1:  \documentclass[11pt,reqno,oneside]{amsart}

2:  \usepackage{verbatim,amsmath,amssymb,cite,epsfig,xspace}

3: 

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\Real\cup\{+\infty\

5: % Page layout for top matter %

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: \hoffset        0.0in

8: \voffset        0.0pt

9: \evensidemargin 0.0in

10: \oddsidemargin  0.0in

11: \topmargin      0.0in

12: \headheight     12pt

13: \headsep        24pt

14: \textheight     8.6in

15: \textwidth      6.5in

16: \marginparsep   0.0in

17: \marginparwidth 0.0in

18: \footskip       0.5in

19: 

20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

21: % Declaration section %

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

24: 

25: \theoremstyle{plain}

26: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

27: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

28: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]

29: \theoremstyle{definition}

30: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]

31: 

32: \theoremstyle{remark}

33: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]

34: %\newtheorem{notation}{Notation}[section]

35: \newtheorem{example}{Example}[section]

36: 

37: \hyphenation{qua-si-con-tin-u-um}

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: % My own macros %

40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

41: \newcommand{\Real}{\mathbb R}

42: \newcommand{\Nat}{\mathbb N}

43: \newcommand{\Vector}{\mathbb R^3}

44: \newcommand{\Mat}{\mathbb R^{3\times3}}

45: \newcommand{\Rot}{\text{SO}(3)}

46: \newcommand{\pb}{\mathbf \Psi}

47: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathbf \Phi}

48: \newcommand{\ab}{\mathbf a_0}

49: \newcommand{\az}{\mathbf a}

50: \newcommand{\fb}{\mathbf f}

51: \newcommand{\gb}{\mathbf g}

52: \newcommand{\hb}{\mathbf h}

53: \newcommand{\nb}{\mathbf n}

54: \newcommand{\rb}{\mathbf r}

55: \newcommand{\Rb}{\mathbf R}

56: \newcommand{\sbf}{\mathbf s}

57: \newcommand{\yb}{\mathbf y}

58: \newcommand{\zb}{\mathbf z}

59: \newcommand{\A}{{\mathcal A}}

60: \newcommand{\B}{{\mathcal B}}

61: \newcommand{\F}{{\mathcal F}}

62: \newcommand{\C}{{\mathcal C}}

63: \newcommand{\E}{{\mathcal E}}

64: \newcommand{\Po}{{\mathcal P}}

65: \newcommand{\Su}{{\mathcal S}}

66: \newcommand{\Haus}{{\mathcal H}}

67: \newcommand{\dist}{\operatorname{dist}}

68: \newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{tr}}

69: \newcommand{\diver}{\operatorname{div}}

70: \newcommand{\np}{\nabla_{\negthickspace P}}

71: \newcommand{\DP}{D\!_P}

72: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.,\xspace}

73: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.,\xspace}

74: \def\jump#1{\lbrack\!\lbrack\,#1\,\rbrack\!\rbrack}

75: \def\Jump#1{\Big[\!\!\Big[#1\Big]\!\!\Big]}

76: \def\maxnorm#1{||#1||_\infty}

77: 

78: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

79: \newcommand{\on}{on $\{z_{-N},\dots,z_j\}$}

80: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{argmax}

81: \DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{argmin}

82: 

83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

84: % Beginning of the document %

85: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

86: \begin{document}

87: 

88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

89: % Topmatter %

90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

91: \title[Analysis of a  Force-Based Quasicontinuum Approximation]

92: {Analysis of a Force-Based Quasicontinuum Approximation}

93: %%%%%%%%%%%

94: % Authors %

95: %%%%%%%%%%%

96: \author{Matthew Dobson}

97: \author{Mitchell Luskin}

98: 

99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

100: % Addresses %

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: \address{Matthew Dobson\\

103: School of Mathematics \\

104: University of Minnesota \\

105: 206 Church Street SE \\

106: Minneapolis, MN 55455 \\

107: U.S.A.}

108: \email{dobson@math.umn.edu}

109: 

110: 

111: \address{Mitchell Luskin \\

112: School of Mathematics \\

113: University of Minnesota \\

114: 206 Church Street SE \\

115: Minneapolis, MN 55455 \\

116: U.S.A.}

117: \email{luskin@umn.edu}

118: 

119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

120: % Acknowledments %

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: \thanks{This work was supported in part by

123:  DMS-0304326

124:   and by the Minnesota Supercomputer Institute.

125:   This work is also based on

126: work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number

127: DE-FG02-05ER25706.

128: }

129: 

130: %%%%%%%%%%%%

131: % Keywords %

132: %%%%%%%%%%%%

133: \keywords{quasicontinuum, ghost force, atomistic to continuum}

134: 

135: 

136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

137: % Subject class %

138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

139: \subjclass[2000]{65Z05,70C20}

140: 

141: %%%%%%%%

142: % Date %

143: %%%%%%%%

144: \date{\today}

145: 

146: %%%%%%%%%%%%

147: % Abstract %

148: %%%%%%%%%%%%

149: 

150: \begin{abstract}

151: We analyze a force-based quasicontinuum approximation to a

152: one-dimensional system of atoms that interact by a classical

153: atomistic potential. This force-based quasicontinuum approximation

154: can be derived as the modification of an energy-based

155: quasicontinuum approximation by the addition of nonconservative

156: forces to correct nonphysical ``ghost'' forces that occur

157: in the

158: atomistic to continuum interface.  The algorithmic simplicity

159: and improved accuracy of the

160: force-based quasicontinuum approximation has made it

161: popular for large-scale quasicontinuum computations.

162: 

163: We prove that the force-based quasicontinuum equations have

164: a unique solution when the magnitude of the external forces satisfy

165: explicit bounds.   For Lennard-Jones next-nearest-neighbor

166: interactions, we show that unique solutions exist

167: for external forces that extend the system nearly to its tensile limit.

168: 

169: We give an analysis of the convergence of the ghost force iteration method

170: to solve the equilibrium equations for the force-based quasicontinuum approximation.

171: We show that the ghost force iteration is a contraction and give an analysis for its

172: convergence rate.

173: \end{abstract}

174: 

175: %%%%%%%%

176: % Body %

177: %%%%%%%%

178: \maketitle

179: {

180: \thispagestyle{empty}

181: 

182: \section{Introduction}

183: 

184: The local lattice structure for minimum energy configurations

185: of atomistic systems subject to external

186: forces is usually slowly varying except near defects such as

187: dislocations~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview}.

188: Quasicontinuum methods efficiently approximate

189: these multiscale features by maintaining

190: atomistic degrees of freedom near defects and coarse-graining

191: the atomistic degrees of freedom in regions where the local lattice

192: structure is nearly uniform through the introduction of

193: representative atoms~

194: \cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview,tadmor_qc_first,knaportiz}.

195: The efficiency of quasicontinuum methods has

196: allowed the simulation of more complex

197: problems than can be computed using a completely atomistic

198: model~\cite{shenoy_gf}.

199: 

200: Many quasicontinuum methods have been

201: proposed~\cite{tadmor_qc_first, knaportiz,ezhang06,

202: tadmor_miller_qc_overview, rodney_gf, miller_indent, ortnersuli, jacobsen04},

203: and each version gives a

204: different quasicontinuum approximation of the atomistic system.

205: A force-based quasicontinuum approximation has been proposed that

206: modifies an energy-based quasicontinuum approximation

207: by the addition of nonconservative forces to correct nonphysical

208: ``ghost'' forces that occur in the atomistic to continuum interface

209: ~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview,rodney_gf,shenoy_gf,knaportiz}.

210: The force-based quasicontinuum approximation has been popular

211: for large-scale computations

212: since the improved accuracy is obtained with no additional

213: computational work simply by computing the

214: force on each representative atom with either

215: an atomistic algorithm or with

216: a continuum finite element algorithm

217: ~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview,rodney_gf,shenoy_gf,knaportiz,PrudhommeBaumanOden:2005}.

218: 

219: Adaptive mesh and error control have been successfully used

220: with the force-based quasicontinuum approximation

221: to efficiently choose representative atoms

222: ~\cite{shenoy_gf,knaportiz,PrudhommeBaumanOden:2005,OdenPrudhommeRomkesBauman:2005}.

223: The number of representative atoms surrounding defects that need to be

224: modeled atomistically (the core of the defect) can be determined by the 

225: error tolerance, and the mesh in the continuum region surrounding the core 

226: can be coarsened beyond the atomistic-continuum interface wherever the 

227: deformation gradient varies slowly.  For simplicity,

228: reported implementations have not coarsened within the

229: cut-off radius of atomistic representative atoms, but it is possible

230: to coarsen immediately beyond the atomistic-continuum interface by

231: interpolating between continuum representative atoms.

232: 

233: In Section~\ref{model},

234: we give a derivation following~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview,rodney_gf,shenoy_gf,knaportiz}

235: of several quasicontinuum

236: approximations leading to the derivation of

237: the force-based quasicontinuum approximation.

238: In Section~\ref{integ}, we reformulate the equilibrium equations

239: as a balance of forces conjugate to the distances between representative

240: atoms, rather than as a balance of forces conjugate to the

241: positions of the representative atoms.  Our derivation

242: and reformulation gives the

243: mathematical structure that is used in

244: our analysis.

245: 

246: In Section~\ref{exist}, we prove that the force-based

247: quasicontinuum equations have a unique solution under suitable

248: restrictions on the loads.  In the case of Lennard-Jones

249: next-nearest-neighbor interactions, we determine bounds

250: for the magnitude of the loads for which

251: unique solutions exist and find that the allowable loads

252: extend quite close to the tensile limit.

253: 

254: In Section~\ref{iterza}, we give an analysis of the convergence

255: of the ghost force iteration method that has been most commonly used

256: to solve the equilibrium equations for the

257: force-based quasicontinuum approximation

258: ~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview,rodney_gf,shenoy_gf,knaportiz}.

259: We prove that the ghost force iteration is a contraction and give

260: a bound for its

261: convergence rate.  We show that our bound for the convergence rate

262: gives a high convergence rate

263: when applied to the Lennard-Jones model subject to moderate

264: external forces.

265: 

266: Mathematical analyses of energy-based versions of the

267: quasicontinuum approximation that do not include ghost force

268: corrections have been given in

269: ~\cite{pinglin03,pinglin05,legollqc05,ortnersuli,ortnersuli2,minge04,minge05},

270: and a simplified version of our analysis can be used to prove

271: the existence of solutions to these energy-based quasicontinuum approximations.

272:  We show, though, that the ghost forces are

273: nonconservative forces, so they cannot be derived from an energy.

274: Thus, the force-based quasicontinuum approximation cannot be

275: completely analyzed by energy methods.

276: 

277: We refer to \cite{lions} for a review of current progress on

278: the mathematical analysis of atomistic to continuum models for

279: solids and to \cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview} for an introduction

280: and overview of the quasicontinuum approximation.

281: 

282: \section{Quasicontinuum Approximations}

283: \label{model}

284: 

285: In this section, we describe a sequence of

286: one-dimensional coarse-grained approximations

287: of a chain of atoms with nearest-neighbor and

288: next-nearest-neighbor interactions

289: given by a classical two-body potential, $\phi(r).$  We assume that

290: the atomistic potential

291: $\phi(r)$ is defined for all $r>0.$

292: 

293: We begin with the atomistic model, which has degrees of freedom for

294: all atomic positions

295: and computes a total internal energy directly from pairwise interactions.  From there,

296: we examine the constrained atomistic approximation and

297: the local quasicontinuum approximation which both

298: decrease the degrees of freedom by interpolating atomic positions between

299: representative atoms.

300: We then introduce an energy-based and a force-based quasicontinuum

301: approximation which span atomistic and continuum scales by combining

302: atomistic regions where the atoms directly interact according to the

303: atomistic model and continuum regions where the atoms interact according

304: to the local quasicontinuum approximation.  We observe that the

305: energy-based quasicontinuum approximation gives nonphysical

306: ghost forces near the atomistic to continuum interface that are

307: corrected by the force-based quasicontinuum approximation.

308: 

309: \subsection{The Atomistic Model}

310: \begin{figure}[hb]

311: \includegraphics{atomistic_chain}

312: \caption{Atomistic chain with atoms labeled by their position.}

313: \end{figure}

314: We denote the positions of the atoms by

315: $y_{i}$ for $i=-M,\dots,M+1,$ where

316: $

317: y_{i}<y_{i+1}.

318: $

319: The total energy for the atomistic system with nearest-neighbor and

320: next-nearest-neighbor interactions given by the classical two-body

321: potential $\phi(r)$ is

322: \begin{equation*}

323: \E^a(\yb) = \sum_{i=-M}^{M} \left[

324: \phi(y_{i+1} - y_{i})+\phi(y_{i+2}-y_{i})

325: \right],

326: \end{equation*}

327: where $\yb=(y_{-M},\dots,y_{M+1})\in\Real^{2M+2}$

328: and where the boundary terms

329: $\phi(y_{i} - y_{j})$ above and in the following

330: should be understood to be zero

331: for $i\notin \{-M,\dots,M+1\}$ or $j\notin \{-M,\dots,M+1\}.$

332: We can also express the total energy in terms of energies associated with

333: each atom as

334: \begin{equation}\label{atom2}

335: \E^a(\yb) = \sum_{i=-M}^{M+1} \E_i^a(\yb)

336: \end{equation}

337: with

338: \begin{equation} \label{atompart}

339: \E_i^a(\yb) =

340: \half\Big[\phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i})

341: +\phi(y_{i +2}-y_{i})

342: + \phi(y_{i}-y_{i-1})

343: + \phi(y_{i}-y_{i-2})\Big].

