Abstract
It is well known that for higher order elliptic equations, the positivity preserving property (PPP) may fail. In striking contrast to what happens under Dirichlet boundary conditions, we prove that the PPP holds for the biharmonic operator on rectangular domains under partially hinged boundary conditions, i.e., nonnegative loads yield positive solutions. The result follows by fine estimates of the Fourier expansion of the corresponding Green function.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
One of the main obstructions in the development of the theory of higher order elliptic equations is represented by the loss of general maximum principles, see, e.g., [9, Chapter 1]. Nevertheless, due to the central role that these technical tolls play in the general theory of second-order elliptic equations, in the last century a large part of literature has focused in studying whether the related boundary-value problems possibly enjoy the so-called positivity preserving property (PPP in the following). As a matter of example, let us consider the clamped plate problem:
where \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb R}^n\) is a bounded domain and \(f\in L^2(\Omega )\); we say that the above problem satisfies the PPP if the following implication holds
where u is a (weak) solution to (1). The validity of the PPP generally depends either on the choice of the boundary conditions or on the geometry of the domain. For instance, from the seminal works by Boggio [5, 6], it is known that problem (1) satisfies the PPP when \(\Omega\) is a ball in \({\mathbb R}^n\), while, in [7], Coffman and Duffin proved that the PPP does not hold when \(\Omega\) is a two-dimensional domain containing a right angle, such as a square or a rectangle.
Things become somehow simpler if in (1), instead of the Dirichlet boundary conditions, we take the Navier boundary conditions, i.e., we consider the hinged plate problem:
Here, the PPP follows by applying twice the comparison principle for the Laplacian under Dirichlet boundary conditions. It is worth noticing that smoothness of the domain cannot be overlooked since it has been shown by Nazarov and Sweers [15] that, also in this case, the PPP may fail for planar domains with an interior corner. We refer to the book [9] for more details and PPP results under different kinds of boundary conditions, e.g., Steklov boundary conditions, and to [10,11,12, 16,17,18,19, 21] for up-to-date results on the topic.
In the present paper, we focus on the less studied partially hinged plate problem which arises in several mathematical models having engineering interest, e.g., models of bridges or footbridges. In particular, a 2-d model for suspension bridges has been proposed in [8]; here, the bridge is seen as a thin long rectangular plate \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb R}^2\) hinged at the short edges, see also [4] for further details. More precisely, if, by scaling, we assume that \(\Omega =(0,\pi )\times (-d,d)\) with \(d>0\), the partially hinged problem writes:
where \(f\in L^2(\Omega )\), \(\sigma \in [0,1)\) is the so-called Poisson ratio and depends on the material by which the plate is made of. It is known that the validity of the PPP for a problem is related to the sign of the associated Green function. Indeed, if \(G_p(q):=G(p,q)\) denotes the Green function of (2), the (weak) solution to (2) writes
and the PPP becomes equivalent to
The proof of the above inequality represents the main result of the present paper. More precisely, we first write the Fourier expansion of \(G_p\), i.e.,
where the (involved) analytic expression of the functions \(\phi _m\) is given explicitly in formula (15) of Sect. 3. We remark that, differently from what it happens in the second-order case, the use of a single Fourier series solution is not common for fourth-order problems; indeed, it often does not work; for plates with two opposite edges simply supported, the effectiveness of its use was highlighted by Lévy in 1899 and we refer to [14, Section 2.2] for a discussion of the original Lévy method and its generalizations. Nevertheless, boundary conditions (2) were not considered in [14] and they require some additional effort, see, e.g., [8] and Sect. 3.
As a subsequent step, in the article we develop an accurate analysis of the qualitative properties of the \(\phi _m\) and we show, in particular, that they are strictly decreasing with respect to \(m\in \mathbb {N^+}\). This monotonicity issue is achieved by studying the sign of the derivatives of the \(\phi _m\); since they have highly involved analytic expressions, in order to detect their sign, we set up a clever scheme where, step by step, we cancel out the dependence of some variables through optimization arguments, see Remark 4.1 of Sect. 4. From the monotonicity of the \(\phi _m\), through an asymptotic analysis, we also deduce their positivity. These pieces of information are essential for the subsequent part of the proof where we study the sign of \(G_p\). More precisely, by means of suitable lower bounds, we first show the positivity of \(G_p\) in a rectangle contained in \(\Omega\), far from the hinged edges; then, we obtain the positivity in the remaining parts through suitable iterative procedures which, step by step, stick rectangles where \(G_p\) is positive up to the boundary, see Sect. 5 for all details.
As already remarked, the validity of the PPP for problem (2) is by no means an obvious fact; recall that it does not hold for problem (1) on rectangular planar domains; by numerical observations, we do not even expect its validity for the partially clamped plate problem, i.e., (2) with Dirichlet conditions instead of Navier, see Figure 1 on the right. Furthermore, we believe that the validity of the PPP will help in making a significant step forward in the spectral analysis of the operator in (2) and in the related stability analysis for partially hinged plates, especially in the nonhomogeneous case, see, e.g., [2] and [3].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce some notations and we state our main results: the Fourier expansion of \(G_p\), together with the qualitative properties of its components, which is given in Theorem 2.1 and the precise statement of the PPP result which is given in Theorem 2.2. The rest of the paper is devoted to the proofs. More precisely, in Sect. 3 we compute explicitly the Fourier series of the Green function as the limit of the solution to (2) for a specific \(L^2\) forcing term converging to the Dirac delta function. In Sect. 4 we prove the monotonicity and the positivity of the \(\phi _m\), while in Sect. 5 we show the positivity of the Green function. Finally, we collect in “Appendix” the proofs of some technical results needed either in Sect. 4 or in Sect. 5.
2 Notations and main results
The natural functional space where to set problem (2) is
Note that the condition \(u=0\) has to be meant in a classical sense because \(\Omega\) is a planar domain and \(H^2_*(\Omega ) \subset C^0(\overline{\Omega })\). Furthermore, for \(\sigma \in [0,1)\) fixed, by repeating the proof of [8, Lemma 4.1] with minor changes, \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) is a Hilbert space when endowed with the scalar product
with associated norm \(\Vert u\Vert _{H^2_*(\Omega )}^2=(u,u)_{H^2_*(\Omega )} \, ,\) which is equivalent to the usual norm in \(H^2(\Omega )\). Then, we reformulate problem (2)in the following weak sense
If \(f\in H^{-2}_*(\Omega ):=(H^{2}_*(\Omega ))'\), we write \(\langle f,v\rangle\) instead of \((f,v)_{L^2(\Omega )}\), i.e.,
Clearly, problem (4) (and consequently (3)) admits a unique solution \(u\in H^2_*(\Omega )\); in the following, we shall specify the cases when \(f\in H^{-2}_*(\Omega )\), otherwise we will always assume \(f\in L^2(\Omega )\). For all \(p\in \Omega\), the Green function \(G_p\) of (2) is, by definition, the unique solution to
By separating variables, in Sect. 3 we derive the Fourier expansion of \(G_p\) and in Sect. 4 we prove some crucial qualitative properties of its Fourier components. We collect these results in the following:
Theorem 2.1
Let \(\sigma \in [0,1)\) and \(p=(\xi ,\eta )\in \overline{\Omega }\), and furthermore let \(G_p\in H^2_*(\Omega )\) be the Green function of (2). Then,
where the functions \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) are given explicitly in formula (15) of Sect. 3. In particular, the \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) are strictly positive and strictly decreasing with respect to m, i.e.,
In Figure 2 on the left, we provide the plot of \(\phi _1(y,\eta )\) with \(d=\pi /150\) and \(\sigma =0.2\); on the right, we provide the plot of \(\phi _1(y,\eta )\) and \(\phi _2(y,\eta )\) for \(d=3\pi /4\). Qualitatively, we have similar plots for any \(m\in \mathbb {N^+}\) and they all highlight that the points where the positivity of \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) is more difficult to show are \((\pm d,\mp d)\). This confirms the physical intuition that a concentrated load in \(w=d\) produces the largest vertical (positive) displacement in \(y=d\) and the smallest in \(y=-d\). We refer to [1] for a detailed analysis about the torsional performances of partially hinged plates under the action of different external forces. Instead, Figure 2 on the right highlights how the monotonicity issue (with respect m) becomes more difficult to be proved at \((\pm d,\pm d)\), where the difference between the \(\phi _m\) reduces. Numerically, we see that this becomes more evident for large d. However, Theorem 2.1 assures that the \(\phi _m\) never intersect and preserve their positivity for all \(d>0\).
By exploiting Theorem 2.1, we derive the main result of the paper, namely the positivity of \(G_p\). More precisely, we set
and we prove
Theorem 2.2
Let \(\sigma \in [0,1)\) and \(p\in \widetilde{\Omega }\), and furthermore let \(G_p\) be the Green function of (2). There holds
Therefore, if \(f\in L^2(\Omega )\) and u is the solution of (2), the following implication holds
Remark 2.3
The Poisson ratio \(\sigma\) of a material is defined as the ratio between the transversal strain and the longitudinal strain in the direction of the stretching force; for most of materials, we have \(\sigma \in (0,1/2)\). Nevertheless, there are materials having negative Poisson ratio; hence, the range \(\sigma \in (-1,1/2)\) includes all possible values. Numerical experiments lead us to conjecture that Theorem 2.2 still holds for \(\sigma \in (-1,0)\). In Remark 4.2 of Sect. 4, we highlight the points where our proof fails when assuming \(\sigma\) negative.
3 Green function computation
The aim of this section is to provide the Fourier expansion of the Green function \(G_p\), namely of the solution to (5). This is done by developing a suitable limit approach where, in principle, \(\delta _{p}\) is replaced by a suitable \(L^2\) function converging to it. To begin with, we fix \(p=(\xi ,\eta )\in \Omega\) and we introduce \(\alpha ,\beta >0\) sufficiently small so that \([\xi -\alpha ,\xi +\alpha ]\times [\eta -\beta ,\eta +\beta ]\subset \Omega\); then, we denote by \(u^p_{\alpha ,\beta } \in H^2_*(\Omega )\) the unique solution to the auxiliary problem:
where
and \(\chi _A\) denotes the characteristic function of the set \(A\subset \mathbb {R}\). Recalling that \(H^2_*(\Omega )\subset C^{0, \gamma }(\overline{\Omega })\) for any \(0<\gamma <1\), by the mean value theorem there exists \((\sigma _{\alpha ,\beta },\tau _{\alpha ,\beta })\in [\xi -\alpha ,\xi +\alpha ]\times [\eta -\beta ,\eta +\beta ]\) such that
for all \(v\in H^2_*(\Omega )\) and for some \(C>0\). Since \((\sigma _{\alpha ,\beta },\tau _{\alpha ,\beta })\rightarrow (\xi ,\eta )\) as \((\alpha ,\beta )\rightarrow (0,0),\) we infer that \(f^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\rightarrow \delta _p\) in \(H^{-2}_*(\Omega )\) and, in turn, that
Next, we provide the explicit Fourier expansion of \(u^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\). To this aim, we set:
where the functions \(F,\overline{F},A,\overline{A}, B, \overline{B}: (0,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) and \(V_{m,\eta ,\beta },W_{m,\eta ,\beta },\Phi _{m,\eta ,\beta }:[-d,d]\rightarrow {\mathbb R}\) are defined as follows
with
\(\Phi _{m,\eta ,\beta }\) is given by the convolution of the \(H^3({\mathbb R})\) function \(\frac{(1+m|y|)e^{-m|y|}}{4m^3}\) and the \(L^2({\mathbb R})\) function \(\frac{\chi _{[\eta -\beta ,\eta +\beta ]}(y)}{2\beta }\), hence \(\Phi _{m,\eta ,\beta }\in C^3({\mathbb R})\), and all the above constants are well defined.
We prove
Lemma 3.1
Let \(u^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\) be the unique solution to (7) , then
with
where the constants \(c_i\) and \(\Phi _{m,\eta ,\beta }\) are defined in (9) and (11). Furthermore, the above series converges in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) and in \(C^0(\overline{\Omega })\).
