This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
asymptotic analysis: Applications to Solid
Mechanics
O. Pantz
November 22, 2013
2
Contents
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.1 Energy functionnals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1.2 Energy depending on a small parameter . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Existence of minimizers 9
2.1 Finite case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1 String of masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Inﬁnite case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Existence in Hilbert Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2 Existence in Uniformely Convex Spaces . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3 Existence in Reﬂexive Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.4 Weak topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 L
p
and Sobolev spaces 15
3.1 Notions of integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Elementary properties of L
p
spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 Sobolev Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Application to some Minimization problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Optimality conditions and Numerical Methods 21
4.1 EulerLagrange equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 Gradient based Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 Formal asymptotic analysis 23
5.1 Homogenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Non linear elastic rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.1 Setting of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.2 Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6 Γconvergence 31
6.1 Deﬁnition and basic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2 Lower semicontiuous envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.2.1 Relaxation in the one dimensional case . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3
4 CONTENTS
6.2.2 Relaxation in the scalar case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.2.3 Relaxation in the vectorial case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.3 Application to elastic rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.4 Application to elastic membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7 Other examples (formal approach) 45
7.1 Elastic beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.2 Elastic plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3 Modica Mortola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Chapter 1
Introduction
The aim of this course is to give basic tools in calculus of variation and asymp
totic analysis. The stress will be put on applications to mechanics, in particular
solid mechanics. Many mechanical problems can be viewed as solution of a min
imization problem. A basic example is given by linear and non linear elasticity,
where equilibrium states can be deﬁned as minimizer (possibly local) of the
elastic energy of the body. Many other mechanical systems can be described in
such a way: Temperature distribution in a body, viscous ﬂuids, lattices, brittle
materials, mutliphase ﬂuids or martensitic materials to name a few. An impor
tant feature of most of those systems is that they have an inﬁnite number of
degree of freedom. For instance, in a quasistatic setting, the state of a nonlinear
elastic body is given by a map from a reference conﬁguration into the euclidian
space. Contrarly to the ﬁnite case, the existence is far from trivial. Such a
question could appear theoretical. Indeed, the existence of a solution seems to
be justiﬁed by the very fact that the model is based on a physical reality that
could not been denied. Firstly, such attitude is based on the assumption that
the model is a perfect representation of the reality. This is NEVER the case. At
most it can be a correct approximation of the reality. Considering the problem
of existence from the mathematical point of view oﬀer several insights on the
physical reallity. First, existence or non existence can help to distinghish be
tween reasonable and faulted modelings. Secondly, as we will see, non existence
can result from the overlook of small scale phenomena. Studying minimiza
tion sequences of such non well posed problem can help to identify them and
thus either include them into the modeling by adding a term ot the energy or
neglecting them by applying a relaxation on the initial energy functional.
Another question is to determine meaningful ways to compute numerically
the minimizers of such functionnals. A most commun approach is based on the
well known gradient method. In a landscape, following the steepest slope will
lead you (under certain conditions) to the least height point of the landscape
(but in most cases to a local minimum). Anyway, you will only stop once you’ve
reached a ﬂat area where the step is null. In the context of the minimization of
the energy of a system, this steepest slope is determined thanks to the diﬀerential
5
6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
of the energy. Thus minizers are (at least partially) caracterized as roots of
the diﬀerential, which are given by the EulerLagrange equation. The Euler
Lagrange equation is
1.1 Examples
1.1.1 Energy functionnals
In this section, Ω will be an open bounded subset of R
N
and Γ
N
, Γ
D
will design
subset of the boundary ∂Ω of the domain, such that ∂Ω = Γ
D
∪ Γ
N
.
Distribution of tempearture We assume that Ω is the domain occupied
by a conductive body of conductivity k. The distribution temperature u is
imposed to be equal to u
D
on Γ
D
and a thermic ﬂux g is imposed on Γ
N
with
∂Ω = Γ
D
∪ Γ
N
. Then u of temperature is solution of
inf
v=u
D
on Γ
D
1
2
_
Ω
k∇v
2
dx −
_
Γ
N
gv dx
Non linear elasticity
inf
ψ
1
2
_
Ω
W(∇ψ) dx −
_
Γ
N
g · ψ dx
Linear elasticity
inf
v
1
2
_
Ω
2µe(v)
2
+λ(div(v))
2
dx −
_
Γ
N
g · v dx
Stokes equation
inf
v
∇·v=0
1
2
_
Ω
ν∇v
2
dx −
_
Ω
f · v dx
1.1.2 Energy depending on a small parameter
An example: String of atoms
inf
ψ∈R
N×d
1
2
i
W
_
ψ
i+1
−ψ
i

ε
_
ε −
i
(f
i
· ψ
i
)ε
Thin plate
1
2
_
Ω
ε
W
ε
(∇ϕ) dx +
_
Ω
F
ε
(ϕ) dx +
_
Γ
+
+Γ
−
G(ϕ) ds.
with F
ε
(s) = ε
−1
g or F
ε
(s) = ε
−1
(As.s), with g ∈ R
N
(dead load) and A
positive matrix. When the thickness ε goes to zero, diﬀerent models are derived
1.1. EXAMPLES 7
depending on the scale order of the stored energy W
ε
with with respect to
the thickness. Let W
0
be frame indiﬀerent, W
0
≥ 0, W
0
(F) = 0 iﬀ F is a
rotation and W
1
be frame indiﬀerent, W
1
≥ 0, W
1
(F) = 0 iﬀ det(F) = 1 and
F
1
∧ F
2
= F
3
.
• Membrane model W
ε
(F) = ε
−1
W
0
(F)
• Isometric beding model W
ε
(F) = ε
−3
W
0
(F)
• Helfrich model (for bilogical vesicles) W
ε
(F) = ε
−3
W
1
(F)
• Red Blood Cell model W
ε
(F) = ε
−1
W
0
(F) +ε
−3
W
1
(F)
• Von Karaman model W
ε
(F) = ε
−5
W
0
(F)
Homogenization Example in linear elasticity. Let µ and λ be Yperiodic
maps with positive values, Y being the unit square of R
N
, meaning that µ(x +
e
i
) = µ(x) for all x ∈ R
N
and for all i ∈ {1, · · · , N}, (e
i
) being the classical
euclidian basis of R
N
(same thing for λ).
inf
v
1
2
_
Ω
2µ
ε
e(v)
2
+λ
ε
(div(v))
2
dx −
_
Γ
N
g · v dx
with µ
ε
(x) = µ(x/ε) and λ(x) = λ(x/ε).
ModicaMortola
inf
v
ε
2
_
Ω
∇v
2
dx +ε
−1
_
Ω
(v
2
−1)
2
dx.
8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2
Existence of minimizers
In this section, we interest ourselves to the existence (or non existence) of solu
tion of problems of the form u ∈ K
J(u) = inf
v∈K
J(v),
where K is the subset of a vectorial space. We ﬁrst begin with the ﬁnite dimen
sional case (that is K ⊂ R
N
), which is quite trivial, but enable us to introduce
some basic and useful notions used in the following: inﬁnity at inﬁnity, semi
continuity, minimization sequences. We also provide a simple physical example
(string of masses) that will be used in the chapter on asymptotic anaylsis.
2.1 Finite case
Deﬁnition (Inﬁnite at inﬁnity) A map J : K → R, with K ⊂ E vectorial
space, is said to be inﬁnite at inﬁnity if and only if for any sequence u
n
of
elements of K such that u
n
E
n→∞
−−−−→ ∞, then
lim
n→∞
J(u
n
) = ∞.
Note that if K is bounded, then J is always inﬁnite at inﬁnity.
Deﬁnition (Lower semi continuity) A map J from K ⊂ E topologial space
into R is said to be lower semi continous is and only if, for every λ
E
λ
(J) = J
−1
((−∞, λ])
is a closed subset of E.
Exercise 1. Prove that the supremum of lower semicontinuous functions is
lower semi continious.
9
10 CHAPTER 2. EXISTENCE OF MINIMIZERS
Deﬁnition (Lim inf ) Let x
n
be a sequence in R, we set
liminf
n→∞
x
n
= lim
n→∞
inf{x
p
such that p > n}.
Contrarly to the limit, the liminf of a sequence always exists (even if possibly
equal to ±∞).
Exercise 2. Prove that the liminf always exists.
Proposition 2.1.1. Let u
n
be a sequence of elements of a topological space E
converging toward an element u ∈ E and J a semicontinuous functional, then
J(u) ≤ liminf
n
J(u
n
). (2.1)
Proof. Let
λ = liminf
n
J(u
n
).
If λ = +∞, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, for all ε > 0, there exists
N ∈ N such that for all n > N,
inf{J(u
p
) such that p > n} ≤ λ +ε.
That is, for all p,
J(u
p
) ≤ λ +ε,
that is u
p
∈ E
λ+ε
(J). The functional J being lower semicontinuous, the set
E
λ+ε
(J) is closed. Thus, letting p goes to inﬁnity, we get u ∈ E
λ+ε
(J). In other
words,
J(u) ≤ λ +ε
for all ε > 0. It follows that J(u) ≤ ε.
Exercise 3. Let E be a metric space and J be a map from E into R. Prove
that J is lower semicontinuous iif for all u ∈ E and for all converging sequence
u
n
toward u,
J(u) ≤ liminf J(u
n
),
Proposition 2.1.2. Let K be a non empty closed subset of R
N
and J : K →R
a lower semicontinuous map, inﬁnite at inﬁnity. Then there exists u ∈ K such
that
J(u) = inf
v∈K
J(v).
Proof. Let u
n
be a minimization sequence of J on K (such a sequence does
always exists, see Exercise 4). That is (u
n
) ∈ K
N
and J(u
n
) → inf
K
J. As
J is inﬁnite at inﬁnity and J(u
n
) bounded from above, we deduce that u
n
is
bounded by a constant R. Thus u
n
belongs to the compact set K ∩ B
R
, where
B
R
is the ball centered at the origin of radius R. It follows that there exists
ϕ : N →N strictly increasing, and u ∈ K∩B
R
such that u
ϕ(n)
converges toward
u when n goes to inﬁnity. Finally, from the lower semi continuity of J
J(u) ≤ liminf J(u
ϕ(n)
) = limJ(u
n
) = inf
K
J.
As u ∈ K, it is a minimizer of J on K.
2.1. FINITE CASE 11
Exercise 4. Let F be a non empty subset of R, bounded from below. Prove that
it admits a (unique) greater lower bound. Deduce that if J is a map from a set
E into R, it always admits a minimizing sequence, or in other words that there
exists a sequence u
n
∈ E such that J(u
n
) converges toward the inﬁmum of J on
E.
2.1.1 String of masses
We consider a string of N atoms moving in R
d
. We set ε = 1/(N +1), which is
of the same scale order than the interactomic distance. The energy of the whole
system is the sum between an elastic energy due to the interaction between
nearest neighbor atoms and an external potential. The elastic part is discribed
by a stored energy W : R
d
→R
+
whereas the external part is assumed to derive
from external dead body loads f ∈ V
ε
, where V
ε
= (R
d
)
N
is the set of admissible
states of the system. We only consider here the static case, where the state of
the system is given by a deformation u ∈ V
ε
, where u
i
(with i = 1, · · · , N),
stands for the position of the ith atom of the string in R
d
. For all deformation
u ∈ V
ε
of the string of atoms, we introduce the energy
J
ε
(u) =
1
2
N
i=0
W
_
u
i+1
−u
i
ε
_
ε −
N
i=1
f
i
· u
i
ε, (2.2)
with the convention u
0
= u
−
and u
N+1
= u
+
, where u
−
and u
+
are the imposed
positions at the ends of the string.
The internal energy of the string is assume to be frame indiﬀerent. Meaning
that the elastic energy of the strings is invariant under rotation.
Deﬁnition (Frame indiﬀerence) A stored energy W from R
d×m
into R is
said to be frame indiﬀerent if for any rotation R ∈ SO(d), we have
W(RF) = W(F) for all F ∈ R
d×m
.
Without any other asumptions on W, the energy is not necessarily bounded
from below.
Exercise 5. Prove in the case N = 1, that J
ε
is bounded from below for all
f ∈ R
d
iif W(F) is growing faster than any linear function of the norm of F,
or in other words, that for all β > 0, there exists C(β) ∈ R such that for all
F ∈ R
d
,
W(F) ≥ C(β) +βF.
Proposition 2.1.3. Let J
ε
deﬁned by (2.2), with W being lower semicontinu
ous, frame indiﬀerent and growing faster than any linear function of the norm.
Then it reaches its minimum on V
ε
.
Proof. We can now tackle the general case. Let us try to prove the existence of
solution for any given N. Let us consider once again a minimization sequence
u
n
12 CHAPTER 2. EXISTENCE OF MINIMIZERS
M ≥
1
2
i
W
_
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i
ε
_
ε −
i
f
i
· u
i
ε
≥ NC(β)/ε +β
i
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i

ε
−max(f
i
)
i
u
n
i

Moreover, for any u, we have for all i,
u
i
 ≤
i
u
i+1
−u
i
. (2.3)
Thus, we get
M ≥
1
2
i
W
_
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i
ε
_
ε −
i
f
i
· u
i
ε
≥ NC(β)/ε +β
i
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i

ε
−max(f
i
)N
i
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i

and
M ≥
1
2
i
W
_
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i
ε
_
ε −
i
f
i
· u
i
ε
≥ NC(β)/ε + (β −Nε max(f
i
))
i
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i

ε
Chosing β big enough, we get that
u
n
1
=
i
u
n
i+1
−u
n
i

ε
is bounded, and from (??) that u
n
is bounded. Finally existence do follow from
the l.s.c. assumption made on W.
Example We can chose for instance W(s) = s
2
−1
2
, that is
J
ε
(u) =
1
2
i
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
u
i+1
−u
i
ε
¸
¸
¸
¸
2
−1
_
2
ε
2.2 Inﬁnite case
In this section, we are going to give few existence results in Banach spaces.
Roughly speaking, the existence of a minimizer of a functional J : E → R is
ensured if J is continuous, inﬁnite at inﬁnity and CONVEXE (provided that
E is a nice enough Banach space). We are going to study three diﬀerent cases,
depending on the properties of the space E, from the more particular to the
more general. More precisely, we will ﬁrst focus on the case where E is a
Hilbert space, then
2.2. INFINITE CASE 13
2.2.1 Existence in Hilbert Spaces
2.2.2 Existence in Uniformely Convex Spaces
2.2.3 Existence in Reﬂexive Spaces
2.2.4 Weak topology
Let us recall some deﬁnition about weak conergence in Banach spaces.
Deﬁnition (Weak convergence) Let E be a Banach space and u
n
a sequence
in E. We say that u
n
convergences weakly toward u ∈ E in E
u
n
u,
if and only if
L(u
n
) → L(u),
for all L ∈ E
.
Deﬁnition (Weak* convergence) Let E be a Banach space and L
n
a se
quence in E
. We say that L
n
convergences weakly* toward L ∈ E
in E
L
n
∗L,
if and only if
L
n
(u) → L(u),
for all u ∈ E.
We recall that the norm on E
is deﬁned by
L
E
= sup
x∈Ex
E
=1
L(x).
Theorem 2.2.1 (BanachAlaogluBourbaki). The unit ball of E
is compact
for the weak* topology.
Proof. We propose to perform the proof by assuming that the space E is separa
ble. In the general case, the proof can be found in Brezis [3]. As E is separable,
there exists a sequence of elements x
n
dense in E. Now, let us consider a se
quence L
n
in the unit ball of E
. We construct a sequence of strictly growing
maps from N into N (ϕ
n
) such that for all n, L
ψ
n
(k)
(x
p
) is converging for all
p ≤ n, where ψ
n
= ϕ
0
◦ · · · ◦ ϕ
n
. As L
n
(x
0
) is bounded, it is clear that we
can extract a subsequence L
ϕ
0
(k)
such that L
ϕ
0
(k)
is convergent. Next for all
n > 0, assuming that (ϕ
p
)
p<n
have been build, then L
ψ
n−1
(k)
(x
p
) is converging
for all p < n and L
ψ
n−1
(k)
(x
n
) is bounded. Thus, we can extract a subsequence
L
ψ
n−1
◦ϕ
n
(k)
such that L
ψ
n−1
◦ϕ
n
(k)
(x
n
) is convergent. Obviously, we still have
L
ψ
n−1
◦ϕ
n
(k)
(x
p
) is still convergent for all p < n. Finally, we set ϕ(n) = ψ
n
(n).
The sequence ϕ(n) is strictly growing from N into N and L
ϕ(n)
(x
p
) is converging
for all p ∈ N. Finally, using the fact that L
ϕ(n)
is uniformely bounded and that
14 CHAPTER 2. EXISTENCE OF MINIMIZERS
(x
p
) is dense in E, we can prove that L
ϕ(n)
(x) is a Cauchy sequence (and thus
convergent) for all x ∈ E. Let us denote L the limit. It only remains to prove
that L is linear and continuous (what is easy). Moreover, we obtain that
L
E
≤ liminf L
n
E
.
Proposition 2.2.2. If E is a Banach space, then for all x ∈ E,
x
E
= sup
L∈E
L
E
=1
L(x).
Proof. We have L(x) ≤ L
E
x
E
. It follows that for all continuous linear
form L such that L
E
= 1,
x
E
≥ L(x),
thus
x
E
≥ sup
L∈E
L
E
=1
L(x).
The converse inequality is far less trivial and is based on the HahnBanach
Theorem (see Brezis [3]) for more details.
Exercise 6. Prove the Proposition 2.2.2 when E is a Hilbert Space.
Proposition 2.2.3. Let u
n
be a sequence wealky converging toward u, then
u
E
≤ liminf u
n
E
.
Proof. We have
u
E
= sup
L∈E
L
E
=1
L(u).
Thus, u is the supremum of continuous (and thus lower semicontinuous) func
tions for the weak topology. In consequences, it is iteself lower semicontinuous
for the weak topology.
Note that the same result holds for the weak* convergence. Moreover, we
can extend this result to a more general case.
Proposition 2.2.4. Let E be a Banach space and J a convex semicontinu
ous function (for the strong topology), then J is semicontinuous for the weak
topology.
This result is based on the HahnBanach Theorem (see once again Brezis
[3]) for more details.
Using this result, and the BanachAlaogluBourbaki Theorem, it is easy to
prove the existence Theorem of minimizers .
Chapter 3
L
p
and Sobolev spaces
Let us consider the minimization problem of
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
∇u
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx.
For the moment, we can not apply any of the Theorems of the previous section.
The main reason is that we do not have the correct Banach space to apply one
of the previous result. Indeed, to deﬁne the function J we have to assume that
u is derivable and thus to search for a minimizer over C
1
(Ω). Unfortunately,
J is not inﬁnite at inﬁnity for such a choice. In this particular case, we can
nevertheless use the following small trick. Assume that u is derivable, then
1
2
_
Ω
τ
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx +
_
Ω
(τ −∇u) · σ
We minimize with respect to τ and get τ = σ, leading to a min max problem of
1
2
_
Ω
−σ
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx +
_
Ω
−∇u · σ
=
1
2
_
Ω
−σ
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx +
_
Ω
u(∇· σ) dx.
Thus, we have
J(u) = sup
σ∈C
∞
0
(Ω)
1
2
_
Ω
−σ
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx +
_
Ω
u(∇· σ) dx
The functional on the left and side are all convex and lower semicontinuous
in L
2
(Ω). Thus, it follows that J is itself convex and semicontinuous in L
2
(possibly taking the value +∞). Moreovoer, it is clearly inﬁnite at inﬁnity and
J admits a minimizers on L
2
. Nevertheless, this approach raised to problems.
The ﬁrst one is that it is not obvious to recover the EulerLagrange equations
15
16 CHAPTER 3. L
P
AND SOBOLEV SPACES
satisﬁed by u. Another approach consists to endowe the space of the continuous
functions with the norm
u
2
H
1
(Ω)
=
_
Ω
∇u
2
+u
2
dx.
With such a space, J is clearly continuous, convex and inﬁnite at inﬁnity. It is
also clearly a Hilbert space, included in L
2
(Ω). So once again, we obtain the
existence of solutions. The Sobolev space H
1
(Ω) is precisely the obtained space.
A natural question consists in trying to identify such a space. In fact, we have
H
1
(Ω) = {u ∈ L
2
(Ω) such that there exists τ ∈ L
2
(Ω)
N
such that
for all σ ∈ C
∞
0
(Ω) we have
_
Ω
u∇· σ dx = −
_
Ω
τ · σ dx}.
It is easy to check that the closure of the C
1
(Ω) functions is included in this
space
3.1 Notions of integration
Let p be an integer, p ≥ 1. We recall that L
p
(Ω) is the space of mesurable
functions f such that
_
Ω
f(x)
p
dx < ∞,
endowed with the norm
f
L
p
(Ω)
=
__
Ω
f(x)
p
dx
_
p
.
Theorem 3.1.1 (BeppoLevi monotone convergence Theorem). Let (f
n
) be a
growing sequence in L
1
(Ω) such that
sup
n
_
Ω
f
n
dx < ∞,
then f
n
(x) convergences for almost all x ∈ Ω toward a ﬁnite limit f(x). More
over, f ∈ L
1
(Ω) and f
n
convergences toward f in L
1
(Ω).
Lemma 3.1.2 (Fatou). Let (f
n
) be a sequence of non negative functions in
L
1
(Ω), we have
_
Ω
liminf
n
f
n
dx ≤ liminf
_
Ω
f
n
dx.
An almost straighforward consequence of the Fatou’s Lemma is the widely
used Lebesgue dominated convergence Therorem
Theorem 3.1.3 (Lebesgue dominated convergence Theorem). Let (f
n
) be a
sequence in L
1
(Ω) such that
3.2. ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF L
P
SPACES 17
• f
n
(x) → f(x) for almost all x ∈ Ω.
• There exists g ∈ L
1
(Ω) such that f
n
(x) ≤ g(x) almost everywhere (a.e.).
Then f ∈ L
1
(Ω) and f
n
convergences toward f in L
1
(Ω).
Note that this Theorem remains true when replacing L
1
by L
p
.
Theorem 3.1.4 (Converse Lebesgue Theorem). Let p ∈ [1, ∞) and f
n
be a
sequence of functions in L
p
(Ω) congerging toward an element f in L
p
(Ω), then
we can extract a subsequence f
n
such that
• There exists g ∈ L
p
(Ω) such that f
n
(x) ≤ g(x) a.e.
• f
n
(x) → f(x) a.e.
3.2 Elementary properties of L
p
spaces
We already gave the deﬁnition of the spaces L
p
(Ω) for 1 ≤< ∞. For p = ∞, we
deﬁne the space L
∞
(Ω) as the set of mesurable functions such that
f
L
∞
(Ω)
= inf{Csuch that f(x) ≤ C for almost all x ∈ Ω} < ∞.
Theorem 3.2.1 (H¨older ineqalities). Let f ∈ L
p
(Ω) and g ∈ L
p
(Ω) with
p ∈ [1, ∞] and 1/p + 1/p
= 1, then
_
Ω
fg dx ≤ f
L
p
(Ω)
g
L
p
(Ω)
Theorem 3.2.2 (FischerRiesz). L
p
(Ω) is a Banach space for all 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞.
Theorem 3.2.3. L
p
(Ω) is uniformly convex thus reﬂexive for all 1 < p < ∞.
Theorem 3.2.4 (Riesz representation Theorem). Let 1 ≤ p < ∞, then for all
L ∈ L
p
(Ω)
, there exists an unique u ∈ L
p
(Ω), with 1/p + 1/p
= 1 such that
_
Ω
uv dx = L(v) for all v ∈ L
(
Ω).
Theorem 3.2.5 (density). The space C
∞
0
(Ω) is dense in L
p
(Ω) for all 1 ≤ p <
∞.
Theorem 3.2.6 (separability). L
p
(Ω) is separable for all 1 ≤ p < ∞.
3.3 Sobolev Spaces
Deﬁnition (Deﬁnition) Let 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞. The Sobolev space W
1,p
(Ω) is
deﬁned by
W
1,p
(Ω) = {u ∈ L
p
(Ω) such that there exists σ ∈ L
(
Ω)
N
such that for all τ ∈ C
∞
0
(Ω), we have
_
Ω
u∇·τ dx = −
_
Ω
∇u·τ dx
18 CHAPTER 3. L
P
AND SOBOLEV SPACES
We denote ∇u = τ. Moreover, we set
u
W
1,p
(Ω)
= u
L
p
(Ω)
+∇u
L
p
(Ω)
N.
In the case p = 2, we usually use the notation H
1
(Ω) instead of W
1,p
(Ω).
Proposition 3.3.1. The space W
1,p
(Ω) is a Banach space. For 1 ≤ p < ∞, it
is separable, for 1 < p < ∞ it is reﬂexive. Moreover, H
1
(Ω) is a Hilbert space.
Proposition 3.3.2 (Density). If Ω is a Lipschitzian open set, then C
∞
0
(Ω) is
dense in L
p
(Ω) for all 1 ≤ p < ∞.
Proposition 3.3.3 (Sobolev injection). Let Ω = R
N
or Ω be a regular open
subset of R
N
, with a bounded boundary, then
• If 1/p
∗
= 1/p−1/N > 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously included in L
p
∗
(Ω).
• If 1/p −1/N = 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously included in L
q
(Ω) for all
p ≥ q < ∞.
• If 1/p −1/N < 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously included in L
∞
(Ω).
Proposition 3.3.4 (RellichKondrachov). Let Ω ∈ R
N
be a regular open bounded
subset of R
n
, then
• If 1/p
∗
= 1/p−1/N > 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously, compactly included
in L
q
(Ω) for all 1 ≤ q < p
∗
.
• If 1/p − 1/N = 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously, compactly included in
L
q
(Ω) for all 1 ≤ q < ∞.
• If 1/p − 1/N < 0, then W
1,p
(Ω) is continuously, compactly included in
L
∞
(Ω).
Proposition 3.3.5 (Trace). Let Ω be a Lipschitzian open set and p ∈ [1, ∞),
then the map from W
1,p
(Ω) into L
p
(∂Ω) is continuous.
Proposition 3.3.6 (Poincar´e inequality). Let Ω be an open set of R
N
, bounded
in one direction then there exists C such that
∀u ∈ W
1,p
0
(Ω)u
L
p
(Ω)
≤ C∇u
L
p
(Ω)
N
There exists other useful versions of the Poincar´e inequality
Proposition 3.3.7 (Poincar´e inequality). Let Ω be a bounded connected open
set of R
N
, and Γ
D
be a subset of ∂Ω of non zero N − 1 measure. Then there
exists C such that for all u ∈ W
1,p
(Ω), such that u = 0 on Γ
D
, we have
u
L
p
(Ω)
≤ C∇u
L
p
(Ω)
N
Another usefull version
Proposition 3.3.8 (Poincar´eWirtinger inequality). Let Ω be a bounded con
nected open set of R
N
. Then there exists C such that for all u ∈ W
1,p
(Ω), such
that u = 0 on Γ
D
, we have
u −m
L
p
(Ω)
≤ C∇u
L
p
(Ω)
N,
where m is the mean value of u over Ω.
3.4. APPLICATION TO SOME MINIMIZATION PROBLEMS 19
3.4 Application to some Minimization problems
• Let Ω be open subset of R
N
and
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
∇u
2
+u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx
The functional J is convexe, inﬁnite at inﬁnite, continious over H
1
(Ω),
Hilbert space and thus admits a minimizer. Moreover, as J is strictly
convexe, it it unique.
• Let Ω be a bounded regular open subset of R
N
and
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
∇u
2
dx −
_
Ω
fudx et u = 0 sur ∂Ω
The functional J is convexe, continuous over H
1
0
(Ω) , Hilbert space, and
inﬁnite at inﬁnity, thanks to the Poincar´e inequality. Thus, it admits a
unique minimizer. Moreover, the minimizer is unique (as the problem is
linear, it is enough to check that for f = 0, u = 0 is the unique solution).
• Let Ω be a bounded subset of R
N
, F convexe continuous such that
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
∇u
2
+u
2
dx +
_
Ω
F(u) dx
First, a F is convex,
F(s) ≥ F
(0)s +F(0).
It follows that
_
Ω
F(u) dx ≥ −F
(0)u
L
1
(Ω)
+ΩF(0) ≥ C
1
u
L
2
(Ω)
+C
2
.
Thus J(u) goes to inﬁnity as u
H
1
(Ω)
goes to inﬁnity. Next, let us assume
that
F(u) ≤ C(u
2
+ 1),
then, using the Lebesgue Theorem (and the partial converse Theorem),
we have that
u →
_
Ω
F(u) dx
is continuous for the L
2
(Ω) norm. Finally, J is strictly convex, continuous,
inﬁnite at inﬁnity and thus admits a unique minimizer.
It can be check that the convexity assumption on F can be dropped, by
keeping only the assumptions
C
1
s +C
0
≤ F(s) ≤ C(s
2
+ 1).
We still have that J is inﬁnite at inﬁnity, so that the minimization se
qences are compact for the weak topology of H
1
(Ω). Let u
n
be a sequence
20 CHAPTER 3. L
P
AND SOBOLEV SPACES
converging for the weak topology toward u. From the Rellich Theroem, up
to the extraction of another subsequence, it converges strongly in L
2
(Ω),
so that F(u
n
) converges strongly toward F(u). Using the lowar semi con
tinuity of the norm, we conclude that u is a minimizer.
• Let us consider the functionnal
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
F(u) dx
and asssume that
F(s) < C(1 +s
p
),
with p ∈ (1, ∞). If F is convex, continuous, then J is inﬁnite at inﬁnity,
convex and continuous. Thus, it admits a minimizer of L
p
(Ω). Conversely,
if J est lower semicontinuous for the weak topology, then it is convex.
Indeed, let a and b in R and let us deﬁne the one periodic function on R
by
T(s) = {
a if s ∈ (0, θ)
b if s ∈ (θ, 1)
then u
n
(x) = T(nx
1
) weakly converges toward the constant map θa+(1−
θ)b and assuming that J is lower semicontinuous for the weka topology, it
follows that
F(θa + (1 −θ)b) ≤ θF(a) + (1 −θ)F(b).
(il faut faire un truc sur l’enveloppe semi infrieure).
•
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(∇u) dx
Dans W
1,p
(Ω), u = 0 sur le bord et W convexe/non convexe ?
•
J(u) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(∇u) dx +
_
Ω
F(u) dx
W convexe et F non convexe.
• Stokes
• Elasticit Linaire (ingalit de Korn)
Chapter 4
Optimality conditions and
Numerical Methods
4.1 EulerLagrange equations
4.2 Gradient based Algorithm
21
22CHAPTER 4. OPTIMALITYCONDITIONS ANDNUMERICAL METHODS
Chapter 5
Formal asymptotic analysis
5.1 Homogenization
We consider a conductive body Ω
ε
∈ R
N
. We suppose that Ω
ε
is made of
tiny holes periodically displayed inside a domain Ω of R
N
. More precisely, we
assume that there exists an Y periodical connected open subset ω of R
N
, where
Y = (0, 1)
N
such that
Ω
ε
= Ω ∩ εω.
We denote by u
ε
the potential at equilibrium inside Ω
ε
, assuming that we apply
a volumic ﬂux f ∈ L
2
(Ω) with Dirichlet boundary conditions of Γ
ε
D
= ∂Ω∩Ω
ε
.
In other words, u
ε
is the minimizer of
J
ε
(v
ε
) =
1
2
_
Ω
ε
A∇v
ε
· ∇v
ε
dx −
_
Ω
ε
fv
ε
dx,
over the set
V
ε
= {v
ε
∈ H
1
(Ω −ε) : v
ε
= 0 on Γ
ε
D
}.
We seek for the limit of u
ε
as ε goes to zero. To this end, we are going to assume
that u
ε
admits an asymptotic expansion.
Ansatz 5.1.1. There exists a sequence u = (u
i
)
i∈N
∈ V , with
V :=
_
v ∈ H
(
Ω ×ω)
N
such that for all i,
v
i
(x, y) = 0 for all (x, y) ∈ ∂Ω ×ω
v
i
(x, ·) is Y periodical with respect to the second variable
_
such that
u
ε
(x) =
∞
i=0
ε
i
u
i
(x, x/ε).
23
24 CHAPTER 5. FORMAL ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS
For all sequence v ∈ V , we introduce the energy
J
ε
(v) = J
ε
(v
ε
),
where
v
ε
(x) =
∞
i=0
ε
i
v
i
(x, x/ε).
We now can rewrite the energy J
ε
as an asymptotic exanpsion in the follow
ing form,
J
ε
(v) =
k∈Z
J
ε
k
(v). (5.1)
Now we identiﬁy the terms of this expansion. We set v
i
= 0 for all i < 0. We
have
J
ε
(v) =
1
2
_
Ω
ε
A∇v
ε
· v
ε
dx −
_
Ω−ε
fv
ε
dx
=
1
2
_
Ω
ε
A∇
_
i
ε
i
v
i
(x, x/ε)
_
·
_
i
ε
i
v
i
(x, x/ε)
_
dx −
_
Ω
ε
f
_
i
ε
i
v
i
(x, x/ε)
_
dx
=
1
2
i,j
ε
i+j
_
Ω
ε
A(∇
x
v
i
(x, x/ε) +ε
−1
∇
y
v
i
(x, x/ε)) · (∇
x
v
j
(x, x/ε) +ε
−1
∇
y
v
j
(x, x/ε)) dx −
k
ε
k
_
Ω
ε
fv
k
(x, x/ε) dx
=
k∈Z
i, j
i +j = k
_
1
2
_
Ω
ε
A(∇
x
v
i
(x, x/ε) · ∇
x
v
j
(x, x/ε) + 2A(∇
x
v
i
(x, x/ε) · ∇
y
v
j+1
(x, x/ε)A(∇
y
v
i+1
(x, x/ε)∇
y
v
j+1
(x, x/ε) dx −
_
Ω
ε
fv
k
(x, x/ε) dx
_
.
We thus obtain the expansion (5.1) with
J
ε
k
(v) =
1
2
i+j=k
_
Ω
ε
A∇
x
v
i
(x, x/ε) · ∇
x
v
j
(x, x/ε) + 2A∇
x
v
i
(x, x/ε) · ∇
y
v
j+1
(x, x/ε)A∇
y
v
i+1
(x, x/ε)∇
y
v
j+1
(x, x/ε) dx −
_
Ω
ε
fv
k
(x, x/ε) dx
=
1
2
i+j=k
_
Ω
ε
A(∇
x
v
i
+∇
y
v
i+1
) · (∇
x
v
i
+∇
y
v
i+1
)(x, x/ε) dx −
_
Ω
ε
fv
k
(x, x/ε) dx.
Now, we need a little lemma
Lemma 5.1.2. Let g ∈ C(Ω, L
1
(ω)) be Y periodic map with respect to the second
variable, we have
lim
ε→0
_
Ω
ε
g(x, x/ε) dx =
_
Ω
_
Y ∩ω
g(x, y) dy dx.
Proof. We start the analysis, assuming that g(x, y) depends only of y. To sim
plify the notation, we will denote g(y) ∈ L
1
(ω) in place of g(x, y). Moreover,
we assume g to be non negative. We have
_
Ω
ε
g(x/ε) dx = ε
N
_
ε
−1
Ω∩ω
g(y) dy.
5.1. HOMOGENIZATION 25
We denote by (C
ε
i
)
i∈Z
N the set of cubes of the form ε((−1, 1)
N
+i). Let I
−
ε
the
set of indices i such that C
ε
i
is included in Ω, and I
+
ε
the set of indices i such
that the intersection between Ω and C
ε
i
is not empty. We have
∪
i∈I
−
ε
C
ε
i
∩ ω ⊂ Ω
ε
⊂ ∪
i∈I
+
ε
.
As g is assumed to be nonnegative, we have
ε
N
i∈I
−
ε
_
ε
−1
C
ε
i
∩ω
g(y) dy ≤
_
Ω
ε
g(x/ε) dx ≤ ε
N
i∈I
−
ε
_
ε
−1
C
ε
i
∩ω
g(y) dy
and
ε
N
I
−
ε

_
Y ∩ω
g(y) dy ≤
_
Ω
ε
g(x/ε) dx ≤ ε
N
I
+
ε

_
Y ∩ω
g(y) dy.
Finally, ε
N
I
±
ε
 converges toward the volume of Ω. It follows that
_
Ω
ε
g(x/ε) dx → Ω
_
Y ∩ω
g(y) dy.
It is clear that this result still stands if g is not of constant sign (we just have
to apply the previous analysis to g
+
= max(g, 0) and g
−
= min(g, 0) and to use
that g = g
+
+g
−
.
It remains to consider the case where g depends also on x. First, let us asume
that g is constant by part with respect to x, that there exists a ﬁnite familly
Ω
i
of regular disjoint open subset of Ω such that ∪
i∈I
Ω
i
= Ω, such that for all
x ∈ Ω
i
g(x, y) = g
i
(y),
with g
i
∈ L
1
(ω) is Y periodic. Then
_
Ω
ε
g(x, x/ε) dx =
i∈I
_
Ω
i
ε
g
i
(x/ε) dx →
i∈I
Ω
i

_
Y ∩ω
g
i
(y) dy =
_
Ω
_
Y ∩ω
g(x, y) dxdy.
By density, the result can be extend to any g ∈ C
0
(Ω, L
1
(ω)) periodic with
respect to the second variable.
We set
J
k
(v) = lim
ε→0
J
ε
k
(v).
From the lemma, we deduce that
J
k
(v) =
i+j=k
1
2
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
A(∇
x
v
i
+∇
y
v
i+1
)·(∇
x
v
j
+∇
y
v
j+1
), dxdy−
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
fv
k
dxdy.
For all k < 2 we have J
ε
k
= 0. We set
M
k
= {v ∈ M
k−1
such that J
k
(v) = inf
w∈M
k−1
J
k
(w)},
with M
−3
is deﬁned as all the regluar maps from Ω × ω into R, Y periodical
with respect to the second variable.
26 CHAPTER 5. FORMAL ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS
Lemma 5.1.3. Let k we such that for all ε > 0 and all l < k, J
ε
k
(v) is inde
pendant of v ∈ M
k+1
, then u belongs M
k+1
.
Proof. It suﬃes to prove it recursively. Obviously, the Lemma is true for k = −3.
Now, let us assume that the Lemma is true for all l ≤ k. Then u ∈ M
k
and for
all v ∈ M
k
and for all ε > 0, we have
J
ε
(u) ≤ J
ε
(v).
Using the asumptotic expanson of J
ε
we get
l
ε
l
J
ε
l
(u) ≤
l
ε
l
J
ε
l
(v).
From the assumption that J
ε
l
(v) is independant of v ∈ M
k
for all l ≤ k, we get
l≥k+1
ε
l
J
ε
l
(u) ≤
l≥k+1
ε
l
J
ε
l
(v).
Dividing this inequality by ε
k+1
, and letting ε goes to zero, we obtain that
J
k+1
(u) ≤ J
k+1
(v)
and thus u ∈ M
k+1
.
We denote by (P
k
) the minimization problem of J
k
over M
k−1
. We are
now in position to determine the limit behavior of u
ε
by recursively solving
the problems (P
k
) for k ≥ −2. At each iteration, we have to check that the
assumption of the Lemma 5.1.3 is satisiﬁed.
Problem (P
−2
) We have
J
−2
(u) = sum
i+j=k
1
2
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
A∇
y
v
0
· ∇
y
v
0
, dxdy.
The minimizer of J
−2
is trivial and is achieved on M
−2
of asymptotic expansions
v such that v
0
is indendant of the second variable. In the following, v
0
(x, y) will
be simply denoted v
0
(x).
Problem (P
−1
) Not that J
ε
−2
(v) = 0 for all v ∈ M
−2
. Thus the assumption
of the Lemma 5.1.3 are satisiﬁed and u belongs to M
−1
. Next,
J
−1
(v) =
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
A∇
x
v
0
· ∇
y
v
0
, dxdy.
Thus, J
−1
is constant equal to zero over M
−2
and M
−1
= M
−2
.
5.1. HOMOGENIZATION 27
Probleme (P
0
) Once again, it is easy to check that the assumption of the
Lemma 5.1.3 are satisifed for k = −1. Thus, u belongs to M
0
. Next, for all
∈M
−1
, we have
J
0
(v) =
1
2
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
A(∇
x
v
0
+∇
y
v
1
) · (∇
x
v
0
+∇
y
v
1
), dxdy −
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
fv
0
dxdy.
Thus, it depends only on v
0
(x) and v
1
(x, y). We set
I
0
(v
0
) = inf
v
1
1
2
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
A(∇
x
v
0
+∇
y
v
1
)·(∇
x
v
0
+∇
y
v
1
), dxdy−
_
Ω×Y ∩ω
fv
0
dxdy.
Obviously, inf
M
−1
J
0
= inf
v
0
∈H
1
0
(Ω)
I
0
(v
0
). The second integral in the expression
of I
0
is independant of v
1
while to the inﬁmum of the ﬁrst integral can be
perfomed pointwise with respect to the x variable, that is
I
0
(v
0
) = inf
v
1
1
2
_
Ω
_
inf
v
1
Y periodic
_
ω∩Y
A(∇
x
v
0
(x) +∇
y
v
1
(y)) · (∇
x
v
0
(x) +∇
y
v
1
(y)), dy
_
dx−
_
Ω
f
∗
v
0
dx,
where
f
∗
(x) := ω ∩ Y f(x)
Let us introduce the symetric matrix A
∗
deﬁned by
A
∗
ξ · ξ := inf
v
1
Y periodic
_
ω∩Y
A(ξ +∇
y
v
1
(y)) · (ξ +∇
y
v
1
(y)), dy (5.2)
Using the fact that ω is simply connected, we can prove that the inﬁmum is
reached for a unique v
1
. Moreover, the solution is linear with respect to ξ so
that A
∗
ξ · ξ is indeed bilenar with respect to ξ, so that there exists indeed a
unique symetric matrix A
∗
deﬁned by (??). More precisely, we have for all
Y periodic test function w
1
,
_
ω∩Y
A(ξ +∇
y
v
1
(y)) · ∇
y
w
1
(y), dy = 0.
Thus, it suﬃes to solve the minimization problem for all ξ in the euclidan base
(e
1
, · · · , e
n
) to compute the full matrix A
∗
. Let v
i
be the solution for ξ = e
i
.
We have
A
∗
i,j
=
_
ω∩Y
A(e
i
+∇
y
v
i
(y)) · (e
j
+∇
y
v
j
(y)), dy.
Finally, we obtain that u
0
is the minimizer over H
1
0
(Ω) of
I
0
(v
0
) = inf
v
1
1
2
_
Ω
A
∗
∇
x
v
0
· ∇
x
v
0
dx −
_
Ω
f
∗
v
0
dx.
28 CHAPTER 5. FORMAL ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS
5.2 Non linear elastic rod
In this section, we derive a one dimensional modeling for a nonlinear elastic
rod from nonlinear three dimensional elasticity. Once again, we are going to
adopt a formal approach, assuming that the sequence of minimizers ϕ
ε
admits
an asymptotic expansion. Unfortunatly, the obtained limit is not the correct
one, because the limit problem is not well posed. The correct limit can be
obtained by a mere relaxation of the formal obtained limit. In other words, the
correct limit is simply the lower semicontinuous enveloppe of the formal limit.
This will be more rigourously proved in the next section using the notion of
Γconvergence. Note that it is not necessary important to understand in full
details the rigourous derivation of the one dimensional modeling presented in
the next section. But the reader must fully understand why both formal and
rigourous limit energy do diﬀer.
5.2.1 Setting of the problem
We consider an elastic rod of section εω of length L, where ω is a regular
bounded open subset of R
2
, ε is a small parameter. The natural conﬁguration
of the body is deﬁned by
Ω
ε
= εω ×(−L, L).
Moreover, we assume that the rod is dubmitted to volumic body loads f
ε
and
that it is made of a hyperelastic material of stored energy W
ε
: R
3
×R
3
→R
+
.
Finally, we apply Dirichlet boundary conditions on the part Γ
D
ε
= εω ×{−L} ∪
{L} of the body. The deformation at equilibrium is thus the minimizer of
J
ε
(ψ
ε
) =
1
2
_
Ω
ε
W
ε
(∇ψ
ε
) dx −
_
Ω
ε
f
ε
· ψ
ε
dx
over the deformations ψ
ε
such that
ψ
ε
(x) = φ
ε
(x) for all x ∈ Γ
D
ε
,
where φ
ε
are given Dirichlet conditions. For sake of simplisity, we assume that
only rigid motions are applied at the ends of the rods, that is that there exsits
a rotations R
±
and vectors c
±
∈ R
3
such that
φ
ε
(x) = R ±x +c
±
for all x ∈ ω ×{±L}.
It remains to precise how W
ε
and f
ε
do scale as ε goes to zero. We assume that
they both scale in ε
−2
, and that there exists W and f such that
W
ε
(F) = ε
−2
W(F) for all matrix F ∈ R
3
×R
3
and
f
ε
(x) = ε
−2
f(x) for all x ∈ Ω
ε
.
We seek for the limit behavior of the minimizer ϕ
ε
of the energy as ε goes
to zero. To this end, we are going to assume, as in the case of homogenization,
that the minimizers do admit a particular asymptotic expansion.
5.2. NON LINEAR ELASTIC ROD 29
Ansatz 5.2.1. There exists ϕ = (ϕ
i
)
i∈N
, sequence of ”regular” maps from
Ω = ω ×(0, L) into R
3
such that
ϕ
ε
(¯ x, x
3
) =
k∈N
ε
k
ϕ
k
(ε
−1
¯ x, x
3
).
From the Ansatz, we deduce that
ϕ ∈ V := {(ψ
i
)
i∈N
such that for all ¯ x ∈ ω, we have ψ
0
(¯ x, ±L) = c
±
and ψ
1
(¯ x, ±L) = R
±
¯ x}
is such that for all ε,
J
ε
(ϕ) = inf
ψ∈V
J
ε
(ψ),
where
J
ε
(ψ) = J
ε
(ψ
ε
),
where ψ
ε
is defnied by
ψ
ε
(¯ x, x
3
) =
k∈N
ε
k
ψ
k
(ε
−1
¯ x, x
3
).
A simple change of variable gives us that
J
ε
(ψ) =
1
2
_
Ω
W
_
∞
k=−1
ε
k
(
¯
∇ψ
k
, ∂
3
ψ
k−1
)
_
dx −
_
Ω
f(ε¯ x, x
3
)
k
ε
k
ψ
k
dx.
First, it can be easly check that the energy of the minimizers is uniformly
bounded (it suﬃes to chose an element ψ ∈ V such that ψ
0
depends only on
x
3
). Assuming morevoer that W is inﬁnite at inﬁnity, we deduce that
∞
k=−1
ε
k
(
¯
∇ϕ
k+1
, ∂
3
ϕ
0
)
is bounded and thus that
¯
∇ϕ
0
= 0, meaning that ϕ
0
(¯ x, x
3
) is independant of ¯ x.
We will use the notation ϕ
0
(x
3
) in place of ϕ
0
(¯ x, x
3
) in the following. We now
set M
−1
the subset of the elements ψ of V such that
¯
∇ψ
0
= 0. We have that
J
ε
(ϕ) ≤ J
ε
(ψ)
for all ψ ∈ M
−1
and for all ε > 0. Letting ε goes to zero, we get that for all
ψ ∈ M
−1
,
J(ϕ) ≤ J(ψ)
where
J(ψ) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(
¯
∇ψ
1
, ∂
3
ψ
0
) dx −
_
Ω
f(0, x
3
)ψ
0
(x
3
) dx.
As J do only depend on ψ
0
and ψ
1
it can be minimize ﬁrst with respect to ψ
1
then with resepect to ψ
0
. For all ψ
0
: (−L, L) → R
3
such that ψ
0
±L = ±c, we
set
J(ψ
0
) = inf
ψ
1
1
2
_
Ω
W(
¯
∇ψ
1
, ∂
3
ψ
0
) dx −
_
Ω
f(0, x
3
)ψ
0
(x
3
) dx
30 CHAPTER 5. FORMAL ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS
and we have
J(ϕ
0
) = inf J(ψ
0
).
It remains to get an explicit expression of J. The minimization with respect to
ψ
1
can be made pointwise in x
3
, leading to
J(ψ
0
) = inf
ψ
1
1
2
_
L
−L
_
inf
ψ
1
_
ω
W(
¯
∇ψ
1
, ∂
3
ψ
0
) d¯ x
_
dx
3
−Ω
_
L
−L
f(0, x
3
)ψ
0
(x
3
) dx
3
.
For all v ∈ R
3
, we set
W(v) = ω inf
F∈R
3
×R
2
W(F, v).
As W is inﬁnite at inﬁnity and assumed to be regular, the minimum with respect
to F is reached. We denote F(x
3
) a minimizer for v = ∂
3
ψ
0
. Choosing
ψ
1
(x) = F(x
3
)¯ x,
we get that
J(ψ
0
) =
1
2
_
L
−L
W(∂
3
ψ
0
) dx
3
−
_
L
−L
f
∗
(x
3
)ψ
0
(x
3
) dx
3
, (5.3)
where f
∗
(x
3
) = ωf(0, x
3
).
5.2.2 Comments
The limit problem is for reasonable stored energy W not well posed. Indeed,
a minimal requirement is for W to be frame indiﬀerent, meaning that for all
rotation R, we should have W(RF) = W(F) for all matrix F ∈ R
3
×R
3
. From
the deﬁnition of W, we deduce that it is also frame indiﬀerent, that is
W(Rv) = W(v),
for all rotation R and for all vector v ∈ R
3
. Note that it implies in particular
that W do only depend on the v. Furthermore, if Ω
ε
is the natural state of
the body, we also have W(Id) = 0, so that W(1) = W(−1) = 0. We already
have seen that a functional of the form (5.3) is weakly lower semicontinuous if
and only if W is convexe. The lower semi continuity is required to hope for the
existence of a minimizer of J. Thus, if the limit problem is well posed, we get
that W(v) = 0 for all v < 1 and in particular that W(0) = 0, that is
inf
F∈R
3
×R
2
W(F, 0) = 0.
This is physically not reasonable. It would mean that you can ﬂatten your
elastic body without using any energy. In the next section, we are going to see
that the correct limit is obtained by replacing W by its convexe envelope CW
of W. But ﬁrst, we will need some few theroretical tools.
Chapter 6
Γconvergence
6.1 Deﬁnition and basic properties
Let X be a metric space and F
n
a sequence of functiontals from X into R =
R ∪ {−∞} ∪ {+∞}.
Deﬁnition (Γconvergence) A sequence F
n
is said to be Γconvergent to
ward F, if for every x ∈ X,
• F(x) ≤ liminf F
n
(x
n
) for all sequence x
n
converging toward x.
• There exists a sequence x
n
converging toward x such that
F(x) = limF
n
(x
n
).
Note that Γconvergence is very diﬀerent from pointwise convergence. For in
stance if F
n
is a constant functional F, it Γconverges toward the lower semi
continuous envelope of F (see next section). Some other usefull properties
Proposition 6.1.1. If F
n
Γconverge toward F, then F is lower semicontinu
ous.
Proof. Let x be an element of X and x
n
be a sequence converging toward x.
We want to prove that
F(x) ≤ liminf F(x
n
).
From the second property of the Γ convergence, we know that for all n, there
exsits a sequence x
n,m
converging toward x
n
such that
F(x
n
) = lim
m
F
m
(x
n,m
)
It follows, that for all n, there exists M(n) (which can be assumed to be
increasing with respect to n) such that for all m ≥ M(n), we have
x
n
−x
n,m
 < 1/n, (6.1)
31
32 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
and
F(x
n
) −F
m
(x
n,m
) < 1/n. (6.2)
For all m ≥ M(0), there exists a unique n
m
such that M(n
m
) ≤ m <
M(n
m
+1). Note that n
m
is an increasing sequence with value in N. Moreover,
it is onto and goes to inﬁnity as m goes to inﬁnity. We deﬁne the sequence
y
m
= x
n
m
,m
for all m ≥ M(0). For m < M(0), we complete the sequence y
m
arbitrarily. We have
y
m
−x = y
m
−x
n
m
 +x
n
m
−x.
It follows ﬁrstly that x
n
m
−x goes to zero as m goes to inﬁnity. Secondly, as
y
m
−x
n
m
 = x
n
m
,m
−x
n
m
 < 1/n
m
y
m
−x
n
m
 goes to zero when m goes to inﬁnity. We conclude that y
m
converges
toward x as m goes to inﬁnity.
