Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

-CONVERGENCE AND H-CONVERGENCE OF LINEAR ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

NADIA ANSINI, GIANNI DAL MASO, AND CATERINA IDA ZEPPIERI


Abstract. We consider a sequence of linear Dirichlet problems as follows
(
div(u) = f in ,
u H
1
0
(),
with () uniformly elliptic and possibly non-symmetric. Using purely variational arguments we give
an alternative proof of the compactness of H-convergence, originally proved by Murat and Tartar.
Keywords: linear elliptic operators, -convergence, H-convergence.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication: 35J15, 35J20, 49J45.
1. Introduction
The notion of H-convergence was introduced by Murat and Tartar in [10, 12] to study a wide class
of homogenization problems for possibly non-symmetric elliptic equations. Let

(; R
nn
) be a
sequence of matrices satisfying uniform ellipticity and boundedness conditions on a bounded open set
R
n
. We say that

H-converges to matrix
0
L

(; R
nn
) satisfying the same ellipticity and
boundedness conditions if for every f H
1
() the sequence u

of the solutions to the problems

div(

) = f in ,
u

H
1
0
(),
(1.1) Pe
satisfy
u

u
0
weakly in H
1
0
() and


0
u
0
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
),
where u
0
is the solution to

div(
0
u
0
) = f in ,
u
0
H
1
0
().
The notion of -convergence was introduced by De Giorgi and Franzoni in [5, 6] to study the asymptotic
behavior of the solutions of a wide class of minimization problems depending on a parameter > 0, which
varies in a sequence converging to 0. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let F

: X R be a sequence of
functionals, we say that F

(d)-converges to a functional F
0
: X R if for all x X we have
(i) (liminf inequality) for every sequence x

d
x in X
F
0
(x) liminf
0
F

(x

);
(ii) (limsup inequality) there exists a sequence x

d
x in X such that
F
0
(x) limsup
0
F

( x

).
Preprint SISSA 04/2012/M (March 2012).
1
2 N. ANSINI, G. DAL MASO AND C.I. ZEPPIERI
It has been proved that when

is symmetric, the equation (1.1) has a variational structure since it


can be seen as the Euler-Lagrange equation associated with
T

(u) =
1
2

(x)u udx

f udx,
or, equivalently, as the solution to the minimization problem
minT

(u) : u H
1
0
(). (1.2) i:min
Therefore, in this case (1.2) provides a variational principle for the Dirichlet problem (1.1) and the
convergence of the solutions of (1.1) can be equivalently studied by means of the -convergence, with
respect to the weak topology of H
1
0
(), of the associated functionals T

or in terms of the G-convergence


of the uniformly elliptic, symmetric matrices (

) (see De Giorgi and Spagnolo [7]).


In this paper we consider the equivalence between H-convergence and -convergence in the possibly
non-symmetric case. To every elliptic matrix L

(; R
nn
) we associate a suitable quadratic integral
functional F : L
2
(; R
n
) H
1
0
() [0, +) (see (2.12)) and we consider the -convergence with respect
to the distance d dened by
d((, ), (, )) = | |
H
1
(;R
n
)
+|div( )|
H
1
()
+| |
L
2
()
.
We prove (Theorem 3.2) that the H-convergence of

to
0
is equivalent to the (d)-convergence of
the functionals F

corresponding to

to the functional F
0
corresponding to
0
. In [2] this result was
proved using compactness properties of H-convergence [10, 12], while in the present paper the equivalence
is obtained as a consequence of a general compactness theorem for integral functionals with respect to
(d)-convergence [1]. Moreover, as a consequence of the results proved in [1], we also give an independent
proof (Theorem 3.1) of the compactness of H-convergence based only on -convergence arguments.
2. Notation and preliminaries
In this section we introduce a few notation and we recall some preliminary results we employ in the
sequel. For any A R
nn
we denote by A
s
and A
a
the symmetric and the anti-symmetric part of A,
respectively; i.e.,
A
s
:=
A+A
T
2
, A
a
:=
AA
T
2
,
where A
T
is the transpose matrix of A. We use bold capital letters to denote matrices in R
2n2n
. The
scalar product of two vectors and is denoted by .
Let be an open bounded subset of R
n
. For 0 < c
0
c
1
< +, /(c
0
, c
1
, ) denotes the set of
matrix-valued functions L

(; R
nn
) satisfying
(x) c
0
[[
2
,
1
(x) c
1
1
[[
2
, for every R
n
, for a.e. x , (2.1) ellipticity
or, equivalently, satisfying
(x) c
0
[[
2
, (x) c
1
1
[(x)[
2
, for every R
n
, for a.e. x . (2.2) ellipticity-equiv
Note that (2.1) (or (2.2)) implies that
[(x)[ c
1
for a.e. x ,
and that necessarily c
0
c
1
. To not overburden notation, in all that follows we always write in place
of (x).
Given /(c
0
, c
1
, ) we consider the (2n 2n)-matrix-valued function L

(; R
2n2n
) having
the following block structure
:=

(
s
)
1
(
s
)
1

a
(
s
)
1

a
(
s
)
1

. (2.3) Sigma
-CONVERGENCE AND H-CONVERGENCE OF LINEAR ELLIPTIC OPERATORS 3
Notice that is symmetric. Moreover, the assumption /(c
0
, c
1
, ) easily implies that is uniformly
coercive (see [2, Section 3.1.1] for the details); specically, there exists a constant C(c
0
, c
1
) > 0, depending
only on c
0
and c
1
, such that
w w C(c
0
, c
1
)[w[
2
, (2.4) unif-coer
for every w R
2n
, and a.e. in .
If we consider the matrix-valued functions A, B, C L

(; R
nn
) dened as
A = (
s
)
1
, B = (
s
)
1

a
, C =
s

a
(
s
)
1

a
, (2.5) notaz-comp
the matrix can be rewritten as
=

A B
B
T
C

. (2.6) Sigma-comp
We notice that, for a.e. x , the matrix belongs to the indenite special orthogonal group SO(n, n);
i.e.,
J = J a.e. in , with J =

0 I
I 0

, (2.7) prop_sigma
where I R
nn
is the identity matrix (see [2, Section 3.1.1]). Moreover, taking into account the symmetry
of , it is immediate to show that (2.7) is equivalent to the following system of identities for the block
decomposition (2.6):

AB
T
+BA = 0
AC +B
2
= I,
CB +B
T
C = 0
a.e. in . (2.8) conditions
Conversely, one can prove that, if M L

(; R
2n2n
) is symmetric and has the block decomposition
M =

A B
B
T
C

, (2.9) blockM
with A, B, C L

(; R
nn
), A and C symmetric, and det A ,= 0, then the rst two equations in
(2.8) imply the third one, and (2.8) implies that M is equal to the matrix dened in (2.3) with
= A
1
A
1
B (see [2, Proposition 3.1]).
Throughout the paper the parameter varies in a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real num-
bers converging to zero. Let (

) be a sequence in /(c
0
, c
1
, ) and consider the sequence (

)
L

(; R
2n2n
) dened by (2.3) with =

. Let Q

: L
2
(; R
n
) L
2
(; R
n
) [0, +) be the qua-
dratic forms associated with

; i.e.,
Q

(a, b) :=

a
b

a
b

dx. (2.10) general-Qe


Their gradients gradQ

: L
2
(; R
n
) L
2
(; R
n
) L
2
(; R
n
) L
2
(; R
n
) are given by
gradQ

(a, b) = (A

a +B

b, B
T

a +C

b), (2.11) differential


where A

, B

, and C

are as in (2.5) with =

. We also consider the quadratic forms F

: L
2
(; R
n
)
H
1
0
() [0, +) dened by
F

(, ) := Q

(, ) (2.12) Feps
For every , H
1
(); we consider the sequence of constrained functionals F
,

: L
2
(; R
n
)H
1
0
()
[0, +] dened as follows
F
,

(, ) :=

(, ) , ) if div = ,
+ otherwise,
(2.13) constr-Fe
where , ) denotes the dual paring between H
1
() and H
1
0
().
4 N. ANSINI, G. DAL MASO AND C.I. ZEPPIERI
Given a symmetric matrix M L

(; R
2n2n
), we consider the quadratic functionals Q
M
: L
2
(; R
n
)
L
2
(; R
n
) [0, +) and F
M
: L
2
(; R
n
) H
1
0
() [0, +) dened by
Q
M
(a, b) :=

a
b

a
b

dx and F
M
(, ) := Q
M
(, ) . (2.14) QM-FM
Considering the block decomposition (2.9), the gradient of Q
M
is given by
gradQ
M
(a, b) = (Aa +Bb, B
T
a +Cb) . (2.15) differentialQM
Finally, for every , H
1
(); we consider the constrained functional F
,
M
: L
2
(; R
n
) H
1
0
()
[0, +] dened as follows
F
,
M
(, ) :=

F
M
(, ) , ) if div = ,
+ otherwise.
Let w be the weak topology of L
2
(; R
n
) H
1
0
() and let d be the distance in L
2
(; R
n
) H
1
0
()
dened by
d((, ), (, )) = | |
H
1
(;R
n
)
+|div( )|
H
1
()
+| |
L
2
()
.
The following result is proved in [1, Corollary 2.9].
Gamma-conv-Qe Theorem 2.1. Let (

) be a sequence in /(c
0
, c
1
, ). There exist a subsequences of , not relabeled, and
a symmetric matrix M L

(; R
2n2n
), such that the functionals F

dened by (2.12) (d)-converge to


the functional F
M
dened in (2.14). Moreover, M is positive denite and satises the coercivity condition
(2.4).
The following result is a consequence of [1, Theorem 3.3] and of the stability of -convergence under
continuous perturbations.
100 Theorem 2.2. Let (

) be a sequence in /(c
0
, c
1
, ) and let M L

(; R
2n2n
) be a symmetric,
positive dene matrix satisfying (2.4). Assume that the functionals F

dened by (2.12) (d)-converge to


the functional F
M
dened in (2.14). Then, for every , H
1
(), the functionals (F
,

) dened by
(2.13) (w)-converges to the functional F
,
dened by
F
,
(, ) :=

F
M
(, ) , ) if div = ,
+ otherwise.
For the readers sake, here we briey recall a fundamental tool we employ in what follows, the
Cherkaev-Gibiansky variational principle [3] (see also Fannjiang-Papanicolaou [8] and Milton [9]) , which
will be presented in the notational setting which is suitable for our purposes. Loosely speaking, this
variational principle amounts to associate to the two following Dirichlet problems

div(

) = f in ,
u

H
1
0
(),

div(
T

) = g in ,
v

H
1
0
().
(2.16) EL-sys
with f, g H
1
(), a quadratic functional whose Euler-Lagrange equation is solved by a suitable com-
bination of solutions to (2.16) and of their momenta. We set
a

:=

and b

:=
T

. (2.17) abeps
-CONVERGENCE AND H-CONVERGENCE OF LINEAR ELLIPTIC OPERATORS 5
For every > 0, , H
1
() the unique minimizer (

) of F
,

satises the constraint div

=
and the following system of Euler-Lagrange equations:

(A

+B

) dx = 0,

(B
T

+C

) dx = , ),
(2.18) EL
for every L
2
(; R
n
) with div = 0 and for every H
1
0
().
If u

, v

satisfy (2.16) then we can prove (see [2, Section 3.2] for details) that the pair
(a

+b

, u

) (2.19) pair1
solves (2.18), with = f +g, = f g, and thus minimizes F
f+g,fg

.
In the same way, it can be seen that the pair
(a

, u

+v

) (2.20) pair2
minimizes F
fg,f+g

.
3. The main result
In this section we state and prove the main result of this paper: an alternative and purely variational
proof of the sequential compactness of /(c
0
, c
1
, ) with respect to H-convergence, originally proved by
Murat and Tartar [10, 12].
main-theo Theorem 3.1 (Compactness of H-convergence). Let (

) be a sequence in /(c
0
, c
1
, ). Then there
exist a subsequence (not relabeled) and a matrix
0
/(c
0
, c
1
, ) such that (

) H-converges to
0
and
(
T

) H-converges to
T
0
.
Proof. By Theorem 2.1 there exist a subsequence of F

, not relabeled, and a symmetric, positive denite


matrix M L

(; R
2n2n
), with the block decomposition (2.9), such that F

(d)-converges to F
M
.
In the rest of this proof we show that (

) H-converges to
0
and (
T

) H-converges to
T
0
, where

0
:= A
1
A
1
B.
Let f, g H
1
(), let u

, v

be as in (2.16), and let a

, b

be as in (2.17). By standard variational


estimates we have that (u

) and (v

) are bounded in H
1
0
() while (a

) and (b

) are bounded in L
2
(; R
n
).
Therefore, up to subsequences (not relabeled),
u

u
0
, v

v
0
weakly in H
1
0
() and a

a
0
, b

b
0
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
), (3.1) convergence-1
for some u
0
, v
0
H
1
0
() and a
0
, b
0
L
2
(; R
n
).
Since (a

+b

, u

) are minimizers of F
f+g,fg

and these functionals -converge to F


f+g,fg
M
by
Theorem 2.2, appealing to the fundamental property of -convergence we nd that
lim
0
F
f+g,fg

(a

+b

, u

) = F
f+g,fg
M
(a
0
+b
0
, u
0
v
0
) = minF
f+g,fg
M
. (3.2) conv-min-1
Similarly, since (a

, u

+v

) minimizes F
fg,f+g

, we have also
lim
0
F
fg,f+g

(a

, u

+v

) = F
fg,f+g
M
(a
0
b
0
, u
0
+v
0
) = minF
fg,f+g
M
. (3.3) conv-min-2
Thanks to Theorem 2.2, (3.2), (3.3), and in view of [1, Proposition 2.10] we are now in a position to
invoke the result about the convergence of momenta proved in [1, Corollary 4.6], hence we obtain
gradQ

(a

+b

, u

) gradQ
M
(a +b, u v) , (3.4)
gradQ

(a

, u

+v

) gradQ
M
(a
0
b
0
, u
0
+v
0
) (3.5)
6 N. ANSINI, G. DAL MASO AND C.I. ZEPPIERI
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
) L
2
(; R
n
). By (2.11) and (2.15), considering only the rst component, we get
A

(a

+b

) +B

(u

) A(a
0
+b
0
) +B(u
0
v
0
), (3.6)
A

(a

) +B

(u

+v

) A(a
0
b
0
) +B(u
0
+v
0
) (3.7)
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
). Since by (2.5) A

(a

+ b

) + B

(u

) = u

+ v

and A

(a

) +
B

(u

+v

) = u

, from (3.6) and (3.7) we deduce that


u

+v

A(a
0
+b
0
) +B(u
0
v
0
), (3.8)
u

A(a
0
b
0
) +B(u
0
+v
0
) (3.9)
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
). Hence, adding up (3.8) and (3.9) entails u

Aa
0
+Bu
0
in L
2
(; R
n
), which
gives u
0
= Aa
0
+Bu
0
by (3.1). This implies
a
0
=
0
u
0
, (3.10) a*equal
with

0
:= A
1
A
1
B. (3.11) sigma
Since diva

= f, by (2.16) and (2.17) we get that diva


0
= f. Hence, (3.10) implies that u
0
is the
solution to

div(
0
u
0
) = f in ,
u
0
H
1
0
().
(3.12) Dirichletu
So far we have proved that for every f H
1
() the solutions u

of (2.16) converge weakly in H


1
0
()
to the solution u
0
of (3.12) and their momenta

converge weakly in L
2
(; R
n
) to
0
u
0
. Thus, to
conclude the proof of the H-convergence of (

) to
0
it remains to show that
0
belongs to /(c
0
, c
1
, ).
To this end, let u H
1
0
() and choose
f := div(
0
u); (3.13) fw
in this way the solution u
0
of the equation (3.12) coincides with u.
Let C

c
(). Using u

as a test function in the equation div(

) = f and then passing to


the limit on we get

fu
0
dx = lim
0

fu

dx = lim
0

)dx

0
u
0
u
0
dx, (3.14) test1
where to compute the limit of the last term in (3.14) we appealed to the strong L
2
() convergence of u

to u
0
. On the other hand, since by (3.12)

fu
0
dx =

(
0
u
0
u
0
)dx +

0
u
0
u
0
dx
from (3.14) we deduce that
lim
0

)dx =

(
0
u
0
u
0
)dx, (3.15) div-curl
for every C

c
(). Hence, choosing 0, combining (3.15), the rst condition in (2.1), and the
equality u = u
0
, we have

(
0
u u)dx c
0
liminf
0

[u

[
2
dx c
0

[u[
2
dx,
the second inequality following from u

u
0
= u in L
2
(; R
n
). Since this inequality holds true for
every C

c
(), 0, we get that

0
u u c
0
[u[
2
a.e. in , (3.16) ellip-1
-CONVERGENCE AND H-CONVERGENCE OF LINEAR ELLIPTIC OPERATORS 7
for every u H
1
0
(). Using the second condition in (2.2), we nd

(
0
u u)dx c
1
1
liminf
0

[
2
dx c
1
1

[
0
u[
2
dx,
since


0
u
0
=
0
u in L
2
(; R
n
). From the previous inequality we deduce

0
u u c
1
1
[
0
u[
2
a.e. in , (3.17) ellip-2
for every u H
1
0
(). Finally, (2.2) follows from (3.16) and (3.17) by taking u to be ane in an open set
.
We now prove that
T

H-converges to
T
0
. Subtracting (3.9) from (3.8) gives v

Ab
0
Bv
0
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
); the latter combined with (3.1) imply that v
0
= Ab Bv
0
. We deduce then
b
0
= v
0
, (3.18) conv-trasp
where
:= A
1
+A
1
B. (3.19) sigmatilde
Since divb

= g by (2.16) and (2.17), we get divb


0
= g, so that (3.18) implies that v
0
is the solution
to

div( v
0
) = g in ,
v
0
H
1
0
().
(3.20) Dirichletv
As in the previous part of the proof, this implies that
T

H-converges to . We want to prove that


=
T
0
.
To this end, we argue as in the previous step. Let u, v H
1
0
(). We choose f := div(
0
u) and
g := div( v) and we consider the corresponding solutions u

and v

of (2.16). Since u coincides with


the solution u
0
of (3.12) and v coincides with the solution v
0
of (3.20), the H-convergence of

entails
u

u
0
= u weakly in H
1
0
() and


0
u
0
=
0
u weakly in L
2
(; R
n
),
while the H-convergence of (
T

) yields
v

v
0
= v weakly in H
1
0
() and
T

v
0
= v weakly in L
2
(; R
n
).
Let C

c
(); using v

as test function in the equation for u

, we get

f(v

) dx =

)dx +

dx.
Therefore, appealing to the strong L
2
() convergence of v

to v and using v as a test function in (3.12),


we obtain
lim
0

)dx =

f(v) dx

0
u vdx
=

0
u (v) dx

0
u vdx =

(
0
u v)dx. (3.21)
Moreover, arguing in a similar way, using now u

as test function in the equation for v

, it is easy to
show that
lim
0

(
T

)dx =

( v u)dx. (3.22) lim2


Then (3.21) and (3.22) yield

(
0
u v)dx =

( u v)dx for every C

c
().
8 N. ANSINI, G. DAL MASO AND C.I. ZEPPIERI
Arguing as in the previous proof of (2.2) we deduce from this equality that

0
= a.e. in ,
for every , R
n
. This implies that =
T
0
a.e. in which concludes the proof of the theorem.
Given
0
/(c
0
, c
1
, ), the matrix
0
and the functionals Q
0
, F
0
, and F
,
0
are dened as in (2.6),
(2.10), (2.12), and (2.13) with =
0
.
Equivalence-Theo Theorem 3.2. Let (

) be a sequence in /(c
0
, c
1
, ) and let
0
/(c
0
, c
1
, ). The following conditions
are equivalent:
(a)

H-converges to
0
;
(b)
T

H-converges to
T
0
;
(c) F

(d)-converges to F
0
;
(d) F
,

(w) to F
,
0
for every , H
1
().
Proof. The equivalence between (a) and (b) follows immediately from Theorem 3.1. The implication (c)
(d) is given by Theorem 2.2. The implication (d) (a) is obtained in the proof of Theorem 3.1. It
remains to prove that (a) and (b) imply (c). By Theorem 2.1 we may assume that F

(d)-converges to
F
M
where M L

(; R
2n2n
) is a positive denite, symmetric matrix satisfying the coercivity condition
(2.4).
To prove that M SO(n, n) we consider the block decomposition (2.9). In Theorem 3.1 we proved
that
0
= A
1
A
1
B and
T
0
= = A
1
+A
1
B; hence, we immediately deduce that
AB
T
+BA = 0 a.e. in . (3.23) rel1
It remains to prove the second condition in (2.8). Let us x f, g H
1
() and let u

, v

, a

, b

be as in
(2.16) and (2.17). By (2.11), (2.15), (3.4), and (3.5) using only the second component we get
B
T

(a

+b

) +C

(u

) =

B
T
(a
0
+b
0
) +C(u
0
v
0
) (3.24)
B
T

(a

) +C

(u

+v

) =

+
T

B
T
(a
0
b
0
) +C(u
0
v
0
) (3.25)
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
). Then, adding up (3.24) and (3.25) we get

B
T
a
0
+Cu
0
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
); on the other hand, since

= a

a
0
weakly in L
2
(; R
n
), we obtain
a
0
= B
T
a
0
+Cu
0
.
Since in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we already showed that a
0
= (A
1
A
1
B)u
0
, we nally obtain
(I B
T
)(A
1
A
1
B) u
0
= C u
0
a.e. in .
Therefore, suitably choosing f as in (3.13) and arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we can easily
deduce that
(I B
T
)(A
1
A
1
B) = C a.e. in , for every R
n
,
thus, by the arbitrariness of R
n
, we get
(I B
T
)(A
1
A
1
B) = C a.e. in .
The latter combined with (3.23) leads to
AC +B
2
= I a.e. in . (3.26) rel2
Eventually, by (3.23) and (3.26) we can apply [2, Proposition 3.1] and we deduce that M SO(n, n) a.e.
in and that M is equal to the matrix dened in (2.3) with = A
1
A
1
B. Since we have also

0
= A
1
A
1
B, we conclude that M =
0
.
-CONVERGENCE AND H-CONVERGENCE OF LINEAR ELLIPTIC OPERATORS 9
Acknowledgments. This material is based on work supported by the Italian Ministry of Education,
University, and Research under the Project Variational Problems with Multiple Scales 2008 and by the
European Research Council under Grant No. 290888 Quasistatic and Dynamic Evolution Problems in
Plasticity and Fracture.
References
ADMZ [1] N. Ansini, G. Dal Maso, and C. I. Zeppieri, New results on -limits of integral functionals, preprint SISSA, Trieste
(2012).
AZ [2] N. Ansini and C. I. Zeppieri, Asymptotic analysis of non-symmetric linear operators via -convergence. SIAM J. Math.
Anal. (2012) to appear.
CG [3] A. V. Cherkaev and L. V. Gibiansky, Variational principles for complex conductivity, viscoelasticity, and similar prob-
lems in media with complex moduli. J. Math. Phys. (1), 35 (1994), 127-145.
DM [4] G. Dal Maso, An Introduction to -convergence, Birkhauser, Boston, 1993.
DeG [5] E. De Giorgi, Sulla convergenza di alcune successioni di integrali del tipo dellarea. Rend. Mat. 8 (1975), 277294.
DeGF [6] E. De Giorgi and T. Franzoni, Su un tipo di convergenza variazionale, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Cl. Sci. Mat.
Fis. Natur. 58 (1975), 842850.
DeGS [7] E. De Giorgi and S. Spagnolo, Sulla convergenza degli integrali dellenergia per operatori ellittici del secondo ordine.
Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. 8 (1973), 391411.
FP [8] A. Fannjiang and G. Papanicolaou, Convection enhanced diusion for periodic ows. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 54 (1994),
333408.
M [9] G. W. Milton, On characterizing the set of possible eective tensors of composites: the variational method and the
translation method. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 43 (1990), no. 1, 63-125.
Mu [10] F. Murat, H-convergence. Seminaire dAnalyse Fonctionelle et Numerique de lUniversite dAlger, 1977.
T76 [11] L. Tartar, Quelques remarques sur lhomogeneisation. Proc. of Japan-France seminar 1976 Functional analysis and
numerical analysis, 469482, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 1978.
T77 [12] L. Tartar, Cours Peccot au Coll`ege de France. Paris 1977.
T [13] L. Tartar, The general theory of homogenization. A personalized introduction. Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica
Italiana, 7. Springer-Verlag, Berlin; UMI, Bologna, 2009.
(Nadia Ansini) Dipartimento di Matematica G. Castelnuovo, Sapienza Universit` a di Roma, Piazzale Aldo
Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy
E-mail address, Nadia Ansini: ansini@mat.uniroma1.it
(Gianni Dal Maso) SISSA, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy
E-mail address, Gianni Dal Maso: dalmaso@sissa.it
(Caterina Ida Zeppieri) Institut f ur Angewandte Mathematik, Universit at Bonn, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115
Bonn, Germany
E-mail address, Caterina Ida Zeppieri: zeppieri@uni-bonn.de