344: \end{equation}

345: We then have that the force on the atom at position $y_{i}$

346: is given by

347: \begin{equation} \label{atomforce}

348: \begin{split}

349: F_{i}^a(\yb) &= -\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}

350: \Big[\phi(y_{i +1}-y_{i })

351: + \phi(y_{i +2}-y_{i})

352: + \phi(y_{i }-y_{i-1})

353: + \phi(y_{i }-y_{i -2})\Big] \\

354: &= \left[\eta(r_{i}) + \eta(r_{i}+r_{i+1})\right]

355:  - \left[\eta(r_{i-1}) + \eta(r_{i-1}+r_{i-2})\right],

356: \end{split}

357: \end{equation}

358: where $\eta(r) = \phi'(r)$ and $r_i=y_{i+1 }-y_{i }$ is the lattice spacing at $y_i.$

359: The terms $\eta(r_i)$ and $\eta(r_i+r_j)$ above and in the following

360: should be understood to be zero

361: for $i\notin \{-M,\dots,M\}$ or $j\notin \{-M,\dots,M\}.$

362: 

363: We now assume that the atoms are also subject to an external force,

364:  $\tilde f_{i}(y_i),$

365: that is obtained from an external potential energy of the form

366: \begin{equation*}

367: \Po^a(\yb)=\sum_{i=-M}^{M+1}\Po^a_i(y_i),

368: \end{equation*}

369: so

370: \begin{equation}

371: \label{totalp}

372: \tilde f_{i}(y_i)=-\frac{\partial \Po^a(\yb)}{\partial y_{i }}

373: =-\frac{\partial \Po^a_i(y_i)}{\partial y_{i }}.

374: \end{equation}

375: For example, such external forces may model the interaction of

376: the one-dimensional

377: chain with atoms in layers above and below the chain, as in the Frenkel

378: Kontorova model~\cite{marder}.

379: 

380: We then have the equilibrium equations

381: $$

382: F_{i}^a(\yb)+\tilde f_{i}(y_i)=0,\qquad i=-M,\dots,M+1.

383: $$

384: 

385: \subsection{The Constrained Atomistic Quasicontinuum Approximation}

386: One can reduce the degrees of freedom in the atomistic model by linearly

387: interpolating the positions of the atoms between a set of

388: representative atoms (see

389: \cite{ortnersuli} for an analysis in this case).

390: We introduce representative

391: atoms with positions $z_{j}$ such that

392: \begin{equation} \label{lat}

393: z_{j}=y_{\ell_j}\quad\text{for }j=-N,\dots,N+1,

394: \end{equation}

395: where $\ell_{-N}=-M,$ $\ell_{N+1}=M+1,$ and $\ell_j<\ell_{j+1}.$  We then let

396: $\nu_j = \ell_{j+1} - \ell_{j}$ denote the number of atoms between $z_{j}$

397: and $z_{j+1}$ (see Figure \ref{contchain}). We now have that

398: \begin{equation*}

399: r_j=\frac{z_{j+1} - z_{j}}{\nu_j}

400: \end{equation*}

401: is the

402: distance separating $\nu_j$ equally spaced atoms between

403: $z_j$ and $z_{j+1},$ and

404: we have the conservation of mass equation

405: \begin{equation} \label{conserve}

406: \sum_{j=-N}^{N} \nu_j=\sum_{j=-N}^{N}\left( \ell_{j+1} - \ell_{j}\right)=

407: \ell_{N+1}-\ell_{-N}=2 M + 1.

408: \end{equation}

409: \begin{figure}[htb]

410: \includegraphics{continuum_chain}

411: \caption{\label{contchain} A coarsening of the atomistic chain.}

412: \end{figure}

413: 

414: In the constrained atomistic model,

415: the positions of atoms between $z_{j}$ and $z_{j+1}$

416: are linearly interpolated as

417: \begin{equation}\label{conat}

418: y_{\ell_{j} + i } =

419: y_{\ell_{j+1}-(\nu_j- i) } =

420: \frac{\nu_j - i}{\nu_j} z_{j} +

421: \frac{i}{\nu_j} z_{j+1} \quad\text{for }0\leq i \leq \nu_j,

422: \end{equation}

423: and we define the total internal energy in terms of

424: $\zb = (z_{-N},\dots,z_{N+1}) \in \Real^{2N+2}$ to

425: again be the interaction enegy of all atoms in the chain,

426: computed according to \eqref{atom2}, giving

427: \begin{equation}

428: \label{con}

429: \E^c(\zb) =  \sum_{j=-M}^{M+1} \E_j^a(\yb(\zb)).

430: \end{equation}

431: 

432: So far, we have reduced the degrees of freedom necessary for denoting

433: the atomistic positions, but the total energy is still computed as a sum of

434: energy contributions from all of the atomistic degrees of freedom.

435: However, all nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor contributions

436: for atoms interpolated between a pair of represenative atoms are

437: identical due to the uniform spacing, so if $y_i$ does not denote

438: a representative atom we have that

439: \begin{equation*}

440: \phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i-1}) = \phi(2 (y_{i+1} - y_i)) = \phi(2(y_{i}-y_{i-1}))

441: = \phi(2 r_j) \quad \text{ for }\ell_j < i < \ell_{j+1}.

442: \end{equation*}

443: These interactions account for all of the energy contributions except for

444: next-nearest-neighbor interactions that straddle a representative atom.

445: We can treat these interactions by observing that

446: \begin{equation*}

447: \begin{split}

448: \phi(y_{i +1}&-y_{i-1}) -\half \phi(2 (y_{i}-y_{i-1}))

449: -\half \phi(2 (y_{i+1} - y_{i})) \\ &=

450: \begin{cases}

451: \phi(r_{j-1}+r_j)-\half \phi(2r_{j-1})- \half \phi(2r_j) ,& \text{ if }y_i=z_j\text{ for some }j=-N,\dots,N+1,\\

452: 0,&\text{ if }y_i\ne z_j\text{ for all }j=-N,\dots,N+1.

453: \end{cases}

454: \end{split}

455: \end{equation*}

456: 

457: We can therefore partition the total energy into the energy

458: of the region between

459: $z_{j}$ and $z_{j+1}$ for each $j=-N,\dots,N,$ plus interfacial energy terms

460: that account for interactions that straddle a representative atom.  We have

461: from \eqref{con} that

462: \begin{equation}

463: \begin{split}

464: \label{constrained_energy}

465: \E^c(\zb) &= \sum_{i=-M}^{M} \phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i})

466: +\negthickspace\sum_{i=-M+1}^{M} \phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i-1})\\

467: &= \sum_{i=-M}^{M} \left[\phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i}) + \phi(2(y_{i+1} - y_{i}))\right]\\

468: &\qquad\qquad +\negthickspace\sum_{i=-M+1}^{M} \left[\phi(y_{i+1}-y_{i-1})

469: -\half \phi(2 (y_{i}-y_{i-1})) -\half \phi(2 (y_{i+1} - y_{i}))\right]\\

470: &\qquad\qquad -\half\phi(2(y_{-M+1}-y_{-M}))-\half\phi(2(y_{M+1}-y_{M}))\\

471: &= \sum_{j=-N}^{N}

472:   \nu_j \hat\phi\left(r_j\right)

473:   +\sum_{j=-N}^{N+1}\Su_j\left(r_{j-1},

474:   r_j\right),

475: \end{split}

476: \end{equation}

477: where

478: \begin{equation}

479: \label{energydensity}

480: \hat\phi(r)=\phi(r)+\phi(2r)\quad\text{for }r>0

481: \end{equation}

482: and where

483: \begin{equation*}

484: \begin{split}

485: \Su_{-N}(r_{-N})=&-\half\phi(2r_{-N}),\\

486: \Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j) =& - \half\phi(2r_{j-1}) +  \phi(r_{j-1} + r_j)

487:     - \half\phi(2r_j),\qquad j=-N+1,\dots,N,\\

488: \Su_{N+1}(r_N)=&-\half\phi(2r_N).

489: \end{split}

490: \end{equation*}

491: We note that $\hat\phi(r)=\phi(r)+\phi(2r)$

492: is the energy per atom for an

493: infinite atomistic chain with the uniform lattice spacing $y_{i+1}-y_{i}=r$ for all

494: $-\infty<i<\infty,$ and that $\Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j)$

495: can be considered to be a surface energy at $z_{-N}$ and $z_{N+1}$

496: and to be an interfacial energy at $z_j$ for $j=-N+1,\dots,N.$

497: We observe that $\Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j)$ is a second divided difference for

498: $\phi(r)$ about $r=r_{j-1} + r_j$ with increment $r_j-r_{j-1},$ so

499: \[

500: \Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j) = - \half\phi''(r_{j-1} + r_j)(r_j-r_{j-1})^2

501:     +O(|r_j-r_{j-1}|^4),\qquad j=-N+1,\dots,N.

502:     \]

503: We will see that if $\phi(r)$ satisfies the

504: assumptions given in Section~\ref{exist}, then the convexity condition

505: \[

506: \Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j)>0,\qquad j=-N+1,\dots,N,

507: \]

508: holds for the range of $\rb=(r_{-N},\dots,r_N)\in\Real^{2N+1}$

509: defined by \eqref{what} in

510: Theorem~\ref{thm:wp1} and Corollary ~\ref{cor:wp1}

511: where solutions of the force-based quasicontinuum equilibrium

512: equations are shown to exist and where the iterates

513: of the ghost force iteration reside.

514: 

515: \subsection{The Local Quasicontinuum Approximation}

516: 

517: If we neglect the surface and interfacial energy terms, $\Su_j,$ in

518: \eqref{constrained_energy}, then we obtain the

519: local quasicontinuum approximation~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview}

520: \[

521: \E^L(\zb) = \sum_{j=-N}^{N+1} \E_{j}^L(\zb),

522: \]

523: where

524: \begin{equation}\label{sss}

525: \E_{j}^L(\zb) = \half \left[\hat \phi(r_{j}) \nu_j +\hat \phi(r_{j-1})

526:     \nu_{j-1} \right].

527: \end{equation}

528: To treat the boundary terms consistently, we set $\nu_{-N-1}=\nu_{N+1}=1$

529: and $\hat\phi(r_{-N-1})=\hat\phi(r_{N+1})=0.$

530: 

531: We remark that the representative atoms need not be placed at atomistic

532: sites as described by \eqref{lat}.  The local quasicontinuum approximation only requires

533: that $z_{j}<z_{j+1}$ for $j=-N,\dots,N$ and that

534: the $\nu_j$ are positive and satisfy the conservation of mass

535: condition \eqref{conserve}.

536: The approximation

537: can be generalized to higher space dimensions by using the

538: Cauchy-Born rule~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview}.

539: The local quasicontinuum approximation is computationally simpler than the

540: constrained atomistic quasicontinuum approximation,

541: especially in higher dimensions where the computation of the

542: interfacial energy becomes

543: expensive.  In the following, we will sometimes refer to the

544: local quasicontinuum approximation as the continuum approximation.

545: 

546: The force on a

547: representative atom at $z_{j}$ for

548: $j=-N+1,\dots,N$ is given for the local quasicontinuum approximation by

549: \begin{equation}\label{continuumforce}

550: \begin{split}

551: F_{j}^L(\zb) &=

552: -\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{j }}

553: \left[\hat\phi\left(\frac{z_{j + 1}-z_{j }}{\nu_{j}}\right)  \nu_{j}

554: + \hat\phi\left(\frac{z_{j }-z_{j-1 }}{\nu_{j-1}}\right)\nu_{j-1}\right]

555: \\

556: &=-\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{j }}

557: \left[ \phi\left(\frac{z_{j + 1}-z_{j }}{ \nu_{j}}

558: \right)  \nu_{j}

559: + \phi\left(\frac{2(z_{j + 1}-z_{j })}{ \nu_{j}}\right)

560:   \nu_{j} \right. \\

561: &\qquad\qquad+ \left. \phi\left(\frac{z_{j }-z_{j-1 }}{\nu_{j-1}}\right)

562:  \nu_{j-1}

563: + \phi\left(\frac{2(z_{j }-z_{j-1})}{ \nu_{j-1}}\right) \nu_{j-1}

564: \right]  \\

565: &= \left[\eta(r_{j}) + 2 \eta(2r_{j})\right]

566: - \left[\eta(r_{j-1}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{j-1})\right],

567: \end{split}

568: \end{equation}

569: where again

570: \[

571: r_j = \frac{(z_{j+1}-z_{j })}{ \nu_j}

572: \]

573: is the lattice constant for the atoms between $z_j$ and $z_{j+1}.$

574:   In the above,  we see the ``local''

575: nature of the approximation, as the force on a degree of freedom is

576: determined only by the positions of adjacent degrees of freedom and

577: no long-rage interactions occur.

578: 

579: We can similarly compute the force on the boundary atoms, noting the one-sided

580: nature of $\E_{j}^L(\zb)$ for the boundary atoms,  by

581: \begin{equation}\label{continuumforceboundaryright}

582: \begin{split}

583: F_{-N}^L(\zb) &=

584: -\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{-N }}

585: \left[\hat\phi\left(\frac{z_{-N+1}-z_{-N }}{\nu_{-N}}\right) \nu_{-N}\right] \\

586: &=-\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{-N }}

587: \left[ \phi\left(\frac{z_{-N+1}-z_{-N}}{\nu_{-N}}\right)

588: + \phi\left(\frac{2(z_{-N+1}-z_{-N})}{\nu_{-N}}\right)

589: \right] \nu_{-N} \\

590: &= \left[\eta(r_{-N}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{-N})\right],

591: \end{split}

592: \end{equation}

593: \begin{equation}\label{continuumforceboundaryleft}

594: \begin{split}

595: F_{N+1}^L(\zb) &=

596: -\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{N+1}}

597: \left[\hat\phi\left(\frac{z_{N+1}-z_{N }}{\nu_N} \right)\nu_N\right] \\

598: &=-\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{N+1}}

599: \left[ \phi\left(\frac{z_{N+1}-z_{N }}{ \nu_N}\right)

600: + \phi\left(\frac{2(z_{N+1}-z_{N })}{\nu_N}\right)

601: \right] \nu_N \\

602: &= - \left[\eta(r_N) + 2 \eta(2 r_N)\right].

603: \end{split}

604: \end{equation}

605: 

606: We note that the local quasicontinuum energy, $\E^L(\zb),$

607: and the forces, $F_{j}^L(\zb),$ depend only on

608: $\rb=(r_{-N},\dots,r_N),$ and we will denote the

609: dependance by $\E^L(\rb)$ and $F_{j}^L(\rb)$

610: without introducing distinct functions.

611: 

612: We can also derive a local quasicontinuum approximation for the

613: external potential, $\Po^L(\zb),$ by

614: setting

615: \begin{equation}\label{pot}

616: \Po^L(\zb) = \Po^a(\yb(\zb)).

617: \end{equation}

618: By \eqref{totalp} and \eqref{conat}, the external force on the

619: representative atom at position $z_j$ is

620: \begin{equation*}

621: \begin{split}

622: f_{j}(\zb)=-\frac{\partial \Po^L (\zb)}{\partial z_{j }}

623: &=-\sum_{i=0}^{\nu_{j-1}}

624:   \left(\frac{\nu_{j-1} -i}{\nu_{j-1}}\right)

625:    \frac{\partial \Po^a(\yb(\zb))}{\partial y_{\ell_j-i}}

626:   -\sum_{i=1}^{\nu_{j}} \left(\frac{\nu_{j} - i}{\nu_{j}}\right)

627:   \frac{\partial \Po^a (\yb(\zb))}{\partial y_{\ell_j+i}}\\

628: &=\sum_{i=0}^{\nu_{j-1}}

629:   \left(\frac{\nu_{j-1} -i}{\nu_{j-1}}\right)

630:   \tilde f_{\ell_j-i}\left(y_{\ell_j-i}(\zb)\right)

631:   + \sum_{i=1}^{\nu_{j}} \left(\frac{\nu_{j} - i}{\nu_{j}}\right)

632:   \tilde f_{\ell_j+i}\left(y_{\ell_j+i}(\zb)\right).

633: \end{split}

634: \end{equation*}

635: It follows from the linear interpolation~\eqref{conat} that

636: \[

637: f_{j}(\zb)=f_{j}(z_{j-1},z_j,z_{j+1}).

638: \]

639: 

640: We shall assume in our analysis that the external forces,

641: $\tilde f_i,$ are independent of $\yb.$  In this case,

642: the local quasicontinuum forces, $f_j,$ are independent of

643: $\zb$ and

644: \begin{equation}\label{quasif}

645: f_{j}=\sum_{i=0}^{\nu_{j-1}}

646:   \left(\frac{\nu_{j-1} -i}{\nu_{j-1}}\right)\tilde f_{\ell_j-i}

647:   +\sum_{i=1}^{\nu_{j}} \left(\frac{\nu_{j} - i}{\nu_{j}}\right)

648: \tilde f_{\ell_j+i},\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

649: \end{equation}

650: We consider any term $\tilde f_j$ to be

651: zero if $j \notin \{-M,\dots,M+1\}$ and any term $\nu_j$ to be one if

652: $j \notin \{-N,\dots,N\}.$

653: 

654: \subsection{The Energy-Based Quasicontinuum Approximation}

655: 

656: To describe the energy-based quasicontinuum approximation

657: ~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview}, we again introduce representative

658: atoms with positions $z_{j}$ for $j=-N,\dots,N+1,$ where $z_{j}<z_{j+1}.$

659: Each representative atom is considered to be an ``atomistic'' or

660: ``continuum'' degree of freedom and will contribute either

661: $\E_j^a(\zb)$ or $\E_j^L(\zb)$ to the total

662: internal energy according to the atomistic model~\eqref{atompart}

663: or the local

664: quasicontinuum approximation~\eqref{sss}, respectively.

665: 

666: In applications, atomistic degrees of freedom are used in regions of

667: interest where highly non-uniform behavior is expected.  Continuum

668: regions surround this, gradually coarsening by increasing $\nu_j$

669: in regions with slowly varying strain.  For simplicity of exposition,

670: we will consider an approximation with a single atomistic region,

671: symmetrically surrounded by continuum regions large enough so

672: that no atomistic degrees of freedom interact with the surface atoms

673: through nearest-neighbor or next-nearest-neighbor interactions.

674: 

675: We denote the representative atom positions by $z_j$ and define the range

676: $j = -K+1,\dots,K$ to be atomistic sites and the ranges $j=-N,\dots, -K$ and

677: $K+1,\dots, N+1$ to be continuum sites.  Therefore, the total quasicontinuum

678: energy, $\E^{QC}(\rb),$ for the chain is given by

679: \begin{equation}\label{total}

680: \E^{QC}(\rb) = \sum_{j = -N}^{-K} \E_{j }^L(\rb) +

681: \sum_{j=-K+1}^{K} \E_{j}^a(\rb) +

682: \sum_{j=K+1}^{N+1} \E_{j }^L(\rb),

683: \end{equation}

684: where $\E_{j}^a(\rb)$ is defined in \eqref{atompart} and $\E_{j }^L(\rb)$ is

685: defined in \eqref{sss}.

686: We assume that $\nu_j=1$ for $j=-K-1,\dots, K+1.$ This guarantees that

687: $\nu_j=1$ within the next-nearest-neighbor

688: cutoff radius of any atomistic site and enables a

689: seamless transition to the continuum approximation.

690: 

691: \begin{figure}[htb]

692: \includegraphics{quasicontinuum_chain}

693: \caption{One end of the quasicontinuum chain, highlighting the interface.

694: Filled circles are atomistic representative atoms, whereas the

695: unfilled circles are

696: continuum representative atoms.}

697: \end{figure}

698: 

699: The force, $F_{j}^{QCE}(\rb),$ at $z_j$ is then given by

700: \begin{equation}\label{colu}

701: \begin{split}

702: F_{j}^{QCE}(\rb) &=-\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial z_j}(\rb)

703: =-\sum_{\ell=-N}^N \frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial r_\ell}(\rb)

704: \frac{\partial r_\ell}{\partial z_j}\\

705: &=\begin{cases}

706: F_j^L(\rb), &  -N \leq j \leq -K-2, \\

707: F_{-K-1}^L(\rb) + \half \eta(r_{-K-1} + r_{-K}), & j = -K-1, \\

708: F_{-K}^L(\rb) - \eta(2 r_{-K}) + \half \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1}), & j = -K,\\

709: F_{-K+1}^a(\rb) - \eta(2 r_{-K}) + \half \eta(r_{-K-1} + r_{-K}), & j = -K+1,\\

710: F_{-K+2}^a(\rb) + \half \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1}), & j = -K + 2, \\

711: F_j^a(\rb), &  -K+3 \leq j \leq K-2,\\

712: F_{K-1}^a(\rb) - \half \eta(r_{K-1} + r_{K}), & j = K-1,\\

713: F_{K}^a(\rb)   + \eta(2 r_K) - \half \eta(r_K + r_{K+1}), & j = K, \\

714: F_{K+1}^L(\rb) + \eta(2 r_K) - \half \eta(r_{K-1} + r_K), & j = K+1, \\

715: F_{K+2}^L(\rb) - \half \eta(r_{K}+r_{K+1}), & j = K+2, \\

716: F_j^L(\rb), & K+3 \leq j \leq N+1.

717: \end{cases}

718: \end{split}

719: \end{equation}

720: 

721: In the above expression, we notice that in the large ranges interior to

722: the atomistic and continuum regions the forces are exactly those from the

723: individual models,

724: namely, either $F_j^a(\rb)$ or $F_j^L(\rb).$

725: Near the atomistic to continuum interface, there are additions

726: to these force terms which contain non-physical

727: ``ghost'' forces.

728: 

729: \begin{figure}[htb]

730: \includegraphics{resultant}

731: \caption{\label{resultant}Direction of nonzero forces for a

732: uniform configuration.}

733: \end{figure}

734: To see this, we consider the forces on the representative

735: atoms when the lattice spacings are uniform, that is, when

736: $r_j=a$ for $j=-N,\dots,N,$ or equivalently when $\rb=\az=(a,\dots,a)\in\Real^{2N+1}.$

737: We observe that the forces computed

738: according to the atomistic model \eqref{atomforce} or the continuum model

739: \eqref{continuumforce} are zero

740: except at the ends of the chain, that is, $F_j^L(\az)=0$ for

741: $j=-N+1,\dots,N$ and $F_j^a(\az)=0$ for

742: $j=-N+2,\dots,N-1.$  We then have from \eqref{colu} that

743: \begin{equation*}

744: F_{j}^{QCE}(\az)=

745: \begin{cases}

746: \left[\eta(a) + 2 \eta(2a)\right], & j = -N,\\

747: 0, &  -N+1 \leq j \leq -K-2, \\

748:   \half \eta(2a), & j = -K-1, \\

749: - \half \eta(2a), & j = -K,\\

750: - \half \eta(2a), & j = -K+1,\\

751:   \half \eta(2a), & j = -K + 2, \\

752: 0, &  -K+3 \leq j \leq K-2,\\

753: - \half \eta(2a), & j = K-1,\\

754:   \half \eta(2a), & j = K, \\

755:   \half \eta(2a), & j = K+1, \\

756: - \half \eta(2a), & j = K+2, \\

757: 0, & K+3 \leq j \leq N, \\

758: -\left[\eta(a)+2 \eta(2a)\right], & j = N+1.

759: \end{cases}

760: \end{equation*}

761: However, a continuum chain with

762: uniform lattice spacings has forces only at the surfaces.

763: Figure \ref{resultant} shows the ghost forces at one of the

764: interfaces.  Figure \ref{forces} shows the origin of out of

765: balance forces for a single representative atom.  We note that while the first

766: neighbor terms are balanced, the second neighbor terms are not

767: balanced due to the fact that the continuum site does not contribute

768: any second-neighbor interactions.

769: \begin{figure}[htb]

770: \includegraphics{forces}

771: \caption{\label{forces}Imbalance of forces on an atomistic representative atom

772: near the interface.}

773: \end{figure}

774: 

775: 

776: The force-based quasicontinuum approximation described in the

777: next subsection corrects these ghost forces.

778: 

779: \subsection{The Force-Based Quasicontinuum Approximation}

780: The force-based quasicontinnum approximation~\cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview}

781: corrects the nonphysical forces described in the previous subsection.

782: The forces on the representative

783: atoms in the interior of the atomistic and continuum regions are

784: defined by \eqref{atomforce} and \eqref{continuumforce}, but

785: the forces on the representative atoms near the atomistic-continuum

786: transition given by the energy-based quasicontinuum method must be

787: modified to remove the non-physical terms.

788: 

789: In the force-based quasicontinuum approximation, we again partition into

790: atomistic and continuum representative atoms, where the force on a

791: representative atom is

792: the force that would result on it if the approximation was entirely of its

793: respective

794: type (atomistic or continuum). With this convention, a continuum

795: representative atom only interacts with adjacent degrees of freedom

796: regardless of how close any atomistic sites may be.  We will see

797: that the tradeoff for this simple philosophy is that the forces

798: are not conservative, that is, they cannot be derived from an energy.

799: 

800: We now model the forces on the representative atoms for

801: $j=-K+1,\dots, K$ where $K<N-1$ by the atomistic model

802: \eqref{atomforce} and the forces on the representative

803: atoms for $j=-N,\dots, -K$ and $j=K+1,\dots, N+1$ by

804: the local quasicontinuum approximation

805: ~\eqref{continuumforce}-\eqref{continuumforceboundaryleft}.

806: The forces on the representative atoms

807: are then given by

808: \begin{align*}

809: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb) &=

810: \begin{cases}

811: F_j^L(\rb), & -N \leq j \leq -K,\\

812: F_j^a(\rb),&-K+1 \leq j \leq K,\\

813: F_j^L(\rb),&K+1 \leq j \leq N+1,

814: \end{cases}\\

815: &=

816: \begin{cases}

817: \left[\eta(r_{-N} ) + 2 \eta(2 r_{-N} ) \right], &j = -N,\\

818: \left[\eta(r_{j}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{j})\right] -

819:   \left[\eta(r_{j-1}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{j-1})\right], & -N+1 \leq j \leq -K,\\

820: \left[\eta(r_{j}) + \eta(r_{j} + r_{j+1})\right] -

821:   \left[\eta(r_{j-1}) + \eta(r_{j-1} + r_{j-2})\right],&-K+1 \leq j \leq K,\\

822: \left[\eta(r_{j}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{j})\right] -

823:   \left[\eta(r_{j-1}) + 2 \eta(2 r_{j-1})\right],&K+1 \leq j \leq N,\\

824: -\left[\eta(r_N ) + 2 \eta(2 r_N )\right], & j = N+1.

825: \end{cases}

826: \end{align*}

827: 

828: The force-based quasicontinuum formulation has the desired property

829: that if we take a uniform configuration, $\az=(a,\dots,a)\in\Real^{2N+1}$,

830: we have that

831: \[

832: F_{j}^{QCF}(\az)= 0, \qquad j = -N+1,\dots,N,

833: \]

834: and on the boundary we get values of equal magnitude and opposite

835: signs.  Thus, the equilibrium equations have a uniform solution, $\az$,

836: whenever the external forces are applied at the boundary, that is, a chain in

837: uniform tension or compression.

838: 

839: However, the solution to the equilibrium equations for the

840: force-based quasicontinuum method,

841: \begin{equation}

842: \label{equilq}

843: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

844: \end{equation}

845: cannot be obtained from the minimization of an energy since

846: $F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)$ is a nonconservative force.  To see this,

847: we observe that the

848: forces given by the force-based quasicontinuum approximation,

849: $F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb),$ are not the differential of an energy, $\E^{QCF}(\rb),$

850: since $F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)$ is not a closed form~\cite{fleming}.

851: We can see this by noting that

852: \begin{equation*}

853: \begin{split}

854: \frac{\partial F_{K}^{QCF}}{\partial z_{K+1}}(\rb)&=\eta'(r_K),\\

855: \frac{\partial F_{K+1}^{QCF}}{\partial z_{K}}(\rb)&=\eta'(r_K)+4\eta'(2 r_K),

856: \end{split}

857: \end{equation*}

858: implies that

859: \[

860: \frac{\partial F_{K}^{QCF}}{\partial z_{K+1}}(\rb)\ne

861: \frac{\partial F_{K+1}^{QCF}}{\partial z_{K}}(\rb).