Proof
First, we denote the Fourier coefficients of \(f^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\) by
Then, for \(M\geqslant 1\) we define
where, for each \(1\leqslant m\leqslant M\), \(\varphi _m=\varphi _{m,\alpha ,\beta }^p(y)\) is the unique solution to the problem:
with
continuous and coercive bilinear form in \(H^2(-d, d)\) with associated norm \(\Vert \varphi \Vert ^2_{H^2_m(-d,d)}:=a_m(\varphi ,\varphi )\,.\) In strong form, problem (13) reads
and some computations yield that the \(\varphi _{m,\alpha ,\beta }^p\) are as in (12). Let \(v\in H^2_*(\Omega )\), it is readily checked that, for \(M\geqslant 1\) fixed, \(u^{p,M}_{\alpha ,\beta }\) satisfies
where \(v^M\) and \(f^{p,M}_{\alpha ,\beta }\) denote, respectively, the partial sums of the Fourier expansion of v and \(f^{p}_{\alpha ,\beta }\). By the standard theory of Fourier series, we get \(f^{p,M}_{\alpha ,\beta } \rightarrow f^{p}_{\alpha ,\beta }\) in \(L^2(\Omega )\) and \(v^M\rightarrow v\) in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) as \(M \rightarrow + \infty\). Furthermore, since
we have that \(u^{p,M}_{\alpha ,\beta }\rightarrow u^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\) in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) as \(M\rightarrow +\infty\). Finally, the proof of Lemma 3.1 follows by passing to the limit in (14). \(\square\)
In order to write explicitly the Fourier expansion of \(G_p\), for all \(m\in {\mathbb N}_+\), we set
with the functions \(F,\overline{F}\) as in (10) and \(\overline{\zeta }, \overline{\vartheta }, \overline{\psi }, \overline{\omega }: \mathbb {R}\times (0,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined as follows
From Lemma 3.1, we get:
Proposition 3.2
Let \(\sigma \in [0,1)\) and \(p=(\xi ,\eta )\in \overline{\Omega }\), and furthermore let \(G_p\in H^2_*(\Omega )\) be as in (5). Then,
where the functions \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) are given in (15).
Proof
By expanding in Fourier series, we have: \(G_p(x,y)=\sum _{m=1}^{+\infty } g_m^p(y)\sin (mx)\). Let \(u^p_{\alpha ,\beta }\in H^2_*(\Omega )\) be the unique solution to (7), by Lemma 3.1 its Fourier coefficients \(\varphi _{m,\alpha ,\beta }^p(y)\) write as in (12) and, by (8), \(\varphi _{m,\alpha ,\beta }^p(y) \rightarrow g_m^p(y)\) in \(C^0([-d,d])\) as \((\alpha ,\beta )\rightarrow (0,0)\).
Since, as \(\beta \rightarrow 0\),
from (12) we get
where the \(\phi _m\) are as given in (15). This proves (17) for all \(p\in \Omega\). Let now \(\overline{p} \in \overline{\Omega }\) and let \(G_{\overline{p}}\) be the corresponding solution to (5). It is readily seen that \(\delta _{p_n}\rightarrow \delta _{\overline{p}}\) in \(H^{-2}_*(\Omega )\) for all \(\{ p_n\}\subset \Omega : p_n\rightarrow \overline{p}\); then, arguing as in (8), it follows that \(G_{p_{n}}\rightarrow G_{\overline{p}}\) in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) and, consequently, in \(C^0(\overline{\Omega })\). By this, we infer that (17) extends continuously to all \(p\in \overline{\Omega }\). The convergence of the series (17) in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) and in \(C^0(\overline{\Omega })\) can be easily checked by exploiting the monotonicity property (6) (see Sect. 4.1 for the proof). Indeed, we have
by which the convergence in \(C^0(\overline{\Omega })\) follows. The convergence in \(H^2_*(\Omega )\) comes from similar estimates. \(\square\)
Remark 3.3
An alternative and more neat way of writing the Green function expansion (17) is by means of the oscillating modes of the partially hinged plate \(\Omega\); indeed, they have been explicitly computed in [8, Theorem 7.6] and have the form \(\{\sin (mx)\Psi _{k,m}(y)\}_{k,m=1}^{\infty }\). However, the corresponding frequencies, which necessarily enter into this expansion, are only known implicitly by means of very involved equations. Therefore, in order to perform the explicit computations of the subsequent sections, it seems more convenient to follow the direct approach outlined in this section and write the Green function as in (17); clearly, the two-form solutions can be properly related.
4 Proof of Theorem 2.1
The first part of the statement, namely the Fourier expansion of the Green function, has already been derived in the previous section, see Proposition 3.2. Here, we focus on the sign and monotonicity properties of the functions \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\).
4.1 Proof of the monotonicity issue in (6)
We rewrite the \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) in a more convenient way; to this aim, we introduce the functions \(\zeta , \vartheta , \psi , \omega : [-1,1]\times (0,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\)
where \(\overline{\zeta }, \overline{\vartheta }, \overline{\psi }, \overline{\omega }\) are given in (16). We observe that
and the same symmetry properties hold for the derivatives with respect to z of the previous functions.
Putting into (15) \(z=md>0\), \(y=kd\) with \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(\eta =sd\) with \(s\in [-1,1]\), each \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) rewrites as the three-variable function:
where
and \(h(s,k,z):=(1+z|k-s|)e^{-z|k-s|}\). The monotonicity issue (6) follows by showing that the function \(\phi (s,k,z)\) is decreasing with respect to \(z>0\) for all \(k,s\in [-1,1]\), i.e.,
Since \(h_{z}(s,k,z)=-(k-s)^2ze^{-z|k-s|} \leqslant 0\), for all \(z>0\) and \(k,s\in [-1,1]\), a sufficient condition for the validity of the above inequality is:
The proof of this inequality will be the goal of this section. To this aim, we compute
in which we set
and
In view of the elementary implication:
for all \(W, Q:(0,+\infty )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) continuous functions, it follows that a sufficient condition for (21) to hold is
We consider
The maps \([-1,1]\ni s\mapsto W(s,k,z)\pm Q(s,k,z)\) are concave parabolas for all \(z>0\) and \(k\in [-1,1]\) fixed. Indeed, we have
Furthermore, there hold:
and
The first condition assures that the abscissa \(\overline{s}\) of the parabolas vertex satisfies, respectively, \(\overline{s}>1\) or \(\overline{s}<-1\), implying that the maximum is achieved, respectively, at \(s=1\) or at \(s=-1\); condition (27) implies the negativity of such maxima proving (23) and, in turn, (21). We postpone the (long) proofs of (25), (26) and (27), respectively, to Sects. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5.
Remark 4.1
It is worth pointing out that the proofs of (26) and (27) are achieved by repeating several times the scheme outlined above, i.e., we first put in evidence an expression of the type: \(W\cosh (\nu z)+Q\sinh (\nu z)\), for suitable functions W and Q, and then, in order to show that this expression is always negative, we exploit (22) and we come to study the sign of \(W\pm Q\). As in (24), the functions \(W\pm Q\) can always be seen as parabolas with respect to one of the variables: we locate the maximum point of these parabolas, and we estimate the sign of the maximum in a suitable interval. The advantage of this procedure is that, at each step, we obtain a reduction in the number of variables. Indeed, we start with the three-variable functions W and Q in (24) and we reduce to two or one variables functions, see e.g. (33).
Remark 4.2
Except for (26), all steps in the proof of the monotonicity issue (6) hold for all \(\sigma \in (-1,1)\). Our numerical experiments suggest that (23) is still satisfied when \(\sigma \in (-1,0)\) but the vertex of the parabolas \(s\mapsto W(s,k,z)\pm Q(s,k,z)\) in (24), differently to what happens for \(\sigma \in [0,1)\), may belong to the interval \([-1,1]\). Therefore, to extend the proof to the case \(\sigma \in (-1,0)\), condition (27) should be modified accordingly.
4.2 Proof of the positivity issue in (6).
By (20) the sign of \(\phi _m(y,\eta )\) is the same of the function \(\phi (s,k,z)=e^{-z}g(s,k,z)+h(s,k,z)\). Since \(h(s,k,z)>0\) for all \(z>0\), \(k,s\in [-1,1]\), to obtain the positivity of \(\phi _m\) in (6) we prove that \(e^{-z}g(s,k,z)\geqslant 0\) for all \(z>0\), \(k,s\in [-1,1]\). For \(z\rightarrow +\infty\), by direct inspection, we get that \(e^{-z}g(s,k,z)\rightarrow L\) with \(L=0\) for all \(k,s\ne \pm 1\) and \(L=\frac{4+(1+\sigma )^2}{(1-\sigma )^2}\) if \(k=s=\pm 1\). Therefore, the strict monotonicity of \(e^{-z}g(s,k,z)\) proved in Sect. 4.1 assures the positivity of \(\phi (z,k,s)\), i.e., the positivity issue in (6).
4.3 Proof of inequality (25).
Here and after, we will exploit the inequalities
where F(z) and \(\overline{F}(z)\) are as in (10). The proof of (28) is immediate, while inequality (29) simply follows by noticing that \(\overline{F}(z)>F(z)>0\) for all \(z>0\). Next, we prove (25).
Lemma 4.3
Given F(z), \(\overline{F}(z)\) as in (10) and \(\psi (k,z)\), \(\omega (k,z)\) as in (18), we have
Proof
Thanks to (28) and \(\cosh (kz)-k\sinh (kz)>0\) for all \(z>0\) and \(k\in [-1,1]\), we have that
Hence, through the first of (29), a sufficient condition for the validity of (30) is \(\psi (k,z)\pm \omega (k,z)>0\). But by (28), we immediately deduce
for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\). This concludes the proof. \(\square\)
4.4 Proof of inequality (26).
The proof of (26) is given in Lemma 4.4.
Lemma 4.4
Given F(z), \(\overline{F}(z)\) as in (10) and \(\zeta (k,z)\), \(\vartheta (k,z)\), \(\psi (k,z)\), \(\omega (k,z)\) as in (18), we have that
for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\).
Proof
Thanks to the symmetry properties of the functions involved, see (19), the second term of (31) is given by the sum of an even and an odd function with respect to k. Hence, to obtain (31), it is enough to prove that
We rewrite (32) as
where
and
Clearly, the above definitions can be simplified by exploiting the identity \(\cosh (z)+\sinh (z)=e^z\) but for the sake of computations it is convenient to keep the hyperbolic functions here and after. By (22), (33) follows if \(\chi ^{\pm }(k,z):=\mathcal {W}(k,z)\pm \mathcal {Q}(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\), namely if
and
We prove the validity of (35) and (36) here below; this concludes the proof of Lemma 4.4.
Proof of (35).
By (34), \(s(z)+p(z)<0\) for all \(z>0\), hence \(\chi ^+(k,z)\) is a concave parabola with respect to k. Therefore, \(\chi ^+(k,z)<0\) if the ordinate of its vertex is negative, namely if
Through many computations, we obtain
We have
since \([2z\cosh (2z)-\sinh (2z)]'(z)=4z\sinh (2z)>0\) for all \(z>0\). Hence, recalling (29), the first term in the definition of \(\mu\) is positive. Moreover, by estimating \(\sinh (2z)>2z\) for \(z>0\), we have
By Lemma 6.1 in “Appendix,” we know that \(\frac{2F(z)-F'(z)}{[F(z)]^2}+\frac{2\overline{F}(z)-\overline{F}'(z)}{[\overline{F}(z)]^2}<0\), therefore if
then \(\mu (z)>0\). To this aim, we consider
since \(\mu _1(0)=0\) and
we have \(\mu _1(z)>0\) for all \(z>0\). On the other hand, for all \(z>0\), we have
implying (37). This assures \(\chi ^+(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and for all \(z>0\).
Proof of (36).
First of all, we notice that \(\chi ^-(k,z)\) is a concave parabola with respect to k, since
We prove that the parabola has a point of maximum for \(k<-1\), i.e., that
To this aim, we study
By Lemma 6.1 in “Appendix,” we have that the last term above is negative; about the remaining terms, we distinguish the cases \(z\in (0,1]\) and \(z>1\). For \(z\in (0,1]\), we have
We observe that \(\tfrac{d v}{d\sigma }=4z\big [(1+\sigma )\sinh (z)-2\cosh (z)\big ]<0\); hence, \(v(\sigma )<2z[5\sinh (z)-4\cosh (z)]<0\) for \(z<\log 3\), implying \(\overline{\mu }(z)<0\) for \(z\in (0,1]\). For \(z>1\), we rewrite
where
and, by (22), we prove that \(\overline{\mu }\) is negative by showing that \(\overline{W}(z)\pm \overline{Q}(z)<0\) for \(z>1\).
The case \(\overline{W}(z)-\overline{Q}(z)<0\) is trivially true for all \(z>0\); then, it remains to study
We consider \(\overline{\mu }_1(z):=(1+z)\cosh (4z)-2z\sinh (4z)-1\) and \(\overline{\mu }_1'(z)=(1-8z)\cosh (4z)+2(1+2z)\sinh (4z)\), so that \(\overline{\mu }_1(z)\) has stationary points satisfying \(\tanh (4\overline{z})=(8\overline{z}-1)/[2(1+2\overline{z})]:=\gamma (\overline{z})\). We observe that \(\gamma (\overline{z})\) is always increasing for \(\overline{z}>0\), \(\gamma (\overline{z})=1\) if and only if \(\overline{z}=3/4<1\), implying \(\overline{\mu }_1'(z)<0\) for \(z>1\); since \(\overline{\mu }_1 (1)=2e^{-4}-1<0\), then \(\overline{\mu }_1(z)<0\) for \(z>1\) and in conclusion \(\overline{W}(z)+\overline{Q}(z)<0\) for all \(z>1\). This proves (38). In view of (38), to obtain \(\chi ^-(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\), it is enough to study the sign of
where
and
Recalling that \(\overline{F}(z)>F(z)>0\) for all \(z>0\), if
we conclude that \(\overline{\chi }(-1,z)<0\) and the thesis. By (22), this follows by showing that \(\widetilde{W}(z)\pm \widetilde{Q}(z)<0\) for all \(z>0\), namely that
These inequalities hold true for all \(z>0\) thanks to Lemma 6.1 in “Appendix”. \(\square\)
4.5 Proof of inequality (27).
The proof of (27) is given in Lemma 4.5.
Lemma 4.5
Given F(z), \(\overline{F}(z)\) as in (10) and \(\zeta (k,z)\), \(\vartheta (k,z)\) as in(18), we have
Proof
Thanks to the symmetry properties of the functions involved, see (19), the second term of (39) is given by the sum of an even and an odd function with respect to k; hence, to obtain (39), it is enough to prove that
for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\). We rewrite (40) as
where
and
Then, by (22), we obtain the thesis if \(\Xi (k,z)^{\pm }:=\mathcal {V}(k,z)\pm \mathcal {P}(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\), i.e., if
and
We prove the validity of (42) and (43) here below. This concludes the proof of Lemma 4.5.
Proof of (42).
We consider
Since, from (29), we have
by (22) we infer that \(a(z)+d(z)<0\); hence, the map \(k\mapsto \Xi ^+(k,z)\) is a concave parabola for all \(z>0\). Now we prove that the parabola has the abscissa vertex at \(k=\overline{k}\) with \(\overline{k}>1\); this follows by showing that
We have
this condition is guaranteed for all \(z>0\) by Lemma 6.1 in “Appendix”. Hence, the maximum of \(\Xi ^+(k,z)\) is achieved at \(k=1\); we prove that \(\Xi ^+(1,z)=a(z)+d(z)+b(z)+e(z)+c(z)+f(z)<0\) for all \(z>0\). To this aim, we consider
Recalling that \(\overline{F}(z)>F(z)>0\) for all \(z>0\), we obtain that \(\Xi ^+(1,z)<0\) by showing that \(\varsigma (z)<0\) and \(\varsigma (z)+\overline{\varsigma }(z)<0\). Through many computations, we get
Considering \(\widetilde{\varsigma }(z):=-(1-\sigma )^2z-4(1+\sigma )+(3+\sigma )^2ze^{-4z}\), we have that \(\widetilde{\varsigma }(0)=-4(1+\sigma )<0\) and \(\widetilde{\varsigma }(z)\rightarrow -\infty\) as \(z\rightarrow +\infty\); furthermore, \(\widetilde{\varsigma }'(z)=-(1-\sigma )^2+(3+\sigma )^2e^{-4z}(1-4z)\) so that \(\widetilde{\varsigma }'(\overline{z})=0\) if and only if \(\overline{z}e^{-4\overline{z}}=\frac{e^{-4\overline{z}}}{4}-\frac{(1-\sigma )^2}{4(3+\sigma )^2}\). We have
Since \(-(1-\sigma )^2 (\overline{z}+\frac{1}{4})-4(1+\sigma )+(3+\sigma )^2\frac{e^{-4\overline{z}}}{4}<0\) for all \(z>0\), we infer that \(\widetilde{\varsigma }(\overline{z})<0\) and, in turn, that
This yields \(\varsigma (z)<0\) for all \(z>0\). On the other hand, we have \(\varsigma (z)+\overline{\varsigma }(z)=-4\frac{(1+\sigma )(3+\sigma )}{1-\sigma }e^{-z}<0\) for all \(z>0\). By this, we conclude that \(\Xi ^+(1,z)<0\) for all \(z>0\) and, in turn, that \(\Xi ^+(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\) and \(z>0\).
Proof of (42).
We have
Since
by (22), we infer that \(a(z)-d(z)<0\) and the map \(k\mapsto \Xi ^-(k,z)\) is a concave parabola for all \(z>0\). Now we prove that the abscissa \(\overline{k}\) of the parabola vertex satisfies \(\overline{k}<-1\), namely that
We have that
this condition is guaranteed for all \(z>0\) by Lemma 6.1 in “Appendix”. Hence, by (46), \(\Xi ^{-}(k,z)\) achieves its maximum at \(k=-1\); we prove that \(\Xi ^{-}(-1,z)=a(z)-d(z)-b(z)+e(z)+c(z)-f(z)<0\) for all \(z>0\). To this aim, we consider
where \(\varsigma (z)\) and \(\overline{\varsigma }(z)\) are as defined in the proof of (42). We have already proved that \(\varsigma (z)<0\) for all \(z>0\), by (45) we also get \(\varsigma (z)-\overline{\varsigma }(z)=e^{z}\,\widetilde{\varsigma }(z)<0\) for all \(z>0\).
Hence, through (29) we deduce that \(\Xi ^{-}(-1,z)<0\) for all \(z>0\). This assures \(\Xi ^{-}(k,z)<0\) for all \(k\in [-1,1]\), \(z>0\) and concludes the proof of (43). \(\square\)
5 Proof of Theorem 2.2
The proof is achieved by showing the positivity of the Green function \(G_p(q)\) for p and q belonging to suitable rectangles or union of rectangles covering \(\widetilde{\Omega }\). By Theorem 2.1, we know that
In this section, we will omit the dependence of \(\phi _m\) from y and \(\eta\), implying that all relations we write hold true for all \(y,\eta \in [-d,d]\); for this reason and for brevity, we will write \(G(x,\xi )\) instead of \(G_p(q)=G(x,y,\xi ,\eta )\). Furthermore, we will repeatedly exploit the fact that
We start by showing the positivity of \(G_p(q)\) for p or q far from the hinged edges of \(\Omega\).
