Partial of the divergence of a gradient?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
7 replies · 2K views
Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
I am dealing with an expression in a large amount of literature usually presented as:

[itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_i}\left(\nabla \phi_i \cdot \nabla \phi_j \right)[/itex]

I'm looking at tables of vector calculus identities and cannot seem to find one for the exact expression given, even if I remove the outside partial. Is it correct to expand this as:

[itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_i}\left[\frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial x}\left(\frac{\partial \phi_j}{\partial x}\right)\right]+\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_i}\left[\frac{\partial \phi_i}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial \phi_j}{\partial y}\right)\right][/itex]

or this:

[itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_i}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\phi_i \frac{\partial \phi_j}{\partial x}\right)\right]+\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_i}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\phi_i\frac{\partial \phi_j}{\partial y}\right)\right][/itex]

Or are these the same?

I'm trying to construct the correct forward explicit, space centered, finite-difference of this expression but I can't find the correct form. Any help is appreciated.

EDIT: Looking at the wiki on vector calculus identities, it looks like this is a possible answer for the expression in parentheses:

[itex]\nabla^2(\phi_i \phi_j) = \phi_i\nabla^2\phi_j+2\nabla\phi_j\cdot\nabla\phi_j+\phi_j\nabla^2\phi_i[/itex]
rearranging:
[itex]\nabla\phi_j\cdot\nabla\phi_j = \frac{1}{2}\left(\nabla^2(\phi_i\phi_j)-\phi_i\nabla^2\phi_j-\phi_j\nabla^2\phi_i\right)[/itex]

Also, there is:
[itex]\nabla\cdot\left(\phi_i\nabla\phi_j\right) = \phi_i\nabla^2\phi_j + \nabla\phi_i\cdot \nabla\phi_j[/itex]
rearranging:
[itex]\nabla\phi_i\cdot \nabla\phi_j = \nabla\cdot\left(\phi_i\nabla\phi_j\right)- \phi_i\nabla^2\phi_j[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
martinbn said:
Can you cite some of the large amount of literature?
It's from phase field literature. For example, Eq 2 in Miyoshi and Takaki (2017).

Not all literature presents the term with the dot. For example, Eq. 9 in Steinbach and Pezzolla, 1999.

Apparently the term (without the outer partial) is equal to or generalized by the following expression (Eq. 6, Steinbach et al., 1996; Eq. 51, Moelans et al., 2008), but I can't see exactly how they differ:

[itex]|\phi_i\nabla\phi_j - \phi_j\nabla\phi_i |^2[/itex]
References:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022024816308144?via=ihub
Miyoshi and Takaki (2017), Multi-phase-field study of the effects of anisotropic grain-boundary propertis on polycrystalline grain growth, Journal of Crystal Growth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0364591607000880
Moelans et al. (2008), An introduction to phase-field modeling of microstructure evolution, Computer coupling of phase diagrams and thermochemistry.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278999001293?via=ihub
Steinbach and Pezzolla (1999), A generalized field method for multiphase transformations using interface fields, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278995002987
Steinbach et al. (1996), A phase field concept for multiphase systems, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena.
 
I cannot find the expression you wrote in any of these papers. Can you cite the equation number?

The expression that appears there is ##\nabla\phi_i\cdot\nabla\phi_j## (or without the dot). This is just the dot product of the two vectors.
 
martinbn said:
I cannot find the expression you wrote in any of these papers. Can you cite the equation number?

The expression that appears there is ##\nabla\phi_i\cdot\nabla\phi_j## (or without the dot). This is just the dot product of the two vectors.
Consider Miyoshi and Takaki (2017). ##\nabla\phi_i\cdot\nabla\phi_j## appears in Eq. 2, then variational derivatives of a function including the term are shown in Eq. 4. The apparent result is ##\nabla^2\phi_j## in Eq. 5. It's not clear to me how it is obtained.
 
I see. When you wrote ##\frac{\partial F}{\partial \phi}##, you meant ##\frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi}##. You need to look up calculus of variations.

Roughly it is the following. You have functional ##F## and you want to vary with respect to ##\phi_i##. In your case

##
F[\phi_i]=\int \left(-\nabla\phi_i\cdot\nabla\phi_j\right)dV.
##

Then the variation is

##
\frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi}=\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}F[\phi_i+\varepsilon\varphi]|_{\varepsilon=0}
##

That leads to

##
\int \left(-\nabla\varphi\cdot\nabla\phi_j\right)dV.
##

Here you use the identity ##\nabla(\varphi\nabla\phi_j)=\nabla\varphi\cdot\nabla\phi_j+\varphi\nabla^2\phi_j##, the divergence theorem, some boundary or decay conditions that make the boundary integral zero and you are left with.

##
\int \varphi\nabla^2\phi_jdV
##

and since ##\varphi## is any, and you are looking for stationary point, for the equations you have just ## \nabla^2\phi_j=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hypatio