Abstract
The model analyzed in this paper has its origins in the description of composites made by a hosting medium containing a periodic array of inclusions coated by a thin layer consisting of sublayers of two different materials. This two-phase coating material is such that the external part has a low diffusivity in the orthogonal direction, while the internal one has high diffusivity along the tangential direction. In a previous paper (Amar in IFB 21:41–59, 2019), by means of a concentration procedure, the internal layer was replaced by an imperfect interface. The present paper is concerned with the concentration of the external coating layer and the homogenization, via the periodic unfolding method, of the resulting model, which is far from being a standard one. Despite the fact that the limit problem looks like a classical Dirichlet problem for an elliptic equation, in the construction of the homogenized matrix and of the source term, a very delicate analysis is required.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In recent years, the improvements of the industrial techniques permit to obtain more efficient materials constructed by assembling different constituents. Indeed, the mechanical, thermal or electrical properties of these composites are definitely superior of the ones of the single components. However, this bonding does not give rise in general to perfect contacts between the different components, so that discontinuities in the involved physical fields can appear. All these discontinuities change meaningfully the properties of the composites and also of the resulting macroscopic materials. Therefore, these problems call for a theoretical investigation. The classical approach in order to treat such discontinuities is to assume the presence of a thin layer between the different physical phases which permits to have a smooth transition from one phase to the other. However, since the thickness of these thin layers is assumed to be very small, by means of a concentration procedure, they can be replaced by the so-called imperfect interfaces, across which some of the physical fields exhibit jump conditions reproducing the original discontinuities.
A great number of papers concerning problems with imperfect contact conditions have been produced in the literature. In the framework of applications, we can refer, for instance, to [18, 19, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40]. On the other hand, in the rigorous mathematical setting, some pioneering papers are, among others, [16, 33, 37, 38].
The most common models dealing with imperfect contact involve jumps for the solution and continuity of the flux across the interface (see [2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 20, 25,26,27, 41, 42, 45]) or jumps of the flux and continuity of the solution (see [4, 28, 34]). Also, in some of these models, the Laplace-Beltrami operator appears, due for instance to the presence of highly conducting interfaces (as in [1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 33]). A unifying approach of such problems involving simultaneously jumps in the solution and also in the flux has been proposed in [21, 22, 29, 43] (see, also the references therein).
More recently, models involving also the mean value of the physical fields governing the different phases have been considered, for instance, in [8, 9, 17, 31, 39, 44]. All these models were originally proposed in the engineering context and then, in some cases, rigorously justified by means of different mathematical tools.
The model analyzed in this paper has its origins in the description of composites made by a hosting medium containing a periodic array of inclusions of size \(\varepsilon \). In order to make the composite more efficient, the inclusions are coated by a thin layer consisting of sublayers of two different materials (with thickness of the order \(\varepsilon \eta \) and \(\varepsilon \delta \), respectively), disposed in such a way that one of them is encapsulated in the other. This two-phase coating material is such that the external part has a low diffusivity in the orthogonal direction, while the internal one has high diffusivity along the tangential direction. In such original material, we assume perfect transmission conditions between the different phases of the physical components. All the parameters \(\varepsilon ,\delta \) and \(\eta \) are supposed to be very small, but with different orders. In particular, the smallness of \(\eta \) and \(\delta \), with respect to \(\varepsilon \), leads us to perform, for fixed \(\varepsilon \), a two-step concentration procedure. The limit \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) is essentially the result contained in [14] (see, also, [12]) and, then, it is not explicitly reproduced here. This first concentration replaces the internal layer with an interface, involving an imperfect contact condition, governed by a tangential Laplace equation for the heat potential having as a source the jump of the normal flux (see (2.12)).
Then, the paper starts with the concentration, with respect to \(\eta \), of the resulting model. In order to simplify the presentation, we set the concentration problem in a flat geometry, but our result holds also for a more general case, as the one addressed in Sect. 3. The main feature of this concentration procedure is the appearance of new effects on the resulting interface between the hosting material and the inclusions, involving a new surface heat potential, similarly as in [43], and the mean value of the two bulk potentials and their fluxes, as in [8, 9] (see (3.5)–(3.7)). We stress again that similar problems, involving simultaneously jumps in the solution and also in the flux, Laplace-Beltrami operator and the mean value of the physical fields governing the different phases of a composite material already appeared in the engineering literature, being justified by numerical simulations and by asymptotic analysis (see [31, 39, 44]), but at the best of our knowledge, not yet fully analyzed from the mathematical point of view. The main difficulty in order to achieve the concentrated model (3.1)–(3.7) consists, besides the construction of the proper test functions, in guessing and, then, rigorously obtaining suitable estimates for the involved unknowns.
After the second concentration step, we proceed, via the periodic unfolding method, with the homogenization of the concentrated model, which is far from being a standard one (see (3.8)–(3.9)). Also in this case, the main difficulties are connected with the guess of the macroscopic model, in order to understand which types of estimates are needed (see Theorem 4.1) to achieve the final result (see Theorem 6.6). Moreover, differently from the more common situations, we have to construct also a separate surface test function (see (6.37)), due to the non-standard form of the problem to be homogenized. Despite the fact that the limit problem (6.29)–(6.30) looks like a standard Dirichlet problem for an elliptic equation, in the construction of the homogenized matrix and of the source term a very delicate analysis is required. For example, the usual local problems involved in the homogenization procedure are, in our case, highly non-standard, calling also for properly adapted functional settings (see Sect. 5).
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we present, in a simplified geometrical setting (a layered geometry), the model governing the composite material, which is essentially the model obtained by using a concentration procedure in [14]. Starting from this model, which already involves an imperfect contact condition, we perform a second concentration procedure, in order to achieve the microscopic model to be further homogenized. In Sect. 3, we state our microscopic problem in a more general geometrical setting, consisting of a connected hosting material containing a periodic array of disconnected inclusions. In Sect. 4, we prove the main energy inequalities required for the convergence of the heat potentials and their fluxes. Section 5 is devoted to the construction of the cell functions needed to the homogenization procedure. Finally, in Sect. 6, we state and prove our homogenization result.
2 The two-layer problem
In this section, we show that the problem we are concerned with in this paper can be obtained as the limit of an elliptic problem exhibiting an interface and a thin layer around it, where conduction in the orthogonal direction degenerates. We work for the sake of brevity in a simplified geometry, but the results obtained here hold also in a more general geometry, as the one considered in Sect. 3 (see, also, [3, 14]).
For \(\varepsilon \), \(\eta \in (0,1)\), we let here
and
In this section, the quantity \(\varepsilon >0\) is a constant, and thus we do not denote explicitly the dependence on \(\varepsilon \). Instead, as already mentioned in Introduction and similarly as in [31, 39], we perform a concentration limit \(\eta \rightarrow 0\).
For \(f^out \in L^{2}(G^out )\), \(f^int \in L^{2}(G^int )\), \(g^out _{\eta }\in L^{2}(\varSigma ^out _{\eta })\), \(g^int _{\eta }\in L^{2}(\varSigma ^int _{\eta })\), we look at the following problem for \( u_{\eta }\in H^1_0(G)\), with \(u_\eta ^\Sigma :={u_{\eta }}_{\mid \varSigma }\in H^1_0(\varSigma )\): in the outer and interior domains, we let
In the thick interfaces \(\varSigma ^out _{\eta }\) and \(\varSigma ^int _{\eta }\), we prescribe instead
Here, \(\eta \), which has been introduced as a geometrical scaling parameter, related to the characteristic dimension of the thin layer, appears also in (2.5) and (2.6) as a degeneration parameter, accounting for small diffusivity in the orthogonal direction.
On the interfaces \(y=\pm \varepsilon \eta \) between the two domains we prescribe the perfect contact conditions for \(x\in (0,1)\)
Finally, we prescribe the conditions on the interface \(\varSigma \). Here, we have continuity of the unknown, that is
and on \(\varSigma \) the function \(u^{\varSigma }_{\eta }=u^out _{\eta }=u^int _{\eta }\) is required to satisfy the problem
The presence of the small parameter \(\varepsilon \) in (2.12) is due to the first concentration step that we mentioned in the Introduction and for which we refer to [12], while the right-hand side of (2.12) is just the jump of the normal flux, according to (2.5), (2.6).
Here and in the following, we denote for any function F and surface S
where \(F^{out }\) [respectively, \(F^{int } \)] is the restriction of F to the outer [respectively, inner] domain. Namely, we will use this notation also for functions F defined only on S, in which case we understand \([F]_{S}=0\), \(\{F\}_{S}=2F\). We make use in the following of the elementary properties
Let us now introduce the functions
Let us also consider a test function \(\varphi \) and denote by \(\varphi ^out \) and \(\varphi ^int \) its restrictions to \(G^out \) and \(G^int \), respectively; we assume that such restrictions are separately Lipschitz continuous and also that \(\varphi =0\) on \(\partial G\), but we do not require that \([\varphi ]_{\varSigma }=0\).
We arrive, by the usual computations, at the following integral equality, where we have used (2.1)–(2.10) and (2.15):
Upon using also (2.12) and selecting \(\varphi \) such that \([\varphi ]_{\varSigma }=0\), we get the usual weak formulation for the solution \(u_{\eta }\in H^{1}_0(G)\) with \(u^{\varSigma }_{\eta }={u_{\eta }}_{\mid \varSigma }\in H^{1}_0(\varSigma )\) of the problem (2.1)–(2.13) given by
for all test functions \(\varphi \in H^{1}_0(G)\) with \({\varphi }_{\mid \varSigma }\in H^{1}_0(\varSigma )\).
Existence and uniqueness of a weak solution of problem (2.18) can be obtained as a standard consequence of Lax-Milgram lemma.
We note that
A similar estimate holds true in \(\varSigma ^int _{\eta }\). On selecting (formally) \(\varphi =u_{\eta }\) and invoking Young inequality, we obtain
for any \(\delta >0\). Then, using also Poincaré inequality and (2.19) and choosing \(\delta \) sufficiently small we can absorb the terms containing the solution \(u_{\eta }\) in the right-hand side into the left-hand side, thus arriving at
where the last inequality is an assumption of boundedness on the sources. In the previous inequalities \(C>0\) denotes constants independent from \(\varepsilon \) and \(\eta \), but \(C_{\varepsilon }\) is only independent of \(\eta \).
In order to keep the effects of the sources \(g^int _{\eta }\) and \(g^out _{\eta }\) in the concentrated problem, we have to scale them by a factor \(1/\eta \), and then we assume, for the sake of simplicity,
for \(g^out _{1}\), \(g^int _{1}\in L^{2}(\varSigma )\), \(g^out _{2}\), \(g^int _{2}\in C(\mathbb {R})\).
Let us denote by \(\widetilde{u^out _{\eta }}\in H^{1}(G^out )\) [respectively, \(\widetilde{u^int _{\eta }}\in H^{1}(G^int )\)] the standard extension of \({u^out _{\eta }}_{\mid G^out _{\eta }}\) to \(G^out \) [respectively, of \({u^int _{\eta }}_{\mid G^int _{\eta }}\) to \(G^int \)] obtained by reflection. For such an extension we have \(\Vert \widetilde{u^out _{\eta }}\Vert _{H^{1}(G^out )}\le C\Vert {u^out _{\eta }}\Vert _{H^1(G^out _{\eta })}\) (an analogous estimate is valid also for \(\widetilde{u^int _{\eta }}\)). Thus we may conclude, up to subsequences, as \(\eta \rightarrow 0\):
for suitable \(u^out _{0}\in H^{1}(G^out )\), \(u^int _{0}\in H^{1}(G^int )\). Moreover in the same limit
for a suitable \(u^{\varSigma }_{0}\in H^{1}(0,1)\). The null boundary conditions on \(\partial G\) are of course preserved in the limit.
In order to take the limit in (2.18), we remark that, by taking a smooth test function \(\varphi \) and recalling (2.20),
where \(C(\varphi )=\Vert \nabla \varphi \Vert ^2_{L^\infty (G)}\). Thus, we have the limiting equation
Let us next derive (formally) the distributional formulation of the limiting problem and the conditions relating \(u^{\varSigma }_{0}\) to \(u_{0}\). First, on taking test functions supported away from \(\varSigma \), we obtain
Thus for a test function \(\varphi \) as in (2.18) we obtain
By comparing (2.31) and (2.36), we conclude
whose distributional formulation is
But since we have in practice three unknowns, i.e., \(u^{\varSigma }_{0}\), \(u^out _{0}\), \(u^int _{0}\), we need two more interface conditions.
We cannot extract them from (2.31), and thus we go back to the limiting procedure. In (2.18), we take as test function
where \(\psi \in C^{1}_{0}(0,1)\), \(\zeta \in C^{1}(\mathbb {R})\) with \(\zeta (1)=0\), \(\zeta (y)=1\) for \(y<1/2\) and \(\eta <1/2\). We obtain
where we may calculate
Since \(|y/(\varepsilon \eta )|\le 1\) in \(\varSigma ^out _{\eta }\), on invoking again (2.20) and the convergences established above, as \(\eta \rightarrow 0\), we arrive at
where we have used (2.21) and
But on integrating (2.32) by parts, we get
whence
Clearly, we may argument in a similar way in \(G^int \), arriving finally at the required (distributional) conditions on \(\varSigma \):
Conditions (2.47)–(2.48) are equivalent to
Note that, on substituting (2.49) into (2.38), we infer
In order to introduce a weak formulation for the complete problem, let us select again a test function possibly with \([\varphi ]_{\varSigma }\not =0\). From (2.32)–(2.35), we have by means of standard integration by parts and of (2.15)
We are led to the following result.
Proposition 1.1
Let \(f=(f^out ,f^int )\), with \(f^out \in L^{2}(G^out )\) and \(f^int \in L^{2}(G^int )\), and \(g^out _{1}\), \(g^int _{1}\in L^{2}(\varSigma )\), \(g^out _{2}\), \(g^int _{2}\in C(\mathbb {R})\). Then there exists a unique weak solution \((u^out _{0},u^int _{0},u^{\varSigma }_{0})\) such that \(u^out _{0}\in H^{1}(G^out )\), \(u^int _{0}\in H^{1}(G^int )\), \(u^{\varSigma }_{0}\in H^{1}_{0}(0,1)\) with \({u^out _{0}}=0\) [respectively, \(u^int _{0}=0\)] on \(\partial G^out \cap \{y>0\}\) [respectively, on \(\partial G^int \cap \{y<0\}\)], to the limiting problem (2.32)–(2.35), (2.38)–(2.39), (2.49)–(2.50), i.e., the triplet \((u^out _{0},u^int _{0},u^{\varSigma }_{0})\) satisfies
and
for every test function \(\psi \in H^{1}_{0}(0,1)\) and every test function \(\varphi =(\varphi ^out ,\varphi ^int )\), with \(\varphi ^out \) and \(\varphi ^int \) in the same class of \(u^out _{0}\) and \(u^int _{0}\), respectively.
Remark 1.2
Clearly, if we take in (2.53) a test function \(\varphi \) such that \(\varphi ^out =\varphi ^int =\psi \) on \(\varSigma \), and add this equality to (2.54), we recover (2.31).
Proof
The proof is carried on by means of a concentration procedure starting from the solution \(u_{\eta }\) of the problem (2.18), where we select the testing function
with \(\varphi =(\varphi ^out ,\varphi ^int )\), \(\psi \) as in the statement. We obtain
where \(I(\eta )\) is the right-hand side of (2.18), i.e., the contribution of the sources for which, recalling (2.21) and (2.44), we immediately get
As to the other terms, owing to the convergences in (2.22)–(2.29) and to estimate (2.20), and also since \(|\partial \varphi _{\eta }/\partial x|\) is bounded uniformly in \(\eta \), we immediately get
Next, we note that in \(J_{3}\) and \(J_{4}\) we may explicitly integrate \(\partial u_{\eta }/\partial y\) to infer
where we use (2.26), (2.27) and the fact that \(u^int _{\eta }(x,-\varepsilon \eta )=\widetilde{u^int _{\eta }}(x,-\varepsilon \eta )\) and \(u^out _{\eta }(x,-\varepsilon \eta )=\widetilde{u^out _{\eta }}(x,-\varepsilon \eta )\).
Since \(\varphi \) and \(\psi \) can be chosen independently, we first select \(\varphi =0\), to get at once (2.54). Then, we select \(\psi =0\), and gather (2.56)–(2.59) to conclude
which, using (2.15), reduces to (2.53).
In order to prove uniqueness of the solution, we need an energy estimate. To this end, we take \(\varphi =u_{0}\) and \(\psi =u^{\varSigma }_{0}\) in (2.53) and (2.54), respectively. By adding the resulting formulas to each other, we get
Note that
so that the second integral on the right-hand side of (2.61) cancels with the last two terms in the left-hand side. The other terms are treated similarly and can be absorbed in the left-hand side by means of Poincaré’s and trace inequalities. Eventually, we obtain
We point out that (2.62) proves uniqueness of the solution of problem (2.53)–(2.54), owing to its linear character. \(\square \)
3 The microscopical problem
Our geometrical setting is rather standard: we denote by \(Y=(0,1)^{N}\) the unit cell in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), \(N\ge 2\). We introduce a smooth connected open subset \(E_{int }\) such that \({\overline{E_{int }}} \subset Y\). Then, we set \(E_{out }=Y\setminus \overline{E_{int }}\) and \(\varGamma =\partial E_{int }\). In what follows we refer to \(E_{int }\) as to the inclusion, to \(E_{out }\) as to the outer domain and to \(\varGamma \) as to the interface.
We set our problem in the smooth bounded domain \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb {R}^{N}\). For any \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), we define the set
and for \(\xi \in \Xi ^\varepsilon \) we let
and
In this paper, \(\nu \) is the normal unit vector to \(\varGamma \) pointing into \(E_{out }\); we denote by \(\nu _\varepsilon \) the normal unit vector to \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\) pointing into \(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }\). Note that \(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }\) is connected and \(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }\) is disconnected.
We look at the following problem, which we state in several steps, summarized eventually by a rigorous weak formulation. In the following, \(f\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\), \(g^out _{\varepsilon }\), \(g^int _{\varepsilon }\in C(\overline{\varOmega })\) are given data.
The equations in the bulk of the domain, together with the outer boundary data, are as follows:
On \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\), we prescribe for the unknown \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\)
The unknowns \(u_{\varepsilon }^{out }\), \(u_{\varepsilon }^{int }\) and \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) are connected by the interface conditions
It is perhaps interesting to note that (3.5) and (3.6) share some symmetry, given that \([u_{\varepsilon }]_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}=[u_{\varepsilon }-u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }]_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\). Also, we keep in (3.4)–(3.6) the coefficients of the given sources found in Sect. 2, since they actually follow from the concentration process.
When we combine (3.4) with (3.5), we obtain
We remark that (3.7) makes clear that we do not need to impose any additional condition, e.g., on the average of \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) on each \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }_{\xi }\). Indeed, the unknown \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) appears on the right-hand side, too, so that the associated energy functional vanishes only if \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) does.
By means of the usual process of formal integration by parts, we obtain from (3.1)–(3.7), when also appealing to (2.15), the following weak formulation for the solution \((u_{\varepsilon }^{out },u_{\varepsilon }^{int },u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma })\) to the problem (3.1)–(3.7), with \(u_{\varepsilon }^{out }\in H^{1}(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon })\), \(u_{\varepsilon }^{out }=0\) on \(\partial \varOmega \), \(u_{\varepsilon }^{int }\in H^{1}(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon })\), \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\in H^{1}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })\), given by
and
for all test function \((\varphi ^out ,\varphi ^int ,\varphi ^{\varGamma })\) in the same class of the solution. Here, \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }\) can be chosen independently from \(\varphi ^out \) and \(\varphi ^int \).
4 Energy inequalities
In this section, we collect some standard inequalities, which will be useful in the following. For the first two we refer, for instance, to [2], while the third one can be obtained by rescaling from the standard Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality. They are valid in the geometry used in this paper.
Poincaré inequality ( [2, Lemma 7.1]): for all \(v\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\) such that \(v_{\mid \varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }}\) belongs to \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon })\), with \(v=0\) on \(\partial \varOmega \), \(v_{\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}\) belongs to \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon })\), we have
Trace inequality ( [2, Formula 7.4]): for all \(v\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\) such that \(v_{\mid \varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }}\) belongs to \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon })\), \(v_{\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}\) belongs to \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon })\), we have
Poincaré inequality on \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }_{\xi }\): for all \(v\in H^{1}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }_{\xi })\), we have
Theorem 1.3
For the weak solution of problem (3.8)–(3.9), we have
Proof
First, on taking \(\varphi =u_{\varepsilon }\) and \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }=u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) in (3.8)–(3.9), and then on adding the resulting equalities, we arrive at
We may easily compute
Thus, (4.5) immediately yields
Then, we observe, by means of (4.1) and (4.2), that
for a small \(\delta >0\) independent of \(\varepsilon \) to be chosen. Next, we bound
In order to bound \(I_{4}\), we need an estimate of the mean value of \(u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma }\) on each component \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }_{\xi }\); from (3.9), with \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }=1\), we get
implying
Thus, (4.3) together with (4.11) yield
Note that we may reason again as in (4.8) to bound the second term in the rightmost hand side of (4.12). Finally, on using also (4.1), we have the standard inequality
Finally, on selecting \(\delta \) small enough above, from (4.7)–(4.13) we infer (4.4). \(\square \)
Corollary 1.4
Assume that for a constant C independent of \(\varepsilon \)
Then, for the weak solution of problem (3.8)–(3.9), we have
Proof
Estimate (4.15) follows at once from (4.14), (4.4), (4.3), (4.11) and (4.2). \(\square \)
5 Existence for the differential problems
In this section, we state and prove some well-posedness results concerning the differential problems.
5.1 Existence for the cell problems
For a given function \(\widetilde{\varphi }\in L^2(\varGamma )\), we set \( \mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\widetilde{\varphi })=\frac{1}{|\varGamma |}\int \limits _{\varGamma }\widetilde{\varphi }\,\,{\textrm{d}}\sigma _y\). We look at the problem
for a fixed \(i\in \{1,\dots ,N\}\), where \(y^\varGamma = y- \mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(y)\).
We note for further use that (5.2) and (5.3) are equivalent to (5.2) and
For the sake of notational simplicity, we write \({\widehat{\chi }}_{i}={{\widehat{v}}}\), \({\widetilde{\chi }}_{i}={{\widetilde{v}}}\). We introduce the space where we seek our solution \(({{\widehat{v}}},{{\widetilde{v}}})\) as
where \(H^{1}_{\#}(Y\setminus \varGamma )\) denotes the space of periodic functions in \(Y\) of class, separately, \(H^{1}(E_{out })\), \(H^{1}(E_{int })\). By means of a routine process of integration by parts, we arrive at the integral equations (owing also to (2.15), (5.5))
and
Note that in order to get to (5.7), (5.8) we do not need the normalization condition on \({\widehat{\varphi }}\). However, in the following result we remark explicitly that our notion of weak solution is in fact the correct one, which is perhaps not obvious given the restrictions we place on the test functions.
Lemma 1.5
Assume that the pair \(({{\widehat{v}}},{{\widetilde{v}}})\in \mathcal {H}\) satisfies (5.7)–(5.8), for all \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\), and that \({{\widehat{v}}}_{\mid E_{out }}\in C^{2}(\overline{E_{out }})\), \({{\widehat{v}}}_{\mid E_{int }}\in C^{2}(\overline{E_{int }})\), \({{\widetilde{v}}}\in C^{2}(\varGamma )\). Then, (5.1)–(5.5) are fulfilled in a classical pointwise sense.
Proof
Take first in (5.7) \({\widehat{\varphi }}\in H^{1}_{\#}(Y\setminus \varGamma )\), with \({\widehat{\varphi }}^{out }={\widehat{\varphi }}^{int }=0\) on \(\varGamma \). The differential equations in (5.1) follow by integration by parts, owing to the assumed regularity of \({{\widehat{v}}}={\widehat{\chi }}_{i}\). Then, we integrate by parts again these equations, using a general test function \({\widehat{\varphi }}\in C^{1}_{\#}(Y)\) such that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widehat{\varphi }})=0\) to obtain
On comparing (5.7) and (5.9), we infer that, since \(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma }=2{\widehat{\varphi }}\), \([{\widehat{\varphi }}]_{\varGamma }=0\),
for a suitable constant c. But each one of the quantities on the left-hand side in (5.10) has zero integral on \(\varGamma \): the first one owing to (5.1) (and periodicity of \({{\widehat{v}}}\)), and the second one as to our definition of \(\mathcal {H}\). Condition (5.2) is proved.
Next, we note that for an arbitrary \({\widehat{\varphi }}^{\varGamma }\in C^{1}(\varGamma )\) we may easily construct a \({\widehat{\varphi }}\in H^{1}_{\#}(Y\setminus \varGamma )\) with \(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma }=0\), \([{\widehat{\varphi }}]_{\varGamma }=2{\widehat{\varphi }}^{\varGamma }\). On writing (5.7) for this test function and comparing it to the first equality in (5.9), which holds true for all \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\), we find on account of (2.15)
whence (5.5) follows.
Finally, directly from (5.8), we obtain
for a suitable constant c. But each one of the terms on the left-hand side of (5.12) has zero integral on \(\varGamma \), thus \(c=0\) and (on recalling the already established (5.2)) (5.4) is proved. \(\square \)
Given that for any \({\widehat{\varphi }}\in H^{1}_{\#}(Y\setminus \varGamma )\) we have \({\widehat{\varphi }}^{out }=(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma }+[{\widehat{\varphi }}]_{\varGamma })/2\), \({\widehat{\varphi }}^{int }=(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma }-[{\widehat{\varphi }}]_{\varGamma })/2\), from standard results we have
Next, we prove our existence result.
Theorem 1.6
There exists a unique \(({{\widehat{v}}},{{\widetilde{v}}})\in \mathcal {H}\) that satisfies (5.7)–(5.8), for all \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\).
Proof
Let us equip \(\mathcal {H}\) with the inner product
which in fact implies the norm
We can readily check that \(\mathcal {H}\) is a Hilbert space. We have to check that the inner product B is positive and that \(\mathcal {H}\) is complete. If \(\Vert ({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\Vert _{\mathcal {H}}=0\), then \({\widetilde{\varphi }}\) is constant, since its gradient vanishes; but, then, \({\widetilde{\varphi }}=0\), owing to the normalization condition \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widetilde{\varphi }})=0\). Hence, both \(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma }=0\) and \([{\widehat{\varphi }}]_{\varGamma }=0\), whence \({\widehat{\varphi }}=0\) in \(Y\) on invoking (5.13). In addition, let \(\{({\widehat{\varphi }}_{n},{\widetilde{\varphi }}_{n})\}\) be a Cauchy sequence in \(\mathcal {H}\). The standard Poincaré inequality on \(\varGamma \) yields \({\widetilde{\varphi }}_{n}\rightarrow {\widetilde{\varphi }}\) in \(H^{1}(\varGamma )\), with \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widetilde{\varphi }})=0\). Thus, from the definition of Cauchy sequence in \(\mathcal {H}\), we get that both \(\{\{{\widehat{\varphi }}_{n}\}_{\varGamma }\}\) and \(\{[{\widehat{\varphi }}_{n}]_{\varGamma }\}\) are Cauchy sequences in \(L^{2}(\varGamma )\). Thus, we may appeal to (5.13) to obtain that \(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}_{n}\}\) converges in \(H^{1}_{\#}(Y\setminus \varGamma )\). The standard trace inequality then implies that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{{\widehat{\varphi }}\}_{\varGamma })=0\), i.e., \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\); we have, thus, proved the completeness of \(\mathcal {H}\).
Owing to the Riesz theorem, there exists a unique element \(({{\widehat{v}}},{{\widetilde{v}}})\in \mathcal {H}\) such that, for all \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\),
indeed, F is a linear continuous functional on \(\mathcal {H}\).
We are left with the task of showing that (5.14) implies (5.7) and (5.8), the converse and thus uniqueness being obvious. But this is accomplished by selecting separately \({\widehat{\varphi }}=0\) and \({\widetilde{\varphi }}=0\). \(\square \)
Next, for \(j_{g}\in L^{2}(\varGamma )\), we consider the problem
As above, we note for further use, that (5.16) and (5.17) are equivalent to (5.16) and
Reasoning as above (on appealing to (5.19), too), we may rewrite problem (5.15)–(5.18) in the following weak form, where we separated the bilinear part from the linear functional:
and
Here, for \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\), the bilinear part is exactly the same as in (5.7) and (5.8), therefore the following result can be proved as in Theorem 5.2.
Theorem 1.7
For any \(j_{g}\in L^{2}(\varGamma )\) there exists a unique \((J,H)\in \mathcal {H}\) that satisfies (5.20)–(5.21) for all \(({\widehat{\varphi }},{\widetilde{\varphi }})\in \mathcal {H}\).
As in Lemma 5.1, we may see that weak solutions in the sense of Theorem 5.3 are in fact classical if they are smooth enough.
Remark 1.8
We introduce in the definition of the space \(\mathcal {H}\) in (5.6) the normalization condition \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{\widehat{\varphi }\})=0\), since, in fact, for the solution \((\widehat{\chi }_i,\widetilde{\chi }_i)\), this is automatically satisfied being a byproduct of (5.1), (5.2) and the normalization condition \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\widetilde{\chi }_i)=0\).
It follows from (5.3) that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }([{\widehat{\chi }}_{i}]_{\varGamma })=0\); this, together with the condition \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{{\widehat{\chi }}_{i}\}_{\varGamma })=0\), imply \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widehat{\chi }}_{i}^{out })=0\) and \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widehat{\chi }}_{i}^{int })=0\).
Remark 1.9
Problem (5.15)–(5.18) is set in the unit reference cell, so that the solution \((J,H)\) depends only on y. However, in Sect. 6 the source \(j_{g}\) will be assumed to be a function in \(L^{2}(\varOmega \times \varGamma )\) (see Theorem 6.6); thus, the pair \((J,H)\) will depend also on x, which in problem (5.15)–(5.18) can be considered as a parameter.
5.2 Existence for the microscopical problem
The same approach employed above for the cell problems actually provides existence and uniqueness of solutions for the microscopical problem (3.8)–(3.9) set for \(\varepsilon >0\).
The correct environment for our problem is the space
which, as proven in the theorem below, is a Hilbert space equipped with the norm
This is the space where solutions are to be found and test functions to be taken.
Theorem 1.10
For any \(f\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\), \(g^out _{\varepsilon }\), \(g^int _{\varepsilon }\in C(\overline{\varOmega })\), there exists a unique weak solution to problem (3.8)–(3.9).
Proof
We note that the two equations (3.8) and (3.9) can be rewritten as, respectively,
and
Moreover, the inner product \(B_{1}^{\varepsilon }+B_{2}^{\varepsilon }\) yields the norm defined in (5.23). Note that this is proved by the calculations already used to arrive at (4.7). Let us first prove that the inner product is positive. Clearly, if the quantity in (5.23) vanishes, then \(\varphi _{\mid \varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }}=0\), since it is constant, due to \({\nabla }{\varphi }=0\), and owing to the null boundary condition. By the same token, \(\varphi _{\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}\) is constant in each component of \(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }\); however, \([\varphi ]_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}=0\) on \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\), so that also \(\varphi _{\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}=0\) in \(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }\). It follows that also \(\varphi ^{\varGamma } =0\) due to the definition of the norm.
Then we prove that \(\mathcal {H}_{\varepsilon }\) is complete; let \((\varphi _{n},\varphi ^{\varGamma }_{n})\) be a Cauchy sequence in \(\mathcal {H}_{\varepsilon }\). Then on invoking again the fact \(\varphi _{n\mid \partial \varOmega }=0\), we clearly have \(\varphi _{n\mid \varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }}\rightarrow \varphi _{out }\) in \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon })\), for some \(\varphi _{out }\) with \(\varphi _{out }=0\) on \(\partial \varOmega \). Next, we remark that the traces of \(\varphi _{n\mid \varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon }}\) on \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\) as well as the jumps \([\varphi _{n}]_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\) converge in \(L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })\); thus, also the traces of \(\varphi _{n\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}\) on \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\) converge in \(L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })\). It follows, on appealing again to the convergence of \({\nabla }{\varphi }_{n}\), that \(\varphi _{n\mid \varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon }}\rightarrow \varphi _{int }\) in \(H^{1}(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon })\), for some \(\varphi _{int }\). Then, we know that \(\{\varphi _{n}-\varphi _{n}^{\varGamma }\}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\) and \(\{\varphi _{n}\}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\) converge in \(L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })\), implying the convergence of \(\varphi _{n}^{\varGamma }=(\{\varphi _{n}\}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}-\{\varphi _{n}-\varphi _{n}^{\varGamma }\}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }})/2\) to some \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }\); the limit is in fact taken in \(H^{1}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })\) by virtue of the estimate on \({\nabla _{\mathcal {S}}}{\varphi }^{\varGamma }\). Finally, it is a trivial task to check that the limit of \((\varphi _{n},\varphi _{n}^{\varGamma } )\) is taken in the norm of \(\mathcal {H}_{\varepsilon }\).
Next, we remark that \(F_{1}^{\varepsilon }\) and \(F_{2}^{\varepsilon }\) are continuous functionals on \(\mathcal {H}_{\varepsilon }\); to this end, we only need check that the norms \(\Vert \{\varphi \}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\Vert _{L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })}\) and \(\Vert \varphi ^{\varGamma }\Vert _{L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })}\) are bounded from above by the norm in (5.23). Indeed, \(\Vert \{\varphi \}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\Vert _{L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })}\) can be estimated in this sense by means of (4.1) and (4.2). In turn, \(\Vert \varphi ^{\varGamma }\Vert _{L^{2}(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon })}\) is again bounded by noting that \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }=(\{\varphi \}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}-\{\varphi -\varphi ^{\varGamma }\}_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }})/2\).
The proof is completed as in Theorem 5.2. \(\square \)
6 Homogenization
In order to deal with our homogenization results, we need to recall the definition and the main properties of the unfolding operators studied in [23,24,25,26].
For \(\xi \in \Xi _\varepsilon \), set
Denoting by [r] the integer part and by \(\{r\}\) the fractional part of \(r\in \mathbb {R}\), we define for \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\)
so that
Definition 1.11
For \(w\) Lebesgue-measurable on \(\varOmega \), the periodic unfolding operator \(\mathcal {T}_{\varepsilon }\) is defined as
For \(w\) Lebesgue-measurable on \(\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }\), the boundary unfolding operator \(\mathcal {T}^b_{\varepsilon }\) is defined as
Proposition 1.12
Let \(w_{\varepsilon }=(w_{\varepsilon }^{int },w_{\varepsilon }^{out })\in H^1(\varOmega _{int }^{\varepsilon })\times H^1(\varOmega _{out }^{\varepsilon })\). Assume that there exists \(C>0\) (independent of \(\varepsilon \)) such that
Then, there exist \(w^int \in L^2(\varOmega )\), \(w^out \in H^1(\varOmega )\), \(\widetilde{w}_\mathrm{{int}}\in L^2(\varOmega ;H^1(E_{int }))\) and \(\overline{w}_\mathrm{{out}}\in L^2(\varOmega ;H^1_\#(E_{out }))\), with \( {\mathcal M}_{\varGamma }(\widetilde{w}_\mathrm{{int}}) = {\mathcal M}_{\varGamma }(\overline{w}_\mathrm{{out}})=0\), such that, up to a subsequence,
for \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Moreover, due to (6.1), we have
with \(C\) independent of \(\varepsilon \), and, then,
Finally,
We notice that, as in [25, Theorem 2.20], we can set \(\overline{w}_\mathrm{{int}}=\widetilde{w}_\mathrm{{int}} - y^\varGamma \cdot \nabla w^out -\xi _{\varGamma }\), for a suitable function \(\xi _{\varGamma }\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\). Therefore, we can rewrite (6.4) as
Moreover, we can further modify \(\overline{w}_\mathrm{{int}},\overline{w}_\mathrm{{out}}\), without affecting (6.5) and (6.9), by adding to both \(\xi _{\varGamma }/2\), in such a way that the sum of the two new correctors has null mean value on \(\varGamma \). More precisely, we redefine \(\widehat{w}_\mathrm{{int}}=\overline{w}_\mathrm{{int}}+\xi _{\varGamma }/2=\widetilde{w}_\mathrm{{int}} - y^\varGamma \cdot \nabla w^out -\xi _{\varGamma }/2\) and \(\widehat{w}_\mathrm{{out}}=\overline{w}_\mathrm{{out}}+\xi _{\varGamma }/2\), so that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{\widehat{w}\}_{\varGamma })=0\).
From now on, let \((u_{\varepsilon }^{out },u_{\varepsilon }^{int },u_{\varepsilon }^{\varGamma })\) be the unique solution of problem (3.8)–(3.9). Owing to the estimates of Corollary 4.2 and to the previous proposition, we have the following results.
Proposition 1.13
Assume (4.14). Then, there exist \(u^out _{0}\in H^{1}_{0}(\varOmega )\), \(u^int _{0}\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\), \({\widehat{u}}\in L^{2}(\varOmega ;H^1_\#(Y{\setminus }\varGamma ))\) such that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{{\widehat{u}}\}_{\varGamma })=0\) and, up to subsequences,
Moreover, there exists \(u^{\varGamma }_{0}\in H^1_0(\varOmega )\) such that
Actually,
Then, there exists a function \(U\in L^{2}(\varOmega \times \varGamma )\) such that
Finally, there exists a function \(w\in L^2(\varOmega ;H^{1}(\varGamma ))\), with \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(w)=0\), such that
Note that (6.16), (6.17) follow from (6.14) and (4.15). Thus, from (6.15), we get (6.18). For (6.19), see [5, 25, 26]. The limit in (6.20) follows from the estimate (4.15). Finally, (6.21) follows from [30].
Lemma 1.14
We have, for a suitable function \(\widetilde{\xi }_{\varGamma }\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\),
Proof
We calculate
and take into account that, weakly in \(L^{2}(\varOmega \times \varGamma )\),
for a suitable \({\overline{\xi }}_{\varGamma }\in L^{2}(\varOmega )\); (6.25) is a consequence of a standard Hölder inequality, when we also take into account the estimate (4.15); for (6.26), see [30, Theorem 3.4]. Then, from (6.19)–(6.20), we have
that is (6.22), by setting \(\widetilde{\xi }_{\varGamma }=-\xi _{\varGamma }+2{\overline{\xi }}_{\varGamma }\). \(\square \)
Remark 1.15
In fact, in Lemma 6.4 we have \(\widetilde{\xi }_{\varGamma }=0\), since when we take \(\varPsi _{2}=1\) in (6.39), we obtain
Theorem 1.16
Let \(g^out _{\varepsilon }\), \(g^int _{\varepsilon }\in C(\overline{\varOmega })\) and assume that there exist \( j_{g},s_{g}\in L^2(\varOmega \times \varGamma ) \) such that
Then, the function \(u^out _{0}\in H^{1}_{0}(\varOmega )\) obtained in Proposition 6.3 is the unique solution of
Here,
and
where the pair of cell functions \(({\widehat{\chi }},{\widetilde{\chi }})\in \mathcal {H}\) has been defined in problem (5.1)–(5.4) and the functions
with \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{J\})=0\) and \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{H\})=0\), have been defined in problem (5.15)–(5.18) (see, also, Remark 5.5).
Proof
We remark preliminarily that (6.27)–(6.28) imply also (4.14) and, therefore, the estimate (4.15) and the convergence results of Proposition 6.3 and Lemma 6.4.
1) Take as test function in (3.8)
where \(\varPhi _{1}\in C_{0}^{\infty }(\varOmega )\), \(\varPhi _{2}\) is of class \(C^{1}\) separately in \(\overline{E_{out }}\), \(\overline{E_{int }}\) and periodic over \(Y\). We obtain
We unfold the integrals on the left-hand side of (6.34) and the term containing \([g_{\varepsilon }]_{\varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\) on the right-hand side. Indeed, the other ones clearly vanish in the limit \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), owing to our assumption (4.14). We obtain
As \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), owing to our assumption (6.27) and to Proposition 6.3,
2) As to (3.9), we take in it the test function
where \(\varPsi _{1}\in C^{1}(\overline{\varOmega })\), \(\varPsi _{2}\in C^{1}(\varGamma )\). We obtain
Note that, according to our assumption (4.14), the right-hand side of (6.38) vanishes as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Then, unfolding and taking the limit we arrive at
3) In order to derive the macroscopic limiting differential equation, we choose in (3.8) a test function \(\varphi \in C^{1}_{0}(\varOmega )\), and in (3.9) we let \(\varphi ^{\varGamma }=\varphi _{\mid \varGamma ^{\varepsilon }}\); on adding the two integral equations, we find
Then, we unfold all the integrals and, on using (6.28), we find as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\)
4) We next rewrite our limiting problem in a distributional formulation. From (6.36), we get
Multiplying (6.42) by \(\varPhi _{2}\) and integrating (formally) by parts (6.42) and using (2.15) for \(\varPhi _{2}({\nabla }{u^out _{0}}+{\nabla }_{y}{\widehat{u}})\cdot \nu \), we find, for each fixed \(x\in \varOmega \),
whence, on comparing with (6.36),
It follows immediately from (6.44)–(6.45) that
Next, from (6.39), we obtain
In (6.42)–(6.47), the unknowns are \(u^out _{0}\), \({\widehat{u}}\) and w, since, owing to Lemma 6.4, Remark 6.5, we get
Finally, from (6.41) we get
Indeed, in (6.41) we may write
In the following, we use the representations
Note that (6.48) can be rewritten now as
Then, we identify the problems solved by the cell functions by recalling (6.42)–(6.49) and separating there the various contributions. First, we find that the functions \({\widetilde{\chi }}\) and \({\widehat{\chi }}\) are coupled for \(i=1\), ..., N, by the problems (5.1)–(5.4). In addition, we require that \({\widehat{\chi }}\) is periodic in \(Y\), and that \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{{\widehat{\chi }}\}_{\varGamma })=0\), \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }({\widetilde{\chi }})=0\).
Also the functions \(J\) and \(H\) are coupled by the problems (5.15)–(5.18) and \(J\) is assumed to be periodic in \(Y\) and \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(\{J\}_{\varGamma })=0\), \(\mathcal {M}_{\varGamma }(H)=0\).
The well-posedness of the cell problems for \({\widehat{\chi }}\), \({\widetilde{\chi }}\), \(J\), \(H\) is dealt with in Sect. 5.
Next, we identify the limiting diffusion matrix in terms of the cell functions. We note first that
Finally, using (6.50), (6.51) and (6.53), we write the vector in (6.49) as
Hence, we obtain that \(u_0\) satisfies the limit problem (6.29), (6.30), which has uniqueness, since the homogenized matrix \(\mathcal {A}\) is symmetric and positive definite, as proved in the following proposition. Therefore, all the above convergences hold true for the whole sequences, and not only for subsequences. \(\square \)
Remark 1.17
We notice that, from (6.32), the limits \(j_{g}\) and \(s_{g}\) of the original source on the interface conditions have different effects in the source term of the homogenized problem. Indeed, while \(s_{g}\) appears directly in the definition of \(\mathcal {F}\), the function \(j_{g}\) enters through the solution \((J,H)\) of the coupled system (5.15)–(5.18). Moreover, we can remark that, if \(j_{g}\) is independent of x, the last term in (6.32) vanishes, so that the pair \((J,H)\) has no role in the macroscopic equation; however, it remains in the corrector formulas (6.50) and (6.51). A similar effect appears in the problem studied in [24, Chapter 5] and in [21].
Proposition 1.18
The matrix \(\mathcal {A}=(a_{ij})\) in (6.31) is given by
and, therefore, it is symmetric. Moreover, it is also positive definite.
Proof
Let’s rewrite the matrix in the last term of (6.54) as \(\mathcal {A}=(a_{ij})\), \(a_{ij}=a_{ij}^{0}+a_{ij}^{1}\), where
Note that
and that
since
Thus we conclude that
In order to show that the matrix \(\mathcal {A}\) is symmetric, let us use \({\widehat{\chi }}_{j}\) as a test function in (5.1) to get, on appealing to (2.15) once more,
On applying the interface conditions (5.2) and (5.5), we obtain
Then, we use \({\widetilde{\chi }}_{j}\) as a test function in (5.4) to infer, also by means of (5.2),
Finally, collecting (6.57), (6.59), (6.60), we infer (6.55), and, thus, the symmetry of \(\mathcal {A}\). The positivity of the matrix \(\mathcal {A}\) can be obtained as usual. \(\square \)
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Allaire, G., Hutridurga, H.: Upscaling nonlinear adsorption in periodic porous media - homogenization approach. Appl. Anal. 10(96), 2126–2161 (2016)
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Bisegna, P., Gianni, R.: Evolution and memory effects in the homogenization limit for electrical conduction in biological tissues. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 14, 1261–1295 (2004)
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Bisegna, P., Gianni, R.: On a hierarchy of models for electrical conduction in biological tissues. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 29, 767–787 (2006)
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Gianni, R., Timofte, C.: Concentration and homogenization in electrical conduction in heterogeneous media involving the Laplace- Beltrami operator. Calc. Var. 59, 99 (2020)
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Timofte, C.: Homogenization of a modified bidomain model involving imperfect transmission. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 5(20), 1755–1782 (2021)
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Timofte, C.: Asymptotic analysis for non-local problems in composites with different imperfect contact conditions. Appl. Anal. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2022.2120867
Amar, M., Andreucci, D., Timofte, C.: Heat conduction in composite media involving imperfect contact and perfectly conductive inclusions. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 45, 11355–11379 (2022)
Amar, M., Ayub, A., Gianni, R.: Double layer concentration and homogenization for the heat diffusion in a composite material. Math. Mech. Complex Syst. (2023) (to appear)
Amar, M., Ayub, A., Gianni, R.: Homogenization of composite media with non-standard transmission conditions. In: Work in progress (2023)
Amar, M., De Bonis, I., Riey, G.: Homogenization of elliptic problems involving interfaces and singular data. Nonlinear Anal. 189, 111562 (2019)
Amar, M., De Bonis, I., Riey, G.: Corrigendum to homogenization of elliptic problems involving interfaces and singular data. Nonlinear Anal. 203, 112192 (2021)
Amar, M., Gianni, R.: Laplace- Beltrami operator for the heat conduction in polymer coating of electronic devices. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 4(23), 1739–1756 (2018)
Amar, M., Gianni, R.: Error estimate for a homogenization problem involving the Laplace-Beltrami operator. Math. Mech. Complex Syst. 1(6), 41–59 (2018)
Amar, M., Gianni, R.: Existence, uniqueness and concentration for a system of PDEs involving the Laplace-Beltrami operators. Interfaces Free Bound. 21, 41–59 (2019)
Amar, M., Riey, G.: Homogenization of singular elliptic systems with nonlinear conditions on the interfaces. J. Elliptic Parabol. Equ. 6, 633–654 (2020)
Auriault, J., Ene, H.: Macroscopic modelling of heat transfer in composites with interfacial thermal barrier. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 37(18), 2885–2892 (1994)
Ayub, A.: Homogenization of Heat Conduction with Imperfect Interface Involving Laplace-Beltrami Operator PhD Thesis in Mathematical Models for Engineering, Electromagnetic and Nanosciences, Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Academic Year 2018-2021 (XXXIII Cycle) (2022)
Benveniste, Y., Miloh, T.: The effective conductivity of composites with imperfect thermal contact at constituent interfaces. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 24, 1537–1552 (1986)
Benveniste, Y.: Effective thermal-conductivity of composites with a thermal contact resistance between the constituents: nondilute case. J. Appl. Phys. 61, 2840–2843 (1987)
Bohm, M., Peter, M.: Different choices of scaling in homogenization of diffusion and interfacial exchange in a porous medium. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 11(31), 1257–1282 (2008)
Bunoiu, R., Timofte, C.: Homogenization of a thermal problem with flux jump. Netw. Heterog. Media 4(11), 545–562 (2016)
Bunoiu, R., Timofte, C.: Upscaling of a diffusion problem with interfacial flux jump leading to a modified Barenblatt model. ZAMM 99(2), e201800018 (2019)
Cioranescu, D., Damlamian, A., Donato, P., Griso, G., Zaki, R.: The periodic unfolding method in domains with holes. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 44(2), 718–760 (2012)
Cioranescu, D., Damlamian, A., Griso, G.: The periodic unfolding method. In: Theory and Applications to Partial Differential Problems. Series in Contemporary Mathematics. Springer, Singapore (2018)
Donato, P., Le Nguyen, K., Tardieu, R.: The periodic unfolding method for a class of imperfect transmission problems. J. Math. Sciences. 6(176), 891–927 (2011)
Donato, P., Le Nguyen, K.: Homogenization for diffusion problems with a nonlinear interfacial resistance. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 22, 1345–1380 (2015)
Donato, P., Monsurrò, S.: Homogenization of two heat conductors with an interfacial contact resistance. Anal. Appl. 3(2), 247–273 (2004)
Gahn, M., Knabner, P., Neuss-Radu, M.: Homogenization of reaction-diffusion processes in a two-component porous medium with a nonlinear flux condition at the interface, and application to metabolic processes in cells. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 76, 1819–1843 (2016)
Gahn, M., Neuss-Radu, M., Knabner, P.: Derivation of effective transmission conditions for domains separated by a membrane for different scaling of membrane diffusivity. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 4(10), 773–797 (2017)
Gahn, M.: Multi-scale modeling of processes in porous media-coupling reaction-diffusion processes in the solid and the fluid phase and on the separating interfaces. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 12(24), 6511–6531 (2019)
Gu, S.T., He, Q.C.: Interfacial discontinuity relations for coupled multifield phenomena and their application to the modeling of thin interphases as imperfect interfaces. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 59, 1413–1426 (2011)
Hashin, Z.: Thin interphase/imperfect interface in conduction. J. Appl. Phys. 4(89), 2261–2267 (2001)
Huy, H.P., Sanchez-Palencia, E.: Phenomenes de transmission àtravers des couches minces de conductivité elevée. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 47, 284–309 (1974)
Ijioma, E.R., Muntean, A., Ogawa, T.: Pattern formation in reverse smouldering combustion: a homogenization approach. Combust. Theory Model. 17, 185–223 (2013)
Javili, A., Kaessmair, S., Steinmann, P.: General imperfect interfaces. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 275, 76–97 (2014)
Kapitza, P.L.: Collected papers of PL Kapitza, edited by D. ter Haar Pergamon. Oxford 1941, 581 (1965)
Krassowska, W., Neu, J.C.: Homogenization of syncytial tissues. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 21, 137–199 (1993)
Lipton, R.: Heat conduction in fine scale mixtures with interfacial contact resistance. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 58, 55–72 (1998)
Liu, J.T., Gu, S.T., Monteiro, E., He, Q.C.: A versatile interface model for thermal conduction phenomena and its numerical implementation by XFEM. Comput. Mech. 53, 825–843 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-013-0933-9
Miloh, T., Benveniste, Y.: On the effective conductivity of composites with ellipsoidal inhomogeneities and highly conducting interfaces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 455, 2687–2706 (1999)
Monsurrò, S.: Homogenization of a two-component composite with interfacial thermal barrier. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 1(13), 43–63 (2003)
Monsurrò, S.: Erratum for the paper homogenization of a two-component composite with interfacial thermal barrier. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 14, 375–377 (2004)
Neuss-Radu, M., Jäger, W.: Effective transmission conditions for reaction-diffusion processes in domains separated by an interface. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 3(39), 687–720 (2007)
Serpilli, M., Rizzoni, R., Lebon, F., Dumont, S.: An asymptotic derivation of a general imperfect interface law for linear multiphysics composites. Int. J. Solids Struct. 180–181, 97–107 (2019)
Timofte, C.: Homogenization results for the calcium dynamics in living cells. Math. Comput. Simul. 133, 165–174 (2017)
Acknowledgements
The first author is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM). The second author is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per la Fisica Matematica (GNFM) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors declare that they have contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval and content to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Amar, M., Andreucci, D. & Timofte, C. Interface potential in composites with general imperfect transmission conditions. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 74, 200 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00033-023-02094-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00033-023-02094-7
Keywords
- Concentration
- Homogenization
- General imperfect transmission conditions
- Interface potential
- Laplace-Beltrami operator