Proposition 5.1
There holds
Proof
Thanks to Theorem 2.1-(6), we know that
Noting that \(|\sin (m \xi )|<m\sin (\xi )\) for all \(\xi \in (0,\pi )\), see, e.g., [13], we obtain
from which
Since
we infer that
and, in turn, that
We denote by
hence, through (48) we have \(G(x,\xi )>0\) for all \((x,\xi )\in (x_1,\pi -x_1)\times (0, \pi )\), implying
The positivity in the region \((x,\xi ) \in (0, \pi ) \times \big [\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{3}{4}\pi \big ]\) follows by (47). \(\square\)
Our next aim is to show the positivity issue for both p and q near the same hinged edge, i.e., near \(x=0\) and \(\xi =0\) or near \(x=\pi\) and \(\xi =\pi\). The first step of the proof is given by the following:
Lemma 5.2
Fixing \(N\geqslant 3\) integer, there holds
and
Proof
We fix \(N\geqslant 3\) and we rewrite \(G(x,\xi )\) as follows
Then, we exploit the elementary inequality
(see Lemma 6.2 in “Appendix” for a proof) and Theorem 2.1-(6) to get
On the other hand, through \(|\sin (m\xi )|<m\sin (\xi )\) for all \(\xi \in (0,\pi )\) and Theorem 2.1-(6), we get
By combining (49) and (50), we infer
where
Next, we denote by \(x_N\) the unique solution to the equation
the above definition makes sense for all \(N\geqslant 1\) since the map \(N\mapsto C_N\) is positive, strictly decreasing and \(0<C_N<1\). We prove that
When \(N=3\), we have \(x_3\approx 0.25<\frac{\pi }{5}\) and (53) follows. We complete the proof of (53) by showing that
To this purpose, we write some estimates on the numerical series; it is easy to see that
implying
To tackle (54), we use the estimate:
Combining (55) and (56), (54) follows by noticing that \(\dfrac{1}{N}<\dfrac{3}{N+2}\) for all \(N\geqslant 4\). Finally, in view of (53), the first part of the statement of Lemma 5.2 readily comes from the positivity of the r.h.s. of (51). Instead, the second part of the statement follows by exploiting (47). \(\square\)
Finally, from Lemma 5.2, we get
Proposition 5.3
There holds
Proof
Fixing \(N\geqslant 3\) integer, from Lemma 5.2, we get
and taking the infinite union of the above sets, we get
which is the first part of the statement of Proposition 5.3. To complete the proof, we set \(\overline{x}=\pi -x\), \(\overline{\xi }= \pi -\xi\) and we observe that
Then, the thesis comes from (57) written for \(\overline{x}\) and \(\overline{\xi }\). \(\square\)
It remains to study the sign of the Green function for p and q near to opposite hinged edges, i.e., near \(x=0\) and \(\xi =\pi\) or near \(x=\pi\) and \(\xi =0\). At first, we prove the following:
Lemma 5.4
Fixing \(N\geqslant 3\), odd integer, there hold
and
Proof
We consider the function \(\overline{G}(x,\overline{\xi }):=G(x, \pi -\overline{\xi })\) with \(\overline{\xi }\in \big (0,\frac{\pi }{N+1}\big )\). For \(N\geqslant 3\), odd integer, we have that
By Theorem 2.1, we know that \(\phi _m>0\) and is strictly decreasing with respect to \(m\in \mathbb {N}^+\) for all \(y,\eta \in [-\ell ,\ell ]\); hence, we have
Exploiting the inequality
(see Lemma 6.4 in “Appendix” for a proof) and (58), we get
On the other hand, since \(|\sin (m\overline{\xi })|<m\sin (\overline{\xi })\) for all \(\overline{\xi }\in (0,\pi )\) and through the monotonicity of the \(\phi _m\), we get
From (59)–(60), for all \(N\geqslant 3\) odd, we infer
where
Next, we denote by \(\overline{x}_N\) the unique solution to the equation
The above definition makes sense for all \(N\geqslant 3\), odd, since the map \(N\mapsto \overline{C}_N\) is positive, strictly decreasing and \(0<\overline{C}_N<1\). We prove that
To this aim, we note that
implying
From (56), (62) follows by noticing that \(\dfrac{2}{N+1}\leqslant \dfrac{3}{N+3}\leqslant \sin \bigg (\dfrac{\pi }{N+3}\bigg )\) for all \(N\geqslant 3\). Recalling that \(G(x,\xi )= \overline{G}(x,\pi -\xi )\), the above estimate yields the proof of the first part of the statement of Lemma 5.4. Similarly, the proof of the second part follows by exploiting the fact that \(\overline{G}(x,\overline{\xi })=\overline{G}(\overline{\xi },x)\) for all \((x,\overline{\xi })\in [0,\pi ]\times [0, \pi ]\), by which
\(\square\)
Finally, by Lemma 5.4, we obtain:
Proposition 5.5
There holds
Proof
Fixing \(N\geqslant 3\), odd integer, from Lemma 5.4 we have that
and taking the infinite union of the above sets (over \(N\geqslant 3\) odd), we conclude that
which is the first part of the statement of Proposition 5.5. The second part simply follows by (47). \(\square\)
Proof of Theorem 2.2 completed
The proof follows by combining the statements of Propositions 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.
References
Berchio, E., Buoso, D., Gazzola, F., Zucco, D.: A Minimaxmax Problem for Improving the Torsional Stability of Rectangular Plates. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 177, 64–92 (2018)
Berchio, E., Falocchi, A.:Maximizing the ratio of eigenvalues of non-homogeneous partially hinged plates. J. Spect. Theory (to appear)
Berchio, E., Falocchi, A., Ferrero, A., Ganguly, D.:On the first frequency of reinforced partially hinged plates, Commun. Contemp. Math. (2019)
Berchio, E., Ferrero, A., Gazzola, F.: Structural instability of nonlinear plates modelling suspension bridges: mathematical answers to some long-standing questions. Nonlin. Anal. Real World Appl. 28, 91–125 (2016)
Boggio, T.: Sull’equilibrio delle piastre elastiche incastrate. Rend. Acc. Lincei 10, 197–205 (1901)
Boggio, T.: Sulle funzioni di Green d’ordine m. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 20, 97–135 (1905)
Coffman, C.V., Duffin, R.J.: On the structure of biharmonic functions satisfying the clamped plate conditions on a right angle. Adv. Appl. Math. 1, 373–389 (1980)
Ferrero, A., Gazzola, F.: A partially hinged rectangular plate as a model for suspension bridges. Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. A. 35, 5879–5908 (2015)
Gazzola, F., Grunau, H.C., Sweers, G.: Polyharmonic boundary value problems, LNM 1991 Springer (2010)
Grunau, H.C., Romani, G.:Unexpected differences between fundamental solutions of general higher-order elliptic operators and of products of second-order operators, arXiv:1902.06503
Grunau, H.C., Sweers, G.: A clamped plate with a uniform weight may change sign. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S7(4), 761–766 (2014)
Grunau, H.C., Sweers, G.: In any dimension a “clamped plate” with a uniform weight may change sign. Nonlinear Anal. 97, 119–124 (2014)
Hardy, G.H., Rogosinski, W.W.: Fourier Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1956)
Mansfield, E.H.: The bending and stretching of plates, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
Nazarov, S., Sweers, G.: A hinged plate equation and iterated Dirichlet Laplace operator on domains with concave corners. J. Differ. Equ. 233(1), 151–180 (2007)
Parini, E., Stylianou, A.: On the positivity preserving property of hinged plates. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 41(5), 2031–2037 (2009)
Romani, G.: Positivity for fourth-order semilinear problems related to the Kirchhoff-Love functional. Anal. PDE 10(4), 943–982 (2017)
Schnieders, I., Sweers, G.: A biharmonic converse to Krein-Rutman: a maximum principle near a positive eigenfunction. Positivity 24, 677 (2019)
Sweers, G.: On sign preservation for clotheslines, curtain rods, elastic membranes and thin plates. Jahresber. Dtsch. Math.-Ver. 118(4), 275–320 (2016)
Sweers, G.: When is the first eigenfunction for the clamped plate equation of fixed sign? Electron. J. Differ. Equ. Conf. 6, 285–296 (2001)
Sweers, G., Vassi, K.: Positivity for a hinged convex plate with stress. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50(1), 1163–1174 (2018)
Acknowledgements
The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM) and are partially supported by the INDAM-GNAMPA 2019 grant: “Analisi spettrale per operatori ellittici con condizioni di Steklov o parzialmente incernierate” and by the PRIN project 201758MTR2: “Direct and inverse problems for partial differential equations: theoretical aspects and applications” (Italy).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Politecnico di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
In this section, we prove an inequality used in Sect. 4 to get the monotonicity issue (6) of Theorem 2.1.
Lemma 6.1
Given F(z) and \(\overline{F}(z)\) as in (10), there holds:
Proof
We have
and we observe that \(\alpha (0)=-2(1+\sigma )<0\) and \(\alpha (z)\sim -2z(1-\sigma )\rightarrow -\infty\) for \(z\rightarrow +\infty\); \(\alpha (z)\) has stationary points satisfying \((3+\sigma )[\sinh (2\overline{z})-\cosh (2\overline{z})]=-(1-\sigma )\), hence \(\alpha (\overline{z})=-2(1-\sigma )\overline{z}<0\) for all \(\overline{z}>0\), implying \(\alpha (z)<0\) for all \(z>0\). From above and recalling that \(\overline{F}(z)>F(z)>0\) for all \(z>0\), a sufficient condition for the thesis is: \(2F(z)-F'(z)\pm [2\overline{F}(z)-\overline{F}'(z)]<0\) for all \(z>0\). To this aim, we notice that:
Therefore, it remains to prove the negativity of the term below for all \(0<z\leqslant 1/2\):
We have \(\rho (0)=\rho '(0)=0\) and \(\frac{32}{9}\rho ''(z)=9\big [-ze^{4z}+e^{-4z}(3z-1)\big ]+1-6z:=\overline{\rho }(z)\). For \(z\in [\tfrac{1}{6},\tfrac{1}{2}]\) we get \(\overline{\rho }(z)\leqslant 9z[e^{-4z}-e^{4z}]<0\), while for \(z\in (0,\frac{1}{6}]\) we have \(\overline{\rho }(z)\leqslant 1-\tfrac{9}{2}e^{-\frac{2}{3}}<0\), implying \(\rho (z)<0\) for all \(z\in (0,\tfrac{1}{2}]\) and, in turn, the thesis. \(\square\)
Appendix 2
In this section, we prove two inequalities that we repeatedly exploit in the estimates of the Fourier series of the Green function in Sect. 5.
Lemma 6.2
Let \(N\geqslant 2\) be an integer. There holds
Proof
Let \(m\geqslant 2\) be an integer. It is readily seen that
By this, since \((\sin (mx)-\sin (x))'(0)=m-1>0\), we infer that \(\sin (mx)-\sin (x)>0\) for all \(x\in \big (0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big )\) and, in turn, the thesis. \(\square\)
Before stating and proving the second inequality, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 6.3
Let \(m\geqslant 3\) be an integer and set \(a_m:=\big [\frac{1}{m^{3/2}}-\frac{1}{(m+1)^{3/2}}\big ]^2\). The function
vanishes at \(t=0\) and \(t=\pm t_1\) with \(t_1\in \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\). Furthermore, \(\upsilon _m(t)>0\) in \([-\tfrac{2\pi }{m+1},-t_1)\) and \((0,t_1)\) while \(\upsilon _m(t)<0\) in \((-t_1,0)\) and \((t_1,\tfrac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\).
Proof of Theorem 2.2 completed
Since \(\upsilon _m\) is odd, it is sufficient to study its behavior in \([0,\frac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\). We compute
For all \(m\geqslant 3\), we have that \(\upsilon _m'(0)=\tfrac{m^2-m-1}{m^3(m+1)}+\tfrac{1}{(m+1)^{3/2}}\big (\tfrac{2}{m^{3/2}}-\tfrac{1}{(m+1)^{3/2}}\big )>0\) and, by exploiting the fact that \(\sin \big (\tfrac{2(m+1)\pi }{2m+1}\big )=-\sin \big (\tfrac{2m\pi }{2m+1}\big )=-\sin \big (\tfrac{\pi }{2m+1}\big )\) and (56), that \(\upsilon _m \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1}\big )>\sin \big (\tfrac{\pi }{2m+1}\big )\big [\tfrac{1}{m^2}+\tfrac{1}{(m+1)^2}\big ]-\frac{1}{m^3}>0\). Let us write
Clearly, \(w'<0\) in \([0,\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1}\big ]\); since \(w(0)>0\) and \(w(\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1})<0\), we infer that \(\upsilon _m''\) is first positive and then negative in \([0,\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1}\big ]\). Since \(\upsilon _m(0)=0,\) \(\upsilon _m'(0)>0\) and \(\upsilon _m(\frac{2\pi }{2m+1})>0\), we conclude that \(\upsilon _m>0\) in \([0,\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1}\big ]\).
Now, by exploiting the complex identities for the trigonometric functions, we observe that
Hence, \(\sin [(m+1) t]>\sin (m t)\) for \(t\in \big (0,\tfrac{\pi }{2m+1}\big )\cup \big (\tfrac{3\pi }{2m+1},\tfrac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\) and \(\upsilon _m''(t)>0\) for \(t\in \big (0,\tfrac{\pi }{2m+1}\big )\cup \big (\tfrac{3\pi }{2m+1},\frac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\). Since \(\upsilon _m\big (\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big )=-\tfrac{1}{m^2}-\tfrac{1}{(m+1)^2}\sin \big [(m+1)\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big ]-a_m\sin \big (\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big )<0\) and \(\upsilon _m\big (\tfrac{2\pi }{m+1}\big )<0\), the convexity of \(\upsilon _m (t)\) implies that \(\upsilon _m(t)<0\) for \(t\in \big [\tfrac{3\pi }{2m},\frac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\).
On the other hand, from the fact that \(\cos (mt)<\cos [(m+1)t]\) for \(t\in \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\frac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\) and \(\cos (mt)< 0\) for \(t\in \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\frac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\), we get \(\cos (mt)<\tfrac{m}{m+1}\cos [(m+1)t]\) for \(t\in \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\frac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\). This implies \(\upsilon _m'(t)<0\) for \(t\in \big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\) and yields the existence of a unique zero for \(\upsilon _m (t)\) in \(\big (\tfrac{2\pi }{2m+1},\tfrac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\) which is the thesis. \(\square\)
Lemma 6.4
Let \(N\geqslant 3\) be an integer. For all \(x,\xi \in \big (0,\frac{\pi }{N+1}\big )\) and all \(m=3,\dots ,N\), there holds
Proof
As in the previous lemma, we set \(a_m:=\big [\frac{1}{m^{3/2}}-\frac{1}{(m+1)^{3/2}}\big ]^2\) and we consider the function
with \(Q:=\big [0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big ]^2\). By Weierstrass Theorem, \(\overline{S}_m\) admits maximum and minimum in Q. To locate the stationary points of \(\overline{S}_m\), it is convenient to exploit the change of variables: \((\iota ,\gamma ):=(\xi -x,\xi +x)\) according to which \(\overline{S}_m\) reads
for \((\iota ,\gamma )\in Q_1:=\big [-\frac{\pi }{m+1},\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big ]\times \big [0,\frac{2\pi }{m+1}\big ]\). For \(\upsilon _m\) as defined in the statement of Lemma 6.3, we have
By Lemma 6.3, it is readily deduced that \(\overline{S}_m\) admits only two stationary points (0, 0) and \((0,t_1)\) with \(t_1\in \big (\frac{2\pi }{2m+1},\frac{3\pi }{2m}\big )\). Since \((0,0)\in \partial Q_1\), we only need to study the nature of \((0,t_1)\). We have \(\frac{\partial ^2 \overline{S}_m(0,t_1)}{\partial \iota ^2}=-\upsilon _m'(0)<0\), \(\frac{\partial ^2 \overline{S}_m}{\partial \iota \partial \gamma }(0,t_1)=0\) and \(\frac{\partial ^2 \overline{S}_m(0,t_1)}{\partial \gamma ^2}=\upsilon _m'\big (t_1\big )<0\), see the proof of Lemma 6.3. This implies that \((0,t_1)\) is a maximum point. Coming back to the original variables, from the above analysis we infer that \((\frac{t_1}{2},\frac{t_1}{2})\) is a local maximum point for \(\overline{S}_m\). About \(\overline{S}_m(x,\xi )\) constrained to \(\partial Q\), we have: \(\overline{S}_m(x,0)=\overline{S}_m(0,\xi )=0\) for all \(x,\xi \in \big [0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big ]\); hence, we only need to study \(\overline{S}_m(x,\frac{\pi }{m+1})\) and \(\overline{S}_m(\frac{\pi }{m+1},\xi )\) for all \(x,\xi \in \big [0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big ]\); since they have the same analytic expression, we only focus on
where \(\sin \big (\frac{m\pi }{m+1}\big )=\sin \big (\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big )>0\) for all \(m\geqslant 3\). We have \(\widetilde{w}_m(0) =0\) and \(\widetilde{w}_m\big (\frac{\pi }{m+1} \big )=\sin \big (\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big )\frac{1}{(m+1)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\big [\frac{2}{m^{\frac{3}{2}}}-\frac{1}{(m+1)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\big ]>0\) for all \(m\geqslant 3\). Moreover, since \(\sin (mx)-\sin (x)>0\) for all \(x\in \big (0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big )\) and \(\frac{1}{m}>a_m\) for all \(m\in {\mathbb N}^+\), we get \(\widetilde{w}''_m(x)=-\big [\frac{\sin (mx)}{m}-a_m\sin (x)\big ]<0\) for \(x\in [0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}]\), implying \(\widetilde{w}_m(x)\geqslant 0\) for all \(x\in \big [0,\frac{\pi }{m+1}\big ]\). Once established that \(\overline{S}_m(x,\xi )\) is nonnegative on \(\partial Q\) and admits no internal minimum points in Q, we conclude that \(\overline{S}_m(x,\xi )\geqslant 0\) for all \((x,\xi )\in Q\). Finally, the strict inequality in (64) comes by observing that \(\overline{S}_m(x,\xi )=0\) for \((x,\xi )\in Q\), if and only if \(x=0\) or \(\xi =0\). \(\square\)
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
Berchio, E., Falocchi, A. A positivity preserving property result for the biharmonic operator under partially hinged boundary conditions. Annali di Matematica 200, 1651–1681 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-020-01054-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-020-01054-6