Submitted to Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées on 8 October, 2004.
<ph f="cmbx">The nonlinear membrane energy: variational derivation under the constraint </ph> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mo mathvariant="bold">“</mo> <mo mathvariant="bold">d</mo> <mo mathvariant="bold">e</mo> <mo mathvariant="bold">t</mo> <mo mathvariant="bold-sans-serif">∇</mo> <mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mi> <mo mathvariant="bold">≠</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo mathvariant="bold">”</mo> </math>

### Jean-Philippe Mandallena

Institut fur Mathematik, Universitat Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. EMIAN (Equipe de Mathematiques, d'Informatiques et Applications de Nɪmes), Centre Universitaire de Formation et de Recherche de Nɪmes, Site des Carmes, Place Gabriel Peri Cedex 01 30021 Nɪmes, France. E-mail address : anza@math.unizh.ch EMIAN (Equipe de Mathematiques, d'Informatiques et Applications de Nɪmes), Centre Universitaire de Formation et de Recherche de Nɪmes, Site des Carmes, Place Gabriel Peri Cedex 01 30021 Nɪmes, France. I3M (Institut de Mathematiques et Modelisation de Montpellier) UMR CNRS 5149, Universite Montpellier II, Place Eugene Bataillon, 34090 Montpellier, France. E-mail address : jean-philippe.mandallena@unimes.fr
• Abstract. Acerbi, Buttazzo and Percivale gave a variational definition of the nonlinear string energy under the constraint “ $det\nabla u>0$  ” (see [1). In the same spirit, we obtain the nonlinear membrane energy under the simpler constraint “ $det\nabla u\ne 0$  1 .

1 Introduction

Consider an elastic material occupying in a reference configuration the bounded open set ${\Sigma }_{\varepsilon }\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{3}$  given by ${\Sigma }_{\varepsilon }:=\Sigma ×\right]-\frac{\varepsilon }{2},\frac{\varepsilon }{2}\left[,$  where $\varepsilon >0$  is very small and $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$  is Lipschitz, open and bounded. A point of ${\Sigma }_{\varepsilon }$  is denoted by $\left(x,{x}_{3}\right)$  with $x\in \Sigma$  and ${x}_{3}\in \right]-\frac{\varepsilon }{2},\frac{\varepsilon }{2}\left[$  . Denote by $W:{\mathbb{M}}^{3×3}\to \left[0,+\infty \right]$  the stored-energy function supposed to be continuous. In order to take into account the fact2 that an infinite amount of energy is required to compress a finite volume into zero volume, i.e.,
 $\begin{array}{c}W\left(F\right)\to +\infty asdetF\to 0,\end{array}$ (1)
where $detF$  denotes the determinant of the $3×3$  matrix $F$  , we assume that:
• (C ${}_{1}$  ) $W\left(F\right)=+\infty$  if and only if $detF=0$  ;
• (C ${}_{2}$  ) for every $\delta >0$  , there exists ${c}_{\delta }>0$  such that for all $F\in {\mathbb{M}}^{3×3}$  , $\mathit{i}\mathit{f}|detF|\ge \delta \mathit{t}\mathit{h}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}W\left(F\right)\le {c}_{\delta }\left(1+|F{|}^{p}\right).$
Our goal is to show that as $\varepsilon \to 0$  the three-dimensional free energy functional ${E}_{\varepsilon }:{W}^{1,p}\left({\Sigma }_{\varepsilon };{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\to \left[0,+\infty \right]$  (with $p>1$  ) defined by
 $\begin{array}{c}{E}_{\varepsilon }\left(u\right):=\frac{1}{\varepsilon }{\int }_{{\Sigma }_{\varepsilon }}W\left(\nabla u\left(x,{x}_{3}\right)\right)dxd{x}_{3}\end{array}$ (2)
converge in a variational sense (cf. Definition  2.1 ) to the two-dimensional free energy functional ${E}_{mem}:{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\to \left[0,+\infty \right]$  given by
 $\begin{array}{c}{E}_{mem}\left(v\right):={\int }_{\Sigma }{W}_{mem}\left(\nabla v\left(x\right)\right)dx\end{array}$ (3)
with ${W}_{mem}:{\mathbb{M}}^{3×2}\to \left[0,+\infty \right]$  . Usually, ${E}_{mem}$  is called the nonlinear membrane energy associated with the two-dimensional elastic material with respect to the reference configuration $\Sigma$  . Furthermore we wish to give a representation formula for ${W}_{mem}$  .
Such a problem was studied by Le Dret and Raoult in [15when $W$  is of $p$  -polynomial growth, i.e., $W\left(F\right)\le c\left(1+|F{|}^{p}\right)$  for all $F\in {\mathbb{M}}^{3×3}$  and some $c>0$  , so that ( 1 ) is not satisfied. The distinguishing feature here is that $W$  is not of $p$  -polynomial growth.
An outline of the paper is as follows. The variational convergence of ${E}_{\varepsilon }$  to ${E}_{mem}$  as $\varepsilon \to 0$  as well as a representation formula for ${W}_{mem}$  are given by Corollary  2.15 (see also Proposition  2.4 ). Corollary  2.15 is a consequence of Theorems  2.6 and  2.13 . As Theorem  2.13 is proved in our previous article [6, the main result of the paper is Theorem  2.6 . In fact, Theorem  2.13 is analogue to Theorem  2.11 established by Ben Belgacem in [10. A comparison of these results is made in Sect. 2.3 (see also [6,Remark2.6). Theorem  2.6 is proved in Section 4: the principal ingredients being Theorem  2.7 (stated in Sect. 2.2 and whose proof is contained in [6) and Theorem  3.5 (whose statement and proof are given in Section 3). For the convenience of the reader, in appendix we recall the proof of Theorems  2.7 and  2.13 .

1 In [9, Ben Belgacem announced to have obtained a variational definition of the nonlinear membrane energy under the constraint “ $det\nabla u>0$  ”. To our knowledge, his statement [9,Theorem1never was proved (cf. Remark  2.12 ).

2 In this paper the important physical property that the interpenetration of matter does not occur is ignored.

2 Results

2.1 Variational convergence

As in [1, to accomplish our asymptotic analysis, we use the notion of convergence introduced by Anzellotti, Baldo and Percivale in [7in order to deal with dimension reduction problems in mechanics. Let $\pi =\left\{{\pi }_{\varepsilon }{\right\}}_{\varepsilon }$  be the family of maps ${\pi }_{\varepsilon }:{W}^{1,p}\left({\Sigma }_{\varepsilon };{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\to {W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  defined by ${\pi }_{\varepsilon }\left(u\right):=\frac{1}{\varepsilon }{\int }_{-\frac{\varepsilon }{2}}^{\frac{\varepsilon }{2}}u\left(\cdot ,{x}_{3}\right)d{x}_{3}.$
Definition 2.1. We say that ${E}_{\varepsilon }$  $\Gamma \left(\pi \right)$  -converges to ${E}_{mem}$  as $\varepsilon \to 0$  , and we write ${E}_{mem}=\Gamma \left(\pi \right)-{lim}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{E}_{\varepsilon }$  , if the following two assertions hold:
• (i) for all $v\in {W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  and all $\left\{{u}_{\varepsilon }{\right\}}_{\varepsilon }\subset {W}^{1,p}\left({\Sigma }_{\varepsilon };{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  , $\mathbf{i}\mathbf{f}{\pi }_{\varepsilon }\left({u}_{\varepsilon }\right)⇀v\mathbf{i}\mathbf{n}{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\mathbf{t}\mathbf{h}\mathbf{e}\mathbf{n}{E}_{mem}\left(v\right)\le {liminf}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{E}_{\varepsilon }\left({u}_{\varepsilon }\right);$
• (ii) for all $v\in {W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  , there exists $\left\{{u}_{\varepsilon }{\right\}}_{\varepsilon }\subset {W}^{1,p}\left({\Sigma }_{\varepsilon };{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  such that:
${\pi }_{\varepsilon }\left({u}_{\varepsilon }\right)⇀v\mathbf{i}\mathbf{n}{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\mathbf{a}\mathbf{n}\mathbf{d}{E}_{mem}\left(v\right)\ge {limsup}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{E}_{\varepsilon }\left({u}_{\varepsilon }\right).$
In fact, Definition  2.1 is a variant of De Giorgi's $\Gamma$  -convergence. This is made clear by Lemma  2.3 below. Consider ${\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }:{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\to \left[0,+\infty \right]$  defined by ${\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\left(v\right):=inf\left\{{E}_{\varepsilon }\left(u\right):{\pi }_{\varepsilon }\left(u\right)=v\right\}.$
Definition 2.2. We say that ${\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }$  $\Gamma$  -converges to ${E}_{mem}$  as $\varepsilon \to 0$  , and we write ${E}_{mem}=\Gamma -{lim}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }$  if for every $v\in {W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)$  , $\left(\Gamma \mathbf{-}{liminf}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\right)\left(v\right)=\left(\Gamma \mathbf{-}{limsup}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\right)\left(v\right)={E}_{mem}\left(v\right)$  with $\left(\Gamma \mathbf{-}{liminf}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\right)\left(v\right):=inf\left\{{liminf}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\left({v}_{\varepsilon }\right):{v}_{\varepsilon }⇀v\mathbf{i}\mathbf{n}{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\right\},$  and $\left(\Gamma \mathbf{-}{limsup}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\right)\left(v\right):=inf\left\{{limsup}_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\mathcal{ℰ}}_{\varepsilon }\left({v}_{\varepsilon }\right):{v}_{\varepsilon }⇀v\mathbf{i}\mathbf{n}{W}^{1,p}\left(\Sigma ;{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\right)\right\}.$
Clearly, Definition  2.2 is equivalent to assertions (i) and (ii) in definition  2.1 with “ $\pi \left({u}_{\varepsilon }\right)⇀v$  ” replaced by “ ${v}_{\varepsilon }⇀v$  ”. (For a deeper discussion of the $\Gamma$  -convergence theory we refer to the book [13). It is then obvious that