Abstract
In various biomedical applications, precise focusing of nonlinear ultrasonic waves is crucial for efficiency and safety of the involved procedures. This work analyzes a class of shape optimization problems constrained by general quasi-linear acoustic wave equations that arise in high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) applications. Within our theoretical framework, the Westervelt and Kuznetsov equations of nonlinear acoustics are obtained as particular cases. The quadratic gradient nonlinearity, specific to the Kuznetsov equation, requires special attention throughout. To prove the existence of the Eulerian shape derivative, we successively study the local well-posedness and regularity of the forward problem, uniformly with respect to shape variations, and prove that it does not degenerate under the hypothesis of small initial and boundary data. Additionally, we prove Hölder-continuity of the acoustic potential with respect to domain deformations. We then derive and analyze the corresponding adjoint problems for several different cost functionals of practical interest and conclude with the expressions of well-defined shape derivatives.
1 Introduction
In 1848, Stokes published an article on a difficulty in the theory of sound, namely the difficulty to apprehend the nonlinear behavior of acoustic waves [1]. Nonlinear wave phenomena still pose challenging questions to this day. In various biomedical applications [2,3,4,5,6], understanding and manipulating nonlinear ultrasonic waves is essential in ensuring the efficiency and safety of the involved procedures. Among such procedures, High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) is emerging as one of the most promising non-invasive tools in treatments of various solid cancers [4, 7, 8]. However, its wide-scale use hinges on the ability to guarantee the desired sound behavior in the focal region. Other applications of HIFU include, among others, lithotripsy [6] and stroke treatments [9].
HIFU waves are commonly excited by one or several piezoelectric transducers arranged on a spherical surface [9,10,11]. Changes in their shape directly affect the propagation and focusing of sound waves. Depending on the application, the requirements for the pressure levels and wave distortion at the focal region differ. Designing the transducer arrangement for a given set of requirement gives rise to a practically relevant optimization problems.
Motivated by this, in the present work we conduct the analysis of a class of shape optimization problems subject to the following model of ultrasound propagation:
on a bounded smooth domain \(\Omega \), assuming nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary excitation. The particular choice of the parameters k and \(\sigma \) allows us to cover the strongly damped linear wave equation as well as the classical Westervelt [12] and Kuznetsov [13] equations of nonlinear acoustics (in potential form) within our analysis. We refer to Sect. 2 below for a more detailed discussion of the studied model.
The well-posedness and regularity of nonlinear acoustic waves on fixed domains have been by now widely studied in the literature; see, e.g., [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Shape differentiability of acoustic wave equations and related optimization problems have been mostly examined subject to linear evolution; see, e.g., [23,24,25] and the references given therein. The few results [19, 26,27,28] available in shape optimization with quasilinear acoustic models focus on the less involved Westervelt equation in pressure form.
In this paper, we enrich the existing literature with the study of a quasilinear model (1) with general quadratic nonlinearities (i.e., the terms \(\dot{\psi } \ddot{\psi }\) and \(\nabla \dot{\psi }\cdot \nabla \psi \)). The presence of these terms necessitates the use of higher-order energies in the analysis of the state problem compared to [19, 27]. In turn, new arguments need to be devised in the study of Hölder-continuity with respect to shape variations. Furthermore, the quadratic gradient nonlinearity leads to adjoint problems with boundary conditions in the form:
where p is the adjoint variable. When \(\sigma \ne 0\), such a boundary condition requires special attention in the well-posedness analysis.
Besides, we not only treat the classical \(L^2(L^2)\)-tracking problem on \(D = D_S\times (t_0,t_1)\), where the acoustic velocity potential \(\psi \) should match a desired output on a given spatial focal region \(D_S {\subsetneq \Omega } \) within a certain time interval \((t_0, t_1)\), we also consider in this work an \(L^2\)-matching objective at final time:
Additionally, we study an \(L^2(L^2)\)-tracking functional on \(\dot{\psi }\), corresponding (up to a multiplicative constant) to tracking the sound pressure. We denote by \(f_D\) the desired pressure on D. The cost functional is then given by
see Fig. 1 for an illustration of the optimization setup.
The shape analysis is carried out by adopting the adjoint-based variational framework developed in [29], which avoids the need to study the shape sensitivity of the state variable. Instead we rely on the aforementioned Hölder continuity of the potential with respect to domain perturbations in a suitable norm. We show that with appropriate (different) adjoint problems, these objectives have the same final derivative expression which is of the form required by the Delfour–Hadamard–Zolésio structure theorem; see [30, Theorem 3.6]. The well-posedness analysis of the state and adjoint problems ensures the well-definedness of the expression.
The optimization setup, where \(D = D_S \times (t_0,t_1)\)
The paper is organized through multiple sections, each dealing with questions relating to the existence and well-definedness of the derivative. In Sect. 2, we discuss the well-posedness of the forward problem under Neumann boundary conditions and the regularity of its solution, also uniformly with respect to shape deformations. In Sect. 3, we prove the Hölder continuity of the velocity potential with respect to domain perturbations. We then study the well-posedness and regularity of the adjoint problem for the \(L^2(L^2)\)-tracking objective. In Sect. 5, we rigorously derive the shape derivative in the direction of any sufficiently smooth vector field deformation. Additionally, we give a brief analysis of the \(L^2\)-matching objective at final time (2) and of the pressure cost functional (3) and give their shape derivative expression.
1.1 Notation
We shall frequently use the notation \(x \lesssim y\) which stands for \(x \le Cy\), where C is a generic constant that depends only on the reference domain \(\Omega \) and, possibly, the final time T. We will denote by \(C_{\Omega ,4}\) the embedding constant of \(H^1(\Omega )\) into \(L^4(\Omega )\) and by \(C_{tr ,\partial \Omega }\) the norm of the trace operator \(\text {tr}_{\partial \Omega }: H^1(\Omega ) \rightarrow H^{1/2}(\partial \Omega )\). We denote by \(\dot{x}\), \(\ddot{x}\) and \(\dddot{x}\) the first, second and third, respectively, derivative of the quantity x with respect to time. Given two Banach spaces X and Y, we shall refer to the continuous (resp. compact) embedding of X into Y by \(X\hookrightarrow Y\) (resp. 
).
2 Analysis of the State Problem
In this section, we discuss the well-posedness of (1) as well as of its more general counterpart with variable smooth coefficients; see (25) below.
Throughout this work we assume that \(\Omega \) is a \(C^{2,1}\)-regular, bounded domain in \(\mathbb {R}^l\) with \(l\in \{2,3\}\). In (1), \(\psi \) denotes the acoustic velocity potential. It is related to the acoustic pressure \(p \) via
where \(\rho \) is the mass density of the medium. The constant \(c>0\) denotes the speed of sound and \(b>0\) is the so-called sound diffusivity. Note that the presence of the strong damping (\(b>0\)) in the equation contributes to its parabolic-like character; see, e.g, [15, 20]. The constant k is a function of the coefficient of nonlinearity of the medium \(\beta _a\) and of the speed of propagation c.
Equation (1) can be seen as the Westervelt or Kuznetsov equation of nonlinear acoustics, depending on the choice of parameters k and \(\sigma \). Indeed,
The choice between these two models depends on whether one can assume that cumulative nonlinear effects dominate local nonlinear effects; see the discussion in [31, Ch. 3, Sect. 6]. We refer to [32] for a survey of models in nonlinear acoustics. Going forward, we assume that k, \(\sigma \in \mathbb {R}\).
We couple (1) with an excitation modeled by Neumann boundary conditions as well as the initial data and study the following problem:
where we have denoted \(Q = \Omega \times (0,T)\) and \(\Sigma = \partial \Omega \times (0,T)\). Mathematical analysis of the Kuznetsov equation with homogeneous Dirichlet data can be found in [20]. The Kuznetsov equation in pressure form with nonhomogeneous Neumann data is studied in [15]. The analysis of (4) follows along similar lines with main differences in the energy arguments, which we present here. For the sake of readability, we first study the well-posedness of (4) and then generalize the argument to the case of variable coefficients resulting from domain perturbations; see Theorem 3 below.
Assumption 1
We make the following assumptions on the regularity and compatibility of data in (4):
-
\(\psi _0 \in H^3(\Omega )\) and \(\psi _1 \in H^2(\Omega )\);
-
\(g \in H^2(0,T;H^{-1/2}(\partial \Omega )) \cap H^1(0,T;H^{3/2}(\partial \Omega )) \), \(\dot{g} \in L^\infty (0,T; H^{1/2}(\partial \Omega ))\);
-
\(\dfrac{\partial \psi _0}{\partial n} = g(0)\), \(\dfrac{\partial \psi _1}{\partial n} = \dot{g}(0).\)
Auxiliary Inequality We recall that the following embeddings hold: 
; see [33, Theorem 1.3.2]. Let \(u\in H^1(\Omega )\). Then by Ehrling’s Lemma [34, Theorem 7.30] and Young’s inequality, for all \(\epsilon >0\), there exists a constant \(C_{E,\Omega }(\epsilon )\), such that
This result will be used throughout the analysis to avoid relying on \(\Vert u \Vert _{L^ 4(\Omega )}^2 \le C_{\Omega ,4}^2 \Vert u\Vert _{H^ 1(\Omega )}^2\) when critical. This small change allows us to avoid imposing additional assumptions on the smallness of \(\ddot{\psi }\) below (as done, for example, on \(\dot{y}\) in [19, Theorem 1], where the Westervelt equation in pressure form is analyzed).
Linearized Equation Following the general approach of, e.g., [15, 19], we first consider a linearized problem with a variable coefficient a and a source term f:
supplemented by the same initial and boundary conditions as in (4). To study such a problem, we need suitable assumptions on the non-degeneracy and smallness of a.
Assumption 2
We make the following additional assumptions on the source term and the variable coefficient in (6):
-
\(a \in L^\infty (0,T;H^2(\Omega ))\cap L^2(0,T;H^3(\Omega ))\), \(\dot{a} \in L^\infty (0,T;L^2(\Omega ))\). Furthermore, let there exist \(\underline{a}\), \(\overline{a}> 0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} {\underline{a}}<a(t)< {\overline{a}} \ \text {almost everywhere on } \ \Omega \ \text { for almost every } \ t\in [0,T]; \end{aligned}$$ -
\(f \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega )) \cap W^{1,1}(0,T;L^2(\Omega ))\).
Proposition 1
Let Assumptions 1, 2 hold. Then initial boundary-value problem for (6) admits a unique solution in
Furthermore, the solution satisfies the energy estimate
Remark 1
The regularity of \(\xi \in W\) implies that \(\xi \) is continuous from [0, T] into \(H^3(\Omega )\) and \(\dot{\xi }\) is weakly continuous from [0, T] into \(H^2(\Omega )\) [35, Lemma 3.3]. Note that the hidden constant in (8) depends on a and tends to \(+ \infty \) as \(T \rightarrow + \infty \).
Proof
The proof can be conducted rigorously through a Galerkin approximation of the weak form of the PDE by restriction to appropriate finite dimensional subspaces of \(H^3(\Omega )\); see, for example, [36, Chapter 7] and [37, Chapter XVIII]. We focus here on the derivation of a uniform energy estimate, which differs from the related results in the literature (cf. [19, Theorem 1]) and will enable the upcoming fixed-point argument. For notational simplicity, we omit the index indicating the Galerkin approximation below.
Lower-Order Energy Estimate To obtain the desired energy estimate, we test the semi-discrete problem by \(\dot{\xi }\) and integrate in time over (0, t) to obtain
which, after using the relation
yields the energy identity
We can estimate the first term on the right using Ehrling’s inequality (5) as follows:
We then proceed to estimating the source term
and the boundary term
Using Assumptions 2, we then have
where \(\epsilon >0\) is chosen small enough so that
To get the next component of the desired energy estimate, we differentiate the semi-discrete problem with respect to time and test with \(\ddot{\xi }\), which, after integration by parts in space, yields
We estimate the source term, for any \(\epsilon _0>0\), as
We can then infer the following inequality:
where \(\ddot{\xi }(0)\) can be estimated by testing (6) by \(\ddot{\xi }\) at \(t=0\):
Notice that due to the embedding \(W^{1,1}(0,T)\hookrightarrow C[0,T]\) (see [38, Ch. 8, p. 214]), the term \(\Vert f(0) \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}\) can be estimated with \(\Vert f\Vert _{W^{1,1}(L^2(\Omega ))}\).
We develop the rest of the estimates analogously to before and obtain
with \(\epsilon >0\) chosen again so that (11) holds.
We can then combine (10) and (13), taking the supremum over \(t \in (0, \tilde{t})\) for some \(0<\tilde{t}\le T\) which allows us to absorb the \(\epsilon _0\) term and then use Gronwall’s inequality to eliminate the energy terms form the right-hand side. Together with estimate (12) and the fact that
we obtain the following bound on the energy norm:
a.e. in time, where the hidden constant is given by
where \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) are two positive constants.
Bootstrap Argument Inspired by the approach of, e.g., [39, Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2], we demonstrate, through a bootstrap argument, that a higher regularity is achieved. To do so, we rewrite (6) as
Let \(\Theta = c^2 \xi (t) + b\dot{\xi }(t)\) and \(\tilde{f} = f(t) - a(t)\ddot{\xi }(t) + c^2\xi (t) +b \dot{\xi }(t)\). Then \(\Theta \) solves
By estimate (14) and Assumptions 2, we infer that \(\tilde{f} \in L^2(0,T;H^1)\). Recalling that \(\Omega \) is of class \(C^{2,1}\), elliptic regularity yields
see [40, Theorem 2.5.1.1]. Since we know that \(\xi \) solves the ODE
we have
and subsequently
Furthermore,
and similarly,
Together, these estimates yield \(\xi \in W\) and
With this uniform bound in hand, standard compactness arguments allow us to extract weakly convergent subsequences that verify the PDE and its initial conditions; see e.g., [36, 41]. We omit the details here. \(\square \)
We next move on to the analysis of the Kuznetsov equation where we show that the aforementioned regularity and well-posedness results hold for the nonlinear equation, provided smallness of data, using a fixed-point argument. To this end, we define the operator
where \(\psi \) is the solution of the initial boundary value problem
and the ball \(\mathcal {W}\) is defined by
for some \(r>0\); recall that the space W is defined in (7). The choice of \(r>0\) will be made below. Note that the set \({\mathcal {W}}\) is nonempty as \(0 \in {\mathcal {W}}\).
Theorem 2
Let \(T>0\). Under Assumptions 1, there exists \(r_0^2=r_0^2(\Omega , T)\), such that if
then the initial-boundary value problem (4) for the Kuznetsov equation has a unique solution \(\psi \in W\). Furthermore, this solution satisfies
Proof
The proof follows by employing the Banach fixed-point theorem on the mapping \(\mathrm {A}[\cdot ]\). We can use the existence and uniqueness result of Proposition 1 to conclude that \(\mathrm {A}[\cdot ]\) is well defined by setting
We see that \(\nabla a \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega ))\) and \(\dot{a} \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega )) \cap L^\infty (0,T;L^2(\Omega ))\). Moreover, with the choice of the ball \({\mathcal {W}}\), \( \underline{a}\le a(t) \le \overline{a}\) is verified with \(\underline{a}= \frac{1}{2}\) and \(\overline{a}= \frac{3}{2}\). We next verify the regularity assumption on f in Proposition 1. Denote by \(\mathrm {H}(\cdot )\) the Hessian matrix operator of a scalar field. Then
Similarly, we have
Therefore, there exists \(C=C(t)>0\), such that
Thus, (16) is well defined, provided \(\Vert \dot{y} \Vert _{L^\infty (L^\infty (\Omega ))} \le \frac{1}{4\vert k \vert }\). Next we demonstrate that \(\mathcal {W}\) is invariant under a smallness condition on the problem data. By the energy bound (8), there exists \(C_3 =C_3(r)>0\), such that
We can estimate the norm terms involving f as in (20). Together, this yields that
On account of the embedding \(H^2(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^\infty (\Omega )\), the semi-norm \(\vert \cdot \vert _{\mathcal {W}}\) defining the ball \(\mathcal {W}\), is weaker than the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _W\). Therefore, there exists \(C_4(r)>0\) depending continuously on r (cf. (15)), such that
Since \(C_4(r)>0\) depends continuously on r, for r small enough, we have
It can then be readily shown that the set \(\mathcal {W}\) is invariant under \(A[\cdot ]\) for \(r_0\) sufficiently small if we impose additionally
Indeed, for \(r_0 \le \sqrt{\frac{2r^2}{3C_4(0)}-r^4}\), we have \(\frac{3}{2}C_4(0) \left( r_0^2 +r^4 \right) < r^2\).
Next we prove the strict contractivity of the operator \(\mathrm {A}[\cdot ]\) in
that is, in a weaker topology compared to the one of the solution space. Let y, \(\tilde{y} \in W\) and let \(\psi = \mathrm {A}[y]\) and \(\tilde{\psi }= \mathrm {A}[\tilde{y}]\). We define \(z = \psi -\tilde{\psi }\), which verifies
We test (21) with \(\dot{z}\) and integrate in time over (0, t) to obtain, analogously to estimate (10),
Next we test (21) with \(\ddot{z}\) and integrate by parts in time and space to obtain
We estimate the term
and the term
The terms \(\int _{0}^{t}\Vert \nabla \dot{z} \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2 \,\mathrm {d}s\) and \(\Vert \nabla z (t) \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2\) are directly estimated by (22). We choose \(\epsilon \) as small as needed to absorb the terms \(\Vert \nabla \dot{z}(t) \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2\) and \(\int _{0}^{t}\Vert \ddot{z} \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2 \,\mathrm {d}s\) by the left-hand side. Using the fact that
we combine the resulting estimate with (22) to conclude that there exist \(C_6=C_6(r)>0\), such that
We know that
and that
Together, this gives us that
Since \(\tilde{\psi }\in \mathcal {W}\), we have \( \Vert \ddot{\tilde{\psi }}\Vert _{L^2(H^{1}(\Omega ))}^2 \le r^2,\) and we conclude that there exists \(\tilde{C} = \tilde{C}(r) >0\) (we deal with the dependence on r, similarly to how we did earlier in this proof for \(C_4(r)\))
which shows that \(\mathrm {A}[\cdot ]\) is a strict contraction if \( \tilde{C}r^2<1. \)
Following a similar argument to [19, Theorem 2], it can be shown that the set \(\mathcal {W}\) is closed in \(\hat{X}\). Banach’s fixed-point theorem then ensures the existence and uniqueness of a solution \(\psi \in \mathcal {W}\) of (4). The energy estimate is obtained by using the linear estimate (8), the estimates (18) and (19) for the source term f, and Gronwall’s inequality. In a similar manner, the uniqueness in W follows. \(\square \)
2.1 Shape Deformations and Uniform Well-Posedness
We next introduce a family of admissible perturbations \(\{\Omega _d\}\) of the reference domain \(\Omega \in C^{2,1}\) such that \(\overline{\Omega }\subset U\), where U is a fixed bounded hold-all domain in \(\mathbb {R}^l\) with \(l\in \{2,3\}\); see Fig. 1. To this end, we employ the approach of [42], and perturb the identity mapping with a vector field
For \(h \in \mathcal {D}\) and \(d\in \mathbb {R}\), such that \(\vert d\vert \) is sufficiently small, we define
Then there exists \(\delta >0\), such that \(F_d(U) = U\) and that \(F_d\) is a diffeomorphism for \(\vert d\vert < \delta \). The perturbed domains and boundary are defined as
We next employ the method of mappings to transform the perturbed state constraint to the reference domain \(\Omega \). We use the notation
for quantities defined on the perturbed domain. Furthermore, we denote
If \(\psi _d\) is the solution of problem (4) on a deformed domain \(\Omega _d\), then
satisfies an initial-boundary value problem on the reference domain \(\Omega \). To state the weak form solved by \(\psi ^d\), we introduce the short-hand notation
where \(DF_d\) is the Jacobian of \(F_d\) and n denotes the outer normal unit vector to \(\Omega \). Furthermore, we denote:
where \((\cdot )'\) stands for the derivative with respect to the shape deformation variable d. The limits that define the derivative at \(d=0\) exist uniformly in \(\overline{U}\); see [43]. For the upcoming analysis, we require certain known regularity properties of the transformation \(F_d\) and the transformation of integral formulas. We collect these in Appendix 1 for convenience of the reader.
With the above notation, using the transformation of integrals, we find that the function \(\psi ^d = \psi _d \circ F_d\) solves
for all \(\phi \in H^1(\Omega )\) a.e. in time, with initial conditions \(\psi ^d (0) = \psi _0^d\), \(\dot{\psi }^d (0) = \psi _1^d\). By generalizing the arguments of Theorems 1 and 2, we can prove that this problem has a unique solution as well, which remains uniformly bounded in \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{W}\).
Theorem 3
Given \(T>0\), let Assumptions 1 hold and let \(\vert d\vert \) be small enough. There exists \(r_1^2=r_1^2(\Omega , T)\), independent of d, such that if
then problem (25) has a unique solution \(\psi ^d \in W\). Furthermore, the solution verifies the estimate
where the constant \(C^*=C^*(\Omega , T, r_1)\) is independent of d.
Proof
We can express (25) in strong form as follows:
so we can exploit the results of [42, Chapter 6], where a steady-state counterpart of this problem is considered.
Note that \(M_d(x)\) is uniformly positive for \(x \in \Omega \) according to, e.g, [43] and [44, Proposition 2.12]. Further, \(\Vert M_d\Vert _{C^{1,1}(\overline{\Omega })}\) and \(\Vert w_d\Vert _{C^{1,1}(\partial \Omega )}\) are uniformly bounded for \(\vert d\vert \) small enough thanks to the smoothness properties of the transformation \(F_d\); see Appendix 1. Thus, one can readily show that the energy estimates for the above problem (that can be established analogously to those in Proposition 1) can be made independent of d for \(\vert d\vert \) small enough.
By generalizing the linear and fixed-point arguments of Sect. 2 (noting that elliptic regularity [40, Theorem 2.5.1.1] can again be used thanks to the aforementioned regularity of the shape deformation quantities), one can show that (25) has a unique solution in W under a smallness bound on \(r_1\), which is independent of d. \(\square \)
3 Hölder-Continuity with Respect to Shape
In this section, we establish Hölder-continuity of the solution to the nonlinear state problem with respect to shape deformations. This result is crucial in the rigorous justification of the shape derivatives.
Theorem 4
Let \(T >0\) and assume \(\psi _0^d\), \(\psi _1^d\) and \(g^d\) verify the assumptions of Theorem 3 uniformly in d for \(\vert d\vert \) small enough. Furthermore, assume Hölder-continuity of data with respect to d in the following sense:
-
(i)
Initial data
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{d\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{d} \Vert \psi _0^d - \psi _0 \Vert _{H^ 1(\Omega )}^2 = 0, \qquad \lim _{d\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{d} \Vert \psi _1^d - \psi _1 \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2 = 0; \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
Boundary data
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{d\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{d} \Vert g^d - g \Vert _{H^1(H^{-1/2}(\partial \Omega ))}^2 = 0. \end{aligned}$$
Then the solution of the Kuznetsov problem (4) is Hölder-continuous with respect to shape deformations in the sense of
where \( X= W^{1,\infty }(0,T; L^2(\Omega ) \cap H^1(0,T; H^1(\Omega ))\).
Proof
Let \(z^d\) stand for the difference quotient:
We recall that \(\psi \) and \(\psi ^d\) satisfy (25). By subtracting their respective weak forms, we obtain the following equation for \(z^d\):
with initial conditions
We next test this difference equation with \(\phi = \dot{z}^d \in L^2(0,T; H^1(\Omega ))\) and integrate over (0, t). We again use the notation \(a = 1-2k\dot{\psi }\) (which implies \(\dot{a} = - 2k\ddot{\psi }\)), and relation (9), we then have after rearranging the terms
By relying on Hölder’s inequality and Ehrling’s inequality (5), we obtain
for all \(\epsilon _1>0\). Furthermore, we have
We next use the differentiability of the shape deformation \(F_d\) and of the quantities \(I_d\), \(M_d\) and \(w_d\) (see Appendix 1), as well as the uniform boundedness of \(\psi ^d\) in the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _W\) to further simplify the expression as:
We treat similarly the other volume terms and estimate them as follows
while,
because \(\psi ^d\) and \(\dot{\psi ^d}\) are uniformly bounded in W thanks to Theorem 3. We also get
Finally, we have, for all \(\epsilon >0\)
We estimate the boundary terms as follows:
where \( \mathcal {O}(\vert d\vert )\) term arises from the shape differentiability of \(w_d\). Similarly,
We can then choose \(\epsilon _1\) small enough so that
and the terms with \(\int _{0}^{t}\Vert \nabla \dot{z}^d \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2\,\mathrm {d}s\) on the right-hand side can be absorbed by the left-hand side in (26). We notice also that the terms with initial conditions and boundary data are 
(i.e, they tend to 0 when \(d\rightarrow 0\) ). We then infer that
Noticing that each of the terms on the left-hand side is bounded by the right-hand side independently, we take the supremum for \(\tau \in (0,t)\) to get the following bound:
We then fix \(\epsilon >0\) sufficiently small and use that
together with Gronwall’s inequality to get
This final inequality concludes our proof. \(\square \)
4 Analysis of a General Adjoint Problem
Different cost functions are of practical interest for the optimization problem at hand. As announced, we first consider an \(L^2(L^2)\) tracking-type objective. That is, we wish the solution \(\psi \) of the state problem to match a desired potential field \(\psi _{D}\in L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega ))\) in the focal region \(D_S\) within a certain time interval \((t_0, t_1)\). Such a cost functional can be expressed by
where \(\chi _D\) is the indicator function of \(D = D_S \times (t_0,t_1)\). The adjoint problem is then formally given by
which in weak form yields
for all \(\phi \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega ))\) with \(p(T) = \dot{p}(T) = 0\) and \(f=(\psi -\psi _{D})\chi _D\).
For the sake of considering other objective functionals, we analyze the adjoint problem in a more general setting, where we allow for non-zero data at final time:
and a general right-hand side \(f \in L^2(0,T; L^2(\Omega ))\).
Theorem 5
Under the assumptions of Theorem 2 and given \(f \in L^2(0,T; L^2(\Omega ))\), the adjoint problem (28) has a unique solution p in
Furthermore, the solution satisfies the estimate
Proof
To facilitate the analysis, we first reverse the time direction. We then see that \(\tilde{p}(t) = p(T-t)\) satisfies
for all \(\phi \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega ))\) with \(\tilde{p}(0) = p_0 \), \(\dot{\tilde{p}}(0) = p_1\) and \(\tilde{f}=(\tilde{\psi }-\tilde{\psi }_{D})\chi _D \in L^2(0,T; L^2(\Omega ))\).
The existence of weak solutions can be obtained rigorously using standard Galerkin approximations. As before, we will only present the derivation of an a priori estimate here. We derive the energy estimate by testing the (semi-discrete) weak form (31) with \(\dot{\tilde{p}}\) and \(\ddot{\tilde{p}}\). We then combine it with an elliptic regularity argument to enhance the regularity of the solution.
Lower-Order Energy Estimate We test (31) with \(\dot{\tilde{p}}\)
We denote by \(\tilde{a} =1 +2k \dot{\tilde{\psi }}\). \(\psi \in \mathcal {W}\) implies that \(\tilde{\psi }\in \mathcal {W}\); we therefore have that \(\frac{1}{2}<\tilde{a}< \frac{3}{2}\) almost everywhere on \(\Omega \) for all \(t \in [0,T]\). Knowing that
we infer
We estimate the term
Using Ehrling’s inequality (5), we estimate, for some arbitrary \(\epsilon >0\), the term
For \(\epsilon \) small enough this yields the following estimate:
Next we test with \(\ddot{\tilde{p}}\)
We integrate by parts in time the terms
With this, we can rewrite (33) as
Next we estimate the right-hand side terms starting with the term
Using Ehrling’s inequality (5), we obtain for all \(\epsilon _2>0\)
we can first choose \(\epsilon _1\) small enough to absorb the term \(\int _{0}^{t}\Vert \ddot{\tilde{p}} \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^{2} \,\mathrm {d}s\), then \(\epsilon _2=\epsilon _2(\epsilon _1)>0\) afterwards small enough to absorb the term \(\Vert \nabla \dot{\tilde{p}} (\tau ) \Vert _{L^ 2(\Omega )}^2\).
Usual computations then lead to the bound
Bootstrap Argument From the above-analysis we can infer that
We present the next arguments for \(l = 3\); the case \(l = 2\) can be treated analogously. We introduce the new variable 
which verifies
It is easy to see that 
a.e. in time. Additionally, if \(\Omega \) is a bounded subset of \(\mathbb {R}^3\), then \(\partial \Omega \) is a compact 2-manifold. One can use properties of pointwise multiplication on fractional Sobolev spaces on n-manifolds to show that since \(g \in H^{3/2}(\partial \Omega )\) and \(\dot{\tilde{p}} \in H^{1/2}(\partial \Omega )\) a.e. in time, then \(2\sigma g\dot{\tilde{p}} \in H^{1/2}(\partial \Omega )\) a.e. in time; see [45, Corollary 3]. We then use elliptic regularity to conclude that 
(as done in [18, Theorem 4.3], for example).
Knowing that \(\tilde{p}\) solves the ODE: 
one may write
Analogously to the proof of Proposition 1, it then follows that \(\tilde{p}\in L^\infty (0,T, H^2(\Omega ))\) and subsequently that \(\dot{\tilde{p}} \in L^2(0,T, H^2(\Omega ))\). The energy estimate follows from (35) and the elliptic regularity estimate for 
. \(\square \)
5 Shape Derivative
Given cost functional J, we consider the following shape optimization problem
with W defined in (7), and \(\mathcal {O}_{ad}\) is the set of admissible domains:
Our previous analysis allows us to now focus on deriving the shape sensitivity \(\mathrm {d}J (\Omega ) h\) of a cost functional J in the direction of a smooth enough vector field \(h \in \mathcal {D}\). We recall that the Eulerian derivative of J in the direction of the vector field h is defined as
where \(\psi \) and \(\psi _d\) satisfy the PDE on the original and on the perturbed domain, respectively. The difficulty ensuing from the difference quotient in (36) involving functions defined on different domains is overcome by using the method of mappings, discussed in Sect. 2.
The first cost functional of interest, given in (27), can be written on a deformed domain
Motivated by application purposes and to simplify the analysis, we assume that the focal region is compactly contained in \(\Omega \); i.e, \(\overline{D_S} \subsetneq \Omega \). Thus we impose \({\text {supp}}h \cap \overline{D_S} = \emptyset \implies \chi _D^d = \chi _D\), and have
To simplify the presentation and in agreement with HIFU applications, we assume going forward that the potential field is at rest at \(t=0\) for all small deformations; that is, \(\psi ^d(0) = \dot{\psi }^d(0) =0\), for all \(\vert d\vert \) small.
