quasicontinuum analysis of defects in solids.
1304: \newblock {\em Phil. Mag. A}, 73(6):1529--1563, 1996.
1305:
1306: \end{thebibliography}
1307:
1308: }
1309:
1310: \end{document}
1311:
1312: