A New Approach to Variational Inequalities of Parabolic Type
Maria Gokieli, Nobuyuki Kenmochi, Marek Niezg\'odka

TL;DR
This paper develops a new compactness theorem to enable the application of fixed point methods for solving fully nonlinear parabolic variational inequalities with time-dependent constraints.
Contribution
It introduces a novel compactness theorem specifically designed for parabolic variational inequalities, facilitating the use of fixed point methods.
Findings
Established a new compactness theorem for parabolic variational inequalities
Applied fixed point method to prove weak solvability of nonlinear problems
Extended analytical tools for time-dependent convex constraints
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the weak solvability of fully nonlinear parabolic variational inequalities with time dependent convex constraints. As possible approaches to such problems, there are for instance the time-discretization method and the fixed point method of Schauder type with appropriate compactness theorems. In this paper, our attention is paid to the latter approach. However, there has not been prepared any appropriate compactness theorem up to date that enables us the direct application of fixed point method to variational inequalities of parabolic type. In order to establish it we have to start on the set up of a new compactness theorem for a wide class of parabolic variational inequalities.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsContact Mechanics and Variational Inequalities · Topology Optimization in Engineering · Optimization and Variational Analysis
A New Approach to Variational Inequalities of Parabolic Type
Maria Gokieli, Nobuyuki Kenmochi and Marek Niezgódka
Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling,
University of Warsaw, Pawińskiego 5a, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland
Abstract. This paper is concerned with the weak solvability of fully nonlinear parabolic variational inequalities with time dependent convex constraints. As possible approaches to such problems, there are for instance the time-discretization method and the fixed point method of Schauder type with appropriate compactness theorems. In this paper, our attention is paid to the latter approach. However, there has not been prepared any appropriate compactness theorem up to date that enables us the direct application of fixed point method to variational inequalities of parabolic type. In order to establish it we have to start on the set up of a new compactness theorem for a wide class of parabolic variational inequalities.
1. Introduction
We consider a variational inequality of quasi-linear parabolic type:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where is a bounded domain in , , , , and the diffusion coefficients are strictly positive, bounded and continuous in as well as constraint set is convex and closed in satisfying some smoothness assumption in . Functions and are prescribed in and , respectively, as the data. Our claim is to construct a solution of (1.1)-(1.3) in a weak sense such that
[TABLE]
In the case without constraint, namely , our problem is the usual initial-boundary value problem for parabolic system of quasi-linear PDEs :
[TABLE]
For the solvability a huge number of results have been established (cf. [14, 24]), for instance, the Leray-Schauder principle together with some compactness theorems, such as [3, 26, 31].
In connection with quasi-linear variational inequalities, the concept of nonlinear monotone mappings was generalized to several classes of nonlinear mappings of monotone type, for instance, semimonotone [25], pseudomonotone [5, 11, 17], and furthermore pseudomonotone mappings [6, 7]. Especially the last one was introduced as a class of nonlinear perturbations for linear maximal monotone mappings , which is available for parabolic variational inequalities; in a typical application of this theory, is the time-derivative . However, it seems still difficult to treat directly our model problem (1.1)-(1.3) in these frameworks of nonlinear mappings of monotone type.
Our model problem (1.1)-(1.3) is formally written in the space with () as
[TABLE]
by taking as the mapping and as the mapping given by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where stands for the duality between and . We see that is maximal monotone from into , but is nonlinear in general. Since 1970, it remains to set up an abstract approach to such a quasi-linear parabolic variational inequality as our model problem. In this paper we establish a new approach to parabolic variational inequalities with time-dependent constraints , based on a new compactness theorem (see Theorem 2.1) derived from the total variation estimates for solutions of parabolic variational inequalities; this idea was found in a recent work [16] of the authors.
There is a different approach to nonlinear variational inequalities of parabolic type with time-independent convex constraint in [1] where the time-discretization method was employed and a compactness theorem was established to ensure the strong convergence of time-discretized approximation schemes in time. This idea seems available to the case of time-dependent convex constraints.
In this paper the following notations are used. For a general (real) Banach space we denote by the dual space, by and the norms in and , respectively, and by the duality between and . Especially, when is a Hilbert space, we denote by the inner product in .
Let be a proper, lower semi-continuous (l.s.c.) and convex function on a Banach space . Then the subdifferential of is defined by a multivalued mapping from into as follows: if and only if , and
[TABLE]
The set is called the effective domain of . The domain of is the set and the range of is the set .
Let be a non-empty closed and convex subset of a Banach space . Then the function given by
[TABLE]
is proper, l.s.c. and convex on and is called the indicator function of on , and the subdifferential is defined as a multivalued mapping from into . Clearly .
For the real function on for a fixed number and a Banach space , we consider the mapping which assigns to each the set
[TABLE]
This mapping is called the duality mapping associated with the gauge function . It is well known that is the subdifferential of the non-negative, continuous and convex function on , namely, for all . In particular, if is reflexive and is strictly convex, then is singlevalued and continuous from into ( stands for the space with the weak topology); this continuity is called the “demicontinuity” of . Let be a (multivalued) mapping from a Banach space into ; the graph of is the set
[TABLE]
Then is called monotone from into , if
[TABLE]
in particular, is called strictly monotone, if the strict positiveness holds whenever in the above inequality. Moreover, is maximal monotone, if is monotone from into and has no proper monotone extension in . When is reflexive, it is well known that is maximal monotone if and only if the range of is the whole of , where is the duality mapping from into . We refer to [2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 20, 26, 27] for fundamental properties of subdifferentials and monotone mappings.
2. A compactness theorem
In this section, let be a (real) reflexive Banach space which is dense and compactly embedded in a Hilbert space . Identifying with its dual space, we have with compact embeddings. Let be another reflexive and separable Banach space which is dense and continuously embedded in ; since , it holds that
[TABLE]
In order to avoid some irrelevant arguments, suppose that and are strictly convex. We denote by an embedding constant from into and , namely
[TABLE]
For any function , the total variation of is denoted by , which is defined by
[TABLE]
We refer to [9] or [13] for the fundamental properties of total variation functions.
We fix numbers with , , and with . Given and , consider the set in given by:
[TABLE]
where is the closed unit ball in with center at the origin and .
The variational inequality
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
in the definition of , is derived from the time-derivative with the convex constraint . In fact, for any with with we have by integration by parts
[TABLE]
Therefore, if with , then (2.1) holds. Given and , the set of all satisfying (2.1)-(2.2) includes , provided exists in and . However, in general, it is an extremely large set; note that in the definition of , any differentiability of in time is not required.
Our main result is stated as follows.
Theorem 2.1. Let be any numbers and be any element of . Then the set is relatively compact in . Moreover, the convex closure of , denoted by , in is compact in .
We begin with the following lemmas that are crucial for the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Lemma 2.1. Let be any numbers and be any element of . Then there exists a positive constant , depending only on and , such that
[TABLE]
*for all . *
Proof. Let be any element in , and take a function satisfying all the required properties in the definition of . Now let be any function in with . Since is a possible test function for (2.1)-(2.2), we have
[TABLE]
which shows
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
so that (2.3) holds with .
Lemma 2.2. Let be any positive number and let be any sequence of functions from into such that
[TABLE]
Then there are a subsequence of and a function such that weakly in for every as . Hence in for every and in for every as .
Proof. Since is separable, there is a countable dense subset of . Now, we consider a sequence of real valued functions on for each . Then, by (2.4) the total variation of is bounded by . Hence from the Helly selection theorem (cf. [13 ; Section 5.2.3]) it follows that there is a subsequence , depending on , such that converges to a function pointwise on and its total variation is not larger than .
Since is countable in , by using extensively the above Helly selection theorem we can extract a subsequence, denoted by the same notation as again, and a function on such that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, by density, this convergence (2.5) can be extended to all . Also, the functional is linear in and uniformly bounded, i.e.
[TABLE]
This implies that is linear and bounded in and for all and . As a consequence, by Riesz representation theorem, there is a function with for all such that
[TABLE]
Now it is clear by (2.5) that weakly in for as . Finally, by the compactness of the injection from into , we see that (strongly) in for any . Hence in for all as .
Proof of Theorem 2.1. We first note from Lemma 2.1 that
[TABLE]
where is the same constant as in Lemma 2.1. Note that is closed and convex in . Therefore, in order to obtain Theorem 2.1 it is enough to prove the compactness of in .
Let be any sequence in the set . Then, by Lemma 2.2, there is a subsequence and a function such that weakly in for every as . By the injection compactness from into we have that
[TABLE]
and that by .
Here we recall the Aubin lemma [3] (or [26; Lemma 5.1]): for each there is a positive constant such that
[TABLE]
By making use of this inequality for and integrating it in time, we get
[TABLE]
On account of (2.6), letting gives that
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we conclude that in .
Remark 2.1. If and (2.1) holds for all with , then and . Therefore, by Theorem 2.1 the set
[TABLE]
is relatively compact in for each finite positive constant . Our theorem includes a typical case of Aubin compactness theorem [3].
Remark 2.2. A compactness result of the Aubin type was extended in various directions, for instance [12] and [18], and further to a quite general set up [31].
3. Time-derivative under convex constraints
Let be a Hilbert space and be a strictly convex reflexive Banach space such that is dense in and the injection from into is continuous. We identify with its dual space:
[TABLE]
For simplicity, we assume that is strictly convex. Therefore the duality mapping from into , associated with gauge function , is singlevalued and demicontinuous from into , where is a fixed number with .
For the sake of simplicity for notation, we write for again.
Let be a family of non-empty, closed and convex sets in such that there are functions and satisfying the following property: for any and any there is such that
[TABLE]
We denote by the set of all such families , and put
[TABLE]
which is called the strong class of time-dependent convex sets.
Given , we consider the following time-dependent convex function on :
[TABLE]
where is the indicator function of on . For each , is proper, l.s.c. and strictly convex on and on . By the general theory on nonlinear evolution equations generated by time-dependent subdifferentials, condition (3.1) is sufficient in order that for any (the closure of in ) and the Cauchy problem
[TABLE]
admits a unique solution such that with , and is bounded on and absolutely continuous on any compact interval in , where denotes the subdifferential of in . In particular, if , then and is absolutely continuous on .
Next, taking constraints of obstacle type into account, we introduce a weak class of time-dependent convex sets. In the sequel, let and .
Definition 3.1. Let be a fixed constant and be a fixed function in with . Associated with these and , for each small positive number a mapping is defined by
[TABLE]
Then, with the weak class of time-dependent convex sets is defined by: if and only if
(a) is a closed and convex set in for all ,
(b) there exists a sequence such that for any there is a positive integer satisfying
[TABLE]
In this case, it is said that converges to as , which is denoted by
[TABLE]
We give three typical examples of in the weak class .
Example 3.1. Let be a bounded smooth domain in and . Let . Moreover, let and choose a sequence in such that in . Now, constraint sets and are defined by
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Given , take a positive integer so that
[TABLE]
In this case, with the choice of and the mapping is of the form , which maps into itself. Then we have:
(i) . Indeed, for , the function belongs to and (3.1) holds with functions for a constant , depending only on . Thus .
(ii) . In fact, for any a.e. on , we have
[TABLE]
which implies . Similarly, . Hence on , and thus .
Example 3.2. Let and be the same as in Example 3.1, and consider constraint sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then, just as in Example 3.1, we have and on by using the mapping , so that .
Example 3.3. Let and be the same as in Example 3.1 and consider the following vectorial case in connection with our model problem (1.1)-(1.3):
[TABLE]
hence .
Let be an obstacle function prescribed in so that on for a positive constant , and define by
[TABLE]
Next, choosing a sequence in such that
[TABLE]
we define
[TABLE]
and the mapping
[TABLE]
note that this mapping is obtained by the choice of and . Then we have:
(i) . In fact, given , we take . In this case, if is so small that , then
[TABLE]
Hence and . By using extensively this idea we see that (3.1) holds with for a certain (big) constant and . For the detailed proof we refer to [22; Lemma 3.1] or [15; Example 4.5].
(ii) , which is proved by using the mapping . In fact, for any and any small , we take an integer so that for all . In this case, we have
[TABLE]
This shows for all . Similarly, for . Hence on and .
As is easily seen from the above examples, the class is strictly larger than .
Next, we introduce the time-derivative under constraint . Put
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Definition 3.2. Let and . Then we define an operator whose graph is given in as follows: if and only if
[TABLE]
We prove the most important property of in the next theorems.
Theorem 3.1. Let and . Then is maximal monotone from into , and the domain is included in the set .
The characterization and fundamental properties of the mapping are given in the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2. Let . Then we have:
(1) Let . Then if and only if there are , with and , such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
(2) Let and . Then, for any with ,
[TABLE]
(3) Let and for . Then, for any with ,
[TABLE]
The proofs of these theorems will be given in the next section.
4. Proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2
In this section we use the same notation and assume the same assumptions as in the previous section.
We introduce another mapping whose graph is given as follows: if and only if with , and there exist sequences , and and (3.5)-(3.9) are fulfilled.
As to the mapping we prove:
Lemma 4.1. * is a restriction of , namely , and*
[TABLE]
Proof. Let and , be sequences as in the definition of ; (3.5)-(3.9) are fulfilled as well. Then, for any , we have
[TABLE]
since . Substituting the expression (cf. (3.3)) in the above inequality and using integration by parts, we get
[TABLE]
Now, since in as , we have by letting and (3.7)
[TABLE]
This implies . Thus .
Let . Then, with the same notation as above, it follows from (3.4) that
[TABLE]
since . The above inequality is of the form
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Hence we derive from this inequality that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
By assumptions (3.6) and (3.7),
[TABLE]
Hence, for a constant , depending only on and (but independent of and ), we infer from (4.2) that
[TABLE]
Also, from (3.8) it follows that
[TABLE]
In a similar way to (4.3) it follows that
[TABLE]
with a positive constant depending only on and (but independent of and ). Now, adding (4.3) and (4.4), we arrive at an inequality of the form
[TABLE]
whence (4.1) is obtained by and .
Corollary 4.1. * is monotone from into . Also, if , then and .*
Next we show the maximal monotonicity of .
Lemma 4.2. Let and . Then is maximal monotone from into ; more precisely for any there exists a unique such that for a.e. and
[TABLE]
Proof. The operator is strictly monotone from into , so that the function satisfying (4.5) is unique. Now we are to prove the existence of such a function .
Choose such that on and such that in with . Also, it is easy to take a sequence in such that and in . For these data we consider the Cauchy problems
[TABLE]
where is a time-dependent proper, l.s.c. and convex functions on given by (3.2) with replaced by . As was mentioned in section 3, (4.6) possesses a unique solution such that is absolutely continuous on (hence, and for all ).
We note here that
[TABLE]
since for all (cf. [10; Theorem 2] or [20; Theorem 5.2]), and by the expression
[TABLE]
that for any large and small . Therefore, from (4.6)-(4.8) it follows for any and that
[TABLE]
and similarly
[TABLE]
We observe from the energy estimate for (4.6) that is bounded in and , namely there is a constant such that
[TABLE]
In fact, fixing a number , we get an estimate of the form (4.11) by applying the Gronwall’s inequality to (4.10).
Now substitute (4.8) with and in (4.9) and (4.10), respectively. Then the sum of resultants gives an inequality of the form
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here, by integration by parts, is arranged in the form:
[TABLE]
for all , so that it follows from (4.11) that is dominated by a positive constant independent of and ; for instance, for all small . Similarly, it follows from (4.11) that
[TABLE]
Therefore, putting , we obtain
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
By letting and in the above inequality we see that for some such that and
[TABLE]
for all . Taking a subsequence of if necessary, we have
[TABLE]
which imply by (4.12)
[TABLE]
From the maximal monotonicity of we obtain that and
[TABLE]
Consequently, and
[TABLE]
Therefore, by definition, .
Thus we have seen that the range of is the whole of . Since is monotone by Corollary 4.1, we conclude that it is maximal monotone from into . From the definition of we see that .
Now it follows from the Lemma 4.2 that , and Theorem 3.1 is obtained.
Proof of Theorem 3.2. (1) is obtained from the fact that . Next, we prove (2). Corresponding to , choose , with and so that conditions (3.5)-(3.9) hold. Take as a test function in (3.8)
[TABLE]
for any and small to obtain
[TABLE]
Applying integration by parts to this inequality and substitute the expression of in it, we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, letting and yield (3.10).
Next we show (3.11). Choose , and so that conditions (3.5)-(3.9) hold corresponding to as well as , and corresponding to . Noting that as well as for all large , we observe by taking
[TABLE]
in (3.8) for that
[TABLE]
Similarly, for large ,
[TABLE]
Substitute the expression of and in (4.13) and (4.14) and add them to get
[TABLE]
where is a positive constant independent and . Hence,
[TABLE]
and we obtain (3.11) by passing to the limit and .
Remark 4.1. In Hilbert spaces similar operators to were considered in the time-independent case (cf. [8]) and it was generalized to the time-dependent case (cf. [21]). In the Banach space set-up (cf. [19]), the similar results were discussed, too.
Remark 4.2. Theorem 3.1 gives a generalization of the results of [19, 21] in a class of weak variational inequalities. Moreover it is expected to compose for various constraint set in a much wider class than in this paper, for instance the classes specified in [15, 23].
5. Perturbations of semimonotone type
We assume that and be the same as in section 2; is dense in with compact injection and is separable and dense in with continuous injection, and .
Let be a singlevalued mapping from into , and assume that:
(a) (Boundedness) There are positive constants such that
[TABLE]
(b) (Coerciveness) There are positive constants such that
[TABLE]
(c) (Semimonotonicity) For each and , the mapping is demicontinuous from into and monotone, namely
[TABLE]
Moreover, for each the mapping is continuous from into .
We derive some properties of from the above conditions.
Lemma 5.1. Assume that in , in , weakly in and
[TABLE]
*Then and . *
Proof. By condition (c), for each and , the mapping is monotone and demicontinuous from into and hence maximal monotone (cf. [20; Theorem 4.2]. Let be any element in . Then, by assumption (5.1) with (c),
[TABLE]
The maximal monotonicity of implies that as well as .
The above lemma ensures that is continuous from into , so that for every and the function is weakly measurable on and hence strongly measurable on thanks to the separability of . As a consequence, by condition (a) we have for every and .
Now we introduce the mapping by putting
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.2. * satisfies the following properties:*
(i) (Boundedness) for all and .
(ii) (Coerciveness) for all and .
(iii) (Semimonotonicity) is demicontinuous from into and for every the mapping is monotone from into , namely,
[TABLE]
(iv) (Continuity in ) For every , the mapping is continuous from into .
(v) Assume that in , weakly in , in and
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
The statements (i)-(iv) of Lemma 5.2 are straightforwardly obtained from conditions (a), (b) and (c), and (v) is proved in the same way just as Lemma 5.1.
We are now in a position to state a perturbation result of .
Theorem 5.1. Let be given by (5.2). Let and and assume that there is a positive number such that
[TABLE]
Then, for any there exists a function such that
[TABLE]
Proof. By Lemma 5.2, for each the mapping is maximal monotone from into , bounded and coercive. Therefore, on account of the well-known result of maximal monotone perturbations (cf. [4, 10, 11, 20]) the range of is the whole of , namely for any there is an element satisfying
[TABLE]
and is unique by (3) of Theorem 3.2. Now, we denote by the mapping which assigns to each the unique solution of (5.5), namely . On account of (2) of Theorem 3.2,
[TABLE]
where .
Next, we show the uniform estimate for solutions of (5.5). To do so, use (3) of Theorem 3.2 for and . Then we get
[TABLE]
By condition (b), this inequality implies that
[TABLE]
and by Young’s inequality
[TABLE]
where is a positive constant, for instance . We derive from the above estimate that
[TABLE]
being a positive constant, for instance . Moreover, with the same notation as above, we have by condition (a)
[TABLE]
namely it follows that for all and
[TABLE]
We take as a constant of Theorem 2.1 the sum , where is a positive constant satisfying , and consider the set
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.1, it is non-empty, closed, convex and compact in . We are going to apply the Schauder fixed point theorem to in .
First we check that . In fact, for each the solution of (5.5) satisfies (5.6) and estimate (5.7)-(5.8), so that . Thus maps into itself. Next we show the continuity of in with respect to the topology of . Assume that and in (as ). Clearly, weakly in and . Putting , we infer from the compactness of that and converge in and in a.e. on to some functions and , respectively, for a certain subsequence of . In this case, with the notations
[TABLE]
we may assume by the boundedness of that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In order to prove that , we observe
[TABLE]
Now we show by contradiction. Assuming that
[TABLE]
we have by (iii) and (vi) of Lemma 5.2
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction. Consequently, we have
[TABLE]
as well as and By the maximal monotonicity of , we obtain that , namely , and , or equivalently . Therefore it is concluded by (v) of Lemma 5.2 that and . By the uniqueness of solution to (5.5), we see that in without extracting any subsequence from . Thus is continuous in in the topology of , so that possesses at least one fixed point , which gives a solution of (5.4).
(Application 1)
The model problem mentioned in the introduction is here discussed precisely in our framework.
Let be a bounded and smooth domain in and . We use our abstract theorems in the set-up
[TABLE]
Hence , and with compact embeddings.
Let be an obstacle function prescribed in so that on for a positive constant , and define a constraint set by
[TABLE]
Then, by virtue of Theorem 3.1, the maximal monotone mapping is well defined for any given initial datum .
Now, we define a nonlinear mapping by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where and are functions satisfying the Carathéodory condition on and
[TABLE]
for positive constants . Under the above assumptions, we easily check the conditions (a), (b) and (c) in section 5 as well as condition (5.3) of Theorem 5.1 by the strict positiveness of . Accordingly we can apply Theorem 5.1 to solve our model problem for given data and in the form . This functional inclusion is equivalent to the following weak variational form:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
(Application 2)
Finally, we consider parabolic variational inequalities with gradient constraints.
Let be a bounded and smooth domain in and put
[TABLE]
For any given obstacle function such that on for a positive constant we define a time-dependent constraint by
[TABLE]
Now, choose a sequence so that
[TABLE]
and consider approximate constraint sets
[TABLE]
Then we have:
(i) . The proof is quite similar to (i) of Example 3.3. We refer to [22; Lemma 3.1] for the detailed proof.
(ii) . It is enough to check that on , Just as in Example 3.3, this is obtained by using the mapping
[TABLE]
(iii) Condition (5.3) is satisfied by the strict positiveness of . More precisely, if , then and hence there is a positive constant such that on for all . Thus (5.3) holds.
Therefore, associated with initial datum , the maximal monotone mapping is well defined on account of Theorem 3.1. Next we introduce a semimonotone operator by:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where and are functions satisfying the Carathéodory condition on and
[TABLE]
for positive constants .
We easily check conditions (a), (b) and (c) for this operator . Accordingly we can apply Theorem 5.1 to solve for given data and . This is equivalent to the weak variational form:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Remark 5.1. The similar technique in Application 2 is available for the variational inequalities arising in models of superconductivity with gradient constraints or hydrodynamics with velocity constraints; see [15, 16, 28, 29, 30].
References
H. W. Alt, An abstract existence theorem for parabolic systems, Comm. Pure Appl. Anal., 11(2012), 2079-2123. 2. 2.
H. Attouch, Variational Convergence for Functions and Operators, Applicable Math. Ser. Pitman Adv. Pub. Program, Bston-London-Melbourne, 1984. 3. 3.
J. P Aubin, Un théorème de compacité, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 256 (1963), 5042-5044. 4. 4.
V. Barbu, Nonlinear Semi-groupes and Differential Equations in Banach Spaces, Noordhoff International Publishing, Leiden, 1976. 5. 5.
H. Brézis, Équations et inéquations non linéaires dans les espaces vectoriels en dualité, Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble 18(1968), 115-175. 6. 6.
H. Brézis, Perturbations nonlinéaires d’opérateurs maximaux monotones, C. R. Acad., Sci. Paris, 269(1969), 566-569. 7. 7.
H. Brézis, Non linear perturbations of monotone operators, Technical Report 25, Univ. Kansas, 1972. 8. 8.
H. Brézis, Problèmes unilatéraux, J. Math. pures appl., 51(1972), 1-168. 9. 9.
H. Brézis, Opératuers Maximaux Monotones et Semi-groupes de Contractions dans les Espaces de Hilbert, Math. Studies 5, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973. 10. 10.
F. E. Browder, Nonlinear maximal monotone operators in Bnach spaces, Math. Ann., 175(1968), 89-113. 11. 11.
F. E. Browder and P. Hess, Nonlinear mappings of monotone type in Banach spaces, J. Funct. Anal., 11(1972), 251-294. 12. 12.
J. A. Dubinskii, Weak convergence in nonlinear elliptic and parabolic equations, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 2, 67(1968), 226-258. 13. 13.
L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy, *Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions *, CRC Press, Boca Raton-London-New York-Washington, D.C., 1992. 14. 14.
A. Friedman, Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type, Prentice Hall, 1964. 15. 15.
T. Fukao and N. Kenmochi, Parabolic variational inequalities with weakly time-dependent constraints, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., 23(2013), 365–395. 16. 16.
M. Gokieli, N. Kenmochi and M. Niezgódka, Variational inequalities of Navier-Stokes type with time-dependent constraints, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 449 (2017), 1229-1247. 17. 17.
N. Kenmochi, Nonlinear operators of monotone type in reflexive Banach spaces and nonlinear perturbations, Hiroshima Math. J., 4 (1974), 229-263. 18. 18.
N. Kenmochi, Résolution de compacité dans les espaces de Banach dépendant du temps, Séminaires d’analyse convexe, Montpellier 1979, Exposé 1, 1-26. . 19. 19.
N. Kenmochi, Résolution de problèmes variationnels paraboliques non linéaires par les méthodes de compacité et monotonie, Thèse de Dcteur de l’Université, Univ. Paris VI, 1979. 20. 20.
N. Kenmochi, Monotonicity and compactness methods for nonlinear variational inequalities, pp. 203-298 in Handbook of Differential Equations: Stationary Partial Differential Equations Vol. 4, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007. 21. 21.
N. Kenmochi, Solvability of nonlinear evolution equations with time-dependent constraints and applications, Bull. Fac. Edu., Chiba Univ., 30(1981),1-87. 22. 22.
N. Kenmochi, Parabolic quasi-variational diffusion problems with gradient constraints, DCDS, Ser. S, . 6(2013), 423-438. 23. 23.
N. Kenmochi and M. Niezgódka, Weak solvability for parabolic variational inclusions and applications to quasi-variational problems, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., 25(2016), 62-97. 24. 24.
O. A. Ladyzenskaja, V. A. Solonnikov and N. N. Ural’ceva, Linear and Quasi-linear Equations of Parabolic Type, Transl. Mathematical Monographs Vol. 23, Amer. Math. Sco., Providence, Rhode Island, 1968. 25. 25.
J. Leray and J. L. Lions, Quelques résultats de Visik sur les problèmes elliptiques non linéaires par les méthodes de Minty-Browder, Bull. Soc. Math. France 93(1965), 97-107. 26. 26.
J. L. Lions, Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires, Dunod Gauthier-Villrs, Paris, 1969. 27. 27.
U. Mosco, Convergence of convex sets and of solutions of variational inequalities, Advances Math. 3(1969), 510-585. 28. 28.
J.-F. Rodrigues and L. Santos, A parabolic quasi-variational inequality arising in a superconductivity model, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa, 29(2000), 153-169. 29. 29.
L. Santos, A diffusion problem with gradient constraint and evolutive Dirichlet condition, Portugal Math., 48(1991), 441- 468. 30. 30.
L. Santos, Variational problems with non-constant gradient constraints, Portugal Math., 59(2002), 205-248. 31. 31.
J. Simon, Compact sets in the space of , J. Ann. Mat. pura applic., 146(1986), 65-96.
