Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Lower Bounds of Optimal Exponentials of Thickness in Geometry Rigidity Inequality for Shells

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves lower bounds of 4/3, 1, and 3/2 on the optimal thickness exponent in the geometric rigidity inequality for hyperbolic, elliptic, and parabolic shells, respectively.

desk verdict New lower bounds for the nonlinear rigidity exponent in shells; the hyperbolic and parabolic proofs are detailed and largely self-contained, but the elliptic result is conditional on an unproved bound imported from the author's own preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04021 v1 pith:KLVBKYFB submitted 2019-08-12 math-ph math.MP

Peng-Fei Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 74K2074B20
keywords geometryrigidityinequalityshellnonlinearelasticityRiemannianoptimalthicknessexponentGaussiancurvatureKornAnsatzconstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes curvature-dependent lower bounds on the optimal thickness exponent in the geometric rigidity inequality for thin shells. For a shell whose middle surface is hyperbolic, elliptic, or parabolic, the exponent $\mu(\Omega)$ in (1.3) cannot be smaller than $4/3$, $1$, or $3/2$ (the last under a boundary condition), respectively. The proof works by constructing explicit trial deformations whose ratio of full strain to distance from the rotation group forces these powers of $1/h$. These bounds matter because any shell theory derived from three-dimensional elasticity by $\Gamma$-convergence must respect the corresponding decay rate of the rigidity constant.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the ansatz: an explicit family of test deformations built from the geometry of the middle surface. For hyperbolic shells, the ansatz uses an asymptotic coordinate system and the 90-degree rotation operator $Q$ in the tangent plane; the key identity $\operatorname{sym} Z\otimes Df = v\Pi$ converts the shape operator into a symmetric gradient. For elliptic shells, the deformation is the same ansatz already used for Korn's inequality, $y=-tDw+w\vec n$, and the argument imports sharp two-sided bounds from the linear theory. For parabolic shells, the construction uses the straight-line geodesics of Proposition 1.1 and a principal coordinate system along them; the ansatz $V+tW+b\vec n$ produces oscillations of frequency $h^{-1/4}$ that force the $h^{-3/2}$ scaling. In all cases the key comparison is Lemma 2.4, which relates the distance to $SO(3)$ to the symmetrized strain $\Phi(B)$, so that lower bounds on the strain ratio translate directly into lower bounds on $\mu(\Omega)$.

What would settle it

Check the imported elliptic estimate directly: compute $\|\nabla y\|_{L^\infty}$ and the ratio $\|\nabla y\|_{L^2}/\|\operatorname{sym}\nabla y\|_{L^2}$ for the ansatz $y=-tDw+w\vec n$ on a spherical shell patch. If the ratio does not stay in the interval $[\sigma h^{-1/2}, Ch^{-1/2}]$, the elliptic theorem loses its main support; a numerical search for a deformation making (1.3) hold with some $\mu<1$ on a hemisphere would then decide the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a $C^3$ shell $\Omega=\{p+t\vec n(p): p\in S,\ |t|<h/2\}$, the paper proves $\mu(\Omega)\ge 4/3$ when the Gaussian curvature of $S$ is negative, $\mu(\Omega)\ge 1$ when it is positive, and $\mu(\Omega)\ge 3/2$ in the parabolic case provided the straight-line geodesic through a point of $S$ exits the boundary transversally as in (1.7). These are lower bounds on the infimum of exponents for which inequality (1.3) holds with a constant independent of $h$. The proof exhibits deformations $u(z)=z+h^\tau y(z)$ with $\tau$ larger than the claimed bound and shows, via Lemma 2.4, that the ratio $\|\nabla u-I\|_{L^2}/\|\mathrm{dist}(\nabla u,SO(3))\|_{L^2}$ has the stated power-law size in $1/h$; no constant independent of $h$ can therefore make (1.3) valid with a smaller exponent.

Load-bearing premise

For the elliptic case, the proof imports a two-sided estimate from a companion preprint: for the trial deformation $y=-tDw+w\vec n$, the ratio of the full gradient to the symmetric gradient must grow exactly like $h^{-1/2}$. If that imported estimate fails, the claimed bound $\mu(\Omega)\ge 1$ is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $\Gamma$-convergence derivation of a shell model from (1.3) must use energy scalings consistent with rigidity constants that grow at least as $h^{-4/3}$, $h^{-1}$, or $h^{-3/2}$ according to the sign of the Gaussian curvature.
  • The explicit deformations constructed in the proofs can serve as near-optimal test fields for numerical benchmarking of shell elements, since they saturate the ratio controlled by the inequality.
  • For hyperbolic shells the lower bound is achieved without any boundary assumption, so the $4/3$ exponent is an intrinsic feature of negative curvature rather than of a particular boundary geometry.
  • For parabolic shells, the $3/2$ bound currently depends on the geodesic-crossing condition (1.7), so extending the bound to closed parabolic shells is a natural next test of the method.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the equality conjecture in Remark 1.1 holds, the rigidity exponent becomes a curvature classifier: elliptic $1$, parabolic $3/2$, hyperbolic $4/3$; proving matching upper bounds is the natural next step.
  • The oscillatory ansaetze suggest the same exponents should appear in linear buckling and eigenvalue problems for shells; testing whether the first nontrivial eigenvalue scales like $h^{2\mu}$ would connect rigidity to stability.
  • The hyperbolic ansatz oscillates at frequency $h^{-1/3}$ and the parabolic at $h^{-1/4}$, so the construction predicts distinct wavelength selections in near-buckling patterns, and numerical experiments could look for those wavelengths.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs explicit deformation fields (Ansätze) for thin shells whose middle surface is hyperbolic, elliptic, or parabolic and proves lower bounds for the optimal exponent μ(Ω) in the geometric rigidity inequality (1.3). The main results are Theorem 1.1 (μ ≥ 4/3 for hyperbolic, μ ≥ 1 for elliptic) and Theorem 1.2 (μ ≥ 3/2 for parabolic under the boundary-crossing condition (1.7)). The proofs aim to transfer the scalings known for the optimal constants in Korn's inequalities to the nonlinear geometric rigidity setting by taking u = z + h^τ y and estimating the ratio ‖∇u - I‖/‖dist(∇u, SO(3))‖ through Lemma 2.4.

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper would establish matching lower bounds for the nonlinear rigidity exponents, aligning the geometric rigidity inequality with the known Korn-inequality scalings for shells. The hyperbolic and parabolic constructions are original and involve careful oscillatory and scaling arguments; the elliptic case is a reduction to an estimate from the author's prior work. The connection between Korn-type Ansätze and geometric rigidity is a useful conceptual contribution. However, the current manuscript has gaps in the transition from the constructed test functions to the optimal rotation Q and in the H¹-admissibility of the parabolic ansatz, and the elliptic case is conditional on an unproven cited estimate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, Eqs. (2.44)–(2.45) and (2.68)–(2.69)] The proofs bound the ratio ‖∇u − I‖² / ‖dist(∇u, SO(3))‖², but inequality (1.3) requires the existence of a rotation Q that minimizes ‖∇u − Q‖. The identity I is only one admissible rotation, and the optimal Q may be significantly closer to ∇u than I is. To conclude μ(Ω) ≥ 4/3 (resp. 3/2, 1), the author must prove that the optimal Q is close to I and that ‖∇u − Q‖ is comparable to ‖∇u − I‖, for example by showing that the L² mean of ∇y, in particular its skew-symmetric part, is negligible compared to ‖∇y‖_{L²}. This control is not provided in the manuscript; in the elliptic case (2.48) gives no information about the mean of ∇y.
  2. [Section 2(b), Eq. (2.48)] The elliptic lower bound μ ≥ 1 depends entirely on the estimate (2.48), quoted from the author's unpublished preprint [47, Theorem 1.4] without proof or even a description of the ansatz used to derive it. Since this estimate is load-bearing and is the author's own work, Theorem 1.1(b) is at present conditional on an unverifiable citation. The author should either reproduce the proof of (2.48) in a self-contained way or present the elliptic ansatz and the derivation of the three inequalities in (2.48).
  3. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1.2, Eq. (2.64)] The parabolic ansatz y is defined to be zero outside S0, but the functions v, b, w in (2.62) do not generally vanish on the lateral boundary curves γ(t±(x2), β(x2,p0)), so y has a nonzero trace on ∂S0 and is not an H¹(Ω) function. Since all estimates are only meaningful for admissible deformations u ∈ H¹(Ω), the construction must be multiplied by a smooth cutoff in the x1 direction that vanishes near the boundary; this will add terms to (2.65)–(2.69) that must be incorporated into the estimates. Without such a cutoff, the parabolic lower bound is not established.
  4. [Section 2, proof of Proposition 1.1 and Lemma 2.5] These results rely on [47, Lemma 2.7], a local existence result for a unit vector field X with ∇_X n = 0 on a parabolic surface, quoted without proof. This is another load-bearing import from an unpublished preprint. The author should either prove the lemma or explicitly declare it as an assumption; alternatively, the theorem statement should include this existence condition as part of the hypotheses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 2.2, Eq. (2.11)] The displayed equations should read ∇_{e1}n = λ1 e1 and ∇_{e2}n = λ2 e2; as written, the first equation ∇_{e1}n = λ1 e2 and the second ∇_{e2}n = λ2 e2 are inconsistent with the symmetry of the shape operator and with the subsequent use of these relations in (2.13) and in the final computation of Z ⊗ Df.
  2. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1.1(a)] The notation ‖·‖_{L²(S)} is used for surface integrals, while the rigidity inequality (1.3) is over Ω. The conversion between surface and volume norms, which introduces a factor of h, is implicit. Please clarify this convention.
  3. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1.2, Eq. (2.62)] The asymptotic expansions for v, b, w use o(h^{-1/4}), o(h^{-1/2}), etc. without specifying uniformity in x ∈ S0. It would be helpful to state that the remainders are uniform.
  4. [References] Reference [44] lists the year 2012 with arXiv:1310.5384; the arXiv submission date appears inconsistent. Please check and correct.
  5. [Throughout] There are typographical and formatting issues, e.g., "Ans¨atze" for "Ansätze" and inconsistent use of "geometry rigidity inequality" vs. "geometric rigidity inequality". A careful proofreading is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Elliptic lower bound is imported from the author's own Korn preprint; hyperbolic and parabolic proofs are self-contained but also cite prior work.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2(b), proof of Theorem 1.1(b), eqs. (2.46)-(2.48)]
    "We look for the ansatz in the form u(z) = z + h^τ y(z) for z = p + tn(p) ∈ Ω, τ > 1, (2.46) where y = −tDw + w⃗n (2.47) is the ansatz, given in the proof [47, Theorem 1.4] for the optimal constant of the Korn inequality. From [47], we have ‖∇y‖L∞(Ω) ≤ C/h^{1/2}, σ/h^{1/2} ≤ ‖∇y‖L2(Ω)/‖sym∇y‖L2(Ω) ≤ C/h^{1/2}. (2.48)"

    The proof of Theorem 1.1(b) does not derive the elliptic lower bound from first principles; it asserts (2.48) with the phrase 'From [47]', where [47] is the author's own unpublished preprint on Korn inequalities. Inequality (2.48) is exactly the optimal-Korn-constant estimate for the elliptic ansatz, and the claimed nonlinear bound µ≥1 follows from it by one application of Lemma 2.4. No derivation, verification, or external reproduction of (2.48) is given in this paper. Thus the central elliptic result is supported by a load-bearing self-citation rather than by an independent argument. This is not a full equivalence because (2.48) is a linear Korn estimate while the theorem concerns nonlinear geometric rigidity, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The hyperbolic lower bound (Theorem 1.1(a)) is genuinely derived in the paper: the Ansatz (2.25)-(2.26) is constructed from asymptotic coordinates, and the estimates (2.32)-(2.45) establish the ratio of order h^{-4/3} without invoking the paper's conclusion. The parabolic lower bound is also substantially self-contained; it uses Proposition 1.1, whose proof relies on [47, Lemma 2.7], a separate geometric lemma about parallel vector fields on parabolic surfaces, rather than on the rigidity exponent being proved. The elliptic lower bound, in contrast, is not derived here: (2.48) is asserted 'From [47]' and carries the whole argument. Since [47] is the author's own preprint and the bound is precisely the optimal Korn exponent for the elliptic ansatz, the proof of Theorem 1.1(b) reduces to a load-bearing self-citation. This is partial circularity, not a definitional identity, so the score is 4 rather than higher. A separate correctness concern—the use of ‖∇u−I‖ instead of the minimizing rotation Q in the lower-bound ratio—is not a circularity issue and is not counted in this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard geometric rigidity results plus several imported lemmas from the author's own previous papers [46], [47], [48], and one explicit geometric condition (1.7). No data are used. The only hand-chosen parameters are the oscillation frequencies of the test functions; these are construction devices, not empirical fits.

free parameters (2)
  • Ansatz oscillation frequency φ for hyperbolic shell = h^{-1/3}
    Chosen by hand in (2.26) to make the oscillatory integrals in (2.32)-(2.33) scale as h^{1/3}; it is a construction parameter, not fitted to experimental data.
  • Ansatz oscillation frequency φ for parabolic shell = h^{-1/4}
    Chosen by hand in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to obtain the h^{-3/2} scaling; construction parameter, not an empirical fit.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The geometric rigidity inequality (1.3) holds for some μ>0 for shells, with μ≤2 from [27].
    The paper assumes the FJM estimate is valid in this setting; it cites [10,11,27]. The lower-bound proofs test this inequality, so existence is a background fact.
  • domain assumption M is a C^3 surface and S is open, simply connected, bounded with regular boundary; Ω is the normal tube of thickness h.
    Stated in Section 1; this regularity is the framework for the results.
  • domain assumption For hyperbolic S, there exists a positively oriented asymptotic coordinate system ψ on B(p0,3δ) with Π(∂x1,∂x1)=Π(∂x2,∂x2)=0 (eq. (2.2)).
    Standard differential-geometric fact for hyperbolic surfaces; needed to construct f in (2.4).
  • ad hoc to paper Bound (2.48) for the elliptic ansatz y=-tDw+wn, quoted from [47, Theorem 1.4].
    The elliptic proof in Section 2(b) uses this bound without reproducing the proof; it comes from the author's own arXiv preprint.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 2.7 of [47]: local existence of a unit vector field X with ∇X n=0 on a parabolic surface, used in Proposition 1.1 and Lemma 2.5.
    Imported from author's prior work; not proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption (1.7) for Theorem 1.2: there is p0 in S such that the geodesic γ(t,p0) exits S at t± with (∇τ± n)(γ(t±,p0)) ≠ 0.
    This condition is stated as part of Theorem 1.2 and is required for the parabolic Ansatz; without it the theorem is not claimed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lower Bounds of Optimal Exponentials of Thickness in Geometry Rigidity Inequality for Shells." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLVBKYFB

@misc{pith2026190804021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lower Bounds of Optimal Exponentials of Thickness in Geometry Rigidity Inequality for Shells},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLVBKYFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04021}
}
abstract

The optimal exponentials of the thickness in the geometry rigidity inequality of shells represent the geometry rigidity of the shells. We obtain that the lower bounds of the optimal exponentials are $4/3,$ $3/2,$ and $1,$ for the hyperbolic shell, the parabolic shell, and the elliptic shell, respectively, through the construction of the Ans\"{a}tze.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    —, Optimal exponentials of thickness in Korn’s inequal ities for parabolic and elliptic shells, arXiv:1807.11114 [math-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Bauer, P

    S. Bauer, P. Neff, D. Pauly, G. Starke, Some Poincar type ine qualities for quadratic matrix fields. Proc. Appl. Math. Mech. 13, 359-360 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Chen and J

    W. Chen and J. Jost, A Riemannian version of Korn’s inequa lity. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 14 (2002), no. 4, 517-530

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    P. G. Ciarlet and V. Lods, On the ellipticity of linear mem brane shell equations. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 75 (1996), no. 2, 107-124

    work page 1996

  5. [4]

    Cioranescu, O

    D. Cioranescu, O. Oleinik, and G. Tronel. On Korns inequa lities for frame type struc- tures and junctions. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I Math., 309( 9):591-596, 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [5]

    Conti, G

    S. Conti, G. Dolzmann, S. Mller, Korns second inequality and geometric rigidity with mixed growth conditions. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 50, 4 37-454 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Conti, F

    S. Conti, F. Maggi, Confining thin elastic sheets and fold ing paper. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 187(1), 1-48(2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    Dauge, M

    M. Dauge, M. Suri, On the asymptotic behaviour of the disc rete spectrum in buckling problems for thin plates, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 29, 789-8 17(2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    K. O. Friedrichs, On the boundary-value problems of the t heory of elasticity and Korns inequality. Ann. Math. 48(2), 441-471 (1947)

    1947

  2. [9]

    Friesecke, R

    G. Friesecke, R. D. James, M. G. Mora, S. Mller, : Derivati on of nonlinear bending theory for shells from three-dimensional nonlinear elasti city by gamma-convergence. C. R. Math. 336(8), 697-702(2003). 17

    2003

  3. [10]

    Friesecke, R

    G. Friesecke, R. James, S. Muller, A theorem on geometri c rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three dimensional elasticit y. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 55, 1461-1506 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    Friesecke, R

    G. Friesecke, R. James, S. Muller, A hierarchy of plate m odels derived from nonlinear elasticity by gamma-convergence. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal . 180(2), 183-236 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    Geymonat, E

    G. Geymonat, E. Sanchez-Palencia, On the rigidity of ce rtain surfaces with folds and applications to shell theory. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 129 (1), 11-45 (1995)

    1995

  6. [13]

    Grabovsky and D

    Y. Grabovsky and D. Harutyunyan, Korn inequalities for shells with zero Gaussian curvature. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar Anal. Non Linaire 35 (2018) , no. 1, 267-282

    2018

  7. [14]

    —, Scaling instability in buckling of axially compress ed cylindrical shells. J. Nonlinear Sci. 26 (2016), no. 1, 83-119

    2016

  8. [15]

    —, Exact scaling exponents in Korn and Korn-type inequa lities for cylindrical shells. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46 (2014), no. 5, 3277-3295

    2014

  9. [16]

    Harutyunyan, On the Korn interpolation and second in equalities for shells with non-constant thickness, SIAM J

    D. Harutyunyan, On the Korn interpolation and second in equalities for shells with non-constant thickness, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50 (2018), no. 5 , 49644982

    2018

  10. [17]

    Journal of Elasticity, 117(1), pp

    —, New asyptotically sharp Korn and Korn-like inequali ties in thin domains. Journal of Elasticity, 117(1), pp. 95-109, 2014

    2014

  11. [18]

    —, Gaussian curvature as an identifier of shell rigidity . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 226 (2017), no. 2, 743-766

    2017

  12. [19]

    Hornung, M

    P. Hornung, M. Lewicka, M. R. Pakzad, Infinitesimal isom etries on developable sur- faces and asymptotic theories for thin developable shells. J. Elasticity 111 (2013), no. 1, 1-19

    2013

  13. [20]

    John, Rotation and strain

    F. John, Rotation and strain. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1 4, 391-413 (1961)

    1961

  14. [21]

    John, Bounds for deformations in terms of average str ains

    F. John, Bounds for deformations in terms of average str ains. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Inequalities III, Los Angeles, 1969, pp. 12 9-144 (1972)

    1972

  15. [22]

    R. V. Kohn, New integral estimates for deformations in t erms of their nonlinear strains. Arch. Ration

  16. [23]

    V. A. Kondratiev, O. A. Oleinik,, On Korns inequalities . C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sr. I 308, 483-487 (1989)

    1989

  17. [24]

    Korn, Solution gnrale du problme dquilibre dans la th orie de llasticit dans le cas o les erts sont donns la surface

    A. Korn, Solution gnrale du problme dquilibre dans la th orie de llasticit dans le cas o les erts sont donns la surface. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse 10, 1 65-269 (1908). 18

    1908

  18. [25]

    —, Uber einige Ungleichungen, welche in der Theorie der elastischen und elektrischen Schwingungen eine Rolle spielen. Bull. Int. Cracovie Akade mie Umiejet, Classe des Sci. Math. Nat., 705-724 (1909)

    1909

  19. [26]

    J. M. Lee, Introduction to smooth manifolds. Second edi tion. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 218. Springer, New York, 2013

    2013

  20. [27]

    Lewicka, M

    M. Lewicka, M. G. Mora, M. R. Pakzad, Shell theories aris ing as low energy -limit of 3d nonlinear elasticity. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 9 (2010), no. 2, 253-295

    2010

  21. [28]

    Lewicka, M

    M. Lewicka, M. R. Pakzad, The infinite hierarchy of elast ic shell models: some recent results and a conjecture. Infinite dimensional dynamical sy stems, 407-420, Fields Inst. Commun., 64, Springer, New York, 2013

    2013

  22. [29]

    —, The matching property of infinitesimal isometries on elliptic surfaces and elasticity of thin shells. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 200 (2011), no. 3, 1 023-1050

    2011

  23. [30]

    Lewicka and S

    M. Lewicka and S. Muller. On the optimal constants in kor ns and geometric rigidity estimates, in bounded and unbounded domains, under neumann boundary conditions. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 65 (2016), no. 2, 377-397

    2016

  24. [31]

    S. A. Nazarov, Weighted anisotropic Korns inequality f or a junction of a plate and a rod. Sbornik: Mathematics, 195(4):553-583, 2004

    2004

  25. [32]

    Russian Mathematical Surveys, 63(1):35, 2008

    —, Korn inequalities for elastic junctions of massive b odies, thin plates, and rods. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 63(1):35, 2008

    2008

  26. [33]

    Paroni and G

    R. Paroni and G. Tomassetti, Asymptotically exact Korn s constant for thin cylindrical domains. Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 350(15):749-752, 2 012

  27. [34]

    Math ematics and Mechanics of Solids, 19(3):318-333, 2014

    —, On Korns constant for thin cylindrical domains. Math ematics and Mechanics of Solids, 19(3):318-333, 2014

    2014

  28. [35]

    P. Neff, D. Pauly, K.-J. Witsch, A canonical extension of K orns first inequality to H(Curl) motivated by gradient plasticity with plastic spin . C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sr. I 349, 1251-1254 (2011)

    2011

  29. [36]

    In : Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 6 June 2011

    —, A Korns inequality for incompatible tensor fields. In : Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 6 June 2011

    2011

  30. [37]

    L. E. Payne, H. F. Weinberger, On Korns inequality. Arch . Ration. Mech. Anal. 8, 89-98 (1961)

    1961

  31. [38]

    J. G. Reˇ setnjak, Liouvilles conformal mapping theorem under minima l regularity hypotheses. Sibirsk. Mat. ˇZ. 8, 835-840 (1967). 19

    1967

  32. [39]

    J. G. Re˘setnjak, The estimation of stability in Liouvilles theorem o n conformal map- pings of multidimensional spaces. Sibirsk. Mat. ˇZ. 11, 1121-1139, 1198 (1970)

    1970

  33. [40]

    Sanchez-Palencia, Statique et dynamique des coques minces

    E. Sanchez-Palencia, Statique et dynamique des coques minces. II. Cas de flexion pure inhibe. Approximation membranaire. C. R. Acad. Sci. Pa ris Sr. I Math. 309(7), 531-537 (1989)

    1989

  34. [41]

    Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry

    M. Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry. Vol. III. Second edition. Publish or Perish, Inc., Wilmington, Del., 1979. x ii+466 pp. ISBN: 0-914098- 83-7

    1979

  35. [42]

    P. E. Tovstik, A. L. Smirnov, Asymptotic methods in the b uckling theory of elastic shells, volume 4 of Series on stability, vibration and contr ol of systems.World Scientific, Singapore 2001

    2001

  36. [43]

    Wu, The Bochner Technique in Differential Geometry, Ma thematical Reports, Vol

    H. Wu, The Bochner Technique in Differential Geometry, Ma thematical Reports, Vol. 3, part 2, Harwood Academic Publishers, London-Paris, 1988

    1988

  37. [44]

    P. F. Yao, Space of Infinitesimal Isometries and Bending of Shells, 2012, arXiv:1310.5384

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A differential geo- metric approach

    —, Modeling and control in vibrational and structural d ynamics. A differential geo- metric approach. Chapman & Hall/CRC Applied Mathematics an d Nonlinear Science Series. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011

    2011

  39. [46]

    —, Linear Strain Tensors on Hyperbolic Surfaces and Asy mptotic Theories for Thin Shells, SIAM J. Math. Anal., Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 1387-1435

  40. [48]

    —, Linear Strain Tensors and Optimal Exponential of thi ckness in Korn’s Inequalities for Hyperbolic Shells, arXiv:1807.11115 [math-ph]. 20

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.