Professional Documents
Culture Documents
S1110757X03202023
S1110757X03202023
1. Introduction
We consider a mathematical model for a quasistatic process of friction-
less contact between an elastic-viscoplastic body and an obstacle within
the framework of small deformation theory. The contact is modeled with
the classical Signorini’s conditions in a form with a gap function. The
effect of damage due to mechanical stress or strain is included in the
model. Such situations are common in many engineering applications
where the forces acting on the system vary periodically, leading to the
appearance and growth of microcracks which may deteriorate the mech-
anism of the system. Because of the importance of the safety issue of me-
chanical equipments, considerable effort has been devoted to modeling
and numerically simulating damage.
Early models for mechanical damage derived from thermomechan-
ical considerations appeared in [15, 16], where numerical simulations
the damage source used in [15, 16], valid as long as an inequality of the
form β ≥ β∗ > 0 holds.
Our purpose of this paper is threefolds. First, we provide a variational
analysis of the mechanical problem and briefly show the existence of a
unique weak solution for the model. We then introduce a fully discrete
scheme and derive error estimates. Finally, we report some numerical re-
sults on the performance of the numerical method considered. Literature
on the study of variational inequalities is rather extensive, see, for exam-
ple, the monographs [1, 18, 24]. In particular, some results on numerical
analysis of variational inequalities we use here can be found in [19, 21].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present
the mechanical problem and provide its variational analysis including
an existence and uniqueness result, Theorem 2.3. The proof of Theo-
rem 2.3 is based on classical results of elliptic and parabolic variational
inequalities and Banach fixed point theorem. In Section 3, we analyze a
fully discrete scheme for the problem. We use the finite-element method
to discretize the spatial domain and a backward Euler finite difference
to discretize the time derivative. We obtain an optimal order error es-
timate under appropriate regularity assumptions on the exact solution
and data. Finally, in Section 4, we give some numerical examples to show
the performance of the scheme.
u = 0 on Γ1 × (0, T ), (2.4)
σν = f2 on Γ2 × (0, T ), (2.5)
uν ≤ g, σν ≤ 0, σν uν − g = 0, στ = 0 on Γ3 × (0, T ), (2.6)
∂β
= 0 on Γ × (0, T ), (2.7)
∂ν
u(0) = u0 , σ(0) = σ 0 , β(0) = β0 in Ω. (2.8)
d
H = L2 (Ω) , Q = σ = σ ij | σ ij = σ ji ∈ L2 (Ω) ,
d (2.9)
H1 = H 1 (Ω) , Q1 = σ ∈ Q | σ ij,j ∈ H .
(u, v)H = ui vi dx, (σ, τ)Q = σij τij dx,
Ω Ω
(2.10)
(u, v)H1 = (u, v)H + ε(u), ε(v) Q ,
(σ, τ)Q1 = (σ, τ)Q + (Div σ, Div τ)H ,
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 91
1
ε(v) = εij (v) , εij (v) = vi,j + vj,i , Div σ = σ ij,j . (2.11)
2
Since meas(Γ1 ) > 0, Korn’s inequality holds that there exists CK > 0 de-
pending only on Ω and Γ1 such that
ε(v) ≥ CK |v|H , ∀v ∈ V. (2.14)
Q 1
and let | · |V be the associated norm, that is, |v|V = |ε(v)|Q for v ∈ V . It
follows that | · |H1 and | · |V are equivalent norms on V and therefore (V, | ·
|V ) is a real Hilbert space.
Denote by U the convex subset of admissible displacements defined
by
U = v ∈ V | vν ≤ g on Γ3 . (2.16)
T > 0, we use the standard notation for Lp (0, T ; X) and Sobolev spaces
W k,p (0, T ; X), k ∈ N, 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞.
In the study of the mechanical Problem 2.1, we assume that the elas-
ticity tensor E = (Eijkh ) : Ω × Sd → Sd satisfies
Eijkh ∈ L∞ (Ω),
Eσ · τ = σ · Eτ, ∀σ, τ ∈ Sd , a.e. in Ω, (2.17)
Eσ · σ ≥ α|σ| , 2
∀σ ∈ Sd , for some α > 0.
d
f0 ∈ W 1,2 (0, T ; H), f2 ∈ W 1,2 0, T ; L2 Γ2 . (2.20)
g ∈ L2 Γ 3 , g(x) ≥ 0, a.e. x ∈ Γ3 , (2.21)
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 93
u0 ∈ V, σ 0 ∈ Q1 , (2.22)
σ 0 , ε v − u0 Q ≥ f(0), v − u0 V , ∀v ∈ U, (2.23)
β0 ∈ H (Ω),
1
0 < β∗ ≤ β0 ≤ 1, a.e. in Ω. (2.24)
f(t), v V = f0 (t), v H + f2 (t), v [L2 (Γ2 )]d , ∀v ∈ V, ∀t ∈ [0, T ]. (2.25)
K = ξ ∈ H 1 (Ω) | 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1 in Ω . (2.28)
σ̇(t) = Eε u̇(t) + G σ(t), ε u(t) , β(t) , a.e. t ∈ (0, T ), (2.29)
u(t) ∈ U, σ(t), ε v − u(t) Q ≥ f(t), v − u(t) V ,
(2.30)
∀v ∈ U, ∀t ∈ [0, T ],
β(t) ∈ K, a.e. t ∈ (0, T ), (2.31)
β̇(t), ξ − β(t) L2 (Ω) + a β(t), ξ − β(t)
≥ φ σ(t), ε u(t) , β(t) , ξ − β(t) L2 (Ω) , (2.32)
∀ξ ∈ K, a.e. t ∈ (0, T ),
u(0) = u0 , σ(0) = σ 0 , β(0) = β0 in Ω. (2.33)
94 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
Theorem 2.3. Assume (2.17), (2.18), (2.19), (2.20), (2.21), (2.22), (2.23), and
(2.24). Then there exists a unique solution (u, σ, β) of Problem 2.2 with the
regularity
u ∈ W 1,2 (0, T ; V ), σ ∈ W 1,2 0, T ; Q1 ,
(2.34)
β ∈ W 1,2 0, T ; L2 (Ω) ∩ L2 0, T ; H 1 (Ω) .
t
z1η (t) = η1 (s)ds + σ 0 − Eε u0 . (2.35)
0
Then, z1η ∈ W 1,2 (0, T ; Q) and there exists a unique solution (uη , σ η ) of the
problem
σ η (t) = Eε uη (t) + z1η (t), ∀t ∈ [0, T ], (2.36)
u(t) ∈ U, σ η (t), ε v − u(t) Q ≥ f(t), v − u(t) V ,
(2.37)
∀v ∈ U, ∀t ∈ [0, T ],
uη (0) = u0 , σ η (0) = σ 0 . (2.38)
(iii) Consider the Banach space X = L2 (0, T ; Q × L2 (Ω)) with the norm
| · |X given by
T
1 2 2 2
|η|2X = η (s) + η (s) 2 ds, ∀η = η1 , η2 ∈ X, (2.42)
Q L (Ω)
0
for any η ∈ X, t ∈ [0, T ]. Then, the operator Λ has a unique fixed point
η∗ ∈ X.
(iv) Let η∗ = (η∗1 , η∗2 ) ∈ X be the fixed point of Λ and denote u = uη∗ ,
σ = σ η∗ , and β = βη∗ , where (uη∗ , σ η∗ ) is the solution of problem (2.36),
(2.37), and (2.38) for η = η∗ and βη∗ is the solution of problem (2.39),
(2.40), and (2.41) for η = η∗ . Then, (u, σ, β) is the unique solution of Prob-
lem 2.2 which satisfies (2.34).
3. Numerical approximation
We analyze in this section a fully discrete approximation scheme for
Problem 2.2. To this end, we suppose in the sequel that conditions (2.17),
(2.18), (2.19), (2.20), (2.21), (2.22), (2.23), and (2.24) hold. We consider
arbitrary finite-dimensional spaces V h ⊂ V and Qh ⊂ Q, and let Kh ⊂ K
be a nonempty, finite-dimensional closed convex set. Here h > 0 is a dis-
cretization parameter and we assume that ε(V h ) ⊂ Qh . This assumption
is not a restriction for actual implementation of the method since, usu-
ally, V h and Qh are constructed to be finite-element spaces and V h con-
sists of continuous piecewise polynomials of a degree one higher than
that of Qh . Finally, denote by Uh ⊂ V h an approximation for the convex
set U for which we assume the following conformity condition:
Uh ⊂ U. (3.1)
0 = u0 ,
uhk σ hk
0 = σ0 , β0hk = β0h , (3.4)
h h
and for n = 1, 2, . . . , N,
hk hk hk
n = PQh Eε δun
δσ hk + PQh G σ hkn−1 , ε un−1 , βn−1 ,
hk h
σ n , ε v − uhk
n Q
≥ fn , vh − uhk
n V, ∀vh ∈ Uh ,
hk h
δβn , ξ − βnhk L2 (Ω) + a βnhk , ξ h − βnhk
hk hk h
≥ φ σ hkn−1 , ε un−1 , βn−1 , ξ − βn L2 (Ω) ,
hk
∀ξ h ∈ Kh .
(3.5)
n
hk hk (3.6)
+k PQh G σ hk
j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 ,
j=1
σ hk
n ,ε v h
− uhk
≥ fn , vh − uhk
n Q n V, ∀vh ∈ Uh , (3.7)
hk h
δβn , ξ − βnhk L2 (Ω) + a βnhk , ξ h − βnhk
hk hk h
n−1 , ε un−1 , βn−1 , ξ − βn L2 (Ω) ,
≥ φ σ hk hk
∀ξ h ∈ Kh .
(3.8)
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 97
∀vh ∈ Uh .
(3.9)
for βnhk , a penalty-duality algorithm can be used (see [2, 3]). Once uhk
n
is known, we can determine σ hk n from (3.6). So, an induction argument
shows that the fully discrete scheme has a unique solution. In the same
way, we obtain that variational inequality (3.8) has a unique solution
βnhk ∈ Kh . We summarize this result as follows.
Theorem 3.2. Assume (2.17), (2.18), (2.19), (2.20), (2.21), (2.22), (2.23), and
(2.24). Then there exists a unique solution (uhk , σ hk , βhk ) of Problem 3.1.
n
+DG,n +PQh Eε un −uhk
n +k I −PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1
j=1
n
hk hk
+ kPQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 − G σ hk
j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 ,
j=1
(3.13)
98 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
where
tn
n
DG,n = G σ(s), ε u(s) , β(s) ds − k G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 (3.14)
0 j=1
Denote
2
enhk = un − uhk hk 2 hk 2
n V + σ n − σ n Q + βn − βn L2 (Ω) , n = 0, 1, . . . , N. (3.16)
≤ c σ 0 − σ h0 Q + I − PQh Eε un − u0 Q + u0 − uh0 V + DG,n Q
n
+k I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 + un − uhk
n V
Q
j=1
n
+ k uj − uj V + σ j − σ j Q + βj − βj L2 (Ω) ,
hk hk hk
j=1
(3.17)
σ n , ε uhk
n − un Q ≥ fn , un − un V .
hk
(3.18)
Since
n , ε un − un
PQh Eε un − uhk hk
Q
= Eε un − un , ε un − un Q
hk hk
+ PQh − I Eε un − uhk n , ε un − un
hk
Q (3.21)
= Eε un − un , ε un − un Q
hk hk
+ PQh − I Eε un − uhk n , ε un − v
h
Q
, ∀vh ∈ V h ,
− I − PQh Eε un − u0 , ε un − uhk n Q
− σ 0 − σ h0 , ε un − uhk
n Q
− DG,n − PQh Eε u0 − uh0 , ε un − uhkn Q
n
+k PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1
j=1
hk hk
j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 , ε un − un
− G σ hk hk
Q
n
+k I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 , ε un − uhk
n Q
, ∀vh ∈ Uh .
j=1
(3.22)
Thus, taking norms in the above inequality and using properties (2.17)
and (2.18), we obtain the following estimate:
2
un − uhk
n V
≤ c un − vh V + σ n − σ hk h hk h
n Q un − v V + un − un V un − v V
+ σ 0 − σ h0 Q un − uhk
n V + DG,n Q un − un V
hk
+ u0 − uh0 V un − uhk
n V
n
+ k uj − uhk + σ j − σ hk + βj −βhk 2 un − uhk
j V j Q j L (Ω) n V
j=1
100 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
+ I − PQh Eε un − u0 un − uhk
n
Q V
n
+ k I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 un − uhk
n
.
Q V
j=1
(3.23)
1 2
ab ≤ δa2 + b , δ, a, b ∈ R, δ > 0 (3.24)
4δ
to (3.23), we obtain
2 2
un − uhk
n V
≤ c un − vh + δ0 σ n − σ hk h 2 h 2
n Q + un − v V + σ 0 − σ 0 Q
V
2 2 2
+ DG,n Q + u0 − uh0 V + I − PQh Eε un − u0 Q
n n
2
2
+k 2
ejhk +
k I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 Q ,
j=1 j=1
(3.25)
δ βn − βnhk , βn − βnhk L2 (Ω)
+ a βn − βnhk , βn − βnhk ≤ δβn − β̇n , βn − βnhk L2 (Ω)
+ δ βn − βnhk , βn − ξnh L2 (Ω) − δβn , βn − ξnh L2 (Ω) − a βn , βn − ξnh
+ φ σ n , ε un , βn , βn − ξnh L2 (Ω) + a βn − βnhk , βn − ξnh
hk hk h
+ φ σ n , ε un , βn − φ σ hk n−1 , ε un−1 , βn−1 , ξn − βn L2 (Ω) .
hk
(3.26)
1 2
δ βn − βnhk , βn − βnhk ≥ βn − βnhk L2 (Ω) − βn−1 − βn−1
hk 2
L (Ω)
2 .
L2 (Ω) 2k
(3.27)
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 101
n
βn − βnhk 2 2 + k ∇ βj − βhk 2
L (Ω) j [L2 (Ω)]d
j=1
2 2 2 2
≤ c u0 − uh0 V + σ 0 − σ h0 Q + β0 − β0h L2 (Ω) + β1 − ξ1h L2 (Ω)
n n−1
+k βj − βhk 2 2 +k uj − uhk 2 + σ j − σ hk 2
j L (Ω) j V j Q
j=1 j=1
n n
+ k2 + k δβj − β̇j 2 2 + k ∇ βj − ξ h 2
L (Ω) j [L2 (Ω)]d (3.28)
j=1 j=1
n 2
+k βj − ξ h 2 2 + βn − ξnh L2 (Ω)
j L (Ω)
j=1
We now combine estimates (3.17), (3.25), (3.28), and (3.15). Using in-
equality (3.24), after some calculus, we obtain
2 n
un − uhk hk 2 hk 2
n V + σ n − σ n Q + βn − βn L2 (Ω) + k
∇ βj − βhk 2
j [L2 (Ω)]d
j=1
2 2 2 2
≤ c u0 − uh0 V + σ 0 − σ h0 Q + β0 − β0h L2 (Ω) + β1 − ξ1h L2 (Ω)
n 2
+ hk
k2 ej−1 + un − vh V + un − vh V + k2 + k
j=1
n 2 n
+ k2 I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 Q + k δβj − β̇j 2 2
L (Ω)
j=1 j=1
n n
+k ∇ βj − ξ h 2 2 d + k βj − ξ h 2 2 + βn − ξnh 2 2
j [L (Ω)] j L (Ω) L (Ω)
j=1 j=1
102 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
n−1
en ≤ cgn + ck ej . (3.30)
j=1
Then
Theorem 3.4. Assume that the hypothesis of Theorem 2.3 hold and let (u, σ, β)
and (uhk , σ hk , βhk ) be the solutions of Problems 2.2 and 3.1, respectively. Then,
we have the following error estimate:
2
max un − uhk hk 2 hk 2
n V + σ n − σ n Q + βn − βn L2 (Ω)
1≤n≤N
N
+k ∇ βj − βhk 2
j [L2 (Ω)]d
j=1
2 2
≤ c e0 + β1 − ξ1h L2 (Ω) + k2 + max I − PQh Eε un − u0 Q (3.32)
1≤n≤N
N 2
+ k2 I − PQh G σ j−1 , ε uj−1 , βj−1 Q
j=1
h
+ max h 2 h
inf un − v V + un − v V + En ξn ,
1≤n≤N vh ∈Uh
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 103
2 2 2
e0 = u0 − uh0 V + σ 0 − σ h0 Q + β0 − β0h L2 (Ω) ,
2
En ξnh = βn − ξnh L2 (Ω)
n 2 2
+k δβj − β̇j 2 2 + ∇ βj − ξjh [L2 (Ω)]d + βj − ξjh L2(Ω)
L (Ω)
j=1
Inequality (3.32) is the basis for deriving error estimates. For instance,
consider an approximation by using the finite-element method. We as-
sume the following solution regularity:
d
u ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; V ) ∩ C [0, T ]; H 2 (Ω) ,
(3.34)
uν ∈ L∞ 0, T ; H 2 Γ3 ,
σν ∈ L∞ 0, T ; L2 Γ3 , (3.35)
β ∈ C [0, T ]; H 2 (Ω) ∩ H 2 0, T ; L2 (Ω) ,
(3.36)
β̇ ∈ L2 0, T ; H 1 (Ω) .
Uh = vh ∈ V h ; vνh ≤ g h on Γ3 . (3.38)
Theorem 3.5. Assume that the conditions stated in Theorem 2.3 hold and the
solution regularity (3.34), (3.35), and (3.36). Then, choosing the initial data for
the fully discrete scheme by (3.37), we have the following optimal order error
estimate:
max un − uhk hk hk
n V + σ n − σ n Q + βn − βn L2 (Ω)
0≤n≤N
1/2 (3.39)
N
+ k ∇ βj − βhk 2 2 d ≤ c k+h .
j [L (Ω)]
j=1
4. Numerical results
In order to verify the performance of the numerical method described in
Section 3, some numerical experiences have been done in test examples
including simulations in one and two dimensions. In this section, we
resume some of these numerical simulations.
σ̇ = Eε(u̇) + G σ, ε(u), β , (4.1)
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 105
f0
Γ1
Ω Γ3
L g
where E > 0 is the Young’s modulus of the material. We assume that the
function G is a version of the Perzyna’s law (see [9]), that is,
E
G σ, ε(u), β = − σ − PR(β) σ , (4.2)
2λ
Here, σY is the uniaxial stress yield and β represents the damage func-
tion. Note that function (4.2) does not depend on the strain field and
satisfies condition (2.18) (see, e.g., [23, page 92]). When σ ∈ R(β), G(σ,
ε(u), β) = 0 and therefore (4.1) implies that only elastic deformations oc-
cur in the rod. When σ ∈ R(β), G(σ, ε(u), β) = 0 and therefore plastic de-
formations occur in the rod. Thus, the rod Ω = (0, L) is divided at each
moment into two zones: the elastic zone (characterized by the condition
σ ∈ R(β)) and the plastic zone (characterized by the condition σ ∈ R(β)).
The boundaries of these zones are unknown a priori and depend on the
damage field β. From (4.3), it follows that the elastic zones decrease with
β since β1 ≤ β2 imply R(β1 ) ⊂ R(β2 ). This property models the effect of the
damage of the material. In particular, if β = 0, then R(β) = {0} and plastic
deformations occur for any stress σ = 0.
We use in (2.2) the damage function
φ σ, ε(u), β = −2ε(u) (4.4)
E
σ̇ = Eε(u̇) − σ − PR(β) σ in (0, L) × (0, T ),
2λ
Div σ + f0 = 0 in (0, L) × (0, T ),
β̇ − kβ + ∂ψK (β) −2ε(u) in (0, L) × (0, T ),
u(0, t) = 0 for t ∈ (0, T ), (4.5)
σ(L, t) ≤ 0, u(L, t) ≤ g, σ(L, t) u(L, t) − g = 0 for t ∈ (0, T ),
∂β
(L, t) = 0 for t ∈ (0, T ),
∂x
u(0) = u0 , σ(0) = σ0 , β(0) = β0 in (0, L).
For the numerical computation, the following data have been consid-
ered:
L = 1 m, T = 1 s, E = 1 N/m, λ = 100 N · s/m,
σY = 1 N/m, f0 (x, t) = t N/m, g = 0.25 m, (4.6)
u0 (x) = 0 m, σ0 (x) = 0 N/m, β0 (x) = 1.
0.35
0.3
U(x, t) 0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X
t = 0.2 t = 0.8
t = 0.4 t=1
t = 0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
σ(x, t)
0.2
−0.2
−0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X
t = 0.2 t = 0.8
t = 0.4 t=1
t = 0.6
0.35
0.3
U(x, t) 0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
t
x = 0.25
x = 0.5
x=1
0.8
0.6
0.4
σ(x, t)
0.2
−0.2
−0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
t
[0, 0.01]
[0.5, 0.51]
[0.99, 1]
0.9
0.8
0.7
β(x, t)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X
t = 0.2 t = 0.8
t = 0.4 t=1
t = 0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
β(x, t)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
t
x=0
x = 0.5
x=1
Figure 4.4. Problem 4.1: damage function at different times and its
evolution in time for several points.
110 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
f0
Rigid
body
We use a constitutive law of the form (2.1). The plane stress hypothe-
sis allows us to define the elasticity tensor E by
Eκ E
(Eτ)αβ = τ11 + τ22 δαβ + ταβ , 1 ≤ α, β ≤ 2, (4.7)
1−κ2 1+κ
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 111
2.550
2.418
2.286
2.155
2.023
1.891
1.760
1.628
1.496
1.365
1.233
1.101
0.9696
0.8379
0.7062
0.5745
0.4428
0.3111
0.1794
4.7732E-02
(a)
0.4109
0.4107
0.4104
0.4101
0.4099
0.4096
0.4094
0.4091
0.4089
0.4086
0.4083
0.4081
0.4078
0.4076
0.4073
0.4071
0.4068
0.4065
0.4063
0.4060
(b)
Figure 4.7. Von Mises stress norm and damage field at final time in
the deformed configuration.
where E is the Young’s modulus and κ the Poisson’s ratio of the material.
We take
G σ, ε(u), β = (β − 1)σ, (4.8)
112 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage
which leads to the following model for the damage of the material: if β =
1 (undamaged material), the body is linearly elastic; if 0 ≤ β < 1 (partial
damaged material), the body has a Maxwellian viscoelastic behavior and
therefore irreversible strains occur. Here, the coefficient of relaxation r =
1 − β increases when β decreases. The maximum value r = 1 is obtained
for β = 0, that is, in the case of completely damaged material.
The damage function φ is defined as
1
φ σ, ε(u), β = − |σ| , (4.9)
100 V M
|τ|2V M = τ11
2
+ τ22
2
− τ11 τ22 + 3τ12
2
, ∀τ ∈ S2 . (4.10)
References
[1] V. Barbu, Optimal Control of Variational Inequalities, Research Notes in Mathe-
matics, vol. 100, Pitman, Massachusetts, 1984.
[2] A. Bermúdez and C. Moreno, Duality methods for solving variational inequali-
ties, Comput. Math. Appl. 7 (1981), no. 1, 43–58.
[3] M. Burguera and J. M. Viaño, Numerical solving of frictionless contact problems
in perfectly plastic bodies, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 121 (1995),
no. 1-4, 303–322.
[4] O. Chau, J. R. Fernández, W. Han, and M. Sofonea, A frictionless contact prob-
lem for elastic-viscoplastic materials with normal compliance and damage, Com-
put. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 19 (2002), 5007–5026.
[5] J. Chen, W. Han, and M. Sofonea, Numerical analysis of a class of evolution
systems arising in viscoplasticity, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 19 (2000), 279–
306.
J. R. Fernández and M. Sofonea 113
[6] P. G. Ciarlet, The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, Studies in Math-
ematics and Its Applications, vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.
[7] P. Clément, Approximation by finite element functions using local regularization,
Rev. Française Automat. Inform. Rech. Opér. Sér. Rouge Anal. Numér. 9
(1975), no. R-2, 77–84.
[8] N. Cristescu and I. Suliciu, Viscoplasticity, Mechanics of Plastic Solids, vol. 5,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1982.
[9] G. Duvaut and J.-L. Lions, Les Inéquations en Mécanique et en Physique,
Travaux et Recherches Mathématiques, no. 21, Dunod, Paris, 1972
(French).
[10] J. R. Fernández, Análisis numérico de problemas de contacto sin rozamiento en
viscoplasticidad, Ph.D. thesis, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Spain, 2001.
[11] J. R. Fernández, W. Han, M. Sofonea, and J. M. Viaño, Variational and numer-
ical analysis of a frictionless contact problem for elastic-viscoplastic materials
with internal state variables, Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 54 (2001), no. 4,
501–522.
[12] J. R. Fernández-García, M. Sofonea, and J. M. Viaño, A frictionless contact prob-
lem for elastic-viscoplastic materials with normal compliance: numerical analysis
and computational experiments, Numer. Math. 90 (2002), no. 4, 689–719.
[13] M. Frémond, K. L. Kuttler, B. Nedjar, and M. Shillor, One-dimensional models
of damage, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 8 (1998), no. 2, 541–570.
[14] M. Frémond, K. L. Kuttler, and M. Shillor, Existence and uniqueness of solutions
for a dynamic one-dimensional damage model, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 229 (1999),
no. 1, 271–294.
[15] M. Frémond and B. Nedjar, Damage in concrete: the unilateral phenomenon, Nu-
clear Eng. Design 156 (1995), 323–335.
[16] M. Frémond and B. Nedjar, Damage, gradient of damage and principle of virtual
power, Internat. J. Solids Structures 33 (1996), no. 8, 1083–1103.
[17] R. Glowinski, Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Variational Problems, Springer
Series in Computational Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.
[18] R. Glowinski, J.-L. Lions, and R. Trémolières, Numerical Analysis of Variational
Inequalities, Studies in Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 8, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1981.
[19] W. Han and B. D. Reddy, Plasticity. Mathematical Theory and Numerical Analy-
sis, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, vol. 9, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1999.
[20] W. Han, M. Shillor, and M. Sofonea, Variational and numerical analysis of a
quasistatic viscoelastic problem with normal compliance, friction and damage, J.
Comput. Appl. Math. 137 (2001), no. 2, 377–398.
[21] W. Han and M. Sofonea, Evolutionary variational inequalities arising in vis-
coelastic contact problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 38 (2000), no. 2, 556–579.
[22] , Numerical analysis of a frictionless contact problem for elastic-viscoplastic
materials, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190 (2000), no. 1-2, 179–
191.
[23] I. R. Ionescu and M. Sofonea, Functional and Numerical Methods in Viscoplas-
ticity, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press, New York,
1993.
114 A contact problem in viscoplasticity with damage