Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fosdick, R.
Right arrow Articles by Royer-Carfagni, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Penalty Interpretation for the Lagrange Multiplier Fields in Incompressible Multipolar Elasticity Theory

Roger Fosdick

Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

Gianni Royer-Carfagni

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 143100 Parma, Italy

In a recent paper we considered the characterization of the incompressibility constraint for multipolar hyperelastic materials. An existence theorem was given for the associated two Lagrange multiplier fields, representative of the stress and "hyper-stress" constraint reactions, but a congenital non-uniqueness in the splitting of these constraint reactions was encountered. Based upon purely mathematical arguments (representation theorems for functionals defined on Sobolev spaces), a strategy was advanced in order to overcome such indeterminacy. This consisted in selecting, among all possible choices, the unique pair of fields that minimized the appropriately defined norm.

Here, we provide a physical justification for the so-called "minimum norm criterion" by interpreting incompressibility through the limit of a sequence of auxiliary minimum problems where changes in volume are progressively penalized by a "penalty term" which is added to the potential energy. The idea is known as the penalty method in the area of numerical analysis. Through the notion of a "modified Lagrangian", a one-to-one correspondence is established between the solution of each penalty problem in the sequence and an approximation to the two Lagrange multiplier fields for the original constrained problem. In fact, a major effect of the penalty term is that it brings into focus the underlying presence of the constraint manifold of incompressibility as an "attractor" and the "shape" of this manifold identifies a "direction" in which the sequence of approximations approaches its limit. Ultimately, the approximation converges to one and only one choice. We find that the unique limiting Lagrange multiplier fields must necessarily minimize the same norm that was introduced adscititiously in our aforementioned recent paper, but there only as a purely mathematical scheme. This provides justification for the "minimum norm criterion" as a suitable procedure for sorting out the constraint reaction contributions to stress and hyperstress in incompressible multipolar theory.

Key Words: nonlinear incompressible elasticity • Lagrange multiplier • multipolar elasticity • penalty method • modified Lagrangian • minimum norm constraint

Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, Vol. 10, No. 4, 389-413 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1081286505036406


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?