862: \]

863: 

864: 

865: \subsection{The Ghost Force Iteration}

866: 

867: In the quasicontinuum method of \cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview},

868: the forces, $F^{QCF}(\rb), $ are split into the force from the

869: energy-based quasicontinuum approximation, $F^{QCE}(\rb),$ and

870: ghost force corrections defined by

871: \begin{equation} \label{gfdef}

872: F^G_j(\rb) =F^{QCF}_j(\rb) - F^{QCE}_j(\rb)=

873: \begin{cases}

874: 0, &  -N \leq j \leq -K-2, \\

875: - \half \eta(r_{-K-1} + r_{-K}), & j = -K-1, \\

876: + \eta(2 r_{-K}) - \half \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1}), & j = -K,\\

877: + \eta(2 r_{-K}) - \half \eta(r_{-K-1} + r_{-K}), & j = -K+1,\\

878: - \half \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1}), & j = -K + 2, \\

879: 0, &  -K+3 \leq j \leq K-2,\\

880: + \half \eta(r_{K-1} + r_{K}), & j = K-1,\\

881: - \eta(2 r_K) + \half \eta(r_K + r_{K+1}), & j = K, \\

882: - \eta(2 r_K) + \half \eta(r_{K-1} + r_K), & j = K+1, \\

883: + \half \eta(r_{K}+r_{K+1}), & j = K+2, \\

884: 0, & K+3 \leq j \leq N+1.

885: \end{cases}

886: \end{equation}

887: The forces $ F^G_j(\rb)$ act as a model correction near the atomistic-continuum interfaces

888: to enforce the convention that each representative atom

889:  has forces acting on it

890: as though it were surrounded by representative atoms of the same type.

891: 

892: In \cite{tadmor_miller_qc_overview},

893: the solution to the equilibrium equations

894: \eqref{equilq} is obtained by solving the iteration

895: \begin{equation}

896: \label{iter1}

897: F_j^{QCE}(\rb^{n+1}) + F_j^G(\rb^{n}) + f_j = 0, \qquad j = -N,\dots,N+1,

898: \end{equation}

899: by using a conjugate gradient method to compute $\rb^{n+1}$ from $\rb^{n}.$

900: If the sequence of solutions $\{{\rb}^n\}$

901: converges, then the iterative limit $\rb$ satisfies

902: the equilibrium equations~\eqref{equilq}.

903: 

904: We have split the internal forces of the force-based quasicontinuum approximation,

905: $F^{QCF}_j(\rb),$ into a conservative force,

906: $F^{QCE}_j(\rb),$ and correction, $F^{G}_j(\rb),$ to define the iterative method

907: above \eqref{iter1}.

908: The conservative force, $F^{QCE}_j(\rb),$ was defined by the quasicontinuum energy,

909: $\E^{QC}(\rb),$ given by \eqref{total}, and the correction, $F^{G}_j(\rb),$

910: was defined simply by $F^{G2}_j(\rb) =F^{QCF}_j(\rb) - F^{QCE2}_j(\rb).$

911:  However, we are free to try to improve the rate of

912: convergence of $\rb^n\to\rb$

913: by constructing an energy $\E^{QCE2}(\rb)$ different from $\E^{QCE}(\rb)$ and

914: then solving the iteration

915: \begin{equation*}

916: F_j^{QCE2}(\rb^{n+1}) + F_j^{G2}(\rb^{n}) + f_j = 0, \qquad j = -N,\dots,N+1,

917: \end{equation*}

918: where $F_j^{QCE2}(\rb)$ is now the force that is derived from $\E^{QCE2}(\rb)$ and

919: $F^{G2}_j(\rb) =F^{QCF}_j(\rb) - F^{QCE2}_j(\rb).$

920: 

921: 

922: \section{Conjugate Forces}

923: \label{integ}

924: 

925: In this section, we simplify the analysis by reformulating the

926: force-based quasicontinuum equilibrium equations

927: \eqref{equilq} in terms of forces

928: conjugate to the distance between representative atoms,

929: \[

930: R_j=z_{j+1}-z_j=\nu_j{r_j},\qquad j=-N,\dots,N,

931: \]

932:  rather than conjugate to the positions of the representative atoms, $z_j.$

933: We will use the notation $\Rb=(R_{-N},\dots,R_N)\in\Real^{2N+1}.$

934: Through this technique, we will be able to derive equations that are decoupled

935: inside the continuum regions and are the sum of tridiagonal terms

936: and nonlocal interfacial terms in the atomistic region.

937: 

938: \subsection{The Internal Conjugate Force}

939: 

940: We define the internal conjugate force for

941: the energy-based quasicontinuum approximation by

942: \begin{equation}\label{not}

943: \psi^E_j(\rb)=\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial R_j}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)

944: =\frac1{\nu_j}\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial r_j}(\rb), \qquad

945: j=-N,\dots,N.

946: \end{equation}

947: We note that we have found it convenient to define

948: $\psi^E_j(\rb)$ as the negative of the usual convention

949: for a conjugate force.

950: We next derive the following relation between $F^{QCE}_j(\rb)$

951: and the internal conjugate force $\psi^E_j(\rb):$

952: \begin{equation}\label{for}

953: \begin{split}

954: F^{QCE}_j(\rb)&=-\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial z_j}(\rb)

955: =-\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial R_j}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)

956: \frac{\partial R_j}{\partial z_j}

957: -\frac{\partial \E^{QC}}{\partial R_{j-1}}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)\frac{\partial R_{j-1}}{\partial z_j}

958: \\

959: &=\psi^E_{j}(\rb) - \psi^E_{j-1}(\rb),\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

960: \end{split}

961: \end{equation}

962: where we set

963: \[

964: \psi^E_{-N-1}(\rb)=\psi^E_{N+1}(\rb)=0.

965: \]

966: We can sum the forces from the left

967: of the chain and use the preceding equation~\eqref{for}

968: to obtain that

969: \begin{equation}\label{sumstressz}

970: \psi^E_j(\rb) = \sum_{i=-N}^j F^{QCE}_{i}(\rb),\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

971: \end{equation}

972: We can derive from either \eqref{not} or \eqref{sumstressz} that

973: \begin{equation}

974: \label{psiE}

975: \psi^E_j(\rb) =

976: \begin{cases}

977: 0,&j=-N-1\\

978:   \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2r_j), &  -N \leq j \leq -K-2,\\

979:   \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2r_j) + \half \eta(r_j +r_{j+1}), & j = -K-1, \\

980:   \eta(r_j) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}) +

981:       \eta(2r_j), & j = -K,\\

982:   \eta(r_j) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}),  & j = -K+1, \\

983:   \eta(r_j) + \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}),

984:        & -K + 2 \leq j \leq K - 2, \\

985:   \eta(r_j) + \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}),  & j = K-1, \\

986:   \eta(r_j) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \half \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}) +

987:       \eta(2r_j), & j = K,\\

988:   \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2r_j) + \half \eta(r_j +r_{j-1}), & j = K+1, \\

989:   \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2r_j), &  K+2 \leq j \leq N,\\

990:   0,&j=N+1.

991: \end{cases}

992: \end{equation}

993: 

994: We cannot properly derive an internal conjugate force for the force-based

995: quasicontinuum approximation since it is not a conservative force.

996: However, we will find it convenient to

997: define an internal conjugate force for

998: the force-based

999: quasicontinuum approximation by following \eqref{sumstressz} setting

1000: \[

1001: \psi^F_{-N-1}(\rb)=0

1002: \]

1003: and

1004: \begin{equation}\label{sumstress}

1005: \psi^F_j(\rb) = \sum_{i=-N}^j F^{QCF}_{i}(\rb),\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

1006: \end{equation}

1007: We can then obtain that

1008: \begin{equation}\label{diffstress}

1009: F^{QCF}_{j}(\rb) = \psi^F_{j}(\rb) - \psi^F_{j-1}(\rb),\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

1010: \end{equation}

1011: 

1012:  We

1013: have the following closed form expressions for the internal conjugate force

1014: $\psi^F_j(\rb):$

1015: \begin{equation}

1016: \label{stress1}

1017: \psi^F_j(\rb) =

1018: \begin{cases}

1019: 0,& j=-N-1,\\

1020: \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2 r_j), & -N \leq j \leq -K ,\\

1021: \eta(r_j) + \eta(r_j + r_{j-1}) + \eta(r_j + r_{j+1}) & \\

1022: \qquad + [2\eta(2r_{-K}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K-1}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1})],

1023:     & -K+1 \leq j \leq K ,\\

1024: \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2 r_j) & \\

1025: \qquad + [2\eta(2r_{-K}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K-1}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1})]

1026:     & \\

1027: \qquad- [2\eta(2r_{K}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K+1})],

1028:     & K+1 \leq j \leq N,\\

1029: [2\eta(2r_{-K}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K-1}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1})]&\\

1030: \qquad- [2\eta(2r_{K}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K+1})],

1031:     & j= N+1.

1032: \end{cases}

1033: \end{equation}

1034: 

1035: The internal conjugate force, $\psi^F_j(\rb),$ takes a simpler form when there is no

1036: resultant quasicontinuum force, that is, when $\rb$ satisfies

1037: \begin{equation}\label{resul}

1038: \psi^F_{N+1}(\rb) = \sum_{j=-N}^{N+1} F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb) = 0,

1039: \end{equation}

1040: which is equivalent to

1041: \begin{equation}

1042: \label{noresultant}

1043: \begin{split}

1044: 2\eta(2r_{-K}) &- \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K-1}) - \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K+1}) \\

1045:    &= 2\eta(2r_{K}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K+1}).

1046: \end{split}

1047: \end{equation}

1048: We note that \eqref{noresultant} is satisfied when

1049: $\rb$ is symmetric, that is, when $r_{-j} = r_j$ for $j=1,\dots,N.$

1050: Let us now define $\hat\psi_j^F(\rb)$ on all

1051: of $\Real^{2N+1}$ as a symmetric extension of

1052: $\psi^F_j(\rb),$ with equality whenever $\rb$ satisfies~\eqref{noresultant}.

1053: This leads to $\hat\psi^F_j(\rb)$ having a more symmetric form,

1054: \begin{align}

1055: \label{stress2}

1056: \hat\psi^F_j(\rb) =

1057: \begin{cases}

1058: 0,&j=-N-1,\\

1059: \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2 r_j),

1060:        & -N \leq j \leq -K ,\\

1061: \eta(r_j) + \eta(r_j+r_{j-1}) + \eta(r_j+r_{j+1}) &\\

1062: \qquad+ [2\eta(2r_{K}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K+1})],

1063:      & -K+1 \leq j \leq K-1,\\

1064: \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2 r_j),

1065:      & K\leq j \leq N,\\

1066: 0,& j=N+1.

1067: \end{cases}

1068: \end{align}

1069: The intervals of definition changed slightly from \eqref{stress1},

1070: which is one of the simplifications afforded by \eqref{noresultant}.

1071: We use $\hat \psi^F_j(\rb)$ in our subsequent analysis, and in Section

1072: \ref{equileq} we discuss the relation between using $\psi^F_j(\rb)$

1073: and $\hat{\psi}^F_j(\rb)$ to solve the equilibrium equations~\eqref{equilq}.

1074: 

1075: 

1076: We identify in \eqref{stress2} a continuum internal conjugate force

1077: for $j=-N,\dots,-K$ and $j=K,\dots,N$ given by

1078: \[

1079: \eta(r_j) + 2 \eta(2 r_j)

1080: \]

1081: and an atomistic internal conjugate force for $j=-K+1,\dots,K-1$

1082: given by

1083: \[

1084: \eta(r_j) + \eta(r_{j-1} + r_j) + \eta(r_j + r_{j+1}).

1085: \]

1086: We identify the remaining terms,

1087: \[

1088: 2\eta(2r_{K}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_{K} + r_{K+1}),

1089: \]

1090: for $j=-K+1,\dots,K-1$ as the nonlocal part of the internal conjugate force.

1091: 

1092:  For consistency, we wish to define $\hat{\psi}^E_j(\rb)$ as

1093: we did for $\hat{\psi}^F_j(\rb).$  Since $\psi^E_j(\rb)$

1094: is derived from the energy $\E^{QCE}(\rb),$ it has no resultant

1095: force. Thus, we define $\hat{\psi}^E_j(\rb)=\psi^E_j(\rb).$

1096: 

1097: We can also derive a corresponding internal conjugate force, $\psi^G_j(\rb),$

1098: by summing $F^G_j(\rb)$ as in~\eqref{sumstress}.

1099: From the definition of $F^G_j(\rb)$ \eqref{gfdef}, we have that

1100: \[

1101: \psi^F_j(\rb)=\psi^E_j(\rb)+\psi^G_j(\rb),\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1102: \]

1103: We can define $\hat\psi^G_j(\rb)$ by

1104: \[

1105: \hat\psi^F_j(\rb)=\hat\psi^E_j(\rb)+\hat\psi^G_j(\rb),\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1,

1106: \]

1107: and we can then check that

1108: \begin{equation}

1109: \label{psiG}

1110: \hat \psi^G_j(\rb) =

1111: \begin{cases}

1112: 0, & -N-1 \leq j \leq -K-2, \\

1113: - \half \eta(r_{-K} + r_{-K-1}), & j = -K-1,\\

1114: \eta(2r_{-K}) - \half \eta(r_{-K}+r_{-K+1})

1115:   - \half \eta(r_{-K}+r_{-K-1}), & j = -K, \\

1116: 2\eta(2r_{-K}) - \half \eta(r_{-K}+r_{-K+1}) - \eta(r_{-K}+r_{-K-1}),

1117:   & j = -K+1, \\

1118: 2\eta(2r_K) - \eta(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_K+r_{K+1}),

1119:   & -K+2 \leq j \leq K - 2, \\

1120: 2\eta(2r_K) - \half \eta(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta(r_K+r_{K+1}),   & j = K-1, \\

1121: \eta(2r_K) - \half \eta(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \half \eta(r_K+r_{K+1}), & j = K, \\

1122: - \half \eta(r_K + r_{K+1}), & j = K+1,\\

1123: 0, & K+2 \leq j \leq N+1.

1124: \end{cases}

1125: \end{equation}

1126: If

1127: $\rb$ satisfies the condition~\eqref{noresultant},

1128: then we have that $\hat\psi^G_j(\rb)=\psi^G_j(\rb).$

1129: We note that the nonlocal part of the

1130: internal conjugate force is found in $\psi^G_j(\rb)$  and $\hat\psi^G_j(\rb).$

1131: 

1132: We finally observe that if $\rb$ is symmetric, then

1133: $\hat\psi^F_j(\rb)=\psi^F_j(\rb),$

1134: $\hat\psi^E_j(\rb)=\psi^E_j(\rb),$ and $\hat\psi^G_j(\rb)=\psi^G_j(\rb)$

1135: are symmetric.

