2006
DOI: 10.1002/cpa.20115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rigidity and gamma convergence for solid‐solid phase transitions with SO(2) invariance

Abstract: The singularly perturbed two-well problem in the theory of solid-solid phase transitions takes the formwhere u : ⊂ R n → R n is the deformation, and W vanishes for all matrices in K = SO(n)A ∪ SO(n)B. We focus on the case n = 2 and derive, by means of Gamma convergence, a sharp-interface limit for I ε . The proof is based on a rigidity estimate for low-energy functions. Our rigidity argument also gives an optimal two-well Liouville estimate: if ∇u has a small BV norm (compared to the diameter of the domain), t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
160
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(167 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(50 reference statements)
3
160
3
Order By: Relevance
“…With respect to the quantitative results of [4,8,11,14], we stress that, in spite of being also rigidity results for nonzero energy states, they are essentially different from the ones in the present paper. First, they differ in spirit, because the former ones rely on estimates involving the distances between ru and K, and ru and a particular energy well (estimates which we don't attempt).…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With respect to the quantitative results of [4,8,11,14], we stress that, in spite of being also rigidity results for nonzero energy states, they are essentially different from the ones in the present paper. First, they differ in spirit, because the former ones rely on estimates involving the distances between ru and K, and ru and a particular energy well (estimates which we don't attempt).…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 71%
“…More precisely, he proved that if the perimeter of the transition in a ball, as controlled by kD 2 uk.B 1 /, is sufficiently small, there exist a certain power < 1 of the L 1 -norm of the distance between ru and the set K that controls the L 1 -norm of the distance of ru to one of the wells in some smaller ball. Lorent's result was later improved by Conti and Schweizer [8] to D 1 in the case of two wells with positive determinant and maps u 2 W 1;1 such that kD 2 uk. / is small compared with a quantity that depends on the geometry of .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Using methods of [9] (for the non-linear functional) Conti, Schweizer proved a strong generalisation of Theorem 1.1, their strategy was to use hypotheses (4) and (5) …”
Section: Specifically It Was Shown That For Eachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The naive guess that the optimal bound is given by cκ is false 1 , this follows from the construction of [7], see [9] for more details. The assumption that u is bilipschitz is a technical one, however it is used in an essential way many times in the proof.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a BD setting one only obtains control of the longitudinal component of u. Therefore one needs to consider lines with many different orientations, making sure to choose them so that they do not intersect the jump set, a strategy that was used for proving density in [Cha04,Cha05] and for proving rigidity in one and multiwell settings for example in [Koh82,DM95,CS06]. More details are explained in the introduction to Section 2.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%