SIAM J. CONTROL OPTIM.

c 2015 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics


Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 3228–3244

APPROXIMATE CONTROLLABILITY FOR NONLINEAR

Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

EVOLUTION HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES

IN HILBERT SPACES∗
ZHENHAI LIU† , XIUWEN LI‡ , AND DUMITRU MOTREANU§

Abstract. Here we study the approximate controllability for control problems driven by a class
of nonlinear evolution hemivariational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. Actually, our results cover a
broader class of inclusion problems involving time-dependent operators. First, by using a fixed point
approach and nonsmooth analysis, we show the existence of mild solutions for the inequality problem.
Next, we provide a sufficient condition guaranteeing the approximate controllability of our problem
in terms of an associated linear control system. An example demonstrates the applicability of our
results.

Key words. approximate controllability, nonlinear evolution inclusions, hemivariational

inequalities, generalized gradient, fixed point theorem

AMS subject classifications. 35R70, 49J53, 93B05

DOI. 10.1137/140994058

1. Introduction. Let H be a separable Hilbert space with the scalar product

·, ·H , and let a real compact interval J = [0, b] with b > 0. We consider the following
semilinear evolution hemivariational inequality:

−x (t) + A(t)x(t) + Bu(t), vH + F 0 (t, x(t); v) ≥ 0 ∀t ∈ J, ∀v ∈ H,
(1.1)
x(0) = x0 .

Here {A(t) : t ∈ J} is a family of linear closed densely defined operators on H such

that the domain of A(t) does not depend on t, B is a bounded linear operator from a
Hilbert space U into H, x0 ∈ H, and F 0 (t, ·; ·) stands for the generalized directional
derivative of a locally Lipschitz function F (t, ·) : H → R (see [5]). The control function
u takes values in L2 (J, U ). We may consider our problem on a Banach space, but
for simplicity of treatment and for emphasizing the main ideas without too many
technicalities we deal with the problem on a Hilbert space.
In the last decade, hemivariational inequalities have been recognized as one of the
best tools to describe mechanical problems with nonsmooth and nonconvex energy
superpotentials as well as an interesting subject in mathematics. For these reasons,
∗ Received by the editors November 3, 2014; accepted for publication (in revised form) June

25, 2015; published electronically October 15, 2015. This project was supported by NNSF of
China grants 11271087 and 61263006, NSF of Guangxi grant 2014GXNSFDA118002, the Project
of Guangxi Education Department grant KY2015LX391, open fund of Guangxi Key Laboratory of
Hybrid Computation and IC Design Analysis HCIC201414, the Marie Curie International Research
Staff Exchange Scheme Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme
under grant 295118, the National Science Center of Poland under Maestro Advanced Project UMO-
2012/06/A/ST1/00262, and special funds of Guangxi Distinguished Experts Construction Engineer-
ing.
http://www.siam.org/journals/sicon/53-5/99405.html
† Corresponding author. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Universities Optimization Control and Engi-

neering Calculation, and College of Sciences, Guangxi University for Nationalities, Nanning 530006,
Guangxi Province, People’s Republic of China (zhhliu@hotmail.com).
‡ Department of Mathematics, Baise University, Baise 533000, Guangxi Province, People’s

Republic of China (641542785@qq.com).

§ Département de Mathématiques, Université de Perpignan, 66860 Perpignan, France
(motreanu@univ-perp.fr).
3228

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3229

extensive attention has been paid to this field. Under different hypotheses, existence
of solutions for hemivariational inequalities has been proven by many authors. For
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

more details we refer to Bonanno, Motreanu, and Winkert [2], Carl and Le [3], Carl
and Motreanu [4], Costea and Radulescu [7], Costea and Varga [6], Liu [16, 17, 18],
Motreanu, Motreanu, and Papageorgiou [27], Motreanu and Panagiotopoulos [28],
Motreanu and Radulescu [29, 30], Motreanu and Winkert [31], Naniewicz and Pana-
giotopoulos [32], Panagiotopoulos [33, 34], Peng, Liu, and Liu [38], Radulescu and
Repovš [39], Wangkeeree and Preechasilp [43], Xi, Zhou, and Huang [44], and the
references therein.
Since the control problems have wide applications in engineering, physics, and fi-
nance, some works focused on the optimal control problems for hemivariational in-
equalities, which led to substantial progress. For instance, Haslinger and Pana-
giotopoulos [14] showed the existence of optimal control pairs for a class of coercive
hemivariational inequalities. Migórski and Ochal [23] investigated optimal control
problems for parabolic hemivariational inequalities. Park and Park [35, 36] stud-
ied optimal control problems for the hyperbolic linear systems. Tolstonogov [41, 42]
considered optimal control problems for subdifferential type differential inclusions.
We also mention that the approach in studying the controllability properties of
nonlinear systems through fixed point theory has produced excellent results (see,
e.g., [1, 12, 20, 22, 21, 40]). However, there is still little information known for the
approximate controllability of the control systems described by the hemivariational
inequalities. The first paper in this direction is [19]. Our aim in this paper is to pro-
vide suitable sufficient conditions for the existence of mild solutions and approximate
controllability results for the evolution hemivariational inequality (1.1).
Our first main result, stated as Theorem 3.3, provides the existence of solutions
in a mild sense of a control evolutionary inclusion problem (see (2.1) below) that is
more general than inequality problem (1.1). Next, we associate to (1.1) a linear con-
trol system (see (4.1) below) that will play a determinant part in our approximate
controllability result. Then, in Theorem 4.4, we present our main controllability re-
sult establishing that the approximate controllability of the associated linear system
implies the approximate controllability of the control evolutionary inclusion problem
and in particular of the control hemivariational inequality (1.1). A significant trait of
interest of our result is that it extends the criterion of approximate controllability in
[40, Theorem 4.5] and [19, Theorem 4.4] from the time-invariant case to our control
inclusion problem (4.1) with time-dependent operators A(t). Moreover, our construc-
tion effectively gives explicit expressions for the involved approximate controls and
corresponding states. A major step in proving this result consists in obtaining the
existence of fixed points for a sequence of multivalued maps constructed on the space
C(J, H). Finally, an application of our approximate controllability result is given.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 contains basic definitions and pre-
liminary facts needed in the paper. Section 3 presents an existence result for mild
solutions of an extension of problem (1.1). Section 4 is devoted to our approximate
controllability results. Section 5 sets forth an application.
2. Preliminaries and basic definitions. For a Banach space E with the norm
 · E , E ∗ denotes its dual and ·, ·E stands for the duality pairing between E ∗ and
E. By C(J, E) we denote the Banach space of continuous functions from J = [0, b]
into E equipped with the norm xC(J,E) = supt∈J x(t)E . For the Banach spaces
X and Y , the notation L(X, Y ) means the space of bounded linear operators from
X to Y .

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3230 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

Let us recall some basic definitions on multivalued maps. For more details we
refer to [10, 15]. Denote by P(E) the set of all nonempty subsets of a set E. We will
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

use the notation

Pcp,cv (E) = {Ω ∈ P(E) : Ω is compact and convex}.

Given a Banach space E, a multivalued map T : E → P(E) is convex (closed) valued

if T (x) is convex (closed) for all x ∈ E. The multivalued map T is called upper
semicontinuous (u.s.c.) if for each x ∈ E, T (x) is a nonempty, closed subset of E, and
if for each open set V of E containing T (x) there exists an open neighborhood N of x
such that T (N ) ⊆ V . The multivalued map T is said to be completely continuous if
T (V ) is relatively compact for every bounded subset V ⊂ E. Given a measure space
(Ω, Σ) and a separable metric space (E, d), a multivalued map T : Ω → P(E) is said
to be measurable if for every closed set C ⊆ E, we have T − (C) = {t ∈ Ω : T (t) ∩ C =
∅} ∈ Σ.
A key tool in our main results is the following fixed point theorem in [13].
Theorem 2.1. If E is a Banach space, Ω ⊂ E is nonempty, closed, and convex
with 0 ∈ Ω, and Γ : Ω → Pcp,cv (Ω) is a u.s.c. multifunction that maps bounded sets
into relatively compact sets, then one of the following statements is true:
(a) The set V = {x ∈ Ω : x ∈ λΓ(x), λ ∈ (0, 1)} is unbounded.
(b) Γ has a fixed point, i.e., there exists x ∈ Ω such that x ∈ Γ(x).
Now we recall a few elements of nonsmooth analysis (see [5] for more details).
Let h : E → R be a locally Lipschitz function on a Banach space E. The generalized
directional derivative of h at y ∈ E in the direction z ∈ E is defined by

h(ξ + λz) − h(ξ)

h0 (y; z) := lim sup .
λ→0+ , ξ→y λ

The generalized gradient of h at y ∈ E is the subset of E ∗ given by

∂h(y) := {y ∗ ∈ E ∗ : h0 (y; z) ≥ y ∗ , z ∀z ∈ E}.

The statement below collects some basic properties.

Lemma 2.2 (see [5, Proposition 2.1.2]). If h : E → R is a locally Lipschitz
function, then the following hold:
(i) for all y, z ∈ E, one has h0 (y; z) = max{y ∗ , z : y ∗ ∈ ∂h(y)};
(ii) for every y ∈ E, ∂h(y) is a nonempty, convex, weak∗ -compact subset of E ∗
and y ∗ E ∗ ≤ K for any y ∗ ∈ ∂h(y), where K > 0 is the Lipschitz constant
of h near y.
Let H be a separable Hilbert space. In the following, we consider the semilinear
evolutionary inclusion:
 
x (t) ∈ A(t)x(t) + Bu(t) + G(t, x(t)), t ∈ J = [0, b],
(2.1)
x(0) = x0 ,

where {A(t) : t ∈ J} is a family of linear closed densely defined operators A(t) on H

such that the domain of A(t) does not depend on t, B is a bounded linear operator
from a Hilbert space U (the admissible controls set) into H, G : J × H → 2H is a
multivalued map, and x0 ∈ H. The control function u belongs to L2 (J, U ).
Throughout this paper, we assume that the following conditions from [37, p. 150]
hold:

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3231

(A1) the domain D(A(t)) := D of A(t) (t ∈ J) is dense in H and independent of t;

(A2) for each t ∈ J, the resolvent R(λ, A(t)) of A(t) exists for all λ ∈ C with
Re λ ≤ 0 and there exists a constant C1 > 0 such that
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

C1
R(λ, A(t)) ≤ ;
|λ| + 1

(A3) for any t, s, τ ∈ J, there exist constants β ∈ (0, 1] and C2 > 0 such that
 
 A(t) − A(s) A−1 (τ ) ≤ C2 |t − s|β ;

(A4) for each t ∈ J there exists λ ∈ ρ(A(t)) (the resolvent set of A(t)) such that
the resolvent R(λ, A(t)) is a compact operator.
Let us recall from [37, p. 129] the following definition.
Definition 2.3. A two-parameter family of bounded linear operators U (t, s),
0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b, on a Banach space E is called an evolution system if the following two
conditions are satisfied:
(i) U (s, s) = I, U (t, r)U (r, s) = U (t, s) for 0 ≤ s ≤ r ≤ t ≤ b.
(ii) (t, s) → U (t, s) is strongly continuous for 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b.
We know the following from [37, p. 150].
Lemma 2.4. Under assumptions (A1)–(A3), there exists a unique evolution sys-
tem U (t, s) on 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b satisfying the following:
(i) U (t, s) ≤ M for 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b with a constant M > 0.
(ii) For 0 ≤ s < t ≤ b, U (t, s) : H → D and t → U (t, s) is strongly differentiable
in H, with the derivative ∂t ∂
U (t, s) ∈ L(H, H) strongly continuous on 0 ≤ s <
t ≤ b. Moreover,
∂
U (t, s) + A(t)U (t, s) = 0 for 0 ≤ s < t ≤ b,
∂t
∂ 
  M
 U (t, s) = A(t)U (t, s) ≤ ,
∂t t−s

A(t)U (t, s)A−1 (s) ≤ M for 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b.

(iii) For every y ∈ D and t ∈ (0, b], U (t, s)y is differentiable with respect to s on
0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b and
∂
U (t, s)y = U (t, s)A(s)y.
∂s
Related to Lemma 2.4 we also have the following lemma.
Lemma 2.5 (see [11]). Let {A(t) : t ∈ J} satisfy conditions (A1)–(A4). If
{U (t, s) : 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b} is the evolution system generated by {A(t) : t ∈ J}, then
{U (t, s) : 0 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ b} is a compact operator whenever t − s > 0.
In view of what was said above, we may introduce the following concept of solution
for system (2.1).
Definition 2.6. Given u ∈ L2 (J, U ), a function x ∈ C(J, H) is called a mild
solution of system (2.1) if there exists f ∈ L2 (J, H) such that f (t) ∈ G(t, x(t)) for
a.e. t ∈ J and
 t  t
x(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + U (t, s)f (s)ds ∀t ∈ J.
0 0

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3232 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

We note that Definition 2.6 provides the concept of mild solution for problem
(1.1), too. Indeed, let us observe that, according to the definition of the generalized
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

gradient, problem (1.1) is equivalent to the differential inclusion

 
x (t) − A(t)x(t) − Bu(t) ∈ ∂F (t, x(t)), t ∈ J,
x(0) = x0 .
In this situation, Definition 2.6 becomes the following.
Definition 2.7. Given u ∈ L2 (J, U ), a function x ∈ C(J, H) is called a mild
solution of hemivariational inequality (1.1) if there exists f ∈ L2 (J, H) such that
f (t) ∈ ∂F (t, x(t)) for a.e. t ∈ J and
 t  t
x(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + U (t, s)f (s)ds ∀t ∈ J.
0 0

In the next section we will prove the existence of mild solutions in the sense of
Definition 2.6. The set Kb (G) = {x(b) ∈ H : x(·) is a mild solution of system (2.1)
corresponding to a control u ∈ L2 (J, U ) with initial value x0 ∈ H} represents the
reachable set of system (2.1). For the general theory of linear control systems we refer
to [9]. The following definition is essential for our work.
Definition 2.8. System (2.1) is said to be approximately controllable on J =
[0, b] if Kb (G) = H, where Kb (G) denotes the closure of Kb (G) in H. In particular,
the corresponding linear system is approximately controllable on J if Kb (0) = H.
Relevant results regarding the approximate controllability can be found in [1, 9,
20, 22, 40].
3. Existence of mild solutions. The purpose of this section is to study the
existence of mild solutions for problem (2.1). We impose the following hypotheses on
the multivalued map G : J × H → 2H :
H1 (G) G is jointly measurable on J × H and has nonempty, convex, and weakly
compact values.
H2 (G) For a.a. t ∈ J, G(t, ·) has a strongly-weakly closed graph, i.e., if xn → x
in H and hn → h weakly in H with hn ∈ G(t, xn ), then h ∈ G(t, x).
H3 (G) There exist a function a ∈ L2 (J, R) and a constant c > 0 such that
G(t, x)H := sup{ξH : ξ ∈ G(t, x)} ≤ a(t) + cxH
a.e. t ∈ J and all x ∈ H.
2
Now we define the multivalued map N : L2 (J, H) → 2L (J,H) as
N (x) = {w ∈ L2 (J, H) : w(t) ∈ G(t, x(t)) for a.e. t ∈ J}
whenever x ∈ L2 (J, H).
Proceeding as in [26, Lemma 5.3], we obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1. If the hypotheses H1 (G)–H3 (G) hold, then for each function x ∈
L2 (J, H), the set N (x) is nonempty, convex, and weakly compact.
Moreover, we have the next lemma.
Lemma 3.2 (see [25, Lemma 11]). If H1 (G)–H3 (G) hold, the operator N satisfies
the following: if xn → x in L2 (J, H), wn → w weakly in L2 (J, H), and wn ∈ N (xn ),
then w ∈ N (x).
The main result of this section provides the existence of mild solutions to prob-
lem (2.1).
Theorem 3.3. Assume that the hypotheses (A1)–(A4) and H1 (G)–H3 (G) are
satisfied. Then, for each u ∈ L2 (J, U ), the system (2.1) has a mild solution on J.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3233

Proof. On the basis of Lemma 3.1, the multivalued map Γ : C(J, H) → 2C(J,H)
defined by
  t
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

 
Γ(x) = h ∈ C(J, H) : h(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) Bu(s) + f (s) ds,
0

f ∈ N (x)
has nonempty values. In view of the definition of Γ, the problem of finding mild
solutions of (2.1) is equivalent to obtaining fixed points of Γ.
In order to show that Γ has a fixed point, we check that Γ fulfills the conditions of
Theorem 2.1. Clearly, for any x ∈ C(J, H), Γ(x) is convex by the convexity of N (x).
We subdivide the rest of the proof into five steps.
Step 1. Γ is bounded, i.e., it maps bounded sets into bounded sets in C(J, H).
For any r > 0, we set Br := {x ∈ C(J, H) : xC(J,H) ≤ r}. Let r > 0 and
ϕ ∈ Γ(x) with x ∈ Br . Then there exists f ∈ N (x) such that
 t  t
(3.1) ϕ(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + U (t, s)f (s)ds, t ∈ J.
0 0
Using Lemma 2.4(i), assumption H3 (G), and the Hölder inequality, we obtain for all
t ∈ J that
 t  t
ϕ(t)H ≤ U (t, 0)x0 H + U (t, s)Bu(s)H ds + U (t, s)f (s)H ds
0 0
 t

 
≤ M x0 H + B u(s)U + a(s) + cx(s)H ds
0
 √ √ 
≤ M x0 H + B uL2(J,U) b + aL2 (J,R) b + crb ,
which proves the claim.
Step 2. Γ(Br ) := ∪{Γ(x) : x ∈ Br } is equicontinuous for every r > 0.
For each x ∈ Br and ϕ ∈ Γ(x), there exists f ∈ N (x) such that (3.1) holds true.
By assumption H3 (G), we note that for 0 < τ1 < τ2 ≤ b and δ > 0 small enough there
holds
ϕ(τ2 ) − ϕ(τ1 )H
≤ U (τ2 , 0)x0 − U (τ1 , 0)x0 H
 τ1
  
+  U (τ2 , s) − U (τ1 , s) Bu(s) + f (s) H ds
0 τ2
 
+ U (τ2 , s) Bu(s) + f (s) H ds
τ1
≤ U (τ2 , 0)x0 − U (τ1 , 0)x0 H
 τ1
 
+ U (τ2 , s) − U (τ1 , s) B u(s)U + a(s) + cr ds
0
 τ2
 
+M B u(s)U + a(s) + cr ds
τ1
 
≤  U (τ2 , 0) − U (τ1 , 0) x0 H
 √ 
+ sup U (τ2 , s) − U (τ1 , s) (B uL2(J,U) + aL2 (J,R) ) b + crb
s∈[0,τ1 −δ]
 √ √ 
+M (B uL2(J,U) + aL2 (J,R) )(2 δ + τ2 − τ1 ) + cr(2δ + τ2 − τ1 ) .

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3234 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

Lemma 2.5 ensures the compactness of U (t, s) for t − s > 0. In turn, this implies
the continuity of U (t, s) in the uniform operator topology, from which it can be seen
that ϕ(τ2 ) − ϕ(τ1 )H tends to zero uniformly with respect to x ∈ Br as τ2 → τ1 and
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

δ → 0.
By direct estimates, if τ1 = 0 and 0 < τ2 ≤ b, it is easy to prove that ϕ(τ2 )−x0 H
converges to zero uniformly with respect to x ∈ Br as τ2 → 0. Altogether, we find
that Step 2 holds true.
Step 3. Γ is completely continuous.
Fix any r > 0. We need to show that Γ(Br ) is relatively compact in C(J, H). To
this end, taking into account Steps 1 and 2 and making use of Ascoli–Arzela theorem,
we must prove that for every t ∈ (0, b] the set

Π(t) := {ϕ(t) : ϕ ∈ Γ(Br )}

is relatively compact in H.
Given x ∈ Br , ϕ ∈ Γ(x), and t ∈ (0, b], choose δ ∈ (0, t) and define
 t−δ  
ϕδ (t) : = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) Bu(s) + f (s) ds
0
 t−δ  
= U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, t − δ) U (t − δ, s) Bu(s) + f (s) ds.
0

Lemma 2.5 ensures the compactness of U (t, s)(t − s > 0). This, in conjunction with
t−δ
the boundedness of 0 U (t − δ, s)[Bu(s) + f (s)]ds, enables us to infer that the set
Πδ (t) := {ϕδ (t) : ϕ ∈ Γ(Br )} is relatively compact in H.
Moreover, for every ϕ ∈ Γ(Br ), it turns out that
 √ √ 
ϕ(t) − ϕδ (t)H ≤ M B uL2(J,U) δ + aL2 (J,R) δ + crδ → 0 as δ → 0

with a constant M > 0. This implies that the set Π(t) is totally bounded, so in view
of Step 2 it is relatively compact in H, which completes the proof of Step 3.
Step 4. Γ has a closed graph.
Let xn → x∗ in C(J, H) and ϕn → ϕ∗ in C(J, H) with ϕn ∈ Γ(xn ). The fact that
ϕn ∈ Γ(xn ) means that there exists fn ∈ N (xn ) such that
 t  t
(3.2) ϕn (t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + U (t, s)fn (s)ds.
0 0

From assumption H3 (G), it is straightforward to show that {fn }n≥1 is bounded in

L2 (J, H). Hence, passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may suppose that

(3.3) fn → f∗ weakly in L2 (J, H).

From (3.2), (3.3), and the compactness of the operator U (t, s)(t − s > 0), we get
 t  t
(3.4) ϕn (t) → U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + U (t, s)f∗ (s)ds.
0 0

Since ϕn → ϕ∗ in C(J, H) and fn ∈ N (xn ), from Lemma 3.2 and (3.4), we obtain
f∗ ∈ N (x∗ ). Hence, we have shown that ϕ∗ ∈ Γ(x∗ ), which implies the thesis.
Step 5. A priori estimate.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3235

Step 4 guarantees that the graph of Γ is closed. Then it follows from [26, Propo-
sition 3.3.12(2)] that Γ is u.s.c. Therefore by Steps 1–4 we know that the multivalued
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

map Γ satisfies all the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1.

In order to decide on the alternative in the conclusion of Theorem 2.1, we claim
that the set

V := {x ∈ C(J, H) : x ∈ λΓ(x), 0 < λ < 1}

is bounded.
Let x ∈ V and 0 < λ < 1. Then there exists f ∈ N (x) such that
 t  t
x(t) = λU (t, 0)x0 + λ U (t, s)Bu(s)ds + λ U (t, s)f (s)ds.
0 0

By assumption H3 (G) we derive the estimate

 t  t
x(t)H ≤ U (t, 0)x0 H +  U (t, s)Bu(s)dsH +  U (t, s)f (s)dsH
0 0
 t  t
 
≤ M x0 H + M B u(s)U ds + M a(s) + cx(s)H ds
0 0
 t
≤ ρ + Mc x(s)H ds
0

for all t ∈ J, where

  √ 
ρ := M x0 H + B uL2(J,U) + aL2(J,R) b

with a constant M > 0. Then by Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain

x(t)H ≤ ρeMct .

Hence the set V is bounded.

Now Theorem 2.1 yields that Γ has a fixed point, which is a mild solution of
system (2.1). The proof is completed.
4. Approximate controllability results. In the present section we investigate
the approximate controllability of control problem (2.1). This will be done by means
of the linear control system that is associated with (2.1), namely,
 
x (t) = A(t)x(t) + Bu(t), t ∈ J = [0, b],
(4.1)
x(0) = x0 .

The controllability map corresponding to the linear control system (4.1) is defined
by
 b
Γb0 = U (b, s)BB ∗ U ∗ (b, s)ds,
0

which is a nonnegative bounded linear operator on H. Here B ∗ denotes the adjoint

of B and U ∗ (t, s) is the adjoint of U (t, s). Therefore, the inverse of εI + Γb0 exists for
any ε > 0, so the resolvent

R(ε, −Γb0 ) = (εI + Γb0 )−1

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3236 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

is well defined. The resolvent is useful in studying the controllability properties of

system (4.1). In this respect, we state a useful characterization of the approximate
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

controllability for (4.1) in resolvent terms.

First, consider the functional
 b
(4.2) S(u) = xu (b) − x1 2H + ε u(t)2U dt,
0

where xu (·) is the mild solution of (4.1) and x1 ∈ H.

Lemma 4.1. For given x1 ∈ H and ε > 0, there exists a unique optimal control
uε (·) ∈ L2 (J, U ) at which the functional (4.2) takes on its minimum value and

(4.3) uε (t) = B ∗ U ∗ (b, t)R(ε, −Γb0 )(x1 − U (b, 0)x0 ),

ε
(4.4) xu (b) − x1 = εR(ε, −Γb0 )(U (b, 0)x0 − x1 ).

Proof. The existence and uniqueness of an optimal control follows from a general
theorem about linear regulator problems (cf. [8]). We will establish (4.3) and (4.4).
The functional S is convex and differentiable. Therefore, S achieves a minimum uε
which is characterized by S  (uε ) = 0, that is, for all v ∈ L2 (J, U ), one has
 b
S(uε + hv) − S(uε )
0= S  (uε ), vU dt = lim
0 h→0 h

1 ε ε ε ε
= lim xu +hv (b) − x1 , xu +hv (b) − x1 H − xu (b) − x1 , xu (b) − x1 H
h→0 h
 b 
+ε [uε (t) + hv(t), uε (t) + hv(t)U − uε (t), uε (t)U ]dt
0
 b 
uε
=2 x (b) − x1 , U (b, t)Bv(t)H + εu (t), v(t)U dt
ε
0
 b 
∗ ∗ uε
=2 B U (b, t)[x (b) − x1 ] + εu (t), v(t)U dt.
ε
0

Since v ∈ L2 (J, U ) is arbitrary, we get

1 ε
(4.5) uε (t) = − B ∗ U ∗ (b, t)[xu (b) − x1 ] a.e. on J.
ε
Then, we have
 b
ε
xu (b) = U (b, 0)x0 + U (b, s)Buε (s)ds
0

1 b ε
= U (b, 0)x0 − U (b, s)BB ∗ U ∗ (b, s)[xu (b) − x1 ]ds
ε 0
1 ε
= U (b, 0)x0 − Γb0 [xu (b) − x1 ].
ε
This implies
ε
(εI + Γb0 )xu (b) = εU (b, 0)x0 + Γb0 x1
= εU (b, 0)x0 + (εI + Γb0 )x1 − εx1 .

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3237

So
ε
xu (b) − x1 = ε(εI + Γb0 )−1 [U (b, 0)x0 − x1 ]
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

= εR(ε, −Γb0 )[U (b, 0)x0 − x1 ],

which is just (4.4).

From (4.5) and (4.4) we have

1 ε
uε (t) = − B ∗ U ∗ (b, t)[xu (b) − x1 ]
ε
1
= − B ∗ U ∗ (b, t)ε(εI + Γb0 )−1 [U (b, 0)x0 − x1 ]
ε
∗ ∗
= B U (b, t)R(ε, −Γb0 )[x1 − U (b, 0)x0 ].

Thus (4.3) holds. The proof is completed.

Next, through Lemma 4.1, [1, Theorem 2] can be adapted from the time-invariant
case to our time-dependent system (4.1) involving the operators A(t).
Lemma 4.2. The linear control system (4.1) is approximately controllable on J
if and only if εR(ε, −Γb0 ) → 0 as ε → 0+ in the strong operator topology.
At this point, we develop our fixed point approach. From Lemma 3.1 we know
that for any x ∈ C(J, H) ⊂ L2 (J, H) there holds N (x) = ∅. Hence, for every ε > 0,
we can define the multivalued map Γε : C(J, H) → 2C(J,H) as follows:
  t
 
Γε (x) = h ∈ C(J, H) : h(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) Buε (s) + f (s) ds,
0

f ∈ N (x) ,

where
  
b
∗ ∗
uε (t) = B U (b, t)R(ε, −Γb0 ) x1 − U (b, 0)x0 − U (b, s)f (s)ds .
0

It is worth noting that for G = 0, we get (4.3).

The following result ensures the existence of fixed points for the multifunction Γε .
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that the hypotheses (A1)–(A4) and H1 (G)–H3 (G) are
satisfied and the constant c given in condition H3 (G) is equal to zero. Then the map
Γε : C(J, H) → 2C(J,H) has a fixed point.
Proof. The proof is carried out by showing through Theorem 2.1 that the multival-
ued map Γε possesses a fixed point. In this respect, we point out that our assumptions
guarantee the applicability of Theorem 3.3.
It is clear that Γε (x) is convex for each x ∈ C(J, H) because N (x) is convex. As
for Theorem 3.3, we subdivide the proof into five steps.
Step 1. Γε is bounded.
We must show that Γε maps BR = {x ∈ C(J, H) : xC(J,H) ≤ R} into a
bounded set in C(J, H) for every R > 0. Let x ∈ BR and ϕ ∈ Γε (x). Then there
exists f ∈ N (x) such that
 t  t
(4.6) ϕ(t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s)Buε (s)ds + U (t, s)f (s)ds, t ∈ J.
0 0

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3238 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

Notice that
M B  √ 
uε (t)U ≤ x1 H + M x0 H + M aL2(J,R) b := Λ
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

ε
with a constant M > 0. The estimate above is inferred through assumption H3 (G)
because

G(t, x)H := sup{ξH : ξ ∈ G(t, x)} ≤ a(t)

for a.e. t ∈ J and all x ∈ H. This entails

 t  t
ϕ(t)H ≤ U (t, 0)x0 H + U (t, s)Buε (s)H ds + U (t, s)f (s)H ds
0 0
 √ 
≤ M x0 H + BΛb + aL2 (J,R) b := ε ,

which reads as ϕC(J,H) ≤ ε . Therefore the assertion of Step 1 is valid.

Step 2. Γε (BR ) := ∪{Γε (x) : x ∈ BR } is equicontinuous for every R > 0.
As before in the proof of Theorem 3.3, for x ∈ BR and ϕ ∈ Γε (x), there exists
f ∈ N (x) such that (4.6) holds, where f is related to x through the definition of Γε .
Using the estimate of uε (t)U in Step 1 and proceeding along the lines of Step 2 in
the proof of Theorem 3.3, we obtain that Γε (BR ) is an equicontinuous set in C(J, H).
Step 3. Γε is completely continuous.
Let δ > 0. For each x ∈ BR and t > δ, we introduce
 t−δ
 
ϕδ (t) : = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) Buε (s) + f (s) ds
0
 t−δ  
= U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, t − δ) U (t − δ, s) Buε (s) + f (s) ds,
0

where f is related to x through the definition of Γε . The estimate for uε (t)U in
Step 1 and the compactness of U (t, s)(t − s > 0) imply that the set Πδ (t) := {ϕδ (t) :
ϕ ∈ Γε (BR )} is relatively compact in H for every t > δ. We also observe that for
every ϕ ∈ Γε (BR ) we have
 √ 
t   
ϕ(t) − ϕδ (t)H ≤ M BΛ + a(s) ds ≤ M BΛδ + aL2 (J,R) δ
t−δ

with a constant M > 0. Here we have employed our hypothesis H3 (G) on the growth of
the multivalued term. This allows us to infer that the set Π(t) := {ϕ(t) : ϕ ∈ Γε (BR )}
is totally bounded and so relatively compact in H. By the Ascoli–Arzela theorem,
and in view of Step 2, we can conclude that Γε is completely continuous.
Step 4. Γε is u.s.c.
We claim that Γε has a closed graph. Let xn → x∗ and ϕn → ϕ∗ in C(J, H) with
ϕn ∈ Γε (xn ). The fact that ϕn ∈ Γε (xn ) means that there exists fn ∈ N (xn ) such
that
 t

ϕn (t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) BB ∗ U ∗ (b, s)R(ε, −Γb0 ) x1 − U (b, 0)x0
0
 b 

(4.7) − U (b, τ )fn (τ )dτ ) + fn (s) ds.
0

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3239

The assumption H3 (G) ensures that {fn }n≥1 ⊂ L2 (J, H) is bounded. Hence we may
assume, passing to a subsequence if necessary, that
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

(4.8) fn → f∗ weakly in L2 (J, H).

By (4.7), (4.8), and the compactness of the operator U (t, s)(t − s > 0), we get
 t

ϕn (t) → U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) BB ∗ U ∗ (b, s)R(ε, −Γb0 ) x1 − U (b, 0)x0
0
 b 

(4.9) − U (b, τ )f∗ (τ )dτ + f∗ (s) ds as n → ∞.
0

Since ϕn → ϕ∗ in C(J, H) and fn ∈ N (xn ), Lemma 3.2 and (4.9) imply f∗ ∈ N (x∗ ),
so ϕ∗ ∈ Γε (x∗ ), which expresses that Γε has a closed graph. Finally, [26, Proposition
3.3.12(2)] entails that Γε is u.s.c.
Step 5. A priori estimate.
We will show that the set

Ω := {x ∈ C(J, H) : x ∈ λΓε (x), 0 < λ < 1}

is bounded in C(J, H).

Let x ∈ Ω and λ ∈ (0, 1). Then there exists f ∈ N (x) such that
 t  
x(t) = λU (t, 0)x0 + λ U (t, s) Buε (s) + f (s) ds.
0

From assumption H3 (G), we deduce the estimate

   
 t   t 
   
x(t)H ≤ U (t, 0)x0 H +  U (t, s)Buε (s)ds +  U (t, s)f (s)ds
 0   0 
 t 2  H
 H
M B2 b
≤ M x0 H + x1 H + M x0 H + M a(τ )dτ ds
0 ε 0
 t
+M a(s)ds
0
√ M 2 B2 b
≤ M x0 H + M aL2(J,R) b +
 ε 
√
x1 H + M x0 H + M aL2 (J,R) b

with a constant M > 0.

Steps 1–4 render that the multivalued map Γε fulfills all the requirements of
Theorem 2.1, whereas Step 5 answers the alternative therein. At this point, Theorem
2.1 allows us to conclude that Γε has a fixed point, which completes the proof.
Now, we are in a position to provide the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.4. Assume that the hypotheses of Theorem 4.3 are fulfilled. If the
associated linear control system (4.1) is approximately controllable on J, then system
(2.1) is approximately controllable on J.
Proof. For all ε > 0, we know from Theorem 4.3 that the multivalued operator
Γε has a fixed point xε ∈ C(J, H), which results in the fact that xε is a mild solution

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3240 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

of (2.1) corresponding to the control uε introduced with Γε . Therefore, there exists

f ε ∈ N (xε ) such that
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

 
t
xε (t) = U (t, 0)x0 + U (t, s) BB ∗ U ∗ (b, s)R(ε, −Γb0 )(x1 − U (b, 0)x0
0
 
b
(4.10) − ε
U (b, τ )f (τ )dτ ) + f (s) ds. ε
0

Since I − Γb0 R(ε, −Γb0 ) = εR(ε, −Γb0 ), we get from (4.10) and the definitions of the
operators Γb0 and R(ε, −Γb0 ) that

xε (b) = x1 − εR(ε, −Γb0 )E(f ε )

with
 b
E(f ) : = x1 − U (b, 0)x0 −
ε
U (b, τ )f ε (τ )dτ.
0

From our assumption H3 (G) it follows that

 b √
f ε (s)H ds ≤ aL2(J,R) b.
0

By (4.10) and Gronwall’s inequality we see that {f ε } is bounded in L2 (J, H). Thus
there is a relabeled subsequence that converges weakly to f in L2 (J, H).
Set
 b
z := x1 − U (b, 0)x0 − U (b, τ )f (τ )dτ.
0

It is readily seen that

 b  
E(f ε ) − zH ≤  U (b, τ ) f ε (τ ) − f (τ ) dτ H
0
 b  
(4.11) ≤ U (b, τ ) f ε (τ ) − f (τ ) H dτ → 0
0

as ε → 0. The assertion in (4.11) is true due to the compactness in Lemma 2.5. From
Lemma 4.2, which can be applied since system (4.1) is approximately controllable and
on account of (4.11), it turns out that

xε (b) − x1 H = εR(ε, Γb0 )E(f ε )H

 
≤ εR(ε, Γb0 )(z)H + εR(ε, Γb0 ) E(f ε ) − z H
≤ εR(ε, Γb0 )(z)H + E(f ε ) − zH → 0 as ε → 0.

Taking into account that x1 ∈ H is arbitrary enables us to conclude that the multi-
valued system (2.1) is approximately controllable on J. The proof is completed.
Now we turn to the control hemivariational inequality (1.1). Here the hypotheses
on the function F : J × H → R are as follows:
H1 (F ) The function t → F (t, x) is measurable for all x ∈ H.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3241

H2 (F ) The function x → F (t, x) is locally Lipschitz for all t ∈ J.

H3 (F ) There exists a function a ∈ L2 (J, R) such that
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

∂F (t, x)H := sup{f H : f ∈ ∂F (t, x)} ≤ a(t)

for a.e. t ∈ J and all x ∈ H.

Corollary 4.5. Assume that hypotheses (A1)–(A4) and H1 (F )–H3 (F ) are sat-
isfied. If the associated linear control system (4.1) is approximately controllable on J,
then the control hemivariational inequality (1.1) is approximately controllable on J.
Proof. Hypotheses H1 (F )–H3 (F ) imply hypotheses H1 (G)–H3 (G) for G(t, x) =
∂F (t, x) (see Lemma 2.2). Therefore, with this choice, Theorem 4.4 can be applied.
In view of Definitions 2.7 and 2.8, the stated conclusion is achieved.
5. Application to a heat equation. For J = [0, b] and Ω = (0, 1), we consider
the following heat initial-boundary value problem:
⎧∂ ∂2
⎨ ∂t x(t, y) = ∂y 2 x(t, y) + a(t)x(t, y) + Bu(t, y) + ϕ(t, y), t ∈ J, y ∈ Ω,
(5.1) x(t, 0) = x(t, 1) = 0, t ∈ J,
⎩
x(0, y) = x0 (y), y ∈ Ω.

Here x(t, y) stands for the temperature at the point y ∈ Ω and time t ∈ J. We
suppose that a : J → R+ is continuous, x0 ∈ L2 (0, 1), and ϕ = ψ + χ, where χ is a
continuous function and

−ψ(t, y) ∈ ∂F (t, x(t, y)), (t, y) ∈ J × Ω,

with a measurable function F provided F (t, ·) is locally Lipschitz on R, so its gen-

eralized gradient denoted ∂F is well defined. A simple example of a not necssar-
ily convex function F that satisfies hypotheses H1 (F )–H3 (F ) is F (t, η) = F (η) =
max{h1 (η), h2 (η)}, where hi : R → R (i = 1, 2) are convex quadratic functions (see
also [24]).
In order to match the functional setting of Corollary 4.1, let H = L2 (0, 1) and,
for every t ∈ [0, b], let the operator A(t) be defined by A(t)x = x + a(t)x with the
common domain

D := {x ∈ H : x, x are absolutely continuous, x ∈ H, x(0) = x(1) = 0}.

The family of operators {A(t) : t ∈ [0, b]} satisfies the conditions (A1)–(A4) and
generates a compact evolution system U (t, s) given by
t
U (t, s) = T (t − s)e− s
a(τ )dτ
,

where T (t)(t > 0) is the compact semigroup generated by the operator Ax = x for
2 2
x ∈ D (see
√ [12]). The eigenvalues of A are −n π with the corresponding eigenvectors
en (y) = 2 sin(nπy), n ∈ N . Thus, for x ∈ D, we have
∞

A(t)x = (−n2 + a(t))x, en en .
n=1

For each x ∈ H, it holds that

∞
 t
2
π 2 (t−s)−
U (t, s)x = U ∗ (t, s)x = e−n s
a(τ )dτ
x, en en .
n=1

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3242 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

The control space in problem (5.1) is taken to be the Hilbert space

 ∞ ∞

 
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

U := u : u = un en with u2n < ∞ ,

n=2 n=2
∞
endowed with the norm uU = ( n=2 u2n )1/2 , whereas the mapping B ∈ L(U, H) in
(5.1) is given by
∞
 ∞

Bu = 2u2 e1 + un en ∀u = un en ∈ U .
n=2 n=2

It is readily seen that

∞
 ∞

∗
B u = (2u1 + u2 )e2 + un en ∀u = un en ∈ H,
n=3 n=1

thus
t  2 2
B ∗ U ∗ (t, s)x = e− s
a(τ )dτ
(2x1 e−π (t−s) + x2 e−4π (t−s) )e2
∞
 2

π 2 (t−s)
+ e−n xn en
n=3
∞
for all x = n=1 xn en ∈ H. It follows that B ∗ U ∗ (t, s)xH = 0, for certain t ∈ J,
implies that x = 0, which results in the fact that the linear control system corre-
sponding to (5.1) is approximately controllable on J (see [9, Theorem 4.1.7] and [40]
for results of this type). Therefore, all the hypotheses of Corollary 4.5 are satisfied,
so problem (5.1) is approximately controllable.

REFERENCES

[1] A. E. Bashirov and N. I. Mahmudov, On concepts of controllability for deterministic and

stochastic systems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 37 (1999), pp. 1808–1821.
[2] G. Bonanno, D. Motreanu, and P. Winkert, Variational-hemivariational inequalities with
small perturbations of nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, J. Math. Anal.
Appl., 381 (2011), pp. 627–637.
[3] S. Carl and V. K. Le, Multi-valued parabolic variational inequalities and related variational-
hemivariational inequalities, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., 14 (2014), pp. 631–659.
[4] S. Carl and D. Motreanu, Extremal solutions of quasilinear parabolic inclusions with gen-
eralized Clarke’s gradient, J. Differential Equations, 191 (2003), pp. 206–233.
[5] F. H. Clarke, Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1983.
[6] N. Costea and C. Varga, Systems of nonlinear hemivariational inequalities and applications,
Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal., 41 (2013), pp. 39–65.
[7] N. Costea and V. Radulescu, Inequality problems of quasi-hemivariational type involving
set-valued operators and a nonlinear term, J. Global Optim., 52 (2012), pp. 743–756.
[8] R. F. Curtain and A. J. Pritchard, Infinite Dimensional Linear Systems Theory, Lecture
Notes in Control and Inform. Sci. 8, Springer, New York, 1978.
[9] R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart, An Introduction to Infinite Dimensional Linear Systems The-
orem, Springer, New York, 1995.
[10] Z. Denkowski, S. Migórski, and N. S. Papageorgiou, An Introduction to Nonlinear Anal-
ysis: Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2003.
[11] W. E. Fitzgibbon, Semilinear functional differential equations in Banach spaces, J. Differen-
tial Equations, 29 (1978), pp. 1–14.
[12] X. L. Fu and Y. Zhang, Exact null controllability of non-autonamous functional evolution
system with nonlocal conditions, Acta Math. Sci. B, 33 (2013), pp. 747–757.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 CONTROLLABILITY FOR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES 3243

[13] A. Granas and J. Dugundji, Fixed Point Theory, Springer, New York, 2003.
[14] J. Haslinger and P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Optimal control of systems governed by hemi-
variational inequalities. Existence and approximation results, Nonlinear Anal., 24 (1995),
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

pp. 105–119.
[15] S. Hu and N. S. Papageorgiou, Handbook of Multivalued Analysis: Theory, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 1997.
[16] Z. H. Liu, Browder-Tikhonov regularization of non-coercive evolution hemivariational inequal-
ities, Inverse Problems, 21 (2005), pp. 13–20.
[17] Z. H. Liu, Existence results for quasilinear parabolic hemivariational inequalities, J. Differential
Equations, 244 (2008), pp. 1395–1409.
[18] Z. H. Liu, On boundary variational-hemivariational inequalities of elliptic type, Proc. Roy.
Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 140 (2010), pp. 419–434.
[19] Z. H. Liu and X. W. Li, Approximate controllability for a class of hemivariational inequalities,
Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 22 (2015), pp. 581–591.
[20] Z. H. Liu, J. Y. Lv, and R. Sakthivel, Approximate controllability of fractional functional
evolution inclusions with delay in Hilbert spaces, IMA. J. Math. Control Info., 31 (2014),
pp. 363–383.
[21] N. I. Mahmudov, Controllability of linear stochastic systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control,
46 (2001), pp. 724–731.
[22] N. I. Mahmudov, Approximate controllability of evolution systems with nonlocal conditions,
Nonlinear Anal., 68 (2008), pp. 536–546.
[23] S. Migórski and A. Ochal, Optimal control of parabolic hemivariational inequalities, J. Global
Optim., 17 (2000), pp. 285–300.
[24] S. Migórski, On existence of solutions for parabolic hemivariational inequalities, J. Comput.
Applied Math., 129 (2001), pp. 77–87.
[25] S. Migórski and A. Ochal, Quasi-static hemivariational inequality via vanishing acceleration
approach, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 41 (2009), pp. 1415–1435.
[26] S. Migórski, A. Ochal, and M. Sofonea, Nonlinear Inclusions and Hemivariational
Inequalities. Models and Analysis of Contact Problems, Adv. Mech. Math. 26, Springer,
New York, 2013.
[27] D. Motreanu, V. V. Motreanu, and N. S. Papageorgiou, Positive solutions and multiple
solutions at non-resonance, resonance and near resonance for hemivariational inequalities
with p-Laplacian, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 360 (2008), pp. 2527–2545.
[28] D. Motreanu and P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Minimax Theorems and Qualitative Properties
of the Solutions of Hemivariational Inequalities, Nonconvex Optim. Appl. 29, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Boston, 1999.
[29] D. Motreanu and V. Radulescu, Existence results for inequality problems with lack of con-
vexity, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 21 (2000), pp. 869–884.
[30] D. Motreanu and V. Radulescu, Variational and Non-Variational Methods in Nonlinear
Analysis and Boundary Value Problems, Nonconvex Optim. Appl. 67, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 2003.
[31] D. Motreanu and P. Winkert, Variational-hemivariational inequalities with nonhomoge-
neous Neumann boundary condition, Matematiche (Catania), 65 (2010), pp. 109–119.
[32] Z. Naniewicz and P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Mathematical Theory of Hemivariational In-
equalities and Applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995.
[33] P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Nonconvex superpotentials in sense of F. H. Clarke and applications,
Mech. Res. Comm., 8 (1981), pp. 335–340.
[34] P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Hemivariational Inequalities: Applications in Mechanics and Engi-
neering, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
[35] J. Y. Park and S. H. Park, Existence of solutions and optimal control problems for hyperbolic
hemivariational inequalities, ANZIAM J., 47 (2005), pp. 51–63.
[36] J. Y. Park and S. H. Park, Optimal control problems for anti-periodic quasi-linear hemivari-
ational inequalities, Optim. Control Appl. Methods, 28 (2007), pp. 275–287.
[37] A. Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations,
Springer, New York, 1983.
[38] Z. J. Peng, Z. H. Liu, and X. Y. Liu, Boundary hemivariational inequality problems with
doubly nonlinear operators, Math. Ann., 356 (2013), pp. 1339–1358.
[39] V. Radulescu, D. Repovš, Existence results for variational-hemivariational problems with
lack of convexity, Nonlinear Anal., 73 (2010), pp. 99–104.
[40] K. Rykaczewski, Approximate controllability of differential inclusions in Hilbert spaces, Non-
linear Anal., 75 (2012), pp. 2701–2712.
[41] A. A. Tolstonogov, Relaxation in nonconvex optimal control problems with subdifferential
operators, J. Math. Sci., 140 (2007), pp. 850–872.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

 3244 ZHENHAI LIU, XIUWEN LI, AND DUMITRU MOTREANU

[42] A. A. Tolstonogov, Control systems of subdifferential type depending on a parameter, Izv.

Math., 72 (2008), pp. 985–1022.
[43] R.Wangkeeree and P. Preechasilp, Existence theorems of the hemivariational inequal-
Downloaded 10/19/15 to 139.80.123.48. Redistribution subject to SIAM license or copyright; see http://www.siam.org/journals/ojsa.php

ity governed by a multi-valued map perturbed with a nonlinear term in Banach spaces,
J. Global Optim., 57 (2013), pp. 1447–1464.
[44] L. J. Xi, Y. Y. Zhou, and Y. S. Huang, A class of quasilinear elliptic hemivariational
inequality problems on unbounded domains, J. Ind. Manag. Optim., 10 (2014), pp. 827–837.

Copyright © by SIAM. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.