1136: 

1137: \subsection{The External Conjugate Force}

1138: We recall that we are assuming in our analysis that the external forces,

1139: $\tilde f_i,$ are independent of $\yb,$  and that consequently

1140: the local quasicontinuum forces, $f_j,$ given in

1141: \eqref{quasif} are independent of

1142: $\zb.$  The external potential, $\Po^L(\zb),$ given in \eqref{pot}

1143: thus has the form

1144: \[

1145: \Po^L(\zb)=-\sum_{j=-N}^{N+1}f_j z_j.

1146: \]

1147: 

1148: We now assume that there is also no resultant force

1149: from the external forces, so that

1150: \begin{equation}\label{nores}

1151: \sum_{j=-N}^{N+1} f_j = 0.

1152: \end{equation}

1153: It then follows that the external potential, $\Po^L(\zb),$ is also a function

1154: of $\rb,$ and we can define the external conjugate force by

1155: \begin{equation}\label{notz}

1156: \Phi_j=-\frac{\partial \Po^L}{\partial R_j}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)

1157: =-\frac1{\nu_j}\frac{\partial \Po^L}{\partial r_j}(\rb), \qquad

1158: j=-N,\dots,N.

1159: \end{equation}

1160: 

1161: We next derive the following relation between $f_j$

1162: and the external conjugate force $\Phi_j:$

1163: \begin{equation}\label{forr}

1164: \begin{split}

1165: f_j&=-\frac{\partial \Po^L}{\partial z_j}(\rb)

1166: =-\frac{\partial \Po^L}{\partial R_j}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)\frac{\partial R_j}{\partial z_j}

1167: -\frac{\partial \Po^L}{\partial R_{j-1}}\left(\rb(\Rb)\right)\frac{\partial R_{j-1}}{\partial z_j}

1168: \\

1169: &=-(\Phi_j - \Phi_{j-1}),\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

1170: \end{split}

1171: \end{equation}

1172: where we set

1173: \[

1174: \Phi_{-N-1}=\Phi_{N+1}=0.

1175: \]

1176: We can sum the external forces from the left

1177: of the chain and use the preceding equation~\eqref{forr}

1178: to obtain that

1179: \begin{equation}\label{symm}

1180: \Phi_j = -\sum_{i=-N}^j f_i,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

1181: \end{equation}

1182: 

1183: If the

1184: external forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric, that is,

1185: \begin{equation}\label{forcesym}

1186: f_{j+1}=-f_{-j},\qquad j=0,\dots,N,

1187: \end{equation}

1188: then

1189: we can conclude from \eqref{symm} that the external conjugate force,

1190: $\Phi_j,$ is symmetric about

1191: $j=0,$ that is,

1192: \begin{equation}\label{Phisym}

1193: \Phi_{j}=\Phi_{-j},\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1194: \end{equation}

1195: We note that the external forces, $f_{j},$

1196: are anti-symmetric

1197: if the chain

1198: is subject only to tensile or compressive loads of

1199: equal magnitude, but opposite sign, at its ends.

1200: 

1201: \subsection{Equilibrium Equations}

1202: \label{equileq}

1203: It follows from  ~

1204: \eqref{sumstress}, \eqref{diffstress}, \eqref{symm}, and \eqref{forr}

1205: that the force-based quasicontinuum equilibrium equations

1206: \begin{equation}

1207: \label{equil}

1208: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

1209: \end{equation}

1210: are equivalent

1211: to

1212: \begin{equation*}

1213: \psi^F_j(\rb) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1214: \end{equation*}

1215: We recall that $\Phi_{N+1}=0$ since we have assumed that the

1216: external forces satisfy the condition of no resultant force~\eqref{nores}.

1217: Therefore, if $\rb$ satisfies the force-based quasicontinnum equilibrium equations

1218: \eqref{equil}, then $\psi_{N+1}(\rb)=0,$ and by \eqref{resul} we have

1219: $\psi^F_j(\rb)=\hat\psi_j^F(\rb)$ for

1220: all $j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.$

1221: Thus, we see that if $\rb$ satisfies

1222: the force-based equilibrium equations~\eqref{equil}, then

1223: \begin{equation*}

1224: \hat\psi_j^F(\rb) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1225: \end{equation*}

1226: 

1227: We also recall that if $\rb$ is symmetric, then

1228: \begin{equation*}

1229: \psi^F_j(\rb)=\hat\psi_j^F(\rb),\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1230: \end{equation*}

1231: Hence, if $\rb$ is a symmetric solution of

1232: \begin{equation*}

1233: \hat\psi_j^F(\rb) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1,

1234: \end{equation*}

1235: then $\rb$ is a solution of

1236: the force-based quasicontinuum equilibrium equations~\eqref{equil}.

1237: 

1238: If we sum the ghost force iteration equations

1239: \begin{equation}

1240: \label{iter}

1241: F_j^{QCE}(\rb^{n+1}) + F_j^G(\rb^{n}) + f_j = 0, \qquad j = -N,\dots,N+1,

1242: \end{equation}

1243: then we also get

1244: the following equivalent corresponding iterative method in terms

1245: of the internal and external conjugate forces

1246: \begin{equation*}

1247: \psi^E_j(\rb^{n+1}) + \psi^G_j(\rb^{n}) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1248: \end{equation*}

1249: We also have that if the sequence $\{ \rb^{n}\}$ satisfies the iteration equations

1250: \eqref{iter}, then the sequence $\{\rb^{n}\}$ satisfies

1251: \begin{equation}

1252: \label{iterPsih}

1253: \hat\psi^E_j(\rb^{n+1}) + \hat\psi^G_j(\rb^{n}) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N-1,\dots,N+1.

1254: \end{equation}

1255: We finally note that if the sequence $\{\rb^{n}\}$ is a

1256: symmetric solution of \eqref{iterPsih},

1257: then the sequence $\{\rb^{n}\}$ satisfies the ghost force iteration equations \eqref{iter}.

1258: 

1259: \section{Existence of Solutions to the Force-Based Quasicontinuum System}

1260: \label{exist}

1261: 

1262: In this section, we will give conditions on

1263: $\Pb=(\Phi_{-N},\dots,\Phi_N)\in\Real^{2N+1}$ such that

1264: there exists a unique solution $\rb$ to

1265: \begin{equation}\label{eb}

1266: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)=\Pb

1267: \end{equation}

1268: in a domain $\Omega\subset\Real^{2N+1},$ where

1269: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)=\left(\hat{\psi}^F_{-N}(\rb),\dots,\hat{\psi}_N^F(\rb)\right)\in\Real^{2N+1}$

1270: has the symmetric form given in \eqref{stress2}.

1271: We note that we

1272: ignore $\hat{\psi}^F_{-N-1},\,\hat{\psi}^F_{N+1},\,\Phi_{-N-1},\,\Phi_{N+1}$

1273: in the above formulation since

1274: $\hat{\psi}^F_{-N-1}=\hat{\psi}^F_{N+1}=\Phi_{-N-1}=\Phi_{N+1}=0$.

1275: We conclude this section by showing that the unique

1276: symmetric solution~$\rb$ to \eqref{eb}

1277: for a symmetric $\Pb$ is a

1278: solution of the force-based equilibrium equations \eqref{equil}.

1279: 

1280: For any uniform lattice spacing $\az = (a,\dots,a) \in \Real^{2N+1},$

1281: we have a corresponding uniform

1282: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\az).$

1283:   Under appropriate assumptions on the atomistic potential, $\phi(r),$

1284: and the interatomic spacing, $\az,$ we will give an explicit

1285:  neighborhood around $\az$

1286: in which we have a unique solution to \eqref{eb} for

1287: any external potential, $\Pb,$ in an explicit neighborhood of

1288: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\az).$

1289: We will show that these assumptions on the atomistic potential, $\phi(r),$

1290: are satisfied by the Lennard-Jones potential

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: \label{lj}

1293: \phi(r) = \frac{1}{r^{12}} - \frac{2}{r^6}.

1294: \end{equation}

1295: 

1296: \subsection{Assumptions on the Atomistic Potential,  $\phi(r)$}

1297: We now give the assumptions on the atomistic potential, $\phi(r),$

1298: that are required for our analysis.  We will assume that

1299: $\phi(r) \in C^3\left((0,\infty\right)),$ and we recall that

1300: $\eta(r)=\phi'(r)$ and $\hat\phi(r)=\phi(r)+\phi(2r).$

1301: We define

1302: \[

1303: \hat\eta(r)=\hat\phi'(r),

1304: \]

1305: so

1306: \[

1307: \hat\eta(r)=\phi'(r)+2\phi'(2r)=\eta(r)+2\eta(2r).

1308: \]

1309: 

1310: We assume that the atomistic potential, $\phi(r),$ satisfies the following

1311: properties that are graphically displayed in

1312: Figures \ref{phiplot} and \ref{hatphiplot}:

1313: \begin{align}

1314: \label{d1} &\eta'(r) > 0 \text{ for } 0 < r < \tilde r_1 \text{ and }

1315:            \eta'(r) < 0 \text{ for } r > \tilde r_1,\\

1316: \label{d2} &\eta''(r)<0 \text{ for } 0 < r < \tilde r_2

1317:            \text{ and  } \eta''(r)>0 \text{ for } r > \tilde r_2, \\

1318: \label{da0} &\hat \eta(r)<0 \text{ for }  0 < r < a_0

1319:            \text{ and } \hat\eta(r)>0 \text{ for } r > a_0,\\

1320: \label{d3} &\hat \eta'(r)>0 \text{ for }  0 < r < a_1

1321:            \text{ and } \hat\eta'(r)<0 \text{ for } r > a_1,\\

1322: \label{a4} &0 < a_0 < \tilde r_1 < \tilde r_2 < 2 a_0, \\

1323: \label{a5} &a_0 < a_1 .

1324: \end{align}

1325: 

1326: We note that it follows from \eqref{da0} that $F_j^{QCF}(\ab)=0$ for $j=-N,\dots,N+1$ and

1327: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F (\ab)=\mathbf 0$  for $\ab=(a_0,\dots,a_0)\in\Real^{2N+1}.$

1328: 

1329: The local quasicontinuum approximation is simply the case where all of the representative

1330: atoms are continuum,

1331: giving a decoupled system

1332: \begin{equation*}

1333: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb) =\Pb,

1334: \end{equation*}

1335: where $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb) = (\hat{\psi}_{-N}^L(\rb),\dots,\hat{\psi}_{N}^L(\rb))$ is defined by

1336: \begin{equation}\label{L}

1337: \hat{\psi}_i^L(\rb) = \hat\eta(r_i), \qquad i = -N,\dots,N.

1338: \end{equation}

1339: We thus have that

1340: \[

1341: D_j \hat{\psi}^L_i(\rb)=\hat\eta'(r_i)\delta_{ij},

1342: \]

1343: and we see that the local quasicontinuum approximation is unstable when

1344: $r_i>a_1$ for some $i= -N,\dots,N.$

1345: 

1346: \begin{figure}

1347: \includegraphics[height=2.25in,width=\textwidth]{3plots1a}

1348: \caption{\label{phiplot}The Lennard-Jones potential \eqref{lj} demonstrates the

1349: prototypical behavior of $\phi(r)$ and its derivatives, $\eta(r)=\phi'(r)$

1350: and $\eta'(r)=\phi''(r).$}

1351: \end{figure}

1352: 

1353: \begin{figure}

1354: \includegraphics[height=2.25in,width=\textwidth]{3plots2}

1355: \caption{\label{hatphiplot}The energy density,

1356:  $\hat \phi(r),$ for the Lennard-Jones potential \eqref{lj} and its derivatives,

1357:  $\hat\eta(r)=\hat\phi'(r)$

1358: and $\hat\eta'(r)=\hat\phi''(r).$}

1359: \end{figure}

1360: 

1361: \subsection{Existence and Uniqueness by the Inverse Function Theorem}

1362: While the main theorem of this section gives explicit conditions

1363: on $\Pb$ for which $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)=\Pb$ is solvable,

1364: we begin by showing that the inverse function theorem~\cite{brown} can

1365: be used to show that $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is bijective in a neighborhood of

1366: $\rb = \ab.$

1367: Therefore, we must analyze

1368: the invertibility of

1369: \begin{equation}

1370: \label{dpsi}

1371: D_j \hat{\psi}^F_i(\rb) = \begin{cases}

1372:     [\eta'(r_i) + 4 \eta'(2 r_i)] \delta_{ij}, &

1373:         -N \leq i \leq -K, \\

1374:    [\eta'(r_i) + \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1}) + \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})] \delta_{ij}&\\

1375:       \quad +\eta'(r_i + r_{i-1}) \delta_{i-1 j} + \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})

1376:         \delta_{i+1 j}& \\

1377:     \quad+ [4\eta'(2r_K) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})]

1378:         \delta_{Kj}& \\

1379:     \quad - \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) \delta_{K-1j}

1380:         - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1}) \delta_{K+1j},  & -K+1 \leq i \leq K-1,\\

1381:     [\eta'(r_i) + 4 \eta'(2 r_i)] \delta_{ij}, & K \leq i \leq N.

1382: \end{cases}\end{equation}

1383: 

1384: 

1385: \begin{lemma}

1386: \label{local}

1387: If $\eta'(a_0) + 8 \eta'(2 a_0) > 0,$ then $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is bijective

1388:  in a neighborhood of $\ab.$

1389: \end{lemma}

1390: 

1391: \begin{proof}

1392: We will show that $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F (\ab)$ (where

1393: $(D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F)_{ij} = D_j \hat{\psi}^F_i)$

1394: is nonsingular by demonstrating that it is strictly diagonal

1395: dominant \cite{serre_matrices} (with positive

1396: diagonal), that is,

1397: \begin{equation*}

1398: D_i \hat{\psi}^F_i(\ab) > \sum_{j \neq i} | D_j \hat{\psi}^F_i(\ab)|, \qquad i = -N,\dots,N.

1399: \end{equation*}

1400: Looking at the rows of $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\ab),$

1401: all of the nearest-neighbor terms are on the diagonal.  If we collect

1402: all of the next-neighbor terms on the right hand side of the above inequality,

1403: we find that it is sufficient to show that $\eta'(a_0) > 4 |\eta'(2 a_0)|$ for

1404: rows $i=-N,\dots,-K$ and $i=K,\dots,N$ and

1405: $\eta'(a_0) > 8 |\eta'(2 a_0)|$ for rows $i=-K+1,\dots,K-1.$

1406:   Since $2 a_0 > \tilde{r}_1$ by assumption~\eqref{a4},

1407: we have that $\eta'(2a_0)<0$ by~\eqref{d1}.

1408: Thus, the condition

1409: $\eta'(a_0) + 8 \eta'(2 a_0) >0$ implies the strict diagonal dominance

1410: of~\eqref{dpsi}.  Therefore, we have that $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F (\ab)$ is nonsingular,

1411: and so by the inverse function theorem there exists a neighborhood

1412: of $\ab$ in which $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is bijective~\cite{antman_book}.

1413: \end{proof}

1414: 

1415: \subsection{Existence and Uniqueness for General External Forces}

1416: 

1417: In the theorems of this section and the next, we will

1418: use the continuation

1419: method~\cite{antman_book} to find explicit conditions under

1420: which $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)=\Pb$ has a

1421: unique solution.

1422: The idea of the continuation method is to start with the uncoupled

1423: local quasicontinuum system, construct a homotopy transformation

1424: from the local quasicontinuum system to the

1425: force-based quasicontinuum system, and

1426: show that existence and uniqueness persists through the transformation.

1427: We use the following well-known lemma to show that unique solvability of

1428: the local quasicontinuum system implies existence and uniqueness of a solution to the

1429: force-based quasicontinuum system~\cite{brown}.

1430: 

1431: \begin{lemma}

1432: \label{homotopy}

1433: Let $\Omega \subset \Real^{2N+1}$ be an open, bounded set.  Suppose that

1434: $\fb, \gb \in C^1(\bar{\Omega};\Real^{2N+1})$ and the homotopy

1435: $\hb(\rb,t) = (1-t) \fb(\rb)+ t \gb(\rb)$ for $t\in[0,1]$ satisfies

1436: \begin{enumerate}

1437: \item $\fb(\rb) = 0$ has

1438: a unique solution in $\Omega,$

1439: \item $\det D_\rb \hb (\rb,t)\neq 0$ in

1440: $\Omega \times [0, 1],$

1441: \item $\hb(\rb,t)\ne 0$

1442: for every $(\rb,t) \in \partial \Omega \times [0,1].$

1443: \end{enumerate}

1444: Then there is a unique solution $\rb \in \Omega$ satisfying $\gb(\rb) = 0.$

1445: \end{lemma}

1446: 

1447: \begin{proof}

1448: Since  $\det D_\rb \hb(\rb,t) \neq 0$ for all $(\rb,t) \in \Omega\times[0,1]$,

1449: we know by the implicit function theorem~\cite{brown}

1450:  that the solution of $h(\rb,t) = 0$

1451: in a neighborhood of a particular solution $(\rb_*,t_*)$

1452: satisfying $h(\rb_*,t_*) = 0$ can be written as a function $\rb(t)$ in a neighborhood

1453: of $(\rb_*,t_*).$  Thus, by compactness, the curve can be continued until

1454: it leaves the region $\bar \Omega \times [0, 1].$

1455: Since we have assumed that $\hb(\rb,t) \neq 0$ on

1456: $\partial \Omega \times [0,1]$,

1457: there is a one-to-one correspondence between solutions of $\fb(\rb) = 0$

1458: and solutions of $\gb(\rb)=0.$

1459: Therefore, the existence of a

1460: unique solution

1461: of $\fb(\rb) = 0$ for $\rb\in\Omega$ implies

1462: that $\gb(\rb) = 0$ has a unique solution for

1463: $\rb\in\Omega.$

1464: \end{proof}

1465: 

1466: We define the homotopy

1467: \begin{equation*}

1468: \hb(\rb,t) = (1-t) [\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb) - \Pb]

1469: + t [\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) - \Pb],\qquad t\in[0,1],

1470: \end{equation*}

1471: where $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb)$ is the local quasicontinuum system~\eqref{L}.

1472: The next lemma uses the properties of the local quasicontinuum system

1473: to simplify the hypothesis for the previous lemma.

1474: 

1475: \begin{lemma}

1476: \label{lem:psi}

1477: Let $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy $0<r_L<r_U<a_1,$ and set

1478: $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}.$

1479: Suppose that for $i=-N,\dots,N$ we have that

1480: \begin{equation}\label{h}

1481: \begin{split}

1482: &h_i(\rb,t) > 0\text{ if }r_i = r_U\text{ and }\rb\in\partial\Omega,\,t\in[0,1],\\

1483: &h_i(\rb,t) < 0\text{ if }r_i = r_L\text{ and }\rb\in\partial\Omega,\,t\in[0,1].

1484: \end{split}

1485: \end{equation}

1486: If $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is strictly diagonally dominant

1487: for all $\rb\in\Omega,$ then

1488: there exists a unique solution to $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb.$

1489: \end{lemma}

1490: 

1491: \begin{proof}

1492: We show that the above conditions are enough to satisfy the hypotheses

1493: of Lemma~\ref{homotopy}.

1494: We first show that $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb) = \Pb$ has a unique solution in $\Omega.$

1495: Since the system is decoupled, we need only demonstrate that the

1496: scalar equations

1497: \begin{equation}\label{de}

1498: \eta(r_j) + 2\eta(2 r_j) = \Phi_j,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N,

1499: \end{equation}

1500: have a unique solution for $r_L<r_j<r_U.$

1501: We have from the hypothesis \eqref{h} on $h_i(\rb,t)$ at $t=0$ that

1502: $\eta(r_L) + 2\eta(2 r_L) - \Phi_j < 0$ and

1503: $\eta(r_U) + 2\eta(2 r_U) - \Phi_j > 0.$  Hence, a solution $r_j$

1504: to~\eqref{de} exists by the intermediate value theorem.

1505: Since

1506: $\hat\eta(r)=\eta(r)+2\eta(2 r)$ is increasing

1507: for $0<r<r_U<a_1$ by~\eqref{d3},

1508: the solution to~\eqref{de}

1509: must be unique.

1510: 

1511: The hypothesis \eqref{h} implies that

1512: $\hb(\rb,t)\ne 0$

1513: for every $(\rb,t) \in \partial \Omega \times [0,1].$

1514:   Finally, to

1515: show that $\det D_\rb \hb (\rb,t)\neq 0$ for all $(\rb,t)\in

1516: \Omega \times [0, 1]$

1517: it is sufficient to demonstrate

1518: the strict diagonal dominance of $D_\rb \hb(\rb,t)$

1519: for all $(\rb,t)\in

1520: \Omega \times [0, 1].$

1521: 

1522: Now

1523: \[

1524: D_j h_i(\rb,t) = (1-t) D_j \hat{\psi}^L_i(\rb) + t D_j \hat{\psi}^F_i(\rb),

1525: \]

1526: and

1527: \[

1528: D_j \hat{\psi}^L_i(\rb)=\hat\eta'(r_i)\delta_{ij}.

1529: \]

1530: Since $0<r_i<a_1,$ we have by \eqref{d3} that

1531: $\hat\eta'(r_i) > 0.$  Thus, we have that

1532: $D_j \hat{\psi}^L_i(\rb)$ is strictly diagonal dominant

1533: (with positive diagonal).  We can then conclude that

1534: $D_j h_i(\rb,t)$ is strictly diagonal dominant

1535: (with positive diagonal) if $D_j \hat{\psi}^F_i(\rb)$

1536: is strictly diagonal dominant

1537: (with positive diagonal) since $D_j h_i(\rb,t)$ is then

1538: the sum of two strictly diagonal dominant matrices

1539: (with positive diagonal).

1540: Thus, by

1541: Lemma~\ref{homotopy}, the equation

1542: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) - \Pb = 0$ has a unique solution in $\Omega.$

1543: \end{proof}

1544: 

1545: We next turn to giving results that allow the calculation of

1546: an explicit neighborhood of $\az$ for which $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is bijective.

1547:   We first give a condition on $0<r_L<r_U$

1548: such that $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is strictly diagonally dominant

1549: for all $\rb\in\Omega$ where

1550: $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}.$

1551: 

1552: \begin{lemma}\label{reg}

1553: Suppose that $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy

1554: \begin{align}

1555: &\frac{\tilde r_2}2<r_L<r_U,\notag\\

1556: &\eta'(r_U)+12\eta'(2r_L) \geq 0.\label{eta}

1557: \end{align}

1558: Then $r_U < a_1,$ and $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is strictly

1559: diagonally dominant

1560: for all $\rb\in\Omega$ where

1561: $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}.$

1562: \end{lemma}

1563: \begin{proof}

1564: First, we note that since $r_L > \frac{\tilde r_2}2,$

1565: \eqref{d2} implies that $12 \eta'(2 r_L) < 12 \eta'(2 r_U).$

1566: Also, \eqref{d2} gives  that the next-neighbor terms are negative,

1567: so that $\eta'(r_U) + 4 \eta'(2 r_U) >

1568: \eta'(r_U) + 12 \eta'(2 r_U) \geq 0.$  Therefore, by \eqref{a4}

1569: we can conclude that $r_U < a_1.$

1570: 

1571: We can obtain from \eqref{dpsi} by summing all of the

1572: next-nearest-neighbor terms in each row that $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$

1573: is strictly diagonally dominant if

1574: \begin{equation*}

1575: \eta'(r) > 12 |\eta'(2s)| \quad \text{ for all } r,s \in (r_L,r_U).

1576: \end{equation*}

1577: (We note that the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{local}

1578: required the weaker condition $\eta'(a_0) > 8 |\eta'(2a_0)|$

1579: since we were able to utilize the

1580: cancellation of terms in the expression

1581: \[

1582: D_K \hat{\psi}^F_i(\rb) = 4\eta'(2r_K) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1}),

1583: \qquad i = -K+3,\dots,K-3,

1584: \]

1585: when it was evaluated at $\rb=\ab$  to obtain that

1586:  $D_K \hat{\psi}^F_i(\ab)=2\eta'(2a_0)$ for $i = -K+3,\dots,K-3.$)

1587: 

1588: We have by \eqref{d1} and \eqref{d2} that

1589: \begin{equation}\label{r1}

1590: \eta'(r)>0 \text{ and $\eta'(r)$ is decreasing for }r<\tilde r_1,

1591: \end{equation}

1592: and we have that

1593: \begin{equation}\label{r2}

1594: \eta'(2s)<0 \text{ and $\eta'(2s)$ is increasing for }s>\frac{\tilde r_2}2.

1595: \end{equation}

1596: It follows from \eqref{r2} that to prove

1597: strict diagonal dominance it is sufficient to show that

1598: \begin{equation*}

1599: \eta'(r) + 12 \eta'(2s) > 0 \quad \text{ for all } r,s \in (r_L,r_U).

1600: \end{equation*}

1601: We have from \eqref{r1} and \eqref{r2} that the above

1602: condition follows from the hypothesis \eqref{eta}.

1603: \end{proof}

1604: 

1605: \begin{theorem}

1606: \label{thm:wp1}

1607: Suppose that $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy

1608: \begin{align}

1609: &\frac{\tilde r_2}2<r_L<r_U, \label{what}\\

1610: &\eta'(r_U)+12\eta'(2r_L)\geq0.\label{etaz}

1611: \end{align}

1612: If

1613: \begin{equation*}

1614: \eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) < \Phi_j < \eta(r_U)

1615:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L), \qquad j=-N,\dots,N,

1616: \end{equation*}

1617: then $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb$

1618: has a unique solution $\rb$ in $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}.$

1619: \end{theorem}

1620: \begin{proof}

1621: We have by Lemma~\ref{reg} that

1622: $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$ is strictly diagonally dominant

1623: for all $\rb\in\Omega.$

1624: By Lemma~\ref{homotopy}, we need only show

1625: that

1626: \begin{equation*}

1627: \begin{split}

1628: &h_i(\rb,t) > 0\text{ if }r_i = r_U\text{ and }\rb\in\partial\Omega,\,t\in[0,1],\\

1629: &h_i(\rb,t) < 0\text{ if }r_i = r_L\text{ and }\rb\in\partial\Omega,\,t\in[0,1].

1630: \end{split}

1631: \end{equation*}

1632: 

1633: If we look at the rows of $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb)$, we see that

1634: there is always one nearest-neighbor term and at most four

1635:  positive and two negative next-nearest-neighbor terms~\eqref{stress2}.

1636:  We also note that $2r_L>\tilde r_2>\tilde r_1$ by \eqref{what} and \eqref{a4},

1637: so we have by \eqref{d1} that $\eta(2r)$ is deceasing for $r\ge r_L$ and

1638: \[

1639: 2\eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U)>0.

1640: \]

1641: We can thus estimate $\hb(\rb,t)$ on the boundary to get

1642: \begin{equation}\label{ditz}

1643: \begin{split}

1644: \min_{\rb \in \partial \Omega , r_j = r_U} h_j(\rb,t) &=

1645:     \min_{\rb \in \partial \Omega , r_j = r_U}

1646:      (1-t) [\hat{\psi}_j^L(\rb) - \Phi_j] + t[\hat{\psi}^F_j(\rb) - \Phi_j]

1647:      \\

1648: &\ge (1-t)\left[\eta(r_U)+2\eta(2r_U)-\Phi_j\right]

1649: +t\left[\eta(r_U)+4\eta(2r_U)-2\eta(2r_L)-\Phi_j\right]\\

1650:     & = (1-t) [2 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U)]

1651:     +\left[\eta(r_U)

1652:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L)\right]-\Phi_j> 0,\\

1653: \max_{\rb \in \partial \Omega , r_j = r_L} h_j(\rb,t) &=

1654:     \max_{\rb \in \partial \Omega , r_j = r_L}

1655:      (1-t) [\hat{\psi}_j^L(\rb) - \Phi_j] + t[\hat{\psi}^F_j(\rb) - \Phi_j] \\

1656:      &\le (1-t)\left[\eta(r_L)+2\eta(2r_L)-\Phi_j\right]

1657: +t\left[\eta(r_L)+4\eta(2r_L)-2\eta(2r_U)-\Phi_j\right]\\

1658:     & = (1-t) [2 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L)]

1659:     +\left[\eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) \right] -\Phi_j< 0.

1660: \end{split}

1661: \end{equation}

1662: 

1663: Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem:psi}, we have a unique solution to

1664: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb$ in $\Omega.$

1665: \end{proof}

1666: 

1667: We now consider the case in which

1668: the external

1669: forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric \eqref{forcesym}, so that

1670: the

1671: external potential $\Phi_j$ is symmetric~\eqref{Phisym}.

1672: We then have that the solution $\rb$ to

1673: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb$ obtained in the

1674: proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:wp1} is symmetric, and will

1675: also solve the equilibrium equations \eqref{equil}.

1676: 

1677: \begin{corollary}

1678: \label{cor:wp1}

1679: Suppose that $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy

1680: \begin{align*}

1681: &\frac{\tilde r_2}2<r_L<r_U,\\

1682: &\eta'(r_U)+12\eta'(2r_L)\geq0,

1683: \end{align*}

1684: and that

1685: the external

1686: forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric \eqref{forcesym}.

1687: If

1688: \begin{equation*}

1689: \eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) < \Phi_j < \eta(r_U)

1690:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L), \qquad j=-N,\dots,N,

1691: \end{equation*}

1692: then the equilibrium equations

1693: \begin{equation*}

1694: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

1695: \end{equation*}

1696: have a unique symmetric solution $\rb$ in $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}.$

1697: \end{corollary}

1698: 

1699: 

1700: \begin{proof}

1701: We first note that since the external forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric,

1702: the external potential $\Pb$ is symmetric.

1703: We consider the solution $\rb(t)$ to

1704:  the homotopy continuation

1705: \begin{equation}\label{d}

1706: \hb\left(\rb(t),t\right) = (1-t) [\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L\left(\rb(t)\right) - \Pb]

1707: + t [\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F\left(\rb(t)\right) - \Pb],\qquad t\in[0,1],

1708: \end{equation}

1709: that we have from Lemma \ref{homotopy}.

1710: The unique solution to

1711: the decoupled local quasicontinuum system

1712:  $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L(\rb) =\Pb$ is symmetric, therefore

1713: $\rb(0)$ is symmetric.

1714: We obtain by differentiating \eqref{d} that

1715: \[

1716:  \nabla_{\rb}\hb\left(\rb(t),t\right)\rb_t\left(t\right)

1717: +\hb_t\left(\rb(t),t\right)=0,\qquad t\in[0,1],

1718: \]

1719: where

1720: \[

1721:  \nabla_{\rb}\hb\left(\rb(t),t\right)=(1-t)\nabla_{\rb}\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L\left(\rb(t)\right)

1722: +t\nabla_{\rb}\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F\left(\rb(t)\right)

1723: \]

1724: and

1725: \[

1726:  \hb_t\left(\rb(t),t\right)=\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F\left(\rb(t)\right)-

1727: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^L\left(\rb(t)\right).

1728: \]

1729: All terms above are symmetric whenever $\rb(t)$ is, and therefore

1730: the symmetry of $\rb(0)$ implies that $\rb_t(t)$ and $\rb(t)$ are

1731: symmetric in the whole interval $[0,1],$ and in particular

1732: $\rb(1)$ is symmetric. The proof that $\rb$ is symmetric

1733: is completed by observing that $\rb(1)$ is the

1734: unique solution to $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb.$

1735: 

1736: Since the

1737:  unique solution $\rb$ to  $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^F(\rb) = \Pb$ is symmetric,

1738:  we can conclude that $\rb$ is the unique symmetric solution to

1739:  the force-based equilibrium equations

1740:  \begin{equation*}

1741: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1. \qedhere

1742: \end{equation*}

1743: \end{proof}

1744: 

1745: 

1746: We now apply Corollary \ref{cor:wp1} to the Lennard-Jones potential \eqref{lj}.

1747: \begin{corollary}

1748: \label{ljregion}

1749: We assume that

1750: the external

1751: forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric \eqref{forcesym}.

1752: For any $\frac{\tilde r_2}{2} < r_U < a_1$, let

1753: \begin{equation}\label{ljrl}

1754: r_L = \max \left( \frac{\tilde r_2}{2}, \left( \frac{63}{16 \eta'(r_U)}

1755:         \right)^{\frac{1}{8}} \right).

1756: \end{equation}

1757: If $r_L < r_U$, then

1758: the equilibrium equations

1759: \begin{equation*}

1760: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

1761: \end{equation*}

1762: have a unique symmetric solution $\rb$ in $\Omega = (r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}$

1763: whenever

1764: \begin{equation*}

1765: \eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) < \Phi_j < \eta(r_U)

1766:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L), \qquad j=-N,\dots,N.

1767: \end{equation*}

1768: \end{corollary}

1769: 

1770: \begin{proof}

1771: To prove this corollary using

1772:  Theorem \ref{thm:wp1}, we need to show that \eqref{etaz} holds.

1773: Evaluating \eqref{etaz} for the Lennard-Jones potential~ \eqref{lj}, we get

1774: \begin{equation*}

1775: \begin{split}

1776: \eta'(r_U) + 12 \eta'(2 r_L) &= \eta'(r_U) + 12 \left[

1777: \frac{156}{2^{14} r_L^{14}} - \frac{84}{2^8 r_L^8} \right] \\

1778: &> \eta'(r_U) - \frac{63}{16 r_L^8}.

1779: \end{split}

1780: \end{equation*}

1781: Therefore, \eqref{etaz} holds if

1782: $r_L \geq \left( \frac{63}{16 \eta'(r_U)}\right)^{1/8}.$

1783: \end{proof}

1784: 

1785: After solving for $r_L$ in \eqref{ljrl}, we have to check the

1786: additional hypothesis~\eqref{what} that $r_L < r_U$, as it is not true for

1787: every $r_U \in (\hat r_2/2, a_1).$  However, this is not a very

1788: restrictive assumption since it is true for all $r_U < 1.1003$,

1789: whereas $a_1 = 1.1059.$ The lower end for the interval is

1790: $\frac{\tilde r_2}{2} = 0.6085.$

1791: 

1792: Using Corollary \ref{ljregion}, we now find a symmetric region about

1793: $\Pb = 0.$  Solving numerically, if we take $r_L = 0.9700$ and $r_U = 1.0883$,

1794: we can conclude that for any $\Pb$ satisfying $-2.62 < \Phi < 2.62$, we

1795: can uniquely solve the force-based quasicontinuum equilibrium equations~

1796: \eqref{equil}.  For the Lennard-Jones potential $\hat \eta(a_1) = 2.781$,

1797: so this symmetric region extends quite close to the load limit.

1798: 

1799: \begin{remark}

1800: The techniques of this section can be applied to the analysis of the

1801: fully atomistic model or the constrained atomistic quasicontinuum

1802: approximation, and the analysis will be simplified as there are no

1803: non-local conjugate forces.  In both cases, the continuation

1804: from the local quasicontinuum approximation can be used.

1805: 

1806: We also note that the interfacial terms satisfy the convexity

1807: condition

1808: \[

1809: \Su_j(r_{j-1},r_j) = - \half\phi(2r_{j-1}) +  \phi(r_{j-1} + r_j)

1810:     - \half\phi(2r_j)>0,\qquad j=-N+1,\dots,N,

1811: \]

1812: for $\rb$ in the region defined by \eqref{what} in

1813: Theorem~\ref{thm:wp1} and Corollary ~\ref{cor:wp1} since \eqref{r2} holds in this

1814: region.

1815: \end{remark}

1816: 

1817: \section{Convergence of the Ghost Force Iteration}

1818: \label{iterza}

1819: 

1820: We now give a similar analysis for the iterative equations

1821: \eqref{iterPsih} which in vector form are

1822: \begin{equation}

1823: \label{iterPsihz}

1824: \hat\pb^E(\rb^{n+1}) + \hat\pb^G(\rb^{n}) = \Pb,

1825: \end{equation}

1826: where $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb)=

1827: \left(\hat\psi^E_{-N}(\rb),\dots,\hat\psi_N^E(\rb)\right)\in\Real^{2N+1}$

1828: has the symmetric form given in \eqref{psiE}, and

1829: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb)=

1830: \left(\hat\psi^G_{-N}(\rb),\dots,\hat\psi_N^G(\rb)\right)\in\Real^{2N+1}$

1831: has the symmetric form given in \eqref{psiG}.

1832: We also note that we can

1833: ignore $\hat\psi^E_{-N-1},\,\hat\psi^E_{N+1},\,

1834: \hat\psi^G_{-N-1},\,\hat\psi^G_{N+1}$ and

1835: $\Phi_{-N-1},\,\Phi_{N+1}$

1836: in the above formulation since

1837: \[

1838: \hat\psi^E_{-N-1}=\hat\psi^E_{N+1}=\hat\psi^G_{-N-1}=\hat\psi^G_{N+1}=\Phi_{-N-1}=\Phi_{N+1}=0.

1839: \]

1840: We will determine $\Omega \subset \Real^{2N+1}$ and

1841: $D \subset \Real^{2N+1}$ such that there is a unique $\rb^{n+1} \in \Omega$ that

1842: satisfies~\eqref{iterPsihz} whenever

1843: $\rb^n \in \Omega \text{

1844: and } \Pb \in D,$ and we will show that the induced mapping from $\rb^n$ to

1845: $\rb^{n+1}$ is a contraction mapping.

1846: 

1847: First, we need to compute $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb)$ and $D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb).$ The

1848: following expressions are rather complex, but all we will need

1849: to recognize from them is that the number of first and second neighbor terms in

1850: each row.  We have

1851: \begin{equation}

1852: \label{eq:Dpsi_E}

1853: D_j \hat\psi^E_i(\rb) =

1854: \begin{cases}

1855: [\eta'(r_i) + 4 \eta'(2r_i)] \delta_{ij}

1856:     ,& K+2 \leq i \leq N  ,\\

1857: [\eta'(r_{i}) + 4\eta(2r_{i}) + \half \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1})]

1858:         \delta_{ij}& \\

1859:     \quad + [\half \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1})] \delta_{i-1j} ,& i = K+1,\\

1860: [\eta'(r_i) + 2 \eta'(2r_i) + \half \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1})

1861:     + \half \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})] \delta_{ij}& \\

1862:     \quad + [\half \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1})] \delta_{i-1j}

1863:         + [\half \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})] \delta_{i+1j} ,& i = K ,\\

1864: [\eta'(r_{i}) + \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1}) + \half \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})]

1865:         \delta_{ij} & \\

1866:     \quad + [\eta'(r_i+r_{i-1})] \delta_{i-1j}

1867:         + [\half \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})] \delta_{i+1j} ,& i = K-1 ,\\

1868: [\eta'(r_i) + \eta'(r_i+r_{i-1}) + \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})] \delta_{ij}&\\

1869:     \quad +\eta'(r_i + r_{i-1}) \delta_{i-1 j} + \eta'(r_i+r_{i+1})

1870:         \delta_{i+1 j} ,& -K+2 \leq i \leq K-2,\\

1871: \eta'(r_i)\delta_{ij}+\dots ,& -N\leq i\leq -K+3,

1872: \end{cases}

1873: \end{equation}

1874: and

1875: \begin{equation}

1876: \label{eq:Dpsi_G}

1877: D_j \hat\psi^G_i(\rb) =

1878: \begin{cases}

1879: 0 ,& K+2 \leq i \leq N ,\\

1880: - \half \eta'(r_K + r_{K+1}) \delta_{Kj} - \half \eta'(r_K + r_{K+1})

1881:         \delta_{K+1j} ,& i = K+1 ,\\

1882: [2 \eta'(2r_K) - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})]

1883:         \delta_{Kj}&\\

1884:     \quad - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) \delta_{K-1j} - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})

1885:         \delta_{K+1j} ,& i = K ,\\

1886: [4 \eta'(2r_K) - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})] \delta_{Kj}&\\

1887:     \quad - \half \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) \delta_{K-1j} - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})

1888:         \delta_{K+1j} ,& i = K-1 ,\\

1889: [4 \eta'(2r_K) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})] \delta_{Kj}&\\

1890:     \quad - \eta'(r_K+r_{K-1}) \delta_{K-1j} - \eta'(r_K+r_{K+1})

1891:         \delta_{K+1j} ,& -K+2 \leq i \leq K-2,\\

1892: \dots ,& -N\leq i\leq -K+3.

1893: \end{cases}

1894: \end{equation}

1895: 

1896: We recall that the maximum norm for $\rb\in\Real^{2N+1}$ is given by

1897: \[

1898: \|\rb\|_\infty =

1899: \max_{i=-N,\dots,N} |r_i|.

1900: \]

1901: 

1902: \begin{theorem}

1903: \label{thm:wp2}

1904: Suppose that $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy

1905: \begin{align}

1906: &\frac{\hat r_2}{2} <  r_L < r_U,\notag \\

1907: &\label{thirteen} \eta'(r_U) + 13 \eta'(2 r_L) > 0,

1908: \end{align}

1909: and that $\Pb$ satisfies

1910: \begin{equation} \label{eq:phirange2}

1911: \eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) < \Phi_j < \eta(r_U)

1912:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L), \qquad j = -N,\dots,N.

1913: \end{equation}

1914: Then for every $\rb^{n} \in \Omega = (r_L,r_U)^{2N+1}$

1915: there is a unique $\rb^{n+1} \in \Omega$

1916: such that

1917: \begin{equation}\label{it}

1918: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb^{n+1}) + \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb^{n}) = \Pb.

1919: \end{equation}

1920: We also have that the

1921: induced mapping $\rb^n \rightarrow \rb^{n+1}$ is a contraction and

1922: satisfies the inequality

1923: \begin{equation} \label{contract}

1924: \maxnorm{\rb^{n+1} - \sbf^{n+1}}\le \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}

1925: \maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n},

1926: \end{equation}

1927: where we have from \eqref{thirteen} that

1928: \begin{equation*}

1929: \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|} < 1.

1930: \end{equation*}

1931: \end{theorem}

1932: 

1933: \begin{proof}

1934: The first part of the proof will be very similar to the proofs of

1935: Lemma~\ref{reg} and Theorem~\ref{thm:wp1}, as we will again satisfy

1936: the hypotheses of

1937: Lemma~\ref{lem:psi}.  First, we note that \eqref{thirteen} implies

1938: that $r_U < a_1$ by Lemma \ref{reg}.

1939: We prove strict diagonal dominance for $D_j \hat\psi^E_i(\rb)$

1940: given by \eqref{eq:Dpsi_E}.  For this argument,

1941: we only need to show that $\eta'(r) > 5 |\eta'(2s)|$

1942: whenever $r,s \in (r_L,r_U),$ or since $\eta'(2s) < 0$,

1943: we need only show

1944: \[

1945: \eta'(r) + 5 \eta'(2s) > 0 \quad \text{for } r,s \in (r_L,r_U).

1946: \]

1947: We will need the factor $13$ in the hypothesis

1948: \eqref{thirteen} to prove that the mapping is a contraction, which

1949: is why the hypothesis is as strong as it is.

1950: We further note that from \eqref{r1},

1951: \eqref{r2}, and the hypothesis \eqref{eq:phirange2} that we have

1952: \begin{equation*}

1953: \begin{split}

1954: \eta'(r) + 5 \eta'(2s) &> \eta'(r) + 13 \eta'(2s)\\

1955:                        &> \eta'(r_U) + 13 \eta'(2 r_L)>0,\qquad

1956: r,s \in (r_L,r_U).

1957: \end{split}

1958: \end{equation*}

1959: Thus, we have established that $\det D \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb)> 0$ in

1960: $\Omega.$

1961: 

1962: We now verify that $\hb(\rb,t)$ satisfies the condition ~\eqref{h},

1963: that is, it does not vanish on

1964: $\partial\Omega\times [0,1].$

1965: In the proof of Theorem ~\ref{thm:wp1}, we analyzed $\hb(\rb,t)$

1966: on $\partial\Omega\times [0,1]$ by grouping

1967: the second-neighbor terms.  From this point of view~\eqref{ditz}, the iteration problem

1968: $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb^{n+1}) + \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb^{n})=\Pb,$

1969: is identical to the problem, $\hat{\mathbf\Psi}(\rb) =\Pb.$

1970: Thus, we have that

1971: \begin{equation*}

1972: \begin{split}

1973: \min_{\substack{\rb^{n+1} \in \partial \Omega ,\\ r_j = r_U}} h_j(\rb^{n+1})

1974: &\geq \min_{\substack{\rb^{n+1},\rb^{n} \in \partial \Omega ,\\ r_j = r_U}}

1975:      (1-t) [\hat\psi_j^L(\rb^{n+1}) - \Phi_j] + t[\hat\psi^E_j(\rb^{n+1})

1976:      + \hat\psi^G(\rb^n) - \Phi_j] \\

1977:     & \ge (1-t) [2 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U)]

1978:     +t \left[\eta(r_U)

1979:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L)-\Phi_j\right]> 0,\\

1980: \max_{\substack{\rb^{n+1} \in \partial \Omega ,\\ r_j = r_L}} h_j(\rb^{n+1})

1981: &\leq \max_{\substack{\rb^{n+1},\rb^{n} \in \partial \Omega ,\\ r_j = r_L}}

1982:      (1-t) [\hat\psi_j^L(\rb^{n+1}) - \Phi_j] + t[\hat\psi^E_j(\rb^{n+1})

1983:      + \hat\psi^G(\rb^n) - \Phi_j] \\

1984:     & \le (1-t) [2 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L)]

1985:     +t \left[\eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U)

1986:     -\Phi_j \right]< 0.

1987: \end{split}

1988: \end{equation*}

1989: Therefore, we have proven that $\hb(\rb,t)$

1990: satisfies the condition ~\eqref{h},

1991: that is, it does not vanish on

1992: $\partial\Omega\times [0,1].$

1993: We have now verified the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{lem:psi}

1994: to conclude the existence of a unique solution $\rb^{n+1}\in\Omega$

1995: to the iteration equation ~\eqref{it}.

1996: 

1997: To prove that the mapping~\eqref{it} is a contraction,

1998: we suppose

1999: $\rb^n, \rb^{n+1}, \sbf^n, \sbf^{n+1} \in \Omega$ satisfy

2000: \begin{equation*}

2001: \begin{split}

2002: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb^{n+1}) + \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb^n) = \Pb, \\

2003: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\sbf^{n+1}) + \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\sbf^n) = \Pb.

2004: \end{split}

2005: \end{equation*}

2006: We then have that

2007: \begin{equation}\label{contract2}

2008: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb^{n+1}) - \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\sbf^{n+1}) = \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\sbf^n) - \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb^n).

2009: \end{equation}

2010: 

2011: By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have that

2012: \begin{equation}\label{har}

2013: \begin{split}

2014: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\rb^{n+1}) - \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E(\sbf^{n+1})&=L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})(\rb^{n+1}-\sbf^{n+1}),\\

2015: \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\rb^{n}) - \hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G(\sbf^{n})&=L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})(\rb^{n}-\sbf^{n}),

2016: \end{split}

2017: \end{equation}

2018: where

2019: \begin{equation*}

2020: \begin{split}

2021:  L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})&=\int_0^1 D\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^E\left(\rb^{n+1} + \theta

2022:  (\sbf^{n+1}-\rb^{n+1})\right)\,d\theta,\\

2023: L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})&=\int_0^1 D\hat{\mathbf\Psi}^G\left(\rb^{n} + \theta (\sbf^{n}-\rb^{n})\right)\,d\theta.

2024: \end{split}

2025: \end{equation*}

2026: We then have by \eqref{contract2} and \eqref{har} that

2027: \begin{equation*}

2028: L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})(\rb^{n+1}-\sbf^{n+1})=-L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})

2029: (\rb^{n}-\sbf^{n}).

2030: \end{equation*}

2031: 

2032: To show that $L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})$ is nonsingular

2033: and estimate its inverse, we define

2034: the diagonal matrix, $L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1}),$

2035: that contains the dominant nearest-neighbor terms

2036: of $L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})$ by $\left(L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})\right)_{ij}

2037: =L^D_{ij}(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})$ where

2038: \begin{equation*}

2039:  L^D_{ij}(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})=\left[\int_0^1 \eta'\left(r_i^{n+1} + \theta

2040:  (s_i^{n+1}-r_i^{n+1})\right)\,d\theta\right]

2041: \delta_{ij}.

2042: \end{equation*}

2043: 

2044: Since $\rb^{n} + \theta

2045:  (\sbf^{n}-\rb^{n})\in\Omega=(r_L, r_U)^{2N+1}$ if $\rb^{n},\,\sbf^{n}\in\Omega$

2046: and $\theta\in(0,1),$ we can conclude from \eqref{r1} and \eqref{r2} that

2047: \begin{equation}\label{br}

2048: \begin{split}

2049: \maxnorm{L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}} &\leq \frac{1}{\eta'(r_U)}, \\

2050: \maxnorm{ L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})- L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1}) } &\leq 5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|,

2051: \end{split}

2052: \end{equation}

2053: where the matrix norm that is induced by the $\maxnorm{\rb}$ vector norm is

2054: \[

2055: \|L\|_\infty = \max_{i=-N,\dots,N} \sum_{j=-N}^N |L_{ij}|.

2056: \]

2057: We have that

2058: \[

2059:  L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})=L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})

2060: \left[I+L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}\left(L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})

2061: -L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})\right)\right],

2062: \]

2063: so it follows from \eqref{br} that $L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})$ is

2064: nonsingular and we have the estimate

2065: \begin{equation}\label{dar}

2066:  \maxnorm{L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}}\le

2067: \frac{\maxnorm{ L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}}}{1-\maxnorm{ L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}}

2068: \maxnorm{ L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})- L^D(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1}) }}.

2069: \end{equation}

2070: Hence, can state that

2071: \begin{equation}\label{ya}

2072:  \rb^{n+1}-\sbf^{n+1}=-\left[L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})\right]^{-1}

2073: L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})

2074: (\rb^{n}-\sbf^{n}).

2075: \end{equation}

2076: 

2077: From \eqref{eq:Dpsi_G}, we can obtain from \eqref{r2} the estimate

2078: \begin{equation*}

2079:  \maxnorm{L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})} \leq 8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|,

2080: \end{equation*}

2081: so we have from \eqref{ya} and \eqref{dar} that

2082: \begin{equation*}

2083: \begin{split}

2084: \maxnorm{\rb^{n+1} - \sbf^{n+1}} &\leq \maxnorm{L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})}

2085:     \maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n}\\

2086: &\leq \maxnorm{L^E(\rb^{n+1},\sbf^{n+1})^{-1}}

2087:     \maxnorm{L^G(\rb^{n},\sbf^{n})} \maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n}\\

2088: &\leq \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}\maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n}.

2089: \end{split}

2090: \end{equation*}

2091: We have from \eqref{thirteen} that

2092: \begin{equation*}

2093: \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|} < 1,

2094: \end{equation*}

2095: so the mapping $\rb^n \rightarrow \rb^{n+1}$ is a contraction and

2096: \[

2097: \maxnorm{\rb^{n+1} - \sbf^{n+1}}\le \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}

2098: \maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n}. \qedhere

2099: \]

2100: \end{proof}

2101: 

2102: We can prove the following corollary of Theorem~\ref{thm:wp2} for the ghost force iteration

2103: by an argument similar to that used to derive Corollary~\ref{cor:wp1} from Theorem~\ref{thm:wp1}.

2104: 

2105: \begin{corollary}

2106: \label{cor:wp2}

2107: Suppose that

2108: the external

2109: forces, $f_{j},$ are anti-symmetric \eqref{forcesym},

2110: that $r_L$ and $r_U$ satisfy

2111: \begin{align}

2112: &\frac{\hat r_2}{2} <  r_L < r_U , \notag \\

2113: &\label{thirteenzz} \eta'(r_U) + 13 \eta'(2 r_L) > 0,

2114: \end{align}

2115: and that $\Pb$ satisfies

2116: \begin{equation*}

2117: \eta(r_L) + 4 \eta(2 r_L) - 2 \eta(2 r_U) < \Phi_j < \eta(r_U)

2118:      + 4 \eta(2 r_U) - 2 \eta(2 r_L), \qquad j = -N,\dots,N.

2119: \end{equation*}

2120: 

2121: Then for every symmetric $\rb^{n} \in \Omega = (r_L,r_U)^{2N+1}$

2122: there is a unique symmetric $\rb^{n+1} \in \Omega$

2123: such that

2124: \begin{equation*}

2125: F_j^{QCE}(\rb^{n+1}) + F_j^G(\rb^{n}) + f_j = 0, \qquad j = -N,\dots,N+1.

2126: \end{equation*}

2127: We also have that the

2128: induced mapping $\rb^n \rightarrow \rb^{n+1}$ is a contraction and

2129: satisfies the inequality

2130: \begin{equation}\label{contract3}

2131: \maxnorm{\rb^{n+1} - \sbf^{n+1}}\le \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}

2132: \maxnorm{\rb^n - \sbf^n},

2133: \end{equation}

2134: where we have from \eqref{thirteenzz} that

2135: \begin{equation*}

2136: \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|} < 1.

2137: \end{equation*}

2138: The mapping $\rb^n \rightarrow \rb^{n+1}$ converges to the unique symmetric $\rb$

2139: in $\Omega$ that satisfies the force-based quasicontinuum equations

2140: \begin{equation*}\label{f}

2141: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1.

2142: \end{equation*}

2143: \end{corollary}

2144: 

2145: We now apply Corollary \ref{cor:wp2} to the Lennard-Jones potential

2146: as in the previous section.

2147: This time, we not only need to satisfy the basic

2148: inequality~\eqref{thirteen} on $r_L$ and $r_U,$

2149: but we also need to verify that the contraction constant

2150: in \eqref{contract3} is less than 1.  So, we pick $\gamma \in (0,1)$ and

2151: solve for

2152: \begin{equation*}

2153: \frac{  8 |\eta'(2 r_L)|}{\eta'(r_U) -  5 |\eta'(2 r_L)|} < \gamma.

2154: \end{equation*}

2155: Using the same argument as in Corollary \ref{ljregion}, for any

2156: $r_U \in(\hat r_2/2, a_1),$ we choose

2157: \[

2158:  r_L = \max \left( \frac{\tilde r_2}{2}, \left(

2159:  \frac{156 (5 + 8/\gamma)}{256 \eta'(r_U)}

2160:         \right)^{\frac{1}{8}} \right).

2161: \]

2162: If the resulting $r_L$ is less than $r_U$, we then have a region for

2163: symmetric $\Pb$ for which the iteration is well-defined and a contraction.

2164: 

2165: Using the above with contraction constant $\gamma = \frac{1}{2},$ we find that for any symmetric

2166: $\Pb \in (-2.56, 2.56)^{2N+1}$ and

2167: symmetric $\rb^n \in (.9706,1.0771)^{2N+1}$ there is a unique

2168: symmetric $\rb^{n+1}\in (.9706,1.0771)^{2N+1}$ that satisfies the ghost force iteration equations

2169: \begin{equation*}

2170: F_j^{QCE}(\rb^{n+1}) + F_j^G(\rb^{n}) + f_j = 0, \qquad j = -N,\dots,N+1.

2171: \end{equation*}

2172: We can finally obtain by taking $\sbf^n=\rb,$

2173: where $\rb$ is the unique symmetric solution to the force-based quasicontinuum equations,

2174: \[

2175: F_{j}^{QCF}(\rb)+f_{j}=0,\qquad j=-N,\dots,N+1,

2176: \]

2177: that

2178: \begin{equation*}

2179: \maxnorm{\rb^{n+1} - \rb}\le \frac12

2180: \maxnorm{\rb^n - \rb}.

2181: \end{equation*}

2182: 

2183: \bibliography{qcf}

2184: \bibliographystyle{abbrv}

2185: }

2186: 

2187: \end{document}

2188: