1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphics,psfrag,amsbsy}
3: \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}
4: \usepackage{euler}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \newcommand {\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
8:
9: \textheight=237mm \textwidth=150mm \hoffset=-10mm \voffset=-18mm
10:
11: % DO NOT REMOVE THESE DEFINITIONS
12: \def\email#1{\date{\tt#1}}
13: \def\address#1{\par\noindent#1\smallskip}
14:
15: % PLEASE INSERT HERE YOUR DEFINITIONS
16: \def\Cdot{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}
17: \sloppy
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{Mathematical analysis of fully coupled
21: approach to creep damage}
22: \author{A.V. Shutov, A.-M. Saendig \\
23: \emph{Institute for Applied Analysis and Numerical Simulation} \\
24: \emph{70569 Stuttgart, Germany}}
25:
26: \email{shutov@ngs.ru,saendig@ians.uni-stuttgart.de}
27:
28: \maketitle \thispagestyle{empty}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We prove the existence and uniqueness of solution
32: to a classical creep damage problem.
33: %Conventional creep damage model is analyzed.
34: We formulate a sufficient condition for the problem to have a
35: unique smooth solution, locally in time. This condition is stated
36: in terms of smoothness of given data, such as solid geometry,
37: boundary conditions, applied loads, and initial conditions.
38: Counterexamples with an arbitrary small lifetime of a structure
39: are also given, showing the mechanical interpretation of imposed
40: smoothness conditions. The proposed theory gives a rigorous
41: framework for a strain localization analysis.
42: The influence of the % damage as well as of the
43: damage gradient on the
44: strain localization process is characterized within this framework and
45: a measure of the damage localization is proposed.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: Key words: continuum damage mechanics, Kachanov-Rabotnov
49: approach, creep, damage localization,
50: well-posed problem, Sobolev space
51:
52: \
53:
54: \textit{AMS Subject Classification:} 74A45, 74E05, 74G30, 74G70, 74R99
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: Structures made of metals and alloys are often used in different
59: brunches of industry at elevated temperatures (higher than 0.3
60: times the melting temperature). Typical examples are pressurized
61: pipes and vessels in power and chemical plants, gas turbines and
62: so on. Even subjected to moderate loads these structures
63: experience irreversible creep deformations which influence the
64: stress response in long time scales. The lifetime of such
65: structures is limited by damage processes induced by the
66: nucleation and growth of microscopic cracks and cavities. The finite
67: element method (FEM) is commonly used for numerical analysis of
68: nonlinear creep-damage response in the framework of continuum
69: damage mechanics (see \cite{Hayhurst1}) to estimate the remaining
70: lifetime. The classical creep models are described and analyzed in
71: the following monographs \cite{Rabotnov1}, \cite{Kachanov2},
72: \cite{Riedel1}, \cite{Skrzypek1}.
73:
74: The creep behavior is divided into three stages. The initial stage
75: is characterized by hardening behavior with decreasing creep
76: strain rate. The second stage is the stationary creep with a
77: constant creep strain rate. The last stage is the tertiary creep
78: characterized by increasing creep strain rate and a dominant
79: softening of the material followed by a complete rupture. The most
80: popular constitutive law for the second stage was proposed by
81: Norton \cite{Norton} and postulates the stationary creep rate as
82: a power law function of the stress tensor. This constitutive law
83: is modified by use of time or hardening parameters (see, for example,
84: \cite{Skrzypek1}, \cite{Hayhurst4}) to take the primary creep into
85: account. A new internal continuity parameter $\psi$ was introduced
86: in the original work of Kachanov \cite{Kachanov1} to simulate the
87: material damage within the tertiary creep. This continuity
88: parameter is often replaced by a dual variable, namely, Rabotnov's
89: damage parameter $\omega=1-\psi$ (see \cite{Rabotnov1}). Within
90: Kachanov-Rabotnov's approach the damage rate is postulated as a
91: function of the stress, the temperature and the current damage
92: state. This is regarded as a foundation of continuum damage
93: mechanics (CDM).
94:
95: One of unsolved problems of computational CDM is the spurious
96: mesh-dependence of FEM simulations (compare \cite{Liu1},
97: \cite{Murakami1}, \cite{Altenbach1}, \cite{Shutov1}, \cite{Shutov2})
98: which leads to physically unrealistic results.
99: Therefore numerous regularization techniques were proposed
100: to prevent this mesh-dependence
101: (see, for example, \cite{Saanouni1}, \cite{Hall1}, \cite{Murakami1}).
102:
103: Proposed material models and regularization techniques are
104: generally tested by series of numerical experiments. At the same
105: time the mathematical treatment of nonlinear material models is
106: very poor. Some mathematical results are given in \cite{Deuring1},
107: \cite{Bonnetti1}, \cite{DeSimone1}, \cite{Mielke1}. In
108: \cite{Deuring1} the local existence and uniqueness is proved for a
109: coupled creep-damage model assuming the elastic properties are not
110: influenced by damage evolution (partly coupled approach).
111:
112: For most of the used damage models it is not clear whether
113: the corresponding boundary value problems are well-posed.
114: We say that a given problem is well-posed
115: (see, for example, \cite{Evans}) if
116: the problem in fact has a solution;
117: this solution is unique; and the solution depends continuously on
118: the data given in the problem. In case of a creep-damage problem such
119: given data are solid geometry, boundary conditions, applied loads,
120: initial conditions, and material constants. A mathematically consistent
121: problem statement is necessary for justification of analytical
122: (see the paper \cite{Shutov3}) and numerical techniques. Particulary
123: it specifies how the difference between exact and approximate solution
124: can be measured and what kind of perturbations of given data are allowed.
125:
126: The proper mathematical analysis of nonlinear damage
127: models is complicated by instabilities
128: due to loss of ellipticity of the corresponding differential
129: operator (compare \cite{Hill1}, \cite{Hayhurst2},
130: \cite{Deuring1} for example).
131: On the other hand,
132: bifurcation does not happen before the appearance
133: of completely damaged zone with $\omega=\omega^{\ast}$, where
134: $\omega^{\ast}$ is a critical damage value (see, for example, \cite{Liu1}).
135: The period of
136: time required by the structure to reach this state is called
137: crack growth initiation time $t^{\ast}$.
138: Therefore we prove existence and uniqueness
139: of solution in sufficiently small time interval
140: before failure initiation. On this time interval
141: the deformation is stable and
142: the problem can be posed correctly. Thus,
143: %we concern the
144: %crack initiation, but
145: %we analyzethe stage of damage evolution up to
146: the analysis of crack propagation lies beyond the scope of this article.
147: %, which is, in fact, more complicated problem.
148:
149: The article is organized so that technical details
150: of the proof do not obscure the main points. First, we
151: introduce an initial boundary value problem for fully coupled
152: creep-damage model. In the following section we give basic definitions
153: of function spaces, that are necessary for the formulation of the main result.
154: In section 4 the main existence and uniqueness theorem is
155: formulated. One counterexample is provided, which illustrates
156: the effect of damage localization. Finally we prove the main result and
157: summarize our main conclusions.
158:
159:
160: \section{Constitutive equations}
161:
162: Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a bounded domain which represents the solid.
163: In this work we confine ourselves to the plane-stress two-dimensional case.
164: But the theory proposed here can be easily generalized to three dimensions.
165: Let us assume a stationary temperature field. Therefore the constitutive
166: equations do not depend on temperature.
167:
168: \subsection{Fully coupled damage model}
169:
170: Suppose that the damage evolution is controlled by
171: the von Mises equivalent stress.
172: Accordingly to the classical Kachanov-Rabotnov concept
173: the constitutive equations for secondary and tertiary
174: creep are summarized as follows
175:
176: \begin{equation}\label{consteq1}
177: \boldsymbol\sigma= \boldsymbol{C}^{\omega}(\boldsymbol\varepsilon -
178: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}) \quad \text{in} \ \Omega \times [0,T],
179: \end{equation}
180: \begin{equation}\label{consteq2}
181: \dot{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}= \frac{3}{2} A \ \boldsymbol s \
182: (\sigma_{vM})^{n-1} (1-\omega)^{-n} \quad \text{in}
183: \ \Omega \times (0,T),
184: \end{equation}
185: \begin{equation}\label{consteq3}
186: \dot{\omega}= B \ (\sigma_{vM})^{m} (1-\omega)^{-q}
187: \quad \text{in} \ \Omega \times (0,T),
188: \end{equation}
189: \begin{equation}
190: \boldsymbol s = \boldsymbol \sigma - \frac{1}{3}tr(\boldsymbol \sigma)
191: \boldsymbol I, \quad
192: \sigma_{vM}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\boldsymbol s : \boldsymbol s},
193: \end{equation}
194: where $\boldsymbol\sigma$ is the stress tensor,
195: $\boldsymbol{C}^{\omega}$ is the fourth-rank tensor
196: depending
197: on Rabotnov's damage parameter $\omega$,
198: $\dot{( \ )}$ is the time derivative, $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}$ is
199: the creep strain,
200: $\boldsymbol s$ is the stress
201: deviator, $\sigma_{vM}$ is the von Mises equivalent stress, $\boldsymbol
202: I$ is the second rank unit tensor, and $A$, $B$, $n$, $m$, $q$ are material
203: constants. The influence of the damage
204: on elastic properties is given by the equation (see \cite{Lemaitre}, \cite{Liu1})
205: \begin{equation}\label{fulcup}
206: \boldsymbol{C}^{\omega}= \boldsymbol{C} (1-\omega).
207: \end{equation}
208: Here
209: $\boldsymbol{C}$ denotes the tensor of linear
210: elasticity of undamaged solid. $\boldsymbol{C}$ is linear, symmetric,
211: positive definite mapping.
212:
213: Furthermore, we consider equilibrium equations
214: \begin{equation}\label{equilInvar}
215: \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol \sigma = - \boldsymbol q
216: \quad \text{in} \ \Omega \times [0,T],
217: \end{equation}
218: and strain-displacement relations
219: \begin{equation}\label{str-dispInvar}
220: \boldsymbol \varepsilon =\frac{1}{2} \left( \boldsymbol
221: \nabla \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol \nabla
222: \boldsymbol u^T \right),
223: \end{equation}
224: where $\boldsymbol \varepsilon$ is the linearized strain tensor
225: and $\boldsymbol u$ is the displacement vector.
226: The quantities
227: $(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega, \boldsymbol \sigma)$
228: depend on the space variable $x \in \Omega$ and the time
229: variable $t \in [0,T]$ for some $T > 0$.
230: The system is completed by boundary and initial conditions
231: \begin{equation}\label{boundc}
232: \boldsymbol u= \boldsymbol u^{\ast} \quad \text{on} \ \partial \Omega \times [0,T],
233: \end{equation}
234: \begin{equation}\label{inicond}
235: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}|_{t=0} = {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr}
236: \quad \text{in} \ \Omega,
237: \end{equation}
238: \begin{equation}\label{inicond2}
239: {\omega}|_{t=0} = {\omega}_0 \quad \text{in} \ \Omega.
240: \end{equation}
241:
242: \emph{Remark.}
243: The constitutive equation for damage evolution \eqref{consteq3}
244: was generalized by Hayhurst (see \cite{Hayhurst2}) so that $\dot{\omega}$
245: depends on the combination $\alpha \sigma_1 + (1-\alpha)\sigma_{vM}$ of the
246: maximal principal stress and von Mises equivalent stress.
247: But the proof of the main result (\emph{Theorem 4.1}) is essentially
248: based on the smoothness of constitutive equations, therefore we do not
249: analyze this popular model here.
250:
251:
252: \subsection{Remark on the partly coupled damage model}
253:
254: Equation \eqref{fulcup} of the fully coupled model
255: is based on Kachanov's concept
256: of reduction of the effective load carrying area.
257: This equation is a fundamental form of elastic-damage coupling.
258:
259: Within the partly coupled approach the influence of damage on
260: the elastic properties is neglected and
261: equation \eqref{fulcup} is replaced by
262: \begin{equation}\label{parcup}
263: \boldsymbol{C}^{\omega}= \begin{cases}
264: \boldsymbol{C} \quad \text{if} \ \omega < \omega^{\ast} \\
265: \boldsymbol{0} \quad \text{if} \ \omega = \omega^{\ast}
266: \end{cases},
267: \end{equation}
268: where $\omega^{\ast}$ stands for critical damage state.
269:
270: In most of engineering applications this approach
271: is used as a simplified variant of the fully coupled relations in
272: order to decrease the computational effort.
273: Unlike the fully coupled model, the partly coupled approach does not
274: require a modification and decomposition of the stiffness matrix
275: on each time or iteration step.
276: As it was observed in \cite{Liu1} and \cite{Altenbach1},
277: the partly coupled approach
278: gives a good estimation of failure time for
279: some specimens and initial conditions.
280: Nevertheless, as it will be shown later, this
281: simplification should be used carefully.
282: % even for estimation of failure time.
283: This model does not take into account the
284: stress concentrations caused by damage inhomogeneity.
285: For instance, if $A=0$ in \eqref{consteq2}
286: and $B \neq 0$ in \eqref{consteq3}, then
287: the partly coupled system \eqref{parcup}
288: describes linear elasticity of homogeneous solid.
289:
290: %The fully coupled approach predicts zero stiffness in the
291: %critical damage state $\omega=1$,
292:
293: Existence and uniqueness for partly coupled model were proved
294: in \cite{Deuring1} in case of thin-walled
295: structures. Thus, the plane stress was covered as a
296: special case of shell geometry.
297: We generalize the existence proof, given in
298: \cite{Deuring1}, to take the fully coupled
299: damage model into account.
300:
301: \section{Basic notations}
302:
303: The creep-damage problem \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2}
304: can be formulated in a well-posed manner with the help of
305: suitable function spaces.
306: Field variables which describe the structure
307: are considered to be elements of these infinite dimensional spaces.
308: The corresponding function norms should
309: take into account the physical essence of the
310: problem and the properties of the system of equations.
311: %In that case the norms are used to give a clear definition of terms
312: %"stable", "unstable", "convergency", and so on.
313:
314: \subsection{Definition of function spaces}
315:
316: %For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ we define $l_1$-norm of $x$ by $|x|_1=|x_1|+...+|x_n|$.
317: Let $B$ be a Banach space endowed with a norm $\|\cdot\|_B$
318: and $T$ be a positive real number.
319: We introduce a space of
320: continuous $B$-valued functions defined on the interval $[0,T]$.
321:
322: \textbf{Definition 1}
323: \begin{equation}\label{def1}
324: C^0([0,T],B):=\{\varphi: [0,T] \rightarrow B, \ \varphi \
325: \text{is continuous}\}.
326: \end{equation}
327: This space is a Banach space equipped with the norm
328: \begin{equation}\label{def11}
329: \|u\|_{B,\infty}=sup\{\|u(t)\|_B: t \in [0,T]\}.
330: \end{equation}
331:
332: Let $k \in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $p \geqslant 1$. We define the usual
333: Sobolev space $W^{k,p}(\Omega)$
334: (see, for example, \cite{Adams}, \cite{Evans}, \cite{Gilbarg}).
335:
336: \textbf{Definition 2}
337: \begin{equation}\label{def2}
338: W^{k,p}(\Omega):=\{u \in L_p: D^{\alpha} u \in L_p \ \text{for all}
339: \ \alpha=(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\in \mathbb{N}^2_0,
340: \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \leq k \}
341: \end{equation}
342: endowed with the norm
343: \begin{equation}\label{def12}
344: \|u\|_{k,p}=\big( \sum\limits_{\alpha \in \mathbb{N}^2_0, \ |\alpha| \leq k}
345: \|D^{\alpha} u\|^p_p \big)^{\frac{1}{p}}.
346: \end{equation}
347: Here $D^{\alpha} u$ are generalized derivatives
348: of the order $| \alpha |= \alpha_1+\alpha_2$.
349:
350:
351: Beside the Sobolev space $W^{k,p}$ we will need a proper subspace
352: $W^{k,p}_0(\Omega) \subset W^{k,p}$ which is defined as follows.
353:
354: \textbf{Definition 3}
355:
356: Let $C^{\infty}_0(\Omega):=\{ \varphi \in C^{\infty}(\Omega),
357: \text{supp} \ \varphi \subset \Omega\}$
358: be the set of smooth functions that vanish near the boundary
359: $\partial \Omega$. Then
360: \begin{equation}\label{def3}
361: W^{k,p}_0(\Omega):= \overline{C^{\infty}_0(\Omega)}^{W^{k,p}(\Omega)}
362: \end{equation}
363: is the closure of $C^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$ with respect to the norm $\|u\|_{k,p}$.
364: Note that functions from $W^{k,p}_0(\Omega)$ vanish on the boundary in
365: the trace sense (see \emph{Definition 4}).
366:
367: \textbf{Theorem 3.1} (Imbedding theorem, see Theorem 7.26 in \cite{Gilbarg})
368:
369: \emph{Let $p>2$ and $\Omega$ be a Lipschitz domain
370: in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Then
371: $W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ is continuously imbedded in $C^{0,k-2/p}(\overline{\Omega})$.}
372:
373: \textbf{Corollary 3.1} (Sobolev inequality)
374:
375: \emph{Let $p>2$ and $\Omega$ be a Lipschitz domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
376: Then there is a
377: constant $C_I< \infty$ with}
378: \begin{equation}\label{Imbed}
379: \|u\|_{C^{0}(\overline{\Omega})} \leq C_I \|u\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}.
380: \end{equation}
381:
382: Furthermore we need the traces of functions from $W^{2,p}(\Omega)$
383: on the boundary $\partial \Omega$.
384: % and vise versa the extension
385: %of the functions defined on $\partial \Omega$ into the domain $\Omega$.
386:
387: \textbf{Definition 4}
388:
389: Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain with $C^{1,1}$-boundary.
390: That means the boundary $\partial \Omega$ is locally given by a function
391: with a Lipschitz continuous derivative. Suppose $p > 1$. Then the trace space
392: of functions from $W^{2,p}(\Omega)$ is defined as (see \cite{Grisvard}, pp. 37-38)
393: \begin{multline}\label{TrSp}
394: W^{2-\frac{1}{p},p}(\partial \Omega)=
395: \{u \in W^{1,p}(\partial \Omega):
396: \int\limits_{\partial \Omega} \int\limits_{\partial \Omega}
397: \frac{| D^{\alpha} u (x) - D^{\alpha} u (y)|^p}
398: {|x-y|^p} ds_x ds_y < \infty
399: \\ \text{for all} \ \alpha=(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\in \mathbb{N}^2_0,
400: \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \leq 1 \}.
401: \end{multline}
402: If $p > 1$, then the trace operator
403: \begin{equation}\label{TrOp1}
404: Tr: W^{2,p}(\Omega) \rightarrow W^{2-\frac{1}{p},p}(\partial \Omega),
405: \end{equation}
406: \begin{equation}\label{TrOp2}
407: Tr: u \mapsto u|_{\partial \Omega}
408: \end{equation}
409: is well defined in the classical sense.
410:
411:
412: %Then for $s \in (0,2)$
413: %we designate the Sobolev trace space of fractional order $s$ and exponent $p$
414: %trough $W^{s,p}(\partial \Omega)$.
415:
416: %Field variables which describe the structure
417: %should belong to the proper classes.
418: If the time $t$ is fixed, then
419: we consider the field variables to be the functions, which are defined in $\Omega$
420: and belong to the proper function spaces.
421: We will use the following abbreviations of function spaces and subsets:
422: \begin{itemize}
423: \item $X_p:=(L_p(\Omega))^2$ for the volumetric loads,
424: \item $Y_p:=W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ for the components of creep strain tensor,
425: \item $Y^4_p:=(Y_p)^4$ for the creep strain tensors,
426: \item $V_p:=(W^{2,p}(\Omega))^2$ for the displacement fields,
427: \item $V^0_p:=(W^{2,p}(\Omega) \cap W^{1,p}_0 (\Omega))^2$
428: for the displacement fields with
429: a vanishing boundary values (which correspond
430: to the solid clamped at the boundary),
431: \item $Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p:=
432: \{\omega \in Y_p:
433: 0 \leq \omega(x) \leq 1- \beta_1, \|\omega\|_{Y_p} \leq \beta_2\}$
434: for the damage fields,
435: where $\frac{1}{2}>\beta_1>0, \beta_2>0$ are fixed constants.
436: Accordingly to \emph{Corollary 3.1}, $\omega(x)$ is well
437: defined and $Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$
438: is a closed subset of $Y_p$.
439: \end{itemize}
440:
441:
442: \emph{Remark.}
443: The condition $0 \leq \omega(x) \leq 1- \beta_1$ is natural
444: to guarantee that the elasticity tensor \eqref{fulcup} is
445: positive definite. The second condition
446: $\|\omega\|_{Y_p} \leq \beta_2$ imposes additional constraints
447: both on the damage field and on the damage gradient.
448: % is used to get a uniform estimate
449: %of moduli of continuity of $\omega$.
450:
451: \subsection{Reduction to zero prescribed displacements}
452: In this subsection we reduce the boundary value problem
453: \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2}
454: to the case of zero prescribed displacements along the
455: boundary $\partial \Omega$.
456:
457: \textbf{Theorem 3.2}
458:
459: \emph{ Suppose that displacements, which are given on the boundary,
460: satisfy the following smoothness condition:
461: $\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \in (W^{2-\frac{1}{p},p}(\partial \Omega))^2$.
462: Then there is a function $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}} \in V_p$
463: with $\hat{\boldsymbol{u}}|_{\partial \Omega}=
464: \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}$ in the trace sense} (see \cite{Grisvard}).
465:
466: In what follows, we designate $\boldsymbol{\hat{u}}$
467: by the same symbol as $\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}$.
468:
469: Now we reformulate our problem in a standard way. We search a vector
470: $(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
471: \in V^0_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p$, such that
472: $(\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast},
473: \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in V_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p$
474: is a solution of \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2}.
475:
476: \subsection{Compact form of evolution equations}
477:
478: In this subsection we rewrite the evolution equations
479: \eqref{consteq2}, \eqref{consteq3}
480: in a compact form
481: %under plane stress conditions.
482: \begin{equation}\label{comact1}
483: \dot{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(x,t)=\mathcal{R}(\rho
484: ( \boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)(x,t))
485: \end{equation}
486: \begin{equation}\label{comact2}
487: \dot{\omega}(x,t)=\mathcal{S}(\rho
488: ( \boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)(x,t)).
489: \end{equation}
490: To this end we introduce for every
491: $(\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
492: \in V_p \times Y^4_p \times Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$,
493: %${\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr} \in Y^4_p $, and
494: %$\omega \in Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$
495: %\begin{equation}\label{comact3}
496: %\rho( \boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in Y^7_p, \
497: %\end{equation}
498: \begin{equation}\label{comact22}
499: \rho( \boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) :=
500: \big( \varepsilon_{11}(\boldsymbol u), \varepsilon_{22}
501: (\boldsymbol u), \varepsilon_{12}(\boldsymbol u),
502: \varepsilon^{cr}_{11}, \varepsilon^{cr}_{22},
503: \varepsilon^{cr}_{12}, \omega \big) \in Y^7_p,
504: \end{equation}
505: \begin{equation}\label{comact3}
506: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u):= \frac{1}{2} \left( \boldsymbol
507: \nabla \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol \nabla
508: \boldsymbol u^T \right) \in Y^4_p.
509: \end{equation}
510: For every $\rho \in \mathbb{R}^7$ we define
511: \begin{equation}\label{comact4}
512: \mathcal{R}(\rho):= \frac{3}{2} A \ \boldsymbol s (\rho) \
513: (\sigma_{vM}(\rho))^{n-1} (1-\rho_7)^{-n},
514: \end{equation}
515: \begin{equation}\label{comact5}
516: \mathcal{S}(\rho):= B \ (\sigma_{vM}(\rho))^{m} (1-\rho_7)^{-q},
517: \end{equation}
518: \begin{equation}\label{comact6}
519: \sigma_{vM}(\rho):= P (\sigma_{11}(\rho), \sigma_{22}(\rho),
520: \sigma_{12}(\rho)),
521: \end{equation}
522: \begin{equation}\label{comact7}
523: \boldsymbol s (\rho):= \boldsymbol \sigma (\rho) -
524: \frac{1}{3}tr(\boldsymbol \sigma (\rho)) \boldsymbol I,
525: \end{equation}
526: \begin{equation}\label{comact8}
527: \boldsymbol \sigma (\rho) := \left(\begin{array}{cc}
528: \sigma_{11} & \sigma_{12} \\
529: \sigma_{12} & \sigma_{22} \\
530: \end{array} \right)(\rho),
531: \end{equation}
532:
533: \begin{equation}\label{comact9}
534: \left(\begin{array}{c}
535: \sigma_{11} \\
536: \sigma_{22} \\
537: \sigma_{12} \\
538: \end{array} \right)(\rho) := (1-\rho_7) \frac{E}{1-\nu^2}
539: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
540: 1 & \nu & 0 \\
541: \nu & 1 & 0 \\
542: 0 & 0 & \frac{1-\nu}{2} \\
543: \end{array} \right)
544: \left(\begin{array}{c}
545: \rho_1-\rho_4 \\
546: \rho_2-\rho_5 \\
547: 2(\rho_3-\rho_6) \\
548: \end{array} \right),
549: \end{equation}
550: \begin{equation}\label{comact10}
551: P(z_1,z_2,z_3):= \sqrt{z^2_1+z^2_2-z_1 z_1 + 3 z^2_3}
552: \quad \text{for every} \quad z \in \mathbb{R}^3.
553: \end{equation}
554:
555:
556: The constitutive relations \eqref{comact9},
557: \eqref{comact10} are obtained from the
558: general 3D relations under plane stress assumption
559: ($\sigma_{13}=\sigma_{23}=\sigma_{33}=0$).
560:
561:
562: \section{Main result}
563:
564: The existence and uniqueness theorem
565: states that a unique smooth solution
566: to the initial boundary value problem
567: \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2}
568: exists in a certain time interval.
569:
570: \subsection{Formulation of the main theorem}
571:
572: \textbf{Theorem 4.1}
573:
574: \emph{ Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain with $C^{1,1}$-boundary, $p>2$,
575: $T > 0$, $\boldsymbol q \in C^0([0,T],X_p)$, $\boldsymbol u^{\ast} \in V_p$,
576: ${\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr} \in Y^4_p$, and
577: $\omega_0 \in Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$.
578: Then there exists $T_1 \in (0, T]$ such that for any
579: $T' \in (0, T_1]$ there is a uniquely determined
580: mapping $(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in
581: C^0([0,T'],V^0_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p)$ such that}
582: \begin{equation}\label{result2}
583: \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega) \boldsymbol{C}
584: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast})
585: - {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr})\big) = - \boldsymbol q(t)
586: \quad \text{for all} \quad t \in [0,T'],
587: \end{equation}
588: \begin{equation}\label{result3}
589: (\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)(t)=
590: (\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0)+
591: \int\limits_0^t \big(\mathcal{R}(\rho
592: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast},
593: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega),
594: \mathcal{S}(\rho
595: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast},
596: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)\big)(s)ds
597: \end{equation}
598: \emph{for every $t \in [0,T']$. Here the evolution operators
599: $\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{S}$ are defined by
600: \eqref{comact1} --- \eqref{comact10}.}
601:
602: \emph{Moreover,}
603: \begin{equation}\label{result1}
604: \omega(x,t)<1 \quad \text{for all} \quad (x,t) \in \Omega \times [0,T'],
605: \end{equation}
606: \begin{equation}\label{result4}
607: (\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in
608: C^1([0,T'], Y^4_p \times Y_p),
609: \end{equation}
610: \begin{equation}\label{result5}
611: \dot{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}^{cr}=\mathcal{R}(\rho
612: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast},
613: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega), \quad
614: \dot{\omega}=\mathcal{S}(\rho
615: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast},
616: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega), \quad
617: \end{equation}
618: \begin{equation}\label{result6}
619: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(0) = {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr}, \quad
620: \omega(0) = \omega_0,
621: \end{equation}
622: \begin{equation}\label{result7}
623: \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(t)-{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr}\|_{Y^4_p}+
624: \|\omega(t)-\omega_0\|_{Y_p} \leq \min \big(\frac{\beta_1}{2(1+C_I)}, \frac{\beta_2}{2} \big)
625: \ \forall \ t \in [0, T'].
626: \end{equation}
627:
628: \emph{Theorem 4.1} is proved in the next section.
629:
630: \textbf{Corollary 4.1}
631:
632: \emph{If the solid geometry, applied loads, prescribed displacements, and initial data
633: are smooth, then the fully coupled creep-damage model predicts a nonzero
634: lifetime $t^{\ast}$ of the structure with a lower estimate $T_1$ from Theorem 4.1
635: ($t^{\ast}\geq T_1$).}
636:
637: \emph{Remark.} \emph{Theorem 4.1} assures that $t^{\ast} \geq T_1 > 0$ only
638: for smooth domains without notches.
639: Numerous examples of FEM simulation
640: of notched specimens show that the predicted crack initiation
641: time $t^{\ast}$ tends to zero as the mesh-size decreases (\cite{Liu1}).
642:
643:
644: \emph{Remark.}
645: The lifetime estimate $T_1$ depends %only on the solid
646: %geometry, applied loads, prescribed displacements $\boldsymbol u^{\ast}$, initial
647: %creep strains ${\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr}$, and
648: on the constants $\beta_1, \beta_2$. Moreover, as it will be clear from
649: the proof of \emph{Theorem 4.1}, $T_1=T_1(\beta_1/ \beta_2)$.
650: It is natural that $T_1 \rightarrow 0$ as $\beta_1 \rightarrow 0$ since
651: the lifetime of the structure made of almost broken
652: material ($\min\limits_{x \in \overline{\Omega}}(1-\omega_0)\rightarrow 0$)
653: is negligibly small.
654: Furthermore, $T_1$ tends also to zero as $\beta_2$ tends
655: to infinity even if $\beta_1$ is finite.
656: The physical interpretation of this result could be the following.
657: The rupture time can be negligibly small in the case of big gradients
658: of damage ($\| \omega_0 \|_{Y_p} \rightarrow \infty$)
659: even if the initial damage itself was not substantial
660: ($\min\limits_{x \in \overline{\Omega}}(1-\omega_0) \sim 1$).
661:
662: Example is provided in the subsections 4.2 showing that the dependence
663: of $t^{\ast}$ on $\beta_2$ can be interpreted as
664: lifetime reduction due to damage localization.
665:
666:
667:
668: \subsection{Counterexample: lifetime reduction due to local imperfections}
669:
670: %\subsubsection{Damage localization before rupture }
671:
672: %With the help of deformation process bisection
673: %we will demonstrate the following
674:
675:
676: %To prove this statement we construct a sequence
677: %$\big\{(\boldsymbol{u}_n, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_n, \omega_n)\big\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$
678: %of solutions of system \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2} with the zero
679: %applied load ($\boldsymbol q = \boldsymbol 0$), a nonzero prescribed displacements
680: %independent on $n$ ($\boldsymbol{u}_n|_{\partial \Omega}=\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}$), and
681: %regular initial conditions for damage ($(1-\omega_n|_{t=0}) \geq \frac{1}{2}$) such
682: %that fracture initiation time $t^{\ast}_n \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
683:
684: %To this end we define the first solution
685: %$(\boldsymbol{u}_1, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_1, \omega_1)$
686: %arbitrary such that $(1-\omega_1|_{t=0}) \equiv \frac{1}{2}$.
687: %The whole sequence is defined recursively such that
688: %$t^{\ast}_{n+1}=\frac{1}{2} t^{\ast}_n$.
689: %Let $(\boldsymbol{u}_n, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_n, \omega_n)$
690: %be given. Construct $(\boldsymbol{u}_{n+1}, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_{n+1}, \omega_{n+1})$.
691:
692: %\begin{equation}\label{cont1}
693: %\lambda := 1/ \big(2 \min(1-\omega_n|_{t=t^{\ast}_n/2} )\big),
694: %\end{equation}
695: %\begin{equation}\label{cont2}
696: %\omega_{n+1}(t) := (1- \lambda) + \lambda \omega_{n}(t+t^{\ast}_n/2),
697: %end{equation}
698: %\begin{equation}\label{cont3}
699: %(\boldsymbol{u}_{n+1}, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_{n+1})(t) :=
700: %(\boldsymbol{u}_{n}, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}_{n})(t+t^{\ast}_n/2).
701: %\end{equation}
702: %It is easy to check that
703: %\eqref{cont1} --- \eqref{cont3} define a new solution of
704: % \eqref{consteq1} --- \eqref{inicond2} if $m=q+1$, and
705: %\begin{equation}\label{cont4}
706: %\min(1-\omega_{n+1}|_{t=0})=\frac{1}{2},
707: %\end{equation}
708: %\begin{equation}\label{cont5}
709: %\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{n+1}(t) =
710: %\lambda \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{n}(t+t^{\ast}_n/2), \quad t^{\ast}_{n+1}=\frac{1}{2} t^{\ast}_n.
711: %\end{equation}
712:
713: %\subsubsection{Lifetime reduction due to local imperfections}
714:
715: %An example of damage localization is provided in this subsection without
716: %rigorous mathematical proof.
717: Consider a solid loaded by prescribed displacements on it's boundary
718: as shown on figure \ref{fig1}. Assume that the boundary and prescribed
719: displacements are smooth.
720: \begin{figure}\centering
721: \psfrag{L}[m][][1][0]{L} \psfrag{h}[m][][1][0]{h}
722: \scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}} \caption{System
723: configuration, boundary conditions, and initial damage \label{fig1}}
724: \end{figure}
725: We set the creep strain rate
726: to zero ($B=0$ in \eqref{consteq3}).
727: Consider a curve $l$ of length $L$ within the solid. Suppose that
728: initial damage is concentrated near the curve $l$
729: (see fig. \ref{fig1}) and the initial creep is zero
730: \begin{equation}\label{imperfect}
731: \omega_0(x):=\max(0, \frac{h - \text{dist}(x,l)}{2 h}),
732: \quad
733: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}_0^{cr}:= \boldsymbol 0.
734: \end{equation}
735: It is obvious that
736: \begin{equation}\label{imperfect2}
737: \min(1-\omega_0) \equiv 1/2, \quad \| \omega_0 \|_{Y_p}
738: \rightarrow \infty \quad \text{as} \quad h \rightarrow 0.
739: \end{equation}
740:
741: We assert that
742: \begin{equation}\label{imperfect3}
743: t^{\ast} \rightarrow 0 \quad \text{as} \quad h \rightarrow 0.
744: \end{equation}
745: To prove this assertion we can use the same argumentation
746: as used in \cite{Liu1}. The main reason the
747: lifetime is decreasing is because
748: %the initial stress state is given by
749: %elastic solution. Consequently
750: the stress concentration factor near
751: the curve tip tends to infinity as $h \rightarrow 0$.
752:
753:
754: %\subsection{Discussion of theoretical results}
755:
756: %The counterexample 4.2.1 is based on the idea of using the damage localization process.
757:
758: %In this subsection we discuss the requirements of \emph{Theorem 4.1}.
759: %We show that they have a physical meaning and the violation of one of them
760: %^directly affects the lifetime estimate.
761:
762:
763: \section{Proof of \emph{Theorem 4.1}}
764:
765: To prove \emph{Theorem 4.1} we need several lemmas.
766:
767: \subsection{Equilibrium equations with respect to $\boldsymbol u$ with a given
768: $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}$ and $\omega$}
769:
770: Define the family $\big\{ \mathcal{L}_{\omega}\big\}_{\omega \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p}$
771: of operators of linear elasticity
772:
773: \begin{equation}\label{linealst}
774: \mathcal{L}_{\omega}: V_p \rightarrow X_p
775: \end{equation}
776: by the rule
777: \begin{equation}\label{linealst2}
778: \mathcal{L}_{\omega}(\boldsymbol u):=\boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega) \boldsymbol{C}
779: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \big)
780: \end{equation}
781: for $\omega \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p, \ \boldsymbol u \in V_p$.
782:
783: \textbf{Lemma 5.1}
784:
785: The operator
786: $\mathcal{L}_{\omega}$ is bounded for all $\omega
787: \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p$. Moreover,
788: the problem
789: \begin{equation}\label{probb}
790: \mathcal{L}_{\omega}(\boldsymbol u) = - \boldsymbol q
791: \end{equation}
792: has
793: a unique solution $\boldsymbol u \in V^0_p$ for all
794: $\omega \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p, \ \boldsymbol q \in X_p$ and
795: \begin{equation}\label{linealst3}
796: \| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p} \leq C_{5.1} \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p}.
797: \end{equation}
798:
799: Here $C_{5.1} < \infty$ does not depend on $\boldsymbol q$.
800:
801: \textbf{Proof.} The boundness of $\mathcal{L}_{\omega}$ follows from the following
802: computations
803: \begin{multline}\label{lemma5.1}
804: \| \mathcal{L}_{\omega}(\boldsymbol u) \|_{X_p}=
805: \| \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega) \boldsymbol{C}
806: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \big) \|_{X_p} \\
807: \leq
808: \| \boldsymbol \nabla \omega \|_{X_p} \cdot
809: \| \boldsymbol{C}
810: \boldsymbol \varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \|_{C^0} +
811: \| 1- \omega \|_{C^0} \cdot
812: \| \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big( \boldsymbol{C}
813: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \big) \|_{X_p} \\
814: \leq
815: C(\beta_1, \beta_2) \| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p}.
816: \end{multline}
817: Up to the rest of the article the expression $Q_1 \leq C \cdot Q_2$ should be
818: understood as follows. The quantities $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are related to each other in
819: such a way that there is a suitable constant $C < \infty$, which depends only on
820: $( \Omega, E, \nu, p, n, m, q, \beta_1, \beta_2)$ and $Q_1 \leq C \cdot Q_2$.
821:
822: For the proof of solvability of \eqref{probb} and for estimate \eqref{linealst3}
823: see \cite{Gilbarg} (p. 241). Particulary, we have the following inequality
824: \begin{equation}\label{damloc}
825: \| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p} \leq C( \Omega, E, \nu, p)
826: \frac{\beta_2}{\beta_1} \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p}.
827: \end{equation}
828: The lemma is proved $\blacksquare$
829:
830: \emph{Remark.}
831: The influence of the damage localization on the strain localization
832: is taken into account by \eqref{damloc}. Indeed,
833: \begin{equation}\label{localization}
834: C_{5.1} \rightarrow \infty, \quad \text{as} \ \frac{\beta_2}{\beta_1} \rightarrow \infty.
835: \end{equation}
836:
837: We denote by $\mathcal{L}_\omega|_{V^0_p}$ the
838: restriction of $\mathcal{L}_\omega$ to $V^0_p$.
839: Let $\mathcal{L}^{-1}_\omega$ be the inverse to
840: $\mathcal{L}_\omega|_{V^0_p}$. Since \eqref{linealst3} holds, we see that
841: \begin{equation}\label{bm}
842: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_\omega \| \leq C_{5.1}.
843: \end{equation}
844:
845: \textbf{Lemma 5.2}
846:
847: There is a constant $C_{5.2}$ such that
848:
849: \begin{equation}\label{cont1}
850: \| \mathcal{L}_{\omega_1} - \mathcal{L}_{\omega_2} \|
851: \leq C_{5.2} \| \omega_1 - \omega_2\|_{Y_p},
852: \end{equation}
853: \begin{equation}\label{cont2}
854: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_1} - \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_2} \|
855: \leq C_{5.2} \| \omega_1 - \omega_2\|_{Y_p},
856: \end{equation}
857: for all $\omega_1, \omega_2 \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p$.
858:
859: \textbf{Proof.} Obviously,
860: \begin{multline}\label{cont3}
861: \| \mathcal{L}_{\omega_1} - \mathcal{L}_{\omega_2} \| =
862: \sup\limits_{\| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p}=1}
863: \| \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((\omega_2-\omega_1) \boldsymbol{C}
864: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \big) \|_{X_p} \\
865: \leq \sup\limits_{\| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p}=1} \Big(
866: \| \boldsymbol \nabla (\omega_1 - \omega_2) \|_{X_p} \cdot
867: \| \boldsymbol{C}
868: \boldsymbol \varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \|_{C^0} \\ +
869: \| \omega_1 - \omega_2 \|_{C^0} \cdot
870: \| \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big( \boldsymbol{C}
871: \boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u) \big) \|_{X_p} \Big)
872: \leq C \
873: \| \omega_1 - \omega_2 \|_{Y_p}.
874: \end{multline}
875:
876: Furthermore,
877: \begin{equation}\label{cont4}
878: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_1} - \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_2} \| \leq
879: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_1} \| \cdot
880: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega_2} \| \cdot
881: \| \mathcal{L}_{\omega_1} - \mathcal{L}_{\omega_2} \|
882: \leq C \
883: \| \omega_1 - \omega_2 \|_{Y_p}.
884: \end{equation}
885: %This completes the proof of \emph{Lemma 5.2}
886: The lemma is proved $\blacksquare$
887:
888: \textbf{Lemma 5.3}
889:
890: Let $\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \in V_p$, $T>0$, $\boldsymbol{q} \in C^0([0,T],X_p)$,
891: ${\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr} \in C^0([0,T],Y_p^4)$, \\
892: $\omega \in C^0([0,T],Y_p^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2})$.
893: Then there exists a uniquely determined mapping \\
894: $\boldsymbol U= \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
895: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega, \boldsymbol{q} \big)
896: \in C^0([0,T],V_p^0)$ such that
897: \begin{equation}\label{prob}
898: \mathcal{L}_{\omega(t)}(\boldsymbol U(t)) =
899: -\mathcal{L}_{\omega(t)}(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}) - \boldsymbol q (t)
900: + \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega(t)) \boldsymbol{C}
901: \boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}(t) \big)
902: \end{equation}
903: for $t \in [0,T]$. Moreover,
904: \begin{equation}\label{prob2}
905: \| \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
906: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega,
907: \boldsymbol{q} \big) \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq
908: C_{5.3} \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
909: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr} \|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
910: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} \big),
911: \end{equation}
912: \begin{multline}\label{prob3}
913: \| \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
914: {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, \omega^1, \boldsymbol{q}^1 \big) -
915: \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
916: {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2, \omega^2, \boldsymbol{q}^2 \big)
917: \|_{V_p, \infty} \\ \leq
918: C_{5.3} \Big( \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty}
919: \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
920: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1 \|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
921: + \| \boldsymbol q^1 \|_{X_p, \infty} \big) \\
922: + \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
923: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
924: + \| \boldsymbol q^1 - \boldsymbol q^2 \|_{X_p, \infty} \Big).
925: \end{multline}
926: \textbf{Proof.}
927: We claim that the mapping $\boldsymbol U \in C^0([0,T],V_p^0)$ is uniquely
928: defined by \eqref{prob}. Indeed,
929: %this follows from Lemma 5.1 after some easy computations.
930: at each instant of time we have by \emph{Lemma 5.1}
931: \begin{equation}\label{prob5}
932: \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
933: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega, \boldsymbol{q}
934: \big) (t) = \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega(t)}
935: \Big( -\mathcal{L}_{\omega(t)}(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}) - \boldsymbol q (t)
936: + \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega(t)) \boldsymbol{C}
937: \boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}(t) \big) \Big).
938: \end{equation}
939: Estimate \eqref{prob2} follows from \eqref{linealst3}.
940:
941: Combining \eqref{bm}, \eqref{cont1}, and \eqref{cont2} we note that
942: \begin{equation}\label{prob6}
943: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega^1} \mathcal{L}_{\omega^1} \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}
944: - \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega^2} \mathcal{L}_{\omega^2} \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \| \leq
945: C \ \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p}.
946: \end{equation}
947:
948: Note also that
949: \begin{equation}\label{prob7}
950: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega^1} \boldsymbol{g}^1 -
951: \mathcal{L}^{-1}_{\omega^2} \boldsymbol{g}^2 \| \leq
952: C \| \omega^1 - \omega^1 \|_{Y_p} \|\boldsymbol{g}^1\|_{X_p} +
953: C \|\boldsymbol{g}^1 - \boldsymbol{g}^2 \|_{X_p},
954: \ \forall \boldsymbol{g}^1, \boldsymbol{g}^2 \in X_p.
955: \end{equation}
956: Substituting $\Big(-\boldsymbol q^i (t)
957: + \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega^i(t)) \boldsymbol{C}
958: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}}^i(t)\Big)$ for $\boldsymbol g^i$ in \eqref{prob7}
959: and combining \eqref{prob7} with \eqref{prob6}, we get \eqref{prob3}.
960: This completes the proof of \emph{Lemma 5.3} $\blacksquare$
961:
962: \subsection{Evolution of $\omega$ and
963: $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}$ with a given $\boldsymbol u$}
964:
965: %First let us rewrite evolutions \eqref{consteq2}, \eqref{consteq3} in a compact form
966: %
967: %\begin{equation}\label{ev1}
968: %\dot{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(x,t)= \mathcal{R}
969: %\big( \mathcal{B}(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol\varepsilon, ) \big)
970: %\end{equation}
971: Let us first analyze evolution operators $\mathcal{R}$, $\mathcal{S}$, which are
972: defined by \eqref{comact4}, \eqref{comact5}.
973:
974: \textbf{Lemma 5.4}
975:
976: There is a constant $C_{5.4}$ with the properties to follow. For
977: all $i,j \in \{1,2\}$, $k \in \{0,1,...,7\}$,
978: $\rho^1, \rho^2 \in \mathbb{R}^7$ such that
979: $\rho^1_7, \rho^2_7 \leq 1-\frac{\beta_1}{2}$
980: we have the following estimates
981: \begin{equation}\label{ev1}
982: |D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}(\rho^1)|+|D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^1)|
983: \leq C_{5.4} (1+|\rho^1|)^{\max(m,n)},
984: \end{equation}
985: \begin{multline}\label{ev2}
986: |D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}(\rho^1) - D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}(\rho^2)|+
987: |D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^1) - D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^2)| \\ \leq C_{5.4}
988: (1+|\rho^1|+|\rho^2|)^{\max(m,n)} |\rho^1-\rho^2|.
989: \end{multline}
990: Here $D_k= \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_k}$ for $k \in \{1,2,...,7\}$ and
991: $D_0$ is the identity operator.
992:
993: \textbf{Proof.}
994: First let us note that for all $q>2$
995: \begin{equation}\label{vs1}
996: |P^q (z)| \leq C |z|^q, \quad
997: |P^q (z) - P^q (z')| \leq C (|z|+|z'|)^{q-1} |z-z'|,
998: \end{equation}
999: \begin{equation}\label{vs2}
1000: |\boldsymbol \nabla_z P^q (z)| \leq C |z|^{q-1}, \quad
1001: |\boldsymbol \nabla_z P^q (z) - \boldsymbol \nabla_z P^q (z')|
1002: \leq C (|z|+|z'|)^{q-2} |z-z'|,
1003: \end{equation}
1004: where $P(z)$ is defined by \eqref{comact10}.
1005:
1006: We also note that for all $\rho^1, \rho^2 \in \mathbb{R}^7$,
1007: $i,j \in \{1,2\}$, $k \in \{1,2,...,7\}$
1008: \begin{equation}\label{vs3}
1009: |\sigma_{i,j}(\rho)| \leq C |\rho|, \quad
1010: |\sigma_{i,j}(\rho^1) - \sigma_{i,j}(\rho^2)|
1011: \leq C (1+|\rho^1|+|\rho^2|) |\rho^1-\rho^2|,
1012: \end{equation}
1013: \begin{equation}\label{vs4}
1014: |\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_k} \sigma_{i,j}(\rho)|
1015: \leq C (1+ |\rho|), \quad
1016: |\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_k} (\sigma_{i,j}(\rho^1) -
1017: \sigma_{i,j}(\rho^2)) | \leq
1018: C |\rho^1-\rho^2|.
1019: \end{equation}
1020: Here $\sigma_{i,j}(\rho)$ is defined by \eqref{comact9}.
1021:
1022: The lemma is proved after some simple computations. Let us prove for
1023: example that
1024: \begin{equation}\label{vs5}
1025: |D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^1) - D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^2)|
1026: \leq C \ (1+|\rho^1|+|\rho^2|)^m \ |\rho^1-\rho^2|.
1027: \end{equation}
1028: We remark that $\mathcal{S}(\rho)$ has the form
1029: \begin{equation}\label{vs6}
1030: \mathcal{S}(\rho)= P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho)) F(\rho_7)
1031: \end{equation}
1032: with $F \in C^{\infty}[0, 1-\frac{\beta_1}{2}]$. Here
1033: $\sigma_{ij} = (\sigma_{1,1}, \sigma_{2,2}, \sigma_{1,2})^T$.
1034: \begin{multline}\label{vs7}
1035: |D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^1) - D_k \mathcal{S}(\rho^2)| \\
1036: \leq | D_k \big(P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1)) F(\rho^1_7) -
1037: P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) F(\rho^1_7) \big) | \\ +
1038: | D_k \big(P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) F(\rho^1_7) -
1039: P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) F(\rho^2_7) \big) | \\
1040: \leq C \ | D_k \big(P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1)) -
1041: P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) \big) | +
1042: C \ | P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1)) -
1043: P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) | \\ +
1044: C \ | D_k P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) | \cdot |\rho^1-\rho^2| +
1045: C \ | P^m(\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) | \cdot |\rho^1-\rho^2| \\
1046: = \emph{A} + \emph{B} + \emph{C} + \emph{D}.
1047: \end{multline}
1048: We abbreviate
1049: \begin{equation}\label{vs8}
1050: D_k \sigma (\rho):= D_k (\sigma_{1,1} (\rho), \sigma_{2,2}
1051: (\rho), \sigma_{1,2} (\rho))^T.
1052: \end{equation}
1053: Further,
1054: \begin{multline}\label{vs9}
1055: \emph{A} = C \ | \nabla_z P^m (\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1)) D_k \sigma (\rho^1) -
1056: \nabla_z P^m (\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) D_k \sigma (\rho^2)| \\
1057: \leq C \ | \nabla_z \big( P^m (\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1))
1058: - P^m (\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) \big)| \cdot
1059: | D_k \sigma (\rho^1)| \\
1060: + C \ | \nabla_z P^m (\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)) |
1061: \cdot |D_k \big(\sigma (\rho^1) - \sigma (\rho^2)\big)| \\
1062: \leq C \ \big(|\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1)|+|\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)| \big)^{m-2}
1063: \cdot |\sigma_{ij}(\rho^1) - \sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)|
1064: \cdot | D_k \sigma (\rho^1)| \\
1065: + C \ |\sigma_{ij}(\rho^2)|^{m-1}
1066: \cdot |D_k \big(\sigma (\rho^1) - \sigma (\rho^2)\big)| \\
1067: \leq C \ (1+|\rho^1|+|\rho^2|)^m \ |\rho^1-\rho^2|.
1068: \end{multline}
1069:
1070: In the same way we obtain
1071: \begin{equation}\label{vs10}
1072: \max(\emph{B}, \emph{C}, \emph{D}) \leq C \ (1+|\rho^1|+|\rho^2|)^m \ |\rho^1-\rho^2|.
1073: \end{equation}
1074: Combining this with \eqref{vs9} we get \eqref{vs5}.
1075: The lemma is proved $\blacksquare$
1076:
1077: \textbf{Lemma 5.5}
1078:
1079: There is a constant $C_{5.5}$ with the following properties.
1080: For all $M, T > 0$, $\boldsymbol u^1, \boldsymbol u^2 \in C^0([0,T],V_p)$
1081: with $\| u^l \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq M$ for $l \in \{1,2\}$;
1082: ${{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2 \in C^0([0,T],Y^4_p)$;
1083: ${\omega}^1, {\omega}^2 \in C^0([0,T],Y_p)$ such that
1084:
1085: \begin{equation}\label{vv1}
1086: \omega(x,t) \leq 1- \frac{\beta_1}{2} \quad \forall \ (x,t) \in \Omega \times [0,T], l \in \{1,2\}
1087: \end{equation}
1088: \begin{equation}\label{vv2}
1089: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(t) -
1090: {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1091: + \|{\omega}^l(t) - {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p}
1092: \leq 1 \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T], l \in \{1,2\}.
1093: \end{equation}
1094:
1095: We abbreviate (recall \eqref{comact22})
1096: \begin{equation}\label{vv3}
1097: \rho^l:=\rho( \boldsymbol u^l,
1098: {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l, {\omega}^l).
1099: \end{equation}
1100:
1101: Then
1102: \begin{equation}\label{vv4}
1103: \mathcal{R}(\rho^l)(t) \in Y^4_p, \quad
1104: \mathcal{S}(\rho^l)(t) \in Y_p, \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T], l \in \{1,2\},
1105: \end{equation}
1106: \begin{equation}\label{vv5}
1107: \| \mathcal{R}(\rho^l) \|_{Y^4_p, \infty} +
1108: \| \mathcal{S}(\rho^l) \|_{Y_p, \infty}
1109: \leq C_{5.5} \big( M +
1110: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p} + \| {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p} +1
1111: \big)^{\max(m,n)+1}
1112: \end{equation}
1113: for $l \in \{1,2\}$, and
1114: \begin{multline}\label{vv6}
1115: \| \mathcal{R}(\rho^1) - \mathcal{R}(\rho^2) \|_{Y^4_p, \infty} +
1116: \| \mathcal{S}(\rho^1) - \mathcal{S}(\rho^2)\|_{Y_p, \infty} \\
1117: \leq C_{5.5} \Big( M + \sum\limits_{l=1}^2 \big(
1118: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1119: + \| {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p} \big) +1
1120: \Big)^{\max(m,n)+1} \\
1121: \cdot \Big(
1122: \| \boldsymbol{u}^1 - \boldsymbol{u}^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} +
1123: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1124: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1125: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big).
1126: \end{multline}
1127:
1128: \textbf{Proof.}
1129: This lemma is proved by \emph{Corollary 3.1} and \emph{Lemma 5.4}.
1130: Let us estimate, for example, the
1131: value $\| K \|_{L_p(\Omega)}(t)$, where
1132: \begin{equation}\label{vv7}
1133: K(x,t):= \Big| \frac{\partial}{\partial x_r} \big( \mathcal{R}_{i,j}(\rho^1) -
1134: \mathcal{R}_{i,j}(\rho^2) \big) (x,t) \Big|,
1135: \end{equation}
1136: with $r, i, j \in \{1,2\}, (x,t) \in \Omega \times [0,T]$.
1137: We obtain
1138: \begin{multline}\label{vv8}
1139: K(x,t) \leq \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 \Big|
1140: D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}\big(\rho^1_k(x,t)\big)
1141: \frac{\partial \rho^1_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r} -
1142: D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}\big(\rho^2_k(x,t)\big)
1143: \frac{\partial \rho^2_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r}
1144: \Big| \\
1145: \leq
1146: \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 \Big| D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}
1147: \big(\rho^1(x,t)\big) - D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}\big(\rho^2(x,t)\big)\Big|
1148: \cdot \Big| \frac{\partial \rho^1_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r} \Big| \\
1149: + \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 \Big| D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}\big(\rho^2(x,t)\big) \Big| \cdot
1150: \Big| \frac{\partial \rho^1_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r} -
1151: \frac{\partial \rho^2_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r}\Big| \\
1152: \leq \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 A_k \cdot B_k + C_k \cdot D_k.
1153: \end{multline}
1154: But by \emph{Lemma 5.4} and by \emph{Corollary 3.1} we get
1155: \begin{multline}\label{vv9}
1156: A_k \leq C \ \big(1+|\rho^1(x,t)|
1157: +|\rho^2(x,t)|\big)^{\max(m,n)} \big|\rho^1(x,t)-\rho^2(x,t)\big| \\
1158: \leq C \ \big(1+ \|\rho^1\|_{Y^7_p, \infty}
1159: +\|\rho^2(x,t)\|_{Y^7_p, \infty } \big)^{\max(m,n)}
1160: \|\rho^1-\rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty }.
1161: \end{multline}
1162: We get by the same argument
1163: \begin{equation}\label{vv10}
1164: C_k \leq C \ \big| D_k \mathcal{R}_{i,j}\big(\rho^2(x,t)\big) \big| \leq C \
1165: \big(1+\|\rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty} \big)^{\max(m,n)}.
1166: \end{equation}
1167:
1168: Evidently,
1169: \begin{equation}\label{vv11}
1170: \| B_k \|_{L_p} = \| \frac{\partial \rho^1_k(x,t)}
1171: {\partial x_r} \|_{L_p} \leq \|\rho^1\|_{Y^7_p, \infty},
1172: \end{equation}
1173: \begin{equation}\label{vv12}
1174: \| D_k \|_{L_p} = \| \frac{\partial \rho^1_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r} -
1175: \frac{\partial \rho^2_k(x,t)}{\partial x_r}
1176: \|_{L_p} \leq \|\rho^1 - \rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty}.
1177: \end{equation}
1178: Hence
1179: \begin{multline}\label{vv13}
1180: \| K \|_{L_p(\Omega)}(t) \leq \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 \|
1181: A_k \cdot B_k + C_k \cdot D_k \|_{L_p} \\ \leq
1182: \sum\limits_{k=1}^7 \| A_k \|_{C^0} \cdot \|
1183: B_k \|_{L_p} + \| C_k \|_{C^0} \cdot \| D_k \|_{L_p}
1184: \\ \leq
1185: C \
1186: \big(1+\|\rho^1\|_{Y^7_p, \infty}
1187: +\|\rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty} \big)^{\max(m,n)+1}
1188: \cdot \|\rho^1 - \rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty}.
1189: \end{multline}
1190: It remains to check that
1191: \begin{equation}\label{vv14}
1192: \|\rho^1 - \rho^2\|_{Y_p^7, \infty} \leq C \ \Big(
1193: \| \boldsymbol{u}^1 - \boldsymbol{u}^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} +
1194: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1195: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1196: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big),
1197: \end{equation}
1198: and
1199: \begin{equation}\label{vv15}
1200: \big(1+\|\rho^1\|_{Y^7_p, \infty}+\|\rho^2\|_{Y^7_p, \infty} \big) \leq
1201: C \ \Big( M + \sum\limits_{l=1}^2 \big(
1202: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1203: + \| {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p} \big) +1
1204: \Big).
1205: \end{equation}
1206: This concludes the proof of \emph{Lemma 5.5}$\blacksquare$
1207:
1208: We now prove the existence of the solution $(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in
1209: C^0([0,T],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$ if the displacement field $\boldsymbol u \in
1210: C^0([0,T],V_p)$ is given.
1211:
1212: \textbf{Lemma 5.6}
1213:
1214: Let $M > 0$, $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0 \in Y^4_p$,
1215: and $\omega_0 \in Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$.
1216: Put
1217: \begin{equation}\label{L1}
1218: T_0:=\Big[ C_{5.5} \big( M + 2 \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{Y^4_p}
1219: + 2 \| \omega_0 \|_{Y_p} + 1\big)^{\max(m,n)+1} 2 \frac{1+C_I}{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)} \Big]^{-1}
1220: \end{equation}
1221: with $C_{5.5}$ from \emph{Lemma 5.5} and $C_I$
1222: from \emph{Corollary 3.1}. Let $T' \in (0,T_0]$
1223: and $\boldsymbol u \in C^0([0,T'],V_p)$, such
1224: that $\| \boldsymbol u \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq M$.
1225: Then there exists a unique mapping
1226: $(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)
1227: =\big(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega\big)
1228: (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0)
1229: \in C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$
1230: such that
1231: \begin{equation}\label{L2}
1232: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)(t)
1233: =(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0, \omega_0) +
1234: \int\limits_0^t \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1235: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big)(s)ds,
1236: \end{equation}
1237: \begin{equation}\label{L3}
1238: \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(t) - {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1239: + \|\omega(t) - \omega(0) \|_{Y_p}
1240: \leq \frac{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}{2 (1+C_I)} \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T'].
1241: \end{equation}
1242: Moreover
1243: \begin{equation}\label{L4}
1244: \omega(t) \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T'],
1245: \end{equation}
1246: \begin{equation}\label{L5}
1247: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in C^1([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p),
1248: \end{equation}
1249: \begin{equation}\label{L5}
1250: (\dot{\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}}, \dot{\omega})(t) =
1251: \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)),
1252: \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big)(t) \quad \forall \ t \in (0,T').
1253: \end{equation}
1254:
1255: \textbf{Proof.} As it is done in \cite{Deuring1} for partly
1256: coupled damage model, we adapt
1257: the standard proof of the existence of
1258: solutions to ordinary differential equations in Banach
1259: spaces. We define the closed subset of $C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$ by
1260: \begin{multline}\label{L6}
1261: \mathcal{M}:=\Big\{ (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)
1262: \in C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p):
1263: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) (0)
1264: = (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0, \omega_0), \\
1265: \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(t) - {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1266: + \|\omega(t) - \omega(0) \|_{Y_p}
1267: \leq \frac{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}{2 (1+C_I)}
1268: \Big\}.
1269: \end{multline}
1270: The application of \emph{Corollary 3.1} yields
1271: for every $(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in \mathcal{M}$
1272: \begin{equation}\label{L7}
1273: \omega(t) \in Y^{\frac{\beta_1}{2}, 2 \beta_2}_p \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T'].
1274: \end{equation}
1275: Note that for all $t \in [0,T'],
1276: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in \mathcal{M}$
1277: \begin{equation}\label{L8}
1278: \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(t) - {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1279: + \|\omega(t) - \omega(0) \|_{Y_p}
1280: \leq \frac{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}{2 (1+C_I)} \leq 1.
1281: \end{equation}
1282: Hence, by \emph{Lemma 5.5}, we obtain for $t \leq t',
1283: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in \mathcal{M}$
1284: \begin{multline}\label{L9}
1285: \int\limits_t^{t'} \big\|
1286: \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1287: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big) (s) \big\|_{Y^4_p \times Y_p} ds
1288: \\
1289: \leq C_{5.5} \big( M +
1290: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p} + \| {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p} +1
1291: \big)^{\max(m,n)+1} (t-t') \\
1292: \leq \frac{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}{2 (1+C_I)}.
1293: \end{multline}
1294:
1295: Let the mapping $\mathcal{T}: \mathcal{M} \rightarrow C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$
1296: be given by
1297: \begin{multline}\label{L10}
1298: \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)(t) \\ =
1299: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0, \omega_0)+ \int\limits_0^t
1300: \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1301: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big)(s) ds
1302: \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T'].
1303: \end{multline}
1304: Accordingly to \eqref{L9}, this mapping is well defined. Taking into
1305: account \eqref{L9}, we obtain
1306: \begin{equation}\label{L11}
1307: \| \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)(t) -
1308: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0, \omega_0) \|_{Y^4_p \times Y_p}
1309: \leq \frac{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}{2 (1+C_I)} \quad \forall \ t \in [0,T'].
1310: \end{equation}
1311: Therefore, $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{M}) \subset \mathcal{M}$.
1312: By \emph{Lemma 5.5}, it follows that $\mathcal{T}$ is
1313: a contraction with respect to the norm of the
1314: space $C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$. Indeed, for every instant
1315: of time $t$ we have
1316: \begin{multline}\label{L12}
1317: \| \mathcal{T}({\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}}^1, \omega^1)(t) -
1318: \mathcal{T}({\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}}^2,
1319: \omega^2)(t) \|_{Y^4_p \times Y_p}
1320: \\ \leq C_{5.5}
1321: \Big( M + \sum\limits_{l=1}^2 \big(
1322: \|{{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l(0) \|_{Y^4_p}
1323: + \| {\omega}^l(0) \|_{Y_p} \big) +1
1324: \Big)^{\max(m,n)+1} \\
1325: \cdot \Big(
1326: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1327: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1328: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big) T'
1329: \leq \\ \frac{1}{4}
1330: \Big(
1331: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1332: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1333: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big).
1334: \end{multline}
1335: It follows from \emph{Banach's fixed point
1336: theorem} (see, for example, \cite{Evans}) that
1337: there exists a unique $(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in \mathcal{M}$
1338: such that $\mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)=(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega)$.
1339: Thus, we have proved that the pair
1340: $(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega) \in C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$
1341: is uniquely defined by \eqref{L2}, \eqref{L3}.
1342:
1343: To conclude the proof it remains to note that the mapping
1344: $t \mapsto
1345: \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1346: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr},
1347: \omega) )\big)(t)$ is continuous
1348: from $[0,T']$ to $Y^4_p \times Y_p$. Since
1349: \eqref{L4} holds, we may use \emph{Lemma 5.4} to prove that
1350: \begin{multline}\label{L13}
1351: \|\big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1352: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big)(t^1) \\ -
1353: \big( \mathcal{R}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)
1354: ), \mathcal{S}(\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) )\big)(t^2)\|_{Y^4_p \times Y_p}
1355: \rightarrow 0,
1356: \quad \text{as} \ t^1 \rightarrow t^2.
1357: %\leq C \ \| \rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) (t^1)-
1358: %\rho (\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) (t^2)\|_{Y^7_p}
1359: \end{multline}
1360: \emph{Lemma 5.6} is proved $\blacksquare$
1361:
1362: Now we need to estimate the difference
1363: between two solutions of \eqref{L2}, \eqref{L3}.
1364: Let us abbreviate
1365: \begin{equation}\label{L14}
1366: \hat{C} = C_{5.5} \big( M + 2 \|{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{Y^4_p}
1367: + 2 \| \omega_0 \|_{Y_p} + 1\big)^{\max(m,n)+1}
1368: \end{equation}
1369: with $C_{5.5}$ from \emph{Lemma 5.5}
1370: and $C_I$ from \emph{Corollary 3.1}.
1371:
1372: \textbf{Lemma 5.7}
1373:
1374: Let $M > 0$, $K \geq 1$, $\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}_0
1375: \in Y^4_p$, and $\omega_0 \in Y^{\beta_1, \beta_2}_p$.
1376: Put
1377: \begin{equation}\label{L15}
1378: T_1:=\Big[ \hat{C} \cdot 2 \max(K, \frac{1+C_I}{\min(\beta_1, 2 \beta_2)}) \Big]^{-1}
1379: \end{equation}
1380: where $\hat{C}$ is given by \eqref{L14}.
1381: Let $T' \in (0,T_1]$,
1382: and $\boldsymbol u^1, \boldsymbol u^2 \in C^0([0,T'],V_p)$,
1383: such that $\| \boldsymbol u^l \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq M$
1384: for $l \in \{1,2\}$. Assume that
1385: \begin{equation}\label{L16}
1386: ({\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}}^l, {\omega}^l)=
1387: \big(\boldsymbol\varepsilon^{cr}, \omega\big)
1388: (\boldsymbol u^l, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0)
1389: \in C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p), l \in \{1,2\}
1390: \end{equation}
1391: are defined by \eqref{L2}, \eqref{L3}. Then
1392: \begin{equation}\label{L17}
1393: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1394: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1395: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \leq \frac{1}{K} \|
1396: \boldsymbol u^1 - \boldsymbol u^2 \|_{V_p, \infty}.
1397: \end{equation}
1398:
1399: \textbf{Proof.}
1400: By \emph{Lemma 5.5} we have
1401: \begin{multline}\label{L18}
1402: \| \mathcal{R}(\rho^1) - \mathcal{R}(\rho^2) \|_{Y^4_p, \infty} +
1403: \| \mathcal{S}(\rho^1) - \mathcal{S}(\rho^2)\|_{Y_p, \infty} \\
1404: \leq \hat{C}
1405: \cdot \Big(
1406: \| \boldsymbol{u}^1 - \boldsymbol{u}^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} +
1407: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1408: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1409: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big).
1410: \end{multline}
1411: Therefore, since \eqref{L2} holds, we obtain
1412: \begin{multline}\label{L20}
1413: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1414: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1415: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \\
1416: \leq \hat{C} T'
1417: \Big(
1418: \| \boldsymbol{u}^1 - \boldsymbol{u}^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} +
1419: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1420: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1421: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big) \\
1422: \leq
1423: \frac{1}{2 K} \| \boldsymbol u^1 -
1424: \boldsymbol u^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} + \frac{1}{2}
1425: \Big(
1426: \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1427: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1428: + \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty} \Big).
1429: \end{multline}
1430: Now inequality \eqref{L17} follows from
1431: \eqref{L20}. \emph{Lemma 5.7} is proved $\blacksquare$
1432:
1433: \subsection{Equilibrium equations coupled with evolution law}
1434:
1435: In this subsection we solve problem \eqref{result2},
1436: \eqref{result3} and prove \emph{Theorem 4.1}.
1437:
1438: \textbf{Proof of Theorem 4.1.}
1439: We choose $T_1$ as in \emph{Lemma 5.7} where we put
1440: \begin{equation}\label{M1}
1441: K:=
1442: 2 \cdot C_{5.3} \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
1443: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{V_p^4}
1444: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} + 1 \big),
1445: \end{equation}
1446: \begin{equation}\label{MM1}
1447: \ M:= C_{5.3} \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
1448: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{V_p^4}
1449: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} +1 \big) +
1450: \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p}
1451: \end{equation}
1452: with $C_{5.3}$ from \emph{Lemma 5.3}. In order to use
1453: \emph{Banach's fixed point theorem}
1454: we define the closed subset of $C^0([0,T'],V^0_p)$ by
1455: \begin{equation}\label{M2}
1456: \mathcal{M}:=\Big\{ \boldsymbol u \in C^0([0,T'],V^0_p):
1457: \| \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq M
1458: \Big\}.
1459: \end{equation}
1460: Let the mapping $\mathcal{T}: \mathcal{M} \rightarrow C^0([0,T'],V^0_p)$
1461: be given by
1462: \begin{equation}\label{M3}
1463: \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol u)= \boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1464: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(\boldsymbol u +
1465: \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0),
1466: \omega(\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1467: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0), \boldsymbol{q} \big),
1468: \end{equation}
1469: where $\big({\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr},
1470: \omega\big)(\boldsymbol u, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0)$
1471: is defined by \eqref{L2} and $\boldsymbol U \big(\boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1472: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega, \boldsymbol{q} \big)$ is introduced in \emph{Lemma 5.3}.
1473:
1474: Let us show that $\mathcal{T} (\mathcal{M}) \subset C^0([0,T'],V^0_p)$. In fact,
1475: accordingly to \emph{Lemma 5.6}, for all $\boldsymbol u \in \mathcal{M}$ we have
1476: $\big({\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega\big)
1477: (\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast}, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0)
1478: \in C^0([0,T'],Y^4_p \times Y_p)$. Therefore, the assertion follows from \emph{Lemma 5.3}
1479: and the mapping $\mathcal{T}$ is well defined.
1480:
1481: Now let us show that $\mathcal{T} (\mathcal{M}) \subset \mathcal{M}$.
1482: Using \eqref{prob2} and \eqref{L3} we obtain for $\boldsymbol u \in \mathcal{M}$
1483: \begin{multline}\label{M4}
1484: \| \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol u) + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p, \infty}
1485: \leq \| \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol u) \|_{V_p, \infty} + \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p}
1486: \\ \leq
1487: C_{5.3} \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
1488: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}(\boldsymbol{u} + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1489: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0) \|_{Y_p^4, \infty}
1490: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} \big) + \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p}
1491: \leq M.
1492: \end{multline}
1493: Let us prove that $\mathcal{T}$ is a contraction.
1494: Taking into account \eqref{prob3}, \eqref{L17}, and the choice of $K$, we obtain
1495: \begin{multline}\label{M5}
1496: \| \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol u^1) - \mathcal{T}(\boldsymbol u^2) \|_{V_p, \infty} \leq \\
1497: C_{5.3} \Big( \| \omega^1 - \omega^2 \|_{Y_p, \infty}
1498: \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
1499: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{Y_p^4}
1500: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} +1 \big) \\
1501: + \| {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1
1502: - {{\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2\|_{Y_p^4, \infty} \Big) \\
1503: \leq \frac{C_{5.3}}{K} \big( \| \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} +
1504: \| {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0 \|_{Y_p^4}
1505: + \| \boldsymbol q \|_{X_p, \infty} + 1 \big)
1506: \| \boldsymbol u^1 - \boldsymbol u^2 \|_{V_p, \infty} \\
1507: \leq \frac{1}{2} \| \boldsymbol u^1 - \boldsymbol u^2 \|_{V_p, \infty}.
1508: \end{multline}
1509: From \emph{Banach's fixed point theorem} it
1510: follows that there is a uniquely determined
1511: mapping $\boldsymbol u \in \mathcal{M}$,
1512: such that $\mathcal{T} (\boldsymbol u) = \boldsymbol u$.
1513: To obtain the mapping $(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in
1514: C^0([0,T'],V^0_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p)$
1515: that satisfy \eqref{result2} and \eqref{result3}, we put (see \emph{Lemma 5.6})
1516: \begin{equation}\label{M6}
1517: \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}:= \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr} (\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1518: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0), \quad
1519: \omega:= \omega (\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast},
1520: {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}_0, \omega_0).
1521: \end{equation}
1522: The existence of the solution to
1523: \eqref{result2}, \eqref{result3} is proved. Although
1524: the uniqueness in $\mathcal{M}$ is guarantied
1525: by \emph{Banach's fixed point theorem},
1526: it remains to check that the solution is
1527: uniquely determined by \eqref{result2}, \eqref{result3}.
1528: Assume the converse, then there are two
1529: different solutions of \eqref{result2}, \eqref{result3}
1530: \begin{equation}\label{M7}
1531: (\boldsymbol u^l, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^l, {\omega}^l) \in
1532: C^0([0,T'],V^0_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p), \quad l \in \{1,2\}.
1533: \end{equation}
1534: Put
1535: \begin{equation}\label{M8}
1536: t_0:= \max\{\hat{t} \in [0,T']:
1537: (\boldsymbol u^1, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, {\omega}^1)(t)=
1538: (\boldsymbol u^2, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2, {\omega}^2)(t)
1539: \quad \text{for} \ t \in [0,\hat{t}]\}.
1540: \end{equation}
1541: Hence,
1542: \begin{equation}\label{M9}
1543: (\boldsymbol u^1, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, {\omega}^1)(t)=
1544: (\boldsymbol u^2, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2, {\omega}^2)(t)
1545: \quad \text{for} \ t \in [0,t_0].
1546: \end{equation}
1547: Moreover, $t_0< T'$ and for every $\check{t} \in (t_0,T']$ there
1548: exists $\tilde{t} \in (t_0,\check{t}]$, such that
1549: \begin{equation}\label{M10}
1550: (\boldsymbol u^1, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, {\omega}^1)(\tilde{t}) \neq
1551: (\boldsymbol u^2, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2, {\omega}^2)(\tilde{t}).
1552: \end{equation}
1553:
1554: Arguing as above, we prove the uniqueness of the solution \\
1555: $(\boldsymbol u, \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega) \in
1556: C^0([t_0,{T^{\text{new}}}'],V^0_p \times Y^4_p \times Y_p)$ to the new problem
1557: \begin{equation}\label{New1}
1558: \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot \big((1-\omega) \boldsymbol{C}
1559: (\boldsymbol\varepsilon (\boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast})
1560: - {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr})\big) = - \boldsymbol q(t)
1561: \quad \forall \ t \in [t_0,{T^{\text{new}}}'],
1562: \end{equation}
1563: \begin{multline}\label{New2}
1564: (\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)(t)=
1565: ({\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1(t_0), \omega^1(t_0)) \\ +
1566: \int\limits_{t_0}^t \big(\mathcal{R}(\rho
1567: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast}, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega),
1568: \mathcal{S}(\rho
1569: ( \boldsymbol u + \boldsymbol u^{\ast}, {\boldsymbol\varepsilon}^{cr}, \omega)\big)(s)ds
1570: \quad \forall \ t \in [t_0,{T^{\text{new}}}']
1571: \end{multline}
1572: \begin{equation}\label{New3}
1573: \| \boldsymbol u (t) + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} \leq M^{\text{new}}
1574: \quad \forall \ t \in [t_0,{T^{\text{new}}}'],
1575: \end{equation}
1576: with some new parameters ${T^{\text{new}}}', M^{\text{new}}$.
1577: The reader will easily prove that there
1578: exists $\check{t} \in (t_0,\min({T^{\text{new}}}',T')]$,
1579: such that
1580: \begin{equation}\label{New4}
1581: \| \boldsymbol u^l (t) + \boldsymbol{u}^{\ast} \|_{V_p} \leq M^{\text{new}}
1582: \quad \forall \ t \in [t_0,\check{t}], \ l \in \{1,2\}.
1583: \end{equation}
1584: That means, that
1585: \begin{equation}\label{New5}
1586: (\boldsymbol u^1, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^1, {\omega}^1) (t)=
1587: (\boldsymbol u^2, {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{cr}}^2, {\omega}^2) (t)
1588: \quad \forall \ t \in [t_0,\check{t}].
1589: \end{equation}
1590: This contradiction proves the theorem $\blacksquare$
1591: % To this end we consider the second solution of \eqref{result2}, \eqref{result3}.
1592:
1593: \section{Conclusions}
1594:
1595: The creep damage problem is formulated in a well-posed manner.
1596: \emph{Theorem 4.1} states that a
1597: unique smooth solution to the Kachanov-Rabotnov
1598: problem exists in a certain time interval $[0, T_1]$.
1599: The corresponding function spaces $X_p$, $Y_p$, and $V_p$ reflect
1600: the essence of the system of equations
1601: and can be used for a proper mathematical analysis of the problem.
1602: Particulary, clear definitions of terms "stable", "unstable", and
1603: "convergency" can be given.
1604:
1605: It is shown that the requirements of the existence theorem (\emph{Theorem 4.1})
1606: have a physical meaning and the violation of these requirements
1607: directly affects the lifetime estimate.
1608:
1609: If we do not impose any
1610: restrictions on the gradient of initial damage
1611: (such situation corresponds to $\beta_2=\infty$), then
1612: the lifetime $t^{\ast}$ of the structure can be arbitrary small even if
1613: $\min(1-\omega_0) \geq \beta_1 > 0$.
1614:
1615: %This process
1616: %is described by creep-damage solution
1617: %shortly before rupture event as $t \rightarrow t^{\ast}$.
1618: This damage localization effect is characterized
1619: at each instant of time by the quantity
1620: \begin{equation}\label{Damloc}
1621: \Lambda(t) = \frac{\| \nabla \omega \|_{L_p}}{\min(1-\omega)}(t).
1622: \end{equation}
1623:
1624: The value $\Lambda(t)$ controls the remaining life of the structure $t_{rest}:=t^{\ast}-t$.
1625: \begin{equation}\label{Damloc2}
1626: t_{rest} \rightarrow 0, \quad \text{as} \quad \Lambda \rightarrow \infty .
1627: \end{equation}
1628: Thus, the estimation of $\Lambda$ gives an answer to the question when the damage
1629: becomes critical. This measure of damage localization can be adopted to improve monitoring
1630: and inspection strategies used to secure the reliable operation of engineering structures.
1631:
1632: %Expression \eqref{Damloc} gives a scalar
1633: %characteristic of the damage localization process.
1634: %This characteristic takes both damage and damage gradient into account to
1635: %estimate the remaining lifetime of the structure.
1636: %The influence of the damage localization on the strain localization
1637: %is described in
1638:
1639: %which is itself
1640: %crucial for strain localization.
1641:
1642: %Special thanks go to Prof. Altenbach and Dr. Naumenko for many
1643: %useful suggestions.
1644:
1645:
1646: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1647:
1648: \bibitem{Adams}{R. A. Adams, Sobolev Spaces. New York et. al.: Acad. Press. 1975.}
1649:
1650: \bibitem{Deuring1}{H. Altenbach, P. Deuring, K. Naumenko,
1651: A system of ordinary and partial differential equations describing
1652: creep behaviour of thin-walled shells,
1653: Journal for Analysis and its Applications, 1999, 18, 1003-1030.}
1654:
1655: \bibitem{Altenbach1}{H. Altenbach, G. Kolarow, O. K. Morachkovsky, K. Naumenko,
1656: On the accuracy of creep-damage predictions in thinwalled
1657: structures using the finite element method,
1658: Computational Mechanics, 2000, 25, 87-98.}
1659:
1660: \bibitem{Bonnetti1}{E. Bonnetti, G. Schimperna,
1661: Local existence for Fremond's model of damage in elastic materials,
1662: Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 20004, 16(4), 319-335.}
1663:
1664: \bibitem{DeSimone1}{A. DeSimone, J.J. Marigo, L. Teresi,
1665: A damage mechanics approach to stress softening and its application to rubber,
1666: Europian Journal of Mechanics. A/Solids, vol. 20,
1667: 2001, 6, 873-892.}
1668:
1669: \bibitem{Evans}{L. C. Evans,
1670: Partial differential equations, American Mathematical Society, 2002.}
1671:
1672: \bibitem{Gilbarg}{D. Gilbarg, N.S. Trudinger,
1673: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of
1674: Second Order, Springer-Verlag, 2001.}
1675:
1676: \bibitem{Grisvard}{P. Grisvard,
1677: Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Pitman Press,
1678: 1985.}
1679:
1680: \bibitem{Hall1}
1681: F.R. Hall, D. R. Hayhurst. Modelling of grain-size effects in creep
1682: crack growth a non-local continuum damage approach, Proceedings: Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1991, 433, 405-421.
1683:
1684: \bibitem{Hayhurst1}
1685: D.R. Hayhurst.
1686: Computational continuum damage mechanics:
1687: its use in the prediction of creep in structures - past, present and future.
1688: IUTAM Symposium on Creep in structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, 175-188.
1689:
1690: \bibitem{Hayhurst2}
1691: D.R. Hayhurst. The use of continuum damage mechanics in creep
1692: analysis for design. Journal of Strain Analysis, 29(3), 1994,
1693: 223-241.
1694:
1695: \bibitem{Hill1}
1696: R. Hill, J. W. Hutchinson. Bifurcation phenomena in the plane tension test,
1697: Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1975, 23, 239-264.
1698:
1699: \bibitem{Rabotnov1}
1700: Y.N. Rabotnov. Creep Problems in Structural Members, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.
1701:
1702: \bibitem{Riedel1}
1703: H. Riedel. Fracture at High Temperatures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
1704:
1705: \bibitem{Kachanov1}{L.M. Kachanov, Time of the rupture process under creep
1706: conditions (Russian): Izv. AN SSSR. Otd. Tekh. Nauk, 1958, 8, 26-31.}
1707:
1708: \bibitem{Kachanov2}{L.M. Kachanov, Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics,
1709: Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986.}
1710:
1711: \bibitem{Hayhurst4}
1712: Z.L. Kowalwski, D.R. Hayhurst, B.F. Dyson, Mechanisms-based creep
1713: constitutive equations for an alluminium alloy. Journal of Strain
1714: Analysis, 29(4), 1994, 309-316.
1715:
1716: \bibitem{Liu1}{Y. Liu, S. Murakami,
1717: Mesh-dependence and stress singularity in finite element
1718: analysis of creep crack growth by continuum damage mechanics
1719: approach,
1720: Europian Journal of Mechanics. A/Solids, vol. 13,
1721: 1994, 3, 395-418.}
1722:
1723: \bibitem{Lemaitre}{J. Lemaitre,
1724: Local approach of fracture, Engineering Fractire Mechanics, 1986, 25, 523-532.}
1725:
1726: \bibitem{Murakami1}{S. Murakami, Y. Liu,
1727: Mesh-dependence in local approach to creep fracture,
1728: International Journal of Damage Mechanics, 1995, 4, 230-250.}
1729:
1730: \bibitem{Mielke1}{A. Mielke, T. Roubicek,
1731: Rate-independent damage processes in nonlinear elasticty.
1732: M3AS (Modeling Math. Methods Appl. Sciences), to appear. }
1733:
1734: \bibitem{Norton}{F. H. Norton,
1735: Creep of steel at high temperatures,
1736: New York: MacGraw-Hill, 1929.}
1737:
1738: \bibitem{Saanouni1} {K. Saanouni, J.L. Chaboche, P.M. Lense,
1739: On the creep crack growth prediction by a non-local damage formulation,
1740: Europian Journal of Mechanics. A/Solids, vol. 8,
1741: 1989, 6, 437-459.}
1742:
1743: \bibitem{Shutov1} {A. V. Shutov,
1744: Numerical simulation of brittle fracture of thin-walled structures,
1745: International Journal of Fracture, 2004, 128, 325-333.}
1746:
1747: \bibitem{Shutov2} {A. V. Shutov,
1748: Two nonlinear models of brittle fracture for solids,
1749: Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics, 2004, 45(6), 853-859.}
1750:
1751: \bibitem{Shutov3} {A. V. Shutov, H. Altenbach, K. Naumenko,
1752: Steady-state creep analysis of pressurized pipe weldments by perturbation method,
1753: Submitted to IJSS.}
1754:
1755: \bibitem{Skrzypek1}{J.J. Skrzypek, Plasticity and Creep, CRC Press,
1756: Bocka Raton, FL, 1993.}
1757:
1758:
1759: \end{thebibliography}
1760:
1761: \end{document}
1762: