1: % G. Crasta, A. Malusa

2: %

3: % A variational approach to the macroscopic electrodynamics

4: % of anisotropic hard superconductors

5: %

6: % last update: dec. 20, 2006

7: %

8: \documentclass[11pt, psamsfonts]{amsart}

9: \usepackage{amssymb, amsmath, amsthm}

10: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

11: \usepackage{graphicx}

12: %\usepackage[final, hypertex, backref]{hyperref}

13: \usepackage[final, hypertex]{hyperref}

14: %geometry

15: \usepackage[a4paper, centering]{geometry}

16: %per impostare la pagina normale

17: %\geometry{text={12.6cm, 21cm}}

18: %per impostare la pagina media

19: \geometry{text={15cm, 22cm}}

20: %per impostare la pagina larga

21: %\geometry{text={17cm, 23cm}}

22: 

23: % .pdf figures

24: %\newcommand{\picturename}[1]{#1.pdf}

25: % .eps figures

26: \newcommand{\picturename}[1]{#1.eps}

27: 

28: %\newif\iflargepage

29: %\largepagefalse

30: 

31: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

32: \newtheorem{prop}[theorem]{Proposition}

33: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

34: \newtheorem{cor}[theorem]{Corollary}

35: \theoremstyle{definition}

36: \newtheorem{dhef}[theorem]{Definition}

37: \theoremstyle{remark}

38: \newtheorem{rk}[theorem]{Remark}

39: \newtheorem{ehse}[theorem]{Example}

40: 

41: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{{\it Claim}}

42: \newenvironment{claim-b}

43:    {\begin{claim}\rm}

44:    {\end{claim}}

45: 

46: % Modify page dim

47: %\iflargepage

48: %\textwidth17cm

49: %\textheight22cm

50: %\hoffset-20mm

51: %\voffset-20mm

52: %\parindent8pt

53: %\fi

54: 

55: \long\def\elimina#1{} \long\def\TODO#1{\par\noindent\textbf{TODO:

56: } #1\par}

57: 

58: \def\R{\mathbb{R}}

59: \def\C{\mathbb{C}}

60: \def\N{\mathbb{N}}

61: \def\U{\mathcal{U}}

62: \def\Wuu{W^{1,1}_0}

63: %\def\haus{d_H}

64: \def\inrad#1{r_{#1}}

65: \def\inradius{\inrad{\Omega}}

66: \def\pscal#1#2{\left\langle#1,\,#2\right\rangle}

67: %\def\estig{\sup_{\Omega} g}}

68: %\def\estig{\|g\|_{\infty}}

69: \def\Hausn#1{\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(#1)}

70: \def\haus{\mathcal{H}^{n-1}}

71: \def\dimh{\textrm{dim}_{\mathcal{H}}}

72: \def\K{\mathcal{K}}

73: \def\convopen{\mathcal{K}^n_0}

74: %support function

75: \def\support#1{h_{#1}}

76: \def\supp{\support{K}}

77: %gauge

78: \def\gau#1{\rho_{#1}}

79: \def\gauge{\rho}

80: \def\gaugem{\rho_{-}}

81: \def\pgauge{\gauge^0}

82: %Minkowski distance from a set $S$

83: \def\dists{\delta_S}

84: %Minkowski distance from the boundary

85: \def\distb#1{d_{#1}}

86: %Minkowski distance from $\partial\Omega$

87: \def\dist{\distb{\Omega}}

88: \def\distm{\distb{\Omega}^-}

89: %signed Minkowski distance from $\partial\Omega$

90: \def\sdist{\dist^s}

91: %cut point

92: \def\cut{m}

93: %unit vector

94: \def\uv{\nu}

95: %principal curvatures

96: \def\curv{\kappa}

97: %$\rho$-principal curvatures

98: \def\curvg{\tilde{\kappa}}

99: \def\curvgm{\tilde{\kappa}^-}

100: %normal

101: \def\nor{\nu}

102: %\def\nor{\mathbf{n}}

103: %ray length

104: \def\leno{\tilde{l}}

105: %ray length extended to closure

106: \def\len{l}

107: %tubular neighborhood

108: \def\tube#1{\mathcal{T}(#1)}

109: %ridge set

110: \def\ridge{\mathcal{R}}

111: \def\xia{\hat{\xi}_t}

112: \def\Lip{\textrm{Lip}}

113: \def\Lipr{\Lip_{\rho}}

114: \def\bw{\overline{W}}

115: \def\bv{\overline{V}}

116: \def\vf{v}

117: \def\meas{\mathcal{L}^n}

118: \def\matr{\mathcal{M}}

119: %\def\uu{w}

120: %\def\vv{z}

121: %\def\vz{v}

122: \def\uz{u}

123: \def\Cb{C_b}

124: \def\dato{\overline{u}}

125: \def\dt{\delta t^n_i}

126: \def\macroy{y}

127: \def\nt{\vec{n}}

128: \def\normp#1{{\left\|#1\right\|}_p}

129: \def\Uz{\vec{U}_0}

130: \def\Usol{\vec{U}}

131: \def\cz{\vec{c}_0}

132: \def\gd{\gauge_{\Delta}}

133: \def\elle#1{L^{#1}(A,\R^3)}

134: \def\wp#1{W^{1,#1}(A,\R^3)}

135: 

136: \DeclareMathOperator{\relint}{ri} \DeclareMathOperator{\relbd}{rb}

137: \DeclareMathOperator{\inte}{int} \DeclareMathOperator{\spt}{supp}

138: \DeclareMathOperator{\conv}{co} \DeclareMathOperator{\dive}{div}

139: \DeclareMathOperator{\trace}{Tr} \DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}

140: \DeclareMathOperator{\proj}{\Pi} \DeclareMathOperator{\curl}{curl}

141: 

142: 

143: \begin{document}

144: \title[Electrodynamics of hard superconductors]

145: {A variational approach to the macroscopic electrodynamics

146: of anisotropic hard superconductors}%

147: 

148: 

149: \author[G.~Crasta]{Graziano Crasta}

150: \address{Dipartimento di Matematica ``G.\ Castelnuovo'', Univ.\ di Roma I\\

151: P.le A.\ Moro 2 -- 00185 Roma (Italy)}

152: \email[Graziano Crasta]{crasta@mat.uniroma1.it}

153: 

154: \author[A.~Malusa]{Annalisa Malusa}

155: \email[Annalisa Malusa]{malusa@mat.uniroma1.it}

156: 

157: \date{December 20, 2006}

158: 

159: \keywords{Minimum problems with constraints, Euler equation, hard superconductors, Bean's model}

160: \subjclass[2000]{Primary 35C15; Secondary 49J30, 49J45, 49K20}

161: 

162: 

163: \begin{abstract}

164: We consider the Bean's critical state model for anisotropic superconductors.

165: A variational problem solved by the quasi--static evolution

166: of the internal magnetic field is obtained as the $\Gamma$-limit of functionals

167: arising from the Maxwell's equations combined with a power law for the

168: dissipation. Moreover, the quasi--static approximation of the internal

169: electric field is recovered, using a first order necessary condition.

170: 

171: If the sample is a long cylinder subjected to an axial uniform external

172: field, the macroscopic electrodynamics is explicitly determined.

173: %A class of minimum problems

174: %with a gradient constraint is considered. We determine the Euler equation solved by the optimal function

175: %coupled with its dual function.

176: %Moreover we find explicitly both the optimal function and its dual function.

177: %These results are applied to a variational model for the mixed

178: %state of hard superconductors in order to describe the macroscopic

179: %response of a sample to an applied external magnetic field.

180: \end{abstract}

181: 

182: \maketitle

183: 

184: 

185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

186: % MSC 2000

187: %

188: %35–XX PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

189: %35Axx General theory

190: %35A35 Theoretical approximation to solutions

191: %35Cxx Representations of solutions

192: %35C05 Solutions in closed form

193: %35C10 Series solutions, expansion theorems

194: %35C15 Integral representations of solutions of PDE

195: %35C20 Asymptotic expansions

196: %35C99 None of the above, but in this section

197: %35Jxx Partial differential equations of elliptic type

198: %35J05 Laplace equation, reduced wave equation

199: %           (Helmholtz), Poisson equation [see Also{ 31Axx, 31Bxx}

200: %35J20 Variational methods for second-order, elliptic equations

201: %35Qxx Equations of mathematical physics and other

202: %           areas of application [See also 35J05, 35J10,

203: %           35K05, 35L05]

204: %

205: %49–XX CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS AND OPTIMAL CONTROL; OPTIMIZATION

206: %49Jxx Existence theories

207: %49J10 Free problems in two or more independent variables

208: %49J30 Optimal solutions belonging to restricted classes

209: %           (Lipschitz controls, bang-bang controls, etc.)

210: %49Kxx Necessary conditions and sufficient conditions

211: %49K20 Problems involving partial differential equations

212: %49K24 Problems involving differential inclusions

213: %49K30 Optimal solutions belonging to restricted classes

214: %49Lxx Hamilton-Jacobi theories, including dynamic

215: %programming

216: %49L20 Dynamic programming method

217: %49L25 Viscosity solutions

218: %49L99 None of the above, but in this section

219: %49Qxx Manifolds

220: %49Q10 Optimization of the shape other than minimal surfaces

221: %

222: %52–XX CONVEX AND DISCRETE GEOMETRY

223: %52A++ General convexity

224: %52A20 Convex sets in $n$ dimensions (including

225: %              convex hypersurfaces) [see Also{ 53A07,  53C45}

226: %52A40 Inequalities and extremum problems

227: %

228: %53–XX DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY

229: %53Axx Classical differential geometry

230: %53A07 Higher-dimensional and -codimensional surfaces in Euclidean n-space

231: %

232: %74–XX MECHANICS OF DEFORMABLE SOLIDS

233: %74Bxx Elastic materials

234: %74B05 Classical linear elasticity

235: %74Kxx Thin bodies, structures

236: %74K10 Rods (beams, columns, shafts, arches, rings, etc.)

237: %

238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

239: 

240: 

241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

242: \section{Introduction}

243: 

244: %The aim of this paper is to determine the evolution of the electric and magnetic field inside

245: %a long cylindrical type--II  anisotropic superconductor

246: %placed into a nonstationary, uniform, and axial magnetic field $\vec{H}_s$.

247: 

248: It is well known that a superconductor is a conductor which is able to pass an electric current

249: without dissipation. The transition from the normally conducting state

250: to the superconducting one occurs at a critical temperature $T_c$, depending on the material,

251: below which the material exhibits (almost) perfect conductivity.

252: We are interested in the response of a superconducting material  to an applied external

253: magnetic field $\vec{H}_s$  under isothermal conditions below its critical temperature.

254: 

255: The superconductors can be classified in terms of a material parameter $\kappa>0$,

256: known as the Ginzburg--Landau parameter.

257: For the so called type--II superconductors (corresponding to $\kappa>1/\sqrt{2}$)

258: there exist two critical magnetic field intensities,

259: ${H}_{c_1} < {H}_{c_2}$, such

260: that for $|\vec{H}_s| < {H}_{c_1}$ the material is in the superconducting state and the

261: magnetic field is excluded from the bulk of the sample except in thin boundary layers,

262: while for $|\vec{H}_s| > {H}_{c_2}$ the material

263: behaves as a normal conductor,

264: %is in the normal conducting

265: and the magnetic field penetrates it fully.

266: For ${H}_{c_1}<|\vec{H}_s|< {H}_{c_2}$ a third

267: state exists, known as ``mixed state'' as well as ``vortex state''.

268: The mixed state is characterized by a partial penetration

269: of the magnetic field into the sample, which occurs, at a mesoscopic level, by

270: means of thin filaments of normally conducting material carrying magnetic flux

271: and circled by a vortex of superconducting current.

272: Type--I superconductors are those with ${H}_{c_1}={H}_{c_2}$, so that

273: the mixed state does not occur.

274: 

275: Although from a physical point of view the most interesting description of the mixed

276: state for type--II superconductors is given by the mesoscopic Ginzburg--Landau model,

277: in designing magnets and other large--scale applications of superconducting materials,

278: engineers use macroscopic models, involving averaged variables. One of the

279: most reliable macroscopic models is the Bean's critical state model (see \cite{Bean}).

280: We refer to \cite{Cha} for a derivation of this model

281: as a macroscopic version of the Ginzburg--Landau model

282: under suitable assumptions.

283: 

284: The basic idea of the Bean's phenomenological model for isotropic materials is that,

285: because of physical limitations imposed by the material properties, the current

286: density $|\vec{J}|$ cannot

287: exceed a critical value $J_c$ without destroying the superconducting phase.

288: 

289: Moreover it is assumed that any electromotive

290: force due to external field variations induces the maximum current density flow,

291: according to the most effective way of shielding field variations. Hence

292: the current density $|\vec{J}|$ is forced to be $J_c$ in the part of the sample

293: where the field is penetrated, while $\vec{J}=0$ in the remaining part of the sample.

294: 

295: At a mesoscopic level, the critical current density $J_c$ corresponds to the

296: balance between a repulsive vortex--vortex interaction and attractive forces

297: towards the pinning centers. At a macroscopic level, the electric field is zero

298: when $|\vec{J}|<J_c$ and abruptly rises to arbitrarily large values if $J_c$ is

299: overrun.

300: 

301: Since for isotropic materials it is well--established that the electric field and the

302: current have the same direction (at least for slowly varying external fields),

303: in the original Bean's model

304: the Ohm's law is replaced by a vertical current--voltage law

305: \[

306: \vec{E} \parallel \vec{J}\,, \quad

307: |\vec{J}|\leq J_c\,,\qquad

308: \vec{E}= 0 \ \textrm{if}\ |\vec{J}| < J_c\,,

309: \]

310: %\begin{cases}

311: %0 & \textrm{if\ }|\vec{J}|<|\vec{J}_c|\,, \\

312: %[0, +\infty) & \textrm{if\ }|\vec{J}|=|\vec{J}_c|\,,

313: %\end{cases}

314: %\]

315: which can be interpreted as the limit

316: for $p\to +\infty$ in the power--law

317: \begin{equation}\label{f:power}

318: \vec{E} \parallel \vec{J}\,, \quad |\vec{E}|=e_c \left(\frac{|\vec{J}|}{|\vec{J}_c|}\right)^p

319: \end{equation}

320: (see, e.g., \cite{Bran,BaPr,BLc}).

321: Notice that the direction of the electric field is obtained by exploiting the isotropy of the

322: material and cannot be obtained as a consequence of the power law approximation, which involves

323: only the intensities of the fields.

324: Hence this approach is not appropriate to deal with anisotropic materials

325: (see anyhow \cite{BLb} for some

326: explicit computation of the electric field in the case of infinite slab geometry,

327: and \cite{BKR} in the case of a cylindrical body with elliptic section).

328: On the other hand, many type--II superconducting materials are anisotropic. Moreover,

329: even if the material is isotropic, the presence of flux-flow Hall effects has to be described

330: in terms of an anisotropic resistivity (see, e.g., \cite{Bran}).

331: 

332: Concerning the constraints on the current, in the anisotropic case the Bean's law dictates that

333: there exists a compact set $\Delta$ containing the origin as an interior point, such that

334: $\vec{J}$ cannot lie outside $\Delta$ without destroying the superconducting state.

335: %In what follows we shall always assume that $\Delta$ is a convex compact set.

336: Moreover $\vec{J}\in \partial \Delta$ in the penetrated region, and $\vec{J}=0$ elsewhere.

337: 

338: Section \ref{s:phis} of this paper is devoted to the description of the Bean's law as

339: a limit of a power--like law fulfilled by the dissipation. This approach

340: allows us to determine \textit{a priori} the direction of the electric field in terms of

341: the direction of the current for anisotropic materials.

342: 

343: In Section \ref{s:bean} we deal with a variational statement of the critical state

344: proposed in \cite{BLd}, which takes

345: the form of a quasistatic evolution of the penetrated magnetic field, obtained combining

346: the finite--difference expression of Faraday's law with the Bean's law.

347: We shall give a mathematical justification of the variational model

348: as a limiting case of the power law model for dissipation.

349: The result is proposed in terms of

350: $\Gamma$--convergence of functionals, which is nowadays a classical tool in the mathematical methods for

351: the material science (see, e.g., \cite{Brai,DM} and the references therein).

352: 

353: In the last part of the paper we focus our attention to the special case of a long

354: cylindrical anisotropic superconductor placed into a nonstationary, uniform axial

355: magnetic field. The parallel geometry enables us to make a two dimensional reduction

356: of the problem,

357: which can then be explicitly solved.

358: %and we can compute the electrodynamics explicitly.

359: 

360: The plan of this part of the paper is the following. In Section \ref{s:bean2} we describe the

361: two dimensional reduction of the problem in the case of parallel geometry.

362: In Section \ref{s:distance} we introduce some

363: technical tool needed for the analytical description of the fields.

364: In Section \ref{s:minp} we find explicitly the solution to a general class of minimum problems

365: with a gradient constraint and we determine the Euler equation solved by the optimal function

366: coupled with its dual function. Moreover we find the explicit form of the dual function.

367: In Section \ref{s:evol} the previous results are applied to the variational model for the critical

368: state, and we find the quasistatic evolution of both the magnetic field and the dissipation

369: inside the superconductor. Finally, a passage to the limit on the time layer gives

370: the explicit form of the macroscopic electrodynamics.

371: 

372: For what concerns the magnetic field, our result

373: generalizes the one, valid for isotropic materials, obtained by Barrett and Prigozhin

374: in \cite{BaPr} with a different method

375: based on a evolutionary variational inequality.

376: Due to the fact that the magnetic field is explicitly known,

377: we can compute the full penetration time in the case of monotonic external fields

378: as well as we can depict the well known hysteresis phenomenon.

379: On the other hand, the knowledge of the electric field allows us to give a detailed

380: description of the evolution of the dissipation

381: for cylinders of anisotropic materials with a general geometry of the cross section

382: (see Figures \ref{BB3} and \ref{BB4}).

383: 

384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

385: \section{Notation and preliminaries}

386: 

387: For $\xi\in \R^N$, $|\xi|$ will be the Euclidean norm, and

388: $\pscal{\xi}{\xi'}$ will denote the scalar product with $\xi'\in \R^N$.

389: The symbol $\times$ will be used for the cross product of vectors

390: in $\R^3$.

391: Given $a,b\in\R$, $a\vee b$ and $a\wedge b$ will denote

392: respectively the maximum and the minimum of $a$ and $b$.

393: 

394: \smallskip

395: 

396: Given $A\subset\R^N$, we shall denote by $\Lip(A)$, $C(A)$,

397: $\Cb(A)$ and $C^k(A)$, $k\in\N$ the set of functions $u\colon

398: A\to\R$ that are respectively Lipschitz continuous, continuous,

399: bounded and continuous, and $k$-times continuously differentiable

400: in $A$. Moreover, $C^{\infty}(A)$ will denote the set of functions

401: of class $C^k(A)$ for every $k\in\N$, while $C^{k,\alpha}(A)$ will

402: be the set of functions of class $C^k(A)$ with H\"older continuous

403: $k$-th partial derivatives with exponent $\alpha\in [0,1]$.

404: Finally $L^p(A)$, $W^{1,p}(A)$, $W^{1,p}_0(A)$, and $L^p(A,\R^d)$,

405: $W^{1,p}(A,\R^d)$, $W^{1,p}_0(A,\R^d)$, $d>1$, will be the usual Lebesgue

406: and Sobolev spaces of scalar or vectorial functions respectively.

407: 

408: \smallskip

409: 

410: Let $X$ be subset of $\R^N$, $N\geq 2$. We shall denote by

411: $\partial X$ its boundary, by $\inte X$ its interior, and by $\overline{X}$ its closure.

412: The characteristic function of $X$

413: will be denoted by $\chi_X$.

414: The set $X$ is said to be

415: of class $C^k$, $k\in\N$,

416: if for every point $x_0\in\partial X$

417: there exists a ball $B=B_r(x_0)$ and a one-to-one

418: mapping $\psi\colon B\to D$ such that

419: $\psi\in C^k(B)$, $\psi^{-1}\in C^k(D)$,

420: $\psi(B\cap X)\subseteq\{x\in\R^n;\ x_n > 0\}$,

421: $\psi(B\cap\partial X)\subseteq\{x\in\R^n;\ x_n = 0\}$.

422: If the maps $\psi$ and $\psi^{-1}$ are of class

423: $C^{\infty}$ or $C^{k,\alpha}$ ($k\in\N$, $\alpha\in [0,1]$),

424: then $X$ is said to be of class

425: $C^{\infty}$ or $C^{k,\alpha}$ respectively.

426: 

427: \smallskip

428: 

429: Let $D\subset\R^N$ be a compact convex set containing

430: $0$ as an interior point and with boundary of class $C^2$.

431: The gauge function $\gau{D}$ of the set $D$ is the convex, positively

432: 1--homogeneous function defined by

433: \[

434: \gau{D}(\xi) = \inf\{ t\geq 0;\ \xi\in t D\}\,,

435: \qquad\xi\in\R^N.

436: \]

437: Since $D$ is a compact set containing a neighborhood of

438: $0$, there exist two positive constants $c_1<c_2$ such that

439: \begin{equation}\label{robdd}

440: c_1|\xi| \leq \gau{D}(\xi)\leq c_2 |\xi|\,, \qquad \forall\ \xi \in \R^N\,.

441: \end{equation}

442: 

443: The indicator function of the set $D$ is defined

444: by

445: \begin{equation}\label{indk}

446: I_{D}(\xi)=

447: \begin{cases}

448: 0 & \textrm{if}\ \xi\in D \\

449: +\infty & \textrm{if}\ \xi\not\in D\,.

450: \end{cases}

451: \end{equation}

452: 

453: Since $D$ has a smooth boundary, the subgradient of the indicator function

454: can be explicitly computed, and

455: \begin{equation}\label{subindk}

456: \partial I_{D}(\xi)=

457: \begin{cases}

458: \{\alpha D\gau{D}(\xi)\colon \alpha \geq 0\} & \textrm{if}\ \xi\in \partial D \\

459: \emptyset & \textrm{if}\ \xi\not\in D \\

460: \{0\} & \textrm{if}\ \xi\in \inte D

461: \end{cases}

462: \end{equation}

463: (see e.g.\ \cite{Rock}, Section 23).

464: 

465: In what follows, a family of objects, even if parameterized by a continuous

466: parameter, will also be often called a ``sequence'' not to overburden

467: notation.

468: 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: \section{The physical setting}\label{s:phis}

471: 

472: Since we shall deal with a macroscopic model,

473: the coarse--grained electrodynamics will be formulated

474: in terms of

475: \begin{itemize}

476: \item[(i)] the flux density $\vec{B}$ within the sample, which is the average of the

477: microscopic field intensity;

478: \item[(ii)] the magnetic field $\vec{H}$, which is assumed to be linearly connected

479: to $\vec{B}$ by $\vec{B}=\mu_0 \vec{H}$;

480: %(this requirement is always

481: %satisfied if $\vec{H}_s$ is well apart

482: %from the lower and upper critical fields);

483: \item[(iii)] the averaged current density $\vec{J}$, linked to  $\vec{H}$ by the

484: Amp\`ere's law $\vec{J}=\curl \vec{H}$.

485: \end{itemize}

486: Moreover, on neglecting finite size effects, we can assume that

487: \begin{itemize}

488: \item[(iv)] the magnetic source $\vec{H}_s$ enters

489: as a boundary condition for the flux density at the surface of the sample,

490: requiring that $\nt\times\vec{H} = \nt\times\vec{H}_s$ on that surface,

491: where $\nt$ is the outward normal vector.

492: %requiring that the magnetic field

493: %$\vec{H}$ is continuous.

494: \end{itemize}

495: %Moreover, the connection to observable quantities is done by characterizing the external field

496: %sources and the sample response.

497: %\begin{itemize}

498: %\item[(iv)] On neglecting finite size effects, the magnetic source $\vec{H}_s$ enters

499: %as a boundary condition for the flux density at the surface of the sample,

500: %requiring that the magnetic field

501: %$\vec{H}$ is continuous.

502: %\item[(v)] Then the measured magnetic moment of the sample per unit volume

503: %is $\vec{M}=\langle\vec{H}\rangle-\vec{H}_s$. Here the average concerns the whole volume of the

504: %superconductor.

505: %\end{itemize}

506: 

507: Time variations of the external field $\vec{H}_s$ induce in the sample an electric field

508: $\vec{E}$, according to Faraday's

509: law.

510: %\[

511: %\curl\vec{E}+\mu_0\frac{\partial \vec{H}}{\partial t}=0\,.

512: %\]

513: On the other hand,

514: the electric field leads

515: a current $\vec{J}$ which

516: induces an internal magnetic field $\vec{H}$,

517: according to Amp\`ere's law.

518: Finally, we recall that $\dive \vec{H}=0$ (Gauss' law).

519: 

520: Summarizing, we are considering the so-called eddy current model

521: for Maxwell equations:

522: \[

523: \begin{cases}

524: \curl\vec{E}+\mu_0\dfrac{\partial \vec{H}}{\partial t}=0

525: &\textrm{(Faraday's law)},\\

526: \vec{J}=\curl \vec{H}

527: &\textrm{(Amp\`ere's law)},\\

528: \dive\vec{H} = 0

529: &\textrm{(Gauss' law)},\\

530: \nt\times(\vec{H} -\vec{H}_s) = 0

531: &\textrm{on the surface}.

532: \end{cases}

533: \]

534: 

535: In order to complete the physical setting,

536: it remains to find an appropriate version of the constitutive law

537: $\vec{E}(\vec{J})$. Our starting point is a reading of the macroscopic behaviour

538: of the material in terms of the dissipation

539: $\dot{S}=\pscal{\vec{E}(\vec{J})}{\vec{J}}$

540: (here $S$ denotes the entropy of the system).

541: Namely, the Bean's model dictates that if $\vec{J}$ is in the interior of

542: an allowed region $\Delta$, which is assumed to be a convex compact set of $\R^3$

543: having the origin as an interior point,

544: then $\dot{S}$ vanishes as no electric field is generated in stationary

545: condition, while when $\vec{J}$ touches

546: the boundary $\partial \Delta$ of the allowed region a huge dissipation occurs,

547: destroying the superconducting phase.

548: The fact that $\dot{S}=0$ if $\vec{J}$ is an interior point of $\Delta$,

549: while $\dot{S} = +\infty$ if $\vec{J}\not\in\Delta$

550: suggests that the Bean's law can be

551: interpreted as the limit as $p\to\infty$ of a power law for the dissipation

552: $\pscal{\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})}{\vec{J}}$, that is

553: \begin{equation}\label{f:pdissip}

554: \pscal{\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})}{\vec{J}}=\frac{c}{p}\left(\gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\right)^{p}\,.

555: \end{equation}

556: This approximation allows us to recover the direction of

557: the electric field $\vec{E}(\vec{J})$ when

558: $\vec{J}\in\partial\Delta$.

559: Namely, we claim that, under the physically consistent assumption that

560: \begin{equation}\label{f:nulel}

561: \lim_{t\to 0^+}\vec{E}_p(t\vec{J})=0\,, \quad \forall\ \vec{J}\in\R^3\,,

562: \end{equation}

563: the relation (\ref{f:pdissip}) implies, for $p>1$,

564: \begin{equation}\label{f:pelet}

565: \vec{E}_p(\vec{J})=\frac{c}{p}\left(\gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\right)^{p-1} D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\,.

566: \end{equation}

567: In order to prove (\ref{f:pelet}), we

568: differentiate (\ref{f:pdissip}), obtaining

569: \[

570: \pscal{D\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})}{\vec{J}}+ \vec{E}_p(\vec{J})=

571: c\left(\gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\right)^{p-1} D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\,.

572: \]

573: Hence, fixed $\vec{J}\neq 0$, the function $v(t)= \vec{E}_p(t\vec{J})$, $t>0$,

574: is a solution of the O.D.E.

575: \begin{equation*}

576: \begin{cases}

577: t\, v'(t)+v(t)=c\, t^{p-1}w \,, \\

578: v(1)= \vec{E}_p(\vec{J})\,,

579: \end{cases}

580: \end{equation*}

581: where $w=\left(\gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\right)^{p-1} D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})$. Then

582: \[

583: v(t)=\frac{1}{t}\left[\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})+\frac{cw}{p}(t^p-1)\right]\,,

584: \]

585: and, by (\ref{f:nulel}),

586: \[

587: \vec{E}_p(\vec{J})-\frac{c}{p}\left(\gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})\right)^{p-1} D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J}) =

588: \lim_{t\to 0^+}[\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})+\frac{cw}{p}(t^p-1)]=0\,.

589: \]

590: %Notice that formula (\ref{f:pelet}) contains both the current--voltage power law and the

591: %information that the electric field has the same direction of $D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})$.

592: 

593: As a consequence of (\ref{f:pelet}), the direction of $\vec{E}_p(\vec{J})$ is given

594: by $D \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})$, and it does not depend on $p$.

595: In conclusion, recalling (\ref{subindk}),

596: the anisotropic version of the Bean's law is the following.

597: \begin{itemize}

598: \item[(B1)] There exists a convex

599: compact set $\Delta$ containing the origin as an interior point and

600: such that $\vec{J}(x,t)\in \Delta$ for every $x\in\Omega$, $t\geq 0$.

601: \item[(B2)] If we denote by $I_\Delta$ the indicator function

602: of the set $\Delta$, the constitutive law $\vec{E}(\vec{J})$ is given by

603: $\vec{E}\in \partial I_\Delta(\vec{J})$.

604: \end{itemize}

605: 

606: %\begin{rk}

607: %{}From (\ref{f:pelet}) we see that

608: %$\vec{E}(\vec{J}) = D\varphi_p(\vec{J})$,

609: %where $\varphi_p(\vec{J}) = c\, \gauge_\Delta(\vec{J})^p/p^2$

610: %converges to the indicator function of the set $\Delta$

611: %as $p\to +\infty$.

612: %Hence it is reasonable to assume that

613: %$\vec{E}$ has to be an element of the subdifferential $\partial I_\Delta(\vec{J})$

614: %(this assertion will be proved by the variational analysis of

615: %Section~\ref{s:bean-forse}).

616: %We remark that, for $\vec{J}\in\partial\Delta$,

617: %the pointwise limit of the right-hand side of (\ref{f:pelet}) as $p\to +\infty$

618: %is zero.

619: %\end{rk}

620: 

621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

622: \section{A variational model for the mixed state}\label{s:bean}

623: 

624: Let $A\subset\R^3$ be the region occupied by the superconductor, and

625: $\partial A$ its surface.

626: We assume that $A$ is a bounded, open subset of $\R^3$, and that

627: $\partial A$ is of class $C^{1,1}$.

628: Moreover, we assume that $A$ has no enclosed cavity.

629: In our model the presence of cavities is not allowed,

630: since the boundary condition in such a cavity cannot be given in terms of

631: the external magnetic field.

632: (The magnetic field must be constant on the boundary of every enclosed cavity.)

633: In order to avoid the presence of cavities, we assume that $A$ has second Betti number $0$

634: (see e.g.\ \cite{Gold} for the definition of Betti numbers).

635: %We recall that, loosely speaking, the second Betti number of $A$

636: %is the number of enclosed cavities.

637: %In our model the presence of cavities is not allowed,

638: %since the boundary condition in such a cavity cannot be given in terms of

639: %the external magnetic field.

640: %(The magnetic field must be constant on the boundary of every enclosed cavity.)

641: 

642: 

643: Let $T>0$ be fixed. For every $n\in\N^+$, we take a partition

644: $P^n=\left\{t^n_i\right\}_{i=0}^{k(n)}$

645: %$0=t^n_0<t^n_1<\cdots<t^n_{n}=T$

646: of the interval $[0,T]$, and we set $\delta t^n_i=t^n_i-t^n_{i-1}$.

647: %Finally, let us set $\vcn_i=\vecH_s(t^n_i)$, and

648: %$h^n_i(x)$ the magnetic field intensity at time layer $i$, given by $H_s(t^n_i)+u(t^n_i,x)$.

649: The least action principle proposed in \cite{BLd} is the following: starting from an initial field profile

650: $\vec{H}^n_i(x)$ in $A$ at the time layer $i$,

651: and under a small change of the external drive, the new profile $\vec{H}^n_{i+1}(x)$

652: at the time layer $i+1$

653: is the unique solution to the minimum problem

654: \begin{equation}\label{varmod3d}

655: \min\left\{

656: \int_A  |\vec{V}-\vec{H}^n_i|^2\, dx;\

657: \vec{V}\in \vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})+X_2,\

658: \curl\vec{V}\in \Delta\ \textrm{a.e.}

659: \right\}\,,

660: \end{equation}

661: where, for every $p>1$,

662: \begin{equation*}%\label{f:Xp}

663: X_p = \left\{\vec{V}\in \elle{p};\

664: \curl\vec{V}\in \elle{p},\,

665: \dive\vec{V} = 0,\,

666: \nt\times\vec{V} = 0\, \textrm{on}\, \partial A

667: \right\}.

668: \end{equation*}

669: 

670: In \cite{BLd}

671: the trustworthiness of this variational principle was motivated

672: in terms of nonequilibrium thermodynamical principles

673: in analogy with the ohmic case.

674: In this section we shall give a mathematical justification, in terms of

675: $\Gamma$--convergence of functionals, of the variational model

676: as a limiting case of the power law model for dissipation.

677: %In point of fact, we are going to use the theory of $\Gamma$--convergence.

678: %However, since the model considered is very simple, we prefer to write the result in term

679: %of convergence of minima instead of $\Gamma$--convergence of functionals.

680: 

681: Our starting point is the fact that, assuming that the power law (\ref{f:pdissip})

682: holds true, the discretized version of the Faraday's law

683: \begin{equation}\label{f:farlp}

684: \curl\vec{E}^n_{i+1}+\frac{\mu_0}{c\dt}(\vec{H}^n_{i+1}-\vec{H}^n_{i})=0

685: \end{equation}

686: is the Euler equation for the functional

687: \[

688: F_p(\vec{V})=\int_A \frac{1}{p}\gd(\curl\vec{V})^p+

689: \lambda\left|\vec{V}-\vec{H}^n_i\right|^2\, dx\,,\qquad

690: \vec{V}\in \vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})+X_p

691: \]

692: where $\lambda := \frac{\mu_0}{2c\dt}>0$.

693: 

694: In other words, it can be easily checked that the magnetic field $\vec{H}^n_{i+1}$

695: is the unique minimum point of $F_p$ in $\vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})+ X_p$.

696: It is clear that, up to a translation of a constant vector,

697: it is equivalent to minimize $F_p$ on $X_p$ by

698: changing $\vec{H}^n_i$ with $\vec{H}^n_i-\vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})$.

699: 

700: The following properties of the spaces $X_p$ will be useful in the sequel

701: (see \cite[Thm.~2.2]{YLZ} and \cite[Thm.~3.1]{Wa}).

702: 

703: \begin{theorem}\label{t:Xp}

704: Let $A\subset\R^3$ be a bounded open set of class $C^{1,1}$.

705: Let $1<p<\infty$. Then the following hold.

706: \begin{itemize}

707: \item[(i)]

708: Every function $\vec{V}\in X_p$ belongs to $\wp{p}$.

709: Moreover, if $p>3$, then $\vec{V}\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{A})$

710: and there exists a constant $C_p>0$, depending only on $p$ and $A$,

711: such that

712: \[

713: {\left\|\vec{V}\right\|}_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{A})}\leq

714: C_p \normp{\curl\vec{V}}\,.

715: \]

716: 

717: \item[(ii)]

718: If $A$ has second Betti number $0$, then there exists a constant

719: $M_p > 0$, depending only on $p$ and $A$,

720: such that

721: \[

722: \normp{D\vec{V}} \leq M_p \normp{\curl\vec{V}}

723: \]

724: for every $\vec{V}\in X_p$.

725: \end{itemize}

726: \end{theorem}

727: 

728: \begin{rk}\label{r:Xp}

729: {}From Theorem~\ref{t:Xp} we infer that $X_p$ is a (proper)

730: subspace of $\wp{p}$.

731: Moreover, for $p>3$ the map defined by

732: $X_p\ni\vec{V}\mapsto\normp{\curl\vec{V}}$ is a norm in $X_p$ equivalent

733: to the standard $W^{1,p}$ norm.

734: \end{rk}

735: 

736: From now on we shall always assume $p>3$. In this case,

737: by Theorem \ref{t:Xp}(i), a function $\vec{V}\in X_p$ is continuous

738: in $\overline{A}$,

739: and the boundary condition $\nt\times \vec{V}$ is understood to

740: be pointwise fulfilled. On the other hand, the divergence--free requirement

741: on $\vec{V}\in X_p$ is understood in the sense of distributions, i.e.

742: \[

743: \int_A \vec{V}\cdot D\vec{\Psi} =0\,, \qquad \forall \vec{\Psi}\in C^\infty_0(A, \R^3)\,.

744: \]

745: 

746: For our subsequent considerations, we need to define all the functionals $F_p$

747: on the same Banach space.

748: For this reason,

749: naming $\vec{U}_0=\vec{H}^n_i-\vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})$,

750: we set

751: \begin{equation}\label{f:Fp}

752: F_p(\vec{V})=

753: \begin{cases}

754: \displaystyle

755: \int_A \frac{1}{p}\gd(\curl\vec{V})^p+

756: \lambda\left|\vec{V}-\vec{U}_0\right|^2\, dx\,,

757: &\textrm{if $\vec{V}\in X_p$},\\

758: +\infty,

759: &\textrm{otherwise in $\elle{2}$}.

760: \end{cases}

761: \end{equation}

762: We also define the functional

763: \begin{equation}\label{f:F}

764: F(\vec{V})=

765: \begin{cases}

766: \displaystyle\int_A

767: I_{\Delta}(\curl\vec{V})+

768: |\vec{V}-\Uz|^2\, dx\,,

769: &\textrm{if $\vec{V}\in X_2$},\\

770: +\infty,

771: &\textrm{otherwise in $\elle{2}$},

772: \end{cases}

773: \end{equation}

774: where $I_{\Delta}$ is the indicator function of the convex set $\Delta$, defined in (\ref{indk}).

775: 

776: \begin{lemma}\label{l:basicp}

777: The functionals $F_p$, $p>3$, and $F$ are lower semicontinuous

778: in the strong $L^2$ topology.

779: Moreover, the functionals $F_p$ are equicoercive, i.e.\

780: there exists a constant $\alpha>0$ such that

781: \[

782: F_p(\vec{V})\geq \frac{\lambda}{2} \|\vec{V}\|_2^2-\alpha

783: \qquad

784: \forall \vec{V}\in \elle{2},\ \forall p>3\,.

785: \]

786: \end{lemma}

787: 

788: \begin{proof}

789: Let $3< p<\infty$, and let $(\vec{V}_k)\subset \elle{2}$

790: be a sequence converging to $\vec{V}$ in $L^2$. We have to prove that

791: \[

792: F_p(\vec{V})\leq \liminf_{k \to \infty}F_p(\vec{V}_k)\,.

793: \]

794: Without loss of generality we can assume that

795: $\vec{V}_k\in X_p$ for every $k$ and

796: \begin{equation}\label{f:limfin}

797: \lim_{k\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_k) = C < +\infty\,.

798: \end{equation}

799: 

800: We claim that $\vec{V}\in X_p$.

801: Namely, the divergence-free requirement is stable under

802: strong $L^2$ convergence.

803: Moreover, from (\ref{f:limfin}) and (\ref{robdd}) we have that

804: there exists a constant $C_1>0$ such that

805: $\|\curl\vec{V}_k\|_p \leq C_1$ for every $k\in\N$.

806: {}From Theorem~\ref{t:Xp}(i) we infer that the sequence

807: $(\vec{V}_k)$ is equicontinuous and equibounded in $\overline{A}$.

808: Hence we can pass to a subsequence, that we do not relabel,

809: converging uniformly to $\vec{V}$ in $\overline{A}$,

810: so that the boundary condition $\nt\times\vec{V} = 0$ on $\partial A$

811: holds.

812: Finally, from Remark~\ref{r:Xp},

813: $(\vec{V}_k)$ converges to $\vec{V}$ weakly in $\wp{p}$, and

814: $\|\curl\vec{V}\|_p \leq \liminf_k \|\curl\vec{V}_k\|_p$,

815: proving the claim.

816: 

817: By the convexity of $\gd$ and the convergence of

818: $\curl\vec{V}_k$ to $\curl\vec{V}$ in the weak $L^p$ topology,

819: we obtain that

820: \[

821: \int_A\gd(\curl\vec{V})^p \leq \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_A\gd(\curl\vec{V}_k)^p,

822: \]

823: which implies  the semicontinuity inequality

824: $F_p(\vec{V})\leq C$.

825: 

826: The semicontinuity of $F$ can be proved in a similar way,

827: while the equicoerciveness of $(F_p)$ easily follows

828: choosing $\alpha = \frac{\lambda}{2}\|\vec{U}_0\|_2^2$.

829: \end{proof}

830: 

831: \begin{rk}\label{r:minFp}

832: For every $p>3$, the functional $F_p$ is lower semicontinuous in $\elle{2}$,

833: coercive,

834: and strictly convex in its effective domain $X_p$.

835: Hence it admits a unique minimizer $\vec{U}_p$,

836: which belongs to $X_p$.

837: Similarly, the functional $F$ admits a unique minimizer $\vec{U}\in X_2$

838: with $\gd(\curl\vec{U})\leq 1$.

839: \end{rk}

840: 

841: The mathematical justification of the Bad\'\i a and L\'opez model is

842: based on the fact that

843: the sequence $(\vec{U}_p)$ of

844: minimizers of $(F_p)$ converges to the minimizer $\vec{U}$ of $F$.

845: As is customary in material science,

846: we are going to prove this statement

847: using the technique of $\Gamma$-convergence (see \cite{Brai} and the

848: reference therein for examples of applications of the theory to

849: different models).

850: 

851: \begin{dhef}\label{d:gamma}

852: The sequence $(F_p)$ $\Gamma$-converges to the functional

853: $F$ (with respect to the strong $L^2$ topology) if the following

854: two conditions are satisfied.

855: \begin{itemize}

856: \item[(i)]

857: For every $\vec{V}\in \elle{2}$ there exists a sequence $(\vec{V}_p)$

858: (called a \textsl{recovering sequence}), converging to $\vec{V}$

859: in $\elle{2}$, and such that

860: \[

861: \limsup_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p) \leq F(\vec{V})\,.

862: \]

863: \item[(ii)]

864: For every sequence $(\vec{V}_p)\subset\elle{2}$ converging strongly to

865: $\vec{V}$, we have

866: \[

867: \liminf_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p) \geq F(\vec{V})\,.

868: \]

869: \end{itemize}

870: \end{dhef}

871: 

872: \begin{rk}\label{r:gc}

873: Since the functionals $F_p$ are equicoercive (see Lemma \ref{l:basicp}),

874: the convergence of the minimizers $(\vec{U}_p)$ to $\vec{U}$ will follow

875: if we prove that

876: $(F_p)$ $\Gamma$-converges to $F$ and

877: that $(\vec{U}_p)$ is a precompact sequence in $\elle{2}$

878: (see e.g.\ \cite{Brai}).

879: \end{rk}

880: 

881: The main tool needed in the proof of the $\Gamma$--convergence

882: of $(F_p)$ to $F$

883: is the following lemma.

884: 

885: \begin{lemma}\label{l:rholim}

886: Let $(\vec{V}_p)\in \elle{2}$ be a sequence converging to

887: $\vec{V}$ in $\elle{2}$. If

888: \[

889: \liminf_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p) < +\infty

890: \]

891: then

892: $\gd(\curl\vec{V})\leq 1$ a.e.\ in $A$.

893: \end{lemma}

894: 

895: \begin{proof}

896: Without loss of generality we can assume that

897: \[

898: \begin{split}

899: \liminf_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p) =

900: \lim_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p) = L < +\infty,\\

901: \curl\vec{V}_p\in \elle{p}\,,\quad F_p(\vec{V}_p)\leq L_1\qquad \forall p>3.

902: \end{split}

903: \]

904: %hence $\curl\vec{V}_p\in \elle{p}$

905: %and $F_p(\vec{V}_p)\leq L_1$ for every $p>3$.

906: 

907: We are going to prove that the sequence $(\vec{V}_p)$

908: is bounded in $\wp{q}$ for every $q>3$.

909: In view of Theorem~\ref{t:Xp}, it is enough show that

910: for every given $q>3$

911: there exists a constant $C>0$ such that

912: ${\|\curl\vec{V}_p\|}_q \leq C$ for every $p>q$.

913: 

914: Given $3<q<p$, by (\ref{robdd}) and H\"older's inequality we have

915: \begin{equation}\label{f:gac1}

916: \begin{split}

917: \int_A |\curl\vec{V}_p|^q\, dx & \leq

918: \frac{1}{c_1^q}\int_{A} \gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)^q\, dx

919: \\ & \leq

920: \frac{1}{c_1^q}\left(\frac{p}{|A|}\right)^{q/p}|A|

921: \left(\int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)^p\, dx\right)^{q/p}\,.

922: \end{split}

923: \end{equation}

924: On the other hand we get

925: \[

926: \int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)^p\, dx \leq F_p(\vec{V}_p)

927: \leq L_1\,.

928: %\leq F_p(\Uz-\cz)

929: %\leq (1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2) |A|\,.

930: \]

931: Collecting all the previous estimates,

932: for every $p > q$ we obtain

933: \begin{equation}\label{f:gacn}

934: \int_A |\curl\vec{V}_p|^q\, dx \leq

935: \frac{ |A|}{c_1^q}\,

936: \left(\frac{p\, L_1}{|A|}\right)^{q/p}

937: \leq

938: \frac{|A|}{c_1^q}\,

939: \exp\left(\frac{q L_1}{e |A|}\right)\,.

940: \end{equation}

941: %where $C>0$ does not depend on $q$ and $p$.

942: Then the sequence $(\vec{V}_p)$ is bounded in $\wp{q}$,

943: and hence $(\vec{V}_p)$ converges to $\vec{V}$ in the weak topology of

944: $\wp{q}$.

945: %We remark that, since $\dive\vec{V}_p=0$ for every $p$,

946: %by weak convergence we get $\dive\Usol = 0$.

947: 

948: This fact and

949: the convexity of the function $\gd$ imply that

950: \begin{equation}\label{f:gacnpu}

951: \int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V})\, dx \leq \liminf_{p\to \infty}

952: \int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)\, dx

953: \end{equation}

954: for every open set $B\subseteq A$

955: (see e.g.\ \cite[Thm.~4.2.1]{Butt}).

956: On the other hand, by H\"older's inequality

957: \[

958: \begin{split}

959: \int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)\, dx & \leq

960: \left(\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)^p\, dx\right)^{1/p}|B|^{(p-1)/p} \\

961: & \leq p^{1/p}\left(\frac{1}{p}\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V}_p)^p dx\right)^{1/p}|B|^{(p-1)/p}\,.

962: \end{split}

963: \]

964: Then, using (\ref{f:gacn}) and (\ref{f:gacnpu}) we get

965: $\displaystyle\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{V})\, dx \leq |B|$.

966: Since $\gd(\curl\vec{V})\in L^1(A)$, we conclude that

967: \[

968: \gd(\curl\vec{V}(x))=\lim_{r\to 0^+} \frac{1}{|B_r(x)|}

969: \int_{B_r(x)} \gd(\curl\vec{V})\, dx \leq 1\,,

970: \]

971: for a.e.\ $x\in A$.

972: \end{proof}

973: 

974: %Now we are able to prove the $\Gamma$--convergence result.

975: 

976: \begin{theorem}\label{t:gammac}

977: The sequence $(F_p)$ $\Gamma$-converges to $F$.

978: \end{theorem}

979: 

980: \begin{proof}

981: (i)

982: Let $\vec{V}\in \elle{2}$.

983: It is not restrictive to assume that $F(\vec{V})<+\infty$,

984: so that $\vec{V}\in X_2$ and $\gd(\curl\vec{V})\leq 1$ a.e.

985: Then it is enough to choose $\vec{V}_p = \vec{V}$ as recovery sequence.

986: 

987: \noindent

988: (ii)

989: Let $\vec{V}_p \in \elle{2}$ be functions converging to

990: $\vec{V}$ in $\elle{2}$, such that

991: \[

992: \liminf\limits_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p)<+\infty.

993: \]

994: By Lemma~\ref{l:rholim} we have that $\gd(\curl\vec{V})\leq 1$

995: a.e.\ in $A$, and hence

996: \[

997: F(\vec{V}) = \int_A |\vec{V}-\vec{U}_0|^2\, dx

998: = \lim_{p\to\infty} \int_A |\vec{V}_p-\vec{U}_0|^2\, dx

999: \leq \liminf_{p\to\infty} F_p(\vec{V}_p)\,,

1000: \]

1001: concluding the proof.

1002: \end{proof}

1003: Notice that the $\Gamma$--convergence result is obtained under the sole

1004: assumption that $\Uz\in\elle{2}$. Actually in our model

1005: $\Uz=\vec{H}^n_i-\vec{H}_s(t^n_{i+1})$ so that $\Uz\in X_2+\vec{c}_0$,

1006: $\cz\in\R^3$, and $\gd(\curl\Uz)\leq 1$. This additional regularity

1007: is needed in order to recover the convergence of the minimizers.

1008: 

1009: \begin{theorem}

1010: Let $\Uz\in \cz + X_2$, $\cz\in\R^3$, with $\gd(\curl\Uz)\leq 1$ a.e.\ in $A$.

1011: Let $\vec{U}_p$ be the unique minimizer of $F_p$, $p>3$,

1012: and let $\Usol$ be the unique minimizer of $F$.

1013: Then $(\vec{U}_p)$ converges to $\vec{U}$ in the weak

1014: topology of $\wp{q}$ for every $q>3$.

1015: %In particular, $(\vec{U}_p)$ converges to $\Usol$

1016: %in $\elle{2}$.

1017: \end{theorem}

1018: 

1019: \begin{proof}

1020: Reasoning as in (\ref{f:gac1}), for $3<q<p$ we have

1021: \begin{equation}\label{f:gac2}

1022: \int_A |\curl\vec{U}_p|^q\, dx \leq

1023: \frac{1}{c_1^q}\left(\frac{p}{|A|}\right)^{q/p}|A|

1024: \left(\int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p\, dx\right)^{q/p}\,.

1025: \end{equation}

1026: On the other hand, by the minimality of $\vec{U}_p$ we get

1027: \[

1028: \int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p\, dx \leq F_p(\vec{U}_p)

1029: \leq F_p(\Uz-\cz)

1030: \leq (1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2) |A|\,,

1031: \]

1032: so that

1033: %Collecting all the previous estimates,

1034: %for every $p > q$ we obtain

1035: \[

1036: \int_A |\curl\vec{U}_p|^q\, dx \leq

1037: \frac{1}{c_1^q}\,

1038: [p(1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2)]^{q/p} |A|

1039: \leq

1040: \frac{1}{c_1^q}\,|A|\,

1041: \exp[q(1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2)/e]\,.

1042: \]

1043: Then the sequence $(\vec{U}_p)$ is bounded in

1044: $\wp{q}$.

1045: In particular,

1046: it is precompact in $\elle{2}$.

1047: Then, by Remark~\ref{r:gc} we obtain the

1048: convergence of $(\vec{U}_p)$ to $\vec{U}$ in $\elle{2}$.

1049: Finally, notice that the previous estimate implies that

1050: $(\vec{U}_p)$ converges to $\vec{U}$ in

1051: the weak topology of $W^{1,q}$ for every $q>3$.

1052: \end{proof}

1053: 

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: %The mathematical justification of the Bad\'\i a and L\'opez model is the following.

1058: %

1059: %\begin{theorem}\label{t:conv3d}

1060: %Let $\Uz\in \cz + X_2$, $\cz\in\R^3$, with $\gd(\curl\Uz)\leq 1$ a.e.\ in $A$.

1061: %Let $\vec{U}_p$ be the unique minimizer in

1062: %$X_p$ of the functional $F_p$. Then there exists

1063: %$\Usol \in X_2$, with $\gd(\curl\Usol)\leq 1$ a.e.\ in $A$,

1064: %such that $\vec{U}_p$ converge to $\Usol$

1065: %in the weak topology of $W^{1,q}(A)^3$ for every $q>3$.

1066: %Moreover

1067: %$\Usol$ is the unique minimizer of the functional

1068: %\[

1069: %F(\vec{V})=\int_A \left[

1070: %I_{\Delta}(\curl\vec{V})+

1071: %|\vec{V}-\Uz|^2\right]\, dx\,, \quad

1072: %\vec{V}\in X_2\,.

1073: %\]

1074: %\end{theorem}

1075: %

1076: %\begin{proof}

1077: %It is easy to verify that $F_p$ is lower semicontinuous in

1078: %the weak topology of $W^{1,p}(A)$.

1079: %On the other hand, from Remark~\ref{r:Xp} we infer that

1080: %$F_p$ is coercive in $X_p$, hence the existence of

1081: %a minimizer $\vec{U}_p$ follows from the direct method

1082: %of calculus of variations.

1083: %The uniqueness of the minimizer is a consequence of the

1084: %strict convexity of $F_p$.

1085: %

1086: %We are going to prove that the sequence $(\vec{U}_p)$

1087: %is bounded in $W^{1,q}(A)$ for every $q>3$.

1088: %In view of Theorem~\ref{t:Xp}, it is enough show that

1089: %there exists a constant $C>0$ such that

1090: %${\|\curl\vec{U}_p\|}_q \leq C$ for every $p>q$.

1091: %

1092: %Given $3<q<p$, by (\ref{robdd}) and H\"older's inequality we have

1093: %\begin{equation}\label{f:gac1}

1094: %\begin{split}

1095: %%\int_{A} |D\vec{U}_p|^q\, dx & \leq

1096: %\int_A |\curl\vec{U}_p|^q\, dx & \leq

1097: %\frac{1}{c_1^q}\int_{A} \gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^q\, dx

1098: %\\ & \leq

1099: %\frac{1}{c_1^q}\left(\frac{p}{|A|}\right)^{q/p}|A|

1100: %\left(\int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p\, dx\right)^{q/p}\,.

1101: %\end{split}

1102: %\end{equation}

1103: %On the other hand, by the minimality of $\vec{U}_p$ we get

1104: %\[

1105: %\int_A \frac{1}{p}\,\gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p\, dx \leq F_p(\vec{U}_p)

1106: %\leq F_p(\Uz-\cz)

1107: %\leq (1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2) |A|\,.

1108: %\]

1109: %Collecting all the previous estimates,

1110: %for every $p\geq q$ we obtain

1111: %\[

1112: %\int_A |\curl\vec{U}_p|^q\, dx \leq

1113: %\frac{1}{c_1^q}\,

1114: %[p(1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2)]^{q/p} |A|

1115: %\leq

1116: %\frac{1}{c_1^q}\,|A|\,

1117: %\exp[q(1+\lambda\, |\cz|^2)/e]\,.

1118: %\]

1119: %%where $C>0$ does not depend on $q$ and $p$.

1120: %Then the sequence $(\vec{U}_p)$ is bounded in $W^{1,q}(A)^3$, and we can extract a subsequence,

1121: %still denoted by $(\vec{U}_p)$, converging to a function $\Usol$ in the weak topology of

1122: %$W^{1,q}(A)^3$.

1123: %We remark that, since $\dive\vec{U}_p=0$ for every $p$,

1124: %by weak convergence we get $\dive\Usol = 0$.

1125: %

1126: %We claim that $\gd(\curl\Usol)\leq 1$ a.e.\ in $A$.

1127: %Namely, for every open set $B\subseteq A$

1128: %we have

1129: %\[

1130: %\int_B \gd(\curl\Usol)\, dx \leq \liminf_{p\to \infty}

1131: %\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)\, dx

1132: %\]

1133: %due to the convexity of the function $\gd$

1134: %(see e.g.\ \cite[Thm.~4.2.1]{Butt}).

1135: %On the other hand, by H\"older's inequality

1136: %\[

1137: %\begin{split}

1138: %\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)\, dx & \leq

1139: %\left(\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p\, dx\right)^{1/p}|B|^{(p-1)/p} \\

1140: %& \leq p^{1/p}\left(\frac{1}{p}\int_B \gd(\curl\vec{U}_p)^p dx\right)^{1/p}|B|^{(p-1)/p}\,.

1141: %\end{split}

1142: %\]

1143: %Then $\displaystyle\int_B \gd(\curl\Usol)\, dx \leq |B|$.

1144: %Since $\gd(\curl\Usol)\in L^1(\Omega)$, for a.e.\ $x\in A$

1145: %\[

1146: %\gd(\curl\Usol(x))=\lim_{r\to 0^+} \frac{1}{|B_r(x)|}

1147: %\int_{B_r(x)} \gd(\curl\Usol)\, dx \leq 1\,,

1148: %\]

1149: %proving the claim.

1150: %

1151: %It remains to prove that $\Usol$ is the unique minimizer of $F$

1152: %in $X_2$.

1153: %The uniqueness follows from the strict convexity of $F$.

1154: %Observe that $F(\vec{V}) = +\infty$ for every $\vec{V}\not\in X_{\infty}$,

1155: %so it is enough to prove that

1156: %$F(\Usol)\leq F(\vec{V})$ for every $\vec{V}\in X_{\infty}$.

1157: %The fact that $\Usol$ is a minimizer

1158: %is an easy consequence of the fact that $\vec{U}_p$ is the unique minimizer of the

1159: %functional $\widetilde{F}_p(\vec{V})=F_p(\vec{V})-\frac{1}{p}|A|$.

1160: %Namely, the sequence $\widetilde{F}_p$

1161: %is nondecreasing and converges monotonically to $F$.

1162: %Hence for $q>3$ we have

1163: %\[

1164: %\widetilde{F}_{q}(\Usol) \leq \liminf_{p\to \infty}\widetilde{F}_{q}(\vec{U}_p) \leq

1165: %\liminf_{p\to \infty}\widetilde{F}_{p}(\vec{U}_p) \leq

1166: %\liminf_{p\to \infty}\widetilde{F}_{p}(\vec{V})

1167: %=F(\vec{V})\,,

1168: %\]

1169: %for all $\vec{V}\in X_{\infty}$. A passage to the limit in $q$ concludes the proof.

1170: %\end{proof}

1171: %

1172: 

1173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1174: \section{Cylindrical superconductors}\label{s:bean2}

1175: 

1176: In what follows we shall consider a long cylindrical type--II superconductor

1177: occupying the region $\Omega\times\R$, with a simply connected

1178: cross section $\Omega\subset \R^2$, placed into a nonstationary uniform axial magnetic field

1179: $\vec{H}_s(t)=(0,0,H_s(t))$.

1180: 

1181: Notice that, due to the parallel geometry, the problem admits a dimensional reduction.

1182: Namely, we can assume that there exists a function

1183: $u$ depending only on $x=(x_1,x_2)\in \Omega$ such that $\vec{H}=(0,0,H_s(t)+u(x,t))$, so that

1184: $\curl \vec{H}=(u_{x_2}(x,t),-u_{x_1}(x,t), 0)$

1185: and $\dive\vec{H}=0$.

1186: In particular the current

1187: density $\vec{J}$ is parallel to the cross section plane and its projection

1188: on this plane is $(J_1,J_2)=(Du)^\bot$, where $(Du)^\bot$ is the

1189: rotation of $-\frac{\pi}{2}$ of $Du$.

1190: Hence, under the additional hypothesis that

1191: the allowed region $\Delta$ is symmetric with respect to the $z=0$ plane, the constitutive law becomes

1192: $Du\in K$, where $K$ is the rotation of the section $z=0$ of the set $\Delta$,

1193: and $\vec{E}= (E_1,E_2, 0)$ with $(E_1,E_2)\in \partial I_K(Du)$.

1194: 

1195: In this case, if $c^n_i=H_s(t^n_i)$, and

1196: $h^n_i(x)$ is the magnetic field intensity at time layer $i$, given by $H_s(t^n_i)+u(t^n_i,x)$,

1197: the variational formulation is

1198: \begin{equation}\label{varmod}

1199: \min\left\{

1200: \int_\Omega  (w-h^n_i)^2\, dx;\

1201: w\in c^n_{i+1}+W^{1,1}_0(\Omega),\

1202: Dw\in K\ \textrm{a.e.~in}\ \Omega

1203: \right\}\,.

1204: \end{equation}

1205: In the following sections we shall give an explicit representation

1206: of the unique minimizer $h^n_{i+1}$ and we shall show that the previous quasistatic evolution

1207: converges to a function $h(x,t)$ (also explicit), which determines the evolution of the internal

1208: magnetic field.

1209: 

1210: Further to the dimensional reduction and a rescaling, we obtain that

1211: $h^n_{i+1}-c^n_{i+1}$ is the unique minimum point of the functional

1212: \[

1213: J(v)=\int_\Omega\left[

1214: I_K(Dv)+

1215: (v-\dato)^2\right]\, dx\,,\qquad  v\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega),

1216: \]

1217: where $\dato=h^n_{i}-c^n_{i+1}$.

1218: 

1219: Although in this case we deal with an unbounded

1220: superconductor $A=\Omega\times\R$,

1221: the above reduction allows us to

1222: prove, using the same arguments as in

1223: Section~\ref{s:bean} (see also \cite{GNP}, Section 2),

1224: a $\Gamma$--convergence result, and,

1225: consequently, the convergence of the minimizers.

1226: Even if the case $N=2$ is the

1227: sole meaningful physical situation, the following results hold for

1228: every dimension $N \geq 2$.

1229: 

1230: \begin{theorem}

1231: Let $\Omega\subset\R^N$ be a bounded open set, let $K\subset\R^N$ be a nonempty, compact, convex set

1232: with $0 \in \inte K$, and let $\gauge_K$ be the gauge function of $K$.

1233: Let $G_p$, $p\geq 1$, and $G$ be the

1234: functionals defined respectively by

1235: \[

1236: G_p(v)=

1237: \begin{cases}

1238: \displaystyle{\int_\Omega \frac{1}{p}\,\gauge_K(Dv)^p\, dx\,,} & v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega) \\

1239: +\infty & \textrm{otherwise in }\ L^1(\Omega)

1240: \end{cases}

1241: \]

1242: and

1243: \[

1244: G(v)=

1245: \begin{cases}

1246: 0, & v\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega),\ \gauge(Dv)\in K\\

1247: +\infty & \textrm{otherwise in }\ L^1(\Omega)\,.

1248: \end{cases}

1249: \]

1250: Then $(G_p)$ $\Gamma$--converges to $G$ in $L^r(\Omega)$ for every $r\geq 1$.

1251: As a consequence, for a given

1252: $\dato \in L^2(\Omega)$

1253: the functionals

1254: \[

1255: {J}_p(v)=

1256: \begin{cases}

1257: \displaystyle{\int_\Omega \left[\frac{1}{p}\,\gauge_K(Dv)^p\, dx+

1258: \left(v-\dato\right)^2\right]\, dx}\,, & v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega) \\

1259: +\infty & \textrm{otherwise in }\ L^2(\Omega)

1260: \end{cases}

1261: \]

1262: $\Gamma$--converge to the functional

1263: \[

1264: {J}(v)=

1265: \begin{cases}

1266: \displaystyle{\int_\Omega \left[

1267: I_K(Dv)+

1268: (v-\dato)^2\right]\, dx}\,, & v\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)\\

1269: +\infty & \textrm{otherwise in }\ L^2(\Omega)\,,

1270: \end{cases}

1271: \]

1272: in $L^2(\Omega)$.

1273: If in addition  $ \dato \in c_0+W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$, $c_0\in\R$, with $\gauge(D\dato)\leq 1$ a.e. in $\Omega$,

1274: then the minimizers $u_p$ of $J_p$ converge to the unique minimizer $\uz$ of the functional $J$

1275: in the weak topology of $W^{1,q}_0(\Omega)$ for every $q>1$.

1276: \end{theorem}

1277: 

1278: 

1279: 

1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1281: \section{The Minkowski distance function}\label{s:distance}

1282: 

1283: Here and hereafter we shall deal with

1284: \begin{equation}\label{f:Omega}

1285: \Omega\subset\R^N\

1286: \textrm{nonempty, bounded, open connected set

1287: of class $C^2$},

1288: \end{equation}

1289: and

1290: \begin{equation}\label{f:ipoK}

1291: \begin{split}

1292: & K\subset\R^N\,\ \textrm{nonempty, compact, convex set},\

1293: 0 \in \inte K, \\

1294: &\partial K\ \textrm{of class}\ C^2\ \textrm{with strictly positive principal curvatures}\,.

1295: \end{split}

1296: \end{equation}

1297: %In Section \ref{s:minp} we shall assume $n\geq 2$, while in Sections \ref{s:bean2} and

1298: %\ref{s:evol} we shall consider the case $n=2$, which is the only meaningful physical situation.

1299: 

1300: The polar set of $K$

1301: is defined by

1302: \[

1303: K^0 = \{p\in\R^N;\ \pscal{p}{x}\leq 1\ \forall x\in K\}\,.

1304: \]

1305: We recall that, if $K$ satisfies (\ref{f:ipoK}), then

1306: $K^0$ also satisfies (\ref{f:ipoK}), and $K^{00} = (K^0)^0 = K$

1307: (see \cite[Thm.~1.6.1]{Sch}).

1308: 

1309: Since $K$ will be kept fixed, from now on we shall use for the gauge functions

1310: the notation $\gauge = \gauge_K$ and $\pgauge=\gauge_{K^0}$

1311: 

1312: %The gauge function of the convex set $K$ is the convex, positively

1313: %1--homogeneous function defined by

1314: %\[

1315: %\gau{K}(\xi) = \inf\{ t\geq 0;\ \xi\in t K\}\,.

1316: %\]

1317: %Since $\partial K$ is of class $C^2$, the gauge function $\gau{K}$

1318: %turns out to be twice differentiable in $\R^N\setminus \{0\}$.

1319: %Moreover, since $K$ is a compact set containing a neighborhood of

1320: %the origin, there exist $0<c_1<c_2$ such that

1321: %\begin{equation}\label{robdd}

1322: %c_1|\xi| \leq \gau{K}(\xi)\leq c_2 |\xi|\,, \qquad \forall\ \xi \in \R^N\,.

1323: %\end{equation}

1324: It can be readily seen that

1325: the gauge function $\pgauge$ of the polar set $K^0$

1326: coincides with the support function of the set $K$.

1327: As a consequence, we have that

1328: \begin{equation}\label{f:roroz}

1329: \gauge(D\pgauge(\xi))=1\, \qquad

1330: \forall\xi\in\R^N\setminus \{0\}\,.

1331: \end{equation}

1332: 

1333: %We recall that, since $K$ has a smooth boundary, the subgradient of the indicator function

1334: %$I_K$ is

1335: %\begin{equation}\label{subindk2}

1336: %\partial I_K(\xi)=

1337: %\begin{cases}

1338: %\{\alpha D\gauge(\xi)\colon \alpha \geq 0\} & \textrm{if}\ \xi\in \partial K \\

1339: %\emptyset & \textrm{if}\ \xi\not\in K \\

1340: %\{0\} & \textrm{if}\ \xi\in \inte K\,.

1341: %\end{cases}

1342: %\end{equation}

1343: 

1344: Let $\Lipr(\Omega)$ be the set of functions defined by

1345: \[

1346: \Lipr(\Omega) := \{u \in \Lip(\overline{\Omega}) \colon\ Du\in K

1347: \ \textrm{a.e.\ in \ }\Omega\}.

1348: \]

1349: We recall that $u\in \Lipr(\Omega)$ if and only if

1350: \begin{equation}\label{f:stimrho}

1351: u(x)-u(y) \leq \pgauge(x-y)\,,\qquad

1352: \end{equation}

1353: for every $x$, $y\in\Omega$ joined by a segment contained in $\Omega$.

1354: 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: The main tools needed in the following sections are the

1358: distances from the boundary of $\Omega$ associated to the

1359: Minkowski structures induced by the gauge function of $K^0$

1360: and $-K^0$ respectively.

1361: 

1362: 

1363: \begin{dhef}\label{d:dist}

1364: \ The Min\-kow\-ski distance from the

1365: boundary of $\Omega$ is

1366: \begin{equation}\label{f:d}

1367: \dist(x) = %\delta_{\R^n\setminus\Omega}(x) =

1368: \inf_{y\in\partial\Omega} \pgauge(x-y),

1369: \qquad x\in\overline{\Omega}\,.

1370: \end{equation}

1371: Similarly, we define $\distm(x)$ as the distance from the boundary

1372: induced by the gauge of $-K^0$.

1373: \end{dhef}

1374: 

1375: Notice that the function $\distm$ coincides with $\dist$ only if

1376: $K^0$ is symmetric with respect to the origin. In the remaining

1377: part of this section we illustrate some features of the function

1378: $\dist$. The analogous for $\distm$ can be obtained upon observing

1379: that $-K^0$ is the polar set of $-K$.

1380: 

1381: Since $\partial\Omega$ is a compact subset of $\R^N$

1382: and $\pgauge$ is a continuous function,

1383: the infimum in the definition of $\dist$ is achieved.

1384: We shall denote by $\proj(x)$ the set of projections of $x$

1385: in $\partial\Omega$, that is

1386: \begin{equation}\label{f:Pi}

1387: \proj(x) = \{y\in\partial\Omega;\ \dist(x) = \pgauge(x-y)\},

1388: \qquad x\in\overline{\Omega}.

1389: \end{equation}

1390: 

1391: \begin{dhef}\label{d:sigma}

1392: We say that $x\in\Omega$ is a

1393: regular point of $\Omega$

1394: if $\proj(x)$ is a singleton.

1395: We say that $x\in\Omega$ is a

1396: singular point of $\Omega$

1397: if $x$ is not a regular point.

1398: We denote by $\Sigma\subseteq\Omega$ the set

1399: of all singular points of $\Omega$.

1400: \end{dhef}

1401: 

1402: \begin{rk}\label{r:HJ}

1403: It is well known that $\dist$ is a Lipschitz function

1404: in $\Omega$, and that $\dist$ is differentiable

1405: at $x\in\Omega$ if and only if $x$ is a regular point.

1406: In addition, if $\proj(x) = \{y\}$ then

1407: $D\dist(x)=D\pgauge(x-y)$, and hence, by (\ref{f:roroz}),

1408: $D\dist\in K$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$

1409: (see \cite{BaCD,CaSi,Li}; see also

1410: Theorem~\ref{t:cm6}(i) below).

1411: \end{rk}

1412: 

1413: \begin{rk}\label{r:maxm}

1414: We recall that $\dist$ (resp. $\distm$) is the unique viscosity solution

1415: of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation

1416: $\gauge(Du) = 1$ (resp.\ $-\gauge(Du) =-1$) in $\Omega$,

1417: with boundary condition

1418: $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$.

1419: As a consequence of the maximality property of the viscosity

1420: solutions, we have that

1421: \[

1422: -\distm\leq u \leq \dist\,, \qquad \forall u\in\Lipr(\Omega),\ u=0\ \textrm{on}\ \partial\Omega

1423: \]

1424: (see \cite{Li}). Moreover it can be easily checked that

1425: \[

1426: \begin{aligned}

1427: u  &\geq -\distm\,, &\quad \forall u\in\Lipr(\Omega),\ u\geq 0\ \textrm{on}\ \partial \Omega\,, \\

1428: u  &\leq \dist\,,  & \quad \forall u\in\Lipr(\Omega),\ u\leq 0\ \textrm{on}\ \partial \Omega\,,

1429: \end{aligned}

1430: \]

1431: (see e.g.\ \cite{BaCD}, Theorem 5.9).

1432: \end{rk}

1433: 

1434: %We recall here some properties of the

1435: %singular set $\Sigma$.

1436: %In \cite{CMf} there were studied the regularity properties

1437: %of $\dist$ and $\overline{\Sigma}$.

1438: In the following theorem

1439: we collect

1440: all the results proved in \cite{CMf} that are

1441: relevant for the subsequent analysis.

1442: 

1443: \begin{theorem}\label{t:cm6}

1444: Assume that $\Omega$ and $K$ satisfy respectively $(\ref{f:Omega})$

1445: and $(\ref{f:ipoK})$. Then the following hold.

1446: \begin{itemize}

1447: \item[(i)] $\overline{\Sigma}\subset\Omega$,

1448: and the Lebesgue measure of

1449: $\overline{\Sigma}$ is zero.

1450: 

1451: \item[(ii)] %\label{l:pis}

1452: Let $x\in\Omega$ and $\macroy \in\proj(x)$.

1453: Then $\dist$ is differentiable at every $z$

1454: along the segment jointing $y$ to $x$ (without endpoints),

1455: and

1456: $

1457: D\dist(z) = \frac{\nor(\macroy )}{\gauge(\nor(\macroy ))}

1458: $,

1459: where $\nor(\macroy )$ is the (Euclidean) inward normal unit vector

1460: to $\partial\Omega$ at $\macroy $.

1461: 

1462: \item[(iii)] %\label{p:regd}

1463: The function $\dist$ is of class $C^2$ in

1464: $\overline{\Omega}\setminus\overline{\Sigma}$.

1465: \end{itemize}

1466: \end{theorem}

1467: 

1468: \begin{proof}

1469: See  Remark~4.16, Corollary~6.9,

1470: Lemma~4.3

1471: and Theorem~6.10 in \cite{CMf}.

1472: \end{proof}

1473: 

1474: {}At any point $\macroy \in\partial\Omega$

1475: there is a unique inward ``normal'' direction $p(\macroy )$

1476: with the properties

1477: $\proj(\macroy +t p(\macroy )) = \{\macroy \}$

1478: and $\dist(\macroy +t p(\macroy )) = t$

1479: for $t\geq 0$ small enough

1480: (see \cite[Remark~4.5]{CMf}).

1481: More precisely, these properties

1482: hold true for $p(\macroy ) = D\gauge(\nor(\macroy ))$

1483: and for every $t\in [0, \len(\macroy ))$,

1484: where $\len(\macroy )$ is defined by

1485: \begin{equation}\label{f:len}

1486: \len(\macroy ) =

1487: \min\{t\geq 0;\

1488: \macroy  + t D\gauge(D\dist(x))\in\overline{\Sigma}\}

1489: \end{equation}

1490: (see

1491: \cite[Propositions~4.4 and~4.8]{CMf} and \cite[Lemma~2.2]{LN}).

1492: %It can be proved that $p(\macroy ) = D\gauge(\nor(\macroy ))$

1493: %(see \cite[Lemma~2.2]{LN}

1494: %and \cite[Proposition~4.4]{CMf}).

1495: {}From Theorem~\ref{t:cm6}(ii) and the positive $0$-homogeneity

1496: of $D\gauge$ it is plain that

1497: $D\gauge(\nor(\macroy )) = D\gauge(D\dist(\macroy ))$.

1498: 

1499: {}From Theorem~\ref{t:cm6}(iii), the function $\dist$

1500: is of class $C^2$ on

1501: %$\overline{\Omega}\setminus\overline{\Sigma}$.

1502: $\partial\Omega$.

1503: Then we can define the function

1504: \begin{equation}\label{f:W}

1505: W(\macroy) = -D^2\gauge(D\dist(\macroy))\, D^2\dist(\macroy)\,,\qquad

1506: \macroy\in

1507: %\overline{\Omega}\setminus\overline{\Sigma}\,.

1508: \partial\Omega\,.

1509: \end{equation}

1510: For any $\macroy \in\partial\Omega$ let $T_{\macroy }$ denote

1511: the tangent space to $\partial\Omega$ at $\macroy $.

1512: %If $x\in\overline{\Omega}\setminus{\Sigma}$

1513: %and $\proj(x) = \{\macroy \}$,

1514: %we set $T_x = T_{\macroy }$.

1515: %It can be proved that for every $v\in T_x$,

1516: %one has $W(x)\, v\in T_x$.

1517: It can be proved that for every $v\in T_y$,

1518: one has $W(y)\, v\in T_y$.

1519: Hence, we can define the map

1520: \begin{equation}\label{f:bw}

1521: \bw(y)\colon T_y\to T_y,\quad

1522: \bw(y)\, w = W(y)\, w,

1523: \end{equation}

1524: that can be identified with a linear application

1525: from $\R^{N-1}$ to $\R^{N-1}$.

1526: 

1527: Although

1528: the matrix $\bw(\macroy)$ is not in general symmetric,

1529: its eigenvalues

1530: are real numbers,

1531: and so its eigenvectors are real

1532: (see \cite{CMf}, Remark~5.3).

1533: The eigenvalues of $\bw(\macroy)$

1534: have an important geometric interpretation.

1535: 

1536: \begin{dhef}\label{d:curv}

1537: Let $\macroy \in\partial\Omega$.

1538: The anisotropic curvatures of $\partial\Omega$ at $\macroy $,

1539: with respect to the Minkowski norm $\dist$,

1540: are the eigenvalues

1541: $\curvg_1(\macroy )\leq\cdots\leq\curvg_{n-1}(\macroy )$

1542: of $\bw(\macroy )$.

1543: %The corresponding eigenvectors are the

1544: %\textsl{principal $\gauge$-directions} of $\partial\Omega$

1545: %at $\macroy $.

1546: \end{dhef}

1547: 

1548: In what follows we shall denote by $\Pi^-$, $\curvg^-_j$, $j=1,\ldots,n-1$, $\Sigma^-$ and

1549: $\len^-$,

1550: respectively

1551: the projection, the anisotropic curvatures and the singular set

1552: associated to $\distm$, and the normal distance to the cut locus $\Sigma^-$.

1553: 

1554: 

1555: 

1556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1557: \section{A minimum problem}\label{s:minp}

1558: 

1559: %In this section, $\Omega$ and $K$ are subsets of $\R^N$, $N\geq 2$, fulfilling

1560: %(\ref{f:Omega}) and (\ref{f:ipoK}) respectively.

1561: %We shall study a minimum problem for integral functionals defined in $\Omega$

1562: %which will be, in dimension $n=2$,

1563: %the basic tool for finding the quasistatic evolution of all the physical

1564: %quantities involved in the electrodynamic of superconductors.

1565: 

1566: Fixed $\dato\in \Lipr(\Omega)$, we want to minimize the functional

1567: \begin{equation}\label{jfunct}

1568: J(v)=\int_\Omega [I_K(Dv)+(v-\dato)^2]\, dx\,, \quad v\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)\,.

1569: \end{equation}

1570: Let us consider the partition

1571: $\Omega = \Omega^+\cup\Omega^-\cup \Omega^0$, with

1572: \[

1573: \begin{split}

1574: \Omega^0  =\{-\distm \leq \dato \leq \dist\}\,,\

1575: \Omega^+ =\{\dato > \dist\}\,, \

1576: \Omega^-=\{ \dato <- \distm\}\,,

1577: \end{split}

1578: \]

1579: and define the function

1580: \begin{equation}\label{umin}

1581: u(x)=

1582: \begin{cases}

1583: \dist(x) & x\in \Omega^+ \\

1584: -\distm(x) & x\in \Omega^- \\

1585: \dato(x) & x \in \Omega^0\,.

1586: \end{cases}

1587: \end{equation}

1588: The aim of this section is to show that $u$ is the unique minimizer

1589: of $J$ in $W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$.

1590: 

1591: \begin{rk}\label{r:noint}

1592: If $x \in \overline{\Omega}^+ \cap \overline{\Omega}^-$, then

1593: $\dato(x)=\dist(x)=-\distm(x)$ and hence $x\in \partial \Omega$

1594: and $\dato(x)=0$. As a consequence, we have

1595: $u(x)=\min((\max(\dato(x), -\distm(x)), \dist(x)))$.

1596: This implies that

1597: $u\in \Lipr(\Omega)$, $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$,

1598: $\gauge(Du)=1$ a.e.\ in $\Omega^+\cup\Omega^-$, and $u$ is a viscosity

1599: solution of $\gauge(Du)=1$ in $\Omega^+$ and of $-\gauge(Du)=-1$ in $\Omega^-$.

1600: \end{rk}

1601: 

1602: Let us define the following two subsets of $\partial\Omega$:

1603: \begin{equation}\label{f:gpm}

1604: \Gamma^+=\{y\in\partial\Omega \colon \dato(y)>0\},\qquad

1605: \Gamma^-=\{y\in\partial\Omega \colon \dato(y)<0\}\,,

1606: \end{equation}

1607: and the functions

1608: \begin{equation}\label{f:lpm}

1609: \begin{split}

1610: \lambda(y) & = \sup\{s\in [0,\len(y))\colon \dato(y+tD\gauge(\nor(y)))>t\

1611: \forall\ t\in [0,s)\}\,,\\

1612: \lambda^-(y) & = \sup\{s\in [0,\len^-(y))\colon \dato(y+tD\gaugem(\nor(y)))<-t\

1613: \forall\ t\in [0,s)\}\,.

1614: \end{split}

1615: \end{equation}

1616: Recall that $\len(y)$ and $\len^-(y)$

1617: are the normal distance to the cut locus,

1618: corresponding to $\dist$ and $\distm$ respectively, that is the length of the ``normal'' ray

1619: starting from $y$ and ending on $\overline{\Sigma}$ (see (\ref{f:len})).

1620: 

1621: \begin{rk}\label{r:lambda}

1622: It can be easily checked that $\lambda$ and $\lambda^-$ are lower semicontinuous function

1623: in $\partial \Omega$. In general we cannot expect the continuity of these functions, as it

1624: is shown by the following example.

1625: Let $\Omega=B_1(0)\subseteq \R^2$, $K=\overline{B}_1(0)\subseteq \R^2$, and

1626: define

1627: $\dato(r \cos \theta,r \sin \theta)=1-r \cos \theta$

1628: for $0\leq r<1$, $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$.

1629: We have

1630: $|D\dato(r \cos\theta, r\sin\theta)|^2=\cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta=1$

1631: ($0<r<1$), so that $\dato\in \Lipr(\Omega)$.

1632: Moreover, if $y=(\cos\theta, \sin\theta)\in \partial \Omega$, $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$,

1633: $\lambda$ is

1634: the lower semicontinuous function given by

1635: \[

1636: \lambda(y)=

1637: \begin{cases}

1638: 0\,, & \theta=0\,, \\

1639: 1\,, & \theta\in (0,2\pi)\,.

1640: \end{cases}

1641: \]

1642: \end{rk}

1643: 

1644: \smallskip

1645: 

1646: The following simple lemma provides a

1647: characterization of $\Omega^+$ and $\Omega^-$ in terms of the rays starting from points

1648: of $\Gamma^+$ and $\Gamma^-$ respectively.

1649: 

1650: \begin{lemma}\label{l:opm}

1651: Let $y\in\Gamma^+$ be such that

1652: $\lambda(y)<\len(y)$.

1653: Then $y+t D\gauge(\nor(y))\in\Omega^0$

1654: for every $t\in [\lambda(y),\len(y)]$.

1655: Analogously,

1656: let $y\in\Gamma^-$ be such that

1657: $\lambda^-(y)<\len^-(y)$.

1658: Then

1659: $y+t D\gaugem(\nor(y))\in\Omega^0$

1660: for every $t\in [\lambda^-(y),\len^-(y)]$. As a consequence, we have

1661: \begin{equation}\label{f:splom}

1662: \begin{split}

1663: \Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+ & =\{y+t D\gauge(\nor(y))\colon y\in\Gamma^+,\

1664: t\in (0, \lambda(y))\},\\

1665: \Omega^-\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^- & =\{y+t D\gaugem(\nor(y))\colon y\in\Gamma^-,\

1666: t\in (0, \lambda^-(y))\}.

1667: \end{split}

1668: \end{equation}

1669: \end{lemma}

1670: 

1671: \begin{proof}

1672: Let $y\in\Gamma^+$ and assume that $\lambda(y)<\len(y)$.

1673: {}From the very definition of $\lambda(y)$ and the continuity of $\dato$, we have that

1674: $\dato(y+\lambda(y)\, D\gauge(\nor(y))) = \lambda(y)$.

1675: For every $t\in [\lambda(y), \len(y)]$ we have that

1676: \[

1677: \dist(y+tD\gauge(\nor(y)))= t = \dato(y+\lambda(y)\, D\gauge(\nor(y))) + t-\lambda(y) \geq

1678: \dato(y+t\, D\gauge(\nor(y)))\,,

1679: \]

1680: where the last inequality follows from the assumption $\dato\in\Lip_\rho(\Omega)$

1681: (see (\ref{f:stimrho})), and from the fact that $\pgauge((t-\lambda)D\gauge(\nor(y)))= t-\lambda$

1682: (see (\ref{f:roroz})).

1683: The inequality

1684: $\dato(y+t\, D\gauge(\nor(y))) \geq -\distm(y+t\, D\gauge(\nor(y)))$

1685: follows easily from the fact that

1686: $\dato(y) > 0$ and $\dato\in\Lipr(\Omega)$ (see Remark \ref{r:maxm}).

1687: The case $y\in\Gamma^-$ can be handled in a similar way.

1688: \end{proof}

1689: 

1690: %As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{l:opm}, we have

1691: %the following characterization of the sets $\Omega^+$ and $\Omega^-$:

1692: %\begin{equation}\label{f:splom}

1693: %\begin{split}

1694: %\Omega^+ & =\{y+t D\gauge(\nor(y))\colon y\in\Gamma^+,\

1695: %t\in (0, \lambda(y))\},\\

1696: %\Omega^- & =\{y+t D\gaugem(\nor(y))\colon y\in\Gamma^-,\

1697: %t\in (0, \lambda^-(y))\}.

1698: %\end{split}

1699: %\end{equation}

1700: 

1701: 

1702: The following change of variable formula can be proved as in

1703: \cite[Theorem~7.1]{CMf}.

1704: 

1705: \begin{theorem}\label{t:chvar}

1706: Let $\Phi, \Phi^-\colon\partial\Omega\times\R\to\R^N$

1707: be the maps defined respectively by

1708: \[

1709: \Phi(y,t) = y + t\, D\gauge(\nor(y)), \quad

1710: \Phi^-(y,t) = y + t\, D\gaugem(\nor(y)),

1711: \ \quad (y,t)\in\partial\Omega\times\R.

1712: \]

1713: Then

1714: \[

1715: \begin{split}

1716: \int_{\Omega^+} h(x)\, dx

1717: &=

1718: \int_{\Gamma^+} \gauge(\nor(y))\, \left[

1719: \int_{0}^{\lambda(y)}

1720: h(\Phi(y,t))\,

1721: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-t\, \curvg_i(y))

1722: \, dt\right]\,d\haus(y)

1723: \\

1724: \int_{\Omega^-} h(x)\, dx

1725: &=

1726: \int_{\Gamma^-} \gaugem(\nor(y))\, \left[

1727: \int_{0}^{\lambda^-(y)}

1728: h(\Phi^-(y,t))\,

1729: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-t\, \curvg^-_i(y))

1730: \, dt\right]\,d\haus(y)

1731: \end{split}

1732: \]

1733: for every $h\in L^1(\Omega)$.

1734: \end{theorem}

1735: 

1736: In what follows we will set

1737: \[

1738: M_{x}(t) = \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1-t\curvg_i(x)}{1-\dist(x)\curvg_i(x)}\,, \quad

1739: M_{x}^-(t) = \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1-t\curvgm_i(x)}{1-\distm(x)\curvgm_i(x)}\,.

1740: \]

1741: {}From Lemma~7.3 in \cite{CMf} we deduce that there exists a positive constant $M_0$

1742: such that

1743: \begin{equation}\label{f:estiM}

1744: 0\leq M_x(t)\leq M_0\quad

1745: \forall x\in\Omega\setminus\overline{\Sigma},\ \dist(x)\leq t < \len(y),

1746: \end{equation}

1747: where $\proj(x) = \{y\}$.

1748: An analogous estimate holds for $M_x^-(t)$.

1749: 

1750: Using Theorem \ref{t:chvar} and (\ref{f:splom}), we are able to

1751: show that the function $u$ defined in (\ref{umin}), coupled with

1752: an explicit function $\vf$, solves a system of PDEs of Monge--Kantorowich

1753: type. \textit{A posteriori} this system will be understood as a

1754: first order necessary condition fulfilled by the minimizer of $J$.

1755: 

1756: \begin{lemma}\label{l:eul}

1757: Let $u\in \Lipr(\Omega)$ be the function defined in (\ref{umin}),

1758: and let $\vf\colon\Omega\to\R$ be the function defined by

1759: \begin{equation}\label{f:defv}

1760: \vf(x)=

1761: \begin{cases}

1762: \displaystyle

1763: \int_{\dist(x)}^{\lambda(\macroy )} [\dato(\macroy +t\,D\gauge(D\dist(x)))-t]\,

1764: M_{x}(t) dt\,, & x\in\Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+,\ \Pi(x)=\{y\}\\ \\

1765: \displaystyle

1766: -\int_{\distm(x)}^{\lambda^-(\macroy )} [\dato(\macroy +t\,D\gaugem(D\dist(x)))+t]\,

1767: M_{x}^-(t)

1768: \, dt\,, & x\in\Omega^-\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^-,\ \Pi^-(x)=\{y\}\\

1769: 0 & \textrm{otherwise}\,.

1770: \end{cases}

1771: \end{equation}

1772: Then $\vf\in C_b(\Omega)$, $\vf\geq 0$, and the pair $(u,\vf)$ solves the system of PDEs

1773: \begin{equation}\label{f:MK}

1774: \begin{cases}

1775: -\dive(\vf\, D\gauge(Du)) = \dato-u

1776: &\textrm{in $\Omega$},\quad \textrm{(distributional)}\\

1777: \gauge(Du)\leq 1

1778: &\textrm{a.e.\ in $\Omega$},\\

1779: \gauge(Du) = 1

1780: &\textrm{a.e.\ in $\{\vf>0\}$},\\

1781: u=0 & \textrm{in $\partial\Omega$}\,.

1782: \end{cases}

1783: \end{equation}

1784: \end{lemma}

1785: 

1786: \begin{proof}

1787: Let us extend the functions $\lambda$ and $\lambda^-$

1788: to $\Omega^+\setminus\Sigma^+$ and $\Omega^-\setminus\Sigma^-$

1789: respectively by setting

1790: $\lambda(x):= \lambda(y)$ when $\proj(x) = \{y\}$ and

1791: $\lambda^-(x):= \lambda^-(y)$ when $\proj^-(x) = \{y\}$.

1792: Since $\lambda(x)\geq\dist(x)$ for every $x\in\Omega^+\setminus\Sigma^+$

1793: and $\lambda^-(x)\geq\distm(x)$ for every $x\in\Omega^-\setminus\Sigma^-$,

1794: it is plain that $\vf\geq 0$.

1795: 

1796: Let us prove that $\vf$ is a continuous function.

1797: It is convenient to rewrite $\vf$ in $\Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+$ in the following way:

1798: \begin{equation}\label{f:defvp}

1799: \vf(x)=

1800: \int_{\dist(x)}^{\len(\macroy )}

1801: [t\vee\dato(\macroy +t\,D\gauge(D\dist(x)))-t]\,

1802: M_{x}(t) dt\,, \quad x\in\Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+,\ \Pi(x)=\{y\}.

1803: \end{equation}

1804: Since the maps $\dist$, $D\dist$, $\dato$, $\len$, and $x\mapsto\proj(x)$ are continuous

1805: in $\Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+$,

1806: it follows that also $\vf$ is continuous in $\Omega^+\setminus \overline{\Sigma}^+$.

1807: 

1808: If $x_0\in\Omega^+\cap\overline{\Sigma}^+$,

1809: then $\lambda(x_0) = \len(x_0) = \dist(x_0)$,

1810: and the map $\lambda$ is continuous at $x_0$.

1811: Namely, since $x_0\in\overline{\Sigma}^+$, we have that

1812: $\len(x_0) = \dist(x_0)$.

1813: Moreover, since $x_0\in\Omega^+$, we have that

1814: $\dato(x_0) > \dist(x_0)$, so that $\dato > \dist$ on every segment

1815: $[y,x_0]\subset\overline{\Omega}$ with $y\in\partial\Omega$.

1816: Thus $\lambda(x_0)\geq\dist(x_0)$.

1817: Finally, from the lower semicontinuity of $\lambda$

1818: and the fact that $\lambda(x)\leq\len(x)$ for every $x\in\Omega$,

1819: we conclude that

1820: \[

1821: \dist(x_0)\leq\lambda(x_0)\leq\liminf_{x\to x_0}\lambda(x)\leq

1822: \limsup_{x\to x_0}\lambda(x)\leq

1823: \lim_{x\to x_0}\len(x) = \len(x_0) = \dist(x_0),

1824: \]

1825: so that

1826: $\lambda(x_0) = \dist(x_0) = \lim_{x\to x_0}\lambda(x)$.

1827: 

1828: {}From the very definition of $\vf$ and

1829: %the fact that $M_x(t)$ is bounded (see Lemma~7.3 in \cite{CMf})

1830: (\ref{f:estiM})

1831: we have that

1832: \[

1833: 0\leq \vf(x)\leq C[\lambda(x)-\dist(x)]\qquad

1834: \forall x\in \Omega^+\setminus\overline{\Sigma}^+.

1835: \]

1836: We remark that the same estimate trivially holds also on

1837: $\Omega^+\cap\overline{\Sigma}^+$ since $\vf$ vanishes.

1838: If $x_0\in\Omega^+\cap\overline{\Sigma}^+$,

1839: we have that

1840: \[

1841: \limsup_{x\to x_0}\vf(x)\leq

1842: \limsup_{x\to x_0} C[\lambda(x)-\dist(x)] = 0,

1843: \]

1844: hence $\lim_{x\to x_0}\vf(x) = 0 = \vf(x_0)$.

1845: 

1846: Up to now we have proved that $\vf$ is continuous in $\Omega^+$.

1847: A similar argument shows that $\vf$ is continuous in $\Omega^-$.

1848: Since $\vf$ vanishes on $\Omega^0$ and

1849: $\partial\Omega^+\cap\partial\Omega^-\cap\Omega=\emptyset$

1850: (see Remark~\ref{r:noint}),

1851: it remains to prove that $\vf$ is continuous on

1852: $\Omega\cap\partial\Omega^+$ and $\Omega\cap\partial\Omega^-$.

1853: 

1854: Let $x_0\in\Omega\cap\partial\Omega^+$.

1855: Since $x_0\in \Omega^0$, we have that $v(x_0)=0$.

1856: Moreover, by definition of $\Omega^+$,

1857: $\dato(x_0) = \dist(x_0)$.

1858: Since $\dato\in\Lipr(\Omega)$,

1859: by (\ref{f:stimrho}) and (\ref{robdd}),

1860: given $\epsilon > 0$ we have that

1861: \[

1862: \dato(x) \leq \dist(x) + 2 c_2 \epsilon

1863: \qquad\forall x\in\Omega\cap B_{\epsilon}(x_0).

1864: \]

1865: Moreover, if $x\in(\Omega^+\cap B_{\epsilon}(x_0))\setminus\overline{\Sigma}^+$,

1866: we have that $\dato\leq\dist + 2c_2\epsilon$

1867: along the segment joining $x$ to its cut point.

1868: As a consequence,

1869: the integrand in (\ref{f:defvp}) is bounded from above by

1870: $2 c_2\epsilon\, M_0$, so that

1871: \[

1872: 0\leq\vf(x)\leq C \epsilon

1873: \qquad\forall x\in(\Omega^+\cap B_{\epsilon}(x_0))\setminus\overline{\Sigma}^+.

1874: \]

1875: Since $\vf = 0$ in $\Omega^0\cup\overline{\Sigma}^+$,

1876: this inequality clearly implies that

1877: \[

1878: \lim_{x\to x_0}\vf(x) = 0 = \vf(x_0),

1879: \]

1880: i.e.\ $\vf$ is continuous at $x_0$.

1881: The continuity in $\Omega\cap\partial\Omega^-$

1882: can be proved in a similar way.

1883: 

1884: \smallskip

1885: Let us prove that the pair $(u,\vf)$ is a solution to (\ref{f:MK}).

1886: Upon observing that $\{\vf>0\}=\Omega^+ \cup \Omega^-$,

1887: by Remark~\ref{r:noint}

1888: we have only to

1889: prove that $(u,\vf)$ solves

1890: \[

1891: \int_\Omega \vf\pscal{D\gauge(Du)}{D\varphi}\, dx = \int_\Omega (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx\,,

1892: \]

1893: for all $\varphi\in C^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$.

1894: We have that

1895: \[

1896: \int_\Omega (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx=

1897: \int_{\Omega^+} (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx+\int_{\Omega^-} (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx\,.

1898: \]

1899: By using the change of variables stated in Theorem~\ref{t:chvar}, we get

1900: \[

1901: \begin{split}

1902: \int_{\Omega^-} (\dato-u)\varphi =

1903: \int_{\Gamma^-}\gaugem(\nor)

1904: \left[\int_0^{\lambda^-}(\dato(\Phi^-)-u(\Phi^-))\varphi(\Phi^-)

1905: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-t\, \curvg_i^-)

1906: \, dt\right]\,d\haus\,.

1907: \end{split}

1908: \]

1909: %where $\Phi(x,t)=x+t D\gaugem(\nor(x))$, $x\in\Gamma^-$, $t\in\R$.

1910: An integration by parts leads to

1911: \[

1912: \begin{split}

1913: &\int_{0}^{\lambda^-}

1914: (\dato(\Phi^-)-u(\Phi^-))\,\varphi(\Phi^-)\,

1915: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-t\, \curvg_i^-)

1916: \, dt  \\

1917: & =

1918: \int_{0}^{\lambda^-}

1919: \pscal{D\varphi(\Phi^-)}{D\gaugem(\nor)}

1920: \left[\int_{t}^{\lambda^-}

1921: (\dato(\Phi^-)-u(\Phi^-))\,

1922: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-s\, \curvg_i^-)\, ds\right]

1923: \, dt\,.

1924: \end{split}

1925: \]

1926: Since $u(\Phi^-(y,s)) = -s$ for every $s\in [0, \lambda^-(y)]$,

1927: %$\dato(\Phi(x,s))-u(\Phi(x,s))=0$ for $s\in [\lambda^-(x), \len^-(x)]$,

1928: we have that

1929: \[

1930: -\vf(\Phi^-(y,t)) =

1931: \int_{t}^{\lambda^-(y)}

1932: (\dato(\Phi^-(y,s))-u(\Phi^-(y,s)))\,

1933: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1-s\, \curvg_i^-(y)}%

1934: {1-t\, \curvg_i^-(y)}\, ds

1935: \]

1936: for every $y\in\Gamma^-$ and $t\in [0,\lambda^-(y))$.

1937: Then we obtain

1938: \[

1939: \begin{split}

1940: \int_{\Omega^-} & (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx

1941: =

1942: -\int_{\Gamma^-}\gaugem(\nor)\left[

1943: \int_{0}^{\lambda^-}

1944: \pscal{D\varphi(\Phi^-)}{D\gaugem(\nor)}

1945: \vf(\Phi)

1946: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-t\, \curvg_i^-)\, dt\right]\, d\haus\,.

1947: \end{split}

1948: \]

1949: Finally, again from Theorem~\ref{t:chvar} and the fact that

1950: \[

1951: D\gaugem(\nor(y))=

1952: - D \gauge (-\nor (y))=-D \gauge(-D\distm(y))=-D\gauge(Du(y))\,,

1953: \]

1954: we get

1955: \[

1956: \int_{\Omega^-} (\dato-u)\varphi\, dx =

1957: \int_{\Omega^-}

1958: \vf\, \pscal{D\gauge(Du)}{D\varphi}\, dx\,,

1959: \]

1960: for every $\varphi\in C^{\infty}_c(\Omega)$.

1961: In the same way,

1962: using the change of variables in $\Omega^+$,

1963: %parameterizing $\Omega^+$ by the map

1964: %$\Phi(x,t)=x+t D\gauge(\nor(x))$, $x\in\Gamma^+$, $t\in\R$,

1965: we get

1966: \[

1967: \int_{\Omega^+} (\dato-u)\varphi =

1968: \int_{\Omega^+}

1969: \vf\, \pscal{D\gauge(Du)}{D\varphi}\,,

1970: \]

1971: for every $\varphi\in C^{\infty}_c(\Omega)$,

1972: concluding the proof.

1973: \end{proof}

1974: 

1975: Now the absolute minimality of $u$ follows easily.

1976: \begin{theorem}\label{t:exmin}

1977: The function $u$ defined in (\ref{umin}) is the unique

1978: minimizer of $J$ in $W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$.

1979: \end{theorem}

1980: 

1981: \begin{proof}

1982: Let $\vf$ be the function defined in (\ref{f:defv}). Since $\vf\geq 0$,

1983: for almost every $x\in \Omega^+\cup\Omega^-$

1984: the vector $2 \vf(x) D\gauge(Du(x))$ belongs to the subdifferential

1985: of $I_K$ at $Du(x)$ (see (\ref{subindk})).

1986: On the other hand, $\vf = 0$ in $\Omega^0$.

1987: Then we have

1988: \[

1989: I_K(Dw(x))-I_K(Du(x)) \geq 2 \vf(x) \pscal{D\gauge(Du(x))}{Dw(x)-Du(x)}

1990: \ \textrm{a.e.\ in\ }\Omega\,,

1991: \]

1992: for every $w\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$.

1993: Hence, using Lemma \ref{l:eul} we obtain that for every

1994: $w\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$

1995: \begin{equation}\label{f:minprf}

1996: \begin{split}

1997: J(w) - J(u)

1998: & \geq {}

1999: \int_\Omega 2 \vf \pscal{D\gauge(Du)}{Dw-Du} +

2000: \int_\Omega (w-\dato)^2

2001: + \int_\Omega (u-\dato)^2

2002: \\ = {} &

2003: \int_\Omega [2(w-u)(\dato-u)+(w-\dato)^2-(u-\dato)^2]

2004: \\ = {} &

2005: \int_\Omega(u-w)^2\,,

2006: \end{split}

2007: \end{equation}

2008: which implies that $u$ is the unique minimizer of $J$ in $W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$.

2009: \end{proof}

2010: 

2011: 

2012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2013: \section{The quasistatic evolution}\label{s:evol}

2014: Let $T>0$ be fixed. For every $n\in\N^+$, we take a partition

2015: $P^n=\left\{t^n_i\right\}_{i=0}^{k(n)}$

2016: %$0=t^n_0<t^n_1<\cdots<t^n_{n}=T$

2017: of the interval $[0,T]$, and we set $\delta t^n_i=t^n_i-t^n_{i-1}$.

2018: %Let $T>0$ be fixed. Let us take a partition $0=t^n_0<t^n_1<\ldots<t^n_{k(n)}=T$ of the

2019: %interval $[0,T]$, with $\Delta^n=t^n_{i+1}-t^n_i$, and let us set $c^n_i=H_s(t^n_i)$.

2020: %From now on we shall assume that $H_s$ is a continuous function in $[0,T]$.

2021: 

2022: The starting configuration of the superconductor at time $t=0$ is given by

2023: $h(x,0)=h_0(x)\in \Lipr(\Omega)$, with $h_0=H_s(0)$ on $\partial \Omega$. %Then the magnetic field

2024: %$h^n_{i+1}(x)$ inside the superconductor at time $t^n_{i+1}$ is the unique solution

2025: %to the minimum problem

2026: %\begin{equation}\label{varmodin}

2027: %\min \left\{\int_\Omega  (u-h^n_i)^2\, dx \colon\

2028: %u\in c^n_{i+1}+ W^{1,1}_0(\Omega),\ u\in \Lipr(\Omega)\right\}\,,

2029: %\end{equation}

2030: %where $c^n_{i+1}=H_s(t^n_{i+1})$.

2031: %Upon observing that $h^n_{i+1}$ is the minimizer for (\ref{varmodin}) if and only

2032: %if $h^n_{i+1}-c^n_{i+1}$ is the minimizer for (\ref{jfunct}) with

2033: %$\dato=h^n_i-c^n_{i+1}$, by Theorem \ref{t:exmin}

2034: Using the variational formulation (\ref{varmod}) and Theorem \ref{t:exmin}, we have that

2035: the internal magnetic field $h^n_{i+1}(x)=h(x, t^n_{i+1})$ is given by

2036: \begin{equation}\label{f:akkani}

2037: h^n_{i+1}(x)=\min[\max[h^n_i(x), c^n_{i+1}-\distm(x)], c^n_{i+1}+\dist(x)]\,.

2038: \end{equation}

2039: Since the model is valid only when the external field varies slowly in time,

2040: it is not restrictive to assume that $H_s$ is a continuous function obtained

2041: by the concatenation of a finite number of monotone functions of class $C^1$.

2042: Hence from now on we shall consider only the case

2043: \begin{equation}\label{f:HS}

2044: \textrm{$H_s$ is a monotone

2045: function of class $C^1([0,T])$.}

2046: \end{equation}

2047: In this case formula (\ref{f:akkani}) simplifies.

2048: Namely, if we assume that $H_s$ is a nondecreasing

2049: function we have that $c^n_i \leq c^n_{i+1}$.

2050: In particular, at the first

2051: time step we have

2052: \[

2053: h^n_1(x)=\min[\max[h_0(x), c^n_{1}-\distm(x)], c^n_{1}+\dist(x)]\,,

2054: \]

2055: and $h_0(x)-c^n_{1} \in \Lipr(\Omega)$ with

2056: $h_0(x)-c^n_{1}=c^n_0-c^n_{1}\leq 0$ on $\partial \Omega$.

2057: Hence $h_0(x)-c^n_{1} \leq \dist (x)$ in $\Omega$ (see Remark \ref{r:maxm}), which

2058: implies

2059: \[

2060: h^n_1(x)=\max[h_0(x), c^n_{1}-\distm(x)]\,.

2061: \]

2062: At the second time step we get

2063: \[

2064: h^n_2(x)=\min[\max[h^n_1(x), c^n_{2}-\distm(x)], c^n_{2}+\dist(x)]\,.

2065: \]

2066: Since

2067: $h^n_1(x)-c^n_{2}=\max[h_0(x)-c^n_{2}, -\distm(x)+c^n_1-c^n_2]$, with

2068: $c^n_1-c^n_2\leq 0$, we have that

2069: \[

2070: h^n_2(x)=\max[h_0(x), c^n_{2}-\distm(x)]\,.

2071: \]

2072: In general we get

2073: \begin{equation}\label{f:akkanicres}

2074: h^n_{i}(x)=\max[h_0(x), c^n_{i}-\distm(x)]\,.\quad \textrm{(nondecreasing external field)}

2075: \end{equation}

2076: With a similar argument, we obtain that if $H_s$ is nonincreasing in time, the

2077: $i$--th time step leads to

2078: \begin{equation}\label{f:akkanidecre}

2079: h^n_{i}(x)=\min[h_0(x), c^n_{i}+\dist(x)]\,.\quad \textrm{(nonincreasing external field)}

2080: \end{equation}

2081: Now we easily obtain the evolution of the internal magnetic field, taking the

2082: limit as $n$ goes to $+\infty$ of the quasistatic approximation

2083: \[

2084: h^n(x,t)=h^n_i(x)\,,\ t\in [t^n_i, t^n_{i+1})\,.

2085: \]

2086: 

2087: \begin{theorem}\label{t:limitsol}

2088: If $H_s$ is a nondecreasing function in $[0,T]$, then

2089: the sequence

2090: $(h^n(x,t))$ converges uniformly in $\overline{\Omega} \times [0,T]$ to

2091: \[

2092: h(x,t)=\max[h_0(x), -\distm(x)+H_s(t)]\,.

2093: \]

2094: If $H_s$ is a nonincreasing function in $[0,T]$, then

2095: the sequence

2096: $(h^n(x,t))$ converges uniformly in $\overline{\Omega}\times [0,T]$ to

2097: \[

2098: h(x,t)=\min[h_0(x), \dist(x)+H_s(t)]\,.

2099: \]

2100: \end{theorem}

2101: 

2102: \begin{proof}

2103: Assume that $H_s$ is nondecreasing (the other case being similar). Given $t\in [0,T]$, and $n\in\N$,

2104: we have that $t\in [t^n_i, t^n_{i+1})$, and

2105: \[

2106: 0\leq h(x,t)-h^n(x,t)\leq H_s(t)-H_s(t^n_i) \leq H_s(t^n_{i+1})-H_s(t^n_i)

2107: \leq \delta t^n \max_{t\in [0,T]}H_s'(t)\,,

2108: \]

2109: where $\delta t^n$ is the size of the partition $P^n$. Hence the uniform

2110: convergence in $\overline{\Omega}\times [0,T]$ follows.

2111: \end{proof}

2112: 

2113: %\begin{rk}

2114: %The sequential application of the rules

2115: %given in Theorem \ref{t:limitsol} provides the solution

2116: %if the external field is piecewise monotonic.

2117: %\end{rk}

2118: 

2119: \begin{rk}

2120: Theorem \ref{t:limitsol} shows that the evolution obtained

2121: by the direct optimization method at discrete times proposed by

2122: Bad\'\i a and L\'opez in \cite{BLd} coincides with the one obtained in

2123: \cite{BaPrb,BaPr} by

2124: Barrett and Prigozhin as a solution of an evolutionary

2125: variational inequality.

2126: \end{rk}

2127: 

2128: For what concerns the electric field induced in the superconductor, we already

2129: know that $\vec{E}=(E_1,E_2,0)$ with $(E_1,E_2)\in \partial I_K(Dh)$. This means that

2130: $\vec{E}=0$ whenever $Dh \in \textrm{int}K$, and there exists

2131: $w(x,t)\geq 0$ such that $(E_1,E_2)=w(x,t) D\gauge(Dh(x,t))$

2132: for almost every $x\in \Omega$ and for every $t\in [0,T]$.

2133: Our approach allows us to compute explicitly the quasistatic evolution

2134: of the dissipated power $w(x,t)$ as the dual function appearing in the necessary

2135: conditions stated in Lemma~\ref{l:eul}.

2136: 

2137: Namely, from Lemma~\ref{l:eul}, for every $n\in\N$

2138: and for every $i=1, \ldots, k(n)$, there exists $v^n_{i}\in C_b(\Omega)$

2139: such that

2140: \begin{equation}\label{f:faradisc}

2141: -\dive\left(\frac{v^n_{i}}{\dt}\,D\gauge(Dh^n_{i})\right)=

2142: \frac{h^n_{i-1}-h^n_{i}}{\dt}\,,

2143: \end{equation}

2144: in the sense of distributions in $\Omega$.

2145: For our convenience, we also set $v^n_0 = 0$.

2146: The function $v^n_i$ is unique, as stated in the following result.

2147: 

2148: \begin{prop}\label{p:vni}

2149: Let $v \in C_b(\Omega)$ be a function

2150: such that

2151: \begin{equation}\label{f:vvv}

2152: \begin{cases}

2153: -\dive\left(v\,D\gauge(Dh^n_{i})\right)=

2154: {h^n_{i-1}-h^n_{i}}\,,

2155: &\textrm{in $\Omega$ (distributional)} ,\\

2156: \gauge(D h^n_i) = 1

2157: &\textrm{a.e.\ in $\{v > 0\}$}.

2158: \end{cases}

2159: \end{equation}

2160: If $c^n_i\geq c^n_{i-1}$, then $v=v^n_i$, where

2161: \[

2162: v^n_i(x)=

2163: \begin{cases}

2164: \displaystyle\int_{\distm(x)}^{\len^-(y)}{(h^n_i-

2165: h^n_{i-1})(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))}

2166: M_{x}^-(s)\, ds\,, & x\in \Omega \setminus \overline{\Sigma}^-\,,\ \proj^-(x)=\{y\},\\

2167: 0 & x\in \overline{\Sigma}^-

2168: \end{cases}

2169: \]

2170: whereas, if $c^n_i\leq c^n_{i-1}$, then $v=v^n_i$, where

2171: \[

2172: v^n_i(x)=

2173: \begin{cases}

2174: \displaystyle\int_{\dist(x)}^{\len(y)}{(h^n_{i-1}-

2175: h^n_{i})(y+s D\gauge(\nor(y)))}

2176: M_{x}(s)\, ds\,, & x\in \Omega \setminus \overline{\Sigma}\,,\ \proj(x)=\{y\},\\

2177: 0 & x\in \overline{\Sigma}\,.

2178: \end{cases}

2179: \]

2180: \end{prop}

2181: 

2182: \begin{proof}

2183: Assume that $c^n_{i-1}-c^n_i\geq 0$ (the other case being similar),

2184: and let $v\in C_b(\Omega)$ be a solution of (\ref{f:vvv}).

2185: By construction we have that the function

2186: $f := h^n_{i-1}-h^n_{i}$ is bounded, continuous and nonnegative in $\Omega$,

2187: and $h^n_i = \dist$ in $\spt(f)$.

2188: Using the same arguments of Lemma~6.3 in \cite{CMg}, we can prove that

2189: the pair $(\dist, v)$ satisfies

2190: \[

2191: -\dive\left(v\,D\gauge(D\dist)\right)=f,

2192: \]

2193: in the sense of distributions in $\Omega$.

2194: Now we can apply Propositions~6.5 and 6.7 in \cite{CMg} in order to

2195: conclude that $v = v^n_i$.

2196: \end{proof}

2197: 

2198: Formula (\ref{f:faradisc})

2199: can be understood as a discretized version of Faraday's law, so that

2200: the functions $w^n_{i}=\frac{v^n_{i}}{\dt}$ are the steps of

2201: the quasistatic evolution of the dissipated power.

2202: If we set

2203: \begin{equation}\label{f:gn}

2204: w^n(x,t)=w^n_i(x)\,, \quad

2205: g^n(x,t)= \frac{h^n_{i-1}(x)-h^n_i(x)}{\dt}\,,\qquad t\in [t^n_i, t^n_{i+1})\,

2206: \end{equation}

2207: and $w^n(t)\equiv w^n(\cdot,t)$, $h^n(t)\equiv h^n(\cdot,t)$, $g^n(t)\equiv g^n(\cdot,t)$,

2208: formula (\ref{f:faradisc}) can be rewritten as

2209: \begin{equation}\label{f:faradcon}

2210: -\dive\left(w^n(t)\,D\gauge(Dh^n(t))\right)= g^n(t).

2211: %\frac{h^n(t-\dt)-h^n(t)}{\dt}\,.

2212: \end{equation}

2213: 

2214: \begin{theorem}\label{t:limitpow}

2215: If $H_s$ is a nondecreasing function in $[0,T]$, then

2216: the sequence

2217: $(w^n(x,t))$ converges pointwise in $\overline{\Omega} \times [0,T]$ to

2218: \[

2219: w(x,t)=\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}(t)\,\int_{\distm(x)}^{\len^-(y)}

2220: \chi_{\left\{h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\leq H_s(t)-s\right\}}

2221: M_{x}^-(s)\, ds\,.

2222: \]

2223: If $H_s$ is a nonincreasing function in $[0,T]$, then

2224: the sequence

2225: $(w^n(x,t))$ converges pointwise in $\overline{\Omega}\times [0,T]$ to

2226: \[

2227: w(x,t)=-\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}(t)\,\int_{\dist(x)}^{\len(y)}

2228: \chi_{\left\{h_0(y+s D\gauge(\nor(y)))\geq H_s(t)+s\right\}}

2229: M_{x}(s)\, ds\,.

2230: \]

2231: Moreover, in both cases, the sequence $(w^n)$ converges to $w$ in the strong

2232: topology of $L^p(\Omega)$, $p\geq 1$, uniformly in $[0,T]$.

2233: \end{theorem}

2234: 

2235: \begin{proof}

2236: We compute the limit of the

2237: sequence $(w^n)$ only in the case of nondecreasing external field, the other

2238: case being similar.

2239: 

2240: We can assume, without loss of generality, that for every

2241: $n\in\N$ the partition $P^{n+1}$ is a refinement of the

2242: partition $P^n$. Hence, for every $t\in [0,T]$ and for every

2243: $n\in\N$ there exists $i=i(n)\in\N$ such that $t\in [t^n_{i(n)},t^n_{i(n)+1})$.

2244: Moreover, since $H_s\in C^1([0,T])$, we obtain

2245: \begin{equation}\label{f:unifg}

2246: -\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}(t)=\lim_{n\to \infty}

2247: \frac{H_s(t^n_{i-1})-H_s(t^n_{i})}{\dt} \qquad

2248: \textrm{uniformly in\ }[0,T]\,.

2249: \end{equation}

2250: By Proposition \ref{p:vni} we get

2251: \[

2252:  w^n(x,t)=

2253: \int_{\distm(x)}^{\len^-(y)}g^n(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)),t)

2254: M_{x}^-(s)\, ds\,,

2255: \]

2256: where $g^n$ is the function defined in (\ref{f:gn}).

2257: Moreover we have

2258: \begin{equation}\label{f:unifg2}

2259: \begin{split}

2260: h^n_{i-1} - h^n_i & =(H_s(t^n_{i-1})-H_s(t^n_{i}))

2261: \chi_{\left\{h_0 \leq H_s(t^n_{i-1})-\distm\right\}}

2262: \\ & +

2263: (h_0-H_s(t^n_{i})+\distm)

2264: \chi_{\left\{H_s(t^n_{i-1})-\distm < h_0 < H_s(t^n_{i})-\distm\right\}}\,,

2265: \end{split}

2266: \end{equation}

2267: and

2268: \[

2269: \begin{split}

2270: 0 & \geq (h_0-H_s(t^n_{i})+\distm)

2271: \chi_{\left\{H_s(t^n_{i-1})-\distm < h_0 < H_s(t^n_{i})-\distm\right\}}\\

2272: & \geq \left(H_s(t^n_{i-1})-H_s(t^n_{i})\right)

2273: \chi_{\left\{H_s(t^n_{i-1})-\distm < h_0 < H_s(t^n_{i})-\distm\right\}}\,.

2274: \end{split}

2275: \]

2276: Collecting the previous information, we get

2277: \begin{equation}\label{f:plim1}

2278: \lim_{n\to +\infty}g^n(t) = g(t):=

2279: -\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}(t)\,\chi_{\left\{h_0\leq H_s(t)-\distm\right\}}\,,

2280: \end{equation}

2281: and $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\|g^n(t)-g(t)\|_{L^p(\Omega)}=0$ uniformly in $[0,T]$, for

2282: every $p\geq 1$. In addition, from (\ref{f:unifg}) and (\ref{f:unifg2}),

2283: for every regular point $x$ of $\distm$ and setting $\{y\}=\Pi(x)$, we get

2284: \begin{equation}\label{f:plim3}

2285: \lim_{n\to +\infty}g^n(y+sD\gaugem(\nor(y)), t)= g(y+sD\gaugem(\nor(y)), t)\qquad

2286: \textrm{a.e.\ }s\in [\distm(x), \len^-(y)]\,.

2287: \end{equation}

2288: %Concerning $w^n$, by Lemma~\ref{l:eul} we have the representation formula

2289: %\[

2290: %v^n_i(x)=-\int_{\distm(x)}^{\lambda^n_i(y)} \left[h^n_{i-1}(y+sD\gaugem(\nor(y)))

2291: %-c_i^n+s\right]M_{x}^-(s)\, ds\,,

2292: %\]

2293: %where $y$ is the projection of $x$ on $\partial \Omega$, and

2294: %\[

2295: %\lambda^n_i(y)= \sup\{\tau\in [0,\len(y))\colon h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))-c^n_i<-s\

2296: %\forall s \in [0,\tau)\}\,.

2297: %\]

2298: %We claim that $s>\lambda^n_i(\macroy )$ if and only if

2299: %$h^n_i(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))=h_0(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))$.

2300: %Namely, if $s>\lambda^n_i(\macroy )$,

2301: %then

2302: %\[

2303: %h^n_{i-1}(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))>c^n_i-s\geq c^n_{i-1}-s\,,

2304: %\]

2305: %so that

2306: %\[

2307: %h^n_{i-1}(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))=h_0(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))\,,

2308: %\]

2309: %and

2310: %\[

2311: %h_0(\macroy +s D\gaugem(\nor(\macroy ))>c^n_i-s\,.

2312: %\]

2313: %{}From Lemma~\ref{l:opm} we have that,

2314: %if $\lambda^n_i(y) < \len(y)$, then $s\in [\lambda^n_i(y),\len(y)]$

2315: %if and only if

2316: %$h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y))=h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y))$.

2317: %Hence

2318: %\[

2319: %\begin{split}

2320: %h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))& =\max[h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y))), -s+c^n_i] \\

2321: %& =

2322: %h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\,.

2323: %\end{split}

2324: %\]

2325: %On the other hand, if $s<\lambda^n_i(y)$, then

2326: %\[

2327: %h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\leq h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))<c^n_i-s\,,

2328: %\]

2329: %and hence $h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))=c^n_i-s$.

2330: %Then we have

2331: %\[

2332: %\int_{\lambda^n_i(y)}^{\len(y)}\left[h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))-

2333: %h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\right]

2334: %M_{y}^-(s)\, ds=0\,,

2335: %\]

2336: %and

2337: %\[

2338: %\begin{split}

2339: %& \int_{\distm(x)}^{\lambda^n_i(y)}\left[h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))-

2340: %h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\right]

2341: %M_{y}^-(s)\, ds \\

2342: %& =

2343: %\int_{\distm(x)}^{\lambda^n_i(y)}\left[

2344: %c^n_i-s-h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\right]

2345: %M_{y}^-(s)\, ds\,.

2346: %\end{split}

2347: %\]

2348: %\[

2349: %w^n_i(x)=\frac{v^n_i(x)}{\dt}=\int_{\distm(x)}^{\len(y)}\frac{h^n_i(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))-

2350: %h^n_{i-1}(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))}{\dt}

2351: %M_{x}^-(s)\, ds\,.

2352: %\]

2353: Finally,

2354: by (\ref{f:plim3}), (\ref{f:estiM}) and the Dominated Convergence Theorem, we conclude that

2355: \begin{equation}\label{f:plim2}

2356: \begin{split}

2357: &\lim_{n \to +\infty} w^n(x,t)=\\

2358: & -\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}(t)\,\int_{\distm(x)}^{\len(y)}

2359: \chi_{\left\{h_0(y+s D\gaugem(\nor(y)))\leq H_s(t)-s\right\}}

2360: M_{x}^-(t)\, ds\,:=w(x,t)\,.

2361: \end{split}

2362: \end{equation}

2363: The last part of the theorem follows from the fact that

2364: \begin{equation}\label{f:plimw}

2365: {\|w^n(t)-w(t)\|}_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq

2366: C_0\, {\|g^n(t)-g(t)\|}_{L^p(\Omega)}

2367: \end{equation}

2368: for some positive constant $C_0$.

2369: Namely, for a given $t\in [0,T]$ let us define

2370: \[

2371: \varphi^n(x, s) := g^n(y+sD\gaugem(\nor(y)), t) - g(y+sD\gaugem(\nor(y)), t),

2372: \]

2373: for $x\in\Omega\setminus\overline{\Sigma}$,

2374: $\proj(x)=\{y\}$, and $s\in [0,\len^-(y)]$.

2375: We remark that, if $x\in\Omega\setminus\overline{\Sigma}$ and

2376: $y$ is the projection of $x$,

2377: then $\varphi^n(x,\cdot) = \varphi^n(y,\cdot)$.

2378: 

2379: By the very definition of $w^n$, $w$ and $M_x$, H\"older's inequality and

2380: (\ref{f:estiM}) we have that

2381: \[

2382: {\|w^n(t)-w(t)\|}^p_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq

2383: C \int_{\Omega} \left(

2384: \int_{\distm(x)}^{\len^-(x)} |\varphi^n(x,s)|^p

2385: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1-s\curvgm_i(x)}{1-\distm(x)\curvgm_i(x)}

2386: \, ds

2387: \right)dx =: I

2388: \]

2389: where $\len^-(x):= \len^-(y)$ when $\proj^-(x) = \{y\}$ and

2390: $C := M_0^{p-1}\, (\max\distm)^{1/p'}$.

2391: Using the change of variables theorem (see \cite[Thm.~7.1]{CMf}) we

2392: have that

2393: \[

2394: \begin{split}

2395: I = {} &

2396: C \int_{\partial\Omega} \gaugem(\nor(y)) \left[\int_0^{\len^-(y)}

2397: \left(\int_{\sigma}^{\len^-(y)} |\varphi^n(y,s)|^p

2398: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1-s\curvgm_i(y)}{1-\sigma\curvgm_i(y)}

2399: \, ds \right) \right.\cdot

2400: \\ & {} \cdot

2401: \left.\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (1-\sigma\, \curvg^-_i(y))\, d\sigma\right]

2402: d\haus(y)

2403: \\ = {} &

2404: C \int_{\partial\Omega} \gaugem(\nor(y)) \left[\int_0^{\len^-(y)}

2405: \left(\int_{\sigma}^{\len^-(y)} |\varphi^n(y,s)|^p

2406: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(1-s\curvgm_i(y))

2407: \, ds \right) \, d\sigma\right]

2408: d\haus(y)

2409: \\ \leq {} &

2410: C' \int_{\partial\Omega} \gaugem(\nor(y)) \left(\int_0^{\len^-(y)}

2411: |\varphi^n(y,s)|^p

2412: \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(1-s\curvgm_i(y))

2413: \, ds \right)

2414: d\haus(y),

2415: \end{split}

2416: \]

2417: where $C' := C\, \max\distm$.

2418: Using again the change of variables theorem we finally get

2419: \[

2420: %I \leq C' \int_{\Omega} |\varphi^n(x,s)|^p\, dx,

2421: I \leq C' \int_{\Omega} |g^n(x,t)-g(x,t)|^p\, dx,

2422: \]

2423: hence (\ref{f:plimw}) follows.

2424: \end{proof}

2425: 

2426: \begin{rk}

2427: Notice that if $\distm(x)>\lambda^n_i(y)$, then $v^n_i(x)=0$, while

2428: $h^n_i(x)=c^n_i-\distm(x)$ if $\distm(x)\leq \lambda^n_i(y)$. Hence we have that

2429: $w^n(x,t) D\gauge(Dh^n(x,t))=w^n(x,t) D\gauge(-D\distm(x))$ a.e.\ in $\Omega$ and

2430: for every $t\in [0,T]$.

2431: A passage to the limit in (\ref{f:faradcon})

2432: %and the fact that $w(x,t) D\gauge(Dh(x,t))=w^n(x,t) D\gauge(-D\distm(x))$

2433: %a.e.\ in $\Omega$ and for every $t\in [0,T]$

2434: leads to

2435: \begin{equation}\label{f:faradfin}

2436: -\dive(w(x,t)D\gauge(Dh(x,t)))=- \frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}

2437: \,\chi_{\left\{h_0\leq H_s(t)-\distm\right\}}\,,

2438: \end{equation}

2439: in the sense of distributions in $\Omega$ for every $t\in [0,T]$.

2440: Recalling that, by construction, $\frac{\partial H_s}{\partial t}

2441: \,\chi_{\left\{h_0\leq H_s(t)-\distm\right\}}= \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}(x,t)$, and

2442: comparing (\ref{f:faradfin}) with the Faraday's law, we conclude

2443: that the electric field induced by $h$ inside the superconductor is

2444: $\vec{E}(x,t)=w(x,t)D\gauge(Dh(x,t))$.

2445: \end{rk}

2446: 

2447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2448: \section{Further remarks}

2449: %{Mathematical counterpart of the experimental observations}

2450: 

2451: As a consequence of the Theorem \ref{t:limitsol} we obtain some

2452: detailed information about the macroscopic behavior of the

2453: penetrating magnetic field.

2454: 

2455: \begin{center}

2456: \begin{figure}

2457: %\raisebox{2.5cm}{%

2458: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{ECdistbw-crop}}\qquad

2459: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{ECvbw-crop}}

2460: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{ECdist3-crop}} \qquad

2461: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{ECv3-crop}}

2462: \caption{Level sets and 3D plot of the full penetrated magnetic

2463: field  and of the dissipation for $\Omega$ Cassini's Egg, $K$ ellipse not centered at the origin,

2464: $h_0=0$}\label{BB3}

2465: \end{figure}

2466: \end{center}

2467: 

2468: \noindent\textit{Saturation time (Full penetration time).}

2469: The experiments show that, if the superconductor is posed in an

2470: increasing external field $H_s$, say $H_s(t) \to +\infty$ as

2471: $t \to +\infty$, after a while the internal magnetic field $h(x,t)$ differs

2472: from $H_s(t)$ for a stationary amount $u(x)$.

2473: In our model we obtain that if $\tau \geq 0$ is such that

2474: $H_s(\tau)=\sup_\Omega (h_0+\distm)$, then for $t\geq \tau$

2475: $h(x,t)-H_s(t)=-\distm(x)$.

2476: 

2477: In the simpler case when $H_s(t)=-at$, $a>0$, and

2478: $h_0=0$ we obtain that at time $\tau=\frac{\max_\Omega \dist}{a}$

2479: the magnetic field is penetrated in the whole superconductor and

2480: $h(x,t)=\dist(x)+H_s(t)$ for $t\geq \tau$.

2481: Figures \ref{BB3} and  \ref{BB4} picture

2482: the plots of the magnetic field and of the dissipation in the

2483: stationary configuration for anisotropic materials with a

2484: complicated geometry. We underline that

2485: the numerical computation based on the representation formula

2486: (\ref{f:plim2}) shows the presence of an hight dissipation near

2487: the points of the boundary with negative curvature, according to the

2488: experimental observations.

2489: 

2490: \begin{center}

2491: \begin{figure}

2492: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{\picturename{EFdistbw-crop}}\qquad\qquad

2493: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{\picturename{EFvbw-crop}}

2494: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{EFdist3-crop}}\qquad

2495: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{\picturename{EFv3-crop}}

2496: \caption{Level sets and 3D plot of the full penetrated magnetic

2497: field and of the dissipation for $\Omega$ perturbed disk, $K$ ellipse not centered at the origin,

2498: $h_0=0$.}

2499: \label{BB4}

2500: \end{figure}

2501: \end{center}

2502: %\begin{center}

2503: %\begin{figure}

2504: %\includegraphics[height=4cm]{EFvbw-crop.pdf}\qquad \includegraphics[height=4cm]{EFv3-crop.pdf}

2505: %\caption{Level sets and 3D plot of the power in the situation of Fig. \ref{BB4}}\label{BB$a}

2506: %\end{figure}

2507: %\end{center}

2508: 

2509: \noindent\textit{Boundary of penetration profile.}

2510: If the evolution starts with $h_0=0$ (no initial magnetic

2511: field inside $\Omega$) and the external field is nondecreasing,

2512: then at time $t$ the induced magnetic

2513: field is penetrated in $\Omega$ only in the region

2514: $\{x\in \Omega \colon\ \distm(x)\leq H_s(t)\}$. This gives an

2515: exact macroscopic description of the boundary of penetration profile,

2516: which is given by the level sets of the Minkowski distance from

2517: the boundary of $\Omega$.

2518: 

2519: \begin{center}

2520: \begin{figure}

2521: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst0-crop}}\qquad

2522: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst1-crop}}

2523: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst2-crop}}\qquad

2524: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst3-crop}}

2525: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst4-crop}} \qquad

2526: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst5-crop}}

2527: \caption{$\Omega$ perturbed disk, $K$ ellipse centered at the origin. Profile of the internal magnetic field,

2528: starting from $h_0=0$, during a loop of the external field.}\label{BB5}

2529: \end{figure}

2530: \end{center}

2531: 

2532: \noindent\textit{Hysteresis phenomenon.}

2533: Assume that the evolution starts with $h_0=0$ (no initial magnetic

2534: field inside $\Omega$) and that the external field $H_s(t)$ is increasing

2535: in [0,T], then at time $T$ the induced magnetic

2536: field is $h(x,T)=(-\distm(x)+H_s(t))_+$.

2537: Starting from this configuration,

2538: in [T,2T] the superconductor is subject to the external field

2539: $H_s(2T-t)$. Then we have

2540: $h(x,2T)=\min\{(-\distm(x)+H_s(T))_+, \dist(x)+H_s(0)\}$ which in general

2541: is not zero. This corresponds with the experimental observation of

2542: an hysteresis phenomenon for these hard superconductors  after an external field loop.

2543: \begin{center}

2544: \begin{figure}

2545: \includegraphics[width=4cm]{\picturename{hyst-cycle}}

2546: \caption{Magnetic hysteresis loop corresponding to the previous process.}

2547: \end{figure}

2548: \end{center}

2549: 

2550: \noindent\textit{On the validity of the Badi\'a--L\'opez formalism for anisotropic

2551: materials.} In \cite{Fisher} Fisher doubts the validity of the variational

2552: formulation proposed by Bad\'ia and Lopez in the case of anisotropic

2553: materials. He declares that \textit{``one cannot be sure that the suggested

2554: least action principle chooses the Current--Voltage Characteristics correctly.

2555: Of course, if this principle is proved, it would be a very important tool

2556: to determine the Current--Voltage Characteristics via the known restriction

2557: region''}. Our results state that, if the power--law approximation for the dissipation

2558: is assumed to be reliable, then the Current--Voltage Characteristics

2559: induced by this approximation is the one selected by the minimization procedure.

2560: 

2561: 

2562: 

2563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2564: % bibliography

2565: %

2566: %\bibliographystyle{/Ga/BibTeX/mybst}

2567: %\bibliography{/Ga/BibTeX/Graziano,/Ga/BibTeX/Ricerca,/Ga/BibTeX/Physics}

2568: 

2569: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{BLd}

2572: {A.}~Bad\'\i a and {C.} L\'opez, \emph{Vector magnetic hysteresis of hard

2573:   superconductors}, Phys.\ Rev.~B \textbf{65} (2001), 104514.

2574: 

2575: \bibitem{BLc}

2576: {A.}~Bad\'\i a and {C.} L\'opez, \emph{Horizons in Superconductivity Research},

2577:   ch.~Minimal model for the topology of the critical state in hard

2578:   superconductors, Nova Science Publishers, 2003.

2579: 

2580: \bibitem{BLb}

2581: {A.}~Bad\'\i a and {C.} L\'opez, \emph{Electric field in hard superconductors

2582:   with arbitrary cross section and general critical current law}, J.\ Appl.\

2583:   Phys. \textbf{95} (2004), 8035--8040.

2584: 

2585: \bibitem{BaCD}

2586: {M.} Bardi and {I.} Capuzzo~Dolcetta, Optimal Control and Viscosity Solutions

2587:   of {H}amilton-{J}acobi-{B}ellman Equations, Systems \& Control: Foundations

2588:   \& Applications, Birkh\"auser, Boston, 1997.

2589: 

2590: \bibitem{BaPrb}

2591: {J.W.} Barrett and {L.} Prigozhin, \emph{Sandpiles and superconductors: dual

2592:   variational formulations for critical-state problems}, preprint, 2005.

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{BaPr}

2595: {J.W.} Barrett and {L.} Prigozhin, \emph{{B}ean's critical-state model as the

2596:   $p\to\infty$ limit of an evolutionary $p$-{L}aplacian equation}, Nonlinear

2597:   Anal. \textbf{42} (2000), 977--993.

2598: 

2599: \bibitem{Bean}

2600: {C.P.} Bean, \emph{Magnetization of hard superconductors}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Letters

2601:   \textbf{8} (1962), 250--253.

2602: 

2603: \bibitem{BKR}

2604: {K.V.} Bhagwat, {D.} Karmakar, and {G.} Ravikumar, \emph{Critical state model

2605:   with anisotropic critical current density}, J.\ Phys.: Condens.\ Matter

2606:   \textbf{15} (2003), 1325--1337.

2607: 

2608: \bibitem{Brai}

2609: {A.} Braides, $\Gamma$-convergence for beginners, Oxford University Press, New

2610:   York, 2002.

2611: 

2612: \bibitem{Bran}

2613: {E.H.} Brandt, \emph{Electric field in superconductors with rectangular cross

2614:   section}, Phys.\ Rev.~B \textbf{52} (1995), 15442--15457.

2615: 

2616: \bibitem{Butt}

2617: {G.} Buttazzo, Semicontinuity, relaxation and integral representation in the

2618:   calculus of variations, Pitman Res.\ Notes Math.\ Ser., vol. 207, Longman

2619:   Scientific and Technical, Harlow, U.K., 1989.

2620: 

2621: \bibitem{CaSi}

2622: {P.} Cannarsa and {C.} Sinestrari, Semiconcave functions, {H}amilton-{J}acobi

2623:   equations and optimal control, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations

2624:   and their Applications, vol.~58, Birkh\"auser, Boston, 2004.

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{Cha}

2627: {S.J.} Chapman, \emph{A Hierarchy of Models for Type-{II} Superconductors},

2628:   SIAM Rev. \textbf{42} (2000), 555--598.

2629: 

2630: \bibitem{CMf}

2631: {G.} Crasta and {A.} Malusa, \emph{The distance function from the boundary in a

2632:   {M}inkowski space}, to appear in Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.,

2633:   oai:ar{X}iv:math.AP/0612226.

2634: 

2635: \bibitem{CMg}

2636: {G.} Crasta and {A.} Malusa, \emph{On a system of partial differential

2637:   equations of {M}onge-{K}antorovich type}, to appear in J.\ Differential

2638:   Equations, oai:ar{X}iv:math.AP/0612227.

2639: 

2640: \bibitem{DM}

2641: {G.} Dal~Maso, An introduction to $\Gamma$--convergence, Birkh\"auser, Boston,

2642:   1993.

2643: 

2644: \bibitem{Fisher}

2645: {L.M.} Fisher and {V.A.} Yampol'skii, \emph{Comment on ``Critical statetheory

2646:   for non-parallel flux line lattices in type-{II} superconductors''},

2647:   oai:ar{X}iv:cond-mat/0201286, 2002.

2648: 

2649: \bibitem{GNP}

2650: {A.} Garroni, {V.} Nesi, and {M.} Ponsiglione, \emph{Dielectric breakdown:

2651:   optimal bounds}, Proc.\ R.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ A \textbf{457} (2001), 2317--2335.

2652: 

2653: \bibitem{Gold}

2654: {S.I.} Goldberg, Curvature and homology, Academic Press, New York, 1970.

2655: 

2656: \bibitem{LN}

2657: {Y.Y.} Li and {L.} Nirenberg, \emph{The distance function to the boundary,

2658:   {F}insler geometry and the singular set of viscosity solutions of some

2659:   {H}amilton--{J}acobi equations}, Commun.\ Pure Appl.\ Math. \textbf{58}

2660:   (2005), 85--146.

2661: 

2662: \bibitem{Li}

2663: {P.L.} Lions, Generalized solutions of {H}amilton-{J}acobi equations, Pitman,

2664:   Boston, 1982.

2665: 

2666: \bibitem{Rock}

2667: {R.T.} Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton Univ.\ Press, Princeton, NJ,

2668:   1970.

2669: 

2670: \bibitem{Sch}

2671: {R.} Schneider, Convex bodies: the {B}runn--{M}inkowski theory, Cambridge

2672:   Univ.~Press, Cambridge, 1993.

2673: 

2674: \bibitem{Wa}

2675: {W.} von Wahl, \emph{Estimating $\nabla u$ by div${}\,u$ and curl${}\,u$},

2676:   Math.\ Methods Appl.\ Sci. \textbf{15} (1992), 123--143.

2677: 

2678: \bibitem{YLZ}

2679: {H.-M.} Yin, {B.Q.} Li, and {J.} Zou, \emph{A degenerate evolution system

2680:   modeling {B}ean's critical-state type-{II} superconductors}, Discrete

2681:   Contin.\ Dynam.\ Systems \textbf{8} (2002), 781--794.

2682: 

2683: \end{thebibliography}

2684: 

2685: \end{document}

2686: