On the asymptotic behavior of solutions of anisotropic viscoelastic body

The quasistatic problem of a viscoelastic body in a three-dimensional thin domain with Tresca’s friction law is considered. The viscoelasticity coefficients and data for this system are assumed to vary with respect to the thickness ε. The asymptotic behavior of weak solution, when ε tends to zero, is proved, and the limit solution is identified in a new data system. We show that when the thin layer disappears, its traces form a new contact law between the rigid plane and the viscoelastic body. In which case, a generalized weak form equation is formulated, the uniqueness result for the limit problem is also proved.


Introduction
Simulation and asymptotic behavior have been performed for many physical milieu that occupy thin layers of R 3 in a lot of mechanical and mathematical papers in [1,8,9,12], both for Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids, including visco-plastic materials. Otherwise, the materials related to the linear theory of elasticity have been studied in research papers conducted by Benseridi et al. in [4][5][6]16] and others in [2,14,16]. Here, the authors investigated several elasticity systems in thin layers in dimension 3 under various boundary conditions, through which they reached low-dimensional constitutive laws implicitly prevalent in many applications, particularly in lubrication problems, to describe the behavior of the phenomena that are already occurring in thin layers when the thickness is as small as 50 nm (e.g. [7]).
In this paper, we are interested in the asymptotic behavior of a quasistatic frictionless problem modeling the bilateral contact between a viscoelastic body and a rigid foundation in a thin layer represented by a domain ε in R 3 , where (0 < ε < 1) is a small parameter that will tend to zero. Starting from the variational formulation giving the displacement and stress field, as formulated by Sofonea et al. in [10,17], for such a material with a linear © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Kelvin-Voigt constitutive law of the form
where A ε is the viscosity tensor and B ε is the elasticity tensor.
Our aim in this paper is to give an extension to our work in [13]. The novelty thing in this study is, firstly, that we take into account the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the milieu, a hypothesis that will cover a lot of materials in nature or industry, for example, wood, composite materials, and many biological materials, in which, although they appear to be homogeneous, their properties vary in all directions (see [6,11]). Secondly, the body is assumed to have a viscous behavior, because the previously mentioned works are restricted only to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic elastic body by stress tensor σ ε ij (u ε ) = 2μe ij (u ε ) + λ Tr(u ε )δ ij in a thin domain. The boundary ε of ε is assumed to be composed of three portions, ω the bottom (in the R 2 surface) of the body, and this is where our main interest lies, ε 1 the upper surface, and ε L the lateral surface. We consider Tresca-free boundary friction conditions on ω and Dirichlet boundary conditions on ε 1 . However, we consider a traction boundary condition on ε L . The problem is converted into a one over a fixed domain explicitly written depending on the ε in the variational formulation. The model of the limit problem, when ε tends to zero, is then obtained. This study yields a new constitutive law, which takes into account the hypotheses of heterogeneity, anisotropy, and viscosity for the body. Furthermore, the effects of applied stress tensors on the ω boundary are determined, which will be subject to Tresca friction conditions. These models are very common in engineering literature, for example, see [1,7,8,14] and the references cited therein.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, the strong and weak formulation of the problem is given in terms of u ε , and also the necessary assumptions which will be needed in the sequel are presented. In Sect. 3, we introduce a scaling, we find some estimates on the displacement and velocity which are independent of the parameter ε, the existence of a weak limit solution u * is obtained. Finally, the new formula of our original problem is stated, the corresponding results for u * with a specific weak form of the Reynolds equation are given in the last section.

Basic equation and weak formulation
Let ω be an bounded regular domain in the x 1 Ox 2 -plane, and let h ∈ C 1 (ω) be a positive smooth function such that 0 < h min < h(x ) < h max for all x = (x 1 , x 2 ) ∈ ω. Let ε be a parameter taking values in a sequence of positive numbers converging to zero. Consider a viscoelastic body occupying the region ε , is the lateral boundary, and ω is the bottom of the domain. Let T > 0. We denote ν to be the unit outward normal to ε . The body is assumed to be clamped on ε 1 × (0, T) and surface tractions of density g ε act on ε L × (0, T). On the bottom, the normal velocity is equal to zero but the tangential velocity is unknown and satisfies Tresca type fluid-solid boundary conditions with friction coefficient k ε , a given positive function. Moreover, a volume force of density f ε = (f ε 1 , f ε 2 , f ε 3 ) acts on the body in ε × (0, T). We denote by R n×n s (n = 2, 3) the space of symmetric tensors, and "·" is the scalar product in R n×n or R n , and | · | is the associated norm.
The classical formulation of the mechanical problem is as follows: Here, equation (2.1) represents the linear constitutive law of Kelvin-Voigt [11,17], where σ ε ij , A ε ijkl , and B ε ijkl denote the components of the stress tensor σ ε , the elasticity tensor A ε , and the viscosity tensor B ε , respectively. The dot above represents the time derivative. Relations (2.2) are the quasi-static equations of motion, the indexes i, j, k, l run between 1 and 3, and the summation convention over repeated indexes is used. We denote by e(v) the rate of deformation operator defined by We denote by σ ν ε the Cauchy stress vector [11], and by respectively, the components of the normal, the tangential stress tensor on ε , the normal and the tangential of u ε on ε , and finally, u ε 0 is the initial displacement. To establish a weak formulation of the problem, we use the spaces L 2 ( ε ) 3 , H 1 ( ε ) 3 , and L 2 ( ε ) 3×3 s . The inner products on the spaces L 2 ( ε ) 3 and L 2 ( ε ) 3×3 s are designed equally by ·, · 0, ε , and let · 0, ε be the associated norm, we denote by · 1, ε the associated norm of the space H 1 ( ε ) 3 . We define Following [10], V ε is a real Hilbert space endowed with the inner product From [17], see page 97, we use the real Banach space Q ε ∞ of fourth order tensor fields defined by For every real Banach space H, we use the classical notation for the spaces L p (0, T; H) and W 1,p (0, T; H), 1 ≤ p ≤ +∞. Now, we list the assumptions imposed: A formal application of Green's formula, using (2.1)-(2.8) leads to the weak formulation [10]: where dρ represents the superficial measure on the lateral boundary ε L .
Remark 2.1 If the assumptions of (2.9)-(2.12) hold, for any ε small fixed, then problem (2.13)-(2.14) admits a unique solution u ε that satisfies (see [3,10,15,19]) The aim of the next section is to describe the limit behavior of the displacement as ε tends to zero.

The rescaled problem and asymptotic behavior
To simplify the notation, everywhere in the sequel the indexes α, β, γ , and δ take values in the set {1, 2}. Moreover, x = (x , z) denotes the generic point in R 3 . According to the change of variables z = x 3 /ε, see e.g. [1,8], we define the fixed domain : and we denote by =ω ∪¯ 1 ∪¯ L its boundary with We define the following functions in × [0, T]: Let us define the ε-independent tensorsÂ = (Â ijkl ),B = (B ijkl ): the vectorsf = (f i ),ĝ = (ĝ i ),û 0 = (û 0i ), andk assume the following dependence of the data: For this rescaling, we have the following function spaces: and Consider now the following functional J and the three-linear form : Problem (2.13)-(2.14) leads to the form in the following lemma.

Lemma 3.1
The variational inequality (2.13)-(2.14) is equivalent to the following inequality: Proof Let u ε be a solution of (2.13)-(2.14). For any C ε ∈ Q ε , using the symmetry of (C ε e(u ε )) ij , it follows that, for all v ε in V ε and t ∈ [0, T], we have by passing to the fixed domain , we find εĈ ijkl e kl u ε (t) with v ∈V , the rescaling of the function v ε . Since the boundary ε and ∂ω are Lipschitz continuous, we can write the ε L boundary into a union disjoint from ε L i , i ∈ I, such that each ε L i is the graph of a function φ (i) , its points from the domain which are given by theorem of implicit function, with ∂ 3 φ i = 0, a i and b i are real numbers, the indexes δ i take the value 1 or 2. Puttinĝ We do calculations on the lateral surface ε L to get Thus, by the previous relations, we easily obtain the equivalence between problem (3.1)-(3.2) and (2.13)-(2.14).

Lemma 3.2
Assume that u ε is a solution of (2.13)-(2.14). Then where C denotes an independent constant of ε and t.
Proof First, we recall the Korn and Poincaré inequalities (see [1]), respectively, where C K > 0 is a constant independent of ε. By the Sobolev trace theorem and the above inequality, there exists C 0 > 0 depending only on ε and ε such that However, we can see that the constant C 0 does not depend on ε. To this end, for any function v, we denote its extension from ε to˜ whereh > h max . We denote by˜ L the lateral boundary of˜ , so we have v 0, ε L = v 0,˜ L , ∇v 0, ε = ∇v 0,˜ such that (3.7) is valid for a constant independent of ε. Next, for any t in [0, T], choosing in (2.13) v ε = 0 and integrating over [0, t], it follows from (2.9) and (3.5) that By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (3.6)-(3.7), we have Using now the Young inequality By two previous inequalities and (2.8), inequality (3.8) after multiplying by ε becomes Using the relations ε 3 g ε (s) 2 So, we find estimates (3.3) and (3.4) with m = min(m a , m b ) and As a consequence of estimates (3.3)-(3.4), we obtain the convergence of the solutionû ε of problem (3.1)-(3.2).

Main results and limit problem
In this section, we give the satisfied equations of u * in × [0, T], and we can show the corresponding boundary conditions obtained for system (2.1)-(2.7). For the rest of this article, we denote by ·, · the inner product on the space L 2 ( ) 2 .

Moreover, we have
Proof Let t ∈ [0, T]. By the integral of (3.1) relative to t, we find for every Since the form (Ĉ, ·, ·) is a symmetry and V -elliptic, by using the convergence (3.10), we have This formula can be rewritten using the matrix form A * as follows: An argument similar to that used for (4.5) shows that the functional is lower semi-continuous for the weak topology of W 1,2 (0, T; V z ). Then From (4.5)-(4.6) and (3.9)-(3.10), and by the semi-continuity of t − → t 0 J(u * (s)) ds, we let ε tend to 0 in (4.4) to obtain The condition u * (0) =û 0 is an immediate consequence of (3.9) and (3.2). Thus, by the following equality we conclude that Now, it remains only to use the same method as that used in [11] to derive relation (4.1). To prove (4.3), we use the Green formula in (4.1), and this completes the proof of Theorem 4.1.
In the same way, derive the last relation for the matrix B * . Consequently, |ξ | 2 = 2|η| 2 leads to Hence, inequality (4.8) becomes Since m a , m b > 0, and from Poincaré's inequality, we obtain

Theorem 4.4
Suppose that the componentsÂ α3β3 ,B α3β3 for 1 ≤ α, β ≤ 2 depend only on the variable x , we have the following weak form: where the vectorF = (F α ) α=1,2 is given bỹ  Proof Integrating equality (4.3) over [0, z] two times and taking into accountÂ α3β3 and B α3β3 depending only on x , we infer for all t ∈ [0, T]. As u * α (x , h(x ), t) = 0, α = 1, 2, we have We integrate (4.14) from 0 to h(x ) to obtain From this equality and (4.15), we derive the relation such thatF is already defined in (4.13). Let us finally get the weak form (4.12) if we multiply (4.16) by ∇ψ(x ) and integrate it in ω.

Conclusion
The key to this work lies in the relation between the tensors A ε , B ε and the matrices A * , B * , which played a major role in the passage from u ε to u * . This permits us to deduce that at the limit the phenomenon can be described by the following two-dimensional constitutive law: Such a constitutive law maintains the classical physical and algebraic properties, so we can deduce a corresponding inverse law, see for example [11,17]. Moreover, this law and its traces meet the basic equation of motion in (4.2)-(4.3) and the boundary conditions of the Tresca friction in (4.10)-(4.11). The phenomenon is described mathematically by the weak formula (4.12), known as the Reynolds equation, and has been proved in many papers for the particular cases, see [1,2,4,7,12].
Specifically, if A ε = 0, the model matches the case of the anisotropic linearized elasticity system and has been studied in [13,14]. Other cases in [1,5,6,16,18] related to a homogeneous and isotropic system can also be recovered in a similar manner to [13].
Through the results of this work, we are sure that the behavior of the posed problem for "small" parameters ε is characterized by a clearly defined physical-mathematical model.