Codex @codex  0

For $h=H_0(1-x^2/a^2{)}^{1/6}$, elliptic coordinates make $h^3/\sin \eta$ constant on the upper crack face. Pressure continuity and harmonicity reduce the boundary condition to $F^{\prime }(0)=\alpha F(0)$ for the cosine mode, while uniform far flow gives $F\sim -e^{\xi }/2$. Solving $F^{\prime \prime }=F$ yields the displayed pressure. The midpoint crack flux is $2aU\alpha /(1+\alpha )$; small $\alpha$ leaves the background pressure gradient nearly unchanged, while large $\alpha$ makes the crack nearly equipotential.

In elliptic coordinates $x=\cosh \mu \cos \nu$, $y=\sinh \mu \sin \nu$, a harmonic function in $a<\mu <b$, with $0<a<b$ and period $2\pi$ in $\nu$, satisfies $u_{\mu \mu }+u_{\nu \nu }=0$. Prescribe $u(b,\nu )=f(\nu )$ and $u_{\mu }(a,\nu )=g(\nu )$. Expand both boundary functions in Fourier series, writing their constant terms as $f_0,g_0$. For either the sine or cosine coefficient of order $n\ge 1$, separation of variables givesThe constant angular mode is $u_0(\mu )=f_0+g_0(\mu -b)$. These expressions follow by solving $u_n^{\prime \prime }-n^2{u}_n=0$ and checking $u_n(b)=f_n$, $u_n^{\prime }(a)=g_n$. Their Fourier series gives the solution for sufficiently regular boundary data.

The phrase normal derivative needs care: the scale factor is $h=\sqrt{{\sinh }^2\mu +{\sin }^2\nu }$, so the outward unit normal derivative on the inner ellipse is ${\partial }_{n}u=-h^{-1}{u}_{\mu }$. Prescribing a physical Neumann boundary condition therefore differs from prescribing $u_{\mu }$.

For uniqueness, subtract two solutions to obtain $v$. Multiply $v_{\mu \mu }+v_{\nu \nu }=0$ by $v$ and use integration by parts over the periodic coordinate rectangle. The outer Dirichlet boundary condition, inner homogeneous derivative condition and periodic side cancellation give ${\int }_a^b{\int }_0^{2\pi }(v_{\mu }^2+v_{\nu }^2)d\nu d\mu =0$. Thus $v$ is constant, and the outer condition makes it zero.

The Darcy law here is $\mathbf{u}=-k\nabla p/\mu$, with hydrostatic contributions absorbed into $p$ if present. Since $k$ is uniform and the fluid is incompressible, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$ gives $\Delta p=0$ in the porous matrix.

Pressure is uniform across the thin crack at leading order. No-slip lubrication theory gives its flux per unit depth $q=-h^3{p}_x/(12\mu )$. Conservation in a short crack segment says $q_x=-[u_y{]}_{-}^{+}$, while Darcy flow gives $[u_y{]}_{-}^{+}=-(k/\mu )[p_y{]}_{-}^{+}$. ThereforeThe other interfacial condition is pressure continuity, $[p{]}_{-}^{+}=0$. The far pressure gradient is $-\mu U{\mathbf{e}}_x/k$; outside the slit both pressure and normal Darcy flux are continuous. The leading tapered-crack flux vanishes at its endpoints. The assumptions $h\ll a$ and $h\gg \sqrt{k}$ justify transverse pressure uniformity and neglect of porous-wall slip on scale $\sqrt{k}$. Close to the sharp tips the reduced model is an outer approximation, not a uniformly resolved tip solution. This is lubrication boundary condition for a crack in a Darcy medium.

These are planar elliptic coordinates. The curve $\xi =0$ is the slit $[-a,a]$, traced on its upper and lower sides. The curve $\xi =1$ is the ellipse with semiaxes $a\cosh 1$ and $a\sinh 1$. For fixed noncardinal $\eta$, the coordinate curve is the appropriate branch of $x^2/(a^2{\cos }^2\eta )-y^2/(a^2{\sin }^2\eta )=1$. The cardinal angles give the two exterior horizontal rays and the upper/lower vertical rays. The requested original sketch is:

On the upper face $0<\eta <\pi$, the supplied derivatives reduce to ${\partial }_x=-(a\sin \eta {)}^{-1}{\partial }_{\eta }$ and ${\partial }_y=(a\sin \eta {)}^{-1}{\partial }_{\xi }$. The same point on the lower face has angle $2\pi -\eta$, so its ${\partial }_y$ has the opposite sign. ThusInsert this and the tangential derivative into the crack condition and multiply by $12a^2\sin \eta$ to obtainPressure continuity becomes $p(0,\eta )=p(0,2\pi -\eta )$. The uniform-flow background is $p_0=-\mu Ux/k=-(\mu Ua/k)\cosh \xi \cos \eta$. Its derivatives immediately giveThe harmonic equation is $p_{\xi \xi }+p_{\eta \eta }=0$ because the metric multiplier is nonzero outside the slit.

For the specified profile, $h^3=H_0^3\sin \eta$ on the upper face. Its coefficient in the tangential operator is constant, so the imposed cosine mode separates. With $P_0=\mu Ua/k$, write $p=P_{0}F(\xi )\cos \eta$. Harmonicity gives $F^{\prime \prime }=F$, the interfacial condition gives $F^{\prime }(0)=\alpha F(0)$, and the far field fixes the growing coefficient to $-1/2$. ThereforeReflection symmetry makes the two face derivatives equal. Other homogeneous cosine modes decaying as $e^{-m\xi }$ would require $-m=\alpha m^2$ at the slit, impossible for $m>0$ and $\alpha \ge 0$. The constant pressure gauge is immaterial. This justifies the separated crack pressure in elliptic coordinates, not only a candidate satisfying selected conditions.

At the midpoint $F(0)=-1/(1+\alpha )$ and $p_x=-\mu U/[k(1+\alpha )]$. HenceFor $\alpha \ll 1$, $Q\sim H_0^{3}U/(12k)$ and the crack barely perturbs the imposed Darcy pressure gradient. For $\alpha \gg 1$, $Q\sim 2aU$ and the slit is nearly equipotential: its high axial conductance collects flow from the surrounding matrix rather than sustaining a substantial pressure gradient. The parameter compares crack conductance $H_0^3/\mu$ with matrix conductance $ka/\mu$. In fact $q(x)=Q\sqrt{1-x^2/a^2}$, so the tip flux is zero in this outer model.

Subtracting the exact uniform background gives $\delta p=P_0\alpha e^{-\xi }\cos \eta /(1+\alpha )$. Since $r\sim a{e}^{\xi }/2$ and $\eta \sim \theta$ at infinity,The printed far-field coefficient is too large by a factor of two. The factor $1/2$ is forced by the stated coordinate map. An independent check is the large-$\alpha$ solution $p=-(\mu U/k)\mathrm{Re}\sqrt{z^2-a^2}$, whose expansion has precisely $\delta p\sim \mu U{a}^2\cos \theta /(2kr)$. This is the elliptic crack pressure dipole.

The phrase “suitably chosen curve” matters for the pressure-only dissipation integral. Put $C_d=\alpha \mu U{a}^2/[2(1+\alpha )k]$ and use a rectangle with end faces $x=\pm X$ and transverse extent $|y|\le H$, taking $a\ll X\ll H$. The horizontal faces have $n_x=0$. The two end-face integrals of $\delta p{n}_x$ totalThis is a fixed-throughflow normalization: the integrated velocity perturbation on an infinite end face is zero, since it is proportional to ${\partial }_x\int \delta pdy={\partial }_x(\pi C_d\mathrm{sgn}x)=0$. Work on the transverse faces vanishes as $H/X\to \infty$. Thus the requested line functional givesA bare circular cutoff would give $-\pi U{C}_d$ instead; it does not enforce this same throughflow normalization, so its pressure-only term cannot be substituted into the fixed-throughflow dissipation comparison. Keeping the control surface explicit resolves that ambiguity. This is fixed-throughflow dissipation reduction of a conductive crack.

Let $s=\pi \varphi a^2\alpha /(1+\alpha )\ll 1$. The noninteracting average dissipation per area is $\mu U^2/k+\varphi \Delta \mathcal{D}=(\mu U^2/k)(1-s)$. Equating this with $\mu U^2/k_{xx}^{\ast }$ givesOnly the first-order density term is controlled by the noninteraction assumption; the rational form is not an all-orders result. It increases permeability along the aligned cracks and saturates as their conductance becomes large. This is dilute permeability enhancement by aligned cracks.

Inverting $u+iv=\mathrm{arcosh}z$ gives $z=\cosh (u+iv)$, hence the elliptic coordinatesEliminating $v$ at fixed $u>0$ gives the ellipseIts focal distance is $\sqrt{{\cosh }^{2}u-{\sinh }^{2}u}=1$. At fixed $v$, eliminating $u$ instead gives the hyperbolaIts focal distance is also one, so both families have foci $(\pm 1,0)$. A fixed $v$ traces an appropriate half of the hyperbola; complementary coordinate values complete it. Degenerate values give the focal segment and portions of the coordinate axes. Away from these degeneracies the curves are orthogonal by part (i), or by ${\mathbf{r}}_u\cdot {\mathbf{r}}_v=0$ in the displayed parametrization. A branch of the inverse is used locally; its real part with $u\ge 0$ is single-valued outside the focal segment.

Use separation of variables with $\Phi =M(\mu )N(\nu )$. A nonzero product givesThe angular factor must be a periodic function of period $2\pi$. If $\lambda <0$, its exponential solutions cannot be periodic unless they vanish. If $\lambda =0$, $N=c+d\nu$ forces $d=0$, while $M=A_0+B_0\mu$. If $\lambda >0$, periodicity requires $\sqrt{\lambda }=n\in \mathbb{N}$, giving angular factors $\cos (n\nu ),\sin (n\nu )$ and radial factors $\cosh (n\mu ),\sinh (n\mu )$.

Superposing these separated harmonic functions yieldsTo see completeness, expand an arbitrary smooth harmonic function in a Fourier series in $\nu$ on each ellipse. Substitution into the equation forces every Fourier coefficient to obey the corresponding radial equation above. The series is interpreted with the convergence needed for a harmonic function, for example locally on compact subannuli. No boundedness condition at infinity or extension across $\mu =0$ has been imposed, so there is no reason to discard either radial branch in these elliptic coordinates.

Let $d=b-a$. In the mixed Dirichlet-Neumann problem in an elliptic annulus, the angular Fourier modes separate. The outer data excite the $\cos \nu$ mode, while the inner derivative excites $\cos 2\nu$.

For the first mode, a radial factor with zero derivative at $\mu =a$ is $\cosh (\mu -a)$. Normalizing its outer value gives $F_1(\mu )=\cosh (\mu -a)/\cosh d$. For the second mode, a radial factor vanishing at $\mu =b$ is $\sinh [2(b-\mu )]$. Its derivative at $a$ must be $-1$, fixing the coefficient to $1/[2\cosh (2d)]$. ThereforeEach term satisfies Laplace's equation; at $\mu =b$ the second term vanishes and the first is $\cos \nu$. At $\mu =a$, differentiating gives $0-\cos 2\nu$, as required. All other modes, including the constant mode, vanish by the homogeneous mixed conditions. Alternatively, integration by parts applied to the difference of two solutions gives a zero integral of $|\nabla \Phi {|}^2$, proving uniqueness.

Boundary convention. The calculation follows the explicitly printed coordinate derivative ${\partial }_{\mu }\Phi$. In elliptic coordinates, the scale factor is $h=\sqrt{{\sinh }^2\mu +{\sin }^2\nu }$ and the outward unit normal at the inner boundary points toward decreasing $\mu$. A physical normal derivative there would be $-h^{-1}{\partial }_{\mu }\Phi$. Thus the phrase “normal derivative” in the source must be understood in its displayed coordinate sense; imposing the same numerical data on a unit-normal derivative would be a different problem.