From the deﬁnition of the Γconvergence, we get that
F(x) ≤ liminf
m
F
m
(y
m
) = liminf
m
F
m
(x
n,n
m
),
and from (6.2),
F(x) ≤ liminf
m
F
m
(x
n,n
m
) ≤ liminf
m
(F(x
n
m
) + 1/n
m
) = liminf
m
F(x
n
m
).
Finally, as m
n
is onto, we obtain that
F(x) ≤ liminf
n
(F(x
n
).
Proposition 6.1.2. If F
n
Γconverge toward F and is G is a continuous map,
then F
n
+G does Γ converge toward F +G.
Exercise 7. Prove Proposition 6.1.2.
We admit the two following theorems, which will be used in the following.
Theorem 6.1.3 (Fundamental Theorem of Γconvergence). Let F
n
be a se
quence of functionals from X into R that Γ converges toward a functional F.
Assume moreover, that the sequence F
n
is equicoercive, meaning that there exits
a compact set K of X such that for all n,
inf{F
n
(x) : x ∈ X} = inf{F
n
(x) : x ∈ K},
Then, the minima of F
n
converge toward the minima of F, that is
min{F(x) : x ∈ X} = lim
n
inf{F
n
(x) : x ∈ X}.
Moreover, if x
n
is a sequence of almost minimizers, that is if
F
n
(x
n
) = inf F
n
+r
n
,
with r
n
→ 0, and if x
n
converge toward an element x ∈ X, then x is a minimizer
of F.
6.1. DEFINITION AND BASIC PROPERTIES 33
Theorem 6.1.4 (Compactiy). Assume that X is separable (meaning that it
admits a countable dense subset), then every sequence F
n
of function from X
into R do admit a Γconvergent subsequence.
An alternative characterization of the Γ convergence can be usefull
Proposition 6.1.5. A sequence of functionals F
n
converges toward F if and
only if for all x ∈ X,
1. F(x) ≤ liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
) for all sequence x
n
conveging toward x,
2. For all r > 0, F(x) ≥ limsup
n→∞
inf
y∈B(x,r)
F
n
(y),
where B(x, r) is the ball of center x and radius r.
Proof. We begin to prove that any Γ converging sequence satiﬁes the conditions
of the Proposition. Let F
n
be a sequence that Γ converges toward a functional
F. We just have to prove the second statement of the Proposition. Let x ∈ X.
From the deﬁnition of the Γ convergence, there exists a sequence x
n
→ x such
that
F(x) = lim
n
F(x
n
).
For all r > 0, we have x
n
∈ B(x, r) for n big enough, so that
inf
y∈B(x,r)
F
n
(y) ≤ F
n
(x
n
).
By taking the limsup in the previous inequality, we get
limsup
n
inf
y∈B(x,r)
F
n
(y) ≤ limsup
n
F
n
(x
n
) = F(x),
as claimed. Next, we have to establish the converse implication. Assume that
F
n
is a sequence of functionals as in the Proposition. Then, for all m > 0 and
all n ≥ 0, there exists x
n,m
∈ B(x, 1/m) such that
F
n
(x
n,m
) ≤ inf
y∈B(x,1/m)
F
n
(y) + 1/m.
From the second assumption on the sequence F
n
, we get that
limsup
n
F
n
(x
n
, m) ≤ F(x) + 1/m.
Thus, fo every m > 0, there exists N(m) such that
F
n
(x
n
, m) ≤ F(x) + 2/m,
for all n ≥ N(m). Moreover, without loss of generality, we can assume that
N(m) is strictly increasing. We set x
n
= x
n,m
n
where m
n
∈ N is the only
element such that N(m
n
) ≤ n < N(m
n
+1). Note that m
n
is correctly deﬁned as
34 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
long as n is greater or equal than N(1) (we can complete the sequence arbrtarilty
for n < N(1). We have
F
n
(x
n
) = F
n
(x
n,m
) ≤ F(x) + 2/m
n
.
As n + 1 < N(m
n
), we have that m
n
goes to inﬁnity as n goes to inﬁnity, so
that
limsup
n
F
n
(x
n
) ≤ F(x).
Finally, from the ﬁrst assumption of the proposition, we get
F(x) ≥ limsup
n
F
n
(x
n
) ≥ liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
) ≥ F(x).
We conclude that all the inequalities in the previous equation are eqaulities. In
particular limsup
n
F
n
(x
n
) = liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
) and that F
n
(x
n
) is a converging
sequence. We thus have
F(x) = lim
n
F
n
(x
n
),
and F
n
is Γ converging toward F.
A last useful Lemma, which enable us to obtain the Γconvergence of a whole
sequence.
Lemma 6.1.6 (Independant Γlimit). Let F
n
be a sequence of functionals from
a separable space X into R. Assume that there exsits F : X → R such that for
every Γconverging subsequence of F
n
do converges toward F. Then the whole
sequence F
n
does Γconverge toward F.
Proof. Let us assume that F
n
does not Γ converges toward F. Then either
condition 1 or 2 of proposition 6.1.5 is false. Fristly, if condition 1 is false, then
there exists x ∈ X and x
n
→ x such that
F(x) > liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
).
Thus, there exists a strictly increasing map ϕ fromN into N such that F
ϕ(n)
(x
ϕ(n)
)
is convergent toward liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
). Moreover, from the compacity Theorem,
we can assume that F
ϕ(n)
is convergent. From the hypothesis of the Lemma,
the Γlimit of F
ϕ(n)
is F and we get
F(x) ≤ liminf F
ϕ(n)
(x
ϕ(n)
) = liminf
n
F
n
(x
n
) < F(x).
We conclude that the ﬁrst condition 1 of Proposition 6.1.5 is true.
Secondly, let us assume that the second condition of 2 is false. Then there
exists r > 0 such that
F(x) < limsup
n
inf
y∈B(x,r
F
n
(y).
6.2. LOWER SEMICONTIUOUS ENVELOPE 35
Once again, we can extract a subsequence such that F
ϕ(n)
does Γconverge
toward F and such that
lim
n
inf
y∈B(x,r
F
ϕ(n)
(y) = limsup
n
inf
y∈B(x,r)
F
n
(y).
We get
F(x) < lim
n
inf
y∈B(x,r
F
ϕ(n)
(y) = limsup
n
inf
y∈B(x,r)
F
ϕ(n)
(y) ≤ F(x).
This is once again contradictory, and the second condition of Proposition 6.1.5
is veriﬁed. Finally, we conclude that the whole sequence F
n
does Γconverge
toward F as claimed.
To determine the behavior of the minimizers of a sequence of functionals,
we proceed in three steps. First, by the compactness theorem, we can extract
a Γconverging subsequence. Next, we compute the Γlimit and prove that it
is independant of the chosen subsequence. Finally, we deduce from the Lemma
6.1.6 that the whole sequence is Γconvergent. The behavior of the minimizers
is then given by the Fundamental Theorem of Γconvergence.
6.2 Lower semicontiuous envelope
In the next section, we are going to apply Γconvergence theory to prove compute
rigourously the behaviour of an elastic string. As underlined by the comments
of the previous chapter, the limit obtained formally is not correct. As we will
see, the correct limit is the lower semicontinuous envelope of the formal one.
Deﬁnition (Lower semicontinuous envelope) Let X be a topological space
and J a map from X into R. The lower semicontinuous envelope (or relaxed
function) sc

J of J is the greatest semi continuous map lower than J.
Note that, the surpremum of lower semicontinuous functions being lower semi
continuous, the semicontinuous envelope is always correctly deﬁned. The lower
semicontious envelope gives us a description of the behavior of the minimization
sequences of J.
Theorem 6.2.1. Let X be a metric space, and if the minimization sequences
of J remain in a compact subset of X, then
1. The minimization sequences of sc

J remain in a compact subset of X and
sc

J is lower semicontinuous.
2. The function sc

J admits a minimizer on X.
3.
min
X
sc

J = inf
X
J.
36 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
4. If x
n
is a minimization sequence of J converging toward an element x ∈ X,
then x is a minimizer of sc

J.
5. If x is a minimizer of sc

J, then there exists a minimization sequence of
J converging toward x.
Exercise 8. Prove the Theorem 6.2.1.
6.2.1 Relaxation in the one dimensional case
Let us consider a map W ∈ C(R
d
, R) (with d ∈ N
∗
) such that there exists
1 < p < ∞, such that
∀F ∈ R
d
, C
0
F
p
−C
1
≤ W(F) ≤ C
2
(F
p
+ 1), (6.3)
where C
0
, C
1
and C
2
are postive constants. We introdcue the functional J over
W
1,p
(I)
d
, where I = (0, 1) deﬁned by
J(ψ) =
_
I
W(∇ψ) dx. (6.4)
Deﬁnition (Convex envelope) The convex envelope CW of a map W is the
greatest convex function lower than W.
Proposition 6.2.2. The lower semi continuous envelope of J deﬁned by (6.4)
for the L
p
norm is deﬁned by
sc

J(ψ) =
_
I
CW(∇ψ) dx.
To prove this proposition, it is useful to use an alternative deﬁnition of the
convex envelope of W.
Proposition 6.2.3. Let W ∈ C(R
d
, R). Then
CW(F) = inf
__
I
W(F +∇ϕ) dx : ϕ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I)
_
Proof. First, we have from the Jensen’s inequality
CW(F) = CW
__
I
F +∇ϕ
_
≤
_
I
CW(F +∇ϕ) dx ≤
_
I
W(F +∇ϕ) dx.
It only remain to prove that
CW(F) ≥ inf
__
I
W(F +∇ϕ) dx : ϕ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I)
_
To this end, it suﬃes to prove that the map QW deﬁned by
QW(F) = inf
__
I
W(F +∇ϕ) dx : ϕ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I)
_
6.2. LOWER SEMICONTIUOUS ENVELOPE 37
is convex. Let F
1
and F
2
be elements of R
d
and θ ∈ (0, 1), we have
QW(θF
1
+ (1 −θ)F
2
) = inf
__
I
W(θF
1
+ (1 −θ)F
2
+∇ϕ) dx : ϕ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I)
_
Now for all map ϕ
1
∈ W
1,p
0
(0, θ) and ϕ
2
∈ W
1,p
0
(θ, 1), we deﬁne ϕ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I)
such that x ∈ (0, θ),
θF
1
+ (1 −θ)F
2
+∇ϕ(x) = F
1
+∇ϕ
1
(x)
and for all x ∈ (θ, 1),
θF
1
+ (1 −θ)F
2
+∇ϕ(x) = F
1
+∇ϕ
2
(x).
Note that there exsits indeed such a map (and it is unique). To this end, we
just have to check that the integral over I of ∇ϕ is equal to zero. Thus, we
obtain that
QW(θF
1
+ (1 −θ)F
2
)
≤ inf
_
_
θ
0
W(F
1
+∇ϕ
1
) dx +
_
1
θ
W(F
2
+∇ϕ
2
) dx :
ϕ
1
∈ W
1,p
0
(0, θ) and ϕ
2
∈ W
1,p
0
(θ, 1)
_
= inf
_
_
θ
0
W(F
1
+∇ϕ
1
) dx : ϕ
1
∈ W
1,p
0
(0, θ)
_
+ inf
__
1
θ
W(F
2
+∇ϕ
2
) dx : ϕ
2
∈ W
1,p
0
(θ, 1)
_
.
After a simple change of variable, we get that
QW(θF
1
+ (1 −θF
2
) ≤ θQW(F
1
) + (1
θ
)QW(F
2
),
and that QW is indeed convex.
Proposition 6.2.4 (Jensen’s Inequality). Let J be a convex function from R
d
into R, and Ω a set of bounded measure, then for all u ∈ L
1
(Ω)
d
, we have
J
_
Ω
−1
_
Ω
u(x) dx
_
≤ Ω
−1
_
Ω
J(u(x)) dx.
Proof. Let t = Ω
−1
_
Ω
u(x) dx. As J is convex, there exists a linear map L on
R
d
such that
J(s) ≥ J(t) +L(s −t),
for all s ∈ R
d
. In particular,
J(u(x)) ≥ J(t) +L(u(s) −u(x)),
38 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
By intergration, we get
_
Ω
J(u(x)) dx ≥ ΩJ(t).
Proof of Proposition 6.2.2. Firstly, we obviously have for all ϕ ∈ W
1,p
(Ω)
_
Ω
CW(∇ϕ) dx ≤
_
Ω
W(∇ϕ) dx.
Moreover, the left hand side is lower semi continuous for the L
p
(I)
d
topology.
Indeed, let ϕ
n
be a converging sequence toward an element ϕ ∈ L
p
, such that
_
Ω
CW(∇ϕ
n
) dx is bounded. As CW statisﬁes similar growth assumptions that
W, the sequence ϕ
n
is bounded in W
1,p
(I)
d
. Thus it is converging toward ϕ for
the weak topology of W
1,p
(I)
d
. As the left hand side is lower semicontinuous
for the weak topology of W
1,p
(I)
d
, we get that
_
Ω
CW(∇ϕ) dx ≤ sc

J(ϕ).
It remains to prove the converse inequality. First let us consider a linear map ϕ,
and let ψ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I), for all integer n, let ψ
n
be the 1/nperiodic map deﬁned
on (0, 1/n) by
ψ
n
(x) = ψ(nx)/n.
We set ϕ
n
= ϕ +ψ
n
. Obviously, ϕ
n
do converge toward ϕ for the L
p
topology.
Thus,
sc

J(ϕ) ≤ liminf sc

J(ϕ
n
) ≤ liminf J(ϕ
n
) = liminf
_
I
W(∇ϕ
n
) dx.
After a change of variable, we get that
sc

J(ϕ) ≤
_
I
W(∇ϕ
n
) dx =
_
I
W(∇ϕ +∇ψ) dx.
Taking the inﬁmum over the maps ψ ∈ W
1,p
0
(I), we get that
sc

J(ϕ) ≤
_
I
CW(∇ϕ) dx.
Next, it is easy to extend this result to any ϕ aﬃne by parts (we only have to
apply the previous argument to each interval where ϕ is aﬃne). Finally, for any
ϕ ∈ W
1,p
(I)
d
, there exists a sequence ϕ
n
of maps aﬃne by parts that converges
toward ϕ for the strong W
1,p
topology. We have
sc

J(ϕ) ≤ liminf
n
sc

J(ϕ
n
) ≤ liminf
_
I
CW(∇ϕ
n
) dx =
_
I
CW(∇ϕ) dx.
6.2. LOWER SEMICONTIUOUS ENVELOPE 39
6.2.2 Relaxation in the scalar case
Let W ∈ C(R
n
, R), such that there exists postive constants C
0
, C
1
and C
2
such
that for all F ∈ R
n
we have
C
0
F
p
−C
1
≤ W(F) ≤ C
2
(F
p
+ 1),
with 1 < p < ∞. Let Ω be a bounded open subset of R
n
and let J : W
1,p
(Ω) →R
deﬁned by
J(u) =
_
I
W(∇u) dx. (6.5)
Proposition 6.2.5. The lower semi continuous envelope of J deﬁned by (6.5)
for the L
p
norm is deﬁned by
sc

J(u) =
_
Ω
CW(∇u) dx.
The proof is very similar to the one performed in the one dimensional case.
6.2.3 Relaxation in the vectorial case
We consider this time a functional J ∈ W
1,p
(Ω; R
d
), where Ω is an bounded
open subset of R
n
deﬁned by
J(ϕ) =
_
Ω
W(∇ϕ) dx. (6.6)
Once again, we assume, that W is a continuous map and that there exists
positive constants C
0
, C
1
and C
2
such that
C
0
F
p
−C
1
≤ W(F) ≤ C
2
(F
p
+ 1).
Deﬁnition (Deﬁnition) Let W ∈ C(R
n×d
, R). The quasiconvex envelope of
W is deﬁned by
QW(F) = inf
_
D
−1
_
D
W(F +∇ϕ) with ϕ ∈ W
1,∞
0
(Ω)
_
.
We give a relaxation result for J without proof (the proof, which is a lot
more complicated than in the scalar or one dimensional cases can be found in
[?])
Proposition 6.2.6. Let J deﬁned by (6.6), then the lower semicontinuous en
velope of J for the L
p
toplogy is given by
sc

J(ϕ) =
_
Ω
QW(∇ϕ) dx.
40 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
6.3 Application to elastic rods
We consider once again the problem consisting in determining the behavior of
the minimizers of an elastic rod. We use the same notations than the one used
in the formal derivation. Moreover, we assume that W is continuous and that
there exists p ∈ (1, ∞) and positive constants C
1
, C
2
and C
3
, such that
C
1
F
p
−C
2
≤ W(F) ≤ C
3
(F
p
+ 1) for all F ∈ R
3×3
.
We also assume that f is independant of ¯ x and that f ∈ L
p
(−L, L)
N
and we
set
J(ε)(ψ) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(ε
−1
˜
∇ψ, ∂
3
ψ) dx −
_
Ω
f(x
3
)ψ(x) dx.
The minimization problem of J
ε
is equivalent to the minimization problem of
J(ε) over
V
ε
= {ψ ∈ W
1,p
(Ω)
N
: ψ(¯ x, ±L) = εR
±
¯ x +c
±
}.
We can not apply directly our Γ convergence result to J(ε). First because J(ε)
is deﬁne over a set V
ε
that does depend on ε (due to the limit conditions) and
secondly, because we can not hope the squence J(ε) to be equicoercive for the
norm W
1,p
. To avoid both of those problems, we extend J(ε) to L
p
(Ω)
3
setting
J(ε)(ψ) = ∞ for all v ∈ L
p
(Ω)
3
that do not belong to V
ε
.
Proposition 6.3.1. The sequence J(ε) Γconverge toward the functional J from
L
p
(Ω)
3
into R deﬁned by
J(ψ) =
1
2
_
L
−L
CW(∂
3
ψ) dx
3
−
_
L
−L
f
∗
ψ dx
3
for all
ψ ∈ V := {ψ ∈ L
p
(Ω)
3
such that
there existe ψ
0
∈ W
1,p
(−L, L) such that ψ(x) = ψ
0
(x
3
) and ψ
0
(±L) = ±c},
and J(ψ) = ∞ for all ψ ∈ L
p
(Ω)
3
\ V .
Proof. First, from the compacity Theorem of Γconvergence, there exists a sub
sequence (still denoted J(ε)) and a functional J such that J(ε) do Γconverge
toward J. We propose to identify J and prove that it is independant of the
chosen subsequence. Thus, will we obtain the full convergence of the sequence
J(ε) from Lemme 6.1.6.
In fact, as the second part in the expression of the energy is continuous and
independant of ε, we can focus, by Proposition 6.1.2, on the computation of the
Γlimit of the ﬁrst part of the energy, that is
I(ε)(ψ) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(ε
−1
˜
∇ψ, ∂
3
ψ) dx.
We denote by I its Γlimit.
6.3. APPLICATION TO ELASTIC RODS 41
Lower bound for the I In this section, we want to prove that for all ψ ∈ V
1
2
_
L
−L
CW(∂
3
ψ) dx
3
≤ I(ψ)
and that for all ψ / ∈ V , I(ψ) = ∞.
Let ψ ∈ L
p
(Ω)
3
such that I(ψ) < ∞. Then, there exists ψ
ε
∈ L
p
(Ω)
N
such
that
I(ψ) = liminf
ε
I(ε)(ψ
ε
) < ∞.
Form the growing property of W, be conclude that
_
Ω
ε
−1
˜
∇ψ
ε
, ∂
3
ψ
ε

p
≤ C
_
Ω
W(ε
−1
˜
∇ψ
ε
, ∂
3
ψ
ε
) dx < ∞
In particular, ∇ψ
ε
is bounded in L
p
(Ω)
3
and from the Poincar´e inequality, we
deduce that ψ
ε
is bounded in W
1,p
(Ω)
3
. Thus, it admits a converging subse
quence in W
1,p
(Ω)
3
for the weak topology. As its limit is independant of the
chosen subsequence, it follows that the whole sequence ψ
ε
is weakly convergent
in W
1,p
(Ω)
3
. Moreover, we have that
¯
∇ψ
ε
strongly converges in L
p
(Ω)
3×2
to
ward zero. Thus, ψ belongs W
1,p
(Ω)
3
and is independant of ¯ x. Moreover, the
trace being continuous for the weak topology, we deduce from
ψ
ε
(¯ x, ±L) = εR
±
¯ x +c
±
that
ψ
ε
(±L) = c
±
.
It follows that ψ bleongs to V . We thus have obtained that for all ψ / ∈ V ,
I(ψ) = ∞. Next, we have
1
2ω
_
Ω
CW(∂
3
ψ
ε
) dx ≤
1
2ω
_
Ω
W(∂
3
ψ
ε
) dx
≤
1
2
_
Ω
W(ε
−1
˜
∇ψ
ε
, ∂
3
ψ −ε) dx
= I(ε)(ψ
ε
).
The left hand side of this inequality is lower semicontinuous for the weak
W
1,p
(Ω)
3
topology (it is a convex continuous in W
1,p
). Thus, taking the limit
inf in this inequality, we get that
1
2ω
_
Ω
CW(∂
3
ψ) dx ≤ I(ψ)
and as ψ is indepenant of ¯ x, we get
1
2
_
L
−L
CW(∂
3
ψ) dx
3
≤ I(ψ).
42 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
Upper bound for the I We are going to prove that for all ψ ∈ V ,
I(ψ) ≤
1
2
_
L
−L
CW(∂
3
ψ) dx
3
.
In fact, we only to prove that
I(ψ) ≤
1
2
_
L
−L
W(∂
3
ψ) dx
3
.
As I(ψ) is lower semicontinuous for the norm L
p
(Ω)
3
, it is semicontinuous for the
weak topology of W
1,p
(Ω)
3
. So, I(ψ) is lower that the semicontinuous envelope
of the right hand side, which is precisely obtained by taking the convex envelope
of W. Next, let us deﬁne
ψ
ε
(¯ x, x
3
) = ψ(x
3
) +εF(x
3
)¯ x,
where F is a map in W
1,p
(−L, L)
3×2
such that F(±L) = ±R. Obviously,
ψ
ε
∈ V
ε
do converge toward ψ in L
p
(Ω)
3
, thus
I(ψ) ≤ liminf
ε
I(ε)(ψ
ε
) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(ε
−1
˜
∇ψ
ε
, ∂
3
ψ
ε
) dx.
Moreover,
¯
∇ψ
ε
= εF.
and
∂
3
ψ
ε
= ∂
3
ψ +ε∂
3
F¯ x.
We get using the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem that
I(ψ) ≤ liminf
ε
1
2
_
Ω
W(F(x
3
), ∂
3
ψ +ε∂
3
F(x
3
)¯ x) dx
=
1
2
_
Ω
W(F, ∂
3
ψ) dx.
We thus have
I(ψ) ≤ inf
F∈W
1,p
(−L,L)
3×2
ω
2
_
L
−L
W(F, ∂
3
ψ) dx. (6.7)
To conclude, let F a map from (−L, L) into R
3×2
such that
ωW(F, ∂
3
ψ) = W(∂
3
ψ).
We have
C
1
F
p
−C
2
≤ W(F, ∂
3
ψ) ≤ W(0, ∂
3
ψ) ≤ C
3
(∂
3
ψ
p
+ 1).
It follows that F belongs to L
p
(−L, L)
3×2
. Finally, the set of maps such that
F in W
1,p
(−L, L)
3×2
such that F(±L) = ±R being dense in L
p
(−L, L)
3×2
, we
conclude from (6.7) that
I(ψ) ≤
1
2
_
L
−L
W(∂
3
ψ) dx.
6.4. APPLICATION TO ELASTIC MEMBRANES 43
6.4 Application to elastic membranes
In this section, we are going to consider thin elastic membranes. For all ε > 0,
we set Ω
ε
= ω × (−ε, ε), where ω is a bounded open subset of R
n−1
. We
assume that Ω
ε
is made of an hyperelastic material, partial embended on a part
of its boundary Γ
ε
= γ × (−ε, ε) and submitted to volumic dead body loads
f ∈ L
p
(Ω; R
d
). The energy of a deformation ϕ ∈ W
1,p
(Ω; R
d
) is given by
J
ε
(ϕ) =
1
2
_
Ω
W(∇ϕ) dx −
_
Ω
f · ϕdx.
44 CHAPTER 6. ΓCONVERGENCE
Chapter 7
Other examples (formal
approach)
7.1 Elastic beams
7.2 Elastic plates
7.3 Modica Mortola
45
46 CHAPTER 7. OTHER EXAMPLES (FORMAL APPROACH)
Bibliography
[1] Gr´egoire Allaire. Homogenization and twoscale convergence. SIAM J. Math.
Anal., 23(6):1482–1518, 1992.
[2] Andrea Braides. Introduction to homogenization and gammaconvergence.
[3] Ha¨ım Brezis. Analyse fonctionnelle. Collection Math´ematiques Appliqu´ees
pour la Maˆıtrise. [Collection of Applied Mathematics for the Master’s De
gree]. Masson, Paris, 1983. Th´eorie et applications. [Theory and applica
tions].
[4] Gianni Dal Maso. An introduction to Γconvergence. Progress in Nonlinear
Diﬀerential Equations and their Applications, 8. Birkh¨auser Boston Inc.,
Boston, MA, 1993.
[5] Herv´e Le Dret and Annie Raoult. Le mod`ele de membrane non lin´eaire
comme limite variationnelle de l’´elasticit´e non lin´eaire tridimensionnelle. C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´er. I Math., 317(2):221–226, 1993.
[6] Herv´e Le Dret and Annie Raoult. The nonlinear membrane model as vari
ational limit of nonlinear threedimensional elasticity. J. Math. Pures Appl.
(9), 74(6):549–578, 1995.
[7] Walter Rudin. Analyse r´eelle et complexe. Masson, Paris, 1980. Trans
lated from the ﬁrst English edition by N. Dhombres and F. Hoﬀman, Third
printing.
47
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.