, , ,

Consider an elastic material occupying in a reference configuration the bounded open set

Σ_{ɛ} \subset R^{3}

given by

Σ_{ɛ} : = Σ \times] - \frac{ɛ}{2}, \frac{ɛ}{2} [,

where

ɛ > 0

is very small and

Σ \subset R^{2}

is Lipschitz, open and bounded. A point of

Σ_{ɛ}

is denoted by

(x, x_{3})

with

x \in Σ

and

x_{3} \in] - \frac{ɛ}{2}, \frac{ɛ}{2} [

. Denote by

W : M^{3 \times 3} \to [0, + \infty]

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{matrix} W (F) \to + \infty a s d e t F \to 0, \end{matrix}

(1)

where

d e t F

denotes the determinant of the

3 \times 3

matrix

F

, we assume that:

(C $_{1}$ ) $W (F) = + \infty$ if and only if $d e t F = 0$ ;
(C $_{2}$ ) for every $δ > 0$ , there exists $c_{δ} > 0$ such that for all $F \in M^{3 \times 3}$ , $i f | d e t F | \geq δ t h e n W (F) \leq c_{δ} (1 + | F |^{p}) .$

Our goal is to show that as

ɛ \to 0

the three-dimensional free energy functional

E_{ɛ} : W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

(with

p > 1

) defined by

\begin{matrix} E_{ɛ} (u) : = \frac{1}{ɛ} \int_{Σ_{ɛ}} W (\nabla u (x, x_{3})) d x d x_{3} \end{matrix}

(2)

converge in a variational sense (cf. Definition 2.1 ) to the two-dimensional free energy functional

E_{m e m} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

given by

\begin{matrix} E_{m e m} (v) : = \int_{Σ} W_{m e m} (\nabla v (x)) d x \end{matrix}

(3)

with

W_{m e m} : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]

. Usually,

E_{m e m}

is called the nonlinear membrane energy associated with the two-dimensional elastic material with respect to the reference configuration

Σ

. Furthermore we wish to give a representation formula for

W_{m e m}

Such a problem was studied by Le Dret and Raoult in [15] when

W

is of

p

-polynomial growth, i.e.,

W (F) \leq c (1 + | F |^{p})

for all

F \in M^{3 \times 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_{ɛ}

E_{m e m}

ɛ \to 0

as well as a representation formula for

W_{m e m}

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 “ $d e t \nabla u > 0$ ”. To our knowledge, his statement [9,Theorem1] never 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 [7] in order to deal with dimension reduction problems in mechanics. Let

π = {π_{ɛ}}_{ɛ}

be the family of maps

π_{ɛ} : W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3}) \to W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

defined by

π_{ɛ} (u) : = \frac{1}{ɛ} \int_{- \frac{ɛ}{2}}^{\frac{ɛ}{2}} u (\cdot, x_{3}) d x_{3} .

Definition 2.1. We say that

E_{ɛ}

Γ (π)

-converges to

E_{m e m}

ɛ \to 0

, and we write

E_{m e m} = Γ (π) - {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} E_{ɛ}

, if the following two assertions hold:

(i) for all $v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})$ and all ${u_{ɛ}}_{ɛ} \subset W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3})$ , $i f π_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) t h e n E_{m e m} (v) \leq {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} E_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ});$
(ii) for all $v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})$ , there exists ${u_{ɛ}}_{ɛ} \subset W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3})$ such that:
$π_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) a n d E_{m e m} (v) \geq {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} E_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) .$

In fact, Definition 2.1 is a variant of De Giorgi's

Γ

-convergence. This is made clear by Lemma 2.3 below. Consider

ℰ_{ɛ} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

defined by

ℰ_{ɛ} (v) : = inf {E_{ɛ} (u) : π_{ɛ} (u) = v} .

Definition 2.2. We say that

ℰ_{ɛ}

Γ

-converges to

E_{m e m}

ɛ \to 0

, and we write

E_{m e m} = Γ - {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}

if for every

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

(Γ - {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}) (v) = (Γ - {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}) (v) = E_{m e m} (v)

with

(Γ - {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}) (v) : = inf {{liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) : v_{ɛ} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})},

and

(Γ - {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}) (v) : = inf {{limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) : v_{ɛ} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

Clearly, Definition 2.2 is equivalent to assertions (i) and (ii) in definition 2.1 with “

π (u_{ɛ}) ⇀ v

” replaced by “

v_{ɛ} ⇀ v

”. (For a deeper discussion of the

Γ

-convergence theory we refer to the book [13] ). It is then obvious that

Lemma 2.3.

E_{m e m} = Γ (π) - {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} E_{ɛ}

if and only if

E_{m e m} = Γ - {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}

As in [1] , suppose that the exterior loads derive from a potential

Ψ : {\bar{Σ}}_{1} \times R^{3} \to R

given by

Ψ ((x, x_{3}), ζ) : = 〈 ψ (x, x_{3}), ζ 〉 + | ζ |^{p},

where

ψ : {\bar{Σ}}_{1} \to R^{3}

is continuous and

〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉

denotes the scalar product in

R^{3}

, and define

L_{ɛ} : W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3}) \to R

and

L_{m e m} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to R

L_{ɛ} (u) : = \frac{1}{ɛ} \int_{Σ_{ɛ}} Ψ ((x, x_{3}), u (x, x_{3})) d x d x_{3} a n d L_{m e m} (v) : = \int_{Σ} Ψ ((x, 0), v (x)) d x .

Consider also the following coercivity condition:

(C $_{3}$ ) there exists $C > 0$ such that $W (F) \geq C | F |^{p}$ for all $F \in M^{3 \times 3}$ .

Then, using similar arguments to those in [1,proofofProposition3.1p.141andproofofTheorem2.1p.145] , we obtain

Proposition 2.4. Assume that (C

_{3}

) holds and

E_{ɛ}

in ( 2 )

Γ (π)

-converge to

E_{m e m}

in ( 3 ) as

ɛ \to 0

, and consider

{u_{ɛ}}_{ɛ} \subset W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3})

such that

E_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) + L_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) - inf {E_{ɛ} (u) + L_{ɛ} (u) : u \in W^{1, p} (Σ_{ɛ}; R^{3})} \to 0 a s ɛ \to 0 .

Then,

{π_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ})}_{ɛ}

is weakly relatively compact and each of its cluster point

\bar{v}

satisfies

E_{m e m} (\bar{v}) + L_{m e m} (\bar{v}) = min {E_{m e m} (v) + L_{m e m} (v) : v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

The method used in this paper for passing from ( 2 ) to ( 3 ) was initiated by Anza Hafsa in [2, 3] (see also Mandallena [16, 17] and Anza Hafsa-Mandallena [4, 5] for the relaxation case). It first consists to study the

Γ

-convergence of

ℰ_{ɛ}

ɛ \to 0

(cf.

Sect. 2.2), and then to establish an integral representation for the corresponding

Γ

-limit (cf. Sect. 2.3).

2.2 $Γ$ -convergence of $ℰ_{ɛ}$ as $ɛ \to 0$

Let

ℰ : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

be defined by

ℰ (v) : = {\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla v (x)) d x & i f v \in A f f (Σ; R^{3}) \\ + \infty & o t h e r w i s e, \end{matrix}

where

A f f (Σ; R^{3})

we denote the space of all continuous piecewise affine functions from

Σ

R^{3}

and, as in [15] ,

W_{0} : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]

is given by

W_{0} (ξ) : = {inf}_{ζ \in R^{3}} W (ξ | ζ)

with

(ξ | ζ)

denoting the element of

M^{3 \times 3}

corresponding to

(ξ, ζ) \in M^{3 \times 2} \times R^{3}

Remark that conditions (C

_{1}

) and (C

_{2}

) make that

W_{0}

is not of

p

-polynomial growth.

In fact, we have

Lemma 2.5. Denote by

ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2}

the cross product of vectors

ξ_{1}, ξ_{2} \in R^{3}

(i) If (C 1 ) holds then
- ( ${\bar{C}}_{1}$ ) $W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) = + \infty$ if and only if $ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} = 0$ .
(ii) If (C 2 ) holds then
- ( ${\bar{C}}_{2}$ ) for all $δ > 0$ , there exists $c_{δ} > 0$ such that for all $ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) \in M^{3 \times 2}$ , $i f | ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | \geq δ t h e n W_{0} (ξ) \leq c_{δ} (1 + | ξ |^{p}) .$

Proof. (i) Given $ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2})$ , if $W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) < + \infty$ (resp. $W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) = + \infty$ ) then $W (ξ | ζ) < + \infty$ (resp. $W (ξ | ζ) = + \infty$ ) for some $ζ \in R^{3}$ (resp. for all $ζ \in R^{3}$ ), and so $ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} \neq 0$ (resp. $ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} = 0$ ) by (C $_{1}$ ).
(ii) Let $δ > 0$ and let $ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2})$ be such that $| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | \geq δ$ . Setting $ζ : = \frac{ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2}}{| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} |}$ , we have $d e t (ξ | ζ) \geq δ$ , and using (C $_{2}$ ) we can assert that there exists $c_{δ} > 0$ , which does not depend on $ξ$ , such that $W_{0} (ξ) \leq c_{δ} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ . □

Assume furthermore that

(C $_{4}$ ) $W (ξ | ζ) = W (ξ | - ζ)$ for all $ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}$ and all $ζ \in R^{3}$ .

The main result of the paper is the following.

Theorem 2.6. Under (C

_{1}

), (C

_{2}

), (C

_{3}

) and (C

_{4}

), we have

Γ - {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} = \bar{ℰ}

with

\bar{ℰ} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

given by

\bar{ℰ} (v) : = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} ℰ (v_{n}) : v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

The proof of Theorem 2.6 is established in Section 4. It uses Theorem 3.5 (cf.

Section 3) and Theorem 2.7 below whose proof is contained in [6] .

Theorem 2.7. If (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds then

\bar{ℰ} (v) = ℐ (v)

for all

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

, where

ℐ : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

is given by

ℐ (v) = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

Remark 2.8. Typically, Theorem 2.6 can be applied when

W : M^{3 \times 3} \to [0, + \infty]

is given by

W (F) : = W_{1} (| d e t F |) + W_{2} (| F |^{p})

for all

F \in M^{3 \times 3}

, where

W_{1} : [0, + \infty [\to [0, + \infty]

and

W_{2} : [0, + \infty [\to [0, + \infty [

are continuous functions such that:

- $W_{1} (t) = + \infty$ if and only if $t = 0$ ;
- for every $δ > 0$ , there exists $r_{δ} > 0$ such that $W_{1} (t) \leq r_{δ}$ for all $t \geq δ$ ;
- there exist $c, C > 0$ such that $C t \leq W_{2} (t) \leq c (1 + t)$ for all $t \geq 0$ .

2.3 Integral representation of $\bar{ℰ}$

Our framework leads us to deal with relaxation of nonconvex integral functionals which are not of

p

-polynomial growth. Such relaxation problems were studied in Ben Belgacem [10] and Anza Hafsa-Mandallena [6] (see also Carbone-De Arcangelis [11] for the scalar case). To state the integral representation theorems obtained in these papers, we need the concepts of quasiconvex envelope and rank-one convex envelope.

Definition 2.9. Let

g : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]

be a Borel measurable function.

(i) We say that $g$ is quasiconvex if for every $ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}$ , every bounded open set $D \subset R^{2}$ with $| \partial D | = 0$ and every $φ \in W_{0}^{1, \infty} (D; R^{3})$ , $g (ξ) \leq \frac{1}{| D |} \int_{D} g (ξ + \nabla φ (x)) d x,$ where $| \cdot |$ denotes the Lebesgue measure in $R^{2}$ . By the quasiconvex envelope of $g$ , that we denote by $Q g$ , we mean the greatest quasiconvex function which is less than or equal to $g$ .
(ii) We say that $g$ is rank one convex if for every $α \in] 0, 1 [$ and every $ξ, ξ^{'} \in M^{3 \times 2}$ with rank( $ξ - ξ^{'}$ )=1, $g (α ξ + (1 - α) ξ^{'}) \leq α g (ξ) + (1 - α) g (ξ^{'}) .$ By the rank one convex envelope of $g$ , that we denote by $ℛ g$ , we mean the greatest rank one convex function which is less than or equal to $g$ .

Remark 2.10. It is well known that if

g

is quasiconvex and continuous then

g

is rank one convex. This is false for general Borel measurable

g

(see [8,Example3.5] ).

2.3.1 Ben Belgacem's theorem

In [10,Section5.1] Ben Belgacem asserts that if

W_{0}

satisfies (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) then

ℛ W_{0}

is of

p

-polynomial growth, so that is

Q [ℛ W_{0}]

. Then, using his main result [10,Theorem3.1] , he obtains

Theorem 2.11. If (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds then for every

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

\bar{ℰ} (v) = \int_{Σ} Q [ℛ W_{0}] (\nabla v (x)) d x .

According to Remark 2.10 , in Theorem 2.11 we cannot know if

Q [ℛ W_{0}] = Q W_{0}

In fact, under (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) the latter equality holds (cf. Remark 2.14 ).

Remark 2.12. In [9,Theorem1] Ben Belgacem announced to have established the

Γ (π)

-convergence of

E_{ɛ}

E_{m e m}

ɛ \to 0

under the following two (more physical) conditions:

( ${\hat{C}}_{1}$ ) $W (F) = + \infty$ if and only if $d e t F \leq 0$ ;
( ${\hat{C}}_{2}$ ) for every $δ > 0$ , there exists $c_{δ} > 0$ such that for all $F \in M^{3 \times 3}$ , $i f d e t F \geq δ t h e n W (F) \leq c_{δ} (1 + | F |^{p}) .$

In [10] , which is the paper corresponding to the note [9] , the statement [9,Theorem1] is not proved. To our knowledge, under (

{\hat{C}}_{1}

) and (

{\hat{C}}_{2}

) the problem of passing from ( 2 ) to ( 3 ) by using

Γ (π)

-convergence is still open.

2.3.2 Anza Hafsa-Mandallena's theorem

Define

Z_{1} W_{0} : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]

Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) : = inf {\int_{Y} W_{0} (ξ + \nabla φ (y)) d y : φ \in A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3})}

with

A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3}) : = {u \in A f f (Y; R^{3}) : u = 0 o n \partial Y}

, and set

Z_{k} W_{0} : = Z_{1} [Z_{k - 1} W_{0}]

for all integers

k \geq 2

. In [6,Theorem2.1] (see Theorem A.2 ) we prove that if

W_{0}

satisfies (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) then

Z_{2} W_{0}

is of

p

-polynomial growth. Then, using our main result [6,Theorem2.2] , we obtain

Theorem 2.13. If (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds then for every

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

\bar{ℰ} (v) = \int_{Σ} Q W_{0} (\nabla v (x)) d x .

Remark 2.14. It is easy to see that

Q W_{0} = Q [Z_{k} W_{0}]

for all integers

k \geq 1

Assuming that (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds we can asserts that

Z_{2} W_{0}

is of

p

-polynomial growth, and from Dacorogna's quasiconvexification formula [12,Theorem1.1p.201] we deduce that

Q W_{0} = Z_{3} W_{0}

(see Corollary A.4 ). Thus, in the context of Theorem 2.11 ,

Q W_{0}

is continuous because

Z_{3} W_{0}

is finite (see Proposition A.1 (ii)), hence

Q W_{0}

is rank-one convex, and so

Q [ℛ W_{0}] = Q W_{0}

2.4 $Γ (π)$ -convergence of $E_{ɛ}$ to $E_{m e m}$ as $ɛ \to 0$

According to Lemmas 2.3 and 2.5 (ii), a direct consequence of Theorems 2.6 and 2.13 is the following.

Corollary 2.15. Let assumptions (C

_{1}

), (C

_{2}

), (C

_{3}

) and (C

_{4}

) hold. Then as

ɛ \to 0

E_{ɛ}

in ( 2 )

Γ (π)

-converge to

E_{m e m}

in ( 3 ) with

W_{m e m} = Q W_{0}

3 Representation of $ℰ$

The goal of this section is to show Theorem 3.5 below. To this end, we begin by proving four lemmas. From now on, we set

A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3}) : = {v \in A f f (Σ; R^{3}) : \partial_{1} v (x) \land \partial_{2} v (x) \neq 0 a . e . i n Σ},

where

\partial_{1} v (x)

(resp.

\partial_{2} v (x)

) denotes the partial derivative of

v

x = (x_{1}, x_{2})

with respect to

x_{1}

(resp.

x_{2}

). By definition, to every

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

there corresponds a finite family

(V_{i})_{i \in I}

of open disjoint subsets of

Σ

such that:

- $| Σ \ \cup_{i \in I} V_{i} | = 0$ ;
- for every $i \in I$ , $\nabla v (x) = ξ_{i}$ in $V_{i}$ with $ξ_{i} = (ξ_{i, 1} | ξ_{i, 2}) \in M^{3 \times 2}$ ;
- $ξ_{i, 1} \land ξ_{i, 2} \neq 0$ for all $i \in I$ .

Lemma 3.1. If (C

_{1}

) holds then

d o m ℰ = A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

, where

d o m ℰ

is the effective domain of

ℰ

Proof. It is a direct consequence of Lemma 2.5 (i). □

Given

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

, for every

i \in I

and every integer

j \geq 1

, we consider the subsets

U_{i, j}^{-}

and

U_{i, j}^{+}

R^{3}

given by

U_{i, j}^{-} : = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) \leq - \frac{1}{j}} a n d U_{i, j}^{+} : = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) \geq \frac{1}{j}} .

Here are some elementary properties of these sets:

(P $_{1}$ ) both $U_{i, j}^{-}$ and $U_{i, j}^{+}$ are nonempty convex subsets of $R^{3}$ ;
(P $_{2}$ ) $U_{i, j}^{-} \cup U_{i, j}^{+} = {ζ \in R^{3} : | d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) | \geq \frac{1}{j}}$ ;
(P $_{3}$ ) $U_{i, 1}^{-} \subset U_{i, 2}^{-} \subset U_{i, 3}^{-} \subset \dots \subset \cup_{j \geq 1} U_{i, j}^{-} = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) < 0}$ ;
(P $_{4}$ ) $U_{i, 1}^{+} \subset U_{i, 2}^{+} \subset U_{i, 3}^{+} \subset \dots \subset \cup_{j \geq 1} U_{i, j}^{+} = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) > 0}$ .

Lemma 3.2. Given

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

, there exist

j_{v} \geq 1

and two subsets

I^{-}

and

I^{+}

I

, with

I^{-} \cup I^{+} = I

and

I^{-} \cap I^{+} = \emptyset

, such that for all

j \geq j_{v}

(\cap_{i \in I^{-}} U_{i, j}^{-}) \cap (\cap_{i \in I^{+}} U_{i, j}^{+}) \neq \emptyset .

Proof. For every $i \in I$ , define the hyperplane $H_{i}$ of $R^{3}$ by $H_{i} : = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) = 0} .$ It is obvious that $\cup_{i \in I} H_{i} \neq R^{3}$ , and so there exists $ζ \in R^{3}$ such that $d e t (ξ_{i} | ζ) \neq 0$ for all $i \in I$ . Taking (P $_{2}$ ) into account, we deduce the existence of an integer $j_{v} \geq 1$ for which $ζ \in \cap_{i \in I} (U_{i, j_{v}}^{-} \cup U_{i, j_{v}}^{+})$ . Hence, there are two subsets $I^{-}$ and $I^{+}$ of $I$ , with $I^{-} \cup I^{+} = I$ and $I^{-} \cap I^{+} = \emptyset$ , such that $(\cap_{i \in I^{-}} U_{i, j_{v}}^{-}) \cap (\cap_{i \in I^{+}} U_{i, j_{v}}^{+}) \neq \emptyset,$ and the lemma follows by using (P $_{3}$ ) and (P $_{4}$ ). □

Setting

V : = \cup_{i \in I} V_{i},

for every

j \geq j_{v}

, with

j_{v}

given by Lemma 3.2 , we define

Γ_{v}^{j} : \bar{Σ} \overset{⟶}{⟶} R^{3}

Γ_{v}^{j} (x) : = {\begin{matrix} U_{i, j}^{-} & i f x \in V_{i} w i t h i \in I^{-} \\ U_{i, j}^{+} & i f x \in V_{i} w i t h i \in I^{+} \\ (\cap_{i \in I^{-}} U_{i, j}^{-}) \cap (\cap_{i \in I^{+}} U_{i, j}^{+}) & i f x \in \bar{Σ} \ V . \end{matrix}

Lemma 3.3. Given

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

and

j \geq j_{v}

Γ_{v}^{j}

is a nonempty convex closed-valued lower semicontinuous³ multifunction.

Proof. From (P $_{1}$ ) and Lemma 3.2 , it is clear that for every $x \in \bar{Σ}$ , $Γ_{v}^{j} (x)$ is a nonempty convex closed subset of $R^{3}$ . Let $X$ be a closed subset of $R^{3}$ , let $x \in \bar{Σ}$ , and let ${x_{n}}_{n \geq 1} \subset \bar{Σ}$ such that $| x_{n} - x | \to 0$ as $n \to + \infty$ and $Γ_{v}^{j} (x_{n}) \subset X$ for all $n \geq 1$ . If $x \in V$ then $x \in V_{i}$ for some $i \in I$ , hence for $n \geq 1$ large enough, $x_{n} \in V_{i}$ , so that $Γ_{v}^{j} (x) = Γ_{v}^{j} (x_{n})$ . If $x \in \bar{Σ} \ V$ then $Γ_{v}^{j} (x) = (\cap_{i \in I^{-}} U_{i, j}^{-}) \cap (\cap_{i \in I^{+}} U_{i, j}^{+}) \subset Γ_{v}^{j} (y)$ for all $y \in \bar{Σ}$ , and the proof is complete. □

In the sequel, given

Γ : \bar{Σ} \overset{⟶}{⟶} R^{3}

we set

C (\bar{Σ}; Γ) : = {φ \in C (\bar{Σ}; R^{3}) : φ (x) \in Γ (x) a . e . i n \bar{Σ}},

where

C (\bar{Σ}; R^{3})

denotes the space of all continuous functions from

\bar{Σ}

R^{3}

Lemma 3.4. Given

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

and

j \geq j_{v}

, if (C

_{2}

) holds, then

{inf}_{φ \in C (\bar{Σ}; Γ_{v}^{j})} \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ (x)) d x = \int_{Σ} {inf}_{ζ \in Γ_{v}^{j} (x)} W (\nabla v (x) | ζ) d x .

Proof. The lemma follows from the following interchange result of infimum and integral (that we proved in [4]
).
Interchange of infimum and integral ([4,Corollary5.4] ). Given Γ : Σ ¯ ⟶ ⟶ R 3 and f : Σ ¯ × R 3 → [ 0 , + ∞ ] , suppose that:
- (H $_{1}$ ) $f$ is a Carathéodory integrand;
- (H $_{2}$ ) $Γ$ is a nonempty convex closed-valued lower semicontinuous multifunction;
- (H $_{3}$ ) $C (\bar{Σ}; Γ) \neq \emptyset$ and for every $φ, \hat{φ} \in C (\bar{Σ}; Γ)$ , $\int_{Σ} {max}_{α \in [0, 1]} f (x, α φ (x) + (1 - α) \hat{φ} (x)) d x < + \infty .$
Then, inf φ ∈ C ( Σ ¯ ; Γ ) ∫ Σ f ( x , φ ( x ) ) d x = ∫ Σ inf ζ ∈ Γ ( x ) f ( x , ζ ) d x . Since W is continuous, (H 1 ) holds with f ( x , ζ ) = W ( ∇ v ( x ) | ζ ) . Lemma 3.3 shows that (H 2 ) is satisfied with Γ = Γ v j , and from Michael's selection continuous theorem [18] , we deduce that C ( Σ ¯ ; Γ v j ) ≠ ∅ . Given φ , φ ^ ∈ C ( Σ ¯ ; Γ v j ) , it is clear that for every α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] and every x ∈ V ^ (with V ^ a suitable subset of V such | Σ \ V ^ | = 0 ), | d e t ( ∇ v ( x ) | α φ ( x ) + ( 1 − α ) φ ^ ( x ) ) | ≥ 1 j . From (C 2 ) it follows that there exists c > 0 depending only on j , v , φ and φ ^ such that W ( ∇ v ( x ) | α φ ( x ) + ( 1 − α ) φ ^ ( x ) ) ≤ c for all x ∈ V ^ . Thus (H 3 ) is verified with f ( x , ζ ) = W ( ∇ v ( x ) | ζ ) and Γ = Γ v j , and the proof of Lemma 3.4 is complete. □

For every

j \geq j_{v}

, we define the measurable multifunction

Λ_{v}^{j} : \bar{Σ} \to R^{3}

Λ_{v}^{j} (x) : = {\begin{matrix} U_{i, j}^{-} \cup U_{i, j}^{+} & i f x \in V_{i} \\ Γ_{v}^{j} (x) & i f x \in \bar{Σ} \ V . \end{matrix}

Here is our (non integral) representation theorem for

ℰ

Theorem 3.5. If (C

_{1}

), (C

_{2}

) and (C

_{4}

) hold, then for every

v \in d o m ℰ

\begin{matrix} ℰ (v) = {inf}_{j \geq j_{v}} {inf}_{φ \in C (\bar{Σ}; Λ_{v}^{j})} \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ (x)) d x . \end{matrix}

(4)

Proof. By Lemma 3.1 ,

d o m ℰ = A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

. Fix

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

and denote by

\hat{ℰ} (v)

the right-hand side of ( 4 ). It is easy to verify that

ℰ (v) \leq \hat{ℰ} (v)

. We are thus reduced to prove that

\begin{matrix} \hat{ℰ} (v) \leq ℰ (v) . \end{matrix}

(5)

From (C

_{4}

) we see that for every

j \geq j_{v}

and every

x \in Σ

\begin{matrix} {inf}_{ζ \in Γ_{v}^{j} (x)} W (\nabla v (x) | ζ) = {inf}_{ζ \in Λ_{v}^{j} (x)} W (\nabla v (x) | ζ) . \end{matrix}

(6)

Noticing that

Γ_{v}^{j} (x) \subset Λ_{v}^{j} (x)

for all

x \in Σ

and using Lemma 3.4 together with ( 6 ), we obtain

\begin{matrix} \hat{ℰ} (v) \leq {inf}_{j \geq j_{v}} \int_{Σ} {inf}_{ζ \in Λ_{v}^{j} (x)} W (\nabla v (x) | ζ) d x . \end{matrix}

(7)

On the other hand,

{inf}_{ζ \in Λ_{v}^{j_{v}} (\cdot)} W (\nabla v (\cdot) | ζ) \in L^{1} (Σ)

by (C

_{2}

), and from (P

_{3}

) and (P

_{4}

) we deduce that if

x \in V

then

Λ_{v}^{j_{v}} (x) \subset Λ_{v}^{j_{v} + 1} (x) \subset \dots \subset \cup_{j \geq j_{v}} Λ_{v}^{j} (x)

with

\cup_{j \geq j_{v}} Λ_{v}^{j} (x) = {ζ \in R^{3} : d e t (\nabla v (x) | ζ) \neq 0} .

Hence

{{inf}_{ζ \in Λ_{v}^{j} (\cdot)} W (\nabla v (\cdot) | ζ)}_{j \geq j_{v}}

is non-increasing and for every

x \in V

\begin{matrix} {inf}_{j \geq j_{v}} {inf}_{ζ \in Λ_{v}^{j} (x)} W (\nabla v (x) | ζ) = W_{0} (\nabla v (x)), \end{matrix}

(8)

and ( 22 ) follows from ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) by using the monotone convergence theorem. □

4 Proof of Theorem 2.6

In this section we prove Theorem 2.6 . Since

Γ - {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} \leq Γ - {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}

, we only need to show that:

(a) $\bar{ℰ} \leq Γ - {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}$ ;
(b) $Γ - {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} \leq \bar{ℰ}$ .

In the sequel, we follow the notation used in Section 3.

4.1 Proof of (a)

Let

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

and let

{v_{ɛ}}_{ɛ} \subset W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

be such that

v_{ɛ} ⇀ v

W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

. We have to prove that

\begin{matrix} {liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) \geq \bar{ℰ} (v) . \end{matrix}

(9)

Without loss of generality we can assume that

{sup}_{ɛ > 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) < + \infty

and

v_{ɛ} \to v

L^{p} (Σ; R^{3})

. To every

ɛ > 0

there corresponds

u_{ɛ} \in π_{ɛ}^{- 1} (v_{ɛ})

such that

\begin{matrix} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) \geq E_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) - ɛ . \end{matrix}

(10)

Defining

{\hat{u}}_{ɛ} : Σ_{1} \to R^{3}

{\hat{u}}_{ɛ} (x, x_{3}) : = u_{ɛ} (x, ɛ x_{3})

we have

\begin{matrix} E_{ɛ} (u_{ɛ}) = \int_{Σ_{1}} W (\partial_{1} {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} (x, x_{3}) | \partial_{2} {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} (x, x_{3}) | \frac{1}{ɛ} \partial_{3} {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} (x, x_{3})) d x d x_{3} . \end{matrix}

(11)

From (C

_{3}

) we deduce that there exists

c > 0

such that

{∥ \partial_{3} {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} ∥}_{L^{p} (Σ_{1}; R^{3})} \leq c ɛ^{p}

for all

ɛ > 0

, and so

∥ {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} - v_{ɛ} ∥_{L^{p} (Σ_{1}; R^{3})} \leq c^{'} ɛ^{p}

by Poincaré-Wirtinger's inequality, where

c^{'} > 0

is a constant which does not depend on

ɛ

. It follows that

{\hat{u}}_{ɛ} \to v

L^{p} (Σ_{1}; R^{3})

. For

x_{3} \in] - \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} [

, let

w_{ɛ}^{x_{3}} \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

given by

w_{ɛ}^{x_{3}} (x) : = {\hat{u}}_{ɛ} (x, x_{3})

Then (up to a subsequence)

w_{ɛ}^{x_{3}} \to v

L^{p} (Σ; R^{3})

for a.e.

x_{3} \in] - \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} [

. Taking ( 10 ) and ( 11 ) into account and using Fatou's lemma, we obtain

{liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) \geq \int_{- \frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} ({liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla w_{ɛ}^{x_{3}} (x)) d x) d x_{3},

and so

{liminf}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v_{ɛ}) \geq \hat{ℐ} (v)

with

\hat{ℐ} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

given by

\hat{ℐ} (z) : = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla z_{n} (x)) d x : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ z_{n} \to z i n L^{p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

Using (C

_{3}

) we see that

\hat{ℐ} = ℐ

, and ( 9 ) follows by using Theorem 2.7 .

□

4.2 Proof of (b)

By Lemma 3.1 ,

d o m ℰ = A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

. As

Γ - {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ}

is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous on

W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

, it is sufficient to prove that for every

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

\begin{matrix} {limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v) \leq ℰ (v) . \end{matrix}

(12)

Given

v \in A f f_{*} (Σ; R^{3})

, fix any

j \geq j_{v}

(with

j_{v}

given by Lemma 3.2 ) and any

n \geq 1

. Using Theorem 3.5 we obtain the existence of

φ \in C (\bar{Σ}; Λ_{v}^{j})

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ (x)) d x \leq ℰ (v) + \frac{1}{n} . \end{matrix}

(13)

By Stone-Weierstrass's approximation theorem, there exists

{φ_{k}}_{k \geq 1} \subset C^{\infty} (\bar{Σ}; R^{3})

such that

\begin{matrix} φ_{k} \to φ u n i f o r m l y a s k \to + \infty . \end{matrix}

(14)

We claim that:

(c $_{1}$ ) $| d e t (\nabla v (x) | φ_{k} (x)) | \geq \frac{1}{2 j}$ for all $x \in V$ , all $k \geq k_{v}$ and some $k_{v} \geq 1$ ;
(c $_{2}$ ) ${lim}_{k \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ_{k} (x)) d x = \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ (x)) d x$ .

Indeed, setting

μ_{v} : = {max}_{i \in I} | ξ_{i, 1} \land ξ_{i, 2} |

(

μ_{v} > 0

) and using ( 14 ), we deduce that there exists

k_{v} \geq 1

such that for every

k \geq k_{v}

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{x \in \bar{Σ}} | φ_{k} (x) - φ (x) | < \frac{1}{2 j μ_{v}} . \end{matrix}

(15)

Let

x \in V_{i}

with

i \in I

, and let

k \geq k_{v}

. As

φ \in C (\bar{Σ}; Λ_{v}^{j})

we have

\begin{matrix} | d e t (ξ_{i} | φ_{k} (x)) | \geq \frac{1}{j} - | d e t (ξ_{i} | φ_{k} (x) - φ (x)) | . \end{matrix}

(16)

Noticing that

| d e t (ξ_{i} | φ_{k} (x) - φ (x)) | \leq | ξ_{i, 1} \land ξ_{i, 2} | | φ_{k} (x) - φ (x) |

, from ( 15 ) and ( 16 ) we deduce that

| d e t (ξ_{i} | φ_{k} (x)) | \geq \frac{1}{2 j},

and (c

_{1}

) is proved. Combining (c

_{1}

) with (C

_{2}

) we see that

{sup}_{k \geq k_{v}} W (\nabla v (\cdot) | φ_{k} (\cdot)) \in L^{1} (Σ) .

W

is continuous we have

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} W (\nabla v (x) | φ_{k} (x)) = W (\nabla v (x) | φ (x))

for all

x \in V

, and (c

_{2}

) follows by using Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, which completes the claim.

Fix any

k \geq k_{v}

and define

θ :] - \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} [\to R

θ (x_{3}) : = {min}_{i \in I} {inf}_{x \in {\bar{V}}_{i}} | d e t (ξ_{i} + x_{3} \nabla φ_{k} (x) | φ_{k} (x)) | .

Clearly

θ

is continuous. By (c

_{1}

) we have

θ (0) \geq \frac{1}{2 j}

, and so there exists

η_{v} \in] 0, \frac{1}{2} [

such that

θ (x_{3}) \geq \frac{1}{4 j}

for all

x_{3} \in] - η_{v}, η_{v} [

. Let

u_{k} : Σ_{1} \to R

be given by

u_{k} (x, x_{3}) : = v (x) + x_{3} φ_{k} (x) .

From the above it follows that

(c $_{3}$ ) $| d e t \nabla u_{k} (x, ɛ x_{3}) | \geq \frac{1}{4 j}$ for all $ɛ \in] 0, η_{v} [$ and all $(x, x_{3}) \in V \times] - \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} [$ .

As in the proof of (c

_{2}

), from (c

_{3}

) together with (C

_{2}

) and the continuity of

W

, we obtain

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} E_{ɛ} (u_{k}) = {lim}_{ɛ \to 0} \int_{Σ_{1}} W (\nabla u_{k} (x, ɛ x_{3})) d x d x_{3} = \int_{Σ} W (\nabla v (x) | φ_{k} (x)) d x . \end{matrix}

(17)

For every

ɛ > 0

and every

k \geq k_{v}

, since

π_{ɛ} (u_{k}) = v

we have

ℰ_{ɛ} (v) \leq E_{ɛ} (u_{k})

Using ( 17 ), (c

_{2}

) and ( 13 ), we deduce that

{limsup}_{ɛ \to 0} ℰ_{ɛ} (v) \leq ℰ (v) + \frac{1}{n},

and ( 12 ) follows by letting

n \to + \infty

□

A Representation of $\bar{ℰ}$

Theorems 2.7 and 2.13 are contained in [6] . For the convenience of the reader, in this appendix we recall their proofs.

A.1 Preliminary results

The following proposition gives two interesting properties of functions

Z_{k} W_{0}

defined in Sect. 2.3.2. This follows easily from [14,Lemma2.16,Theorem2.17andProposition2.3] .

Proposition A.1. Every function

Z_{k} W_{0}

with

k \geq 1

satisfies the following two properties:

(i) for every bounded open set $D \subset R^{2}$ with $| \partial D | = 0$ and every $ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}$ , $Z_{k} W_{0} (ξ) = inf {\frac{1}{| D |} \int_{D} Z_{k - 1} W_{0} (ξ + \nabla φ (y)) d y : φ \in A f f_{0} (D; R^{3})} .$
(ii) $Z_{k} W_{0}$ is continuous in the interior of its effective domain.

Proposition A.1 (i) (resp. Proposition A.1 (ii)) is used in the proof of Theorem A.2 below (resp. Theorem 2.13 and Corollary A.4 ).

Theorem A.2. If (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds then

Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) \leq c (1 + | ξ |^{p})

for all

ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}

and some

c > 0

To prove Theorem A.2 we need the following lemma.

Lemma A.3. If (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) holds then for every

δ > 0

, there exists

r_{δ} > 0

such that for all

ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) \in M^{3 \times 2}

i f min {| ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |, | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} |} \geq δ t h e n Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) \leq r_{δ} (1 + | ξ |^{p}) .

Proof. Let

δ > 0

and

ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) \in M^{3 \times 2}

be such that

min {| ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |, | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} |} \geq δ

Set

D : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in R^{2} : x_{1} - 1 < x_{2} < x_{1} + 1 a n d - x_{1} - 1 < x_{2} < 1 - x_{1}} .

For each

t \in R

, define

φ_{t} \in A f f_{0} (D; R)

φ_{t} (x_{1}, x_{2}) : = {\begin{matrix} - t x_{1} + t (x_{2} + 1) & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{1} \\ t (1 - x_{1}) - t x_{2} & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{2} \\ t x_{1} + t (1 - x_{2}) & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{3} \\ t (x_{1} + 1) + t x_{2} & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{4} \end{matrix}

with

$Δ_{1} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in D : x_{1} \geq 0 a n d x_{2} \leq 0};$
$Δ_{2} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in D : x_{1} \geq 0 a n d x_{2} \geq 0};$
$Δ_{3} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in D : x_{1} \leq 0 a n d x_{2} \geq 0};$
$Δ_{4} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in D : x_{1} \leq 0 a n d x_{2} \leq 0} .$

Assume first

| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | \neq 0

. Define

φ \in A f f_{0} (D; R^{3})

φ : = (φ_{ν_{1}}, φ_{ν_{2}}, φ_{ν_{3}}) w i t h ν : = \frac{ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2}}{| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} |},

where

ν_{1}

ν_{2}

ν_{3}

are the components of the vector

ν

. Then,

ξ + \nabla φ (x) = {\begin{matrix} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} + ν) & i f x \in Δ_{1} \\ (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} - ν) & i f x \in Δ_{2} \\ (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} - ν) & i f x \in Δ_{3} \\ (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} + ν) & i f x \in Δ_{4} . \end{matrix}

Taking Proposition A.1 (i) into account, it follows that

\begin{matrix} Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) & \leq & \frac{1}{4} (W_{0} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} + ν) + W_{0} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} - ν) \end{matrix}

(18)

\begin{matrix} + W_{0} (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} - ν) + W_{0} (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} + ν)) . \end{matrix}

But

\begin{matrix} | (ξ_{1} - ν) \land (ξ_{2} + ν) |^{2} & = & | ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} + (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) \land ν |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} |^{2} + | (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) \land ν |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & | (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) \land ν |^{2}, \end{matrix}

and so

| (ξ_{1} + ν) \land (ξ_{2} - ν) | \geq | (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) \land ν | = | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} | .

Similarly, we obtain:

$| (ξ_{1} - ν) \land (ξ_{2} - ν) | \geq | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} |$ ;
$| (ξ_{1} + ν) \land (ξ_{2} - ν) | \geq | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |$ ;
$| (ξ_{1} + ν) \land (ξ_{2} + ν) | \geq | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} |$ .

Thus,

| (ξ_{1} - ν) \land (ξ_{2} + ν) | \geq δ

| (ξ_{1} - ν) \land (ξ_{2} - ν) | \geq δ

| (ξ_{1} + ν) \land (ξ_{2} - ν) | \geq δ

and

| (ξ_{1} + ν) \land (ξ_{2} + ν) | \geq δ

, because

min {| ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |, | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} |} \geq δ

. Using (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

), it follows that

\begin{matrix} W_{0} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} + ν) & \leq & c_{δ} (1 + | (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} + ν) |^{p}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c_{δ} 2^{p} (1 + | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) |^{p} + | (- ν | ν) |^{p}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p}) . \end{matrix}

In the same manner, we have:

$W_{0} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2} - ν) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ;
$W_{0} (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} - ν) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ;
$W_{0} (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2} + ν) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ,

and, from ( 18 ), we conclude that

Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p}) .

Assume now

| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | = 0

. Then, one the three following possibilities holds:

(i) $ξ_{1} \neq 0$ and $ξ_{2} = 0$ ;
(ii) $ξ_{1} = 0$ and $ξ_{2} \neq 0$ ;
(iii) there exists $λ \in R$ such that $ξ_{1} = λ ξ_{2}$ (with $ξ_{1} \neq 0$ and $ξ_{2} \neq 0$ ).

Let

σ \in R^{3}

be such that

| σ | = 1 a n d {\begin{matrix} 〈 ξ_{1}, σ 〉 = 0 & i f e i t h e r (i) o r (i i i) i s s a t i s f i e d \\ 〈 ξ_{2}, σ 〉 = 0 & i f (i i) i s s a t i s f i e d . \end{matrix}

Defining

ψ \in A f f_{0} (D; R^{3})

ψ : = (φ_{σ_{1}}, φ_{σ_{2}}, φ_{σ_{3}})

, and using Proposition A.1 (i) we see that

\begin{matrix} Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) & \leq & \frac{1}{4} (W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2} + σ) + W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2} - σ) \end{matrix}

(19)

\begin{matrix} + W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2} - σ) + W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2} + σ)) . \end{matrix}

Moreover, we have:

$| (ξ_{1} - σ) \land (ξ_{2} + σ) | = | (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) \land σ | = | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} | \geq δ$ ;
$| (ξ_{1} - σ) \land (ξ_{2} - σ) | = | σ \land (ξ_{1} - ξ_{2}) | = | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} | \geq δ$ ;
$| (ξ_{1} + σ) \land (ξ_{2} - σ) | = | σ \land (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) | = | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} | \geq δ$ ;
$| (ξ_{1} + σ) \land (ξ_{2} + σ) | = | (ξ_{1} - ξ_{2}) \land σ | = | ξ_{1} - ξ_{2} | \geq δ$ ,

and, by (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

), we obtain:

$W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2} + σ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ;
$W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2} - σ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ;
$W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2} - σ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ ;
$W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2} + σ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ .

From ( 19 ) it follows that

Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ) \leq c_{δ} 2^{2 p} (1 + | ξ |^{p}),

and the proof is complete. □

Proof of Theorem A.2 . Let

ξ = (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) \in M^{3 \times 2}

. For each

t \in R

, define

φ_{t} \in A f f_{0} (Y; R)

φ_{t} (x_{1}, x_{2}) : = {\begin{matrix} t x_{2} & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{1} \\ t (1 - x_{1}) & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{2} \\ t (1 - x_{2}) & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{3} \\ t x_{1} & i f (x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Δ_{4} \end{matrix}

with

$Δ_{1} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Y : x_{2} \leq x_{1} \leq - x_{2} + 1};$
$Δ_{2} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Y : - x_{1} + 1 \leq x_{2} \leq x_{1}};$
$Δ_{3} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Y : - x_{2} + 1 \leq x_{1} \leq x_{2}};$
$Δ_{4} : = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in Y : x_{1} \leq x_{2} \leq - x_{1} + 1} .$

Assume first

| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | \neq 0

. Define

φ \in A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3})

φ : = (φ_{ν_{1}}, φ_{ν_{2}}, φ_{ν_{3}}) w i t h ν : = \frac{(ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2})}{| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} |},

where

ν_{1}

ν_{2}

ν_{3}

are the components of the vector

ν

. Then,

ξ + \nabla φ (x) = {\begin{matrix} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + ν) & i f x \in Δ_{1} \\ (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2}) & i f x \in Δ_{2} \\ (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - ν) & i f x \in Δ_{3} \\ (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2}) & i f x \in Δ_{4} . \end{matrix}

But

\begin{matrix} | ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} + ν) |^{2} & = & | (ξ_{1} + ξ_{2}) + ν |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |^{2} + | ν |^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | ξ_{1} + ξ_{2} |^{2} + 1 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & 1, \end{matrix}

hence

| ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} + ν) | \geq 1 .

Similarly, we obtain

| ξ_{1} - (ξ_{2} + ν) | \geq 1,

and consequently

min {| ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} + ν) |, | ξ_{1} - (ξ_{2} + ν) |} \geq 1 .

In the same manner, we have:

$min {| (ξ_{1} - ν) + ξ_{2} |, | (ξ_{1} - ν) - ξ_{2} |} \geq 1$ ;
$min {| ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} - ν) |, | ξ_{1} - (ξ_{2} - ν) |} \geq 1$ ;
$min {| (ξ_{1} + ν) + ξ_{2} |, | (ξ_{1} + ν) - ξ_{2} |} \geq 1$ .

Noticing that

\begin{matrix} Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) & \leq & \frac{1}{4} (Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + ν) + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - ν) + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2})), \end{matrix}

from Lemma A.3 we deduce that

\begin{matrix} Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) & \leq & \frac{r_{1}}{4} (4 + | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + ν) |^{p} + | (ξ_{1} - ν | ξ_{2}) |^{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - ν) |^{p} + | (ξ_{1} + ν | ξ_{2}) |^{p}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{r_{1}}{4} 2^{p} (4 + 4 | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2}) |^{p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + | (0 | ν) |^{p} + | (- ν | 0) |^{p} + | (0 | - ν) |^{p} + | (ν | 0) |^{p}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & r_{1} 2^{p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p}) . \end{matrix}

Assume now

| ξ_{1} \land ξ_{2} | = 0

. Then, one the four following possibilities holds:

(i) $ξ_{1} = 0$ and $ξ_{2} = 0$ ;
(ii) $ξ_{1} \neq 0$ and $ξ_{2} = 0$ ;
(iii) $ξ_{1} = 0$ and $ξ_{2} \neq 0$ ;
(iv) there exists $λ \in R$ such that $ξ_{1} = λ ξ_{2}$ (with $ξ_{1} \neq 0$ and $ξ_{2} \neq 0$ ).

Let

σ \in R^{3}

be such that

{\begin{matrix} | σ | = 1 & i f (i) i s s a t i s f i e d \\ | σ | = 1 a n d 〈 ξ_{1}, σ 〉 = 0 & i f e i t h e r (i i) o r (i v) i s s a t i s f i e d \\ | σ | = 1 a n d 〈 ξ_{2}, σ 〉 = 0 & i f (i i i) i s s a t i s f i e d . \end{matrix}

Defining

ψ \in A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3})

ψ : = (φ_{σ_{1}}, φ_{σ_{2}}, φ_{σ_{3}})

, we have

\begin{matrix} Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) & \leq & \frac{1}{4} (Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + σ) + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - σ) + Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2})) . \end{matrix}

Moreover, we have:

$min {| ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} + σ) |, | ξ_{1} - (ξ_{2} + σ) |} \geq 1$ ;
$min {| (ξ_{1} - σ) + ξ_{2} |, | (ξ_{1} - σ) - ξ_{2} |} \geq 1$ ;
$min {| ξ_{1} + (ξ_{2} - σ) |, | ξ_{1} - (ξ_{2} - σ) |} \geq 1$ ;
$min {| (ξ_{1} + σ) + ξ_{2} |, | (ξ_{1} + σ) - ξ_{2} |} \geq 1$ ,

and, by Lemma A.3 , we obtain:

$Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + σ) \leq r_{1} (1 + | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} + σ) |^{p})$ ;
$Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2}) \leq r_{1} (1 + | (ξ_{1} - σ | ξ_{2}) |^{p})$ ;
$Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - σ) \leq r_{1} (1 + | (ξ_{1} | ξ_{2} - σ) |^{p})$ ;
$Z_{1} W_{0} (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2}) \leq r_{1} (1 + | (ξ_{1} + σ | ξ_{2}) |^{p})$ .

It follows that

Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) \leq r_{1} 2^{p + 1} (1 + | ξ |^{p}),

and the proof is complete.

□

The following result is a consequence of Theorem A.2 and Proposition A.1 (ii).

Corollary A.4. Under (

{\bar{C}}_{2}

) we have

Q W_{0} = Q [Z_{2} W_{0}] = Z_{3} W_{0}

Proof. Using Theorem A.2 we see that $Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) \leq c (1 + | ξ |^{p})$ for all $ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}$ and some $c > 0$ . Then $Z_{2} W_{0}$ is finite, and so $Z_{2} W_{0}$ is continuous by Proposition A.1 (ii). From Dacorogna's quasiconvexification formula [12,Theorem1.1p.201] , it follows that $Q [Z_{2} W_{0}] = Z_{3} W_{0}$ . On the other hand, as $Z_{2} W_{0} \leq W_{0}$ we have $Q [Z_{2} W_{0}] \leq Q W_{0}$ . Moreover, it is clear that if $g : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]$ is quasiconvex, then $Z_{k} g = g$ for all integers $k \geq 1$ . Hence $Q W_{0} \leq Q [Z_{2} W_{0}]$ , and the proof is complete. □

A.2 Proof of Theorems 2.7 and 2.13

We begin by proving Proposition A.5 below which will play an essential role in the proof of Theorems 2.7 and 2.13 . Set

Z_{0} W_{0} : = W_{0}

and, for each integer

k \geq 0

, define

ℱ_{k} : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

ℱ_{k} (v) : = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{k} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x : A f f (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

Proposition A.5.

ℱ_{k} = \bar{ℰ}

for all integers

k \geq 0

To prove Proposition A.5 we need the following lemma.

Lemma A.6. For every integer

k \geq 0

and every

v \in A f f (Σ; R^{3})

\begin{matrix} ℱ_{k} (v) \leq \int_{Σ} Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (\nabla v (x)) d x . \end{matrix}

(20)

Proof. Let

k \geq 0

be an integer and let

v \in A f f (Σ; R^{3})

. By definition, there exists a finite family

(V_{i})_{i \in I}

of open disjoint subsets of

Σ

such that

| Σ \ \cup_{i \in I} V_{i} | = 0

and, for every

i \in I

\nabla v (x) = ξ_{i}

V_{i}

with

ξ_{i} \in M^{3 \times 2}

. Given any

δ > 0

and any

i \in I

, we consider

φ_{i} \in A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3})

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Y} Z_{k} W_{0} (ξ_{i} + \nabla φ_{i} (y)) d y \leq Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (ξ_{i}) + δ | Σ |^{- 1} . \end{matrix}

(21)

Fix any integer

n \geq 1

. By Vitali's covering theorem, there exists a finite or countable family

(a_{i, j} + α_{i, j} Y)_{j \in J_{i}}

of disjoint subsets of

V_{i}

, where

a_{i, j} \in R^{2}

and

0 < α_{i, j} < n^{- 1}

, such that

| V_{i} \ \cup_{j \in J_{i}} (a_{i, j} + α_{i, j} Y) | = 0 .

Define

ψ_{n} : Σ \to R^{3}

ψ_{n} (x) : = α_{i, j} {\hat{φ}}_{i} (\frac{x - a_{i, j}}{α_{i, j}}) i f x \in a_{i, j} + α_{i, j} Y,

where

{\hat{φ}}_{i}

is the

Y

-periodic extension of

φ_{i}

R^{2}

. We have

\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} | ψ_{n} (x) |^{p} d x & = & \sum_{i \in I} \int_{V_{i}} | ψ_{n} (x) |^{p} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J_{i}} (α_{i, j})^{N} \int_{Y} | α_{i, j} φ_{i} (y) |^{p} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J_{i}} (α_{i, j})^{N} | α_{i, j} |^{p} \int_{Y} | φ_{i} (y) |^{p} d y . \end{matrix}

But

| α_{i, j} |^{p} < n^{- p}

for all

i \in I

and all

j \in J_{i}

, hence

\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} | ψ_{n} (x) |^{p} d x & \leq & n^{- p} \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J_{i}} (α_{i, j})^{N} \int_{Y} | φ_{i} (y) |^{p} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & n^{- p} \sum_{i \in I} | V_{i} | \int_{Y} | φ_{i} (y) |^{p} d y, \end{matrix}

and so

ψ_{n} \to 0

L^{p} (Σ; R^{3})

. Since

φ_{i} \in A f f_{0} (Y; R^{3})

, there exists a finite family

(Y_{i, l})_{l \in L_{i}}

of open disjoint subsets of

Y

such that

| Y \ \cup_{l \in L_{i}} Y_{i, l} | = 0

and, for every

l \in L_{i}

\nabla φ_{i} (y) = ζ_{i, l}

Y_{i, l}

with

ζ_{i, l} \in M^{3 \times 2}

. Set

U_{i, l, n} : = \cup_{j \in J_{i}} a_{i, j} + α_{i, j} Y_{i, l},

then

| Σ \ \cup_{i \in I} \cup_{l \in L_{i}} U_{i, l, n} | = 0

and

\nabla ψ_{n} (x) = ζ_{i, l}

U_{i, l, n}

, and so

ψ_{n} \in A f f_{0} (Σ; R^{3})

and

{\nabla ψ_{n}}_{n \geq 1}

is bounded in

L^{p} (Σ; R^{3})

. Consequently, (up to a subsequence)

ψ_{n} ⇀ 0

W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

. Moreover,

\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} Z_{k} W_{0} (\nabla v (x) + \nabla ψ_{n} (x)) d x & = & \sum_{i \in I} \int_{V_{i}} Z_{k} W_{0} (ξ_{i} + \nabla ψ_{n} (x)) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{i \in I} \sum_{j \in J_{i}} (α_{i, j})^{N} \int_{Y} Z_{k} W_{0} (ξ_{i} + \nabla φ_{i} (y)) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{i \in I} | V_{i} | \int_{Y} Z_{k} W_{0} (ξ_{i} + \nabla φ_{i} (y)) d y . \end{matrix}

v + ψ_{n} \in A f f (Σ; R^{3})

for all

n \geq 1

and

v + ψ_{n} ⇀ v

, from ( 21 ) we deduce that

\begin{matrix} ℱ_{k} (v) \leq {liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{k} W_{0} (\nabla v (x) + \nabla ψ_{n} (x)) d x & \leq & \sum_{i \in I} | V_{i} | Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (ξ_{i}) + δ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{Σ} Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (\nabla v (x)) d x + δ, \end{matrix}

and ( 20 ) follows. □

Proof of Proposition A.5 . As

d o m ℰ \subset A f f (Σ; R^{3})

it is clear that

ℱ_{0} = \bar{ℰ}

. We are thus reduced to prove that for every integer

k \geq 0

\begin{matrix} ℱ_{k} \leq ℱ_{k + 1} . \end{matrix}

(22)

Let

k \geq 0

be an integer. Fix any

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

and any sequence

v_{n} ⇀ v

with

v_{n} \in A f f (Σ; R^{3})

. Using Lemma A.6 , we have

ℱ_{k} (v_{n}) \leq \int_{Σ} Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x

for all

n \geq 1

. Thus,

ℱ_{k} (v) \leq {liminf}_{n \to + \infty} ℱ_{k} (v_{n}) \leq {liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{k + 1} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x,

and ( 22 ) follows.

□

Proof of Theorem 2.7 . From Theorem A.2 we see that

Z_{2} W_{0} (ξ) \leq c (1 + | ξ |^{p})

for all

ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}

and some

c > 0

. As

A f f (Σ; R^{3})

is strongly dense in

W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

, we deduce that for every

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

ℱ_{2} (v) = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{2} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n}) d x : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

Fix any

v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

and any

{v_{n}}_{n} \subset W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

such that

v_{n} ⇀ v

W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})

. As

Z_{2} W_{0} \leq W_{0}

we have

\int_{Σ} Z_{2} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x \leq \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x

for all

n \geq 1

. Then,

ℱ_{2} (v) \leq {liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{2} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x \leq {liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x,

and so

ℱ_{2} \leq ℐ

. But

ℐ \leq \bar{ℰ}

and

\bar{ℰ} = ℱ_{2}

by Proposition A.5 , hence

\bar{ℰ} = ℐ

□

Proof of Theorem 2.13 . According to Corollary A.4 , it is sufficient to prove that

\begin{matrix} \bar{ℰ} (v) = {\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} Q [Z_{2} W_{0}] (\nabla v (x)) d x & i f v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \\ + \infty & o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(23)

Analysis similar to that of Theorem 2.7 shows that

\bar{ℰ} (v) = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} Z_{2} W_{0} (\nabla v_{n}) d x : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})},

and ( 23 ) follows from the (classical) integral representation theorem below.

Integral representation theorem. Let

g : M^{3 \times 2} \to [0, + \infty]

be a Borel measurable function and let

G : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \to [0, + \infty]

be defined by

G (v) : = inf {{liminf}_{n \to + \infty} \int_{Σ} g (\nabla v_{n} (x)) d x : W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) ∋ v_{n} ⇀ v i n W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3})} .

g

is continuous and

g (ξ) \leq c (1 + | ξ |^{p})

for all

ξ \in M^{3 \times 2}

and some

c > 0

, then

G (v) = {\begin{matrix} \int_{Σ} Q g (\nabla v (x)) d x & i f v \in W^{1, p} (Σ; R^{3}) \\ + \infty & o t h e r w i s e . \end{matrix}

For a proof of this result we refer the reader to the book [12] .

□

References

E. Acerbi, G. Buttazzo, D. Percivale, A variational definition of the strain energy for an elastic string, J. Elasticity 25 (1991) 137-148.
O. Anza Hafsa, Régularisation de problèmes variationnels non convexes issus de l'élasticité non linéaire, Thèse de Doctorat, Université Montpellier II, 2002.
O. Anza Hafsa, Variational formulations on thin elastic plates with constraints, to appear on Journal of Convex Analysis.
O. Anza Hafsa, J.-P. Mandallena, Interchange of infimum and integral, Calc. Var. 18 (2003) 433-449.
O. Anza Hafsa, J.-P. Mandallena, Relaxation of second order geometric integrals and nonlocal effects, to appear on Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis.
O. Anza Hafsa, J.-P. Mandallena, Relaxation of variational problems in two-dimensional nonlinear elasticity, to appear in the Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata.
G. Anzellotti, S. Baldo, D. Percivale, Dimension reduction in variational problems, asymptotic development in $Γ$ -convergence and thin elastic structures in elasticity, Asymptot. Anal. 9 (1994) 61-100.
J. M. Ball, F. Murat, $W^{1, p}$ -quasiconvexity and variational problems for multiple integrals, J. Funct. Anal. 58 (1984) 225-253.
H. Ben Belgacem, Une méthode de $Γ$ -convergence pour un modèle de membrane non linéaire, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Série I, 323 (1996) 845-849.
H. Ben Belgacem, Relaxation of singular functionals defined on Sobolev spaces, ESAIM: COCV 5 (2000) 71-85.
L. Carbone, R. De Arcangelis, “Unbounded functionals in the Calculus of Variations: representation, relaxation and homogenization”, Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 125 (2001) Chapman & Hall/CRC.
B. Dacorogna, “Direct methods in the Calculus of Variations”, Applied Mathematical Sciences 78 (1989) Springer-Verlag.
G. Dal Maso, “An introduction to $Γ$ -convergence”, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications, 8 (1993) Birkäuser.
I. Fonseca, The lower quasiconvex envelope of the stored energy function for an elastic crystal, J. Math. Pures et Appl. 67 (1988) 175-195.
H. Le Dret, A. Raoult The nonlinear membrane model as variational limit of nonlinear three-dimensional elasticity, J. Math. Pures Appl. 74 (1995) 549-578.
J.-P. Mandallena, On the relaxation of nonconvex superficial integral functionals, J. Math. Pures Appl. 79 (2000) 1011-1028.
J.-P. Mandallena, Quasiconvexification of geometric integrals, to appear in the Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata.
E. Michael, Continuous selections. I., Ann. Math. 63 (1956) 361-382.

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

Omar Anza Hafsa

Jean-Philippe Mandallena