c 1999 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

SIAM J. MATH. ANAL.

Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 190{219, February 1999

002

Bulk and contact energies:

Nucleation and relaxation

Irene Fonsecay and Giovanni Leoniz

Abstract. An integral representation formula in BV (

; Rp ) for the relaxation H(u;
) with
respect to the L1 topology of functionals of the general form
H (u;
) :=

h(x; u(x); ru(x)) dx +

(x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x); u 2 W 1;1 (

; Rp );

is obtained. Here
 RN is an open, bounded set of class C 2 , T is the trace operator on @
and
HN 1 is the N 1 dimensional Hausdor measure. The main hypotheses on the functions h and  are
that h(x; u;
) is quasiconvex and has linear growth, and that (x;
) is Lipschitz. The understanding
of nucleation phenomena for materials undergoing phase transitions leads to the study of constrained
minimization problems of the type

inf H(u;
) +

 (x; u(x)) dx : u 2 BV (
; K ) ;

where K is a nonempty compact subset of Rp , and  :

 K ! R is a continuous function. It
is shown that if  (x;
) is a double well potential vanishing only at  and  , then minimizers u of
the total energy are given by pure phases, that is, there exists
u 
such that u(x) =  for LN
a.e. x 2
u (liquid) and u(x) =  for LN a.e. x 2
n
u (solid). This conclusion is closely related
to results previously obtained by Visintin, and where the interfacial energy is assumed to satisfy a
generalized co-area formula. Here this condition is replaced by a property which may be veried by
energies for which the co-area formula might not hold.

Key words. functions of bounded variation, nucleation, relaxation, bulk and contact energies,
generalized co-area formula
AMS subject classications. 49J45, 49Q20, 49N60, 73T05, 73V30

1. Introduction.

This paper is divided into two parts. In the rst part we obtain an integral
representation formula in BV (
; Rp ) for the relaxation H(u;
) with respect to the
L1 topology of functionals of the general form
(1.1)
Z
Z
H (u;
) := h(x; u(x); ru(x)) dx + (x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x); u 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp );
@

RN is an open, bounded set of class C 2 , T is the trace operator on @

where

and HN 1 is the N 1 dimensional Hausdor measure. The main hypotheses on the
functions h and  are that h(x; u;
) is quasiconvex and has linear growth, and that
(x;
) is Lipschitz.

y Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

z Center for Nonlinear Analysis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Department of Mathematics, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy 06123.

190

191

nucleation and relaxation

Under a degenerate coercivity assumption on h(x; u;
) we obtain the following

integral representation for u 2 BV (
; Rp )

H(u;
) = h(x; u(x); ru(x)) dx + h1 (x; u(x); dC (u))

(1.2)

ZS(u)\

+
Kh (x; u (x); u (x); u (x)) dHN 1 (x)

(x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x);

where ru is the density of the absolutely continuous part of the distributional derivative Du with respect to the N {dimensional Lebesgue measure LN , (u+ u ) is the
jump across the interface S (u), and C (u) is the Cantor part of Du. For the canonical
model where h(x; u; ru) := jruj,  > 0, the relaxed energy H(u;
) reduces to
(1.3)

H(u;
) =  jDuj +

(x; T u) dHN 1 ;

u 2 BV (
; Rp ):

In the scalar case where p = 1 the lower semicontinuity of the functional (1.3) was
proved by Massari and Pepe [MP] when (x; u) := ^ juj, with j^ j  , and by Modica
[Mo2] under the assumption that
(1.4)
j(x; u) (x; u1 )j  ju u1 j

for all x 2 @
and all u, u1 2 R.
One of the motivations for the introduction of a relaxed energy is that nonconvex variational problems may not have a minimizer in the space of smooth functions,
therefore in order to apply the direct method of Calculus of Variations one has to extend the original functional. Although Sobolev spaces are considered to be the natural
extension to the space of smooth functions, in recent years the theory of phase transitions, and the need to determine eective energies for materials exhibiting instabilities
such as fractures and defects, have led us to further extend the domain of functionals
of the form (1.1) in order to include functions u which present discontinuities along
surfaces. Motivated somewhat by Lebesgue's denition of surface area, Serrin in [Se1,
Se2] proposed the following notion for the relaxed energy of H (u;
) (in the case where
  0)

lim inf H (un;

) : un 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp ); un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ) :
H(u;
) := finf
un g n!1
One of the main issues in the Calculus of Variations concerns the search and characterization of an integral representation for H(u;
) in the space BV (
; Rp ).
In the scalar case where p = 1 and h(x; u;
) is convex, the integral representation
(1.2) was rst obtained by Goman and Serrin [GSe] when h = h(ru) (see also
[Re]), and by Giaquinta, G. Modica and Soucek [GMS] for h = h(x; ru). These
results were then extended by Dal Maso [DM] who considered the general case where
h = h(x; u; ru), and emphasized the important role of the coercivity condition in
establishing (1.2). Indeed, Dal Maso showed that, while (1.2) holds for nonnegative
functions h = h(u; ru) without any lower bound on h, when h = h(x; ru), or, more
generally, when h = h(x; u; ru), the representation (1.2) may fail unless one requires

192

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

a weak coercivity assumption of the form

(1.5)
h(x; u; ru)  g(x; u)jruj:
In the vectorial case where p > 1 and h(x; u;
) is quasiconvex, Ambrosio and Dal Maso
[ADM2] proved (1.2) when h = h(ru) and without (1.5). Independently, Fonseca and
Muller [FM2] obtained this result for general functions h(x; u; ru) which verify (1.5).
In all the works mentioned above   0, and one of the purposes of this paper
is to extend these results to the new case where possibly  6 0. The relaxation
of functionals of the type (1.1) arises in the van der Waals{Cahn{Hilliard theory of
phase
for uids (cf. [CH1, CH 2, vdW]). In this context the boundary term
R (x;transitions
T
u
)
dH
N 1 represents the contact energy between the uid and the container
@

walls, where (x; u) is the contact energy per unit area when the density is u (see [C,
G]).
We present here two relaxation results. In Theorem 3.5 we show that, without
any a priori coercivity on the function h, the functional on the right hand side of (1.2)
actually gives the integral representation for the following relaxed energy
lim inf H (u ;
) : u 2 W 1;1(
; Rp ); u !> u in L1(
; Rp );
Hb (u;
) = finf
n
n
n
u g n!1
n

sup jjun jjW 1;1 < 1 ;

n

while in Theorem 3.2 we prove that Hb (u;

) = H(u;
) if h satises a condition of
the type (1.5). Therefore we may conclude that the right hand side of (1.2) always
coincides with Hb (u;
), and we restate all the results mentioned above by saying that
Hb (u;
) = H(u;
) in the scalar case if either h = h(u; ru) or if h = h(x; u; ru)
satises (1.5), and in the vectorial case if either h = h(ru) or if h = h(x; u; ru)
satises (1.5). In the remaining cases it may happen that H(u;
) < Hb (u;
) .
It is worth mentioning that the fact that the relaxationR H(u;
) is simply given
by the decoupled sum of the relaxation of the functional
h(x; u; ru) dx and the
contact energy may be somewhat deceiving, since it hides the competition between
the bulk energy and the contact energy. A more insightful way to look at (1.1), and
consequently, at (1.2), is perhaps to consider the equivalent form
(1.6)

Z 

H (u;
) = h(x; u(x); ru(x)) + '(x)
ruT (x)ru (x; u(x)) dx

Z
Z
+

(x; u(x))div '(x) dx +

'(x)
rx (x; u(x)) dx;

where ' 2 C 1 (RN ; RN ) depends only on

and j'(x)j < 1 in
(see Lemma 2.1). In
particular, in the isotropic case where h(x; u; ru) := jruj,  > 0, we obtain

Z 

 jru(x)j + '(x)
ruT (x)ru (x; u(x)) dx
H (u;
) =

Z
Z
+

(x; u(x))div '(x) dx +

'(x)
rx (x; u(x)) dx;

and it is clear that the functional H is not bounded from below in general, unless one
assumes a condition of the type
jru (x; u)j   for a. e. x 2
and for all u 2 Rp ;

193

nucleation and relaxation

which is essentially the condition found by Massari and Pepe [MP] and by Modica
[Mo2]. We note that once (1.1) is written in the form (1.6), well known integral
representation results for relaxation of bulk energy functionals apply (see [FM2, FR]).
This is illustrated rst on Section 2 in the scalar case p = 1 and for a class of energies
including the typical ones considered by Visintin (see [V1, V2]),
h(x; u;  ) :=  j j; (x; u) := ^ u:
More general models, relevant to the study of anisotropic materials and nonlinear
contact forces, are studied in Section 3. In particular, degenerate bounds for the bulk
energy density h, as introduced in [FM2] in the vectorial case, may prove to be useful
in the analysis of phase transition problems.
In the second part of the paper, Sections 4 and 5, we are concerned with constrained minimization problems of the type

inf H(u;
) +

 (x; u(x)) dx : u 2 BV (
; K ) ;

where K is a nonempty compact set of Rp , and  :

 K ! R is a continuous
function. This kind of problems has important applications in the study of phase
transformations and in nucleation phenomena (cf. [V1, V2]). According to the van
der Waals{Cahn{Hilliard theory of phase transitions (cf. [CH1, CH2, vdW]), the total
energy of a uid of total mass m and density u(x) conned in a bounded container

 RN , is given by
(1.7)
Z
Z
Z
E" (u) := "2 jruj2 dx + W1 (u) dx + " W2 (T u) dHN 1 ; u 2 W 1;1 (
; R);

where the coarse{grain energy W1 (u) is a double well potential vanishing only at  and
 and corresponding to the stable two{phase conguration of the uid, the gradient
term "2 jruj2 models the interfacial energy across a smooth transition layer, with "
a small parameter, and W2 represents the contact energy between the uid and the
container walls. The stable congurations of the uid correspond to solutions of the
problem (see [C])

inf E" (u) : u 2 W 1;1 (

; R);

u dx = m :

Conrming a conjecture of Gurtin [G], Modica in [Mo2] was able to show that if a
sequence of minimizers fu" g converges in L1 to a function u0 , then u0 solves the
liquid{drop problem
inf fH(u;
) : u 2 BV (
; f;  g)g ;
where H(u;
) is the relaxed energy of

H (u;
) =

jruj dx + ^

T u dHN 1 ;

u 2 W 1;1 (
; R):

Here ^ depends only on W1 and W2 . The liquid{drop problem admits a solution if

and only if j^ j  1. An analogous result is due to Alberti, Bouchitte and Seppecher
[ABS] who recently showed that if the parameter " in front of the contact energy in

194

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

(1.7) is replaced by " , where

lim " log " = K 2 (0; 1)

"!0

and W2 is a double well potential which vanishes only at 1 and 1 , then the limit
problem is given by a dierent model for capillarity with line tension. It is worth
noting that in this case the eective energy takes the form

H(u;
) =

jD(G(u))j

Z

jG(T u) G(v)j dHN 1 + K jDvj2 : v 2 BV (@

; f1 ; 1 g)
@

p
for u 2 BV (
; f;  g) and H(u;
) = 1 otherwise. Here G is a primitive of 2 W1 . It
+ inf

can be seen immediately that in this capillarity model the contact energy is nonlocal
and strongly nonlinear, and again this leads us to considering functions  other than
(x; u) = ^ u (see [V1, V2] and Section 3).
In the last section of the paper we prove some minimization results which are
related to solid nucleation. For a complete description of this phenomenon we refer to
the recent monograph of Visintin [V1] and to the bibliography contained therein. By
solid nucleation we mean the formation of a new solid phase, that is of a connected
component of solid in a liquid. If the new solid phase is formed in the interior of the
liquid, the nucleation is called homogeneous, while if it is also in contact with other
substances, such as the container, impurities dispersed in the liquid or nucleants, then
we name it heterogeneous nucleation (cf. [V1, Ch. VII.2]). By thinking of these
impurities or particles as holes in the domain
, we can represent the contact energy
by an integral term over the boundary of
. Furthermore, since the new solid phase
is formed through crystallization,
and crystals are
R anisotropic, the classical isotropic
R
interfacial energy 
jDuj is now replaced by
h(x; Du). In the applications one
sees often h(x; Du) = jA(x)Duj, where A(x) is a nonnegative denite N  N tensor
(cf. [V1, p. 157]).
The main results of this part are Theorems 5.1 and 5.4, where we show that
minimizers u of the total energy are given by pure phases, that is, there exists
u 

such that u(x) =  for LN a.e. x 2

u (liquid) and u(x) =  for LN a.e. x 2
n
u
(solid). This result is closely related to Theorem 2 in [V2], where the interfacial energy
is assumed to satisfy a generalized co-area formula. We replace here this condition by
some hypotheses
R which are easy to verify and allow us to include interfacial energies
of the form
h(x; Du), where h(x;
) is convex and positively homogeneous of degree
one, and for which the co-area formula might not hold.

2. Relaxation: A Simple Model Problem.

In what follows
 RN is an open, bounded set of class C 2 , and T stands for
the trace operator on @
.
In this section we characterize the relaxed energy H when
(A1 ) h :
 RN ! [0; +1) is a continuous function;
(A2 ) h(x;
) is convex for all x 2
;
(A3 ) j j  h(x;  )  C (1 + j j); for some ; C > 0, and for all (x;  ) 2
 RN ;
(A4 ) (x; u) := ^ u; for some j^ j   and for all (x; u) 2
 R.

195

nucleation and relaxation

The main idea is to rewrite

H (u;
) :=

h(x; ru(x)) dx +

^ T u(x) dHN 1 (x); u 2 W 1;1 (

; Rp );

as a bulk energy and then apply known relaxation results from W 1;1 to BV (see, e.g.,
[DM, FM2]).
We start with some notation. For any  2 S N 1 := fx 2 RN : jxj = 1g let
f1 ;


; N 1 ;  g be an orthonormal basis of RN varying continuously with  , and
Q := fx 2 RN : jx
i j < 1=2; jx
 j < 1=2; i = 1;


; N 1g be a unit cube centered
at the origin with two of its faces orthogonal to the direction  .
If g is a positively homogeneous function of degree one and if  is a Rm {valued
measure then we dene

g(d) :=

g((x)) dj(x)j;

where jj is the nonnegative total variation measure of , and  :

! S m 1 is the
Radon{Nikodym derivative of  with respect to jj.
We recall brie y some facts about functions of bounded variation which will be
useful in the sequel. A function u 2 L1 (
; Rp ) is said to be of bounded variation if for
all i = 1;


p, and j = 1;


N , there exists a Radon measure ij such that

@' (x) dx =
ui (x) @x
j

'(x) dij

for every ' 2 C01 (

; R). The distributional derivative Du is the matrix{valued measure
with components ij . Given u 2 BV (
; Rp ) the approximate upper and lower limit of
each component ui , i = 1;


p, are given by


u+(x) := inf t 2 R : lim 1 LN (fy 2
\ B (x; ") : u (y) > tg) = 0
i

and

"!0+ "N

ui (x) := sup t 2 R : "!

lim+ "1N LN (fy 2
\ B (x; ") : ui (y) < tg) = 0 ;
0

while the jump set of u, or singular set, is dened by

S (u) := [pi=1 fx 2
: ui (x) < u+i (x)g:
It is well known that S (u) is N 1 rectiable, i.e.
S (u) = [1
n=1 Kn [ E;
where HN 1 (E ) = 0 and Kn is a compact subset of a C 1 hypersurface. If x 2
nS (u)
then u(x) is taken as the common value of (u+1 (x);


; u+p (x)) and (u1 (x);


; up (x)).
It can be shown that u(x) 2 Rp for HN 1 a.e. x 2
nS (u). Furthermore, for HN 1
a.e. x 2 S (u) there exist a unit vector u (x) 2 S N 1 , normal to S (u) at x, and two
vectors u (x), u+ (x) 2 Rp (the traces of u on S (u) at the point x) such that
Z
1
ju(y) u+ (x)jN=(N 1) dy = 0
lim
r!0 rN fy2B (x0 ;r): (y x)
u (x)>0g

196

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

1 Z
lim
r!0 rN

and

ju(y) u (x)jN=(N 1) dy = 0:
fy2B(x0 ;r):(y x)
u (x)<0g
Note that in general (ui )+ 6= (u+ )i and (ui ) =
6 (u )i . Moreover, the Sobolev inequality

Z

(N

ju(x)jN=(N 1) dx

1)=N

 C (N )jjujjBV

holds in BV (
; Rp ) when N > 1. Finally, Du may be represented as
Du = ru LN + (u+ u )
u HN 1 b S (u) + C (u);
where ru is the density of the absolutely continuous part of Du with respect to the
N {dimensional Lebesgue measure LN . These three measures are mutually singular.
Lemma 2.1. There exists ' 2 C01 (RN ; RN ) with j'(x)j < 1 in
such that for
any v 2 BV (
; Rp )

T v(x) dHN 1 (x) =

v(x)div '(x) dx +

'(x)
d(D(v(x))):

Proof. Since @
is compact and of class C 2 , we can nd a nite open covering
fUj gj of @
, where Uj are balls centered at points of @
, j = 1;


; P , and for each
Uj there is a C 2 dieomorphism j : Uj ! j (Uj ) such that j (Uj )  B (0; Rj )  RN
for some Rj > 0,
(2.1)

\ Uj = fx 2 Uj : (j (x))N < 0g

and for x 2 @
\ Uj the exterior normal to @
at x is given by
rT (x) e
n(x;
) = jrjT (x) eN j :
N
j

Let be a partition of the unity for [Pj=1 Uj subordinate to fUj gj . For any 2
there exists j 2 f1;


; P g such that 2 C01 (Uj ), and we dene

rT (x) e 
(2.2)
' (x) := jrTj (x) eN j 1 + (jR(x))N (x);
j
N
j
then ' (x) 2 C01 (Uj ; RN ) and j' (x)j < 1 for x 2
\ Uj . If we set ' to be zero
outside Uj we obtain that ' (x) 2 C01 (RN ; RN ), and thus we can apply the Trace
Theorem (cf. [EG,Th. 5.3.1]) to the BV function v, and we have

' (x)
n(x;
) T v(x) dHN 1 (x)
=

v(x)div ' (x) dx +

' (x)
d(D(v(x))):

On the other hand, since by (2.1) ' (x) = n(x;

) (x) if x 2 @
\ Uj , while ' (x) = 0
if x 2 @
nUj , we get

' (x)
n(x;

) T v(x) dHN 1 (x) =

(x)T v(x) dHN 1 (x):

197

nucleation and relaxation

Hence

T v(x) dHN 1 (x) =

XZ
2 @

(x)T v(x) dHN 1 (x)

0
1
1
Z 0X
X
= v(x) div @ ' (x)A dx + @ ' (x)A
d(D(v(x))):

2
2
P
The proof of Lemma 2.1 is complete if we show that '(x) := 2 ' (x) satises
j'(x)j < 1 in
. Fix x 2
. If x 2= [Pj=1 Uj then '(x) = 0. If x 2 [Pj=1 Uj then
P
(x) = 1, and so there exists at least one 2 such that (x) > 0. Let
Z

j 2 f1;


; P g be such that 0 2 C01 (Uj ). Then by (2.1) and (2.2)



j' 0 (x)j = 1 + (jR(x))N 0 (x) < 0 (x);
j
and consequently, since (x) = 0 for all but nitely many 2 ,
X
X
j'(x)j  j' (x)j <
(x) = 1:
2

Using this lemma, we are now in position to obtain an integral representation for
the relaxed energy
n
o
1;1 (
; Rp ); un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ) :
lim
inf
H
(
u
;

)
:
u
2
W
H(u;
) := finf
n
n
u g n!1
n

Theorem 2.2.

H(u;
) = h(x; ru(x)) dx + h1 (x; dC (u))

ZS(u)\

h1 (x; (u+ (x) u+ (x))

u (x)) dHN 1 (x)

^ T u(x) dHN 1 (x);

where the recession function h1 of h is dened as
h(x; t  )
h1 (x;  ) := tlim
!1 t :
+

Proof. In light of Lemma 2.1 we may rewrite the energy H (u;

) as

H (u;
) = [h(x; ru(x)) + ^ '(x)
ru(x)] dx +
=

f (x; ru(x)) dx +

^ u(x)div'(x) dx

^ u(x)div'(x) dx

where j'j < 1 in

, and f (x;  ) := h(x;  ) + ^ '(x)
: Since
( ^ j'(x)j)j j  f (x;  )  C 0 (1 + j j)
for some C 0 > 0, we may use the relaxation arguments introduced in [FM1, FM2], taking into account that the relaxation method is local, so that on each ball B (x0 ; ") 

198

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

there is an upper bound j'(x)j <  < 1 and thus f is coercive. Therefore, and in view
of the strong continuity in L1 of the mapping

u 7!

^ u(x)div'(x) dx;

we conclude that (see also [ADM2, DM])

H(u;
) =
+
=
+

ZS(u)\

f (x; ru(x)) dx +

f 1 (x; dC (u))

f 1 (x; (u+ (x) u+ (x))

u (x)) dHN 1 (x) +

h(x; ru(x)) dx +

S (u)\

h1 (x; dC (u))

h1 (x; (u+ (x) u+(x))

u (x)) dHN 1 (x) +

^ u(x)div'(x) dx

Z
@

^ T u(x) dHN 1 (x);

where we have used once again Lemma 2.1 in the last equality.

3. Relaxation: A General Model.

Here we consider a more general model corresponding to the functional

H (u;
) :=

h(x; u(x); ru(x)) dx +

(x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x)

dened on the Sobolev space W 1;1 (

; Rp ), where
 RN is an open, bounded set of
class C 2 , T is the trace operator on @
, HN 1 is the N 1 dimensional Hausdor
measure and the functions
h :
 Rp  M pN ! [0; 1);  : @
 Rp ! R;
satisfy the following hypotheses:
(H1 ) h is continuous;
(H2 ) h(x; u;
) is quasiconvex for all (x; u) 2
 Rp ;
(H3 ) there exist a nonnegative, bounded, continuous function g :
 Rp ! [0; 1) and
a constant C > 0 such that
(3.1)
g(x; u)j j  h(x; u;  )  C g(x; u)(1 + j j)
for all (x; u;  ) 2
 Rp  M pN , where M pN is the vector space of p  N matrices;
(H4 ) for every x0 2
and  > 0 there exists " > 0 such that
(3.2)
h(x0 ; u;  ) h(x; u;  )  (1 + g(x; u) j j)
for all x 2
with jx x0 j  " and for all (u;  ) 2 Rp  M pN ;
(H5 ) there exist C 0 > 0 and m 2 (0; 1) such that
jh1 (x; u;  ) h(x; u;  )j  C 0 g(x; u)(1 + j j1 m )
for all (x; u;  ) 2
 Rp  M pN , where the recession function h1 of h is dened as
h1 (x; u;  ) := lim sup h(x; u; t  ) ;
t!1

nucleation and relaxation

199

(H6 )  admits an extension  2 C (

 Rp ; R) \ C 1 (
 Rp ; R) such that
jrx (x; u)j  a1 (x) + C1 (1 + jujqc )
for LN a.e. x 2
and all u 2 Rp , where a1 2 L1 (
; R), C1 > 0 and qc is the Sobolev
exponent qc := N=(N 1) if N > 1 and qc < 1 if N = 1. Moreover, for every x0 2

and  > 0 there exists " > 0 such that

(3.3)
jru (x0 ; u) ru (x; u)j   g(x; u)
for all x 2
with jx x0 j  " and for all u 2 Rp ;
(H7 ) g(x; u)  jru (x; u)j for all (x; u) 2
 Rp .
Remark 3.1. (i) Conditions (H1 ) (H5) were considered by Fonseca and Muller
(see [FM2]), who treated the case where   0. Actually, in [FM2] hypothesis (H4)
included :
(H 4)1 for every compact set K b
 Rp there exists a continuous function
! : [0; 1) ! [0; 1), with
!(0) = 0, such that
jh(x; u;  ) h(x1 ; u1 ;  )j  !(jx x1 j + ju u1 j)(1 + j j)
for all (x; u;  ), (x1 ; u1;  ) 2 K  M pN .
As it turns out, this property follows from (H1), (H2), (H5). Indeed using the fact
that the recession function h1 of h is still quasiconvex and is positively homogeneous
of degree one in the  variable (see [FM2, M]), by (H1), (H2), (H5), it is possible to
show that h1 is actually continuous in
 Rp  M pN and, in turn, that h satises
condition (H4)1 of [FM2]. We omit the details.
(ii) By the Mean Value Theorem and conditions (H3 ) and (H7 ) we have
(3.4)
j(x; u) (x; u1 )j  jru (x; u^)j ju u1 j  jjgjjL1 ju u1 j
for all x 2
and all u, u1 2 Rp . Taking u1 = 0 it follows by (H6 ) and (3.4) that
(3.5)
j(x; u)j  jjgjjL1 juj + jj(x; 0)jjL1
for all (x; u) 2
 Rp . This growth condition, together with (3.1), implies in particular
that the functional H (u;
) is well dened and nite for u 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp ) .
(iii) A typical example of the energy densities is (see Visintin [V1 , V2], and
Section 2)
(3.6)
h(x; u;  ) :=  j j; (x; u) := ^ u;
where  > 0 and ^ 2 R. It is easy to see that conditions (H1 ) (H6 ) hold with
g(x; u) := , while assumption (H7 ) reduces to the inequality j^ j  . More generally,
(H6 ) is trivially satised if  = (u).
(iv) If in (1.3) we take (x; u) := ^ juj for (x; u) 2 @
 Rp (cf. [MP]), then it is
possible to extend  to
 Rp as follows
p
(x; u) := ^ juj2 + 2 (x);
where 2 C 1 (
; R) is such that (x) > 0 for x 2
and (x) = 0 for x 2 @
.
Conditions (H1 ) (H7 ) are then veried with g(x; u) := , provided j^ j  . The

200

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

problem of nding an extension of  : @

Rp ! R to
Rp which satises (H6 ) (H7)
for the functional (1.3), and when (1.4) holds, will be addressed in a forthcoming paper.
Our goal in this section is to generalize the integral representation obtained in
Section 2 to the relaxed energy of H (u;
) in BV (
; Rp ) with respect to the L1
topology, that is

lim inf H (un;

) : un 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp ); un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ) :
H(u;
) := finf
un g n!1
From the denition of H(u;
) it follows immediately that the functional H(u;
) is
lower semicontinuous in L1 (
; Rp ).
Before stating the main theorems of this section we introduce the surface energy
associated to the function h. For xed a, b 2 Rp we dene A(a; b;  ) as the class of all
functions 2 W 1;1 (Q ; Rp ) such that
 a if y
 = 1=2
T (y) =
b if y
 = 1=2
and which are periodic of period one in the remaining directions 1 ;


; N 1 . The
surface energy associated to the function h, Kh(x; a; b;  ) , is dened by

Kh (x; a; b;  ) := inf

Z

Q

h1 (x; (y); r (y)) dy : 2 A(a; b;  ) :

For a detailed study of the properties of the function Kh (x; a; b;  ) we refer to [FR].
For u 2 BV (
; Rp ) we dene the functional

L(u;
) :=

h(x; u(x); ru(x)) dx +

h1 (x; u(x); dC (u))

Z
+
Kh(x; u (x); u (x); u (x)) dHN 1 (x) + (x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x):
+
@

S (u)\

Theorem 3.2. Let (H1 ) (H7 ) hold. If u 2 BV (

; Rp ) then

H(u;
) = L(u;
):

Corollary 3.3. If h = h(x;  ) then

H(u;
) =

h(x; ru(x)) dx +

+
+

ZS(u)\

h1 (x; dC (u))

h1 (x; (u+ (x) u (x))

u (x)) dHN 1 (x)

(x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x):

The proof of Corollary 3.3 follows from Remark 2.17 in [FM2].

Remark 3.4. (i) Rather surprisingly, in general the functional L(u;
) is not
lower semicontinuous in L1 if the domain
is only Lipschitz. This fact was rst
pointed out by Modica in [Mo2] who gave the following simple example.
p Let
:=
(0; 1)  (0; 1)  R2 and take h and  as in (3.6), with   ^ <  2=2. Then

201

nucleation and relaxation

(H1 ){(H7 ) are satised (see Remark 3.1 (iii)), and

L(u;
) =  jDuj + ^
Consider the sequence

T u dH1 ; u 2 BV (
; R):

0

if x1 + x2  1=n
n if x1 + x2 < 1=n:
p
Then un (x) ! 0 in L1(
; R) but L(un ;
) =  2 + 2^ < L(0;
) = 0, and this shows
that H(u;
) 6= L(u;
) since H(u;
) is lower semicontinuous in L1 .
It is worth noting that in the special case where (x; u) = ^ ju (x)j in (1.3),
with j^ j   and 2 L1(@
; R), one can still prove lower semicontinuity of L for
Lipschitz subdomains of RN . The rst result in this direction is due to Massari
and Pepe [MP] who treated the case where  0. Modica [Mo2] then extended it to
include 2 L1 (@
; R). The idea in [MP, Mo2] is to nd a function ^ 2 BV (RN n
; R)
whose trace Ris and then use an extension theorem (see [EG, Th. 5.4.1]) to rewrite
the integral @
jT u j dHN 1 as

un (x1 ; x2 ) :=

where

jT u T ^j dHN 1 =
u^(x) :=

RN

 u(x)

^(x)

jDu^j

jDuj

RN n

jD ^j;

if x 2

if x 2 RN n
:

(ii) Without condition (H7 ) Theorem 3.2 may fail. As an example, let
:=
(0; 1)  R and take h and  as in (3.6). In this case condition (H7 ) is equivalent to
the inequality j^ j  . Assume that  < ^ and consider the sequence
 n3(x 1) n if 1 1=n2  x  1
un (x) :=
0
otherwise:
Then un (x) ! 0 in L1(
; R) but L(un ;
) = ( ^ )n < L(0;
) = 0.
Theorem 3.5. Let (H1 ) (H6 ) hold, with (3:1) and (H7 ) replaced by the weaker
hypothesis
(3.7)
jru (x; u)j j j  h(x; u;  )  C g(x; u)(1 + j j)
for all (x; u;  ) 2
 Rp  M pN , and some C > 0. Then the relaxation of H (u;
)
 inf H (u ;
) : u 2 W 1;1(
; Rp );
Hb (u;
) = inf lim
n
n
n!1
fun g

un ! u in L1(
; Rp ); sup jjun jjW 1;1 < 1
n

in BV (
; Rp ) with respect to the L1 topology has the integral representation
Hb (u;
) = L(u;
):
Remark 3.6. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.5, the functional L(u;
) provides the correct integral representation for Hb (u;
) but not necessarily for H(u;
).
Indeed, in the scalar case where p = 1 and when   0, Dal Maso has shown in

202

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

[DM] that H(u;

) = L(u;
) when h = h(u;  ) satises only (3.7), while possibly
H(u;
) < L(u;
) for h = h(x;  ) unless one assumes a condition of the type (3.1).
In the vectorial case where p > 1 and when   0, Ambrosio and Dal Maso
[ADM2] proved that H(u;
) = L(u;
) when h = h( ) satises only (3.7). Independently, Fonseca and Muller [FM2] have obtained this result for general functions
h(x; u;  ) which verify (3.1), still in the case where   0.
We proceed with the proofs of Theorems 3.2 and 3.5. We start with some preliminary results. In what follows, and unless otherwise specied, we always assume that
conditions (H1 ) (H7 ) hold.
Lemma 3.7. If u 2 BV (
; Rp ) then the function v(x) := (x; u(x)) 2 BV (
; R)
and
 r (x; u) LN + DuT ru (x; u)
on
nS (u)
Dv = x +
((x; u ) (x; u ))
u HN 1 bS (u) on S (u):
Moreover
T v(x) = (x; T u(x)):
The proof of Lemma 3.7 is straightforward in light of related results on the chain
rule for BV functions (see [ADM1] and the references contained therein).
By Lemmas 2.1 and 3.7, if u 2 BV (
; Rp ) then
(3.8)
Z
Z
Z
(x; T u(x)) dHN 1 (x) = (x; u(x))div '(x) dx + '(x)
d(D((x; u(x))):
@

In turn, by (3.8) we can rewrite the functional H (u;

) as
(3.9)

H (u;
) =

Z 

h(x; u(x); ru(x)) + '(x)
ruT (x)ru (x; u(x)) dx

Z
Z
+

(x; u(x)) div '(x) dx +

'(x)
rx (x; u(x)) dx:

This equivalent form gives

R us a better insightR into the competing roles played by the
two energy integrals
h(x; u; ru) dx and @
(x; T u) dHN 1 . In particular, it is
now clear that without a condition of the type
h(x; u;  )  jru (x; u)j j j
one may have H(u;
) = 1, as in the example in Remark 3.4(ii).
Dene f (x; u;  ) := h(x; u;  ) + '(x)
 T ru (x; u) for (x; u;  ) 2
 Rp  M pN ,
set
Z
F (u;
) := f (x; u(x); ru(x)) dx; u 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp );

and let
n
o
1
;
1
p
1
p
F (u;
) := finf
lim
inf
F
(
u
;

)
:
u
2
W
(
;
R
)
;
u
!
u
in
L
(
;
R
)
:
n
n
n
un g n!1
Lemma 3.8. If u 2 BV (
; Rp ) then

H(u;
) = F (u;
) + (x; u(x)) div '(x) dx + '(x)
rx (x; u(x)) dx:

nucleation and relaxation

203

Proof. Clearly it is enough to show that

lim
inf H (un ;
) = lim
inf F (un ;
)
n!1
n!1

(x; u(x)) div '(x) dx + '(x)
rx (x; u(x)) dx

for any sequence fun g  W 1;1 (

; Rp ) such that un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ). We rst observe
that, since ' 2 C01 (RN ; RN ), the functions ' and div ' are bounded in
. Moreover,
+

by (3.4)

j(x; un (x)) (x; u(x))j  jjgjjL1 jun(x) u(x)j for LN a.e. x 2

.
Hence
lim
n!1

(x; un ) div ' dx =

(x; u) div ' dx:

By (H6 ), by virtue Rof the Sobolev inequality, and due to the fact that ' is bounded,
the functional u 7!
'
rx (x; u(x)) dx is continuous in L1 (
; Rp ) (see [K, Th. 2.1])
and thus
Z
Z
lim
'


r

(
x;
u
)
dx
=
'(x)
rx (x; u) dx:
x
n
n!1

We are now ready to prove Theorem 3.2.

Proof of Theorem 3.2. By Lemma 3.8, in order to nd an integral representation
for H(u;
) in BV (
; Rp ) it is sucient to determine one for F (u;
). The idea is to
apply Theorem 2.16 of [FM2]. In order to do so we need to show that the function

f (x; u;  ) = h(x; u;  ) + '(x)
 T ru (x; u)

satises conditions (H1 ) (H5 ) which are essentially the same of [FM2 ].
Condition (H1 ) is trivially veried since the functions  and ' are of class C 1 .
As f is the sum of a quasiconvex function and a function linear in  , it is clear that
f (x; u;
) is still quasiconvex and that

f 1(x; u;  ) = h1 (x; u;  ) + '(x)
 T ru (x; u);

which, in turn, implies that

jf 1 (x; u;  ) f (x; u;  )j = jh1 (x; u;  ) h(x; u;  )j  C 0 g(x; u)(1 + j j1 m )

by (H5 ). Thus f veries also (H2 ) and (H5 ).
We prove (3.2). Fix x0 2
and  > 0. There exists " > 0 such that for x 2

with jx x0 j  " and (u;  ) 2 Rp  M pN

h(x0 ; u;  ) h(x; u;  )  13 (1 + g(x; u)j j); j'(x) '(x0 )j  13 ;

jru (x0 ; u) ru (x; u)j  13  g(x; u)

204

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

by the continuity of ', (3.2) and (3.3). Hence

f (x0 ; u;  ) = h(x0 ; u;  ) + '(x0 )
 T ru (x0 ; u)
= f (x; u;  ) + h(x0 ; u;  ) h(x; u;  )
+ ['(x0 ) '(x)]
 T ru (x; u) + '(x0 )
 T [ru (x0 ; u) ru (x; u)]
 f (x; u;  ) + 13 (1 + g(x; u)j j) + 23  g(x; u)j j
which is (3.2), and where we have used (H7) and the fact that j'(x0 )j  1.
Finally, condition (H3 ) is replaced by the condition
(3.10)
g(x; u)j j(1 j'(x)j)  f (x; u;  )  2C g(x; u)(1 + j j)
which follows from (3.1) and (H7 ). Although (3.10) is weaker than condition (H3 ) in
[FM2], the proof there carries out even with (3.10). Indeed, condition (H3 ) was used
in [FM2] only to show that

F (u;
) 

f (x; u; ru) dx +
+

f 1 (x; u; dC (u))

S (u)\

Kf (x; u ; u+; u ) dHN 1 (x):

The proof of this inequality relies on the blow{up argument introduced in [FM1]
which is a local argument, in the sense that in order to prove the three main pointwise
inequalities (2.10){(2.11) in [FM2] at points x0 2
, one is only interested in what
happens in a ball B (x0 ; "). Since in our case j'(x0 )j < 0 < 1 for some 0 > 0, if we
take " suciently small we can assume that j'(x)j  0 for all x 2 B (x0 ; ") and thus
(3.10) reduces to
g(x; u)j j(1 0 )  f (x; u;  )  2C g(x; u)(1 + j j)
for all (x; u;  ) 2 B (x0 ; ")  Rp  M pN , which is the local version of (H3 ) in [FM2].
In conclusion, we may apply Theorem 2.16 of [FM2] (see Remark 3.10 below) to
obtain that for u 2 BV (
; Rp )

F (u;
) =

Z
Z 

h(x; u; ru) + '
ruT ru (x; u) dx + h1 (x; u; dC (u))

Z
Z

+
where

('
ru (x; u))
dC T (u) +

Kf (x; a; b;  ) = inf

S (u)\

Kf (x; u ; u+ ; u ) dHN 1 ;

Z 

h1 (x; (y); r (y)) + '(x)
r T (y)ru (x; (y)) dy :
Q

2 A(a; b;  ) :
Given any 2 A(a; b;  ) we have

Q

'(x)
r

T (y )ru (x; (y )) dy =

'(x)
n(y; Q ) (x; T (y)) dHN 1 (y)

= '(x)
((x; b) (x; a)) ;
@Q

nucleation and relaxation

205

and so

Kf (x; a; b;  ) = Kh (x; a; b;  ) + '(x)
((x; b) (x; a)) :

If we now use Lemmas 2.1, 3.7, and 3.8, we nally obtain that H(u;
) = L(u;
).

This concludes the proof of Theorem 3.2.

Remark 3.9. The continuity hypotheses (H1), (H4 ) and (3.3) may be replaced
by
(H1 )0 h is Caratheodory;
(H4 )0 for all (x0 ; u0 ) 2
 Rp and for all  > 0 there exists " > 0 such that
jh(x; u1 ;  ) h(x; u2 ;  )j  "(1 + j j)
for all x 2
with jx x0 j  ", u1 , u2 2 B (u0 ; ") and  2 M pN ;
provided  7! f (x; u;
) is coercive (e.g. if g(x; u)   > jjru jjL1 for some  > 0).
In this case, in Theorem 3.2 we would use the integral representation obtained by
Bouchitte, Fonseca and Mascarenhas [BFM] in place of the corresponding result by
Fonseca and Muller [FM2].
Proof of Theorem 3.5. By Lemma 3.8 it is enough to nd an integral representation for the corresponding Fb (u;
) in BV (
; Rp ). Let f" (x; u;  ) := f (x; u;  ) + " j j,
for " 2 (0; 1), where, as before, f (x; u;  ) := h(x; u;  ) + '(x)
 T ru (x; u), and dene

lim inf F (u ;
) : un 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp ); un ! u in L1(
; Rp ) ;
F" (u;
) := finf
u g n!1 " n
n

where

F" (u;
) :=

We claim that

f" (x; u(x); ru(x)) dx;

u 2 W 1;1 (
; Rp ):

lim F (u;
) = Fb (u;
):
"!0 "

Fix u 2 L1 (
; Rp ). For any given  > 0 there exists a sequence fung  W 1;1 (
; Rp ),
with supn jjun jjW 1;1 = M < 1, such that un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ) and

Fb (u;
) +   nlim
!1 f (x; un (x); run (x)) dx:

In turn, for all " > 0

Fb (u;
) +   lim
inf f" (x; un (x); run (x)) dx " M;
n!1

and using the denition of F" (u;

) we obtain
Fb (u;
) +   F" (u;
) " M:
Therefore
lim sup F" (u;
)  Fb (u;
) + ;
"!0

and it suces to let  ! 0 to conclude that

lim sup F" (u;
)  Fb (u;
):
"!0

206

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

Conversely, x u 2 L1 (
; Rp ) and " > 0. Then there exists a sequence fu"ng 
1
;
1
W (
; Rp ) such that u"n ! u in L1(
; Rp ) as n ! 1 and

(3.11)
Z
Z
" ; ru" ) + "jru" j] dx  lim inf f (x; u" ; ru" ) dx:
[
f
(
x;
u
F" (u;
) + "  nlim
n
n
n
n
n
n!1
!1

Without loss of generality we can assume that F" (u;

) < 1. Since j'(x)j < 1 in
,
by (3.7) we have
f (x; u;  ) = h(x; u;  ) + '(x)
 T ru (x; u)  0;
hence by (3.11) it follows that supn jju"n jjW 1;1 < 1 and so
F" (u;
) + "  Fb (u;
):
We conclude that
lim
inf F (u;
)  Fb (u;
)
"!0 "

and the claim is proven.

It is not dicult to show that the function f" (x; u;  ) satises conditions (H1 )
(H5 ). We omit the details since the proof is very similar to that of Theorem 3.2.
By Theorem 2.16 of [FM2] we obtain that for u 2 BV (
; Rp )
(3.12)

F" (u;
) =

ff (x; u; ru) + "jrujg dx +

S (u)\

f 1 (x; u; dC (u)) + "

Kf" (x; u ; u+; u ) dHN 1 :

If we let " ! 0 in (3.12) we obtain that

jdC (u)j

lim F (u;
) = f (x; u; ru) dx + f 1 (x; u; dC (u))
"!0 "

Z
Kf (x; u ; u+ ; u ) dHN 1 ;
+
S (u)\

where we have used the fact that

(3.13) "lim
!0

S (u)\

Kf" (x; u ; u+ ; u ) dHN 1 =

Z
S (u)\

Kf (x; u ; u+ ; u ) dHN 1 :

This convergence follows easily from Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem and
because we may nd a constant C1 independent of " such that (see the proof of Lemma
2.15 in [FM2])
0  Kf" (x; a; b;  )  C1 ja bj:
This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Remark 3.10. In the proof of Theorem 2.16 of [FM2] the inequality
(3.14)

F (u; S (u) \
) 

S (u)\

Kf (x; u ; u+ ; u ) dHN 1 (x)

was derived by using a result of [FR] which requires the function f (x; u;
) to be
coercive, that is to satisfy the inequality
(3.15)
f (x; u;  )  c1 j j c2

207

nucleation and relaxation

for all (x; u;  ) 2

 Rp  M pN , which is stronger than condition (H3 ). To circumvent
this diculty consider the function f" (x; u;  ) dened as in the proof of Theorem 3.5.
Since it satises conditions (H1 ) (H5 ) and (3.15), the inequality (3.14) holds for f" .
Also the inequality f  f" clearly implies that

F (u; S (u) \
)  F" (u; S (u) \
) 

S (u)\

Kf" (x; u ; u+; u ) dHN 1 (x): >

If we now let " ! 0 and use (3.13), we conclude that (3.14) holds also for f .

4. Mesoscopic scale.

We are interested in the following constrained minimization problem

inf H(u;
) +

 (x; u(x)) dx : u 2 BV (
; Rp ); u(x) 2 K for LN a.e.

x2
;

where K is a nonempty compact set of Rp , and  :

 K ! R is a Caratheodory
function such that
(4.1)
j (x; u)j  a0 (x) for LN a.e. x 2
and for all u 2 K ,
for some function a0 2 L1 (
; R). In applications in phase transitions, often K = fa; bg
or K is a convex set.
For u 2 L1 (
; Rp ) we dene the functional
I (u;
) := H(u;
) + IK (u;
);
where
 R  (x; u(x)) dx if u(x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2

IK (u;
) :=

+1
otherwise:
Lemma 4.1. If (H1 ) (H7 ) hold then the functional I (u;
) is lower semicontinuous in L1(
; Rp ).
Proof. Consider un, u 2 L1 (
; Rp ) such that un ! u in L1 (
; Rp ).
If lim
inf I (un ;
) = 1 there is nothing to prove. Assume that lim
inf I (un ;
) < 1
n!1
n!1
and take a subsequence funk g which converges pointwise to u for LN a.e x 2
, and
such that
lim I (u ;
) = lim
inf I (un ;
) < 1:
n!1
k!1 nk

For k suciently large we can assume that I (unk ;

) < 1, hence

I (unk ;
) = H(unk ;
) +  (x; unk (x)) dx

and unk (x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2

. Since funk g converges pointwise to u for
LN a.e x 2R
, we obtain that u(x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2
. In turn I (u;
) =
H(u;
) +
 (x; u(x)) dx. The assertion now follows from the lower semicontinuity
of H(u;
) in L1 (
; Rp ) and the fact that
lim
k!1

 (x; unk (x)) dx =

 (x; u(x)) dx

by (4.1) and by Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem.

In addition to conditions (H1 ) (H7 ) we now assume the following hypotheses:

208

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

(F1 ) there exist a function  2 C (

 Rp ; Rp ) \ C 1 (
 Rp ; Rp ) and a function b 2
L1 (
; R) such that
(4.2)

jrx (x; u)j  b(x) for LN a.e. x 2

and for all u 2 K ,

and

h1 (x; u;  )  jru (x; u)j j j

(4.3)

for all (x; u;  ) 2

 K  M pN ;
(F2 ) for LN a.e. x 2
the function (x;
) : K b Rp ! (x; K ) b Rp is invertible
and (x; y) 7! ((x;
)) 1 (y) is Caratheodory. In addition, there exists a function c 2
L1 (
; R) such that
(4.4)

j(x;
) 1 (v)j  c(x) for LN a.e. x 2

and for all v 2 (x; K ):

Let
Then

D(I ) := fu 2 L1 (
; Rp ) : I (u;
) < 1g:

D1 := u 2 BV (
; Rp ) : u(x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2
 D(I )
but in general the two sets do not coincide, unless one assumes that h(x; u;
) is coer-

cive.

Theorem 4.2. There exists a function u 2 D(I ) such that

I (u;
)  inf fI (w;
) : w 2 D1 g :
Proof. Let fung  D1 be a minimizing sequence, that is

lim I (un ;
) = inf fI (w;
) : w 2 D1 g < M < 1:

n!1

Then, for n suciently large,

(4.5)

I (un ;
) = H(un ;
) +  (x; un (x)) dx  M:

We claim that T un (x) 2 K for HN 1 a.e. x 2 @

. Indeed let En := fx 2 @
:
T un (x) 2= K g and suppose for contradiction that HN 1 (En ) > 0. Take x0 2 En for
which (cf. [Z,Th. 5.14.4])
Z
1
lim
ju (x) T un (x0 )jN=(N 1) dx = 0:
r!0 LN (B (x0 ; r) \
) B (x0 ;r)\
n
Since K is compact we have dist(T un (x0 ); K ) = "0 > 0, while >from the fact that
un (x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2
, it follows that
(N 1)  ju (x) T u (x )jN=(N 1)
"N=
n
n 0
0
for LN a.e. x 2 B (x0 ; r) \
. Taking the average over B (x0 ; r) \
and letting r ! 0,

we get a contradiction. Therefore the claim holds, and by (4.5), Theorem 3.2, and

209

nucleation and relaxation

(3.5) we have

h(x; un ; run ) dx +

(4.6)

Z
Z

h1 (x; un ; dC (un ))

S (un )\

Kh (x; un ; u+n ; un ) dHN 1  M1 ;

for some constant M1 independent of n. By (H5 ), (3.1)1 and(4.6)

h1 (x; un ; run ) dx 

(h1 (x; un ; run) h(x; un ; run )) dx + M1

Z
 C 0 jjgjjL1 + C 0 jjgjjmL1 h1 m (x; un ; run) dx + M1:

Using Holder's inequality and (4.6) again, we conclude that there exists M2 2 (0; 1)
such that for all n

(4.7)

h1 (x; un ; run ) dx +
+

h1 (x; un ; dC (un ))

S (un )\

Kh(x; un ; u+n ; un ) dHN 1  M2 :

Dene vn := (x; un (x)). As in Lemma 3.7, we can show that

with
 r (x; u ) LN + ru(x; un )Dun
(4.8)
Dvn = x + n
((x; un ) (x; un ))
un HN 1 bS (un )
Furthermore

(4.9)

jDvn j =
+

Z
Z

vn (x) 2 BV (
; Rp )
on
nS (un)
on S (un ):

jrvn j dx + jru (x; un ) dC (un )j

S (vn )\

j(vn+

vn )
vn jdHN 1 :

By Remark 2.17 in [FM2] and the fact that S (vn ) = S (un) and vn = un , we can
rewrite the last integral as

S (un )\

where

Kj
j(x; vn ; vn+ ; un ) := inf

Kj
j(x; vn ; vn+ ; un ) dHN 1

(Z
Qun

jr (y)j dy :

2 A(vn (x); vn+ (x); un ) :

Given  2 A(un (x); u+n (x); un ), it is clear that the function (y) := (x; (y)) belongs
to A(vn (x); vn+ (x); un ) and that r (y) = ru (x; (y))r(y). By (4.3) this implies

210

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

that

Kj
j(x; vn ; vn+ ; un )

(Z

 inf
jru (x; (y))j jr(y)j dy :  2 A(un (x); u+n (x); un )
Qun
 Kh (x; un ; u+n ; un ):

Therefore, also by (4.2), (4.3), (4.7), (4.8) and (4.9)

(4.10)

jDvn j 
+

jrx (x; un )j dx + jru (x; un )j jrun j dx

jru (x; un )j jdC (un )j

S (un )\

Kh (x; un ; u+n ; un )dHN 1  jjbjjL1 + M2 :

Finally, since vn (x) 2 (x; K ) for LN a.e. x 2

, (x; K ) is a compact set of Rp ,
and by (4.10), there exists a subsequence, still denoted fvn g, which converges strongly
in L1 (
; Rp ) and pointwise almost everywhere to a function v 2 BV (
; Rp ) (see [Z,
Cor. 5.3.4]), with v(x) 2 (x; K ) for LN a.e. x 2
. Dene u(x) := ((x;
)) 1 (v(x)).
By (F2 ) the function u is measurable. Since un(x) = ((x;
)) 1 (vn (x)) it follows that
un (x) ! u(x) for LN a.e. x 2
, thus u(x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2
. Moreover, by
(4.4) we have that jun (x)j  c(x) for LN a.e. x 2
, therefore by Lebesgue Dominated
Convergence Theorem un ! u strongly in L1 (
; Rp ). By Lemma 4.1 we conclude that
I (u;
)  inf fI (u;
) : u 2 D1 g :
Corollary 4.3. Assume that conditions (F1 ) and (F2 ) in Theorem 4.2 are replaced by the assumption
h1 (x; u;  )  j j
for all (x; u;  ) 2
 K  M pN ,
for some  > 0. Then D1 = D(I ) and there exists a function u 2 D1 such that
I (u;
) = inf fI (w;
) : w 2 D1 g :
Proof. It suces to take (x; u) :=  u in Theorem 4.2. Then vn =  un converge
strongly in L1(
; Rp ) to a function v 2 BV (
; Rp ), and therefore u := 1 v is the
desired minimizer.

5. Nucleation: the scalar case.

In this section we study the constrained minimization problem introduced in

Section 4, restricted to the scalar case p = 1, when K is a closed, connected subset of
R (not necessarily bounded), and when the potential  (x; u) is given by
 (x; u) := 1 (x; u) + (x) 2 (u);
where 1 (x; u) is a Caratheodory function, concave in the u variable, is a nonnegative, measurable function, and 2 is a continuous function such that
(5.1)
all the connected components of S := fu 2 int K : 2 (u) < 2 (u)g are bounded;

nucleation and relaxation

211

where 2 is the convex envelope of 2 . As remarked in [V2], (5.1) holds if

lim sup 2 (u) = 1:
juj!1

juj

Furthermore we assume that

(5.2)
 (x; u)  L1 L2juj for LN a.e. x 2
and for all u 2 K ,
for some L1 , L2 > 0.
Under appropriate assumptions on the functions h and , we prove that minimizers u 2 L1 (
; Rp ) of

I : v 2 L1 (
; K ) 7! H(v;
) +  (x; v(x)) dx

have the phase structure

u(
)  K nS:
In particular, if K = [a; b], if 2 is concave in [a; b], and if u is a minimizer of I , then u
must have a 2-phase structure, i.e. there exists a set
0 
such that u(x) = a for LN
a.e. x 2
0 and u(x) = b for LN a.e. x 2
n
0. This result has important applications

in nucleation phenomena which have been studied extensively by Visintin in [V1,V2],

where usually K is bounded, 1 (x; u) :=  (x) u,  2 L1 (
; R) is proportional to the
relative temperature, and (x) 2 (u) is the double well potential (x)(b u)(u a)
(see Remark 5.2 below). Given a simple function u 2 L1 (
; K ) of the form

u(x) =

(5.3)

k
X
i=1

ci !i (x);

with ci 2 K , LN (!i ) > 0 for all i = 1;


; k, and LN (

n [ki=1 !i ) = 0, without loss of
generality we may assume that
(5.4)
inf K  c1 < c2 <


< ck  sup K:
Theorem 5.1. Let E be an algebra of measurable subsets of
, and consider a
functional V : L1(
; R) ! [0; 1] such that

)
k
X
1
S1 := u 2 L (
; R) : u = ci !i ; !i 2 E ; k 2 N  D(V )
i=1
(

where
and

D(V ) := fu 2 L1 (
; R) : V (u) < 1g;

(i) for any u 2 D(V ) \ L1(

; K ) there exists a sequence fung  S1 \ L1 (
; K )
converging to u in L1(
; K ) and such that
lim sup V (un )  V (u):
n!1

(ii) For any u 2 S1 of the form (5:3) (5:4), with k  2, there holds
(5.5)

V (u) =

kX1
i=1

(ci+1 ci )V ([kr=i+1 !r ):

212

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

(iii) The function c 7! V (c) is concave in K . R

In addition, suppose that the functional u 7!
 (x; u(x)) dx is continuous in
D(V ) \ L1(
; K ). Then

inf fV (u) + IK (u;
) : u 2 D(V )g = inf V (u) + IK (u;
) : u 2 D(V ); u(x) 2 K nS

for LN a.e. x 2
:
Remark 5.2. (i) The functional V (u) + IK (u;
) is well dened by (5.2).
(ii) Theorem 5.1 is closely related to Theorem 2 in [V2], where K = R and
conditions (i) and (ii) are replaced by the assumption that V satises the generalized
co-area formula
(5.6)

V (u) = V (fx2
: u(x)tg ) dt:
R

It is easy to see that (5.6) reduces to (5.5) for functions u of the form (5.3)-(5.4).
Therefore (5.5) is weaker than (5.6). On the other hand, conditions (i) and (5.6) do
not seem to be related. Indeed, consider the functional
 R maxfu(x); 0gdx if HN 1(S (u) \
) = 0
Z
V (u) := jDuj + 0

otherwise:

From the proof of Theorem 5.4 below it follows that V satises hypotheses (i)|(iii) of
Theorem 5.1. Take u(x) := 1 in (5.6); then V (1) = LN (
), while the right hand side
of (5.6) is innite. Therefore (5.6) fails. We note that V is not lower semicontinuous
in L1 .
We remark that Theorem 5.1 may be applied to a large class of functionals of the
form (1.1), for which the co-area formula might not hold.
(iii) If, in addition to hypotheses (i){(iii) in Theorem 5.1, we assume that V is
lower semicontinuous in L1(
; R), that K = R, and that there exist a set ! 2 E with
0 < LN (!) < LN (
), then V satises the following properties:
1) V (c) = 0 for all c 2 R;
2) V ( u) =  V (u) for all  > 0 and u 2 D(V );
3) V (u + c) = V (u) for all c 2 R and u 2 D(V );
R
4) V (u)  R V (fx2
: u(x)tg ) dt for all u 2 D(V ).
In order to prove the rst property, dene
 c + "n if x 2 !
un (x) :=
c
if x 2
n!,
where "n := n1 minf1; 1=V (! )g if V (! ) > 0, and "n := n1 otherwise. Clearly un ! c
in L1 (
; R), therefore by the lower semicontinuity of V and (5.5)
0  V (c)  lim
inf V (un) = nlim
n!1
!1 "nV (! ) = 0;

where we have used the fact that V (! ) < 1 because S1  D(V ).
We omit the proofs of properties 2) and 3) since they follow quite easily >from
hypotheses (i) and (ii) of Theorem 5.1 and from the lower semicontinuity of V .

213

nucleation and relaxation

In order to show 4), x u 2 D(V ). By (i) there exists a sequence fung  S1

converging to u in L1(
; R) and LN a.e. x 2
such that

V (u)  nlim
inf V (fx2
: un (x)tg) dt
!1 V (un ) = nlim
!1 V (fx2
: un (x)tg ) dt  lim
n!1
R

R
N
by (5.5) and Fatou's Lemma. Since L (fx 2
: u(x) = tg) = 0 for all t 2 RnM ,
where L1 (M ) = 0, we x t 2 RnM and take a subsequence funk g of fung such that

lim
inf V (fx2
: un (x)tg) = klim
V (fx2
: unk (x)tg ):
n!1
!1

Then ffx2
: unk (x)tg g converges pointwise to fx2
: u(x)tg for LN a.e. x 2
and,
by Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, also strongly in L1 (
; R). Therefore
by the lower semicontinuity of V
lim
inf V (fx2
: un (x)tg )  V (fx2
: u(x)tg )
n!1
for L1 a.e. t 2 R, and we conclude that

lim inf V (fx2

: un (x)tg) dt 

R n!1

Z
R

V (fx2
: u(x)tg ) dt:

We do not know if the reversed inequality of 4) holds, i.e. if the co-area formula
(5.6) is satised.
Let


 := inf V (u) + IK (u;
) : u 2 D(V ); u(x) 2 K nS for LN a.e. x 2
:
Lemma 5.3. If u 2 S1 then
V (u) + IK (u;
)  :
Proof. As IK (u;
) = 1 for u 2= L1 (
; K ) it suces to prove the result for
u 2 S1 \ L1(
; K ). By (5.1) we can decompose the open set S as a disjoint union of
bounded intervals
S = [r2R (ar ; br ):
Following Visintin [V2] we replace the function 2 by
8  (u)
if u 2 RnS
< 2
~2 (u) := : 2 (br ) 2 (ar )
(u ar ) + 2 (ar ) if u 2 (ar ; br ),
b a
r

and denote by ~ and I~K (u;

) the corresponding functionals. Dene

i := V ([kr=i+1 !r );
Then by (5.3), (5.4), and (5.5)

V (u) + I~K (u;

) =

k 1
X
i=1

i (c) :=

!i

(ci+1 ci )i +

~(x; c) dx:
k
X
i=1

i (ci ):

Let r 2 R be such that ci 2 (ar ; br ) for some i 2 f1;


; kg. There can only be nitely
many such r. Assume that k  2, and suppose that cl 2 (ar ; br ), l 2 f2;


; k 1g,

214

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

ci  ar for all i < l (the cases where l = 1 or l = k can be treated analogously).

Dene the function
(t) :=

kX1

i=1; i6=l 1; l

i+1 (ci+1 ci ) + l (t cl 1 ) + l+1 (cl+1 t) +

k
X

i=1; i6=l

i (ci ) + l (t)

for t 2 [ar ; d], where d := cl+1 if cl+1  br and d := br if cl+1 > br . Since 2 (u)  ~2 (u)
by construction, then clearly V (u) + IK (u;
)  V (u) + I~K (u;
) = (cl ). Observe
that since ~(x;
) = 1 (x;
) + (x) ~2 (
) is concave in [ar ; d], then the function l (
)
is also concave in [ar ; d], and (t), being the sum of a linear function and a concave
function, attains its minimum at one of the endpoints Q of [ar ; d]. It follows that
V (u) + IK (u;
)  V (u) + I~K (u;
) = (cl )  (Q) = V (u) + I~K (u;
)
where

8 Pk c  (x) + a  (x)
>
r !l
< Pki=1; i6=l i !i
u(x) := > i=1; i6=l ci !i (x) + br !l (x)
: Pk
ci !i (x) + cl+1 !l [!l+1 (x)
i=1; i6=l;l+1

If k = 1, namely if u(x)  c, then

(5.7)

V (u) + IK (u;
)  V (u) + I~K (u;
) = V (c) +

if Q = ar
if Q = br
if Q = cl+1 :

~(x; c) dx:

Assume that c 2 (ar ; br ) for some r 2 R. Since by (iii) and by the construction of ~2
the right hand side of (5.7) is a concave function of c 2 [ar ; br ], its inmum is attained
at one of the endpoints, say at br , and thus we can replace u(x) by u(x) := br 2 K n S .
We conclude that it is energetically possible to reduce at least by one the number
of values ci between ar and br . Repeating this procedure for the nite number of
intervals (ar ; br ) which contain at least one of the ci , by means of a nite induction
argument we can construct a simple function u^ of the form

u^(x) =

k^
X
i=1

c^i !^ i (x);

where k^  k, such that u^(

)  K n(ar ; br ) for any r 2 R and V (u) + IK (u;
) 
V (^u)+ I~K (^u;
). Since 2 (u) = ~2 (u) for u 2 K n S , it follows that IK (^u;
) = I~K (^u;
)
and thus V (u) + IK (u;
)  V (^u) + IK (^u;
)   . This concludes the proof of the
lemma.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. Let u 2 D(V ) \ L1 (
; K ). By (i) there exists a sequence
fung  S1 \ L1 (
; K ) converging to u in L1 (
; K ) such that
lim sup V (un )  V (u):
n!1

Moreover, by hypothesis
nlim
!1

 (x; un (x)) dx =

 (x; u(x)) dx;

215

nucleation and relaxation

and since by Lemma 5.3 V (un ) + IK (un ;

)   , it follows that
V (u) + IK (u;
)  ;
and we conclude that
inf fV (u) + IK (u;
) : u 2 D(V )g  :
The reversed inequality is trivially satised.
In order to apply Theorem 5.1 to functionals of the form (1.1), we consider the
special case where
h = h(x;  ) is positively homogeneous of degree one in ; (x; u) := ^ u; ^ 6= 0;
and hypotheses (A1 ) (A7 ) in Section 2 are satised. Clearly h(x;  ) = h1 (x;  ), and
by Theorem 2.2 (see also Corollary 3.3, (3.9), and Lemma 3.8), for u 2 BV (
; R) we
have
Z
Z
H(u;
) = f (x; ru) dx + f (x; dC (u))

S (u)\

f (x; (u+

u )u ) dHN 1 + ^

u div ' dx;

where, we recall,
f (x;  ) = h(x;  ) + ^ '(x)
 for all (x;  ) 2
 RN :
Furthermore, we assume that the potential  also satises the growth condition
for LN a.e. x 2
and all u 2 K ,
(5.8)
 (x; u)  b1 (x) + M1 (1 + jujqc )
where b1 2 L1(
; R), M1 > 0 and, as before, qc is the Sobolev exponent qc :=
N=(N 1) if N > 1 and qc < 1 if N = 1. Dene
 R f (x; Du) if u 2 BV (
; R)
V (u) := 1

otherwise;
where
Z
Z
Z
Z
f (x; (u+ u )u ) dHN 1 ;
f (x; Du) := f (x; ru) dx + f (x; dC (u)) +

S (u)\

and take E to be the algebra generated by the class of open polyhedral subsets of
.
If u 2 S1 \ L1 (
; K ) has the form (5.3), then either !i = Ei or !i =
nEi , where Ei
is an open polyhedral set of
. Therefore, in both cases @!i \
= @Ei \
, which is
given by the intersection of a nite union of hyperplanes. Consequently, if i < j for
HN 1 a.e. x 2 @!j \ @!i the outward unit normal j (x) to the set !j at the point x
coincides with i (x). Moreover, for j < i < l we have
(5.9)
HN 1 (@!j \ @!i \ @!l \
) = 0;
and
(5.10)

= [ki=1 !i \
;
@!i \
= [j6=i @!i \ @!j \
;








@ [kl=i !l \
= @ [kl=i+1 !l \
n [kl=i+1 @!l \ @!i \
[ [ij=11 @!j \ @!i \
:
These properties will be useful in the sequel.

216

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

The main result of the section is the following theorem

Theorem 5.4. If (H1 ) (H7 ) and (5:8) are veried then

inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; K )g = inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; K nS )g :

Remark 5.5. Theorem 5.4 no longer holds in general if (x;
) is non linear.
Indeed, consider the simple case where
:= (c; d), K := [ 1; 1],

H(u;
) :=  jDu(x)j

sin( T u(x)) dHN 1 (x); u 2 BV (

; R)

and  (x; u) := a(1 u2 ). Here K n S = f 1; 1g, and if  >  then all conditions
(H1 ) (H7 ) are satised.
Let u 2 BV (
; R), with u(x) 2 f 1; 1g for LN a.e. x 2
.
R
Then I (u;
) = 
jDu(x)j  0. On the other hand, if we take u(x)  21 then
I (u;
) = 2 + 43 a(d c) < 0 provided a(d c) < 83 .
For the proof of the lemma below we refer to [F], [LM], and [Re].
Lemma 5.6. Let f :
 RN ! R be a continuous function such that  2 RN 7!
f (x;  ) is positively homogeneous of degree one for all x 2
, and
0  f (x;  )  C (1 + j j) for some C > 0, all x 2
and  2 RN .
Let fn g be a sequence of Radon measures converging weakly-? to a Radon measure 
and
nlim
!1 jn j(
) = jj(
):
Then

lim
n!1

f (x; dn ) =

f (x; d):

Proof of Theorem 5.4. We claim that V satises conditions (i){(iii) of Theorem

5.1. To prove (i) x u 2 BV (
; K ). We can nd a sequence fun g of the form
kn
X

cn;i !n;i (x)

i=1
R
R
such that un converges strongly to u in L1 (
; R) and
jDun j !
jDuj (see [AMT]).
n !
Here cn;i 2 R, the sets !n;i are open polyhedral set of
, [ki=1
n;i \
=
, and as in
un(x) =

(5.4)

cn;1 < cn;2 <


< cn;kn :

By (5.10) it is not dicult to see that

S (un ) = [(i;j)2Jn (@!n;i \ @!n;j );

where Jn = f(i; j ) 2 N 2 : 1  i < j  kn g. Furthermore, if x0 2 @!n;i \ @!n;j then
u+n (x0 ) = cn;j , un (x0 ) = cn;i , and

jDun j =

(i;j)2Jn

(cn;j cn;i )HN 1 (@!i \ @!j \

):

217

nucleation and relaxation

P n d  (x), where
Let un(x) := ki=1
n;i !n;i
8 sup K
>
<
dn;i = > cn;i
: inf K

Since 0  (dn;j
quently

if cn;i  sup K
if inf K < cn;i < sup K
if cn;i  inf K:

dn;i )  (cn;j cn;i ), it follows that

jDun j 
jDun j.. Conselim sup
n!1

jDun j 

jDuj:

On the other hand, since u(x) 2 K for LN a.e. x 2

, then ju(x) un(x)j  ju(x)
un (x)j by construction, and so fung converges strongly
to u in L1 (
; R). By Rthe lower
R
semicontinuity of the total variation we have that
jDuj  lim inf n!1
jDun j,
thus
Z
Z
lim jDun j = jDuj
n!1

and from Lemma 5.6 we conclude that

lim
n!1

f (x; Dun ) =

f (x; Du):

In order to verify (ii), x u 2 BV (

; R) of the form (5.3)-(5.4), where ci 2 K ,
!i 2 E , [ki=1 !i \
=
, k  2, and

c1 < c2 <


< ck :

Since by homogeneity f (x; 0) = 0, we have

V (u) =

(i;j)2J

(cj ci )

@!i \@!j \

f (x; j ) dHN 1

with J = f(i; j ) 2 N 2 : 1  i < j  kg, or, equivalently,

(5.11)

V (u) = ck

kX1 Z

k Z
X

f (x; k ) dHN 1 c1
f (x; l ) dHN 1
j =1 @!k \@!j \

l=2 @!l \@!1 \

1
0i 1 Z
k Z
kX1
X
X
f (x; l ) dHN 1 A :
f (x; i ) dHN 1
+ ci @
j =1 @!i \@!j \

i=2
l=i+1 @!l \@!i \

By (5.9) and (5.10) we can rewrite the rst two terms as, respectively,

ck

@!k \

f (x; k ) dHN 1 and

c1

@ ([kl=2 !l )\

f (x; 1 ) dHN 1 ;

218

irene fonseca and giovanni leoni

and for i 2 f2;


; k 1g

(5.12)
i 1Z
X

j =1 @!i \@!j \

f (x; i ) dHN 1
=

@ ([kl=i !l )\

k Z
X
l=i+1 @!l \@!i \

f (x; ^i ) dHN 1

f (x; l ) dHN 1

@ ([kl=i+1 !l )\

f (x; ^i+1 ) dHN 1 ;

where ^i and ^i+1 are, respectively, the outward unit normals to the sets [kl=i !l and
[kl=i+1 !l . It now follows from (5.11){(5.12) that

V (u) = ck V (!k ) c1 V ([kl=2 !l ) +

kX1
i=2

ci V ([kl=i!l )

kX1
i=2

ci V ([kl=i+1!l );

which is (ii).
R
Finally, by (5.2), (5.8) and the Sobolev inequality, the functional u 7!
 (x; u(x)) dx
is continuous in BV (
; K ) (see [K, Th. 2.1]). Therefore we can now apply Theorem
5.1 (with  (x; u) replaced by  (x; u) + ^ u div '(x)) to obtain that
inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; K )g = inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; K nS )g :
Corollary 5.7. Assume that K = [a; b] in Theorem 5.4. Then there exists a
function u 2 BV (
; [a; b]nS ) such that
I (u;
) = inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; [a; b])g :
Proof. By Theorem 5.4
inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; [a; b])g = inf fI (u;
) : u 2 BV (
; [a; b]nS )g = :
To complete the proof it suces to apply Corollary 4.3, with K := [a; b]nS , to nd
u 2 BV (
; [a; b]nS ) such that I (u;
) =  .
Remark 5.8. If we assume that 2 is concave in [a; b], then S = (a; b) and
consequently the minimizer u in Corollary 5.7 has the property that u(x) 2 fa; bg for
LN a.e. x 2
.
Acknowledgments. Part of this research was undertaken during G. Leoni's visit to
the Center for Nonlinear Analysis under the CNA/CMU{CNR project. The research
of I. Fonseca was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through the
Center for Nonlinear Analysis, and by the National Science Foundation under grant
No. DMS{9500531. The authors are deeply indebted to Luc Tartar for many fruitful
and stimulating discussions in the subject of this work.
REFERENCES
[ABS] Alberti G., G. Bouchitte and P. Seppecher, Phase transition with line tension eect,
submitted to Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.
[ADM1] Ambrosio L. and G. Dal Maso, A general chain rule for distributional derivates, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., 108 (1988), pp. 691-702.
[ADM2] Ambrosio L. and G. Dal Maso, On the relaxation in BV (
; Rm ) of quasi{convex integrals, J. Funct. Anal., 109 (1992), pp. 76-97.

nucleation and relaxation

219

[AMT] Ambrosio L., S. Mortola and V.M. Tortorelli, Functional with linear growth dened
on vector{valued BV functions, J. Math. Pures et Appl., 70 (1991), pp. 269-322.
[BFM] Bouchitte, G. I. Fonseca and L. Mascarenhas, A global method for relaxation, submitted to Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.
[C] Cahn J. W., Critical point wetting, J. Chem. Phys., 66 (1977), pp. 3667-3672.
[CH1] Cahn J. W. and J. E. Hilliard, Free energy of a non{uniform system I: interfacial
energy, J. Chem. Phys., 28 (1958), pp. 258-267.
[CH2] Cahn J. W. and J. E. Hilliard, Free energy of a non{uniform system, J. Chem. Phys.,
28 (1959), pp. 688-699.
[DM] Dal Maso G., Integral representation on BV (
) of {limits of variational integrals,
Manuscripta Math., 30 (1980), pp. 387-416.
[EG] Evans L. C. and R. F. Gariepy, Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions, CRC
Press, 1992.
[F] Fonseca I., Lower semicontinuity of surface energies, Proc. R. Soc. Edin., 120A (1992),
pp. 99-115.
[FM1] Fonseca I. and S. Muller, Quasi{convex integrands and lower semicontinuity in L1 ,
SIAM J. Math. Anal., 23 (1992), pp. 1081-1098.
[FM2] Fonseca I. and S. Muller, Relaxation of quasiconvex functionals in BV (
; Rp ) for integrands f (x; u; ru), Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 123 (1993), pp. 1-49.
[FR] Fonseca I. and P. Rybka, Relaxation of multiple integrals in the space BV (
; Rp ), Proc.
Roy. Soc. Edinb. Sect.A, 121 (1992), pp. 321-348.
[GSe] Goffman C. and J. Serrin, Sublinear functions of measures and variational integrals,
Duke Math. J., 31 (1964), pp. 159-178.
[GMS] Giaquinta M., G. Modica and J. Soucek, Functional with linear growth in the Calculus
of Variations, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 20 (1974), pp. 143-172.
[G] Gurtin M.E., Some results and conjectures in the gradient theory of phase transitions,
IMA, Preprint, 156 (1985).
[K ] Krasnosel'skii M.A., Topological Methods in the Theory of Nonlinear Integral Equations,
Pergamon Press, 1964.
[LM] Luckhaus S. and L. Modica, The Gibbs-Thompson relation within the gradient theory of
phase transitions, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 107 (1989), pp. 71-83.
[MP] Massari U. and L. Pepe, Su di una impostazione parametrica del problema dei capillari,
Ann. Univ. Ferrara, XX (1975), pp. 21-31.
[Mo1] Modica L., Gradient theory of phase transitions and minimal interface criterion, Arch.
Rat. Mech. Anal., 98 (1987), pp. 123-142.
[Mo2] Modica L., Gradient theory of phase transitions with boundary contact energy, Ann. Inst.
Henri Poincare, 4 (1987), pp. 48 5-512.
[M] Muller S., On quasiconvex functions which are homogeneous of degree 1, Indiana Univ.
Math. J., 41 (1992), pp. 295-301.
[Re] Reshetnyak Y. G., Weak convergence of completely additive vector functions on a set,
Siberian Math. J., 9 (1968), pp. 1386-1394; (translation of Sibirsk. Mat. Z^ ., 9 (1968),
pp. 1386-1394).
[Se1] Serrin J., A new denition of the integral for non{parametric problems in the Calculus of
Variations, Acta Math., 102 (1959), pp. 23-32.
[Se2] Serrin J., On the denition and properties of certain variational integrals, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 161 (1961), pp. 139-167.
[V1] Visintin A., Models of Phase Transitions, Birkhauser, 1996.
[V2] Visintin A., Nonconvex functionals related to multiphase systems, SIAM J. Math. Anal.,
21 (1990), pp. 1281-1304.
[vdW] van der Waals J. D., The thermodynamic theory of capillarity under the hypothesis
of a continuous variation of density, in Dutch, Verhandel. Konink. Akad. Weten.
Amsterdam (Section 1), 1 (1893); (translated by Rowlinson J.S., J. Stat. Phys., 20
(1979), pp. 197-244).
[Z] Ziemer W., Weakly Dierential Functions, Springer, 1989.