We generalize in what follows a useful identity [19, Lemma 6] to accommodate the term \(\nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \dot{\psi }\) which will be needed in the computation of the shape derivative.
Lemma 1
For \(a \in H^1(\Omega )\) and \(u, v \in H^2(\Omega )\) the following identity holds:
where \(M = I{\text {div}}h - (\nabla h)^T -(\nabla h)\), as defined in (24).
Proof
The proof in the case \(a = 1\) follows by [46, Lemma 5]. The general case \(a \in H^1(\Omega )\) follows by a straightforward extension of the arguments there. \(\square \)
We now have all the tools to rigorously compute the shape derivative.
Theorem 6
Let the assumptions made in Theorem 3, Theorem 4 hold and let \(\psi \) and p be the solutions of the state (4) and adjoint (28) problems, respectively. Further, let the assumptions made in this section hold. Then the shape derivative for cost function J, defined in (27), exists in the direction of any \(h \in \mathcal {D}\) and is given by
where \(\kappa \) stands for the mean curvature of \(\partial \Omega \).
Proof
Inspired by the rearrangement technique of [19, 29], we write:
We use Theorem 4 together with the fact that \(d \mapsto \psi _D^d\) is differentiable at \(d = 0\) to arrive at
with \(j'(\psi )=(\psi -\psi _{D})\chi _D\). However, since \({\text {supp}}h \cap \overline{D_S} = \emptyset \), it reduces to
We notice that the integral above resembles the right-hand side of the adjoint problem (29). Thus testing the adjoint problem with \(\psi ^d-\psi \in L^2(0,T; H^1(\Omega ))\) yields
Integrating twice by parts in the first term on the right yields
We note that the following equality holds:
and we can rely on the following identities to deal with the nonlinear terms in (38):
Using these identities we infer
If we use the weak form (25) satisfied by \(\psi ^d\) with \(\phi =p\) as the test function to replace the last three lines and further employ Theorem 4 for the \(\frac{1}{2}\)-Hölder continuity of \(\dot{\psi }\) and \(\nabla \psi \), we obtain
where M is defined in (24). Note that this passage to the limit is made possible by the uniform boundedness in d of \(\psi ^d\) and \(\dot{\psi ^d}\) given by Theorem 3. This expression would correspond to the volume representation of the shape derivative. To arrive at the boundary representation predicted by the Delfour–Hadamard–Zolésio structure theorem, we integrate by parts the first term with respect to space
We note that
We then have after integration by parts (h invariant with time):
which yields
Next we wish to transform II. By applying Lemma 1 to the term \(\int _{\Omega } (M\nabla \dot{\psi }\cdot \nabla \psi ) p \,\mathrm {d}x,\) and integrating by part in time, we find that
Similarly, we use Lemma 1 to infer
Altogether and using the Neumann data for \(\psi \), this gives us that
We use the rules of differentiation of mapped functions (see Appendix 1) to find
Finally, calculating \(I+II+III\), we conclude that
The second line above vanishes due to the fact that \(\psi \) solves the wave equation (1). The third line vanishes by using (28) and then the fact that \({\text {supp}}h \cap \overline{D_S} =\emptyset \). Thus we arrive at (37), as claimed.
Since \(\Omega \) is \(C^{2,1}\), the mean curvature \(\kappa \) is well defined almost everywhere and belongs to \(L^\infty (\partial \Omega )\) [46, p. 165]. Note that due to the established regularities of \(\psi \) in Theorem 2 and p in Theorem 5, the Eulerian shape derivative is well defined. Moreover \(\mathrm {d}J(\Omega ) h\) is linear and continuous with respect to h. J is, therefore, shape differentiable. \(\square \)
5.1 Other Relevant Objectives
In what follows, we discuss how the previous analysis can be easily adapted to accommodate other practically relevant objectives.
Tracking the Potential at Final Time In practice, we might want to impose a desired ultrasound output at a target time-stamp \(t_T\in [0,T]\), usually final time T. In such cases, the cost function has the form
where we recall that \(D_S \subset \overline{\Omega }\) is the ultrasound focal region. Similarly to before, we can assume \({\text {supp}}h \cap \overline{D_S} =\emptyset \).
With cost functional \(J_T\), it can be shown that the strong form of the adjoint problem is formally given by
This initial-boundary value problem fits into the general theoretical framework of Theorem 5. Since the new source term is conveniently zero, all that needs to be shown is that
This is the case if \(\psi _{D_S} \in H^1(\Omega )\). We can see that \(\dot{p}(T) \in L^2(\Omega )\). Writing the gradient of \(\dot{p}(T)\) and noticing that \(1-2k{\dot{\psi }}(T) \in L^\infty (\Omega )\) is bounded away from zero (\(\psi \in \mathcal {W}\) defined in (17)), one can readily prove the desired regularity. And subsequently, due to Theorem 5, initial boundary value problem (40) has a unique solution p in the space \(\mathcal {P}\), which is defined in (30).
Using the same rearrangement technique as before, we write the difference and using Theorem 4 (with the embedding \(H^1(H^1) \hookrightarrow C^0(H^1)\)) together with the differentiability of \(\psi _{D_S}^d\) at \(d = 0\) and the fact that \({\text {supp}}h \cap \overline{D_S} = \emptyset \), we infer that
Testing the weak form (40) of the adjoint problem with \(\psi ^d-\psi \in H^1(0,T; H^1(\Omega ))\), we obtain
We further use the fact that \(p(T) = \dot{\psi }^d (0) = \dot{\psi }(0) = 0\) to integrate once in time the first term
With this, the right-hand side of (41) is the same as the one obtained in (38). From there we can continue the computations done in Theorem 6. We find that the shape derivative has again the form (37).
Tracking the Pressure In ultrasound applications, it might be desirable to impose that the pressure match a desired value on D; i.e,
Here \(\rho \) is the mass density at each point of the medium on the horizon [0, T] or, alternatively, \(\rho : [0,T] \times \overline{\Omega } \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{>0}\). We assume \(f_D \in H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega )) \cap L^\infty (0,T;H^1(\Omega ))\) and consider
For \(J_p \), the strong form of the adjoint problem is given by
One can readily show that (42) verifies the assumptions of Theorem 5. Similarly to before, we compare the functional \(J_p \) on a reference and a deformed domain, rely on the Hölder continuity of \(\dot{\psi }\), together with the fact that \(\psi _{D_S}^d=\psi _{D_S}^d(d)\) is differentiable at \(d = 0\) to infer that
We test (42) by \(\psi ^d - \psi \in H^1(0,T;H^1(\Omega ))\) and use the fact that \(p(T) = \dot{\psi }^d (0) = \dot{\psi }(0) = 0\) to integrate once in time the first term to get
The right-hand side of (43) is the same as the one obtained in (38). From there, we can continue the computations as done in Theorem 6. We find, similarly, that the shape derivative is of the form (37). The established regularities of \(\psi \) in Theorem 2 and p in Theorem 5, imply that the shape derivative is well defined.
6 Conclusion and Outlook
In this work, we have analyzed shape optimization problems governed by general wave equations that model nonlinear ultrasound propagation and, as such, arise in HIFU applications. In particular, we have established sufficient conditions for the well-posedness and regularity of the underlying wave models with nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, uniformly with respect to shape deformations, as well as the Hölder continuity of the solutions. Furthermore, we have studied the corresponding adjoint problems and rigorously computed shape derivatives for several objectives of practical interest.
Our results provide a sound basis for the analysis and implementation of suitable numerical algorithms for shape optimization of HIFU waves. Indeed, Theorem 6 provides a derivative expression which can be used in a gradient-descent algorithm to find, e.g., the optimal arrangement of piezoelectric trandsucers in a HIFU device. Calculating the shape derivative necessitates the solving of only two PDEs (a nonlinear state problem and a linear adjoint problem). A simple integral formula gives then the derivative for any vector field. This makes designing HIFU devices using the established formulas for shape sensitivities particularly attractive. Future work will also be concerned with generalizing the presented theoretical framework to allow for sound propagation through media with different relaxation mechanisms.
References
Stokes, G.G.: On a difficulty in the theory of Sound. Lond. Edinburgh Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 33(223), 349–356 (1848)
Muir, T.G.: Nonlinear effects in acoustic imaging. In: Acoustical Imaging, pp. 93–109. Springer, Boston (1980)
Muir, T., Carstensen, E.: Prediction of nonlinear acoustic effects at biomedical frequencies and intensities. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 6(4), 345–357 (1980)
Kennedy, J.E., Ter Haar, G., Cranston, D.: High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future? Br. J. Radiol. 76(909), 590–599 (2003)
Wu, F., Chen, W.-Z., Bai, J., Zou, J.-Z., Wang, Z.-L., Zhu, H., Wang, Z.-B.: Pathological changes in human malignant carcinoma treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 27(8), 1099–1106 (2001)
Yoshizawa, S., Ikeda, T., Ito, A., Ota, R., Takagi, S., Matsumoto, Y.: High intensity focused ultrasound lithotripsy with cavitating microbubbles. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 47(8), 851–860 (2009)
Zhou, Y.-F.: High intensity focused ultrasound in clinical tumor ablation. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2(1), 8 (2011)
Maloney, E., Hwang, J.H.: Emerging HIFU applications in cancer therapy. Int. J. Hyperth. 31(3), 302–309 (2015)
Pajek, D., Hynynen, K.: The design of a focused ultrasound transducer array for the treatment of stroke: a simulation study. Phys. Med. Biol. 57(15), 4951 (2012)
Martins, M., Correia, V., Cabral, J., Lanceros-Mendez, S., Rocha, J.: Optimization of piezoelectric ultrasound emitter transducers for underwater communications. Sens. Actuators A 184, 141–148 (2012)
Rosnitskiy, P.B., Yuldashev, P.V., Sapozhnikov, O.A., Maxwell, A.D., Kreider, W., Bailey, M.R., Khokhlova, V.A.: Design of HIFU transducers for generating specified nonlinear ultrasound fields. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 64(2), 374–390 (2016)
Westervelt, P.J.: Parametric acoustic array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 35(4), 535–537 (1963)
Kuznetsov, V.: Equations of nonlinear acoustics. Sov. Phys. Acoust 16, 548–53 (1970)
Kaltenbacher, B., Lasiecka, I.: Global existence and exponential decay rates for the Westervelt equation. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2(3), 503 (2009)
Kaltenbacher, B., Lasiecka, I.: Well-posedness of the Westervelt and the Kuznetsov equation with nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. In: Conference Publications, vol. 2011, p. 763 (2011). American Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Kaltenbacher, B., Nikolić, V.: Vanishing relaxation time limit of the Jordan-Moore-Gibson-Thompson wave equation with Neumann and absorbing boundary conditions. Pure Appl. Funct. Anal. 5(1), 1–26 (2020)
Dekkers, A., Rozanova-Pierrat, A.: Cauchy problem for the Kuznetsov equation. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 39(1), 277–307 (2019)
Kaltenbacher, B., Shevchenko, I.: Well-posedness of the Westervelt equation with higher order absorbing boundary conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 479(2), 1595–1617 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.07.014
Kaltenbacher, B., Peichl, G.: The shape derivative for an optimization problem in lithotripsy. Evol. Equ. Control Theory 5(3), 399 (2016)
Mizohata, K., Ukai, S.: The global existence of small amplitude solutions to the nonlinear acoustic wave equation. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 33(2), 505–522 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1215/kjm/1250519270
Ang, D.D., Ngoc Dinh, A.P.: On the strongly damped wave equation: \(u_{tt}-{\Delta } u-{\Delta } u_t+f(u)=0\). SIAM J. Math. Anal. 19(6), 1409–1418 (1988)
Meyer, S., Wilke, M.: Optimal regularity and long-time behavior of solutions for the Westervelt equation. Appl. Math. Optim. 64(2), 257–271 (2011)
Cagnol, J., Zolésio, J.-P.: Shape derivative in the wave equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 158(2), 175–210 (1999)
Bociu, L., Zolésio, J.-P.: Hyperbolic equations with mixed boundary conditions: shape differentiability analysis. Appl. Math. Optim. 76(2), 375–398 (2017)
Hinz, M., Rozanova-Pierrat, A., Teplyaev, A.: Non-Lipschitz uniform domain shape optimization in linear acoustics. SIAM J. Control. Optim. 59(2), 1007–1032 (2021)
Kaltenbacher, B., Veljović, S.: Sensitivity analysis of linear and nonlinear lithotripter models. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 22(1), 21 (2011)
Muhr, M., Nikolić, V., Wohlmuth, B., Wunderlich, L.: Isogeometric shape optimization for nonlinear ultrasound focusing. Evol. Equ. Control Theory 8(1), 163 (2019)
Nikolić, V., Kaltenbacher, B.: Sensitivity analysis for shape optimization of a focusing acoustic lens in lithotripsy. Appl. Math. Optim. 76(2), 261–301 (2017)
Ito, K., Kunisch, K., Peichl, G.H.: Variational approach to shape derivatives. ESAIM: Control Optim. Calc. Var. 14(3), 517–539 (2008)
Delfour, M.C., Zolésio, J.-P.: Shapes and Geometries: Metrics, Analysis, Differential Calculus, and Optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia (2011)
Hamilton, M.F., Blackstock, D.T., et al.: Nonlinear Acoustics, vol. 237. Academic Press, San Diego (1998)
Jordan, P.M.: A survey of weakly-nonlinear acoustic models: 1910–2009. Mech. Res. Commun. 73, 127–139 (2016)
Zheng, S.: Nonlinear Evolution Equations. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)
Renardy, M., Rogers, R.C.: An Introduction to Partial Differential Equations, vol. 13. Springer, New York (2006)
Temam, R.: Infinite-dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and Physics, vol. 68. Springer, New York (2012)
Evans, L.C.: Partial Differential Equations. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2010)
Dautray, R., Lions, J.-L.: Mathematical Analysis and Numerical Methods for Science and Technology: Evolution Problems I, vol. 5. Springer, New York (2000)
Brezis, H.: Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York (2010)
Garcke, H., Lam, K.F., Rocca, E.: Optimal control of treatment time in a diffuse interface model of tumor growth. Appl. Math. Optim. 78(3), 495–544 (2018)
Grisvard, P.: Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains. SIAM, Philadelphia (2011)
Salsa, S.: Partial Differential Equations in Action: From Modelling to Theory, vol. 99. Springer, New York (2016)
Murat, F., Simon, J.: Sur le contrôle par un domaine géométrique. Rapport du LA 189, 76015 (1976)
Ito, K., Kunisch, K., Peichl, G.H.: Variational approach to shape derivatives for a class of Bernoulli problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 314(1), 126–149 (2006)
Sturm, K.: On Shape Optimization with Non-linear Partial Differential Equations. Technische Universitaet Berlin (Germany), Berlin (2015)
Holst, M., Nagy, G., Tsogtgerel, G.: Rough solutions of the Einstein constraints on closed manifolds without near-CMC conditions. Commun. Math. Phys. 288(2), 547–613 (2009)
Abda, A.B., Bouchon, F., Peichl, G., Sayeh, M., Touzani, R.: A Dirichlet-Neumann cost functional approach for the Bernoulli problem. J. Eng. Math. 81(1), 157–176 (2013)
Berger, M., Gostiaux, B.: Differential Geometry: Manifolds, Curves, and Surfaces, vol. 115. Springer, New York (2012)
Sokolowski, J., Zolésio, J.-P.: Introduction to Shape Optimization. Springer, New York (1992)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many helpful remarks.
Funding
The authors have not disclosed any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: A. Properties of the Perturbation of Identity Mapping
Appendix: A. Properties of the Perturbation of Identity Mapping
In this appendix, we collect certain helpful properties of the perturbation of identity mapping. We refer to [42, Lemmas 2.4, 4.2, 4.3 & 4.8], [30, Section 2.3.2], and [47, Proposition 6.6.2] for the following results.
Let \(\mathcal {I}= [0,\delta _0]\) with \(\delta _0>0\) sufficiently small. Then the following properties hold:
where, again, \((\cdot )'\) stands for the derivative the deformation mappings with respect to d.
We also recall here some rules of differentiation and integration of the mapped functions; see, for example, Propositions 2.29, 2.47, and 2.50 in [48, Chapter 2], and Theorem 4.3 in [30, Chapter 9] for their proofs.
-
Let \(\varphi _d \in L^1(\Omega _d)\), then \(\varphi _d \circ F_d \in L^1(\Omega _d)\):
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega _d}\varphi _d \,\mathrm {d}x_d = \int _{\Omega }\varphi _d \circ F_d \det DF_d \,\mathrm {d}x= \int _{\Omega }I_d\varphi ^d \,\mathrm {d}x\end{aligned}$$ -
Let \(\varphi _d \in L^1(\partial \Omega _d)\), then \(\varphi ^d \in L^1(\partial \Omega )\):
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\partial \Omega _d}\varphi _d \,\mathrm {d}\gamma _d = \int _{\partial \Omega } w_d \varphi ^d \,\mathrm {d}\gamma , \end{aligned}$$ -
\(\phi _d \in H^1(\Omega _d)\) if and only if \(\phi ^d \in H^1(\Omega )\):
$$\begin{aligned} (\nabla \varphi _d) \circ F_d = A_d \nabla \varphi ^d. \end{aligned}$$ -
Assume that \(f\in C((-\delta _0,\delta _0), W^{2,1}(U))\) and \(f_d(0)\) exists in \(W^{1,1}(U)\). Then
$$\begin{aligned}&{\left( \int _{\partial \Omega _d} f(d,\gamma ) \,\mathrm {d}\gamma \right) '(0)} \\&\quad =\int _{\partial \Omega } \left\{ {\left( f(d,\gamma ) \right) '(0)} + \left( \frac{\partial }{\partial n} f(0,\gamma ) + \kappa f(0,\gamma )\right) (h\cdot n) \right\} \,\mathrm {d}\gamma , \end{aligned}$$
where \(\kappa \) stands for the mean curvature of \(\partial \Omega \).
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
Meliani, M., Nikolić, V. Analysis of General Shape Optimization Problems in Nonlinear Acoustics. Appl Math Optim 86, 39 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-022-09906-8
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-022-09906-8
Keywords
- Nonlinear acoustics
- Shape optimization
- Kuznetsov’s equation
- Energy method
- HIFU
Mathematics Subject Classification
- 35L72
- 49J20